True. If only the was more than one story from his life between being a child, and being in his 30s… Oh well I guess we’ll just have to assume he lived as a monk and denied himself of anything pleasurable 🙄
Though I recently learned that there is a book about it, it’s just that it wasn’t chosen to be “canonical,” and therefore means you can ignore it completely? Curiously, Jesus does some really fucked up things in that book, including showing off his powers, and killing people just to bring them back to life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is the book btw.
Who gets to decide that book isn’t true but the rest are?
The infancy Gospel of Thomas was written well over one hundred years after Jesus had already left earth, in the second century. It claimed that Jesus performed random frivolous miracles for fun, when the Gospel of John said that the water to wine miracle was the first. We also don’t know who “Thomas the Israelite” is either.
It’s likely just something someone made up to try and give a narrative for Jesus’ childhood.
Jesus also likely cast the demons out of Mary Magdalene while in His thirties. Jesus wouldn’t need a female partner if He actually was truly God.
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
What are you trying to prove? The infancy gospel of thomas was written likely around 180AD and even then, people were already calling it out as being a fake.
You clearly aren’t looking for an open-minded discussion by calling me “delusional”, anyway.
Imagine using such a piss poor method of finding truth for literally anything in your life besides religion.
Would you consider me delusional if I told you that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and that he’s died several times, and has returned to Earth after each time?
Come on by my garage, the dragon’s right there. Though I guess I did forget to mention that he’s invisible.
(In case you weren’t aware, I’m referencing a famous Carl Sagan essay/short story from his book “The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark” and obviously he did a much better job laying it out than I ever could. Here is the text of the essay plus explanation: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage. By the way, incredible book that should be required reading for every adult human on the planet.)
Here is the conclusion of the essay where he does a pretty good job explaining what the point of it was:
Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
There does seem to be an effort made to get rid of her by the early church followers. Implying that she was a whore could have been a strategy. It’s weird because the Johannine community tried to save her in text. Which would mean it was the Paul crowd that did it and there is not a clear reason why. She would have had little interactions with the Paul community.
The Christ confessor in Mark, Luke, and Matthew is Peter while Mary gets to go to the cave. In John the Christ confessor is Mary and she gets to go to the cave. The early church fathers liked to really play up her supposed life of being a whore before repentance. Meanwhile Paul hints at her existence and says nice things about her. At the same time Mark makes her so dumb she “tells no one” about what would be the single most important moment in Christianity while Luke and Matthew give her a helper to make the right decision.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what happened but there is a trend. She goes from being a major leader of the earliest church to a whore that Jesus saves and is too stupid to know what she saw. If I had to take a bet: she was part of the very early church, funded and organized a lot, and had some falling out probably with someone from Paul’s community. So Mark tried to memoryhole her and would have done it except John had some story about how she rocked and saved her.
What do you mean the Christ Confessor? In Matthew 28 , Peter isn’t mentioned, but Mary finds the empty tomb. In John 20 and Luke 24, Peter runs to the tomb after being told by Mary. In all of these accounts, Peter is given a position which appears to be “lesser” than Mary Magdelene. In Mark, she was too afraid to tell anyone until Jesus appeared to her and reassured her (John goes into detail about this, and notes how she was crying in distress). If she actually didn’t tell anyone permanently, that fact wouldn’t have been recorded.
Also worth mentioning, she had seven demons driven out. Wasn’t a whore. This is basically just a weirdly elaborate theory which doesn’t really hold any water or value whatsoever.
Christ confessor: the person who answers Jesus when he asks who I am for the first time. Check for yourself the first three gospels it is Peter the fourth it is Mary.
The endings of Mark wasn’t part of the original. They were attempts at harmonizing the text. The original ending ends with Mary fleeing the tomb and telling no one.
The original ending was likely a literary device - perhaps encouraging the reader to do what Jesus said as Mary wouldn’t do it. It is still recognised as a very early addition, and the fact it was just someone tying up the story to make it read better was also recorded early on. As a matter of fact, if you remove verse 8, it actually makes sense again, so verse 8 seems to be an intentional cliffhanger.
You are right there in the sense that we know the early church added on to it, but basically every copy of the Bible I have minus the KJV (which doesn’t use footnotes and is from 1611 anyway) mentions that they were added on. They aren’t even that significant, unless you’re that snake handling denomination. Everything said there is backed up by the other three gospels.
Mary Magdalene. It’s never explicitly stated in the canonical Bible (as if that means anything), but they were very close.
Interesting. Memories from my Christian school are coming back :'(
She was just one of His many followers, it’s quite an absurd speculation. Also doesn’t say that she was a prostitute anywhere.
True. If only the was more than one story from his life between being a child, and being in his 30s… Oh well I guess we’ll just have to assume he lived as a monk and denied himself of anything pleasurable 🙄
Though I recently learned that there is a book about it, it’s just that it wasn’t chosen to be “canonical,” and therefore means you can ignore it completely? Curiously, Jesus does some really fucked up things in that book, including showing off his powers, and killing people just to bring them back to life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is the book btw.
Who gets to decide that book isn’t true but the rest are?
The infancy Gospel of Thomas was written well over one hundred years after Jesus had already left earth, in the second century. It claimed that Jesus performed random frivolous miracles for fun, when the Gospel of John said that the water to wine miracle was the first. We also don’t know who “Thomas the Israelite” is either.
It’s likely just something someone made up to try and give a narrative for Jesus’ childhood.
Jesus also likely cast the demons out of Mary Magdalene while in His thirties. Jesus wouldn’t need a female partner if He actually was truly God.
When were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written?
Here, let me save you a quick Google:
Oh look at that.
Lol ok bud. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
What are you trying to prove? The infancy gospel of thomas was written likely around 180AD and even then, people were already calling it out as being a fake.
You clearly aren’t looking for an open-minded discussion by calling me “delusional”, anyway.
Imagine using such a piss poor method of finding truth for literally anything in your life besides religion.
Would you consider me delusional if I told you that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and that he’s died several times, and has returned to Earth after each time?
Do you have proof of this invisible dragon?
I’m glad you asked!
Come on by my garage, the dragon’s right there. Though I guess I did forget to mention that he’s invisible.
(In case you weren’t aware, I’m referencing a famous Carl Sagan essay/short story from his book “The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark” and obviously he did a much better job laying it out than I ever could. Here is the text of the essay plus explanation: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage. By the way, incredible book that should be required reading for every adult human on the planet.)
Here is the conclusion of the essay where he does a pretty good job explaining what the point of it was:
This is an actual Biblical fact, for more details see the documentary The Da Vinci Code.
If it was a biblical fact, you could give me details by giving me biblical references, not a french fiction novel 😂
Autism, huh?
What? I asked for references from the actual collection of documents that depict Jesus, instead of a fictional novel written in 2003
There does seem to be an effort made to get rid of her by the early church followers. Implying that she was a whore could have been a strategy. It’s weird because the Johannine community tried to save her in text. Which would mean it was the Paul crowd that did it and there is not a clear reason why. She would have had little interactions with the Paul community.
Source?
The Bible. What do you want from me?
The Christ confessor in Mark, Luke, and Matthew is Peter while Mary gets to go to the cave. In John the Christ confessor is Mary and she gets to go to the cave. The early church fathers liked to really play up her supposed life of being a whore before repentance. Meanwhile Paul hints at her existence and says nice things about her. At the same time Mark makes her so dumb she “tells no one” about what would be the single most important moment in Christianity while Luke and Matthew give her a helper to make the right decision.
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what happened but there is a trend. She goes from being a major leader of the earliest church to a whore that Jesus saves and is too stupid to know what she saw. If I had to take a bet: she was part of the very early church, funded and organized a lot, and had some falling out probably with someone from Paul’s community. So Mark tried to memoryhole her and would have done it except John had some story about how she rocked and saved her.
What do you mean the Christ Confessor? In Matthew 28 , Peter isn’t mentioned, but Mary finds the empty tomb. In John 20 and Luke 24, Peter runs to the tomb after being told by Mary. In all of these accounts, Peter is given a position which appears to be “lesser” than Mary Magdelene. In Mark, she was too afraid to tell anyone until Jesus appeared to her and reassured her (John goes into detail about this, and notes how she was crying in distress). If she actually didn’t tell anyone permanently, that fact wouldn’t have been recorded.
Also worth mentioning, she had seven demons driven out. Wasn’t a whore. This is basically just a weirdly elaborate theory which doesn’t really hold any water or value whatsoever.
Christ confessor: the person who answers Jesus when he asks who I am for the first time. Check for yourself the first three gospels it is Peter the fourth it is Mary.
The endings of Mark wasn’t part of the original. They were attempts at harmonizing the text. The original ending ends with Mary fleeing the tomb and telling no one.
The original ending was likely a literary device - perhaps encouraging the reader to do what Jesus said as Mary wouldn’t do it. It is still recognised as a very early addition, and the fact it was just someone tying up the story to make it read better was also recorded early on. As a matter of fact, if you remove verse 8, it actually makes sense again, so verse 8 seems to be an intentional cliffhanger.
What blog did you copy that from? And yes it was a literary device but that doesn’t suddenly mean whatever ending you want goes there.
You are right there in the sense that we know the early church added on to it, but basically every copy of the Bible I have minus the KJV (which doesn’t use footnotes and is from 1611 anyway) mentions that they were added on. They aren’t even that significant, unless you’re that snake handling denomination. Everything said there is backed up by the other three gospels.