Also, the Jewish God and Muslim Allah are on the International Space Station.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Mary Magdalene. It’s never explicitly stated in the canonical Bible (as if that means anything), but they were very close.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      There does seem to be an effort made to get rid of her by the early church followers. Implying that she was a removed 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.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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 removed 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 removed 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.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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?

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            When were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written?

            Here, let me save you a quick Google:

            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.

            Oh look at that.

            after Jesus had already left Earth

            Lol ok bud. Whatever delusion makes you happy.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                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?

                  • prole@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    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:

                    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.