• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    i mean it’s mostly all metaphor and allegory, meant to teach you lessons rather than to act as a historical document.

    it’s like a book of fables for people who think animals are silly

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      The four gospels read as eyewitness accounts and reports of a real person, not as fables and allegories.

      • Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        “read as” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Most scholars say they were written well after the fact (decades to generations after), after a bunch of oral tradition related changes crept in. Plus, they were sort of down selected from a much larger corpus.

        So this is just a narrative technique rather than an actual eyewitness account.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          By “well after the fact”, it’s still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Contrasted with other historical records, it’s pretty good. Like Alexander the Great being written about 800 years after the fact, or some details about Julius Caesar being written down 200 years after the fact which nobody disputes. For something we can archaeologically prove which also happened at the time - the pompeii disaster - there is one record 30 years later. Despite it being an event witnessed by hundreds of thousands and likely having influential romans among it’s victims. You’re really overestimating the frequency of writings and documentation from the first century. In which the New Testament is abnormal in that it has a high frequency. So something that clearly was a big deal did happen. The traditions as well carried across societies, so must have been rooted in fact. As for the larger corpus - those were the centuries later forgeries that were removed for that reason - because they were much later and not seen as reliable. Some of them were attributed to more important figures also, like Thomas. So the early Church clearly cared about accuracy.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Most scholars say they were written well after the fact (decades to generations after), after a bunch of oral tradition related changes crept in

          Almost like it’s all a bunch of bullshit invented to control the masses 🤔

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        personally i am a fan of “keep your religion to yourself”, “don’t use the veil of the church as a means to make money”, “help those that others cast out, like sex workers”, “don’t engage in stereotype”, and “rich people go to hell”.

      • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        “Treat women and children like property. Always blame victims. Take slaves from neighboring countries, never your own.”

        Lots of great lessons in that holiest of books.

      • datendefekt
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s this kind of mental gymnastics that killed church for me. Jesus had a pretty decent moral framework set up, but people mangled into a bunch of hocus pocus.