MTG Cites Antisemitic Fable Jews ‘Handed Over’ Jesus To Be Killed
MTG Cites Antisemitic Fable Jews ‘Handed Over’ Jesus To Be Killed
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) cited one of the most prominent historical...
I'm Jewish and have been told very angrily that I killed Jesus more than once. It's fun.
You're viewing a single thread.
It is perpetually disappointing the extent to which so many people who claim to be Christians fail to understand even the CliffsNotes version of the Gospel.
Jesus' arrest was probably bound to happen sooner or later though. As noted Biblical scholar Andrew Zaltzman has often pointed out, Pontius Pilate was a law and order administrator, and Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.
Also, without Jesus' arrest and crucifixion, he wouldn't have died and been resurrected, saving everyone's souls. So shouldn't Marjorie be thanking Jews for that?
And when the flying spaghetti monster flew out of his butthole and pasta for our sins we were saved a second time. Making humans the most saved beings in this universe at least.
All in the span of 5,000 years, too.
To be fair, we probably needed it.
That was only yesterday, image what his Noodly One will do today.
Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.
Guilty of what? Insulting the Jewish Religion and trying to reform it? That wasn't a crime in the Roman Empire.
Tbh, Jesus probably didnt exist anyways.
They started writing about him almost 100 years after his supposed death, and AFAIK theres zero proof outside the bible that he existed.
The earliest set of Pauline epistles have a consensus dating around 50, 20 years after the nominal death of Jesus.
The gospel of Mark has consensus dating to 70, 40 years after the nominal death of Jesus.
Multiple Jewish and Roman historians wrote about the existence of Jesus, who weren't all getting their information from the Bible. There is a long and well-sourced Wikipedia article on this.
This is patently false and easily disprovable with a cursory google. Please do not spread misinformation.
Prove it instead of casting doubt.
You’re the wrong party here, your search will prove it.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.
Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified
So...
- A preacher lived around that time.
- His name was ridiculously common.
- He was baptized.
- He was crucified.
Notably NOT:
- He was born of a Virgin.
- He was the son of a supernatural deity.
- He performed supernatural acts.
- He was resurrected.
To call this "Historical Jesus" is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.
Let's try the same argument today... "A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge." How many fit this description? Isn't it more likely true than false? What does that prove?
This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.
I don’t think anyone here claimed historical Jesus was the son of the magical sky wizard.
Some folk heros are based on historical people; some aren’t.
The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.
No one here made that claim. But it’s the claim you’re continually arguing against.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What makes a better lie:
- A 100% fabrication
- A lie that selects elements from reality, and invents parts of the whole story
Muhammad was also a known historical figure, as was Joseph Smith.
Check the talk page on that (and similar) articles. There are some very zealous editors making sure that they come down harder than the sources really support on the "everyone definitely agrees that he existed" side of the argument...
I asked for you to provide some kind of proof.
You provided a statement that scholars have faith.
I am being serious here, where is the contemporary record of Jesus existing?
I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.
I would argue that both of us ought to be smart enough to be able to look at the “proof” and recognize a lot of it is personal faith.
You believe what you want.
There isn't any and even the discussions in the wiki on the historicity of jesus are full of arguments to authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-Jesus_existed-4
It can be summed up as, "People who have made their livelihood around a potentially fictitious persons of history all claim that said person exists because reasons."
this conversation is split into so many parts im just trying to chase down this one key point: it's not enough to say "well I don't believe them" - I want to be proved wrong here, for my own education. But I want to be proved wrong - with proof. Not just a throwaway comment of "they have not met my (undefined, and unexplained) threshold of proof"
What do you have to show that Jesus didnt exist as a real human? That isn't your own belief or thought process as your primary source?
You can't be proved wrong. Noone can ever prove that someone never existed, but you can prove that someone did exist. If you have such proof for the existance for jesus, please share it.
Robin Hood, William Tell, Homer, John Henry, King Arthur, Pope Joan and Mulan beg to disagree.
Or rather, they would if they existed. All of which are easily Googlable
Paul Bunyan is a better analogy
However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. There are several hypotheses as to what sources he may have used.
buddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it's authenticity, what hope do you have?
Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources.
The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don't act like I'm the one with a crackpot theory.
Let's compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?
It’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test.
A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration.
He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.
the smell test is irrelevant. This is a conversation about whether the scientific / historian community is at a concensus on the historical existence of the person in question.
really, mine and your individual opinions are also irrelevant, because even if both you and I never existed- the historical, academic consensus suggests the guy lived.
I'm happy to be the bad guy in that conversation because it's really not me thats on trial here - it's your personal faith/belief, that's as vulnerable to subjectivity as a belief in the spritual Christian (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) deity's existence.
I am not commenting on whether I believe Jesus was a deity, nor am I commented on whether I personally believe there was a real Jesus as political and historical figure at the start of the Common Era - I am saying that to say definitively he did not exist is a faith/belief based assertion, and it's misinformation to claim it as a fact, it is a belief/opinion that flies in the face of established, peer-reviewed consensus.
You are performing a sleight of hand here by saying "Jesus" and shifting between which one you are saying is real. "Historical" is a statistical no brainer as I stated above. You then shift to equate that guy to the supernatural founder of Christianity.
We (atheists and skeptics) securely say "Jesus the miracle worker and son of God" did not exist. The proof is not there. We fail to accept the proposal of a deity or reports of miracles. No faith involved.
Others use faith to claim the opposite.
It is bit like saying the garden of eden existed because DNA proved a mitochondrial Eve.
that the terms weren't clearly defined in the original comment is not my fault, and equally you could've said that you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus - which is a very fair statement, but note how it self-defines belief and separates it from categorical fact.
Too much sophistry and you can prove that Santa Claus exists and Joe Biden doesn't.
You did not at any point specify you were talking about the divinity of Jesus, you just said he didn't exist- which the simplest response is "ok so who's the guy with long hair on a cross in every church then?" - obviously in many definitions of "exists" - he exists, including that it is generally accepted that he lived as a real person.
You're also addressing me as if I'm saying Jesus was a diety. I am not.
Buddy if we collected nickels from anthropologists every time they got something wrong we'd all be rich.
Well, again, I ask you - where's your sources? Me and another guy provided a source that also contained sources. I would genuinely like to read the first-party or academic sources for your argument for my own education.
Tacitus mentions Christian’s and their namesake. He mentions Pontus.
He does not mention these things together as a cohesive event.
He is writing about something else.
...and Pontius Pilot was one historical figure we can prove exists. In letters from Rome telling him to stop genosiding so many Jews. We are supposed to believe that if this really happened, such a guy cared what the Jews thought, and would give them a choice on who to kill? Really? He would have killed Jesus, the other guy, and the crowd for good measure.
It's clearly written to absolve Rome of any guilt since they founded the religion and all of the source material is more likely attributed to Mithra and Simon Magus.
Apparently, Christians are not the only ones who lack basic knowledge about the history of Jesus ...
Neat theory
This. Why don't these people understand that Jesus died for EVERYONE'S sins?
WE ALL KILLED JESUS. Accept Him and repent.I never killed anyone though. That's just emotional manipulation.
What you don't think you're a sinner for.. checks notes ..being born?
I feel like the stigma of sin is vastly overplayed when it's just an element of being human. Adultery and murder are the same as existing? Alrighty, almighty!
In a wider sense, just by shopping in the supermarket or owning a cellphone, you are participating in worldwide exploitation and mass murder.
Sounds like you're not very good at being a zombie or a pirate then.
Oh, you've got the wrong idea.
I don't eat brains, I prefer other intellectual properties.
I never asked him to do that and I don't particularly want to go to an afterlife filled with sanctimonious Christians, so I'll take the L, thanks.
Valhalla seems pretty chill, I'll look forward to seeing you there... or maybe I'll go chill with my pa in the sky people's city. Honestly, I think I'd probably want to be an afterlife tourist... I wonder how early I need to book that.
I don't want to go on forever. It sounds awful. Imagine every boring moment in your life and multiply it by infinity.
If Jesus died for our sins then we’re letting him die in vain by not sinning.
sin for Jesus friend.
I’m going to spill my seed for Christ.
Na
You all can have your little LARP and potluck, but kindly leave the rest of us the fuck out of it. I get that the world sucks and thinking someone will give you cookies for taking all the shit rich folks pile on you day after day is appealing, but it's just excusing your own exploitation. I'm not about that life.
Make me, pussy.
Speak for yourself.