• comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
      43·
      1 year ago

      Or Jesus Christ, Jesus was charged with blasphemy by the jewish religious courts and was handed over to Romans for crucifixion.

    • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
      36·
      1 year ago

      It’s hilarious because Jewish religious courts Sanhedrin charged Jesus with blasphemy because he was called a prophet/Messiah where as Muslims all over the world recognize Jesus as the 2nd greatest prophet there in. He is very revered in Quran.

      • GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee
        71·
        1 year ago

        is he? i read it and don’t recall his name coming up. All i remember is a whole whole lot of “everyone who believe’s what we believe is right, everyone else is wrong.” …and towards the end of it: " My uncle who doesn’t believe that i’m the prophet is not only going to hell with the unbelievers, he’s going to super duper hell."

        • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
          16·
          1 year ago

          Remember when the angels proclaimed, “O Mary! Allah gives you good news of a Word from Him, his name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; honoured in this world and the Hereafter, and he will be one of those nearest to Allah. [Surah Ali-Imran; 3:45]

          1. When Jesus sensed disbelief from his people, he asked, “Who will stand up with me for Allah?” The disciples replied, “We will stand up for Allah. We believe in Allah, so bear witness that we have submitted.” [Surah Ali-Imran; 3:52]

          2. Remember when Allah said, “O Jesus! I will take you and raise you up to Myself. I will deliver you from those who disbelieve, and elevate your followers above the disbelievers until the Day of Judgment. Then to Me you will ˹all˺ return, and I will settle all your disputes. [Surah Ali-Imran; 3:55]

          3. Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was! [Surah Ali-Imran; 3:59]

          https://www.getquranic.com/all-quranic-verses-about-jesus/

  • supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml
    32·
    1 year ago

    He is so desperate to have “his people” (I know a significant chunk of Jews denounce him) included in white supremacy but it will never ever happen. That strategy will always fail. I doubt he cares to reflect on that delusion. He just wants the chants of “Jews will not replace us” changed to “darker people will not replace us”.

      • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
        2·
        1 year ago

        The old enforcement of white supremacy under the slogan of Judaism and Christianity since the European age of colonial expansion into Americas is a strong indicator that a person is a Satanist under the criteria of the Bible of Christianity. Christian doctrine from the Bible taught others to judge a person’s morality according to their intentions, moral values, and their personality instead of their appearance (color of their skin in this case), impression, mannerism, nor self-identification (this means that the self-identified Church of Satan in the US who do not embrace the Biblical Satan would not be considered Satanists by the real Christians).

    • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
      20·
      1 year ago

      I believe communists and every well educated person should know the history of all religions. It will give a new perspective on human lives and cultures. Did you know that all Abrahamic religions share the same ideology as Zoroastrianism of ancient persia. Also, Islamic rituals are pretty much similar to Judaism where as Islamic beliefs about Jesus, just a prophet originated from persecuted West Asian Christians.

        • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
          14·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t know until 2 weeks ago that Christians has 3 in 1 god and Islam believes in Tawheed. It was always confusing to me.

            • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
              62·
              1 year ago

              Christianity in the original sense I mean in the Nicene creed where trinity was approved where 1 god is represented as father, son and the holy spirit.

              • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
                41·
                1 year ago

                That is not what the Nicene Creed says at all. It quite literally states that Christ is “begotten of God”, meaning that they are district separate entities in regards to the Father and Holy Spirit.

                Again on top of being wrong, that is the still only interpretation and creed of a single sect of the Catholic Church. There have been many schisms over this interpretation and it is in no ways “canon” to Christianity, it is just the beliefs of a group of priests 300 years after the death of Christ and beginning of Christianity.

                In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that states that Christ is “God the Son”, which was later hypothesized and added after the fact by Christian theology. The Trinity in itself is also an interpretation, not hard and fast canon.

              • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
                3·
                1 year ago

                It’s native to Europe yes, but that disregards the hundreds of millions of people they are orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Central Europe. Along with the many many smaller sects that Catholicism attempted to destroy.

                • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  3·
                  1 year ago

                  No it doesn’t. My point is just that it’s wrong to characterize trinitarianism as some rare American creed when most Christians in Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Ireland, Austria, and Poland subscribe to the idea. According to Pew research, Catholics make up around 50% of all Christians, so although it is wrong to say all Christians believe in the Trinity, it’s just as wrong to suggest very few Christians recognize the Trinity.

          • huf [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            9·
            1 year ago

            would that be early judaism tho? or the native canaanite religion.

            the way i understand it, some failsons in the capital got super into monotheism somehow, and spent a lot of time trying to get their proto-jewish peasants to stop worshipping the many old gods. and that was the start of judaism.

          • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            1 year ago

            Jews don’t necessarily believe in hell, and the closest thing they have to it is more like the sumerian or Greek afterlife than the hell modern Christians imagine. Prophets are also more common than you think, occurring in Etruscan and African cultures frequently. Satan is not big in judaism, far more a Christian thing. There are some similarities and it’s probably ideas were exchanged between the two faiths towards their founding, but you can’t say they just share ideology

            • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
              2·
              1 year ago

              A majority of Christian sects also reject a firm notion of Hell. Most view purgatory and salvation as the path that the soul takes.

              Hell is simply where Satan resides, not some infinite torture chamber. Satan also has no control over Hell as Jesus willingly goes there and after a time, yoinks all the souls there up to Heaven without a problem during the ascension.

              It kind of goes against the entire notion of indiscriminate forgiveness and salvation if you just got cast into hell and got stuck there.

              • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
                1·
                1 year ago

                The truth is that hell was never a domain of Satan nor was it a torture chamber. Hell is actually a prison to destroy the souls of unbelievers through fire. Also, Yahweh had shown mercy when he offer people a chance to repent after the crucification of Jesus.

          • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
            4·
            1 year ago

            The first rule of the ten commandments of the Bible did implied the polytheism with the claim that Yahweh is a jealous God and that no one should worship other gods.

    • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
      346·
      1 year ago

      Jesus was a real man even atheist historians agree with it. Roman historians all agree that Jesus existed , it is just how he can be portrayed it is subject of debate. I think Jesus was a radical figure who united the poor , Romans alike which created tensions among the jewish elite and thats why he was executed as such .

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        51·
        1 year ago

        In other word, you believe in Barabbas theory, which not only fill a lot of nonsense in that scene but also make Jesus pretty based instead of just a run of the mill end times preacher?

        • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
          7·
          1 year ago

          I think from atheist historians who studied the romans and jewish life in the ancient judea, it is clear that jesus was popular among the poor. He also spoke vehemently against the strict moral code of jewish laws. It’s like Buddha speaking against rules and regulations, rituals. In ancient great men like Cyrus the great who gave jews permission to enter judea was called a good man in jewish scriptures . Obviously Buddha was there and he spread his message through disciples same goes for jesus. Obviously neither of them said do feudalism in my name but either way Dalai lamas existed and so did corruption in church

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
            104·
            1 year ago

            First of all, there is no real proof Jesus was historical, the best one is contested, especially by catholic church since it violates the later dogma about Mary being perpetual virgin.

            Jesus remains legendary character like for example Ragnar Lodbrok or polish founder Piast the Wheelwright - there is very high probablity of such character existing, as evidenced by christians reffering to Jesus or by existence of historical people called sons of Lodbrok in the second case and the Piast dynasty in the third, but details are unclear and uncertain - legends.

            In case of Jesus specifically, the sheer number of preachers in contemporary Judea was so high (it was period of social and religious turmoil after all) that the probability he really existed is basically 1, but for all we know the biblical Jesus might be single character or amalgam of many of them, sprinkled with magic later. I would call him “stochastic Jesus” - the “prohpet” card is played so many times that you can choose whatever you like especially that all those cards are nearly blank historically.

            • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
              4·
              1 year ago

              The consensus among reputable historians is that he was in fact a historical figure. The details of his life are very much in question, the evidence that he did in fact exist is pretty sound and not widely disputed. This is a simple objective statement on the state of current scholarship. I am an atheist, so whatever else anyone wants to claim about Jesus doesn’t hurt my feelings at all.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                3·
                1 year ago

                Look at my answer to Salad and the saintly patience of Albigu trying to discuss with the strawman guy.

                I am an atheist, so whatever else anyone wants to claim about Jesus doesn’t hurt my feelings at all.

                Sure, but whatever you read about might (and i’m pretty certain that it does, considering the nature of debacle) come from the religious people being very invested in it.

            • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
              21·
              1 year ago

              Would you mind linking any of your sources? For all intensive purposes the historicity of Jesus is a very much an open and shut case with the vast majority of historians agreeing that a radical reformer man who we now know as Jesus, existed and was baptized, and crucified. There are camps that say that he does not exist, but they are legitimately extremely small fringe outliers with little credibility.

              Whether he was the messiah, a prophet, or the Son of God is an entirely different conversation, but he most certainly did exist as a historical figure.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                4·
                1 year ago

                Whether he was the messiah, a prophet, or the Son of God is an entirely different conversation, but he most certainly did exist as a historical figure.

                Iirc there are two main evidences cited each time:

                1. His brother Jacob - translation and uniqueness of the title suggest Jacob was his real brother, so that’s one that mostly convince me, this is also the one disputed by catholic church
                2. Mentions by Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus Flavius and Pliny - Josephus was ridiculously falsified by later christian scribes, and all of them don’t even speak about Jesus, they speak about christians revering Jesus and all of them are secondary sources, all of them very brief, and most likely using the same unknown source, especially Tacitus and Suetonius seems very similar. While this is a point (though Taticus also show signs of being doctored, Suetonius in this case is more believable), it don’t confirm the historicity of Jesus any more than Anonymous Gall confirm the historicity of Piast the Wheelwright or Saxo Grammaticus confirming historicity of Ragnar Lodbrok. Again, the argument premise is that all thee existed because Ivar the Boneless certainly had a father, Mieszko the First had great-great grandfather and christians had to have some preacher(s) at the start.

                That is, legendary figures, or maybe semi-legendary, which people here seems to wrongly undertand as “nonhistorical”. Those cathgories mean the person most likely did exist, but they got so shrouded in legends that it is impossible to certainly say the details. And it isn’t even consensus, a lot of this is still disputed, hell some people even still dispute the absurd Josephus forgery as truth.

                • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  That isn’t what I asked. I asked if you had any sources for historians and sources that agree with what you’re saying.

                  You’re just repeating the same lines about Joseph and the scribes and calling them absurd, but that’s not sources. What evidence do you actually have?

                  You’re just making massive claims without any backing.

            • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
              55·
              1 year ago

              No dude , its historical , watch the videos and read the scholarly articles of real secular historians . Claiming Buddha , Muhammad , Jesus didn’t exist at all because of religious persecution is ahistorical and nihilism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CD5DwrgWJ4&t=2091s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRfFLjWLybA Well I have no personally enmity towards who don’t follow antique history . but yeah thats it

              • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
                82·
                1 year ago

                He isn’t claiming Jesus for certain didn’t exist, but that there’s no decisive evidence that he existed, specially as a single person or like he is in the gospel. There are a lot of theories about who or what was the historical Jesus, but his legend is probably partially based on actual material events. The burden of proof that he did actually exist falls upon the Christ historicists.

                A lot of people at the time and region were illiterate, believed in very diverse sets of superstitions and spoke different languages. That’s prime time for a lot of sincretism and mythmaking. We know so little about historical Jesus, that I think it’s fair to assume that he didn’t exist until some trustworthy primary source is found. Even Tacitus is not that trustworthy due to some apparent doctoring of the oldest surviving manuscript by monastery scribes.

                And there are so many “Christ Myth” proponents that they have a whole Wikipedia category, so I don’t think it’s fair to paint them as basically nonexistent.

                • comhelio@lemmygrad.mlOP
                  43·
                  1 year ago

                  Again you are all falling into this cyclic loop of jesus existed but he didn’t. The thing is… As Bart D Ehrman says the consensus among ancient historians judging the biases and perception about writings… There are tacitus, josepheus , Suetonius etc , that jesus existed. The early Gospel which is of Mark also provides a historical account it has zero theological interpretation and was written in 70CE. One thing for sure, Romans hated the christians and jews for political reasons and why would they fabricate of such. Let’s move to Arabia, why would Muhammed who was the prophet of Islam mentioned jesus positively and his mother. They are included in his revelations in Quran. According to him, he was prophet but not a “son of God”.

                  3rd. I don’t want to argue senselessly but rigid verified proof of such things don’t exist. Can you prove the existence of Alexander the great? Simply because some ancient historians wrote it? I am not here to enforce any religion here but yeah… It’s upto you to think all history is nonsense and nihilistic.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                3·
                1 year ago

                Claiming Buddha , Muhammad , Jesus didn’t exist at all because of religious persecution is ahistorical and nihilism

                Nice strawman. I didn’t even said Jesus didn’t exist, not to mention Muhammad who was confirmed historical figure though Buddha is in pretty much same place as Jesus (i didn’t studied Buddha historicity though so i refrain from anything further), i even agreed he most likely did, but he was very different figure, or maybe amalgam of figures, than in bible. I mean duh, when we take out the magic there not much left except the run of the mill apocalypse preacher who just got lucky and get made a central figure in religion that went and become wildly popular.

      • carlesmu@lemmygrad.ml
        77·
        1 year ago

        Jesus was a real man even atheist historians agree with it.

        I don’t think so. It seems that many historians thinks that there are not evidence of the existence of Jesus outside biblical documents.

        Here you can find an in-deep response on r/AskHistorians about it.

        • ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml
          181·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know what to tell you, he is a known historical figure that was thoroughly documented and recorded by the Roman Empire. The Romans HATED Christianity and Jesus, so why would they support the existence of a fake person that they despise? Why would hundreds of documents, records, and testimonials from people across the Palestinian region and Roman Empire conspire to create Jesus?

          Do you think Buddha and Mohammed never existed as well?

  • Mzuark@lemmygrad.ml
    11·
    1 year ago

    I feel like I live in bizarro world when I see true zionist believers like Ben Shapiro talk about this shit. They’re describing all these things that are being done to the Palestineans, not things they’ve done to the Israelis.