this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025

240 points (94.1% liked)

Not The Onion

18062 readers

1759 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

240

Catholic church canonises its first gamer saint, and one of his favourite games was Halo (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 week ago by kennedy@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a "wild assumption". ok.

What makes you assume he's 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died.....

You know what a scribe is... Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren't actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves.... And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....

Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150

Clement was born in 150ad..... Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn't unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

"is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"

In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically "biased" by your definition.

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

It's like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn't trust scientists or the scientific method

Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?

Any science you do show them they dismiss as "biased" because they don't trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they'd rationally be a Christian.

You don't have to trust science, science is repeatable, it's self explanatory.... If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn't automatically think they're the son of God. I would rationally think it's a different dude posing as him, or that they didn't actually kill him.

the Gospels were biased, they wouldn't have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude's ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

If scientology was biased they wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......

Josephus couldn't have written it, as Jesus didn't rise from the dead"

Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?

Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.

How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?

Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What makes you assume he's 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died.....

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....

That's not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.

Clement was born in 150ad..... Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. That's a different debate over who wrote revelation.

"is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"

Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists" rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a "Christian apologist".

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

(63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston

If scientology was biased they wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......

Are these in actual Scientology "scriptures"?

How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

So not the first....

Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.

And how did they establish doctrine?

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

Nah, just circular reasoning.

you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists"

"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com

"While it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of God's people is called oral tradition." Ministrymatters.com

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus,

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don't really care about your personal beliefs. I just don't think it's okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people's make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Nah, just circular reasoning.

You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

Convenient of you to not actually link the articles, and cut out the important parts of the quote. Here it is in full.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/oral-tradition-in-the-new-testament

Another difficulty is that the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus), and the remain ten percent is from written sources.

They're claiming the apostles wrote down what Jesus wrote. And this is an argument surrounding Sola Scriptura, not Gospel authorship. The rest of the article is then talking about an old testament oral tradition existing, which I do not dispute. That's not the same as the New Testament being an account of Jesus. He's just making a statement against sola scriptura by saying "Well, Jesus didn't literally write this".

The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand. If I witnessed a car crash, and went and told my colleagues at work, then family about it at dinner, then the next day the police ask for a written statement, and I submit it in the evening after more talking about it in work, it doesn't devalue my original testimony. As yes, stories of that car crash were told orally before being written down.

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries....

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning) and that the earliest copy of that is quoted by Eusebius, so it mustn't be reliable. They aren't really good arguments.

So pick a side here. Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not? If it is possible, then Josephus isn't a forgery. If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

You were claiming John couldn't have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

I'm not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.

The second quote doesn't even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn't mean the written accounts are firsthand.

Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It's silly how often your position changes.

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn't say that (circular reasoning)

That's not circulatory reasoning..... That's just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it's been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.

Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?

In defense of Christianity......yes, but they wouldn't believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

If it isn't, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

That's a false dichotomy...... Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn't I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that's supports him as a diety.

There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sources... We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

I don't really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.