Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The historical person most likely existed, according to historians. I couldn't find any evidence that Matthew and John's accounts of Him and Mark, Luke, Peter and Paul's writings of Him are fictional
Isn't the fact that those accounts disagree with each other, and are in fact sometimes contradictory (and that important stuff such as trinity, holy ghost, all came much later) cause to suspect that a lot of core modern Christian tenets are not based in historical truth?
Certainly there was a historical Jesus who did some stuff and inspired a religion. That much I think is indisputable.
They don't contradict/disagree with each other and the trinity is mentioned early on in the Bible. First in Paul's letters, then in Matthew's Gospel.
Edit: this original part is all about Trinitarianism:
Hmm, I was sure they were not.
Could I hassle you for passage numbers (and language and edition) to educate myself on the matter?
Edit p2.: Matthew and Luke disagree on things like Joseph's family and whether Jesus was born in or on the way to Bethlehem. As just two of the many discrepancies between the 4 Evangelist gospels.
2 Corinthians 13:14 ESV
Matthew 28:19 ESV
Heli was Joseph's legal father while Jacob was Joseph's biological father. Heli died childless, so Jacob married his widow and bore Joseph. Thus, different genealogies.
Matthew 2:1 NRSV
Luke 2:4-7 NRSV
Both accounts seem to agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
There are phrases using Trinitarian words, but the doctrine was not established until later, which is why so many early Christians didn't believe it and it was the Church's first major schism.
I'll take your word on Joseph and legal lineage passing through dead first husbands.
And thank you for the correction on birth place, I've poked about and it seems quite clear.
I hope and biblical scholarship continues and we get more accurate translated off of ever older texts I, and everyone else, can keep up with where scholarship is at.
You are right that the Nicene or Athanasius creed wasn't established in it's refined form until three hundred years later, defining the Trinity. But Jesus said "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" with "name" being singular. The Father is indisputably defined as God, and the Son is often shown to also be God. The Holy Spirit is also given equality here so must also be God. The trinitarian doctrine is a logical confusion, as the Bible shows that God is One but also reveals Him in three different persons.