• Sabata
      link
      fedilink
      163 months ago

      Oil tycoons

      This is tax fraud using religion as a shield and a means to contoll the local rabble.

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      Jesus himself was probably just a faith-healing grifter, who when ever somebody asked him about wealth had a cheesy grin and an outstretched hand as he answered, “Yup. nope. that’s basically impossible. Gimme all you rmoney, and you’ll be fine though…”

      • I agree with everything but the fact that, of what is reported of Jesus, he was very anti-wealth, over and above what people need to get by and that a actual christianity is incompatible with capitalism.

        To me, thats the part that certain types of “christians” need to be metaphorically slapped round the face with.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          “Actual” Christianity likely wasn’t fully developed until well after his death. The earliest gospel was written 40-ish years after his death. I imagine the historic Jesus would be very surprised by some of the things he apparently said.

          Jesus was a Jew. He saw himself as Jewish, following the Jewish faith; as did the disciples.

          Christianity itself developed over the following generations., and so did the doctrine and its teachings. It didn’t spring fully formed into existence.

          Also… to be “fully human”…. Are you so sure he wasn’t a hypocrite? There’s always been people using religion for their own selfish desires.

          • By actual Christianity, I mean Christianity in line with the things he was reported to have said, as opposed to ones that directly go against them.

            Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Theyre still the things he’s reported to have said though.

            • FuglyDuck
              link
              fedilink
              English
              43 months ago

              The earliest written account of what he said was written- at the earliest- around fifty years after his death.

              Most witnesses can’t can’t give an accurate testimony as to what happened 2 hours ago. Most prepared witnesses, with copies of statements in front of them still can’t accurately state what happened six months ago.

              Mark was the earliest gospel written at around 70 c.e., with the others following across 2 or 3 decades. You are attributing a reliability to people that exists no where else.

              You don’t have to take my word for this. Compare events and attributed sayings between the gospels, you’ll see that there’s plenty of distinctions. Some of that is that they were written by different people, from differing perspectives and for different purposes, to different audiences.

              Some of that is that they were written across 20-30 years, during a time in church history where doctrine and attitudes were rapidly shifting and coalescing- a period of church history where it was first becoming something different than, and something new.

              And all this ignores malfeasance on the part of the authors.

              • Sorry, I’m really not sure of the point you’re trying to make here.

                I’m not saying the bible is historically accurate, beyond criticism, or that eye witness testimonies aren’t problematic. Had I done so, the above would make a lot more sense.

                All I’m saying is, of the records that exist, such as they are, he was very vocally anti-wealth. You’re replying as though you’re disagreeing with what I’m saying. However, you don’t seem to refute anything that I’ve said.

                Are you saying he is recorded as being vocally anti-wealth?

                • FuglyDuck
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  the things he’s “reported as having said” are almost certainly not things he’s actually said.

                  with very limited exceptions, we don’t really know anything at all about him. We don’t even know if he really existed. (It’s probable. Yeshua was a super common name at the time, as was Joseph. So it’s almost certain there was some guy named Yeshua ben Joseph- or in modern rendering, ‘Jesus son of Joseph’.

                  Given at the time the region was rampantly awash with faith healing mystics, it’s not unlikely one of them happened to have that name. Actually, It’s not entirely improbable that there was more than one faith healer with that name.

                  Any assertion that Jesus is anti-wealth or anti-capitalist is belied by a single, easily overlooked fact: the disciples were almost certainly well off. Of the disciples whose professions were recorded, they’re all at least successful business men. Andrew, James, John, and Peter were fishermen- each with their own boats; and probably supporting a small crew. Mathew was likely the most wealthy, as a tax collector. Thomas, Nathaniel and Philip were likely fishermen as well; Simon was a politician or rebel leader (he may have been the brokest, but, also, he wasn’t exactly one of the masses, either.)

                  remember, that Jesus never outright forbade wealth, or condemn being wealthy. he did condemn the love of money; however, and warned of the spiritual hazards of greed; and taught that pursuit of god was more important, that pursuing god and pursuing money together were impossible. but that doesn’t mean being successful is inherently immoral. Also recognize that the businesses didn’t just go away without the disciples there to tend them.

                  The boats were still in good order, there would have been a crew, income. Which is how, after the crucifixion, they had boats to go fishing in, and followers were praised for their devotion, by bringing in money and resources for use of the whole.

                  as for statements of jesus that we can readily believe, if you accept the historicity of Jesus, and that’s not unreasonable to assume, then Jesus called himself the king of the jews. We can believe that because it’s really the one thing the romans would have executed him for. (to their way of thinking, he was setting himself as a literal king, in opposition to Rome.) the religious disputes… meh. that’s not their concern. (and remember, there were lots of faith healers/mystics/heretics running around. The typical solution by the mainstream jewish authorities would be to knife them on some lonely road and leave their bodies in the ditch. the roman governors did not like that. for one, it was untidy, for two, they saw it as an affront to law and order- roman law, and roman order.

      • @Grass@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        as far as bible theories that will piss off the local churchies goes, this is almost as good as “rib was a poor translation, eve was made of adams penis bone and that’s why humans don’t have them”

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I like watching them get pissed and flustered and then asking them if he wasn’t a faith healer.

          I know. I shouldn’t be an ass, and it’s the “grifter” part they take issue with…. But it’s too easy.

          In any case, from the perspective of contemporary mainstream Judaism, he was just another rando Jewish mystic grifting the rubes.

          As a side note: contrary to popular belief, none of the disciples started as particularly broke- they were by and large successful businessmen.