this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
955 points (97.3% liked)
Political Memes
5232 readers
1707 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The supposed water walking event wasn't documented by anyone until 5 decades later. Paul never mentions it, all the other early writings don't mention it, only in about 81AD or so did it appear. Where did Mark get it? We have no clue. Maybe he saw the optical illusion of people walking by water looking like they are walking on water, maybe local magicians were using the rocks underneath and he heard about, maybe it was symbolic that Cephus was involved and he wanted to talk more smack about the man (Mark really hated him), maybe there was a local play that had a god in it that did it. Point is the chain of evidence was broken.
And the deaths of the apostles are even more poorly documented. There was a huge incentive to lie about everything. We don't know how James died, we suspect he was very old when it happened, there is a possible reference to him being killed as an old man but for what crimes we don't know. The idea that he was killed for his beliefs doesn't show up until nearly two centuries later in text form.
There couldn't have been rocks underneath as Peter began to sink. John was the one who talked smack about Peter.
For historical accounts from that time, 5 decades after is rather close. Most records we have about history from that point in time are written centuries later. Generally copies of copies, etc. When mark wrote it though, there'd be several other guys who would have been there who could have said "actually this didn't happen", by this point they were spreading all over the world, but they already accepted Mark's gospel.
Also worth noting that the 5 decades date primarily comes from the presumption that Jesus couldn't have told the future in the Olivet discourse. Which if Christianity is true, the account could very well have come earlier.
If Christianity was true, you wouldn't need to make these sorts of arguments because the words of Jesus would have been enough to make them for you.