Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Depressed_Zebra t1_j1zrkac wrote

This is the dumbest anti-religious sentiment I have ever heard and I am most definitely committing it to memory and using it as belligerently and as frequently as humanly possible.
Thank you good Sir.

23

InquisitorNikolai t1_j1zt6zj wrote

I mean... There are several things I could mention when discussing this

10

Globularist t1_j1zwwa2 wrote

Whats the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus? You can hang the picture with just one nail.

32

anonbene2 t1_j1zxc99 wrote

Then he arose from the dead then what happened? Did he die again and no one noticed or paid any attention to? Where is he buried this time? Is he walking around as a zombie? Weird how nobody followed him to see what's up. Some son of a god he is.

−6

Make_the_music_stop t1_j1zzum3 wrote

Jesus and his disciples walk into a restaurant "Table for twenty-six, please."

"There's only thirteen of you."

"Yes, but we all like to sit on the same side."

117

roon_79 t1_j202h5y wrote

Nice....I really like it

3

Dashover t1_j2068ic wrote

Gd asked “How’s your Sex life, son?” I’d screw anything that wasn’t nailed down

2

TooShiftyForYou t1_j20atuh wrote

The Romans always brought a bucket of bleach to their crucifixions.

It's important to prevent cross contamination.

10

Mcletters t1_j20ht59 wrote

Crucifixion? Good. Line on the left, one cross each.

6

raptorthebun t1_j20ipzu wrote

It's a fact that Jesus existed, so I think the joke works better if it starts with something like If Jesus was truly the Son of God

−7

raptorthebun t1_j20oyae wrote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#:~:text=Jesus%20was%20a%20Galilean%20Jew,studied%20outside%20Galilee%20and%20Judea.

It's pretty unanimous that scholars agree he existed by the same standards applied to historical figures from the same time period. That's a fact in my book unless you want to be extremely careful and say we don't really know anything about people from 2,000 years ago. Reddit can downvote and I'm not saying anything about Christianity or whether Jesus was God or whatever, but Jesus was a real dude who existed.

1

kaiwulf t1_j20zeag wrote

Ah, I see you did your so-called research by going straight to Wikipedia to back up your claim. Good scholarly information there sage nods

As u/insufferableninja pointed out, historians agree there may have been a man (yes a plain ol regular man) that your religious dude was based off of. Possibly a philosopher in those times. This is all still theoretical tho. There's no concrete evidence of that specific individual existing that can without a shadow of doubt be traced back to as an origin point. So NO, his existence is not fact

0

raptorthebun t1_j216g41 wrote

Wikipedia is actually a pretty solid source these days. There are tons of sources listed at the bottom of articles. You sound like my 6th grade teacher 20 years ago.

Also, if you read what I said carefully, I'm not claiming divinity of Jesus. I just said it was a dude who lived. You can look at what I linked, or perhaps better the one on historicity of Jesus and you'll find scholars are in agreement that Jesus was baptized and crucified and we have solid records of those two things. Everything else is up for debate. But if you want to just say no way you're wrong without any evidence on your side that's fine too. Not invested enough to argue more. Perhaps my original point didnt even improve the joke. I just thought the fact/fiction should be relating to religion and not the existence of a dude historians agree was a real guy.

0

kaiwulf t1_j217vl2 wrote

Ad hominem fallacy. Exactly what I'd expect from someone who doesn't have a real argument.

YOU keep saying all these historians agree Jesus did in fact exist. I'm correcting you and saying from a scientific research standpoint that he MAY HAVE existed. Wikipedia is a lot of things but research material it is not

1

insufferableninja t1_j220uyb wrote

That was an interesting read. The history by Josephus, which was lost, was quoted by Tacitus, but that history was also lost, but Tacitus's quotation of Josephus was quoted by a third historian. And that meets the criteria for a primary source of the existence of Josh of Nazareth. Being a historian must be so incredibly frustrating.

1

Apprehensive-Search6 t1_j22583d wrote

To all those coming for the punchline:

If it was the truth, they would call it crucifacts instead

1