• Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    How is that any more fantastical than the current interpretation of events?

    In one, Jesus thinks he’s the son of god, and in the other he thinks he’s the son of a different god. A benevolent god is just as likely as a selfish one isnt it?

    Its amazing what people will believe when there is no better explanation though, in either case.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is a Gnostic gospel, and they have their own cosmology that breaks with the mainstream Judeo-Christian traditional entirely. By their account, there was a singular creator god, but there were also a bunch of lesser gods. The ancient Jews inadvertently started worshiping one of these lesser gods, mistakenly thinking he was the main guy. Jesus came to set all this straight, and Judas was the only apostle who really figured this out.

      Jesus is a very different character in these. He usually comes off as an asshole. In particular, see the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where a young Jesus kills his friends with his mind for not sharing the ball: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gA8hXDJocQ

      Is it more fantastical? Not really, but it’s not marching in the same direction as the rest of the story. It’s the difference between Captain Picard’s mom dying when he was young when we saw him dream her as an old woman, versus Captain Picard walking on the bridge and kicking Riker straight in the nuts for no reason and then lighting up a joint. One is a contradiction, but not really that important when it comes down to it (unless you insist that the material is absolutely true, in which case you have other problems). The other is so far off from the character’s normal behavior that we have to assume something is wrong.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Why do you think that old religions like Greek and roman mythology were allowed to slide into widely accepted fiction while others, which often have similarly outlandish stories, are held up as at least a reference to some divine truth?

        Is that the right question to ask? I dont like the easy answer that gets spread around of “they just aren’t raised to be critical of their beliefs”. How did people back then make such a decision as what religion to follow?

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          An interesting insight I gathered from a Bart Ehrman lecture somewhere is that cultures that have a primarily oral-based tradition don’t care as much about consistency in their lore. Not because they’re dumb or anything; it just doesn’t matter to them as much.

          Both Judaism and Christianity started as oral traditions. That’s why you have two separate creation stories in Genesis, and different accounts of how Judas died, and the wildly different Gnostic tradition of Christianity. It doesn’t go much deeper than that: an oral culture that used these stories as parables that weren’t really meant as literal truth, but later got treated that way when it evolved into a written culture.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Thats really interesting with Judaism and Christianity, I was not aware they overlapped that much and were so different, I mostly assumed Judaism diverged and has its own thing.

            That sort of brings up the next question though, how did people deal with being aware of competing traditions? Or were they just normally only exposed to one at a time? Was it common for something new to be brought to a tribe and they have to reckon with how it fits with their current beliefs?

            I suppose its easy now to see the steps one might take to leave a religion or join another, but I can’t translate that to back when people didnt travel as much and everything had to be copied by hand or mouth.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              This is getting a little beyond my knowledge, but it appears to me that polytheistic oral cultures tended not to care too much. For example, Caligula followed the Cult of Isis, an Egyptian god. This doesn’t seem to be particularly unusual. Everybody was in some kind of cult; they functioned more like social clubs with “secret” knowledge (that was probably unremarkable and disappointing, tbh), something like the modern Masons.

              The exceptions to this “let everyone believe whatever” seem to have been Judaism and Christianity. Judaism had long since thrown off its monolatry (many gods exist, but we have this one primary one; early parts of the Hebrew scriptures read this way) and became fully monotheistic (only our god exists). Christianity grows up from that to be monotheisitc from the start. This is something that simply does not jive with polytheistic religions around them. Rome would let you believe whatever else you want as long as you recognized the Imperial Cult, but Judaism and Christianity refused. That’s why they were both heavily persecuted for a time under the Roman Empire.