this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
907 points (96.4% liked)

Not The Onion

17114 readers
1032 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.

Please see: Jeremiah 7:9-15, Jeremiah 23:11-15, Isaiah 1:10-17, Isaiah 66:1-2, Isaiah 59:1-2, Isaiah 56:7-8, Amos 5:21-24, and of course Micah.

The Jewish theocratic state had divisions of power. At that time it was mostly Pharisees and Temple. If Jesus had existed, he would definitely been on Pharisees side. Biblical Jesus was at least. It's a bit like claiming any political commentary is subversive. There is a difference between being willing to take pot shots at the other political team and being against established order. The references I gave are only the ones that have survived. Most likely there were quite a few authors being very critical of how the Temple was run.

Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.

I thought you Bible literalists believe he had 12 apostles plus over 500 camp followers. Which is it?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Pharisees and Sadducees are, in very broad terms, like Democrats and Republicans today. Sadducees tended to be wealthy and conservative, while the Pharisees were more about the common folk. At least on paper. In practice, maybe not so much. Like the way a lot of modern leftists hate the Democratic party, historical Jesus could very easily have hated the Pharisees while aligning somewhat with their stated positions. That certainly comes through in the literary version of Jesus.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah I am going to reject this analogy right off the bat.

Also not sure why you are bringing the Sadducees into this. They were a rival sect not a political faction.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Political and religious faction was not that separated at the time. Or even now, for that matter.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You are allowed to back down from an argument btw.

No the analogy between Pharisees and Sadducees and DNC and GOP does not work.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You should maybe take your own advice on that one.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Can you please spend some effort in your responses instead of just little quips. You made a really bad analogy and you won't retract it or defend it. Me being a bad debate partner in your eyes at least doesn't mean you have to be worse.