250
Catholic church canonises its first gamer saint, and one of his favourite games was Halo
(www.pcgamer.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
250 points (94.3% liked)
Not The Onion
18033 readers
817 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:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...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
view the rest of the comments
I'm guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this....
Yes... It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.
John did not write it.... He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You're working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.
From his own cadra of followers...... That's like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.
And all Christian text are non contradictory.....? There haven't been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn't adopted?
If John was, let's say 16 at the time of Jesus' crucifixion in 33 AD, then he'd be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe.
Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.
You've got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that's pretty damn close. Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.
Then there's Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.
You're the one working off of assumptions
So you're basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn't believe it happened? Don't you realise how silly of a proposition that is? That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you'll just cry "Christian interpolation", while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn't have written about it because "someone can't rise from the dead". We'd have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.
There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources? stating that the Church was "adopting everything someone wrote about Jesus"
Ahh yes, let's make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative...
"I'm not disputing the possibility of a scribe."
Eusebius's argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it's widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.
No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that's more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.
Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.
Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king's journal.
You're claiming the new testament that the new testament didn't first get passed down by oral tradition?
No, just saying that you can't use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.
I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?
Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone..... Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.
I'm saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It's not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.
In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a "wild assumption". ok.
You know what a scribe is... Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren't actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves.... And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦
Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150...
So like what Esebius wrote, and what was likely composed by Luke the Evangelist in his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles.
Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn't unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.
In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically "biased" by your definition. It's like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn't trust scientists or the scientific method - Any science you do show them they dismiss as "biased" because they don't trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they'd rationally be a Christian. You dismiss this as "biased" because they were a Christian. Or if someone who wasn't a Christian wrote something that did defend it, then it must be interpolated because of the "bias".
If the Gospels were biased, they wouldn't have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude's ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.
Irrational thinking. The argument for Christian interpolation is basically "Josephus couldn't have written it, as Jesus didn't rise from the dead"
Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.
What reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?
What makes you assume he's 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died.....
A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition.....
Clement was born in 150ad..... Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.
"is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus's teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels"
No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back....that would be a source from outside his fellowship.
Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?
You don't have to trust science, science is repeatable, it's self explanatory.... If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn't automatically think they're the son of God. I would rationally think it's a different dude posing as him, or that they didn't actually kill him.
If scientology was biased they wouldn't have bad stories about their leaders at the time.......
Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?
How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.
Because it didn't fit within church doctrine.
This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?
That's not what I was referring to at all. It would be silly to think I was in the context I was talking about John writing John.
The writer of John still identifies himself as being at the crucifixion and last supper anyway. That's a different debate over who wrote revelation.
Did you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a "no Christian apologists" rule which is impossible, because any historian who argues something that is pro Christianity, they are automatically labelled a "Christian apologist".
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston
Are these in actual Scientology "scriptures"?
So not the first....
And how did they establish doctrine?