Comment on Is there any real physical proof that Jesus christ ever existed?

• Eczpurt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Its easy to put bones together and say that it existed but there’s no way to guarantee “these are certified bones of Jim the stegosaurus, religious figure”

  source

  • BlowMe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Are you doubting about our Lord Jim the stegosaurus?

    source
  • fah_Q@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Hail Jim Tri dinos in one.

    source
• Tramort@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Bones prove you existed.

  But the absence of bones does not mean that you didn’t.

  source

  • SonicDeathTaco@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

    source
• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  That’s because there weren’t multiple people around to write down what they saw. You’re confusing paleontology and history. They have very different standards for proof.

  There are tons of historical figures for whom we have no physical evidence. But we have tons of written evidence from people who all experienced those people.

  source
• frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  History is known by:

  • Archæological evidence

  • Texts

  • Archæogenetics

  • Historical linguistics

  • Myth (euhemerism)

  • Maybe some others I’m forgetting

  Dino-history isn’t comparable to tthe literate Roman period.

  source

  • BlowMe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Yet we have dozens of proof about empires and people BEFORE Jesus. Like the Egyptians

    source

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The tone of this comment males it suddenly seem like you’re not asking a question but trying tp prove a point.

      source
    • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      The Egyptians also mummified their dead, preserving the corpses into the modern era. “Older” ≠ “more evidence”

      We have loads more records from the Romans than from the Norse for example, even though the Norse came later, because the Norse didn’t keep as many records as the Romans.

      source

      • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        There are 20th century figures whose historicity is disputed.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Which Egyptians are you referring to? We have lots of archæological proof of the Judaeans.

      source
    • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      People. Not person. There is HUGE difference.

      source
• gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  That’s prehistory. Everything we know about history comes from written accounts. Historians study written documents and argue whether or not the available evidence makes it more likely that something (or someone) was real or fiction. Most historians agree that

  source
• nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  We don’t have the bones of gengis khan either

  source
• frankPodmore@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Dinosaurs aren’t people.

  source

  • bastion@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    They are, in accordance with the teachings of Jim the Stegosaurus.

    source
• Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  The point is that you are asking the wrong question sort of. If we only accepted physical remnants of someone or their life to prove they exist, Jesus wouldn’t be the only one we would have to throw out.

  Not to say I know how to prove stuff historically, it does sort of seem like magic sometimes. If we found out today that carbon dating was off by a magnitude I would not be shocked, so that’s all the faith I have in it due to my bad understanding of it.

  source
• kokesh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  You won’t find fossilized Jesus, he apparently got resurrected and became wine & cookies, so some people started eating him on Sundays. And he doesn’t want us to say fuck, or shit, or do it in the butt. But that’s not really related to the question.

  source
• olafurp@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Archaeology in good at giving us clues about the living thing. References to people existing is almost purely based on text people wrote. The proof would be someone writing down “Chrestos, popular among the poor was crucified for his crimes for spreading heresy” as a contemporary. But since the earliest reference we have is a century after his death it’s not necessarily accurate or true.

  source