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

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• MadBob@feddit.nl ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t think this answer is really in the spirit of “no stupid questions”.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ok, if you want me to sum up in a way that addresses it: Because the Jesus OP is very likely thinking of is fictional, there is no real physical proof of his existence.

    source
• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It doesn’t matter.

  I’d say the “Real Historical Jesus” matters at least as much as a Real Historical Julius Caeser or a Real Historical Abraham Lincoln.

  I always relate it to Ian Fleming having a schoolchum who’s father’s name was Ernst Stavro Bloefeld.

  That’s different in so far as Fleming was simply borrowing a name for a totally independent character. But Fleming was, himself, a Naval Commander and intelligence officer who leveraged his own biography to inform James Bond’s personal traits. What’s more, he borrowed heavily from the reports and anecdotes of other intelligence officials both during and after WW2 to inform the behaviors and attitudes of his side characters in his original novels.

  It actually is pretty interesting to talk about “The Real James Bond” from a historical standpoint, because British intelligence services were pivotal in maintaining the imperial and international financial controls necessary to run a globe-spanning empire.

  In the same vein, you might be curious to read about “The Real Julius Caeser” after working through the Shakespearean play or “The Real Abraham Lincoln” after getting through the stories where he’s a Vampire Hunter.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There’s nothing to read about when it comes to any real Joshua, son of Joseph the Carpenter of Nazareth because nothing has been written about such a person.

    source

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Quite a bit has been written on the possible siblings of Jesus.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Written while Jesus was still alive? If so, please present said writings. If not, that doesn’t really change my point.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Shanedino@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Listened through a history of rome podcast and learned an interesting thing where win was basically like a concentrate so you would mix it with water to drink. Aka. water -> wine.

  source

  • MagicShel@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So it wasn’t alcohol or anything remotely like what we would call wine today? That’s a bad translation.

    That said using reasoning like this to remove the supernatural from the Bible rather defeats the entire point, doesn’t it? If Jesus just made Gatorade like anyone else would, that’s a rather unremarkable thing to describe. Hardly worth committing to writing.

    source

    • Shanedino@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      1. I am sure there are countless mundane tasks that are pretty unremarkable.

      2. Does the Bible really have a point? I guess other than brainwashing masses?

      source

      • MagicShel@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s what I’m saying. There’s no record of him wiping his ass or playing cards. If it’s in the book it must be intended to present something exceptional. Explain his actions as something mundane and there isn’t really any reason to write it down.

        But equally, the fantastic supernatural elements make the whole thing into a fairy tale to be completely disregarded as a dubious source of folk wisdom at best by any thinking person.

        source
  • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It was common practice to dilute wine.

    source
  • xenoclast@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Isn’t that just port then?

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I hope not, because port is my wine of choice and I would be like, “fuck you, Jesus. I wanted to drink that!”

      source
• itsnotits@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  a schoolchum whose* father’s name

  source
• Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  His life is full of details that defy basic biological and physical laws.

  Which is perfectly sensible given that he was given the power to perform wonders by god to establish that he is indeed a messenger of god.

  The entire point of wonders is them defying the otherwise imposed limits of the physical world. Because the only one who can grant this power is the source of the physical limits themselves and that is god.

  This is logically consistent under the axiom that god exists. Which is what the scriptures are all about. You can set the axiom that god does not exist. But as there is no proof of that, it is equally axiomatic. So given that your logic works on an unproven assumption you should not use it to criticize a different logic based on another assumption.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    There’s nothing “perfectly sensible” about defying the laws of physics just because a book says he could.

    source

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Again you are making an assumption as the base of your logical construct.

      That assumption is that the “laws of physics” are absolute in the sense that you know them. This is already problematic from a scientific point of view because our understanding of what the “laws of physics” are were and are under a constant change.

      The scriptures are based on the axiom that god created everything including the laws of physics so when he chooses to, these laws can be defied. You can disagree with that axiom, but that does not mean that the logic is inconsistent.

      So if you want to be honest your argument is “I don’t believe the scriptures, so i don’t believe in Jesus” which is perfectly valid, but very different from “I know Jesus is impossible and i can prove it.”

      Maybe to make an example in science to wrap it all together. Before the invention of microscopes some doctors theorized about bacteria and viruses as the source of diseases. They often got ridiculed as “some invisible animals making us sick? Yeah you drank too much wine again” . Then the telescope came about and it could be seen what used to be unseeable for humans. Nowadays if you would claim there to be no bacteria you’d be rightfully ridiculed. But we also saw in human history that knowledge got lost and things that were established knowledge became bold theories subject to ridicule again.

      So being honest to science and human knowledge the valid position is “I don’t believe in Jesus like described in the bible, as it is inconsistent with what i can observe today, but i have no proof in either direction.”

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        No, I am assuming that a book written in the iron age was written by people with no knowledge of physics and I am also assuming, like every other iron age religious text, there’s no need to accept it as truth.

        Your whole “you can’t prove it isn’t true” argument is not how anything works. The burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, my claim is I have no reason to believe any of it is true based on modern physics. And telling me I can’t assume that the laws of physics work all the time doesn’t really compel me to think otherwise since I’ve never seen any modern documented account of the laws of physics not working.

        If your god wants me to believe he exists, he knows what he can do about it. I guess he’s fine not providing a shred of evidence he exists outside of an iron age book, which means I’m fine assuming he doesn’t exist.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • MagicShel@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        The Bible is a bunch of self-contradictory folk-tales. Which makes it useless in knowing any real Jesus. So, while one cannot say historical Jesus absolutely didn’t exist, one cannot cite the Bible as a credible source of any knowledge about him. One might as well contemplate historical Hercules.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • littlecolt@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It sure is convenient that they omnipotent and wise God decided to send his son to earth and perform wonders to prove he is the messenger of God long before humanity had advanced enough to create better records and spread that truth. I wonder why God has not wisely re-upped on this, given technological advancement, which God should be pretty caught up on.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Mjpasta710@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You’re making an incorrect assumption that says the burden of proof is not yours. I’m not making absurd claims about things that defy all logic and physical limits.

        You are. The burden is on you.

        Your invisible helper cannot carry this burden for you.

        …m.wikipedia.org/…/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Even with godly powers, you aren’t capable of contradictions.

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This person is currently trying to argue with me that it was definitely true that when iron age people wrote in a book that Jesus walked on water decades after the event supposedly took place, it really took place because quantum physics tells us more about the universe than Newtonian physics, therefore something? I’m not sure. Somehow that makes walking on water possible but I just don’t have the faith apparently.

      source
    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Can you elaborate what you mean by that?

      That god couldn’t change the rules he himself created according to the scriptures? That seems pretty consistent to me.

      source
• librejoe@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You go that way, I’ll goto Jesus!

  source

  • skeezix@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Pra ba jeeba

    source

    • librejoe@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Nobody got my joke.

      source