this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
65 points (92.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34964 readers
530 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There's a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles

Obviously miracles aren't real. I wasn't claiming otherwise. We're talking about whether or not the person Jesus existed, not if magic is real.

It sounds like we agree

I don't think any of it was written till decades after he supposedly died tho...

Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

To borrow your asinine LOTR analogy, it is more like you are claiming Thorinn Oakenshield never existed simply because Bilbo only wrote "There and Back Again" after he got home from memory.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If your only requirement is that a man once existed by the name of Jesus and was crucified, then the bar is on the floor. Jesus was not a rare name, and the Romans crucified many, many people. It is not out of the realm of possibility that these two common data points would overlap and give us a crucified Jesus.

Is there proof that it was THE Jesus though? Do we have corroborating evidence of a man travelling the countryside with his posse, changing the minds and hearts of the masses?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

I feel like there's some room for Occam's Razor here. Is it more likely that dozens of people got together and agreed to start a cult centred around a fictional person that they were all going to agree existed? Or that the guy actually did exist? Like why would all the people who say they followed him around lie about that but also be on the same page about so many details of him?

Like, we know the posse existed, so why is it a stretch that the guy they all went on to turn into a religion was really there in the middle of it all?

To be clear (and I can't believe I have to say this, but there are some idiots in this thread) I'm not claiming magical miracles are real, just that there was a real dude in the middle of that posse that those followers went on to turn into a religion.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay but it was written by people who claim they were there and met him personally.

Not really, and definitely not the 1/3 you were claiming...

Like, where are you getting any of this?

It sounds like what they teach at one of those "bible colleges"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A bunch of the books in the new testament are letters written by Jesus's followers. We can't prove whether they really are that, but they all agree that a dude named Jesus existed. If a bunch of people all wrote about a guy they knew, and most of the details match, that guy probably was real.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A bunch of the books in the new testament ~~are~~ claim to be letters written by Jesus’s followers

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not arguing with that. You're just nitpicking semantics because you have lost this argument. Literally the very next sentence after the one you quoted I qualified that by saying it's debatable.