this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
250 points (90.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35868 readers
1532 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
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There was a Paul that lived in Midwest America

Is that proof he had a big blue ox?

Like, you know the Romans were pretty big fans of crucifying people for pretty much anything?

Like, we have that elusive physical evidence that 6,000 of Sparticus' followers were crucified...

There's a pretty good chance at least one of those guys was named Jesus too mate, it was a pretty common name

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There was a Paul that lived in Midwest America Is that proof he had a big blue ox?

I do not understand.

Like, we have that elusive physical evidence that 6,000 of Sparticus’ followers were crucified…

Go on then. Show us the evidence.

There’s a pretty good chance at least one of those guys was named Jesus too mate, it was a pretty common name

Not all the texts use that name. Some say Christus or Chrestus, ha-Notzri, Yeshu, ben Stada or ben Pandera.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do not understand

That is clear.

Go on then. Show us the evidence.

You want me to physically show you? Like roll up to your house with it?

Can't I just give you a link that provides the info about it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome

And you definitely didn't understand that last bit you quoted...

You haven't understood all of this.

I get it man, you have "faith" but that's not evidence.

It doesn't mean anything

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I get it man

You don't

you have “faith”

I don't.

that’s not evidence

The evidence we're talking about is the textual references in Pliny etc.

Say we have a textual reference like this: "In the year of the consulship of Caius Vipstanus and Caius Fonteius, Nero deferred no more a long meditated crime. Length of power had matured his daring, and his passion for Poppaea daily grew more ardent.".... would you say that a person called Caius Vipstanus existed from that evidence?


I think we are in agreement on the major points:

  1. "There’s a Jesus that got crucified, but no mention about him being able to perform miracles"

  2. We know this from somewhat later annals. The texts are closer in the timeline to the historical figure than in the case of Diarmait mac Cerbaill, and are more numerous.

  3. We share a general contempt for Christians and Christianity.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You just made up #2 and apparently don't know what contemporary means...

But I don't think explaining is going to help.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

What are you driving at bringing up the semantics of 'contemporary'??

The only time that word was used was when you said (incorrectly), "That is contemporary literary evidence of his existence." – the annals are centuries after the 6th-century reign of Diarmait at Tara. We don't have any 6th-century manuscripts. The situation in the Roman Empire is quite a bit better, lots of texts.

Would you say that a person called Caius Vipstanus existed because Tacitus mentioned him in his annals a few decades later? Isn't that valid inference from the text?