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

No Stupid Questions

35703 readers
3503 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
[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 54 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

It's weird how many people in this thread are vaguely debating the validity of the historical research into this question when one person has posted a link to a well cited article on this very very heavily studied subject.

There's even a link to a well cited article examining the skepticism of the historicity of Jesus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

I don't feel compelled to argue an interpretation. The facts are well documented and their interpretations by experts available. What anyone chooses to do with these are of no real concern to me.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 months ago

Yeah there are plenty of historians who have done good work studying this and the academia is mostly settled. Not to say there's no controversy, but there's definitely an orthodox opinion.

[–] dandroid@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In my experience, when it comes to debating the validity of religion, people tend to get far more emotional than other topics. People who are normally level-headed and quite logical tend to completely lose their ability to think rationally. And I mean both the people who argue for religion and against it.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 3 points 4 months ago

Pretty clear that's the case here in the comments on this post.

[–] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yep. This is one of those posts that should have just been a web search instead.

[–] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yep. This is one of those posts that should have just been a web search instead.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

A literature search. The web is full of rubbish.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It’s almost like Christian Scholars (people that have dedicated their entire lives to this idea) have access to write for Wikipedia too…

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

It’s almost like Christian Scholars (people that have dedicated their entire lives to this idea) have access to write for Wikipedia too…

The citations are from the same people we see over and over again on this topic (specifically on Wikipedia).

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I shouldn't bother responding to this, but I have to point out that this weird assumption that scholars of Christianity are all Christian partisans seems pretty similar to people who say that climatologists are all biased in favor of a global warming hoax.

You don't think anyone goes into studying a field to challenge the orthodoxy? That's the fastest way to get famous. Even if the rest of your field hates you, you can make an incredibly lucrative career out of being "the outsider". I literally linked to a collection of experts who agree with you.

If you don't believe the experts, I guess it's fine. But it's weird when people use expertise on a subject as proof of bias to discredit expertise. It's just such a silly thing to do.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think it’s a weird to assume the wiki-link that you posted is in support of the “Christ Myth Theory” (as they call it).

Read the contents of the wiki link you sent and check all of the citations, you’ll see that the Christian Scholars that contributed to writing the article aim to dismiss the theory by citing their own books.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 0 points 4 months ago

Kinda cringey.