Pan_Ziemniak @ Pan_Ziemniak @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

242

Joined

1 yr. ago

Idk... hed be an infinitelt usedul propaganda pawn.

"Look here, we have the former US president whos been treated soo unfairly by the American dictatorship."

And youd still have Dr. Facismo tweeting all his latest brain farts for the 20% of the country that will double down on his glorious eminence no matter what.

Historical science is still science. People study for years about not what happened, but how to know what happened happened. meanwhile you sit there and discredit it all. What im doing is hardly an appeal to authority, i am providing you a source of why i believe what i believe. You could just as easily dismiss any referal to studies done as an appeal to authority. What you are engaging in is not critical thinking, but conspiracy.

Jesus was one of a slew of people claiming to be the Jewish messiah at that time. He was also poor, and he has more references to his existence than one would reasonably expect him to have. It is to be expected that a figure that existed 2000 years ago would have the details of their life be in dispute, but every early account agrees on his baptism and crucifixion.

God reading comprehension is low. If that is your only criteria, you are going to find very few existing people. The amount of sources that corroborate each other, especially in the first century after his death, is more than any poor person from that time and place would ever be expected to have. The text I posted gives you examples of other figures generally taken to have existed that have no other mentions by contemporary sources.

The burden of proof here lies on you to find a reason why the body of sources that do exist, compounded by the scholarly work thats been published and peer reviewed on this topic, are for some reason to not be trusted. If there is a scientific consensus on something, then that is what should be taken for truth unless presented evidence to the contrary.

From the wiki article "Historocity of Jesus" that youve carefully ignored in other replies. Emphasis courtesy of the secular individual entitled, 'me.'

"The criterion of multiple attestation looks at the number of early sources that mention, and evaluates the reliability of those sources. To establish the existence of a person without any assumptions, one source from one author (either a supporter or opponent) is needed; for Jesus there are at least twelve independent sources from five authors in the first century from supporters and two independent sources from two authors from non-supporters.[29][note 8] There are Christian sources on the person of Jesus (the letters of Paul and the Gospels) and there are also Jewish and Roman sources (e.g. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and rabbinic tradition[which?]) that mention Jesus,[2][31][32][33] and there are also many apocryphal texts that are examples of the wide variety of writings from early Christianity. These additional sources are independent sources on Jesus's existence, and corroborate details found in other surviving sources as a "bedrock of historical tradition".[33][34] Contemporary non-Christian sources in the first and second century never deny the existence of Jesus,[35] and there is also no indication that Pagan or Jewish writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[36][37][33] Taking into consideration that sources on other first century individuals from Galilee were also written by either supporters or enemies as well, the sources on Jesus cannot be dismissed.[29][38]

[...]

Historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, can help assess what type of sources can be reasonably expected in the historical record for individuals like Jesus. For instance, Justin Meggitt argues that since most people in antiquity left no sign of their existence, especially the poor, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus's socio-economic status.[52] Ehrman argues that the historical record for the first century was so lacking that no contemporary eyewitness reports for prominent individuals such as Pontius Pilate or Josephus survive.[53] Theissen and Merz observe that even if ancient sources were to be silent on any individual, they would not impact their historicity since there are numerous instances of people whose existence is never doubted and yet were not mentioned by contemporary authors. For instance, Paul is not mentioned by Josephus or non-Christian sources; John the Baptist is not mentioned by Paul, Philo, or rabbinic writings; Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by Josephus - despite him being a Pharisee; Bar Kochba, a leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans is not mentioned by Dio Cassius in his account of the revolt.[54] With at least 14 sources by believers and nonbelievers within a century of the crucifixion, there is much more evidence available for Jesus than for other notable people from 1st century Galilee.[55] Non-Christian sources do exist and they corroborate some details of the life of Jesus that are also found in New Testament sources.[33] Historian Michael Grant argues that when the New Testament is analyzed with the same criteria used by historians on ancient writings that contain historical material, Jesus's existence cannot be denied anymore than secular figures whose existence is never questioned.[56

[...]

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine were written in a span of a decade starting in the late 40s (i.e., approximately 20 to 30 years after the generally accepted time period of Jesus's death) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.[40] Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus[70] and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person[note 13] and a Jew.[71][72][73][74][note 14] Moreover, he interacted with eyewitnesses of Jesus since he wrote about meeting and knowing James, the brother of Jesus[75][note 15][note 10] and Jesus's apostles Peter[77][note 16] and John.[79] Additionally, there are independent sources (Mark, John, Paul, Josephus) affirming that Jesus actually had brothers.[80] Craig A. Evans and Ehrman argue that Paul's letters are among the earliest sources that provide a direct link to people who lived with and knew Jesus since Paul was personally acquainted with Peter and John, two of Jesus's original disciples, and James, the brother of Jesus.[46][77] Paul's first meeting with Peter was around 36 AD.[77] Paul is the earliest surviving source to document Jesus' death by crucifixion and his conversion occurred two years after this event.[40] Paul mentioned details in his letters such as that Jesus was a Jew, born of the line of David, and had biological brothers.[40] According to Simon Gathercole, Paul's description of Jesus's life on Earth, his personality, and family tend to establish that Paul regarded Jesus as a natural person, rather than an allegorical figure.[81]

[...]

Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other; that is, the Jewish sources do not draw upon the Roman sources. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.[82][83][84][85] From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate's governorship.[33] Josephus and Tacitus agree on four sequential points: a movement was started by Jesus, he was executed by Pontius Pilate, his movement continued after his death, and that a group of "Christians" still existed; analogous to common knowledge of founders and their followers like Plato and Platonists.[86] Jesus is referenced by Josephus twice, once in Book 18 and once in Book 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, written around AD 93 to 94. On the first reference, the general scholarly view holds that the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, in Book 18 most likely consists of an authentic nucleus that was subjected to later Christian interpolation or forgery.[87][88] On the second reference, Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman states that "few have doubted the genuineness" of the reference found in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".[89][90][91][92] Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[93] describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.[94] The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[95][96][97]

After he croaks itll be, "Trump gave us..." which id argue is infinitely stupider than believing an unseen, unprovable entity being behind Sr. Racismo.

Im imagining levitating Herbert Hoover.

I just wanna be there when they drop the "T" off of it first..

Ive no idea why this is downvoted. This is not a bad take.

I would personally frame it as, greed is a feature of capitalism, not a bug, but ur not wrong either.

Wow, that is the best chart of all time!

You can have genocide in Gaza, or you can have genocide in Gaza and ("stepping-stone") Ukraine. Its an unfortunate choice, but an important one nonetheless. If im harping on a moot point to you bc you already know this, rest assured i say this for all other readers as well. Your votes down ballot are also extremely valuable. This primary there was a referendum in my county that I was in favor of that passed by less than 100 votes.

Yeah... actually. I know, craziness. But its true. Everyone drinks from the wrong cup of kool aid at the party eventually. We need to have empathy and sympathy for those led astray.

That was answering the first question, anyway. For the second, id say a resound, "fuck no!" but that unfortunately doesnt negate the answer to the first question :(

russiansslowlygivingastandingovationtorocky.gif

Theyre already unappealing to most voters we just need to make sure enough of those show up in just the right spots.

Looking at u rust belt.....

I can hear KMSpico in my head already...

I member... i learned of it from a vsauce video i watched when it first dropped. Was mindblown years later when ppl were touting the flat earth society seriously. Their tagline was literally, "We Have Members Around the Globe!"

I think he mispelled "Bitch Hunt." Must be

I expected as much

Ahh. Trans exclusionary raging fascist. k

Holy shit!!

please set a precedent, please set a precedent, please set a precedent

Had a coworker say some shit about encountering some "slur ive never heard before and dont care to remember. I looked confused so he clarified, "a man who looks like a woman." The speaker is someone im on good terms with, so when i countered, "u know im friends with trans folk, right?" they immediately backed off with, "oh i know, i meant they didnt even look good though."

I was pretty satisfied with how quickly they went back on what they were saying and began implying theres nothing wrong with being different, so i let off pressure, but the way this guy said the comment on looking good stuck out. My immediate thought was, oh, youre into t-girls, are uncomfortable about it, and doubly so when they encounter a t-woman they arent into.

They dont get real world experience with trans people, so theyre almost like objects or at best npcs to them. Trans people are made up of those they wamna fuck, and those theyd rather not existed.

Note, this guy is hardly the first such type to back off on trans stuff. If youre in regular contact with them, largely affirm their own experience of going thru life, its shockingly not too hard to get many to swing the other way. In groups tho, ur fucked. Youve no chance, and if u get into a group, like we see on the national level, they get defensive, and double down. Most of these ppl dont hold these beliefs as near and dear as the bible thumping redneck whose not traveled beyond 15 miles away from their home that we tend to inagine them as. Most are simply criminally undersocialized.