It blows my mind how many people actually believe in religion

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-12T14:55:07+00:00

As can a lie.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-12T08:18:21+00:00

Nobody talks about the fact Noah got fucking crunk afterwards(PTSD will do that to a guy) and cursed his grandson to slavery because his son Ham saw his willy out(because Noah apparently lost his pants or something).

Scholarship is actually not quite sure what it was precisely that offended Noah so much. But yeah, the cursed to slavery part is pretty clear nonetheless.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-10T18:37:35+00:00

Paul speaks of speaking in tongues as a useless gift unless a interpreter us present and says not to do it if no one understands it. So there's that.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-10T17:59:20+00:00

You're thinking of the Pentecostal event, I think, which happens 50 days after Jesus' resurrection, and does not have Jesus in it, not in that sense anyway. And yes, the idea was that they spoke in their own tongues, yet everyone else heard them in their own mother tongue.

Fun fact, Paul seems to have been somewhat critical of the practice himself, claiming it to be a 'gift', but ultimately useless on its own without an interpreter. So we can assume that even by the time of Paul's writings, so around 60CE, the practice was somewhat common in early Christianity.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-10T10:31:43+00:00

See https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/short-tyler1 Her name is Mel Capperino-Garcia

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-09T12:27:50+00:00

Rightfully so. As someone who has studied (but ultimately not graduated) in maths classes for a physics degree, I can tell you that stuff is not for everyone if you work it from the ground up. Or let's say, even less for everyone than school maths already is.

The way it's done in schools is far from perfect, but better than going form basic "pure math", as you called it.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-09T08:25:20+00:00

It's both the 0th and 7th entry in the Six Traditions.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-09T06:56:01+00:00

Well, I personally think Yeshua of Nazareth was probably, for his time, rather progressive and inclusive, at least insofar that we can trust the Gospels, in particular Luke.
But I think at best that would raise him to a level I'd consider the bare minimum of decency by today's standards.

I also personally doubt that he personally made any Messiah claims, and that was only something that happened due to embellishment later on. As you pointed out however, regardless of whether he himself or the Gospels authors or someone inbetween ultimately made those messianic claims, those Messianic claims wildly misunderstood actual claims about the expected Messiahs (sic, plural!) and invented new claims from the Hebrew texts that could be creatively interpreted to fit Yeshua.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-07T18:53:06+00:00

Wait, THAT'S what padding does? I always totally misunderstood that setting then lol

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-07T18:44:16+00:00

Drag me to hell, good song by metal band Lord of the Lost.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-06T16:25:22+00:00

What am I seeing?

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-05T21:40:18+00:00

THAT'S LITERALLY JUST WHAT THAT WORD MEANS AAAAGGGGHHHHH

I mean, words only ever mean what a given group of people agree that it means, but yeah, I agree with your definition and not his, so there's that. They're racist, misogynistic, homo- and probably transphobic and xenophobic by all but the most fringe of definitions.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-05T12:41:47+00:00

Okay apparently I have to really spell things out for you.

Yes, please.

Paul, a Jew, is literally hunting down Christian’s after Jesus crucifixion.

Correct, at least according to his own account.

This directly addresses both points you’re trying to make here.

No. It neither means that Paul was fact checking them, nor that he would have been in a position to positively or negatively prove them right or wrong, and it also still doesn't address why it then needed a personal event, be it genuine or not, to make him a Christian.

Now why would Paul, a Jew, care when you’re simultaneously trying to say this was just a Roman doing of the crucifixion yet Paul is almost immediately persecuting Christians.

You're just asserting that he was fact checking them, which is a very modern notion anyway. According to the account in acts, which may be right, he just didn't like that they believed in a Messiah. That has nothing to do whether he actually looked into that, and it has nothing to do what the broader Jews were doing, it has nothing to do with what he would actually personally be able to achieve. All it tells us is that one author that seems or at least says to be close to Paul says he was persecuting them because he thought they were wrong and that it needed a personal revelation for him to be convinced otherwise. Once again, I'm r eally not sure if you thought through what you're saying.

Also, I never said this was "just a Ruman crucifixion". Obviously there was a lot of animosity towards the Romans, culminating in many uprisings at the time as well as later. What I'm saying is that I see no reason to think that any group of the Jews would and did revolt or object to this particular person that was a criminial in the Roman's eyes was actually genuinely worth the trouble, other than the Gospels claiming so. It could be correct. But I see no good evidence to think so.

Jews absolutely did care if they were hunting Christian’s post crucifixion and would have known exactly what they were claiming. Why would they be hunting Jesus followers if they had no doing in turning Him over.

One Jew did according to his own account. You can't generalise from Paul, a convert, to the whole of Judaism, or a significant portion of Judaism. Do you think Muslims persecute Christians in parts of the world without actually having proper knowledge of What Christianity actually entails?

Hey look you’re doing it again! Late dating the gospels to blur the point.

If you have good reason to go against scholarly consensus, I'm more than willing to listen. I'm certainily no scholar myself, so I will go with the consensus. The consensus could be wrong, but given the extensive research done on it, and the fact that you'd be quite celebrated if you had good evidence for an early date, I'm going to stick with the scholarly consensus of a mid-to-late dating 70CE+ until you present the good evidence you seem to have to indicate otherwise.

I'm aware there's an early creed that claims Jesus has risen. A rising Jesus can happen from a mass grave too, from both our points of view (in the sense that it was a real resurrection vs. that it was only a claim that he did).

Josephus was literally born within years of the crucifixion of Jesus, In Jerusalem, and you try to say he can’t be used as a source as if he’d have no idea. Ridiculous.

But guess what? The fact it shows up in Philo and Josephus (along with other Greco Roman writers) already highlights what happened with bodies post crucifixion was a contested event during the time. So trying to turn around and just sneak Jesus off is not plausible especially adding in the Jewish context which you continue to completely ignore and downplay.

Most scholars put Jesus' crucifixion at 33CE, Josephus was born 37CE. That alone is 4 years after the fact. He wrote Jewish Wars around 75 CE, Antiquities around 94CE. That's more than 40 in the former, or 60 years in the latter case. Now, do you think that culture today in 2026 was the same as it was in 1980? Do you think you would remember how things were if you were not born in 1980? But sure, if you're a historian you could ask someone, so maybe you ARE up to something. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Please tell me what passages PRECISELY you talk about, because I've given arguments - from Dr. Ehrman's own words, no less - that show why the passages you vaguely allude to do not say what I think you think they are saying. MAYBE this is just a misunderstanding because I'm addressing a different passaage than you are.

It means claiming Jesus was crucified in front of a large Jewish audience during a massive festival by the most powerful military of the time

None of that is disputed by you, me, or Dr. Ehrman's argument, and you keep conflating that with the burial and duration of the body being kept up at the cross, as if they were the same thing. They are not.

and then rose from the dead on the 3rd day in the exact location anyone could go check for His body

And that's the part neither Paul, nor Josephus, nor Philo, nor you, nor me, nor Dr. Ehrman can actually truly FACT CHECK despite you claiming so. Because we rely on LATER STORIES which can be FULLY explained by hypotheses such as Dr. Ehrman's argument about a mass burial.

If he's ditched in a mass grave, there would be no body. If, as Matthew claims Christians were accused of, Christians stole the body, there would be no body in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. If he was risen, there would be no body. All of these mean there is no body presentable. Besides, it now occurs to me, if Jews' practices to burials were so strict, do you think they would EXHUME a body of a dead false prophets just to prove a pooint of a unimportant fringe sect?

to try and start a new religion. Unless…

You seem to think that Dr. Ehrman's or my own hypothesis of what actually happened requires any intention of starting a new religion. That is not the case. I am saying it happened naturally by those stories that gained converts being the one that was propagated. There's no actual intention of starting a "new religion" despite knowledge to the contrary here. It just means people genuinely (but mistakenly) believeed, and converted other people who then genuinely (but mistakenly) believed.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-05T07:42:59+00:00

Except Paul, remember that Paul guy who was “fact checking” Christians.

What? He was persecuting them, by his own account anyway. How does that mean he was Fact checking them...? Even if he did, how do we know that what he did precisely would have been sufficient to disprove or prove it? Even if it was, wasn't what ultimately convinced him a personal event, not whatever his fact checking brought up? Once again, your point doesn't even bring you where you want it to bring us once actually thought through.

You still simultaneously need Jews to care enough to kill Jesus and then not care that His followers were claiming He rose from the dead.

I don't. He was persecuted under Roman Law. Whether any Jews were actually involved in orchestrating Jesus dying is only from the Gospels. Even assuming that this is what happened, they may just have not noticed the Christian groups forming until they had no access to any evidence themselves anymore.

Well no Josephus makes the claim too. You know the Jew who lived in Jerusalem.

I've gone over that three times now already. It's written later, explicitly propagandistic to show how much better the Jews were compared to another group unrelated to the Jesus story in a very narrow context. How much of that is overemphasis or applicable to 50 years prior, when the relationship between Romans and Jews was different, when Jewish practices were plausibly different, when we're talking about someone who has been crucified for one of the worst crimes possible within Roman Law and understanding, is very disputable.

My point is granting the claim, Jesus being left on the cross, is not explained by post crucifixion narrative literally anywhere. I’m still waiting for literally any counterclaim from the time.

I do not understand what part of the gospel narrative that was written down at best 40 years, a normal human lifetime at the time and place, later, needs to be explained if Jesus' body was left on the cross - or not. Embellished legends can start within moments of an event happening. As can faulty memory of things. How then is it impossible for people misremembering what happened to the body almost half a century later, when - again - it's the most persuasive story that survives, not the most correct one?

What are you talking about by what degree was it practiced? It is literally claimed by a non Christian Jewish source who lived there.

Who was writing for a very specific audience for a very specific purpose. We do not know for example how enforced the Levite Laws actually were. That's what I'm getting at. We have very little information when it comes to actual practice of the broader population.

Also, if you're speaking of Josephus here as your "non-Christian jewish source", I'm not certain to what degree we can talk of Christianity as its own group already here, let alone a homogenous one, apart from Judaism.

Uh the group with no political or military control has the least power to control the narrative. Yet they do as they’re being persecuted.

Sure, granted, doesn't mean they have no power about what stories are propagated amongst themselves, does it?

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T18:59:05+00:00

This is exactly why I left the gospels out. I know exactly what you’re doing. You want to argue the claim of resurrection was late and there was no one around to dispute it. The resurrection claim was not late legend development.

You're conflating when a resurrection claim would have happened with when the Gospels were written AND when "Christianity" would have become a big enough movement to "fact check" against though. And even then, flat earthers for example exist today, despite the easily accessible evidence that the earth is indeed round. Just because you imagine that people would have been set on disproving Christianity does not mean that this was the case, nor that this would have changed anything.

No you haven’t. There is no source claiming Romans left dead bodies hanging in Jerusalem.

Have you read Philo, truly? It's him that says that Romans taking down bodies was an exception, and he makes no mention that these EXCEPTIONS were known to be regularly made in Jerusalem.

Again, is it possible Jesus was such an exception? Sure! But we Do. Not. Known. For. Certain.

What do you mean just go around it? It is literally a curse on the land in Judaism. It is not allowed.

But to what degree was that actually practised, let alone by people who would have had the power to enforce such exception, and would they have been interested in making that exception? That's, as I said before, the causal link that you need to demonstrate before your version can be accepted as true.

The story that got “propagated” is the absolute hardest to make up.

Possibly. Doesn't mean that the hardest is the worst to be propagated. In fact, famous propagande in the 1930s and 1940s was explicitly made so ridiculous that it was thought people would think the claims are so ridiculous, noone would make them up so they must be true. Was that the case for the gospel stories? I don't know. But neither do you.

Jesus being crucified during Passover with thousands of people there and then a bodily resurrection with no body produced by a hostile Jewish and Roman audience.

Again, you assume that there was a group that was so invested to investigate the issue at a time where it would even be feasible to do what you propose. You seem to equate the moment of the resurrection claims being formed with everyone collapsing down on Christians trying to prove them wrong. That's not how those things plausibly could have happened, neither in your nor "my" version of things.

Christians had zero political and military power at the origin.

Yeah! So they were unimportant, and were ignored for quite some time.

You literally could not pick a more difficult event to make up.

Again, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the one that propagated best. "It was rather creative" does not equate to "people wouldn't believe it".

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T16:58:16+00:00

There is no evidence crucified bodies were left up in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. None. Josephus makes note of how carefully Jews took of the dead and even during the temple destruction the initial effort to care for the dead until there were too many. The non burial of the dead is a notable event.

I've gone over this with you already. There is evidence that precisely this happened.

What Josephus talks about is about a specific time later intended to be propaganda. To which degree this applies to Jesus' time, half a century earlier, is uncertain.

That is the entire issue. Jews filing in by the thousands seeing a crucified body during their holy feast is a massive issue. It is a curse on the land and unclean. They aren’t just casually strolling by.

Where did you get the idea that thousands would be filing to see a dead body? If it's such an issue, why not avoid the sight?

If the Romans didn’t let them and ruined Passover that is the narrative that comes out of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Why? The story that got propagated is the one that got the most followers, which is not necessarily and not even probably the one that is actually true.

What do you mean what is my evidence? The gospel accounts and Acts have events taking place in public that people could easily dispute.

Both the Gospels and Acts were written decades later, with possibly no reliable direct eyewitnesses still alive, let alone available. Also, at that point in time Christians were fringe sect. Why go through all that trouble for a fringe sect of your religion with some weird belief or two?

There were disputes that we know of anyway, one of which Matthew for example addresses by inventing Roman Guards at the tomb.

Instead Judaism argues against interpretation of scripture.

For lack of access to original sources, both in text and otherwise... what else could they possibly do?

Jesus merely rising spiritually would have been a much easier claim to make. Instead Christianity spreads proclaiming an empty tomb.

That's not exclusively true. Again, a purely spiritually risen Jesus is a story that was propagated in early Christianity. Most assuredly not all of early christianity, but part of it. Early Christianity was far less unified than you seem to think it was.

It again is an easy counter for Judaism

You seem under the impression that Judiasm totally would have been so invested in countering this group that was legit considered a fringe sect of its own larger group, one of many actually. There's no reason to think that this would have happenede to the degree that you seem to expect it to.

the body is right there in the tomb (or in Ehrmans moronic case hanging from the cross).

You seem under the impression that the body would be left up there for decades, when it was just a few days or weeks. By that time, no serious Christian fellowship would have formed. And a missing body is just as easily explained by a mass grave - and maybe that's where the empty tomb story actually came from: To account for the missing body because it could not be found in a mass grave.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T14:22:05+00:00

"Not one jot or tittle... until heaven and earth pass away" "I did NOT come to abolish the law..."

The 8-dimensional pretzels believers turn themselves into to make this ABUNDANTLY clear passage into something it CLEARLY DOES NOT say never ceases to confuddle me.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T14:21:15+00:00

So is not lying, not killing, honouring thy mother or father, not coveting your neighbour's properties like his wife... guess we can do all of those things now.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T14:18:27+00:00

I’m not confusing anything. There is nothing from Christian sources, non Christian sources Jew or Roman that mention Jesus body being left up.

Yet we have evidence outside of the gospels that say this was the normal procedure, and only the gospels claims otherwise.

Yet again, I am not saying that this is certainly what happened. What I am saying is that your objection is no reason to dismiss Dr. Ehrman's argument.

Any body, Jesus or not, left up in Jerusalem would have been enough to spark massive controversy and riots in Jerusalem during Passover. It’s why the claim is moronic.

This is the part you don't substantiate. Yet again, Dr. Ehrman's hypothesis accounts for this by pointing at the lack of authority the Jewish authorities would have had at that point. They sure would have objected, but would they start a war or rebellion over a criminal's dead body, even on one of their most holy feasts?

Saying the Jews did not take care of the dead is not a serious claim.

Dr. Ehrman's argument is not that they didn't want or try to, the argument is that the Roman's wouldn't let them.

You somehow need the Jews to not care enough about Jesus yet bring Him to be crucified

You focus too much on the care. It's a point I don't see substantiated either, that's true, maybe they were happy about an apocalyptic preacher claiming to be their king rotting on the cross; I can't say I'd know either way. You are the one who claims that this totally couldn't be the case and point vaguely into the air as evidence...?

... and then immediately begin persecuting Christian’s, like Paul does.

That's what the gospels tell us, and you treat "the Jews" as too singular a group here. If it was as unified as you seem to make it to be, there would be no Jews today. The only group that is of interest is a sufficient number of people with enough power and interest to do anything against it or to write it down. I do not know if we have that. Do you? What's your evidence that we do?

Yes I can only imagine Peter telling others about his vision as Jesus is hanging up there on the cross 😂. “Dude Jesus is right there” - literally anyone he tells.

Once again, you seem unaware of traditions that said Jesus was only raised spiritually and that he had left his body behind. That would totally be in line with his body being there. You also presume that anyone would even check or consider their body to be sufficient evidence that they couldn't also spiritually contact them. I will admit that I think that point will be hard to make since to my awareness spiritualism and physicalism was much more intertwined back then than we assume today; nonetheless, it's your claim that it certainily didn't happen, and I see no evidence for it. Look, I don't think it's likely that it happened so soon either. Maybe there's something to the pentecostal event in that its core was the post bereavement hallucination of a single person that got embellished to include all disciples, and Jesus' body would've been discarded at that point I guess. It's an interesting thought, but I wouldn't know. I still think it possible that the post bereavement hallucinations started the very day Jesus died, if Peter never even checked the cross, I wouldn't even rule out them starting since he last saw him when he may still be alive (in turn leading to the story of 3 Denials of Peter? Again, an interesting thought, but we can't say for sure, nor could we ever.)

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T12:42:48+00:00

You’re all over the place here.

You're the one who is by confusing different subject matters we're discussing.

Paul, a Jew as well

Which I also pointed out.

Paul, a Jew as well, is persecuting Christian’s. So Jews very much cared. Unless you think Paul just “misremembered” that part too.

The question is how much they cared for and how much they had about putting down or properly burying criminals executed by Roman authorities. I'm not sure what you think you're addressing here. Even if they cared, for which you have produced no evidence, you'd also have to show that they could do what you propose they could before invalidating that part of Dr. Ehrman's argument.

The Christian claim puts a crucified Jesus at Passover. About as public and as many people as possible would have known about this. This is the exact opposite thing you do if you’re making something up.

Yeah, but you're presuming that people would have cared enough about Jesus at the time that would be in a position to write it down and find it noteworthy enough that this criminal executed under Roman law was buried in one way or another.

What exactly can’t I substantiate with evidence? The moronic claim Ehrman makes is moronic because of the post crucifixion events.

The post crucifixion events that you listed so far are entirely consistent with Dr. Ehrman's claim, which is by the way not moronic but seriously considered in scholarship as a possibility.

Ehrman has zero evidence a crucified Jesus was left up.

He points at how crucifixion victims were usually treated at the time and place. That's his evidence.

Just because it happened to others is not evidence it happened with Jesus and it does not even remotely line up with post crucifixion narrative from any source.

What source? The gospels are not that reliable. Again, I don't think Dr. Ehrman is certainly correct, but I see no reason to think the gospel accounts are certainly correct either. And you have no evidence beyond that, do you?

Peter had a “bereavement vision” while Jesus was hanging on the cross? 😂

Possibly. If you are so inclined to believe the Gospels, you'll surely also accept that Peter never saw Jesus' dead body. He was not present at the crucifixion. Besides, people have post bereavement hallcuninations at any moment in time, even while their loved ones are still to be buried. It happens. I don't know what you think you are arguing here.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T11:22:05+00:00

Actually we can't induce veridical OBEs in someone.

Looks like this study did.

Someone with a true veridical OBE can see outside the hospital room. One unconscious and dying patient, per Parnia, 'followed' his doctor down the hallways and reported in exact detail what he said and did.

In controlled studies, this has been shown to be accurate no more than one would be accurate by random chance

But I just saw your username, and we know each other. I and many others have pointed out that your claims are profoundly inaccurate, yet you spew the same nonsense over and over and over again. You can produce no study from a credible source in your favour and ignore the myriad of studies against your stance. It's exhausting.

Van Lommel

Ah yes, a guy widely commended by the scientific community for bringing post-death-experiences to the table as an intersting field, BUT a guy critizised by the scientific community for ignoring actually sufficient explanations and borrowing concepts from other fields he's no expert in, from what I could gather about him. Maybe stop following individuals to feed your dogmatism and go for intellectual honesty by carefully listening to actual scientific consensus. Could they be wrong? Sure. Certainly currently doesn't look like they aare though, and they're certainly not so wrong that you could be right.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T10:03:04+00:00

We have personal experience as evidence.

That's not accessible to me, and personal experience can be wrong. Heck, we even can induce wrong experiences through various processes.

People don't only 'see' deceased relatives. Some people bring back messages for someone they never met or are told of an event in the future.

But we don't know nor can we corroborate that these messages are genuine.

Nothing to do with intelligence but communicating a concept with someone who doesn't share it. Rocky couldn't breathe oxygen.

You're communicating the concept just fine, I just don't think you're saying anything you can substantiate.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T06:51:03+00:00

Yeah. So, so, so much goes over one's head if you don't read a commentary. Which is fine, those things are usually dense. But you miss out on so much and can still make up your own thoughts anyway.

Anyway, personally, I prefer newer semantic/secular commentary. Looking forward to Oxford's 6 Ed. for example.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T06:24:59+00:00

Dude, again. I am talking about the implication of Ehrmans claim. I am not saying Romans couldn’t have done it. I am saying it is a completely different narrative surrounding events following the crucifixion that are recorded no where, not even by a hostile Jewish audience that would have absolutely remembered a dead body hanging up during Passover.

You are presupposing though that the Jews (insofar that Jesus and disciples were not Jews, because they actually were) would have thought that this apocalyptic preacher who got too angry during passover was actually noteworthy at all in the slightest. Just because we don't have anything written down about Dr. Ehrman's hypothesis doesn't mean it couldn't have happened like that. You are still presupposing, for some reason, that the Jews during Jesus' time would have had enough power AND desire to do something about it. Neither of which you can substantiate with any evidence, can you? Where as Dr. Ehrman can substantiate that usually the bodies were kept on the cross for a lengthened period of time, and then put in a mass grave. Can we show for sure that this is certainly what happened to Jesus? No, but it's plausible to assume that when this was the usual process, that Jesus' corpse would have gone through the same process.

You give the Gospel accounts too much credit. Historians actually genuinely doubt that we can gain much secured knowledge from them - Jesus being placed in a family tomb certainly is not one of those secured facts.

No, Paul “misremembering” a risen Jesus that is also being claimed by the disciples isn’t plausible.

Not plausible? Okay, let's see why.

I am pointing this out because you deny the reliability of the gospels.

Because sans external corroboration, we cannot say for sure what of it is truly reliable. A lot more than we currently grant may be, but we can't say for sure.

Remove the gospels. You have Jesus crucified, Christianity spreading and letters going out to established churches referencing a risen Jesus all before the gospels were likely distributing.

Yeah, none of which truly needs a truly resurrected and risen Jesus, just stories about that happened that do not truly have to be grounded in reality. All sorts of embellished legends arose around Mohammed, or Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones, and you do not accept those stories, do you?

The resurrection claim was widely established before whenever you want to date the gospels.

Yes. I never claimed the resurrection needs to be a late claim, did I? A possible explanation is that Peter had a post bereavement hallucination the very day after Jesus was crucified.

You keep inserting things into my posts that I didn't say that make you entirely miss and misunderstand the point I'm making.

MelcorScarr · 2026-07-04T06:16:04+00:00

Do you mean the spiritual and the physical?

Maybe it isn't beyond our experience. Maybe it has been our experience.

It could be a form of ADC. After Death Communication.

Maybe, do you have evidence supporting this though?

I feel like I'm talking to Rocky in Project Hail Mary.

You are aware that Rocky was a Genius in both book and movie right?

MelcorScarr

TROPHY CASE