• MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    The Bible is a bunch of self-contradictory folk-tales. Which makes it useless in knowing any real Jesus. So, while one cannot say historical Jesus absolutely didn’t exist, one cannot cite the Bible as a credible source of any knowledge about him. One might as well contemplate historical Hercules.

    • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Did i ever cite the bible as that? I also think the bible has many inconsistencies and looking at concepts like trinity or Jesus as literal son of god being introduced hundreds of years later, are things i also disagree with.

      But i understand that theological differences are something different from scientific differences. And i think it is important to separate the two.

      Because scientific differences can be analyzed with repeatable tests and empirical evidence. Theological differences are either a simple matter of different faith or they can only be discussed in whether the theology is consistent in itself. But that again relies on certain axioms, like math relies on certain axioms or many social sciences need to use axioms because of the complexity of empirical information.