• PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Also worth noting that numbers in the Bible are largely symbolic. Most people couldn’t actually count beyond 5 or 10. Small numbers tend to be specific; God took 7 days to create the world, for instance. But for larger numbers, they tended to abstract them because people couldn’t count. Shepherds would add pebbles to a basket for every sheep that went out to pasture in the morning. And when they returned in the evening, the shepherd would remove pebbles. If they had any stones left in the basket afterwards, they knew they were missing sheep. But that’s not the same as being able to count their sheep. They didn’t know exactly how many sheep were in their flock; They just knew when one got lost.

      So numbers in the Bible aren’t meant to be taken literally. The number 40 pops up a lot in the Bible. Moses wandered the desert for 40 years. It rained for 40 days during Noah’s flood. Jesus fasted for 40 days after his baptism. Et cetera… 40 was just representing a very large number. Too large for the average person to count, but still small enough that you could fit 40 of something into a basket. It was a conceivable number. You may not be able to count to 40 on your fingers, but you can imagine what a flock of roughly 40 sheep looks like on a hillside.

      The number 1000 was also used a few times, to represent an inconceivably large number. A number that couldn’t even be imagined by the average person. You couldn’t fit 1000 pebbles into a basket. You couldn’t imagine 1000 sheep in a pasture. You couldn’t fit 1000 people in a market. But Jesus fed 1000 people with just a load of bread and a fish. Psalm says 1000 years is like a day to God. Jesus is going to return to reign as king for 1000 years. Et cetera… Because 1000 wasn’t meant to be taken as a literal number; It was just an extremely large number; too large to count or even comprehend.

      All of this is to say… Jesus didn’t fast for 40 days. It was likely anywhere from three to six weeks. But that’s if you actually believe the story in the first place.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        three to six weeks

        I’m guessing it’s also a different definition of fasting than most expect. When you fast before a surgery, you eat literally nothing. When you fast in Lent, you abstain from certain foods, but not all foods. When you fast in Ramadan, you completely fast during the day, but eat after sundown.

        We don’t know the specifics, nor the specific amount of time, and I doubt that actually matters anyway. The point of the story is that Jesus was tempted while at his lowest point and still remained faithful. That’s it.

      • DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        According to George Gamow, counting is just pairing quantities one-to-one. So pairing one sheep to one pebble would be considered counting to Georgie.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        And that’s what i meant when i said that people back then just hadn’t had the mental tools to work with, we have today. Alone the tropes (like, schemes to screw someone over) the average Joe learns now thanks to mass media.

        Btw, that’s why base education is important.

    • Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s a really cool piece of trivia, but this guy kept taking supplements during the fast as well as calorie free beverages. An impressive feat but a different set of rules

      • Diddlydee@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 days ago

        I doubt the pastor really abstained from food and water, and made it to 25 days before his body started to shutdown. He definitely had secret liquids during his silly stunt, if it even happened, which is doubtful.

        The only source is one BBC report and the BBC have fallen for false stories from Africa numerous times in the past. There are no images or video of the fast, and there’s no info of the pastor or the church before his supposed death. Fishy.

    • ooli2@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      didnt jesus stop drinking water? else I dont see how the pastor died just after 30 days

      • Diddlydee@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I mean, I don’t think Jesus existed never mind fasted. And if he was the son of god, or god himself, going without food and water is hardly impressive when you have created and maintained everything.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 days ago

          Fwiw scholarly consensus is that Jesus almost certainly did exist, and he did get baptised by John the Baptist, and was executed by crucifixion.

          Obviously he never produced any miracles, and indeed nearly every other aspect of his life described in the bible or accepted as religious practice is wrong or subject to debate. Even his birthday. But he did exist.

          • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Well it’s “just” a name. Obviously people going by that name are bonds to have existed. But arguing that “He” existed while at the same time saying most things about “Him” are false doesn’t really have any meaning. It’s not the same person as described in writing, when most descriptions don’t apply.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              How do you figure?

              Did Rasputin not exist because a lot of stories about him are embellished? What about the various Catholic saints, whose stories are almost certainly largely fabricated?

              The point is, the hard and fast rules of Jesus’ life have consensus by scholars. He lived, taught, was baptized, and crucified, and a lot of people listened to him. How much of the rest was embellished is certainly up for debate, but those stories existing don’t change whether he existed.

              • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                The most important claims about him are obviously the supernatural ones. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and all. Everything about the religion hinges on them being true.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  We’re not talking about the religion though, we’re talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.

                  And I’m not sure what you mean by “the religion.” Christianity is a broad category, and we have everything from “Jesus was literally God” (Catholics go as far as revering his mom as divine) to “Jesus was mortal” (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses). And his impact isn’t limited to Christianity, he’s referred as a prophet in Islam, and even some Jews consider him a teacher worth listening to.

                  What you accept from his teachings and whatnot (as recorded by others) is up to you. But his historicity is well established.

                  • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    We’re not talking about the religion though, we’re talking about the man, Jesus. He existed, and the historically verifiable facts stand.

                    The man wouldn’t even be historically notable if not for the religion. For all intents and purposes, he is the religion, the main cornerstone that set Christianity apart from Judaism.

                    And I’m not sure what you mean by “the religion.”

                    The subset of Christian denominations for which the statements make sense.