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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Angus Barbieri fasted for 382 days in 1965-66, so both the pastor and Jesus are amateurs compared to a portly Scotsman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri's_fast
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.
didnt jesus stop drinking water? else I dont see how the pastor died just after 30 days
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.