dandelion

Eh, ironically it's the Lutherans who still believe in transubstantiation, which means communion is not a metaphor and the essence of the bread turns to Christ's flesh and the essence of the wine turns to Christ's blood, the cannibalism is more literal for Lutherans than some denominations.

Either way, Christ could have qualified his statements if he was speaking in metaphors, as he does in other passages, but he was strangely literal about eating his flesh and blood, and again that whole chapter reads like Christ was wanting to alienate his followers because he had amassed a crowd that he didn't want to deal with.

And yes, lots of scripture is interpreted as not having a literal interpretation, that everything has hidden and layered meanings. This was used a lot by Christians to re-interpret the Hebrew bible as foretelling Christ as the Messiah, and before Christ the priests and interpreters wished to breathe life and meaning into scripture by finding meanings in there that weren't supported by a more literal or direct reading. Still, this seems like addled religious thinking to me, strangely disrespectful of the scripture and motivated by a need to resolve cognitive dissonance when passages don't make sense or contradict something the church wishes to change their minds on (such as the way the Roman Catholic Church re-interpreted Christ's messages on poverty and wealth).

I don't see the point in policing whether he is referred to as Christ or Jesus from Nazareth - is there some meaningful distinction here?

Also documents are not scientific evidence. The documents are enough evidence to consider it a historical fact, but that's, again, not the same thing as a scientific fact, and it is not backed with any material or physical evidence. Not that we expect or demand such evidence, I'm only pointing this out because you claimed there is scientific proof where there is none.

Regardless, I would be curious to get your receipts on those documents referencing Christ that predate the gospels, I hadn't heard of that before!

Speculation about the resurrection being faked with sedatives is irrelevant to this discussion, but since you brought it up, why not entertain more likely alternatives: towards the end of the book of John, Mary saw the resurrected Christ in the tomb and was the first to see him, yet she did not recognize him:

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

If he took sedatives, why did he look like a different person such that she thought he was the gardener? Why not think the resurrected person was just falsely claiming to be Christ, since he didn't look like him anyway? Why resort to more elaborate explanations when we have more simple ones at hand?

There is also the issue about how Christ supposedly survived being eviscerated and tortured before being hung on the cross, even if he did have access to sedatives. It's just not likely he survived that, and the sedatives don't explain that away.

We have no direct evidence of Christ's existence, there is no "scientific proof" of Christ's existence as a person. Instead what we have is historical evidence, i.e. people wrote about him, so he probably existed. It's the best evidence we have that Christ lived, and it's generally good enough in the discipline of history - but it's not the same standard of evidence as used in science.

What part does it exclude?

I recommend you read the book of John!

I wrote a longer response to Kolanaki if you want to read that as well, sorta summarizes what I think are some of the relevant bits as to why Christ isn't such a great role model.

I was thinking John 6 is pretty nuts tbh. There are a lot of problems with Christ, like how quiet and accepting he seemed about slavery, or how fragile he is about his ego and being respected as God, the central message of Christ is about his divinity, not about moral teachings. He threatened anyone who disagreed with his divinity with eternal damnation and so on. Just not the kind of person you would think of as a "chill dude", rather the description "crazy" comes to mind when I read the book of John especially.

The book of John shows the problems with Christ's mental health much more plainly, it portrays him as a megalomaniac with paranoid and psychotic tendencies. If you just sit down and read the book of John you will get what I mean.

Personally I was particularly struck by John 6. Christ has amassed a following, and seems to have trouble feeding and appeasing the crowd that follows him around. It seems like the subtext is that he wants to lose the crowd, so he runs away to the mountains (6:15) where they can't follow to lose the crowd temporarily, and when he comes back, he makes a speech to his followers in which he claims to be God and demands belief in his divinity as the only way to be resurrected after they die.

The crowd is a bit miffed about Christ's suddenly weird behavior, since they knew him growing up it was hard to take him seriously as a supposed god now:

They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Christ re-iterates he's the only way to God, and then things get even more weird:

I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The people are stumped (6:52):

"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Christ doubles down on this alienating cannibalism talk:

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

People didn't love the boasting and claims that he was God, but they especially didn't appreciate this cannibalism angle, so his followers abandoned him:

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

And there were only twelve people left who supported the clearly unwell guy who claims to be God and who requires you eat his flesh to allow him to resurrect you after you die.

The ones remaining re-affirm their loyalty, and in response Christ says:

"Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

This comes across to me as incredibly paranoid, and in conjunction with the cannibalism and claims about being divine, they paint a picture of Christ as unhinged and mentally unwell. Of course Christians these days take communion and have normalized the cannibalism angle so it doesn't seem so crazy, but I read the book of John without the context of communion or transubstantiation, and furthermore the followers of Christ who heard his speech about eating his flesh and drinking his blood likewise didn't have that context, otherwise they would not have found it so alienating and disturbing, such that he would have lost all his followers. (I guess the twelve that remained and were on-board with the whole cannibalism and necromancy thing).

I'm apparently not the only one who thought Christ seemed mad, there are observations of this made in other parts of the gospels as well, like Mark 3:21–22:

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself". And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons".

or John 10:19–21:

There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, "He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?" Others said, "These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

So yeah, while there are some interesting things Christ has said (Sermon on the Mount comes to mind as saying a few good things), there are plenty of reasons to be wary of choosing Christ as a role model. You essentially have to ignore all the problems and just take the good parts to protect Christ's image, but then I would ask why you would do this if you weren't some kind of Christian. It seems unmotivated, there are other people who lived lives of more virtue and with less baggage, there is no reason to choose Christ in particular, unless you have some kind of loyalty to Christ as a figure in particular.

I take it you haven't read the book of John?

yeah, during COVID the mayor became famous for running attack ads against the health department, and as a result of his leadership the state legislature stripped the health department of their ability to implement any policies or directives

The county mayor describes himself as a Rothbardian, and the government here sometimes feels openly hostile to people, but especially to bicyclists. I received a lot of harassment for cycling, it is not supported culturally, and is even viewed as though I am a political enemy of the people. Huge, lifted emotional-support trucks are pretty common here.

Well, those distances use a nearby highway, and there are no bike lanes anywhere (let alone sidewalks). As mentioned earlier, being suicidal means I did use a bicycle anyway, and after a couple years I had a brain injury, was hit by cars twice and ended up with permanent injuries. So... yeah, I don't recommend cycling (if you feel like being alive and able-bodied, anyway).

What is also not mentioned is that the nearest supermarket is a shitty Walmart, the nearest park is very small and not really worth going to, and the bus is not a practical form of public transit here.

I have to drive 20 - 30 minutes to actually get to stores, parks, or other places I would actually go to. I think that's pretty good relative to most people, I live in a centralized location and most places are equidistant. I used to live in a nearby more rural town and I had to drive 45 - 60 minutes to get most places, and that was much worse.

I live in a suburb in the U.S.

• To the nearest convenience store: 322m
• To the nearest chain supermarket: 2.4km
• To the bus stop: 2.6km
• To the nearest park: 5.5km
• To the nearest big supermarket: 6.1km
• To the nearest library: 7.7km
• To the nearest train station: N/A

Notes:

• The "convenience store" in my example is a gas station, technically you can buy lottery tickets, candy, cigarettes, beer, and a few things like that - but very limited inventory, it's mostly for people buying gas. It's also very unusual to have a gas station like this located basically in a suburban area, most places you would have to go much further to find one.
• no sidewalks or safe passage, you walk on a dangerous road with ditches on either side to get to the convenience store.
• the only public transit is a bus, it is used only by poor people, and it doesn't cover the west half of the city (for example I was unable to use public transit to go to school)

I have run to the park before despite being far away, but I think most people would (rightfully) think I was suicidal for doing so. A lot of the way to the park requires walking on dangerous streets where people drive fast around blind curves and where there is little to no shoulders to squeeze by if there are cars, most of the way has no sidewalks, and I have to cross busy roads where drivers are going 80+kmh.

Owning a car here is considered a part of being an adult, people without a car are seen as childish or immature, and usually suspected of being drunks who have lost their license due to DUIs or felons who cannot have a driving license and aren't allowed to leave the state. It is assumed everyone drives everywhere, alternatives are unthinkable to most people here.