Reasonable evidence cerca 0 CE

[achilles12604]

I have been butting heads with a few people here about demanding more, or "better" evidence for Jesus and Christian claims, than for the rest of contemporary history. So I am starting this thread.

The first example I can think of which indicates that the evidence surrounding Jesus is BETTER than other contemporary history is a comparison of the evidence of Jesus with that of Alexander the Great. The biographies of Jesus are 300 years closer to the events, and so is the contemporary external evidence. In addition to this, if we lost all the biographies of Jesus, we would still have a great deal of evidence about Christianity from the beliefs of the Nazarenes, Paul, James, etc. However if we lost all the accounts of Alex' life, we would know very little about him other than he was a powerful man who conquered in many places.

Two questions:

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?


For the Theists

What other examples do we have of people lacking evidence until much later?

What are the differences between the evidence for this person, and the evidence for Jesus?

[Beto]

So what does it matter if someone has emotional stake in the matter? Are you saying that you based the accuracy of history on people emotions?

It's hardly the emotional stake of one person. One should weigh the interest of all people involved since the whole ordeal started. What would be the need to concoct evidence for Jesus, versus Alexander? To how many people would it be relevant? Are the odds of similar evidence turning up real, even remotely similar? I would think not.

I still don't see how having emotional stake in something alters the existence of the evidence.

Perhaps we should compare Jesus with Socrates with Alexander. That way we will get a cross section of evidences.

We will have a conquering ruler, a secular teacher and a religious teacher.

Let us compare and contrast the evidence for all three of these figures. If the evidence is all about the same, or if (god forbid) Jesus actually has MORE evidence in his favor, then it would be safe to say that all evidence being equal, the skeptic who accepts the history of Alex and Soc and rejects Jesus does so due to his or her own emotional state rather than on the evidence itself.

True?

Honestly, don't you think that the massive emotional stake involved in the issue of Jesus' existence (or feats) diminishes the likelihood of any evidence not being fabricated? It may seem unfair, but Christianity has only itself to blame if people are skeptic of accepting their alleged evidence. I mean, if at a certain point, burning people alive came so easily...

[achilles12604]

So what does it matter if someone has emotional stake in the matter? Are you saying that you based the accuracy of history on people emotions?

It's hardly the emotional stake of one person. One should weigh the interest of all people involved since the whole ordeal started. What would be the need to concoct evidence for Jesus, versus Alexander? To how many people would it be relevant? Are the odds of similar evidence turning up real, even remotely similar? I would think not.

I still don't see how having emotional stake in something alters the existence of the evidence.

Perhaps we should compare Jesus with Socrates with Alexander. That way we will get a cross section of evidences.

We will have a conquering ruler, a secular teacher and a religious teacher.

Let us compare and contrast the evidence for all three of these figures. If the evidence is all about the same, or if (god forbid) Jesus actually has MORE evidence in his favor, then it would be safe to say that all evidence being equal, the skeptic who accepts the history of Alex and Soc and rejects Jesus does so due to his or her own emotional state rather than on the evidence itself.

True?

Honestly, don't you think that the massive emotional stake involved in the issue of Jesus' existence (or feats) diminishes the likelihood of any evidence not being fabricated? It may seem unfair, but Christianity has only itself to blame if people are skeptic of accepting their alleged evidence. I mean, if at a certain point, burning people alive came so easily...

Perhaps. But I am not burning anyone, and I would like an EVEN, HONEST evaluation . . . or actually a comparison.

[achilles12604]

I seem to be engaging BETO and OIG in this particular thread. If other's wish to comment please do, but I might lose your posts in the onslaught. If this occures, please feel free to PM me.


Onwards.



Beto and OIG, I suggest we start by comparing and contrasting the PRIMARY sources of information regarding these three. Interestingly enough Alex, Soc and Jesus all seem to have 4 primary sources of information. Agreed that we start here?

[Beto]

So what does it matter if someone has emotional stake in the matter? Are you saying that you based the accuracy of history on people emotions?

It's hardly the emotional stake of one person. One should weigh the interest of all people involved since the whole ordeal started. What would be the need to concoct evidence for Jesus, versus Alexander? To how many people would it be relevant? Are the odds of similar evidence turning up real, even remotely similar? I would think not.

I still don't see how having emotional stake in something alters the existence of the evidence.

Perhaps we should compare Jesus with Socrates with Alexander. That way we will get a cross section of evidences.

We will have a conquering ruler, a secular teacher and a religious teacher.

Let us compare and contrast the evidence for all three of these figures. If the evidence is all about the same, or if (god forbid) Jesus actually has MORE evidence in his favor, then it would be safe to say that all evidence being equal, the skeptic who accepts the history of Alex and Soc and rejects Jesus does so due to his or her own emotional state rather than on the evidence itself.

True?

Honestly, don't you think that the massive emotional stake involved in the issue of Jesus' existence (or feats) diminishes the likelihood of any evidence not being fabricated? It may seem unfair, but Christianity has only itself to blame if people are skeptic of accepting their alleged evidence. I mean, if at a certain point, burning people alive came so easily...

Perhaps. But I am not burning anyone, and I would like an EVEN, HONEST evaluation . . . or actually a comparison.

It may be honest, but it will never be even. There might just be too much interest involved to reasonably accept any accounts or reports on the matter as evidence, and that is not the skeptic's fault, is it?

[achilles12604]

So what does it matter if someone has emotional stake in the matter? Are you saying that you based the accuracy of history on people emotions?

It's hardly the emotional stake of one person. One should weigh the interest of all people involved since the whole ordeal started. What would be the need to concoct evidence for Jesus, versus Alexander? To how many people would it be relevant? Are the odds of similar evidence turning up real, even remotely similar? I would think not.

I still don't see how having emotional stake in something alters the existence of the evidence.

Perhaps we should compare Jesus with Socrates with Alexander. That way we will get a cross section of evidences.

We will have a conquering ruler, a secular teacher and a religious teacher.

Let us compare and contrast the evidence for all three of these figures. If the evidence is all about the same, or if (god forbid) Jesus actually has MORE evidence in his favor, then it would be safe to say that all evidence being equal, the skeptic who accepts the history of Alex and Soc and rejects Jesus does so due to his or her own emotional state rather than on the evidence itself.

True?

Honestly, don't you think that the massive emotional stake involved in the issue of Jesus' existence (or feats) diminishes the likelihood of any evidence not being fabricated? It may seem unfair, but Christianity has only itself to blame if people are skeptic of accepting their alleged evidence. I mean, if at a certain point, burning people alive came so easily...

Perhaps. But I am not burning anyone, and I would like an EVEN, HONEST evaluation . . . or actually a comparison.

It may be honest, but it will never be even. There might just be too much interest involved to reasonably accept any accounts or reports on the matter as evidence, and that is not the skeptic's fault, is it?

Is post 13 acceptable to you? We can go from there.

[Beto]

Is post 13 acceptable to you? We can go from there.

Sure. I'll have to do quite a bit of researching either way, but that's what I'm here for.

[achilles12604]

Is post 13 acceptable to you? We can go from there.

Sure. I'll have to do quite a bit of researching either way, but that's what I'm here for.

Perhaps we will both learn something new.

[olivergringold]

Which four sources for Jesus? I've provided, in a different thread, a link which succinctly describes the three sources for Socrates and argues for their validity. How can I study or be convinced of the validity of these four Jesus-sources if I'm flying blind?

Which sources. What am I laying my benchmarks by? I can only accept this challenge if you can show me what evidence for the existence for Jesus you are using.

[Goat]

I seem to be engaging BETO and OIG in this particular thread. If other's wish to comment please do, but I might lose your posts in the onslaught. If this occures, please feel free to PM me.


Onwards.



Beto and OIG, I suggest we start by comparing and contrasting the PRIMARY sources of information regarding these three. Interestingly enough Alex, Soc and Jesus all seem to have 4 primary sources of information. Agreed that we start here?

What do you consider 'primary' source for Jesus?

[justifyothers]

This is a good example.
So what is the earliest copy of Plato's writings that we have? What outside sources can confirm Plato's accounts of Socrates, his teachings, and his life events?

(428/427 BC[a] – 348/347 BC), Plato's life.

469 / 471 BC–399 BC , Socrates' life.

We know Plato didn't write anything about Socrates, until after his death, but I can't find an exact date. Would have had to have been between 399-347 BC. That's a 52 year span.

"Plato was not the only author whose personal experience of Socrates led to the depiction of him as a character in one or more dramatic works. Socrates is one of the principal characters of Aristophanes' comedy, Clouds; and Xenophon, a historian and military leader, wrote, like Plato, both an Apology of Socrates (an account of Socrates' trial) and other works in which Socrates appears as a principal speaker. Furthermore, we have some fragmentary remains of dialogues written by other contemporaries of Socrates (Aeschines, Antisthenes, Eucleides, Phaedo), and these purport to describe conversations he conducted with others."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/#Soc

"Evidently, the historical Socrates was the sort of person who provoked in those who knew him, or knew of him, a profound response, and he inspired many of those who came under his influence to write about him. But the portraits composed by Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato are the ones that have survived intact, and they are therefore the ones that must play the greatest role in shaping our conception of what Socrates was like."

Sounds like Jesus and his follower's accounts.

"Perhaps the most celebrated philosophical row in the Hellenistic period (323-30 B.C.), that followed Socrates' death (399 B.C.), was between the Stoics and the Academic Skeptics. The Skeptics aimed at systematically undermining the theses the Stoics put forth. But one thing the Stoics3 and Skeptics4 (who actually wished to be called Socratics5) had in common was that each traced their lineage back to Socrates. Since these two schools arose well after Socrates had died, neither founder could have known Socrates personally;6 their information, like our own, was second-hand."
http://agora.stanford.edu/agora/cgi-bin ... ry=mahoney

"Plato was not the only writer of dialogues in which Socrates appears as a principal character and speaker. Others, including Alexamenos of Teos (Aristotle Poetics 1447b11; De Poetis fr. 3 Ross [=Rose2 72]), Aeschines (D.L. 2.60-63, 3.36, Plato Apology 33e), Antisthenes ( D.L. 3.35, 6; Plato, Phaedo 59b; Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.4.5, 3.2.17), Aristippus ( D.L. 2.65-104, 3.36, Plato Phaedo 59c), Eucleides ( D.L. 2.106-112), Phaedo ( D.L. 2.105; Plato, Phaedo passim), Simon ( D.L. 122-124), and especially Xenophon (see D.L. 2.48-59, 3.34), were also well-known "Socratics" who composed such works. A recent study of these, by Charles H. Kahn (1996, 1-35), concludes that the very existence of the genre-and all of the conflicting images of Socrates we find given by the various authors-shows that we cannot trust as historically reliable any of the accounts of Socrates given in antiquity, including those given by Plato."
Charles H. Kahn is Professor of Philosophy at the University of PA. Interesting ??