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?

[achilles12604]

Goose, you're are drowning not waving. What conccusion did I reach regarding Socrates?

Is it reasonable to infer a real Socrates? It is moot.

So what we get is yes to brand Socrates and a possible yes to real Socrates - but also a possible no to real Socrates. The unresolved question require a bit more scholarship and a bill to Socrates for a cup of hemlock.

Are you prepared to come to the same conclusion and willing to accept the need for more evidence for JC?

The entire purpose of this excercise is to prove that the evidence for Jesus is equivalent to the rest of contemporary history. You yourself wrote that you would approach the evidence the "same way".

I am showing you, and the rest of the non-theists here that the evidence is equivalent. Therefore the only reason you reject the evidence of Jesus and accept the evidence for Soc and Alex, is personal bias.

Once this is acknowledged or proven, I will be done with this thread.

What contemporary evidence (original manuscript, document, tablet, etc) do you have supporting the existence of Jesus? I think that if one doesn't have original documents, alledged contemporaneity is naturally subject to the emotional investment, in this case, of the institution that made the claim. And in this regard, JC is milles away from anyone else (except maybe Muhammad).

Define Contemporary. Are Paul's writings (10-15 years) contemporary? How about Mark (30-35 years but recorded from preaching even earlier)?

My point is not that Jesus has a particular kind of evidence. My point is that Jesus has THE SAME evidence as Socrates and Alexander. Same value of evidence.

After all, so we have the originals for Alexander Beto?

Do we have the original documents written by Plato himself? Well Beto . . . do we?

You bolded the section above. How well do the other two person's compare for your demand of evidence? Do either of them meet your demands or are you placing additional burdens upon Jesus that you do not place upon other's in history?

Please do show that the evidence for Jesus is actually "Miles away from anyone else." I say that the evidence is near identical.

[achilles12604]

Taking the same approach to JC.

What we got: Gospels (60AD+), Paul’s epistles(60AD+), Josephus (90AD)+ others 100AD+.

1/ We have a delay.
2/ We have unclear authorship.
3/ The earliest nameable author is Paul - who never met JC.

1, 2, and 3 show that we are not dealing with equivalent evidence to that of Socrates. We’ve actually got no one in the frame who we can identify as possibly meeting JC. At least with Socrates the major sources were contemporary to the specific dates. In this case we’ve got no one.

Ah be careful Furrowed. As I showed with my last post where I compared each source, we have identical problems with both the sources of Alex and Socrates.

Observe that most of the writings accociated with Alexander are 300 - 600 years out of date.

Shall we file this under "we have a slight delay?" Similarly the sources for Socrates are out of date between 20-40 years. These date ranges are similar to those of Jesus. So would you allow that if the sources for Jesus are out of date, so are the sources for Socrates and Alex?

Next unclear authorship. Just as with Paul's letters, many of the writings of Plato were not actually written by him. These include mention of Socrates. So if we are unaware of who wrote some of Plato's writings, how is this different than teh Gospels, of which we have at least a decent idea of who wrote them?

ALSO on this same note, the primary "reason" for the "mysterious authorship" of the Gospels is that they didn't sign them. Lack of internal clear authorship has been thrown in my face repeatedly. But look carefully at the works of Plato and Alex sources and Xeon et al. The vast majority of these works ALSO lack internal authorship. So I can ask you to please prove beyond reasonable doubt that these works were even authored by the people in question. Considering the vast span of time for Alexander (300-600 years) and the fact that even if his authors were labeled correctly, they obviously had no knowledge of the man at all, doesn't this put Jesus ahead of Alexander as far as source materials are concerned?

And with Plato, it is clear that many of the writings attributed to Plato are in fact forgeries with his name on them. Just as many of "pauls" letter fall into this catagory. Can you vouch and prove the authorship and value of these writings as well?


It seems to me that the sources for all 3 have very similar problems. Do you disagree?

Do we? How much of a delay is the astronomical diaries for Alexander?

Gee Goat. I don't know. Do you?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1

Let's review some "experts" shall we since you love to cite them so much. You and Beto made the claim that these tablets are contemporary. PROVE IT. And do note that I provided a source which provides reason to think that these tablets may not have been written as contemporary items.

You made the claim Goat. Have beto help you and you two prove your position.

In the meantime, I will put forth that these tablets tell us ALMOST NOTHING about Alexander. They mention a single battle in passing. And interestingly they directly contradict later writings about the man.

The most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.

As for Plato, he claims to have been present at the trial. None of the gospels seem to have been written by eye witnesses, although they claimed there were.. at least second or third hand info at best. Most of the Gospels were not written in the first person even. Luke did manage to use 'I', but he frankly admitted he is taking his information from others.[/quote]

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.html


So you can tout these all you want. But if the limits of them are to mention a single battle, how useful are they really?

And secondly, if they directly disprove the 4 later, and much more detailed accounts of Alexander, don't they actually HARM your position?

After all you were the one who was willing to throw out the entire TF because it had been altered a little. Shall we throw out all of the writings of Plutarch, Diodius, et al? After all they have been proven to be inaccurate.

So now we have 1 source for Alexander and all it mentions is 1 battle. Nicely done.

[achilles12604]

As for Plato, he claims to have been present at the trial. None of the gospels seem to have been written by eye witnesses, although they claimed there were.. at least second or third hand info at best.

Prove it. I say that Plato didn't even write the words attributed to him. And I can offer evidence . . .

The most famous of these pseudepigrapha is the treatise supposedly written by Timaeus of Locri (Marg 1972), the principal speaker of Plato's Timaeus, which has survived complete and which is clearly intended to represent the original document on which Plato drew, although it, in fact, also responds to criticisms made of Plato's dialogue in the first couple of centuries after it was written (Ryle 1965, 176-178). The treatise of Timaeus of Locri is first mentioned by Nicomachus in the second century AD (Handbook 11) and is thus commonly dated to the first century AD. Another complete short treatise (13 pages in Thesleff) is On the Nature of the Universe supposedly by the Pythagorean Ocellus (Harder 1966), which has passages that are almost identical to passages in Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption. Since Ocellus' work is first mentioned by the Roman polymath, Varro, scholars have dated it to the first half of the first century BC.

It is likely that in some cases letters were forged in order to authenticate these forged treatises. Thus a correspondence between Plato and Archytas dealing with the acquisition of the writings of Ocellus (Diogenes Laertius VIII 80-81) may be intended to validate the forgery in Ocellus' name (Harder 1966, 39ff). A letter from Lysis to Hipparchus (Thesleff 1965, 111-114), which enjoyed considerable fame in the later tradition and is quoted by Copernicus, urges that the master's doctrines not be presented in public to the uninitiated and recounts Pythagoras' daughter's preservation of his “notebooks” (hypomnêmata) in secrecy, although she could have sold them for much money (see Riedweg 2005, 120-121).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/

Plato composed over twenty dialogues, (the dialogue itself was then a revolutionary prose form) as well as a series of philosophical letters. Although most of the letters are thought to be forged, the "Seventh Letter" contains information about Plato's life that most scholars believe to be accurate. Almost all of Plato's works were lost during the Middle Ages, except for the first third of the Timaeus. His writings were not recovered until the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when Italian humanists gradually rediscovered and translated his works into Latin. From this point forward, Plato's texts, and his magnum opus The Republic , in particular, have had an impact on European history second only to the works of Aristotle.

http://www.watson.org/~leigh/philo.html

Most of the Gospels were not written in the first person even. Luke did manage to use 'I', but he frankly admitted he is taking his information from others.

LOL




Plato wrote in dialogs. Xeno wrote in 3rd person. And don't get me started about the "eyewitnesses" of Alexander.

Really want to compare 1st vs 3rd person and writings styles?


[/quote]

[Beto]

Define Contemporary. Are Paul's writings (10-15 years) contemporary? How about Mark (30-35 years but recorded from preaching even earlier)?

Sure, but I asked for "(original manuscript, document, tablet, etc)".

My point is not that Jesus has a particular kind of evidence. My point is that Jesus has THE SAME evidence as Socrates and Alexander. Same value of evidence.

After all, so we have the originals for Alexander Beto?

Didn't I already mention the astronomical diary supporting Alexander?

Do we have the original documents written by Plato himself? Well Beto . . . do we?

Written by him? I doubt it. By someone else? Perhaps. I didn't search for Plato, and made no claim about him... did I?

Please do show that the evidence for Jesus is actually "Miles away from anyone else." I say that the evidence is near identical.

I clearly meant in regard to the emotional investment of those who present evidence (without it being original), which weighs on credibility and probability of truthfulness.

[achilles12604]

Define Contemporary. Are Paul's writings (10-15 years) contemporary? How about Mark (30-35 years but recorded from preaching even earlier)?

Sure, but I asked for "(original manuscript, document, tablet, etc)".

My point is not that Jesus has a particular kind of evidence. My point is that Jesus has THE SAME evidence as Socrates and Alexander. Same value of evidence.

After all, so we have the originals for Alexander Beto?

Didn't I already mention the astronomical diary supporting Alexander?

Ok. You and goat both refer continually to these cuniform tablets to the ignoring of all else. So let's settle this little detail.


Point 1)

The cuniform tablets are not necessarily contemporary. http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1 I defy you to find the date that the one that mentions Alexander was written.

Point 2)

The cuniform tablets are extremely limited in telling us ANYTHING about Alexander. The only thing that we have gleened from them concerning this man is that there was a Battle. Interestingly enough, the information presented by the tablet directly contradicts and disproves the later more in depth writings about this same battle, thus causing a much more elaborate and detailed source to be proven to be inaccurate. Therefore even if they are contemporary (which you have claimed but not proven) they are useless. Utterly pointless in an examination of Alexander and his life.

Point 3)

These same tablets contain a great deal about omins (especially regarding Alexander), God's, and astrology. If you put these forth as reliable evidence, you must conclude that sources which contain the supernatural CAN BE RELIABLE sources.


Do you agree with these 3 points Beto?

[Goat]

Taking the same approach to JC.

What we got: Gospels (60AD+), Paul’s epistles(60AD+), Josephus (90AD)+ others 100AD+.

1/ We have a delay.
2/ We have unclear authorship.
3/ The earliest nameable author is Paul - who never met JC.

1, 2, and 3 show that we are not dealing with equivalent evidence to that of Socrates. We’ve actually got no one in the frame who we can identify as possibly meeting JC. At least with Socrates the major sources were contemporary to the specific dates. In this case we’ve got no one.

Ah be careful Furrowed. As I showed with my last post where I compared each source, we have identical problems with both the sources of Alex and Socrates.

Observe that most of the writings accociated with Alexander are 300 - 600 years out of date.

Shall we file this under "we have a slight delay?" Similarly the sources for Socrates are out of date between 20-40 years. These date ranges are similar to those of Jesus. So would you allow that if the sources for Jesus are out of date, so are the sources for Socrates and Alex?

Next unclear authorship. Just as with Paul's letters, many of the writings of Plato were not actually written by him. These include mention of Socrates. So if we are unaware of who wrote some of Plato's writings, how is this different than teh Gospels, of which we have at least a decent idea of who wrote them?

ALSO on this same note, the primary "reason" for the "mysterious authorship" of the Gospels is that they didn't sign them. Lack of internal clear authorship has been thrown in my face repeatedly. But look carefully at the works of Plato and Alex sources and Xeon et al. The vast majority of these works ALSO lack internal authorship. So I can ask you to please prove beyond reasonable doubt that these works were even authored by the people in question. Considering the vast span of time for Alexander (300-600 years) and the fact that even if his authors were labeled correctly, they obviously had no knowledge of the man at all, doesn't this put Jesus ahead of Alexander as far as source materials are concerned?

And with Plato, it is clear that many of the writings attributed to Plato are in fact forgeries with his name on them. Just as many of "pauls" letter fall into this catagory. Can you vouch and prove the authorship and value of these writings as well?


It seems to me that the sources for all 3 have very similar problems. Do you disagree?

Do we? How much of a delay is the astronomical diaries for Alexander?

Gee Goat. I don't know. Do you?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1

Let's review some "experts" shall we since you love to cite them so much. You and Beto made the claim that these tablets are contemporary. PROVE IT. And do note that I provided a source which provides reason to think that these tablets may not have been written as contemporary items.

You made the claim Goat. Have beto help you and you two prove your position.

In the meantime, I will put forth that these tablets tell us ALMOST NOTHING about Alexander. They mention a single battle in passing. And interestingly they directly contradict later writings about the man.

The most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.

As for Plato, he claims to have been present at the trial. None of the gospels seem to have been written by eye witnesses, although they claimed there were.. at least second or third hand info at best. Most of the Gospels were not written in the first person even. Luke did manage to use 'I', but he frankly admitted he is taking his information from others.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.html


So you can tout these all you want. But if the limits of them are to mention a single battle, how useful are they really?

And secondly, if they directly disprove the 4 later, and much more detailed accounts of Alexander, don't they actually HARM your position?

After all you were the one who was willing to throw out the entire TF because it had been altered a little. Shall we throw out all of the writings of Plutarch, Diodius, et al? After all they have been proven to be inaccurate.

So now we have 1 source for Alexander and all it mentions is 1 battle. Nicely done.[/quote]

Yes.. and it is CONTEMPORARY and it is an objective third party source. The astrological diaries , which date to the proper time period, also mention 1) the positions of the stars, the moon, and the sun , and 2) varoius and sundry events that happened with that configuration. Yes, it is just a side mention of a battle.

However, it is this little thing known as 'confirmation from an objective 3rd party source'. It was during the life time of Alexander. It mentions a battle for which we have archaeological evidence for... with a King that we have mention from other sources from. The title 'The King of the whole world' that is mentioned indicates Alexander had a large empire. It doesn't say much, except it confirms other reports on some very basics. That is exactly what is missing in the case of Jesus.
An objective third party source during his life time.

Socrates has two basic sources. Plato, who claims to be his student. If the earliest mention of Socrates was Aristotle (plato's student), then you would have a point, and it would be a potential equivalent.

Mind you, I personally suspect that Plato's representing of Socrates was more to promote Plato's own ideas, that might have been influenced by Socrates. But, what is more important that if Socrates existing or not is the philosophy and methods that are attributed to him. The concepts that are promoted in his name would have just as much significance if he was a total teaching allegory from Plato.


None of the Gospels were written by anybody who actually claimed to have met them. They are all written third person, except the gospel of Luke, which admits he is taking things from earlier sources. Not one self identifies who they are. We have tradition on some points, but some of that tradition can be shown not to be accurate. The Gospel of Matthew has been shown NOT to have been written in Hebrew, but in Greek., which deny the tradition of Papias, as quoted by Eusibius 200 years later. The earliest possible non-Christian reference is highly contested, and would still be after the point where there might not be contamination from Christian biased sources.

Now, Socrates does not seem to have non-biased sources either, however, nothing that is claimed for Socrates is beyond the experience of normal everyday human experience. Socrates is not the only person reported to have been ordered to commit suicide by hemlock or be executed. The comedy of Clouds portrays him in a satirical way.. so that could be considered 'hostile' in some respects.

I don't expect any of the accounts to really accurately show the philosophy of Socrates, but rather the interpretation given by Plato and others. I will point out that according to others, Socrates claimed to be influenced by earlier philosophers.

[achilles12604]

Define Contemporary. Are Paul's writings (10-15 years) contemporary? How about Mark (30-35 years but recorded from preaching even earlier)?

Sure, but I asked for "(original manuscript, document, tablet, etc)".

My point is not that Jesus has a particular kind of evidence. My point is that Jesus has THE SAME evidence as Socrates and Alexander. Same value of evidence.

After all, so we have the originals for Alexander Beto?

Didn't I already mention the astronomical diary supporting Alexander?

Ok. You and goat both refer continually to these cuniform tablets to the ignoring of all else. So let's settle this little detail.


Point 1)

The cuniform tablets are not necessarily contemporary. http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1 I defy you to find the date that the one that mentions Alexander was written.

Point 2)

The cuniform tablets are extremely limited in telling us ANYTHING about Alexander. The only thing that we have gleened from them concerning this man is that there was a Battle. Interestingly enough, the information presented by the tablet directly contradicts and disproves the later more in depth writings about this same battle, thus causing a much more elaborate and detailed source to be proven to be inaccurate. Therefore even if they are contemporary (which you have claimed but not proven) they are useless. Utterly pointless in an examination of Alexander and his life.

Point 3)

These same tablets contain a great deal about omins (especially regarding Alexander), God's, and astrology. If you put these forth as reliable evidence, you must conclude that sources which contain the supernatural CAN BE RELIABLE sources.


Do you agree with these 3 points Beto?

[achilles12604]

Taking the same approach to JC.

What we got: Gospels (60AD+), Paul’s epistles(60AD+), Josephus (90AD)+ others 100AD+.

1/ We have a delay.
2/ We have unclear authorship.
3/ The earliest nameable author is Paul - who never met JC.

1, 2, and 3 show that we are not dealing with equivalent evidence to that of Socrates. We’ve actually got no one in the frame who we can identify as possibly meeting JC. At least with Socrates the major sources were contemporary to the specific dates. In this case we’ve got no one.

Ah be careful Furrowed. As I showed with my last post where I compared each source, we have identical problems with both the sources of Alex and Socrates.

Observe that most of the writings accociated with Alexander are 300 - 600 years out of date.

Shall we file this under "we have a slight delay?" Similarly the sources for Socrates are out of date between 20-40 years. These date ranges are similar to those of Jesus. So would you allow that if the sources for Jesus are out of date, so are the sources for Socrates and Alex?

Next unclear authorship. Just as with Paul's letters, many of the writings of Plato were not actually written by him. These include mention of Socrates. So if we are unaware of who wrote some of Plato's writings, how is this different than teh Gospels, of which we have at least a decent idea of who wrote them?

ALSO on this same note, the primary "reason" for the "mysterious authorship" of the Gospels is that they didn't sign them. Lack of internal clear authorship has been thrown in my face repeatedly. But look carefully at the works of Plato and Alex sources and Xeon et al. The vast majority of these works ALSO lack internal authorship. So I can ask you to please prove beyond reasonable doubt that these works were even authored by the people in question. Considering the vast span of time for Alexander (300-600 years) and the fact that even if his authors were labeled correctly, they obviously had no knowledge of the man at all, doesn't this put Jesus ahead of Alexander as far as source materials are concerned?

And with Plato, it is clear that many of the writings attributed to Plato are in fact forgeries with his name on them. Just as many of "pauls" letter fall into this catagory. Can you vouch and prove the authorship and value of these writings as well?


It seems to me that the sources for all 3 have very similar problems. Do you disagree?

Do we? How much of a delay is the astronomical diaries for Alexander?

Gee Goat. I don't know. Do you?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1

Let's review some "experts" shall we since you love to cite them so much. You and Beto made the claim that these tablets are contemporary. PROVE IT. And do note that I provided a source which provides reason to think that these tablets may not have been written as contemporary items.

You made the claim Goat. Have beto help you and you two prove your position.

In the meantime, I will put forth that these tablets tell us ALMOST NOTHING about Alexander. They mention a single battle in passing. And interestingly they directly contradict later writings about the man.

The most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.

As for Plato, he claims to have been present at the trial. None of the gospels seem to have been written by eye witnesses, although they claimed there were.. at least second or third hand info at best. Most of the Gospels were not written in the first person even. Luke did manage to use 'I', but he frankly admitted he is taking his information from others.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.html


So you can tout these all you want. But if the limits of them are to mention a single battle, how useful are they really?

And secondly, if they directly disprove the 4 later, and much more detailed accounts of Alexander, don't they actually HARM your position?

After all you were the one who was willing to throw out the entire TF because it had been altered a little. Shall we throw out all of the writings of Plutarch, Diodius, et al? After all they have been proven to be inaccurate.

So now we have 1 source for Alexander and all it mentions is 1 battle. Nicely done.[/quote]

Yes.. and it is CONTEMPORARY and it is an objective third party source. The astrological diaries , which date to the proper time period, also mention 1) the positions of the stars, the moon, and the sun , and 2) varoius and sundry events that happened with that configuration. Yes, it is just a side mention of a battle.

However, it is this little thing known as 'confirmation from an objective 3rd party source'. It was during the life time of Alexander. It mentions a battle for which we have archaeological evidence for... with a King that we have mention from other sources from. The title 'The King of the whole world' that is mentioned indicates Alexander had a large empire. It doesn't say much, except it confirms other reports on some very basics. That is exactly what is missing in the case of Jesus.
An objective third party source during his life time.

Socrates has two basic sources. Plato, who claims to be his student. If the earliest mention of Socrates was Aristotle (plato's student), then you would have a point, and it would be a potential equivalent.

Mind you, I personally suspect that Plato's representing of Socrates was more to promote Plato's own ideas, that might have been influenced by Socrates. But, what is more important that if Socrates existing or not is the philosophy and methods that are attributed to him. The concepts that are promoted in his name would have just as much significance if he was a total teaching allegory from Plato.


None of the Gospels were written by anybody who actually claimed to have met them. They are all written third person, except the gospel of Luke, which admits he is taking things from earlier sources. Not one self identifies who they are. We have tradition on some points, but some of that tradition can be shown not to be accurate. The Gospel of Matthew has been shown NOT to have been written in Hebrew, but in Greek., which deny the tradition of Papias, as quoted by Eusibius 200 years later. The earliest possible non-Christian reference is highly contested, and would still be after the point where there might not be contamination from Christian biased sources.

Now, Socrates does not seem to have non-biased sources either, however, nothing that is claimed for Socrates is beyond the experience of normal everyday human experience. Socrates is not the only person reported to have been ordered to commit suicide by hemlock or be executed. The comedy of Clouds portrays him in a satirical way.. so that could be considered 'hostile' in some respects.

I don't expect any of the accounts to really accurately show the philosophy of Socrates, but rather the interpretation given by Plato and others. I will point out that according to others, Socrates claimed to be influenced by earlier philosophers.

So far you have engaged in both speculation (the tablets are in fact contemporary) and special pleading (Socrates doesn't need archeology like the tablets but Jesus does.)

You have also use special pleading regarding Socrates by assigning a higher level of "proof" for Jesus than Socrates because

"nothing that is claimed for Socrates is beyond the experience of normal everyday human experience."

But you neglected to notice at the same time that those oh so precious tablets of yours regarding Alexander contain a great deal of Omins, predictions, Astrology, and other supernatural claims.

Two special pleadings and speculation.

Just admit it. You don't believe in the stories about Jesus for the same reason as you do accept the stories about Socrates and Alexander. Bias.

You can't have you cake and eat it too.

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.


If you disregard Jesus because he is lacking any direct archeological evidence as to the events of his life, you must also disregard Socrates as he has no archeology which tells us ANYTHING about him.

If you disregard Jesus because his sources are 30 -50 years out of date, you must also disregard most of Socrates sources, and almost everything associated with Alexander.

If you disregard Jesus because of the legendary development theory, you certainly must get rid of all the accounts of Alexander and even some of Socrates.

If you disregard the writings of Jesus because they could have been altered or even forged entirely, you must disregard much of the writings of Plato. You must also disregard the 4 accounts of Alexander as the tablets disproved their claims about the battle.

[Beto]

Ok. You and goat both refer continually to these cuniform tablets to the ignoring of all else. So let's settle this little detail.

"Objection your honor! Leading!"

From my perspective, it's HUGE!

Point 1)

The cuniform tablets are not necessarily contemporary. http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1 I defy you to find the date that the one that mentions Alexander was written.

"The king died" was written on the 11 June 323 B.C. entry. Where's your problem here? And in the link you provided, the issue is not Alexander, "The death of Alexander the Great in June 323 B.C." is not being argued, and seems to be stated as fact. Did I read wrong? Was the age of the tablet an issue, or the dating of events? Unless you can argue there was any motivation for the forgery of these diaries, I'm not sure where you're going with that.

Point 2)

The cuniform tablets are extremely limited in telling us ANYTHING about Alexander. The only thing that we have gleened from them concerning this man is that there was a Battle. Interestingly enough, the information presented by the tablet directly contradicts and disproves the later more in depth writings about this same battle, thus causing a much more elaborate and detailed source to be proven to be inaccurate. Therefore even if they are contemporary (which you have claimed but not proven) they are useless. Utterly pointless in an examination of Alexander and his life.

That's your opinion, and as far as I can tell plenty of historians disagree with you. I can offer you several links for consideration but I'm guessing you already found them.

Point 3)

These same tablets contain a great deal about omins (especially regarding Alexander), God's, and astrology. If you put these forth as reliable evidence, you must conclude that sources which contain the supernatural CAN BE RELIABLE sources.

Show me a few if you don't mind... most of what I find is on these lines:


[Year fourteen of Alexander, Month Two]

[The first part is missing.]

Night of the fourteenth, beginning of the night, the moon was [lacuna] in front of Theta Ophiuchi.[1]

[Night of the eighteenth,] first part of the night, Mercury was fourteen fingers above Saturn.

[lacuna] crossed the sky.

The twenty-first: clouds crossed the sky.

Night of the twenty-second: clouds [crossed the sky; lacuna]

[Night of the twenty-third: lacuna] 2 2/3 cubits; clouds were in the sky.

The twenty-fourth: clouds [were in the sky].

[lacuna] clouds crossed the sky.

Night of the twenty-seventh: clouds crossed the sky.

The twenty-seventh: [lacuna]

[The night of the twenty-eighth?; lacuna] stood to the east.

The twenty-ninth: The king died. Clouds [were in the sky].[2]

[That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: lacuna; 3] cress, 1 sût 4 qa; sesame 3 1/2 qa.

[At that time; lacuna] Saturn was in Gemini, at the end of the month in Cancer; Mars was in Virgo.

[lacuna] the Gate of Bêl [lacuna] [4]

[Furrowed Brow]

Similarly the sources for Socrates are out of date between 20-40 years

No. Aristophanes wrote Clouds 423BC. That’s is before the death of our putative Socrates. And I think you really need to go back and take look at what conclusions I draw from this kind of evidence. You will find I do no infer the existence of a real Socrates.

48 The entire purpose of this exercise is to prove that the evidence for Jesus is equivalent to the rest of contemporary history. You yourself wrote that you would approach the evidence the "same way".

I think the actual questions are:

• • What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?
    
    Why is this evidence superior?

And the debates seems to be focusing on Alex, Soc, and JC, with a bit of PP and maybe now Plato too. I have given clear indication why the stone for PP is superior evidence and a methodology. I have applied the same methodology to Socrates and I get the beginnings of brand Socrates in the correct time frame and already established in the years following his death. Blow for blow, you do not have a document from within Jesus’ putative lifetime that names Jesus. We have that for Socrates. But again you will see I do not infer existence from this fact.

Ah be careful Furrowed. As I showed with my last post where I compared each source, we have identical problems with both the sources of Alex and Socrates.

Observe that most of the writings associated with Alexander are 300 - 600 years out of date.
Okay. I did not do Alexander, I think Socrates serves the point and draws out the logic of the argument.

Shall we file this under "we have a slight delay?" . These date ranges are similar to those of Jesus. So would you allow that if the sources for Jesus are out of date, so are the sources for Socrates and Alex?

Clouds 423BC.

Next unclear authorship. Just as with Paul's letters, many of the writings of Plato were not actually written by him. These include mention of Socrates. So if we are unaware of who wrote some of Plato's writings, how is this different than the Gospels, of which we have at least a decent idea of who wrote them?

So I can ask you to please prove beyond reasonable doubt that these works were even authored by the people in question.

Again I am going to point you back to the methodology I used and the conclusions I reached. We can doubt the existence of Plato and the authorship of the works attributed to Plato, but the evidence for Socrates and the conclusions draw remain unaffected. Because….I have not read anything into the evidence that the evidence does not support. If I had concluded that Socrates existed based on the evidence I cited then the weakness of that inference demands we attend to the specific authorship. But I do not do that. The only real assumption here is that the documents are yes/yes evidence for Plato. If there are doubts over the authorship, and over Plato, then we step back to a reasonable postion. The author was of the time and was Greek. But the evidence for Socrates and conclusions drawn remain unaffected. Which pretty much shows the inferences I make are safe.

Considering the vast span of time for Alexander (300-600 years) and the fact that even if his authors were labelled correctly, they obviously had no knowledge of the man at all, doesn't this put Jesus ahead of Alexander as far as source materials are concerned?

I’ll point you back to the yes/yes, yes/no methodology. If the authors for JC offer a true historical document then JC existed. Likewise the case for Alex. That is the yes side of the methodology. Then we address the no side. And I have given the argument for why the evidence for JC is Yes/No, and why the no reading is - on its own terms - overwhelming. Therefore there is no chance of JC evidence being yes/yes, and so the demand for more evidence. As for Alex then I have not looked at this case in any great detail but in the British Museum we can be found number of artefacts, that place brand Alexander right time right location

British Museum 1
British Museum 2
British Museum 3

This counts as Yes/Yes evidence for brand Alex, and Yes/yes evidence for his existence. Note the yes to his existence is not mathematical proof of existence, just a yes to whether the evidence counts towards his actual existence. the second yes also does not take in consideration any misidentification of evidence, so the second yes is always open to revision. We are not deciding on the truth of existence of Alex or Soc or JC, the yes/yes-yes/no method assesses how we use the evidence, and what it is reasonably safe to infer.

You have no yes/yes evidence for JC. And you cannot place JC to right time right location. Both criteria we can meet for Socrates and Alexander, and I’ll repeat I do not draw a definite yes for Socrates, and I do not conclude any other deeds to Alex without further scholarship and evidence.