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?

[olivergringold]

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.

Neither I nor anyone I know has any emotional stake in whether or not Alexander was great or indeed whether or not he was at all. This is not the case with Jesus, and I don't think you might have properly paused to consider whether or not that could be biasing you more heavily than you would give your credit yourself for.

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?

You're assuming that I am not satisfied with the amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus. I'll be very clear: I don't think there is any. So to tackle this question I would simply invoke the name of anybody in the entirety of human history to have enemy attestation.

[justifyothers]

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?

Not sure if this applies:
"Most of what we think we know about Socrates comes from a student of his over forty years his junior, Plato. Socrates himself wrote--so far as we know--nothing. Plato (427 to 347 B.C.E) is especially important to our understanding of the trial of Socrates because he, along with Xenophon, wrote the only two surviving accounts of the defense (or apology) of Socrates. Of the two authors, Plato's account is generally given more attention by scholars because he, unlike Xenophon, actually attended the one-day trial of Socrates in Athens in 399 B.C.E.

Plato's metaphysics and epistemology appear to have been originally influenced by Presocratic thinkers. As a young man, however, Plato became a student of Socrates and turned his attention to the question of what constitutes a virtuous life.

Almost all of Plato's writings date from after Socrates's trial and execution. Although Plato earlier showed an interest in politics, Socrates' death sentence and disillusionment with the behavior of an oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants that assumed power in 404 seem to have caused Plato to turn to a life of philsophical reflection and writing. (Plato is often closely identified with the discredited eight-month rule of the Thirty Tyrants because of the large role played in that government by his mother's uncle, Critias, and a lesser role payed by his mother's brother, Charmides. During their brief hold on power, the oligarchy practiced widespread executions of political opponents and confiscated the property of wealthy Athenians.) " http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... o&soc.html

I think it's interesting that until the death, we don't really have much to reflect upon, do we? As they are still with us.

[achilles12604]

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.

Neither I nor anyone I know has any emotional stake in whether or not Alexander was great or indeed whether or not he was at all. This is not the case with Jesus, and I don't think you might have properly paused to consider whether or not that could be biasing you more heavily than you would give your credit yourself for.

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?

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?

You're assuming that I am not satisfied with the amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus. I'll be very clear: I don't think there is any. So to tackle this question I would simply invoke the name of anybody in the entirety of human history to have enemy attestation.

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

But if there is NO evidence to debate, why does this forum exist, and what have we all been doing for the last 5ish years?

[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?

Not sure if this applies:
"Most of what we think we know about Socrates comes from a student of his over forty years his junior, Plato. Socrates himself wrote--so far as we know--nothing. Plato (427 to 347 B.C.E) is especially important to our understanding of the trial of Socrates because he, along with Xenophon, wrote the only two surviving accounts of the defense (or apology) of Socrates. Of the two authors, Plato's account is generally given more attention by scholars because he, unlike Xenophon, actually attended the one-day trial of Socrates in Athens in 399 B.C.E.

Plato's metaphysics and epistemology appear to have been originally influenced by Presocratic thinkers. As a young man, however, Plato became a student of Socrates and turned his attention to the question of what constitutes a virtuous life.

Almost all of Plato's writings date from after Socrates's trial and execution. Although Plato earlier showed an interest in politics, Socrates' death sentence and disillusionment with the behavior of an oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants that assumed power in 404 seem to have caused Plato to turn to a life of philsophical reflection and writing. (Plato is often closely identified with the discredited eight-month rule of the Thirty Tyrants because of the large role played in that government by his mother's uncle, Critias, and a lesser role payed by his mother's brother, Charmides. During their brief hold on power, the oligarchy practiced widespread executions of political opponents and confiscated the property of wealthy Athenians.) " http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... o&soc.html

I think it's interesting that until the death, we don't really have much to reflect upon, do we? As they are still with us.

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?

[olivergringold]

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.

Neither I nor anyone I know has any emotional stake in whether or not Alexander was great or indeed whether or not he was at all. This is not the case with Jesus, and I don't think you might have properly paused to consider whether or not that could be biasing you more heavily than you would give your credit yourself for.

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?

No, just the opposite...I'm saying that you are.

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?

You're assuming that I am not satisfied with the amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus. I'll be very clear: I don't think there is any. So to tackle this question I would simply invoke the name of anybody in the entirety of human history to have enemy attestation.

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

But if there is NO evidence to debate, why does this forum exist, and what have we all been doing for the last 5ish years?

You have been defending what you have an emotional stake in. Others have been trying to tell you the reasoning and understanding that caused them to stray from your beliefs, or what about your beliefs failed to convince them. While you could easily say the same about the reverse, I do not think this is the case because there is evidence for things like the old universe, the theory of evolution, etcetera. You still have not answered my call for evidence in the case of Jesus.

[achilles12604]

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.

Neither I nor anyone I know has any emotional stake in whether or not Alexander was great or indeed whether or not he was at all. This is not the case with Jesus, and I don't think you might have properly paused to consider whether or not that could be biasing you more heavily than you would give your credit yourself for.

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?

No, just the opposite...I'm saying that you are.

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?

You're assuming that I am not satisfied with the amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus. I'll be very clear: I don't think there is any. So to tackle this question I would simply invoke the name of anybody in the entirety of human history to have enemy attestation.

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

But if there is NO evidence to debate, why does this forum exist, and what have we all been doing for the last 5ish years?

You have been defending what you have an emotional stake in. Others have been trying to tell you the reasoning and understanding that caused them to stray from your beliefs, or what about your beliefs failed to convince them. While you could easily say the same about the reverse, I do not think this is the case because there is evidence for things like the old universe, the theory of evolution, etcetera. You still have not answered my call for evidence in the case of Jesus.

So I am wrong because I care?

[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.

[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?

[olivergringold]

Once and for all, the challenge is accepted. I have provided the evidence for Socrates, now please provide the evidence for Jesus. What is it? Where is it? Show me, please, and I will happily admit that I was wrong. You dangle this evidence in front of me as though it were a prized possession, that I should know that it is but never dare be given the permission to steal a peak at its contents.

Where is the evidence for the historical Jesus? Please. Show us. Enlighten us.