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]