They should have known better

[achilles12604]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

This transaction occurred in the Was the TF inserted thread. And I find it to be a topic unto itself.


Is my view on this matter sound? I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public. And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disproven.

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic? How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas, and move into a totally new and different religion when their totally outrageous and absurd claims were so blatently and obviously false?

They should have known better.


Please evaluate the above 3 points of uniqueness and comment. Am I off my rocker? Are there other religions which can boast the same unique situations as Christianity? Do these situations have an impact on the verifiability and validity of Christian claims as a whole?

[achilles12604]

I feel myself to be in the dock with goat.

Here is the problem:

• 1/ There are no clear cut external corroborations of the Christian story
  2/ there are no external corroborations at all of the resurrection.
  3/ Everything we do have is dated decades if not centuries after the event.

We have two groups here arguing at cross purposes.

• a) group A posit a physical event x in Jerusalem AD 0 and see the Christian texts as evidence of the event.
  b) group B see the Christian texts themselves as the physical phenomena under investigation. Any x event in Jerusalem AD 0 may be the origin of the story contained in the Christian texts, or it may not.

Group B then requires further evidence that the origin is as group A would have. However group B maintain the event x is thin evidence for the Christian texts given the lack of corroboration, and the lateness of the evidence that exists that refers to event x; because there are too many alternative more plausible embellishment scenarios.

Fact: the Christian version contains stories of raising the dead, walking on water and a resurrection. The claims in themselves contradict physics, biology and chemistry. Therefore it is exponentially more plausible these are embellishments.

It is not down to group B to prove these are embellishments in just the same way they do not need to prove the unlikeness of someone walking on water. It is down to group A to get the Christian version located nearer to the place and time. They can do that with still early Christian documents. However they cannot show the resurrection was not a Christian embellishment without clear cut external corroboration. The argument from silence applied in this case simply points out the thinness of the Christian version and what is needed to fend of the embellishment criticism.

Moreover, once it is accepted that embellishment is the by far most plausible scenario then further questions arise as to just where truth starts story begins. Once we begin to ask those question we seek external corroboration of the more mundane aspects of the Christian Version and find no clear cut corroboration of the crucifixion. We know Pontius Pilate was historical. But the rest is all moot. Can we trust the Christian version for the more mundane details? Group B take the stance that you cannot trust anything on face value from a source that tells you their leader walked on water. This is why group A have an imperative to fill the silence to reach any kind of credible offering that could show the Christian story is more than a Christian story.

Least ways that is the way I see the arguments form up.

You wrote this in another thread, I feel it has great implications here.

• 1/ There are no clear cut external corroborations of the Christian story
  2/ there are no external corroborations at all of the resurrection.
  3/ Everything we do have is dated decades if not centuries after the event.

We have two groups here arguing at cross purposes.

This is not entirely true.

We do have several corroborations from within 100 years. The argument that Goat makes is that 100 years isn't close enough.

Well I happen to disagree with this opinion of Goats. Literary works from 2000 years ago almost always have a much greater gap than 100 years between the events and the first records.

I bring up Alexander the Great a lot for this comparison. Without the writings of Plutarch and friends, we know almost NOTHING about the life of this person.

We would know that he existed, and that he was a conquring man. That is about it. We would know almost nothing about any of his deeds and in fact, because the sources we have on Alex are 400 years out of date, and they contradict one another badly, we are not really sure about how valid that information really is.

You see, I feel that demanding the kinds of evidence that you and Goat are, is really dishonest because when you compare the 100 years of Jesus to the 400 years of Alexander, you can clearly see that your demands are not in keeping with honest historical analysis.


Am I wrong on this point?

Fact: the Christian version contains stories of raising the dead, walking on water and a resurrection. The claims in themselves contradict physics, biology and chemistry. Therefore it is exponentially more plausible these are embellishments.

I also disagree with this opinion. I agree that these sorts of things contradict physics, but if God does exist, then this is no problem.

So concerning this line of reasoning, neither side can use it without arguing in a circle.

Your reasoning would look like

"We know that God doesn't exist. Therefore these things are impossible and must be embellishments."

My reasoning would be

"We know God exists. Therefore it is not only possible but even likely that his presence would carry with it disruptions in physics and chemistry."


So your "fact" is really an opinion caused by arguing in a circle and must therefore not be entered as evidence if you are to reach a sound conclusion. If I had claimed that it was good evidence that these things were written down by the followers because they proved the truth of the matter, you too would accuse me of arguing in a circle.




The second point is more minor than the first, so don't feel obligated to defend it. However, I would very much like you and goat both to support the validity of demanding MORE evidence from Jesus and the events in his life, than from the rest of contemporary history.

You don't usually do this, but Goat makes almost 100% of his arguments based on this demand alone, and the demand if applied to the rest of history, would effectively erase history.

[achilles12604]

SECOND POST IN A ROW

Just to summarize for everyone lost in the HUGH amount of posts today, there has been a demand placed upon myself by Goat and Furrowed that I produce some sort of writings within the lifetime of Jesus which could corroborate other claims about him.

Well I’m not demanding you go digging up the Sinai desert or anything. And the point is that you are placing way too much credence on one set of writing with all the obvious doubts and criticism that can be applied to them. And the kind of evidence I am asking for would strengthen your case exponentially - it would not prove the resurrection but it would shoot down the “later embellishment” criticism.

I would like to examine the "later embellishment" theory you have here as it is right on track with the OP.

Tell me, through history, how long after the event do legends usually pop up? King Author was several hundred years if I remember correctly. The battle of Troy and my namesake were not recorded for equally as long.

Yet we have documented beliefs of rising from the dead and miracles within 10-15 years at most and these sources are not only from Paul, but also people who disagreed with Paul and were later wiped out for heresy.

If you compare this timeline to the rest of history, there is a stark contradiction in the length of time between event, and legend.

Do you feel that this supports or negates your embellishment theory?

[Cathar1950]

SECOND POST IN A ROW

Just to summarize for everyone lost in the HUGH amount of posts today, there has been a demand placed upon myself by Goat and Furrowed that I produce some sort of writings within the lifetime of Jesus which could corroborate other claims about him.

Well I’m not demanding you go digging up the Sinai desert or anything. And the point is that you are placing way too much credence on one set of writing with all the obvious doubts and criticism that can be applied to them. And the kind of evidence I am asking for would strengthen your case exponentially - it would not prove the resurrection but it would shoot down the “later embellishment” criticism.

I would like to examine the "later embellishment" theory you have here as it is right on track with the OP.

Tell me, through history, how long after the event do legends usually pop up? King Author was several hundred years if I remember correctly. The battle of Troy and my namesake were not recorded for equally as long.

Yet we have documented beliefs of rising from the dead and miracles within 10-15 years at most and these sources are not only from Paul, but also people who disagreed with Paul and were later wiped out for heresy.

If you compare this timeline to the rest of history, there is a stark contradiction in the length of time between event, and legend.

Do you feel that this supports or negates your embellishment theory?

Legend can happen over night. The apologist that suggested legends take longer was wrong as any look at JFK, Joseph Smith, and many others will show.
Most scholarly studies of the gospels show us a number of layers in even the tradition the unknown authors used as well as borrowings from Greek, Pagan and Hebrew stories. Documented beliefs are not evidence someone rose from the dead and it cirtainly was not the first of such stories. Paul give no historical details and it claims Jesus was killed by the supernnatural powers that ruled the world.
There is no contridiction between length of time and the stories and there is no reason to think so.

[achilles12604]

SECOND POST IN A ROW

Just to summarize for everyone lost in the HUGH amount of posts today, there has been a demand placed upon myself by Goat and Furrowed that I produce some sort of writings within the lifetime of Jesus which could corroborate other claims about him.

Well I’m not demanding you go digging up the Sinai desert or anything. And the point is that you are placing way too much credence on one set of writing with all the obvious doubts and criticism that can be applied to them. And the kind of evidence I am asking for would strengthen your case exponentially - it would not prove the resurrection but it would shoot down the “later embellishment” criticism.

I would like to examine the "later embellishment" theory you have here as it is right on track with the OP.

Tell me, through history, how long after the event do legends usually pop up? King Author was several hundred years if I remember correctly. The battle of Troy and my namesake were not recorded for equally as long.

Yet we have documented beliefs of rising from the dead and miracles within 10-15 years at most and these sources are not only from Paul, but also people who disagreed with Paul and were later wiped out for heresy.

If you compare this timeline to the rest of history, there is a stark contradiction in the length of time between event, and legend.

Do you feel that this supports or negates your embellishment theory?

Legend can happen over night. The apologist that suggested legends take longer was wrong as any look at JFK, Joseph Smith, and many others will show.

I must have missed the legends about JFK. Could you elaborate?

As for Joseph Smith, the only legend I am aware of by this man, is talking to angels, alone. Would you care to compare and contrast the falsifiability of this "miracle" and the ones believed by both Paul's followers, and the Nazarenes within 10 years?

Which do you think was more likely to be able to be tested?

Most scholarly studies of the gospels show us a number of layers in even the tradition the unknown authors used as well as borrowings from Greek, Pagan and Hebrew stories. Documented beliefs are not evidence someone rose from the dead and it cirtainly was not the first of such stories. Paul give no historical details and it claims Jesus was killed by the supernnatural powers that ruled the world.
There is no contridiction between length of time and the stories and there is no reason to think so.

Goat is big on claiming scholarly studies as well. Care to present them so everyone can enjoy (and carefully examine) their evidence and conclusions?

[Furrowed Brow]

This is not entirely true.

We do have several corroborations from within 100 years. The argument that Goat makes is that 100 years isn't close enough.

And goat is right. This is too much time for potential cross contamination of sources.

You see, I feel that demanding the kinds of evidence that you and Goat are, is really dishonest because when you compare the 100 years of Jesus to the 400 years of Alexander, you can clearly see that your demands are not in keeping with honest historical analysis.

If the claim was that Alexander walked on water and the only evidence of his existence came from those who believed he walked on water and any other evidence came within 100 years, we would be having exactly the same conversation.

Am I wrong on this point?

Yes.

I also disagree with this opinion. I agree that these sorts of things contradict physics, but if God does exist, then this is no problem.

Yes there is. For arguments sake lets say God does exist and that JC really did walk on water and raise the dead and was resurrected. The evidence you’ve got still does not stretch to that. You’ve got a picture of what went on, but the picture still remains unsupported. And that is the whole point. The critical methodology of Group B is perfectly consistent, and it is focused on the evidence.

So concerning this line of reasoning, neither side can use it without arguing in a circle.

I think you have created this circle. If God existed we still cannot approach the evidence with that assumption. We approach the evidence, all written decades later, recognising when they were written, the time lag, the potential for cross contamination etc. Without any clear independent support all we have is the Christian version of events. If you are already a Christian then that I guess that is all you need for you history. And the assumption of God is factored into your historical method. Group B on the other hand carry way less assumptions.

"We know that God doesn't exist. Therefore these things are impossible and must be embellishments."

My reasoning would be

"We know God exists. Therefore it is not only possible but even likely that his presence would carry with it disruptions in physics and chemistry."

Well if you assume god that would follow. But then you don’t need any corroborating evidence to assume that. Nor in fact do you need any historical texts. The Christian story could be passed word to mouth over the centuries and it would still be plausible for you.

So your "fact" is really an opinion caused by arguing in a circle and must therefore not be entered as evidence if you are to reach a sound conclusion. If I had claimed that it was good evidence that these things were written down by the followers because they proved the truth of the matter, you too would accuse me of arguing in a circle.

But you’re circling around the point here achilles. If you said the text prove the text to be true I’d say that was an empty claim - meaningless. On the other hand I am not saying lack of god disproves god which would be equally meaningless. I’m saying you have no clear cut corroborating evidence, you have no corroborating evidence of the resurrection. And that the fact the text claims stuff like walking on water, and raising the dead means we have to factor in embellishment scenarios, especially considering the delay in the authorship writings we do have. As a non beleiver yes I have to factor that in, but even as a believer so do you unless you are saying the text is true because it says it is true.

[achilles12604]

This is not entirely true.

We do have several corroborations from within 100 years. The argument that Goat makes is that 100 years isn't close enough.

And goat is right. This is too much time for potential cross contamination of sources.

You see, I feel that demanding the kinds of evidence that you and Goat are, is really dishonest because when you compare the 100 years of Jesus to the 400 years of Alexander, you can clearly see that your demands are not in keeping with honest historical analysis.

If the claim was that Alexander walked on water and the only evidence of his existence came from those who believed he walked on water and any other evidence came within 100 years, we would be having exactly the same conversation.

So you admit that the only reason you are arguing the line you are is because the claims are something you have already decided isn't true.

And this is different from arguing in a circle because . . . ?

Am I wrong on this point?

Yes.

Thanks for letting me know.

There is a conversation starting which actually compares the evidences side by side. Perhaps you would interject there? Socrates or Alexander. Either are good.

I also disagree with this opinion. I agree that these sorts of things contradict physics, but if God does exist, then this is no problem.

Yes there is. For arguments sake lets say God does exist and that JC really did walk on water and raise the dead and was resurrected. The evidence you’ve got still does not stretch to that. You’ve got a picture of what went on, but the picture still remains unsupported. And that is the whole point. The critical methodology of Group B is perfectly consistent, and it is focused on the evidence.

Well we shall see. Once again you have put forth that I am incorrect because your position is the only one which you accept based on your preconceptions. This is of course arguing in a circle as you no doubt recognize.

So concerning this line of reasoning, neither side can use it without arguing in a circle.

I think you have created this circle. If God existed we still cannot approach the evidence with that assumption. We approach the evidence, all written decades later, recognising when they were written, the time lag, the potential for cross contamination etc. Without any clear independent support all we have is the Christian version of events. If you are already a Christian then that I guess that is all you need for you history. And the assumption of God is factored into your historical method. Group B on the other hand carry way less assumptions.

On the contrary, you approach with the inverse assumption, that God does not exist.

This is why I want to compare the evidences of Jesus with those of Socrates. Because by comparing the evidence side by side, everyone will see that the only difference is that one set supports a secular belief, while the other supports a religious belief. Thus if you accept one, and reject the other, it is only due to personal bias. The evidence is FINE.

"We know that God doesn't exist. Therefore these things are impossible and must be embellishments."

My reasoning would be

"We know God exists. Therefore it is not only possible but even likely that his presence would carry with it disruptions in physics and chemistry."

Well if you assume god that would follow. But then you don’t need any corroborating evidence to assume that. Nor in fact do you need any historical texts. The Christian story could be passed word to mouth over the centuries and it would still be plausible for you.

True enough. So let us compare the evidence of Socrates with that of Jesus. Or Alexander if you wish.

My point above still stands.

If all the evidence is equal, and you accept one and not the other, then the only difference is bias.

So your "fact" is really an opinion caused by arguing in a circle and must therefore not be entered as evidence if you are to reach a sound conclusion. If I had claimed that it was good evidence that these things were written down by the followers because they proved the truth of the matter, you too would accuse me of arguing in a circle.

But you’re circling around the point here achilles. If you said the text prove the text to be true I’d say that was an empty claim - meaningless. On the other hand I am not saying lack of god disproves god which would be equally meaningless. I’m saying you have no clear cut corroborating evidence, you have no corroborating evidence of the resurrection. And that the fact the text claims stuff like walking on water, and raising the dead means we have to factor in embellishment scenarios, especially considering the delay in the authorship writings we do have. As a non beleiver yes I have to factor that in, but even as a believer so do you unless you are saying the text is true because it says it is true.

Ok. Let's compare the evidence involved and determine what is fair and what is not.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7862

[Furrowed Brow]

Okay I’ve had a sleep on this my mind is clearer and I think we need to get this nailed down.

So you admit that the only reason you are arguing the line you are is because the claims are something you have already decided isn't true.

And this is different from arguing in a circle because . . . ?

Lets be clear. Plainly I am an atheist - one at the extreme end of the spectrum. In particular I deny the resurrection and that anyone walked on water. That is me. It may explain my motivations but it does not inform my logic. Logic is logic whether you are an atheist or a theist.

Put it this way if there was a claim that Alexander won all his battles single handed with one army tied behind his back whilst his generals applauded then I’d say - nope. Someone is telling a porky. Who started that myth? Where is the story first documented and so forth.

On the contrary, you approach with the inverse assumption, that God does not exist.

I do. That’s me. But not my logic.

Let’s go back a step. Lets say my arguments are circular. What am I saying?

The historical evidence we have is decades after the event. That there is no clear cut external corroboration of the Christian version. That there is no external corroboration of the resurrection, walking on water claims etc. I approach the text with a sceptical eye. And say nah. That don’t sound right. I’m an atheist that don’t believe in that stuff.

If that was the all I was saying then you could present to me no evidence that would believe to demonstrate the resurrection. And that is true- there is not. But that is not the argument. The argument is the evidence you have don’t put you in Jerusalem AD 0. The evidence does not escape claims of embellishment and misinterpretation. And we apply just the same levels of scepticism as we would if the claim was that Alexander fought his battles single handed with one arm tied behind his back.

Now lets say I’m not an atheist, but more an agnostic. How do I approach the historical evidence. Answer: the same way.

Now lets say I’m a Hindu or a Muslim or any other theist other than Christian that believed in interventionist deities. How do I approach the evidence. Answer: the same way.

Even if I believe in an interventionist God, it is not to say I believe that God intervened in Jerusalem AD 0. Where’s the evidence he did? Well the Christian says so. Nice story. Got anything else to back it up?

Now lets say I’m a Christian. How do I approach the historical evidence? Well if the text is true because it says it is true - an empty and circular claim - then I do not have to entertain the embellishment criticism. But then I am not treating the text as evidence at all. I’m treating it as an article of faith.

However if I approach the text and say it might be false, then the two reasons it might be false are God exists but did not intervene in Jerusalem AD 0, or God does not exist. Okay I’m of the latter school of thought. But in either case the Christian texts still require corroboration by external evidence, not to prove their truth, but to demonstrate that the methodology employed does not rest on the circular assumption - the texts are true because they have to be true. If you recognise that point then you might see that the Christian has a greater imperative to dig up the diaries of Pontius Pilate than the sceptic. We don't need any more evidence, you do. Not to prove your point, but prove your point is not empty and circular. The more you resist the more threadbare your position. Which is fine if you are standing on faith, not so good on logic and evidence.

So your major point regarding circularity , viz., as an atheist I refuse to believe therefore I refuse the Christian evidence, is confused. You're mixing up motivation with logic. Yes as an atheist I do not believe and so my atheistic presumptions are circular. But then I’ve have already intimated in other threads that I am an irrational atheist. But my logic and methodology are just dandy.

Appeals to Socrates and Alexander do not help your case. It comes across as a defensive mechanism to stave off approaching the text as a non Christian (not non theist or atheist). If push comes to shove - as Goose managed in the King Tut thread - then we just say you’re right the playing field is not level, we are going to have to start doubting the existence of Socrates or Alexander pending better evidence. We can do that because we are not wedded to the existence and truth of Socrates or Alexander other than that they are the names and historical characters we have all been brought up to recognise.

[Zzyzx]

.

Appeals to Socrates and Alexander do not help your case. It comes across as a defensive mechanism to stave off approaching the text as a non Christian (not non theist or atheist). If push comes to shove - as Goose managed in the King Tut thread - then we just say you’re right the playing field is not level, we are going to have to start doubting the existence of Socrates or Alexander pending better evidence. We can do that because we are not wedded to the existence and truth of Socrates or Alexander other than that they are the names and historical characters we have all been brought up to recognise.

Excellent Point.

Christianity is BASED on “miracles” being true. It cannot reexamine evidence or question its “truth” because if a dead body did not come back to life, the worshiped godman was a fraud and the religion is a fraud.

If Jesus was not a godman he was NOT a “great teacher”, he was NUTS. Statements attributed to him such as “I come with a sword”, “The only way to the father is through me”, and many others are insane if spoken by a human “teacher” or “preacher”.

John 10:23 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."

Matthew 21:21 " Jesus replied, 'I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.'"

Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Are the above not INSANE statements if spoken by a human? Therefore, Christianity MUST defend Christ-as-god or it is a fraud. It cannot back off its claims. It is stuck defending its “miracles”.

Even “lesser miracles” such as walking on water, being born of a virgin, being announced by a star cannot be questioned or abandoned because doing so admits that there is legitimate reason to question the credibility of the entire story.

Christianity IS “wedded to the existence and truth of” Jesus – and is not free to doubt or discard. Most Christians seem unwilling or afraid to even consider the possibility that their assumptions are wrong.

Some Christians who were brave enough to question their assumptions and their religion’s claims and pronouncements are present as members of this forum – as Ex-Christians.

Some Christians who studied the bible in great detail are also among the Ex-Christians.

[achilles12604]

Furrowed Brow made a very true and good point. We should approach all of history the SAME WAY. But then he stated that my appeals to Alexander and Socrates were a defensive mechanism.

Well really all I want to do is exactly what Furrowed suggested. I want to make sure that we are in fact approaching ALL of the evidence . . . the same way, just as furrowed suggested we do.

Is this not a fair request?

[Goose]

Put it this way if there was a claim that Alexander won all his battles single handed with one army tied behind his back whilst his generals applauded then I’d say - nope. Someone is telling a porky. Who started that myth? Where is the story first documented and so forth.

This may have already been mentioned but there are supernatural claims that surround Alex the Great. Does FB reject Alex the Great's existence or just the supernatural elements? If FB rejects the supernatural because they are supernatural he has a bias and Begs the Question. If he rejects the historicity of A the G simply because there are supernatural claims about him then he has an irrational position. Secular historians accept the hisoricity of A the G.

The historical evidence we have is decades after the event. That there is no clear cut external corroboration of the Christian version. That there is no external corroboration of the resurrection, walking on water claims etc. I approach the text with a sceptical eye. And say nah. That don’t sound right. I’m an atheist that don’t believe in that stuff.

This may have been addressed as well. But Paul is early. Very early by ancient standards. In fact, even some critical scholars ( I can provide a list if needed) will concede that the creedal passages found in 1 Corinthians 15 which affirm the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus date to within a few years of the crucifixion. Not mention, Paul was an enemy.

Also, the Gospels were written during the lifetime of possible witnesses. This may not guarantee they were written by eyewitnesses of course. However, the existence of witnesses has a correcting effect. A writer is much less likely to embellish or lie if they know there are witnesses still alive to offer counter testimony. Usually, it is after all the witnesses to an event have died that we begin to see legendary development.

Appeals to Socrates and Alexander do not help your case. It comes across as a defensive mechanism to stave off approaching the text as a non Christian (not non theist or atheist). If push comes to shove - as Goose managed in the King Tut thread - then we just say you’re right the playing field is not level, we are going to have to start doubting the existence of Socrates or Alexander pending better evidence. We can do that because we are not wedded to the existence and truth of Socrates or Alexander other than that they are the names and historical characters we have all been brought up to recognise.

This is a philosophical position. You are presenting a philosophical reason for rejecting, not an historical argument. We answer historical questions with historical methods, not philosophical arguments. A rational person evaluates the evidence the equally regardless of the significance. This would be a legal principle as well. We don't start out with, "Hey ladies and gentleman of jury, the outcome of this case is much more important to us than other cases therefore we are going to have different standards for evidence."