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]

But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

Please please do not make me go back and cut and paste all the times have I said I am non committal about the existence of Socrates, and do not infer existence, or that he drank hemlock, or other cited details of Socrates putative life.

Ok I won't. I think we have reached the crux of the issue at the bottom of your post.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

No longer claiming? Hmmm. Achilles I have just reread all my posts back to page 3 just to make sure I had not let a loose phrase slip in the heat of the moment. Maybe I have said something to that affect elsewhere but not here - I suspect I have not said it elsewhere either. If you can find where I say that then please point me to it and we can review. If you review my posts you will find I have steered a consistent line …..

The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC.

If you have yes-yes evidence that is stronger than yes-no evidence, and yes-no evidence needs further corroboration.

All the evidence for JC is yes/no evidence.

we have no yes/yes evidence at all for JC in the right time right location.

But when we come to the case of JC, we lack any external supporting evidence. In this sense the JC evidence is seriously weaker…..but in the case of JC, these questions are more pressing because there is a complete lack of meaningful external corroboration.

The external evidence does not have to be so precise, but anything that can be reasonably shown to be external will work towards quelling the counter interpretation.

With some corroborating evidence we can then begin to discern myth from possible truth

For Alex you have the archaeology, and the various writings we interpreter in light of the archaeology. Just as Troy has been reinterpreted as real since 1871. We have nothing that works for a real JC.

There is a complete lack of primary source evidence.

Actually that gives quite a neat summary of my argument.

Yes/No. Since you continue to use this terminology, I guess I should review it. Frankly I find it very confusing and contradictory.

Do you agree that they have roughly the same value of evidence?

No. Because there is a legitimate and pressing interpretation of the Gospels as embellishment, that does not obtain in the case of S. Lets assume S did exist. We have still to ascertain whether S killed himself and whether the method really was hemlock. Whilst these points are moot we have no major or obvious motivations for xen to go making the stuff up. Unless, he was applying some dramatic licence. If we assume a real J, then the dramatic licence is exponentially larger for a young religious movement seeking to spread and grow. Yes - I know you disagree with that stance, but as ever the point is that the legend creation interpretation is compelling, and thus sets the Gospels and Paul in a different light. That is not to say the matter is decided, only that the logical terrain is different.

Before I dive into 40, answer the question above as if you agree that Socrates, JC and Alexander all have pluses and minuses to their historical evidence and that they are on similar footing, we have nothing more to argue about.

Socrates - only yes/no evidence. Non committal to Socrates existence. However Clouds is right time right location. No obvious reasons for embellishments if Socrates existed. Commitment to a real Socrates does not require ignoring a major competing anti thesis.

Alexander - some yes/yes evidence. Right time and right location evidence. Artefacts etc. Affirmative to Alex’s existence. As for the fine details of the campaigns, battle successes etc…moot.

JC - only yes/no evidence. No right time right location evidence. Obvious embellishment motivations present leading to a compelling anti thesis. Non committal to existence of a real Jesus. However any commitment to a real wonderous JC requires ignoring compelling anti-thesis.

So the bottom line is we can accept Socrates because it is a "normal" story (regardless of the evidence), but we should reject Jesus because it is an "abnormal" story (regardless of the evidence.

This about sums up your position then?

what are we arguing about?

I think the answer to that question is important. We are arguing about how we should approach the evidence. What counts as a valid inference. And what commitments we can make given the nature of the evidence. And what logical terrain we have to take in as a real possibility.

I feel that our differences reside in what we are willing to allow to be "true". Given the above quotations and my summary understanding of your position, you have the position that we can accept the evidence subjectively based on what we "know" to be true.

If this is the case, then I must ask if you are honestly evaluating evidence, or if you are cherry picking evidence, and rejecting what doesn't agree with your understanding of "truth".]




I guess to sum it up, I see your answers as follows. . .

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus? Everyone.

Why is this evidence superior? Because it doesn't talk about impossible things.


Would this be a fair summary of your position?

[JudasTheGood]

But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

Please please do not make me go back and cut and paste all the times have I said I am non committal about the existence of Socrates, and do not infer existence, or that he drank hemlock, or other cited details of Socrates putative life.

Ok I won't. I think we have reached the crux of the issue at the bottom of your post.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

No longer claiming? Hmmm. Achilles I have just reread all my posts back to page 3 just to make sure I had not let a loose phrase slip in the heat of the moment. Maybe I have said something to that affect elsewhere but not here - I suspect I have not said it elsewhere either. If you can find where I say that then please point me to it and we can review. If you review my posts you will find I have steered a consistent line …..

The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC.

If you have yes-yes evidence that is stronger than yes-no evidence, and yes-no evidence needs further corroboration.

All the evidence for JC is yes/no evidence.

we have no yes/yes evidence at all for JC in the right time right location.

But when we come to the case of JC, we lack any external supporting evidence. In this sense the JC evidence is seriously weaker…..but in the case of JC, these questions are more pressing because there is a complete lack of meaningful external corroboration.

The external evidence does not have to be so precise, but anything that can be reasonably shown to be external will work towards quelling the counter interpretation.

With some corroborating evidence we can then begin to discern myth from possible truth

For Alex you have the archaeology, and the various writings we interpreter in light of the archaeology. Just as Troy has been reinterpreted as real since 1871. We have nothing that works for a real JC.

There is a complete lack of primary source evidence.

Actually that gives quite a neat summary of my argument.

Yes/No. Since you continue to use this terminology, I guess I should review it. Frankly I find it very confusing and contradictory.

Do you agree that they have roughly the same value of evidence?

No. Because there is a legitimate and pressing interpretation of the Gospels as embellishment, that does not obtain in the case of S. Lets assume S did exist. We have still to ascertain whether S killed himself and whether the method really was hemlock. Whilst these points are moot we have no major or obvious motivations for xen to go making the stuff up. Unless, he was applying some dramatic licence. If we assume a real J, then the dramatic licence is exponentially larger for a young religious movement seeking to spread and grow. Yes - I know you disagree with that stance, but as ever the point is that the legend creation interpretation is compelling, and thus sets the Gospels and Paul in a different light. That is not to say the matter is decided, only that the logical terrain is different.

Before I dive into 40, answer the question above as if you agree that Socrates, JC and Alexander all have pluses and minuses to their historical evidence and that they are on similar footing, we have nothing more to argue about.

Socrates - only yes/no evidence. Non committal to Socrates existence. However Clouds is right time right location. No obvious reasons for embellishments if Socrates existed. Commitment to a real Socrates does not require ignoring a major competing anti thesis.

Alexander - some yes/yes evidence. Right time and right location evidence. Artefacts etc. Affirmative to Alex’s existence. As for the fine details of the campaigns, battle successes etc…moot.

JC - only yes/no evidence. No right time right location evidence. Obvious embellishment motivations present leading to a compelling anti thesis. Non committal to existence of a real Jesus. However any commitment to a real wonderous JC requires ignoring compelling anti-thesis.

So the bottom line is we can accept Socrates because it is a "normal" story (regardless of the evidence), but we should reject Jesus because it is an "abnormal" story (regardless of the evidence.

This about sums up your position then?

what are we arguing about?

I think the answer to that question is important. We are arguing about how we should approach the evidence. What counts as a valid inference. And what commitments we can make given the nature of the evidence. And what logical terrain we have to take in as a real possibility.

I feel that our differences reside in what we are willing to allow to be "true". Given the above quotations and my summary understanding of your position, you have the position that we can accept the evidence subjectively based on what we "know" to be true.

If this is the case, then I must ask if you are honestly evaluating evidence, or if you are cherry picking evidence, and rejecting what doesn't agree with your understanding of "truth".

my personal view:

i always considered socrates somewhat of a alter ego of plato. whatever socrates actually existed or not is irrelevant, as its the WORDS of socrates thats meant something.

we could use plato, Xenophon, aristotle etc as a confirmation of socrates existance, but PERSONALLY, i consider him a shadow of plato, something plato USED as a example of perfection. that socrates was plato's teacher is somewhat irrelevant i think.


now, JESUS is supposedly GOD. we had plenty of 'jesus'es' during this time. there is no evidence whasoever for JESUS OUR GODs existence, but SOMEONE claiming to be god etc. this is quite different, and a rather BIG DEAL.

if JESUS was god, why did he only show himself to a TINY shadow of humanity? why did he not DO something that showed himself for all etc?


the evidence is AGAINST jesus existence as our lord and saviour. whiles socrates existed, but is irrelevant to his existence, even if we have the confirmation of it (plato, aristotle etc etc).

[achilles12604]

But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

Please please do not make me go back and cut and paste all the times have I said I am non committal about the existence of Socrates, and do not infer existence, or that he drank hemlock, or other cited details of Socrates putative life.

Ok I won't. I think we have reached the crux of the issue at the bottom of your post.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

No longer claiming? Hmmm. Achilles I have just reread all my posts back to page 3 just to make sure I had not let a loose phrase slip in the heat of the moment. Maybe I have said something to that affect elsewhere but not here - I suspect I have not said it elsewhere either. If you can find where I say that then please point me to it and we can review. If you review my posts you will find I have steered a consistent line …..

The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC.

If you have yes-yes evidence that is stronger than yes-no evidence, and yes-no evidence needs further corroboration.

All the evidence for JC is yes/no evidence.

we have no yes/yes evidence at all for JC in the right time right location.

But when we come to the case of JC, we lack any external supporting evidence. In this sense the JC evidence is seriously weaker…..but in the case of JC, these questions are more pressing because there is a complete lack of meaningful external corroboration.

The external evidence does not have to be so precise, but anything that can be reasonably shown to be external will work towards quelling the counter interpretation.

With some corroborating evidence we can then begin to discern myth from possible truth

For Alex you have the archaeology, and the various writings we interpreter in light of the archaeology. Just as Troy has been reinterpreted as real since 1871. We have nothing that works for a real JC.

There is a complete lack of primary source evidence.

Actually that gives quite a neat summary of my argument.

Yes/No. Since you continue to use this terminology, I guess I should review it. Frankly I find it very confusing and contradictory.

Do you agree that they have roughly the same value of evidence?

No. Because there is a legitimate and pressing interpretation of the Gospels as embellishment, that does not obtain in the case of S. Lets assume S did exist. We have still to ascertain whether S killed himself and whether the method really was hemlock. Whilst these points are moot we have no major or obvious motivations for xen to go making the stuff up. Unless, he was applying some dramatic licence. If we assume a real J, then the dramatic licence is exponentially larger for a young religious movement seeking to spread and grow. Yes - I know you disagree with that stance, but as ever the point is that the legend creation interpretation is compelling, and thus sets the Gospels and Paul in a different light. That is not to say the matter is decided, only that the logical terrain is different.

Before I dive into 40, answer the question above as if you agree that Socrates, JC and Alexander all have pluses and minuses to their historical evidence and that they are on similar footing, we have nothing more to argue about.

Socrates - only yes/no evidence. Non committal to Socrates existence. However Clouds is right time right location. No obvious reasons for embellishments if Socrates existed. Commitment to a real Socrates does not require ignoring a major competing anti thesis.

Alexander - some yes/yes evidence. Right time and right location evidence. Artefacts etc. Affirmative to Alex’s existence. As for the fine details of the campaigns, battle successes etc…moot.

JC - only yes/no evidence. No right time right location evidence. Obvious embellishment motivations present leading to a compelling anti thesis. Non committal to existence of a real Jesus. However any commitment to a real wonderous JC requires ignoring compelling anti-thesis.

So the bottom line is we can accept Socrates because it is a "normal" story (regardless of the evidence), but we should reject Jesus because it is an "abnormal" story (regardless of the evidence.

This about sums up your position then?

what are we arguing about?

I think the answer to that question is important. We are arguing about how we should approach the evidence. What counts as a valid inference. And what commitments we can make given the nature of the evidence. And what logical terrain we have to take in as a real possibility.

I feel that our differences reside in what we are willing to allow to be "true". Given the above quotations and my summary understanding of your position, you have the position that we can accept the evidence subjectively based on what we "know" to be true.

If this is the case, then I must ask if you are honestly evaluating evidence, or if you are cherry picking evidence, and rejecting what doesn't agree with your understanding of "truth".

my personal view:

i always considered socrates somewhat of a alter ego of plato. whatever socrates actually existed or not is irrelevant, as its the WORDS of socrates thats meant something.

we could use plato, Xenophon, aristotle etc as a confirmation of socrates existance, but PERSONALLY, i consider him a shadow of plato, something plato USED as a example of perfection. that socrates was plato's teacher is somewhat irrelevant i think.


now, JESUS is supposedly GOD. we had plenty of 'jesus'es' during this time. there is no evidence whasoever for JESUS OUR GODs existence, but SOMEONE claiming to be god etc. this is quite different, and a rather BIG DEAL.

if JESUS was god, why did he only show himself to a TINY shadow of humanity? why did he not DO something that showed himself for all etc?


the evidence is AGAINST jesus existence as our lord and saviour. whiles socrates existed, but is irrelevant to his existence, even if we have the confirmation of it (plato, aristotle etc etc).

GREAT . . .

but that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about the evidence, and what the evidence tells us comparitively about these people.

[Furrowed Brow]

Yes/No. Since you continue to use this terminology, I guess I should review it. Frankly I find it very confusing and contradictory.

Okay. I think you are going to have to point which bits don’t make sense and are contradictory for me to be able to answer that.

So the bottom line is we can accept Socrates because it is a "normal" story (regardless of the evidence), but we should reject Jesus because it is an "abnormal" story (regardless of the evidence.

This about sums up your position then?

No. The question you raised was whether the evidence was on a similar footing. As I said I am non committal about Socrates. Which means I neither accept or reject -I’m non committal because I can’t validly deduce with any certainty that Socrates existed or drank hemlock. However there is no obvious competing alternative interpretation that says the evidence is skew. If you can think one up Ill factor that in.

As for J the bottom line is there is no primary evidence (which we have for Alex), no right time right location evidence (Alex and Socrates), and there is a major competing alternative interpretation that says the texts are skewed. So in answer to the question is the evidence on a similar footing the answer is no.

However I have not been rejecting the JC interpretation I have been pointing out the weakness of your inferences to reach that conclusion. If I impose my anti supernaturalism then I will insist JC is an “abnormal” story but I have not been arguing that, and I have been making pained efforts to keep supernaturalism out of the criticism.

I feel that our differences reside in what we are willing to allow to be "true".

Well outside of the context of this thread that might be true. But in this context no. The logic of my point allows the possibility of your position. But it also recognises the anti-thesis. It admits the evidence can be interpreted both ways. However there are differences to the nature of the evidence, and when we sum all that up it is not possible to validly infer an historical JC without being bias. My point is that that is the valid conclusion…..without ever taking into consideration any reasonable suspicions about supernaturalism

Given the above quotations and my summary understanding of your position, you have the position that we can accept the evidence subjectively based on what we "know" to be true.

Not quite. Objectivity arrives with recognising the presence of the competing interpretations. The thesis and the anti-thesis. We accept the evidence for exactly what it is, we recognise the alternative interpretations, and the strength and weakness of those interpretations, and do not draw any inferences and treat them as valid when they are still suppositions.

If this is the case, then I must ask if you are honestly evaluating evidence, or if you are cherry picking evidence, and rejecting what doesn't agree with your understanding of "truth".

Again I still think you are missing the thrust of the analysis. I am not trying to convince you of the alternative and therefore reject the Christian interpretation. This is not an either one or the other argument. I am trying to convince you that your analysis is one eyed, and refuses to acknowledge the presence of the competing thesis. The two eyed analysis has to see both interpretations, and when it does it must then recognise it is not valid to infer the existence of JC - because the alternative has its own legitimacy. Given all that it is still permissible to subjectively favour one side. However, that position is always a subjective point of view.

So my whole point has been even if we hold off with any anti supernatural sentiment, it is still not valid to infer an historical JC. Heck I haven't even got an historical Socrates, and I can’t tell you for sure with any clarity exactly what Alex did.

I suspect all along here Achilles you’ve been recoiling from my personal rabid atheism which I am quite open about, and this has been leading you to see my arguments as an extension of my atheistic anti supernaturalism, and thus reading a tone of voice and seeing implications that are just not presence in the argument provided in this thread. As evidence by post your puzzling post 115.

[achilles12604]

So the bottom line is we can accept Socrates because it is a "normal" story (regardless of the evidence), but we should reject Jesus because it is an "abnormal" story (regardless of the evidence.

This about sums up your position then?

No. The question you raised was whether the evidence was on a similar footing. As I said I am non committal about Socrates. Which means I neither accept or reject -I’m non committal because I can’t validly deduce with any certainty that Socrates existed or drank hemlock. However there is no obvious competing alternative interpretation that says the evidence is skew. If you can think one up Ill factor that in.

As for J the bottom line is there is no primary evidence (which we have for Alex), no right time right location evidence (Alex and Socrates), and there is a major competing alternative interpretation that says the texts are skewed. So in answer to the question is the evidence on a similar footing the answer is no.

However I have not been rejecting the JC interpretation I have been pointing out the weakness of your inferences to reach that conclusion. If I impose my anti supernaturalism then I will insist JC is an “abnormal” story but I have not been arguing that, and I have been making pained efforts to keep supernaturalism out of the criticism.

I feel that our differences reside in what we are willing to allow to be "true".

Well outside of the context of this thread that might be true. But in this context no. The logic of my point allows the possibility of your position. But it also recognises the anti-thesis. It admits the evidence can be interpreted both ways. However there are differences to the nature of the evidence, and when we sum all that up it is not possible to validly infer an historical JC without being bias. My point is that that is the valid conclusion…..without ever taking into consideration any reasonable suspicions about supernaturalism

Given the above quotations and my summary understanding of your position, you have the position that we can accept the evidence subjectively based on what we "know" to be true.

Not quite. Objectivity arrives with recognising the presence of the competing interpretations. The thesis and the anti-thesis. We accept the evidence for exactly what it is, we recognise the alternative interpretations, and the strength and weakness of those interpretations, and do not draw any inferences and treat them as valid when they are still suppositions.

If this is the case, then I must ask if you are honestly evaluating evidence, or if you are cherry picking evidence, and rejecting what doesn't agree with your understanding of "truth".

Again I still think you are missing the thrust of the analysis. I am not trying to convince you of the alternative and therefore reject the Christian interpretation. This is not an either one or the other argument. I am trying to convince you that your analysis is one eyed, and refuses to acknowledge the presence of the competing thesis. The two eyed analysis has to see both interpretations, and when it does it must then recognise it is not valid to infer the existence of JC - because the alternative has its own legitimacy. Given all that it is still permissible to subjectively favour one side. However, that position is always a subjective point of view.

So my whole point has been even if we hold off with any anti supernatural sentiment, it is still not valid to infer an historical JC. Heck I haven't even got an historical Socrates, and I can’t tell you for sure with any clarity exactly what Alex did.

I suspect all along here Achilles you’ve been recoiling from my personal rabid atheism which I am quite open about, and this has been leading you to see my arguments as an extension of my atheistic anti supernaturalism, and thus reading a tone of voice and seeing implications that are just not presence in the argument provided in this thread. As evidence by post your puzzling post 115.

Ok. We were indeed missing one another. I think I understand where you are at now.

Yes/No. Since you continue to use this terminology, I guess I should review it. Frankly I find it very confusing and contradictory.

Okay. I think you are going to have to point which bits don’t make sense and are contradictory for me to be able to answer that.

Perhaps a PM. I just need personal clarification so I will ask you to explain it to me that way as to not get off track.

So the bottom line is we can accept Socrates because it is a "normal" story (regardless of the evidence), but we should reject Jesus because it is an "abnormal" story (regardless of the evidence.

This about sums up your position then?

No. The question you raised was whether the evidence was on a similar footing. As I said I am non committal about Socrates. Which means I neither accept or reject -I’m non committal because I can’t validly deduce with any certainty that Socrates existed or drank hemlock. However there is no obvious competing alternative interpretation that says the evidence is skew. If you can think one up Ill factor that in.

As for J the bottom line is there is no primary evidence (which we have for Alex), no right time right location evidence (Alex and Socrates), and there is a major competing alternative interpretation that says the texts are skewed. So in answer to the question is the evidence on a similar footing the answer is no.

However I have not been rejecting the JC interpretation I have been pointing out the weakness of your inferences to reach that conclusion. If I impose my anti supernaturalism then I will insist JC is an “abnormal” story but I have not been arguing that, and I have been making pained efforts to keep supernaturalism out of the criticism.

Alrighty.

I disagree twofold.

First, I do not agree that we have any better "primary" evidence for Alexander or Socrates.

For Socrates, you put forth clouds. I could easily put forth Paul's letters as they are from the same time frame, and contain substancially better information about Jesus and his teachings than Clouds does about Socrates and his life.

For Alexander, you put forth archeology again. But I still ask you of what value is Archeology by itself? You have neatly avoided (I think . . . correct me if I am wrong) discussing the worth of pure archeology and my examples of Easter Island and Stone Hedge. I still put forth that all pure archeology would tell us is that Alex existed and was a powerful leader bent on conquest. So how is your "primary" source on Alexander helpful at all? It may be yes for his existence, but it is certainly a resounding "no" regarding its usefulness and information passed along.

Why is this archeology more helpful or "better", than the 4 Gospels of Jesus, or Paul's letters?


Second disagreement, competing thesis. The "competing" thesis that the Gospel's were invented or forged is one without any sound backing at all in my opinion (with the possible exception of John). So this would be equivalent to my accepting the competing thesis written above by our friend, Judasthegood, that Socrates was actually a tool or an "example" used to instruct rather than a real person.

If the competing theory has not been shown to be probable, (not to mention possible), then your objections to my interpretation of the evidence stands void does it not?

[Furrowed Brow]

For Alexander, you put forth archaeology again. But I still ask you of what value is Archaeology by itself?

A heck of a lot of value. The effigies on Easter island evidence a ritualistic society that poured huge resource into the production of the stones. One resource was wood. Stone production brought deforestation to Easter island until there was no trees left: unable to build boats the islanders were effectively stranded from the outside world. So the presence of the stones explains why Easter island got no trees, and how the standard living for the islanders went into terminal decline, marked by famine and tribal warfare. It makes for a fascinating story - and a real living breathing history.

As for Alex we have direct evidence of his existence through archaeology and artefacts, and these tells us snuff about the importance of Alex. However, in some respects I do equate the writings of the history of Alex with the writings of JC life. Those about JC beat those about Alex for being closer to the event. However Alex in his own life time was a far larger public figure and therefore far harder to invent stuff without it being challenged. There is plenty of room to embellish his deeds, and make Alex “great”, but far more difficult to invent battles that never happened. JC on the other hand for the reason you have already pointed out was not such public figure, for the reason we might not expect to find artefacts is also the same reason to recognise there is considerable latitude for his “biographers” to embellish and invent. There is more than enough latitude to invent a crucifixion, turn a real Jesus into “Christ”, or even just invent the whole darn story.

I still put forth that all pure archaeology would tell us is that Alex existed and was a powerful leader bent on conquest. So how is your "primary" source on Alexander helpful at all?

To tell us Alex existed and was a powerful leader bent on conquest. To be able to say that is a real and substantive foothold.

It may be yes for his existence, but it is certainly a resounding "no" regarding its usefulness and information passed along.

I think you are underplaying the importance of what the archeolegy does provide. But really- have I said anything else? It seem to be there is an awful lot of room to talk Alex up and embellish his deeds by his own court and that to have a knock on effect felt in later writings. It’s the old cliché that history is written by the winners. Similarly I would not trust Julius Caesar’s account of his own campaigns. You have to read between the line and factor in the motivations of the writers.

For Socrates, you put forth clouds. I could easily put forth Paul's letters as they are from the same time frame, and contain substantially better information about Jesus and his teachings than Clouds does about Socrates and his life.

If Socrates did not exist then Cloud tells us nothing real about Socrates life. Same too Paul’s letters for JC. If Socrates existed then Clouds which is a comedy satirising Socrates tells us Socrates liked to ask a lot of awkward questions, and if the satire is just then Socrates was a sophist. If Clouds is not a very good satire and unjust then we can conclude that Socrates was a philosopher with integrity and not a sophist. Which is Plato’s and Xenophon’s Socrates. However, clouds is dated to inside the time line of the life of the putative Socrates. So whether Socrates existed of not we can date the name Socrates to the right date, and that the Socrates we are talking about is a philosopher. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one. We can’t do that with Paul’s letters or the Gospels. They’re decades later. So Paul’s letters date wise are not quite as good. From them we derive the same lessons as Clouds, maybe J existed, maybe he did not, maybe Paul is accurate, maybe he is not. If J existed but Paul is inaccurate then you have a possible Jewish Rabbi and a leader of a new religious movement…and that is it. Or maybe it is all true or maybe it is all made up.

Why is this archaeology more helpful or "better", than the 4 Gospels of Jesus, or Paul's letters?

The archaeology we have on Alex is right date and right time evidence. It demonstrates Alex was a powerful leader etc etc. The evidence is substantive. The Gospels and Paul’s letter are as substantive as Clouds. In fact they parallel each other - well of sorts. If Socrates existed and Clouds was a character assassination. The author of clouds was motivated to make a negative case against the character of Socrates. If Aristophanes is to be trusted as a source then Socrates was a sophist, if he is not then there is the equally compelling theory that he invented his version of Socrates. He did not like him, he did not like philosophers etc. The inverse case applies to the Gospels, and Paul. If they are honest and reliable sources then you have a real JC as recorded, if they are not then maybe JC did not exist at all, or they have embellished and stuff invented to place J in a positive light. We look for motivations for that and we find a young religion seeking to spread itself, and the invention of a cosmic Jesus suits that end for it juices up the message from “there was this wise carprenter who told us to love each other and be nice”. Is it me but I can’t see that catching on. Factor in a bunch of miracles and a death scene and O boy have you got a story.

Second disagreement, competing thesis. The "competing" thesis that the Gospel's were invented or forged is one without any sound backing at all in my opinion (with the possible exception of John).

The embellishment/invention thesis addresses exactly the same evidence. It recognises a young religion seeking to spread and grow, and that to convert people it needs a special message, a cosmic message. The integrity of the original texts is just one subjective view point.

So this would be equivalent to my accepting the competing thesis written above by our friend, Judasthegood, that Socrates was actually a tool or an "example" used to instruct rather than a real person.
Well I kind of agree with that assessment of Socrates. When I read the Republic we were taught that it was unclear how much of Socrates was Plato’s own ideas. And certainly by the later writings Plato was using the character of Socrates a cipher. So in that respect we can draw a parallel with the writings on Socrates with those of the Gospels and Paul.

If the competing theory has not been shown to be probable, (not to mention possible), then your objections to my interpretation of the evidence stands void does it not?

Achilles, as much as you want to wish it away the anti thesis is compelling. You have not shown that your thesis is probable or even possible. So I can equally reject your thesis. Bottom line your thesis - the texts are true, and my thesis - they are a lie. Again I have made the point, it is permissible to favour one version over the other, but you cannot use one version to prove itself. And whilst I hold off any anti supernatural arguments then we can say both interpretations of the evidence are on an equal footing. In which case it is not valid to infer a real historical JC.

And again the position I have been putting to you is that the thesis or the anti thesis might each be the case. You are the one rejecting the anti thesis and trying to say something more definite. In which case the onus is not on the anti thesis to prove itself, but for you to show that is it a false or at least much weaker position - or that you have fully factored it in to your interpretation. But you have not be arguing that way. You are keeping the lie thesis at arms length, and shoring up a defence of your own position.

[melodious]

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.

Yep, that's right. Good work, man. You have discovered the mythological roots of Socrates. And that proves that Jesus is not a mythical character? As Gerald Massey said, "A composite of 20 or more people is no one at all."

In the spirit of gnosis - M

[Flail]

When things are claimed to have occured that are outside of nature and tht defy common sense,reason and logic, one must demand strong evidence.

What is the evidence that Jesus was God, arose from the dead,that he performed miracles? What is the evidence that Paul confronted an angel of God as he walked down the road to Damascus?

[melodious]

When things are claimed to have occured that are outside of nature and tht defy common sense,reason and logic, one must demand strong evidence.

What is the evidence that Jesus was God, arose from the dead,that he performed miracles? What is the evidence that Paul confronted an angel of God as he walked down the road to Damascus?

Historically? Very little to none! Mythically speaking? Jesus was definitely God and the Mysteries are what they are of the Divine Incarnation, though few people comprehend or conceive them. Paul was a Gnositc, yet much of his biography that was created later is evemeristic.

In the spirit of gnosis - M