Historical evidence of Socrates stronger than Pauline-Jesus?

[paarsurrey1]

Is historical evidence of Socrates stronger than Pauline-Jesus of NT Bible, please?

Regards

______
One may like to read Post 41 of friend Jagella in the thread :�Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?� Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 30 by Jagella]

Quote:
What more or less objective criteria can we establish as a baseline for assessing historicity?

You tell me. What, in your opinion, is "objective" criteria? (Hint: If you come up with any criteria you judge to be appropriate, then those criteria are necessarily subjective. Why? Because you used your own judgment to come up with them!)

I do not follow your line of reasoning. Perhaps we are having difficulty with defining our terms? I use "subjective criteria" to mean "criteria based on the desired result"; objective to mean, "criteria which satisfies reason, whether we like it or not".

Now one way of testing one's criteria is to see if it contradicts certain desires. I for one would very much like to cling to the Christmas traditions dependent on Luke and Matthew; as they do not meet historical criteria, however, I do not include them among my "historical convictions". From this, I feel I am not being entirely subjective in my historical research.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by Jagella]

No. I'd say my approach is like being skeptical when I read an email in my spam box that promises me that some hot French chick wants to date me. When I ask to actually see this French beauty, the people who sent me the email (people I have never met and know nothing about) chastise me for being so slow to believe them.

It's funny Mithrae's example there. I know two girls, my best friend's two sisters, who have French accents and authentic French driving licences...but are not actually from France!
Nope, they were born here in Ireland and lived here their first few years, before moving to France later to live with their mother after the divorce. All the examples of evidence (barring the birth certificate) that he lists would not actually prove that these sisters were from France.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 30 by Jagella]

No. I'd say my approach is like being skeptical when I read an email in my spam box that promises me that some hot French chick wants to date me. When I ask to actually see this French beauty, the people who sent me the email (people I have never met and know nothing about) chastise me for being so slow to believe them.

It's funny Mithrae's example there. I know two girls, my best friend's two sisters, who have French accents and authentic French driving licences...but are not actually from France!
Nope, they were born here in Ireland and lived here their first few years, before moving to France later to live with their mother after the divorce. All the examples of evidence (barring the birth certificate) that he lists would not actually prove that these sisters were from France.

Well... how did you find out that they're Irish? Did they tell you, or did you demand to see their birth certificates?

If they told you, that pretty much confirms my point: As a general rule in such mundane matters our criteria of evidence is based on reasonable expectations, rather than demanding arbitrarily high levels of proof.

If it was a very important issue - you're recruiting someone into a sensitive government role for example - then much higher standards of proof are important. And perhaps that is what causes much of the confusion or bias in discussions about Jesus, since some of the claims made about him (eg. his divinity or resurrection) are of a kind for which the historical evidence is rather weak (or non-existent, for his divinity). So on the one hand we've got Christian apologists trying to use a mundane standard of evidence to argue the exceptional, and on the other we've got critical apologists trying to insist on an exceptional standard even for Jesus' mere existence. Arguments which declare that all the miracle stories must be "lies" or "made up" and therefore everything else is probably made up too betray that fallacy quite clearly.

While critics of Jesus' historicity apparently are not consistent in applying similar standards to other ancient teachers whose existence is accepted, I wonder if they are at least consistent with regards to logical analysis? Whenever a sceptic tells a Christian apologist that they should apply the same standards to Christian miracles as they do to non-Christian miracles, does Jagella protest that this too is a 'red herring' and the evidence for Hindu miracles has no bearing on the evidence for Christian ones?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 33 by Mithrae]

Well... how did you find out that they're Irish? Did they tell you, or did you demand to see their birth certificates? Eh?

Just to be clear, I'm not really arguing here in this thread. I just saw your example, and thought to myself how specifically odd it was that you said something that in fact is on the nose with regard to people I know.
(If you must know, the older sister is twin to my best friend, I currently live in their old house here in Ireland, there are photos of them as young children living in this house, and whenever we chat, they express a detailed knowledge of the local area. Since that is true of the older sister, it would have to automatically be true for the younger, since the split up of their parents happened when they were approaching double digits in age)

If they told you, that pretty much confirms my point: As a general rule in such mundane matters our criteria of evidence is based on reasonable expectations, rather than demanding arbitrarily high levels of proof.

Not going to disagree with you. Just sayin'...if these girls wanted to fool some guy into thinking they're originally from France, they could do everything bar the birth certificate and fool even the most hard core of skeptics.
So yes...it's a general rule, but not an absolute one.

And perhaps that is what causes much of the the confusion or bias in discussions about Jesus, since some of the claims made about him (eg. his divinity or resurrection) are of a kind for which the historical evidence is rather weak (or non-existent, for his divinity). So on the one hand we've got Christian apologists trying to use a mundane standard of evidence to argue the exceptional, and on the other we've got critical apologists trying to insist on an exceptional standard even for Jesus' mere existence. Arguments which declare that all the miracle stories must be "lies" or "made up" and therefore everything else is probably made up too betray that fallacy quite clearly.

To tell the truth, I'm starting to lean towards the "Jesus was probably made up more or less entirely" side of things, but I'm not going to debate it. At least not yet. I haven't yet fully fleshed it out. At the moment, it's just a feeling I have, and yes, I know how unreliable feelings are (and have argued against them plenty in the past), which is why I won't debate it. I'm not going to argue or defend a position that I acknowledge right now I can't.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 34 by rikuoamero]

To tell the truth, I'm starting to lean towards the "Jesus was probably made up more or less entirely" side of things, but I'm not going to debate it. At least not yet. I haven't yet fully fleshed it out. At the moment, it's just a feeling I have, and yes, I know how unreliable feelings are (and have argued against them plenty in the past), which is why I won't debate it. I'm not going to argue or defend a position that I acknowledge right now I can't.

As much as I appreciate your honesty, I challenge your intellectual integrity and your vague description.

"Jesus was PROBABLY made up MORE OR LESS ENTIRELY"

A quick reflection will show how ambiguous, if not nonsensical, that statement is. What are the percentages of "probably" "more" "less" and "entirely"?

I know many here will applaud your honesty; but honesty should still be cogent.

[marco]

To tell the truth, I'm starting to lean towards the "Jesus was probably made up more or less entirely" side of things, but I'm not going to debate it.

As much as I appreciate your honesty, I challenge your intellectual integrity and your vague description.

He's being perfectly intelligible and perfectly honest, to boot. He's beginning to accept that perhaps there was no Jesus, and many people have come to that view. And what's wrong with requiring time to consider that new position?

In many matters the deciding factor is not hard evidence, but a personal opinion, based on a variety of accounts, ideas and arguments from others. It is wise and thoughtful for someone to state they are not ready to advance their opinion until it is closely examined. I commend his intellectual integrity.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by rikuoamero]

To tell the truth, I'm starting to lean towards the "Jesus was probably made up more or less entirely" side of things, but I'm not going to debate it. At least not yet. I haven't yet fully fleshed it out. At the moment, it's just a feeling I have, and yes, I know how unreliable feelings are (and have argued against them plenty in the past), which is why I won't debate it. I'm not going to argue or defend a position that I acknowledge right now I can't.

As much as I appreciate your honesty, I challenge your intellectual integrity and your vague description.

"Jesus was PROBABLY made up MORE OR LESS ENTIRELY"

A quick reflection will show how ambiguous, if not nonsensical, that statement is. What are the percentages of "probably" "more" "less" and "entirely"?

I know many here will applaud your honesty; but honesty should still be cogent.

I hope you realize just how much of a...donkey you made yourself out to be, with this response? How is there anything in what you quoted from me that is not of a high standard of intellectual integrity? I espouse a feeling I have, I acknowledge the many weaknesses with it, and more to the point...I promise that I will not debate or defend it, since I know full well that I cannot!
I can't give percentages because at this stage, I simply don't know! Yes, it's an ambiguous statement, as it was meant to be. This (near?) position of mine is nowhere near fully fleshed out, so of course I can't put numbers on it.

It's like you saw this from me, and immediately leapt to your keyboard, with nary a pause for just what it is you were about to post.