RAFH

Yah, there is a huge difference from a claim for the existence of an uncommonly intelligent but otherwise ordinary man, whose legacy is basically philosophical and does not rely on any relationship to deity or the supernatural and a claim for the existence of a deity on earth whose legacy, while also philosophical, is virtually solely dependent on his being a supernatural being. Whether Socrates was real or mythical makes no difference to his legacy, it stands on its own. But Jesus's legacy is wholely dependent on his deity, take that away and virtually all of western culture becomes a hoax. That's not to say there isn't much of real value and utility that came of it, quite the contrary, but the wide acceptance of Jesus as a myth would change the world dramatically. I believe it would eventually bring down all the major religions after a temporary flux of believers to something else.

Malachi151

Keep in mind that Islam is also dependent on the existence of Jesus as a prophet of Allah.

aa5874

History is more than text. Text is an integral part, but at times, we have physical evidence, perhaps through archaelogical findings or through institutions or other entities that preserve the past.

Just like a crime scene can be re-constructed with text and physical evidence, a historical figure can be re-consructed using text and physical evidence, so that today we will have some appreciation of any historical figure's effect at the time he/she lived.

The re-construction of Jesus, so far, has been futile due to lack of credibilty of the books which mention His name, and lack of any physical evidence from any credible source.

The texts about Jesus, refered to as a God, are unusual and extra-ordinary. These writings claims that failure to believe the words that Jesus are claimed to have said, the reader will burn in Hell, but if the reader accepts and believe that the character is the Son of God, the reader will go to Heaven.

Now taking into consideration the reward and punishment, the reader of the texts has a dilema, will he accept the claims of the Bilbe or will he reject and research? I have yet to find any other secular historical texts that puts the reader in such a detrimental position.

What is even more troubling , is that those who believe the words of Jesus, are actually in a conflict of interest situation, since they may deliberately withold information to show that the Bible is false, fearing they will lose their reward and end up in Hell.

Gamera, it must be noted that whether Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate or any other figure is declared to be fictitious, their historicity or lack thereof, does not have any bearing on salvation, life after death, heaven or hell, which are the fundamental reasons, according to the Bible, Jesus lived on earth as a human to be sacrificed.

The Christian Bible is an unusual, extra-ordinary book, but its credibilty is basically zero.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gamera,

Actually, we do have a great deal of evidence for Socrates' existence. We have a play by Aristophanes that was written about him when he was alive. Since most of the characters Aristophanes makes fun of were well-known contemporary citizens, we can take this play as excellent evidence for his existence. Secondly, we have the memoirs of Xenophon. While his picture of Socrates is quite different from Plato's there is enough factual information that they agree upon that we can be certain he existed. Aristotle too mentions Socrates. As a student of Plato's for twenty years, he did not know Socrates directly, but if Socrates was a fictional character, we may suppose that Aristotle would have heard about it from Plato and suggested it to us. So we really have four independent sources: Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, writing during his life or within 70 years of his death and giving quite believable and detailed reports of his actions and sayings. It is also important to note that we have a multitude of writing by all these people that do not involve Socrates at all.

On the contrary, with the four writers of the gospels, we have no writings belonging to any of them that do not involve Jesus Christ. They tell us virtually nothing about themselves. The only exception is the author of the gospel of John who claims homoerotically to have laid on Jesus' breast, although this line appears to be a later interpolation. All of the writings heavily and primarily involve supernatural events. This is what we should expect from people writing about a fictional character rather than an actual living person. Further, it is hard to pinpoint the exact time of any of these writings, except to suggest that it is 40 (perhaps even 140) years of more removed from the time of any of the alleged events they write about. Besides these writers, the other writers who mention Jesus, including Paul, suggest that he is a god of some sort and give slight and quite contradictory details of his human existence.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

gstafleu

Exactly, that cannot be stressed enough, and it is where all arguments about asking for "extra" evidence compared to other historical figures falls down. Even if we have skimpy evidence about the existence of a general Bulliboius, say one mention in Tacitus, then we'd probably still assume the guy existed. Simply because it isn't clear that anybody really has a stake in his existence one way or another (except the student who wrote his PHD thesis about him, that is). But that is quite different with religious figures: the whole world of many people revolves around them. The stakes are thus much higher and we are therefore much more suspicious of the evidence. And that is doubly, triply, to the nth power the case when the "evidence" comes from within the religious tradition itself.

Gerard