The Evil One

It's balls, unfortunately.

Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula - any of 'em really - the evidence for their existence is much, much better than it is for Jesus.

We have physical evidence (coins, inscriptions), good textual evidence (books written by them or by close contemporaries), many histories written near the time by known individuals that discuss them in depth... we don't have four anonymous biographies that simultaneously copy from and contradict one another, plus two off-hand references by one historian that have probably been tampered with, which is what we have for Jesus.

The allegation you cite is a dishonest apologetic which remains in circulation because it is passed around by preachers not historically competent enough to question it.

Mosor

I dunno.... ancient emperors are one thing but what about other characters such as Socrates or Hannibal. I think there's even less evidence for their existence than Jesus. I'm not entirely certain but I believe almost everything we know about Socrates comes from Plato. Maybe Plato made him up?

Toto

Socrates is also mentioned in a contemporary play.

But really, who cares if Socrates was real or a realistic fiction? The argument that there is as much evidence for Jesus as for some other historical figures tells me that we probably should withhold judgment on many alleged historic figures.

Legion

I didn't state that as a claim; I said very plainly that it was something I'd heard but had not investigated. And while it very well may not be accurate, the claim only applies to some historical figures, not all. The one I've heard it directly applied to was either Caesar Augustus or Julius Caesar.

Why would "Brother of the Lord" be too ambiguous? Paul used Jesus and Lord interchangeably in his letters; I think it is unsupportable to argue that Paul may have meant something other than Brother of Jesus when he said Brother of the Lord.

I don't have time right now to check and see what else he said when referring to James, Peter and other disciples, but perhaps I'll come back to this and address that question again in a few days when I do have the time.

Legion

Fair enough. They should all be held to the same standard. Either lower the scale for Jesus or raise it for others; either way, it should be the same.

Legion

None of those are things that have even been mentioned so far in this thread--by me or anyone else, unless I missed it.

Btw, they are gospels, not biographies. They don't even portend to be biographies themselves.

The Evil One

Yuor point is well taken, Mosor. There are numerous historical figures other than Jesus whose existence is not supported by very much evidence. (I won't comment on the particulars of Socrates or Hannibal.)

But I was directly addressing the Christian claim, repeated by Legion as you can see in the quote above, that Jesus has better evidence than Caesar (or Augustus etc) does. That claim is balls.

The Evil One

So? I think in a discussion of the comparative evidence levels for the existence of Jesus versus Roman emperors, a quick summary of the evidence for Jesus seems entirely appropriate.

Which is why I posted such a quick summary.

Legion

Okay, but not only is that not the only evidence, it's not even the most important (i.e., less than reliable), which I presume is why no one here had suggested it as evidence.

The Evil One

Well, if you think there's better evidence than the Gospels and Josephus - please, let's see it.