aa5874

There is no known corroborated evidence to support the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ. The Christian Bible accounts of Jesus Christ can not be authenticated. No-one can verify or identify, whether inside or outside the Bible, the authors of Gospels. There are no known verifiable writings by Jesus Christ himself.
Jesus Christ has all the footprints of fiction. He must be declared to be the world worst fairy tale ever to be believed.

OripahsTrebor

Of course, the accounts of the Gospels cannot be verified, as I belief they were written to gain converts, not to tell a historically accurate account of Jesus' life. Obviously, there would not be any historical writings from a man who was only known in small villages in Palestine who went around alledgedly curing people who had faith. These miracles did not attract the attention of the authorities as they could easily dismiss it as a delusion as these miracles were not conducted in a controlled setting (which would be the criterion of the Randi challenge.) But, I do think you are commiting the black and white fallacy as you believe that because the Bible is false, all of it is false.

Chris Weimer

Socrates consistent? Aristotle on Socrates?

Socrates, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Kong Fu Tzu, King Arthur, Achilles, just to name a few. Well actually, We have better evidence for Jesus than we do for the latter two, even though there are historians who argue for their existence.

aa5874

Can you point out, in black and white, what part of Jesus Christ's birth, life and death is not false?

Chris Weimer

He was crucified.

Cheers,

Chris

OripahsTrebor

I could only be vague as I do not know much about Christ's life, but I think it is likely that he was born (obviously NOT a virgin birth), he lived in Palestine where later in his life he performed some "miracles." Finally, he was crucified, and like Tupac Shakur (there will be no Tupacalypse, as he will not come back), he died there. I find it hard to believe that the early Christians would invent a tale about their messiah being crucified, as crucifixion was a shameful form of death. Obviously Jesus' followers looked into the Hebrew scriptures for consolation at it was easy to reconcile crucifixion with the Isaiah 53 account.

Stories such as his miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection could be deemed mythology and superstition.

Chris Weimer

Likewise, many other famous personages were recorded to have done miracles as well. Anywhere you have someone exalted you see a mythology develop around them.

Did Elian Gonzales really live? Did he really ride dolphins to the Land of Flowers?

OripahsTrebor

This also reminds me of Cassie Bernall, who allegedly said "yes" when one of the shooters at Columbine said she believe in God. This was never substantiated, but this story circulated through evangelical circles who revered her as a martyr. She, of course, existed.

Jobar

King Arthur and Achilles- do professional historians argue that there was an early king of Britain named Arthur, or a warrior named Achilles who fought at the seige of Troy? I thought they were considered fictional.

Buddha, Lao Tzu and Confucius all left their own writings behind, or were written about by their students, so they don't match up to Jesus on that account.

It's been a very long time since I read any of the dialogues of Socrates, but when I read them as a college student I thought that the personality of the man, and his keenly questioning intellect, shone clearly through the words of his biographer. So, consistent, yes. Although I'm sure that Plato tidied up and organized the words of his teacher, and probably put more than a few of his own words into Socrates' mouth, it appears to me very clear that Socrates did exist, and did say something very like most of what's attributed to him. (Then again I'm far from an expert, and freely admit there may be writings of which I'm unaware, which make it seem possible that Socrates was merely a character dreamed up by Plato or Aristotle to explicate their own ideas. But I'm not aware of anything like that.)

Chris Weimer

Most historians give some credence to the stories. Probably 99% of what they were are said to have done is probably fictional, but the person behind it is most likely authentic.

The claims of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius (also can add Sun Tzu, Muhammed, and probably many, many others) having either written their respective works or their students having done so is roughly the same as the claims that the disciple John wrote the fourth gospel, the disciple Matthew wrote the first, the disciple Peter dictated the second to Mark, and Luke did his research including first hand testimony.

It's really, really dubious. But that doesn't mean that none of them existed. It just means that wherever you have an exalted person, a mythology develops around them. It's what we see from history and even in the present. It's no different than Jesus. Ordinary man, respected by a community, legends expand.

The question of Socrates is just a little better than Jesus. What do we know of Socrates? That he is Athenian is not a question, and that he was killed by the Athenians is likewise not a question. The dialogues of Euthyphro and Apologia were likely to be somewhat authentic, if tidied up by Plato, but by and large Republic and Laws seem to be merely Plato's ideas put into the mouth of Socrates, nor do they align what we know of Socrates via Xenophon or Aristophanes, even accounting for the latter's comic exaggeration.