Was Jesus for real?

[SlowwHand]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So Boris, you are willing to acknowledge that Socrates never existed?

I am willing to acknowledge he may have never existed.

By the same standards you are applying to Christ, we cannot believe in a Socrates?

Who said anything about "cannot believe?" It's not about belief. It's merely stating we don't have conclusive evidence Socrates or Christ existed.

Imran:

A man not interested in glory writing such an immense body of work? I find that a little hard to believe.

Why does one have to be interested in personal glory to write prolificly? Plato was an intellectual, a philosopher. He wrote because he had ideas to share.

Plenty of authors pen works under pseudonyms, so it's not hard to believe at all. Plato's use of Socrates as an educational tool is entirely believable--it's far more compelling to present ideas in the form of a dialogue, even between fictitious people, than to just state "this is my theory..."

In the 19th century, Franz Schubert made up a fictional persona for his treatises on music theory. More recently, Carlos Casteneda made up his Don Juan persona for his own teachings. Authors often insert themselves into their works under a fictitious persona for whatever reasons. Saying it's incredibly strange is silly, because it happens all the time.

[Zylka]

What conclusive evidence can someone give me that Shakespeare really lived?

How about Hannibal?

[Zylka]

Actually, I'm really rather more intrigued of conclusive evidence that Alexander the Great existed as a person. Or Julius Caesar

...and I'm sure you're able to come up with more than a few busts and passed down lessons of history?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zylka
What conclusive evidence can someone give me that Shakespeare really lived?

We can prove conclusively through first-hand documentation that a man named William Shakespeare from Stratford existed. We have his birth record, we have numerous merchant contracts with his name and signature on them, and other such records.

However, when one approaches the question of whether or not William Shakespeare the Stratford merchant was the same William Shakespeare who wrote Hamlet, it gets dicey. But that's only because there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, may have written the works instead. It's not conclusive. There is, however, little documentary evidence that the Stratfordian was the man who actually penned the works, as even the signature of the playwright is dramatically different than the signature of the Stradfordian.

It's a raging debate in the academic world.

How about Hannibal?

Again, we have numerous contemporary accounts of Hannibal, both from Roman and Carthaginian sources. There exists at least some documentary evidence that says he existed. It's possible he was a fabrication of some sort, but it seems unlikely, considering the evidence.

[Japher]

Is everyone from Missori? You know, "the show me state"? If it wasn't seen on TV it might not be true.

IMO, everything is questionable yet arbitrary. The ends do not justify the beginnings more so they develop the beginnings. Does that make sense?

Did Jesus exist? Who knows, does it matter? Because of dedicated followers of a dogma (religous, political, or social) a religion that says he did has shaped the world in countless ways. Whether Jesus existed as a single man, a group of people, a figment of ones imagination does not really matter. More so, because a large group of people believe he did, he therefore became.

I think therefore I am? How about; we think therefore he is?

If seeing is believing, could it not work the other way? It does all the time.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But that's only because there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, may have written the works instead.

That's the best one, too!

Again, we have numerous contemporary accounts of Hannibal, both from Roman and Carthaginian sources. There exists at least some documentary evidence that says he existed. It's possible he was a fabrication of some sort, but it seems unlikely, considering the evidence.

The evidence that outweighs Jesus' how, exactly? Do specify comtemporary accounts, por favor!

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Zylka
Actually, I'm really rather more intrigued of conclusive evidence that Alexander the Great existed as a person. Or Julius Caesar

Ofcourse Julius Caesar existed! He was Jesus Christ

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zylka
The evidence that outweighs Jesus' how, exactly? Do specify comtemporary accounts, por favor!

Contemporary (i.e. not later) accounts of Romans of Hannibal and his army running over Italy for years, the accounts from his arrest following the war and subsequent fleeing to Syria to the court of King Antiochas, contemporary accounts of his launching a naval assault on Rhodes...those are just a few. And since they are contemporary, they outweigh the evidence for Jesus, of whom there exists no contemporary documentation.

[Ned]

The histories written about Hannibal were written after the events, some long after. If one can rely on such histories to demonstrate that Hannibal did exist, then we have ample documentation of Christ's existence from many sources, both Roman and Christian, all of which were written after the events had occured.

Even the Jews and Moslems believe he existed.

What do you want? Something chiselled on stone? Something like, "Here lies James, the brother of Jesus and the son of Joseph?"

[Japher]

So, there was a man named Jesus who had a dad named Joseph and a brother named James. I think the real question is; did he exist in the fashion that christians believe? I.e. walking on water, curing the sick, turning water to wine, etc. through the devine power of some guy named GOD.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Japher
So, there was a man named Jesus who had a dad named Joseph and a brother named James. I think the real question is; did he exist in the fashion that christians believe? I.e. walking on water, curing the sick, turning water to wine, etc. through the devine power of some guy named GOD.

As I said before and still maintain, belief in these things is not necessary to listen to what Jesus had to say. The sermon on the mount truely was revolutionary.

As well, history records a lot of other people besides Jesus working these kinds of "miracles." I cited Vespasian, for example. It was almost common practice in Judea to raise the dead. As well, I really believe that some of these people were actually not dead, but only thought to be dead.

For example, if, by stabbing Jesus the way he was stabbed served to clear his lungs of fluid, the Roman soldier may just have save Jesus's life instead of killing him.

[Ben Kenobi]

I take it that one dies on a cross by water filling the lungs.

Water in the lungs.

Read the quote again Ned.

Plus you don't address the second point.

http://www.dyeager.org/skeptic/deathofjesus.php

Note, the usual death on the cross.

Other contributing factors:

Hypovolemic shock
Exhaustion
Dehydration
Stress induced arrhythmias
Congestive heart failure
cardial and pleural effusions
cardiac rupture.

Blood and water pouring from Christ's side is sympomatic of cardaic rupture.

"
Much speculation has centered on the exact location of the puncture wound and thus the source of the resulting blood and water. However, the Greek word (pleura) that John used clearly denotes the area of the intercoastal ribs that cover the lungs (Netter, 1994, p. 184). Given the upward angle of the spear, and the thoracic location of the wound, abdominal organs can be ruled out as having provided the blood and water.

A more likely scenario would suggest that the piercing affected a lung (along with any built-up fluid), the pericardial sac surrounding the heart, the right atrium of the heart itself, the pulmonary vessels, and/or the aorta. Since John did not describe the specific side of the body on which the wound was inflicted, we can only speculate about which structures might have been impaled by such a vicious act. However, the blood could have resulted from the heart, the aorta, or any of the pulmonary vessels. Water probably was provided by pleural or pericardial fluids (that surround the lungs and heart). "

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/r&r0201a.htm

As I said before and still maintain, belief in these things is not necessary to listen to what Jesus had to say.

Christ did also claim to be God. Why do you regard him as authoritative in some things, but not in others?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why does one have to be interested in personal glory to write prolificly? Plato was an intellectual, a philosopher. He wrote because he had ideas to share.

Plenty of authors pen works under pseudonyms, so it's not hard to believe at all. Plato's use of Socrates as an educational tool is entirely believable--it's far more compelling to present ideas in the form of a dialogue, even between fictitious people, than to just state "this is my theory..."

He could have placed himself in a dialogue, instead of a fictional character who speaks to the great philosophical minds of the day. And writing to share your ideas definetly shows a inkling of wanting personal glory. After all Plato did not write in pseduonyms, his name was on the works. He didn't change his name because of political reasons or to make people believe that it wasn't his ideas (the reasons for writing in pseudonym). By writing the dialogues he expressed that he accepted those ideas in them and with his name on it, he accepted any political consequences.

If Socrates was fictional, I'd think that the people he spoked to would say that they have no idea who this guy that bested them was.

It seems implausible that Socrates did not exist.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He could have placed himself in a dialogue, instead of a fictional character who speaks to the great philosophical minds of the day. And writing to share your ideas definetly shows a inkling of wanting personal glory.

He could have, but maybe he didn't. Since there are plenty of examples of other authors doing so, it certainly is possible. As for the "glory" notion, that's just patently absurd and cynical. I'm writing a lot of stuff that share my ideas, even on this message board, and it has nothing to do with personal glory. You're trying to assign a value that perhaps you hold to other people's intentions. There are people who do not value glory in this world, but still want to share ideas.

You skipped my examples. Why did Casteneda use Don Juan as his mouthpiece rather than put himself in his writings? Why have this fictional character running around discovering and discussing all his philosophical ideas for him? If Castaneda did it, why not Plato?

Writing and philosophy is replete with instances of such, and to say it is "implausible" is simply wrong--we know for a fact it is plausible, as it has been done. Even those who believe Socrates existed acknowledge that in Plato's later works, it is pure Plato coming out of Socrates's mouth.

So if even the scholars say Plato used Socrates as a mere mouthpiece for his own ideas in the later works, why is it "implausible" he did so in earlier ones?

If Socrates was fictional, I'd think that the people he spoked to would say that they have no idea who this guy that bested them was.

Did Euthyphro exist? Do we have any record of him outside of Plato's writing? Perhaps he is fictional as well?

I don't see people bothering to write down that they insist they didn't see Forrest Gump at the White House in the 1960s, either!

One thing we do get about Socrates over Jesus is a physical description. Plato describes in some detail, at least, what he looked like. Amazingly enough, there isn't a single description of what Jesus looked like, even in the Bible!