Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[Booko]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Claiming that a person didn't exist because there are not written records that suit your modern sensibilities and prejudice for written records is the "extraordinary claim" here.

You made an assertion about whether there was ever any figure behind the stories of Jesus.

Whether such a figure exists or not in no way implies the "extraordinary tales" are true.

Real historians generally believe there was some figure that existed that has come down to us as King Arthur as well, despite the legends associated with that person.

They don't just stick their heads in the sand and deny the possibility of a person's existence because it suits their religious prejudices.

Which is precisely what you're about.

 

[Mister_T]

1. Hmmm, based upon the works he did, and the religion that followed, you do then admit that evidence for the existence of Jesus is scant at best?

Not scant, but sufficient considering the social status of Jesus. You are comparing apples to oranges: Of course there would be more abundant and detailed documentation for a Roman emperor than there would for a pauper (which is exactly what Jesus was). It's the same thing as googling George Dubba and comparing your search results to Joe Smith from some small town in Montana. I suppose small name people in small name towns don't exist because there's a small amount of documentation for them?

2. What major religion is based upon him, and who insists that he existed?

I've never heard of Booko's reference, but the Roman Empire and it's rulers had a huge impact on western civilization. We assume their existence to be true without question. I'm pretty sure if people can find a way to "disprove" Jesus, then they can also find a way to "disprove" other historical figures. Yet, we rarely, if ever see this happening.

3. Muhammad is a poor example, for though there may be more historical evidence of his existence than the supposed Jesus, his life is certainly shrouded in much mystery.

If someones life is shrouded in mystery, how can someone say that his story is more credible than Jesus?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Apparently, this is a selective term.

 

[logician]

1.Not scant, but sufficient considering the social status of Jesus. You are comparing apples to oranges: Of course there would be more abundant and detailed documentation for a Roman emperor than there would for a pauper (which is exactly what Jesus was). It's the same thing as googling George Dubba and comparing your search results to Joe Smith from some small town in Montana. I suppose small name people in small name towns don't exist because there's a small amount of documentation for them?

1. LOL, please give the "sufficient" evidence that Jesus existed from a historical perspective. You are long on ramblings and short on evidence, that seems to be par for the course around here when presenting evidence supporting that historicity of Hesus Krishna, or Jesus Christ.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. LOL, please give the "sufficient" evidence that Jesus existed from a historical perspective.

The combination of Paul, Acts, and Josephus has proven to be more than "sufficient" to the overwhelming majority of historians, while your reference to "Hesus Krishna" is more than sufficient to demonstrate the level of your scholarship and grasp of logic and historiography.

 

[Mister_T]

1. LOL, please give the "sufficient" evidence that Jesus existed from a historical perspective. You are long on ramblings and short on evidence, that seems to be par for the course around here when presenting evidence supporting that historicity of Hesus Krishna, or Jesus Christ.

My "ramblings" are a by-product of your argument's apparently willful shortcomings.

As Jay had mentioned, Paul's letters and the outside references are considered sufficient evidence.

Apparently Jesus was real enough to where people in that region today, acknowledge that a man named Jesus walked there and reject his claims as their Messiah. In a region known for it's oral tradition, it's a safe bet that the man named Jesus was indeed a real figure in history.

 

[logician]

My "ramblings" are a by-product of your argument's apparently willful shortcomings.

As Jay had mentioned, Paul's letters and the outside references are considered sufficient evidence.

Apparently Jesus was real enough to where people in that region today, acknowledge that a man named Jesus walked there and reject his claims as their Messiah. In a region known for it's oral tradition, it's a safe bet that the man named Jesus was indeed a real figure in history.

Have you ever heard of something called hearsay evidence? Testimonies centuries after the fact, or after the fact period are not sufficient evidence.

 

[Popeyesays]

Have you ever heard of something called hearsay evidence? Testimonies centuries after the fact, or after the fact period are not sufficient evidence.

All we have left of Alexander the Great is "hearsay" evidence.

All we have left of Homer is "hearsay".

All we have left of Shakespeare is "hearsay".

All we have left of Constantine is "hearsay".

All we have left of Ramses is "hearsay".

All we have left of Tertullian is "hearsay".

All we have left of Menander is "hearsay".

All we have left of Sophocles is "hearsay".

All we have left of your great great grandfather is hearsay.

In a couple hundred years all we have left of you will be "hearsay".

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

All we have left of Alexander the Great is "hearsay" evidence.

All we have left of Homer is "hearsay".

All we have left of Shakespeare is "hearsay".

All we have left of Constantine is "hearsay".

All we have left of Ramses is "hearsay".

All we have left of Tertullian is "hearsay".

All we have left of Menander is "hearsay".

All we have left of Sophocles is "hearsay".

All we have left of your great great grandfather is hearsay.

In a couple hundred years all we have left of you will be "hearsay".

Regards,
Scott

Certainly untrue if respected contemporary historians, or scribes wrote down their history, and if they also were authors themselves.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Certainly untrue if respected contemporary historians, or scribes wrote down their history, and if they also were authors themselves.

Paul, Acts, Josephus ...

 

[Booko]

Apparently Jesus was real enough to where people in that region today, acknowledge that a man named Jesus walked there and reject his claims as their Messiah. In a region known for it's oral tradition, it's a safe bet that the man named Jesus was indeed a real figure in history.

Not only that, Mr. T, there are people living in the region today who are the descendants of Jesus' siblings. They can trace their ancestry back, and in historical circles that is a form of "evidence."

 

[Booko]

Have you ever heard of something called hearsay evidence? Testimonies centuries after the fact, or after the fact period are not sufficient evidence.

You are taking a legal term and applying it to historiography.

Please live up to your username for a change and acknowledge your "argument" for the straw man it so clearly is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not only that, Mr. T, there are people living in the region today who are the descendants of Jesus' siblings. They can trace their ancestry back, ...

Show us ...

 

[Booko]

Show us ...

You of all people should understand how important lineage is in that part of the world and the fact that much of that "historical information" has been preserved through oral tradition.

 

[Popeyesays]

Certainly untrue if respected contemporary historians, or scribes wrote down their history, and if they also were authors themselves.

Prove that Homer wrote the Illyad, or Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex, or that any of Menander's plays actually exist (only one can be considered his and some small pieces from other plays). Prove that Julius Caesar actually wrote the Gallic Wars.

We depend upon traditions to set the "history" in place all the time.

The battle of Kadesh was considered for two centuries to be a great Egyptian victory, now we have good hard evidence to show that the Pharoah was just playing games to cover up a shocking loss to the Assyrians.

To use your "hearsay" legalist argument, hear say is quite sufficient to provide a "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. it is not sufficient for a criminal case.

I also doubt that you understand what "hearsay" actually IS in a legal sense.

If I say George told me that Jack confessed to committing a crime, that is NOT hearsay evidence. Because I am there to be cross-examined about what George said.

If I testify that George told me that Sue said Jack confessed to a crime that is, in fact hearsay, because Sue is not there to be cross-examined.

So if Josephus says Christians told him about Christ's activities, then that isn't hearsay because Joseph witnessed what the witnesses of Christ record. If Josephus refers to correspondents who tell him what the witnesses to Christ said without attributing and identifying his correspondents, then that is "hearsay". However all this applies modern standards of journalism and law to times that were very different in their standards.

That is foolish in the extreme when dealing with history, and hagiography.

Do you know what hagiography is?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Mister_T]

Have you ever heard of something called hearsay evidence? Testimonies centuries after the fact, or after the fact period are not sufficient evidence.

The majority of documented history is "hearsay."

Certainly untrue if respected contemporary historians, or scribes wrote down their history, and if they also were authors themselves.

So if nobody has a scribe, a historian or if the individual themselves is not an author, they didn't exist? :areyoucra

 

[doppelganger]

The majority of documented history is hearsay.

Correct. That's why it's important to apply careful critical thinking and historical method in evaluating sources and assessing their persuasive value as evidence for a particular historical proposition.

 

[Mister_T]

Correct. That's why it's important to apply careful critical thinking and historical method in evaluating sources and assessing their persuasive value as evidence for a particular historical proposition.

And according to the majority of historians, Jesus (the person) passes that assesment.

 

[doppelganger]

And according to the majority of historians, Jesus (the person) passes that assesment.

And that, in turn, is but one piece of evidence to consider in my own critical assessment of the proposition.

 

[Mister_T]

And that, in turn, is but one piece of evidence to consider in my own critical assessment of the proposition.

Coming from a lawyer, I'd expect no less.

 

[Booko]

Prove that Homer wrote the Illyad, or Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex, or that any of Menander's plays actually exist (only one can be considered his and some small pieces from other plays). Prove that Julius Caesar actually wrote the Gallic Wars.

Prove that the plays of Wm. Shakespeare were written by Wm. Shakespeare and not by another man of the same name. (from: Science Made Stupid )

Do you know what hagiography is?

Doubtful.