U
- Status
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Can you give some examples of scholars who reject Socrates’ existence? Or is that just a naked assertion to dodge the actual point of the example?
And let’s say Socrates doesn’t exist. There is still Emperor Tiberius, Alexander the Great, Zoroaster, and quite probably more ancient historical figures who are accepted without a single doubt as historical in spite of having less or equal evidence to Jesus’ existence. What have you to say about them?
Let me remind you that acknowledging the existence of a person does not necessarily equate to believing in any miracles in the story, as I pointed out in another thread.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
You’re wrong. My reasons for not accepting that a man named Jesus existed as dipicted in the gospels (meaning a god-man who worked miracles), is due to general lack of sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs.
I don’t think you’ve understood that the only reason I entered this thread was to suggest the possibility that the apostles may have been genuinely mistaken, not that the apostles witnessed everything the gospels said they witnessed and still were genuinely mistaken. This is why I made I huge point to emphasize that you were making a lot of historical assumptions: It would take exceptional evidence to justify all those ifs. You didn’t seem to appreciate that.
On principle, I generally avoid addressing articles that people copy and paste from elsewhere, unless the person summarizes it in their own words, since this is a bad habit. Anyone can copy and paste from an apologetic source. However, I wanted to briefly respond to this.
I’m a mental health major. As someone studying psychology, who is frequently in contact with professors who practice psychology, I can tell you that its very possible for a group of people to be very wrong regarding a shared experience.
Psychologists most certainly do not dispute the fact that it’s very possible for for a group of people to be very wrong about a spectacular shared experience for which they seem to all be in agreement. I’m sure a good number of them are uncertain whether such cases may be completely due to hallucination by all members present, since such occurrences are rare, especially outside of religion and abductions.
I recommend you learn more about false memories. Studies on false memories have been surprising, especially in social psychology. Studies have shown that if a person is told something bizarre about the past by someone they trust many times, believe it, than be told by the person that falsely told them about the event, the person will insist that they remember it happening. That’s right! The mind of ordinary people manufactured false memories of some event that early didn’t happen.
This tends to be even more true in social psychology. Studies have found that what others in a group say can change a persons memory of an event. This would be even greater in the context of the age of the apostles, in which people were a lot more open to a messiah.
These studies, and others, give us possible explanations for why groups of people may genuinely testify to witnessing or experiencing an abduction. They may also give us possible explanations for why an apostle may be genuinely wrong about the messiah he makes spectacular claims about.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
UnityofTrinity, if you’re going to respond to me, I would appreciate if you would use the quote feature
correctly. It would make it easier for me.
I do not need to prove that they existed because I don’t assert they existed. The burden of proof is on you to justify the extraordinary beliefs you hold. I have not seen anything near sufficient evidence be presented to justify belief that the gospels are historically accurate.
I don’t need to answer your question of how 12 men died for an imaginary man because I never suggested that they did die for an imaginary man. I merely suggested the possibility that they were mistaken.
In presenting the possibility that the apostles were mistaken, I’m not willing to assume that the gospels, which come at least decades later, are accurate. I may, for the sake of argument, go along with the idea that there was a man who the gospels were loosely based off of, who the apostles followed.
I also don’t assert that the apostles died for something they know is a lie.
I have never claimed that the apostles died for something they know is a lie.
I also am not willing to accept that we know how long the apostles may have been in contact with Jesus unless there is decent evidence (which I don’t consider the gospels alone to be).
My point in bringing up Apollonius’ disciples is that the apostles of Jesus lived in an age in which many people genuinely believed spectacular things that were false. Thus, people then were succeptable to genuinely false beliefs that were spectacular.
To sum up, I’d recommend you carefully review my previous posts to examine what positions a have taken. It seems to me that you’ve genuinely misinterpreted my points.
correctly. It would make it easier for me.
People are not basing spectacular beliefs on the assertion that Plato, Socrates, or Spinoza exist.
I do not need to prove that they existed because I don’t assert they existed. The burden of proof is on you to justify the extraordinary beliefs you hold. I have not seen anything near sufficient evidence be presented to justify belief that the gospels are historically accurate.
You’re putting words in my mouth. For now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are genuinely misunderstanding me.
I don’t need to answer your question of how 12 men died for an imaginary man because I never suggested that they did die for an imaginary man. I merely suggested the possibility that they were mistaken.
In presenting the possibility that the apostles were mistaken, I’m not willing to assume that the gospels, which come at least decades later, are accurate. I may, for the sake of argument, go along with the idea that there was a man who the gospels were loosely based off of, who the apostles followed.
I also don’t assert that the apostles died for something they know is a lie.
Of lot of leaders, religious and otherwise, can effectively inspire others to do extraordinary things, including making great sacrifices, and believe extraordinary things.
Only the logic of the straw man you’re presenting is going downhill.
I have never claimed that the apostles died for something they know is a lie.
I also am not willing to accept that we know how long the apostles may have been in contact with Jesus unless there is decent evidence (which I don’t consider the gospels alone to be).
Again, I never claimed, nor do I think, that the apostles died for something they know is not true.
My point in bringing up Apollonius’ disciples is that the apostles of Jesus lived in an age in which many people genuinely believed spectacular things that were false. Thus, people then were succeptable to genuinely false beliefs that were spectacular.
To sum up, I’d recommend you carefully review my previous posts to examine what positions a have taken. It seems to me that you’ve genuinely misinterpreted my points.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
One of my history professors, who earned his PhD from the University of Wisconsin, briefly mentioned that he thinks that Socrates may have just been made up by Plato.
Regardless, people are not basing spectacular beliefs on the assertion that Plato exists.
On principle, I’m not going to evaluate the historicity of every major figure, since it’s always possible to mention another historical figure, but for those you mention, there is a tremendous amount of archeological evidence.
I hate using an argument from authority, but to save a tremendous amount of time, I’ll do it anyways. There are reasons why historians have come to much agreement regarding those people you mention, yet many historians, including one of my professors (who is Catholic) don’t think there’s much evidence for the historical Jesus. Thus, historians and archeologists tend to think that the evidence for the historical figures you mention is much better than the historical Jesus.
I’m in perfect agreement with you on this point.
I have few problems accepting that there probably was some individual who the gospels were at least loosely based off of. However, I’m not willing to accept much more than that without decent evidence.
Partially why I think there is a very real possibility that the apostles may have died for a mistaken belief is because I don’t assume that their experiences with Jesus were as the gospels depicted. I think some people on this thread haven’t understood that, which I think has lead to some confusion.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
No! I don’t need to prove that the apostles were wrong in order to make the point that it’s possible that they were wrong.
There is a huge difference in the burden of proof between claiming that something did in fact happen, and claiming that something may have happened. In this thread, I did the latter (said that something may have happened). It seems that you somewhat agree with me.
The fact that many people believe something doesn’t necessarily make it more likely to be true. Billions of people believe in religions other than Christianity, yet you probably wouldn’t consider those claims to be any more or less true due to their popularity.
You may object on the ground that Christianity is currently the most popular religion in the world. However, there have been times in which the most popular religion in the world was non-Abrahamic. It’s very likely that there would be an extremely popular religion that’s wrong, and the fact that you belong to the religion that is currently the most popular religion does not give you the special ability to say that that’s proof for your religion.
If you think that your religion being popular makes it more likely to be true, explain away the popularity of other religions, including those that previously were the most popular in the world.
First, I never claimed that Christianity was a scam.
Second, the majority of the world believes in non-Christian religions. You and I would agree that they are all mislead. Therefore, the fact that something is popular doesn’t mean we can assume that it’s likely to be true.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
PhD in what? History? Classics? Philosophy? Indo-European Studies? The rank of the degree isn’t important, it’s the field it’s in. And he said “may”, that’s an agnostic stance at best, not “believing Socrates never existed” (unless you were paraphrasing).
Plato? Umm… Plato existed, and even if he didn’t, all of western philosophy is based on him, so I would call that a pretty spectacular belief.
Maybe for Tiberius and AtG, but not Zoroaster. In case you object that Zoroaster didn’t exist, as an atheist, consider that even Christian and atheist apologetic sources state that only one real-deal scholar or historian of Zoroastrianism actually thought Zoroaster was a myth and he died before he could back up his position.
Well, remember that archeology alone cannot be trusted. Also, Jesus has an abundance of historical evidence, and the “silence thesis” has been properly cut to shreds.
Just for the sake of example, let’s take Josephus. He makes 2 references to Jesus: one in the Testimonium Flavianum, which is probably partially but not wholly authentic, and one in the Antiquities, which is shorter but is taken as completely authentic by most Josephean scholars.
Here’s Peter Kirby, an amateur atheist historian of Christianity and Internet Infidels regular, on the Antiquities passage:
Peter Kirby:
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
TruthSeeker
One of my history professors, who earned his PhD from the University of Wisconsin, briefly mentioned that he thinks that Socrates may have just been made up by Plato.
I think you may have misunderstood what he said. No reputable scholar believes that Socrates did not exist. The historical record is replete with references to Socrates other than those by Plato. Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato, wrote a book about Socrates that differs somewhat from Plato’s account. Aristophanes used him as a character in one of his comedies, lampooning him as a man with his head in the clouds. Aristotle refers to him as a historical character whose fate he did not intend to repeat when he fell out of favor with the ruling party in Athens after the death of Alexander. There are just too many different reliable people mentioning him as a historical figure for him to have been a complete invention of Plato.
What your philosophy professor probably told you was that there are scholars who believe that Socrates was not created by Plato, but rather enlarged and fictionalized to the extent that he began to become a mouthpiece for Plato rather than for the historical Socrates.
At least he would have said that if he had a reputable education as a professor.
One of my history professors, who earned his PhD from the University of Wisconsin, briefly mentioned that he thinks that Socrates may have just been made up by Plato.
I think you may have misunderstood what he said. No reputable scholar believes that Socrates did not exist. The historical record is replete with references to Socrates other than those by Plato. Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato, wrote a book about Socrates that differs somewhat from Plato’s account. Aristophanes used him as a character in one of his comedies, lampooning him as a man with his head in the clouds. Aristotle refers to him as a historical character whose fate he did not intend to repeat when he fell out of favor with the ruling party in Athens after the death of Alexander. There are just too many different reliable people mentioning him as a historical figure for him to have been a complete invention of Plato.
What your philosophy professor probably told you was that there are scholars who believe that Socrates was not created by Plato, but rather enlarged and fictionalized to the extent that he began to become a mouthpiece for Plato rather than for the historical Socrates.
At least he would have said that if he had a reputable education as a professor.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You state that it’s possible but in reality you believe it’s a fact that they were wrong! If you cannot give any reason why they were wrong you are being unreasonable.
It’s not only a question of quantity but also of quality. The moral teaching of Christ is generally accepted even by non-Christians and is the basis of modern civilised values.
Do you deny that there has been moral and scientific progress in the world? To argue that the true religion was the most popular** - and no longer is** - is an untenable argument. In the Catholic Church there has been a development of doctrine and moral teaching in the light of advances in knowledge. Popularity is not the main but an additional reason to believe in Christianity because it shows it corresponds to people’s spiritual needs and has the ring of truth in its account of the life and teaching of Jesus.
Other religions are popular because all religions teach the same fundamental truths!
Please refer to The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley.
If it is not a scam what is it? Your claim that Christianity is false implies that Christians are either deceiving others or they have been deceived themselves. Somewhere along the line some Christians must have realised it is false but pretended to believe and deceive others because otherwise they would been either outcasts or deprived of their livelihood. The frequent charges of corruption in Church support this explanation - if Christianity is false.
I don’t agree that they are misled for the reason I have already given. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly of the truth…
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
I’m kind of busy, so I want to kind of nip this in the bud.
This entire thing with Plato came up back in post 322 to make the points that my historical approach would lead me to conclude that Plato didn’t exist.
It would have been more accurate to say that my historical approach would lead me to not accept the existence of certain entities, rather than to believe that they didn’t exist.
Now there are reasons why this is not a good objection:
In other words, the ARGUMENTS AND IDEAS that are attributed to Socrates-or any other thinker for that matter-are just as valid if that thinker did not exist as they would be if that thinker did exist, but the claims of Christianity are not equally supported if no divine miracle worker named Jesus existed.
This entire thing with Plato came up back in post 322 to make the points that my historical approach would lead me to conclude that Plato didn’t exist.
It would have been more accurate to say that my historical approach would lead me to not accept the existence of certain entities, rather than to believe that they didn’t exist.
Now there are reasons why this is not a good objection:
Whether or not Plato existed, or was an invention of Socrates or someone else, has no effect on the value of the contributions to society that are attributed to Socrates. However, if Jesus did not exist, at least not as he was depicted in the gospels, that would change the value of what is presented in the gospels and would open the possibility that Christianity is based on a myth.
In other words, the ARGUMENTS AND IDEAS that are attributed to Socrates-or any other thinker for that matter-are just as valid if that thinker did not exist as they would be if that thinker did exist, but the claims of Christianity are not equally supported if no divine miracle worker named Jesus existed.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
BTW, I think I once or twice said “Plato” when I meant to say “Socrates”. I can do stupid switch ups of names like that when I’m sleep deprived and working on papers. Regardless, my point that the ideas attributed to a thinker are just as sound if that thinker didn’t exist (and someone else wrote them), still apply.
If I discovered that a thinker I studied never existed (but rather was an invention of someone else) would be irrelevant as to whether or not I agree with the ideas attributed to the thinker.
Regarding Josephos, even if the two brief mentions were actually authentic (which is highly disputed),
Leaving aside the huge issues with authenticity of these two refer, the Antiquities, which these two references appear, are, at earliest, dated to 93 AD. That’s 6 decades-over a half century-late. That’s terrible evidence for believing anything spectacular.
6 decades is more than enough time for a story to become grossly embellished as it spread.
I’m willing to admit that there may have been a Jesus whom the gospels were loosely based on, but I’m not going to accept writings over a half century later as sufficient evidence to justify belief in spectacular claims.
My history professor earned his PhD in history.
Like I said, whether what is written about him is fiction or non-fiction wouldn’t change a whole lot of anything, but whether the gospels are fiction, non-fiction, or loosely based on a true story make a huge difference.
If I discovered that a thinker I studied never existed (but rather was an invention of someone else) would be irrelevant as to whether or not I agree with the ideas attributed to the thinker.
I’ve never seen any good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Regarding Josephos, even if the two brief mentions were actually authentic (which is highly disputed),
Leaving aside the huge issues with authenticity of these two refer, the Antiquities, which these two references appear, are, at earliest, dated to 93 AD. That’s 6 decades-over a half century-late. That’s terrible evidence for believing anything spectacular.
6 decades is more than enough time for a story to become grossly embellished as it spread.
I’m willing to admit that there may have been a Jesus whom the gospels were loosely based on, but I’m not going to accept writings over a half century later as sufficient evidence to justify belief in spectacular claims.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Be careful not to put words in my mouth.
I think that Christians hold false beliefs, but I’m not sure we have enough evidence to say that there were 12 apostles who believed “X” and did “X” and “X” happened to them. Even if I were convinced that there was enough evidence to say those things, I would only make the slightly more modest claim that “I don’t believe them”, rather than “I know they were wrong.” Similarly, I may not claim to know that those who think they’ve been abducted by aliens are wrong, rather, I’m not conviced that they’re right. In both cases, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim, not those who don’t accept the claim.
The moral teachings of a religion have little to do with how likely the religion is to be true.
The best moral teaching of Jesus in the gospels that I’m aware of, the golden rule, existed long before Jesus did. It was taught by Confucius.
My argument is that IF Christianity being the most popular religion today makes one justified in believing it to be true, one would have to say the same thing about another religion when the other religion was the most popular religion, or else you’re using a double-standard.
In other words, if the popularity of Christianity today makes you more justifies in being a Christian today, then if you lived thousands of years ago when Hinduism was the most popular religion, one’s Hinduism would be more justified by popularity.
Whether a religion corresponds to a person’s needs or whether it has a “ring” of truth (which I take as meaning it merely appears to be true) has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
You would have to really water down religions to hold that.
Anyways, you originally brought this form of an argument from popularity to attempt to refute the point I made by comparing Christians who gave up their lives, and others who gave up their lives for their false beliefs. I suppose I could refer to Muslim martyrs who died on 911, but you’re now saying that “all religions teach the same fundamental truths!”
You either helped me make a point I was trying to make early on in the thread (that just because someone sacrificed their life for something, doesn’t mean that thing is right) or you think that the apostles and the 911 hijackers sacrificed their lives due to the “same fundamental truths!”
I don’t have the responsibility to prove what Christianity is.
I don’t recall making that claim on this thread.
I do recall saying things along the lines of, “I don’t believe that gospels are accurate” (which is not the same thing as claiming that the gospels aren’t accurate) or “I’ve never seen any good evidence for the existence of Jesus.”
It seems, from reading this, that you do not think that the 911 hijackers were misled?! Since I want to avoid putting words into your mouth, which others have done to me on this thread, I’ll ask you, don’t you think they were misled? What about the Muslims who are sympathetic to the terrorists? What about those who believe in reincarnation? What about atheistic religions?TruthSeeker60;7635811:
I don’t agree that they are misled for the reason I have already given. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly of the truth…
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Socrates, and it would.
Actually this, but I think you get the idea.
The debate is about historical honesty, NOT influence of the character at hand. you can believe that about Socrates but if there’s evidence against that position (Socrates didn’t exist), you are being historically dishonest.
You’re missing the point of the debate. It’s about being historically honest with yourself, not whether or not the ideas require the leader.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Sure.
OK, fair deal then.
Right, but again, it’s about historical honesty not the implications of the fact.
I’ve never seen a good argument against Jesus’ existence. To be fully honest, I think I agree with many scholars, both Theist and non-theist, that if you honestly fell for the Christ Myth you didn’t have a very strong intellectual grounding in your faith.
Not so! The latter is virtually completely accepted as 100% authentic by every real-deal scholar and historian and quite a few fringe-ones. The only ones who dispute that are a small handful of hack atheists. The longer one is probably interpolated but only partially, not wholly, and this is the majority position amongst both Josephean scholars, Bible Scholars, and secular historians.
For the 3rd time, Jesus’ existence, not the miracles, is what we’re debating. There’s nothing spectacular about that. And every reference to Emperor Tiberius comes from over a century after the fact, every one to Zoroaster comes 2-20 centuries after his death.
Josephus had no reason to write down a popular story. What he was writing was believed as history by the people at the time.
And I’m not trying to argue for the “spectacular claims”, just the statement:
There was one man named Yeshua, on whom the Gospels are based or about.
Once you agree to that, we can debate the Gospels as a historically accurate resource on this man’s life.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Throughout all those posts, I’ve been responding with post 322-the post that spawned this sub-topic-in mind:
In this post, and in post 339, assumptions were being made such as we know that the apostles walked with Jesus for 3 years. It’s assumption like those, that we have good enough evidence to know details like those, that I’m concerned about. The reason why I am concerned about those in this discussion is because my entire reason for being on this thread was the very brief comment I made in post 304 that the apostles may have been honestly mistaken. If you assume that we know certain details about the apostles, the plausibility of being mistaken changes.
In a way, with the philosophers, I wanted to make the point that with little evidence, it doesn’t make that much of a difference if we’re wrong about them (thus they have a lower standard of evidence, and we can assume more on limited evidence), but because claims such as, “the apostles spent three years following a person who they witnessed performing miracles and they saw rise from the dead,” are claims that call for solid evidence.
The reason I mentioned the consequences of believing in the existence of a particular thinker verses the miracle worker of the gospels because in general, claims that have the biggest impacts generally aren’t claims one aught to casually make assumptions about on little evidence.
That may not have been the best way to put it, but I hope you can understand what I’m getting at.
Looking at the recent discussion, I can understand why you think that I’m missing the point though.
Now regarding whether Socrates and a person loosely resembling Jesus which the gospel accounts are loosely based on, I’m willing to assume their existence on the little evidence we do have because those claims that aren’t very spectacular or have grave consequences.
I just want to point out that it’s generally next to impossible to provide evidence for the universal non-existence of a person.
Through quick wikipedia searches, I found a source within about 4 years of his death (unless I’ve got the wrong Tiberius). Pliny’s Natural History (AD 77-79) mentions Tiberius, who was emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD. Considering how quickly I found that info (I love the internet), I’m sure there’s a lot more historical and archeological evidence.
My point was not that Josephus was perpetuating embellishment, but that by the time he wrote that document, sufficient time had gone by for the story of Jesus to change that we cannot consider it a solid source.
I really should leave this forum to start my paper that’s due at noon tomorrow…
P
Pieman333272
Guest
This is taking on the radical skeptic position that the Gospels and Epistles are not reliable sources, of course. But even granting that, this debate is about the historicity of a man named Yeshua (Jesus) on whom the Gospels are based on or about, not the miracles - for now, at least. Much smaller influence, albeit possibly bigger implications.
Socrates/Plato have some pretty big impacts…
I think I can, but I find it… disagreeable.
YES! CORRECT! Now, we have 3 options:
- End the debate here (between us) with the mutual agreement it is safe to say Jesus was a real person.
- Continue on to the reliability of the Gospels as a source on Jesus’ life.
- Agree that the Gospels are historically reliable without a debate and move on to the resurrection.
Right, but that doesn’t stop some people. (You aren’t one of those, fortunately)
That’s 40 years, and yes, I also love the internet.
A solid source for what? His existence? His miracles? If his miracles, again that’s beyond the scope, if his existence then it is certainly still reliable even granting that amount of time.
You can take time off the debate if you like. I won’t unsubscribe and the worst that can happen is you have a bunch of replies to sort through.
M
mark_avery
Guest
ehrm; I`m new to this forum(ssshhhh be quiet voices)sorry!
How much do you want for your comment,i dont think you said!
Black eyed peas & roast potatoes!! helps the medicine go down,the medicine go down!
From start to end (A)!
take care!!
How much do you want for your comment,i dont think you said!
Black eyed peas & roast potatoes!! helps the medicine go down,the medicine go down!
From start to end (A)!
take care!!
T
tonyrey
Guest
False beliefs usually have adverse effects on those who hold them. What adverse effects are experienced by Christians?
They do when the life and death of the founder is the basis of the moral teachings.
Jesus was the first person to teach us to love our enemies.
You are assuming all religions are static and do not develop.
Please refer to my next point >
Then you must totally reject pragmatism and also our ability to form reasonable judgements of what is true or false from an accumulation of evidence.
Not at all. All religions teach that we do not exist by chance, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all responsible for what we do and that we should respect the lives of others. Please refer to The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley for more…
I specified that popularity is not the sole criterion.
The Apostles did not sacrifice other people’s lives!
You have to explain how its false beliefs originated if your argument is to carry conviction.
You have just stated that Christians hold false beliefs! So either Christianity is substantially true and Christians are not true Christians or you are contradicting yourself!
I don’t agree that they are misled for the reason I have already given. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly of the truth…
The vast majority of Muslims are not hijackers or sympathetic to the terrorists.
I specified the same **fundamental **truths, some of which I have listed.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Welcome to another type of zoo! Some denizens are quite ferocious…
- Status