Evidence for Jesus

[Cavemonster]

E.g., if I wanted to scam you into joining my cult of our prophet and saviour Ivan, I wouldn't make up an Ivan who lives on Pluto and tames Mi-Go for a living. I'd make up exactly an Ivan who was in Prague.

The reasons liars will tell you about Ivan from Prague rather than Pluto, is BECAUSE Ivan from Prague is more probable to exist given no other information.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Are you assuming I'm Christian?

Are you avoiding the post?

 

[HansMustermann]

It is evidence of Superman, it's just far outweighed by the evidence against.

Actually, no, it's not evidence at all in the first place. (Also because it was Spiderman who was in New York, not Superman, you heathens!) The idea that using a real place name in a story, somehow is evidence for the characters in the story is just silly.

What you're trying to do is AT BEST just a 'by association' fallacy. Namely:

P1: Place X and person Y are mentioned in the same story.
P2: Place X has the property of being real.
C: Then so does person Y.

But that's so invalid, it's not even funny. As a trivial example, consider applying the same reasoning for such properties as "has a surface of 54,556 square miles". Try to get that one from New York to Spiderman

 

[Craig B]

But we have alleged evidence in the form of his foreskin, umbilical cord, tears, phials of his mother's milk, bits of the manger in which he was born, samples of his blood; as well as the nails and bits of the cross used to crucify him, the notice pinned to his cross, samples of his swaddling clothes, and innumerable other things. Crowns of thorns. There's no end to them! What more could we need? His shroud? Well, we've got that too!

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

It is evidence of Superman

No, it really isn't.

And it really really isn't evidence that Batman exists, even though Gotham City is clearly based on New York.

 

[Cavemonster]

Are you avoiding the post?

I honestly don't see what you'd like me to address in it.

 

[Cavemonster]

Actually, no, it's not evidence at all in the first place. (Also because it was Spiderman who was in New York, not Superman, you heathens!) The idea that using a real place name in a story, somehow is evidence for the characters in the story is just silly.

What you're trying to do is AT BEST just a 'by association' fallacy. Namely:

P1: Place X and person Y are mentioned in the same story.
P2: Place X has the property of being real.
C: Then so does person Y.

But that's so invalid, it's not even funny. As a trivial example, consider applying the same reasoning for such properties as "has a surface of 54,556 square miles". Try to get that one from New York to Spiderman

You're given two stories to choose from.
One takes place in a location you know is real.
One takes place in a location that may or may not be real.

You are asked to choose based on this information alone which story is more likely to be true.

Notice "Based on this information alone" which means you should not try to imagine that someone has chosen the place names to throw you off the scent. If you are basing your choice on the idea that someone is trying to trick you, you are not using "This information alone".

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You're given two stories to choose from.
One takes place in a location you know is real.
One takes place in a location that may or may not be real.

You are asked to choose based on this information alone which story is more likely to be true.

Notice "Based on this information alone" which means you should not try to imagine that someone has chosen the place names to throw you off the scent. If you are basing your choice on the idea that someone is trying to trick you, you are not using "This information alone".

So given two stories:

1. A man cooked a sausage in Gotham City
2. A man turned into a sausage and cooked himself in Boston

You're saying the 2nd is more likely to be true because Boston is real?

 

[Mojo]

I'd say that we have physical evidence in the broad sense, just not nearly enough.

If we define Jesus as a Jewish son of a carpenter named Yeshua living and preching in Jerusalem around the beginning of the first century who was executed by the Romans, then the evidence that the definition demands must cover all of that.

We have evidence that the city of Jerusalem existed at the time, that the Romans occupied it. We have evidence that carpentry was a trade, that crucifiction was a form of execution. We know that Jews lived in the area at the time and that Yeshua was a not uncommon name. This is all necessary but not sufficient evidence. For instance, if there was no such execution method as crucifiction, or if Romans were not active in that part of the world, that would kill the hypothesis that Jesus as described above existed.

None of this is actually evidence for the existence of this particular Jesus. It's evidence that his existence is not impossible, but that isn't the same thing.

In any case, the Jesus you have defined ("historical Jesus") isn't the Jesus defined by the New Testament and the Christian religion. That Jesus was the son of God, could perform miracles, and came back from the dead.

Compare with Aslan, the talking lion from Narnia. We have no evidence that lions can talk or that aplace called Narnia might be home to them, so Aslan lags a bit behind historical Jesus.

And so, for similar reasons, does Jesus the son of God, who could perform miracles and came back from the dead.

If we redefine Aslan as a lion without the extraordinary characteristics (much as you redefined Jesus as "historical Jesus"), then we have just as much evidence that Aslan existed as that Jesus existed.

 

[Mojo]

I'd say that we have physical evidence in the broad sense, just not nearly enough.

If we define Jesus as a Jewish son of a carpenter named Yeshua living and preching in Jerusalem around the beginning of the first century who was executed by the Romans, then the evidence that the definition demands must cover all of that.

We have evidence that the city of Jerusalem existed at the time, that the Romans occupied it. We have evidence that carpentry was a trade, that crucifiction was a form of execution. We know that Jews lived in the area at the time and that Yeshua was a not uncommon name. This is all necessary but not sufficient evidence. For instance, if there was no such execution method as crucifiction, or if Romans were not active in that part of the world, that would kill the hypothesis that Jesus as described above existed.

We have just as much evidence that Brian* of Nazareth existed.


*Naughtius Maximus could have been of Breton extraction. The Roman empire certainly extended that far well before the time of Brian's birth.

 

[Cavemonster]

So given two stories:

1. A man cooked a sausage in Gotham City
2. A man turned into a sausage and cooked himself in Boston

You're saying the 2nd is more likely to be true because Boston is real?

No: Remember the "NO OTHER INFORMATION" part I highlighted?

 

[Cavemonster]

We have just as much evidence that Brian* of Nazareth existed.


*Naughtius Maximus could have been of Breton extraction. The Roman empire certainly extended that far well before the time of Brian's birth.

Slightly less. For one thing Brian is an Irish name of comparatively modern origin.

 

[Cavemonster]

And so, for similar reasons, does Jesus the son of God, who could perform miracles and came back from the dead.

If we redefine Aslan as a lion without the extraordinary characteristics (much as you redefined Jesus as "historical Jesus"), then we have just as much evidence that Aslan existed as that Jesus existed.

But of course we're taling about the historical Jesus, that's not MY redefinition, it's a valid question of interest to a lot of people. Maybe not to you, but to many on this forum.

 

[Mojo]

Slightly less. For one thing Brian is an Irish name of comparatively modern origin.

See my footnote.

 

[Mojo]

But of course we're taling about the historical Jesus, that's not MY redefinition, it's a valid question of interest to a lot of people. Maybe not to you, but to many on this forum.

There's planty of evidence that lions exist, therefore plenty of evidence for historical Aslan.

 

[Beerina]

Was John the Baptist real? It seems like an inconvenient hoop to force Jesus to jump through. Clearly baptism was an already-important thing?

 

[maximara]

I'd say that we have physical evidence in the broad sense, just not nearly enough.

If we define Jesus as a Jewish son of a carpenter named Yeshua living and preching in Jerusalem around the beginning of the first century who was executed by the Romans, then the evidence that the definition demands must cover all of that.

We have evidence that the city of Jerusalem existed at the time, that the Romans occupied it. We have evidence that carpentry was a trade, that crucifiction was a form of execution. We know that Jews lived in the area at the time and that Yeshua was a not uncommon name. This is all necessary but not sufficient evidence. For instance, if there was no such execution method as crucifiction, or if Romans were not active in that part of the world, that would kill the hypothesis that Jesus as described above existed.

Compare with Aslan, the talking lion from Narnia. We have no evidence that lions can talk or that aplace called Narnia might be home to them, so Aslan lags a bit behind historical Jesus.

This is very flawed logic and countered by a character known to have never lived--Sherlock Holmes.

We know there was not only a London but a Baker Street from 1881-1914.

William Baring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes shows that there was a John H. Watson listed among the casualties of the First Boer War (1880-1881) and in the stories Watson's war wound is sometimes referred to.

By the logic (and I use the word very loosely) presented above Sherlock Holmes must have existed.


Robin Hood, King Arthur, and John Frum, characters on the fringes of historical existence, also serve as counter examples. Unlike the first two John Frum has the advantage of his story being intensely studied by scientists as early as 1957, just 27 years after his supposed appearance via a vision to the Elders on February 15, 1931 (Worsley, Peter (1957). The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of 'Cargo' Cults in Melanesia London: MacGibbon & Kee. p. 154.)

However despite the fact of John Frum being studied 'within living memory it is not certain whether he lived at all'.' (paraphrase, Dawkins, Richard (2006) The God Delusion pg 239)

Robin Hood and King Arthur are in far worst shape then John Frum with the stories about them being written centuries after the facts though there are tantalizing bits of evidence for their existence before these stories were written down.

 

[IanS]

It is evidence of Superman, it's just far outweighed by the evidence against.

No it's not lol.

The fact that a geographical place exists is not evidence that some named individual was ever present there. The fact that Mars exists is not evidence that Martians exist!

 

[Cavemonster]

There's planty of evidence that lions exist, therefore plenty of evidence for historical Aslan.

If you define "Historical Aslan" as a non talking lion that existed somewhere on earth, then yes. But it's not a very interesting claim.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

No: Remember the "NO OTHER INFORMATION" part I highlighted?

You said we were given 2 stories though. The point is that its the content of the stories in their entirety that determines whether they are true or not.

Try reversing the flow of logic.

Does knowing New York exists suggest that there is a man who can fly living there? Clearly not.