Well.. Plato did write a couple of books.... like: * Apology * Crito * Charmides * Laches * Lysis * Euthyphro * Menexenus * Lesser Hippias * Ion * Euthydemus * Cratylus * Phaedo * Phaedrus * Symposium * Republic * Theaetetus * Parmenides * Sophist * Statesman * Philebus * Timaeus * Critias * Laws Just to name a few. He founded a school where he (incidentally) taught Aristotle. The school was closed by Justinian of Byzantium because it was thought to be a threat to Christianity. Aristotle also founded a school in the Lyceum where he taught for several years. The evidence to support the existence of both men is large and outside the scope of this forum but I am sure you could find them with little work on your part. You can start here: Plato and Aristotle
There is much more documentation of the life of Jesus on Earth, and His impact has obviously been far greater than those philosophers about whom we know little.
Others have been cited previously, and remember, no one raised a stink about the contents of the Gospels when they first were being distributed, and Lord knows the unbelieving Jews and Romans would have loved to have been able to do so.
As I remember there was quite a stink during early Christianity, with different sects forming strong rivalries. The Roman sect became the most powerful due to it's political connections, and it is their compilation of the gospels that survives (with some significant exceptions, the Gnostic Gospels). Other sects with differing opinions were labelled heretics, and their texts rounded up and destroyed by heretic hunters.
Ice. You've been asked by another member in this thread to back up your claim and clarify a point. You continue to rant about how this source has already been mentioned without actually specifying. Consider this a warning. If you continue such silliness, I'll clean the thread out and delete all posts related to your obviously deliberate obfuscation of the point at hand. If you don't want to participate in actual discussions, don't. Leave them to those that do. Answer the question of 'which source,' or say goodbye. For others reading this thread, I'd like to point out that the tactic taken by Ice is typical of those that don't really want to debate specifics but still wish to obfuscate discussions that question their beliefs and superstitions. Such tactics amount to intellectual dishonesty and shouldn't need to be tolerated by those interested in actually having a discussion. Should I end up needing to delete all of IceAgeCivilization's posts and those that are related to them in this thread, please accept my apologies in advance.
I suppose I got just as carried away trying to finagle a response and I should have realized earlier on that I wasn't going to get one. I apologize.
Which is true, but you have to ask one logical question: Why would the enemies of Christianity mention Jesus by name in their writings? Although written 300 years after the event, the Talmud, a source of Jewish apologetics, includes the reason for the execution of Jesus. If Jesus was not an actual historical figure, why did they include this in the Talmud? Shouldn’t they have said, “This Jesus professed by this Christian sect did not exist at all.” Or maybe they should have written nothing at all to prevent the perpetuation of a mythical figure. Why mention Jesus if He wasn’t an actual person? "The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded. Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor." (Quoted from ‘Proving the Historical Jesus by Harry V. Martin.) http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html http://www.rense.com/general43/jesus.htm
Now Adstar, I am going to tell you something that might hopefully help clear confusion on this issue. A while back I bought an island. I found some people that wanted to live there and the island started to flourish. The population started to increase and I realised that I would need to set some laws to avoid anarchy. I wrote a big book of laws and made them known to all the inhabitants of my island. They included: No murder, no stealing, no rape etc. Anyway, one day I decided to take a walk amongst the common people. Obviously it wasn't one of my lucky days and I ended up killing a man, stealing something from a shop and raping a nice looking blonde woman. The common people came up to me saying I had broken the law, that I had 'sinned' and needed to be punished for it. I look at them all and smiled. I got my book of laws and scrubbed out the murder/theft and rape laws. You see, there's no comeback. To all intents and puroses I was now a fully law abiding person. I had not broken one law. To Adstar: Do you agree with what I have mentioned above? Do you concur that I am completely innocent of causing any crime because I have changed the law to suit me? Take into account that this is exactly what jesus has done, so if you disagree with me you're now disagreeing with your earlier statement. For millennia man obeyed gods law of not working on the sabbath. jesus came along, worked on the sabbath and because of that decided that working on the sabbath was no longer a law anyone need care about. Does this make him sinless or the greatest sinner? Frankly I find it vile, utterly repulsive that anyone act in such manner. Going along breaking the law but then changing the law the very second he does so, to the easily fooled, he is now no longer guilty of breaking any law. Take some time to think about it. -------- Svrp: I'll get to you shortly.
I think the better question is, Can you prove there isnt a God? Can you prove Jesus didnt exsist? Can you prove that he didnt do miracles and wonders? Can you prove that he will not return? If you believe he wont, can you afford to be wrong? Notice i said can YOU prove. Not can you mimick what some scientist came up with, or a philosipher figured out, or even what you just believe. But can you prove it? I have my exsperiences with miracles myself. Can you tell me they were false? And prove it? If i eat an orange, can you tell me if it was sour or sweet? No. And niether have you tasted of my God. So untill you have a true experiance of healing power of God, then who are you to be a critic? And if you ever do have one, then there will be no argument if God is real, Jesus exsisted, or if the bible is false or not. So i chalenge you to become an expert. Try with an earnest heart to experience Jesus, and I will pray for you all. If you do try, and really want to learn his ways and feel his presence, then he will reveal himself to you in a way that will clear up all doubdt. I challenge you all who do not believe, or who are skeptical to do so, then and only then can you truly argue the point about Jesus. If you have any questions, i would be more than happy to answer them to the best of my abilities, or find the answer for you. God bless you all, wether you believe in him or not.
I might call that circumstantial evidence. It seems unlikely that they would make a fuss about a non-existant person, but perhaps they were only repeating the myths they were told.
This thread isn't about undermining Christianity, only weighing the evidence about Jesus' existence. I can't prove that he didn't exist. I can't prove there isn't a God. I can't prove he didn't accomplish miracles. I can't prove that he will not return (although that is very unlikely given what we know about the human body and decomposition). Yes. There are alot of sensational beliefs on the planet, and I can't believe in all of them. I can show that the above statements are extremely unlikely, and that is as good as proof for most practical purposes.
Hey spidergoat, do you think the Roman guards at Jesus' tomb were "in on the plot" to make Rome look bad by helping whoever remove Jesus' body? And do you think that over 500 witnesses of the resurrected Christ were all hallucinating, and why didn't they squeal foul when the Gospels were circulating?
