Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA
I think it's silly to claim that you know someone existed, to a certain extent. While I obviously wouldn't contest that Louis XIV was a real historical figure, I think a healthy amount of skepticism goes a long way when it comes to figures that supposedly lived before, to be completely arbitrary, the 1300's. And I don't just mean in the realm of religion, I mean philosophers, writers, revolutionaries, etc. I think it's healthy to hold a standard of evidence that goes beyond relayed word of mouth and transcribed texts.
|
I'm pretty close to agreeing with you, but I disagree with your final sentence. If the standard of evidence aren't good enough for Yeshua, then you could say the same about an awful lot of figures. And about transcribed texts: The things they wrote on back then broke down quite easily. If you don't take transcriptions to be good evidence, then you really have to doubt pretty much everyone... It's just a level of sceptisism that seems unreasonable.
@ burning down: What would constitute enough evidence? Now, I always think this debate is somewhat weird. Really, Yeshua is one of the best documented carpenters of the first century. Why doubt it? It should really be the doubters who should bring forth the arguments. Science work by making hypothesis and then try and falsify them. The theory that seems least implausible would be considered correct. But what on earth is a more plausible theory, than the existence of Yeshua? Without a counter-theory, the existence of Yeshua is the most plausible theory - be default... - and the true reasonable sceptic has no reason to really doubt it. Is his existence a fact? No. But it seems highly likely.
And just to clarify: Yeshua is the Aramaic form of Jesus, i.e. the name the real historical person would go by. And if you try and work through the bible historigraphically, apparantly Yeshua never stated that he was the son of God, nor that he was the Messiah, or anything. All that was probably grafted on afterwards.