Socrates

[_subgenius]

subbie -

Is it your position the four authors of the gospels in the current New Testament were eye witnesses to the life of the historical Jesus?

My position is stated in the OP, as is my question.

[_honorentheos]

There are no eyewitness accounts of the historical Jesus' life. If you want to claim otherwise, make a case.

The author of Luke straight up tells us he is just recounting other people's stories.

The author of Mark tells a story that starts with an adult Jesus gets some local attention before heading to Jerusalem, causes a ruckus, and is shocked to find himself being crucified by the Roman's. This story gets added to by later authors to make it more mythically correct.

The authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark to compose their stories.

The author of John is an anti-semite clearly writing after the destruction of the temple and decimation of the Jewish people by the Roman's.

Any claims otherwise are founded on myth and tradition.

[_moksha]

What about the testimony of the three wise men or the eight maids a milking?

No one wants to deck the halls with boughs of hemlock.

[_Chap]

There are no eyewitness accounts of the historical Jesus' life. If you want to claim otherwise, make a case.

Well, yes. That would be the obvious way to proceed for most people.

But not for subgenius. Why? Let's look back at his OP, applying what historians call 'the principle of maximum charity', i.e. the principle that if the person whose actions or words you are studying seems to be acting or talking in a way that makes no sense, you should take the time to examine the possibility that his actions or words made sense to him, but in some way that it is difficult for a person in a very different context to grasp.

We have no writings from Socrates himself. We only know of his existence through the writings of other people. We actually have more eyewitness accounts of Jesus' existence than of Socrates'.

But who on this board has ever doubted that Socrates existed?

There are two keys to making sense of this post and of subgenus's later posts, I suggest:

1. Subgenius is trying to combat the proposition that Jesus never existed.

2. For him, a good defence is to say something like this:

(a) Socrates definitely existed.
(b) However we have no documents written by Socrates, only accounts of his life and actions written by others.
(c) Similarly, although we have no documents written by Jesus, we have accounts of his life and actions written by others.
(d) Therefore it is just as reasonable to assert that Jesus existed as it is to assert that Socrates existed.

But the mere fact that there are written accounts of what a person called 'John' is said to have done is not normally taken as (in itself) evidence that the person referred to actually existed. Thus, the scientologists have texts that tell readers rather a lot about Xenu; but few people are thereby persuaded that Xenu existed. The ancient Greek texts of the Iliad and Odyssey tell us a huge amount about the activities of Agammennon, Hector, Achilles and many others. But it is doubtful whether actual people corresponding to those names existed.

I think subgenius realises that. And that is why he attempts to strengthen his argument by claiming that the accounts of Socrates and Jesus are not just accounts, but 'eyewitness accounts'. That is where his problems start, since he is unable to give us any reason to think that we have any accounts of Jesus' activities written by well-attested real people who actually saw Jesus and talked to him ('eyewitnesses'), to match the accounts by well-attested real people who actually saw Socrates and talked to him.

Still, it was an attempt at rational argument, which is worth something.

[_Xenophon]

If it helps, I'll offer to bear my testimony of Socrates.

[_Chap]

If it helps, I'll offer to bear my testimony of Socrates.

If you feel the promptings of your daemon, go ahead!

[_Maksutov]

Subby thinks holocaust denial is a cute diversion when he is losing an argument. Why give him oxygen?

[_canpakes]

Subby thinks holocaust denial is a cute diversion when he is losing an argument.

True, and on the basis that there were no eyewitnesses that can be believed, or any proof of gassing left behind.

That’s just how his mind works.

[_Fence Sitter]

I am pretty sure the only eye witness accounts that will come out of this thread are those claiming to have seen an OP demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[_subgenius]

Yawn, even you guys have boring circle jerks.
My cat has a better focus than you guys...who missed the question in the OP?....yeah, all of you.
But don't let me interrupt, i know you only have 1 free hand.

For those of you just emerging from masturbatory bliss, note that the OP very clearly does not have a veiled intent (what is it with you guys and the constant "we know what it really says"?) - the OP does not intend to prove JC existence or even Socrates existence...simply noted it intends to prove that most of you are spoon fed intellectual juveniles...and thus far - success!

Given the opportunity to recognize the rather baseless foundation for your assumptions each of you opted for "more entrenched please".