Seems like an odd question. Most people would say they most certainly did.
But--how do you know? What is the historical record on these two individuals?
Of Plato, we know of him due to about 250 ancient manuscripts, but most date to about 1200 to 1500 years AFTER he walked the earth. The oldest manuscript that is attributed to Plato, himself, dates to 895 A.D., over 1200 years AFTER the date that is commonly used for his death.
For Aristotle, the historical record is even more scant--a mere 49 ancient manuscripts, again, most dating to at least 1200 years after his death.
Ok, fine. I have no problem with the sources we have, or believing that they existed. Never really thought about it, before. They were historical figures.
Now, what about Jesus Christ? Many people believe that not only was he not the Son of God, but they don't believe he really existed at all.
Yet, what is the historical record? There exists approximately 57 HUNDRED ancient manuscripts written in Greek, alone, that date from roughly 60 A.D., less than 30 years after Jesus walked the earth, to about 300 A.D. When other languages are added, the number of ancient manuscripts that can be relied on to prove the existence of Jesus on the earth goes to more than 48 THOUSAND. Again, just taking the number written in the first several hundred years after he walked the earth.
The point is not to say that Plato and Aristotle did not exist--they undoubtedly did. The point is that people NEVER question that, but many of the same people will go to great lengths to say that the historical record of Jesus Christ is not convincing, enough, when it is OVERWHELMINGLY more substantial than that for Plato or Aristotle.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
It's hard to understand some people's thought process.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
It's hard to understand some people's thought process.
I see I get no responses--but, well, what are they going to say, anyway.
Of course they believe that Plato and Aristotle existed--despite rather shaky evidence that speaks to that.
If they admit that, it's pretty tough to say they can believe accounts written about historical figures 1200 or more years after their death--and not ones written less than 300 years, and often less than 100 years after.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
The point is not to say that Plato and Aristotle did not exist--they undoubtedly did. The point is that people NEVER question that, but many of the same people will go to great lengths to say that the historical record of Jesus Christ is not convincing, enough, when it is OVERWHELMINGLY more substantial than that for Plato or Aristotle.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
don't think there has ever been any doubt whether Jesus walked this earth--as you say, too many references, too many eye witness accounts ( and recent, as you say, written within living memory )--believe the leap of faith for non-believers is accepting Him as the Son of God--therein lies the crux of the issue
__________________
" the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "--edmund burke
Did Homer exist? (no not Simpson) Yeah he probably did, but his writings were continued since it was a historical written document. People continued it.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
The point is not to say that Plato and Aristotle did not exist--they undoubtedly did. The point is that people NEVER question that, but many of the same people will go to great lengths to say that the historical record of Jesus Christ is not convincing, enough, when it is OVERWHELMINGLY more substantial than that for Plato or Aristotle. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
don't think there has ever been any doubt whether Jesus walked this earth--as you say, too many references, too many eye witness accounts ( and recent, as you say, written within living memory )--believe the leap of faith for non-believers is accepting Him as the Son of God--therein lies the crux of the issue
Sure, burns. I absolutely get that.
However, again, how do we know that people such as Plato and Aristotle existed? It is through eyewitness testimony passed down through hundreds of years.
How is that different than Christ rising from the dead? We can say that because of the EXACT SAME type of historical record--eyewitness testimony passed down through hundreds of years.
Why is one so easy to believe and not the other? Likely, it's because they don't want to.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
The point is not to say that Plato and Aristotle did not exist--they undoubtedly did. The point is that people NEVER question that, but many of the same people will go to great lengths to say that the historical record of Jesus Christ is not convincing, enough, when it is OVERWHELMINGLY more substantial than that for Plato or Aristotle. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
don't think there has ever been any doubt whether Jesus walked this earth--as you say, too many references, too many eye witness accounts ( and recent, as you say, written within living memory )--believe the leap of faith for non-believers is accepting Him as the Son of God--therein lies the crux of the issue
Sure, burns. I absolutely get that.
However, again, how do we know that people such as Plato and Aristotle existed? It is through eyewitness testimony passed down through hundreds of years.
How is that different than Christ rising from the dead? We can say that because of the EXACT SAME type of historical record--eyewitness testimony passed down through hundreds of years.
Why is one so easy to believe and not the other? Likely, it's because they don't want to.
Eyewitness testimony of Christ rising from the dead? Who was there to witness it? Who was in that tomb with him?
How many geeks here realize that the existence if Shakespeare and whether or not all his plays were actually written by him, has come into serious question over the last 20 years?
So, Shakespeare can now be debunked as well.
__________________
I drink coffee so I don't kill you.
I quilt so I don't kill you.
Do you see a theme?
Faith isn't something that keeps bad things from happening. Faith is what helps us get through bad things when they do happen.
Aristotle and Plato have been questioned for a while, it was talked about while I was in college.
I have never heard anyone dispute that Jesus existed as a person.
This whole article is pointless.
In reference to recent posts and threads, I think the question is very relevant.
People find it perfectly okay to believe so and so existed, without proof, but not others with proof.
To me, it speaks of a form of hypocrisy. Mines okay, but yours isn't (hypocrisy) kind of thing. (in general reference)
But, these two and Homer have been under scrutiny for at least eight years, and probably longer, and in all my discussions about religion and Jesus, I have never heard anyone deny he existed--why would they? There is lots of evidence that he did. They don't thinknow he is anything more than the charming illigament son of a csrpenter, bUT that he existed is never questioned.
This whole article is assuming things without basis, and is foolish. They may be hypocrisy, but this ain't it.
It's sad to me how history is being denied in present day. Not just Jesus or Homer, etc., but now they are trying to eliminate the Holocaust and Civil War from history. Pretend it never happened. Why? For fear of history repeating itself? Or um....actually learning from it?
It's sad to me how history is being denied in present day. Not just Jesus or Homer, etc., but now they are trying to eliminate the Holocaust and Civil War from history. Pretend it never happened. Why? For fear of history repeating itself? Or um....actually learning from it?
The PC correct has gone way to far, IMHO. People are just nuts.
History defines all of us. Learn from it, or repeat it. I'm afraid we are heading for repeating the Wars.
__________________
I drink coffee so I don't kill you.
I quilt so I don't kill you.
Do you see a theme?
Faith isn't something that keeps bad things from happening. Faith is what helps us get through bad things when they do happen.
Unlike some people, I don't subscribe to the "The Bible is the perfect word of God" belief. I fall more in line with "The Bible is inspired by God but written by men with their biases and human failings and frailties influencing the outcome of the final work".
The entire Bible has been dismissed in other threads and compared to works of fiction.
There are plenty of surviving documents with Jesus named. Often not flattering to Jesus, but he is named and certainly existed regardless of whether or not you believe the bible.
And like I said, deny God exists and denying Jesus as the Messiah happens all the time, but I don't think I have ever heard anyone even try to claim a person call ed d Jesus existed and caused all sorts of chaos and was cruxified.
Completely separate issues. And the author of this article sounds like an idiot that did not do an ounce of research.
The entire Bible has been dismissed in other threads and compared to works of fiction.
There are plenty of surviving documents with Jesus named. Often not flattering to Jesus, but he is named and certainly existed regardless of whether or not you believe the bible.
And like I said, deny God exists and denying Jesus as the Messiah happens all the time, but I don't think I have ever heard anyone even try to claim a person call ed d Jesus existed and caused all sorts of chaos and was cruxified.
Completely separate issues. And the author of this article sounds like an idiot that did not do an ounce of research.
What article?
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Why yes, they did. Plato was a prolific writer, who wrote "The Republic" and founded the Academy in Athens. Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues.
What did Jesus write?
Even his apostles didn't believe he returned from the dead, so why would I believe it?
Furthermore, they were preaching the end of the world, "any minute, now", so clearly, what they said has to taken with a grain of salt. Or an entire salt-shaker.
Why yes, they did. Plato was a prolific writer, who wrote "The Republic" and founded the Academy in Athens. Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues.
How do you know? None of their original documents remain. They were all written centuries after their deaths.
-- Edited by huskerbb on Wednesday 30th of September 2015 01:48:33 PM
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
What did Jesus write? Even his apostles didn't believe he returned from the dead, so why would I believe it? Furthermore, they were preaching the end of the world, "any minute, now", so clearly, what they said has to taken with a grain of salt. Or an entire salt-shaker.
Clearly you do not know what the Bible says. The Bible never says the end of the world is imminent, or gives any date whatsoever.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Look at the evidence we have for Plato and Aristotle. It is a small fraction of what we have for Jesus Christ. Yet you choose to believe something with almost no evidence, and not believe something else when there is a lot of evidence.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
It's called "selective evidence syndrome". Everyone gets to pick and choose the history that they want to believe. Our college's are not helping, IMHO.
__________________
I drink coffee so I don't kill you.
I quilt so I don't kill you.
Do you see a theme?
Faith isn't something that keeps bad things from happening. Faith is what helps us get through bad things when they do happen.
My thoughts are that some people do not understand the word faith. They take faith in the existence of the big bang theory yet have no faith for the "God knew what he was doing" theory! I'll continue to believe and they will never know what Jesus has done for us. It's how the world was meant to be.
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
My thoughts are that some people do not understand the word faith. They take faith in the existence of the big bang theory yet have no faith for the "God knew what he was doing" theory! I'll continue to believe and they will never know what Jesus has done for us. It's how the world was meant to be.
Is there a reason why you believe that a "big bang" was NOT God's plan?
Okay, there doesn't have to be a reason. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are.
__________________
The Principle of Least Interest: He who cares least about a relationship, controls it.
Given the trend of the discussion on the evolution thread, I'm bringing this back up. Again, there are FAR fewer eyewitness accounts of those men than Biblical events--yet everyone accepts as fact that they existed, but refuse to believe the vast amount more evidence we have of biblical events.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Husker, your entire premise is STILL wrong.
Five, six years ago (when I was in college ) there was a lot of discussion about if they existed or not, and people still are not wildly denying that Jesus existed.
Husker, your entire premise is STILL wrong. Five, six years ago (when I was in college ) there was a lot of discussion about if they existed or not, and people still are not wildly denying that Jesus existed.
BS. It has never been widely questioned that they existed (one classroom in one college is NOT "a lot"). Many people doubtbthat biblical events happened.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
But Plato and Aristotle did not claim to be divine.
flan
So? They didn't claim to have existed, either, that we know of. We are talking about what other people witnessed, not what anyone claims for themselves.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Husker, your entire premise is STILL wrong. Five, six years ago (when I was in college ) there was a lot of discussion about if they existed or not, and people still are not wildly denying that Jesus existed.
BS. It has never been widely questioned that they existed (one classroom in one college is NOT "a lot"). Many people doubtbthat biblical events happened.
Two colleges, three classrooms. But anyways. .
There IS a lot of doubt that certain biblical events happened, generally ones that have no verification outside of the Bible.
(The tax that Joseph wa supposedly going to pay when Jesus was born is one--it defies all common sense and historical record and is more legend than fact)
Husker, your entire premise is STILL wrong. Five, six years ago (when I was in college ) there was a lot of discussion about if they existed or not, and people still are not wildly denying that Jesus existed.
BS. It has never been widely questioned that they existed (one classroom in one college is NOT "a lot"). Many people doubtbthat biblical events happened.
Two colleges, three classrooms. But anyways. .
There IS a lot of doubt that certain biblical events happened, generally ones that have no verification outside of the Bible.
(The tax that Joseph wa supposedly going to pay when Jesus was born is one--it defies all common sense and historical record and is more legend than fact)
But that Jesus himself existed is not contested.
Yet you are willing to believe other things with less evidence.
Also, Joseph wasnt going to pay a tax, so I'm not sure where you got that.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
Husker, your entire premise is STILL wrong. Five, six years ago (when I was in college ) there was a lot of discussion about if they existed or not, and people still are not wildly denying that Jesus existed.
BS. It has never been widely questioned that they existed (one classroom in one college is NOT "a lot"). Many people doubtbthat biblical events happened.
Two colleges, three classrooms. But anyways. .
There IS a lot of doubt that certain biblical events happened, generally ones that have no verification outside of the Bible.
(The tax that Joseph wa supposedly going to pay when Jesus was born is one--it defies all common sense and historical record and is more legend than fact)
But that Jesus himself existed is not contested.
Yet you are willing to believe other things with less evidence.
Also, Joseph wasnt going to pay a tax, so I'm not sure where you got that.
Oh, sorry, going to register for taxes, or the census. Whatever.
There is still no record of it.
And what exactly am am I vehemently championing as the truth with "less evidence "?
Husker, your entire premise is STILL wrong. Five, six years ago (when I was in college ) there was a lot of discussion about if they existed or not, and people still are not wildly denying that Jesus existed.
BS. It has never been widely questioned that they existed (one classroom in one college is NOT "a lot"). Many people doubtbthat biblical events happened.
Two colleges, three classrooms. But anyways. .
There IS a lot of doubt that certain biblical events happened, generally ones that have no verification outside of the Bible.
(The tax that Joseph wa supposedly going to pay when Jesus was born is one--it defies all common sense and historical record and is more legend than fact)
But that Jesus himself existed is not contested.
Yet you are willing to believe other things with less evidence.
Also, Joseph wasnt going to pay a tax, so I'm not sure where you got that.
Oh, sorry, going to register for taxes, or the census. Whatever.
There is still no record of it.
And what exactly am am I vehemently championing as the truth with "less evidence "?
i didn't say you were championing anything, but tons of stuff from ancient history has scant historical record--even through the dark ages. Is it all bull****? Do you have to have video proof before anything can be considered true?
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
