Can religion and philosophy exist independently?

[j]

Actually, mathematics is the only absolute.  There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.

I might hesitate to say that even it is "absolute", but it's certainly the only discipline for which it can be considered.  And for all practical purposes, it is anyway.

@Phil: I think you missed a quote or /quote tag somewhere.

-J

yeah sorry about that

No worries, I just think you brought up some interesting points in that post that will probably be overlooked.

Unlike this post:

Actually like I demonstrated in another thread: The gospels were written no later than 30 years after Jesus death.

Paul's letters were actually written even earlier than the earliest gospel. (Mark) some of Paul's stuff clocks in around the 40's. that's roughly 10 years after Jesus death.

Mark wrote What peter told him. Peter was one of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John)

Matthew was one of Jesus 12 Disciples

Luke travelled with Paul

John was also one of Jesus inner 3.

2 eye witnesses, 1 faithful reporter of an eyewitness and Luke. if you doubt Luke's authenticity read his introduction. Then compare and contrast him with other gospels.

None of that is fact.

Prove it. I'm starting to get sick of people on here taking a well backed up post and just saying something equivalent to "nuh uhhhhhh"

All hef said was that those aren't "facts", and he's correct.

-J

[Ħ]

While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history.  I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."

[hefdaddy42]

While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history.  I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."

What does the one have to do with the other?

[Ħ]

While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history.  I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."

What does the one have to do with the other?

Just saying that a historian could pick up all the documents pertaining to...Peter, say...and establish him as a real, historic character.

[Philawallafox]

No hang on. How can you *prove* that none of what I said is fact? It's historically verifiable!

[hefdaddy42]

While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history.  I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."

What does the one have to do with the other?

Just saying that a historian could pick up all the documents pertaining to...Peter, say...and establish him as a real, historic character.

I'm not saying that Peter wasn't a real, historic character.

[hefdaddy42]

No hang on. How can you *prove* that none of what I said is fact? It's historically verifiable!

You are obviously using some strange usage of the words "fact", "prove", and "verifiable" with which I was previously unaware.

[GuineaPig]

Well, first of all, you don't deal with absolutes in the past, especially in an era and region with as few historical sources as turn of the millenium Judea.  Second of all, many of the "facts" you posted are highly debated, because of the aforementioned fundamental uncertainty.  For example, the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is an academic subject that there is no real degree of certainty to.  

[Ħ]

While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history.  I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."

What does the one have to do with the other?

Just saying that a historian could pick up all the documents pertaining to...Peter, say...and establish him as a real, historic character.

I'm not saying that Peter wasn't a real, historic character.

Ok, well....Phil said "Luke travelled with Paul"....that idea arises in more than one epistle, to the point where I think a historian would say, "Yeah, he probably did travel with Paul."  In other words, historical "fact."  History is just probability, more than anything else.  It's weighing the evidence, and, well, the evidence leans in favor of Luke travelling with Paul more than it does for Luke NOT travelling with Paul.

[Philawallafox]

No hang on. How can you *prove* that none of what I said is fact? It's historically verifiable!

You are obviously using some strange usage of the words "fact", "prove", and "verifiable" with which I was previously unaware.

Could you please explain yourself? You're not really generating room for debate here.

[hefdaddy42]

Ok, well....Phil said "Luke travelled with Paul"....that idea arises in more than one epistle, to the point where I think a historian would say, "Yeah, he probably did travel with Paul."  In other words, historical "fact."  History is just probability, more than anything else.  It's weighing the evidence, and, well, the evidence leans in favor of Luke travelling with Paul more than it does for Luke NOT travelling with Paul.

The evidence doesn't lean one way or the other.

But now it's family time.

[Ħ]

Ok, well....Phil said "Luke travelled with Paul"....that idea arises in more than one epistle, to the point where I think a historian would say, "Yeah, he probably did travel with Paul."  In other words, historical "fact."  History is just probability, more than anything else.  It's weighing the evidence, and, well, the evidence leans in favor of Luke travelling with Paul more than it does for Luke NOT travelling with Paul.

The evidence doesn't lean one way or the other.

But now it's family time.

If you made a for/against list, you would have multiple things to put in the "for" column, but there's nothing at all to put in the "against" column, so I would argue that the evidence does lean in favor of what Phil is saying (at least for this particular case). 

[j]

Come on guys. A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".

-J

[Ħ]

Come on guys. A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".

-J

But it DOES qualify it as probable.  I mean, right?  That's how historians do their thing, especially with ancient history.

[j]

Come on guys. A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".

-J

But it DOES qualify it as probable.  I mean, right?  That's how historians do their thing, especially with ancient history.

Absolutely (assuming it's the case on this particular topic).  But it's still not a fact.

-J

[Ħ]

...so is there such a thing as "historical fact?"  And where do you draw the line between "historically probable" and "historically factual"?

[GuineaPig]

...so is there such a thing as "historical fact?"  And where do you draw the line between "historically probable" and "historically factual"?

That's a good question.  Strictly speaking, no, there is no such thing as a historical fact.  But of course that doesn't work well when we go to talk about history, simply because we'd have to throw in "allegedly" every second word  

As for when it crosses the line from "probable" to "factual", it would likely have to be around the point when there's no serious academic opposition to the event/whatever in question.  Even that's subjective, but it's the best you can do.

Anyways, I mentioned in the other thread about how I was writing an essay about sources from the early Roman Republic.  There's a figure in the history of the Roman Republic named Gnaeus Marcius.  He is referred to in almost every available source (Pictor, Livy, Plutarch, Appian) as a Roman noble who won renown in a war against the Volscians during the siege of the town of Corioli, and was bestowed the title "Coriolanus."  Then almost every source goes on to recount his exile from Rome and his assumption of the leadership of the Volsci in another war against Rome.  The sources claim he won a series of victories, and led his forces to the gates of Rome until he was turned away by the pleas of his wife and mother who still lived in the city.

Now, despite nearly every source recounting the latter part of that story (after the victory at Corioli), many historians now believe it didn't happen, and doubt the existence of the man himself.  It's a case, BrotherH, where you can't take a historian's word at face value.  Ultimately, a historical account (especially before the spread of historiographical writing, although Luke as a historian is in this category) is merely a basis for further research.  One doesn't gauge historicity by drawing a "For" and "Against" column for a given historical (or non-historical) event.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

[Philawallafox]

Come on guys. A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".

-J

But it DOES qualify it as probable.  I mean, right?  That's how historians do their thing, especially with ancient history.

Absolutely (assuming it's the case on this particular topic).  But it's still not a fact.

-J

At which point does the amount of evidence to the affirmative make something a fact?

For example
Did Julius Caesar exist?
What about Plato?

[GuineaPig]

Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts".  I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources.  Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.

[Philawallafox]

Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts".  I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources.  Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.

Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.

Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.

[GuineaPig]

Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts".  I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources.  Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.

Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.

Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.

Uhhhhhh no


Jesus didn't write any books.  We have dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.  He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries.  He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers.

I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous.  There is no way to justify what you just said.

[rumborak]

Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts".  I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources.  Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.

Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.

Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.

Uhhhhhh no


I don't think Jesus wrote any books.  He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries.  He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers.  We have literally dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.

I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous.  There is no way to justify what you just said.

You're right. Jesus didn't write any books himself, but biographies were written within 40 years of his death which quote him to the point where several of the biographies quote the same words that Jesus said. He also taught a generation of Theologians who went out and planted churches all over the Mediterranean.

Which brings me to my next point: Jesus may not have conquered wide swathes of countries. (That wasn't his mission) but his followers planted churches and wrote creeds and had an impact upon history to this very day and will do so in the future.

I can go into more detail in a couple of days.

[Philawallafox]

Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.

rumborak

I'm not just making stuff up and selling it as fact. do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?

Seriously. Prove to me that the gospels aren't historical texts and that there isn't zero collateral before you say i'm making stuff up.

[GuineaPig]

Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts".  I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources.  Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.

Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.

Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.

Uhhhhhh no


I don't think Jesus wrote any books.  He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries.  He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers.  We have literally dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.

I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous.  There is no way to justify what you just said.

You're right. Jesus didn't write any books himself, but biographies were written within 40 years of his death which quote him to the point where several of the biographies quote the same words that Jesus said. He also taught a generation of Theologians who went out and planted churches all over the Mediterranean.

Which brings me to my next point: Jesus may not have conquered wide swathes of countries. (That wasn't his mission) but his followers planted churches and wrote creeds and had an impact upon history to this very day and will do so in the future.

I can go into more detail in a couple of days.

None of this means that there's more historical evidence for Jesus.  As an apocalyptic Jewish preacher leading a small congregation shortly before the destruction of the Second Temple, there's obviously not going to be much history written at the time about him.  Why would they?  Caesar tore apart and ultimately took absolute control of the biggest power in the world at the time.  Of course there's more historical evidence for Caesar, even discounting the letters and books we have that he wrote himself.

Interestingly enough, Caesar also one-ups Jesus in another regard: there are eye-witnesses to his ascension to the Heavens as a god.  

[Ħ]

do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?

Lots of people do.  Don't blame them for it.  

[GuineaPig]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

[Philawallafox]

Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts".  I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources.  Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.

Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.

Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.

Uhhhhhh no


I don't think Jesus wrote any books.  He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries.  He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers.  We have literally dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.

I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous.  There is no way to justify what you just said.

You're right. Jesus didn't write any books himself, but biographies were written within 40 years of his death which quote him to the point where several of the biographies quote the same words that Jesus said. He also taught a generation of Theologians who went out and planted churches all over the Mediterranean.

Which brings me to my next point: Jesus may not have conquered wide swathes of countries. (That wasn't his mission) but his followers planted churches and wrote creeds and had an impact upon history to this very day and will do so in the future.

I can go into more detail in a couple of days.

None of this means that there's more historical evidence for Jesus.  As an apocalyptic Jewish preacher leading a small congregation shortly before the destruction of the Second Temple, there's obviously not going to be much history written at the time about him.  Why would they?  Caesar tore apart and ultimately took absolute control of the biggest power in the world at the time.  Of course there's more historical evidence for Caesar, even discounting the letters and books we have that he wrote himself.

Interestingly enough, Caesar also one-ups Jesus in another regard: there are eye-witnesses to his ascension to the Heavens as a god.  

Um Acts 1

What books did Caesar write himself? What are the dates of the earliest copies?

[Ħ]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

[Philawallafox]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.

[GuineaPig]

Um Acts 1

What books did Caesar write himself? What are the dates of the earliest copies?

Yes, Acts 1 is a history, but it's that and Tacitus.  That has nothing on Caesar, whom practically every single Mediterranean historian wrote about.

Caesar wrote a series of letters between himself and Cato, wrote a commentary on his conquest of the Gauls, a commentary on the Civil War, as well as some poetry and speeches.

His commentary on the Gallic Wars is his most famous work.  It was written shortly after his victory against the Gauls in 50 BC.  We have the original text of it.

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

I realize.  But it seemed from your post that you thought that it was that sort of thing going on here.  Religion does not enter into my argument at all; history does.  I should probably have used "one" instead of "you".

[GuineaPig]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.

Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this.  It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.

[Ħ]

Sorry Phil...but I do believe that there is more evidence for the existence of Caesar than for the existence of Jesus.  Although, there is substantial evidence for both, from my estimation.  But we've all come to agreement of Jesus's existence--I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Philawallafox]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.

Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this.  It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.

Correct me if i'm wrong but there are 10 copies of the commentary of the Gallic wars. the earliest being written 950 years AFTER Jesus death.

I'm referencing this page: https://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm
I'll also be using John Dickson's book "The Christ Files" (https://www.thechristfiles.com.au) as a reference for most of my historical claims as well.

This list will grow as I do more research on the subject. Dr John Dickson did his PhD on 1st Century Jewish History and is a Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University in Sydney.

could you please reference me your source?

[GuineaPig]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.

Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this.  It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.

Correct me if i'm wrong but there are 10 copies of the commentary of the Gallic wars. the earliest being written 950 years AFTER Jesus death.

i'm referencing this page: https://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm

could you please reference me your source?

I'd doubt that many existing copies of the commentary are in Greek.  It was written in Latin, and its use as a teaching tool for Latin is well documented. 

As for the oldest existing manuscript, this site https://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4068821 claims two 9th century manuscripts from France, with a total of about 75 existing worldwide.