If someone believes that Plato or Aristotle existed how could they possible believe that Jesus did not?

There is no comparision of the evidence for the historicity of the Bible to the historical documents refering to Aristotle or Plato. I think people are biased and read into their research their own presuppositions.

14 Answers

  • Rjmail
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Best answer

    Many people do not seperate the religious aspects of Jesus' life with the historical accounts. The same with ther bible: there are those who decide the religion(s) it expounds are invalid, and therefore the entire bible is fiction. This is also called throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    It certainly is tricky to divide what is accurate historically, vs what is fiction, vs what is subjective and embellished, from any historical documents. It takes work. Maybe it's just easier for some not to bother.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because there are extant documents whose veracity has a "chain of custody" record for both Plato and Aristotle. Similar documentary evidence for Jesus has a big gap, suddenly "popping up" several hundred years after his death.

    Of course people are biased, but froma purely objective standpoint, it is much easier to "prove" in a scientific sense that Plato & Aristotle lived, than it is to prove there ever was a Jesus. There is substantial evidence that the character "Jesus" may even have been invented as a focus for multiple stories about charismatics who lived around that time. Other evidence suggests that "Christianity" was a business deal conceived to get non-Jews to contribute to the "church", since Gentiles at that time were exempt from tithing.

    Do your homework. The Bible is a marvelous piece of literature, and an inspiring document, but it is hardly "historical". Its current form was largely dictated by the Council of Nicacea and by King James VI of Scotland (James I of England).

  • 1 decade ago

    There is the small matter that both Plato and Aristotle left behind a substantially well-documented record of their existence, not to mention things (at least ostensibly) authored by them.

    Jesus's life, although enthusiastically chronicled in the Bible, does not have the advantage of retaining anything authored by the man himself, although there is a record of what he said or did at various times and places.

    There's also the fact that neither Plato nor Aristotle, nor any of their followers made any kind of claims as to their divinity, any miracles that they performed, or ressurrection from the grave after three days, etc. Nobody celebrates any religious holidays based on either of them, or has spilled blood or persecuted anyone over their philosophical conjectures.

    Whether you are a believer, person of faith, etc. or not, it's hard not to notice that the historical accounts of Jesus and his life serve not just as historical "fact" or "evidence", but that they also promote a very distinct agenda, particularly the farther back in history one looks. It's nautral for there to be a greater level of skepticism and doubt about Jesus' life mostly because the stakes are a helluva lot higher than they are in disputing Mssrs. Plato and Aristotle.

    Sure, you can raise reasonable doubts about the existence of any historical figure, especially in the BC era. But let's not for a minute suppose that we can compare Jesus to Plato and Aristotle in terms of the significance of the issue, or in terms of reasonable doubts based on the record.

  • 1 decade ago

    Disclaimer: No, I am not Christian but, Yes, I believe Jesus existed.

    As one writer mentioned above, many people can't seperate the religious teachings of Jesus from his actual life story. Also, though Jesus is quoted extensively in the Bible, he did not write it. Aristotle and Plato did, however, leave evidence of themselves in their own works of philosophy and science. You have to take the accounts of their lives in context with the time they lived in.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 3 years ago

    incorrect. Taking those questions separately. The historicity of Jesus is amazingly a lot uncertain as a results of fact his life isn't nicely documented. there's no description of him, that we are in a position to declare with reality, became into written with the aid of any of his contemporaries. No solid photograph of him, no tomb, no longer something he ever wrote together with his own hand and not something he ever owned. He to that end falls into a similar historic classification as King Arthur or William tell. meant historic figures approximately which all data is hearsay or anecdotal. to that end the historicity of Jesus is questionable. On stability, although, I do think of Jesus became right into a actual historic discern and the reason would marvel you. it fairly is obvious from the Gospels that Jesus became right into a Nazarene. This conflicts with the prophesy of the Messiah's beginning place interior the old testomony. So a contrived tale of his beginning - with a Roman census of which there's no historic documentation - is created so as that he may be born interior the "nicely suited" place. in case you have been in simple terms going to makeup this tale why no longer in simple terms make him a Judean? sure, I do settle for the historicity of Aristotle as his life and works are nicely documented. i think of you meant to apply the occasion of Socrates. sure, I do doubt the historicity of Socrates as a results of fact we've in basic terms 2 cutting-edge debts of him and those debts fluctuate markedly. i think of the Socrates defined with the aid of Plato is largely Plato's invention. ultimately, i'd desire to declare that accepting the life of Jesus isn't a similar element as accepting he's a god. As a cutting-edge occasion I settle for that Son Myung Moon is a actual guy or woman who does not propose I settle for his different claims of divinity. interior the words of David Hume "that's the extra probably: that the entire organic order is suspended or that a Jewish minx ought to tell a lie" Peace.

  • 1 decade ago

    Plato and aristotle do not ask us to live in a specific way and worship them, perhaps people have trouble in that part.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    One is a story teller, one is a charactor.

    It's like saying, I don't believe in the writers of the A team but I do believe in B.A. Baracus

  • 1 decade ago

    Anyone who really believes that Jesus didn't exist is simply ignorant. Any historian, Christian or not, will tell you that Jesus, in fact, DID exist. The question is His divinity, not His existence. I share your frustration though...

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't think the majority of people question the fact that Jesus Christ existed. I think quite a few people do question whether he was the Messiah, or whether he was of God. I don't think his existence is so much in question, but who he really was is what people question.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I can't prove that my Chevy Impala existed but I know it did. I wrote it in my diary!


Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.