Simple English Wikiquote, Translate a quote...? Options

[American Eagle]

As poorly as many editors think of it, Simple English Wikiquote (yes, the wiki that "translates" quotes) has never been this active! With the additions of four administrators in the last three days, things are moving along quite nicely. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Yay for Simple English Wikiquote!

[American Eagle]

"Jesus was a real person, that is not debated." O rly?

Heh. This was agreed upon (not that it isn't disputed, but that most historical works agree) by the community of Simple English Wikipedia. Read "The Case for Christ" or "The Case for Easter".

My edit summary wasn't fully explained. Yes, it is debated, but not by the mainstream world. Some people still believe the earth is flat.

Mate, it's disputed by between 75% to 90% of the world, depending on how you measure.

I don't mean Jesus dying on the cross and saving the world from sin (the Christian belief). I only mean him being a real person. But whatever.

Yes, it is debated, but not by the mainstream world. Some people still believe the earth is flat.

It can be scientifically proven that the Earth isn't flat, though.

Yes, I know. That's called faith, which I don't expect you to understand. You win that.

This discussion has become pointless. You all can hate Simple English Wikiquote, and me. I'm not really worried about that

[Eva Destruction]

I don't mean Jesus dying on the cross and saving the world from sin (the Christian belief). I only mean him being a real person. But whatever.

So do I. The "evidence" for Jesus's existence, outside of biblical sources, is a likely forged addition to Tacitus's Annals 15, the almost-certainly-forged Testimonium Flavianum, and a highly dubious passing mention in Josephus. Although since you appear to think that (personal opinion)+(dubious source)=(truth), you should fit right in at Wikipedia.

This discussion has become pointless. You all can hate Simple English Wikiquote, and me. I'm not really worried about that

I don't think anyone here hates Simple English Wikiquote. In fact, I don't think anyone here except you gives a flying fuck about Simple English Wikiquote.

[written by he who wrote it]

So do I. The "evidence" for Jesus's existence, outside of biblical sources, is a likely forged addition to Tacitus's Annals 15,

O RLY? Do you know how many manuscript copies of that passage (Annals 15.44) exist? (One (1). I don't need Google to confirm that, nor to remember the name of the book. Senior thesis.) If you did know, how can you assert that it is "likely forged"?

the almost-certainly-forged Testimonium Flavianum, and a highly dubious passing mention in Josephus.

Those references, on the other hand, are questionable at best; the first was more probably emended (hah!), the second less so.

Me, I lean towards the conclusion that he was a real person; I'm agnostic on the question of whether the extant texts are accurate depictions of his life and death. Then again, stories don't need to be true. . .

[Noroton]

It's not just that he existed -- for which there is plenty of proof, better than for many other figures of antiquity whom historians assume existed, based on the evidence we have in those cases. It's also a fact that this one person evidently had such an enormous impact on those around him, and an impact that expanded so far in space and time (and still is). It's hard to come up with a better explanation than that the Gospel was about the teachings of one person, with others writing about him. The alternatives -- some kind of hoax, mistake, communal delusion? -- make it difficult to account for the strength of the moral vision in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. It's possible to come up with those kinds of explanations, but they don't seem to cohere nearly as well as the simplest explanation: This was one extraordinary man, even God. The historical evidence gets me very close to believing he is God. What pushes me over the top is simply reading and contemplating the Gospels and the New Testament. Maybe it's faith or maybe it's just a different kind of evidence from historical or scientific, but I find it easier -- that is, more sensible, more reasonable -- to believe than to not believe.

The four books of the Gospel themselves are historical evidence, and simply because they advocate his Godhood doesn't mean that, even if you reject the idea of his Godhood, they stop being evidence of various things (such as his existence), just like other historical documents.

As far as existence of the person goes, we probably have better evidence for Jesus than for Muhammad and Bhudda and St. Paul and Confucius, the only other people I can think of that even come close to Jesus in terms of historical influence. I suppose some scholars must have advocated the position that each of these never actually existed either, but you don't tend to hear about that much, and it runs into the same problems: the easier, simpler, more direct explanation is that they existed. Occam's razor, and all that.