I think it's fair to say that evidence for Jesus is held to a higher standard that for Socrates based on the claims made of each. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mundane claims require little evidence and may be accepted at face value.
Socrates was some guy who was a philosopher and founded a school in Athens. Pretty mundane. Not much required to buy into the idea he really existed.
Jesus was one of many doom criers and Jewish faction leaders who apparently was so insignificant that no one noticed him in his time. He waited about 30 years before doing anything and then went about performing miracles that no one paid any attention to. He founded a ministry that "spread like wildfire" into the surrounding provinces, and yet failed to get a mention by theologians and philosophers of the time (including Philo). He wrote nothing of his own teachings and nothing was written about him for at least 40 years. Then, generations later, he became the towering icon of numerous splinter factions, some of who believed he never existed in the flesh (see 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7).
There's a lot to the Jesus story that doesn't add up. The only detailed accounts we have are the Gospels, and these are riddled with contradictions. Even if he existed, we can't know anything about the true story. And if he was a godman who performed miracles, how come nobody noticed him during his lifetime? And if he wasn't a godman performing miracles, his real story would bare little or no resemblance to the legend, and would be so different that we may as well say he never existed.
I hold Jesus to a higher standard than Socrates.
Socrates was some guy who was a philosopher and founded a school in Athens. Pretty mundane. Not much required to buy into the idea he really existed.
Jesus was one of many doom criers and Jewish faction leaders who apparently was so insignificant that no one noticed him in his time. He waited about 30 years before doing anything and then went about performing miracles that no one paid any attention to. He founded a ministry that "spread like wildfire" into the surrounding provinces, and yet failed to get a mention by theologians and philosophers of the time (including Philo). He wrote nothing of his own teachings and nothing was written about him for at least 40 years. Then, generations later, he became the towering icon of numerous splinter factions, some of who believed he never existed in the flesh (see 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7).
There's a lot to the Jesus story that doesn't add up. The only detailed accounts we have are the Gospels, and these are riddled with contradictions. Even if he existed, we can't know anything about the true story. And if he was a godman who performed miracles, how come nobody noticed him during his lifetime? And if he wasn't a godman performing miracles, his real story would bare little or no resemblance to the legend, and would be so different that we may as well say he never existed.
I hold Jesus to a higher standard than Socrates.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
