Main Discussion Zone > General Religious Discussion

Did George Washington Exist?

(1/3) > >>

KaosKitty:
Of course he did.


(bet you weren't expecting that)

But my real question is this:  how do you go about proving George Washington existed?

And, how much proof would you, personally, need in order to be convinced of anyone's existence? 

My questions aren't rhetorical.  I'd really like to know, and I think it is important in the debates about whether, say, Jesus existed (yes, you were waiting for that, I could tell), or whether the disciples existed, or whether Alexander the Great existed (or was he an amalgam of other prominent historical figures?), or whether Socrates existed.  What's "the" standard, and what's your standard?

I'm not even sure I really have a standard, and the prospect of the truth in that statement somewhat frightens me.  Why do I think George Washington existed?  Was it merely because I was brought up to believe so, or that I see his name and face everywhere that I look?  Or is there something more to it?  How much of the word of others do you have to take to sufficiently convince you?

Perhaps your answers will help me figure out whether my inconsistent standards are truly screwed up, or whether we're all more alike in that regard.

velkyn:
Yes, George Washington existed.  Was he exactly like is portrayed?  Likely not.  However, comparison of sources will generally "out" the truth. 

There are multiple contemporary sources of people who knew him personally, commenting favorably and unfavorably about him.  They are largely consistent. (yes, there can be problems with primary sources)

There are no claims of supernatural actions by George.

There are his own writings which can be compared to other contemporary sources to confirm events, etc.

Here's a pretty good overview on how people treat sources for historical figures, etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source 

rickymooston:
His grave likely exists and its location is probably known.

Records exist about him and even hand writing samples still exist.

A better question to ask would be whether Cleopatra existed or mabye even Julius Caesar. Still, records exist and coins exist with their likenesses on them

Omen:
George Washington, yes.
1. Direct evidence in his own words.
2. Contemporary evidence from supporters.
3. Contemporary evidence from his detractors
4. Contemporary historical references to events, places, people, and things.

A. We know these events occured
B. We know these people existed both directly and indirectly.
C. We know these places existed in relationship to the events and people.

It is all too likely that George Washington existed.

* There are some very interesting newspapers from the time from England, who reported on the colonial revolt often talking about G. Washington in tones that could be described as 'legend-like'.  It is a rather fascinating thing to go find and read about. 
--

Alexander the great, yes but definately debateable.

1. Direct archaeological evidence in relation to individuals often assigned with the same events of Alexander the Great.
2. Accountings of Alexander the great from a roman perspective that although they are older then Alexander the Great himself ( and not contemporary ) still refer to actual people/places/events that can be confirmed through archaeology.
3. Accountings of Alexander the great from a non-roman perspective, virtually outside of any influence that are older then alexander the great himself ( and not contemporary ) still refer to actual people/places/events that can be confirmed through archaeology.

A. We know that these events occured
B. We know that certain people existed, and references to others were made.
C. We know that these places/people/events occured in relationship to the figure itself.

Its likely that Alexander the Great existed, however the possibility is certainly open that it were several people rather then one or not even a person of the same name.  Even if we do not know the identify of X person, we still know that X person did Y.

--

Jesus, the best that can be attained is unknown although it is deffinately possible that a person existed.

1. No archaelogical evidence.  Places can sometimes be said to exist as well as people, but events are virtually non-existent or contradictory to what we do know.
2. No contemporary sources, there are sources that come long after jesus would have existed but unlike alexander they only originate from a single perspective and often exist in contradiction to each other.  The events, people, and places used to associate to jesus are not that 'obvious' as in consideration to alexander the great.
3. Contradictory historical references and obvious plagerizations.
4. Countless contemporary sources of the time that existed have no mention of the people or events that occured.

Personally, I think a 'jesus' could have existed but to assign anything more then a jewish prophet or a gnostic preacher is doing far more then can be done.  Much less attaching such nonsense as being 'resurrected'.  The really silly part is that christians often have a 'disconnect' of understanding between what historical scholars claim about jesus and what they say historical scholars claim about jesus.  Where a christian uses 'historical' evidence of jesus as reason to believe, they ignore that the historian dismisses all mythology including the resurrection and jesus is often reduced to another figure among many preaching similar things.  Virtually all of the passion narrative is little more then fictional pandering, that develops slowly over a hundred year period.  The jesus council goes even further, reducing jesus to a miniscule figure that very little can be concluded upon.  Beyond that, dozens of scholars attempt to conclude on the most minute bits of evidence to build their own 'historical jesus' each differing from the next.  The most damaging thing possible, is the lack of historical references from contemporary sources that both would have an interest in the events of the time as well as a noteable effect upon historical events that would in themselves created contemporary reports.  It just begs the question, why didn't anyone say anything?

rickymooston:

--- Quote from: Omen on July 23, 2008, 01:34:36 PM ---...
Personally, I think a 'jesus' could have existed but to assign anything more then a jewish prophet or a gnostic preacher is doing far more then can be done. ...

--- End quote ---

Along those lines its interesting that the oldest known gospel ends with the empty tomb ...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page