Was Babe Ruth a myth? Can you prove his existence without quoting baseball statistics or sports writers?

Question

Isn't it circular logic to prove his existence by citing those who knew him?

Can you prove that he hit 60 homeruns in one year, without referring to sporting records at the time. Are not most of the eye witnesses dead by now?

What does 2000 years ago mean to you? Do you think they kept records like we have for the last 100 years or so?

"Myp" - Get real, Jesus never asked anyone to kill for him. And, as far as God is concerned, Well what is so unusual about People claiming they were killing in the name of God? Do you pick and choose? You believe the Bible if it blames God, but you don't believe it if it promises a better life?

Mypublic -- You should be ashamed of yourself --- the verse you quoted was a parable. --- Do you know what it means to "take something out of context"?

Answer 1

Lets see, we have eye witnesses.
(Jesus did also and they had everything to loose by saying they followed him)

We have non-sports related reports of him so we know he wasn't a fictional character.
(Jesus was written about from non-christian historians including, Tactitus, Josephus and a Governor named Pliny the Younger who wrote about Jesus and his followers)

We have have people who have given their lives to baseball because of his inspiration. If he was fictional they why would that do this?
(Paul was beheaded, Peter crucified upside down, all but one died an awful death because they followed him)

†

Answer 2

There is NO comparison between Babe Ruth and Jesus.

There are NO eyewitness accounts of Jesus, Christian or otherwise. Nobody knows who wrote the gospels; they're all anonymous, and show clear ignorance of Jewish customs and Palestinian geography. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all 2nd century guesses.

St. Paul's claim to witness was not of Jesus in the flesh. An objective observer might call it an epileptic seizure.

The writing most plausibly attributed to an eyewitness is the Letter of James. Strangely, the author writes *nothing* of Jesus himself. The letters of Peter are both forgeries. Christian scholars *know* this, and call them "pseudepigraphs." The letters of John are signed by an "elder." None of them talk about Jesus's earthly life.

Non-Christian accounts of Jesus are all hearsay or forgeries. The most often quoted "proof" of Jesus, from Josephus, is a blatant forgery, and historians know *exactly* who did it. The other Josephus reference, even if it weren't tampered with, is still hearsay; Josephus wasn't even born yet when Pontius Pilate was deposed. Tacitus, Pliny, and the rest of them documented the existence of *Christians*, not Jesus himself.

The executions of the apostles come to us via "apostolic tradition"--that is, the accounts are about as reliable as stories about Hercules or Dionysius. But even their executions would prove nothing. Paul died for a belief in events he did not witness. Peter and the others left no writings (see above), so we don't know exactly *what* they died for. There is a serious hypothesis, based on the deafening silence on Jesus's life by the New Testament letters and historical records, that the earliest Christians did not believe in an incarnated Jesus. This hypothesis must be addressed before we can draw any conclusion about what they died for. Consider the 9/11 hijackers and the Islamic suicide bombers. They died for their beliefs; would you conclude that their beliefs are true because of that?

Add on top of all this uncertainty that the gospels claim impossible things like changing water to wine, walking on water, feeding multitudes with two Happy Meals, and dead people coming back to life, can you really blame anyone for not buying these stories?

Answer 3

Great question! It really brings home the point!

for mypublicindent: You continue to misrepresent and take out of context the Scripture verse that you quote! Jesus was relating a parable at the time! The words you quote are the words of the man in Jesus' parable and not Jesus speaking for Himself!

Answer 4

I've been accused of cheating before, that's why I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that babe Ruth did anything besides party too hard. I do believe Lance Armstrong is a guy who uses steroids or performance enhancing drugs, and plays the saint for fans. If he used pot or drank, he wouldn't be able to play the saint, everybody would figure he's not only just like us, he's worse than us, he's supposed to be special. Well, Lance Armstrong plays Mr special too damn well, I believe he's got something to hide, unless his genetics are half kryptonian.

Answer 5

they can't even prove that the universe appeared from nowhere.They can't prove,100%, that a blob (after eons of time not there) appeared from nowhere and for some strange reason decided to blow itself up.The blob then formed an intricate and mappable universe (even galaxy cluster somehow follow a path).Find out the time the sun is supposedly suppose to rise tomorrow.Will they believe the predicted time and will it rise at that time?

Answer 6

Um, I think the TV records of Babe Ruth are enough for most people.

Are you actually this dim?

Answer 7

Now you are beginning to see. The myth of Babe Ruth was created to make the players submissive to the game.

Answer 8

Yes, you can. In addition to sports writers and baseball statistics, you also have stuff he wrote, himself. You also have government confirmation of his existence through tax records, licenses, birth certificates and such. You also have family and friends outside of baseball.

Compare this to information about Jesus. All you really have, outside of scant references that have mostly been shown to be forgeries, is stuff written decades after he supposedly died. This was also during a time in which such wild stories were frequently created about people and legends. You also have evidence of editing afterwards.

Citing sources near him is valid evidence, unless the sources are known to be biased and there is scant supporting evidence from neutral sources. The wider variety of sources available, the more certain you can be of someone's existence. Babe Ruth has a wide variety of evidence available, including direct photographs and video. Jesus has vague and contradictory references made decades after he supposedly died.

Answer 9

Your question is clever and provocative. It is clearly meant to cause its reader to question his own view of what exactly is credible evidence.

Here is my reply. If we use the standards that would be needed to credit Jesus as described in the Bible, what other holy books would we then find ourselves having to accept, the Book Of Mormon, the Quran?

Answer 10

There are films of him playing and shaking #4's, Lou Gehrig's, hand as he ran in from yet another homerun. There are also filmed interviews with him, countless books about him, and pictures of him.