If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
So you are telling me how I should think and feel about my religion? Why? As an atheist- why do you care about Jesus and why do you care about how I practice my religion? Can I tell you how to think and feel about any subject? You are crazy!! |
Anonymous
His physical existence doesn’t affect you either way. Millions of Christians probably never gave it a second thought. Why do you need to prove that he absolutely lived? Does that desire for absolute certainty cloud your reasoning? |
Anonymous
No one has denied his existence. Your distasteful posts are off topic. |
Anonymous
So approaching 100% certainty, not 100%. |
Anonymous
Other than Jesus' brother and the apostles? |
Anonymous
Well none of them wrote anything, so while they presumably did know Jesus there are no first hand accounts. This is getting boring. We really are beating a dead horse over this |
Anonymous
Keyword: independent And claiming supernatural events lowers confidence in a source. |
Anonymous
+2. It’s gross that people are making these comparisons. |
Anonymous
Are you an atheist? You have no belief in God; how does the historical existence of Jesus affect you? If the reason you don’t believe in God is your desire for absolute certainty in His existence, does that cloud your thinking? Lots of historians and archaeologists and professors of the Classics aren’t religious and know historical Jesus existed…it’s not a matter of faith. It’s a historical fact. No atheist will explain why they are concerned about the historicity of Jesus? Does their non-belief in religion cloud their judgment and make it so they can’t accept historical facts because they have an agenda? I don’t need to prove he absolutely lived; every historian and scholar in the academic world has already done that. You are the one with the problem with history not linking up with your personal beliefs and feeling as if denying Jesus will validate your disbelief. After all, the man who claimed to be the Son Of God creating the world’s largest religion is mighty inconvenient, isn’t it? |
Anonymous
It’s a historical comparison and illustrates how people who deny history are the same. They disregard history to further their inaccurate and misleading agendas. |
Anonymous
It’s not a good comparison, though. That you think it is is ridiculous. And I wouldn’t agree that your agenda isn’t also inaccurate or misleading. |
Anonymous
actually Paul did a lot more to "creat the world's largest religion" than Jesus. Then the emperor Constantine probably more than any of them. |
Anonymous
Over the years, even radicals have been forced to bow their heads in acknowledgement of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a central character of the biblical world twenty centuries ago. The French humanist Ernest Renan (1823-1892), no friend of Christianity, admitted that “all history is incomprehensible without him” and “to tear [Jesus’] name from this world, would be to shake it to its foundations” (26, 212). In 1922, Joseph Klausner, of Hebrew University, authored his controversial volume, Jesus of Nazareth. Though Klausner rejected Christ as divine, he nonetheless argued persuasively, based upon ancient sources, that Jesus was a bona fide historical character (17-62). Significantly, no ancient adversary ever even disputed Jesus’ existence! The case is so settled that Professor Bruce Metzger of Princeton University could say in 1965: “Today no competent scholar denies the historicity of Jesus” (78). Quite true. But this does not prevent some not-so-competent writers from disputing this fact. A small group of vocal, obnoxious atheists is attempting to resurrect Baur’s bogus theory that Jesus never lived. Their influence is so nil that one might be inclined to ignore them altogether — except for the fact that this circumstance affords an excellent opportunity to focus upon how these antagonists deal with the evidence of history. It throws a floodlight upon their character and their utter lack of comprehension relative to the legitimate conclusions that one may draw from ancient documents. Here is an example of what I mean. Judith Hayes is an atheist. She is the author of a recently published book, In God We Trust: But Which One? An apostate from the Lutheran Church, Mrs. Hayes reveals a vicious bitterness towards the Bible. She is ignorant of the most fundamental of biblical matters, yet what she lacks in knowledge she compensates for with venom and crudeness. There is a chapter in her book designated as “The Messiah,” which begins in this fashion: “Just whether or not Jesus was an actual, historical figure is the subject of much scholarly debate. St. Paul, who was the real founder of the religion known as Christianity, barely discussed Jesus as a person, and made no references to his family. Jesus must remain a puzzle, historically speaking. He may have existed, and then again he may not have”(119). Later Hayes assembles what she describes as a “partial list of some of the Jewish and pagan writers” who lived in, or close to, the first century. These, she asserts, “made no mention of Jesus’ supposedly astounding appearance on Earth.” The author catalogues the names of twenty ancient writers, the silence of whom, regarding Jesus, supposedly buttresses her case as to the doubtful historicity of the Son of God (147). What shall we say in response to this reckless charge? A Response to Hayes’ Harangue No responsible researcher would dream of ignoring the vast depository of evidence for the historicity of Jesus in deference to the silence of a few writers who did not mention the great Teacher. This is lame logic indeed. There may be a variety of valid reasons which explain their silence. Remember this: Silence proves nothing — one way or the other. To attempt to establish one’s case on such a basis reveals the utter desperation of the position. Note this concession from another atheist: “Silence on a topic does not in itself prove ignorance of it — unless the silence extends to matters obviously relevant to what the writer has chosen to discuss” (Wells, 364). Five of the twenty authors cited by Hayes — Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Lucian — do, contain historical allusions to Christ. These are cited in “The Historicity of Jesus Christ”, previously referenced. That Mrs. Hayes has never personally examined any of these sources is a distinct possibility. However, she is not totally oblivious to these references regarding Jesus, because she vaguely hints of “Christian interpolations inserted clumsily” into some of the writings (148). I mention this to emphasize the fact that Hayes’ treatment of the evidence is not entirely a matter of bungling incompetence (though there is plenty of that); it also reflects a deliberate distortion of the historical data. The truth is — precious little material from secular writers of the first century has even survived to this day. The late E.M. Blaiklock addressed this matter in one of his books. Dr. Blaiklock taught ancient and biblical history for more than forty years, and was internationally recognized as an authority on the classical writings of antiquity. In discussing the surviving literature of the Fifties and Sixties of the first century, the professor writes: “Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from those significant years” (13). The most formidable problem that Mrs. Hayes and those of her ilk have, of course, is this: How does one explain the fact that millions of citizens in the ancient Roman empire were willing to commit their well-being, surrender their possessions, and forfeit their very lives — for a mere myth? Has Paul Bunyan, Robin Hood, or the Tooth Fairy ever excited such devotion? Hayes’ own book bears the publication date 1996. Nineteen hundred and ninety-six years from what, Judith? This atheist’s treatment of Christ, as exhibited in the work under review, represents an embarrassing example of research, and a sad commentary upon the character of the critic. https://christiancourier.com/articles/atheism-and-the-historical-christ |
Anonymous
Historians and scholars and professors think it’s very apt to compare the two. |
Anonymous
Yeah, the millions of Christians around the world love Constantine. He’s always the center of worship. Great point. |