It's not something I can prove or disprove, but one side of the argument to me sounds far more plausible and rational. And that is that the "story" of Jesus that is accepted today in the NT was completely fabricated. I'm also not claiming I know what the truth really is, all I'm claiming is that it is highly unlikely that what is in the NT is an accurate depiction of the history of Jesus.
While I was attending Catholic high school (which I did for 4 years), we often heard readings from the Epistles and the Gospels. Only once was I in a class where the students were told that the Epistles were the only existing Christian writings for the 40 years following the alleged death of Jesus (the earliest date on which scholars affix the writing of the Gospels was about 90 A.D.). Even more striking, it was never pointed out to the students that the Epistles failed to even mention Mary, Joseph, the birth of an historical Jesus, the miracles of Jesus or the teachings of an historical Jesus. This is rather incredible, given that an earth-residing Jesus was allegedly God.
Think about this: out planet was visited by God incarnate (Creator of the Universe), whose earthly life was snuffed out by a bloody crucifixion after He performed dozens miracles allegedly witnessed by thousands, and we get . . . silence. For 40 years. Imagine an event that is much less noteworthy, for instance imagine that San Francisco suffered a massive earthquake in 1906 but no one wrote anything about it for 40 years. Jesus did something even more amazing, it is claimed. Upon his death, the earth shook, tombs opened and dead people walked around the town. But no one wrote about this for 40 years. Or imagine Michael Jordan dazzling the basketball world for years, but no one writing about it . . . for 40 years.
I find these discussions to be fascinating. In fact, these sorts of discussions should really be one of the starting points for any thoughtful Christian?s education. Shouldn?t anyone who wants to follow the truth consider even those things that might appear inconvenient or even hostile to those beliefs? In the same vein, shouldn?t those who want to use the Bible itself as the starting point for their beliefs, consider the origin of the Bible writings, including the undeniable fact that numerous biblical writings have been tampered with over the years?
I?m not disparaging the teachings of Jesus. Many of those teachings are challenging, humanitarian, even revolutionary. We don?t need to believe in a flesh and blood Jesus in order to find value in those teachings that have value, right? Nor do we need to believe in a physical reality of Atticus Finch to be inspired by the kind of man he was portrayed to be. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am raising the issue of the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, but not contesting that many of his teaching were inspirational.
Nor am I raising alarm that many people are striving to seek out higher meaning in the absence of sufficient facts on which to base that meaning of life. All of us, those who believe in God and those who don?t, are all in the same boat in that respect. But I also think that beliefs should always be thoughtful, striving, humble and willing to consider all serious opposing views and consider where and when they don?t know what they don?t know.
I would just end this diatribe in asking what do you honestly believe is more likely given the facts we know?
While I was attending Catholic high school (which I did for 4 years), we often heard readings from the Epistles and the Gospels. Only once was I in a class where the students were told that the Epistles were the only existing Christian writings for the 40 years following the alleged death of Jesus (the earliest date on which scholars affix the writing of the Gospels was about 90 A.D.). Even more striking, it was never pointed out to the students that the Epistles failed to even mention Mary, Joseph, the birth of an historical Jesus, the miracles of Jesus or the teachings of an historical Jesus. This is rather incredible, given that an earth-residing Jesus was allegedly God.
Think about this: out planet was visited by God incarnate (Creator of the Universe), whose earthly life was snuffed out by a bloody crucifixion after He performed dozens miracles allegedly witnessed by thousands, and we get . . . silence. For 40 years. Imagine an event that is much less noteworthy, for instance imagine that San Francisco suffered a massive earthquake in 1906 but no one wrote anything about it for 40 years. Jesus did something even more amazing, it is claimed. Upon his death, the earth shook, tombs opened and dead people walked around the town. But no one wrote about this for 40 years. Or imagine Michael Jordan dazzling the basketball world for years, but no one writing about it . . . for 40 years.
I find these discussions to be fascinating. In fact, these sorts of discussions should really be one of the starting points for any thoughtful Christian?s education. Shouldn?t anyone who wants to follow the truth consider even those things that might appear inconvenient or even hostile to those beliefs? In the same vein, shouldn?t those who want to use the Bible itself as the starting point for their beliefs, consider the origin of the Bible writings, including the undeniable fact that numerous biblical writings have been tampered with over the years?
I?m not disparaging the teachings of Jesus. Many of those teachings are challenging, humanitarian, even revolutionary. We don?t need to believe in a flesh and blood Jesus in order to find value in those teachings that have value, right? Nor do we need to believe in a physical reality of Atticus Finch to be inspired by the kind of man he was portrayed to be. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am raising the issue of the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, but not contesting that many of his teaching were inspirational.
Nor am I raising alarm that many people are striving to seek out higher meaning in the absence of sufficient facts on which to base that meaning of life. All of us, those who believe in God and those who don?t, are all in the same boat in that respect. But I also think that beliefs should always be thoughtful, striving, humble and willing to consider all serious opposing views and consider where and when they don?t know what they don?t know.
I would just end this diatribe in asking what do you honestly believe is more likely given the facts we know?