Since most of us believe in things that we cannot see based on the testimony of others (e.g., black holes in space), why not accept the powerful witness and testimony of the very early Christians who personally knew and experienced Christ and subsequently laid down their lives for spreading his Gospel message of salvation?
Posted: December 11th 2010
George Locke
Certain kinds of testimony are more reliable than others. As you say, we believe astronomers when they tell us there’s a black hole at the center of our galaxy. Scientists are among the most trustworthy sources you can find (when they’re discussing their own field, that is) for the following reason: scientists have strong incentives to prove each other wrong, resulting in a well vetted body of knowledge. Early Christian texts, on the other hand, are explicitly evangelical. Their authors are biased by their interest in converting others to their own point of view. Science offers systematic tools for preventing and exposing errors whereas religion despises heresy and occasionally burns the heretic.
The fact that we only have reports on Christ from Christians makes it hard to judge their value. Reports from a Roman official that Jesus rose from the dead would add considerable weight to Christian religious claims. There are some pagan and Jewish sources on Jesus, but they don’t do much to strengthen the case that Jesus was the son of God. They do indicate that a cult grew around the man, though, since they are secondary sources, they leave room for the possibility that Jesus never existed.
You’re right in describing the powerful emotional character of early Christian accounts, but this certainly doesn’t make them more credible. The Iliad has a great deal of pathos, but no Christian would use this to argue that the events it describes are true. In a similar vein, apologists often say that Christians wouldn’t have risked their lives to spread the gospel unless the gospel were true, but of course this doesn’t work either. Many god-free explanations for this zeal suggest themselves; we may readily imagine that the story of Jesus grew with the telling, but the exaggerated tales probably fomented as much passion as the true one, if not more.
Finally, I am aware of no extant texts from authors who definitely knew Jesus. (If you know of some, ask another question with references!) There are some documents likely to be written by people who knew people who knew Jesus, e.g. Paul’s epistles, but that seems to be as good as you’re going to get.
Posted: December 17th 2010
Mike the Infidel www
If only some of those very early Christians had written their stories down… unfortunately, not one of the gospels is an eyewitness account.
Posted: December 17th 2010
brian thomson www
What’s there to accept? It’s still Testimony – things people said – and not Evidence. Words aren’t enough when it comes to something this important.
Posted: December 16th 2010
logicel
Why not accept the testimony of the ancient Greeks who personally knew and experienced Zeus and subsequently laid down their lives for spreading his divine dictates?
Posted: December 16th 2010