If you do not accept the historical reliability of the New Testament, even though it has been subjected to more intense scrutiny and investigation than perhaps any other work ever written, why do you not accept the accounts of Tacitus or Josephus?
Tacitus, the Roman historian, who wrote early in the second century, refers to Christ and the Christians, in his “Annals of Tacitus.” Josephus, the Jewish historian, who was born several years after the death of Christ, referred to Christ and to some aspects of his life in his “Antiquities of the Jews.” In addition, without any contradictions, archaeologists have compiled an impressive array of archaeological findings and shown in great detail how they have corroborated places and events described in the Gospels. Shouldn’t this so-called secular evidence account for something in addition to what is written in the New Testament? You surely don’t want unintended blindness to other evidential facts get in the way of what I presume is your desire for objective truth do you?
I, too, once had doubts and I resolved those doubts by doing as much extensive reading of scholarly texts on the subject as I possibly could. That said, absolute certainty is not possible. Thus, I don’t deny that the gift of faith still has an essential place in Christian belief. The faith that I am talking about is more than mere verbal assent, but rather an assent that I attempt to live out in the Gospel-driven actions of my every day life albeit not always as successfully as I would like. I guess, as the saying goes, I am a work in progress. Do you have any understanding of what I am saying?
Posted: December 21st 2010
Philip www
The myth of Jesus is a result of a perpetuated meme spread from thousands of seperate communities dotted around Jerusalem and Gallilee when the customs and philosophies from many different cultures clashed together in and around the 1st Century.
Lets look at the name for instance – Jesus Christ or Yĕhōšuă (Yahweh delivers or rescues) Māšîăḥ/Christós (The Annointed One) is it really such a challenge to the imagination that he just so happens to have the right name to fit his job description?
As for Jospehus – his work has been conclusively proven to have been changed by people at a later date, the parts referring to Jesus are completely different to all the rest of Josephus’s narrative style and even then are very short passing references.
As for Tacitus, in the passages I think you are referring to, they are describing an unpopular break-away sect of the nomadic Jewish Essenes and not to anything associated with a human Jesus, but I would need to know more about which bit of Tacitus you are talking about.
But, this is not necessary, one only has to read the Bible to see where the real evidence is – look at the way Paul describes any knowledge of Jesus – it is all through visions provided, apparently, by God – Jesus is never referred to as someone having existed, he is always described spiritually, not physically. The only time that changes is in the contradictory stories of the Gospels which were written decades after the supposed event and even then are not in the slightest bit reliable as the original documents do not exist, we only have copies made from an infinite amount of previous copies. Jesus only becomes human in the Gospels, when first mentioned by someone who was supposedly there nearer the time, he is a visionary figure, no more.
Read books by people like Bart Erhman, Richard Carrier or Earl Doherty for more information on this, I think you will benefit greatly from it.
Posted: January 12th 2011
Mike the Infidel www
“without any contradictions”
That’s really very funny. Except for the whole deal about Nazareth potentially not existing when Jesus was meant to have been living there… and the fact that the census mentioned as the reason they had to return to Bethlehem didn’t actually happen during the lifetime of the emperor the bible claims to have called for it… that sort of thing. There are contradictions aplenty.
Posted: December 31st 2010
logicel
Not only do you need a leap of faith to believe what you believe, the actual content of what you believe has long been supplanted by psychology, philosophy, ethics, medicine, sociology, etc.
Gospel-driven actions? Of Bronze Age illiterates who were racist, sexist, and primitive in their ability to understand themselves and the universe? I can’t understand if you want to drive a nail into wood, why you dogmatically use your finger instead of a proper tool.
Struggling to read in between your lines, I do understand the desire to be and do good. I just can’t imagine why you would go about it in such a difficult and intellectually dishonest manner.
Posted: December 29th 2010
Steve Zara www
I question the historical Jesus because he was supposed to have been a miracle-worker. When reviewing historical reports, the more fantastic the tale, the less likely it is to be true.
The supposed reports of a historical Jesus don’t mean we should start to take his supernatural status seriously, as some believers insist. It’s the other way around: the supposed supernatural status of Jesus means we should consider any historical reports to be extremely unreliable. The more magic in a story, the less likely it is to be true, and you can’t get more magic than the son of God.
Posted: December 29th 2010
Eric_PK
I’m not sure what your point is with regard to the scrutiny and investigation the NT has undergone. If that investigation had led to definitive conclusions, that would be another matter, but what we got out of the investigation is agreement that the NT is not a firsthand report of events, a list of contradictions between the different accounts, and not a lot more from a scholarly perspective.
While it may work to bolster the faith of somebody who is already a believer, I’m not sure how it helps somebody who doesn’t believe. I’m agnostic on whether Jesus existed or not, but whether he existed isn’t really a matter of much import. What matters is whether he is 33% of a god, and I don’t think there is much objective evidence for that.
Posted: December 29th 2010
Blaise www
I’m not sure why you would consider accounts written by people born decades after the fact to be reliable sources, especially given that they are backed up by no contemporary sources at all. As far as your “without contradictions” archaeology is concerned, I’ve never heard of a piece of uncontested archaeological evidence of any events in the bible, although I’m sure many of the places were real enough.
It sounds like you decided your facts first, then went looking for evidence, which is obviously not scholarship.
I completely understand what you are saying, but it is self-contradictory, and poorly thought-out, so I find it rather unconvincing.
Posted: December 27th 2010