On the Historical Veracity of Jesus
The historical veracity behind Christianity (or any religion) could be an entire book and I suspect that I will write more posts questioning the historical evidence for events described in the bible. But for now I'll share this video clip form my on going series.
The caller is rather annoying and close minded in my opinion. He repeatedly asserts that the bible is more than just a book, asserts that his religion is a fact, asserts that all other religions are false, asserts that the hosts are going to hell, and providers zero evidence to back up that his assertions are facts. He just does not get it. I like what Don (the host on the left) says towards the end: "If you are going to make an extraordinary claim, you need to have extraordinary evidence to back that up". I couldn't agree more. When I'm told that there was a man who lived 2,000 years ago who could walk on water, cure any ailment instantly without even touching the patient, was resurrected and rose many others from the dead for a fun zombie get-together in town. Sorry if I'm skeptical of all that when the only place it is written is within the bible.
I'm not saying that a man named Jesus Christ never existed. I'm skeptical about whether he did exist, but he may have. Or his character may have been based off of another real person of that time, and that person may have indeed claimed to be the son of God and was crucified. From what I have studied, many people during those times (and even many people today) claimed to be the Messiah. I'm much much more skeptical that he was the son of God and had all of these supernatural abilities, especially when I can't find any mention of these miracles outside of the bible or other religious writings. The bible repeatedly says "Jesus performed miracle X, and word spread throughout the countryside about his deed". Do you really think that if someone had cured a blind man that no one would have written about it? That no historical scholar would have gotten word about it and rushed to see it for himself?
I haven't done a comprehensive study on the historicity of Jesus (yet), but I did find this page on GotQuestions.org: Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ. The give a number of secular sources there that they claim support that Jesus existed. I haven't looked at these sources myself yet, but I hope to get around to it eventually and make up my own mind. Re-read that last sentence. Rather than continuing to believe what I always have, I am open to looking at evidence that may contradict my lack of belief. How many Christians or religious people would honestly do that? How many care enough about whether their beliefs are true or not to do that? Not many from my experience. I think the approach I am taking is the best one to find out what is true and what is not. And that's what I care about. I want to believe what I think is most likely to be true, not what I most wish or hope to be true (and by the way, I don't particularly wish or hope that no Gods exist).
One of the things that the GotQuestions page mentions is the sacking of the temple of Jerusalem and Israel by the Romans in 70 AD (which did in fact happen). They hypothesize that much of the evidence and many of the eye witnesses of Jesus were killed during this time. Do you really think that every single one of the thousands of witnesses to Jesus were slaughtered in this attack? Ancient Israel is a large area of the middle east, especially in those times when transportation was much slower. And there were nearly four decades that had passed since Jesus' death. If there was sufficient evidence, sure much of it may have been destroyed in that attack, but I find it near improbable to claim that all of it was. Again though, this is something that I plan to research more by myself sometime in the future. Until then, I will happily retain my skeptical position.
The caller is rather annoying and close minded in my opinion. He repeatedly asserts that the bible is more than just a book, asserts that his religion is a fact, asserts that all other religions are false, asserts that the hosts are going to hell, and providers zero evidence to back up that his assertions are facts. He just does not get it. I like what Don (the host on the left) says towards the end: "If you are going to make an extraordinary claim, you need to have extraordinary evidence to back that up". I couldn't agree more. When I'm told that there was a man who lived 2,000 years ago who could walk on water, cure any ailment instantly without even touching the patient, was resurrected and rose many others from the dead for a fun zombie get-together in town. Sorry if I'm skeptical of all that when the only place it is written is within the bible.
I'm not saying that a man named Jesus Christ never existed. I'm skeptical about whether he did exist, but he may have. Or his character may have been based off of another real person of that time, and that person may have indeed claimed to be the son of God and was crucified. From what I have studied, many people during those times (and even many people today) claimed to be the Messiah. I'm much much more skeptical that he was the son of God and had all of these supernatural abilities, especially when I can't find any mention of these miracles outside of the bible or other religious writings. The bible repeatedly says "Jesus performed miracle X, and word spread throughout the countryside about his deed". Do you really think that if someone had cured a blind man that no one would have written about it? That no historical scholar would have gotten word about it and rushed to see it for himself?
I haven't done a comprehensive study on the historicity of Jesus (yet), but I did find this page on GotQuestions.org: Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ. The give a number of secular sources there that they claim support that Jesus existed. I haven't looked at these sources myself yet, but I hope to get around to it eventually and make up my own mind. Re-read that last sentence. Rather than continuing to believe what I always have, I am open to looking at evidence that may contradict my lack of belief. How many Christians or religious people would honestly do that? How many care enough about whether their beliefs are true or not to do that? Not many from my experience. I think the approach I am taking is the best one to find out what is true and what is not. And that's what I care about. I want to believe what I think is most likely to be true, not what I most wish or hope to be true (and by the way, I don't particularly wish or hope that no Gods exist).
One of the things that the GotQuestions page mentions is the sacking of the temple of Jerusalem and Israel by the Romans in 70 AD (which did in fact happen). They hypothesize that much of the evidence and many of the eye witnesses of Jesus were killed during this time. Do you really think that every single one of the thousands of witnesses to Jesus were slaughtered in this attack? Ancient Israel is a large area of the middle east, especially in those times when transportation was much slower. And there were nearly four decades that had passed since Jesus' death. If there was sufficient evidence, sure much of it may have been destroyed in that attack, but I find it near improbable to claim that all of it was. Again though, this is something that I plan to research more by myself sometime in the future. Until then, I will happily retain my skeptical position.
posted by Tyler Olsen at 5:44 PM
9 Comments:
I don't know why you care so much about the historical veracity of Jesus. Are not the spiritual techniques (such as the mass and prayer) more important to the religion? I used to think that religion was about believing certain facts because you were told to believe them, but now I see that there are certain methodologies used that make people believe what it is that is said, as well as the emotional resonance with a given religion (atheism included)
Why do I care?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23832053/
An 11 year old girl has been dead for less than a year because her parents believed in the bible and that healing comes from God.
I have no problem if someone reads the bible, decides they like the character of Jesus Christ, and tries to live a life like he did. There's no problem with learning lessons or behavior from either fictional or non-fictional characters. Where I draw the line is when people's faith start actively hurting themselves and those around them.
I only vaguely care about the historical veracity of Jesus, hence why I haven't checked out those sources yet. I'm more interested in the behaviors and actions invoked in people living in current times that are influenced by his existence. Even if he did exist and he really was the son of God, it doesn't change the fact that an innocent child is now dead because of two parents' belief in him.
Also just to make sure its clear, atheism is not a religion. It is nothing more than the rejection of the claim that supernatural beings exist. You may have not meant to imply that atheism is a religion, but your last sentence made it sound like you did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Even if he did exist and he really was the son of God, it doesn't change the fact that an innocent child is now dead because of two parents' belief in him."
If you understood that he did exist and he really was the son of God, then you'd see that death is not a bad thing. For Christians, it has no sting. To quote Paul, 'to live is Christ, but to die is gain.'
Now I personally believe that we have abilities and talents such as doctoring to make our lives on earth better. My belief in Jesus does not stop me from taking Tylenol, because I know I have not fulfilled my purpose, my time has not yet come, and a headache/toothache is really distracting. But my mom won't take medicine to save her life, and that's her choice, and her faith has never failed her.
The difference in this case is, when I fell ill growing up, she took me to the doctors, and still prayed over me. I think it's up to the Christian community to deal with this issue - we can't believe on the behalf of others for divine healing, not if they're old enough to believe on their own.
That said, we don't know for sure that it was not the child's time. She could have gone to the doctor, and still died. I don't know how I feel about your outrage. Would you be judging these parents if they'd gone to an alternative medicine doctor and the kid had still died?
--- "If you understood that he did exist and he really was the son of God, then you'd see that death is not a bad thing."
I don't view death as a bad thing. Its an inevitable state for all life. Murder, on the other hand, I consider a bad thing.
--- "But my mom won't take medicine to save her life, and that's her choice, and her faith has never failed her."
And I think that's fine. The difference is your mother is an adult. If your mother contracted the same form of diabetes as this child did, then she would die and that would be her legitimate choice. The child had no choice in this matter. She was subjected to the beliefs of her parents.
--- "She could have gone to the doctor, and still died."
From the autopsy, the examiner stated with full certainty that she died from a completely treatable form of diabetes. She would not have died, and that is a fact.
--- "I don't know how I feel about your outrage. Would you be judging these parents if they'd gone to an alternative medicine doctor and the kid had still died?
Yes, I would still judge them and I would still be outraged. Though not quite as highly as I currently am. Allow me to explain why. In the case of the alternative medicine doctor, they would have taken real, tangible steps to improving her health. Praying has at best some psychological benefits (see "placebo effect"), both for the prayer and the prayee. But whether or not it has any biological benefits for the sick depends entirely on the existence and power of the God or diety being prayed to. Thus, I see three possible cases here. In each of these cases when I say "God", I refer to the Christian God.
Case 1: God does not exist
In this case, the parents effectively did nothing for their dying child. The parent's belief in a false god killed their child.
Case 2: God does exist, but does not have the power to cure their child
Now the parent's misunderstanding of God has killed their child, rather than their belief in He/She/It.
Case 3: God does not exist, but some other god or diety does
Oops, the parents are praying to the wrong God. Again, their belief in a false god has killed their child.
Case 4: God exists and chose not to save the child
This is the worst case of all. This omnibenevolent God let their child die a premature and painful death. This while knowing full well the the parents will probably face a prison sentence for their inaction to save their child's life, and losing custody of their other children. Who would want to worship a God like that? No one would. Which is why believers will cover it up with "oh well its just part of God's greater plan which we are too puny and stupid to understand". Or maybe, maybe God was just using this as a message to say to people: "Don't be a moron. Take your child to the doctor when they get sick. Prayer isn't the answer".
You question your feelings about my outrage. Well, how would you feel about it if the parents belonged to a different religion and unsuccessfully prayed to a different god? For example, Odin or Athena? Would you condemn the parents in that case? If you answer no, then you find it acceptable for people to "gamble" the life of a child on a god or diety that very well may not exist. And I personally find your morality to be questionable.
If you answer yes, then you are making a special exception for your own personal God which you believe exists but can not prove it to anyone. A Muslim or Hindu could make the exact same claim as you do for their God. How does one decide which religious followers are worshipping the "real" God? We can not determine that answer for ourselves.
One may choose to argue "Well they (the parents) felt like they had proof that God existed, so isn't that justified?". You can not claim that they had proof of their God. 75% of the non-Christian world would disagree with them. No matter what God you believe in and worship (or if you don't believe in a God at all), the vast majority of the rest of the population on Earth disagrees with you by at least 3:1. Isn't that something?
In reply-
"The child had no choice in this matter. She was subjected to the beliefs of her parents." How do you know? Did you talk to the child?
"She would not have died, and that is a fact." How do you know? People die from complications from seemingly innocuous diseases every day.
"Praying has at best some psychological benefits (see "placebo effect"), both for the prayer and the prayee" Again... I respectfully disagree.
"Your cases: 1 & 2" God exists. He is omnipotent. And he certainly has the power to heal.
Case 4: Yes, in this case He chose to let the child die. But in this case you seem to have forgotten my comment... the child died does not equate to a malevolent God. We are actors in play, and follow the script. Time on earth is a tiny bleep compared to eternity. I know you do not like this answer. But it is the truth. Because you cannot understand it does not make it an excuse to explain away an irrational God.
"You cannot claim that they had proof that their God existed because 75% of the world thinks he does not or some other god does" Most of the world also once thought the earth was flat. What is popular is not always right.
"If they had prayed to a different god, would I be outraged?" No. I would sad, but I would totally understand, because they acted on their faith. Some of my neighbors back home believed in Shango, and worshipped him... and I have no right to judge their decisions based on that. Question my morality... not sure what your bases are. But I never claimed to be moral. I simply have faith.
By the world's standards, should they be prosecuted and sent to jail? Probably. So, they go to jail and could be killed. Like I said, to die is gain. This will not make sense to you, but we do not love our lives so much as to shrink from death. I don't know what happened in this case, if the parents were stupid or if they had extreme faith, but I trust God. Insane, I know. That's why Christians are called freaks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What, then, can I say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all — how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-- some more insight into the source of a Christian's faith. From a letter by Paul.
How do you know? Did you talk to the child?
I don't know, but even if she said she agreed with her parents it wouldn't matter one bit. She's a minor and her legal adult guardians have an obligation to do what's best for her. They failed, and because they failed that child is now dead.
How do you know? People die from complications from seemingly innocuous diseases every day.
Again, I don't know for certain and again it doesn't matter. The autopsy results reported that the cause of death was from a treatable form of diabetes. When a medical doctor says "this child could have been saved", I tend to believe it. The important thing to note here is that the parents still did not act in the best interests of their child.
God exists. He is omnipotent. And he certainly has the power to heal.
That's what you believe, and you don't enough evidence to support your claim. If you did, everyone would be a believer and then no one would bother seeing doctors in the first place.
But in this case you seem to have forgotten my comment... the child died does not equate to a malevolent God. We are actors in play, and follow the script. Time on earth is a tiny bleep compared to eternity. I know you do not like this answer. But it is the truth. Because you cannot understand it does not make it an excuse to explain away an irrational God.
So that justifies murder? Do you think that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in killing themselves and the thousands of unwilling victims? What's so difficult about the Christian concept of "yay, we get to live and be happy foreverin heaven!". Its not that I don't understand what your religion promises, its that I see no evidence to support that claim.
And by the way if your God was not malevolent, then he would not allow a place such as hell to exist. Go back two posts and read what I wrote about the problem of evil and the problem of hell.
"If they had prayed to a different god, would I be outraged?" No. I would sad, but I would totally understand, because they acted on their faith.
I respect your opinion but vehemently disagree. If that is the case, then you are saying that if one has have enough "faith" in a particular God, they are completely justified in their actions. The Crusades, a series of wars where millions of Christians and Muslims were slain under different gods, was perfectly fine in your eyes. If tomorrow a man of another religion comes and rapes you, then later tells you that the God he believes in told him to rape you (and he is honest when he says this), you would be okay with that? Even if the man who raped you believed in the same God that you do?
Like I said, to die is gain. This will not make sense to you, but we do not love our lives so much as to shrink from death.
Then why don't you commit suicide if you have nothing to lose and everything to gain? I know your religion teaches you not to, that's why you don't. Any religion that would teach such a horrible thing would have no followers because they would all be dead. And please, don't ever kill yourself. People can and have argued for the existence of an afterlife for centuries yet have been unable to prove that any one exists. What we can agree upon is that this right now is the one life that we for certain know that we have, and it would be sad and unfortunate to waste it.
Ha- I only just saw you'd replied to my posts here. I've been mired in other issues!
We should have coffee sometime and talk this out in person.
Post a Comment
<< Home