I don't need Christianity. I'm not one that likes organized religion or submitting to something outside of myself. I'm not a Christian because I think it's cool or because I think evolution is a farce. In fact, I think I could be a pretty good atheist. But the scriptures say that Jesus is a "stumbling block." (Whatever the hell that is...) Well it's the historical Jesus that I just can't get past in order to be an atheist.
I don't know many atheists that have really studied or looked into the events surrounding Jesus. I know a lot of folks that know some stuff about Jesus. Some of these folks are Christians. Some are atheists. And then there's a lot in between. But you just don't find many folks that have really taken the time to question what happened during the first century. Why did it happen... how did it happen... what the hell happened. And I point specifically to Jesus because the idea of rejecting or accepting a philosophical idea of "God" is going to get us nowhere. Religion, faith, "god"... people reject those concepts out right without much more than debating what flavor ice cream is best. But Jesus... Jesus was an actual dude that did and said actual stuff. He leaves us with a decision to make on whether he was or is. As C.S. Lewis put it, Jesus is either a lunatic, liar, or someone you bow down to.
The primary way we know anything about Jesus is through a collection of biographies in the Bible. When you get right down to the question of the scriptures we have that we call "the new testament"... Atheists and most Christians just don't seem to know too much. For many atheists it's brushed off as inaccurate or myth. Yet if one actually takes time to do the slightest research they know this isn't the case. These historical documents have withstood 2000 years of criticism and scrutiny. You don't have to be an atheist to lob hand grenades at scripture either. Christians have ripped scripture apart and put it back together from the very beginning. Starting with
Marcion all the way to the
Jesus Seminar of our day. We are the biggest critics of the scriptures. So atheists don't have anything on the type of critical eye Christians have used on scripture for 2000 years now.
I find the typical debate between the common non believer and christian to be pretty pathetic. The debate typically goes as far as "take it or leave it". (Or you continue to have these Christians that really think that if one part of scripture is contradictory then the whole thing should be thrown out. So you'll have the atheists point out some contradictions to some fundie christian and you can ring the bell as they go back and forth.) It's all based on really bad theology with no clue about the actual documents. I dare say it's even heretical. But I don't bring this up to knock Christians or atheists, but hopefully to raise the dialogue. Let's deal with the actual documents and the events that lie therein. If an atheist wants to take an honest look at Jesus, the scriptures, and the early church and say, "... no thanks. I don't buy it." That's fine. But I'd like someone to be able to actually speak from an informed position on the subject that so many have found to change their life. If you believe it's all a lie, then just talk about Jesus and explain why Jesus was a lie. No need to spend time elsewhere. Because the grand idea or illusion of God isn't what makes me believe. It's Jesus.
And lets not kid ourselves. I don't believe that if a person just researches Jesus and sees the overwhelming evidence for the gospels and Jesus that they'll become a follower. It's not like history has ever convinced everyone of anything. We could have had video cameras rolling for the entire life of Jesus and people still wouldn't believe. I mean really, let's look at our own recent history. We have folks all over the world that don't believe the holocaust happened. We have people that still don't believe we landed on the moon. We have plenty here in our states that believe that our government blew up the world trade centers. All of these events are well documented, photographed, and even videotaped. Yet it's not enough evidence. So I don't expect the most documented event of the ancient world to really make people believe just because they realize how well it's documented. It's just that I ask for an honest trial. But even then some come to the table with their own conclusions and filter everything through that. (i.e. People don't rise from the dead... therefore people don't rise from the dead. or There is no god and therefore Jesus can't be god.) Others may leave some room in order to let the events speak for themselves.
I'm always open to being proved wrong. I'm always trying to learn a bit more about really happened. I don't have any problem dismissing religion, mysticism, the evils of Christianity, organized religion, and even most concepts of god. But i just don't have enough faith to dismiss Jesus. I couldn't do it with a clear conscious and with honesty in regards to the evidence. I'd like to be an atheist, but I just can't be in light of Jesus.
Comments (27)
We have folks all over the world that don't believe the holocaust
happened. We have people that still don't believe we landed on the
moon. We have plenty here in our states that believe that our
government blew up the world trade centers. All of these events are
well documented, photographed, and even videotaped. Yet it's not
enough evidence.
Good point. I can't believe there are some people that deny that Jesus existed.
@musterion99 - Troy exists, therefore The Illiad must be true.
Certainly, Jesus wasn't a lie. He was a man that existed.
But, he WAS just a man. Only the Bible really describes all the supposed "miracles" he performed. His disciples as well probably wrote documents concerning it, but there is no information from an outsider describing those same miracles.
Jesus wasn't magical. He was just as mortal as you and me and any other person that decides to come up with a religion. (Say, the creators of Scientology.)
@huginn - Did you know that even the Jewish Talmud speaks about Jesus? Did you
know there are 5,700 hand-written Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament? And in addition, there are more than 9,000 manuscripts in
other languages (Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Arabic) There is NOTHING in the
ancient world that even comes close in terms of manuscript support. The
next closest work is the Iliad by Homer, with a mere 643 manuscripts.
Most other ancient works survive on FEWER than a dozen manuscripts, yet
few historians question the historicity of the events those works
describe. Not only that but the time gap between the original and first
surviving copies is much closer for the New Testament.
New testament - 25 years
Homer - 500 years
Plato - 1,200 years
I'm not saying that we can prove 100% that Jesus existed, but there's a lot of evidence. Are you one of those that don't believe he existed?
@musterion99 - Did you know there are 5,700 hand-written Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament? And in addition, there are more than 9,000 manuscripts in other languages...
Sounds as if they did an excellent job copying the original. This all, however, doesn't speak of the accuracy of the original manuscript.
I'm not saying that we can prove 100% that Jesus existed, but there's a lot of evidence. Are you one of those that don't believe he existed?
There is no doubt that there is a historical context for the NT and OT, and a man named Jesus probably existed. The mere demonstration of this, however, doesn't really further the narriatives or supernatural claims of the Bible.
@SerenaDante - This really isn't the place for an in depth response since there are entire libraries with evidence. But I will say this, there are outsider accounts in regards to the miracles. You have Jewish historians and plenty of writings that didn't make it into the New Testament that speak to miracles. (The question then is not whether something happened but how it happened.) The story of Paul alone is one of the central narratives of the scriptures that speak specifically to the experience of an outsider coming in contact with a miracle. And why do you think Jesus was trying to start a religion? This is specifically the type of dialogue I'd like to see elevated. Do a little research and see what you find. Try anything from NT Wright for instance.
@huginn - It does speak to the accuracy of the scriptures. There's this thing the scholars call "textual criticism." By it we're able to determine what the original manuscripts said. Because contrary to what you just said, they didn't do that great of a job copying the original. Again... let's elevate the dialogue. Do some research on textual criticism and on how we have a really good idea what the original documents most likely said. If you have a problem with the supernatural, that's cool. But let's get our historical ducks in a row shall we?
Good discussion so far.
Historical records prove only that people believed that Jesus performed miracles. We know that it is impossible to raise a man from the dead, therefore it can't be true. If I say that I saw an apple float in midair yesterday, do you simple say "that's amazing" and look upon apples as a mystical fruit, or do you look for a reasonable explanantion? It's entirely possible that a man named Jesus roamed around impressing people with his sermons and his "miracles." What's not possible is that he was the son of a supernatural being beyond our comprehension but somehow deeply interested in our lives. What does "son" mean to a being who could easily make another one anyway?
@The_Brink_of_Omniscience - What does "son" mean to a being who could easily make another one anyway?
I would propose that you ask that to any parents you come into contact with, and see what their response is.To the OP, I have a question that isn't necessarily connected to the dialogue you intend to raise. It's just a question that arose from your last few lines. You said that you can deny a lot of things, including most definitions of God, but not Jesus. What is your perception of the relationship between Jesus and God? Is it similar to the Trinity, or more like the Godhead?@btbneedsanap - "I would propose that you ask that to any parents you come into contact with, and see what their response is."
I was afraid someone would have to say something trite like that. No mortal can create an exact copy of his or her son. God, in his infinite power, presumably could.
I don't think there is a relationship between Jesus and God. "God" is an irrational concept. I believe only that a man may have claimed, albeit very convincingly, to be the son of God.
@freethinker777 - By it we're able to determine what the original manuscripts said. Because contrary to what you just said, they didn't do that great of a job copying the original.
For the sake of argument, I was granting mustion99's point while going for the meta-argument.
Again... let's elevate the dialogue. Do some research on textual criticism and on how we have a really good idea what the original documents most likely said.
If you have a point, then introduce it in-discussion.
But let's get our historical ducks in a row shall we?
If you have a point, then introduce it in-discussion.
@freethinker777 - Fair enough. I understand that my idea of God and Jesus is different from that of many, so I like to learn about how other people see God.
@huginn - i'm not laying out the volumes of evidence in a blog. that's ridiculous. my point is that the arguments and evidence are already there and yet people like yourself are expressing commentary while ignorant of any of this evidence. You've already proven my point. You've come to a verdict without the evidence.
@The_Brink_of_Omniscience - i hear what you're saying. you would fit into the category of the person who approaches the topic with conclusions drawn already. it seems that you've already defined god and are eager to dismiss things that don't meet your definition. if however someone did rise from the dead, well then now what? just keep denying because it doesn't happen? and in regards to your question, why would a god not be interested in humanity that was his/her creation?
@btbneedsanap - There's a reason that 2,000 years of history stand in direct contrast to the doctrines of the mormon church. there's a reason that i can speak to the textual evidence of the new testament while the book of mormon has none. there's a reason why christian scholars study critically greek and hebrew while mormons don't. if you keep asking questions, you may actually find something that may get you in trouble.
@freethinker777 - my point is that the arguments and evidence are already there and yet people like yourself are expressing commentary while ignorant of any of this evidence.
[Evidence X exists. It destroys your position. I won't mention it because it's hidden somewhere in the whole wide world. You go find it.]
An infallible, generic stand-in for actual argumentation.
@huginn - if you have a specific question: shoot. but if you're going to comment on the veracity of scripture it would be helpful if you would at least speak to the facts. You haven't done that thus far. I'm not making the case for Jesus here. I'm just asking that if you're going to engage in dismissing the case, you at least would speak to them from an educated point of view. but i know i'm asking a lot.
According to the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God, raised people from the dead, healed countless people, walked on water, and performed all other sorts of miracles. The Bible also says that even people who witnessed these things firsthand still had trouble believing him. It seems like most of the time even his own disciples were hopelessly confused in regards to what Jesus was doing.
It's hardly fair to expect anyone these days to believe much of what is written about him. While the historical evidence for Jesus is undeniably strong, relatively few people are going to believe that the authors of those historical texts were honest and/or sane. I think that's where some of your readers are unconvinced. As huginn said, "There is no doubt that there is a historical
context for the NT and OT, and a man named Jesus probably existed. The
mere demonstration of this, however, doesn't really further the
narriatives or supernatural claims of the Bible."
It's a little unreasonable to try to prove a book's validity by what the book says about itself, which is probably what this talk of textual criticism has people thinking. If it weren't for God's grace and my personal experiences, I would have a very hard time believing much of what is written in the Bible.
@SerenaDante - Jesus wasn't exactly a science fiction author, and as far as we can tell, he had nothing to gain by coming up with a religion. Assuming what the Bible tells us about his life is at least remotely true, it's not like Jesus was making money or living it up in the limelight. C.S. Lewis' "liar, lunatic, or lord" argument is fallible in that it assumes the authors of the New Testament were telling the truth about what Jesus said and did. It's certainly possible that they were lying. However, I can't really imagine why they would, or why so many people who knew him firsthand would have willingly been put to death for their faith in him. It's possible, but it strikes me as very unlikely.
Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, the victim of severe mirespresentation by the New Testament authors, or he is our Lord and Saviour. Not a very catchy way to put it. I can see why C.S. Lewis said it the way that he did, albeit a little misleading.
@the_greatest_pip - Then what about Buddha, or Mohammed, or any number of prophets that are pretty much exactly like Jesus? Were the also liars and lunatics, or also our lords and saviours?
@SerenaDante - I had a feeling that would come up. I often see people make that comparison, but it doesn't really fit. Did the Buddha ever claim to be anyone's lord and saviour? Did Mohammed? If so, did thier followers face extreme persecution within either of their lifetimes as a result of believing those claims? If so, are the documents we have concerning these two men as historically sound as the Bible? If you want to take one point out of its context, I'm sure it is quite easy to dismiss it, but you would be doing yourself and others a disservice.
You can't say that Jesus was just a man without accusing the authors of the New Testament of lying. You're free to do that, but I hope you have some solid reasons for doing so. I also hope that you can see why many people choose to believe, even if you don't.
This is pretty much EXACTLY my take on it too! I generally call myself a reluctant Christian. So nice to see my thoughts articulated so well. Thanks!
@freethinker777 - What are you even talking about? Logic exists and is necessary to your life whether you admit it or not, just like oxygen. It's a simple metaphor. This is exactly what I'm talking about!
@The_Brink_of_Omniscience - but i'd call your logic flawed. so does that mean you don't have logic? oxygen isn't a decision or a question of whether we accept it or not. there are plenty of people who don't use logic. that's like saying that creativity exists and you use it whether you want to or not. your logic even in this doesn't work. perhaps your problem is you see logic as optional, because so far it seems to be lacking in my humble opinion.
...I give up.
my main point branches from my first above. many atheists have come to the conclusion that it's impossible for god to exist. my physicist friends came to this conclusion because the physical composition of the universe, as they understand it, doesn't allow for a force outside of the natural world. my philosopher friend came to this conclusion because there aren't any convincing philosophical arguments that would allow for god's existence. so, in my opinion, you can't ask them them to put that on hold and just examine jesus unless they are just curious or have free time. in other words, you shouldn't say to them that they are ignorant if they haven't examined jesus. if god doesn't exist, then jesus can't be who he said he was. end of issue. and i know that kills you because there's a lot of historical and circumstancial evidence surrounding jesus but you've got to answer the general questions before getting into specifics. give them a reason to think that there may possibly be a 1% chance that god could exist. then you can ask them to look at jesus.
@mryoung7 - i get where you're coming from. it's not unfair to ask people to make a call on who jesus is from an educated perspective. that's my request. if you're going to speak about or dismiss jesus, you should speak to the facts. there's nothing wrong with that. i have no problem with someone coming to a conclusion on the existance of god through science or philosophy. great, grand, glorious. i was only speaking in regards to myself in that those things don't hold much weight for me. if one wants to say physics doesn't leave room for god... that's fine. but don't say physics doesn't leave room for god therefore jesus didn't exist. (granted, i'm stretching the example.) "you say that if someone believes god doesn't exist, that means jesus isn't who he says he is. end of issue." yet when i flip that around and say jesus says he was god, proved it, therefore there's a god, you say unfair? seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
i don't feel i'm asking anything too outlandish here. tell me if i'm wrong. if someone wants to write a blog about physics and how it demonstrates there's no god... okay. you won't here me tell them about what the bible says or arguing with them. i just can't speak intelligently to that subject. and you don't hear me talking economics or ballet or anything about the stock market because i just can't add anything to that conversation. but it seems like we've got plenty of folks willing to pass judgment and speak their mind on the subject of jesus without actually taking the time out to read anything. (case and point, see above.) i'm not okay with that. but perhaps i'm just being unreasonable and unfair. perhaps.
@freethinker777 - you may be right about a couple of things. for one, agnostics/atheists do tend to dismiss jesus without looking at any of the evidence. maybe that's not fair ... maybe it is. if i determine through reason and science that there is no such thing as time travel, that it's literally impossible, should i have to check out every time travel machine anyone in the world has built and claims actually works? "it's not like all those other ones" they would say. it may be intellectually lazy to stand by your "belief" that time travel can't exist when there are 164 people in the world who absolutely swear that theirs works. i don't know.
of course the analogy is different in three ways. first, science is relatively close to figuring out time travel in theory and then it's on to practice. so it is actually a matter of atoms and math, whereas god is not. second, the aforementioned person would know with 100% certainty whether a time travel machine existed once he or she completed his evaluation of all of them. however, a person could evaluate every scrap of evidence concerning jesus and be left with a judgement call. third, there are hundreds of millions of people who believe in jesus rather than one dork in his basement tinkering with a warp drive so maybe that in and of itself begs the agnostic/atheist to give it a fair shake. i don't know. i can see it both ways.
@mryoung7 - i think part of the problem is in the way we view certainty and science. i think the idea of 100% certainty just doesn't exist. perhaps i'm just infected with postmodernism. i think myself and others really don't see science solving and answering everything and it's constantly playing catch up to what already exists. so as my example earlier. science says with 100% certainty that if you dump someone in the frozen waters off Antarctica, they will die from hypotermia in minutes. Yet as my example above, this guy can appears to be "super human" by most standards. People can have all the evidence and believe that something is 100% impossible until something comes along and breaks the rules. And science is seeing the rules broken and things that were impossible appear possible all the time. So the question to me is whether we're open to what breaks the rules or whether we say the rules can't be broken and everything must fit into our little box. I just ask that the box be left open and we continually be open minded about what defines the boundaries of it.