Before judging whether Jesus existed historically, people should read some books about how the New Testament was written and about the history of the times. Isaac Asimov -- an agnostic -- wrote a Guide To The Bible -- which is fascinating. Its outdated by now. It was written before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. But its still very informative. The Bible was assembled over time from many different texts, and some traditions kept or rejected different texts than other other traditions. But bible scholars have been able to piece together the various texts that were chopped up and formed into what today is the bible, using historical-literary methods. The four gospels, despite attempts at seeing them as all working together, tell different stories about Jesus. They have their own slant. The epistles of Paul describe nothing of Jesus life and seemingly use him as a springboard for Pauls new religion, which does indeed borrow from many of the cults and sects popular at the time. It is these differences between the books of the New Testament that lead me to believe that they are describing, second or third hand probably, the life of an actual person. The Book of Mormon is quite different from this. It is the supposed revelation to one person --Joseph Smith -- forming one book. Whether you believe the Book of Mormon is true is beside the point. Its an apples to oranges comparison in this blog. My reasoning for believing that Jesus was a historical figure comes from the fact that his life was described in several different texts over the course of two centuries. These texts did not become officially part of the Bible till much later. Not to mention that there are many books, more or less apocryphal, about Jesus that never made it into the version of the Bible now accepted by the most Christians. True, histories by outsiders may not mention Jesus, but Jesus lived during the time of the Roman Empire. There was lots of stuff happening all over Europe and the Near East, where the Empire held sway. In fact, there are figures we consider historical have much less written about them than Jesus. Now just because I think that Jesus was historical doesnt mean that I believe that he was the son of god and was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead. Or for that matter that if you believe in him you will be saved -- whatever that means. Of course, it still may very well be that Jesus was Not a historical figure. But I cant see how that is a very convincing argument for Not being a Christian. This article actually meant to convince people that Atheism is right and good (which it may be) but I dont like religion or anti-religion waved in my face. It like history, and historical speculation, and honest intellectual curiosity. Sorry if my little rant isnt a game-changer.
Posted on: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 05:23:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015