Monday, September 30, 2013

Non Biblical Proof of Jesus

Yet again, I would like to share with the world that which I think. I don't always have the most interesting of thoughts, but I think that if it's worth discussing in World Religions, it's worth talking about on a blog. For this class I had to watch these videos entitled Biblical Evidence as Proof for Jesus Christ (I tried to include a link to the first one, I hope it works! If it doesn't, just search for it on Youtube!)  I thought that the premise would be interesting, trying to tie historical works into what the Bible already says.  Though it was interesting, I only watched the first video.  I found that they employed very sound topics of citing well known classical authors to prove their points.

I always find it interesting when new studies come out about historical evidence that may or may not conflict with or confirm what is already written in the Bible.  Though I find it as fascinating as the next person when some archeological artifact reflects what is told in the Bible, giving secular people something to consider when writing off the Bible.  Even accounting for this fascination, I do not believe that faith is based on gathering enough evidence to prove your point, any more than it is about finding the strain of perfect logic that brings your ideals above reproach.
I think that the premise under which the man in this video is basing his investigation is a very good one.  People ought to question random statistics and claims that are made without evidence presented to support them.  I find it terribly interesting that we gather much of our knowledge about ancient Greece and Rome from classical historians such as Tacitus, but try to ignore them when they disagree with something that we want to say.  I find it also interesting that Tacitus was clearly not a Christian, even calling Christianity “mischief”, yet he still confirmed the existence and execution of Christ.
I also find it encouraging that not only one trusted classical source, but also multiple writers of the time, agree on the basic facts of the recorded life of Jesus Christ.  Even the skeptics of the time did not doubt the fact that Jesus did exist.  I think that it is a relatively new and really very shallow argument that Jesus did not exist at all.  The heresies of the time included claiming that Jesus had never risen from the dead and that he was either all God OR all man, but never that he had never existed at all.
Even though I think that this argument is one that is ridiculously flawed, I think that it is still something that needs to be discussed in our society because of it’s prevalence.  I also think that it is important to use properly cited reliable sources, because many time people think of Christians only as a band of enthusiasts, rather than the theologians that we really are.

1 comment:

  1. Indeed-- well educated atheists are smarter than to challenge the historicity of Jesus. We have more testimony from antiquity of the historical Jesus, than we do of Ceasar Augustus, and no reasonably well educated person would doubt his historical existence. It's good to remember that Christians actually have the historical, logical, and scientific high ground, but for those who refuse to believe, it's not a matter of facts and data, but of an unrepentant and unbelieving heart.