Just when you think you've seen it all, someone comes along and denies the existence of Jesus Christ. A recent documentary, The God Who Wasn't There, has just been released to DVD, which Newsweek says "irreverently lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed." The writers of the New Testament Gospels, they claim, never believed that Jesus existed. Instead, these writers simply wrote about a fictitious character named "Jesus" who was nothing more than a literary reincarnation of pagan cult heroes.
Unfortunately, these documentarians stand in opposition to the preponderance of the evidence. Take the simple fact that 11 of the 12 disciples died for their belief in a Messianic Jesus. Or, attempt to reconcile their assertions with the plethora of extra-biblical sources which reference Jesus Christ, including the revered Jewish historian, Josephus. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for many, if not most, historical figures.
If one determines to throw out the historical Jesus on evidential grounds, then one must also throw out most every figure in pre-modern human history and virtually empty University faculty offices around the globe. That is why basically every scholar--including secular historians--agree that the Rabbi named "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in the first century A.D. and had an influential ministry. In fact, questioning the historical existence of Jesus would get you laughed out of almost any university in the world.
The existence of a God can never be proven on this side of eternity, but the existence of Jesus Christ is historically indisputable. It just goes to illustrate the wise words of Mark Twain, who once said, "All you need in life is ignorance and confidence."
Thoughts?
Iam4Jesus said:
I have spoken with a number of people who don't believe that Jesus existed....and there are many "well versed" and highly opinionated thought driven reasons that they have derived to be able to conjure their claims...I have also met some who believe that the Bible with the exception of a small portion of the beginning of Genesis is all a man-made socio-political conspiracy....It's amazing what people will do to distort what they can not disprove - when it is the truth that they are trying to hide from.
Posted: April 7, 2009
tmamone said:
I personally don't pay attention to any of that stuff. There will always be some one claiming to have concrete evidence that there is no God or Jesus, and then some one else will come along and refute it.Though I must say that it seems the world is more bent on disproving Christianity than any other religion.
Posted: April 7, 2009
Big Girls Don't Cry said:
Is it possible that the writers of this ridiculous piece are taking a tongue in cheek position on their "expose"? Is it possible they are looking for fifteen minutes of fame by making a claim so outrageous people feel they have to rebut?
Posted: April 7, 2009
Saul Christian said:
I haven't seen the movie, and am most definitely not arguing that Jesus did not exist, but I feel compelled to point out a flawed rebuttal when I see one. You cite a "plethora" of references to Jesus, but only mention Josephus -- which is the reference EVERYBODY mentions, for lack of a plethora of other references. Saying that "11 of the 12" disciples died for Jesus is based on what is written in the gospels, not on evidence that would hold up in court. That's like saying, "So many knights died for King Arthur that he MUST have existed in real life." The reason Jesus's existence is debated more thoroughly than other historical figure is that there are greater IMPLICATIONS if he did not exist. Proving that Alexander the Great didn't exist would be a nice bit of trivia. Proving that Jesus does not exist would mean that the most influential religion of our time was based on fiction. So it is a discussion worth having, though I doubt we will ever be able to prove anything one way or the other.
Posted: April 9, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Saul Christian, In addition to Josephus see other first century historians such as Thallus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. Also, don't forget that some historical events become non-nonsensical under this documentation's scenario:- The Roman govt. brutally persecuted peaceful followers of a non-historical figure?- Not just the disciples died, but hundreds if not thousands of 1st century believers died for a mythical character?- Saul gave up his prestigious life persecuting these believers to become a persecuted follower of a made-up character?These are just a few reasons why the mythical Jesus theory doesn't make much sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
Posted: April 10, 2009
Saul Christian said:
I agree with you that it is more likely than not that Jesus existed, but your arguments are flawed. "The Roman govt. brutally persecuted peaceful followers of a non-historical figure?" Is that really so far-fetched? The early Christians persecuted pagans (as have many other cultures over the years), and what are they if not the followers of non-historical figures? "hundreds if not thousands of 1st century believers died for a mythical character?" It's pretty common for people to die for mythical characters. People have died in the name of pagan gods, King Arthur, "Uncle Sam". I don't disagree with you on the likelihood that Jesus existed, since the burden of proof does seem to be on those making the claim he did not, but the arguments you've listed aren't a very convincing rebuttal. I'll have to check out the documentary and see their side of the story.
Posted: April 10, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Saul-It is true that any of those things taken alone would not be a convining rebuttal. However, it is the sum of ALL of these things (the "preponderance of the evidence") that makes it convincing. Do you disagree?Jm
Posted: April 10, 2009
Steve said:
JM-
I'm going to have to side with Saul on this point. If you're going to be a prominent Christian voice, you should make your rebuttal much more sound so as to get past at least the INITIAL level of apologetics on this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_
Also, I'm pretty amused you quoted Mark Twain, given the topic at hand.
Posted: November 17, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Steve,
Thanks for your comments. There are much better resources on the historicity of Jesus than Wikipedia. Although, the existence of Jesus is so rarely disputed by serious scholars--secular or Christians--I'll just let this rest.
Jonathan
Posted: November 17, 2009
Steve said:
Well, sure, but I was mainly linking to Wikipedia for the overview.
My point was less that you're going to face this Christ-myth often, but more that amassing a substantial base of knowledge on the historical truth behind Jesus is extremely valuable. Being able to recollect a dozen or so different angles has been more useful in discussions with non-Christians (and loose-Christians) than any doctrinal nuance I know. Any non-fundamentalist biblical scholar will generally scoff at both of your initial counter-points.
But yes, let's let it rest.
Posted: November 17, 2009
Jonathan Merritt said:
Steve,
I beg to differ. As to the first point, the question is not whether or not fundamentalists have used that argument but whether or not it is true and persuasive. I know it is true, and I find it persuasive.
As to your second point, I am currently studying at one of the more renowned liberal seminaries in the United States, and Josephus is quoted by many of our scholars (none of which could be described as fundamentalist) as historical evidence. He is considered the most renowned Jewish historian of his respective period, if not the most notable of all time.
This post was not a full defense of the historical Jesus. I merely gave the idea that Jesus never existed the amount of space I felt it deserved: very little. If someone produced a documentary on why secondhand smoke does NOT cause cancer (and there are some scientists who believe this), I wouldn't give a list of developed and verifiable reasons why they are wrong. I would simply say that the evidence is "indisputable" and move on.
Jm
Posted: November 17, 2009
Steve said:
This is becoming extended, and I'm sure due to my unrelenting need to not be misunderstood.
a) yes, I'm aware of Josephus' stature as a historian. What I'm saying is that the Testimonium Flavianum is hardly comprehensive evidence, considering it's brevity and likely editing.
b) That's fine. I wasn't saying you should have given a comprehensive list here, I was merely stating that (especially if you are going to dedicate a blog post to the idea) if you're going to draw attention to the subject, you may want to make sure that you and your readers are properly apologetically equipped.
And one other thing- It is very easy to say something is "indisputable," but you may be better served if you research things you view as common sense answers, because public opinion and household knowledge changes quite frequently... remember when doctors used to recommend cigarettes and cocaine and heroine were OTC medications? Not to mention when the DOW was predicted to be on an unstoppable rise.
Again, all I'm saying is that full education is always superior to assumptions, and full disclosure is more useful than blind assertions.
Posted: November 17, 2009
Nazorean said:
While most Christians are taught that Jesus created the Christian religion, this is not so. The people who created Christianity are the people who wrote the scriptures. It is commonly accepted that the gospels were written sometime after 70 CE. The question is, Why did it take so long? A lot happened during this period in this corner of the world.
First we have the Pisonian Conspiracy in which members of the the powerful Roman Piso family conspire to assassinate the Emperor Nero and to create a new Jewish religion to compete with the Jewish religion of the Messianic Jewish Movement. They are discovered and executed.
Next we have Apollonius of Tyana making 2 trips to India. On his first trip he receives 9 manuscripts in Taxila which form the basis for the 9 Pauline Epistles. On his second trip to farther India he receives 4 documents about the seasons of life of the Indian Christ of the Tamil people which form the basis for the 4 gospels. It is interesting that the Pauline Epistles are the earliest Chistian writings and make no reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Neither do other early writngs such as 'The Shepherd of Hermes' or 'The Epistle of Barnabas.' The reason for this is that these texts were written prior to the time when the gospels were written. Now, we know that the Epistles of Paul supposedly date back to the 50s. Therefore, as of that decade no one had ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth.
It is only during the last decade of the first century and the beginning of the second that Jesus Christ is mentioned in quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome. They mention his name, but know little about him. It was also at this time that the famous apologetics quotes from Suetonius and Tacitus were actually written. This is also the time that Josephus wrote the infamous 'Testimonium Flavianum.' All of these quotes were written after the gospels had already been composed.
So, there you have it. Prior the gospels being written there is not one single mention of Jesus Christ. Only after the gospels were written do we hear the name Jesus Christ mentioned. To learn more about how the Romans subverted the teachings of Yeshu and the Nazoreans and proclaimed them the revelations of their godman Jesus Christ visit: http://www.nazoreans.com
Posted: July 28, 2010