Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Well, you're not, and probably for good reason.
Seriously though, I could see as how this would be a problem if one adopts a narrowly exclusivist perspective of religion. If we assume that Jesus was the ONLY source for the message (I provided my own single-sentence synopsis of what this message is in post # 731 above), or that the promise of God's kingdom (not "heaven") was reserved for ONLY those who believe in Jesus, then yes, this appears non-sensical and incredulous. I would agree that probably the majority of North American Christians—certainly nearly all of those who would be classified as "evangelical"—do hold to this view. I do not.
It doesn't have to be that way, and while Jesus himself had no real vision outside of his own small nation, I do think that his expectation for radical and beneficial social, economic, and religious change was widely applicable. I don't think that one need agree with everything Jesus said to appreciate the significance of what he was preaching.
You are correct, but I am uncertain about how "big" an event Jesus entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of Passover week really was. This is almost certainly what drew him to the attention of the Romans, but it is quite likely that the event itself was greatly exaggerated in the gospel retellings. One must bear in mind the political climate of the day, and the occasion. The Roman prefect would customarily fill the city of Jerusalem for this festival with Roman legions, and it was not uncommon to quickly and mercilessly quell any hint of violence or social unrest during passover. This is most likely what happened. Jesus likely caused a minor stir with his arrival into the city, and word spread about his apocalyptic ideals. The Romans nipped it in the bud.
|
Just to add to these points....there are no reports or writings on Jesus Christ himself
outside of the gospel. There is nothing written by any of the major historians of the day outside of a few comments on a sect of Christians. Joseph Flavius, Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius and Plinius the Younger simply verify the existence of Christians. These writings suggested that the group was more of a cult and certainly not as significant as today's followers think it was.
Was the supposed Jesus Christ so insignificant that he was simply ignored?
With Historians the like of Plutarch, Pausanias, Pliny the Elder, Philo etc recording the events of that era, would it not make sense that a man who performed miracles, raised the dead, etc etc etc be found in the writings of someone? Would it not make sense that a radical who was so well thought of and had so many followers be recorded somewhere in history?
These facts cannot be ignored, and "faith" that the man called Jesus was anything remotely close to what today's Christians think he was, if he in fact existed, is obviously not based on a reasonable look at the history of this religion.