Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
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.
|
I think you answered your question right there. I also have issue with the common perception amongst today's Christians about a great many things. I have a feeling that many modern Christians would be disappointed with the historical, real Christ. And doubtless most modern Christians misinterpret some of the different biblical teachings - some more than others. But that doesn't make those teachings incorrect, merely because some can't seem to understand them.
But reading the gospels, it doesn't say anything about how Christ was supposed to be a big, powerful actor in the world. In fact, a closer reading of the gospels suggests that Christ specifically rejected any attempt to do such a thing. In this case then, the major historians of the day do not contradict the gospels at all. It would be another thing entirely if Christ attempted to set himself up as a major political figure to then not be mentioned in any of these texts. But that's not the way it played out now, is it?