UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

ahh, I see, I was missing your point. I would imagine people tested what Jesus said in that day too (assuming his existence and the correctness of the gospels). I don't know how people tested what he said, except against scripture (as he does quote scripture - Old Testament).

But we must also acknowledge a couple of things: The "tests" devised for evaluating the weight of Jesus's teachings (I am deliberately avoiding the word "accuracy" since it does not really apply in the same sense in its ancient context) were nothing like the sorts of tests we employ today. The burden of proof was much lower, and there was little benefit of corroborating evidence (photographs, newspaper accounts, official records/transcripts, etc.). As for the "fulfillment" of the Old Testament, this is also something of a red herring, since the contemporary interpretation of scripture always and must take precedence over the actual source of scripture. This is most clearly demonstrated in Matthew's hackneyed attempt to show that the virgin birth was a "fulfillment" of Isaiah 7:14.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...people in Jesus time would have seen his miracles, so to me that would be one test (and likely the most significant). if he actually did the miracles that the bible says he did, that's more than the bus guy or the dali lama.

It is highly unlikely that he did, though. The same people who witnessed Jesus's miracles were the same people who witnessed "miracles" from a large number of contemporary miracle workers, such as Hani the Circle-Drawer. In my mind, the miracles of Jesus are a poor gauge for determining his validity—when these stories were circulated and then written down, they served a different function, and most were composed as part of a larger narrative. For example, Jesus's miracles in Luke's Gospel are deliberately crafted to emulate the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha in 2 Kings, in an effort to stake a claim to Jesus prophetic heritage.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...his teaching gets at the heart of what God wants from us, and wasn't for his gain (he knew on some level he would be crucified for what he was saying).

This is also problematic, given that Jesus actual teachings are often buried under layers of church theology, and even those that we can access must be carefully considered in consort with his distinction as an apocalyptic nationalistic prophet.

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...also the scripture prophecies he fulfilled, like where he was born, how he died (on a cross) and rose and other things...

See above, and brace yourself for an onslaught of well thought out and argued refutations of the historicity of Jesus's resurrection. Fulfillment of scriptural prophecies should probably not be cited in support of legitimating claims, but rather need to be understood as part of crafting a theological narrative in accordance with a given theme or point. For example, It is only in John's Gospel that Jesus is nailed to the cross, and only according to John does he die on the day of the preparation of the passover. This is quite simply because John's message is that Jesus was the "lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world".

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

...people then did criticize what he said, the pharisees (the religious elite of the time) wanted to crucify him for what he said (probably more because he was becoming more popular than them and called them a brood of vipers etc though)...

Jesus was executed by the Romans, NOT the Jews. While it is true that his execution likely received support from the Jerusalem Temple regime for political reasons, he was punished for ROMAN sedition and treason, and almost certainly NOT for blasphemy. Also, the Pharisees were not the religious elites in Palestine at the time of Jesus's death. The perception that they were is a product of the gospel literature which was mostly composed after the destruction of the Second Temple, and at a time when this Jewish sect gained considerable prominence in the absence of the Temple religion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

...As for everything else you said: I. Find. No. Value. In. The. Bible. Period. I don't even find its discussion a valuable use of my time, and the fact that the discussion has even gone down that road bores me.

That's fair, and that is a personal choice on your part. I would caution you not to make the same presumptions for others; simply because you find no value in it, it is fairly impudent for you to assume your experience on others, and to use this as a gauge for dismissing entire counter cultures and worldviews.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That much is clear. However, I think Textcritic is suggesting* you must also have a difficult time with all the other texts written throughout history.

In other words, you must not think that highly of the collective sum of human experience. And you think much too highly of your own deductive abilities...

That is mostly right, thank you.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not so sure anymore, not that I've gone over to a mythic Jesus position, but does a historical Jesus fit more than, say, a collection of "historical Jesuses" and the authentic portions of the writings are themselves from collections of oral traditions that merged over time (or something like that)?

I would say two things about this: First, the Jesus tradition is at its earliest stage undeniably Jewish, much more so even than we assumed it to be little more than a decade ago. Second, because it is firmly couched within a Jewish milieu, I would further argue that it absolutely fits better into a real historical context that featured a real Jesus. At the time in which the Jesus movement emerged, its proponents would have had little time and no patience for a myth as imagined by Carrier. It works much better in a Greco-Roman tradition, but is practically implausible for first century Jews.

Originally Posted by photon

...I meant it more that the confidence in what is written and its internal consistency isn't sufficient (IMO) to warrant it being the absolute standard by which all other claims about divine revelation should be judged.

I totally agree.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would say two things about this: First, the Jesus tradition is at its earliest stage undeniably Jewish, much more so even than we assumed it to be little more than a decade ago. Second, because it is firmly couched within a Jewish milieu, I would further argue that it absolutely fits better into a real historical context that featured a real Jesus. At the time in which the Jesus movement emerged, its proponents would have had little time and no patience for a myth as imagined by Carrier. It works much better in a Greco-Roman tradition, but is practically implausible for first century Jews.

Interesting, makes sense.

Carrier I don't think went into it as a mythicist, but seems to conclude that, and I really do want to see how he comes to that.

I do know that Carrier has talked a lot about the state of scholarship in the area of a historical Jesus and that it's lacking. I get the impression his opinion is that it's very self-referential, where things that are well established are just a deep layering of references with little at the bottom. That's his view as a historian compared to other areas of historical scholarship anyway, I'm really interested to see what he says.

Ehrman, as usual, will probably just be a summary of current scholarship (which is great for us laypeople), though he's getting more aggressive lately (he's understanding what sells I guess).

EDIT: Just checked and the Amazon page for Carrier's first of the two books is up:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...eeratidiscb-20

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...I do know that Carrier has talked a lot about the state of scholarship in the area of a historical Jesus and that it's lacking. I get the impression his opinion is that it's very self-referential, where things that are well established are just a deep layering of references with little at the bottom. That's his view as a historian compared to other areas of historical scholarship anyway, I'm really interested to see what he says.

I would worry a little on the outset that Carrier's method of historical inquiriy is excessively pessimistic, very much like the "presentists" or the so-called new historiography. While I am keenly aware of the fragile nature of ancient history, and of the historical record rather generally, it makes little sense to me that we approach the subject as pure skeptics. At some point, I must exercise some confidence that perceptions of the past can be both accurate and accessible.

As for Jesus, an exceptional amount of "faith" must be exercised with regards to the historical record, simply because it is not—nor could it be otherwise—very strong. We can never validate Jesus historically the way we have Augustus or Plato or the Judaean King Hezekiah. Because of his social and economic station, the record of Jesus existence is simply not accessible. However, my belief in his historicity comes from a recognition of its very reasonable plausibility. Simply put: Jesus, his activities, teachings and death fits well within a first century Jewish context. It makes no sense to me to deny this, unless one is driven by ulterior motives, as I suspect that Carrier too often is. One can very reasonably assert a real Jesus whose fingerprints remain in the gospels and in the writings of Paul, and can still quite happily maintain a fiercely anti-Christian worldview.

So, while I can affirm Carrier's observation about the poor burden of proof for Jesus's existence, I cannot agree that it is in any way necessary or even wise to draw his conclusions from it. To me, the vociferous arguments of the mythicists appear too much like special pleading—it is much-ado-about-nothing, and far to often begs the question.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Fair enough. It is a very difficult thing to do. Often people choose to use personal experiences to help them make the decision. The problem a lot of modern people have is that they demand explicit answers, which God nor the universe provides. Even if you chose to kick God out of the equation, determining the truth in this matter is difficult. I purposefully chose individuals that I didn't necessarily agree with however, to show that equating a crazy person and a person making spiritual claims is not really helpful. But determining if someone's claims are "valid" or not is one of incredible debate, one that continues for generations. The only reason those individuals or claims get to that point, is based significantly on the value one can and will derive from that claim. At least that's what I think. I find it difficult to explain myself sometimes, other times I find it very easy. Textcritic's post on the literature is a great starting point, however.

No, this makes sense to me. And, if I understand you, I think we more or less agree (although I may be overstating that.) As I already stated, I'm not saying that there is no merit or value to spiritual claims. Far from it. However, that merit or value does not derive from the supernatural. Rather, it derives from, as you say, the value that one can take from it, in terms of wisdom or insight into the human condition.

However, to me, that is very different from arbitrarily accepting the supernatural claim that Jesus was the son of God (while rejecting other supernatural claims, like Zeus is the God of Thunder), and concluding that therefore Jesus' spiritual teachings have merit. The spiritual teachings of Jesus should rise or fall in the marketplace of ideas on their own merit, not on the basis that they came from God.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

1. does what this person is saying agree with what Jesus said (note this is assuming the person of Jesus existed and the holy bible includes what he said)
2. do I automatically doubt what they are saying? (this one could be bypassed depending on the situation - miracles etc)
3. Is this person reliable and trustworthy (ie how well do I know them? what is the character history?)
4. Is it likely that what this person is saying is motivated by a personal gain?
5. bring this person to a panel of spiritual elders (because I am not as wise as them, being so young and inexperienced)
if they pass all these, then I would say they actually saying what God told them.
In my opinion these tests do stand the test of time and would be used in any era
..

Earlier you used the example of a missionary in regards to your point #4. I find this really interesting. Isn't Christianity and many other religions, when boiled down to the core, based on a motivation for personal gain, i.e. acceptance into 'heaven' and salvation from purgatory?

If so, it could be argued that aetheists behave from an internal moral compass rather than an externally imposed morality. In which case, it could further be argued that religious people should be considered less trustworthy than aetheists.

Or is that a leap of logic?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

...You and I do agree on something, that morality is undoubtedly subjective...

I missed this in my response to ToqueDog, but I wanted to ensure that I got it on record:

No. I emphatically do not think that morality is "subjective". I think that the principle of reciprocity is and should be the foundation of what is truly "moral". This is an objective measure by which we can check our own actions and those of others to ensure that we are acting within the best interest, period.

Furthermore, it is a measure by which we can evaluate the ideas and actions of past individuals and societies: slavery has and always will be evil. The marginalization of women has and always will be evil. wholesale slaughter and genocide by divine mandate has and always will be evil.

However, condemning outdated moral systems and their many flaws is not the same as passing judgement on past societies as themselves primitive, unenlightened, or evil. Understanding one's actions and motivations within his context, and as part of a dominant system of thought and behaviour should not be seen as impugnitive (not sure if this is a word) in the same sense that we might view the same actions and thoughts now. In other words, it will not do to insist that the Israelites who purportedly engaged in ethnic cleansing "should have known better".

...Does that make any sense?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would worry a little on the outset that Carrier's method of historical inquiriy is excessively pessimistic, very much like the "presentists" or the so-called new historiography. While I am keenly aware of the fragile nature of ancient history, and of the historical record rather generally, it makes little sense to me that we approach the subject as pure skeptics. At some point, I must exercise some confidence that perceptions of the past can be both accurate and accessible.

As for Jesus, an exceptional amount of "faith" must be exercised with regards to the historical record, simply because it is not—nor could it be otherwise—very strong. We can never validate Jesus historically the way we have Augustus or Plato or the Judaean King Hezekiah. Because of his social and economic station, the record of Jesus existence is simply not accessible. However, my belief in his historicity comes from a recognition of its very reasonable plausibility. Simply put: Jesus, his activities, teachings and death fits well within a first century Jewish context. It makes no sense to me to deny this, unless one is driven by ulterior motives, as I suspect that Carrier too often is. One can very reasonably assert a real Jesus whose fingerprints remain in the gospels and in the writings of Paul, and can still quite happily maintain a fiercely anti-Christian worldview.

So, while I can affirm Carrier's observation about the poor burden of proof for Jesus's existence, I cannot agree that it is in any way necessary or even wise to draw his conclusions from it. To me, the vociferous arguments of the mythicists appear too much like special pleading—it is much-ado-about-nothing, and far to often begs the question.

Lets talk about the highlighted portion above. This is the part that most interests me and others of my/our ilk?
To suggest there is a great deal of historicity on many of the famous peoples of that time, why is it that the record shows little/nothing on one of the most important people of that time? Are you/we basing his existence on the gospels alone? Is it the writings of Josephus or gnostic documents that lead you to your beliefs? I still have GREAT difficulty coming to any assertion that there was a "historical" Jesus, and if there was such a man he surely was no more than the "man on the bus" who had great swagger (so to speak) and the ability to sway people with his words, but certainly not to the position and esteem he is held to today.
What exactly are you basing your theory on, because outside of faith I still do not see that proof in a substantive manner.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Earlier you used the example of a missionary in regards to your point #4. I find this really interesting. Isn't Christianity and many other religions, when boiled down to the core, based on a motivation for personal gain, i.e. acceptance into 'heaven' and salvation from purgatory?

Sadly, yes. However, I would argue that this is a problem with contemporary Christian doctrine, and would like to also think that it stems from a general misappropriation of what I perceive to be the heart of the Christian message.

Put most simply: There is something wrong with the world today; things are not as they ought to be, and by the grace of God I hope and pray that it will all be put to rights, and I want to be part of it.

Of course, there is a lot of Jewish apocalypticism, Greco-Roman mysticism, and a healthy dose of Platonic dualism that envelops this framework.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

If so, it could be argued that aetheists behave from an internal moral compass rather than an externally imposed morality. In which case, it could further be argued that religious people should be considered less trustworthy than aetheists.

So long as you can prove that this is the central motivation for all religious people. It most certainly is for many of them—perhaps even most, but it still suffers from stereotypical generalizing.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

Makarov, i would argue that it is something similar to what I posted earlier
1. does what this person is saying agree with what Jesus said (note this is assuming the person of Jesus existed and the holy bible includes what he said)
2. do I automatically doubt what they are saying? (this one could be bypassed depending on the situation - miracles etc)
3. Is this person reliable and trustworthy (ie how well do I know them? what is the character history?)
4. Is it likely that what this person is saying is motivated by a personal gain?
5. bring this person to a panel of spiritual elders (because I am not as wise as them, being so young and inexperienced)
if they pass all these, then I would say they actually saying what God told them.
In my opinion these tests do stand the test of time and would be used in any era
also..


just to respond, because you responded to my question. fair enough that that is what you believe. I am curious as to what kind of evidence would have satisfied your curiousity? I believe in Jesus as it makes sense to me, and I have felt a change in my life since becoming a "Christian" and it gives life more meaning also. I guess it also gives me hope, and peace about things. I am seeking to understand things more, but I know part of faith is just that, if it could be proven, I wouldn't need faith. If I could travel back in time to see if Jesus was there, I would, but I can't, so I will continue to believe in him.

I cannot appeal to faith or ignorance. I must have solid proof of existence...period. IF you or anyone wants me to buy into a theory, a desire to be part of something larger then I need something more than "trust me". That comes across as something a used car salesman might employ.
In response to your points, why don't you take the time to study the history of religion, and focus on the Christian sect if you desire. It might give you other things to think about and open your eyes to new ideas. I think the change in your life was made by you, for you. It had nothing to do with superstition or the bible. You were ready for change and made that change...that is a great thing, take heart in the fact you were able to make positive changes in your life.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

To suggest there is a great deal of historicity on many of the famous peoples of that time, why is it that the record shows little/nothing on one of the most important people of that time?

Quite simply because Jesus registered no political/social significance whatsoever. He was a peasant preacher in a backwater of a hinterland Roman province.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Are you/we basing his existence on the gospels alone? Is it the writings of Josephus or gnostic documents that lead you to your beliefs?

Yes, because this is all we have. I have conceded that the record is irreparably flawed, and that cannot be helped. But an enormous number of scholars have quite effectively managed to come to a considerable level of consensus regarding what we can plausibly claim about the historical Jesus. Only the most ardent and idiotic apologists will continue to beat the drum for the strength of the sources, and that is absolutely not what I am doing. What I am saying is that Jesus existence is immanently plausible, and should not be so casually dismissed on the basis of the mythic claims that grew up around him. I see no good reason to deny this whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Cheese

I still have GREAT difficulty coming to any assertion that there was a "historical" Jesus, and if there was such a man he surely was no more than the "man on the bus" who had great swagger (so to speak) and the ability to sway people with his words, but certainly not to the position and esteem he is held to today.

You get it, and I agree with you more than you realize. Yes, absolutely Jesus was an unimpressive man by the standards of the day. In many respects, this is precisely the point: Paul himself is emphatic in his assertion that by conventional standards Jesus was nothing special. Christian tradition adopted the servant songs of Deutero-Isaiah as expressions of who Jesus was precisely for this point—He was painfully ordinary. This paradox would be explained by the traditional church as a facet of the great mystery: that despite his very unassuming station, he WAS preeminently significant.

Originally Posted by Cheese

What exactly are you basing your theory on, because outside of faith I still do not see that proof in a substantive manner.

As I already stated, it requires an exceptional amount of faith to even affirm Jesus's historicity. The historical record is poor, but I rest on exceptionally plausible reasons to affirm his existence, which is entirely different from affirming the claims made within the sources themselves.

In the end, even though I am a highly rational person, and despite my dependence upon my own rational sensibilities, I am quite certain that they fail me, and they always will. I simply cannot be purely rational, and I do not believe that anyone actually is so. So yes, I exercise "faith" all the time. This is not a flaw; this is reality.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Video linked below:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mahe...the-same-coin/

Well put by Maher.

From the comments of this link I thought another interesting argument:

Organized religions, mostly if not all of them, hold that morality was given to people by one or more higher beings. But if there are no higher beings, then people invented them for their value as authority figures, invented myths around them to explain their relationship with people, invented moral codes, & naturally chose to identify all three together as the most effective way to manipulate other people. It's SO natural a process, it happened again & again & again & again in course of people organizing themselves into societies, small & large - & indeed still happens. But there's no logical necessity to the inter-relationship; people, especially those who live in a democratic society with a code-making apparatus that responds to their needs & desires, are increasingly capable of coming up with moral codes without having to resort to mythology. As we tend more towards democratic societies with more responsive means of making codes of behavior, naturally the perceived need for such myths tends to fall down.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Did Jesus himself make any "supernatural claims"? If so, what were they?

Nah, he just lied alot about talking to "GOD"!.

It was the dummys who listened to his cons who made up the supernatural claims.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Quite simply because Jesus registered no political/social significance whatsoever. He was a peasant preacher in a backwater of a hinterland Roman province.


.

I know if I was God and I wanted to send my message through a messenger this would be the person to do it.

But was he really that insignificant wasn't there a big Palm Sunday moment when he entered the city?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

In the end, even though I am a highly rational person, and despite my dependence upon my own rational sensibilities, I am quite certain that they fail me, and they always will. I simply cannot be purely rational, and I do not believe that anyone actually is so. So yes, I exercise "faith" all the time. This is not a flaw; this is reality.

I love this quote. It's something that most people nowadays cannot accept about themselves. They are human, and this is a big part of being human.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I know if I was God and I wanted to send my message through a messenger this would be the person to do it.

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.

Originally Posted by SeeBass

But was he really that insignificant wasn't there a big Palm Sunday moment when he entered the city?

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.

[Cheese]

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.

[Knalus]

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?