Taking Sides: Atheism vs. Christianity

A relevant passage from another site examining this question:

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

but Brooks I get the feeling you're not actually interested in getting to the bottom of things. You would be a Christian even if God Himself came down and told you "Jesus never existed."

Oh, that author?

I'm starting to think Aja is the 40 year old and Brooks is the 12 year old...

Why do you think that?

I need to know this for some of the stuff in the Bible to make sense to me.

Anyone know?

You know, the Hindu scriptures are even older than the Bible - they've been around forever, and there are millions of believers in them worldwide - do you accept them to be true because people still believe in them?

x-post: not to make sweeping generalizations or anything, but the general rule of Christian discourse is "ignore anything you can't answer"

This is the point I made to you:

Faith is not enough. I don't have it and I won't pretend to have it in the hope of getting it on someone's word. (I know you think Jesus's word is different, and fair enough, but I believe that the historical Jesus existed without believing in what Jesus believed or what subsequent Christians believe.)

The existence of God has no basis in sense or science, so why should I go for it, except perhaps to save my soul (another 'thing' that I don't believe in).

Asking people to read the Bible before making a judgement on Jesus or Christianity or God is like asking people to read Mein Kampf before judging Hitler. I judge Hitler by what he did. And I'll judge God by the same method. According to that method, I have no proof that He exists, so I don't see any reason at all to read His book.

And this is your answer:

You have proof its the Gospels written by people who were closest to him.

I edited this out of the paragraph it came in because the rest of the paragraph speculated on my beliefs and were entirely false.

Have you got a better response than this?

did you follow the links upthread? I have read the bible, and lots of Christian apologetics. if your faith is strong, you should really look hard into the argument against an historical Jesus.

Brooks, tell me, please, can you not see what is wrong with your method in the following passage, which I've cut from up thread?

--

Now Jesus existed u cant argue against that history proves it. Therefore hes either of these a lunitic, liar, God,or a prophet. If hes a prophet then he lied making himself not a prophet.
This, by the way, is nonsense. C.S. Lewis, whom I like, was fond of this "proof," and I do love the way Lewis parses it ("we can either dismiss him as a madman or fall at his feet, but let's have no more of this calling him a great teacher" - paraphrased badly, but something along those lines), but it assumes strictly western, modern values: a man who says God sent him - well! either he's telling the truth, or he's crazy, or he's evil! ummm OR he's a Vaisnava who means what he says in a way you don't hear because you don't live the prayerful life he does! OR he's a teacher in a (very strong & great) Buddhist tradition where illogic is used to smash the unhelpful materialistic workings of Mind! Or, or, or, or a bunch of stuff, all equally interesting, pertinent and possible. Bottom line: Jesus could say ALL THE THINGS HE SAID and still not be God, crazy, or evil. OR a prophet. Of course he could.

-- Thomas Tallis (tallis4...) (webmail), January 23rd, 2004 4:00 AM. (Tommy) (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

haha i wasnt paraphrasing CS lewis on that one thats a standard question u must ask urself about Jesus..... he has to be one of those 4
-- B. Robinson (guitar8...) (webmail), January 23rd, 2004 4:01 AM. (later)

x-post I don't think Brooks meant to be aggressive, I think he's just coming off that way because 1) he's a little under fire here and 2) vagaries of posting-on-message-boards - certainly I take no offense at his asking, I mean I'm here arguing religion with him so it's a fair question, if badly timed

Christ's followers, the ones who wrote about him, had read the Old Testament before they wrote the Gospels. There is plenty of literature explaining how they made his story fit those prophesies.