Jesus Christ is not a myth

This statement may seem odd to most folks but there are people who believe that Jesus Christ is a fabrication made up by early Christians. More on that in a moment.

This is a continuation of my series of apologetic posts on my theist views and why I believe them. Up to this point, I have only been arguing from a natural theological position. So far I’ve shown why it’s reasonable to believe that God exists. Now, I’m ready to begin focusing in on matters of revealed theology (to understand the difference between natural and revealed theology, go here).

In the next few posts I hope to make a systematic argument for Christianity in general, and Jesus Christ in particular. Again, I will use videos where it saves me verbiage and the author makes a better point than I could make. I’m neither a formal apologist nor a PhD Bible scholar, so I will appeal to them for authoritative argumentation.

My theology is build on the foundation of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture. As Bill Johnson said so well, “Jesus Christ is perfect theology.”  Jesus Christ explains God for us:

18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18 NASB – emphasis added)

I’ve written a few posts on what I call “The Jesus hermeneutic” already. To sum it up, I not only interpret the Bible through the “lens” of Jesus Christ but my worldview is shaped by His life and teachings.

But if Jesus Christ is the center of my theology and worldview, I must first establish that He did exist. I will do so by dispelling the popular myth of some atheists that Jesus is a myth. While none of the atheists that have come on this site may be mythicists themselves, we still need to clear away this amateurish nonsense before we continue talking about the person of Jesus Christ.

To do this, I will share two videos from agnostic Bible scholar, Bart Ehrman. I’m using Dr. Erhman because he’s not a Christian and has become the latest go-to authority for Bible skeptics and atheists. I also want to show that this is not just an evangelical or conservative scholarship position.

The first video is his brief rebuttal to a skeptic and the second video fleshes out his argument a little more.  I will add here that Dr. Ehrman has very sound arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ in his book: Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus. You can read that to dig deeper into this subject.

To be clear, I am not saying that Dr. Ehrman necessarily believes everything else I believe about Jesus or the Bible. But there is no doubt that he believes that Jesus Christ was a real person living in the first century Roman province of Judea.

The first video is just a brief comment where Ehrman outright refutes a skeptic’s statement, “I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.” It’s very brief and worth watching.

The second video is a little longer. Here, Ehrman reads his position on the historicity of Jesus from his book I mentioned. This gets into some of the actual evidence for Jesus.

NOTE: Please confine your comments to the subject matter on the video. Also, please keep your comments concise (under 500 words, preferably much shorter).

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 41 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Jesus Christ is not a myth

  1. sklyjd says:

    This man has applied some logical arguments and also makes the case that Jesus may not be the same man depicted by Christians as the miracle performing son of God.

    It makes sense to believe Jesus was a normal man who was an outgoing eccentric individual claiming he was the son of God. Obviously, he was unimpressive to most people and so were his so-called miracles that were either staged or non-existent and inspired by the Biblical writers. I would say he did stand out in a crowd and a handful of people believed in him, however I would expect many of the Jewish people were tiresome of his preaching about his claims that God was his father and of course in those days nobody would dare display such behaviour because it was blasphemy and therefore we know eventually they convinced the Romans to make an example of him.

  2. Arkenaten says:

    Yep, no reason not to give old Bart the nod on this one.
    But of course, the biblical character, the birthed of a virgin, Lake Tiberius pedestrian who cured blind people, fed zillions with crumbs, raised dead people including himself is nothing but a nonsensical piece of fiction.
    The question is, however:
    If you are going to take this series to the next level then …. to paraphrase Bart … you better have some pretty good evidence for the biblical character, and I am throwing my hat into the ring and siding with every non-supernatural believing NT scholar and recognised historian on the planet and say you have diddly squat.
    So where you are going to with this …the gods know!

    • Mel Wild says:

      Of course, you don’t believe that, otherwise you would be a Christian!
      I’m starting with the lowest common denominator and dispelling the really dumb myths first.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Well, I happy to concede that there probably was a human called Yeshua running around etc etc, mostly because, as the late great Hitchins noted, it seems more logical to base the god man on a real person.
        But as for evidence … well, no I’m afraid there is no contemporary, independent attestation. And Bart says this too. He just makes a big deal that no scholar, historian etc etc thinks he was a myth.
        It’s only the indoctrinated faithful that believe in the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian.
        But I’m not really bothered these days.
        The Biblical character is a complete work of fiction. That’s what we have to educate people to understand. Even you … eventually.

        ”Carry on, sergeant …”

        • Arkenaten says:

          Oh, come on Mel, you know as well as I do that even professional theologians know in their heart of hearts we are dealing with a narrative construct. Half of those stories in the gospel are historically untenable and geographical nonsense and this is before we even get to the Jesus bits.
          That’s why Licona was ”axed” wasn’t it? He could not carry on the charade of 100% belief any more than you can, if you are honest.
          I am not saying you conduct sermons with your fingers crossed – well, not yet anyways – but even you must avoid certain biblical tales like the plague in case you get asked about them!

  3. Arkenaten says:

    Oh, and for the record. Bart fully agrees that Jesus existed but not Jesus Christ.
    You know what the word Christ means, of course and I’m pretty sure Bart would not consider Yeshua ben Josef to be Christ. And in all honesty you wouldn’t think he would either.
    Jesus yes. Christ Not a chance in Hades.
    .

  4. Arkenaten says:

    What? None of your minions joining in on this post? Of all your zillions of followers and those in your genuflecting flock, and only the little atheists commenting? Sheesh!

    • Mel Wild says:

      That’s because only genuflecting anti-theists contemplate such a subject.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Aaah … you obviously have no idea what the word genuflect means?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Of course I do. Like you. (since neither of us are Catholic), I’m using it figuratively, as anti-theists give homage to their own “gods.”

        • Arkenaten says:

          Oh, I forgot to ask. If you have glanced at my current, Points to Ponder post, I would be interested in you take?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I and about 50,000 others have been without power for two days after a nasty storm hit our area, so no. I’m commenting on my iPhone and not doing much else on the Internet right now.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Ah … Power Outages. We know ALL about those in South Africa. Zuma prefers to spend money on his Big House with all his wives rather than upgrade our aging power stations and electricity grid.
          Well, when we have no power, it’s take out dinner (pizza) and reading by candlelight and other tres romantic things one can do.

          .

  5. I am not convinced that Jesus is someone we must ‘convince’ others about as opposed to experience the relationship with His love. In this way, as Christians we should mirror what we say Jesus is. That is the living proof as it should be different than that from the world or others who say they do not believe.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I would totally agree with you on the convincing atheists part and it’s better they experience His love ( which is 99% of my blog posts), but we are also supposed to tear down vain imaginations, arguments, and false notions erected that keep people from knowing God (2 Cor.10:3-5). And a
      lot of this nonsense is out there causing confusion and doubt among honest seekers and gullible Christians.

      But, yes, our being Christlike is the best evidence to the world that Christ lives in us.

    • sklyjd says:

      You are correct, you do not need to convince others of any godlike relationships. Take a minute to consider that It is within your mind that God exists. It is as real as pain and the most emotional feeling for certain people by comforting and helping them to face the reality of our world but believe it for what it is, not for what you are told it is by mythical creating ancient people.

      God exists only to the believers just as many other gods and mythical beliefs that also go beyond logic and evidential truth and accepted as real since the time man first walked the Earth. These views are repeated more often than ever by scientists who study the brain, however it is often interpreted by the uninformed and some apologetics as an anti-theist conspiracy.

      • Mel Wild says:

        I don’t agree with you that it’s just brain chemicals. Consciousness and the mind is different than the brain. Verified Near Death Experiences have confirmed this. Resuscitated patients who were brain dead for several minutes could recall conversations in the room, in other rooms, recall doctor’s names who they never met, even travel to other places while “dead” on the operating table. That cannot be explained by brain activity. There was none.

        God is not the mind nor the brain. That’s a rather myopic naturalist worldview that does not fully explain the data.

        • sklyjd says:

          It is a common known fact Mel, that people in a coma often still can hear and possibly develop a more defined hearing to compensate for the loss of other senses, therefore hearing doctor’s names and conversations other people may not be able to pick up and being registered in the memory is an understandable answer.

          The details of near-death experiences are now well known with research revealing scientific explanations for virtually all of their common features that were often thought of as mystical phenomena. This phenomena has been reported across many cultures, with written records dating back to ancient Greece.

          “Many of the phenomena associated with near-death experiences can be biologically explained,” says neuroscientist Dean Mobbs, at the University of Cambridge’s Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.”

        • Mel Wild says:

          Your coma theory doesn’t account for NDE people going to other places, being able to accurately describe people there, what they said, seeing people in other rooms. And all this is verified after the fact. To just claim brain chemicals is a rather desperate attempt to discount these cases. It only because you have a worldview that doesn’t permit it, not because it’s not really happening. Sure, you can explain some of the NDE’s biologically but not all of them.

        • sklyjd says:

          Out of body experiences are not as rare as people believe. I note classes are offered to people who would like to learn how to experience this phenomenon and even youtube video instructions are available. Therefore, as it can be self-induced it would suggest that near-death and other health problematic people with these experiences were involuntary at the time but obviously comparable to the self-induced experiences.

          My acceptance of science to explain the way things work is hardly a world view or an ideology such as you follow. Do you go to the Bible for your medical information?

          What may answer some of the questions you ask may depend on what information the brain stores and how it associates with other people using telepathy and neuroimaging techniques to read human minds. This science is still in its infancy, but your thoughts are not intangible and inscrutable because all mental activity is communicated via electrical impulses and scientists are progressively learning to decode our mental electrical signals, and translate our thoughts into automatic action such as at the University of Central Lancashire, they have scalextric cars that are powered by the players’ level of concentration.

          “Out-of-body experiences were about three times more frequent” in patients with vestibular disorders, versus those without these disorders, said Christophe Lopez, lead author of the study and a neuroscientist at Aix-Marseille Université in France.” Another scientific breakthrough, Read more here.
          https://www.livescience.com/60047-out-of-body-experiences-inner-ear.html?utm_source=notification

        • Mel Wild says:

          My acceptance of science to explain the way things work is hardly a world view or an ideology such as you follow. Do you go to the Bible for thinkyour medical information?

          Of course, it’s a worldview. You have a naturalist worldview that only accepts what can be observed and tested. Your faith is in science, and that future scientific advancement will eventually explain all these phenomenon.
          And in all my discussions with you here I haven’t mentioned the Bible once, yet you appeal to this in order to dismiss what I’m saying. Well, I’m sorry, but all your self-induced or neurobiological explanations don’t explain the data. You are a priori concluding that there must be a naturalistic answer, even if it cannot be explained now. That is faith, not science.

          For instance, you cannot explain people relating memories of conversations that others had during their medical emergencies or even how they described the jewelry and clothing worn by those around them. Some accounts have given verified details about what happened outside the immediate room, down the hallway, or even miles away. People blind from birth have correctly recalled called visual details of things around them and outside their presence. Many of these near-death details were of events occurring when the individual had no heartbeat or brain wave activity, as indicated by “flat” EKG and EEG readings, sometimes over lengthy periods of time. Or a case where a nine-year old girl had a swimming accident and was nineteen minutes under water. Amazingly they were able to save her but she had to be hooked up to machines to stay alive with no brain activity. Surprisingly, she regained consciousness after three days. She said she “looked in on her parents” during that time and could accurately tell what her father, brother, and sister were doing, that they had chicken and rice for dinner, and what clothes they were wearing. This was all verified. No, that is not a psychological or neurological issue.

          Many of these reports are so well-documented that some naturalists have been forced to take them seriously, even admitting the possibility they pose of life beyond the grave. John Beloff, writing in The Humanist, argued that the evidence for an afterlife was so strong that humanists should just admit it and attempt to interpret it in naturalistic terms.

          Amazingly, the well-known atheist philosopher A. J. Ayer experienced an NDE that he could not explain in natural terms: “On the face of it, these experiences, on the assumption that the last one was veritical, are rather strong evidence that death does not put an end to consciousness. “16 Ayer concluded, “My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be.”

          Atheist philosopher Antony Flew attests that NDEs “certainly constitute impressive evidence of the possibility of the occurrence of human consciousness independent of any occurrences in the human brain…. This evidence equally certainly weakens if it does not completely refute my argument against doctrines of a future life.”

          I don’t think you should put your faith in naturalist answers to this phenomenon. As I said before, it’s a rather narrow-minded view of reality.

        • sklyjd says:

          Everyone accepts what can be observed and tested. Science is what makes sense of the whole world and without it we would not survive. Anybody who uses computers, goes for surgery or travels in an aeroplane accepts science to explain how these things work, therefore why would all humans not trust or have faith that science will continue to show the way for all humans as it has for hundreds of years?

          Science has answered many questions we all thought had no answers and I believe there is an answer to all phenomenon we cannot currently explain or understand, however I do understand this to be a normal, rational and a logical position to take. For example, if I was to suggest that aliens from space are responsible for everything that science cannot explain what credibility does that statement have even though there have been thousands of UFO sightings and so-called abductions?

          Scientific evidence has to be the ultimate measure for finding new technology, the facts and truth about everything that exists on and off our planet and you can call me narrow minded but what else can we depend on?

          Trying to explain the events and details you mention in NDEs as supernatural or life after death is stating your own religious opinion. I have pointed out what science has discovered so far and I have said that this science is still in its infancy. I will not go out and suggest aliens are involved.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Everyone accepts what can be observed and tested. Science is what makes sense of the whole world and without it we would not survive.

          That’s true. To be clear, I’m not against science or technology. I trust science to explain material things, to come up with the truth for physical phenomenon and anything within the laws of natural physics and biology. All I am saying is that it’s limited to what can be tested and observed.

          Scientific evidence has to be the ultimate measure for finding new technology, the facts and truth about everything that exists on and off our planet and you can call me narrow minded but what else can we depend on?

          It’s narrow-minded because science can only deal with what can be tested or observed. It cannot deal with anything outside of that. It cannot prove history, for example. It cannot even tell us why there is science. We need philosophy for that. And it cannot give an answer to the NDE cases I told you about. There are no psychological or neurobiological explanations for them. The fact that you believe all things in reality can be tested and observed, or explained away with science, is narrow-minded in my view. You only believe the material world exists. And that’s not me being religious, in and of itself. It’s simple abductive reasoning. But my religion does have a simple answer for it all. And my religion includes science and the natural world, but those are subsumed within the greater reality outside of time and space.

        • sklyjd says:

          OK Mel you write some truth but I do not totally agree with this “science can only deal with what can be tested or observed. It cannot deal with anything outside of that. It cannot prove history, for example. It cannot even tell us why there is science.”

          Tell me what cannot be tested and observed? Ok let me see, atoms, gravity, space, air, sound and light etc. all were thought to be not detectable, observable or testable at one time in history. What do we have now spirits, ghosts, the devil, mind reading, aliens, bigfoot, NDE’s, DNA, many mysteries under the sea and brain activity etc.? Scientists have made many inroads with brain studies and have explained many things we did not understand a decade ago and that includes the brain processes when people have religious experiences. Consequently, it appears that the unobservable phenomena, the spiritual type of claims and beliefs may in fact only be a process of the brain that was also a process of evolution. It is completely rational and more than logical to believe science will be able to answer all the questions and even be able to prove once and for all if any god exists outside of the brain. I might add it does not look good for believers, but I am able to admit that I could be wrong unlike theists, I must say. At the end of the day it will only be science that can and will determine the truth.

          Science can and has many hundreds of times confirmed dates and ages of historic items, analysed historic artefacts and structures like detectives on a murder case determined to find the truth. Science can also be wrong, especially in the crooked pharmaceutical industry otherwise major mistakes are non existant. However, these days if the results do not suit everyone with an ideology to push, the science is often discredited for no reason at all.

          “It cannot tell us why is there science” This part is easy; the power of the brain is obviously the answer. Man has strived for advancement in knowledge since the cave man invented the wheel to make life better. The only reason man has been supressed and prevented in this quest for this enlightenment in knowledge was when powerful religions decided science was asking to many questions that were detrimental to their religious faith and it is still a factor in certain scientific fields today.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Tell me what cannot be tested and observed? Ok let me see, atoms, gravity, space, air, sound and light etc. all were thought to be not detectable, observable or testable at one time in history.

          Sure. But, again, you are still talking about things in the material universe, though infinitesimally small, they are STILL part of the space-time continuum. I’m not talking about very small things, I’m talking about things that apparently exist outside of time and space. Besides the fact that we cannot put history through the scientific method, and the other things I mentioned, science cannot tell us what caused the Big Bang, or why there is an apparent, knowable design to everything in the universe, or even why do we have a moral conscience. You can’t just chalk that up to brain chemicals. And, again, WHY science?

          To me, it’s the “emperor has no clothes” syndrome. It’s so obvious that there’s a design, yet people deny it and hide behind science, or tell themselves other things, so they don’t ever have to admit there’s a God. The Bible totally nails this human delusion.

          20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Rom.1:20-21)

          Again, I’m not against science. I’m saying that it will always be inadequate in explaining everything in reality. To believe it can requires more faith than believing in Intelligent Design, which is obvious in nature.

        • sklyjd says:

          You stated “I’m talking about things that apparently exist outside of time and space. Besides the fact that we cannot put history through the scientific method, and the other things I mentioned, science cannot tell us what caused the Big Bang, or why there is an apparent, knowable design to everything in the universe, or even why do we have a moral conscience. You can’t just chalk that up to brain chemicals. And, again, WHY science?”

          You call yourself a scientific man Mel. Can you truly tell me that you would believe science if they knew how the big bang came about? I expect you would not, considering your rejection of the age of the Earth, the age of dinosaurs and that of evolution that have been tried and tested by all the sciences and found to be based on absolute facts for at least a hundred years. And what is even more amazing you then ask for people to believe the stories in the Bible, how do you make that work for an intelligent argument?

          Obviously, you find that equating the whole world to creation by your God so much easier and a far more emotional experience than trying to understand the science that I believe goes mostly over your head and the heads of your followers.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You call yourself a scientific man Mel. Can you truly tell me that you would believe science if they knew how the big bang came about? I expect you would not, considering your rejection of the age of the Earth, the age of dinosaurs and that of evolution that have been tried and tested by all the sciences and found to be based on absolute facts for at least a hundred years.

          Sklyjd, first, science cannot tell us how the Big Bang came about. The laws of physics fail outside of time and space. They can only infer based on the evidence. Second, you are assuming a lot of things in your statement. For instance, you seem to be under the impression that I don’t believe in science. It’s not “either/or” for me, it’s both/and. As I said before, science is perfect for analyzing what can be observed and meausured. Science is subsumed within my worldview, not rejected or contrary to it. Also, the age of the earth and even evolution are not necessarily incompatible with Christian doctrine or even the Bible, although incompatible with Fundamentalist Christian doctrine. But what we all believe is that God is the designer of it all. The Bible is not meant to be a science book, it provides more anthropological and philosophical answers. It’s about how a people experienced God (from their point of view) throughout ancient human history, culminating with the incarnation of Christ who revealed what God is really like to us, and who brought us back into relationship with God. It’s not incompatible with science, but it’s written from a Semitic style that is different than science is written or even how we write today.

          Obviously, you find that equating the whole world to creation by your God so much easier and a far more emotional experience….

          Intelligent Design is a most logical and rational explanation that provides explanatory scope and power for where the natural world comes from and why it’s here. To me, it’s totally irrational to believe that the Universe created itself or came from nothing.

          The scientific evidence is that actually that the Universe is far more life-prohibiting than life permitting one. In other words, more liking not to produce intelligent life than to produce it. Agnostic physicist Robert Jastrow of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies calls the life-permitting constants of the universe “the most theistic result ever to come out of science.”

          Donald Page, a Nobel Prize winning astronomer, calculated that given all of the possible ways in which the constants could have obtained in a Big Bang, the odds of getting a universe capable of sustaining life is 1 in 10″”1141 (that’s one chance in ten followed by 1,240 zeros).

          So, to say there is no design or designer is not an intelligent conclusion to me. It has nothing to do with emotions.

          …than trying to understand the science that I believe goes mostly over your head and the heads of your followers

          And you are very arrogant (or ignorant) to think we cannot grasp science. There are brilliant scientists who are also Christians.

        • sklyjd says:

          Well Mel please tell us how the Big Bang came about, God I assume? I can understand what you say regarding your position of science and the Biblical world view, however is it not somewhat anti-scientific when you will claim that the Christian God as designer of everything.

          If you look around a bit at unexplained phenomena in our world today that science cannot answer at this stage, the unknown does nothing to support or confirm any kind of creator.
          The fact that our universe has as many as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable universe strongly suggests that we are not alone and alien life forms do exist. This alone is more evidence to suggest they may have visited Earth and a more realistic contender as our creator than any earthly gods.

          Your quotes from physicist Robert Jastrow and Donald Page must be the odd scientists because Neil deGrasse Tyson on NASA’s website claims:

          “most astrophysicists accept a high probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe, if not on other planets or on moons within our own solar system. To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the cosmos with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us.”

          Passages from the NASA website:
          “Many scientists believe we are not alone in the universe. It’s probable, they say, that life could have arisen on at least some of the billions of planets thought to exist in our galaxy alone — just as it did here on planet Earth.”

          “What we didn’t know five years ago is that perhaps 10 to 20 percent of stars around us have Earth-size planets in the habitable zone,” says Matt Mountain, director and Webb telescope scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. “It’s within our grasp to pull off a discovery that will change the world forever.”

          I think you are biased against science or you are wanting to rethink your faith, but I think this passage from Institute for creation research web site just about sums up your views, and I cannot see how it can be any other way.

          “but creationists understand that even if conditions on another planet could sustain life, life there is not possible–unless God created life there or permitted life somehow to travel to that planet from earth.” This attitude is obviously anti-science, ignorant and conceited.

        • Mel Wild says:

          The Big Bang was God’s creation, of course. That is the simplest answer that provides explanatory scope and power. That’s my claim. What is your counterclaim that has a better explanation?

          Sklyjd, you don’t know me at all. You keep posting articles and comments about science that I don’t necessarily disagree with. And the Institute for Creation Research doesn’t represent all creationist views. It is a Young Earth Fundamentalist Christian view of science. The Bible does not automatically forbid life on other planets. Its narrative is anthropocentric, focused on life on earth.

  6. Kristi Ann says:

    Amen-Amein!! Praise Jesus-Yeshua Christ for Today and Everyday HE is KING of kings and LORD of lords, HE is the ALPHA and OMEGA!! Sing Glory Glory Hallelujah and Maranatha EVERYONE!!

    I Love you all Everyone through Jesus-Yeshua Christ, because HE LOVED 💕 EVERYONE FIRST!!

    Love 💕 Always and Shalom ( Peace ), YSIC \o/

    Kristi Ann

  7. thewayonline says:

    God bless you for your dedication to truth and the defense of the Gospel. Do you ever consider that some people as stated in the Gospels just will not ever understand what Jesus said…the “seeing they cannot see and hearing they cannot hear crowd”. I have often tried to explain certain parts of the Gospel to people only to watch them grow more confused with each explanation. I finally have concurred that they just can’t comprehend – they do not have the spiritual ability to understand what the Bible says.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thank you. And congratulations for joining the fight for the truth (2 Cor.10:3-5).

      It’s true about people not being able to understand spiritual things; these truths must be spiritually discerned (1 Cor.2:14), although they could begin to understand if they opened their heart to it.
      Blessing to you.

  8. Even if Jesus never existed as a historical person, the argument cannot be denied that the revolutionary social teachings attributed to him are among the greatest the world has ever known. And from this argument comes another argument suggesting Jesus DID exist as a historical person. Who was the one who came up with these revolutionary social teachings which changed the world forever for the better? In other words, wouldn’t it take a “Jesus” to invent these revolutionary social teachings? I think the evidence suggests, “Yes.” Given all this information, it should come as no surprise that this “Jesus” was described as receiving the same death sentence as was the dangerous political opponents of Rome.

    Because no matter who created these teachings, it cannot be denied how significant these teachings have changed the world. They led to the development of an organization (the Church) which eventually took over the Roman Empire and led to western culture and the western world. Despite all its faults, Christianity has arguably influenced the world for the good more than any other movement or force in history. Some of the great contributions Christianity has made through the centuries include: (1) The creation of hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church as an early version of a welfare state; (2) The creation of universities, which also began during the Middle Ages, beginning with small monastic communities to the world’s greatest universities which were started by Christians for Christian purposes; (3) Literacy and education for the masses where practically nobody in western Europe outside of monastic settlements had the ability to read or write; (4) The development of capitalism and free-enterprise through the Protestant work ethic; (5) The rise of representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment resulting from congregational church and self-rule; (6) The separation of political powers into three separate branches of government (the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) with each branch defined to check the powers of the other branches; (7) The creation of civil liberties, especially those established in America’s Bill of Rights; (8) The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times through the American abolitionist movement by religious Quakers and evangelicals; (9) The development of modern science of which, historically, Christianity has often been a patron of sciences; (10) The establishment of charities from the “Good Samaritan” ethic of parishes, churches, and almshouses established throughout Europe in the Early Middle Ages; (11) The development of higher standards of justice beginning with the theology of St. Augustine; (12) The elevation of the common man beginning with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation which made laypersons equal with clergy; and (13) Defending a high regard for human life on issues of capital punishment, war, abortion, euthanasia, justifiable homicide and, by extension, public health care. So it can safely be said that no other person has had such an impact upon the world that the “Jesus” who created the teachings of this “Jesus”.

  9. Wally Fry says:

    Hi Mel

    Again, just a quick two cents to toss in here regarding origins and creation. I am not a scientist, and freely admit it is not my area of expertise. Hence, I don’t dive into those conversations much. I do know a bit about faith, however, as I have much of it myself.

    It seems we are constantly maligned for much of our position being faith based. Yet, from what I see, the faith of the non believer runs just as deep. On this post I see much faith that eventually science will answer all questions……some day. I have even seen faith that life on Earth was brought here from another planet, and this is presented as a more plausible theory than a Creator. Given the actual evidence for that, the faith to believe it runs very very deep. The only indication that this happened is the idea that, “Well, it could have happened that way.”

    The non believers are quite faith filled and perhaps more religious than the believers.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I couldn’t agree with you more. It all comes down to a matter of faith no matter how you look at it.

    • sklyjd says:

      How narrow minded are you Wally? Youtube and many other web sites document hundreds of UFO sightings and many other unexplained phenomena. Granted, a lot of it is fake, however much of it is not and UFO sightings have been reported for over a hundred years and much of it has been recorded by creditable people and taken seriously by many government authorities including your own and you do not think this is plausible? Who is blinded by faith or just plain ignorance here?

      • Wally Fry says:

        Steve. You as usual ignore the point. You can holler all day long but what I have stated is fact. To believe life came to Earth via aliens requires much much faith. I actually never said there was no life elsewhere. Never. To repeat. To state that as plausible theory require huge faith. That’s all I asserted. If you feel insulted then prove me wrong. It’s all about the presupposition. I proudly own mine. You deny yours and attempt to present your feebly theory as fact and me as ignorant. Both of those things are false

      • Wally Fry says:

        Mel I was on my phone and have typos there sorry

        • sklyjd says:

          Your statement Wally: “To believe life came to Earth via aliens requires much much faith.”

          I was not claiming life came to Earth via aliens in my comment, but of course you would try to debunk this theory as any possibility because this type of evidence would destroy your own faith, but maybe no, because you would of course claim God created the aliens and allowed them to exist and create life on Earth, right?

          You also say you do not deny that life exists elsewhere, well that’s a great start. I do also continue to state a belief that life exists on another planet as extremely plausible and obviously you do as well….. Brother 😊

        • Wally Fry says:

          Steve, you said

          “The fact that our universe has as many as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our observable universe strongly suggests that we are not alone and alien life forms do exist. This alone is more evidence to suggest they may have visited Earth and a more realistic contender as our creator than any earthly gods. ”

          So, sure, you did not outright make the claim, but you CLEARLY by your own words stated that claim is more plausible than a creator God. Now, you are back pedaling.

          Since there is absolutely no evidence outside of some scientists saying “Coulda happened that way,” to support that position, my statement that it requires great faith to believe it remains true.

          The assertion that the evidence for alien implantation of life on Earth as the origin as more credible than a Creator is absurd. And you are correct, I could follow that chain all the way to infinity, and you or no scientist even come close to answering the ultimate question of origins.

          Also you said

          “You also say you do not deny that life exists elsewhere, well that’s a great start. I do also continue to state a belief that life exists on another planet as extremely plausible and obviously you do as well…”

          Be careful, Steve, how you take another’s words and state their conclusion. I did in fact, say, I don’t deny it. That is not the same as me saying it is extremely plausible. That might be construed by some people as you misrepresenting what another person said, so that you can run claim some great victory. I suggest you be careful with that, as it tends to shut down conversation, as who really wants to talk to a person who seems to be intentionally twisting their words. So, as usual when we talk, I am out for now. You and Mel have fun.

        • sklyjd says:

          Truth is Wally, the assertion that the evidence for alien implantation of life on Earth as the origin as more credible than a Biblical Creator is very true and has far more logic (a word you are not familiar with) than just faith.

          You do not deny that life exists on another planet but it is not extremely plausible to you? If you must write in riddles please give us a clue as to what you mean.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Great Steve. I suppose this would be a dandy time for you to present your clear, evidence based argument that alien implantation of life on Earth is more credible. You can’t. Your grasp at it by great faith. Period.

          Logic. Actually, I am quite familiar with logic. I happen to disagree with you and have the gumption to do it repeatedly and steadfastly. That does not make my case illogical. Try again. As is typical, most arguments by atheist evangelists are supported by nothing more than the point that believers are mentally deficient. Try again.

          Finally. Yes, Steve, the linguistic difference between “possible,” and “extremely plausible,” is actually a substantial one. Either you really don’t understand the difference(which I find odd, because I believe you are a native English speaker), or you are dead set on creating a false narrative for the words I said. That is not good argumentation at all. I suspect there is a name for that tactic, and perhaps Mel could fill in the blank.

          I will make this easy. When you can support the assertion you have made regarding alien implantation get back with me. Hint: that would be something more than Neil Degrasse Tyson saying “coulda happened that way.” What I mean, is some evidence it actually occurred. Then you will need to build a case that what you present outweighs the weight and logic of my position. Again, this must be substantiated with something besides your initial presupposition that my position is wrong.

          Peace and have a nice day.

        • sklyjd says:

          You are a great one to rattle on about evidence Wally, as you have similar controversial evidence of a god comparable with Narmer, the unconfirmed first Pharaoh of Egypt to suggest a creator exists. To be convinced that you are right and everyone else is totally wrong without any substantial evidence beyond an ancient manuscript written by Christians is an illogical, but brave and a very narrow-minded attitude.

          I and most atheists do generally not hang our hats on just one peg and brainwash ourselves into believing we are always right, however we will never consider mythical historic gods because it is far too unbelievable and much of the Biblical content is ambiguous and much of it has been discredited by modern science. Good luck Wally, everybody needs it, even you.

        • Wally Fry says:

          So…does this mean you won’t be offering your evidence for alien implantation of life on earth?

          I am curious too. How does one brainwash oneself?

          LOL

        • sklyjd says:

          Just because we do not have overwhelming evidence of alien life just yet it does not mean it will not happen. I believe you would reject any evidence if it landed in your lap as you reject biological evolution and god knows what else in the scientific world that has been proven to be factual over the last 150 years.

          It is quite disturbing to think that some people will form an opinion that flies in the face of rationality and common sense and then claim they are always correct. Scientists do not act like this because they always have the most qualifications in the subject matter, are well informed, experienced in many fields and have advanced ideas and opinions that are worth listening to.

          To deny science and the opinions of the world’s scientists to believe the world is flat or 6,000 years old, the Biblical flood or in the Adam and Eve story and most of the other unbelievable stories as 100% correct without question can only be politely described as brain washed.

        • Wally Fry says:

          “Just because we do not have overwhelming evidence of alien life just yet it does not mean it will not happen.”

          Wowza, that’s complelling stuff there Steve, a few more winners like that and I will renounce my faith for sure.

          Steve. I am not rejecting anything. You haven’t offered anything. Again, if you are going to assert alien implantation of like on earth is more plausible and logical that my beliefs, then the burden is clearly on you to offer the evidence.

          We aren’t talking about what I believe about the age of the Earth, Adam and Eve, or any of that. That is a deflection tactic and you know it. In fact, you could conclusively prove that I am completely insane and moronically stupid to boot, and none of those things would actually prove your position. I will completely confess; I am NOT a science expert. Of course, that is all the more reason you should be willing to show me your evidence. I may not be a scientist, but I suspect you are not either LOL.

          Anyway, I digress. How about some evidence that life on earth was implanted by aliens. Again, that DOES not mean the “possibility” that there MIGHT be life out there somewhere. Sheesh, somebody unstick the record already.

        • sklyjd says:

          I have never claimed they have found life on another planet, but this is as good as it gets as evidence that it is more plausible than any gods, and this statement is encouraging to say the least.

          “While we’re excited about the latest findings from NASA’s Kepler space observatory, there’s no pending announcement regarding extra-terrestrial life. For years NASA has expressed interest in searching for signs of life beyond Earth. We have a number of science missions that are moving forward with the goal of seeking signs of past and present life on Mars and ocean worlds in the outer solar system. While we do not yet have answers, we will continue to work to address the fundamental question, ‘are we alone?’”

          You claim I have not offered anything, well take off your blinkers, if NASA and thousands of scientists are spending heaps of funding and obviously believe this is a more logical conclusion than religious creators, what does that tell you?

          Your turn Wally, how about some evidence from you that life could not exist outside of earth and a couple of logical reasons why you believe it is a waste of time and not logical?

        • Wally Fry says:

          Lol. Steve

          Mel can have you

          You have zip but vague references to coulda woulda shoulda

          Peace

        • sklyjd says:

          Thank you for your participation Wally, I will take your brief comments to mean this topic is too provocative as you slide back into your withdrawn life of worship. Good luck be with you.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Steve, read your last sentence in your last comment. You asked ME to provide evidence to prove there is no life outside of Earth. I never claimed such. So, when you ask me to back up something I never said, then deride for for declining to back up something I NEVER SAID, then the conversation is pointless. This topic is not to provocative, it has become too nonsensical.

        • sklyjd says:

          Did you or did you not ask this “So…does this mean you won’t be offering your evidence for alien implantation of life on earth?” This is something I NEVER SAID but that does not seem to worry you.

          Plausible means (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
          “a plausible explanation”
          synonyms: credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable.

          As you can read from these dictionary terms, I said plausible and it is not a factually claimed event and I have provided the reasons why I thought it was more plausible than your faithful beliefs, but obviously you choose to ignore everything I wrote.

          As you think I am totally wrong and as your faith does not deal in plausibility and you are without question correct, why then be ambiguous with what you believe are the factual events?

        • Wally Fry says:

          Got it. You didn’t state it fact, but only as plausible or likely, thereby releasing yourself from any obligation to support the position.

          Interesting. I’m just not sure it works like that,though.

        • sklyjd says:

          Wally, I do support the position and I have given reasons why I do support the position, what more can I do to please your highness? Do you not understand the English? I only ask what is your position or is it a secret?

        • Wally Fry says:

          No Steve mine is no secret. Just read my blog

          No Steve. Your reason is you like your theory better than mine. What is missing is the evidence

          You are just getting mad because 8 won’t give you a free pass

        • sklyjd says:

          I must go to work this morning Wally, but how can I know if you believe life exists in the universe outside of Earth or not, do you have a post on this? Does your Bible guide you or is it of no interest to you?

        • Wally Fry says:

          I won’t not 8 won’t

        • Wally Fry says:

          Oh, almost forgot. You need to explain, also, how one brainwashes oneself. You asserted that to be true. Meaning I need evidence and data to back it up. How it occurs in a general sense. Then since you applied it to me, I need dates, times, locations. That sort of thing. You can provide all that after you provide our alien life implantation evidence.

          Peace

        • sklyjd says:

          Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the non-scientific concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques.

          Of course, Wally, someone or something planted the seed in your head to start with and through your own choice have allowed yourself to be guided down the indoctrination pathway to a fundamental and extremely powerful belief in this one concept that totally rules your life.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Steve.

          Jesus rules my life

          Peace out

        • Mel Wild says:

          Now, we’re saying aliens are more plausible? Right, whatever. That’s not a crazy leap of faith! But then we must still ask, where did the aliens come from?

          Btw, if you think undirected process is more plausible for the creation of humans or your aliens, Francis Crick, an atheist and one of the two scientists who discovered DNA, said that the chances of intelligent life coming from undirected process are 1 in 10×2,000,000,000.

          Now, you may say that creative process is more improbable, but that’s only because you don’t believe in Intelligent Design or God. If there is Intelligent Design, then the probability of the creative process is about 100%. It becomes the simple answer that provides explanatory scope and power.

        • sklyjd says:

          Like I have said to Wally Mel, atheists may be flexible and support any other possibility of the beginning of life other than man made gods, however most rational atheists do not claim to be 100% correct in the “faith”

          The fact we have UFO sightings almost every week around the world and as most scientists agree that alien life exists it is possible the first life was deposited on earth by a meteorite or some other medium does not make it a crazy leap of faith, but the application of some logic.

          To ask, “where did the aliens come from?” with the idea that your God created them as well, and you do not think that is an obvious real crazy leap of faith?

          I really am at a loss to comprehend how you can be so nonsensical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.