Are christians afraid to seriously examine the possibility that Jesus never even existed?

Question

I've asked many questions here about the lack of historical evidence for Jesus existing.

The same stuff always gets thrown forth: gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger.

Each time I point out the gospels are discredited (Just the fact that the first census in Judea happened years after Herod's death undermines their credibilty in two key areas. 1. The reason for going to Bethlehem. 2. Herod's order to kill the children forcing Jesus's family to flee to Egypt), The passages from Josephus (written in 92CE) appear to have been added by translators in one case and copied from another source (the same source used in Luke's gospel) in the other. Tacitus dosn't directly refer to a Jesus, and gets pilot's title wrong. Pliny the Younger just mentions christians, not Jesus.

Why does it seem that christians are unprepared to look objectively at the evidence and seriously examine wheter such a man existed beyond any reasonable doubt?

When so many other religious deities share the same story as Jesus, shouldn't christians have suspicions that they've somehow got it wrong?

Anthony C...............I have seriously examined the possiblity. I was after all raised a catholic.

Answer 1

well, i am no catholic. been to catholic services, don´t like them. Been to many different Churches. I have question the existence of Jesus at times in my live. I stopped questioning when I started feeling unexplainable forces keeping me from being injured or killed in what could have been very serious accidents.

I am a Christian

Answer 2

You get "the same stuff thrown at you" because that's the true answer, wether you want to accept it or not.

The fact is, most reputable historians, even non-believing secular historians, accept that Jesus Christ actually existed. The idea that he didn't is a fringe opinion not shared by most historians.

The Gospels have not been discredited. They are divinely inspired, but were written down by human beings who had their own viewpoints and their own human perspectives. That is why they are different, and have some discrepencies in them. The same thing would happen today. An event happens. You question four different observers of the same event. You are going to get four totally different stories. Some of the details of each story will be common to all four personal accounts. However some of the accounts will have details that the others will not. You are hearing the stories from the experiences and views of four totally different people. Some of the details as to exact times may differ somewhat - they are honest accounts of what happened to the best of that person's recollection. All of the stories are true, just from slightly different perspectives.

That's the way the Gospels were written also.

Paul, who didn't actually personally know Jesus, lived in the same lifetime and generation that Jesus did, and actually knew many of the people who actually walked with Jesus, including Peter. He reports that as many as three to five hundred people simultaneously saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. Paul was a hard-nosed ex-Pharisee who was very precise about what had happened and what it all meant, and wasn't given over to making things up. He reports the eyewitness testimony of many people who were actually there, and most of Paul's letters and epistles to the early Church were written within 40 years of Jesus' death

Even the Jews who rejected Christianity accepted that Jesus existed. The Babylonian Talmud, written somewhere in the 300s to 400s AD, acknowleges that Jesus existed, even though it doesn't treat Him very favorably. It claims that He was actually the illigitimate son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish peasant girl named Miriam.

Even most people who don't accept Christ acknowledge that he was a real person......

Answer 3

No, they aren't even capable of examining that possibility. Their lives revolve around the thought that these stories are true. Accepting the evidence as it is means accepting that Jesus was a character in a story, and that character did not do the things the story said it did in real life. It means that everything they know is false, and all the reasons they've been doing things they way they have been doing them is false. That's why they think atheists have no morals, because they believe that the reason to be moral is to avoid going to hell or to be with their god. Altruism is lost on them, as even that is accredited to god from their perspective. No god, and they have to start over and find other reasons to be good. They can't imagine why someone would be good without their god being the main reason.

Answer 4

2000 years is a long time. Provenances get lost. Dates get mixed up. The fact is that archaeology has found that MANY historic dates are wrong. That doesn't mean the events never took place. In fact, most of the evidence for Jesus has been preserved by Christians, which automatically makes those documents suspect to disbelieving minds. There's not a lot that ANYONE can do about that. In the final analysis, it is truly a matter of faith, just as God said He wants it. Sorry you can't quite cut it.

Answer 5

Eh, I think he probably existed even if you can't exactly pull up his birth certificate. It doesn't make a lot of sense for followers of some guy who never existed to spring up out of nowhere. I wouldn't be at all shocked if the stories about him were garbled and embelished later, though. I get confused about the facts when telling my own family's stories about things that happened in the last 50 or 60 years, after all, and witnesses in criminal trials often can't agree about exactly what happened a couple months or years ago, so I would find it really odd if we had entirely correct accounts of events of 2000 years ago that all meshed with each other perfectly.

But some churches do seem really paranoid about their members thinking about things that don't jive with the teachings of the church. They tell you it's wrong to listen to certain music or read certain books lest you get the wrong idea and be led astray by the devil. They know that sometimes if people think about it and ask tough questions, they can lose faith, and they consider losing faith to be a dangerous thing because you can go to hell if you renounce Jesus and aren't saved.

Answer 6

You need to check out this book. One reader reviewed the book saying "This is a very unique book for one reason: you will not find any 'faith-based' arguments used to prove claims made about the bible. Only documented facts are used."
It covers pretty much everything in the Christian faith and was
written by an athiest who set out to prove that Jesus didn't exist. It's a tough read, but I think you'd find the historical arguments very impressive. I am a Christian, but not one of those you are speaking of. I've been there and done the skeptical thing, and I agree, it's stupid to accept anything by a blind faith. Do some more research and check out the book if you get a chance. And let me know where you got your info too. I'd like to check it out. [e-mail]

Answer 7

No I'm not afraid to. There has never been anything to refute the existance of Jesus.

• Ann K wrote, "religion gives people something to hold onto, something steady and relatively unchanging. human beings don't adjust to change very well, some better to others. doubting their religion would just cause worry and anxiety to most of them. that would mean that they would be making a mistake for much of their life."

Ann, we could replace the word "religion" with "Atheism" and your remark would still mean the same thing.

• truth's vast tree wrote "they are afraid of finding out that everything that they know is wrong....ignorance is bliss......"

That logic would actually justify Atheists' argument also.

Actually, I'm noticing a theme here. The words some Atheists use to attack Christians may mean more to them personally then even they realize!

Answer 8

Yes most christians just like to sit back and relax and not think too much about it. A small percentage of them did seriously examine it. That's one of the reasons you find ex-christians (including myself) nowadays. Some were even pastors believe me.

In my case, I wanted to learn more about both sides of the argument and done a lot of research and thinking. Well, I ended up with my whole world collapsing around me. Church was a very BIG part of my life then. It sure wasn't pretty but I survived it.

Answer 9

Ah yes, I see we have an actual versed Atheist here, very rare indeed, I'm glad that you can look at this evidence and can come to the same conclusions as I. Christians cannot actually examine their scripture because of the fact that that will be considered blasphemous, as much as I wish it was otherwise, then maybe they could actually view it objectively. Christians are unprepared to examine it because (besides being blasphemous) it will also completely destroy their faith, religion, and way of life if Jesus was never real. But also, if they could actually look at it objectively and could somehow piece together thousands of years of scripture and other Holy Texts and could actually prove Jesus existed, then that would help cement their faith, but they're afraid of the possibility that they could be wrong.

Answer 10

that's kind of a stupid question, let me re phrase it so u can see what it looks ike to everyone else: Why is a religion affraid to discredit the one thing that founded it and holds it together to this day? Gee i don't know... cause they've invested thousands of years into this? because there is good evidence and u don't see it because your only looking for evidence against it? or maybe because they have faith and you can't understand it cause you've never had it. now don't get me wrong, i'm not religious at all, but your question sounds like a bashing, meant to provoke people cause ur a mean spirited dick with nothing better to do.