Why do people believe Jesus' crucifixion is a lie, but accept every word about Alexander the Great as gospel?

Question

This question was recently asked: “Why do I hear that the crucifixion and resurrection of christ is an historical fact?” This was the best answer. “It is not historical fact. I know, I have a degree in history. Historical fact can be proven. Fables can't be proven. You are referring to a part of a mythological system of belief. Myths and beliefs can't be proven and are not accepted as fact.”

There must be a psychological explanation for this blindness, because there is not any historical explanation

1. What we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. (Meie.MarJ - Meier, John P. - A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991.)


2. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament. (F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950, 178.”

3. In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.( Ravi K. Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God? Word Publishing, 1994, 162.)

4. There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. But,

Plato wrote 427-347 B.C. The earliest copy is from 900 A.D. (1200 years) and there are 7 copies.

Aristotle wrote 384-322 B.C. The earliest copy is from 1100 A.D. (1400 years) and there are 49 copies.

Herodotus wrote 480-425 B.C. The earliest copy is from 900 A.D. (1300 years) and there are 8 copies.

Sophocles wrote 496-406 B.C. The earliest copy is from 1000 A.D. (1400 years) and there are 193 copies.

Caesar wrote 100-44 B.C. The earliest copy is from 900 A.D. (1000 years) and there are 10 copies.

Homer wrote Illiad in 900 BC. The earliest copy is from 400 B.C. (500 years), and there are 643 copies.

EDIT: Would all those citing contemporary writers re Alexander please give some names. The earliest are Arrian (about AD 100), Plutarch (about AD 45) and Quintus Curtius Rufus (about AD 41). But Alexander was born in 350 BC.

EDIT: Monuments are not historical facts. If you want to count them, I defy you to find more of Alexander than of Jesus. Hint, ever been in a Catholic church?

LabGirl: See Suzanne's excellent answer. Also, you don't want to start comparing fragments from Homer vs the NT. NT wins hands down.

Ms Switch: I appreciate your thoughtful answer. But the question is about crucifixion, not resurrection. I'd love to read an amended answer from you.

smkeller: Did you actually read the question and materials provided?

Answer 1

Fabulous question! (pulls up chair, diet coke and popcorn).

To Labgrrl: You have obviously never read an unredacted copy of the Talmud. Even the Jewish sages admit Jesus lived. Get over it! Here's proof if you don't believe me: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html Begin reading at verse 33, section a. (Please note that "Yeshu" is a slur of Jesus' true name, "Yeshua." This is confirmed in the notes corresponding to the verse.)

You've also never read Tacitus, who commented in 115 AD:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

If the Jewish sages and Tacitus took it as a given that Jesus lived, why do you doubt?

NO HONEST HISTORIAN DENIES JESUS LIVED. PERIOD.

EDIT: to PraiseSinger -- I understand what you're saying, but do not forget what is written about Apollos, at Acts 18:28. Sometimes, God DOES want us to "vigorously refute" unbelievers.

Answer 2

Ok, I'll bite. This is a little bit like the OJ Simpson trial, which showed that despite massive amounts of evidence that points to an obvious conclusion, peoples minds can be steered toward a conclusion that makes no sense at all, except to satisfy what the jurors wanted - that is, a way to find OJ not guilty.

Here, the author of the question seems to want to be able to say that Christ was a god. The records to support this finding are, however, highly suspect, having been written after the time, been highly edited, and having gone through more hands, languages and highly motivated revisionists, etc. etc. than a fish at a Tokyo meat market. So, to make these suspect records more palatable, the author seeks to impugn the records of any and all historical figures, using Alexander the Great as the example.

This is an attempt to prove a positive by establishing a negative, and actually backfires by demonstrating the weakness of the original position.

AMENDMENT: The author chastises me for implying the obvious; that she is arguing for Jesus being divine. She says that no where does she imply that. However, the second sentence of her OWN question plainly states "crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is an historical fact?”

Answer 3

Because it's offensive to hear if you don't believe that something you can't believe is THE one most important thing in this world.
Faith in God is FROM God. It's a gift, so that no one can boast. If we could fully explain Christ and have total proof that he rose from the grave then there would be no need of faith.
In this way, it's very unlike Alexander the Great. Yes the evidence exists for Jesus' cruxifiction but if that same evidence points to his resurrection an unbeliever can't accept any of this evidence.
Sometimes the seed falls on the beaten path and withers. The seed is not the problem. Keep sowing elsewhere.

Answer 4

You seem to be zero for two. Nowhere in the Gospels does it talk about the High Priests and Sanhedrin lying. The idea of red for Jesus' words is by no means universal. It is seen in some versions of the Bible, but not all that many. And, where are these lies you speak of? I have yet to see them. I have seen an error or two, but no lies at all. Can you be more clear, or give specifics?

Answer 5

It is interesting to note that none of the 4 Gospels included in the Bible actually document the resurrection. The Gospel of Matthew has an angel report it to people who later see Jesus. The Gospel of Mark has an angel telling the disciples, who are afraid and speak of it to nobody. In Luke and John, the story is similar to Matthew.

Some theories are that Jesus had a twin and that one of them died and one lived. Some say that Jesus was drugged and did not actually die on the cross. It is also interesting to note that none of the Gospels were written until years after Jesus' death and by people who did not know him.

Jesus was a poor Jew living in the Roman Empire. He was one of many people who were crucified by the Romans. It's very unlikely that any official documents exist regarding his death.

Alexander the Great, on the other hand, was an emperor who had a lot of earthly power, which means that he and his followers had influence over how records of their actions were documented. When someone conquers your land, you know it. When the followers of a rabble-rousing member of an oppressed minority claim that angels appeared and said he's risen from the dead and then claim to see him in the next town, this is not quite as clear.

All history is written by the winners. Much of what is commonly accepted as "historical fact" is indeed a pack of lies. Jesus was not even considered divine until a few hundred years after his death.

In my opinion, Jesus as a prophet who was not afraid to speak what he believed and as a minister who tried to give comfort to the afflicted is more important than whether or not he rose from the dead. If people choose to believe in the resurrection, that's fine, but it certainly is not a historical fact.

And neither are much of the lies in our history books.

As for your comment on my answer-- I'm not sure I know anyone who would argue that Jesus wasn't crucified. To speculate on why some people believe that Jesus' crucifixion is a lie would only be guessing, and if I had to guess I'd suspect that there are lots of reasons, depending on the person.

Your real question here seems to be "why don't people accept Jesus as their savior?" or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Answer 6

There are coins with Alexander's likeness on them from that time period. There were cities named after him after he conquered different territories. And there are a lot of references to him in contemporary literature.

Jesus was mentioned by an historian other than the Bible. The man existed. Believing in Jesus as God or son of God is a matter of Belief. There doesn't have to be proof. You either believe or you don't believe.

Answer 7

So where are the contemporary sources for Jesus's life?

Find me one, dearie. Outside the Bible, which is obviously biased.

Edit to the below: Josephus did not live during Jesus's time. He lived after 37AD. Also, what he apparently wrote about Jesus has been proved to have been added in the 1200-1300s, so it clearly was not written by him. Sorry, try again. Tacitus also wrote after Jesus had already died, and only commented on the followers of Christ, not on the actual existence of him.

Answer 8

Excellent use of sources to answer the question!!

As you've demonstrated, not only is there good reason to believe in the historical validity, there has to be another reason for disbelieving...

And that is because to recognize the historical event, would mean you could no longer deny the reason and result of such an event. Which means, the choice to deny would be based on fableistic wishes.

Thanks for the excellent back up!

Answer 9

We actually know much more about Alexander than that. Anyway we have documented evidence and monuments to him.

I also find the whole "jesus never existed" weird

Answer 10

There are many historical documents and monuments to alexander the great, and their found in egypt, and all the countries he encountered. Jesus...well...he's in the bible

and very few other places

To be honest I belive in his cruxification. I just don't belive in the god he preached, and you know cause the bible was written much later and I'm sure they got alot of stuff wrong