wendya@apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts) (10/26/84)
Mr. Gary Samuelson, in an article recently posted to net.religion, says: > Basically, I think that leaves historical evidence. Christianity > is based on the teachings of a historical person, one Jesus (or > Y'shua or Iesous) of Nazereth, who was born nearly 2000 years ago. > It is also based on the life, death, and resurrection of that > same Jesus. > It is the resurrection, as a real event in real history, which > originally convinced me that Christianity had a basis in reality > (stubborn person that I am, it took two more years before I was > really ready to become a Christian). > So, I would pose the following as a debate topic: The historical > evidence supports the contention that Jesus of Nazareth was killed > by crucifixion and was subsequently raised from the dead. Historical evidence?? Albert Schweitzer, an exemplary Christian (in the true sense of the word) if ever there was one, conducted a massive, years-long, exhaustive, and scrupulously honest search for historical evidence of the origins of Christianity, including a historical figure called "Jesus." His research and conclusions are carefully documented in his book, "The Quest for a Historical Jesus." His essential conclusion? There is NOT ONE SHRED of physical, historical, or any other reliable kind of verifiable evidence that such a person as Jesus ever actually existed. The marvelous thing about this is that this conclusion did not shake Schweitzer's FAITH one iota. While honestly admitting that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Jesus, Schweitzer continued as strongly as ever in his belief in the SPIRIT of Christianity, which any account of his life amply illustrates. Schweitzer, in my view, is an honest man and a TRUE Christian: one who sees faith for what it is - a personal, private matter of individual choice, which must be reflected in action to be meaningful. I have lately observed an awful lot of self-styled "Christians" ("...Hey, I'm a kingdom kind of guy...") whose idea of Christianity is self-righteous, primal Bible-thumping, duelling chapter-and-verse, and pathetic self-flaggelation ("...we are but slime in the eyes of God...we all richly deserve to burn in hell" [BTW: Speak for yourself! WAC]). I wonder why these persons have so much time for such self-serving and sophomoric behaviour... could it be so they can avoid meeting the REAL challenge of Christianity - to actually LIVE IT?? If a person has discovered, invented (or whatever) what he feels and believes to be a right way of living (whether it is Christianity, Buddahism, break dancing, or anything else), he should shut his mouth, roll up his sleeves, and just do it. Live it. If you really believe you're a hopeless sinner who deserves eternal punishment, just put on your hairshirt and SHUT UP ABOUT IT!! Trying to force your morals and beliefs on others is rude, unkind, and insulting. In addition, it often betrays the "missionary" as weak and insecure in his own faith. Even worse, some of the later articles in net.religion seem to be actually BRAGGING about how sinful, evil, deserving of hell, etc., the writer is. This seems to me a rather perverted twist on ego gratification... > [Mr. Samuelson again...] > Now, if the disciples couldn't get the body, and their enemies > couldn't produce it, and it couldn't walk away on its own accord, > what happened to it? Trying to demonstrate the validity of Christianity as a viable moral and philosophical system via corpus delecti is pathetically absurd. I submit that such sophomoric silliness is quite apt to give all Christianity a bad name. I further submit that there are probably better ways to demonstrate the value of your belief system than with rhetorical questions that seem to have been derived from a game of "Clue." W. Christensen
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/30/84)
> W. Christensen > [Schweitzer's] essential conclusion? There is NOT ONE SHRED of physical, historical, > or any other reliable kind of verifiable evidence that such a person as > Jesus ever actually existed. The marvelous thing about this is that this > conclusion did not shake Schweitzer's FAITH one iota. While honestly admitting > that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Jesus, Schweitzer > continued as strongly as ever in his belief in the SPIRIT of Christianity, > which any account of his life amply illustrates. The *shreds* are your argument. The existence of Jesus Christ is one of the best-established FACTS of history. I would refer the reader to the thoroughly documented _Therefore, Stand_ by Wilbur Smith, perhaps the most outstanding apologetic of this century. Even such an anti-Christian as H.G.Wells gave scores of lines to Jesus of Nazareth in his _Outline of History_. And the evidence was compelling enough for a skeptic such as Lew Wallace (while writing a book to "forever destroy Christianity") to break down and cry out "My Lord and my God!" [You may better remember Wallace as the author of _Ben-Hur_.] > > [Mr. Samuelson again...] > > Now, if the disciples couldn't get the body, and their enemies > > couldn't produce it, and it couldn't walk away on its own accord, > > what happened to it? > Trying to demonstrate the validity of Christianity as a viable moral and > philosophical system via corpus delecti is pathetically absurd. I submit that > such sophomoric silliness is quite apt to give all Christianity a bad name. Quite the contrary. Disprove the Resurrection and Christianity is kaput. Further, the title for pages 359-437 of _Therefore, Stand_ reads: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST FROM THE DEAD: THE APOLOGETIC FOR AN AGE DEMANDING HISTORICAL CERTAINTY Hardly "pathetically absurd." -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (10/30/84)
<Wendy Alberts> > [Albert Schweitzer's] essential conclusion? There is NOT ONE SHRED > of physical, historical, or any other reliable kind of verifiable > evidence that such a person as Jesus ever actually existed. It's been about a year since I read "Quest of the Historical Jesus", but I do think Schweitzer believed in the existence of the historical figure Jesus. The main point of his book was to counter 19th Century liberal theologians who portrayed Jesus as an enlightened individualist, whose teachings foreshadowed their own religious ideas (e.g. A. Harnack's "fatherhood of God and brotherhood of all men"). Schweitzer, on the other hand, accepted a fairly "literal" interpretation of the Gospels - Jesus was a Jewish preacher who believed the apocalyptic end of the world was imminent, and believed that through his own work the [literal] kingdom of God would come. > While honestly admitting that there is no evidence whatsoever for the > existence of Jesus, Schweitzer continued as strongly as ever in his > belief in the SPIRIT of Christianity, which any account of his life > amply illustrates. I'm not sure Schweitzer would want to put it that way. But, in Jesus, Schweitzer saw the power available to a person who put his own interests behind the service of God (by serving humanity). No doubt you are aware that he gave up a brillian career as a Biblical scholar to become a physician, and spent the rest of his life helping people in "third world" countries. > Could it be so they can avoid meeting the REAL challenge of Christianity > - to actually LIVE IT?? Excellent point. While we can debate the picture of Jesus Schweitzer gave us, his example is a challenge and a rebuke to almost all of us. Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University