confessions of a conflicted christian #3
Blasphemy: Did Jesus exist?
It is difficult as a Christian to consider the possibility that Jesus might not have really existed [1,2]. But the story of Jesus is one that is almost designed not to be recorded in history. You might even say that Jesus seemed to have done everything he could not to be historically remembered. As noted before, he didn't write anything down (if he did, surely his apostles would have preserved it). His birth is as anonymous as it is possible to be. And of course, his death left no trace, since he was resurrected and rose to heaven physically.
Yet, as every Christian knows, Jesus said that "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Just what did he mean? Clearly not what we humans understand - for if he meant by 'my words' what we call the Bible, why didn't he just write the gospel and be done with it? After all, God took the trouble to write the 10 commandments.
By almost any reasoning, he ought not to be even remembered, let alone revered - he was from humble beginnings, he ended his life as a criminal, his followers were uneducated and mostly disorganised, and he left precious little evidence that we can fall back on reliably as historical fact. His concept of saving us had little to do with what the Jews imagined and little to do with what we want when we pray to him. And yet, he exists, and is revered.
Are we Christians mad?
Apologia
And yet I count myself a believer. Certainly not on the basis of historical evidence. I believe because he told the truth and no one before or after has been able to improve on his truth. This is a strange testimony, because it amounts to saying that I believe in him because I believe him.
[I realise that my apologias are lame, to say the least. In a way, I have no direct answers to these blasphemies. So, I will go through all the blasphemies before giving my response - which, I might as well warn you, is not an intellectual rebuttal. I shall leave the reader to decide, when I do apologise, if it is intelligent - :) ]
It is difficult as a Christian to consider the possibility that Jesus might not have really existed [1,2]. But the story of Jesus is one that is almost designed not to be recorded in history. You might even say that Jesus seemed to have done everything he could not to be historically remembered. As noted before, he didn't write anything down (if he did, surely his apostles would have preserved it). His birth is as anonymous as it is possible to be. And of course, his death left no trace, since he was resurrected and rose to heaven physically.Yet, as every Christian knows, Jesus said that "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Just what did he mean? Clearly not what we humans understand - for if he meant by 'my words' what we call the Bible, why didn't he just write the gospel and be done with it? After all, God took the trouble to write the 10 commandments.
By almost any reasoning, he ought not to be even remembered, let alone revered - he was from humble beginnings, he ended his life as a criminal, his followers were uneducated and mostly disorganised, and he left precious little evidence that we can fall back on reliably as historical fact. His concept of saving us had little to do with what the Jews imagined and little to do with what we want when we pray to him. And yet, he exists, and is revered.
Are we Christians mad?
Apologia
And yet I count myself a believer. Certainly not on the basis of historical evidence. I believe because he told the truth and no one before or after has been able to improve on his truth. This is a strange testimony, because it amounts to saying that I believe in him because I believe him.
[I realise that my apologias are lame, to say the least. In a way, I have no direct answers to these blasphemies. So, I will go through all the blasphemies before giving my response - which, I might as well warn you, is not an intellectual rebuttal. I shall leave the reader to decide, when I do apologise, if it is intelligent - :) ]
posted by brownpanda @ 6:46 pm
7 Comments:
At 11:23 pm,
Anonymous said…
As I've said before, it is only blasphemy if there is intent and attempt to profane the sacred name or character or being of God.
You'll have to try harder... not that I'm encouraging you, of course. *grin*
At 7:08 am,
brownpanda said…
So, is it heresy then? But then, I will have lost my ABC.
I will be trying harder, haha. And I do need all the encouragement I can get. Oops, I hope I am not dragging you into the mud with me.
Take care, OK?
At 5:29 pm,
Anonymous said…
Heresy is when you espouse a belief which is in direct contradiction of a fundamental theological belief. For example, believing that God is One to the exclusion of the Son and the Spirit (the Unitarian heresy), or that agencies other than God can have true creative power (the Arian heresy).
At 11:25 pm,
Anonymous said…
lol. sir is *grin*-ning.
means he is, if not encouraging, not exactly, unencouraging, methinks.
(eh, that wordplay was mepurposed ;))
and never fear, my dd, you do not drag anyone into the mud. you're on too high a plane for that. =)
At 1:04 am,
brownpanda said…
So, the difference is that blasphemy has intent while heresy is just a difference in opinion? Hmmm, but I like my ABC so much...
And thank you, dd, for putting me on a high plane. Hope the plane has a good pilot and enough fuel.
At 2:01 am,
Trebuchet said…
Err... both blasphemy and heresy have intent; but blasphemy speaks against the Name, while heresy speaks against the Doctrines. Blasphemy is really worse than heresy in a sense.
At 7:54 am,
brownpanda said…
Many thanks, mythical. OK, I guess I am more heretical than blasphemous, then. Except for my next blog on God...
Post a Comment
<< Home