{"id":652,"date":"2006-05-31T15:23:37","date_gmt":"2006-05-31T23:23:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/archives\/2006\/05\/31\/some-thoughts-on-jesus-and-history\/"},"modified":"2006-05-31T15:34:52","modified_gmt":"2006-05-31T23:34:52","slug":"some-thoughts-on-jesus-and-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/glenandpaula.com\/wordpress\/archives\/2006\/05\/31\/some-thoughts-on-jesus-and-history","title":{"rendered":"Some Thoughts On Jesus and History"},"content":{"rendered":"

An arti\u00adcle in the Stan\u00adford Dai\u00adly today caught my atten\u00adtion: Jesus Nev\u00ader Lived, Speak\u00ader Says<\/a>.<\/p>\n

My first thought was a bit car\u00adnal \u2014 how come our events don\u2019t get the same cov\u00ader\u00adage in the Dai\u00adly? We almost cer\u00adtain\u00adly draw more peo\u00adple (as when Dr. Bill Craig lec\u00adtured on the exis\u00adtence of God to a crowd of hun\u00addreds) and our views are cer\u00adtain\u00adly con\u00adtro\u00adver\u00adsial (God exists, Jesus is God, sin is real, sal\u00adva\u00adtion is pos\u00adsi\u00adble, etc).<\/p>\n

My sec\u00adond thought was more focused: I should respond to this. I hear more and more stu\u00addents talk\u00ading about the exis\u00adtence of Jesus as though there is some real con\u00adtro\u00adver\u00adsy, so I should\u00adn\u2019t let this pass with\u00adout com\u00adment.<\/p>\n

Now I was\u00adn\u2019t at the talk, so I don\u2019t know exact\u00adly what the speak\u00ader said. All I know is what the arti\u00adcle claims the speak\u00ader said. He could have been con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00adably more effec\u00adtive at mak\u00ading his point than the arti\u00adcle seems to indi\u00adcate. This isn\u2019t, strict\u00adly speak\u00ading, a cri\u00adtique of the speak\u00ader so much as a reflec\u00adtion on the whole notion of Jesus being a make-believe per\u00adson.<\/p>\n

Accord\u00ading to the arti\u00adcle, there are two clues that Jesus nev\u00ader exist\u00aded:
\n1) Paul did\u00adn\u2019t talk about the details of Jesus\u2019 life
\n2) The sto\u00adries about Jesus sound pret\u00adty amaz\u00ading.<\/p>\n

So Paul did\u00adn\u2019t talk about the details of Jesus\u2019 life in his let\u00adters. I find this unsur\u00adpris\u00ading giv\u00aden that I, an ordained Pen\u00adte\u00adcostal mis\u00adsion\u00adary, rarely do so in my own let\u00adters. Even when writ\u00ading let\u00adters devot\u00aded to the\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgy I rarely talk about Jesus\u2019 life the way that the speak\u00ader seemed to assume that Paul should have: <\/p>\n

\u201cPaul nev\u00ader dis\u00adcuss\u00ades Jesus\u2019 fam\u00adi\u00adly, his deeds, where he went or where he came from,\u201d Car\u00adri\u00ader said. \u201cHe nev\u00ader dis\u00adcuss\u00ades any of his con\u00adfronta\u00adtions with the author\u00adi\u00adties, nor any dis\u00adputes about what he taught. He says Jesus became flesh, was cru\u00adci\u00adfied and buried, but he nev\u00ader says when or where or posi\u00adtions these events in any his\u00adtor\u00adi\u00adcal con\u00adtext.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I rarely bring up these details because they are assumed to be the back\u00adground for the con\u00adver\u00adsa\u00adtion, in much the same way that I rarely men\u00adtion the details of George Bush\u2019s life when dis\u00adcussing his pol\u00adi\u00adtics. That does\u00adn\u2019t mean I don\u2019t believe in or am unaware of the fact that he has daugh\u00adters \u2014 it just means that I don\u2019t always con\u00adsid\u00ader them ger\u00admane. <\/p>\n

To insist that Paul should have men\u00adtioned such details as evi\u00addence that he believed Jesus was a real per\u00adson seems quite arbi\u00adtrary to me, espe\u00adcial\u00adly giv\u00aden that he men\u00adtions Jesus by name 198 times<\/a> with absolute\u00adly no indi\u00adca\u00adtion that he\u2019s refer\u00adring to a made-up indi\u00advid\u00adual. No one would argue that I don\u2019t believe in George Bush on such grounds, and so I don\u2019t see why we should think that this is evi\u00addence that Paul did\u00adn\u2019t believe in Jesus.<\/p>\n

As to Jesus\u2019 life sound\u00ading pret\u00adty amaz\u00ading \u2014 ya think? That sort of seems to be the point. The claim that Jesus was God in human form almost requires that cer\u00adtain amaz\u00ading events occur through\u00adout his life. So I sort of scratch my head when the guest lec\u00adtur\u00ader says:<\/p>\n

\n\u201cJesus con\u00adforms so close\u00adly to the cri\u00adte\u00adri\u00adon of a myth\u00adic hero the prob\u00ada\u00adbil\u00adi\u00adty that he was a myth\u00adic hero increas\u00ades sub\u00adstan\u00adtial\u00adly,\u201d he said. \u201cThere are 22 fea\u00adtures that have been iden\u00adti\u00adfied by schol\u00adars that are com\u00admon\u00adly shared by many myth\u00adic heroes. They can be ranked with a score accord\u00ading to how many fea\u00adtures they have. Jesus clear\u00adly scores at least 19 out of 22.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026<\/p>\n

Jesus scores high\u00ader on this scale than almost all oth\u00ader heroes, includ\u00ading Her\u00adcules and Romu\u00adlus, Car\u00adri\u00ader said. Only Oedi\u00adpus scores high\u00ader.<\/p>\n

\u201cJesus com\u00adpetes for sec\u00adond place only with The\u00adseus and Moses,\u201d he said. \u201cEvery\u00adone who scores more than 11 on this scale is most like\u00adly myth\u00adi\u00adcal. No his\u00adtor\u00adi\u00adcal fig\u00adures who accu\u00admu\u00adlat\u00aded some of these fea\u00adtures by chance or leg\u00adend, such as Alexan\u00adder the Great or Augus\u00adtus Cae\u00adsar, scores even as high as 11.\u201d\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well of course he scores quite high. That\u2019s like point\u00ading out that NBA play\u00aders are tall and ath\u00adlet\u00adic. How do you think they score all those points? Jesus being extra\u00ador\u00addi\u00adnary is sim\u00adply evi\u00addence that he was extra\u00ador\u00addi\u00adnary. Whether he was extra\u00ador\u00addi\u00adnary by not exist\u00ading or extra\u00ador\u00addi\u00adnary by being God is the ques\u00adtion the guest speak\u00ader wished to address \u2014 but his argu\u00adment does noth\u00ading to tip the bal\u00adance.<\/p>\n

Against these fee\u00adble argu\u00adments stands the schol\u00adar\u00adly con\u00adsen\u00adsus that there was actu\u00adal\u00adly a man named Jesus. Why is there such a con\u00adsen\u00adsus? Because in addi\u00adtion to the Bible, there is plen\u00adty of exter\u00adnal evi\u00addence that Jesus lived. For exam\u00adple:<\/p>\n