Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 Apollo 8/9/84; site apollo.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!wivax!apollo!wendya
From: wendya@apollo.uucp (Wendy Alberts)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Historical veracity (?)
Message-ID: <229695fe.708@apollo.uucp>
Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 12:44:13 EST
Article-I.D.: apollo.229695fe.708
Posted: Fri Oct 26 12:44:13 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 07:06:41 EST
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass.
Lines: 73



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