By Andrew Drews.
By the 19th century, if not earlier, critical scholarship on Jesus of theology had returned a verdict of non existence. Theologians and their followers, however, still maintain a belief in a historical Jesus.
How is it that religion is so resistant to evidence? How come little of the critical scholarship seem to permeate the publics and majority of believers take it on the word of their shepherds that the Jesus of theology is a historical personage.
There has been argument by others, religious and secular, that the Christ of theology is based on a historical personage. This admission however annihilate any possibility of the historicity of the Jesus of theology. He just doesn’t exist.
And so the verdict must stand that the Jesus of theology never walked this good earth.
Random thoughts 
Perhaps the reason is that the believers almost always avoid the truth of the matter and claim their reason is solely on divine inspiration. In other words, they are excused from any need of historical accuracy. This way they can continue with their fallacies and myths. Naked hugs!
LikeLike
Maybe you are right. Sometimes i think they take the preacher’s word for truth and ignore all else
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the resistance to evidence is two fold. 1) Is an attempt by religious authority to mislead people as to what evidence actually is, and to refute sound arguments with fallacious ones. Arguments like first cause, and Pascal’s wager. I don’t even know if all of it has to be deliberate, because I am sure just as many scholarly clergy were subject to their own cognitive biases. 2) Reason being is that religious satisfies one emotionally and not intellectually. If there is any benefit to religion it’s not in its ability to provide methodical explanation to phenomena, it’s to provide comfort and community. I think these needs are so strong in humans that if evidence is perceived to destroy those things, then we will resist the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” Reason being is that religious satisfies one emotionally and not intellectually.”
This.
It’s easier to believe blindly because someone else told you to, than it is to understand why on your own. Most people are followers. Most Leaders know this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed…I think this is largely because we are born followers since we rely so much on adults for navigating the world. Education can help us break out of this mindset, but it has to be a curriculum that encourages critical thinking, creativity, and play. Not some standardized testing model designed to turn everybody into followers even without religion!
LikeLike
this is key. I know many an educated fellow who is so good at what they do but are adamant to questioning the tenets of their religions or other isms they hold
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed and religion breeds on this; tell them what to believe, especially when they are still young, and you have them for a life time
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that is the problem I have once one has “left the fold”. The fundamental doctrines are NOT comforting to anyone who realizes that they condemn to horror anyone who doesn’t believe in exactly the right way, because “the way is narrow” yadda yadda yadda. The Christian God is horrible, the basic thesis of The Fall is horrible, Blood Sacrifice is awful. So staying in “the community” means that one has to be extremely selective…or extremely uncaring about the fate of the vast majority of humanity.
LikeLike
Well said Brian. I don’t disagree with you, but I think that is why religion developed long ago. You had little knowledge beyond your community and rarely traveled beyond your community. And life was on average more warlike. Others were often your enemy because you didn’t know them.
LikeLike
Simple maybe…the reason Christianity persists..
It’s a way to feel superior to others and a way to think because of this superiority, you will get to a heaven and immortality.
Perhaps it’s that simple.
LikeLike
Perhaps.
LikeLike
“This admission however annihilate any possibility of the historicity of the Jesus of theology…”
1. How old is Theology as an academic discipline?
2. Clarify what you mean by “evidence.”
LikeLike
1. From Wikipedia, at least 2000 years.
2. what would generally be admitted as proof, demonstration of fact
LikeLike
1. Information on wikipedia is not reliable.
2. There are various ways of demonstrating “facts.” Do you mean the scientific method?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, that generally information on Wikipedia is not reliable but if you think theology- study of deities is not that old, I am willing to consider your sources.
Tell me about other ways of demonstrating facts. I am open to learning
LikeLike
1. Reliable sources might include: Encyclopedia Britannica, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy etc.
2. Do you mean scientific demonstration of facts? Can you answer that please?
3. Would you consider documented oral traditions as admissible evidence?
LikeLike
2. I am not sure why you insist on scientific demonstration. Experience doesn’t furnish us with a person born without a further. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
3. Not always. Plutarch writes that Romulus, I think, was swallowed up into heaven or something of the sort. It is tradition. It is documented but it is not admissible
LikeLike
Wrong. A fact is a fact. everything else isn’t .
And the fact that you put the word in speech/quotation marks tells me you know this, but think others will be impressed. Trust me, they aren’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And this is the immediate response from someone who:
a) has no idea what evidence actually is, and,
b) expects that his unfounded biblical beliefs are exempt from honest scrutiny.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In the main, no.However, in context of the post please be specific and outline exactly which oral traditions are you referring to?
LikeLike
Maybe they include walking on water, turning water into water
LikeLike
Nah. He means conflicting accounts transcribed by unknown people decades after the purported death of Jesus. Including the mad ravings of a travelling gospel seller who never met “Jesus” and whose religion had nothing to with the remnants of the cult in Judea (with whome he feuded badly)
That seems pretty reliable to me. /snark
LikeLike
Very reliable, I must say. Who would disagree?
LikeLike
2. I cannot attest to whether his conception was natural or divine. But since you’re denying his historical existence, you’re implying that all other persons/places/writings confirming his existence, including the Quran, connived to completely invent him. My position is that not everything about him or in the bible is entirely false.
3. By your answer, you admit that sometimes oral traditions serve as evidence.
LikeLike
My friend, the Koran is not a source document for the historicity of Jesus. Even you should know this.
What about him in the bible do you think is true? How do you arrive at this conclusion?
I have said tradition can often be misleading and unreliable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Koran came after the establishment of Christianity. Since the main goal was to convert Christians (or justify war against them for believing in the wrong Jesus), of course the Koran mentions Jesus. Why does he believe the Koran is a reliable source for anything, particularly as it contradicts Christianity as to the divine centrality of Jesus? Is this not cherry picking to an amazing degree-referring to the doctrines of a conflicting (violently so) religious tradition when convenient?
LikeLike
I don’t understand how someone can even cite the Koran when the historicity of Jesus is being discussed
LikeLike
The character, Jesus of Nazareth as described in the bible is undoubtedly a narrative construct. There is no evidence whatsoever for this character.
LikeLike
The character as described by the gospels is an impossibility
LikeLike
2. Where did I say the Quran is a source document? It briefly makes reference to him (Issa) as a historical figure or prophet. Since you reject all scriptural sources of evidence of his historical existence, theology as an academic discipline, is too young to help you know whether he existed historically.
3. To me, NOT ALWAYS means sometimes.
LikeLike
Can you offer any other independent sources to verify that he existed?
LikeLike
2. But the Koran is written 800yrs later. How can you even claim it’s relevant as a source?
LikeLike
Who says information on Wikipedia is not reliable?
LikeLike
We had to consult wikipedia on its reliability and surprise, it is actually quite reliable and as such the claim by VP is false.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the context of a quick discussion “On the Intertoobs,” Wikipedia is perfectly ok as a basic source. We are not writing a doctoral thesis here.
LikeLike
Of course, you are right. Wikipedia is usually a good place to start. One can use google scholar if they are so inclined.
LikeLike
I read a quote from Jefferson who said we shouldn’t believe everything we read on the Internet and especially not on Wiki.
And if you can’t trust Jefferson who can you trust?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha!😜😜
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeff, only Jeff. Oh I mean the inspired one
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah … was probably him!
LikeLike
An interesting article although several years old.
https://www.livescience.com/13711-jesus-christ-man-physical-evidence-hold.html
To me it doesn’t matter if jesus existed as a real person or not. If so, he was a rabbi following Judaism and very much a mortal man…nothing more.
He had a cult following who, once he was killed on the cross, as was standard practice, this cult rose him into the mythology of being a god or a son of a god.
He was a mere mortal and because of this persistent following, thousands of years of religious persecution followed…think crusades, Spanish Inquiry, Nazi Germany, as an example.
Christianity morphed into a killing machine, a way to judge people, a way for the Catholic Church to make millions and exert huge power and control for centuries.
And now a way for fundamentalists and their like, to hate anyone not like them and a way to enter the world of politics, especially in the US, and try to rule the world with its own distorted, bigoted and racist views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link, quite interesting.
LikeLike
Good summation.
LikeLike
Wow. Did the History Channel actually do history at one point? Now it is all Ancient Aliens and UFO and Cupacabras. 🙂
LikeLike
Religion is big business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This one statement sums up the whole question
LikeLiked by 2 people