TURNING EVIDENCE AGAINST JESUS' AUTHENTICITY AS A PROPHET OR SON OF GOD INTO EVIDENCE FOR THEM
The Four Gospels purport to be evidence for Jesus Christ and his life and
death and resurrection. If an ancient book appeared about Hercules which claimed
he gave wise teachings and contained alleged eyewitness accounts of his wonders
and his ascension into Heaven to reign as God of the universe and the book was
less fantastic than the gospels few would accept it as true. Christian belief in
the gospels is more conditioning than belief. If we were all heathens, and a
minority of scholars appeared who realised that there were gospels and that they
were reliable as scripture and as history, that discovery would impact little on
us. The only reason there is such a fuss about the gospels is because ostensible
Christianity is everywhere which makes people biased in its favour. Its ubiquity
alone is enough to condition people.
But Christians however do try and make a case for the reliability of the
gospels. They say for example that if the gospels were lies they would not
contain material that embarrasses believers in Jesus and material that could
embarrass even Jesus himself. They say the miracle stories are pretty tame so
they ring true.
It is easily supposed that since the gospels say things about Jesus that were
embarrassing for believers and the Church that he must have existed. So evidence
against Jesus becomes evidence for him!
The gospels could have left them out even if they were true. The stories might
be mistakes. Many religions and apparitions contain unsavoury material. Such
mistakes do happen. So the unsavoury gospel yarns could be mistakes and you can
make mistakes whether or not it is a real person you are writing about.
The unsavouries are an indicator of fallibility and that there couldn’t have
been much good to tell about Jesus when they had to settle for a lot of
unflattering stuff – the supposedly embarrassing material makes us think there
was no Jesus when stories about him were hard to come by. Then again, Hinduism
has lots of shocking stories about its favourite god, Krishna, so there was a
strong religious tradition for attributing evil or bizarre antics for gods
though you wanted people to start devotion to them. The idea was that gods could
do things people were not allowed to do and still be considered good. In a sick
way, people like Gods they say are perfect but who still exhibit flaws. It is
human nature. That is why Gods doing malicious things while claiming to be
paragons of holiness got more popular not less. Good in the religious sense is
boring.
Perhaps the shaming bits and pieces about Jesus were not shaming to the early
Church when it put them in the gospels. It didn’t have to include them. People
might not have realised that they should have been ashamed. The moral sense in
those days was very dull. The Church had long enough to see that Jesus could
have his popularity despite some of the unsavoury stories about him so it would
have ceased to have even noticed that the stories were shocking and would not
have desired to hide them. This is what has happened throughout most of
Christian history. People have heard about the terrible things God and Jesus did
and yet they did not register these actions as evil and distasteful. They would
have felt uncomfortable but as they were desensitised by Church conditioning to
overlook and applaud what they seen, rightly or wrongly, as evil in the
scriptures they took little heed.
All of the unpleasant tales can be reconciled with an interpretation
satisfactory to the Christian though not often to the objective person who looks
hard enough but they were not written for geniuses but simple people.
Theologians are pompous charlatans and make out you need a theology degree that
they approve of to read the Bible. The liberals do this more than most and
no liberal Christian school agrees with the next one.