Perhaps Jesus of Nazereth existed. In the gospels, Jesus is commonly known to be from Nazareth. However, according to prophecys claiming he would originate from the city of David, Bethlehem, the scripture writes that Caesar ordered all citizens to return to their hometown for a census (Luke 2:1-2). Historically this simply never occurred, and such a census was never issued. But some evidence eludes simply from the story. If Jesus was completely mythical, why falsely change the story? So perhaps he existed, but as C.S. Lewis put it, “He must have been a madman or the messiah.” And when evidence is examined, we can clearly find our answer.
Socrates had similar questions risen concerning his existence. There is ample reason to believe he indeed created all of the work credited to him, but regadless he differs from Jesus in a major way: he did not claim deity. His philosophical work, like most academics, are natural truths that would eventually be discovered. They were not truths unknown and without evidence, unlike where the pupil was forced to believe simply because of its existence. They are truths that can be tested and judged accordingly. Again, this differs from Jesus in another profound way: Was Jesus even moral? This is a seperate discussion, but Socrates’ teaching on self development seems much more moral than take no thought for the morrow and do not invest (Luke 10:4), placing one’s moral responsibility for their own actions on another (John 3:16), or leaving one’s own family without even an explanation (Luke 9:61-62).
Another important fact seperating Socrates’ truths from Jesus’ lies is the fact that Socrates never said “Believe what I say as eternal fact… because my mother never had sex.” For sake of argument, say Jesus was born of a virgin. Hell, lets say he even rose from the dead. First. both of these statements enters the realm of biology, so if one believes these, he cannot say religion and science are seperate. But the point is even if those outrageous claims were factual, they provide no evidence of what the man says. His words and claims must be taken seperate from his birth or death. That provides no more evidence to his claims than me being born in Atlanta secures that I will be a doctor or you being born in New York and therefore obviously the most athletic. The claims are still just as factually wrong. Why exactly are they so wrong? I’m glad you asked…
Take the Bible, the claims that were taught from birth as truth, and actually examine them. Also, lets examine the story itself. We have God, and after 4.6 billion years he decides to intervene. He sends himself on a suicide mission to one of the most mystical and illiterate regions on earth. He then peculiarly follows many other religions in his life story, specifically the egyptian god Horus. Then he dies by an outdated method, which surprisingly there is no outside record of by anyone who is not a believer, nor any record by the state of execution. He rises from the dead and reveals himself to women, who were the most illiterate, hysterical, unbelieved people of that time. Their testimonies were not accepted in court, yet somehow accepted to proclaim the messiah? Then he preaches and publicly ascends, yet again no one else has record of? A few decades after this nonsense, people who never met Jesus recorded it, and 200 years later a few of these were selected as evidence.
Are we serious? We are smarter than this. Let’s break free from these myths, once and for all.
Daily Drew 