When posed with the assumption that Christianity is based in blind faith it makes me think that we as a Church are either not talking to people enough about the faith or we’re allowing a false narrative to control the image of the Church. In my opinion, I think it's both. Why do I come to this conclusion? Because, these are the assumptions I get from Christians, and not just the laity, but from people who are considered leaders in their churches.
In the Theology Pit we want to address the issues that are brought to us by you the readers and listeners. A concern that I have is that I’m going too fast or I’m just not explaining the topics well enough. This might be due to the fact that there is a lot of information to cover and by answer questions on an off topic subject, it might become information overload.
That being said, the post has three different parts to it that I will be answering. The first is about the historicity of the religious establishment (presumably Judeo-Christian) rejecting reason in favor of “blind faith”. The second is the veracity of Martin Luther’s colorful hatred for reason. The third of is the assumption that unbelievers have a better grasp of reality than believers.
Historically, the religious establishment has taken a negative view of reason in that it is the antithesis of “faith".
Read MoreEvery life is a rock that ripples through the river of history. Some skip on the water, some make waves, but few change the course of that river. – A Known Author
In this first section of the historical evidences of Jesus Christ I want to look at the Roman records. I personally find these histories interesting but lacking in some areas. For example, the reliability of some of them are more questionable then others and even though they don’t deal directly with Jesus, they speak of Christians and what they believed at the time. This becomes significant for dispelling the myth that Jesus was a later conflation invented by the Church. Let’s look at the first two of four.