How is Western Civilisation is Evidence of Jesus Christ?

Whether or not Jesus Christ existed is not that important a claim. After all, Muslims believe a historical character called Jesus existed, as do the Jews. Evidence that Jesus existed is not important, and without evidence of miracle it doesn’t begin to support any religion. I happen to believe that the Jesus narrative is a composite of a number of stories from gnostic characters that existed at the time; Jesus himself doesn’t exist in a single document outside of the Bible, even though the Bible says he annoyed the compulsive note taking Romans. I have a few more reasons to doubt a historical Jesus existed, based on surveys of the areas and names of towns, but some of my colleagues can articulate that better than me, and that’s not what this post is about.

This post is about whether modern, Western civilisation is evidence for Christ. We are not talking about evidence of Christianity, I very much believe in Christians, but a commenter has assumed that Western Civilisation is evidence for Jesus Christ. I find this ironic as the Bible depicts Jesus as appearing in Eastern Civilisation and mostly to the illiterate. Quite how and why the evidence would then mount in the West is completely alien to me.

Western Civilisation, now, is informed by the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is the start of modern science. Although many of the pioneers of the Enlightenment were Christian, their theology would be rejected by nearly any modern-day apologist and their ideas were revolutionary. Newton, for example, separated God and science entirely until the day he got stuck. Newton does not mention God in a single scientific writing until he comes up against what he called the ‘many body problem’ of measuring moving planets. What he called God was eventually described mathematically by Laplace, using perturbation theory. (Google is your friend.)

Many people set out to glorify God by understanding the complexity of nature. And modern society stands of the shoulders of those efforts. But the conclusions of those efforts was always a deterministically explained model.

Modern-day Western Civilisation is evidence for Jesus Christ as much as the mathematical and philosophical progress in modern-day Baghdad in 800 AD is evidence for Mohammed. This time and place is where algebra came from. And we stand on the shoulders of that discovery.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “How is Western Civilisation is Evidence of Jesus Christ?”

  1. Mmmmm… a good examination of the question Allallt.

    Whether I enjoy it or not (Haha), THIS subject happens to be my personal area of knowledge, study, and experience uniquely from BOTH SIDES of the table. I completely agree with your reasoning and conclusion about the question.

    Adding to your conclusion, How is Western Civilization evidence of Jesus Christ?… it isn’t. Period, as you’ve stated. Anyone who argues from that posture might patently be unaware of the expansive (macro-to-diminutive) historical and societal impact of the Roman Empire (1st century BCE to 4th century CE) and the split into the Western & Eastern Empires in 395 CE. Yes, it is a massive volume of work and history and not everyone has time to exhaustively examine all its required areas. Nonetheless, by making such a claim they are committing the grave mistake/leap that the Age of Enlightment (and subsequent sociopolitical scientific advances) was a direct result of Jesus/Yeshua, his later movement “The Way” and Rome’s hijacking then imperial endorsement of it in the 4th-5th century CE, is one in the same. What cannot be denied is how the Roman Empire formed the Roman Catholic Church, who formed the Holy Roman Empire (via exterminations of opposition/heretics), who redefined (for the worst) the relationship between church and state… known as the Dark Ages, or the Age of Hyper-Superstitions as I sometimes call it.

    If need be Allallt, I can provide further detailed work (blog-post for starters) for the above paragraph.

    The modern Roman Catholic Church and Christianity itself owes its early survival to Roman Emperor Constantine, organized monasticism, and finally the Renaissance in the absence of an Emperor, his powerful Legions, and Greco-Roman governing. Nothing else. In my two-plus decades of studies and education of the relative eras in question, plus my 7-years within Reformed & Fundamental Christian ministries (including seminary), making those enormous historical leaps is frankly grasping at straws.

    1. Professor Taboo,

      The Great Schism in the Catholic Christianity didn’t happen until 1054.

      The actions of Emperor Constantine show that Christianity had risen from a gutter Palestinian mystery cult to coin of realm in the entire Roman Empire.

      This is evidence that supports the claim that Western Civilization is proof of the existence of Jesus.

      You and your fellows need to take a basic courses in the rise of Christianity and fall of paganism in late Antiquity and the entire Christian Middle Ages which span from the fall of the Roman Empire (~500 AD to ~1500 AD).

      Also notice that the entire world uses Jesus to count the passing of years (AD means Anno Domini which means Year of Our Lord).

      Even witless terms like CE (Common Era) acknowledge that the Common Era began with Jesus.

      1. SoM,

        First things first. You state…

        The Great Schism in the Catholic Christianity didn’t happen until 1054.

        Precisely defining “schism” and “Great” would aid in clarity and understanding. Schisms of earliest Christianity began happening as early as c. 50 CE between Saul/Paul and the Jerusalem Council led by James the brother of Jesus and Peter. Others happened throughout the Jewish-Roman Wars between 66 CE – 136 CE. These MUST be included for the simple fact that Jesus was Jewish and heavily involved in the time period’s apocyryphal fervor, upheaval, and rebellion against Rome, as I’m sure you are aware. Simultaneously, Gnosticism was increasing throughout the early “The Way”-movement/church causing more flare-ups or “schisms” throughout the Roman Empire and earliest churches. It can be easily argued that Paul vs Jerusalem, the Jewish-Roman Wars, and Gnosticism made the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE necessary, or rather were the first “Great Schisms.”

        By liberally using the word “Catholic” without noting dates and context of the word’s origins, you’ve omitted or overlooked the previous schisms of earliest Christianity. To me that doesn’t tell the entire picture. These important pre-1054 CE events are what I was referring to in my comment. Obviously, official imperial-sanctioned churches were established even before the 1054 split between the Eastern churches (led by Cerularius) and the Western churches (led by Pope Leo IX) of which you are referring. I’m not arguing that. However, “Great Schism” and “Catholic” as you structured it is vague and confusing to the laymen or ignorant about the actual roots of earliest Christianity (The Way) as well as other significant extenuating factors leading up to the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and the birth of the East/West churches. To me, none of this can be ignored. I feel you need to back way up your calendar with regard to “schisms.”

        Second, you state…

        The actions of Emperor Constantine show that Christianity had risen from a gutter Palestinian mystery cult to coin of realm in the entire Roman Empire.

        That is a statement of opinion. I would not summarize the historical events after the crucifixion up to the First Council of Nicaea that way at all. I doubt many Antiquity scholars would sum it up that way either because it would just be gross oversimplification. Reference Dr. Bruce Metzger, Dr. Demetrios Constantelos, Dr. Robert Eisenman, Dr. David Freedman, especially Dr. David Graf, Professor of Ancient History & Roman Near East History at the University of Michigan… then Dr. Bart Ehrman, and Dr. David Marcus, Professor of Bible and Masorahat at The Jewish Theological Seminary in NYC specializing in Babylonian Aramaic and biblical Hebrew as well as history of the Ancient Near East. These are only 7 out of many experts on the historical centuries and millenia here in question. I will also toss in my personal writings on the origins of Christianity and the eventual churches

        Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ
        http://wp.me/p1uLmp-3u

        The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus
        http://wp.me/p1uLmp-cR

        Origins and Orthodoxy
        http://wp.me/p1uLmp-4EO

        Correcting the Gospels of Jesus
        http://wp.me/p1uLmp-Uh

        Third, you state…

        This is evidence that supports the claim that Western Civilization is proof of the existence of Jesus.

        Will you spell out in (extensive) detail how you support that postulation? At first glance it appears as a null-hypothesis, but I’ll let you explain in much more detail.

        Stopping there because just your first three paragraphs are loaded with unsubstantiated presuppositions and at the moment there’s no need to address your remaining comments and their content.

  2. One might notice that the word, Christ, forms the root of the word, Christianity.

    Since the Christ is question is Jesus, it follows logically that Christianity is the religion based on the teachings of Jesus.

    Since all civilizations in human history grew up around religion, it follows that Western Civilization grew up around Christianity.

    It also follows that since Christianity is the religion based on the teachings of Jesus, Western Civilization is prove of the existence of Jesus.

    The names of towns known by certain colleagues (blithering incompetents apparently) is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand since history is a time and space continuum.

    Therefore, stunts like fishing Emperor Constantine, late Antiquity and the Christian Middle Ages out of time and space and declaring them disconnected to Western Civilization are simply proofs of raw, ingrained, willful ignorance.

    Such a display is disgraceful and shameful.

  3. I have learned that the “opposition” in an argument can be more trouble than they are worth. They make wild, unsupported claims and then we spend many hours debunking nonsense. The unfortunate thing is so many ordinary folks accept the new nonsense because it aligns with nonsense they already believe.

    On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Allallt in discussion wrote:

    > Allallt posted: “Whether or not Jesus Christ existed is not that important > a claim. After all, Muslims believe a historical character called Jesus > existed, as do the Jews. Evidence that Jesus existed is not important, and > without evidence of miracle it doesn’t begin to su” >

    1. Great points Steve, particularly your quote of Allallt. Thank you Sir.

      I am still going to post my initial reply to SoM for the sake of other readers unfamiliar with this and related subjects. Nonetheless, you are absolutely correct that for much of the time and effort spent it is a waste of time for us and the antagonist(s). LOL 😉

  4. Was rather interested in SoM’s response to my last comment about “schisms” and “Great” and how he came up with the notion that any of Western Civilization is more (or any) evidence of Jesus Christ than the endorsements, infrastructure, or wide imperial reach of the Roman Empire. Let’s throw in there the Greek Empire and culture as well since it is widely embraced by scholars as the cradle of Western democracies and civilizations.

    I guess we’ll have to “wait” indefinitely. :/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s