Is Christianity really a white man’s religion? Was it cooked up? If yes, why didn’t Jesus come from the ancient Celtic world or maybe the world of Anglo Saxons? Why didn’t he come from Rome or other parts of Europe? Why didn’t the white men make themselves look great by presenting a Jesus that was Roman or Greek? Or maybe, do we think that the Jewish tradition was the best fit for the Jesus narrative and they decided to capitalize on it?
Who is actually manipulating the world with Christianity? Is it the ‘Western World’ who indeed had no physical connection with Jesus? Doesn’t this Jesus narrative, in fact, make the Jews the superior figures?
Or is it the Jews who hated Jesus for claiming equality with God, for working on Sabbath, for being a friend of sinners, for turning the law upside down and for being the confidant of sinful and ‘less important’ women?
As much as we know, Christianity wasn’t the “white man’s” religion. The ancient cities of Greece, Rome, Egypt and so on practices paganism to the core, it was like a heritage, something they were supposed to pride in. How then did Christianity suddenly spread in the manner it did? It started with the Son of a Carpenter who in no way used the word “Christian”, it was a vision caught up by his disciples who became Apostles and then Kings, Emperors, Missionaries and many more people took it up! Today, Christianity is the world’s largest faith and number is growing.
It is okay to say you don’t believe in Jesus, but to say that Jesus is a myth and never existed is a result of unwillingness to study, it is a very lazy approach to this debate and it is an indication that you actually don’t care if he existed, you simply wish he doesn’t.
Whether you are reading from the Jews, the Romans, the Greeks or even the Arabians, the subject of the person of Jesus is one that you cannot dismiss. While they may not have necessarily intended doing a wholesome project about Jesus, one way or another, Jesus finds a way in all their writings.
We may not have archaeological evidence but we have documented evidence and these documents have passed every forensic examination that clearly points to those days in history.
You don’t have to read the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to believe that Jesus walked on this earth, you don’t have to read materials written by early Christians which must have come with some sort of biases making it less substantial as a place of reliance for historical research.
The writings of ancient historians who weren’t Christians or even Jews can be a place to start from. Let’s look at the writings of Flavius Josephus whose writings dates as far back as 93AD.
In his “Testimonium Flavianum”, he described Christus as a man “who did surprising deeds” and was condemned to be crucified by Pilate. Whatever this surprising deed was, it wasn’t mentioned but from what we see in the Bible, we can attest that Jesus was indeed a man who was full of surprising deeds, such that no person in history has been able to match or surpass.
Josephus isn’t an unknown person, he was an aristocrat and a military leader in the Palestine world who is recorded to have served as a commander in Galilee between 66 and 70AD. He isn’t a follower of Jesus which makes his Jewish Antiquities a good place to look when looking for historical truths without bias.
Another nice place to look is the writings of Cornelius Tacitus who had written around 116AD. Tacitus was a Roman Senator and also a historian. Tacitus wasn’t a Christian and to make it worse, he was just like every other prominent Roman who had disdain for Christianity and it’s faithful.
In his writing “Annals of Imperial Rome” where he documented Emperor Nero’s ill treatment of Christians, he noted “the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” This agrees wholesomely with the Bible account of the execution of Jesus.
Tacitus is known for something; whenever he writes what he isn’t sure of, he indicates with some notes but in the entire passage where he wrote about “Christus” no such indication was made.
There are several other Roman writings that featured short notes on Jesus. These writings were in no way written for or against Christians, it had no business with Christianity but somehow ‘Christus’ was mentioned and those who “sing hymns to Christ as to a god” were mentioned.
So many evidence also shows that the Romans practised crucifixion as a punishment for slaves, rebels and revolutionaries until Emperor Constantine banned it in the fourth century AD. Jesus existed, crucifixion existed and the death of Jesus was documented while we know from the Bible records that his resurrection was refuted by those who wished it was not true, not necessarily because it was not true! The remains of Jesus couldn’t be found because of course, he resurrected! Should we be looking for archaeological evidence of Jesus when indeed we are told he didn’t remain dead?
Even Jewish historians and Rabbis who didn’t like Jesus couldn’t deny the fact that he existed, was well known and had a following which became massive. They may have put it this way “Jesus is a deceiver who claimed equality with God, who was killed as a revolutionary, whose disciples claimed resurrected…” As much as they disagree, it points to one thing, Jesus existed and here we all agree.