The atheists often aim their muzzles at the historicity of Christ, claiming that the man upon whom an entire order was built had never existed; that he was merely a puppet of the poet’s pen. The proponents, the believers, then take upon themselves the task to defend their messiah. “There are libraries of work on the subject of Christ and the traditions of the church have existed for centuries. This must surely mean something.” Indeed, it does mean something; but it will be fallacious to use it as evidence for the existence of Christ. The atheists, on the other hand, employing the argument of insufficient evidence, cannot disprove the existence of Christ either. It is a strategy equally fallacious. Thus rages a battle that will afford neither side a victory.
Might it then be more proper and more worthy of the atheists’ time to shift their sights onto the character of Christ and that esteem title with which he has been credited? Surely that would breed a more enlightening and ‘upbuilding’ discourse, instead of this pointless bickering over what lies hidden beneath the thick earth of history.