Last week, in two places on the net that I frequent, there was discussion on the reality of an historical Jesus. There were some who felt that the current archaeological evidence, indeed, pointed to a living Jesus, while others felt any evidence was peripheral and not concrete. I tend to fall on the ‘not enough evidence’ side of the fence.

Father Jordan made many good points to support a lack of archaeological evidence, however, the one that made the most sense to me didn’t refer to any particular piece of archaeological evidence at all. He said that if, indeed, there was substanciated evidence supporting an historical Jesus, the news itself would be bigger than the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi put together. Indeed. The world would be a very different place if that sort of archaeological evidence were a reality.

With that established, there is a natural progression of thought — Does the current state of archaeological evidence in support of an historical Jesus make His message any less important? Absolutely not. Does Christianity’s relevence hinge on the reality of His historical existance? No. Should it? Again, absolutely not.

With the gospels being written close to 80 years after the reported ressurection of Jesus, it seems that even at the inception of Christianity, there wasn’t a need for tangible proof of Jesus’ historical existance. The stories, and the ideas and lessons behind them, have taken on a life of their own.  He lives.  He breathes, and He most certainly rightfully claims a seat as an aspect of the Pleroma.