Knowledge and Scorn

But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don’t happen to know it.
– Mark Twain (Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc)

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.  And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
– Paul (I Corinthians 8:1-2)

About Jon Gleason

Former Pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes
This entry was posted in Daily Christianity, Quick Thoughts and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Knowledge and Scorn

  1. Ian Gudger says:

    Love this. Thank you.

  2. Deepti Channaiah says:

    Love these quotes!

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Mark Twain sometimes scoffed at Christians, but sometimes he showed a lot of insight into how sin has affected human nature, and I thought on this point his thoughts paralleled the Scriptural teaching quite well.

  3. Deepti Channaiah says:

    Yeah! Thanks for sharing.

    There are many who mock believers. But whatever be their worldview, they don’t give the “ultimate authority” (which we believe to be God) much importance. If knowledge is so important, then why not understand the roots of an ideology that has impacted people in so many ways? We use AD and BC that just shows how important Christianity is! Not many are interested in the “Roots of a ideology/belief system” or the fact that it is credible. Everyone, including some believers look at convenience; however, the degrees of it varies. With so much chaos, I’d rather put my faith in the Bible as opposed to some vague idea. As scripture says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.”, I concur.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      Romans 1:28 — they don’t like to retain God in their knowledge. That is why they are not interested. And yet, we are sent, to both live and proclaim the Gospel.

    • Truthly_yours says:

      People have gone to the roots of the ideology, only to find that none existed. This is the age of reason not fairy tales. There is absolute no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ. Most of the Bible is plagiarized from middle eastern pagan religions. Historical records clearly show that the town of Nazareth was established in the 3rd AD, therefore the claim of Jesus being a Nazarene has been proved false. None of the scholars who lived in that time ever heard of him. Nor did historical studies found any evidence. And AD and BC usage is an old habit when people actually thought Jesus existed and a started this chronological convention. It is hard to digest the truth, but people who speak the truth are not mockers, but people who have removed the veil from their eyes.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ:
        1. Written eyewitness reports of people who lived at the same time.
        2. Multiple correlations with Roman and Jewish records showing that the writers of the Gospels and Acts were extremely knowledgeable of many minute details of the first century, things that later writers wouldn’t have been likely to know (Gallio’s time in Corinth, name of Pontius Pilate, titles of various Roman officials, Gamaliel, Caiaphas, Sadducees, etc, etc). Whatever one may think of the faith content of the Gospel accounts, there is so much evidence that their origins are in the first century that no reasonable person could deny it. Thus, they become compelling evidence of His existence.
        3. Clear spread of the religion throughout the Roman empire by the early second century.
        4. Non-Christian historians from the first/very early second century referred to Him (Tacitus and Josephus, though the Josephus citation is questioned by some).
        5. Bart Ehrman, who is NOT a Christian, said, “He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.”

        Your information on Nazareth is outdated. At best, you had an argument from silence, anyway, which is extremely weak anyway, especially for history from two millenia ago, especially in dealing with an unimportant little village, as Nazareth is described in the New Testament.

        Your argument is so weak that one is left wondering, why is it so important to deny the existence of someone who obviously existed, that people would make up stuff like this?

        By the way, AD / BC usage is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus existed and whether the Biblical accounts are true.

  4. Megan says:

    @Jon Gleason Every single point you put here is wrong.

    1. Where is the eyewitness reports of people who lived at the same time? Documented evidence is needed. Where is it housed right now?
    2.Name the records and where is it housed. As far i know none exists, except in writings of delusional people like you.
    3. Both Islam and Xianity were spread aggressively onto unsuspecting population by vested interests. And the spread of a cult is no proof of its veracity.
    4. Tacitus was born much after this so called ‘Jesus’s’ death. Then how could he be an eyewitness? And nor was his writings proved.
    5. Whats the point of “saying” someone existed. What we need is cold hard proof. So far the proof points to the fact that “Jesus” never existed and the Bible was written by Bible writers hired to spin the yarn. Besides Bart wrote on a subject that was sure to sell his book. But no one is buying :-p

    Sorry dude, you need to come with more information to the debate table. Jesus is a myth.

    • Megan says:

      I forgot to add: lets say “jesus” existed for arguments sake. Some scholars believe that an ordinary person called “jesus” may have existed. and Bible writers spun a character out of that claiming he was son of god etc. And even if he existed, he was just another con artist whom the Romans killed. There was no technology in those days and many con artists and pseudo claims were believed by people. But today as you see, science has is refuting all previous claims by religions and atheism is the fastest growing movement in the world. It has begun in Islamic countries too, prompting Saudi Arabai to label atheists as terrorists! The movement of freedom from religion has begun…. and no one can stop that.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      1. Housed in Matthew, Mark, and John. Luke said he had spoken to eyewitnesses and was recording what they said.
      2. A) Acts 18 mentions Gallio in Corinth, Roman records put him there in AD 51-52. B) Same chapter mentions Claudius banning the Jews from Rome, Suetonius and Cassius Deo mention the same thing. C) Caiaphas (and Annas) are mentioned in the Gospel accounts and also appear in Josephus and apparently in the Talmud. D) The Gospels clearly name the Sadducees and some of their distinctive beliefs. Both Josephus and the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) mention them and those beliefs. The Sadducees ceased to exist after 70 AD, so no one would have really known about them after that time — those who did know about them would have to be contemporaries. E) The Pilate Stone is an inscription from 36 AD naming Pontius Pilate as the prefect of Judah. The Gospel writers got this right, too.
      3. Islam spread by use of violence and force. Christianity spread despite oppression and persecution. No comparison. People became Christians in the face of persecution because they believed it, not because an army was forcing it on them. People near the time believed the witnesses who told what they had seen.
      4. I didn’t say Tacitus was an eyewitness. I said exactly when he wrote. He was a historian born 20 years after Jesus’ death. He believed Jesus existed. You, 2000 years later, somehow think you have proof Jesus didn’t exist? You defy logic.

      You say the proof points to the fact that Jesus never existed. You have no proof. You could tell me that someone named Magio Magoo existed 2000 years ago and I couldn’t possibly prove he didn’t. It’s an absurd assertion to say you can prove someone 2000 years ago didn’t exist. It shows you don’t understand proof, logic, or history.

      I guess you’ll say that Socrates didn’t exist, didn’t drink poison, didn’t teach. The story of Socrates is all an invention to push his philosophy on others, written by hired hands, right?

      Because there is far more historical evidence of Jesus and His death than there is of Socrates and his. Far more evidence of Jesus’ teachings.

      The earliest manuscript evidence we have of Plato’s writings is a couple papyrii some 500 years after he wrote. For the vast majority of his writings, we have to wait until 1200 years later, 1200 years after Socrates lived, if he did.

      Meanwhile, we have a papyrus manuscript of John’s Gospel from the first half of the second century, 100 years after the death of Jesus. We have multiple manuscripts from less than 200 years after Jesus died, even as persecution was ramping up.

      So, for which is there more historical evidence, the life, death, and teachings of Socrates, or the life, death, and teachings of Jesus? The answer is obvious. Yet, no one questions the existence of Socrates, because no one has an obvious agenda to do so.

      But you think you know a thing, and you only have scorn for those who think otherwise. Too bad. We’re right back to the quotes in the original post.

      • truthly_yours says:

        It is no point arguing with people desperate to believe. Talk to a historian as to how ‘proof of existence’ of a person is collected. It is a meticulous recorded process. Get knowledgeable on the same and then lets talk. Right now it is no point talking to you as you are desperately clutching at straws! And the proof’s you have given above have all been rejected due to lack of evidence.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        “So far the proof points to the fact that ‘Jesus’ never existed.” When you make claims like that, the burden of proof is on you.

        You said, “There is absolutely no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.” I’ve given abundant evidence that the writers of Acts and the Gospels had knowledge of the first century that later writers wouldn’t have had. They were contemporaries of Jesus and claimed to be eyewitnesses. I’ve cited testimony of contemporary historians. Etc.

        You have no substantive response to any of this, you just resort to ad hominem. You refute none of the evidence I’ve given. You call them proofs, which they are not, but they are evidence. You’ve already told your agenda — freedom from religion.

        But you show the absolute folly of it by claiming that science is refuting all claims of religion. Christianity’s claims, of course, are primarily spiritual and historical. Science by definition cannot refute either. Science can’t prove or disprove the existence or actions of Alexander the Great, Socrates, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Henry VIII, Cromwell, or even Hitler. All science can do is shed light on the veracity of some of the historical evidence. And science, by its very definition, cannot begin to evaluate spiritual matters.

        Your underlying assumption, in claiming that science can refute religion, is that science is an appropriate tool by which to evaluate religion. That is merely an assumption, and on its face a ridiculous one. That assumption cannot be proven or tested scientifically or historically or any other way. You are simply taking it on faith that science is able to do this. You’ve substituted faith in science for faith in God. Your system is as faith-based as mine, but at least I recognise and acknowledge it.

Comments welcome! (but please check the comment policy)

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s