Having Faith In History

LAST SUNDAY I attended the small town country Presbyterian church in the dell, along with a total of eleven other people in the building, minister included.The offer of a free ride, the beautiful scenery along this coming Sunday my ntent is to go to the Uniterian Universalist Fellowship, which is my true spiritual home, to the extent that I have one among people.No mattter where I go am am a pantheist,a religiosity which to me seems highly compatible with nearly all other forms of worship. Pantheism is more about admiration, which I prefer to worship. Either way, I cannt lose. the Presbyterians are all friends of mine, they tend towards political liberalism, and the Unitarians are a bunch of egg headed intellectual types, my types, retired professors, graduate students,and the like. I definitely belong there. Their willingness to include any and all forms of religiosity in their system of belief I find extrmely refreshing,intellectually stimulating, a better to approcah religion, a better way to approach the universe and its creator, than mere faith based dogma based upon ancient writings expousing primitive values. Since people of any personal ideology, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, or whichever, are welcome and their religiosities included within the UU worship community,the more the merrier, the more the better.I have attended at least a couple dozen UU services,and haven't heard the name "Jesus" mentioned once, by anyone. And yet, no problem, at least, not with me I am completely, totally, one hundred percent certain that everyone who walks into the UN chapel, or ever has, loves Jesus dearly,loves God equally dearly. I know I do. As for the historical, factual reality of Jess, go read or talk to Bart Ehrman, or anyone of your choosing. Nobody knows for sure whether Joshua ben Joseph actually existed, because there simply are no primary source, direct contact documents or documentation of any sort, attesting to the actual existence of Jesus, like are are, for, say, Abraham Lincoln, et al. The backbone of the historical profession is primary source material, which is nothing other than documents or objects written by or produced by participants in or direct observers of historical events. It is probably safe to assume that most if not nearly all scholars who achieve advanced degrees early Christian history will acknowledge that there is no good evidence, no definitve evidence, of the historical reality of Jesus Christ for whatever, neither he nor any of his thosuands of followers,the people who knew him or saw him or hear him speak, wrote it down. That might strike one as unfortunate at best,tragic and stupid at worst. The Son of God, having come into this world to save humanity, either being illiterate or unconcerned with written documentation of his life, might strike one as strange. Someone makng an extraordinary claim, seemingly quite capable proving proof of this claiem, but choosing not to do so. Why, when establishing a new institution, the most important institution in history, choose to document the event so poorly? It is almost as if Jesus's intention was to sow doubt along with faith, and to make it as difficult as possible for his new procaimed faith to take root and spread. Nothing can boost a new religion than a few well witnessed miracles, and good, verified documentation. The only form of religion which adheres assiduously to the principle of providing proof of all claims of fact is, in point of fact, science, which may or may not be a "religion", depending on one's point of view.