Those who Remember write history
It is said that the winners write history. But, who are the winners? Some would say that Genghis Kahn and Alexander the Great were prime examples of winners. But, in fact, those two men were losers. And so is everyone who, no matter how great or small in their own time, seek the worldly things which those two men sought.
But, a worldly frame of mind finds a certain thing about Christianity disagreeable: Christianity claims to be the true winner in the world, yet its namesake is so unimportant in secular historical record.
The fact is, Genghis Kahn and Alexander the Great are widely recorded by their secular and religious contemporaries alike. Compare that to, Jesus of Nazareth, who is all-but-unnoted in the general historical literature.
Of course, those two worldly world-conquerors had very important things to attend to in worldly terms. In fact, they so attended to things as to make all people, no matter what they valued, take deep notice. One could even be killed for insubordination if one failed to take the kinds of practical notice which these two men required of those they conquered.
But, in noting the disparity between the record of such world-conquerors as Kahn and Alexander and that of Jesus, the skeptics of Christianity claim that either Jesus cannot have been a genuinely important historical figure, or cannot actually have existed. If he really existed as the powerful revolutionary whom the Christian Bible paints him to have been, then why do the only non-religious texts that mention him at all do so without according him anywhere near the degree of importance accorded these two other men?
Why, these skeptics ask, could the bulk of secular historians at and around the time of Jesus’ life have so failed to note even his existence, if he really was the revolutionary figure that the Christian Bible seems to paint him to be?
The answer is that Jesus was not revolutionary in the way that would have struck the typical secular person as being worth more than a very minor note. In fact, this is exactly the case of the typical secular person of today who also has had little exposure to Christianity. For example, the Chinese Communist regime takes note of Jesus Christ at all only because that regime finds Christianity to be a nuisance. And, within the worldly view of that regime, the Christianity that does exist in China often is counted as only a minor nuisance. This is, in fact, the view which the Bible records Caesar as having had of Jesus: a good man of no consequence in the world.
That Caesar couldn’t have cared less who Jesus was, either to the unbelieving Jews or to the believing. As far as Caesar was concerned, this man Jesus was, at best, just a good man, with no genuine power. In fact, had Caesar had access to the technological prowess of the modern West, as the Chinese Communist regime now has, then this man Jesus would have seemed to him even less important than Jesus had already seemed to him. The greater the technological and political power available, the more insignificant seems any man who wields no such power.
All this underlines one thing: the full range and depth of worldly benefits, once realized, for observing the humble sacred Truths seem always to eclipse those Truths. This is how powerful the Truth is. This also is how humble the Truth is; how all-but-invisible, insensible.
So, the ultimate revolution always is seen by worldly minds as the epitome of the pathetic. Come down from the cross, mocked the poverty-stricken worldly man, if you really are who they say you are. Caesar didn’t mock, but not because Caesar was not worldly; for, Caesar was as worldly as that worldly beggar.
Then, when Jesus rose from the dead, all worldly men could only accuse his believers of perpetrating a hoax. If Jesus really did raise from the dead, they say, then why didn’t he at least go show himself to Caesar? The answer to such proud skepticism is that even Jesus knew that the more pride-fully worldly a group of men are, the more determined they are to remain so, no matter the evidence, and no matter the argument used to verify the historicity of that evidence.
Indeed, what could Caesar, like the mocking worldly beggar, have cared that some man who looked a lot like that other man would claim to be raised from the dead? So many men look so much alike, and this man expects me to believe he is the good man I allowed to be crucified? Get this crazy man out of my sight; I have much more important things to attend to.