|
|
|
|
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/3/2008 8:00:30 AM | the question has been asked for about two thousand years.
Did the Jesus of the Gospels even exist? Well for those who know, they will believe, and those who don't know will never believe. For those who don't know, the Gospel of Matthew was written first. Shortly after Jesus ascended to Heaven, and long before Paul's letters.
I was just wandering who this muhammad is? Is that the great boxer, Ali? | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/3/2008 9:24:41 AM |
For those who don't know, the Gospel of Matthew was written first. Shortly after Jesus ascended to Heaven, and long before Paul's letters.
Most scholarly opinion has Mark being the first Gospel to be written, sometime around 55AD, with Matthew and Luke derived from Mark around 60AD. That's at about the same time that many of Paul's letters are thougt to have been written.
Well for those who know, they will believe, and those who don't know will never believe.
I don't buy this. If you could present solid evidence that the Jesus of the Bible was historically accurate, I would believe.
I believe something to be true because there is evidence to that effect. In contrast, many religious people assume something to be true because they believe it and they ignore evidence which might put their world view, a source of comfort in an unstable universe, into question.
This need for stability leads people to believe things which seem absurd to outsiders. Take the Hindu faith, for example. Does it not seem ridiculous that hundreds of millions of people worship a god with an elephant head and four arms? They do. This god is known as Ganesh.
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/3/2008 10:44:40 AM | I'm sure if Jesus Christ appeared to you right now, then you would believe Red. No one else would believe, because they didn't see him. Then where would your proof be? Other's would want their own proof too. It's not physical proof you need, because you will never get that in time. What you need is faith.
Not sure what scholars opinion you heard, but I learned Matthew's Gospel was much earlier. Paul's letter's are much later since he didn't start his ministry until much later. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/4/2008 2:41:29 AM |
Unfortunately non-Christians have been suckered into believing this. These alleged parallels simply don't exist.
I wouldn't call them all parallels,that would be inaccurate.However,there are very close similarities that shouldn't be ignored.Dionysus/Bacchus DID turn water into wine,the dream scene in the gospels where Mary dreams of giving birth to a God/child is found in hieroglyphs on a wall in the Temple of Luxor.The old story of the three wise men is at least 2000 years older than the myth of Christ.The three wise men are three stars in the constellation of Orion,they follow the star,Sirius,that appears right above the "new born king",which is the rising sun.No,the gospel fable isn't a copy of older myth,it's a myth that stems from the same source (belief in a solar deity) and thus it is a composite of many myths.The site Pagan Origins of Christian Myth clears up alot of the confusion. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:52:29 AM |
It's not physical proof you need, because you will never get that in time. What you need is faith.
So what do I put my faith in if there is no proof of this religion and no proof of that religion? Should I believe in Ganesh, the elephant god of Hinduism? There is no physical proof that the multi-armed god with an elephant head existed either.
If I limit my search to religions that are mainstream here in North America, which one should I put my faith in when there is little evidence that any of them are true? | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:58:16 AM |
"Josephus offers information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. His writings provide a significant, extra-biblical account of the post-exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus. He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity)."
There's at least partial contemporary evidence.
Christians like to quote Josephus, but what they don't say is that portion where Josephus supposedly claims that Jesus was the Christ has been shown to be a forgery over and over again through the ages.
Without that, all you have is a guy named Yeshua who lived in the first century in what we now call Israel. That was a common name. It's like saying there is someone named
Bob Smith in the USA. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/4/2008 3:05:23 PM | I have only seen the trailers that are available on YouTube and the owner's website. Everything I have seen makes Christians look foolish if not downright fanatical. That's fine if that is the purpose of the movie. However, if the purpose of the movie is to prove that Jesus never existed, I don't believe that it achieves its goals.
I don't believe the maker of this film, Mr. Flemming, understands the nature of proof. His so-called experts are nothing of the sort in my opinion. What possible expert opinion can Richard Dawkins, a biologist, render about whether or not Jesus lived in ancient Judea? The same goes for Barbara and David P. Mikelson, the authors of the Urban Legends page at snopes.com. How does lampooning Mel Giblson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" (which I have not seen) reinforce Mr. Flemming's case that Jesus never existed?
I believe that only a fool underestimates his foe. A wise man prepares for battle by overestimating his foe and then being ready to defeat a strong enemy. By treating Christianity with such contempt, Mr. Flemming has failed to make a convincing case at all.
This is the same man who started the blasphemy challenge where kids can commit the "unpardonable sin" by saying the five-word phrase, "I deny the Holy Spirit" and posting it on YouTube. As I said repeatedly on this forum, that five-word phrase is NOT the unpardonable sin. Mr. Flemming couldn't get the blasphemy challenge right, and he hasn't got this movie right! I hope he has a large liability policy because I believe he will be sued for the blasphemy challenge when some of those CHILDREN come to faith and sue him for intentional infliction of emotional distress when they believe that they are lost. There goes the profits from the movie!
Strike two for Brian Flemming! One more and he is out! | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/4/2008 3:46:01 PM | And Can It Be,
Dawkins, for the record, is not just a biologist. He went on to get a doctorate in philosophy at Oxford. Most on this board aren't qualified to clean the toilets at Oxford. He has researched and written on many subjects over his long and prolific career.
As for the unpardonable sin, you seem to be under the impression that your opinion is the final word. The interpretation you disparage is held by some Christians and it seems rooted in the clear teachings of the New Testament:
From Mark 3:22-30, NKJV
"And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, 'He has Beelzebub,' and, 'By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.' …'Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;' because they said, 'He has an unclean spirit'"
In Matthew 12:31-32:
"Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come"
Now, some will prefer this or that translation. Fair enough. I don't read Aramic, Hebrew or Greek, so I can't go back to the original text. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/6/2008 4:59:34 AM | Sorry guys ive been to busy with work to write. I have been keeping abreast of the debate though.
To answer Evo. You have focused your criticism soley on the reliability of the gospels. There is not alot i can say to this if you simply refuse to accept what are generally regarded as established facts. There are few biographic works of antiquity that are written so close to the event as the 4 gospels. General consensus would put the composition of Mark at 55-70c.e most scholars would place the crucifixion around 30c.e (whilst for reasons i wont get into here, i feel it may be 37c.e) this puts the composition well within the lifetime of those who had personaly known Jesus. This is contemporary! The Gospels could hardly have been written before Jesus was crucified could they?!? We live in the world of the printing press and modern mass media you cannot criticise any document of antient history using these criteria. I dont think i will comment further on this.
With regard to the archeology, maybe its jsut me but i wouldnt have thought, defying gravity, walking on water, and bringing the dead back to life wouldnt really leave an archeological imprint. But hey what would i know.
Moving swiftly on to the Josephus debate i have a few interesting things to add.
The passage reads:
'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was (the) Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.'
If i recall the relibility of his testimony was brought up. I'm gona cast my vote in favour, with a priviso- firstly Josephus makes 2 mention of Jesus, the other in conjunction with James in which he makes the contry statment that some beleive he the was messiah. This is important because it shows that Josephus does know Jesus (and was therfore real), secondly it shows some belived him to be the Messiah and thirdly it doesnt appear to have been tampered with as it contradicts the second reference in which he states 'he WAS the christ' which is obviously not Josephus. This passage is therfore not generally disputed.
So Josephus DOES know of Jesus therfore, and so it is not entirly improbably that he would mention him again, josephus scholars have noted how this passage does read like josephus and doesnt intrude into the narritive. The first generation of scholars who looked at this critically noted how since Josephus was not a christian the fact he says Jesus WAS the christ proves thast the passage was false. This theory is no longer widley held. The current theory goes...this passage reads like Josephus...because it IS Josephus, the reason for the anomolys is indeed due to christian interpolation (probably an overzelous copyist wishing to give jesus his 'correct' position) but the important thing is is, for it to read like Josephus the passages cann't have been substantially altered, the 'if it be lawful to call him a man' probly didnt exist. And were he says 'he was the christ' he probly followed his earlier writting saying 'some believed him to be the christ'. But this is important, these are ammendments, they are not falsified narritives! Were he says 'he appeared' it most likly would read 'they belived he appeared', so we still have an external testimony to the antiquity of the ressurection doctrine. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/6/2008 7:16:52 AM |
this puts the composition well within the lifetime of those who had personaly known Jesus. This is contemporary! The Gospels could hardly have been written before Jesus was crucified could they?!? We live in the world of the printing press and modern mass media you cannot criticise any document of antient history using these criteria. I dont think i will comment further on this.
With regard to the archeology, maybe its jsut me but i wouldnt have thought, defying gravity, walking on water, and bringing the dead back to life wouldnt really leave an archeological imprint. Whether they knew him or not, if someone wrote a few stories about the life of a guy who died more than 20 years ago, say ... in 1985, from their memory alone - I'd be inclined to view much of it as a work of fiction. Especially if the stories told that the guy was 'defying gravity, walking on water and bringing the dead back to life' and performing other unverifiable and unconventional acts, and these acts were not being widely reported and recorded at the time. If the writer claimed it all to be unquestionably true, I would have to vociferously question his motives.
I hope he has a large liability policy because I believe he will be sued for the blasphemy challenge when some of those CHILDREN come to faith and sue him for intentional infliction of emotional distress when they believe that they are lost. There goes the profits from the movie! If any court heard such cases, methinks they would have to also hear cases brought forth by children who were raised in deeply religious environments and suffer emotional distress as they grow to discover their own truths and watch their parents' prophets disappear. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/6/2008 8:37:27 AM |
RedTory said: Christians like to quote Josephus, but what they don't say is that portion where Josephus supposedly claims that Jesus was the Christ has been shown to be a forgery over and over again through the ages.
Yet another claim without reference or evidence! There is no consensus among scholars of writings of antiquity or Josephus experts that the disputed passages in Josephus are forgeries, certainly not one that anyone could claim has been stated "over and over again throughout the ages".
Here's the first passage:
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. Antiquities 20.9.1.
The greatest dispute surrounding this passage is whether the phrase, "the so-called Christ" is an interpolation. The phrase (and the larger passage) is found in every single copy of Antiquities. True, that doesn't prove the interpolation wasn't included in the copies these copies were based on, but that' s a stretch IMHO, and it falls to those who claim it is a forgery to prove it is a forgery not for others to prove it isn't. However, even without the phrase, Josephus attests to the existence of a "Jesus" whose brother was called "James", and that this "James" was executed by stoning. This parallels the account of James' death in Acts.
Here's the second passage:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. Prior to 1971, more modern scholars believed the whole passage to be a forgery than not, though much of that belief was based on the conclusion that the text didn't sound "Jewish" and did sound "too Christan", quite subjective conclusions IMHO.
Since 1971, when Shlomo Pines published citations from 9-10C Arabic and Syriac works, identical except for the phrases "if indeed he can be called a man" and "he was the Messiah" (thus not bolded above), many scholars accept that the passage is authentic and those two phrases are later inserts. Some scholars believe that the passage is authentic including the two phrases.
With the advent of computers, a concordance of all of Josephus' works is compiled by Rengstorf in late 70s to early 80s. Using this concordance several scholars conclude that the whole passage is not Josephus. In 1995 Goldberg uses the concordance and a computer database of all known Jewish, Aramaic, and Greek publications of the first century and discovers that key phrases in the passage are identical to phrases in Luke's Gospel and Acts, especially the Emmaus narrative in Luke, phrases that appear to be taken from a Christian document long lost. If one takes this common document as a source Josephus used and the passage as mostly a direct quote, then the issue of it sounding "more Christian than Jewish" is resolved. One would expect that to be the case. Further, if the whole passage was a forgery, why would the forger create a Lucan style, obviously Christian, forgery?
It makes much more sense that the passage (without the two disputed phrases) is authentic and a direct copy or paraphrase by Josephus of an existing Christian, probably apologetic, source. That is, Josephus isn't saying he believed these things about Jesus, but simply stating that some people did. Thus, he supports the existence of the historical Jesus, not the beliefs about Jesus.
It should also be noted that Josephus references historical events and persons that are also referenced in the New Testament, such references are not disputed. I believe this lends support that the New Testament passages are historically accurate. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/6/2008 4:03:06 PM |
Yet another claim without reference or evidence!
I assumed you had a basic knowledge. That was a mistake.
I gave you references for a previous post even though you should be able to research this for yourself.
On the topic of whether or not Josephus is partially a forgery:
1) Flavius Josephus Studien, Robert Eisler
2) Jewish Antiquities, Louis Feldman
3) Lost and Hostile Gospels, Rev. S. Baring-Gould | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/7/2008 6:18:34 PM |
I assumed you had a basic knowledge. That was a mistake.
Yes it was. I had more than basic knowledge. And unlike yours, it's based on evidence (see above). Anyway, refute the evidence if you want to. It's independent of whether you think I have sufficient knowledge to understand your stream of bogus claims or not.  | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:54:03 PM | I think Artfull makes a good point here. The issue with the gospels is not with when they were written, the problem is what they say. Whilst i stand by what i said when i mentioned that when the gospels can be historically tested, they do tend to prove accurate, the fact that they propound clear violations of the laws of physics makes them hard to accept. This is an impass, if one has a prior belif in God then sure this doesnt present to much of a problem... but i accept asking a sceptic to belive in god so that you can show proof of god's existance simply doesnt work...
The problem is 20 years is still well within the living lifespan of witness's. Christinaity grows (on a literal ) basis precisly becasue so many people believed they had seen these events. I was going to mention Pines' work with regard to criticism of josephus which is also good evidence but it appears i was beaten to it.
We might add that there is a strong argument from silence related to this. early christians were dispised by Rome and Jews alike if Jesus did not exist why did neither bother pointing this out? This is especially true of the Jews who must have KNOWN whether Jesus existed or not. Instead however they confirm his existance:
'On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward ad plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!'
This comes from the earliest period of the talmud the tannaitic period. And it shows a number of important things, in accordence with the gospels dispite refuting there claims. Yeshu (jesus in aramaic...and yes i can read aramaic w/ regard to a countibl earlier post) was to be killed in the same time frame the gospels indicate. That his enemies accused him of sorcery is indicated in the gospels and aludes of course to miricles. Whilst the accusation of apostacy of course indicative his following and mssianic claims. Why would the jews not take this oppertunity to point out jesus was a mythical compolation ? | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/13/2008 1:51:13 AM | | because even at the earliest period people were convinced of the partial belief fallacy approach to historical fiction in a time of short life spans and no reliable records and when miracles were more acceptable. A group of musical " Cento" plays (see Notes Nelson Study Bible; that the gospel were sung: probably accompanied by an air organ see "Ancient Inventions")- a "Cento" is the Roman equivilant of the Movie National Treasure where the clues are drawn from words letters and symbols from primary source's that are then given a double meaning i.e. the three days and and nights jonah is in the whale is suddenly a"prophesy" even though nothing in the book of jonah says this is a prophesy. Later Christians themselves were to twist the roman poet virgl in a popular Cento to make his poetry seem to speak of the birth of the Christ child (the wikipedia article: antiphoner ) | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 8:22:15 AM |
There is no consensus among scholars of writings of antiquity or Josephus experts that the disputed passages in Josephus are forgeries, certainly not one that anyone could claim has been stated "over and over again throughout the ages".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Interesting Wiki article.It states that there are scholars who have, since the 17th century challenged the Antiquities document as a forgery.The forgery consensus was challenged in the 20th century and what we have now are scholars that accept it and scholars that don't.We're not dealing with an exact science here and the word "proof" or "evidence" in this type of study has little meaning because it boils down to one thing.What you believe are don't believe.
If you are convinced that Jesus was/is a real person then it won't matter what opinion scholars may hold.You will either do as you do and pick sides with the scholars that agree with you or you will do as the creationists do and ignore the scientific aspect alltogether and just hang onto faith,which is really what it's all about anyway.
As far as to whether or not the Testimonium is a forgery or not,I believe that it's going to always be one of those things that scholars will debate forever.Unless of course someone invents a time machine. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:01:22 AM | There are always revisionists.
There are some who write books saying that the holocaust never existed. There are people who write books saying that aliens started life on this planet. People will believe anything if they want to, and they will manufacture evidence.
When it comes to the Bible, people don't want a God that is real. They don't want a moral authority over them, so they attempt to find ways to discredit the most famous, most published book in the world.
THE BIBLE ITSELF IS HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:
One of the most common misunderstandings about the Bible is the belief that it is simply one book. This is not true. The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus’ identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught.
Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade.
It is also important to understand that the writings of the New Testament span a period of over fifty years with the book of Revelation being written at the very end of the first century. This being the case, it is hard to imagine that there could have been a collaborative effort in creating the books of the New Testament.
THE GOSPELS ARE AN OBJECTIVE RECORD
While some try to portray the gospels as the product of an author’s bias, this simply is not true. Few biographies portray the flaws of their leading characters with such candor. Consider the following. At one point or another, the gospels portray Jesus’ disciples as skeptical, faithless, selfish, argumentative, fearful, and even defiant.
The scriptures even record an event in which Jesus rebuked Peter with the words, "Get thee behind Me, Satan!" (Mt. 16:23). Further, the gospels chronicle events in which the disciples fought among themselves for personal power (Lk. 22:24), fled for their lives in terror (Mt. 26:56), openly forsook Jesus (Mt. 26:73-74), and even considered abandoning the faith altogether (Jn. 21:3). Clearly, the gospel writers were not afraid to expose character flaws in their leading figures.
Additionally, the gospels portray Jesus as a man of limits. At one point, He is shown in a state of such fatigue that He remains sleeping in a boat during a violent storm (Mt. 8:24-26). In another event, Jesus is shown needing to lay hands upon a man a second time in order to heal him (Mk. 8:22-25). Jesus was even portrayed as vulnerable when at the end of His life, He appealed to the Father to remove "the cup" containing the horror of His impending crucifixion (Lk 22:42).
Throughout the scriptures, Jesus is shown displaying a variety of emotions such as love, joy, anger, disappointment, agitation, and reflection. Whether it was His sadness when lamenting the plight of Jerusalem (Mt. 23:37), His rage at the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His day (Mt. 23), or His tenderness when receiving little children (Mk. 10:14-16), Jesus was portrayed as what He truly was – REAL. It is hard to imagine any biographer being more objective in his account of a person’s life than the gospel writers were when recounting the life of Jesus.
THE BOOK OF ACTS IS A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
There is an important fact that is ignored by most critics of the New Testament. This fact is that at least one New Testament book was authored by a professional writer who was commissioned to chronicle the history of the early New Testament Church.
The book of Acts is a legitimate and highly credible history of the Church during the first century. It was written by Luke, a Gentile convert. Luke was sponsored to write this history by a man named Theophilus. Although little is known of Theophilus, most authorities believe he was a high ranking Roman official. Luke introduces the book of Acts as well as his gospel with a tribute to this man.
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which He was taken up... (Acts 1:1-2)
With the words "until the day in which He was taken up," Luke is reporting as historical fact that Jesus had risen from the dead. Although many skeptics today argue the veracity of such a claim, it would have been almost impossible to rebut it during the first century. According to the apostle Paul, the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection numbered in the hundreds.
After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep (1Cor. 15:6).
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
Clearly, the Bible record was chronicled by men of diverse backgrounds and educational levels. These men were very different from each other. However, despite all these differences, they did have something in common. Virtually every one of them claimed to have known Jesus personally. Therefore, they were speaking as eyewitnesses. Consider the words of Peter, the author of two epistles bearing his name.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2Pet. 1:16).
Here, this leading apostle asserts without ambiguity that he knew Jesus and was an eyewitness to His appearing. Why shouldn’t Peter make this assertion? His own words as well as the testimony of others declare that Peter knew well this man called Jesus. It is also important to understand that the stories concerning Peter’s association with Jesus were less than flattering.
On more than one occasion, Jesus chastised Peter for his lack of faith and at one time, when Peter was asserting the strength of his loyalty, Jesus informed him that Satan could grind him into powder (Lk .22:31) – not very flattering words considering Peter was one of the premier leaders in the New Testament.
However, despite some characterizations that show Peter’s human weaknesses, his words are unshakable. He knew Jesus personally and he declared that fact without apology.
The apostle John is the second most prolific New Testament author. He, too, declared that he had a personal knowledge of Jesus and His message.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ (1Jn. 1:1-3).
These are just two examples of men who wrote powerfully about a real Jesus. They did so because they knew Him intimately. They were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ teachings, His miracles, His life, His death, and His miraculous resurrection.
THE WITNESS OF CONVERTED SKEPTICS
It is important to understand that some New Testament authors were at first very skeptical concerning Jesus’ messiahship. Consider James, the author of the epistle that bears his name. James was the half brother of Jesus and despite this close physical relationship, he was not persuaded that Jesus was the Messiah. However, when he saw Jesus after His resurrection, he was convicted. James would later become a leader in the Jerusalem Church and would eventually lay down his life for the faith.
The great Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the reputation of James.
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9).
The apostle Paul was clearly the most prolific New Testament author. His epistles are studied more by Christians today than any other books of the Bible. Paul was persecuted greatly for his faith and spent the end of his life in a Roman prison, waiting to be executed. However, prior to his conversion, Paul was one of the greatest persecutors of Christians in the Roman world.
He dragged people into prison for their belief in the Christian faith and even consented to their death. Paul personally authorized the execution of Stephen, the first New Testament martyr (Acts 7:60-8:1). However, after his conversion (Acts 9:1-9), Paul’s commitment to Christianity and the gospel became legendary.
FROM FEAR TO DEVOTION
A tremendous change can be seen in the disciples after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior to that time, these men were often fearful. They warned Jesus against going to certain cities because of the threat to His life (Jn. 11:8). Most of the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested and even feared their own arrest. Because of his fear, Peter even denied Jesus three times.
However, after these men personally witnessed the resurrection, their commitment to the cause of the Kingdom was unshakable. They were even willing to suffer and die if necessary in order that the gospel of the Kingdom might be preached as a witness. Consider the apostle Peter. At the end of his life, he was arrested and taken to Rome where he would be condemned and sentenced to death.
History records a tradition concerning the execution of Peter. According to the tradition, Peter refused to be crucified in the same way Jesus was. This was because he did not believe that he deserved such an honor. Therefore, Peter was crucified upside down.
Clearly, there was a willingness in the followers of Jesus to suffer and even die for Him. This attitude speaks volumes about the truth of a historical Jesus. If the story of Jesus was false, why would the disciples and others consent to such great persecution?
It is also important to understand that those who followed Jesus were subjected to great public condemnation even within the religious community. Christians were routinely expelled from the temple. Such an act would ostensibly cut them off from the rest of the Jewish community. As a result, it would be difficult to work or even live within that community. However, this fear was never a consideration to Jesus’ true followers after His resurrection. Even though being a follower of Christ’s may require one to give up family and friends as well as positions of status and social standing, those among the true community of faith were willing to pay that price. If Jesus was simply a fabrication, why would people pay such a price? Why would anyone lay down his life to perpetuate a myth?
Art | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:13:28 AM | THE WITNESS OF HISTORY
There are many who reject Jesus as a real historical figure because they think secular history is completely silent concerning His existence. In the words of Charles Templeton,
There isn’t a single word about Him in secular history. Not a word, no mention of Him by the Romans (Act of God, p. 152).
Is this statement true? Is there no word about Jesus in secular history? The truth is that secular history does mention Jesus of Nazareth and its words corroborate the biblical record.
Consider the chronicle of Cornelius Tacitus (55 to 117 A.D.). Tacitus was a Roman statesman and historian. He held several positions in the Roman government, including that of proconsul, or governor of the Roman provinces in Asia. Tacitus is also regarded as the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome.
One of the crowning achievements of Tacitus’ work is Annals, a 16 volume history of the Julian emperors from Tiberius to Nero, written between 115 and 117 A.D. In this work, Tacitus wrote about persistent reports of Jesus’ resurrection.
...to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular (15.44).
Some will say that Christus was not avariant of Christ, but the writing speaks of Christians following this specific man. Further, when using the words "a most mischievous superstition," Tacitus was referring to the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. This belief spread throughout the empire. When Roman officials heard of it, they considered it a superstition. However, those who were eyewitnesses called it a miracle.
Tacitus was not the only Roman historian who makes mention of the biblical Jesus. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69 to 140 A.D.) was a contemporary of Tacitus. Suetonius was a Roman biographer and historian whose writings are one of the primary sources of information about the lives of the first twelve Caesars. His work was so popular that his biographical approach set the pattern for historical writing.
Suetonius once wrote of a wave of riots which broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome in 49 A.D. In his chronicle called Claudius, Suetonius explains that the Jews were banished from the city.
He (Claudius) banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus (Claudius, XXV).
The name "Chrestus" used by Suetonius is a variant spelling of Christ. It is virtually the same as that used by Tacitus. The point Suetonius was making is that riots broke out because of opposing views about Christ.
Further, this observation made by Suetonius is in total agreement with the writings of the New Testament. Luke records in the book of Acts that at this time Aquila and his wife Priscilla were forced to leave Rome.
...a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome) and came unto them (Acts 18:2).
Suetonius wrote about the impact of Jesus’ life on more than one occasion. In his work Nero, this famous historian explains that Christians were being punished for their beliefs.
He (Nero) likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition (Nero, XVI).
Here, Suetonius continues to chronicle the great persecution inflicted on the early Christian Church. Clearly, some of Rome’s leading historians acknowledged in their writings that the biblical Jesus was real. Further, their writings reveal that He was an important part of history.
The biblical Jesus is also written about by authors of less prominence. One such author was a man named Phlegon. Phlegon was born about 80 A.D. and although his works are no longer in existence, they have been quoted by very credible sources. Origen, who was a leading third century theologian and a man regarded as the father of biblical criticism, made reference to the historical works of Phlegon.
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events, but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.
Origen continued to quote Phlegon as a source of proof that Jesus was crucified and that the crucifixion was accompanied by an earthquake.
And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too... has written in the Thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.
It is important to understand that well known historians such as Suetonius and Tacitus as well as more obscure historians such as Phlegon knew the biblical Jesus was a real person. Although they did not live and write exactly when and from where Jesus lived, they nevertheless had to accept the undeniable impact of His teaching and work.
THE WITNESS OF JOSEPHUS
Flavius Josephus is regarded as the premier first century Jewish historian. His writings have been quoted by virtually hundreds of authors, including many of the world’s most respected scholars.
Josephus came from a priestly family and became a Pharisee at the age of 19. He was appointed Commander of the Jewish army under Roman occupation. After the rebellion by the Jews, Josephus was captured by the Roman general Vespasian. During this time, Josephus became a great historian. Although Josephus lived after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, he was closely associated with the experiences of that generation.
In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus makes a statement that is contested by those who reject the existence of a historical Jesus. Here, Josephus writes:
Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works -- a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Book 18, ch. 3).
This statement by Josephus has been the center of considerable debate and controversy. Those who reject its authenticity contend that these words were not written by Josephus, but rather were added by the Christian church in an attempt to strengthen its argument that Jesus was real and that He was the Christ. There is, however, a credible authority which can shed considerable light on this issue.
William Whiston is a scholar who translated the works of Josephus into English. Whiston provides the following observation concerning the authenticity of Josephus’ words regarding Jesus.
Since we meet with several important testimonies in Josephus, the Jewish historian, concerning John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus of Nazareth, concerning Jesus of Nazareth himself, and concerning James the Just the brother of Jesus of Nazareth; and since the principal testimony which is concerning Jesus of Nazareth himself has of late been greatly questioned by many, and for me who has ever declared my firm belief that these testimonies were genuine, to set down fairly some of the original evidence and citations I have met with in the first fifteen centuries concerning them; and then to make proper observations upon that evidence, for the reader's more complete satisfaction (The Works of Flavius Josephus, Appendix p. 815).
Whiston went on to explain that after exhaustive examination of Josephus’ writings, he concluded that the texts being questioned were, in fact, genuine. He drew this conclusion because their style was consistent with that found in Josephus’ other writings. Whiston also provided a list of highly respected historians who quoted the writings of Josephus and considered them authentic regarding John the Baptist, James, and Jesus Christ. These authors included Tacitus in 110, Justin Martyr in 147, Origen in 230, Eusebius in 324, Ambrose in 360, Hieronymus(Jerome) in 400, Isidorus in 410, Sozomon in 440, Cassiddorus in 510, Georgius in 790, Anastasius in 740, Syncellus in 790, and Johan in 850.
Whiston further pointed out that it would be impossible to have such a volume of honorable and accurate testimony regarding John the Baptist and James, whose lives were predicated on the life of Jesus, and then refuse to accept same testimony regarding Jesus who was of greater importance than the other two. (p. 819)
Josephus’ Position Regarding Christianity
Those who contend that Josephus’ reference to Jesus is spurious do so because the words appear to convey that Josephus embraced Jesus as the Christ. However, William Whiston explains that such a conclusion is a mistake.
This was Christ, or [the] Christ, does not mean that this Jesus was the Christ of God, or the true Messiah of the Jews; but that this Jesus was distinguished from all others of that name, of which there were not a few, as mentioned by Josephus himself, by the addition of the other name of Christ; or that this person was no other than he whom all the world knew by the name of Jesus Christ, and his followers by the name of Christians (The Works of the Jews, Appendix 819).
Whiston went on to explain that Josephus was not conveying his belief in Christ but rather that Christians were named from "this Christ." According to Whiston, if Josephus was a true believer, this passage would have required a much fuller explanation.
Additionally, it is important to understand that Josephus wrote for both the Greeks and Romans and that this particular audience would not have understood who he was referring to if he simply used the name "Jesus." Therefore, according to Whiston, Josephus used the term "Christ," not to convince others that Jesus was the Messiah, but only to differentiate Him from other historical figures with the same name.
Whiston then added that all other historians who wrote for the next several centuries understood that Josephus was not a believer. Josephus’ approach was similar to that of Pontius Pilate during the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. According to the scriptures, Pilate ordered a sign to be posted upon Jesus’ cross. The sign bore the words: "This is Jesus, king of the Jews."
The fact that Pilate ordered this sign did not mean he believed Jesus was the king of the Jews. He only placed it there because he was provoked by the Jewish leaders who brought charges against Jesus. These leaders wanted the sign to read that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews. However, because of his exasperation with these Jewish leaders, Pilate refused to have these words changed (Jn. 19:19-22).
An Arabic Translation of Josephus
It is important to understand that there are other manuscripts concerning the works of Josephus. An Arabic manuscript has been found and translated which makes the controversial passages found in Josephus easier to understand. This Arabic translation reads as follows.
At this time, there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
Here, the translation adds clarity to the meaning of Josephus’ words. Based on this translation, Josephus is simply recounting that Jesus was a good man and his followers taught that He was resurrected.
The Babylonian Talmud
The works of Josephus are not the only Jewish writings that identify Jesus of Nazareth. The Bablyonian Talmud includes a section in which Jesus is mentioned by the Jews to have been hanged from a stake on the eve of the Passover.
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover (The Babylonian Talmud, vol. III, Sanhedrin, 43a, p. 281).
THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER WRITERS
In addition to Tacitus, Suetonius, Phlegon, and Josephus, other prominent historical figures make mention of the biblical Jesus. Thallus wrote about Mediterranean history during the middle of the first century. Although there are only fragments of his writings today, one such fragment relates what happened at the crucifixion.
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.
This description of events surrounding the crucifixion is totally consistent with the gospel record. Consider the words of Matthew.
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour... And, behold, the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent... (Mt. 27:45, 51).
PLINY THE YOUNGER
Pliny the younger was a Roman author who at one time served as governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He was concerned about the rapid growth of Christianity and its potential for threatening the beliefs of Rome. Because of this, he wrote the emperor to explain how he interrogated those he believed were Christians. Pliny related that if those he interrogated would not worship the emperor, he would have them executed.
In some cases, he would torture them to gather information about the emerging Christian movement. In one such case, he tortured two deaconesses and wrote to the emperor concerning the information he had gathered.
...they [the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses of a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind (The Tenth Book of Pliny’s Letters).
When Pliny referred to "food of an ordinary and innocent kind," he was addressing a rumor regarding Christianity. This rumor was that Christians took the symbols (bread and wine) Jesus introduced at the Passover as literal and would secretly meet on certain occasions and actually eat human flesh and drink human blood.
JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr was a second century philosopher and theologian. His parents were pagans; however, after a study of the Old and New Testaments, Justin Martyr converted to Christianity. He was executed during the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius because he refused to offer sacrifices to the pagan gods.
Justin Martyr wrote about 150 A.D. In one of his writings, he explained that the events of Christ’s crucifixion could be validated by the report of Pontius Pilate.
And the expression, "they pierced my hands and my feet" was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain in the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" (First Apology XXXV).
Although the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" referred to by Justin Martyr is no longer in existence, it was also referred to by Tertullian. Both Tertullian and Justin Martyr believed that this was an official Roman document.
It is interesting to note that there were two archives kept in ancient Rome. One consisted of the minutes of senatorial meetings; the other consisted of correspondence sent to the emperor from various parts of the empire. Any correspondence from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius would unquestionably belong to this second archive.
The Historical Jesus
In spite of the early secular world’s hostility toward Christianity, there exist many historical documents to verify that the biblical Jesus actually lived. Further, these documents prove that his followers believed very exact details concerning His life and teachings as well as His crucifixion and resurrection.
Few ancient historical figures can boast of the amount of material that Jesus of Nazareth had written about Him. In addition to the gospels, there is the book of Acts as well as numerous epistles.
On top of all the Biblical evidence, sits a crown of numerous historical documents. These documents are totally consistent with the writings of the New Testament.
Whether it was the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Phlegon, Origen, Thallus, Justin Martyr, Josephus, or even Pontius Pilate, the existence of the biblical Jesus is unimpeachable. Jesus of Nazareth did live and His life had a powerful impact on the course of history.
Art | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:24:06 AM | When it comes to the Bible, people don't want a God that is real. They don't want a moral authority over them, so they attempt to find ways to discredit the most famous, most published book in the world.
I can assure you,Hobbiest,that was NOT my motivation.For many years I tried to believe,but if I can't square a belief in my head,it hasn't a chance to lodge in the heart.I cannot and will never shut my critical thought process down in favor of blind faith. How can anyone trust a document that encourages people not to think as in "Lean not unto thine own understanding"? Your critical thinking skills are your friend!
Here is the major flaw in your assessment of "evidence".
THE GOSPELS ARE AN OBJECTIVE RECORD
Anything that tells of supernatural events and beings cannot possibly be "objective".The writer is clearly of the persuasion that his protagonist has these powers and none of the gospel authors offer any objective evidence to back up what they're telling.These things cannot properly be called "objective,historical fact" because there are no external witnesses outside of the Bible to corroborate them.
So since the Bible is written from the perspective of believers and since it assumes that Christ was/is divine,how can it be properly called "objective"?
However, when he saw Jesus after His resurrection, he was convicted.
The gospel author assumes that the resurrection was a real,witnessed event.He is biased and doesn't question the event at all.Again,there is nothing external to corroborate it.So how then, can this book be "objective"?
All you have is belief,faith that these things happened from a book (or collection of books if that makes you happy) that has nothing external to offer outside of itself that will back up any of it's outrageous claims. The believer's mind is then trapped in a loop of illogic that goes something like this.....Q: Why do you believe the resurrection happened?
A: Because the Bible says it.
Q: Why do you believe the Bible?
A: Because it's the inerrant Word of God.
Q: Why do you believe that?
A: (quotes scripture): Because the Bible says so.
 | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:41:29 AM |
The gospel author assumes that the resurrection was a real,witnessed event.He is biased and doesn't question the event at all.Again,there is nothing external to corroborate it.So how then, can this book be "objective"?
All you have is belief,faith that these things happened from a book (or collection of books if that makes you happy) that has nothing external to offer outside of itself that will back up any of it's outrageous claims. The believer's mind is then trapped in a loop of illogic that goes something like this.....Q: Why do you believe the resurrection happened?
A: Because the Bible says it.
Q: Why do you believe the Bible?
A: Because it's the inerrant Word of God.
Q: Why do you believe that?
A: (quotes scripture): Because the Bible says so.
You are making assumptions based on what you can only understand as being possible.
Many of us have witnessed the resurrected Christ personally, obviously you haven't.
And because you have no knowledge of Christ, it really only makes you ignorant of what is the truth and spiritual realities in scriptures, and not everyone else as you like to think. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:53:44 AM |
You are making assumptions based on what you can only understand as being possible.
Yes,my assumptions are based on what I know to be true.Such as the laws of physics.
Many of us have witnessed the resurrected Christ personally, obviously you haven't.
I'm sure it was very REAL.To YOU. You mean that you have seen and communicated with this person? Obviously,then, you are suffering from some type of delusion and experiencing hallucinations. You should seek professional help in my opinion. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 9:59:31 AM |
Did the Jesus of the Gospels even exist?
God said he did.
I believe it.
That settles it.
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 10:09:55 AM |
Yes,my assumptions are based on what I know to be true.Such as the laws of physics.
Yes this is obvious, you can only relate to the physical reality of this realm of existance. The laws of physics however have no ability to discern spiritual things, and the spiritual realm is not connected to the physical realm that the laws of physics even apply. When the spiritual is made known, it is actually the realm that is controlled by the laws of physics that is seen as the deception. But a person wouldn't be able to discern this unless they have been brought into the eternal spiritual reality.
I'm sure it was very REAL.To YOU. You mean that you have seen and communicated with this person? Obviously,then, you are suffering from some type of delusion and experiencing hallucinations. You should seek professional help in my opinion.
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 10:17:31 AM | THE BIBLE IS AN ACCURATE RECORD
The writers of the New Testament were so concerned with accuracy that they did not enhance the reader’s view of Jesus or in any way try to make Him seem more acceptable. The disciples and gospel writers simply put down what actually occurred.
Additionally, it is important to understand that first century authorities were the enemies of Jesus and Christianity. They would not publicize Him or His message. Instead, they would tend to minimize Jesus and His teachings.
Like the great Roman church, they would burn documents and literature of those dissidents who held fast to the original faith. Despite this, some documents survived. These documents prove incontrovertibly that Jesus was real and the beliefs of His Church genuine.
Additionally, secular history acknowledges that Jesus was crucified and that many believed He was resurrected from the dead. It is also important to understand that in the first century, Christianity was a faith with powerful enemies. These enemies resorted to lies about true believers as well as acts of violence against them.
It is interesting to note that the one thing enemies of Christianity could have done to completely shut down the Christian movement was never successfully attempted. Understand that the resurrection was the central theme of the Christian church. Therefore, if the resurrection of Jesus Christ could be proven untrue, Christianity would collapse.
THE RECORD OF SECULAR HISTORY
Secular history goes into considerable detail when describing Jesus Christ and His effect on history. The following are twelve aspects regarding Jesus Christ and Christianity that are addressed in the secular historical record.
* Jesus lived and taught in the area of Palestine.
* He was regarded as a wise, ethical, and virtuous man.
* His followers believed Him to be the promised Messiah.
* It was reported that He performed great miracles.
* He was purported to have spoken prophecies and the prophecies came true.
* He was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
* Darkness and earthquakes accompanied the crucifixion.
* It was reported that He was resurrected on the third day.
* He was worshiped as God.
* As a result of His teachings, the Church He founded grew rapidly.
* Christianity had powerful enemies who attempted to crush it.
* Despite great persecution, His Church still survived.
Disproving the resurrection could have been accomplished several ways. The enemies of Jesus could have:
* produced Jesus’ body,
* produced testimony revealing a plot by Jesus’ followers to stage His death, or
* produced credible witnesses claiming Jesus’ disciples or others stole His body. However, history records no legitimate attempt to invalidate the resurrection with credible evidence. This is because there was no credible evidence to prove Jesus was not resurrected as the scriptures claim.
HISTORY IN ADVANCE
Clearly, the voice of both the secular and New Testament records speak dynamically regarding a real biblical Jesus. His life and teachings are thoroughly documented by eyewitness testimony as well as the historical record of objective and highly credible sources.
However, there is an even more dramatic historical record regarding this man called Jesus. In addition to the 27 books of the New Testament that reflect back on Jesus’ life, there are 39 books of the Old Testament which describe Jesus’ life virtually centuries before He lived. These books describe in extraordinary detail the biblical Jesus.
Included in their chronicle is a detailed description of His lineage, His birth, His teachings, His miracles, His betrayal, His crucifixion, His resurrection, and His ascension to heaven. These prophecies span the pages of the Old Testament from the third chapter of Genesis to the third chapter of Malachi. There are virtually hundreds of prophecies regarding Jesus Christ. Consider the words of Sidney Collette.
There are no less then 333 prophecies in the Old Testament which center in the person of the Messiah – every one of which, in relation to His earthly life has been fulfilled to the letter. (All About the Bible, p. 84)
The statistical probability of virtually every Old Covenant prophecy regarding Jesus being correct is one in several trillion. But the prophecies about Jesus are completely true. These prophecies were declared with pinpoint accuracy and fulfilled with the same precision.
God’s power to shape the course of history is undeniable and is dramatically declared in the scriptures. The great prophet Isaiah wrote of God’s power to govern the destiny of the universe.
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure..." (Isa. 46:9-10).
The prophecies in the Old Covenant reveals God’s great plan concerning His creation. That plan will ultimately include the return of Jesus Christ with His Kingdom. However, before that Kingdom could come, God had to provide mankind with a perfect sacrifice. That sacrifice was His Son who died for all humanity.
The table on the following pages identifies a small percentage of the Old Covenant prophecies about Jesus Christ as well as their fulfillment. Understand that these items only scratch the surface of what God inspired to be written about the Savior of the world who would come.
Old Covenant Prophesies Concerning Jesus Christ
Prophesied and fulfilled
Jer. 23:5-6 He would be a descendent of David. Lk. 1:32-33
Mal. 3:1He would be preceded by a forerunner (John the Baptist). Lk. 1:17
Mic. 5:2 He would be born in Bethlehem. Mt. 2:5-6
Jer. 31:15 Children would be slaughtered. Mt. 2:18
Hos. 11:1 He would flee to Egypt. Mt. 2:15
Isa. 9:1-2 He would live in Galilee. Mt. 4:15
Isa. 11:1 He would live in the city of Nazareth. Mt. 2:23
Isa. 52:14 He would be brutally beaten Jn. 19:1
Psa. 69:9 He would cast the moneychangers out of the temple. Jn. 2:13-17
Isa. 61:1-2 He would preach the gospel. Lk. 4:18
Psa. 78:2 He would teach by parables. Mt. 13:35
Isa. 53:4 He would heal people. Mt. 8:17
Zech. 9:9-10 He would enter Jerusalem on an ass. Mt. 21:5
Psa. 118:25-26 People would cry out to Him, "Hosanna!"Mt. 21:9
Psa. 118:22-24 He would be rejected. Mt. 21:42
Zech. 11:12 he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Mt. 27:9
Psa. 41:9 He would be betrayed by one with whom He shared a meal.Jn. 13:26
Psa. 22:16 He would be crucified. Lk. 23:33
Psa. 34:20 None of His bones would be broken. Jn. 19:36
Isa. 53:12 He would be crucified with malefactors. Lk. 23:33
Psa. 22:18 Soldiers would gamble for His garments. Jn. 19:24
Zech. 12:10 His side would be pierced. Jn. 19:37
Psa. 22:1 He would cry out, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Mt. 27:46
Psa. 22:2 Darkness would cover the earth. Mt. 27:45
Psa. 22:16 His hands and feet would be pierced. Lk. 24:39-40
Psa. 22:6-8 He would be mocked on the cross. Mt. 27:43
Psa. 69:21 He would be given vinegar and gall. Mt. 27:34
Isa. 53:9 He would be buried by a rich man. Mt. 27:57-60
Jonah 1:17 He would be in the grave three days and three nights. Mt. 12:40
Psa. 16:10 He would be raised from the dead. Mk. 16:6
Psa. 68:18 He would ascend to His Father in heaven. Acts 1:9-11
Psa. 110:1 He would sit on the right hand of the Father. Acts 7:56
A FINAL THOUGHT
Was Jesus of Nazareth a real historical figure? Did He walk the countryside of Palestine and preach a powerful message about a magnificent Kingdom? Was He crucified and more importantly, was He resurrected from the dead as the scriptures declare? Further, is the impact of Jesus’ life thoroughly documented in both the biblical and historical record?
The answer to these questions is categorically yes! Jesus lived and taught just as the biblical record asserts. Despite what critics might claim, the proof of Jesus’ existence is overwhelming.
It is interesting to note that there were also critics in Jesus’ time who rejected Him and His gospel. This was done despite the mountain of evidence that proved He was in fact the promised Messiah. However, every attempt to discredit Him by these critics met with total failure. Finally, they resorted to perjured testimony to win their case.
Today, those who deny the existence of the biblical Jesus must first reject incontrovertible evidence. That evidence shouts from the pages of secular history as well as from the sacred scrolls of God’s word. Then, just like those before them, these critics must manufacture an argument that has no basis in truth. The plain truth is, Jesus of Nazareth did live. He preached a powerful message of hope. He offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice for mankind. He was crucified and in the grave, then rose again the third day, just as He said He would. The truth is Jesus did live. But there is an even more important truth:
He is alive today in true believers.
Art | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/27/2008 10:43:45 AM | The fact that scholars disputed a historical document is of little importance or consequence. I can't think of any historical document that hasn't had its critics. In some cases those critics were experts in the field. But "some" does not consensus make.
The original claim made was:
Christians like to quote Josephus, but what they don't say is that portion where Josephus supposedly claims that Jesus was the Christ has been shown to be a forgery over and over again through the ages. That is false and the evidence I provided refutes that false claim. The evidence was never challenged.
If you are convinced that Jesus was not a real person then it won't matter what opinion scholars may hold. You will either do as you do and pick sides with the scholars that agree with you or you will do as those who think that by claiming "science" they can claim to know the "science" of historical documents, people and events and just hang onto faith, which is really what it's all about anyway.
See message 36 for what I think - based on the evidence. If you disagree, feel free to challenge the facts. What you or I actually think or believe is irrelevant. Facts are facts. If you really want the truth go after the facts. And stop using the "I'm a Scientist and you're not!" Ad Hominem. It's useless. 
Regarding whether the New Testament record about the historical Jesus is objective or not, you said:
Anything that tells of supernatural events and beings cannot possibly be "objective".The writer is clearly of the persuasion that his protagonist has these powers and none of the gospel authors offer any objective evidence to back up what they're telling.These things cannot properly be called "objective,historical fact" because there are no external witnesses outside of the Bible to corroborate them. Once again the goalposts get moved. (sigh)
To say "I don't believe the miraculous events ascribed to Jesus happened because I don't believe miraculous events are possible" and "I will examine the evidence presented in a fair way to decide whether this Jesus actually existed or not" is entirely rational and intelligent. Accepting that a historical Jesus existed is not the same as accepting that a historical Jesus performed miracles. Instead you refuse to even consider evidence because you have already decided that the one is impossible and therefore the other doesn't exist. Hardly "critical thinking'. It sounds more like the suspension of thinking you so often attribute to Christians. And Laws of Physics? What do the Laws of Physics have to do with researching whether a person existed and researching the veracity of a historical documents (other than tests conducted on the materials used)? You might as well claim you can properly evaluate the design of satellite because you got an "A" in Geology. Clue: the one has nothing to do with the other. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
