|
|
|
|
|
| | The Historical Jesus Page 2 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | 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? | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/4/2007 8:44:07 PM | he 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. (Acts 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.
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. Gaius 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.
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.
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.
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 that 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). (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.
After the great fire at Rome... punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.
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. Origin, 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.
Origin 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 Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 1:22:05 AM | Before anyone starts suggesting that Christians tampered with the texts of these ancient sources, I read some interesting stuff on a google search. One of the main arguments against Christians tampering with texts are phrases that are used in the written language. Though the phrase in Tacitus "under Pontius Pilate" is rather suspicious, most of what Tacitus wrote is generally considered to be reliable. Again, people much smarter than I am who study this stuff look at certain phrases that are used to determine authenticity.
Now what is really interesting is that several Roman writers detailed the persecution of Christians under Nero around 64 AD or CE. This correlates well with the persecution of Christians mentioned in the New Testament. And was the direct background of 1 Peter and 2 Timothy. The Bible and Roman writings agreeing on a time frame?? Anyone want to address that one?
Another thing I learned while in the Ancient Roman Forums (google it) and basically goes along with what I said in my last post. Christianity began to spread among the Gentiles because, they witnessed Christians being tortured and killed and could not believe that these people were dying for something that was not true. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 1:55:23 AM |
The mention in the "Antiquities of the Jews" of Josephus belief in the divinity of Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum, is held by all but the most gullible of folks to be a pious fraud and a late insertion, likely well into the Dark Ages.
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, Origin in 230, Eusebius in 324, Ambrose in 360, Hieronym in 400, Isidorus in 410, Cassiddorus in 510, Anastasius in 740, 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)
Art | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 6:13:49 AM |
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.
The problem with using William Whiston as a credible source is that he lived from 1667-1752! So even ignoring that he was a devout Christian with the agenda to prove the historical Jesus, there have been hundreds of thousands of pages discovered since this man was alive.
Josephus' addition are considered added later by a large majority of scholars. Does that make them right? No, but it does cast serious doubt on to its authenticity.
[bold] However, [/bold] this argument of the historicalness of Jesus is always a little silly in that historical its hard to "prove" that any ancient figure lived. Pontius Pilate's existence was doubted for many years, in the 1960s, there was a discovery of a building block. It said this building was dedicated to Pontius Pilate. Caiaphas' is mentioned in Josephus as well but other than that, there were no other sources until an ossuaries (box of bones) were found bearing his name.
The point is that it is hard to find evidence for someone existence. For those who don't mind a little reading, there is a great study of different sources as well as the culture and beliefs at the time. John Meier wrote a trilogy of books studying this very issue, in fact the entire trilogy is called "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus"
I highly recommend them. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 7:04:45 AM |
I also wonder how Paul could write books about what Jesus said and did when Paul never met Jesus. I wonder how the apostles could write what Jesus said and what happened at the crucifixion when none of them were to be found
The common man did not often write in those days. They did not have paper (which would have fallen apart anyway), papyrus or other means of documentation on a daily basis. It was rare for a person to be educated enough to read and write. Much history even at that time was passed on from person to person as a verbal history. When someone wanted to write a letter (which many of the books of the Bible consist of) they had to pay a scribe to write them, therefore it was people with money that had the ability to record things in writing. I don't find it surprising that women attending a crucifixion would not write about it (I'm not much for the gnostics... haven't studied them enough so I'm going to not include them as part of my discussion of the Bible). In that time period they would have told someone else about it to pass on in history. I'm also sure that if I was an apostle at that time I wouldn't be found at the crucifixion either--Jesus was considered to be a criminal and they also, by association, might be considered the same. I'm sure there must have been fear that they would also earn a similar fate. | |
|
Devito
| | Joined: 6/22/2007
Msg: 32 | |
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 7:34:22 AM | The calender that every person in the world uses today is based on the death of JESUS CHRIST! I would say that everyone in the world today would acknowledge that Jesus did in fact live and was truly CHRIST. The calender is based on no one else!!
Devito | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 11:45:07 AM | | The calender that we use today is a roman calender. no one actually knows what year Jesus was born. A look at the gospels and other writing of the day are in conflict as to when this birthday could have happened. The idea of using the birth Jesus as a way to divide the calender did not appear untill hundreds of years after his death. the calender proves or disprove the existence of Jesus. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 1:17:51 PM | I'll go as far as saying there probably was a man named Jesus preaching in those days in that area. There were lots of guys back then claiming to be something more than human - Julius Caesar claimed he was the Son of God and born of a virgin mother. Nobody seems to believe this about Caesar anymore. :)
A person in that day could have created Jesus using a composite of major features of several mythological claimants that parallel Jesus, and fill in the details with anecdotes. It's hard to say because there's so little references to Jesus outside the Bible.
One thing I wonder is, why is he always depicted as having a beard? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that even in the Bible. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 1:49:12 PM |
The calender that every person in the world uses today is based on the death of JESUS CHRIST! I would say that everyone in the world today would acknowledge that Jesus did in fact live and was truly CHRIST. The calender is based on no one else!!
Wow.
Actually, our 12 month, 365 day, leap year every four years calendar is called the Julian Calendar, and it was established 50 years before the time Christians typically figure Jesus was born. And not every person in the world uses it. Iran uses the Persian calendar; their New Year typically starts March 12st. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 2:44:51 PM | also wonder how Paul could write books about what Jesus said and did when Paul never met Jesus. I wonder how the apostles could write what Jesus said and what happened at the crucifixion when none of them were to be found
Paul did meet Jesus. Christ blinded Him to get his attention and then taught him personally in the desert of Arabia for 3 years.
Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Art | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 2:49:55 PM | 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, Origin, 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.
The Bible: 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.
Art | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 4:00:13 PM | I, for one, don't think that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person or that he was even based on one in any significant way. I could probably write a whole book on the subject, but I'll try to be brief. There are several reasons why I reject the historical Jesus.
1) There is not a single contemporary mention of him by either secular historians. The only mention of him by any religious sources come from Paul (only 7 or so of the Epistles attributed to him are authentic). Paul only knows about Jesus from a vision he had after falling off a donkey. Accounts of this vision by Luke contradict those of Paul.
2) There are several secular mentions of him from the late 1st century on. Unless these historians had a crystal ball I don't see how their testimony has any evidentiary value. Who were their sources for information about Christian history? I see no reason to believe they didn't get their information from Christians themselves or rumors about Christians. Josephus (not a contemporary) has two passages about Jesus. The Testimonium Flavium was regarded as a forgery by Christians for well over a thousands years. Eusebius was the first to mention it though earlier Christians knew of his works and had ample opportunity to use it in their apologetics. Even after Eusebius Christian scholars believed it was a forgery. It was until about the 19th century that Christians became convinced that it was authentic, or partially so. The passage is a forgery, and a clumsy one at that. The second passage I consider authentic, but see no reason to believe it had anything to do with Jesus of Nazareth. Christians never quote the last sentence of the paragraph which mentions that Jesus was the son of Damneus and was High Priest. High Priests were anointed to that position and the word Christ means anointed one. The title was applied to High Priests and Kings.
3) That leaves us with the religious records of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. It should be noted that none of the authors of the gospels claim to be eyewitnesses. Mark's gospel was the earliest and written no earlier than 70 AD. Matthew depends heavily on Mark's gospel and so was likely written no earlier than 80 AD. Luke demonstrates a dependence on Mark and Matthew as well as Josephus. Luke was an early to late 2nd century document. There is evidence that John was influence by both Mark and Luke. The author of John refers to the apostle whom Jesus loved, which is generally taken to be the Apostle John. Since the author of John refers to the Apostle John in the 3rd person there's internal evidence that the Apostle John didn't write the Gospel of John. The only reason to suppose that the Gospel of John was written by someone named John is because of Papias, who knew of two John (the Apostle and the Elder) but didn't specify which one wrote the gospel. Papias is also the source for the authorship of Mark and Matthew. However, an issue arises with his claim that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew because Papias said the gospel was written in Hebrew, but we know it was written in Greek. We don't know that Papias was even talking about the gospel we have today.
4) This means the gospels were written by persons unknown, at least 40 years after the supposed events. But let's put that aside and assume for the sake of argument that they had eyewitness sources. Here's where things really start to unravel. The biographies of Jesus are riddled with contradictions. Luke and Matthew disagree on his geneology. Few names appear in both. Interestingly, both have him as a descendant of Jeconiah. Jeconiah sinned against god and god cursed him so that none of his seed would prosper on the throne of Israel. This immediately disqualifies Jesus for position of the Messiah! The gospels tell us that Jesus was from Nazareth. However, we know from ancient geographic records and archeology that no such town existed in the first century. Luke and Matthew disagree on when he was born. For Matthew it was before Herod died, and he died in 4 BC. For Luke Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, which was in 6 AD. Luke and Matthew also contradict each other on who visited baby Jesus. Was it three Magi or three shepherds? According to the Bible Joseph had to take his family to Bethlehem because of the census. That would only make sense if Joseph had lived there (Roman law required that you go to your home town to register for the census, not the home town of your ancestor). This was just a story concocted to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem because the author of the gospel misunderstood a messianic prophecy. Then Joseph and family flees to Egypt to avoid the Slaughter of Innocents. This is another story invented to fulfill a prophecy (Out of Egypt I have called my son). But in this case the prophecy isn't even a prophecy. The verse which Matthew only partially quotes is actually god talking about how he rescued his people from Egypt. The part that Matthew didn't quote tells us that explicitely. The writers of the gospels frequently made up stories to fulfill prophecies. The virgin birth is another good example. First of all there is no virgin birth prophecy. This was simply Matthew's mistranslation. Second of all, when the prophecy is read in context, not only did Jesus not fulfill all the things the prophecy spoke of, but he was born 750 years too late to fulfill any of them. Matthew misquotes the prophecy and lifts it out of context and then invents a story to fulfill it. The only story about Jesus' teen years comes from Luke. However, Luke copied the story from Josephus' biography! We see that all the stories of Jesus before his ministry are fiction. Things don't get much better. John disagrees with the Synoptics about how long Jesus' ministry was. Was it one year or three? Let's move on to Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem. Again, the story is fiction. The Bible has it occurring around Passover, but the Jews' use of palm leaves betrays the fact that they would be celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles. The authors can even agree about how he rode in to Jerusalem. Matthew misunderstood the prophecy in Zechariah (which Jesus failed to fulfill in its entirety) and has Jesus riding in on two animals. Luke, at least, had the sense to correct the error in his own fictional account. It really goes down hill when we get to the Passion. John and the Synoptics can't agree on the time or day that Jesus was crucified. They can't agree on whether Jesus was silent before his accusers. It's also impossible that Jews would be plotting his death on Passover eve, since they'd be busy preparing for it. It's also impossible that they'd be plotting his death at all since Jesus' teaching were close to those of the Pharisees. Even if we can get by that, the idea that Jesus was passed back and forth between Herod and Pilate in one night is implausible. The idea that Pilate would execute someone because of pressure by Jewish rabbis contradicts what we know from secular authorities about Pilate. The idea that Pilate would release an insurrectionist (Jesus Barabbas) because of a custom (which neither Jews nor Romans have any record of) is beyond stupid. That would have resulted in Pilate's own crucifixion. The gospels can't even agree on the details of the finding of the empty tomb. On all points they disagree.
Let me end this overlong posting with a quick summary. There is no secular evidence that Jesus existed. The religious writings, except for Paul, didn't exist until almost the second century and were not written by eyewitnesses. These religious writings contradict each other, history, and common sense. The biographical details can be shown to be fictions based OT prophecies (and verses taken out of context and presented as prophecies). The earliest writings were made by a man whose only exposure to Jesus was in a hallucination induced by falling off his donkey and hitting his head. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 4:24:04 PM |
As far as the writing of the New Testament goes, I believe it was written very close to the time of the actual events in historical terms. There were still witnesses alive who could testify to the truth of the statements that were being written down. For example, 1 Corinthians 15 is a creedal statement
These witnesses were far away and mostly unnamed. All we get are James and Peter. Who was going to verify sources under these conditions? There's a reason that Jews weren't converting to Christianity. They could test the claims and found them wanting. And there's a contradiction here. According to Paul, Jesus appeared to the 12. Did Jesus appear to Judas after his resurrection? Other accounts have Judas hanging himself shortly after the betrayal. The story of Judas betraying Jesus was a late invention in order to fulfill a prophecy taken out of context.
As far as the church not believing that Jesus was God until the third century, I believe that is nonsense. A very early creedal statement is found in Philippians 2 teaches the deity of Jesus:
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
The phrase "being in very nature God" is translated differently in other translations. For example the NAB has "he was in the form of God" which the NIV gives as a possible rendering in a footnote. This is also almost exactly the same as the KJV. 2 Corinthians 4:4 says that Jesus is the image of god.
Clearly this phrase does not teach that Jesus is equal with god (in fact it explicitly says otherwise) but the image of god. According to Genesis man was made in the image of god. Do you consider Adam to be part of the Trinity?
All of the apostles except John died as martyrs.
What secular evidence do you have to support this claim?
Why was this little religion not stamped out by the Jewish authorities?
Apparently it was since it never had a strong foothold in Jerusalem. It only spread through Gentiles. But even then the teachings of Paul were different from those of Peter and James. They could hardly be considered the same religion. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 4:57:02 PM |
The calender that every person in the world uses today is based on the death of JESUS CHRIST! I would say that everyone in the world today would acknowledge that Jesus did in fact live and was truly CHRIST. The calender is based on no one else!!
Come on Devito, I already covered that one, go back and read mesage 25, and go here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 6:55:59 PM | 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 Testament prophecy regarding Jesus being correct are 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 Testament reveal 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 Testament 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 Testament Prophesies
Concerning Jesus Christ
Jer. 23:5-6
He would be a descendent of David.
Lk. 1:32-33
Mal. 3:1
He would be preceded by a forerunner (John the Baptist).
Lk. 1:17
Isa. 7:14
He would be born of a virgin.
Mt. 1:23
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
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
his Crucifixion
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
His Burial and Resurrection
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 7:5
Art | |
|
JMars
| | Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 42 | |
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 7:51:48 PM | Why does it matter so much if a man named Jesus existed and did all of these things peope today attribute to him? Isn't it enough that those deeds were done? That a spirit moved through a segment of Mankind to accomplish deeds necessary, relatively speaking, to the time and place?
Many folk have literary heroes that never existed historically, but nevertheless embody the essence of their heroic culture. That spirit is real. It's *the point*.
Likewise, many peoples have beliefs in deities living out human lives and/or speaking through various representatives. But once again, why get so caught up in the small detail? What does it matter if Christ ever lived as per the legends, when the spirit called Christ certainly did and moved people to accomplish the deeds attributed to him?
I mean, I can understand the interest of such a search, but ultimately, what does it matter to faith? Would the message of your god become less significant if Christ was no more than another King Arthur; who clearly lived, but whose earthly deeds differ substantially from his legend, and whose legend owes at least as much to various sympathetic Celtic deities and heroes as to the historic Arthur himself? | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 8:09:34 PM | Paul only knows about Jesus from a vision he had after falling off a donkey. Accounts of this vision by Luke contradict those of Paul.
Paul knew about Jesus before his "vision" as a Roman/Jew he was an avid persecutor of those who believed in the resurrected Christ.
It should be noted that none of the authors of the gospels claim to be eyewitnesses.
The apostles of Jesus lived and died in the 1st century. To qualify as an "apostle" you witnessed th resurrection of Jesus which occurred in the 1st century. (Acts 1:22) . Even if none of the authors of the gospels "claim" to be eyewitnesses the collection of "eyewitness" events were recorded and preserved. Luke refers to other written record (Luke 1 - to Matthew/Mark?), Paul (Tim 5) refers to Luke (10) Peter refers to a collection of Pauls letter (II Peter 3) Jude (6) had access to Peters second letter (II Peter 2) and Johns Book of Revelation as circulated to the church of Asia Minor (Rev 1). The contemporaries of the apostles showed an awareness of their mentors writings. Then the "church fathers" of the 2nd century alone cited from every major book of the New Testament except for John 3 which they may have had no occasion to do so.
Here's where things really start to unravel. The biographies of Jesus are riddled with contradictions. Luke and Matthew disagree on his geneology. Few names appear in both Needless to say, all of 4) can be refuted but suffice to say that the geneology noted in Matthew/Luke are identical until David where they branch into Josephs bloodline (Matthew) and Marys bloodline(Luke)
Few names appear in both. Interestingly, both have him as a descendant of Jeconiah. Jeconiah sinned against god and god cursed him so that none of his seed would prosper on the throne of Israel. This immediately disqualifies Jesus for position of the Messiah! As noted - same names until David - Jecohniah is in Matthew under the bloodline of Joseph. Jesus is not of the bloodline of Joseph but only the legal son of Joseph which does not outrule him from the OT prophesy. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 8:13:58 PM |
Many folk have literary heroes that never existed historically, but nevertheless embody the essence of their heroic culture. That spirit is real. It's *the point*.
Hear, hear! | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 8:27:09 PM | | But Countibil, surely you have heard of Carsten Peter Thiede the German Papyrologist? He has done extensive examinations of fragments of the Gospel of Matthew on papyri that are housed at Magdalen College where they are known as Magdalen GR 17. In his educated opinion, Matthew was an eyewitness account written no more than 20 years after the events. The fragments in question have been dated to no later than 65 CE. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 11:03:09 PM | 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. That truth is simple but powerful: 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 buried, 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. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/5/2007 11:35:07 PM |
Finally, they resorted to perjured testimony to win their case.
The staggering irony of this line is almost too much to bear 
He is alive today.
Well then he should be a dear and punish some of his followers for being such flagrant and bald faced liars, forgers, and prevaricators of the first order. Like Sulpicious Severus...
Can you actually respond to any of the serious and critical refutations of the secular sources that you and others say refer to Jesus or would you rather just ignore the refutations and hope they go away? I'm thinking you're counting on the latter.
What about the silence of Philo and other real contemporaneous historians who lived at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Why no mention by these men of the Christian movement, Jesus or the rather "earth-shaking" events of the crucifixtion?
Response?
RDToo:
I notice you did not dispute what Tacitus wrote nor did you dispute the recently unearthed parody of the Gospel of Matthew.
Hadn't gotten to it, or forgot it. I'm afraid the Tacitus was never referred to by any apologist before the first appearance in the 5th century in the work of Severus...moreover, the term Christian was not even in use at the time of Tacitus' writing. It is a pious fraud beyond any doubt, probably by Severus' own pen...again.
Professing to be a Christian in the Roman Empire meant almost sure death. Especially during the reigns of Nero, Domitian, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. We know this as historical fact.
Be specific and cite your sources. Believers believe that Nero persecuted Christians because of Suetonius' 16th chapter of the Life of Nero. No other ancient writer mentions Nero persecuting Christians. That's a problem. Where does this information come from? Was there REALLY a persecution? When? Before Trajan it seems the Roman Empire was actually very ignorant of the Christian movement at all based on any information other than these fraudulant sources that were written by Dark Ages pious frauds. You show me some evidence that comes from a serious secular scholar on Rome, then we'll talk. | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/6/2007 12:22:05 AM | 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.
Where is this incontrovertable evidence ? Not pages written by a priesthood who didn't want to be found out as blatent liars and strung up as they should have been bychance ? | |
|
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/6/2007 1:36:38 AM | Jesus is still alive and with us. He won the Main Event at the 2000 World Series Of Poker. :)
Hobby, I have a problem with "eyewitness evidence." That's a large issue, but I mostly wonder, why did Jesus need to do (many!) visible impossibilities back then to prove he's a god, but does not now? And I'm excluding the WSOP since it's possible to win without divine intervention. | |
|
Devito
| | Joined: 6/22/2007
Msg: 50 | |
| The Historical Jesus
Posted: 8/6/2007 4:24:00 PM | Its the recognition of Jesus that is the point. It is BC/AD!!! has there been anyone else that the calender is based on? NO...and also today Is Tuesday in America and it is also Tuesday in Iran.. Ok Wednesday already because of the time difference. but still same day schedule. The years could be argued of course but we are really talking about whether Jesus existed or not or if he was a real person which he certainly IS still and did live "in the flesh" on this earth at one time in the past.
Devito | |
|
|
|
|
Page
2
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
