Do you accept Jewish legal rulings as fact?
***I accept them as historical evidence, which apparently you do not. In historical documents, real historians consider it extremely significant that there are some facts that are agreed to by both opposing sides in a dispute.
“The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”~F.F. Bruce.
Historian Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.”
Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Christian authors wrote about Jesus soon after the events. By way of contrast, Plutarch’s biography of Alexander the Great, considered trustworthy by historians, was written more than four centuries after his death. Charlesworth has written that “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.” [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that “We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.” On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: “It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world.” [Harv.JesC, 11]
Some excerpts from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus
[edit] Jesus as myth
Main article: Jesus myth hypothesis
Further information: Jesus Christ and comparative mythology
A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).
The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus’ historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant’s Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and some similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[71]
Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:
…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[72]
Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[73],[74] & [75].
[edit] Mainstream scholarly reception
The idea of Jesus as a myth is rejected by the majority of biblical scholars and historians. The classical historian Michael Grant writes:
To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. [52]
The points below highlight some of these criticisms.
Some scholars, like Michael Grant, do not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.”[52]
Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. There is good early evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.[18]
In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France, for example, points out that “even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost” and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major event.[18]
Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by most scholars.[53][54]
Those who do not hold to the Jesus-Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. They argue that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus’s life in Paul’s letters,[18] such as that Jesus “who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3, TNIV).
***********************
My article from several years ago
************************
Date: 24-OCT-1994 14:28:12.94
From: “Kevin O’Malley”
Reply-To: k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us ()
Subj: RE: Evidence that Jesus Claimed to be God Part 1
Since I do not subscribe to this newsletter, please reply/comment by email.
Evidence that Jesus claimed to be God.
*************************************
Three books I would recommend and which I will be quoting/borrowing from:
More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell Abbrev: MTAC
Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell Abbrev: ETDAV
Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru? by Jon Buell & O.Q. Hyder Abbrev: JGGG
His actions:
He accepted worship.
Matthew 21:16. Jesus’ answer to the chief priests and scribes was to quote Psalm 8:2 “out of the mouth of
infants and nursing babes Thou hastprepared praise for Thyself”
When Thomas felt his wounds after the resurrection, he cried out “Behold my Lord and my God!” (John 20:26-29)
Jesus commented on Thomas’s unbelief rather than any misplaced worship — very significant for average 1st century
monotheistic jews.
According to JGGG, other examples include Peter’s acclaim (Matt 16:16) accepting the title Son of the living
God, and the worship of the disciples afloat on the Sea of Galilee (Matt 14:33) and again just prior to being
commissioned in Matt28. According to MTAC Jesus demanded to be worshipped as God in John 5:23, “compare Hebrews
1:6, Revelation 5:8-14”.
Jesus’Words
John 8:58 Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I am”, again followed by an attempted stoning.
John 14:9 Jesus says to Philip “He that has seen me has seen the Father”
Jesus’ response to the scribes John in 5:16-18 when he said “My Father is working until now, and I Myself and
working” when he was accused of breaking the sabbath. According to MTAC, the cultural context is important and he
is effectively saying ‘God is MY Father’ and they sought to kill him.
MTAC: “The reason is that Jesus said ‘my Father,’ not ‘our Father,’ and then added “is working until now.’
Jesus’ use of these two phrases made himself equal with God, on a par with God’s activity. The Jews did not refer
to God as ‘my Father.’ Or if they did, they would qualify the statement with ‘in Heaven.’ However, Jesus did not do
this. He made a claim that the Jews could not misinterpret when he called God ‘my Father.’”
The basic phrases where Jesus claims to be one in essence with God.
John 12:45 — He who beholds me beholds the One who sent me; John 8:19 — If you knew me, you would know my Father
also; John 5:23 — He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him;
Opposing Sources
Justin Martyr and Eusebius mention a circular letter issued by the Sanhedrin.
Martyr Quotes from it:
“...a certain Jesus of Galilee, an apostate preacher whom we crucified; but his disciples stole him by night
from the cross; they did this in order to persuade men to apostasy by saying that he had awakened from the dead and
ascended into heaven.” Per JGGG jewish tradition for at least a century afterwards independently continued to
reject Jesus on the basis of his claim to deity.
Lucian, Greek satirist in 2nd century commenting on Jesus.
“...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore,
their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for
all
by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” Per JGGG,
“notice that Lucian specifically pins the blame for the worship of Jesus on ‘their first lawgiver himself.’
Pliny the Younger. (A.D. 61-112) Per JGGG
After killing christians, he sought advice from Trajan, mentioning that christians “affirmed, however that the
whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it
was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god...”
Jewish Polemic in commentary of Rabbi Eleazar Hakkapar (ca 170 a.d.) per JGGG.
“God saw that a man, son of a woman, would come forth in the future who would endeavor to make himself God and
to lead the whole world astray.... For it is said: ‘A man is not God.... And if he says he is God, he is a liar.
And he will lead men astray and say that he is going and will come back again at the end of days.’ Is it not so
that he spoke thus, but he will not be able to do it. “
Jewish Polemic : Per JGGG, Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea (ca 270) puts the words of Jesus into Balaam’s mouth:
“If a man says, ‘I am God,’ he is a liar, if he says I am the Son of Man,’ his end will be such that he will
rue it; if he says, ‘I shall ascend to heaven,’ will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to
perform it?’”
From JGGG:
“The first independent test of the validity and integrity of of the reports that we have discussed is a
telltale silence in all contemporary literature concerning the claim of Jesus’ deity. There is a complete ABSENCE
OF REBUTTAL. Although much was said to deny his deity, nothing was said to deny that he claimed it. (In fact, the
first real threat to the infant Christain church came from the Gnostics who wanted to deny his HUMANITY!) ....Paul,
writing within thirty years of the events themselves, confidently challenged his readers to check with any
eyewitnesses if they wanted to confirm the truthfulness of his message (1Cor. 15:5). THE FACT THAT JESUS CLAIMED
DEITY IS WITHOUT A CHALLENGER IN THE FIRST-CENTURY HISTORICAL RECORDS.” (emphasis changed from italics to CAPITALS)
This may be an argument from silence, but it is issued as a challenge.
Biblical evidence—Just a touch
Since most of the rest of the Bible was written before A.D. 90, there were many people who witnessed the events who
could have stepped forward if the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc. were unfactual. (per JGGG with citation of
demographic study)
Paul’s epistles include the following per JGGG:
1) that Jesus was the preexistent Creator of the universe (Col 1:15-16)
2) that Jesus existed both in the “form of man” and in the “form of God” (Phil.2:5,8)
3) that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and thereafter was seen by over five hundred eyewitnesses
(most of whom were alive when Paul wrote) (1Cor 15:4,5)
4) that prayer could be directed either to God the Father or to Jesus (1Cor 1:2)
5) that one day Jesus would return to earth as the divine judge of humanity (2Thess. 1:7-10)
“No first-century Jew — especially one steeped in Jewish orthodoxy as was Paul, trained by the great Rabbi
Gamaliel, fiercely monotheistic, a member of the sect of the Pharisees, and possibly even a member of the Great
Sanhedrin ... would teach these things about anyone but Jehovah Himself.”
Hebrews 1:8
“But unto the son He says,’Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter
of Your kingdom.”
John
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” v.14: “And the Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory...”
Mark
The beginning of the gospel of Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 with a significant alteration: “Behold I will send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the before me.” Mark-—>”The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God. As it is written in the prophets, “Behold I send my messenger before thy face...”
From ETDAV: Indirect claims of deity
Isa 60:19-20 Light John 8:12
Exodus 3:14 I AM John 8:58, cf 18:5-6
ps.23:1 Shepherd John 10:11
Isa 42:8, cf48:11 Glory of God John 17:1,5
Isa 41:4,44:6 First and Last Rev1:17;2:8
Hosea 13:14 Redeemer Rev 5:9
Isa 62:5 Rev 21:2,
+ Hosea 2:16 Bridegroom cf: Matt 25:1 ff
Ps. 18:2 Rock 1 Cor 10:4
Jer 31:34 Forgiver of Sins Mark 2:7, 10
Ps 148:2 Worshipped by Angels Heb 1:6
Thru out O.T. Addressed in Prayer Acts 7:59
Ps. 148:5 Creator of Angels Col 1:16
Isa 45:23 Confessed as Lord Phil 2:11
Kevin O’Malley k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us
The stele of Hammurabi is a black diorite stone, seven and a half feet in height and six feet in circumference. It was discovered by J. De Morgan and V. Scheil during their excavations at Susa, the Edomite capital, in 1901-2. The fifty-one columns of cuneiform text was written in the Akkadian (Semitic) language.
The top of the stele has an engraved picture of Shamash, the sun god, seated on a throne handing a scepter and ring to Hammurabi. This is to symbolize the divine origin of the great code of laws which king Hammurabi received. This picture would reinforce the motivation for keeping these laws.
http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/topics/arch2.htm
Socrates is mentioned in documents written by three people who were alive during his purported lifetime. Whether the three writers worked independently of one another cannot be known with certainty. On the face of things, it is not obvious that any of them influenced the others, but it is hardly inconceivable that they could have. Socrates appears as a character in at least two of Aristophanes’ plays. He appears as an interlocutor in a substantial portion of Plato’s writings, and he plays a similar role in some of Xenophon’s work. Xenophon’s material is similar to some of Plato’s but not entirely consistent.
Aristophanes’ work is clearly satirical, not biographical. From the play itself, we cannot know whether he was making fun of a real philosopher known to his audience or ridiculing certain ideas that were much discussed at the time and using a fictional character to embody them. The former does seem prima facie more likely, but the latter cannot yet be ruled out.
Aristophanes produced his plays while Socrates (if he existed) was still alive. Plato and Xenophon did their work after his purported death, both of them including Socrates’ defense against the charges that led to his execution. Both writers give the impression that they had known Socrates and studied under his tutelage.
These writers are our best evidence for Socrates’ historicity. If they do not suffice to overcome reasonable doubt, then no other documents in which he is mentioned can make up for their lack.
We are not concerned here with the accuracy of any particular detail in any of the documents. Plato’s dialogues are certainly not transcriptions of actual conversations between Socrates and other people. The occasional autobiographical comment attributed to Socrates might or might not be factual. The modern historical consensus is that, especially in the later dialogues, the Socrates character is speaking Plato’s mind more than Socrates’ own. But we’re asking whether the man was real, never minding for the moment how accurately Plato and the others portrayed him.
A writer who falsely portrays a certain individual existing in a certain place at a certain time may have one of three mind sets. He might think his portrayal is truthful and want his readers to believe it. In that case his writing is simply erroneous. He might know his portrayal is not truthful but want his readers to believe it anyway. In that case his writing is fraudulent. He might know his portrayal is not truthful but not expect his readers to think otherwise. In that case his writing is fictional.
We’re probably safe in dismissing as absurd the possibility that all three of these writers made a mistake. They were not passing on legends or oral traditions. They were writing of a man who achieved fame and was executed in their lifetime. They could have misquoted him. They could been mistaken about a lot of things. It is unlikely they could all have made a mistake about his existence.
There is no apparent motive for fraud and no way it could have succeeded. The documents were produced in Athens for Athenian readers. Those readers would have known whether Aristophanes’s Socrates was parodying any real philosopher. They would have known whether Plato and Xenophon were writing about any execution that had really occurred within living memory. Barely a generation after Plato wrote the Apology, though, Athenians were talking as if they took Socrates’ historicity for granted. Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, made straightforward references to him. There is also a reference to Socrates’ execution and the reasons for it in a speech attributed to an orator called Aechines less than half a century after the event.
For about the same reason, it is improbable that Socrates was simply a fiction. People can believe and have believed in the historicity of fictional characters even when the characters’ creators did not intend such. The setting has to be somewhat removed from the readers’ own lives, though. Athenian trials were very public, and their juries had 500 members. If Socrates was not real and Plato expected his readers to know he was not real, he had good reason. Athenians would indeed have known that their city had not actually executed any famous philosophers within recent memory. (The same reasoning could be used against the error hypothesis if it were not already so implausible.)
Certainly worth repeating.
Only the records of Jesus can't be trusted? What lengths some people will go to to deny Him.