"Messiah is a matter of belief"

Question; "I am Jewish but have received very little Jewish education. Basically, I know that Jesus was a Jew, as were his early followers. Why did this small group of Jews believe Jesus was the Messiah, while the great majority of Jews denied his Messianic claim? And what are we supposed to be looking for in the Messiah, anyway?

Answer "...The evidence indicating that Jesus' resurrection was a fact, Christians affirm, are the many eyewitnesses described in the Gospels, including the apostles and others who saw the empty tomb and whose testimony was recorded in what became the New Testament. On the other side are those who say that since the evidence of Jesus' resurrection all comes from his followers and from accounts recorded in the New Testament, Jesus resurection cannot be trusted to be an objective historical account...."

<>End of this partial quote from "The God Squad" column published today in the Palm Beach Post.<>

I sent this letter to the Palm Beach Post this morning and I know they won't post it. (They refuse to post nearly all of my letters. Too Christian I suspect).I post it here because I think the historical references are useful as apologetic tools

"The God Squad" cites those opposed to the Messiah as claiming "...Jesus' resurrection cannot be trusted to be an objective historical account...."

Why do we suppose the Creed references the historical fact Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate? "For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried."

As the Governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, was required to keep Tiberius fully informed as to any important events occuring in his district. He did so. He drafted an account of all the important events that had taken place in reference to Jesus and these acts of Pontius Pilate were received and kept in the archives of the Roman Senate.

Tacitus, rehearsing the history of the burning of Rome attributes it to the Christians, "so called from Christ, who had been put to death during the reign of Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was governing Judea."

It is interesting to note not a single early enemy of Christianity called this historical account into question when it could have been so easily contradicted had these events not occured. Where is the evidence any pagan opposed the early Christian apologists by contravening this history?

The early Christian apologists cited the acts of Pontius Pilate. St. Justin Martyr quoted the words from the acts of Pontius Pilate, "Jesus was fastened to the cross with nails through his hands and feet, and those who had crucified him afterwards cast lots for his garments, which they divided amongst them."

St. Justin adds, "This is what you can easily know by reference to the acts written under Pontius Pilate."

Tertullian writes, "Pilate, somewhat a Christian in his conscience, wrote an account of all these things regarding Christ to Tiberius, then Emperor. Henceforth, the Emperors would have believed in Jesus Christ if the Caesars had not been the slaves of the world or if Christians could have been Caesars. Be that as it may, when Tiberius, under whose reign the Christain name was spread throughout the world, had learned from Palestine all the facts that proved the divinity of Christ, he urged the Senate to place him in the rank of the gods and gave his own vote for this purpose. The Senate, not admiring the proposal rejected it. The Emperor persisted in his views, and threatened with his anger any one who should accuse the Christians." Then, speaking of the miracles that occured at the death of our Lord, he says; "You have the account thereof in your archives."

Eusebius of Caesarea (Church Historian), "The miraculous resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ having become famous and it being an ancient custom that the governors of provinces should send to the Emperor an account of anything new that turned up in their administration, so that he might be fully informed of everything that came to pass, Pontius Pilate acquainted Tiberius with the resurrection of the Saviour, which was known to everyone in Palestine. He (Pilate) also remarked that he had learned that Jesus had performed many miracles , and had, since His resurrection, been recognised by many persons as a God. Tiberius, having heard these things, mentioined them to the Senate, and proposed that Jesus Christ should be placed in the rank of the gods. The Senate opposed the project under the pretext that there was an ancient law which forbade any person to be admitted into the rank of the gods except by a decree of the Senate; but the real reason of the refusal was that the Christian Religion, being divine, should not be established by the authority of men. The Senate having therefore rejected the proposal, the Emperor did not cease to maintain his opinion and attempted nothing against the doctrine of Jesus Christ."

Is it too much to ask of "The God Squad" that they read some history before they undertake the task of telling others about the Messiah

I didn't cite Josephus, Tranquillas, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, ect because I wanted to keep the letter to a publishable length.

Can we get an unbiased source please?

Can you formulate an unbiased question?

Look, I cited the pagan, Tacitus. I could also have cited Josephus, the Jewish Historian.

To my biased way of thinking, it appears any historian who evinced credulity in historical events such as the Incarnation, Life, Miracles, Ministry, Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of the GodMan Jesus would be gainsaid due to your a priori rejection of the Truth, The Way, and the Life..

In "The Fugitive," when U.S. Marshall Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones) was chasing Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford) and had him, apparently,trapped high above a spillway, Dr. Kimble tried to convince Sam he did not kill his wife. U.S. Marshall Sam, in his clipped stentorian voice, said

" I DON'T CARE."

Imagine me saying those words to you the next time you proffer an objection.

Have a nice day.

Obviously the historical question is about purported resurrection, not his existence or death. There is more historical evidence for Jesus than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. Catholicguy may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history

Yes. And what in that do you find offensive? I'll try a rewrite:

Obviously the historical question is about the purported miracles of the Exodus, not Moses's existence. There is more historical evidence for Moses than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. malakhi may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history

Now, I disagree with what this says, but I'm scarcely offended by it.

From ... http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1978_May/Ask_Me.htm

Q. Has it ever been a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday? Is it considered a mortal sin at this date to eat meat on Friday? At what point in history was the doctrine of abstinence from meat established? K. W. W., Searcy, Ark.

A. Yes, deliberate eating of more than two ounces of flesh meat was a grave matter and a mortal sin. (Fr. Davis, S.J.— Precepts, Moral & Pastoral Theology, p. 437.) No, it is not considered a mortal sin at this date. However, some Novus Ordo priests still say it might be a, mortal sin to eat meat on Fridays of Lent and Ash Wednesday. Abstinence from certain meat dates back to at least 1200 B.C. because Moses wrote of it in Levit XVI 29ff. St. Thomas, in the 13th century, considered it in the Summa. Clement of Alexandria did so in the 3rd century. Certainly a custom of such great antiquity should not be lightly handled. Conceivably several souls are in hell because of the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday. Shouldn't they have another chance in our Conciliar Church?

I would like to take this whole thing to its beginning. God created Adam, and Eve. He ordered them not to eat from the fruit of some tree. They ate, and he got upset. He is supposedly a forgiving god, but he would never let go of this one mistake. For thousands of years, he would not allow himself to "simply" forgive Adam and eve, or just don't blame their descendants for their mistake. So he sent his son to be killed on the cross in order to allow himself to forgive that historic mistake. It is a very puzzling and unusual logic. How a forgiving God is unable, or not willing to forgive one single mistake for thousands of years, and in the same time is NOW able to forgive millions of atrocities that are committed by all of us?

Please do not take offense of my question. It is very important for us to examine the entire picture. Moslems do not allow anybody to question things without throwing the label blasphemy at him, and so are the old Christians and Jews, however, let us rationally and dispassionately discuss this premise. Thanks.

I have considered this exact issue for awhile now and offer this perspective.

God created mankind (represented by Adam and Eve), with the ability to choose between good and evil.

In the first climatic test, the good is represented by God, Who lays out the one rule upon which Adam and Eve will determine their destiny. His opposition, the evil, is really represented by Adam and Eve's own selfish desires.

Note that, ... as their benefactor, God has gifted Adam and Eve with all that they, likely, could wholesomely desire, ... with the exception of the fruit of one tree in the garden. God even explained to them His reasoning for this restriction ... the fruit of the tree would kill them ... they would die in the day (from God's standpoint) that they ate of it.

Having set up the premise, He stands aside to allow mankind to choose ... will they choose the known good, or will they opt for the unknown possibile (and warned against) evil.

God, obviously, knows that Adam and Eve will, ultimately, choose poorly in the garden, and so, will, inevitably come to know evil ... firsthand ... by their own experience.

So they did ... in the first generation, their older son Cain killed his younger brother Abel.

We would suppose that such an experience would affect any person so as to move them from an affinity for evil to an affinity for good ... but such is not the case.

Some persons are, indeed, so affected by the suffering and sorrow brought into the world by evil that they do seek for the answer(s) to banishing such evil. I would venture that this is the segment of humanity which, ultimately, seeks for and finds God (Who proclaims Himself as the source of good in the universe).

Others are so twisted in their morality so as to revel and participate in the evil of their experience.

Still others are complacent concerning the evil which befalls others, and are only noticeably moved when evil directly affects them personally.

I would say that God has allowed this because it is His desire to glean from amongst the teeming descendants of Adam and Eve, individuals who will stand with Him for good in the universe.

He has allowed us (as mankind) to learn of the effects of good versus the effects of evil, both corporately and individually. Having such experiential knowledge, we can knowledgeably choose between one or the other.

Those who choose the good, God, ultimately, gleans to Himself, to live with Him.

Those who choose evil, or even choose to do nothing in the face of the evil that affects others, God allows to conclude their physical lives in the world which they have chosen.

I don't think that it is a matter of forgiveness. I believe that God forgives all those who truly love Him and who wish to be with Him.

The process of that forgiveness (how God works it out) may not be understood by all, but I believe that God willingly forgives His children, those that choose Him ... and love Him ... and love one another (which mandates our forgiveness of one another) ... even as we, ourselves, love our children. When they're not perfect, we may correct them, but we surely forgive them.

I believe that God does no less.
Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.