"Messiah is a matter of belief"

1/23/04 | Rabbi Marc Gellman, Monsignor Tom Hartman

[Catholicguy]

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 Too Christian I suspect).I post it here because I think the historical references are useful as apologetic tools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...."

Really?

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

<> end of letter<>

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

[missyme]

Oh No I am definetly not trying to criticize....

What I was trying to say is that I think we all have an obligation if we believe in G-d to give him credit for the entire Holy Bible that he inspired.... I just do not think
G-d granted us the idea that we could pick apart his Bible
and interpet it to how we see fit....

[missyme]

Do you think the Old Testament is provable?

[Tantumergo]

Bump for an interesting thread!

Triple bump for the patience you have displayed in response to some who are challenged in the neuronal department.

;)

[tiamat]

Well, you and I have different beliefs and I have no problem with that!

Thanks!

:-)

Tia

[thinktwice]

As for exalted position - LOL!!! I wish.

You're right, I was thinking of those religious at the prelate level.

I'm sorry for casting so wide a net.

[Pelayo]

And the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith doesn't exist, either. Just another popular myth.

The FACT that inquests (AN inquisition) took place, or that they were formed by local and some times papal command, is not indispute. The concept of the Medieval Inquisition as a large all pervasive organization is however a myth.

[antiRepublicrat]

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

You shouldn't have quoted them. The Josephus entry is generally regarded as a forgery, inserted by a later Christian scribe who couln't believe that the time's greatest historian hadn't mentioned him. It does not fit in the surrounding text and uses terms Josephus would not have used. This isn't a modern idea, since the first work clearly casting doubt on the passage was done in the early 1800s.

Tacitus was writing 70 years after Jesus' death, and only mentioned his existence, not any resurrection. It is also likely tht the Tacitus entry is a Christian forgery.

As they say, the victor writes the history books. But sometimes they get caught.

I know you don't care, history often get in the way of faith, and if you base your religion on factual history instead of faith you are lost.

[Antoninus]

The Emporer Constantine converted to Christianity in the third century for political reasons not as a matter of faith.

You say that as if this was a historical fact and not something very much subject to interpretation. Indeed, this is the "revisionist" position and it contradicts beliefs held by many throughout the ages that Constantine was a true Christian and converted as the result of a miracle rather than for more worldly motives.

And considering such a small percentage of the Roman world was Christian, and indeed, that Christians were a hated sect mercilessly persecuted by Constantine's predecessor Diocletian, the "political" explanation for Constantine's conversion stands on shaky ground to say the least.

[Antoninus]

If we can't trust many of today's bishops, why should anyone trust those in earlier eras?

This statement is a logical fallacy. It's the equivalent of saying: "I heard an Irishman lie, so therefore, I don't trust Irishmen anymore."

[Antoninus]

The Romans had so many Gods and they didn't really believe in any of them.

You're stretching the truth here. If you had said that some Romans didn't really believe in their gods, I might agree with you. But to imply that ALL Romans did not believe in the pagan gods is simply false. Most evidence points to the fact that Romans were reasonably devoted to their divinities and had a habit of looking for the new the "god of the hour," importing popular cults from other countries (e.g., Serapis, Osiris, Mithras, etc.). Belief in the various pagan divinities waxed and waned throughout Roman history as would be expected. It seemed to finally wane for good during the 3rd century AD, possibly as a result of the military, political, and economic chaos that hit the empire during those days.

In its final incarnation, Roman paganism became more of a neo-Platonic syncretism saying that all the gods were just modes of one god, Sol Invictus. It is perhaps for this reason that many formerly polytheistic Romans were able to make the transition to Christian monotheism rather easily during the 5th and 6th centuries AD.

None of this, of course, contradicts the idea that it was by the Divine Providence of the Hebrew God that all this came to pass....

[Antoninus]

360 AD, Laodocia Council. They had a few hundred years to get a lot of it wrong.

Fortunately for us, they didn't. Or do you think that the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letters of Clement should be included in the Canon?

[Antoninus]

In 1483, at the nomination and request of Ferdinand and Isabella, Pope Sixtus IV appointed a Dominican friar, Tomas de Toquemada, inquisitor general for all of Spain. He was a sincere and incorruptible fanatic ...

Who was responsible for the deaths of more Christians, Cardinal Torquemada or Oliver Cromwell. Crunch the numbers and get back to us, will you?

[Antoninus]

When items of orthodoxy conflict with both known things and themselves, reason must give to faith for religion to survive.

It's interesting you say that. It was precisely by signs and miracles that the divinity of Christ was revealed to his disciples. If not for these miraculous healings, calming of storms, driving out of demons, etc., how many more would have walked away from him because of his "hard sayings?"

Do you hold that nothing of the supernatural (meaning outside of natural phenomenon as understood by science and reason) has ever occurred in human history?

[Antoninus]

Faith and reason are not brothers.

Yes they are. Faith is the transcendent brother, reason is the worldly one.

Show me a scientist and I'll show you someone who has "faith" in the power of "reason" to solve any problem. What evidence is there that all problems are solvable and all mysteries explainable via human rationality? I posit that there is no such evidence, but our reason is simply the best tool we have at our disposal.

[Antoninus]

The Bible does not contain their direct writings, so we hear of them through the writers of the Gospels.

John was a witness. Matthew may have been a witness as he was a disciple, though not one of the 12.

And don't be so quick to jump on the lit-crit bandwagon saying that the Gospels were derivative works. Such theories are propagated by nominal Christians and anti-Christians with the implicit intention to undermine the accuracy and veracity of the Gospel accounts. There's no real evidence backing up this theory, other than the opinions of various "biblical scholars" of questionable intent.

[Antoninus]

No, but the Catholic "elite" during the 370 years after Christ had an open field to plant just about whatever little extras they wanted into writings now called "Biblical" or "Gospel."

You really don't have any idea what kind of vetting process was done to achieve the Canon as we know it today, do you? The "Catholic elite" you speak of included bishops from all over the known world, who had trouble agreeing on anything--even a common date to celebrate Easter. The fact that they were able to agree on a Canon of Scripture is almost miraculous.

Two questions for you: #1: Have you ever read the entirety of the Bible? #2: Have you ever read the "apocrypha," that is, those books which didn't make it. It's very enlightening to do both.

[Antoninus]

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

You do realize that the SSPX is NOT in communion with Rome at the moment and is not a reliable transmitter of what the Vatican teaches.

[philosofy123]

Thank you for the good info.

[antiRepublicrat]

Do you hold that nothing of the supernatural (meaning outside of natural phenomenon as understood by science and reason) has ever occurred in human history?

It's possible, but there's no evidence for it other than the testimony of cult followers. If such evidence were reliable, you'd also have to admit Islam and Hindu are just as valid as Christianity.

[antiRepublicrat]

Fortunately for us, they didn't. Or do you think that the Shepherd of Hermas or the Letters of Clement should be included in the Canon?

Aside from the fact that the church excluded any text that didn't fit with their current dogma, we're talking about whether those texts that did accurately represent events through decades of oral transmission and other possible distortions.