Posted on 01/23/2004 6:16:05 AM PST by 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 Too Christian I suspect).I post it here because I think the historical references are useful as apologetic tools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.
I hope Catholicguy realizes that half of the God Squad that he is complaining about is a Catholic Priest.
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.
The fact that Pilate would report to the Senate what all the fuss was about in Judea related as much to covering his ass over continued political and religious unrest in the area. Not that Pilate was a convert because he stood outside the tomb and saw Christ resurrected or because he saw Christ walk through walls or ascend to Heaven.
Up until the point of collating the disparate stories into one Bible, I'll give you the vagaries of mistranslation, reinterpretation, misattribution and plain insertion of stuff people thought should be there. But afterwards, the monk scribes were EXTREMELY careful about getting every word right, often taking one year to transcribe one copy, with thorough reviews including word and letter counts in addition to proofreading.
Never underestimate what the mind of a cult follower is capable of, what warped results you get from what you'd think is evidence against them. It is a known set of psychological phenomena.
Case in point, prophecies -- even those the cult is based upon -- that do not come true do not shake the belief of the followers in the truth of the "word." In fact the followers rationalize the false prophecy and usually redouble their faith and efforts towards the cult. I believe there was even a recent cult where their version of Revelations was aliens coming to pick up the cult members. When it didn't happen, they just got more devoted.
If false prophecies hurt faith, there would be no more Jehova's Witnesses left.
But honestly, if you are trying to convince someone, one possible trick is not to write 45 pages, but to write a couple of sentences to pique their curiosity and make them ask, "What do you mean, Jeuss fulfilled Old Testament prophecies?" and then you gradually suck them into the discussion more and more. This is not a discussion for the pages of a newspaper, of course--I'm referring to interactions with nonbelievers in daily life.
Historians, yes; but Bishops, Popes and Saints? No.
And their writings -- for 1400 years -- were under the control of, guess who?
Not only that, but after the printing press was invented (15th century AD), the Inquisition took over to control people ... for an additional 200 years plus.
Yeah, I sort of knew that seeing as how one of their names is "Monsignor Tom Harmon" and the photo of him in his Roman Collar accompanies every column when it is printed and I have seen he and the rabbi on TV ect ect.
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.
You'd make a poor Juror automatically gainsaying thousands of witnesses based upon your antiChristian bigotry.
The fact that Pilate would report to the Senate what all the fuss was about in Judea related as much to covering his ass over continued political and religious unrest in the area. Not that Pilate was a convert because he stood outside the tomb and saw Christ resurrected or because he saw Christ walk through walls or ascend to Heaven.
So, why did the Pagans of the Roman Senate debate whether or not Jesus ought be ommitted to the rank of Gods?
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.
What I didn't do was to respond as you might have responded. Keep your eyes open. Maybe your local paper will carry this column and you can respond as you desire. When you do, you give every indication you will do a smashing job, sister.
After what date? I'd say it was after the church council that put the Bible together. I forget, however, the name and date of that council.
Contrary to the comic book history of popular myth, the Inquisition as an institution never actually existed. AN inquisition was simply a tribunal not an organization. Their was no defined body of inquisitors to “control the people.”.
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.