Couldn't resist:
" Symbolic of his struggle against reality."
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 Too Christian I suspect).I post it here because I think the historical references are useful as apologetic tools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.
Any number of explanations can be made for the origin of God. For example, God can be infinite in both time and space, therefore the concept of origin could not apply. God also could have created the universe to look and act exactly as it does without any evidence left of his existence for us to see. There is then no way we can positively say God doesn't exist, because lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of existence. As far as evidence is concerned (aside from that "warm fuzzy"), you simply have to have faith that God exists.
This is strange, an atheist defending religion.
Wasn't it you who freely chose to read and respond to my writings?
You freely picked-up the burden and placed it on your own shoulder (and I can see it didn't dislodge the chip).
When items of orthodoxy conflict with both known things and themselves, reason must give to faith for religion to survive.
I could try to explain, but I think a person who actually has the faith and believes can do it much better.
There is a great deal of animosity between faith and reason because they are antithetical (opposite) to each other.
Reason is the standard for knowing reality, and faith (by definition) deals in mystical fantasy -- faith has nothing to do with reality.
Faith and reason are not brothers.
A transcendent God might exist -- independent of reality.
Creationist theory depends on it.
Couldn't resist:
" Symbolic of his struggle against reality."
I'm still wondering if sentences will be rescinded for all those poor Catholic souls sent to hell for eating meat on Friday.
I'm with you on that. Whatever happened way-back-when had to be awesome.
I like the way Jesuits separate faith and reason. I've been told about one Jesuit telling students to (it went something like this) ...
"Accept nothing on faith, ask the question and seek an answer. If there is no answer, you are dealing with faith."
I still see the same thing. An empty tomb does not prove resurrection. The accounts of the apostles seeing him after death does. Those are religious sources, not secular sources. The emperor believing them or not is not the same as witnessing them.
Please ask yourself if your son or daughter "delibertely" disobeyed you on such a simple thing as not eating a fruit; would you be so upset for thousands of years? Would you forgive your children for killing each others but become very particular about eating some fruits?
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.