The Jesus Trial : Examining the Historical Evidence

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 01/31/2006 | Joseph Farah

[SirLinksalot]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48583

The Jesus trial

---

Posted: January 31, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

---

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

If it wasn't so sad, you'd have to laugh at the Italian trial in which a Catholic priest is being sued by an atheist for deceiving people into thinking Jesus was an actual historical figure.

Of course, there is far more reason to believe Jesus actually walked the face of the Earth than there is to believe Socrates did. We not only have the biblical accounts of His life, but, for those who require them, extra-biblical ones from Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus.

But that really misses the point.

Simon Greenleaf, one of the principal founders of the Harvard Law School, was a skeptic like the Italian atheist. He set out from a scholarly and legal perspective to make a much narrower point – disprove Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead through a careful investigation of the Gospel witnesses.

But he came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the Resurrection actually happened.

"The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation," wrote Greenleaf.

This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world.

The laws of every country were against the teaching of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths.

Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unflinching courage.

They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.

If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Greenleaf explained that the apostles had absolutely no motive for fabrication – and every human motive to recant their stories. But they did not.

"It would also have been irreconcilable with the fact that they were good men," Greenleaf continued.

But it is impossible to read their writings, and not feel that we are conversing with men eminently holy, and of tender consciences, with men acting under an abiding sense of the presence and omniscience of God, and of their accountability to him, living in his fear, and walking in his ways. Now, though, in a single instance, a good man may fall, when under strong temptations, yet he is not found persisting, for years, in deliberated falsehood, asserted with the most solemn appeals to God, without the slightest temptation or motive, and against all the opposing interests which reign in the human breast.

If, on the contrary, they are supposed to have been bad men, it is incredible that such men should have chosen this form of imposture; enjoining, as it does, unfeigned repentance, the utter forsaking and abhorrence of all falsehood and of every other sin, the practice of daily self-denial, self-abasement and self-sacrifice, the crucifixion of the flesh with all its earthly appetites and desires, indifference to the honors, and hearty contempt of the vanities of the world; and inculcating perfect purity of heart and life, and intercourse of the soul with heaven. It is incredible, that bad men should invent falsehoods, to promote the religion of the God of truth. The supposition is suicidal.

If they did believe in a future state of retribution, a heaven and a hell hereafter, they took the most certain course, if false witnesses, to secure the latter for their portion. And if, still being bad men, they did not believe in future punishment, how came they to invent [that] which was to destroy all their prospects of worldly honor and happiness, and to ensure their misery in this life? From these absurdities there is no escape, but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed and considered, and well knew to be true.

Greenleaf concluded: "Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard."

I agree.

Yet it seems the more learned we supposedly become, the more difficult it is for some to see the Truth.

What do you think? Were the apostles ordinary men who witnessed the extraordinary? Or were they extraordinary men who gave their own lives for the strange purpose of deceiving others?

---

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

[ZULU]

O.K.

I confess. You caught me in a typo.

[Flavius Josephus]

A trial is for determining guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt, or to establish guilt based upon the preponderance of the evidence if it is a civil case.

I do not see how this person has standing to sue a priest for what he has done or has not done to someone else.

[Godzilla]

Huh. So... there's no contemporary evidence of Caesar, eh...

You must have reading comprehension difficulity, as I said nothing about contemporary evidence, but was citing historical manuscript evidence relating to the history surrounding the actions of Jesus(I know it was a long post, but take your time and re-read it). However, it would be educational if you researched your posting to include the dates when the items were made? Were they made when the individual was actually living or some years later, and which individual is depicted.

I too could post a lot of images of Jesus, including recently found 2d or 3d century coin. One could also post statues of Zeus, Mithras or other clearly mythical personages, and coins bearing similar images. That does not define by itself the historicity of the personage the image is trying to represent.

So it comes back around to whats your point anyway. The historicity of Jesus has been easily proven and accepted by nearly all but moonbat scholars. The written documentation about Jesus' life are just one line of evidence. Many others on this thread have touched on some of the other lines of evidence.

[ZULU]

What went on at Haun's Mill was hardly a widespread state-sponsored persecution, such as Christians experienced under the Romans.

The cruelties described in the article you reference are bad enough, but hardly compare in any way to what went on in Nero's Gardens, the Flavian Colosseum and other public places in the Roman Empire.

The actions of a mob of vigilantes in no way represented the sentiments of the entire society and state to the extent that the persecution of Christians in the Empire did. Nor were the Mormons themselves exempt from such activities as Mountain Meadows indicates. I believe Brigham Young referred to himself as the "Mohammad of the west" - hardly an auspicious title.

If you can provide a single link to a reputable archaeological source in no way connected with the Mormon Church which justifies the existence of Nephites, Jaredites, etc., I might take the Book of Mormon more seriously.

[orionblamblam]

> I said nothing about contemporary evidence

The text you cut-and-pasted *did*, though. That was the bulk of it's arguement, that the most recent editions of Caesars works and those described Caesar are substantially newer thatn extant works describing Jesus. But the arguement totally fails to recognize that written documents are not the sum total of what's called "evidence."

> Were they made when the individual was actually living or some years later, and which individual is depicted.

All are of Julius Caesar, taken from life. The coins were minted within his lifetime or within a few years of it.

> I too could post a lot of images of Jesus, including recently found 2d or 3d century coin.

The difference being, unlike the Caesar images, that one would not have been taken from life. The difference being, faking the existence of Caesar would have required a vast conspiracy, while faking the existence of Jesus would ahve required a few. The difference being, Julius Caesar was just a man who was proclaimed a god for political purposes, while Jesus... well...


> The historicity of Jesus has been easily proven and accepted by nearly all but moonbat scholars.

If you defien "moonbat scholars" as those who raise doubts, then, sure. But then, by doing so, you've turned "moonbat" from an insult to a term of honor. Rather a lot of scholars have debated the historiocity of Jesus, everything from his divinity to his mere existence. If you choose to view those who dare question his divinity to be insane (i.e "moonbat") that is of course your choice, but it marks you as being a man of very weak and paranoid faith.

[Godzilla]

> I said nothing about contemporary evidence The text you cut-and-pasted *did*, though.

The term 'contemporary evidence' is not found at all in the article extract I posted - so please don't misrepresent my posts. If it does, please extract the quote, remembering my post is still present for all to see. It dealt specifically with the historical manuscripts.

But the arguement totally fails to recognize that written documents are not the sum total of what's called "evidence."

Very good, you must have gleaned that from the last line of my post. However, while not the sum total, it provides the basis for placing the individual into their historic context.

The difference being, faking the existence of Caesar would have required a vast conspiracy, while faking the existence of Jesus would ahve required a few.

Nope, sorry, doesn't wash. Provide the great readers here with a reasonable theory that can account for the teachings of Jesus, the faith of the disciples and the early church after the cruxifiction and persecution that followed, the dynamic change in the life of Saul, and the cultural change Christianity eventually exerted over the world, then you might have credability with that arguement.

The same historical methodology that has you riled up over Caesar's existance, when applied to Jesus provides the same supporting documentation of His life. Remember, in the case of Jesus we are dealing with a substantial number of eyewitness accounts. Secondly, the 'faking' of Jesus' existance, given the eyewitness testamony, even testamony that resulted in persecution and even execution (an action that most sane persons would not follow - if it wasn't true) was the strength of the early church. And this was recognized immediately outside of the early Christian community as evidenced by Jewish writings of the era.

If you defien "moonbat scholars" as those who raise doubts, then, sure. But then, by doing so, you've turned "moonbat" from an insult to a term of honor. Rather a lot of scholars have debated the historiocity of Jesus, everything from his divinity to his mere existence.

Those who deny or doubt the simple fact of His existance I would term "moonbat". They are not applying common sense logical approaches that reasonable persons would. The details of His life will always be a matter of debate (even His Divinity) and I have no problem with that. However, when the challenger has to restort to subjective evidence or interpretation of historical documents - just like your reference to Apollonius - to try to discredit the historicity of Jesus by infering that Apollonius was really Jesus stretches credability to the breaking point.

If you choose to view those who dare question his divinity to be insane (i.e "moonbat") that is of course your choice, but it marks you as being a man of very weak and paranoid faith.

I do not fear those who would question Jesus' divinity because I have a rational understanding the arguements both pro and con and know the objective evidence my faith is based upon. Those who question the divinity of Jesus do so at their own risk. So being one who will challenge the challenger makes me one of weak and paranoid faith? LOL, thought you like those who challenged opinion?

[D-fendr]

Explain the success of Scientology in an era when information is infinitely faster and available than in 50 AD. Explain the rise of Mormonism when based on what sure sounds like a patently silly tale. Explain the success of Muslims finding converts among westerners.

L. Ron Hubbard existed; Joseph Smith existed.

Remember, I'm focusing on the narrow specific point of the Italian trial. How could this hoax begin, in your view, with your position that the founder possibly or probably did not exist?

[TChris]

What went on at Haun's Mill was hardly a widespread state-sponsored persecution, such as Christians experienced under the Romans.

I never claimed it was. You said that Mormons have not suffered things like being fed to lions, crucifixions, etc.. I only wanted to provide some balancing evidence of what they have suffered.

Also, a written extermination order was issued by Governor Boggs of Missouri. That's pretty close to state-sponsored persecution, if you ask me.

Nor were the Mormons themselves exempt from such activities as Mountain Meadows indicates.

That's a whole other subject. The fact that Mountain Meadows occurred after most of the worst persecutions suffered by Mormons also makes it irrelevant to this discussion.

I believe Brigham Young referred to himself as the "Mohammad of the west" - hardly an auspicious title.

Whoopdie doo. This is a shameless attempt to tie Brigham Young to current feelings about Muslims. Pathetic.

If you can provide a single link to a reputable archaeological source in no way connected with the Mormon Church which justifies the existence of Nephites, Jaredites, etc., I might take the Book of Mormon more seriously.

I couldn't care less what you take seriously. Your standards for what is "reputable" are under your own control. I harbor no illusions that you would consider any source as reputable if it was favorable to the Latter-day Saints.

Those who are honest seekers will find plenty of good stuff at the links I provided, and the links those sites provide. That's enough for me.

[ZULU]

Have a nice day.

[orionblamblam]

>The term 'contemporary evidence' is not found at all in the article extract I posted - so please don't misrepresent my posts. If it does, please extract the quote, remembering my post is still present for all to see. It dealt specifically with the historical manuscripts.

Are you deliberately trying to be weird? The "contemporary evidence" *was* the historical manuscripts. Warren's silly arguement tryign to compare then hisotiocity of Caser to Jesus was to claim that the oldest extant Jesus-records are older than the oldest Caesar records. But of course... he's wrong, as the photos show.

> Provide the great readers here with a reasonable theory that can account for the teachings of Jesus, the faith of the disciples and the early church after the cruxifiction and persecution that followed, the dynamic change in the life of Saul, and the cultural change Christianity eventually exerted over the world, then you might have credability with that arguement.

A reasonable theaory? Alright, here's one: the "apostles" made it all up, got others to believe, and thus the religion was born. Fits the facts as well as any other theory, and also fits with other historical examples, already mentioned.

> The same historical methodology that has you riled up over Caesar's existance, when applied to Jesus provides the same supporting documentation of His life.

Really? There are statues of the man from his lifetime? Buckets of coins bearing his name and image?

> try to discredit the historicity of Jesus by infering that Apollonius was really Jesus ...

Your dishonesty does not bolster your case.

Since we've established that your basic arguement is wrong *and* that you are willing to just make stuff up... I'm done here.

[jdhighness]

I don't know how you can say that about the first 20 pages. Those pages are the introduction. Have you read any of the interviews with leading researchers in the fields of ancient history and medicine? They address most of what I've seen you question in this thread.

I admit, Strobel has an unusual introduction--analogizing an assessment of Christ's credibility to a court room trial--but to disregard a highly cited book because of an obtuse introduction seems like an excuse for complacency.

[Godzilla]

Are you deliberately trying to be weird? The "contemporary evidence" *was* the historical manuscripts.

You have a poor sense of contextural comprehension. Too bad. Next point.

Warren's silly arguement tryign to compare then hisotiocity of Caser to Jesus was to claim that the oldest extant Jesus-records are older than the oldest Caesar records. But of course... he's wrong, as the photos show.

A statue is a statue, says nothing of the person's history or acts - only writings can do that and that was the point of the comparison. IF nothing was ever written about Caesar, how would we even know about the individual? Duh.

Alright, here's one: the "apostles" made it all up, got others to believe, and thus the religion was born. Fits the facts as well as any other theory, and also fits with other historical examples, already mentioned.

Lame, but lets see if it really fits my challenge -
account for the teachings of Jesus - Doesn't even begin to pass the common sense test. How could a group of liars write one of the most morally challenging narratives that specificially condems their lies in writing it. Also doesn't bear under the broader scruteny of history.

the faith of the disciples and the early church after the cruxifiction and persecution that followed - You ought to read how the disciples were persecuted and killed if you sincerely believe they 'made it up'. They were condemned to death for this 'made up' belief, and could have saved their lives by only saying it was false. Doubt that you would die for such a made-up belief. For that level of belief, something deeper must have happened.

the dynamic change in the life of Saul, -Again, Saul was a persecutor of the early church, totally against their beliefs. Yet something occured in his life to change him from the archenemy of Christianity to its most significant proponent. Saul also didn't deny that Jesus existed, only His teachings. Your theory fails to address this point.

cultural change Christianity eventually exerted over the world - It is worthless to try to compare you feable theory to this wide ranging example of the sociallogical impact the testamony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus had on the world.

Has your theory held up? No, it has failed miserably.

> try to discredit the historicity of Jesus by infering that Apollonius was really Jesus ... Your dishonesty does not bolster your case.

You were the one shoving Apollonius into other posters faces, not me. I fail to find one thing dishonest in challenging your use of Apollonius.

Since we've established that your basic arguement is wrong *and* that you are willing to just make stuff up... I'm done here.

LOL, you've established nothing. You have a worthless theory on the origin of Christianity (I've seen far better). I addressed your points straight on. ROTFLAICGU, me making stuff up, snarf. Yes, perhaps it is better that you're out of here.

[orionblamblam]

> but to disregard a highly cited book because of an obtuse introduction

I disregarded it not because of the odd style, but because it used dishonest reasoning. It's been a year and I don't have it in front of me, but the bit that finally did in the book for me was both an acknowledgement that the authors of the first 4 books of the NT are anonymous... but that he accepts that they must be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John anyway, without actually backing that up with evidence.

I flipped through the rest of the book, and noticed that while the book was supposed to be a "courtroom trial," I didn't see any interviews with those holding contrary views. Lots of time spent on interviewing those who agreed with his assessment, but where were the critics? Where were the scholars from the "Jesus Seminar?" I don't recall seeing them. Given the vast number of other books I have to read, I decided to put that work aside and read something less... dishonest.

[samtheman]

Good. So we should start suing each other based on each other's doctrinaire beliefs. Great for lawyers. I should be one.

[jdhighness]

The point of the book was that Strobel was the skeptic. He challenged these experts with commonly held notions and got his answers. Strobel presents the arguments of the skeptics by citing them. One of those skeptical groups he cites is the Jesus Seminar. In fact, a large part of one interview is about the Jesus Seminar!

There is at least one book that attempted to rebuttal it, but that book is out of print on even Amazon.com. I think that reveals something about its validity.

With respect, you did not read enough of the book if you think Strobel or one of his expert witnesses acknowledged the Gospels were written by anonymous sources. They specifically state the 3 weren't anonymous (Matt, Mark, Luke) and that John was probably (by historical standards) written by a student of John who was citing John in many instances (much like Luke and Peter).

If you are really passionate about this topic--which it seems you are because you comment on it--perhaps you could put this book near the top of your reading list. It directly addresses a lot of what you've said here.

Or you can continue on making claims for which there are already reasonable answers for.

I know that Pascal's Wager brings up negative emotions, but I think it has overall validity. If we can find the Truth to a standard we use for other decisions (EX the rule of law), then we should endeaver to. The consequences of complacency can be infinitely greater than the benefits of living for yourself.

[orionblamblam]

> The point of the book was that Strobel was the skeptic.

No, he wasn't. If he ever was, he certainly wasn't when he wrote the book.

>Strobel presents the arguments of the skeptics by citing them.

That's nice. Where are the *interviews* like he has with the non-skeptics?

> There is at least one book that attempted to rebuttal it, but that book is out of print on even Amazon.com. I think that reveals something about its validity

Hardly. Rebuttal books never do as well as the books they are rebutting. Compare James Randi's books debunking charlatans like Uri Geller and the Nostradamus nuts to the books *by* the charlatans.

Skepticism and debunking are not "joyful" concepts in and of themselves; they do nto pretend to give hope, and the process is not easy. But "Believe this and you'll go to heaven," why, that's just all kinds of good and easy news. Who wants to read that "believe this and you won't go to heaven?" It might not sell as well, but that does not invalidate it.


> I know that Pascal's Wager brings up negative emotions, but I think it has overall validity.

Pascal's wager is an incredibly weak arguement. For starters, it assumes that God is the *Christian* God... and no possibility of another. So where it falls down is the assumption that if you believe in the Christian God, you'll go to heaven. But it leaves out the possibility that Crom will throw you out of Valhalla and laugh at you.

[r9etb]

The real question, of course, is why you've got such twisty knickers about Christianity. It can't be due to anything rational -- if it were, you'd just ignore threads like this.

[orionblamblam]

> you'd just ignore threads like this.

You seem to ignore the possibility that threads such as this entertain me. Watching people go hyper to defend God from those who seek rational explanations... why, that's high comedy.

[r9etb]

... why, that's high comedy

I've seen enough of your posts to recognize that you're not interested in rational explanations. You've got an emotional stake in the outcome. That's fine, but please don't try to play Mr. Rational on such threads -- your posts betray you.