This weekend I spent the weekend with a few XJWs. We had a nice weekend but eventually we got round to the subject of why I am having a problem accepting that Jesus was the messiah.
A friend of one of them came around and he had brought an article which he wanted me to read. I have scanned the article and have posted it here. I intend to give him a full knock out response and would appreciate any URL addreesses etc where I can get info.
Here is the article:
Yet another series on TV has attacked the truth of the Gospel accounts of the life of the Lord Jesus. This time it claiyned that Jesus was just an ordinary prophet whom the Church a hundred years later made into a Christ whom they depicted as the divine Son of God, namely the Christ or Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.
It is interesting that one of the promoters of this programme was a Jewish rabbi who. of course, does not believe that Jesus was the Christ. But if it is admitted that the Old Testament does foretell such a person, whv is it not admitted that Jesus fulfilled all those scriptures? -
Is such criticism to be trusted? After giving an initial false report on the Dead Sea Scrolls before all the. contents had been properly translated and assessed, one critic wrote a repentan, correction 15 ye@irs later saying that he jumped to conclusions on pre-existent assumptions and gave a tabloid journalist a sensational type of report.
JESUS - MOST HISTORICAL OF ALL
1 continue to get letters or see in newspapers the assertion that the picture of Jesus in the New Testament is not a factual one. This is often backed up with the assertion that there is little in history about the man Jesus Christ.
Such statements are completely without foundation. They deceive only the people who have no knowledge of the facts.
The New Testament story of the Lord Jesus has three times more evidence of its accuracy than anything about any of the Roman emperors; and many times more written copies of the original accounts. Compared with any event of history, the New Testament has abundantly more reliable documents.
Professor F. F. Bruce of Manchester University says that Caesar's Gallic Wan with which many, students are familiar, has only nine old copies and the oldest of those is 900 years after Caesar's day, yet nobody questions those. In contrast, there are 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The oldest full copies go back to about AD 330 and part of St John's Gospel which has survived, actually goes back to within a few years of St John's original writing.. we also have fragments of St Mark's Gospel and St James's letter and 1 Timothy which ai-e around AD 68.
Of the works of the Roman historian, Livy, of Christ's time, only 20 old copies survive. The well-known Roman historian, Tacitus, has only four surviving old copies of his Annals. Contrast both of these with the 5000 old manuscripts of the New Testament.
Concerning the famous history by Herodotus, the oldest copy of the original is 1,300 years after it was written. Professor Bruce conunents,
'Yet no classical scho'lar would listen to an argument that the authenticitv of Herodotus was in doubt.'
He then'reviews the wealth of evidence we have for the New Testament and shows what a contrast it is to secular history.
A letter in the press from a sceptic questions whether Jesus Christ really figured in history. The answer is that He did. As many as eight non-
Christian historians of the first century refer to Jesus Christ. They were Tacitus. Suctonius. Serapion. Phlegon, Lucian and Josephus, as well as references by Pliny and Thallus. Also. there are nine antagonist
references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud writings. In addition, the New Testament itself is more than sufficient evidence. Luke says that he wrote down his account from eyewitnesses carefully and accurately. That accuracy was confirmed by Sir Williarn R~ay. He started by being a sceptic. but he researched all the historical references and dates and incidents which Luke included in his account and found them completely accurate to the last detail.
Professor F.F. Bruce writes, 'Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings.' The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD90 and 160, yet in
their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most books of the New Testament.
This is an extract from the book 'Evidence for truth:
Archaeology'
by Dr E.K. Victor Pewee,