Hi Seddy3,
Seems nice. Actually I'm using: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/
If I have some problems I'll will use yours.
The historicy of Jesus Christ: I need your help
by Ginosko 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Ginosko
Hi,
I found this article that I think is good resume about the historicy of Jesus Christ.
Jesus: The Christ and Christology
Non-Christian sources.
Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition. The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note. In his account of the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero , which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christians, who were already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in Rome. An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger , in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a crude superstition, who sang hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is said of his earthly life, and the factual information in the letter undoubtedly stems from Christians.
Another Roman historian, Suetonius , remarked in his life of the emperor Claudius (Vita Claudii 25:4; after AD 100): "He [Claudius] expelled the Jews, who had on the instigation of Chrestus continually been causing disturbances, from Rome." This may refer to turmoils occasioned among the Jews of Rome by the intrusion of Christianity into their midst. But the information must have reached the author in a completely garbled form or was understood by him quite wrongly to mean that this "Chrestus" had at that time appeared in Rome as a Jewish agitator. Claudius' edict of expulsion (AD 49) is also mentioned in Acts 18:2.
Josephus , the Jewish historian at the court of Domitian who has depicted the history of his people and the events of the Jewish-Roman war (66-70), only incidentally remarks about the stoning in AD 62 of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ . . ." (Antiquities XX, 200). He understandably uses the proper name "Jesus" first (for as a Jew he knows that "Christ" is a translation of "Messiah"), but he adds, though qualified by a derogatory "so-called," the second name that was familiar in Rome. (Some scholars have suggested, however, that this reference was a later Christian insertion.) Scholars also have questioned the authenticity of a second passage in the same work, known as the "Testimony of Flavius" (XVIII, 63ff.), which is generally thought to contain at least some statements, apparently later insertions, that summarize Christian teaching about Jesus. (see also Index: "Antiquities of the Jews, The," )
In the Talmud , a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary, only a few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of the 1st and 2nd centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly polemics or Jewish apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the Christian tradition but include several divergent legendary motifs as well. The picture of Jesus offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the (according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated among Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopdia Britannica
-
seedy3
Ginosko,
I have read of all these supposed evidences for Jesus and done a fair amount of research on them. It is interesting to note that none of the people that are quoted lived in that time so first off had to rely on hearsay to pass on their writngs. The mentions of Jesus in the annals of Joshephes are widely viewed as a fraud, even some of the Cahtolic scholars who's for-runners were the ones that found it. It is thought, by many, that Eusebius, the church historian, had forged that passage about Jesus.
The Cathlic Enclyclopedia says this about the passage:
Those who regard the passage as spurious
First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:
- Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;
- the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;
- its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.
In the book Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless, Esq, he writes:
Mangasarian. Wheless: "The fact is, that with the exception of this one incongruous forged passage, section 3, the wonder-mongering Josephus makes not the slightest mention of his wonder-working fellow-countryman, Jesus the Christ - though some score of other Joshuas, or Jesuses, are recorded by him, nor does he mention any of his transcendent wonders."
Now on to the other "Historical writings of Pliny and Tacitus.
Again neither of these two lived during the time of Jesus, So they could not have been eye wittnesses to Jesus or even hear directly from someone that had been..
Pliny: First off in his letter to Trajan he did not mention anything about Jesus, no record of what happened to Jesus or his legend, all he really mentions is Christians and their devotion.
Tacitus: There is no evidence as to where Tacitus got his information, there is a lot of specualtion on it but nothing substatual. The thought are he heard it from Pliny or perhaps from what christians had said in questioning by autorities. There are actually many different specualtions. But needless to say this is not a reliable proof.
There is also the point that Tacitus does not always use reliable sources for his writings this is mentioned by a few scholars as thisTacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically but were true in a literary sense or a moral sense.
R. Melner, Michael Grant, K. Wessley.Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether "Christus" actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a "pernicious superstition."
Suetonius: Again this is not a proof of Jesus, it ony possibly mentions the movement and actually is the word Crestus and Christus.
The Talmud
First off lets get one thing correct, the Tol'Doth Yeshu is not a part of the Talmud. It was not composed until around the 10th century so therefore cannot be of any historical value
So now we fall back on, there is no historical evidence of a historical Jesus, Now there may have been one, there were many people named Y'shuah in jerusalem as it was a common name. But if he did exist, as he is portraied, why was he never mentioned by Philo, or Justin of Alexanderia (Justin was from Jesus home town, they were hommies, they could have even grown up together), as well as about 40 other historians that lived during that time period. How is it that there could have been masses assembled to hear his teachings, and yet it never reached Philo, even though he was right there. How is it, that strange things happend at Jesus death like the impossible eclipse (it is impossible to have an eclipse on the full moon) now that would have been big news, or the earthquake, where many were recorded yet not this one. Then again how about Josephes, he hated Herod and made a point to show all of his dasterdly deeds, yet the slaughter of an entire villages children wasn't ever recorded, as well as none of the other writers did.
Just things to ponder
Seedy
-
Moxy
I recently read Earl Doherty's book (mentioned in one of the URLs) The Jesus Puzzle. I found it very compelling in its explanation of Jesus as a mythical figure at the time of Paul and the 'kerygma' teachings, whose simliarites to the Mystery Cults have been well established. It was only the book of Mark that first presented the idea of a human Jesus who had recently walked the earth. Paul and the epistles nowhere suggest that Jesus was a historical man, recently crucified in Jerusalem. There is no merit to the argument that the opponents of Christianity never doubted Jesus' existence, since Christians themselves never made the claim that Jesus existed until at least 40 years after he had supposedly died!
Several of his arguments are explained on the web if one wishes to look around (try http://www.infidels.org.) Some of them are certainly more speculative than others, but on the whole they form an integrated and consistent explanation of Christian origins that cannot easily be ignored.
Since realizing the New Testament is not nearly the inerrant piece of literature i had always been taught, i still assumed there has some kernel of a historical Jesus that had begun the religion. This book convinced me that I could no longer make that assumption.
mox
-
thepreacher
Try reading from a reputable, unbiased source. Lee Strobel is a journalist, edited the Chicago Tribune, he did an investigation of this subject and did not believe in God at the time. Some of his books, now as a Christian are: the Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. You might also check out Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict (1 & 2) and various works by Hank Hannegraf. Chuck Colson's How Now Shall We Live explains why the debate over origins is not "science vs religion" but "bad science vs unbiased science". What we have there is a clash of world-views, naturalism vs theism.
Historicity of Christ? Read this one first:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Excerpt:
HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce
Manchester University
The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."
Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.
The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.
On another note:
Here is a critique of Stafford's book. JW's will appeal to any source to defend their hodgepodge of heretical beliefs, as evidenced of their hypocrisy in using liberal, non-believer scholars who also do not support the Watchtower's position!
http://www.equip.org/free/DJ065.htm
The Preacher
Edited by - thepreacher on 17 November 2002 23:13:8
-
thepreacher
I noticed a fellow above quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a prime example of extreme left wing "Christian" opinions from an apostate church that considers it's own councils to be of equal weight with God's word. Indeed, most of mainstream protestantism is almost as bad with the leftovers from the '60s in power across our nation and Europe. This gang is responsible for The Jesus Seminar which is one of the biggest loads of manure ever passed off as 'theology'.
The above assume that no miracles can have occurred and their is no supernatural, therefore they toss out practically all of the gospel evidence from 25,000 whole or partial manuscripts of the New Testament. These texts are 99.99% in agreement with each other. No less than 19 secular writers refer to Christ, the historical evidence is many times more frequent and reliable than the evidence that any other figure in history has!
Liberal theologians are nothing more than wolves in sheeps frocks, so-called 'Christians' like Bishop Spong and his ilk stand squarely on the side of atheism and have only to admit as much to actually become honest. But their time is limited, naturalism is crumbling under the weight of scientific evidence. The Big Bang is a brick wall to their theories and irreducible complexity has disproven any notion that opposes intelligent design. DNA contains code that has to be so precise in order for a organism to live in the first place, and that is just for single-cell 'life'.
Any teacher that weaves some tale about 'life crawling out of the primordial soup' is promoting the biggest 'scientific' farce.......not even a MYTH because myths contain truth at the core!
The Preacher
-
seedy3
I went and read the site mentioned above http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
I find it facinating that what he uses to prove the resurection was not any real evidence, but just repeats the christian tradition as an answer to each arguement. I suppose I could give a short response in this way:
If there was no Jesus, then there was no grave, therefore there was no stone, and if there was no stone there was no Roman guard that went AWOL, then as well there could not have been a resurection since there was no Jesus to begin with.
He mentions that the Gospels were in wide circulation during the life times of the deciples, well that is not fully true and hard to beleive. Although one of them may have been written during their lifetime, that being Mark, it was written in Greek and the language of the area was actually Aramaic, although Greek was widely spoken, I highly doubt it was widely read, as even most people of the day didn't even read Aramaic.
LOL, I just got to the bottom of the page, Hmmm I must have skipped the intro, I see Josh McDowell wrote this article. I fnd his reasoning so ludicris at times he is almost comical. I have not read his latest book, but have heard of it. his first book was a sham and so far off base. here is a link to a review and rebuttal to his earlier book. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
You may find it an interesting read.Seedy