Name:canweread •
Title: The Evidence •
Date posted: 03/05/07 14:38
Q: I used to question the validity of the claims odf Jesus. After reading a book called "the Case for Christ", it became clear to me that there is no way that he couldn't be who he was.
Two quick things to ponder.
1) The Old Testament speaks of a coming messiah and every prediction (yes every one) was fulfilled. Put that into your stats.
2) The 4 Gospels were found to be dated within 70 years of Jesus's death, which means, people were still around that new the truth. If he was not who he claimed to be and he didn't rise from the dead, would you lay down your life for a lie? Many did. I find it hard to believe that people who were close to him would have let themselves go through turture and death over a lie.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 14:54
A: Actually the 4 gospels were probably written closer than within 70 years, most libs put the synoptics (matt., Mark Luke) in AD 80 (47 years). Most conservatives put them between AD 50-60 (17-27 years).
The book you cite is actually very well done, I'm not usually impressed by a lot of laylevel works, but that source was well done.
Name:guahould •
Date: 03/05/07 15:21
A: The thinking of the people back then did seem quite simple I believe. To pass the stories down from then and continue to treat such far fetched stories as facts just shows how simplicity itself can also be handed on down the generations. So sad.
Name:OpenMinded •
Date: 03/05/07 15:31
A: I don't think anyone is disputing that Jesus ascended into heaven. That being said, I don't think everyone believes he took his actual bones with him.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 15:45
A: Guahould, actually their thinking wasn't all that simple. Your own naturalistic viewpoint seems to make as biased as any Christian - operate from an open mind ;).
Acutally, its rather difficult to assign a first century date to the gospels, and assume that the gospel material is basically myth - there simply isn't enough time for a naturalistic conclusion, at least IMO. If Jesus was who He said He was, then miraculous verification is highly probable.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/06/07 1:57
A: "If he was not who he claimed to be and he didn't rise from the dead, would you lay down your life for a lie? Many did. I find it hard to believe that people who were close to him would have let themselves go through turture and death over a lie." - canweread
People can be convinced of very strange things. People died for Hitler's Big Lie - though most of them didn't recognize it as such at the time.
Name:Tara •
Date: 03/06/07 2:06
A: Whats kind of scary is that life was much more "simple" in the past.
Now with all the marketing, advertising, and internet, people have so many choices, so many options.
There is a weird feeling I get that people are just waiting to have someone to tell them what to think and what to feel. There seems to be a moment approaching when people will be over whelmed by choice.
Perhaps this discovery comes at a time when we truly need to challange people to think for themselves.
Name:abefroman •
Date: 03/06/07 2:46
A: garysmplsmn - Nazi's of course believed they were doing the work of god as called for by Martin Luther in his book "On the Jews and Their Lies" Available at Amazon.com
Jesus for whatever reason failed to write anything down. What we know about Jesus Comes from third hand sources.
The books of the NT were written at different times and were intended for different audiences. The book of Mark is believed by some to be the first gospel written. Like Matthew, It was written anonymously and later only attributed to Mark even though there is no author mentioned in the text. Mathew and Luke borrowed heavily (nearly the whole thing)from this book and made changes as they saw fit.
The Writer of the book of Matthew wrote his narrative to appeal to Jewish tradition and Scripture. He improved the plain grammar of Mark's Gospel, corrected what he felt important, and sensationalized the miracles.
The author of Luke admits that he is merely an interpreter and re-teller of earlier material and not an eyewitness to anything he was writing (Luke 1:1-4).
So, OK the NT is not myth nor is it fact. It is instead a collection of 2nd hand stories rewritten to tell a story how the author saw fit to tell it. Nothing even close to what people should consider an accurate historical account of one mans life.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/06/07 17:39
A: "A: Whats kind of scary is that life was much more "simple" in the past.
Now with all the marketing, advertising, and internet, people have so many choices, so many options.
There is a weird feeling I get that people are just waiting to have someone to tell them what to think and what to feel. There seems to be a moment approaching when people will be over whelmed by choice.
Perhaps this discovery comes at a time when we truly need to challange people to think for themselves. " - Tara
Thank you for making this point. It probably needed to be made better about 1960 years ago before the gospels or Paul's letters were written down. As abefroman says in reply to my post:
"... the NT is not myth nor is it fact. It is instead a collection of 2nd hand stories rewritten to tell a story how the author saw fit to tell it. Nothing even close to what people should consider an accurate historical account of one mans life."
- these documents were efforts in a way at religious marketing. John says at the end of chapter 20 of his gospel: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name."
This statement is the essence of the New Testament. Take note: the signs were performed "in the presence of his disciples" - the effect of which is to make the "church" a secret society, since they evidence is not publicly available; and the purpose of sharing these deeds is "so that you may come to believe" and "through believing ... have life in his name." In effect, John says that if you want to live, you have to believe in the signs Jesus performed in the presence of his disciples. And once you believe, you can "have life in his name." In other words, he/they own your life.
It is seldom recognized how much the New Testament uses promised rewards and punishments and unsubstantiated "reports" of "signs" to guide one's "faith" to follow the "messengers of God" - a God who is also invisible - to sell one's goods, abandon one's family, and go and spread the message because the end is near. After nearly 2000 years of hype, the warnings about the wolf have become a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. those doing the warning seem to be the ones devouring the poor, etc.).
Meanwhile, a contractor, a journalist, and a statistician are cumulatively pointing to some 200 year old stone boxes and saying: well, will you look at this? What do you think this means? They are not telling you about some unseen "signs" and telling you that your eternal destiny depends on whether you believe the things and their interpretation of the things they are telling you. They are presenting you with visible evidence and leaving the conclusion up to you.
Time will tell which approach to "marketing" the "truth" wins the hearts and minds of those history is written about. But, to date, you have to say that history has staked the disciples of Jesus to a pretty big lead.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/06/07 17:49
A: Sorry to take up so much space to repair a couple typos, but I haven't found an edit feature on this site. So, here's the more accurate version of my less-than-inspiring post:
"A: Whats kind of scary is that life was much more "simple" in the past.
Now with all the marketing, advertising, and internet, people have so many choices, so many options.
There is a weird feeling I get that people are just waiting to have someone to tell them what to think and what to feel. There seems to be a moment approaching when people will be over whelmed by choice.
Perhaps this discovery comes at a time when we truly need to challange people to think for themselves. " - Tara
Thank you for making this point. It probably needed to be made better about 1960 years ago before the gospels or Paul's letters were written down. As abefroman says in reply to my post:
"... the NT is not myth nor is it fact. It is instead a collection of 2nd hand stories rewritten to tell a story how the author saw fit to tell it. Nothing even close to what people should consider an accurate historical account of one mans life."
- these documents were efforts in a way at religious marketing. John says at the end of chapter 20 of his gospel: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name."
This statement is the essence of the New Testament. Take note: the signs were performed "in the presence of his disciples" - the effect of which is to make the "church" a secret society, since the evidence is not publicly available; and the purpose of sharing these deeds is "so that you may come to believe" and "through believing ... have life in his name." In effect, John says that if you want to live, you have to believe in the signs Jesus performed in the presence of his disciples. And once you believe these secret signs, you can "have life in his name." In other words, he/they own your life or soul, because you've just given it to them.
It is seldom recognized how much the New Testament uses promised rewards and punishments and unsubstantiated "reports" of "signs" to guide one's "faith" to follow the "messengers of God" - a God who is also invisible - to sell one's goods, abandon one's family, and go and spread the message because the end is near. After nearly 2000 years of hype, the warnings about the wolf have become a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e. those doing the warning seem to be the ones devouring the poor, etc.).
Meanwhile, a contractor, a journalist, and a statistician are cumulatively pointing to some 2000 year old stone boxes and saying: well, will you look at this? What do you think this means? They are not telling you about some unseen "signs" and telling you that your eternal destiny depends on whether you believe the things and their interpretation of the things they are telling you. They are presenting you with visible evidence and leaving the conclusion up to you.
Time will tell which approach to "marketing" the "truth" wins the hearts and minds of those history is written about. But, to date, you have to say that history has staked the disciples of Jesus to a pretty big lead.
Name:shofyke •
Date: 03/06/07 19:19
A: canweread, doesn't it make more sense that jesus acted out what was prophesized in the old testament to get people to believe he was the messiah?
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/06/07 23:43
A: "1) The Old Testament speaks of a coming messiah and every prediction (yes every one) was fulfilled. Put that into your stats." - canweread
I don't have a count of O.T. prophecies concerning the Messiah. But, at any rate, I don't believe the concept of the Messiah came about until the inter-testamental period. Isaiah speaks of the Lord's "servant" and the servant suffers, but the expectation of those awaiting the Messiah was that he would be a king who would restore Israel to its former glory in the manner of the Maccabbees.
I don't know of a single passage in the O.T. in which God says that he will send his only begotten son to die for the sins of humanity. That is a Pauline invention. I admit Paul was a brilliant thinker and much of what he wrote is inspiring, but much of the good he sought to bring to others was subverted by the Catholic hierarchy that turned "faith" into the equivalent of a cosmic protection racket.
"And once you believe these secret signs, you can "have life in his name." In other words, he/they own your life or soul, because you've just given it to them." - me
To clarify my interpretation: "life in his name" I take to refer to the idea that once we become believers, everything we do is to be for the glory of Christ, since he has purchased us by his great acts of obedience, especially his death on the cross. In the hands of an itinerant preacher like Jesus or Paul, this amounts to a call carried on the wind, which one may hear and another not. In the hands of ordained clergy of the local parish charged by the Roman pontiff with carrying to the gates of the new Jerusalem all the glories of the nations, it is all too often a device for extorting money and other offerings from all living "through faith."
The promises of the disciples in Jesus' name are like honey in the mouth, but bitter when digested. In spite of the relative simplicity of the early Christian faith, I don't think that is entirely accidental. The ''free gift of God" is not freedom. It's more like a "free download" of a program that connects one to a lifetime of obligations. The liberation Jesus seems to have sought from Pharisaic legalism became for his disciples a new binding commitment. They were proto-Bolsheviks in a sense.
What is and always has been challenging for faithful followers is the lack of evidence in the secular record of the central claims of the gospel. Followers are to give up everything because of great deeds and a resurrection which only Jesus' disciples were privy to. "Proof" of the resurrection amounts to an empty tomb. A bedsheet of mine recently disappeared. Maybe that is "proof" it was raptured, but I doubt it. (Gosh, if I had been sleeping in it as I so desired, perhaps I too would not be here to share all my doubts.) EVIDENCE that Jesus was simply buried elsewhere might finally bring an end to 2000 years of "waiting for Godot." Now we can get back to things that might really benefit our neighbor.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 2:49
A: Abe, I disagree, strongly, but you need to remember this is a matter of faith for you as well, there isn't any real objective evidence to support this theory. However, if your not so sure about the doctrine of the atonement, think through one of Paul's claims in the book of Galatians, chapter 2-1010. Paul stated that he laid his doctrine out before Peter, James and John and they didn't add anything to him (the idea of adding being a common Rabbinic phrase of the day that is the equivelent of not changing or requiring something more). So either Paul is a liar, or the other three great apostles agreed with him on the point.
Name:Jazzy •
Date: 03/07/07 2:56
A: Why do people need to lay down their lives for the fact that his body rises completely from the dead? A spiritual rising could be just as powerful, but aside from that, his teachings alone could inspire people to die for that belief. If God wanted to make Jesus man, what is wrong with him dying as well? His teachings aren't a lie if the story of his resurrection has been embellished a bit over the years.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 3:11
A: According to Paul, the physical resurrection of Christ's body is the proof that God has accepted His sacrifice for sin, therefore a bodily resurrection is necessary.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 03/07/07 5:32
A: Sorry, but I have failed to identify one iota of evidence of the messianic prophecy being fufilled by the new covenant.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 5:56
A: Start with Peter's sermon in Acts 2, Shlomo. Only, go back and check the OT cites in Hebrew (Luke always uses the LXX, he did not seem to know Hebrew. One of the passages he draws the sermon from doesn't make sense in most English translations, but when you go back to the Hebrew this text makes better sense).
In fairness to both you and Canweread, some of the messanic prophecies haven't been fulfilled yet, these Christians believe are an aspect of the second coming, though the a-millenialists tend to interpret them figuratively instead. Some have been debated between Christians and Jews for two millenia, and in a few cases, I personally think there is evidence that Jewish interpretations of a few OT passages changed as a result of the various debates with the early Christians, and in a few others, there is evidence of competing schools of thought in Judaism.
A few are a little easier to ascertain: He came from the right tribe and lineage, He was born in the right place and depending on how you add things up, his ministry began at the right time (Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks).
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 6:06
A: Schlomo,
By the way, if your interested in checking on canweread's data, start with Matthew. The book was dated to 50-60 AD by conservatives, and around AD 80 by the theological left (due to citations in the early fathers, its very difficult to date it into the second century; the difference in dating is largely due to the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem). The book was written by a Palestinian Jew, we know this both because of his knowledge of the land, and because he is sometimes translates the Old Testament texts into Greek himself rather than relying on the LXX (Interestingly enough, this includes a few of the more hotly debated texts). A father on the very cusp of the second century, and seems to have heard the Apostle John speak in his youth, has a sentence that is very difficult to translate that might indicate that Matthew was the secratary for the twelve and was working from written notes of Jesus sermons. Its possible, though certainly not proven.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 6:36
A: Jazzy, I reread your quote.
Considering how early the New Testament documents are, there isn't any possibility that the resurrection is a later doctrine. To my knowledge, no one has ever argued that it is a later dogma, since the oldest New Testament reference is within 15 years of the death of Christ, and that seems to be a quotation of material that is older than the letter itself. One would have to assume one of three things about the apostles if one did not accept the gospels:
1. They lied, and stole the body.
2. They all had the same hallucination.
3. They believed that they saw the resurrected Jesus.
The third is the most likely to my mind; it seems very doubtful that the early disciples would be able to steal the body from under the noses of the Roman guards, or that four Roman guards would all allow themselves to fall asleep at the same, and the disciples didn't wake them when the removed the stone covering over the tob door. The second has never been very convincing to me, mass hallucinations doesn't explain why the Sanhedrin didn't show the body when Christianity first began.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/07/07 18:12
A: KRS,
I would agree that the behavior of the disciples post-crucifixion is convincing enough to accept that they at least thought they had met a risen Lord. I have not read the Da Vinci Code nor very much of the alternate belief about Jesus that seems to have survived for centuries, but it does seem reasonable to entertain the hypothesis that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he revived and "appeared" bodily to his disciples. (This scenario would not explain such phenomena as entering locked rooms, appearing out of nowhere, or the reported ascension.) But, belief in the resurrection generally predated Jesus' death among both his own followers and the Pharisees. So, it is not unreasonable to see how Jesus' disciples might have regarded the appearance of one they assumed dead as a validation of their pre-existing belief. In fact, if they were sufficiently devoted to that belief, a less-than-rigorous conclusion about Jesus might have been just the "sign" they desired to promote their group's theology.
It is interesting to note how the gospel accounts diverge almost completely after Mary and Mary Magdalene find an empty tomb. Each gospel recounts a different set of subsequent events. This may indicate that the story of the resurrection is more inventive than real, or at least more subjective. It is also interesting to recall that the witnesses against Jesus when he was before the Sanhedrin also did not agree. In general, I think the church has tended to focus so much on the person of Jesus as the origin of the faith that they have ignored the fact that Jesus was the leader of a movement that pre-dated him in many respects. He may have transformed it, and his disciples certainly transformed it further if their account of his resurrection and the theology of Paul that springs from such an assumption is accepted as fact. It seems it took at least the deaths of those whose involvement in that movement pre-dated Jesus for the resurrection theology of Paul to become church (movement) orthodoxy.
But, the critical question does go back to what really did happen to Jesus' body after the crucifixion. Since it is likely that Jesus' brother James would have become aware eventually of the mortality of his famous brother, one logically wonders what he knew and when he knew it. The fact that Jesus' mother and Mary Magdalene - the two original "witnesses" to the empty tomb which is the primary "factual" basis for the resurrection - virtually disappear from the New Testament after Jesus' "ascension" in the first chapter of Acts, is in my mind a strong indication that the New Testament account is lacking in some key facts. It's hard to believe that James, who became the leader of the Jerusalem church, was never aware of those facts, unless Jesus and Mary Magdalene actually outlived James, partly in exile.
So, if the recent tomb findings are authentic, I would have to conclude that James either misconstrued sightings of his brother post-crucifixion, or that "the movement" to which they both belonged was more important to them than factual accuracy. Only years later did myth become taken as fact. I also wouldn't discount the possibility of some incidents of group hysteria which can still lead people today to do things that contradict their eyes and rational minds. Journalists who had watched and reported news from the Middle East for decades supporting the invasion of Iraq with less than 200,000 troops comes to mind, for example.
