My Meeting With Nelson Mandela
Update 12/6/2013
Nelson Mandela is dead. His passing is being met with fanfare by media outlets. Every story tells how he went to prison, but as Frontline Fellowship founder and missionary Peter Hammond mentions here, no one ever explains why he went to prison.
Nelson Mandela … had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists.
Megan Fouche writes:
I’m sorry … you go to jail for 27 years and then forgive the people who put you there. He was a man who brought South Africa together. Yet you are trying to find things wrong with him. God bless Nelson Mandela and peace be with him.
To the contrary, Mandela’s lionization by most of the world is akin to a terrorist bomber being sentenced to life imprisonment today, then being released in the year 2030, successfully running for office and then being heralded as the man who “forgave” those who imprisoned him.
Invictus: A Film Review
Originally published: 7/19/2012
Directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Morgan Freeman as President Nelson Mandela, Invictus makes a major contribution towards the building up of the mythology of Nelson Mandela as a modern day idol. This stirring film on South Africa’s 1995 Rugby World Cup victory includes serious distortions of history.
Time and again the film focuses on Mandela’s imprisonment on Robben Island, often with dream-like imaginative flashbacks of Nelson Mandela breaking rocks on Robben Island. The film even includes a pilgrimage to Mandela’s cell in the prison on Robben Island, but there is never any mention of why he was imprisoned.
Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. He had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists.
Invictus never mentions Nelson Mandela’s open support for brutal communist regimes such as Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Red China, Gadhaffi’s Libya, Saddam Hussein, Yasar Arafat and other dictators. During the very time covered by Invictus Mandela received Fidel Castro, the longest reigning dictator in the world, and gave him the highest award that South Africa could give and then had both Houses of Parliament gather to hear an address from the Cuban tyrant.
The Ugly Reality
During the very time covered by the movie many hundreds of white farmers, and their wives and children, were being brutally murdered, actually tortured to death, often by UmKhonto we Sizwe guerrillas, many of whom were now part of the South African National Defence Force.
Double Standards
Although Invictus gives all glory for the Springbok Rugby World Cup win to Nelson Mandela, it does not attach any blame to him for the rising crime and plummeting economy. During one short visual in the film Mandela looks at a newspaper headline which speaks of the rising crime and plummeting rand. This reality deserved a little bit more attention. During 46 years of National Party apartheid rule over 18,000 people had been killed by rioters, terrorists, by the police and the army, on all sides, including terrorists, civilian victims, military casualties and police. A total of 18,000 dead during 46 years of conflict. However, in peacetime, under Nelson Mandela, an average of 20,000 to 25,000 people were murdered every year.
Fueling the Crime Wave
Yet to celebrate his birthdays, Mandela would regularly open the prison doors and set many criminals, including armed robbers, murderers and rapists, free. Some of whom were murdering and raping within 24 hours of being released.
Economic Deterioration
In the 1970s, even while facing terrorism, riots and engaged in a border war with the Cubans in Angola, the South African Rand was stronger than the US Dollar. However, after years of US sanctions, the South African Rand had fallen to R2 to the Dollar. Under Nelson Mandela even with no war, no sanctions, no riots, no conscription, and with massive international aid and investment, the Rand plummeted to R8 to the Dollar, and even R10 to the Dollar, then R12 and even to R14 to the Dollar for a time.
But according to Invictus, no blame can be attached to Nelson Mandela for the economic deterioration and the sky-rocketing crime rate under his presidency. However, he should be given all the credit for what the Springbok rugby team achieved on the field!
Legalising Abortion and Pornography
Viewers of Invictus also need to be aware that the kind and thoughtful gentleman portrayed in Invictus was the prime mover of the legalisation of abortion, pornography, gambling and homosexuality in South Africa and of the introduction of sex education in public schools. Since Nelson Mandela forced through the legalisation of abortion, not even allowing ANC MPs a conscience vote, and signed it into Law, 1 February 1997, over 900,000 South African babies have been killed through abortion, officially, legally and with tax-payers money.
"The Gospels: Written Long After The Fact?" by Anne Rice
Anne Rice’s Christ the Lord is a fictional story about the childhood of Jesus, but it is meticulously based on the Gospel accounts and an extraordinary amount of research. This is from the “Author’s Note” from the back of the book where she shares about her personal journey, including her gradual conversion to a belief in the authenticity of the Gospels and then to Christ. It’s absolutely fascinating. Anne Rice is known for her fictional stories about vampires, frankly, very dark novels. Currently, I can find a few Internet repostings of this important afterward to Rice’s first Christian novel. I previously cited a few short excerpts including her mention of having read Ken Gentry’s Beast of Revelation: Identified — Horror fiction writer Anne Rice cites preterist influence in her conversion. I post a longer excerpt here as part of a review and promotion of Christ the Lord. I encourage you to read this Author’s Note, then buy the book!
Author’s Note from Christ the Lord
15 January 2006
By Anne Rice
Every novel I’ve ever written since 1974 involved historical research. It’s been my delight that no matter how many supernatural elements were involved in the story, and no matter how imaginative the plot and characters, the background would be thoroughly historically accurate. And over the years, I’ve become known for that accuracy. If one of my novels is set in Venice in the eighteenth century, one can be certain that the details as to the opera, the dress, the milieu, the values of the people – all of this is correct.
Without ever planning it, I’ve moved slowly backwards in history, from the nineteenth century, where I felt at home in my first two novels, to the first century, where I sought the answers to enormous questions that became an obsession with me that simply couldn’t be ignored.
Ultimately, the figure of Jesus Christ was at the heart of this obsession. More generally, it was the birth of Christianity and the fall of the ancient world. I wanted to know desperately what happened in the first century, and why people in general never talked about it.
Understand, I had experienced an old-fashioned, strict Roman Catholic childhood in the 1940s and 1950s, in an Irish American parish that would now be called a Catholic ghetto, where we attended daily Mass and Communion in an enormous and magnificently decorated church, which had been built by our forefathers, some with their own hands. Classes were segregated, boys from girls. We learned Catechism and Bible history, and the lives of the saints. Stained-glass windows, the Latin Mass, the detailed answers to complex questions on good and evil – these things were imprinted on my soul forever, along with a great deal of church history that existed as a great chain of events triumphing over schism and reformation to culminate in the papacy of Pius XII.
I left this church at age eighteen, because I stopped believing it was “the one true church established by Christ to give grace.” No personal event precipitated this loss of faith. It happened on a secular college campus; there was intense sexual pressure; but more than that there was the world itself, without Catholicism, filled with good people and people who read books that were strictly speaking forbidden to me. I wanted to read Kierkegaard, Sarte, and Camus. I wanted to know why so many seemingly good people didn’t believe in any organized religion yet cared passionately about their behavior and the value of their lives. As the rigid Catholic I was, I had no options for exploration. I broke with the Church. And I broke with my belief in God.
When I married two years later, it was to a passionate atheist, Stan Rice, who not only didn’t believe in God, he felt he had something akin to a vision which had given him a certainty that God didn’t exist. He was one of the most honorable and conscience-driven people I ever knew. For him and for me, our writing was our lives.
In 1974, I became a published writer. The novel reflected my guilt and my misery in being cut off from God and from salvation; my being lost in a world without light. It was set in the nineteenth century, a context I’d researched heavily in trying to answer questions about New Orleans, where I was born and no longer lived.
After that, I wrote many novels without my being aware that they reflected my quest for meaning in a world without God. As I said before, I was working my way backwards in history, answering questions for myself about whole historical developments – why certain revolutions happened, why Queen Elizabeth I was the way she was, who really wrote Shakespeare’s plays (this I never used in a novel), what the Italian Renaissance really was, and what had the Black Death been like before it. And how had feudalism come about.
In the 1990s, living in New Orleans again, living among adults who were churchgoers and believers, flexible Catholics of some sophistication, I no doubt imbibed some influence from them.
But I also inevitably plunged into researching the first century because I wanted to know about Ancient Rome. I had novels to write with Roman characters. Just maybe, I might discover something I’d wanted to know all my life and never had known:
How did Christianity actually “happen”? Why did Rome actually fall?
To me these were the ultimate questions and always had been. They had to do with who we were today.
I remember in the 1960’s, being at a party in a lovely house in San Francisco, given in honor of a famous poet. A European scholar was there, I found myself alone with him, seated on a couch. I asked him, “Why did Rome fall?” For the next two hours he explained it to me.
I couldn’t absorb most of what he said. But I never forgot what I did understand – about all the grain for the city having to come from Egypt, and the land around the city being taken up with villas, and crowds being fed the dole.
It was a wonderful evening, but I didn’t leave with a feeling that I had the true grasp of what had happened.
Catholic Church history had given me an awareness of our cultural heritage, although it was presented to me early and quite without context. And I wanted to know the context, why things were the way they were.
When I was a little child, maybe eleven or younger, I was lying on my mother’s bed, reading or trying to read one of her books. I read a sentence that said the Protestant Reformation split Europe culturally in half. I thought that was absurd and I asked her, was this true? She said it was. I never forgot that. All my life I wanted to know what that meant.
In 1993, I dug into this early period, and of course went earlier, into the history of Sumer and Babylon and the whole Middle East, and back to Egypt, which I’d studied in college, and I struggled with it all. I read specialized archaeological texts like detective novels searching for patterns, enthralled with the Gilgamesh story, and details such as the masonry tool which the ancient kings (statues) held in their hands.
I wrote two novels during this period that reflect what I was doing. But something happened to me that may not be recorded in any book.
I stumbled upon a mystery without a solution, a mystery so immense that I gave up trying to find an explanation because the whole mystery defied belief. The mystery was the survival of the Jews.
As I sat on the floor of my office surrounded by books about Sumer, Egypt, Rome, etc., and some skeptical material about Jesus that had come into my hands, I couldn’t understand how these people had endured as the great people who they were.
It was this mystery that drew me back to God. It set into motion the idea that there may in fact be God. And when that happened there grew in me for whatever reason an immense desire to return to the banquet table. In 1998 I went back to the Catholic Church.
But even then I had not closed in on the question of Jesus Christ and Christianity. I did read the Bible in a state of utter amazement at its variety, its poetry, its startling portraits of women, its inclusion of bizarre and often bloody and violent details. When I was depressed, which was often, someone read the Bible to me, often literary translations of the New Testament – that is, translations by Richmond Lattimore that are wondrously literal and beautiful and revealing and that open the text anew.
In 2002 I put aside everything else and decided to focus entirely on answering the questions that had dogged me all my life. The decision came in July of that year. I had been reading the Bible constantly, reading parts of it out loud to my sister, and poring over the Tanach (Old Testament), and I decided that I would give myself utterly to the task of trying to understand Jesus himself and how Christianity emerged.
I wanted to write the life of Jesus Christ. I had known that years ago. But now I was ready. I was ready to do violence to my career. I wanted to write the book in the first person. Nothing else mattered. I consecrated the book to Christ.
I consecrated myself and my work to Christ. I didn’t know exactly how I was going to do it.
Even then I did not know what my character of Jesus would be like.
I had taken in a lot of fashionable notions about Jesus – that he’d been oversold, that the Gospels were “late” documents, that we really didn’t know anything about him, that violence and quarreling marked the movement of Christianity from its start. I’d acquired many books on Jesus, and they filled the shelves of my office.
But the true investigation began in July of 2002.
In August, I went to my beach apartment, to write the book. Such naiveté. I had no idea I was entering a field of research where no one agreed on anything – whether we are talking about the size of Nazareth, the economic level of Jesus’ family, the Jewish attitudes of Galileans in general, the reason Jesus rose to fame, the reason he was executed, or why his followers went out into the world.
As to the size of the field, it was virtually without end. New Testament scholarship included books of every conceivable kind from skeptical books that sought to disprove Jesus had any real value to theology or an enduring church, to books that conscientiously met every objection of the skeptics with footnotes halfway up the page.
Bibliographies were endless. Disputes sometimes produced rancor.
And the primary source material for the first century was a matter of continuous controversy in which the Gospels were called secondary sources by some, and primary sources by others, and the history of Josephus and the works of Philo were subject to exhaustive examination and contentions as to their relevance or validity or whether they had any truth.
Then there was the question of the Rabbis. Could the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the Talmuds be trusted to give an accurate picture of the first century? Did they actually mention Jesus? And if not, so what, because they didn’t mention Herod, who built the Temple, either.
Oh, what lay in store.
But let me backtrack. In 1999, I had received in the mail from my editor and longtime mentor a copy of Paula Fredriksen’s Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. I had read a part of this book in which Fredricksen re-created beautifully the Jewish milieu in which the boy Jesus might have lived in Nazareth and in which he might have gone to the Temple for Passover along with his family. Fredriksen made the point strongly that Jesus was a Jew. And that this had to be addressed when one wrote about him or thought about him, or so it seems to me.
Now six years later, I have produced a book which is obviously inspired by that scene which Fredriksen wrote, and I can only offer my humble thanks to her and acknowledge her influence.
Of course my beliefs are the polar opposite of Fredriksen’s as the book Christ the Lord reveals. But it was Fredriksen who steered me in the right direction as to exploring Jesus as a Jew, and there my serious research of him began.
But to return to the year 2002. as I began my serious work, a call came from my husband. He was experiencing the first symptoms of a brain tumor from which he died in less than four months.
We had been married for forty-one years. After my return to the Church, he had consented to marry me in the great old church of my childhood with a priest who was my cousin saying the word. This was a marvelous concession coming from a committed atheist. But out of love for me, my husband did it. Forty-one years. And he was gone.
Was I given the gift of purpose before this tragedy so that it would sustain me through it? I don’t know. I do know that during his last weeks, my husband when he was conscious became a saint. He expressed love for those around him, understanding of people he hadn’t understood before. He wanted gifts given to help those who helped him in his illness. Before that he had managed, though half paralyzed, to create three amazing paintings. I must not neglect to say that. Then after that period of love and understanding, he slowly lapsed into a coma, and was gone.
He left more than three hundred paintings, all done in fifteen years, and many books of poetry, most published during the same period, and thousands of unpublished poems. His memorial gallery will soon move from New Orleans to Dallas, Texas, where he was born.
I went on with my quest right through his illness and his death. My books sustained me. I told him about what I was writing. He thought it was wonderful. He gave me glowing praise.
From that time on, December 2002 when he died, until 2005, I have studied the New Testament period, and I continue to study. I read constantly, night and day.
I have covered an enormous amount of skeptical criticism, violent arguments, and I have read voraciously in the primary sources of Philo and Josephus which I deeply enjoy.
Having started with the skeptical critics, those who take their cue from the earliest skeptical New Testament scholars of the Enlightenment, I expected to discover that their arguments would be frighteningly strong, and that Christianity was, at heart, a kind of fraud. I’d have to end up compartmentalizing my mind with faith in one part of it, and truth in another. And what would I write about my Jesus? I had no idea. But the prospects were interesting. Surely he was a liberal, married, had children, was a homosexual, and who knew what? But I must do my research before I wrote one word.
These skeptical scholars seemed so very sure of themselves. They build their books on certain assertions without even examining these assertions. How could they be wrong? The Jewish scholars presented their case with such care. Certainly Jesus was simply an observant Jew or a Hasid who got crucified. End of story.
I read and I read and I read. Sometimes I thought I was walking through the valley of the shadow of Death, as I read. But I went on, ready to risk everything. I had to know who Jesus was – that is, if anyone knew, I had to know what that person knew.
Now, I couldn’t read the ancient languages, but as a scholar I can certainly follow the logic of an argument; I can check the footnotes, and the bibliographical references; I can go to the biblical text in English. I can check all the translations I have and I have every one of which I know from Wycliffe to Lamsa, including the New Annotated Oxford Bible and the old English King James which I love. I have the old Catholic translation, and every literary translation I can find. I have offbeat translations scholars don’t mention, such as that by Barnstone and Schonfield. I acquired every single translation for the light it might shed on an obscure line.
What gradually came clear to me was that many of the skeptical arguments – arguments that insisted most of the Gospels were suspect, for instance, or written too late to be eyewitness accounts – lack coherence. They were not elegant. Arguments about Jesus himself were full of conjecture. Some books were no more than assumptions piled upon assumption. Absurd conclusions were reached on the basis of little or no data at all.
In sum, the whole case for the non-divine Jesus who stumbled into Jerusalem and somehow got crucified by nobody and had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and would be horrified by it if he knew about it – that whole picture which had floated in the liberal circles I frequented as an atheist for thirty years – that case was not made. Not only was it not made, I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I’d ever read.
I saw almost no skeptical scholarship that was convincing, and the Gospels, shredded by critics, lost all intensity when reconstructed by various theorists. They were in no way compelling when treated as composites and records of later “communities.”
I was unconvinced by the wild postulations of those who claimed to be children of the Enlightenment. And I had also sensed something else. Many of these scholars, scholars who apparently devoted their life to New Testament scholarship, disliked Jesus Christ. Some pitied him as a hopeless failure. Others sneered at him, and some felt an outright contempt. This came between the lines of the books. This emerged in the personality of the texts.
I’d never come across this kind of emotion in any other field of research, at least not to this extent. It was puzzling.
The people who go into Elizabethan studies don’t set out to prove that Queen Elizabeth I was a fool. They don’t personally dislike her. They don’t make snickering remarks about her, or spend their careers trying to pick apart her historical reputation. They approach her in other ways. They don’t even apply this sort of dislike or suspicion or contempt to other Elizabethan figures. If they do, the person is usually not the focus of the study. Occasionally a scholar studies a villain, yes. But even then, the author generally ends up arguing for the good points of a villain or for his or her place in history, or for some mitigating circumstance, that redeems the study itself. People studying disasters in history may be highly critical of the rules or the milieu at the time, yes. But in general scholars don’t spend their lives in the company of historical figures whom they openly despise.
But there are New Testament scholars who detest and despise Jesus Christ. Of course, we all benefit from freedom in the academic community; we benefit from the enormous size of biblical studies today and the great range of contributions that are being made. I’m not arguing for censorship. But maybe I’m arguing for sensitivity – on the part of those who read these books. Maybe I’m arguing for a little wariness when it comes to the field in general. What looks like solid ground might not be solid ground at all.
Another point bothered me a great deal.
All these skeptics insisted that the Gospels were late documents, that the prophesies in them had been written after the Fall of Jerusalem. But the more I read about the Fall of Jerusalem, the more I couldn’t understand this.
The Fall of Jerusalem was horrific, and involved an enormous and cataclysmic war, a war that went on and on for years in Palestine, followed by other revolts and persecutions, and punitive laws. As I read about this in the pages of S.G.F. Brandon, and in Josephus, I found myself amazed by the details of this appalling disaster in which the greatest Temple of the ancient world was forever destroyed.
I had never truly confronted these events before, never tried to comprehend them. And now I found it absolutely impossible that the Gospel writers could not have included the Fall of the Temple in their work had they written after it as critics insist.
It simply didn’t and doesn’t make sense.
These Gospel writers were in a Judeo-Christian cult. That’s what Christianity was. And the core story of Judaism has to do with redemption from Egypt, and redemption from Babylon. And before redemption from Babylon there was a Fall of Jerusalem in which the Jews were taken to Babylon. And here we have this horrible war. Would Christian writers not have written about it had they seen it? Would they not have seen in the Fall of Jerusalem some echo of the Babylonian conquest? Of course they would have. They were writing for Jews and Gentiles.
The way the skeptics put this issue aside, they simply assumed the Gospels were late documents because of these prophesies in the Gospels. This does not begin to convince.
Before I leave this question of the Jewish War and the Fall of the Temple, let me make this suggestion. When Jewish and Christian scholars begin to take this war seriously, when they begin to really study what happened during the terrible years of the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the revolts that continued in Palestine right up through Bar Kokhba, when they focus upon the persecution of Christians in Palestine by Jews; upon the civl war in Rome in the 60s which Kenneth L. Gentry so well describes in his work Before Jerusalem Fell; as well as the persecution of Jews in the Diaspora during this period – in sum, when all of this dark era is brought into the light of examination – Bible studies will change.
Right now, scholars neglect or ignore the realities of this period. To some it seems a two-thousand-year-old embarrassment and I’m not sure I understand why.
But I am convinced that the key to understanding the Gospels is that they were written before all this ever happened. That’s why they were preserved without question through they contradicted one another. They came from a time that was, for later Christians, catastrophically lost forever.
As I continued my quest, I discovered a scholarship quite different from that of the skeptics – that of John A.T. Robinson, in The Priority of John. In reading his descriptions, which took seriously the words of the Gospel itself, I saw what was happening to Jesus in the text of John.
It was a turning point. I was able to enter the Fourth Gospel, and see Jesus alive and moving. And what eventually emerged for me from the Gospels was their unique coherence, their personalities – the inevitable stamp of individual authorship.
Of course John A.T. Robinson made the case for an early date for the Gospels far better than I ever could. He made it brilliantly in 1975, and he to task the liberal scholars for their assumptions then in Redating the New Testament, but what he said is as true now as it was when he wrote those words.
After Robinson I made many great discoveries, among them Richard Bauckham who in The Gospels for All Christians soundly refutes the idea that isolated communities produced the Gospels and shows what is obvious, that they were written to be circulated and read by all.
The work of Martin Hengel is brilliant in clearing away assumptions, and his achievements are enormous. I continue to study him.
The scholarship of Jacob Neusner cannot be praised enough. His translations of the Mishnah and the Tosefta are of inestimable value, and his essays are brilliant. He is a giant. Among the Jewish scholars Géza Vermès and David Flusser certainly ought to be read. David Flusser drew my attention to things in Luke’s Gospel which I hadn’t seen before.
General books I found important that cover the entire development of Jesus in the aarts include a great survey book by Charlotte Allen called The Human Christ, which discusses how the early quest for the historical Jesus influenced the motion-picture images of Jesus and Jesus in novels. The work of Luke Timothy Johnson has always been helpful, and so also the scholarship of Raymond E. Brown, and John P. Meier. The work of Seán Freyne on Galilee is extremely important as is the work of Eric M. Meyers.
Let me mention Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, and Craig L. Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, and the work of Craig S. Keener which I’ve only begun to read. I greatly admire Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Roger Aus always teaches me something thought I disagree with his conclusions completely. Mary S. Thompson’s work is wonderful.
Highly recommended are the works of Robert Alter and Frank Kermode on the Bible as literature, and Mimesis by Erich Auerbach. In general, I must praise the work of Ellis Rivkin, Lee I. Levine, Martine Goodman, Claude Tresmontant, Jonathan Reed, Bruce J. Malina, Kenneth Bailey, D. Moody Smith, C.H. Dodd, D.A. Carson, Leon Morris, R. Alan Culpepper, and the great Joachim Jeremias. My special thanks to Biblegateway.com.
I learned something from every single book I examined.
The scholar who has given me perhaps some of my most important insights and who continues to do so through his enormous output is N.T. Wright. N.T. Wright is one of the most brilliant writers I’ve ever read, and his generosity in embracing the skeptics and commenting on their arguments is an inspiration. His faith is immense, and his knowledge vast.
In his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, he answers solidly the question that has haunted me all my life. Christianity achieved what it did, according to N.T. Wright, because Jesus rose from the dead.
It was the fact of the resurrection that sent the apostles out into the world with the force necessary to create Christianity. Nothing else would have done it but that.
Wright does a great deal more to put the entire question into historical perspective. How can I do justice to him here? I can only recommend him without reservation, and go on studying him.
Of course my quest is not over. There are thousands of pages of the above=mentioned scholars to be read and reread.
There is so much of Josephus and Philo and Tacitus and Cicero and Julius Caesar that I have yet to cover. And there are so many texts on archaeology – I must go back to Freyne and Eric Meyers in Galilee, and things are being dug up in Palestine, and new books on the Gospels are being printed as I write.
But I see now a great coherence to the life of Christ and the beginning of Christianity that eluded me before, and I see also the subtle transformation of the ancient world because of its economic stagnation and the assault upon it of the values of monotheism, Jewish values melded with Christian values, for which it was not perhaps prepared.
There are also theologians who must be studied, more of Teilhard de Chardin, and Rahner, and St. Augustine.
Now somewhere during my journey through all of this as I became disillusioned with the skeptics and with the flimsy evidence for their conclusions, I realized something about my book.
It was this. The challenge was to write about the Jesus of the Gospels, of course!
Anybody could write about a liberal Jesus, a married Jesus, a gay Jesus, a Jesus who was a rebel. The “Quest for the Historical Jesus” had become a joke because of all the many definitions it had ascribed to Jesus.
The true challenge was to take the Jesus of the Gospels, the Gospels which were becoming ever more coherent to me, the Gospels which appealed to me as elegant first-person witness, dictated to scribes no doubt, but definitely early, the Gospels produced before Jerusalem fell – to take the Jesus of the Gospels, and try to get inside him and imagine what he felt.
Then there were the legends – the Apocrypha – including the tantalizing tales in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas describing a boy Jesus who could strike a child dead, bring another to life, turn clay birds into living creatures, and perform other miracles. I’d stumbled on them very early in my research, in multiple editions, and never forgotten them. And neither had the world. They were fanciful, some of them humorous, extreme to be sure, but they had lived on into the Middle Ages, and beyond. I couldn’t get these legends out of my mind.
Ultimately I chose to embrace this material, to enclose it within the canonical framework as best I could. I felt there was a deep truth in it, and I wanted to preserve that truth as it spoke to me. Of course that is an assumption. But I made it. And perhaps in assuming that Jesus did manifest supernatural powers at an early age I am somehow being true to the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon, that Jesus was God and Man at all times.
I am certainly trying to be true to Paul when he said that Our Lord emptied himself for us, in that my character has emptied himself of his Divine awareness in order to suffer as a human being.
This is a book I offer to all Christians – the fundamentalists, to the Roman Catholics, to the most liberal Christians in the hope that my embrace of more conservative doctrines will have some coherence for them in the here and now of the book. I offer it to scholars in the hope that they will perhaps enjoy seeing the evidence of the research that’s gone into it, and of course I offer it to those whom I so greatly admire who have been my teachers though I’ve never met them and probably never will.
I offer this book to those who know nothing of Jesus Christ in the hope that you will see him in these pages in some form. I offer this novel with love to my readers who’ve followed me through one strange turn after another in the hope that Jesus will be as real to you as any other character I’ve ever launched into the world we share.
After all, is Christ Our Lord not the ultimate supernatural hero, the ultimate outsider, the ultimate immortal of them all?
If you’ve followed me this far, I thank you. I could append to this a bibliography of stifling length but I will not.
Let me in conclusion thank several people who have been my support and inspiration throughout these years:
Fr. Dennis Hayes, my spiritual director, who has answered my theological questions with patience always.
Fr. Joseph Callipare, whose sermons on the Gospel of John were brilliant and wonderful. My time spent in his parish in Florida was one of the most beautiful periods of my research and work.
Fr. Joseph Cocucci, whose letters and discussions on theology with me have been inspiring and truly great.
The Redemptorist Fathers, the priests of my parish in New Orleans, whose sermons have sustained me, and whose example has been a shining light. I leave them with regret. My father’s education in the Redemptorist Seminary at Kirkwood, Missouri, no doubt changed the course of his life. My debt to the Redemptorists can never be paid.
Fr. Dean Robins and Fr. Curtis Thomas of the Nativity of Our Lord Parish, who have been welcoming to me as a new parishioner. I leave them with regret.
Br. Becket Ghioto, whose letters have been patient, wise, and full of wonderful insights and answers.
And last, but hardly least, Amy Troxler, my friend and companion, who has answered so many fundamental questions for me, and listened to my endless ravings, who has been with me to Mass, and brought me Communion when I couldn’t go, who has been more of a help to me than I can ever say. It was Amy who was there for me on the afternoon in 1998 when I asked if she knew a priest who could hear my confession, who could help me go back to the Church. IT was Amy who found the priest and took me to see him. It was Amy’s example during those early months of attending the Mass in English that helped me so much to adjust to a liturgy that was wholly different from that which I’d left behind. I leave Amy as I leave New Orleans with the deepest regret.
My beloved staff, my dearest friends, my editor Vicky Wilson who read and commented on the manuscript much to its benefit, my family, I thank them all. I live in the environment of their nourishing love. I am blessed
As for my son, this novel is dedicated to him. That says it all.
Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?
The following debate appeared on the Forerunner discussion forum in early 2006 and continued for five months. The discussion deals with an academically discredited conspiracy hypothesis. "Jesus mythists" hold that even the historical Jesus never existed. One of the difficulties in debating these folk is that they insist that one must prove a double negative -- to disprove that Jesus never existed. There are currently no living scholars in the field of history who have published peer reviewed works claiming Jesus did not exist. Simply citing the universal agreement for a historical Jesus is not good enough for the Jesus mythists. They want us to refute that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. Of course, there is lots of evidence, but none of this is reliable according to the Jesus mythists.
The main participants in this debate are "jcr4runner" (yours truly) and an atheist named "AMbomb." Several others jumped into the lengthy conversation as well. I post the discussion to this blog to show the lengths that a depraved mind will go to in order to deny Christ. It is actually a popular point of view among Internet atheists. For a more thorough treatment of the fallacy of the "Jesus-as-Myth-Hypothesis," I recommend the useful website and book, Shattering the Christ Myth by J.P. Holding.
Even the most skeptical liberal historians admit that Jesus Existed
by jcr4runner » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the first century is overwhelming. Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians. In fact, there are many well-known non-Christian historians who mention Jesus:
• Tacitus in his Annals (c.115 A.D.) mentions that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate and gives detailed descriptions of Nero’s persecutions — which are also alluded to in several places in the New Testament.
• The correspondence between Pliny the younger and the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.) corroborates the New Testament history including the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Nero.
• Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), the first century Jewish historian, makes mention of Jesus, John the Baptist and the James, the brother of Jesus. Recent scholarship has indicated that most if not all of Josephus' mention of Jesus authentic. Other references to New Testament figures corroborate the Christian Gospel writers.
Scholars note that the New Testament corroborates Josephus in minute detail. Keep in mind that Josephus wrote his history after the time of the New Testament. In other words, both sources were written independently, but both agree with each other. So Josephus testifies to the historical reliability of many passages in the New Testament.
We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers, but there are also thousands of manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians. The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.
Re: Even the most skeptical liberal historians admit that Jesus Existed
by AMbomb » Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:22 pm
There is no evidence of the existence of Jesus. The Roman archives don't so much as mention him. And the Romans kept tons of records. If there had been someone named Jesus who was tried and executed in Judea, there would've been a record of it. Christians like to cite Flavius Josephus. The passage in one of his writings that mentions Jesus is a forgery. It was written in a different style than Josephus's writing and it interrupts what he was writing about. There are no credible extrabiblical sources corroborating the story of Jesus.
Pliny the Younger wrote a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan regarding the Christians, but never actually wrote there was such a person as Jesus.
- AMbomb
Question of intergrity
by jcr4runner » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:01 pm
If we compare Jesus to the fifth or sixth century legend of King Arthur, we find in Arthur a king who probably did exist. But there are so many variants in the legend it is impossible to pinpoint when and where the legend ends and the historical facts begin. There are no written accounts of Arthur within several centuries of his existence, yet many historians believe there was Briton war lord named Arthur son of Uther Pendragon who lived in the early sixth century.
The story of Jesus is completely different in that we have thousands of accounts giving exact details of His life within 30 years of His crucifixion. In the next 100 years after His death, there are thousands of references to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.
We know of many other early references to Christ by pagan writers, but there are also thousands of manuscripts from the first and second centuries written by Christians. The fact that early Christians recorded their own history does not discount their reliability. Christianity is not a religion that has its origin in shadowy legend, but has definite historical roots, strong personalities and a tremendous amount of source documents to prove it.
Other first and second century writers who wrote about Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah and Lord of Creation, are:
• Clement (A.D. c. 30-100) the Bishop of Rome
• The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. c. 70-130)
• Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) the Bishop of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John
• Ignatius (A.D. 35-110) the Bishop of Antioch
• Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200) the second century Bishop of Lyons
• Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) the second century apologist
• Clement (A.D. 150 -215) the second century Bishop of Alexandria
- jcr4runner
Re: Question of intergrity
by AMbomb » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:44 pm
- AMbomb
by jcr4runner » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:27 am
What you claim is patently wrong.
See:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/157
-- FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born around AD 38. He served Roman commander Vespasian in Jerusalem until the city's destruction in AD 70. Josephus personally believed Vespasian to be Israel's promised Messiah. When Vespasian later became emperor of Rome, Josephus served under him as court historian. In AD 93, Josephus finished his work Antiquities of the Jews in which at least three passages specifically confirm portions of Scripture:
"But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism.
"... convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;..."
-- PLINIUS SECUNDUS (Pliny the Younger)
Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Much of his correspondence has survived including a particular letter written circa AD 112 to the Roman emperor Trajan. This letter does not reference Christ directly, but it does establish several beliefs and practices of early Christians. This includes their loyalty to Christ even when it cost them their lives. Pliny's letter states:
"In the meantime, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed.
"...They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to perform any wicked deed, never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to make it good; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food - but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
-- CORNELIUS TACITUS
Tacitus was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and later became governor of Asia. Around AD 116 in his work entitled Annals, he wrote of Emperor Nero and a fire which had swept Rome in AD 64:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."
-- GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLAS
Suetonius was a chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian writing around AD 120 in his work Life of Claudius:
"Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city."
-- LUCIAN
Lucian, the Greek satirist, wrote this rather scathing attack in The Death of Peregrine circa AD 170:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed upon them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."
-- THE TALMUD
The Talmud is essentially the collection of Jewish oral traditions that were put into writing with additional commentary between the years of AD 70 and 200. From the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a includes:
"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of the Passover.
"The facts in this passage are somewhat difficult to assimilate. Although Yeshu is referring to Jesus, the announcement that he was to be stoned (a lethal punishment) is followed by the statement that he was hanged (crucified). One possible explanation is that the Jewish leadership's call for his stoning preceded his eventual arrest by at least those forty days. This would be consistent with Scripture's accounts of his numerous near-stonings (John 10:31-33, 11:8 ).
"Jesus' death by crucifixion may have then just been a matter of Roman involvement in the affair. Perhaps it is more likely that his sudden crucifixion (which immediately followed his arrest and dubious midnight trial) was gladly allowed by the Jewish leaders to pre-empt the normal forty day holding period for a condemned man. The leaders may have feared that, during this time, Jesus' followers might have been able to organize his release or stir up an outcry against them."
-- SUMMARY
In summary, what can we conclude about the figure of Jesus Christ by only listening to non-Christians of the first centuries? That he was an invented myth? Absolutely not. Just by listening to Jesus' enemies and outsiders, we can put together the following profile on Christ and his influence; the sum of which positively affirms the believability of the Bible and deity of his person:
* Jesus was a wise man and was called the Christ or Messiah, (Josephus)
* Jesus gained many disciples from many nations, (Josephus)
* He healed blind and lame people in Bethsaida and Bethany, (Julian the Apostate)
* He was accused of practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray, (the Talmud)
* Under Herod, and during the reign of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate condemned Christ to die, (Tacitus)
* Christ was crucified on the eve of Passover, (the Talmud)
* His crucifixion was accompanied by three hours of unexplained darkness, (Thallus)
* Christ's disciples, "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive;", (Josephus)
* His disciples took to the habit of meeting on a fixed day of the week and took their name "Christians" from him, (Pliny)
* They gave worship to Christ "as to a god", (Pliny)
* They bound themselves over to abstaining from wicked deeds, fraud, theft, adultery, and lying, (Pliny)
* Christians held a contempt for death and were known for a voluntary self-devotion, (Lucian)
* Christians believed themselves all brothers from the moment of their conversion, (Lucian)
* Christians lived after Christ's laws, (Lucian)
* Christians were willingly tortured and even executed for their refusal to deny their belief in the resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ. (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian)
- jcr4runner
by AMbomb » Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:33 pm
- AMbomb
Take this as you will.
by Tanja_von_Hannover » Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:25 pm
Now either he died and was ressurected, or if his body was stolen and destroyed is a completely different subject.
But as there is no body of Jesus, it cannot be proven that he existed, or that he did not.
- Tanja von Hannover
by jcr4runner » Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:29 am
The problem with your conjecture is that no serious historian actually believes Jesus did not exist. The contemporary debate concerns not His existence, but His divinity. In light of the archaeological discoveries of the past century, the evidence that Jesus was a first century Jew who lived in Galilee is overwhelming.AMbomb wrote: 27 pagan writers wrote within 100 years of the time Jesus supposedly lived. Their works could fill a library. Yet none of them mention Jesus.
There may be some webloggers such as yourself who publish their amateurish attempt at criticism, but you cannot name a single credible researcher or historian who currently holds to your view.
First of all, there are volumes of works from the first and second centuries mentioning Jesus and quoting the New Testament. Even if all of the copies of the Bible in the entire world were burned, we could still reproduce all of scripture from the writings of the Church Fathers of the first and second centuries alone.
To name just a few:
* The Didache, a late first century catechism, quotes extensively from the New Testament.
* Ignatius (A.D. 35-110), the Bishop of Antioch, quotes from 16 New Testament books.
* Irenaeus (A.D. 130 -200), the second century Bishop of Lyons, makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.
* Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220) quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times.
You cannot account for the fact that the New Testament was written in the first century if Jesus did not exist.
There are no longer any Higher Critics who deny the existence of Christ. We now have only to contend with those critics searching for a "historical Jesus." The problem even with this version of liberalism is that we have volumes of work by the Church Fathers who were writing in the late first and second centuries. Since they quote from the New Testament books extensively, we can know that the church in many areas of the Roman Empire had access to all of the New Testament scriptures. So the Gospels must have been written sometime in the first century, during the time of the Apostles.
- jcr4runner
by AMbomb » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:56 am
Critical estimates place the New Testament as being written between 150 and 225. But, let's assume earlier. So what? The Bible being written in the first century is not an indication that there was such a person as Jesus. Earlier pagan godman myths predate the Jesus myth by millennia.
- AMbomb
Pagan vs. Christian writers
by jcr4runner » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:51 am
There were certainly pagan writers who mention Jesus. Some deny this using the confabulated means to explain them away as you have done. Of course, there were not as many records of Jesus by pagan writers as Christian writers. This is due to the fact that up until the second century Christianity was a small sect except for a few dozen churches in large urban areas, such as Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem. It is not surprising that pagan historians took little notice until the sect grew. But there is mention of Jesus and Christians by a handful of late first century and second century pagans. Most non-religious historians accept these sources although some think the accounts may have been embellished.
It is certain that Nero persecuted the Christians within 35 years after Jesus' death and several of the Apostles were executed by the Emperor. There are ample recordings of this event.
Denial is evidence of an irrationally biased agenda.
You also write that:
"Critical estimates place the New Testament as being written between 150 and 225."
How is it then that we have writers from the late first century and early second century quoting the New Testament extensively? The scriptures must have been widely disseminated for at least a generation in order for this to been the case.
William Foxwell Albright, one of the world’s foremost archaeologists, said: “In my opinion, every book in the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and 80s of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 to 75).”
- jcr4runner
by jcr4runner » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:58 am
And the difference is that those myths have no historical corroboration, while the New Testament can be corroborated by independent historians and archaeological evidence in minute detail.AMbomb wrote:But, let's assume earlier. So what? The Bible being written in the first century is not an indication that there was such a person as Jesus. Earlier pagan godman myths predate the Jesus myth by millennia.
There were many stories about gods who died and were resurrected, but they were thought of as legends, or as myths symbolic of the renewal of spring after winter. Adonis, Hercules, the Norse god Balder and other heroic God-man figures died and rose from the dead "long ago and far away." Jesus, on the other hand, died at a particular time and place in history, under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea from 26 to 36 A.D., during the last ten years of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.
- jcr4runner
by AMbomb » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:51 pm
- AMbomb
Your hyberbole is incredible
by jcr4runner » Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:57 pm
The fact is that the Jews recorded exact historical references -- the best of all the ancient historians -- because they believed that God was trying to teach them something through history. In keeping with this tradition, the writers of the Gospels sought to record accurate historical events surrounding the life of Christ.
For instance, in Luke 2:1, we see that Jesus was born in the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria; and when Caesar Augustus was Emperor. In Luke 3:1, we are given the exact year of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry: “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea; Herod being tetrarch of Galilee; his brother Phillip the tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis; and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.”
These were the rulers of the surrounding countries of Judea in the first century. These are all true persons and places that may be corroborated in other recorded histories.
There are many examples of how recent archaeological finds have corroborated the people, places and events that are recorded in the Gospel stories.
The difference between the Gospels and the pagan god-man myths is that the Gospels record dates, actual historical events and people. There is real physical evidence for the reliability of the Gospel stories. Recently, there have been inscriptions found about Caiaphas the High Priest and Pontius Pilate that were previously unknown.
In addition to the New Testament, there are volumes of writings by Christians who were eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry or the ministry of the Apostles. They believed Jesus lived, performed miracles, died on a cross and was resurrected.
In contrast, the pagans viewed their stories as myths. The ancient Greeks did not actually believe that Hercules was a historical person. There is no date assigned to any ancient myth because there were no eyewitnesses who recorded the events. In fact, the recorders of ancient myths do not even pretend to be factual.
You may have read over the weekend that a statue of Ramses II was found in Egypt. These archaeologists accept the biblical account that this was the Pharoah whom Moses confronted in the story of the Exodus. These archaeologists assign a date to Ramses rule which is corroborated by the chronologies and genealogies given in the Bible.
Your claims that these people never existed are not held even by the most skeptical of historians. Many historians will doubt the accuracy of biblical stories (the accounts of miracles, the creation account, etc.) but they do not doubt that the people, places and events recorded in the Bible actually existed. In fact, archaeology has proven tthe Bible to be the most accurate historical document from ancient times.
- jcr4runner
Justin Martyr on pagan myths
by jcr4runner » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:17 pm
The quote is used at the web site you mention in an attempt to prove that Chrsitianity was "borrowed" from ancient myths. The idea is that somehow this is the record of two religious groups debating whose "myth" was superior."When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter" [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21].
On the contrary, no one in the ancient world (except for children and simple people) actually believed that Jupiter or Zeus had sons who were historical persons.
In the time of Justin Martyr, there were Christians still alive who had been taught by the Apostles who in turn claimed to be eyewitnesses of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. In contrast to the pagan myths, the eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry and those Christians who came afterward were so convinced of the Lordship of Jesus that they were willing to die as martyrs. They were executed not because they claimed Jesus was a god, but because they claimed Jesus REALLY was God and that Caesar was not their Lord.
There are no such records concerning Hercules or the "sons of Apollo."
The arguments of the early Christian apologists were not made against a competing myth, but against the idea that a Caesar could actually have an authority greater than Christ. Even though several Emperors were deified, this was thought of mainly as a symbolic tribute. There were many such gods and sons of gods in the Greek and Roman world.
So why did the Romans view the early Christians as a threat? Only for the reason that they actually believed and were willing to die for their belief. If this Jesus really was the Son of God, then the entire Roman political system was threatened because there was a king with greater authority than Caesar.
- jcr4runner
Re: Your hyberbole is incredible
by AMbomb » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:00 pm
Re: Justin Martyr on pagan myths
by AMbomb » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:16 pm
- AMbomb
Corroboration includes archaelology as well as writings
by jcr4runner » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:41 pm
This is quite a ridiculous statement since the earliest non-biblical Chritian writings are clear on the divinity of Christ. There are no Christian writings that do not recognize Jesus as God.The original Christians knew there was no Jesus, just like the followers of other pagan mystery religions knew their godmen didn't exist.
Archaeologists have, in recent years, uncovered many manuscript fragments. Many of these fragments have been dated from the second and third centuries. The oldest known fragment is a tiny scrap of papyrus, 3-1/2" by 2-1/2" containing John 18:31-33. Scholars have assigned this fragment to the early part of the second century.
It should come as no surprise to the orthodox Christian, that the oldest surviving Gospel text matches what today's Bible says:
How ironic in view of your claim that a central passage concerning Christ's deity is in fact the oldest surviving record of the Gospel!"Then Pilate said to them, "You take Him and judge Him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die. Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, "Are You the king of the Jews?
Corroboration for the New Testament also includes recently discovered archaeological inscriptions of people mentioned in scripture, such as the High Priest Caiaphas, but not recorded elsewhere. This tells us that the New Testament is a highly reliable document.
With your regard to the reliability of the Old Testament, your claim that the Jews were not in Egypt, there are Egyptian inscriptions that mention the Hebrews and Moses.
We also have several accounts by pagan writers of the Christians at the time of Nero who were put to death for their belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It would be hard to imagine contemporaries of Jesus dying for a belief that they did not hold or knew to be fraudulent.
I don't discount the writings of early Christians as being "biased" or untrustworthy. Since Jesus was the Son of God and He had unlimited power to illuminate men's hearts, it isn't remarkable to see that most of the writings of people who knew Him were by his disciples. In fact, all who encountered Jesus became believers to some degree even if by thought only and not by true faith. For example, we see the mere mental assent in the account of the Roman centurion who witnessed Jesus' death and exclaimed, "Surely this was the Son of God."
- jcr4runner
Other pagan historians who record Jesus
by jcr4runner » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:43 pm
THALLUS, the Samaritan-born historian
One of the first Gentile writers who mentions Christ is Thallus, who wrote in A.D. 52. However, his writings have disappeared and we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. One such writer is Julius Africanus, a Christian writer about A.D. 221. One very interesting passage relates to a comment from Thallus. Julius Africanus writes:
Thus, from this reference we see that the Gospel account of the darkness which fell upon the land during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from those non-believers who witnessed it.Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun -unreasonably, as it seems to me" (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).
PHLEGON, a first-century historian
His Chronicles have been lost, but a small fragment of that work, which confirms the darkness upon the earth at the crucifixion, is also mentioned by Julius Africanus. After his (Africanus') remarks about Thallus' unreasonable opinion of the darkness, he quotes Phlegon that
Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen in Contra Celsum, Book 2, sections 14, 33, 59."during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."
Philopon [De. opif mund. 11 211 says:
LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION"And about this darkness ... Phlegon recalls it in the Olyinpiads [the title of his history]." He says that "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other [eclipse], it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any [similar] eclipse in previous times ... and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar."
F. F. Bruce records that there is in the British Museum an interesting manuscript preserving the text of a letter written some time later than A.D. 73. This letter was sent by a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion. He compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Christ.
Of course, an atheist will doubt this as unreliable simply because the information was preserved by Christians without contrary proof that it is unreliable. That is the agenda of atheism, to suppress the truth in unrighteousness with no regard to the facts of history.What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.
- jcr4runner
Re: Corroboration includes archaelology as well as writings
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:19 am
- AMbomb
Re: Other pagan historians who record Jesus
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:56 am
- AMbomb
Circles
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:09 am
But I consider your logic to be circular: "Christian historians are not a credible witness of Christian history." That would be like saying that there is no written evidence that Augustus Caesar existed or that he was proclaimed in some Roman inscriptions to be the son of a god. He was merely a legendary hero such as King Arthur and we cannot trust historians within one generation of his death because they were ROMANS holding to the Roman religion and therefore biased. The fact is that ALL Roman historians at the time of Caesar were Romans -- just as ALL Christian apologists for Jesus were Christians. It's so obvious. But there are records and inscriptions by both Christians and pagans from the first and early second centuries recording the Christian belief that Jesus was the Son of God. The most obvious one is by Pliny the Younger and there are at least a dozen other references and archaeological evidences in the form of inscriptions.
It wasn't that unusual in Roman times for a person to be proclaimed divine. The difference is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of the ONE Creator God and His followers REALLY believed it and were willing to be martyred for that belief.
In any case, we ought to move on to some of your other objections. I won't be touching on this again for a while.
- jcr4runner
Some of your facts are wrong
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:54 am
But you are right here.The earliest known Christian writings were the letters of Paul, written around the year 50.
I think it is great that you admit that a man named Paul wrote the letters of Paul. For a long time, liberal critics would not admit this, but with so many of the early Church fathers quoting Paul, there would have to have been widely circulated letters at least 20 to 40 years prior to AD 90. So I agree. The letters of Paul were written from the early 50s to the mid 60s.
The Gospels existed in oral form until the same time period. The Bible was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry His own disciples and by apostles that later arose in the first century church, Paul, Luke, Mark, James and Jude. Although 19th century scholars once tried to assign later dates to New Testament books, modern scholars regard the New Testament as a primary source document from the first century. There are many ways to validate the Bible's authenticity.
Eusebius, the 4th century historian, drawing information from Papias, who was the Apostle John's student, tells us that the Gospel of Mark was actually Peter's account of the life of Jesus as told to his student Mark:
"The Elder (John) used to say this also: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down everything that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required ... So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."
Eusebius also tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter and travelled with him to Rome in 60 A.D. During the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, the Roman authorities used a copy of Mark's Gospel as evidence to implicate the Christians as the cause of a large fire which had burned much of the city. On a papyrus scroll appeared the title: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." In the ensuing period, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats. Evidently the title of Mark's Gospel was misconstrued as treasonous.
Gnostic views of the Godhead were opposed by Paul in his writings, by Peter in his second epistle, by the Apostle John in his writings, and by the Church Fathers and apologists.Paul was, in fact, a gnostic. He knew there was no Jesus.
The Apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy:
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20).
It's worth noting here that the word translated as "science," or as "knowledge" in some translations, is the Greek word gnosis. Paul is warning his young disciple Timothy against the error of Gnosticism. Likewise, the letter to the Colossians also deals with Gnosticism.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ "(Colossians 2:8 ) .
"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" (Colossians 2:18 ) .
Peter's second epistle also warns against heresies. Many scholars believe he is referring specifically to the teachings of Gnosticism.
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1).
John's writings were written in part to counter the Gnostic error that supposed that Christ came in spirit form only, but not in human flesh.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands" (1 John 1:1).
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2) .
John further condemns the "mystery religions" that had corrupted first century Jews represented by the harlot in the book of Revelation.
"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS" (Revelation 17:3,4) .
The Maccabean Rebellion occurred at the time of 165 BC not 70 AD.Nero was emperor from 54-68. Christians believe Jesus died between the years 30 and 35. In any case, there were no literalist Christians at the time of Nero. Literalist Christianity didn't get started until sometime after the Maccabee rebellion in 70.
You may be thinking of the seige of Jerusalem by Titus from 68 to 70 AD.
You may not believe it, but this is what good historian does in order to evaluate whether a source is reliable. The historian looks for other independent sources that corroborate the history of the primary source. If there is a great deal of matching facts, then the source is considered highly reliable. For instance, Luke speaks in His Gospel many times of Jesus' interaction with historical persons who can be cound in other records and inscriptions. Therefore, Luke's record is considered to be accurate. It is also a fact that the greatest historians of ancient times were the Jews. That is why Josephus and Trypho are considered to be so valuable in corroborating the Gospel accounts and Acts.Besides, even if they did believe that Jesus really did exist and really was the son of God, that doesn't mean they were right. I never said the New Testament was wrong about every single thing contained in its pages. I said that it's uncorroborated with respect to Jesus. The fact that certain things it contains have been corroborated is irrelevant. In other words, just because parts of it are true doesn't mean all of it is.
Archaeologists have discovered the Stele of Mernptah whic contains the following inscription:The Egyptians, like the Romans, kept tons of records. There is no record of the Jews ever being in Egypt.
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt
http://www.touregypt.net/victorystele.htm
According an article at Wikipedia:
"Rameses II, is commonly considered to be a pharaoh with whom Moses squabbled - either as the 'Pharaoh of the Exodus' himself, or the preceding 'Pharaoh of the Oppression' who is said to have commissioned the Hebrews to "(build) for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." These cities are known to have been built under both Seti I and Rameses II, possibly making his successor Merneptah 'Pharaoh of the Exodus.' This is considered plausible by those who view the famed stele of Merneptah's 5th year (ca. 1208 BC), claiming that 'Israel is wasted, bare of seed,' as propaganda covering up his own loss of an army in the sea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Moses_in_history
Here is another interesting article giving some archaeological evidence that the Hebrews escaped from Egypt.
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/redsea.html
- jcr4runner
Re: Circles
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:47 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Some of your facts are wrong
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:05 pm
- AMbomb
Historicity vs. Accountability of Reason
by revrosado » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:43 pm
Yet in the very same argument the alluded verification of "Jesus the Godman" is stated by "AM" himself.
For in all of man's history God has manifested the truth and veracity of Jesus by way of the created reality. The created stuff of the universe and the intellectual pursuit of knowledge (science). Therefore, the myths of yeateryear(secular, gentile, pagan) and the shadows of the old testament (Jew) were all brought to light in the person of Jesus Christ.
Reasoning properly applied to the sciences and to logic will bring forth the matter of the Christ as the illumination of man from his dark slumber of ignorance and basic information processing. History without reasoning is a waste of the human experience and mind. If we do not LEARN from history - we are doomed to repeat the errors of history as in the arguments of "AM" are the denial of the sum of all human thought.
If an ignorant mind views history, that history is devoid of any light. The illuminated mind sees light and sees history in the light thereof.
To wit, if Jesus was of no existential significance, then the whole of the universe was unable to squash a myth. Reality is a force of truth. Reality has permanence. All others are such - myths. Yet only one piece of history - changed all the world forever! A Myth?
Reason....Reason....
If the permanence of the Christian "myth" serve as no foundation for a man's reasoning, then in light of the sum of all the myths of humanity that speak to God as man, to virgin birth, to redemption from darkness, to restoration of life, to perpetuity of life, to duality of existance, et al - do they all not serve as a hint at least?
And what derive ye of that hint? If you take the sum of all the sciences and what acumen have you therein, can you not see a relationship in truths between them and the myths culminating and blossoming in Jesus the Christ? And if your brain now offers the question "how so?", then I say to you that you have a lot to learn before you can consider yourself intellectually qualified to discount Jesus the Christ as mere myth!
For I say this truly, that it is far easier to assimilate the Christ by faith than it is to deny him on the basis of facts and science - it is a hard thing to turn the sun off.
- revrosado
Re: Historicity vs. Accountability of Reason
by AMbomb » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:52 am
- AMbomb
Re: What bombers?
by AMbomb » Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:17 am
- AMbomb
Re: Historicity vs. Accountability of Reason
by jcr4runner » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:29 pm
I've asked this question before several times.AMbomb wrote: Reason doesn't tell me that there was such a person as Jesus. It tells me that there wasn't.
Can you list any contemporary historians who claim that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist in first century Galilee and Judea? I know that there are some people on the web who claim this. But I am talking about major historians who have been published by reputable publishing houses.
You can insist that "reason" tells you something, but until someone agrees with you, your reason is unreasonable.
Re: Historicity vs. Accountability of Reason
by AMbomb » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:29 am
- AMbomb
The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peer Gandy
by jcr4runner » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:55 pm
Okay, now we are getting somewhere! Gnostic "Christianity" has recently reappeared in feminist theology and in liberal circles such as among the Jesus seminar and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? is a 1999 book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy that attempts to reconstruct the true origins of Christianity. It relies heavily on the Gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi.
The cover of The Jesus Mysteries features a gem of Dionysus/Orpheus. This gem was pronounced a forgery by Otto Kern
The authors suggest that a number of pagan mystery religions, such as those of Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, and Mithras, were all manifestations of a single cult of a dying and rising "godman" myth, whom they call Osiris-Dionysus. The authors also assert that Jesus did not really exist, but was instead a syncretic re-interpretation of the fundamental pagan "godman" by the Gnostics, who were the original sect of Christianity as a consequence. Freke and Grandy, therefore, offer their own argument in support of the Jesus-Myth theory. Orthodox Christianity, according to them, was not the predecessor to Gnosticism, as conventional wisdom states, but a later outgrowth that rewrote history in order to make literal Christianity appear to predate the Gnostics.
If this is the "serious" scholarship that you cite, then we are going to have some fun here.
According to Wikipedia:
Critics have labeled the claims of The Jesus Mysteries far-fetched and based on insufficient research. For example, David Allan Dodson, a reviewer for CNN, found the book to be interesting, he stated that "while the authors discuss many examples of elements of Osiris/Dionysus in the Jesus story, they virtually ignore the more direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy. This oversight undermines the credibility of many of their arguments, and could have the tendency to mislead the novice reader in this subject". (CNN.com, "Review: Jesus -- man or myth?", September 21, 2000).
Among common complaints are that Freke and Gandy make selective use quotations (suppressing those that count against their thesis), that they use out of date scholarship and that they are driven by a new age and anti-Christian agenda. The most damaging allegation has been that the striking image on the cover of the book of a 4th century amulet showing Orpheus crucified has long been suspected of being a fake. Freke and Gandy knew this but gave no hint of it in their book.
- jcr4runner
Did Gnostisicm predate Orthodox Christianity?
by jcr4runner » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:02 pm
This is the main premise of Freke (great name!) and Gandy's book.
The Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus was recorded in many first and second century accounts, even some by pagan writers. For instance, Pliny the Younger wrote an account to the Emperor Trajan early in the second century about Christian practices. He wrote that:
Perhaps the most outrageous historical gaffe committed by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code (and similar authors such as Freke) is the linking of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library -- two separate archaeological finds compiled by two different religious sects in separate continents hundreds of years apart. Those who are well acquainted with biblical archaeology know this. But the casual reader is left with the impression that the Nag Hammadi writings are from the same time period.“... they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god” (Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96).
The Dead Sea scrolls are thought to come from the second century B.C. Although some have tried to link the theology of the Jews who compiled the Dead Sea scrolls to early Christianity, most scholars do not believe that this find has anything to do with Jesus or the early Christians. And rest assured, these researchers are not part of a conspiracy to keep the truth from the public.
The fact that the Dead Sea scrolls survived since the mid-second century B.C. has actually confirmed the historical reliability of the received texts of the Old Testament. Contrary to the claims of the critics, the Old Testament scriptures preserved for thousands of years are virtually identical to the Dead Sea scrolls.
Likewise, if we compare the New Testament manuscripts from the earliest centuries together with passages quoted by the first and second century church fathers, we also see an amazing agreement with the New Testament of today.
- jcr4runner
Why the "Gnostic Gospels" are known not to be authentic
by jcr4runner » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:07 pm
Despite all the hype about the Nag Hammadi library, it turns out that the most reliable historical witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ are the writings of the Apostles found in the canon of the New Testament.
The Church Fathers and apologists quoted extensively from the New Testament in the late first and second centuries. Although Irenaeus and Tertullian quoted from some Gnostic writings in seeking to refute them, none of the second century apologists were aware of any “Gospels” written by the Gnostics. They argued instead against the way in which different Gnostic sects twisted the meanings of one of the four Gospels. This fact has led many historians to believe that Gnostic writings, such as the Gospel of Philip and Mary Magdalene, must have been written later in the third century. In fact, virtually all scholars agree that they do not come from a period any earlier than the mid-second century.
Irenaeus writing in the early second century made this interesting observation:
Irenaeus pointed out that each of the heretical Gnostic groups liked to center on the one Gospel they thought agreed the most with their teachings. The Ebionites used Matthew’s Gospel. The Docetics preferred the Gospel of Mark. The Marcionites claimed that Luke was the only true Gospel. The Valentinians used the Gospel according to John.So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5).
The apologists of the second century were actually the third generation of Christians. Some of them, such as Irenaeus, had actually been taught by men, such as Polycarp, who had known one or more of the Apostles who in turn had been taught by Jesus himself. Unlike the “secret Gospels” of the Gnostics, the “canon of truth,” as Irenaeus termed it, was entirely open to the public. The writings of the Apostles had been entrusted to their successors and these books in turn had been transmitted to the third generation.
Irenaeus claimed that the authenticity of the canon was guaranteed by two safeguards:
The first guarantee of authenticity is apostolic succession. There was an unbroken succession of bishops in cities such as Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome, which had churches founded by one or more of the Apostles. Irenaeus includes lists of these bishops in order of succession in his work Against Heresies. These bishops knew which were the authentic writings since the Apostles themselves passed down these books to them.
The second guarantee of authenticity is the visible canon. The canon was open and visible in the Church for all who cared to look at it. Not only did this include actual copies of the books of the New Testament, but also public preaching expounding on the texts. Irenaeus argued that the Holy Spirit had directed the bishops in the correct way to teach the Gospel message.
Less than a few decades after the last New Testament book was written, Church fathers such as Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement quoted from almost every book in the New Testament in their defense of Christian orthodoxy. Tertullian, in writing against the Gnostic heretic Marcion, was aware of an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament.”
It’s important to remember that at this time there was no such thing as “The Holy Bible” as we think of it today. It was not a nicely bound book with a table of contents and passages separated by chapter and verse. There was no “pocket New Testament” lying on Tertullian’s desk as he wrote his treatise against Gnosticism. The New Testament existed as 27 separate books that were copied by hand and circulated among the churches.Now the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as "a doubly sharp, two-edged one." This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel--sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God's holy name (Against Marcion, Book 1).
Even at this early date, Christians thought of the scriptures as the “Two Testaments of the Law and the Gospel” -- found in the Hebrew Bible and the writings of the Apostles. They were aware of the four Gospels and argued for the inclusion of all four against those Gnostics who would center on only one.
- jcr4runner
by AMbomb » Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:07 am
# "Whether you conclude this book is the most alarming heresy of the millennium or the mother of all revelations, The Jesus Mysteries deserves to be read" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram).
# "This is not for readers with a delicate nervous system. The book is shock treatment in paperback" (Marie Mares, New Vision).
# "The theory is not new. For two centuries at least, scholars have been aware of the intriguing parallels between the accounts of Jesus' life and that of preceding and contemporaneous figures such as Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras. What is new is the powerful scholarship brought to the issue by authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, just published in Australia. The result, which draws strongly on the Gnostic gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, is so persuasive that is doubtful whether theological scholarship will ever be the same" (Robert Macklin, The Canberra Times, "Panorama," 1 July 2000).
# "A provocative, exciting and challenging book" (Right Reverend John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark) ?
I have a good idea for you. Insted of relying on reviews of the book. Why don't you read it?
- AMbomb
Shelby Spong?
by jcr4runner » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:54 am
Second, anyone can publish an article on the Internet. Anyone can publish a book nowadays -- the only criteria for most publishing houses is if it will sell. The "positive" reviews that you see on sites advertising the books are the ones sought after. No one trying to sell a book will push the negative reviews equally.
There are a rash of books on the market in the last 10 to 20 years that promote the "Gnostic Christ" theory. I don't need to read every one of these. I know the basic argument. I am always doing reading on this lately. See my series on The Real Jesus:
http://forerunner.com/realjesus/open.html
The Gnostic Christ theory doesn't hold any water.
It is easily proven that while all of the New Testament was written in the first century, none of the Gnostic writings appeared until the late second century and later.
I was kind of amused by some of the articles I have been reading lately (by people who deny the existence of Jesus) who extol Schleiermacher and his ilk as though they are the final word and their higher critical theories haven't been thoroughly challenged by contemporary scholarship.
But still, you are missing my point. Liberal scholars do not discount the existence of Jesus Christ. They readily admit He existed. But they still rely on the sham scholarship of 19th century liberals which is outdated and unreliable.
You won't find a credible published scholar who holds your theory. No one with university credentials who is taken seriously.
But nevertheless, some people do swallow it and I'll be providing a point by point refutation of Freke's main premises.
It is almost a waste of time to argue against Freke since all but the most skeptical historians are convinced that Jesus of Nazareth most likely existed, but since he uses some of the same arguments we find in the Jesus Seminar's articles and books, it is worth going over.
- jcr4runner
Re: Shelby Spong?
by AMbomb » Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:57 pm
- AMbomb
The strategy of the skeptics -- Deny, deny, deny
by jcr4runner » Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:22 pm
The problem with writers such as Freke and Doherty is that they are authors with B.A.s who read some books written in the late 19th and early 20th century heyday of higher criticism. They are basically regurgitating the liberalism of 100 years ago.
Their degrees don’t qualify them to teach at the university level. Otherwise, they would have some credibility in academic circles. But they are not accomplished scholars. They are self-proclaimed “experts” who present a one-sided view. The basic tactic of Earl Doherty is to deny everything. It’s sort of like the tactic of AMBomb on this thread. There are evidences for the existence of Jesus that are accepted by most modern scholars, but Freke and Doherty simply deny the facts.
Here is an example from one such article:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
In the article, Doherty makes some amazing denials, such as:
Huh?In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found.
Here Doherty makes a huge assumption popular among the 19th century critics that the Gospels were not written in the first century. Most scholars now admit that they were.
He then goes on to state that none of the Gospel story appears in the Epistles.
The following is from Luke Timothy Johnson:
Here is just a brief summary of the “non-narrative” evidence from the Epistles that also appear the Gospel stories. Those points also attested to by non-Christian writers are marked with an asterisk.
1. Jesus was a human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrws)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death (Paul -- mentioned also in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witnesses after death (Paul)
So it is clear to see that the most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in the Epistles and some of these points are attested to by pagans who were biased against the Christians.
In “The Jesus Puzzle,” Doherty then goes on to say that:
Ironically, what follows is the list of pagan historians who do mention Jesus. Doherty counters this by denying the fact that they all mention Jesus and then in the same paragraph contradicting himself by admitting that the they do mention Jesus. He brushes this off by claiming that they must be forgeries.The Gospel Jesus and his story is equally missing from the non-Christian record of the time.
The problem is that historians do not universally consider these passages to be forgeries. In addition, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian and Celsus refer to Christ and Christians sometimes in negative terms. This is hardly the strategy for a Christian forger who is trying to gain credibility for his movement.
When we look at Freke, we see much of the same posturing by a man holding a B.A. in a field unrelated to biblical scholarship and who professes to be a modern day Gnostic. The agenda here is not scholarship, it is to promote Gnosticism.
To say that Paul was a Gnostic is to deny many the points made by Paul (listed above) that are incompatible with the religion of Gnosticism. Since the Gnostics believed that all matter is evil, they taught that Christ was a spirit being and had only an illusive body. The Gnostics taught that Christ was a spirit temporarily inhabiting the body of the man Jesus who died.
Freke describes his beliefs as – “the timeless wisdom of awakening” – and we find this gem:
Yes, I am supposed to take seriously the rantings of a man who claims that the earth is a giant brain and the historical Jesus did not exist. Am I supposed to take this seriously? In fact, it strengthens my faith as a Christian to see that the alternatives are nut jobs.“that the Earth could be conceived as a Global Brain which was in the process of awakening to itself, with the explosion of connections being made across it right now comparable to neural networks.”
- jcr4runner
Re: The strategy of the skeptics -- Deny, deny, deny
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:35 am
Attacking people's credibility by attacking their credentials and calling them nut jobs, oldest tricks in the book. They never worked and they never will. FYI, Peter Gandy has a master's degree. You're critiquing a book you haven't even read. How can you expect anyone to give you any credibility when you do that? All the sources you cite in your list are either biblical, misinterpretations, forgeries or, in the case of Tacitus, taken from an unreliable source or unreliable sources. Hence, none of them are credible. In the case of 13 and 15, if Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate and was crucified, why is there no record of it in the Roman archives? The Romans kept detailed records of their legal proceedings. Had that happened, there would've been a record of it. There isn't.
- AMbomb
by revrosado » Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:53 am
I did. I answered that in my last post which you say you did not comprehend. But I appreciate your candor.
Secondly, no one as far as I have perused is denying the pre-existence of "Godman" myths nor can it honestly be. Let us agree that the pre-existing myths encompass the whole of the Jesus story (although individually they may not all be comprehensive of it). Let us also admit that while Judah was held in captivity in Babylon, they were exposed if not indoctrinated in the mystical practices and beliefs of their pagan captors - whom also had some elements of the "Godman" myth. Knowing as you should that the progression and transfer of the mythical repertoire came through the Babylonians from Egypt and other conquered kingdoms, and passed on to the Persians before Judah was released and returned to Palestine, whilst the Greeks strengthened their pantheon of gods and godmen to a fortress. Being that the Jews were throughout this period of time intermittently but albeit, dominated and overrun by pagan kingdoms ending with that of Rome - all of whom had Godmen religions dominating their cultures. Why did the Jesus "Godman" "myth" take hold in a time when the Jews were not under any direct pagan influence, in the midst of a period of high religious zeal for Judaism even amongst Gentiles?
If you are going to debate evidence that Jesus existed - then the sociological and psychological question is posed. There can be no reasoning that supports Jew's acceptance of a "Godman" myth when there existed no social and / or political pressures to do so, compared to when they were under ages and ages of captivity - cultural and political pressure and even Royal mandates and the like, yet no "Godman myth" rose up among them (Daniel).
But it is like you said your own self..."a myth is a myth". The Jews did not follow a myth - Jesus is the 2nd Adam.
And remember - these were Jews first...they were not Christians believing in Jesus, they were Jews whom after considering what they saw and heard for themselves, then followed a man named Jesus - for Jews do not entertain myths and it is quite against their religion to worship anyone as God than God Himself.
- revrosado
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:59 am
- AMbomb
Detailed recordings
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:21 am
No, you can't because they do not exist.
You are relying on faulty and uncredited information from authors who make claims that almost everyone else in the academic world knows are untrue.
The fact that pagan myths are symbolically similar to the so-called "Christ myth" does not discount the reality of the person of Jesus who existed in the first century in Palestine. There are a lot of good writings on this over the years. C.S. Lewis, for instance, proposed that since the world was fallen, we are incurable myth makers. We re trying to get back what we once hhad. In this sense, the Gospel, Lewis wrote, the Gospel is no less a "myth" than the pagan stories. The difference is that the story of Jesus is true.
- jcr4runner
Re: Detailed recordings
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:23 pm
- AMbomb
- Seasoned Visitor
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Roman records
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:34 pm
AMbomb's argument is based on the idea that Christian testimony about Jesus is biased and therefore invalid. But until Christianity had spread, few people except Christians (and Jews opposed to the new sect) would have been interested in Jesus.
But later records by pagans are discounted by AMBomb because they may have been tainted by association with Christian scribes who maintained the records after 325 A.D.
This is an interesting conspiracy theory. But good historians do not set up conspiracy theories that are impossible to prove or disprove. It is a valid argument in that it is at least possible, but highly unlikely to be true -- and here is why:
We have the writings of Church fathers and pagan historians who give detailed accounts which corroborate the New Testament history in great detail. Historians almost always disagree with each other and human histories contain many mistakes. The extra-biblical accounts of Jesus and the early Christians are no exception. One would imagine that if they were tainted by the biased redaction of Christian scribes, that some of the most glaring errors would be corrected. For instance, we have the usually acccurate Irenaeus, stating in one place tthat Jesus lived to be 50 years old, while the Gospels count his age to be no more than 33 at the time of his death.
(I can hear the conpiracy theorists saying: "Aha! But that's just exactly what they wanted you to think")
What AMBomb is proposing is that there was a conspiracy to change all early Christian and pagan writings to reflect a "historical Jesus" who never actually existed in first century Palestine -- and to excise the Gnosticism of New Testament writers such as Paul replacing it with the orthodox version.
Well, it is at least possible that such a massive conspiracy could have existed. But let's look at what would have to happen in order for a such a massive reordering of history to have taken place.
If this alteration took place after the third century, say at about the time of the Council of Nicea, copies of the manuscripts in question -- by that time spread across much of Europe, northern Africa, Asia Minor, and the Middle East -- would have to be located, destroyed and replaced by the Church conspirators.
A systematic redaction of early Christian and pagan writings would have to be undertaken. By the end of the second century, the writings of church fathers and apologists contained literally tens of thousands of references to the New Testament.
Yet we have evidence in the thousands of New Testament manuscripts and fragments that have been unearthed by modern archaeology that no such conspiracy existed.
Modern archaeology has also discovered many New Testament commentaries and Christian writings from the early centuries that were previously unknown to Christian historians. Just to give one example, the Didache, a Christian teaching manual for new converts, was discovered in the late 1800s. Most scholars agree that this book was probably written in the late first century no more than 60 to 70 years after the crucifixion of Christ.
For this conspiracy theory to be true, these artifacts from the early centuries would have to bear witness to the teachings of the early Gnostics -- rather than the supposedly "later" orthodox Christians. But in fact, they do not. The earliest Christian writings, even those unearthed recently, corroborate the New Testament passages passed down to us in the received text of the Bible.
Question about mythology
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:16 pm
all the pagan godman myths came true centuries or millenia after they were propogated.
No, I don't think that follows from what I wrote. What I am saying depends on how you define "mythology." The colloquial meaning of "myth" is just something that is not true. But "mythology" has another meaning.
Probably the best explanation I have seen comes from the authorized biography of J.R.R. Tolkien:
So Lewis, an agnostic, came to be one of the greatest and most read Christian theologians of the 20th century."When Lewis and Tolkien had first met, Lewis was beginning to perceive the inadequacy of the agnosticism into which he had lapsed, having previously discarded any remnants of childhood Christianity. By the summer of 1929 he had renounced agnosticism and professed himself a theist, believing in the existence of God but denying the claims of Christianity. Essentially this was his position when, in September 1931, he had the discussion with Tolkien and their mutual friend, Hugo Dyson, which was destined to have a revolutionary impact on his life. After dinner the three men went for a walk and discussed the nature and purpose of myth. Lewis explained that he felt the power of myths but that they were ultimately untrue. As he expressed it to Tolkien, myths were 'lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver.'
"No," Tolkien replied, "They are not lies."
"Tolkien argued that, far from being lies, myths were the best way of conveying truths which would otherwise be inexpressible. We have come from God and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic 'progress' leads only to the abyss and to the power of evil.
"Building on this philosophy of myth, Tolkien and Dyson went on to express their belief that the story of Christ was simply a true myth: a myth that works in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened. Whereas pagan myths revealed fragments of eternal truth through the words of poets, the True Myth of Christianity revealed the whole truth through the Word himself. The poets of pagan antiquity told their story with words, but God, the omnipotent Poet, told the True Story with facts -- weaving his tale with the actions of real men in actual history.
"Tolkien's arguments had an indelible effect on Lewis. The edifice of his unbelief crumbled and the foundations of his Christianity were laid. Twelve days later Lewis wrote to a friend that he had 'just passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ -- in Christianity. ... My long night talk with Dyson and Tolkien had a good deal to do with it.' "
- jcr4runner
Re: Roman records
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:32 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Question about mythology
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:40 pm
- AMbomb
Answers
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:16 pm
1. You cannot produce any legal records of crucifixions from Palestine in the time of Jesus. So your point is meaningless.
2. No. The Gospel isn't the same story. Pagan stories never truly happened.
- jcr4runner
Re: Answers
by AMbomb » Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:04 pm
I find that hard to believe.jcr4runner wrote:1. You cannot produce one legal record from Palestine in the time of Jesus.
Circular argument! :lol: You know Jesus existed because the Jesus story is different from the pagan godman myths. You know the Jesus story is different from the pagan godman myths because Jesus existed. :lol: Besides, whether or not the pagan stories happened is irrelevent. The story itself is the same. Come on Jay, admit it. He didn't exist. The story was never meant to be taken literally. Somewhere along the line, somebody, for some reason, got the idea that it actually happened. It didn't. Remember the old Nike commercials? Just do it. Admit it.jcr4runner wrote:2. No. It isn't the same story. Pagan stories never truly happened.
- AMbomb
Circular argument?
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:03 pm
I know Jesus existed because the Gospels are told in the context of a definite historical time period. The birth, ministry and death of Jesus Christ can be pinpointed to the exact year of the events. I know Jesus was a historical person, just as I know that Daniel, Isaiah, David, Joshua, Moses and Abraham existed. As long as there are records of these people and archaeological artifacts that confirm the details of their stories, I have no reason to doubt the record of scripture.
http://www.askelm.com/books/book003.htm
On the other hand, pagan myths do not record historical details to the same level of accuracy that the Jews and early Christians took great care to record. The stories of Hercules, Beowulf and King Arthur may have been based on real heroic figures, but there is no time and place of their lives recorded with contemporary historical events and people that can be found in independent sources.
Further you are making claims and demanding evidences that are either unprovable or nonexistent. For instance:
You ask for a specific record of Jesus death from Roman sources. You are setting up criteria that is impossible to examine because these records do not exist. And ttehrre is no reason to think that they ever existed.A record would've been made if Jesus had been tried and executed in Judea (or anywhere else in the empire). Not only that, but there is no mention of Jesus in any of the Roman archives.
You deny as evidence the numerous records that DO exist on the life of Jesus. But if a record of Jesus' death were to be found, you would pronounce it as a forgery in any case.
But that is par for the course.
For instance, Timothy Freke (the name fits) presents the unprovable claim that Paul was a Gnostic and that Jesus never existed. But then he also claims:
What is nuttier? To believe that the Gospel records are accurate in smallest detail or that the earth is a giant brain?“that the Earth could be conceived as a Global Brain which was in the process of awakening to itself, with the explosion of connections being made across it right now comparable to neural networks.”
- jcr4runner
Just admit it!
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:48 pm
I have been looking for any evidence whatsover that records of Roman crucifixions were kept. I found the following debate. It pretty much sums up every argument AMbomb has made. It's deja vu all over again!
See the entire exchange at:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/schneiderd01.html
Response: How about a specific claim in response ... and a look at what documentation they offer? The Duke offers none, other than the even more idiotic retort: Plus, there are detailed Roman records of crucifixions and executions in all their provinces. No, there are NOT such detailed records, nowhere, not for ANY provinicial governor of the Roman Empire; they certainly did exist at one time, but NONE at all remain to this day (as Bede says in the very next section, and to which the DoH said nothing). If the Duke of Hazards has some of these records, he needs to inform competent historians of them; as it is, he only here verifies our assessment of his as a deservedly-marginalized incompetent. "Gibsonians" indeed! Who will the Duke turn to for arguments next, the Scooby Doo Fan Club? The allusion to "Gibsonians" is, as Monty Python would say, red and smells moreover of fish. The Duke has no such specific arguments from anyone.
Bede: Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.
The Duke of Hazards: Yet, we have seen how Christians have declaimed Christ’s fame far & wide. Why would Roman historians never notice him if the politicians of the day were in a panic? This is subjective editing of facts that contradict the writer’s POV- & facts presented by those on the writer’s side! This lack of consistency is typical of Christian & other apologists.
Response: What the DoH is trying to prove here is hard to say. The whole issue is that the records we have left are from people who would not give a flying bowl of hummus what Christians declaimed. DoH offers no specifics as to how "politicians of the day were in a panic" (what politicians, where? how much "panic" and on what basis?) and why this should have made a difference, or what historians he thinks ought to have made an issue of this and in what work. There is no "subjective editing" or "lack of consistency" -- the DoH is just, well, stupid and that's a nice way to put it.
Response: Nothing new here; the DoH merely claims I have "no answer" and whines about a typo, oblivious to how his own commentary is shown incorrect, a mere caricature he derives from something he pulled out of his rear end and imaginary "Gibsonians" whose authority is presumed over credentialed historians and scholars such as John Meier (A Marginal Jew) and Bede himself.
Bede: Once Christianity was established as a major cult in the Empire then Jesus became rather more interesting and he is mentioned by Tacitus in the early second century. However, Jesus Mythologists counter this by claiming that he could have got his information from Christians which means his evidence is not independent. So, we have a very convenient situation for the Jesus Mythologists. Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out of court as they are tainted by association with Christianity. This sort of special pleading is one of the reasons that modern historians have no time for these theories as they are set up to be impossible to disprove.
- jcr4runner
Volumes of Roman records and writings?
by jcr4runner » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:29 pm
True or false?
FALSE.
We have little information at all from first-century Roman sources. However, we find an explosion of extant works beginning in the second century. One reason for this was the improvement of parchment used in codices. There are other reasons for the scarcity of first century Roman writings which I won't go into here.
In fact, it is amazing that Jesus is mentioned so prominenttly in the little information we have from the first century Romans. Check this out for the full article:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
Blaiklock has cataloged the non-Christian writings of the Roman Empire which have survived from the first century and do not mention Jesus. These items are:
* An amateurish history of Rome by Vellius Paterculus, a retired army officer of Tiberius. It was published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry.
* An inscription that mentions Pilate.
* Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s A.D.
* From the 50s and 60s A.D., Blaiklock tells us: "Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from these significant years." Included are philosophical works and letters by Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on agriculture by Columella, a retired soldier; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist, Persius; Pliny the Elder's Historia Naturalis; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedianus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinus Curtius.
Of all these writers, only Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject.
* From the 70s and 80s A.D., we have some poems and epigrams by Martial, and works by Tacitus (a minor work on oratory) and Josephus (Against Apion, Wars of the Jews). None of these would have offered occasion to mention Jesus.
* From the 90s, we have a poetic work by Statius; twelve books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola, and his work on Germany. [Blaik.MM, 13-16]
- jcr4runner
Re: Circular argument?
by AMbomb » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:40 am
- AMbomb
Intellectual honesty
by jcr4runner » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:44 am
I came to the conclusion that Christianity was by far the superior philosophy and worldview. There is no real contest. Ironically, my true conversion to Christianity did not come until several years after I came to this intellectual conclusion.
I have also met many others who have come to the same conclusion when they have opened themselves to honest inquiry. Your problem is that you don't really know as much as you think you do.
Assuming that I am ruled by emotions and not logic means that you must know everything about me. It also assumes a kind of dualism that I don't accept. All people are influenced by rational thought and emotion. You cannot separate the two as the Gnostics tried to do.
Using your level of skepticism, I would have to doubt the existence of almost every historical figure.
When you say that Jesus did not exist, you are relying on a popular notion that was in vogue about 100 years ago for a short time. But the problem was that many of the skeptics went searching for answers and found nothing to prove their conjecture, but everything to prove the traditional Christian view.
Some of the greatest Christian theologians of this time period began as skeptics. Skepticism can strengthen the rigor of intellectual inquiry, but it cannot be simply blind dismissal of all evidence. If I were not willing to be skeptical, I would not even be participating in this discussion. I will consider each idea that casts doubt on my faith, however, you haven't presented me with anything that I have not encoutntered before.
I just got done with a research project called The Real Jesus in which I debunk most of what you are throwing at me.
http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/part1.html
Most of what you are telling me is found in the literature of the neo-Gnostic movement which has gained some ground in the past 20 years. The difference is that most of these people don't doubt Jesus existed. That is the wrong tack to take.
The idea that Jesus did not exist is non-existent in history up until the age of rationalism -- and it has largely disappeared because most have found it rational to suppose Christ existed. The few crackpots like Timothy Freke who still spout this view rely on poor scholarship, faulty logic and mountains of unsubstantiated conjecture.
I am surprised you haven't commented on Freke's "Global Brain" conjecture. Is that a rational belief or an emotional one?
- jcr4runner
A New Tack
by jcr4runner » Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:24 am
Here is a new tack: The idea that Jesus was not a real historical person didn't occur to anyone until the 1700s and 1800s. Why? Simply because people closest to the original source eyewitnesses knew that they could not discount His existence.
In the first and second centuries, early Christians had to deal with ridicule and abuse from Jewish rabbis and intellectual skepticism from Greek scholars and philosophers.
However, none of these skeptics attacked Christianity on the basis of the so-called "Christ-myth" or on the claims that supernatural miracles were impossible. The Jews and pagans of the day readily accepted that Christ lived and performed miracles. The pagans, such as Celsus, argued that His miracles were too commonplace (healing the sick, casting out of demons, providing food and wine) and did not rise to the level of what God could actually accomplish through His omnipotence.
The Jews tried to cast doubt that Jesus was the Christ by claiming that He was illegitimate and not born of the prophesied virgin. They claimed that his power came from the devil and not from God. They also started a rumor that the disciples stole His body. This indicates that they knew He was crucified and had to account for the claims by the disciples that He rose from the dead.
Note that the skeptics of Jesus' day could have easily harangued Christians into providing proof that Jesus actually existed. But NONE OF THEM did this. Why? Because being so close to the source eyewitnesses, they knew that their testimony was valid.
In addition, rationalists cannot make the claim that Christians invented the arguments of the primitive skeptics. The Jewish writings have been preserved independently by Jewish scribes. Regarding pagan writings preserved by Christian scribes, it would have been counter-productive for the early Christian apologists to argue against a skepticism that did not exist. Unless the skeptics of their day readily accepted that Jesus Christ had a historical ministry, they would not have made such arguments.
Modernists display the most shameless form of egotism when they assume that almost 2000 years from the events, that they are better judges of what transpired in the first century, than those closest to the source.
- jcr4runner
"Contemporary" historians are retreads
by jcr4runner » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:20 pm
In the 1800s, rationalists such as Hermann Samuel Reimarus and David Strauss published sensational works denying the supernatural miracles of the Bible. The philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who coined the phrase, "God is dead," is said to have lost his faith around the time he was reading Strauss's Life of Jesus Critically Examined.Amazingly, some people still cling to the claims of the 19th century liberal critics. The Jesus of history is the same person as the Jesus of the Bible.
But the idea that Jesus never existed has been mostly discarded in light of 20th century evidences that refute virtually every claim of the Higher Critics.
The Jesus Seminar: Liberal Theology Repackaged
Most recently there was the Jesus Seminar, a council of liberal theologians who meet twice a year in an attempt to debunk the accuracy of the Gospels. Many of their "discoveries" are simply repeats of what the liberal theologians of the 19th century said. Strangely, these opinions are rigidly held even though 20th century archaeology and textual criticism has refuted many of their claims.
The Jesus Seminar's attempt to debunk the Gospels as invented history is not based on a thorough examination of the Bible's manuscripts. Unbiased examinations reveal ample evidence that the Gospel accounts are, in fact, historically accurate. But these "experts" are undaunted by facts. Even today, the skeptics continue to spread the error of a "historical Jesus."
Liberal scholars up until the time of the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 assigned a later date to many books of the Old Testament. They rejected the early date of books that accurately predicted the coming of the Messiah, because so many of the prophecies were fulfilled to the letter.
Since liberals rejected the supernatural in scripture, they presumed there must have been a later date to the writings that accurately described the life of Jesus.
For instance, the second half of Isaiah was deemed to contain forgeries by second century Christians because it contains so many prophecies accurately fulfilled by Jesus' life and mission.
Then one of the main pillars of liberal theology fell in 1947 with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls including a complete Isaiah scroll.
With the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, we now have an Old Testament in complete form that existed at least 150 years before Christ. All of the books of the Hebrew Bible except Esther are represented in the Dead Sea Scroll collection. Jennings fails to mention this in his documentary.
The Dead Sea scrolls give us evidence that the Hebrew Bible has been virtually unchanged over thousands of years, including the famous Isaiah scroll that contains many remarkable prophecies about Jesus the Messiah.
For many years, the Higher Critics held that the Bible both the Old Testament and the New Testament had been altered and changed over the years. Therefore, the critics tried to eliminate the myths and discover the historical Jesus.
Some of the theologians of the Jesus Seminar have suggested that writers pretending to be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John took a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, and invented a genealogy and added historical references as time went by thus "improving" the authenticity of their story.
There is no evidence that the earliest manuscripts of the Bible were altered to be more "historic." In fact, there is proof that little of the New Testament has been altered. If we look at early copies of the New Testament books, we find that there are some differences between variant manuscripts. But these are mainly misspellings and scribal errors in copying small words, prepositions and numbers.
In addition, most modern translations make note of these differences in the form of footnotes. In fact, you could take all the variant readings of the most reliable New Testament manuscripts and fit them all on one page. There is no major Christian doctrine that would be affected or changed by these small differences. Therefore, even with minor textual variations in the older manuscripts, Christians can still view scripture as inerrant and inspired of God.
- jcr4runner
Re: "Contemporary" historians are retreads
by AMbomb » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:35 pm
Hamlet
by jcr4runner » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:44 am
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html
Christian apologists are ever-ready to denounce a "Christ-myther" as an isolated crank on the fringes of sanity, unworthy of serious consideration. But their strident hostility hides the fear that the downfall of their superhero may not be far off. And what they can no longer deny or suppress is the fact that the exposure of "Jesus Christ" for the fabrication that it is, far from being the manic pursuit of odd-balls, has been embraced and endorsed by a continuous stream of talented scholars in all countries.
Really?
I've rarely heard such strong disclaimers against being insane! This seems to be one of the common strategies of the "Jesus never existed" conspiracy theorists.
I can only say that the author of this web page needs to read Hamlet --
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much!"
Although this is great fun, I am going to take a break from this thread for a week or so. I am not giving up on the discussion. I am just growing tired of the same claims being made over and over again by AMBomb, with no serious reply offered to my own arguments. I am starting to get swept up into the "manic oddball" spirit of this discussion.
A new approach
by AMbomb » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:19 am
- AMbomb
The Repeating Story
by revrosado » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:18 am
But in all of your accounts - the god man myth was preexistent. Why Jesus? Why didn't the Osiris Myth or the others dominate the world, impact humanity, develop civilizations and shape the human race intellectually and culturally for ever?
Maybe its all in a name!
- revrosado
One Needs Light To See Evidence
by revrosado » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:28 am
Anyone with good reasoning skills on a sincere quest for knowledge and the truth can glean a lot from your arduous apologetics.
- revrosado
Re: The Repeating Story
by AMbomb » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:58 am
- AMbomb
Everyone has a premise
by jcr4runner » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:45 pm
Everyone has a premise when making an argument whether they are aware of it or not.
Revrosado did answer your question by saying that he doesn't agree with your implied premise that the "Christ myth" is simply a repeat of the pagan myths thousands of years before. Of course, he doesn't agree with that.
Your argument tactics are to repeat the same conjecture as a premise over and over. You don't answer objections or challenges to your arguments and then you falsely claim that your arguments and questions go unanswered. Then you will demand that we stop making claims that you haven't even remotely refuted.
How many times can you write: "Just admit it!"? and "You haven't answered me!" and then not answer aguments and questions posed to you?
If you will go back and reread the posts to this thread, you will see that the same ground has been gone over many times. That is why I am taking a break from it. Here is my summary of what I have written several times before.
1. Your argument is not logical: There are similarities to the story of Christ in the Bible and pagan myths. The pagan stories have no historical proof. The pagan stories were recorded prior to Christ. Therefore the Christ story was copied from pagan myths and has no historical proof.
The conclusion does not follow. Just because a fictional story existed prior to a similar historical event does not prove that the record of the historical event was copied from the fictional story.
What is more likely is that the theme of sacrifice and atonement for sin is a universal truth. We see in the Old Testament many types of sacrifice that foreshadowed the death and resurrection of Christ. The New Testament writers made use of these "types" as proof that Jesus was the promised messiah. The very proofs that the Apostles used to prove that He was God, you claim are evidence that He did not exist even as a man.
2. You need to produce records from history that state Jesus did not exist. It would be more convincing, for instance, if there were first or second century critics who wrote that Christ and the Apostles (who all were martyred as eyewitnesses to His death) were not true persons, but the product of the superstitious imaginings of Gnostics.
The charge against the Apostles was not that they had invented a myth (there were hundreds of such myths) but that they were claiming that the man Jesus who rose from the dead was God and had higher authority than Caesar.
The entire New Testament was written in the first century by contemporaries who knew Jesus. We have extant second century copies to prove that they were in circulation long before a "myth" such as you claim would have had time to arise. We also have thousands of references to the New Testament that appeared from 90 A.D. to 200 A.D.
You cannot convincingly prove the non-existence of Jesus by calling into question the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts, the thousands of references to Christ within two generations of his time, and the dozen or more pagan references.
I do not deny that false writings and legends arose after the first century. In fact, some of the "Christian" writings and some pagan writings were suspected by early Christian apologists to be forgeries or corruptions -- which shows that they did not accept documents that did not stand the test of rigorous proofs.
IN SUMMARY: Your whole argument is that there is no historical Jesus because the story is based on pagan myths. You offer no proof for that except to claim that the thousands of Christian references to Jesus in the New Testament in the first and second centuries are unreliable and the dozen or more pagan references are Christian forgeries.
If that were true, then there would have been some challenge to the historical Jesus prior to the 18th century. But until modern times, even the strongest enemies of Christianity believed that the man Jesus existed. All the early critics of Christianity assumed Jesus did in fact exist. If not, it would have been easy for one critic to simply deny that the crucifixion of Jesus occurred. But historians of all time have understood the weight of eyewitness testimony. For them and for most thinking people today, that is proof.
How arrogant you are to assume that 2000 years after the fact you have a better view of first century history than those within one or two generations of the events!
Your litmus test is for Christians to produce some type of record written during the 3-1/2 years that Jesus was a public figure. You claim that volumes of such Roman records of crucifixions existed, but you cannot produce a single example of even one that exists today.
You cannot set up a test that is impossible to prove or disprove, demand proof, and then claim victory.
Unless you can come up with something new, then this is not worth my time.
- jcr4runner
Re: Everyone has a premise
by AMbomb » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:02 pm
- AMbomb
Either or fallacy
by jcr4runner » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:22 am
Again, this is another example of a false protest of: "You didn't answer my question!"Just because a fictional story existed prior to a similar historical event does not prove that the record of the historical event was "copied" from the fictional story.
What is more likely is that the theme of sacrifice and atonement for sin is a universal truth. We see in the Old Testament many types of sacrifice that foreshadowed the death and resurrection of Christ. The New Testament writers made use of these "types" as proof that Jesus was the promised messiah. The very proofs that the Apostles used to prove that He was God, you claim are evidence that He did not exist even as a man.
- jcr4runner
Re: Either or fallacy
by AMbomb » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:48 pm
- AMbomb
Re: A new approach
by jcr4runner » Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:59 pm
An either/or fallacy is a choice between only two options when other options exist. "What is 1+2? Choose either 1 or 2 as your answer." The fallacy here is that the one correct answer, 3, is not given as an option. You are either a Republican or a Democrat. if one is a Libertarian, however, the either/or fallacy is exposed.
You also present a cause/effect fallacy. One example would be saying that the rooster crowing every morning is the cause of the sun rising, when in actuality, the prescience of the later event causes the rooster to crow.
Your either or fallacy is as follows: The Gospel story is either true or it is a [fictional] retelling of the original story from thousands of years earlier.AMbomb wrote:Christians, let's say you were studying a religion of another planet. Now let's say that there was a story about a character in this religion. Let's say that the story takes place within the context of an actual period of this planet's history. It contains actual figures from the planet's history and events in the story can be pinpointed to specific dates in the planet's history. But, let's say it turns out that this story was actually first propogated thousands of years before it supposedly took place according to the belief of the religion you're studying. This means, of course, that if the story was true, it would've had to have come true thousands of years after it was first propogated. Would you believe that story was true or simply that it was a retelling of the original story from thousands of years earlier?
Your syllogism is an either/or fallacy for many reasons. Here are just two.
First, the fact that two stories are similar does not make them the "same story." If the historical event had the unique aspect of eyewitness testimony, then not only does that make it a different story, but I would be bound to believe it too. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is enough to convict someone of a crime. Historians use the same criteria to judge the factual nature of a person or event.
Second, the story that was propagated thousands of years before does not have the same weight and cannot really be the same story, no matter the similarities, because it lacks reliable witnesses and the ring of authenticity.
A wider variety of options must logically exhaust all the possibilites that exist.
There is an ancient myth that predates Christianity and tells the story of a pagan deity who died and was resurrected. What does this mean?
1. This myth was an influence on the story of Jesus which is therefore also a myth despite the claims of first century eyewitnesses. Both stories are false.
2. Both stories are true. History repeats itself.
3. The myth was false, but the Gospel story is true.
4. The myth is true and the Gospel story is a counterfeit of the original.
5. Both stories arose independently and were influenced by the preexistent truth of the idea of a resurrection or simply by man's desire to know whether there is life after death.
6. While the ancient myth contains some aspects of truth, the Gospel story is the Truth (with a capital "T" ) and is the record of actual historical events.
Most thinking people would dismiss "1" through "4" as too generalized or simplistic, but would readily accept "5" and might be open to "6" if there were evidence to back it up.
But here is the correct answer:
7. The eternal truth of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is prefigured in the ancient myths in question and was actually the cause of all similar myths on the planet.
Jesus is the sun to your rooster myths.
- jcr4runner
Re: A new approach
by AMbomb » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:37 pm
I see where I went wrong now! I idiotically assumed the earlier events caused the later one instead of the other way around! How could I have been so stupid?! It was like the series finale of Star Trek The Next Generation with the spacetime rift that expanded backward through time. Hey, I know what must've happened. Marty McFly and Doc Brown traveled back in time to 3000 BC and told the story to some people in Persia. ....jcr4runner wrote:
7. The eternal truth of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is prefigured in the ancient myths in question and was actually the cause of all similar myths on the planet.
Jesus is the sun to your rooster myths.
- AMbomb
Intelligent conversation
by jcr4runner » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:51 am
The crucifixion is the central event of history. The life of Jesus divides B.C. from A.D.
The eternal truth of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is prefigured in the ancient myths in question and was actually the cause of all similar myths on the planet.
When we speak of cause and effect, usually we speak of past events causing effects in the future. But because Jesus was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" we see that the crucifixion was a predetermined event that would drive the history of the world -- which is the history of redemption.
There are more believers in the One God today than ever before in history. That number has been growing from the beginning. In the Bible, we see many prefigures of the crucifixion of Jesus. One of my first Christian articles was called: The Cross of Jesus Christ and dealt with the many types of atonement in the Old Testament that prefigured the crucifixion.
Some of these types for the atonement included the sacrifice of blood for Adam and Eve's "covering" and the commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.
From there, it is not a stretch to see that in addition to the revelation given to Israel, other nations of the world had a foreshadowing of the coming of Christ in some of their myths.
- jcr4runner
Types of sacrifice in the Old Testament
by jcr4runner » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:53 am
Noah became an heir because he alone of all the men of the earth had faith in God and knew of His atoning sacrifice. Noah built an ark which speaks to us of God's atonement. The ark was the only vessel able to save him from God's judgment on the world.
Noah covered the ark - inside and out - with pitch. It is interesting to note that the word translated "pitch" in Hebrew is phonetically identical to the word for atonement. The words used are kophar and kaphar. The pitch, the atonement, was designed to keep out the waters of judgment and to make Noah safe within. That is what the blood did also - it restrained the judgment of God from reaching the occupants of the ark, and made them safe in spite of the fact that God was destroying the world outside.
The same pattern is repeated over and over. Abraham met King Melchizedek and offered sacrifice. Later, he was even willing to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, but God spared him and in his place provided a male lamb with a crown of thorns.
Moses was given the design for the Tabernacle, an open tent where the priests of Israel were able to atone for the sins of the children of Israel day after day. These sacrifices were necessary but they were only a shadow of something greater to come. The blood of animals was an imperfect sacrifice (hardly a fitting substitute for a human being!) These were only types pointing to a perfect sacrifice made "once for all," the blood of Jesus Christ the Great High Priest.
- jcr4runner
Re: Intelligent conversation
by AMbomb » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:43 pm
- AMbomb
The Gospel is in creation
by jcr4runner » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:16 am
We have a radical difference in our presuppositions. You keep saying that the Gospel is the "SAME STORY" as some of the pagan myths. I maintain that it is a "SIMILAR STORY" but with a radical difference. No pagan myth tells the story of the One Creator God who became man and died as a sacrifice for sin once and for all. All the pagan myths in question are polytheistic and tell the story of death and resurrection of a god, but there is no effective salvation of man that is a result of this. No pagan myth teaches redemption from sin through the sacrifice of the One Creator God on a cross.
Your question can easily be answered by asking the question in different terms.
Why did God choose the Jews and lead them through thousands of years of discipline and ritual? He did it so that those Jews whom He had chosen before the foundation of the world would know Him when He appeared as Jesus the Messiah.
Why would God put in ancient man a sense of eternity in their hearts so that even many of the pagan myths that occurred thosuands of years before Christ resemble the Gospel story? He did it so that those Gentiles whom He had chosen before the foundation of the world would know Him when He appeared as Jesus the Messiah.
Also, Jesus isn't a weak God who "wants people to believe in Him."
He is an all-powerful God who chooses those who will know Him.
Maybe your problem is just that God hasn't chosen you to know Him?
So here is a question for you:
As an atheist, what do you do with your guilt?
Re: The Gospel is in creation
by AMbomb » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:54 am
I don't do anything with it. As an atheist, I don't believe in a deity who will forgive my sins. When I do something wrong, I have to live with it. In a way, it's harder for us. But, then again, maybe it encourages us to be better people. Christianity is a quick fix religion. Place your problems in God's hands. That's partly why it's the dark side of the Force.jcr4runner wrote:
As an atheist, what do you do with your guilt?
- AMbomb
Re: The Gospel is in creation
by AMbomb » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:55 am
Even if it wasn't, the stories would still be far too similar to have arisen simply out of a "sense of eternity", whatever that is, which leaves us with the following explanations:
1. Jesus, for no apparent reason, decides to cause his story to be propogated thousands of years before it occurs.
2. The story came true by pure coincidence thousands of years after it was first propogated.
3. This situation involves time travel (and possibly a flying DeLorean).
4. The Jesus story is simply a retelling of the earlier godman myths.
Now you tell me, which one of these explanations makes the most sense?
- AMbomb
Re: The Gospel is in creation
by jcr4runner » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:29 pm
That's an amazing and honest answer. I'll give you credit for being truthful on that one. I thought you would say: "I am not guilty of anything."AMbomb wrote:I don't do anything with it. As an atheist, I don't believe in a deity who will forgive my sins. When I do something wrong, I have to live with it. In a way, it's harder for us.jcr4runner wrote:
As an atheist, what do you do with your guilt?
But you admit that you are guilty.
So here's the next question:
Where does your sense of guilt come from?
- jcr4runner
Re: The Gospel is in creation
by jcr4runner » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:47 pm
You know, I am enjoying this exchange in part because you provide the exact antithesis to my beliefs and it forces me to "show myself approved" as the scripture says.AMbomb wrote:You're wrong, Jay.
The one thing though that I find objectionable is that you think you can argue by writing: "You're wrong ... Click on this link."
You use again the either/or fallacy: "This leaves us (only?) with the following explanations. No, it doesn't leave us with only these explanations. And especially not number 4. Since you are a champion of links, there are thorough refutation of the POCM's contention that the there was a "simple retelling of pagan myths" in the Gospel stories.
If you haven't found it yet, http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html is my friend J.P. Holding's series on "pagan godmen."
- jcr4runner
Some notes on alleged parallels between Christianity and paganism
by jcr4runner » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:52 pm
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/pagint.html
(The author is a historian based at one the world's leading universities. He specialises in and is currently developing a publication record on ancient and modern myth. Note that the author is not a professing Christian.)
An argument frequently advanced against Christianity runs roughly like this: there are many features of Christianity that resemble features of other religious, particularly ancient pagan religious; therefore, Christianity has copied those features; therefore, Christianity is not true. It is the purposes of these notes to establish that this argument rests upon unwarranted premises and that its logic is fallacious.
1. Do many features of Christianity resemble features of other religions?
Obviously, on one level the answer has to be 'yes'. Christanity posits the existence of a personal god who takes an interest in humanity. It teaches that the individual does not cease to exist after biological death. It has a series of sacred texts which are used as a guide to doctrine and ethics and play an important role in public worship. The pre-Reformation branches of Christanity, moreover, have priesthoods, a developed theology of sacrifice and strong sacramental and ritualistic traditions.
Recognising this, however, doesn't get us very far: very many religions across human time and space exhibit and have exhibited the same characteristics. What we need are specific parallels in matters of detail. To meet this challenge, non-Christians generally advance two sets of parallels, which are not necessarily mutually incompatible but do not go particularly naturally together.
The first involves the construct of the dying-rising god. A full scholarly study of the history of this concept has yet to be written, but suffice it to say here that it was popularised by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James Frazer in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. Frazer believed that primitive peoples linked the annual cycles of agriculture with 'corn spirits' (a concept which he borrowed from the German scholar Mannhardt). In its developed form, the theology of these primitive agriculturalists posited that the corn spirit died and was reborn annually, typically in the form of the divine king in whom it was incarnated. Frazer believed that the religions of the ancient Near East provided several examples of dying-rising gods who had emerged from primitive belief-systems similar to these, most notably Attis, Adonis and Osiris.
Frazer's theory is loaded with problems. Whole papers, even books, criticising his theory have been written, and nowadays it is extremely difficult to find any recognised, reputable anthropologists who will accept it even in a modified form. Here are some of the major difficulties with it:
1. Frazer's sources were frequently inaccurate or irrelevant, or else he interpreted them in tendentious ways.
2. Frazer himself subscribed to discredited nineteenth-century ideas such as the evolutionist model of human societal development (which has nothing to do with the theory of biological evolution and is today firmly rejected by experts) and the notion that present-day primitive tribesmen can be studied as a means of finding out what things were like at the dawn of civilisation.
3. Evidence which has emerged since Frazer wrote has not merely failed to back up his hypotheses: it has fatally undermined them. For interesting critiques of Frazer's work, see e.g. Sir Edmund Leach's articles in Daedalus 90 (1961) and Current Anthropology 7 (1966); also (in much greater detail) J.Z.Smith, 'The Glory, Jest and Riddle', Diss. Yale 1969 (by one of the greatest living historians of religion).
The greatest problem with Frazer, however, is that construct of the dying-rising god is simply a fantasy. The distinguished scholar J.Z.Smith, a man who most certainly cannot be regarded as a defender of Christianity, wrote an important article for Mircea Eliade's 'Encyclopedia of Religion' (New York 1987) in which he took every alleged example of a dying-rising god and showed that none of them actually fit the category. (My own researches lead me to believe that the Phoenician god Melqart, whom Smith does not discuss, is the one exception - but he *is* very much the exception.) Certainly, Frazer's star witnesses of Attis, Adonis and Osiris suffer from the fatal flaw in each case of dying and then failing to be resurrected.
Even if Frazer and his followers were right about the dying-rising god, the relevance to Christianity would be doubtful. The Christian story makes no connection whatever between Christ and the agricultural year or the rhythms of the natural world. Moreover, Frazer's followers who elaborated his work with particular reference to the ancient Near East made it clear that their dying-rising gods and kings were tightly enmeshed in a series of bizarre annual rites with no conceivable parallels in Christianity.
The second 'copycat' model advanced by sceptics involves the prototypical schemas of the life of the hero sometimes drawn up by scholars.
The sceptic will typically appeal to the work of Lord Raglan, even though it's now 70 years out of date and a number of different schemas have since been proposed. There are serious problems with Raglan: in order to get mythical figures to fit his schema, you often have to cheat quite blatantly; and, in any case, real-life historical figures such as Hitler and Napoleon fit the pattern just as well as the ancient heroes whom he adduced.
In general, the 'monomyth' schemas are of limited usefulness. They prove a certain amount about the patterns followed by the lives of heroes in different cultures, but they don't prove very much, and what they do prove isn't always very comforting to the sceptic.
To begin with, if one puts all the schemas that have been proposed together and looks for common elements, the results that emerge are often vague or unhelpful. For instance, the hero will typically have a miraculous conception or birth - but it's hardly legitimate to compare the story of the virgin birth recounted in the Gospels with (say) Zeus' rape of Leda in the form of a swan simply because both involve some sort of supernatural element. What such 'similarities' boil down to seems to be the earth-shattering revelation that supernatural things happen to supernatural figures, which is essentially a tautology.
Secondly, where hero-stories do concur, they often concur in ways which question the utility of applying them to the story of Jesus. Incest and parricide are recurrent themes of the schemas, for example, as is the link between the hero and kingship (you can get out of this by suggesting that Jesus was the heir of King David, or that he heralded the Kingdom of God, but this is just the sort of cheating that drains the schemas of their credibility). Even Raglan's schema falls down on this point, most obviously because Jesus didn't marry a princess (a motif which appears in other schemas too).
2. Even if they exist, what do the parallels prove?
Many non-Christians seem to believe that, in order to be true, Christianity must be unique. This is utterly fallacious - if anything, the precise opposite is the case. If Christian doctrine were strange and deviant and had no similarities at all to that of other religious systems, it would be *more* likely to be a weird, aberrant construct, not *less*. To take one obvious example, a simple and economical explanation for the widespread human tendency to posit supernatural figures who, like Christ, mediate between man and God, is that humans correctly realise that we *do* need such a mediator. (Hence, ironically, some of the scholars most eager to prove the existence of dying-rising gods in the ancient Near East and elsewhere were *Christians*. One thinks here especially of the scholars behind the three volumes of essays 'Myth and Ritual' (Oxford 1930), 'The Labyrinth' (Oxford 1935) and 'Myth, Ritual and Kingship' (Oxford 1958).)
Points of contact between Christianity and other religions are damaging to Christianity's truth claims only if actual borrowings can be proven - not if the parallel features have simply sprung from the same psychological source common to all humans - that is, from the innate religious instinct which Christians regard as a gift of God.
I cannot think of a single case in which Christianity can be shown to have borrowed a core doctrine from another religion. This does not include minor borrowings which everyone admits, such as the dating of Christmas to 25th December (an old Roman sun-festival), or the use of holy water and incense in worship, or the wearing of wedding rings, or dedicating churches to named saints (just as pagan temples were dedicated to different deities). In such cases, the borrowings were not clumsy or furtive: rather, they were deliberate and unashamed. A good example is the Pope's use of the old Roman chief priest's title 'Pontifex Maximus', a title which the Christians deliberately appropriated to emphasise that their religion had defeated and replaced Roman paganism.
Conclusion
None of the attempts made by sceptics to demonstrate that Christianity is false because it contains alleged pagan elements is credible or convincing. There are admittedly many good arguments against Christianity, but this simply isn't one.
- jcr4runner
Why foretell via myth?
by revrosado » Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:38 am
The answer simply is so man can learn. Which obviously does not occur with everyone in class...
If man is learning it follows then that he learns empirically within a chronological context (he learns over time). It IS logical that God would start the teaching process from man's earliest days and SLOWLY progress man through the ages of man's own blindness and ignorance until the race was ready for college and the full manifestation of God's salvation of man in the form of Jesus the Christ. Science Domain: Education
But just like in school, some do not keep up with the lessons nor do the homework and still most do not glean the higher cognitive constructs that basic information (myths) point toward. Science Domain: Education / Cognitive Thinking
In all of the arguments I have read from atheists, they abandon reason and logic espoused by the sciences and the universe in one way or another. I have never heard a scientifically sound argument by an atheist. Their arguments sound true to the unlearned mind, but in fact they rip up the fabric of scientific empiricism and reasoning when making them. Its not enough to know science - you must understand science. That's where the difference is had. We may know science but we do not think the science. So in essence we become jugglers of scientific thoughts and concepts, but we do not possess inherently the constructs of the sciences cognitively. This is the crux of man's problem and an atheist's shining glory. They juggle arguments to our amusement: yet to many and themselves - amazment. The court jester juggled oft. (I do not infer that anyone is, rather to the way reasoning is manifested).
So though I partake also with others in throwing out views about this matter, some may catch them only to keep up their momentum and rythym. ...............Can anyone sing and dance? I fear I shall grow weary of that too!
- revrosado
Re: The Gospel is in creation
by AMbomb » Sun May 07, 2006 1:41 am
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Sun May 07, 2006 1:52 am
Atheists abandon reason and logic? Yeah right. It's totally logical to believe in an omnipotent being who created the entire Universe who hasn't furnished one shred of evidence of his existence. There are no Christians on Vulcan.
- AMbomb
Mystical Teachings
by revrosado » Mon May 08, 2006 9:28 pm
Science has not discovered how the stuff of the universe became. But science itself alludes to the reality than things are "constructed" from smaller and lesser elements and energies. There must have been an origin to the structure of the universe. Some say that we see structure only because we ourselves are part of that structure and classify or identify with it. Yet is a square not a square? Do we ride in squares, live in squares, learn in squares, etc? Are not ourselves circles, and move in circles, relate in circles, live on a circle, rotate in circles, procreate to circles, etc? Definite building structures to some may be proof.
But science agrees that the original energy of the universe is eternal. There is an eternal force that is the engine of the universe. Can you see it? Does it make itself known dramatically? Not to you but it cannot be denied.
There is only one proof required for Atheism - that Atheist prove that the universe started from and by absolutely nothing. Science has disproven Atheistic theory and belief - Eternity is real and the spark of the universe is eternal - that is not religion or opinion, it is science!
But the battle is not against religious though, but between light and darkness.
I am not criticizing your belief system. Just pointing out that Truth is truth and Error is Error as Light is light and darkness is darkness.
The simple reality is that darkness is not a thing - but is only lack of light. Science therefore shows that TRUTH exists and is Eternal - error is the denial of truth.
- revrosado
Re: Mystical Teachings
by AMbomb » Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 pm
This message has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed. It looks like it's more appropriate for my "Question" thread on the Christian Reconstructionism board.revrosado wrote:There is only Truth and Error. These two comprise the whole of the universe. What you are not realizing along with your mystical religions is that of your own faith! There have always been unbelievers since before creation. Your religion is as old as the old serpent himself who denied God and indeed desired to enthrone himself in His stead. Nothing new then nor now. In fact - your religion is older than all the rest! So since your religion (ATHEISM) is the oldest of all the pagan (non-Christian) myths - why then do you defend a myth?
Science has not discovered how the stuff of the universe became. But science itself alludes to the reality than things are "constructed" from smaller and lesser elements and energies. There must have been an origin to the structure of the universe. Some say that we see structure only because we ourselves are part of that structure and classify or identify with it. Yet is a square not a square? Do we ride in squares, live in squares, learn in squares, etc? Are not ourselves circles, and move in circles, relate in circles, live on a circle, rotate in circles, procreate to circles, etc? Definite building structures to some may be proof.
But science agrees that the original energy of the universe is eternal. There is an eternal force that is the engine of the universe. Can you see it? Does it make itself known dramatically? Not to you but it cannot be denied.
There is only one proof required for Atheism - that Atheist prove that the universe started from and by absolutely nothing. Science has disproven Atheistic theory and belief - Eternity is real and the spark of the universe is eternal - that is not religion or opinion, it is science!
But the battle is not against religious though, but between light and darkness.
I am not criticizing your belief system. Just pointing out that Truth is truth and Error is Error as Light is light and darkness is darkness.
The simple reality is that darkness is not a thing - but is only lack of light. Science therefore shows that TRUTH exists and is Eternal - error is the denial of truth.
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by FaithnJC » Mon May 15, 2006 4:31 am
All throughout this thread you keep repeating the same mantra, there were earlier pagan accounts of Godmen.So man can learn what? The followers of the pagan mystery religions knew their godmen didn't really exist. These people didn't take the story literally. It was just an allegory that was supposed to reveal mystical teachings of the mystery religions. Are you saying God wanted people to learn the mystical teachings of pagan mystery religions?
Atheists abandon reason and logic? Yeah right. It's totally logical to believe in an omnipotent being who created the entire Universe who hasn't furnished one shred of evidence of his existence. There are no Christians on Vulcan.
Christians borrowing from these mystery religions was a very popular argument at the beginning of the last century, but it generally died off because it was so discredited. jc has done an excellent job at dealing with these false assertions but allow me to elaborate some more.
Lets use the story that is most similiar to Jesus shall we? It has been said that Christians stole the story of the god apollonius of Tyana. Of course there is no merit in comparing Jesus to these false pagan gods. You know the story as well as I do. Here is someone from the 1st century who was said to have healed people and to have exorcised demons; who may have raised a young girl from the dead; and who appeared to some of his followers after he died. Now, if you do the historical work calmly and objectively, you find the alleged parallels just don't stand up. First, his biographer, Philostratus, was writing a century and a half after apollonius lived, whereas the gospels were written within a generation of Jesus. The closer the proximity to the event, the less chance there is for legendary development, for error, or for memories to get confused.
Another thing is we have four gospels, corroborated with Paul, that can be crossed-checked to some degree with nonbiblical authors like Josephus and others. With apollonius and these others, we're dealing with one source. Plus the gospels pass the standards tests used to assess historical reliability, but we can't say the same for these other stories.
On top of that, Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography in order to dedicate a temple to apollonius. She was a follower of apollonius, so Philostratus would have had a financial motive to embellish the story and give the empress what she wanted. On the other hand, the writers of the gospels had nothing to gain--and much to lose--by writing Jesus' story, and they didn't have ulterior motives such as financial gain.
Also, the way Philostratus and these other false god stories writes is very different than the gospels. The gospels have a very confident eyewitness perspective, as if they had a camera there. But Philostratus and these others include a lot of tentative statements, like "It is reported that..." or "Some say this young girl had died; others say she was just ill." To their credit, they back off and treat stories like stories.
Also, the mystery religions were do-your-own-thing religions that freely borrowed ideas from various places. However, the Jews carefully guarded their beliefs from outside influences. They saw themselves as a separate people and strongly resisted pagan ideas and rituals.
While it is true that some mystery religions had stories of gods dying and rising, these stories always revolved around the natural life cycle of death and rebirth. Crops die in the fall and come to life in the spring. People express the wonder of this ongoing phenomenon through mythological stories about gods dying and rising. These stories were always cast in a legendary form. They depicted events that happened "once upon a time."
Contrast that with depiction of Jesus Christ in the gospels. They talk about someone who actually lived a few decades earlier, and they name names--crucified under Pontius Pilate, when Caiaphas was high priest, and the father of Alexander and Rufus carried his cross, etc., for example. That's concrete historical stuff. It has nothing in common with stories about what supposedly happened "once upon a time."
And Christianity has nothing to do with the life cycles or the harvest. It has to do with a very Jewish belief--which is absent from the mystery religions--about the resurrection of the dead and about life eternal and reconciliation with God.
- FaithnJC
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Mon May 15, 2006 12:08 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by FaithnJC » Mon May 15, 2006 7:11 pm
Now then, Jesus was not just a "god man." He was much more than that.
Some of my information is from Kyle Butt, M.A. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. just as yours is from The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.
History is filled with examples of those whose lives—real or imagined—share certain traits with the well-documented life of Jesus of Nazareth. Lets go with one you mentioned, Dionysus.
The usual story of Dionysus' birth relates that he was the offspring of Zeus, the immortal leader of the Greek gods who impregnated a human female by the name of Semele, the daughter of Cadmus, King of Thebes. Dionysus is said to have descended to the underworld and conquered death, ultimately bringing his dead mother back to the land of the living. He also is said to have died and been raised again. His followers called him Lysios or Redeemer, and grape juice commonly was used to symbolize his blood.
Of course, contemporary skeptics like Freke and who use the argument that it's the same myth told over and over again with different names in attempts to debunk the uniqueness and deity of Christ cannot take credit as its originators. History records that almost two thousand years ago the early Christian apologists were busily engaged in responding to the exact same argument. For example, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-426) stated in his Christian Doctrine:
"The readers and admirers of Plato dared calumniously to assert that our Lord Jesus Christ learnt all those sayings of His, which they are compelled to admire and praise, from the books of Plato—because (they urged) it cannot be denied that Plato lived long before the coming of our Lord."
Augustine refuted the argument by suggesting that Plato had read the prophet Jeremiah and then conveniently incorporated Jeremiah’s teachings into his own. The point, however, is clear: as early as A.D. 400, skeptics and enemies of the Cross were launching fiery darts of alleged plagiarism at both Christ and His followers.
Further investigation into the history of Christian apologetics manifests something even more startling. The earliest apologists not only recognized that the story and teachings of Jesus bore striking similarities to ancient mythological accounts, but even emphasized these similarities in an attempt to get pagans to understand more about Jesus and His mission. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) set forth an argument in his First Apology that was intended to put Christ at least on an equal playing field with earlier mythological gods.
"And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours.... And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Æsculapius" (Chapter 22).
Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-220) observed that the story of Romulus, another character from ancient Greek mythology who was seen after his death, was quite similar to the story of Christ being seen after His death. However, Tertullian went on to note that the stories of Christ were much more certain because they were documented by historical evidence (Apology, 21).
While ancient pagans saw, and modern skeptics still see, such similarities as militating against the originality and uniqueness of Christ, the writings of such men as Augustine, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others document the fact that early Christians could see obvious—yes, even welcome—similarities between the story of Jesus and the accounts of mythological, pagan gods. Furthermore, some of those early Christians even seized upon those very similarities to defend Jesus’ position as the unique Son of God. The apologists’ point, of course, was two-fold: (1) men of the past had searched for a unique savior-god and, finding none, resorted to inventing him and bestowing upon him certain distinct characteristics; and (2) that Savior—who, although in the past had been endowed with unique traits of their own feeble creation—actually had come!
So you see AM, early apologists acknowledged these facts because they were, and are, quite indisputable. And that leads us back to the issue of this thread, how, in light of such facts, can we affirm that Jesus Christ is the unique, authentic Son of God—when stories similar to His circulated decades or millennia before He ever came to Earth?
The truth of the matter is that many stories over the course of history resemble that of Jesus of Nazareth in one way or another. And why should this surprise us? After Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, man became keenly aware of both the presence and the consequences of sin. From the time of Cain and Abel, God had established sacrifices and decreed specific rules regarding those sacrifices. Since that time, all humans have had at least some perception—however slight or flawed—that they needed to “do something” to stand justified once again before their Creator. One way to do that was to invent a “stand-in”—someone who could take their place—as the epitome of sinless perfection to plead their case before the Righteous Judge of all the Earth.
Additionally, however, it can be argued that the similarities are only similarities, not exact parallels. It further can be argued that Jesus’ story, even though it seems similar to some others, is not exactly the same and, in fact, differs substantially in the minute details. For example, Krishna allegedly was crucified via an arrow through his arms, while Jesus was nailed to the cross. Confucius offered the negative form of the so-called “golden rule” (“Do not do to others”), while Jesus stated the positive (“Do unto others”). Dionysus’ mother, Persophone, reportedly had intercourse with Zeus, while Mary was a virgin. This line of reasoning possesses some merit, because it certainly is true that none of the ancient stories sounds exactly like Christ’s.
A closer look at the Egyptian legend of Osiris provides a good example of the many important differences between the account of Jesus and other stories. Legend says that Osiris was killed by his evil brother Seth, who tore Osiris’ body into fourteen pieces and scattered them throughout Egypt. Isis, the goddess-consort of Osiris, collected the pieces and buried them, thus giving life to Osiris in the underworld. Afterward, she used magical arts to revive Osiris and to conceive a child (Horus) by him. After fathering Horus, Osiris remained in the underworld, not really ever rising from the dead (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1997, 8:1026-1027). This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Furthermore, when all the stories about characters who supposedly were similar to Christ are told in their entirety, it is obvious that each of them contains only a few characteristics that come anywhere close to resembling those contained in the life story of Jesus. Additionally, some of the alleged parallels rest upon tenuous documentation and may even be fabricated.
In the early part of the twentieth century, Joseph McCabe, one of the most outspoken atheists of his day, published several works, including The Myth of the Resurrection (1925), Did Jesus Ever Live? (1926), and How Christianity “Triumphed” (1926). McCabe painstakingly documented the similarities between the story of Jesus and pagan stories such as those of Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, and Attis, yet specifically noted: “It is a most important feature of our story that this legend of a slain and resurrected god arose in quite different parts of the old civilized world. Tammuz, Attis, and Osiris are three separate and independent creations of the myth-making imagination”
Hmm...here is where it gets interesting AM, are you paying attention? JC already pointed where we are going with this out to you and it seemed to go right over your head. Now then, McCabe thus acknowledged that these pagan stories with similar themes did not copy either one another or some earlier, predominant story. Rather, they arose separately—and even independently—of each other. McCabe admitted: “For some reason...the mind of man came in most parts of the world to conceive a legend of death and resurrection.... In fact, in one form or other there was almost a worldwide belief that the god, or a representative [king, prisoner, effigy, etc.] of the god, died, or had to die every year” (pp. 52,53, emp. added; bracketed material in orig.). In his conclusion, McCabe wrote: “In sum, I should say that the universal belief in a slain and resurrected god throws light upon the Christian belief by showing us a universal frame of mind which quite easily, in many places, made a resurrection myth” (p. 63, emp. added). McCabe—even as an infidel—willingly acknowledged that numerous (but different) resurrection myths arose from various regions around the globe, each similar in its facts yet original in its derivation. These stories apparently arose because of what he referred to as a “universal frame of mind.”
This is very interesting and we are getting warmer...People around the world—due to a “universal frame of mind”—independently concocted stories that revolved around a god dying and then rising again. These stories span both time barriers and geographical limits; they are—in a very literal sense—“worldwide” and “universal.” In truth, man does have a religious instinct—one that is keener than even many theologians would like to admit. In speaking of God, the writer of Ecclesiastes remarked: “He hath made everything beautiful in its time: he hath set eternity in their heart” (3:11). Paul said that mankind always has been able to understand God’s “everlasting power and divinity” (Romans 1:20). God did not place man on Earth to abandon him. Instead:
He made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons and bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him though he is not far from each one of us; for in him we live, and move and have our being; as certain of your own poets have said, for we are his offspring (Acts 17:26-28).
God has indeed “set eternity” in the hearts of men and given them a universal instinct that is intended to cause them to seek Him. How, then, did the instinct to worship God lead to the concoction of numerous stories about a virgin-born savior-god who dies as a sacrifice for mankind’s wrongdoings? First, it started with the idea of sacrifice. From the moment Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden, man was acutely aware that he was a sinful being in need of redemption. Humans also understood that some type of atoning sacrifice was required to absolve them of sin. Oddly, skeptics seem to understand this point quite well. In the late eighteenth century, T.W. Doane caustically attacked the doctrines of Christ and the Bible. His work, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions (1882), gnawed at every mooring of Christian doctrine. Yet even he understood that mankind always has realized its own sinfulness and its need for an atoning sacrifice. He wrote: “The doctrine of atonement for sin had been preached long before the doctrine was deduced from the Christian Scriptures, long before these Scriptures are pretended to have been written” (p. 181).
Those who might wish to challenge this assessment can examine any book on world history or world religions and see that it is correct. Abel offered the first of his flock, and from that day forward, humanity began offering live sacrifices to a deity in the hope of absolving anger and forgiving sin. In fact, mankind has sacrificed living things to a deity from the beginning of time. But which particular sacrifices did humanity think had the power to forgive sins? The general rule for the atonement value of a sacrifice was: the more costly and perfect the sacrifice, the more sins it would absolve.
When God initiated the ritual sacrifice of animals for the religious ceremonies of His chosen people, He laid down strict rules. In Leviticus 22:19-20, God told the Jews: “You shall offer of your own free will a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats. But whatever has a defect, you shall not offer, for it shall not be acceptable on your behalf ” (NKJV). The Lord always has demanded that blood be shed for the remission of sins. Hebrews 9:22 reiterates that point: “And according to the law...all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” This should not be at all surprising, since “the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11).
Men and women of ages past knew all too well God’s commandments regarding atonement by blood. It began with Cain and Abel, was reaffirmed by Noah (Genesis 9:1-6), was regulated by Old Testament law, and was carried through to fulfillment by Jesus. When God instituted the Law of Moses, He did not introduce animal sacrifices as an innovation never before seen by the Israelites. Rather, He showed the Israelites the proper manner in which to sacrifice such animals, until the time that the fulfilling sacrifice of His Son would bring to a halt the need for any further blood atonement via animal sacrifices. In showing them the proper way, God made strict provisions to keep the children of Israel from turning from God-approved sacrifices to sacrificing their own innocent children like the pagans around them. In Leviticus 18:21, God told the children of Israel: “And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to make them pass through the fire to Molech; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am Jehovah.” God went to great lengths to warn the Israelites against offering their children as sacrifices because it was well known that the nations around them took part in such infanticide. The question arises, “What in this world could convince a mother or father to offer their children to a god?” Let us investigate this matter further.
Wendy Davis writes for Widdershins, a self-proclaimed journal of unadulterated paganism. In an article on the World Wide Web, As Old as the Moon: Sacrifice in History, she stated: “The act of ritual murder is probably as old as we [humans—KB/BT] are. Throughout the ages, people sacrificed when they needed something. Our ancestors often gave the best they had, their first-born, to save themselves” (1995, emp. added). The most precious possession of a mother or father would be their first-born child. That child, however, would be not only precious, but also sinless. Sacrifice of anything less than that which is spotless and pure diminishes the inherent value of the sacrifice. Thus, it was believed that a sinless and pure sacrifice of such magnitude could wash away the sins of the parents (or, for that matter, the sins of an entire village!). Therefore, corrupt, perverse religions sprang up around the sacrifice of children, one of the most famous of which was that of Molech (see 2 Kings 23:10).
Yet even though the sacrifice of infants fulfilled the sinless aspect of a perfect sacrifice, it was lacking in other areas. For example, an “ordinary” infant born of peasant parents was not the most costly sacrifice available; a royal child of a king would be even better. Thus, as Davis went on to observe, kings ultimately sacrificed their own children to appease “the gods.”
But the sacrifice of a king’s child still did not represent the perfect sacrifice, because the child did not go of his (or her) own free will. A free-will sacrifice of royal blood would come closest to the perfect offering. In an article titled No Greater Sacrifice, which appeared in Widdershins, one writer suggested: “Willing sacrifice is more interesting. Why does someone want to sacrifice himself or herself for what they believe in? Historically speaking, we must consider the sacred kings who sacrificed themselves for the Land” (see Andy, 1998). Yes, a king who offered himself of his own free will would be almost the perfect sacrifice. The only problem with such a concept was the fact that no king ever had lived a perfect life. As the Widdershins writer correctly observed, in an attempt to solve this, “Finally someone came up with the idea of one final sacrifice. One sacrifice to count for all the rest for all time. But who could be offered? It had to be someone very important; even kings were not good enough. Clearly, only a god was important enough to count as the last one” (Andy, 1998). Thus, it becomes clear why even the pagan world demanded a sacrifice that was sinless, royal, and higher in stature than other humans. Doane stated: “The belief of redemption from sin by the sufferings of a Divine Incarnation, whether by death on the cross or otherwise, was general and popular among the heathen, centuries before the time of Jesus of Nazareth” (1882, pp. 183-185).
Once we comprehend the need for the death of the savior-god, it is not difficult to see why humanity would want (and need) to see him defeat death. The writer of the book of Hebrews addressed this very point when he wrote that Christ allowed Himself to be sacrificed so that He “might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (2:15). Death holds more terror for man than perhaps anything else on Earth. It was for this reason that the Greeks invented Hercules—half man and half god—to conquer the Underworld, and the Egyptians formulated Osiris. Surely a savior-god who offered himself voluntarily as the sacrifice for all humanity could defeat mankind’s dreaded enemy—Death. So, the idea of a sacrificial savior-god who victoriously defeats death through his resurrection came easily to the minds of people who knew that they needed forgiveness, and who desperately wanted to live past the grave.
And so, from a “universal frame of mind” different tribes and religions—spanning thousands of years—formulated their personal versions of what they thought a resurrected savior-god should be and do. Some said he was torn into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout the land of Egypt (e.g., Osiris). Others said he would look like a man but would possess superhuman physical strength and descend to the underworld to conquer Hades (e.g., Hercules). Yet one thing is certain: tales about a hero who saved mankind were on the lips of almost every storyteller. Trench stated correctly:
No thoughtful student of the past records of mankind can refuse to acknowledge that through all its history there has run the hope of a redemption from the evil which oppresses it; and as little can deny that this hope has continually attached itself to some single man (n.d., p. 149).
But how can it be maintained, then, that the one savior for whom all humanity waited was, and is, Jesus?
One important fact that cannot be ignored is that Jesus is the only historical figure Who fulfills the criteria necessary to justify, sanctify, and redeem mankind. No human’s creative mind concocted the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth. Human eyes saw Him, and human ears heard Him. He walked and talked—lived and loved—on the streets of real cities and in the houses of real people. His life is the only life of any “savior-god” that can be (and has been) thoroughly documented. As Stephen Franklin remarked: “[T]he specific character of Biblical religion and, thus, of Christianity stems from the priority given to the historical-factual dimension of the Bible’s basic teachings and doctrines”
Therefore, the story of Jesus Christ does not occupy a place amidst the pages of Greek mythology or ancient religious legend. Indeed, skeptics would delight in being able to place the story of Jesus on the same playing field as the stories of other legendary savior-gods, because then the parallel stories easily could be relegated to myth, due to the fact that the stories cannot be verified historically. Trench wrote of such skeptics:
"Proving, as it is not hard to prove, those parallels to be groundless and mythical, to rest on no true historic basis, they hope that the great facts of the Christian’s belief will be concluded to be as weak, will be involved in a common discredit."
If infidels were able to create a straw man that could not stand up to the test of historical verifiability (like, for example, pagan legends and myths), and if they could place the story of Jesus in the same category as their tenuous straw man, then both supposedly would fall together. However, the story of Jesus of Nazareth refuses to fall. The stories of other savior-gods are admitted to be—even by those who invented them—nothing but fables (e.g., the Greeks realized that their fictitious stories were merely untrue legends that were totally unverifiable; see McCabe, 1993, p. 59 and you AM have also admitted as such). But the story of Jesus demands its rightful place in the annals of human history. Osiris, Krishna, Hercules, Dionysus, and the other mythological savior-gods stumble back into the shadows of fiction when compared to the documented life of Jesus of Nazareth. If the skeptic wishes to challenge the uniqueness of Jesus by comparing Him with other alleged savior-gods, he first must produce evidence that one of these savior-gods truly walked on the Earth, commingled with humanity, and impacted people’s lives via both a sinless existence and incomparable teachings. Humanity always has desired a real-life savior-god; but can any of the alleged savior-gods that have been invented boast of a historical existence any more thoroughly documented than that of Christ?
In addition, Jesus has a monopoly on being perfectly flawless. He lived life by the same moral rules that govern all humans, yet He never once made a mistake. The writer of Hebrews recorded: “For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:15; cf. also 1 Peter 2:21-22). Renowned religious historian Philip Schaff wrote:
In vain do we look through the entire biography of Jesus for a single stain or the slightest shadow of his moral character. There never lived a more harmless being on earth. He injured nobody, he took advantage of nobody. He never wrote an improper word. He never committed a wrong action (1913, pp. 32-33).
Bernard Ramm commented in a similar vein when he stated of Christ:
There He stands, sinless. Whatever men may claim for being great, this is one thing they cannot. They may be brilliant or strong, fast or clever, creative or inspired, but not sinless. Sinless perfection and perfect sinlessness is what we would expect of God incarnate. The hypothesis and the facts concur (1953, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
Examine the stories of other savior-gods. See if they subjected themselves to the same rules as humans. See if they learned human nature and suffered unjustly, all the while never sinning with either their lips or their hearts. Try to find a savior like Christ who lived 30+ years on the Earth and yet never committed one shameful act. Norman Geisler summarized the situation as follows: “All men are sinners; God knows it and so do we. If a man lives an impeccable life and offers as the truth about himself that he is God incarnate we must take his claim seriously” (1976, p. 344). Jesus did “offer as the truth about himself that he is God incarnate.” As John Stott noted:
The most striking feature of the teaching of Jesus is that He was constantly talking about Himself.... This self-centeredness of the teaching of Jesus immediately sets Him apart from the other great religious teachers of the world. They were self-effacing. He was self-advancing. They pointed men away from themselves, saying, “That is the truth, so far as I perceive it; follow that.” Jesus said, “I am the truth; follow me.” The founders of the ethnic religions never dared say such a thing (1971, p. 23).
More can be said of this but it really has already been said. I quote JC:
" Just because a fictional story existed prior to a similar historical event does not prove that the record of the historical event was copied from the fictional story.
What is more likely is that the theme of sacrifice and atonement for sin is a universal truth."
- FaithnJC
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Tue May 16, 2006 2:40 am
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by FaithnJC » Tue May 16, 2006 7:17 pm
Let me shed some additional light on this subject. If you care to open up your mind to the possibility that the Biblical gospels are the truth, then read through this link:
Some highlights from:
RECONSTRUCTING THE MYSTERIES_*
It is not until we come to the third century A.D. that we find
sufficient source material (i.e., information about the mystery
religions from the writings of the time) to permit a relatively
complete reconstruction of their content. Far too many writers use
this late source material (after A.D. 200) to form reconstructions
of the third-century mystery experience and then uncritically
reason back to what they think must have been the earlier nature of
the cults. This practice is exceptionally bad scholarship and
should not be allowed to stand without challenge. Information about
a cult that comes several hundred years after the close of the New
Testament canon must not be read back into what is presumed to be
the status of the cult during the first century A.D. The crucial
question is not what possible influence the mysteries may have had
on segments of Christendom after A.D. 400, but what effect the
emerging mysteries may have had on the New Testament in the first
century.
Mithraism_*
Attempts to reconstruct the beliefs and practices of Mithraism
face enormous challenges because of the scanty information that has
survived. Proponents of the cult explained the world in terms of
two ultimate and opposing principles, one good (depicted as light)
and the other evil (darkness). Human beings must choose which side
they will fight for; they are trapped in the conflict between light
and darkness. Mithra came to be regarded as the most powerful
mediator who could help humans ward off attacks from demonic
forces.[8]
The major reason why no Mithraic influence on first-century
Christianity is possible is the timing: it's all wrong! The
flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New
Testament canon, much too late for it to have influenced anything
that appears in the New Testament.[9] Moreover, no monuments for
the cult can be dated earlier than A.D. 90-100, and even this
dating requires us to make some exceedingly generous assumptions.
Chronological difficulties, then, make the possibility of a
Mithraic influence on early Christianity extremely improbable.
Certainly, there remains no credible evidence for such an
influence.
STRIKING PARALLELS?_*
Enough has been said thus far to permit comment on one of the
major faults of the above-mentioned liberal scholars. I refer to
the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even
sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who
first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and
practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think
they have discovered. One can go a long way toward "proving" early
Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery
belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in
his book, _Mystery Religions in the Ancient World,_ which describes
the criobolium (_see_ footnote 6) as a "blood baptism" in which the
initiate is "washed in the blood of the lamb."[10] While uninformed
readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to
Christianity (_see_ Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such
a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against
Christianity.
Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of
literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged
likenesses between baptism and the Lord's Supper and similar
"sacraments" in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies
between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged "resurrections"
of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of
oversimplification and inattention to detail.
The Risen Christ and the "Rising Savior-Gods"_*
Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the
dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis.
Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can
speak of a "resurrection" in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and
Adonis only in the most extended of senses.[17] For example, after
Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris's dismembered body,
Osiris became "Lord of the Underworld." This is a poor substitute
for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be
made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly
opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early
Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of
Hellenistic paganism.[18] Any unbiased examination of the evidence
shows that such claims must be rejected.
Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites_*
Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping
generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its
notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries.[19] But the evidence
makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth
for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few
references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has
survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous.
They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the
New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian
mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is
unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged
practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back
into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively
as dramatic portrayals of the initiate's "new birth." The belief
that pre-Christian mysteries used "rebirth" as a technical term
lacks support from even one single text.
Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the
concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D.
300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any
possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such
scholars are willing to concede is the _possibility_ that some
Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech
of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological
beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its
content within Christianity was unique.
SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES_*
I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal
efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential
beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.
(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the
mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This
fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two
things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other.
As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal
connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the
mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars
often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from
Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak
of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis.
It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of
its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as
though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.
(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of
information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced
early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers
quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts
to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the
assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or
practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore
had the same belief or practice in the first century.
(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan
religions. All of our information about him makes it highly
unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He
placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of
Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort
of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed
to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien
speculations (Col. 2:8).
(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen
explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become
initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all
giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into
the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all
other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing
syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the
religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone."[21] This Christian
exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the
possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors.
Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused
immediate controversy.
(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on
events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the
mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were
dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real
historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection
to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of
Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and
place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.
(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian
influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It
must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always
influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable
that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite
direction."[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults
that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do
something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than
by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the
growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly
apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the
Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.
*_A FINAL WORD_*
Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian
revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse
quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is
clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad
scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According
to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would
describe them as "prejudiced irresponsibility."[23] But in order to
become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work
through material cited in the brief bibliography.
You have already been informed of the Roman and pagan writers who mentioned Jesus in their writings. Not only Jesus but His brother James, John the Baptist, etc. As far as your demand for contemporaries: there aren't as many surviving Roman records as you claim. In addition, do you really think a Roman historian would give a hoot for Jesus? Jesus was a peasant, running around a dreadful Palestinian outpost, teaching other Jews in the desert about the Jews' God, and this peasant Jesus was on the scene for a mere 3 1/2 years?
- FaithnJC
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Wed May 17, 2006 1:06 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by FaithnJC » Wed May 17, 2006 3:48 pm
"This legend, taken as a whole, provides few (if any) real parallels to the story of Jesus. Furthermore, when all the stories about characters who supposedly were similar to Christ are told in their entirety, it is obvious that each of them contains only a few characteristics that come anywhere close to resembling those contained in the life story of Jesus. Additionally, some of the alleged parallels rest upon tenuous documentation and may even be fabricated. "
Now then, what that post did, was demonstrate the fact that your assertions are not new. That the early church apologists dealt with them and used them. It went into detail that some of the few similarities that may exist should not surprise us. I showed that Mankind has a religious instinct and has always felt a need to sacrifice.
I stated in my next post, "Let me shed some additional light on this subject" (godman similarities). In other words, in my next post I expounded on the earlier post about the supposed "similarities" and went into greater detail on the fabrications.
I don't see where you find any confusion. It is still apparent that you aren't reading in a coherent manner. You said for me to give it up. How can I give up Christ when after my whole life of being an agnostic, He came to me and radically changed my life?
- FaithnJC
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Wed May 17, 2006 10:49 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by FaithnJC » Thu May 18, 2006 12:00 am
Oh, the ‘God Gene' Dr. Dean Hamer spouts off about. You can put the god gene in the same sophistry category as Hamer's now proven false gay gene. So now you are resorting to pseudoscience are you. Hey, how about a rape gene? A murder gene? I know, I know....a stealing gene?
Btw, if the presence of this version of the gene makes the person who has it more religious and spiritual than people who do not, it is awfully strange that for 37 years I had no desire to do anything spiritual.
The Jesus mysteries are objective scholars eh? I really don't think so. The information from CRI is information that is readily available. It didn't exclusively come from CRI. As far as them being raised Christians, that is suppose to mean....? Countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence objectively, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc., the list could go on forever.
Your comment on Christianity preys on the vulnerable is absolutely baseless. Myself being a case in point. I had it all before Christ, $100,000+ a year salary, beautiful wife, children, home, two brand new vehicles, lots of friends, great health...I had it all (except for eternal life of course).
- FaithnJC
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Thu May 18, 2006 12:41 am
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by FaithnJC » Thu May 18, 2006 11:33 am
Are my posts that much of a sockdolager for you? You almost had it right; since I had it all, I didn't feel I deeded a diety. But alas, Christ reached down and I responded because frankly, I have no problem with there being a creator. And I thank Him everyday for providing a way to Him.
Your god gene is only sophistry put on by Dr. Hamer, pseudoscience at its finest. I'm still waiting on that rape gene :lol: Besides resorting to psuedoscience, you are using a strawman, e.g., people who have the god gene are prone to be spiritual and people without the god gene can become spiritual and vice versa :lol:
We can have a theory for anything but the fact remains, there is no evidence for a gay gene. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. There being no evidence comes from secular sources although what this is suppose to mean is nonsense. The medical field is full of believers and nonbelievers, their beliefs in a diety is irrelevant. How about a murder gene?
Another strawman, "The fact that Freke and Gandy were raised Christians proves their objectivity." Very well then, the fact that countless numbers of prominent atheists have turned Christian when investigating the evidence proves their objectivity, i.e., Lee Strobel. Josh McDowell, Sir Willaim Ramsey, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, C.S. Lewis, Dr. Hugh Ross, etc. etc.
Strawman that it is, Christ spoke numerous times of people who thought they were His followers, i.e., Freke and Gandy. Of course I won't inform you of what Christ said since you are not able to discern clearly:
"I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,
'I will destroy human wisdom
and discard their most brilliant ideas.'
So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe. God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength. 1 Cor 1:18-25.
So, as you can see from the afformetioned scripture, it is a waste of time trying to reason with the close minded.
Anyway, this topic has turned into nothing more than badinage. And to that end, I will probably be finished bantering with you. I will leave my valuable free-time to those who want to explore the evidence without preconceived suppositions.
- FaithnJC
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Thu May 18, 2006 1:30 pm
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by jcr4runner » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:40 pm
You think this analogy proves that the resurrection stories were borrowed from eastern pagan cults called "mystery religions.” The people who wrote the Jesus story took an earlier story and passed it on via Jesus. You think that similarities among stories told among cults and mystery religions disprove the resurrection of Jesus.
The writers of the New Testament mention the “mystery religions” — most notably, the Apostles Peter, John and Paul. What is described in their writings is Gnosticism — an eastern cult that had followers the world over at the time of the Roman Empire. At the time of Jesus, even Judaism had succumbed to the effects of the ancient mystery religions. So it is at least possible that the early Christians could have borrrowed stories from the Gnostics.
Let's say for the sake of argument that your thesis is correct. That the Gnostic stories were exactly the same in every detail as the story of Jesus -- (which I don't agree with because there are major diffferences between the Gospel and these myths).
But let's examine this thesis as if it were true.
Let's say that one or more of the Apostles may have borrowed a story from the Gnostics about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead in order to give themselves some credibility.
Here are a few problems with this thesis:
1. The Apostles were writing only a few years after the time of Jesus. Why would they have consciously borrowed from the Gnostics in order to invent a fictitious resurrection story while at the same time condemning the Gnostics' teachings?
2. In the first century, one or more of the Apostles may have invented a story about Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there be a growing Christian movement in the immediate years after Jesus’ death? Why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified history?
3. Many of the disciples who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection died as martyrs for their faith. Why would these people die for what they knew was a fraudulent claim?
While your thesis is possible, it is highly implausible. It simply doesn't make sense to say that Christians who were writing only a few years after the time of a falsified event were willing to go to such lengths in order to protect the integrity of the story of a man they knew never existed.
- jcr4runner
I want your take on this.
by jcr4runner » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:54 pm
However, I really wanted to get you take on this one vital point:
If the resurrection were a hoax, why would there even be a Christian movement in the years immediately after Jesus’ death?
If Christ’s life was fiction, why would there even be an Apostle who would want to record a falsified record of Jesus’ death and resurrection as though it were factual history?
Even if I were not a committed Christian with a personal experience of salvation in Christ, this would seem far fetched to me. Obviously, they must have known a person called Jesus. They must have seen something to convince them that He really rose from the dead. Even if I were a skeptic, it would be obvious to me that at least they believed it.
- jcr4runner
Re: I want your take on this.
by AMbomb » Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:45 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:05 pm
- AMbomb
Paul was not a gnostic
by jcr4runner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:35 pm
You really don't know too much about the Bible except what you read in Freke's book.
- jcr4runner
Re: Paul was not a gnostic
by AMbomb » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:50 pm
- AMbomb
Convenient arguments
by jcr4runner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:29 pm
There are no less than seven New Testament passges condemning Gnosticism. The Apostles could not have been Gnostics.
Gnostic views of the Godhead were opposed by Paul in his writings, by Peter in his second epistle, by the Apostle John in his writings, and by the Church Fathers and apologists.
The Apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy:
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20).
It’s worth noting here that the word translated as “science,” or as “knowledge” in some translations, is the Greek word gnosis. Paul is warning his young disciple Timothy against the error of Gnosticism. Likewise, the letter to the Colossians also deals with Gnosticism.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (Colossians 2:18).
Peter’s second epistle also warns against heresies. Many scholars believe he is referring specifically to the teachings of Gnosticism.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).
John’s writings were written in part to counter the Gnostic error that supposed that Christ came in spirit form only, but not in human flesh.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands (1 John 1:1).
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2).
John further condemns the “mystery religions” that had corrupted first century Jews represented by the harlot in the book of Revelation.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (Revelation 17:3,4).
Around 180 A.D., the Christian apologist, Irenaeus, wrote his great polemic, Against Heresies: The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called, dealing with Gnostic heresies. Irenaeus makes 1,819 references to New Testament scriptures.
At about the same time, Tertullian quoted the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, 1 John and the book of Revelation in arguing against Marcion the Gnostic heretic and quotes from the New Testament 7,258 times.
- jcr4runner
Don't know much about history
by jcr4runner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:31 pm
1. Nero (Roman emperor AD 54–68), persecution stirred up in AD 64. In this persecution was the Apostle Paul killed and the apostle Peter crucified in Rome. This first persecution ceased under Vespasian (reigned AD 69–79).
2. Domitian (Roman emperor AD 81–96).
3. Trajan (Roman emperor AD 98–117). Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch suffered in this persecution.
4. Marcus Aurelius, his other name being Antoninus Verus (Roman emperor AD 161–180). Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, and the Christian martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, two cities in France, were martyred in this persecution.
5. Septimius Severus (Roman emperor AD 193–211). This persecution extended to northern Africa, which was a Roman province.
6. Maximinus, Gaius Julius Verus (Roman emperor AD 235–238).
7. Decius (Roman emperor AD 249–251). In this persecution was Fabian martyred; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, forced into exile; and Origen imprisoned and tortured.
8. Valerian (Roman emperor AD 253–260).
9. Aurelian (Roman emperor AD 270–275).
10. Diocletian (Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, reigned AD 284–305) and Maximian (reigned AD 285–305) governed as emperors together. Diocletian began his furious persecution against the Christians in 303.
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by jcr4runner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:13 pm
The problem with your argument is that you claim that prior to 50 AD there is no evidence of Jesus in the form of written testimony. However, there is no evidence either for your claim that "the original Christians knew there was no Jesus." Using your own argument, if there are no extant Christian (or Gnostic/pseudo-Christian) writings prior to Paul, then how can you make this claim?
Paul in his Epistles refers to his "Gospel" and includes many points that are corroborated by the later written histories of the four Gospels.
If the original Christians were Gnostics, then you would expect to find wide disparities between the four Christian Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. But both agree with each other.
There are only two logical possibilities accepted by either liberals or conservatives. Here they are respectively:
1. (The liberal view) - Paul's Gospel and the later Gospel histories both came from an independent common source.
2. (The conservative view) - Paul took his Gospel from the orally preached Gospels of Peter (Mark was actually Peter's scribe) and Matthew. According to the first century Church fathers Papias and Polycarp (who was a student of the Apostle John) Paul's Gospel later became known as the Gospel of Luke, since Luke was Paul's scribe. The Gospel of John was written last.
This is also how we can know that the early pagan historians' references to Christ are based on independent records and research. If these were compiled solely from the written testimony of Christians, then we would expect to find only history that is found in the New Testament. If they were based on hearsay from Christians we would also expect to find some corruption or disagreeing accounts.
For instance, Nero's persecution is alluded to in the New Testament, but he is never named. So this is a pagan record, not a Christian invention.
Also, as I posted elsewhere, the basic facts about Jesus' life listed by Paul, the writers of the four Gospels, and the pagan testimony are in agreement.
Freke and Doherty's theory is based solely on conjecture not history. Even liberals who deny the deity of Christ, know that they are not credible historians.
Earl Doherty makes a huge assumption popular among the 19th century critics that the Gospels were not written in the first century. Most scholars now admit that they were.
He then goes on to state that none of the Gospel story appears in the Epistles.
Here is just a brief summary of the “non-narrative” evidence from Paul's Epistles that also appear the Gospel stories. Those points also attested to by non-Christian writers are marked with an asterisk.
The following is from Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, The Real Jesus:
1. Jesus was a real human person (Paul, Hebrews)*
2. Jesus was a Jew (Paul, Hebrews)*
3. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews)
4. Jesus was a descendant of David (Paul)
5. Jesus mission' was to the Jews (Paul)*
6. Jesus was a teacher (Paul, James)*
7. Jesus was tested (Hebrews)
8. Jesus prayed using the word ABBA (Paul)
9. Jesus prayed for deliverance from death (Hebrews)
10. Jesus Suffered (Paul, Hebrews, Peter)
11. Jesus interpreted his last meal with reference to his death
(Paul -- mentioned also in the writings of Tacitus and Josephus)*
12. Jesus underwent a trial (Paul)*
13. Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate (Paul)*
14. Jesus death involved the Jews (Paul)*
15. Jesus was crucified (Paul, Hebrews, 1 Peter)*
16. Jesus was buried (Paul)
17. Jesus appeared to witesses after death (Paul)
So it is clear to see that the most vital elements of the Gospel story appear in the Epistles.
In “The Jesus Puzzle,” Doherty then goes on to write that:
Ironically, what follows is the list of pagan historians who do mention Jesus. He brushes this off by claiming that they must be forgeries.The Gospel Jesus and his story is equally missing from the non-Christian record of the time.
The problem is that historians do not universally consider these passages to be forgeries. In addition, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian and Celsus refer to Christ and Christians sometimes in negative terms. This is hardly the strategy for a Christian forger who is trying to gain credibility for his movement.
- jcr4runner
Nero's persecution
by jcr4runner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:49 pm
There is no evidence that Tacitus has been interpolated.
Tacitus was so negative about Christians that not only is this passage credible, but he was not useful for contemporary Christian apologists. A Christian interpolation has positive things about Christians or Christ that the writer could not have said. So we do know what a Christian interpolation looks like and we know that it doesn't look like Tacitus.
What evidence (besides repeated denials) do you have to prove that Nero didn't persecute Christians?
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus described the event:
"And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Nero’s scapegoats were the perfect choice because it temporarily relieved pressure of the various rumors going around Rome. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for a moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Iudaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome... Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed; then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of [their] hatred for the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clothed in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual." - Tacitus, Annales, xv.44
The Roman Tertullian (in a fragment quoted in Eusebius) writes as follows: "Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence."
Eusebius, the 4th century historian, also tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter and traveled with him to Rome in 60 A.D. During the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, the Roman authorities used a copy of Mark's Gospel as evidence to implicate the Christians as the cause of a large fire which had burned much of the city. On a papyrus scroll appeared the title: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." In the ensuing period, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats. Evidently the title of Mark's Gospel was construed as treasonous.
- jcr4runner
The blatant errors of Freke and Gandy
by jcr4runner » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:53 pm
“It is a completely remarkable fact … that Paul says nothing at all about the historical Jesus! He is concerned only with the crucified and resurrected Christ, whose importance is entirely mythical …. Paul’s Christ, like the Pagan’s Osiris-Dionysus, is a timeless mythical figure.” (p. 151, emphasis added).
Yet in three of Paul’s undisputed letters, Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Romans, we find Jesus Christ as a real historical person. These are Epistles that even the most extreme liberals admit that he wrote.
Here are some quick facts from those letters that also appear in the written Gospels:
1. Jesus was born a Jew (Gal. 4:4).
2. Jesus had brothers, one named James, who was alive at Paul's writing (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5)
3. Jesus was a teacher to Jews (Rom. 15:8; 1 Cor. 7:11; 9:14).
4. Jesus had 12 disciples (1 Cor. 15:5)
5. Jesus held a last supper with his disciples (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
6. Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23).
7. Jesus was crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).
- jcr4runner
Re: Convenient arguments
by AMbomb » Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:28 am
- AMbomb
Think critically.
by jcr4runner » Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:27 am
Of course, I don't believe the New Testament contains forgeries. That was a popular belief 100 years ago, but older texts found since that time, such as the Rylands fragement, show that the New Testament has remained remarkably unchanged.
1 Timothy refutes your argument. But other Pauline letters you ignore refute it also. We don't need the Pauline books that liberals doubt such as 1 Timothy to show that Paul was not a Gnostic. Taking only books that are universally attributed to Paul, we can show this.
What about the anti-Gnostic statements in Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, in which human attributes are imputed to Jesus? Since the Gnostics believed that Jesus was a spirit being only he could not have been born, could not have had physical brothers, and could not have been crucified. Since he had no physical body, how could any of these things occur?
What also doesn't fit is the idea that the Gnostics thought of Jesus as a myth. They believed that Jesus actually apeared, but he was God in the form of a man, rather than fully God and fully man -- as orthodox Christians believed.
Paul could not have been a Gnostic. In Galatians, he describes his theologicaal training as a Pharrisee, a sect of Judaism that had definite beliefs about the resurrection from the dead that contadicts Gnostic philosophy.
In any case, claiming that Paul was a Gnostic doesn't support the thesis that Jesus did not exist. Gnostics did not claim he never existed.
- jcr4runner
Re: Think critically.
by AMbomb » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:50 am
- AMbomb
Re: Why foretell via myth?
by AMbomb » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:05 pm
- AMbomb
1 Thessalonians 50 AD
by jcr4runner » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:30 pm
The letters of Paul are easy to date because we have the order of Paul's journeys recorded in Acts and the historical events surrounding them. It's possible to synchronize the dates of the letters to the three missionary journeys of Paul within a year or two after his visits.
The Gospels are harder to date. Liberals used to try to put all the Gospels in the mid second century. But then the Rylands fragment was discovered, which some think is from the late first cetnury or at the latest the early second century. Although it is just a scrap of papaer, it shows that the Gospel of John existed far earlier than liberals suppose.
It's impossible to say that the Gospels were not written earlier than the dates I've given below. We can know for a fact that the second century dates are wrong. Some have hypothesized a "Q" Gospel that existed prior to Mark. I don't accept this idea, because it is unprovable. The Jews had a thriving oral tradition, so it is more likely that the "Gospel" was a spoken eyewitness account of Jesus' Apostles for many years prior to it being written. But most Old Testament books were like that and even more so.
So let's say that John was the last Gospel written -- about 90 A.D. -- that would be the latest date. In order for the Rylands fragment to have existed in the early second century, the Gospel of John would had to have circulated for a few decades.
There are also several late first century documents that quote extensively from the New Testament, such as the Didache. While these are not closer to the fact, they show that the New Testament had proliferated many years prior to the dates proposed by those who tried to put them in the second century.
Let's face it, if you don't accept the existence of Jesus from the testimony of these documents, then you would have to doubt the existence of most figures from ancient times.
Most ancient figures have no extant texts for at least several centuries after their deaths.
In the Rylands fragment we have an existing text that is closer to Jesus than any other person from this time period.
- jcr4runner
Re: Think critically.
by jcr4runner » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:42 pm
Now the Gnostics also taught that there are special secrets that God only gives to a select few. Only those initiated into the group learned the secrets and after initiation the mystery was revealed. But the difference in the Christian conception of the word is that these are mysteries made known to the whole world.
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Romans 16:25-26).
The chief use of the word "mysteries" in the New Testament was by Paul. He used the term "mystery" to refer to some operation or plan of God that had not hitherto been revealed. It is never used to carry the idea of a secret to be withheld, but of one to be published in time.
For example look at 1 Thess. 4:13-18 which reveals the coming resurrection of the Body of Christ. It reveals to us the basic event, but not all the details.
Paul says, "by the Scriptures ... the mystery is made known to all nations."
The biblical idea of a "mystery" is something made known to all nations! A mystery is any truth that God has revealed for all to understand. This is the exact opposite of Gnosticism which teaches "secret knowledge" made known only to a few.
In fact, you will find that every time the word "mystery" is used in the New Testament, the writer is speaking of a mystery revealed.
See this article for more:
http://www.bible-truth.org/myst-intro.htm
- jcr4runner
Re: 1 Thessalonians 50 AD
by AMbomb » Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:31 pm
- AMbomb
Re: Think critically.
by AMbomb » Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:40 pm
- AMbomb
Assuming God
by revrosado » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:22 am
You are PRE-suming that God does not exist.
Presume means to declare something BEFORE or WITHOUT considering ALL the available factors.
I rather summate God. I gather from all available data, science, and reasonable elements that God does indeed exist.
The difference is that I see a photograph and summate there to be a photographer. You see a photograph and you believe it to be reality.
This question is the selfsame issue being debated right now among the leading physicists, cosmologists, et al.
If my communication is difficult for you than how can you await God to show himself to you - if He did, would you comprehend His manifestation? You cannot see beyond the veil. You say you want evidence. How can you want evidence of God? Evidence is to bring to one's sight - e - video. God is Spirit. He is not a physical entity. Physical things are subject to the laws of thermodynamics - hence change and time. God is eternal. He is outside our reality. You cannot e-video anything about God. God is beyond your basic standard of proof.
God must be reasoned! And for this reasoning one must possess vast knowledge of many areas of science and mathematics. That is as close you can ever get to e-video of God. Your proof is available but unfortunately you are ill-equipped to summate as yet.
If my words are too difficult to understand - then forget about seeking evidence of God - you need to have faith. You do not qualify to reason God - so have faith! If you lack faith then one is hardly tracking in spiritual IQ meter.
You assume you can comprehend the evidence of God if it were.
- revrosado
Re: Assuming God
by AMbomb » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:31 am
- AMbomb
Wrong Thread
by revrosado » Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:55 am
It only continues in the light of ignorance of the saliency of Jesus Christ.
The bottom line is this: We shall all come before Jesus on that final day and final hour - then you shall have your history lesson and all the other lessons in one standing.
You play poker?
Re: Wrong Thread
by AMbomb » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:50 am
- AMbomb
- [An extremely lengthy post by godshoulddie from 2009 pasting in numerous materials from Jesus mythists is here deleted. What follows are two of the rebuttals. - JCR]
Re: Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?
by godshoulddie » Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:33 pm
So, let’s deal with what is the entirety of your argument.
Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
It is true that NEITHER you nor I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, theology, logic or so on so BOTH of us must, therefore, make reference to outside authorities when making argument. The fallacy comes when one person attempts to say that ONLY his authority is acceptable as an authority in a given field and is therefore “infallible in principle” as the fallacy states.
Regarding Tacitus. NO scholar has ever rejected it as a forgery? NOT ONE? Authors such as James Still who states:
Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known.
WJ Ross who in his work Tacitus and Bracciolini makes the argument that the entire Annals themselves were forged in the fifteenth century? NOT ONE scholar has EVER questioned the authenticity of the Tacitean passage regarding Nero. I further showed, with references the following:
The varying historical accounts of the event come from three secondary sources — Cassius Dio, Suetonius and Tacitus. The primary accounts, which possibly included histories written by Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder, did not survive. These primary accounts are described as contradictory and gross exaggerations. At least five separate stories circulated regarding Nero and fire:
Motivated by a desire to destroy the city, Nero secretly sent out men pretending to be drunk to set fire to the city. Nero watched from his palace on the Palatine Hill singing and playing the lyre.
Motivated by an insane whim, Nero quite openly sent out men to set fire to the city. Nero watched from the Tower of Maecenas on the Esquiline Hill singing and playing the lyre.
Nero sent out men to set fire to the city. Nero sang and played his lyre from a private stage.
The fire was an accident. Nero was in Antium.
The fire was caused by Christians.
It is, however, to be noted that one of the near contemporary sources, Suetonius (who was born shortly after the fire and may have seen the reconstruction during his childhood) specifically excludes any persecution, quite apart from anything on the scale suggested by Tacitus, and went so far as to say that Nero never tried to trace the perpetrators and gave instructions that the members of the only list presented to the Senate were to be let off lightly. But NO SCHOLAR has EVER questioned this passage? See the authority fallacy.
Then you refer back to Feldman again regarding Suetonius to try to tell me that “it is universally accepted.” See the authority fallacy again. I guess, though, it really was too simple to point out that Claudius reigned from 41-54 CE and Jesus supposed death occurred around 30 CE and that NO text, not even your holy book, places Jesus in Rome EVER. No, instead, Feldman proclaims it “universally accepted,” so it must be so. See authority fallacy.
Then back to the TF and James references. Once again I show at least half a dozen scholars who disagree with the TF, even the entire dissertation regarding the language of the passage. But, sorry, Feldman says … see authority fallacy. I show that the ENTIRE Catholic Church rejects James as Jesus brother, but, Feldman says … see authority fallacy.
Having taken your and Holding's measure on YouTube and other forums I wasn’t really expecting much, but this really made me laugh. Feel free to respond, I won’t be coming back.
Toodles.
- godshoulddie
Re: Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?
by jcr4runner » Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:51 am
This is typical postmodernist hogwash. A few rules of logic ought to be laid down here.godshoulddie wrote: Regarding Tacitus. No scholar has ever rejected it as a forgery? NOT ONE? Authors such as James Still who states: Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. WJ Ross who in his work Tacitus and Bracciolini makes the argument that the entire Annals themselves were forged in the fifteenth century? NOT ONE scholar has EVER questioned the authenticity of the Tacitean passage regarding Nero. Then you refer back to Feldman again regarding Suetonius to try to tell me that “it is universally accepted”. See the authority fallacy again.
The authority fallacy deals with whenever the truth or falsity of the claim is not related to the expertise of the claimant. For example:
"You should never spank a child because it can lead to self-esteem problems later in life," as quoted in "Child Rearing" by Britney Spears.
"The Hubble Space Telescope has told us more about the universe in just 20 years than we have learned from land telesopes in the past 200 years," says a prominent NASA scientist.
Both are appeals to authority, but only the second one is valid. Likewise, Dr. Feldman, being the world's leading authority on Josephus, is qualified to tell us exactly how many Josephus scholars view the Jesus material as having core authenticity. Feldman correctly tells us that a robust 75 percent view it as partially authentic, mostly authentic or totally authentic. For a time, you were claiming this was not Feldman's view, but now you cut and run (you are the Anti-Schwarzenegger: "I WON'T be back!") Citing Feldman's view is admitting defeat on this point.
Instead your new tactic is redefine what is meant by "appeal to authority fallacy" and "scholar" and then abandon the discussion saying you are "disappointed." This is, in fact, a usual tactic of postmodernists when confronted with facts buttressed by citations of authoritative scholarship.
And that brings me to my second point. A "scholar" is a person who has achieved a level of academic expertise in the form of a doctorate and has shown his work through research, publishing, or teaching his subject area at a reputable university or college. For an "expert" to be qualified to comment, he must show scholarship in his area of commentary. For instance, a German language scholar is not necessarily qualified to comment on first century Roman history. However, a New Testament scholar who has done work in history, culture and archaeology might be.
One area where I misspoke of is the phrase, "No scholar who is (present tense) has ever claimed (past participle)" -- this gives the impression that I am speaking of the past tense. Of course, I meant presently. I agree that the late 19th and 20th century was an era of the "New Criticism" of literature in which all sorts of speculations not bound by the study of historical background were proposed. This was the only time in history when the Jesus-as-myth hypothesis was examined by scholars. But the telling point is that it was universally rejected and is held by only two or possibly three scholars in the whole world today.
So I must retract "has ever" and restate my claim: No scholar claims that Tacitus' references to Christ and Christianity is forged. A scholar is one with expertise in a subject or field whose works are recognized by contemporary peers as having credible weight.
You cite James Still and WJ Ross. Let's examine their credentials.
James Still is the president emeritus of Internet Infidels.
Response: Still's qualifications to comment on Tacitus are nowhere to be found. True, he is a "writer," meaning he can string together reasonably coherent prose on blogs. He's not a scholar and hasn't published anything of note. His qualifications in his own words:
So he is not a Tacitus scholar. Enough said on this. However, if I want to know something about architectural software or road bikes, this is the go-to-guy.I am a software developer and architect for Multnomah County, Oregon. In my spare time I blog for the Secular Web, maintain the kiosk and bookstore for infidels.org, practice yoga, and get out on my road bike at every opportunity.
WJ Ross, a Latin scholar, claimed in 1878 that since entire work of Tacitus known as Annals was unknown until the 15th century when it was discovered by Poggio Bracciolini, that Bracciolini himself must have forged the Annals in its entirety. Ross noted that (he thought) some of Bracciolini's phrases were similar in style to Tacitus. This is known as form criticism.
Response: First, this work is over 130 years old. Scholars who specialize in Roman history today do not acknowledge Ross' thesis. There are a number of reasons why this thesis is false at face value. Tacitus gives us information about first century Rome that cannot be found elsewhere. Since modern archaeology has validated many of Tacitus' records, and since these are findings that a 15th century Italian could not have known, modern scholars universally accept Tacitus as a credible and valuable source of history. Second, scholars use expressions like “feeble attempts” and “pure speculation” to describe such writings that have no contemporary validity. There were many Latin and Greek works that were rediscovered at the time of the Italian Renassaince. There is no evidence that this particular work was forged in part or entirely.
Of course, there are many "writers" today who question the authenticity of Tacitus' references to Nero's scapegoats, the Christians. However, it's telling that none of them are scholars. Among scholars who are qualified to offer their expert opinion, there are none alive today who question this passage.
The Presbyterian Parson's Rebellion
“Real Protestants fight!”
The above was a catch-phrase of a friend of mine, Jeff Ziegler, who introduced me to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation over 20 years ago. Prior to that time, I was content to describe myself as a “Christian.” But over the years, I’ve come to realize that there are biblical principles worth fighting for. Now more than ever, we need men with Reformation zeal to lead the battle to reclaim our culture on many fronts, the family, the church and all aspects of society.
“Give ‘em Watts, boys!”
~ The Rev. James Caldwell and his famous hymnals.
By way of disclaimer, I don’t mean to say that women cannot play out their roles in this battle. However, one of the basic problems that pietism has wrought in the church is the feminization of male leadership. We have become afraid to become bloodied for our faith. This was not the Christianity of Jesus and the Apostles. It was not the faith of the early church fathers, great martyrs such as Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna and Justin of Rome. It was not the faith of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine, men who were willing to contend for sound doctrine in the church. It was not the faith of great martyrs throughout history culminating in the Reformation period and the great Reformers among the Scottish Presbyterians, the English and American Puritans. It was not the faith of the great Reformed Revivalists such as Edwards, Whitefield and Brainerd, who were willing to pour out their lives for the backslidden church, who worked in the ditches to claim the dregs of society for Christ.
By “Reformed theology” and “Calvinism,” I am not merely talking about the Five Points of soteriology outlined at the Synod of Dordt in 1619. Calvinism is a comprehensive worldview. It is the only worldview that was able to resist the “Divine Right of Kings” of the Middle Ages and the tyranny of socialism and communism in the 20th century.
In the 21st century, we need a Puritan Storm Rising to sweep away the Hegelian notion that the civil state is “God walking on earth.” We need the engine of the Protestant Reformation revived in full force in order to vanquish the problems that plague us as a nation — from government controlled healthcare to abortion on demand
I don’t hold out much hope for traditional Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Most of these bodies would be unrecognizable to their founders. Rather I see the principles of the Reformation seeping through a wide swath of evangelical churches and forging them into a network — as Reformed doctrine did during the time of the First Great Awakening.
One of the first articles I wrote after having encountered Jeff Ziegler’s teaching was Two Views of Government, an explanation of the opposite worldviews of Puritanism and Pietism that have vied for dominance in the evangelical church.
This is not to say that Whitefield and Wesley cannot work side by side in the coming awakening. To the contrary, although Calvinism was on the wane in America by the end of the 18th century, the great social reforms of the 19th century were fueled by the fervor of Evangelical Arminians. These Christian reformers were undergirded by an abiding belief in the covenantal purposes of God in history. While I have a great admiration for many Christian leaders in our current day, I would gladly trade the shipwrecked, pietistic vessel of 21st century for the time tested Puritan battleship of America’s founding.
Let’s be clear about one historical fact. The United States of America is not merely a “Christian nation,” but as the following article will show, the American Revolution of 1775 was birthed out of the Knoxian and Cromwellian revolutions of the 1500s and 1600s in Scotland and England. It would do us good to examine both the character of the men who led these movements and the doctrines they preached and taught.
The following article by Harry Seabrook contains numerous little known quotes from renowned historians showing that the impetus for America’s War for Independence was forged in the fires of the Protestant Reformation.
Throughout the article I’ve posted some relevant clips from the video series, God’s Law and Society. Here George Grant explains where the term the Presbyterian Parson’s Rebellion originated.
The colonial army during the Revolution was also called The Black Robed Regiment because of the number of pastors who rallied their congregations to support the cause of freedom. Here Pastor Phil Volman calls for a Black Robed Regiment to arise in our day.
America’s Calvinist foundations
by Harry Seabrook
It is estimated that two-thirds of the three million Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War were Reformed Protestants, and even that leaves out the many Episcopalians, who had a Reformed confession in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the descendants of the French Huguenots. Presbyterians, above all, were responsible for convincing the colonists to revolt even though, prior to the war, about 40 percent of the population was pro-British.
“Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they, and they only, did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed…. If it had not been for Calvinists, Huguenots, Puritans, and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists.” ~ Sir John Skelton
“[Calvinists] are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world.” ~ French atheist Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)
“Calvinism has been the chief source of republican government.” ~ Lorraine Boettner
“In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” ~ Goren van Prinsterer
Historian George Bancroft called Calvin “the father of America,” and added, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”
“John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.” ~ German historian Leopold von Ranke
“The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.” ~ George Bancroft
It is no wonder that King James I once said: “Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the Devil.” In England, our First War for Independence was referred to as the “Presbyterian Rebellion.”
A Hessian captain (one of the 30,000 German mercenaries used by England) wrote in 1778, “Call this war by whatever name you may, only call it not an American rebellion; it is nothing more or less than a Scots-Irish Presbyterian rebellion.”
Another monarchist wrote to King George III: “I fix all of the blame for these extraordinary proceedings on the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principle instruments in all of these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchical spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere.”
In a letter from New York dated November 1776, the Earl of Dartmouth was informed by one of his representatives: “Presbyterianism is really at the bottom of this whole conspiracy, has supplied it with Vigour, and will never rest, till something is decided on it.”
John D. Sergeant, a member of the Continental Congress from New Jersey, credited the Scots-Irish with being the main pillar of support for the Revolution in Pennsylvania. A New Englander, not supportive of the Presbyterians, agreed, calling the Scots-Irish, “the most God-provoking democrats this side of Hell.”
Prime Minister Horace Walpole rose in Parliament to say: “There is no use crying about it. Cousin America has eloped with a Presbyterian parson,” referring to John Witherspoon, president of Princeton University (the “seminary of sedition”), and the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence. Witherspoon was not only one of the founding fathers, he was the instructor of the founding fathers. Nine of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention had been students of Witherspoon’s. In fact, David Barton notes that 87 of the 243 founding fathers graduated from Presbyterian Princeton, so it is hardly surprising that the founders created a republic.
“When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians.” ~ J.R. Sizoo
“From 1706 to the opening of the revolutionary struggle, the only body in existence which stood for our present national political organization [republicanism] was the General Synod of the American Presbyterian Church… The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants.” ~ Dr. W.H. Roberts
Only the Presbyterian Church lined up solidly behind the colonists, and without them independence would not have been possible. Oh, and that Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson? It came along a full year after Scots-Irish Presbyterians in Charlotte, North Carolina, wrote their own declaration of independence. The Mecklenburg Declaration, written on May 20, 1775, “by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void,” as Lorraine Boettner writes.
Jefferson’s biographer notes: “Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.”
George Bancroft observes that the Mecklenburg assembly consisted of “twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian church, including the President and Secretary, and one was a Presbyterian minister.”
Ephraim Brevard, who drafted the document, and after whom Brevard, NC, is named, was a Presbyterian ruling elder and a Princeton graduate.
“[Patrick Henry’s] mother drilled him in Presbyterian or Calvinistic theology, which provided the backbone for the American resistance to British tyranny. As one author has noted, Calvinism ‘has been able to inspire and sustain the bravest efforts ever made by man to break the yoke of unjust authority…’ It has ‘borne ever an inflexible front to illusion and mendacity, and has preferred rather to be ground to powder, like flint, than to bend before violence, or melt under enervating temptation.’ By the time of the American Revolution, approximately two-thirds of the colonial population had been ‘trained in the school of Calvin.’ Henry, through his mother, was a spiritual descendant of Calvin and represented the liberating element of a Reformed theology and world-view.” ~ Isaac Backus
One example among many in the “Black Regiment” (of parsons) was the Rev. James Caldwell of the First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Caldwell also served as chaplain to the Continental Army. A Redcoat murdered his wife by firing into his home. Leaving his children in the care of the townsfolk, Caldwell rejoined the fight, which had moved to Springfield. When wadding for ammunition ran low, Caldwell ran to the First Presbyterian Church of Springfield and returned with as many hymnals as he could carry. Tearing out the pages, he yelled, “Put Watts into ‘em, boys! Give ‘em Watts!” He was killed in battle one year later.
This was a man who carried pistols with him to church and laid them on the pulpit before he began the sermon. One of the nine orphaned Caldwell children became a U.S. Supreme Court clerk and worked for the cause of African colonization. A town in Liberia is named Caldwell in his memory. War hero Lafayette, George Washington’s close friend, and the man who incidentally was given the honor of naming a cousin of mine from five generations ago (Carolina Lafayette Seabrook), took another of the Caldwell children home with him to France.
During the feudal era, bishops rode to war at the head of armies. There was a time in America when this was still the case.
Taken from Western Voices World News
Postmillennialism: "In the days of these kings …" The Prophecy of Daniel
How to interpret the prophecy of Daniel chapters 2 and 7 through 12 is one of the keys to understanding some difficult passages in the New Testament, namely Matthew 24, otherwise known as the Mount of Olives Discourse, and much of the book of Revelation.
I have a longer commentary on Daniel called, In The Days of These Kings …, which you can read for more information. For our purposes here, we will look here briefly at Daniel chapters 2 and 7 in which Daniel relates a dream that had been troubling the King of Babylon, Nebuchanezzar:
“You, O king, were watching; and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:31-35).
Although there are some minor variations in interpretation here, it is generally thought that the four kingdoms in Daniel 2 refer to the Babylonian or Chaldean Empire, then the Empire divided between the conquering Medes and Persians, the third kingdom refers to the conquest of the world by Alexander the Great, and the fourth kingdom refers to the successors of Alexander, the kings of Syria and Egypt, and the entire Greco-Roman period up until the time of the Roman Empire.
Now one might ask, “What does this have to do with the time when Jesus Christ would set up a future messianic kingdom?” The answer comes when we read Daniel’s interpretation of the Kings’ dream when he describes the overthrow of the fourth kingdom.
“And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).
And in the days of these kings means simply, in the days of the Roman Empire. At that time, the kingdom of God would be brought to earth by Jesus Christ and would never be destroyed. Not only would this messianic kingdom be invincible from attack, but it would also overthrow kingdoms of this world and they would become part of the kingdom of God and of His Christ (Rev 11:15).
The question answered by this verse is when God would set up a kingdom on earth. He would set up His kingdom “in the days of these kings.”
We see the fulfillment of this prophecy in the Gospels. In fact, Luke begins his Gospel with an account of Jesus birth: “And it came to pass that in those days … [of] Caesar Augustus” (Luke 2:1).
Likewise, the beginning of Christ’s ministry began “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). The writers of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke especially, take pains to identify the coming of Christ in the days of the reigns of the Roman Caesars.
Luke purposefully references Daniel, in order to answer the question, “When will Christ and the kingdom of God come on earth?”
The answer, “And it came to pass that in those days … [of] Caesar Augustus” certainly echoes Daniel’s prophecy, “In the days of these kings…” In other words, in the days of the Roman Caesars.
This is further revealed in the next verse of Daniel 2.
“Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold – the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure” (Daniel 2:45).
A stone made without hands does not refer to Jesus the Messiah himself at the time of the Second Coming as many futurists have imagined. But it is stated plainly in the previous verse that the stone is the kingdom of God.
And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed …
This kingdom appeared in the days of the Roman Empire at the coming of Christ. The idea that the Messiah was to appear in the days of the Roman Empire is further illuminated in Daniel 7.
I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13,14).
The Son of Man speaks of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is fully God and fully man. In the Gospels, Jesus identities himself as the “Son of man” in order to identify himself as the Messiah.
Dominion, and glory, and a kingdom speaks of Christ being given the keys of the kingdom by God the Father when he sat down at the right hand of God after His resurrection and ascension. This kingdom is not a future kingdom. It began in the days of the Roman Empire. It overcame Rome and will overcome all the kingdoms of this world. It will last forever.
We see this image of Jesus as the exalted King, “one like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven,” throughout the New Testament.
When Jesus stood before the High Priest on trial and was asked if he was the Christ:
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64).
When Stephen was stoned to death becoming the first Christian martyr:
But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55)
And finally John, in the book of Revelation, uses Daniel’s image of a Son of Man Coming on the Clouds of Heaven:
Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen (Revelation 1:7).
And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire (Revelation 1:12-14).
While there are many conflicting eschatological theories attempting to make sense out the difficult texts of Daniel and the book of Revelation, we can be sure of two things by comparing the consistent imagery of the Bible and using the historical grammatical hermeneutic. In other words, scripture must interpret scripture.
- The Son of Man is none other than Jesus Christ who came in the days of the Roman Empire.
- Jesus came to set up the kingdom of God on earth “in the days of these kings” – in the days of the Roman Caesars.
Thus Christ’s victorious kingdom is not an earthly kingdom that will appear only at the Second Coming sometime in the future. It is a heavenly kingdom that has it’s footstool on earth in the here and now.
God's Law and Society (DVD)
Download the Free Study Guide!
God’s Law and Society powerfully presents a comprehensive worldview based upon the ethical system found in the Law of God.
Speakers include: R.J. Rushdoony, George Grant, Howard Phillips, R.C. Sproul Jr., Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, Jay Grimstead, Steven Schlissel, Andrew Sandlin, Eric Holmberg, and more!
Sixteen Christian leaders and scholars answer some of the most common questions and misconceptions related to this volatile issue:
1. Are we under Law or under Grace?
2. Does the Old Testament Law apply today?
3. Can we legislate morality?
4. What are the biblical foundations of government?
5. Was America founded as a Christian nation?
6. What about the separation of Church and State?
7. Is neutrality a myth?
8. What about non-Christians and the Law of God?
9. Would there be “freedom” in a Christian republic?
10. What would a “Christian America” look like?
Perfect for group instruction as well as personal Bible study.
Ten parts, over four hours of instruction!
Running Time: 240 minutes
Watch over 60 on-line video interviews from God’s Law and Society.
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
Massacre of Innocence (DVD)
Exposing The Occult Roots of Abortion
This presentation looks at the spiritual roots of abortion and exposes the myths surrounding child killing. Little known historical facts about abortion and how they relate to modern feminism are presented logically and accurately. Has been effective in converting many to a pro-life position.
Massacre of Innocence goes where no pro-life presentation has gone before in “tearing the lid off abortion” to reveal the spiritual realities we must battle if we will bring an end to this crime. The presentation is absorbing, fast-paced, informative and incredibly devastating to any attempt to justify abortion.
“… an extraordinary statement … a powerfully articulate presentation about what abortion really means, and why a great and moral nation like the United States must not allow the slaughter to continue.”
— Congressman Robert K. Dornan
Running time: 85 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ (DVD)
Who is the Real Jesus?
Ever since the dawn of modern rationalism, skeptics have sought to use textual criticism, archeology and historical reconstructions to uncover the “historical Jesus” — a wise teacher who said many wonderful things, but fulfilled no prophecies, performed no miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead in triumph over sin.
Over the past 100 years, however, startling discoveries in biblical archeology and scholarship have all but vanquished the faulty assumptions of these doubting modernists. Regrettably, these discoveries have often been ignored by the skeptics as well as by the popular media. As a result, the liberal view still holds sway in universities and impacts the culture and even much of the church.
The Real Jesus explodes the myths of these critics and the movies, books and television programs that have popularized their views. Presented in ten parts — perfect for individual, family and classroom study — viewers will be challenged to go deeper in their knowledge of Christ in order to be able to defend their faith and present the truth to a skeptical modern world – that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus of history — “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). He is the real Jesus.
Speakers include: George Grant, Ted Baehr, Stephen Mansfield, Raymond Ortlund, Phil Kayser, David Lutzweiler, Jay Grimstead, J.P. Holding, and Eric Holmberg.
Ten parts, over two hours of instruction!
Running Time: 130 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
The Four Keys to the Millennium (Book)
Foundations in Biblical Eschatology
By Jay Rogers, Larry Waugh, Rodney Stortz, Joseph Meiring. High quality paperback, 167 pages.
All Christians believe that their great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will one day return. Although we cannot know the exact time of His return, what exactly did Jesus mean when he spoke of the signs of His coming (Mat. 24)? How are we to interpret the prophecies in Isaiah regarding the time when “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:19)? Should we expect a time of great tribulation and apostasy or revival and reformation before the Lord returns? Is the devil bound now, and are the saints reigning with Christ? Did you know that there are four hermeneutical approaches to the book of Daniel and Revelation?
These and many more questions are dealt with by four authors as they present the four views on the millennium. Each view is then critiqued by the other three authors.
$12.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)Click here for more information
Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism (DVD)
Download the Free Study Guide!
Just what is Calvinism?
Does this teaching make man a deterministic robot and God the author of sin? What about free will? If the church accepts Calvinism, won’t evangelism be stifled, perhaps even extinguished? How can we balance God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility? What are the differences between historic Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism? Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of renowned Protestant evangelists embrace the teaching of predestination and election and deny free will theology?
This is the first video documentary that answers these and other related questions. Hosted by Eric Holmberg, this fascinating three-part, four-hour presentation is detailed enough so as to not gloss over the controversy. At the same time, it is broken up into ten “Sunday-school-sized” sections to make the rich content manageable and accessible for the average viewer.
Running Time: 257 minutes
$19.95 — ORDER NOW!
(We accept all major credit cards and PayPal.)
