My response to a cynic on the chronology of Jesus' life

John Armstrong -- Jesus' doubter, cynic and Deist -- posted a video response to The Real Jesus. Above is his video and here is my written response to him. I may do a video response if I have time.

I've written on most of the points you bring up in your video on my blog and on my YouTube V-logs. I think maybe that's why you linked to my v-log in the first place.

I don't see any new objections here.

That being said, biblical chronology is interesting to me and I've come to the conclusion in the past two years that it's a key issue in solving a lot of theological debates within the church as well as apologetic battles with skeptics and seekers.

I am a partial preterist, so I think that the 70 A.D. mark is important to help Christians understand not only the book of Revelation and the Mount Olivet Discourse, but also why the NT was written when it was written and why these dates are non-negotiable.

I presuppose that the NT is correct. I admit my bias. I also reason backward in time from the 70 A.D. mark to get certain dates.

Here is one time marker for example: The Mount Olivet Discourse can't be correct unless it was given in or after 30 A.D. "This generation shall not pass away until all these things shall take place" -- speaking of the destruction of the Temple.

A Hebrew generation is 40 years, so that gives the EARLIEST year for the Mount Olivet Discourse and the crucifixion which took place that same time.

30 A.D. plus 40 years = 70 A.D.

Since Jews never entered the rabbinical ministry before their 30th year (which is actually age 29 in Hebrew reckoning) then Jesus entered the ministry at age 29 or 30. If three Passovers are recorded in the Gospels, then that would give a date of 26 or 27 A.D. when Jesus reached age 30.

So when was Jesus born?

If you subtract 30 from 27 A.D. The birth of Jesus occurred around 4 B.C.

John the Baptist was six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:36). He entered the ministry in the days of Pontius Pilate (26 A.D; Luke 3:1).

Here I think Luke is giving really specific dates. Jesus could not have been younger than 33-years-old in 30 A.D. and John the Baptist could not have entered the ministry prior to 26 A.D.

John the Baptist was conceived in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; 2:1). Here, Luke refers to King Herod the Great of Judea and NOT Herod Antipas, who he later names as Herod Tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:1).

Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.

So from this much alone, Luke's account matches Matthew's. John the Baptist was born in 5 B.C. (Luke 1:5; 2:1) and Jesus was born no later than 4 B.C. during the last months of the reign of Herod (Matthew 2:1).

This chronology matches other dates such as the beginning of Pilate's administration coinciding with John the Baptist's ministry (26 A.D.) and the administration of Herod's sons (Luke 3:1).

Now let's deal with Quirinius.

Your entire argument rests on the idea that Quirinius had NO ADMINISTRATION WHATSOEVER over Syria during Herod the Great's reign. You don't prove that he did NOT. You say you have contrary evidence, but you do NOT cite it.

However, I have in Justin at least one historical record to corroborate this.

Justin, Apology, Chapt 34: "And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: 'And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people.' Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea."

Quirinius was a ruler in the eastern Roman Empire from the time of 14 B.C. to 12 A.D. Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus, Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31). Justin's "First Apology" indicaties that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) over Judea or at least placed in charge of the census in Judea.

So Quirinius is hardly a problem if you believe Justin. He was not the "governor" of Syria, but simply a "procurator" in both Judea and Syria. In fact, the phrase "hegemoneuontos tes Syrias Kyreniou" (Luke 2:2) can be taken to mean ANY kind of ruler. The word "hegemonoi" in Greek can mean a variety of titles meaning ruler, governor, procurator, authority, etc.

For instance, Pilate is also called a "hegemonoi," in the New Testament, but Herod of Judea (another of Herod the Great's son) was the Tetrarch at the time of the crucifixion. Pilate was a prefect or a procurator, yet he had greater authority than Herod of Judea. It's no problem since "hegemonoi" is translated variously as governor, procurator, prefect, in the New Testament.

Furthermore, Roman rulers often held more than one title in a province and sometimes held titles over several provinces.

Justin records that Quirinius was a "procurator of Judea." Other histories record that this would have been while Varus and Saturnius served as governors.

Why would Luke then call him "governor of Syria" if he were simply a regional procurator? Why does he not name Varus or Saturnius? There is no contradiction here. He could have had MORE AUTHORITY than Varus or Saturnius, just as Pilate had more authority than Herod.

It's also interesting that Justin didn't simply copy Luke and call him "governor of Syria" -- he calls him "procurator of Judea." Sometimes historical accounts that don't match exactly just give MORE information not necessarily contradictory information. And more importantly, whether he was right or wrong, Justin obviously used another source than Luke -- one that puts Quirinius in the right place at the right time.

Tertullian also does the same thing in his fourth book Against All Heresies: "But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ."

Note that Tertullian mentions Saturnius, and doesn't simply copy Luke. He can't be making it up because he states emphatically that proof of the census existed.

So if we try to reconcile the various sources, we have information that Jesus was born when Herod was governor of Judea, Saturnius had been governor of Syria and a ruler of Judea, and Varus had been governor of Syria, and Quirinus was procurator of both Syria and Judea.

If all the secular dates are correct that puts Jesus' birth in an 18 month window from late 6 B.C. to early 4 B.C.

A lot of these questions about overlapping administrations are understood better if you see a map of Palestine and realize how small the area is. We are talking about an area 100 miles in length to travel from Judea, through Samaria, Galilee, Iturea, then to Syria and Abilene. Then Asia Minor begins about 200 miles north of that area.

As you stated correctly, Quirinius was in Asia Minor overseeing campaigns against the Homonadensians from 5 to 3 B.C. This campaign was waged in Cilicia in the southeastern part of Asia Minor. He would have been on the border of Syria. So it's possible to place him in Syria sometime from 6 to 4 B.C. We know he was at the most 100 to 200 miles away.

I've given you a plausible time-line. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right and that Tacitus contradicts Luke about Quirinius. At the very most, all you've proven is that Tacitus and Luke disagree and so at last one of them is wrong. You must admit that secular historians often make mistakes!

You raise several other points too, but I think those are much weaker and fairly easy to refute. These concern the arrangement of materials in the Gospels but it is well know that Matthew and John don't always arrange their materials chronologically, but are concerned with thematic arrangement. A good harmony of the Gospels is needed. I can point you to one if you want.

I think if the discussion were to be continued it ought to be on a forum such as TheologyWeb, or as a forum on our websites.

That being said, we are covering ground that has been covered thousands of times before.

Do you want to talk about the census next?

Was Jesus crucified body buried -- or just eaten by dogs?

This three minute video clip is made up of "left-overs" from The Real Jesus DVD that was recently released in December.

You can find ordering information at the link above.

I know that on the surface the title of this video clip title seems blasphemous, but that is what the post-modernists have recently hurled at Christian orthodoxy in a vain and stupid attempt to defeat the truth of the resurrection.

(And by "hurled," I do mean "hurled.")

Jesus Seminar scholar, John Dominic Crossan, who lives a few miles up the road from me in Clermont, Florida, thinks that Jesus' body must have been eaten by dogs, despite having no evidence or documents to back this up.

On the basis of Crossan's comments, I've heard self-proclaimed experts say that crucified bodies were never buried as the Gospel describes, despite having a corroborating passage in Josephus that tells how Jews often took crucified bodies off the cross for burial before the scavenger beasts came out at sundown.

J.P. Holding offers evidence to refute Crossan's thesis.

And just for fun I asked:

We hear a lot of comments from Jesus Mythists about how there is no evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus in Roman records. What about these so-called "missing Roman records"?

The Jesus Mythists think that somehow the argument from silence applies here, even though there is not one existing "crucifixion record" from Judea during the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

They don't know how common an occurrence crucifixion was in the first century.

They also don't know that Josephus' description of crucifixion closely matches that of the Gospels in recounting what happened with Jesus' body.

How many times does Josephus describe or record crucifixions in his History of the Wars of the Jews?

Depending on how you count, Josephus mentions or describes crucifixion 9 or 10 times.

Does any of this information corroborate the record of Jesus body being taken from the cross and buried?

"Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun" (Josephus Wars 4.5).

Compare this with Gospel account about Joseph of Arimathea.

"Now behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man. He had not consented to their decision and deed. He was from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself was also waiting for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near" (Luke 23:50-54).

The Real Jesus DVD

The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ

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.

This presentation 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!

Click here for more information

The Real Jesus (DVD) completed (really!)

I just got finished doing some edits to the complete and final version of The Real Jesus DVD.

I was happily surprised when I began production on this in 2005 that “The Real Jesus” has become an apologetics buzzword of sorts. Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus and Luke Timothy Johnson’s The Real Jesus are two books I highly recommend.

I used Johnson’s book as a reference in the video and I just got Strobel’s book as I was finishing up the video. I was surprised to see that the format of Strobel’s “Six Challenges” and my “Seven Myths of the Higher Critics” were so similar.

The final version is now finished! Really! The total running time with all the extras is now 2 hours and 20 minutes -- up from the hour-long project I announced was almost finished earlier this year.

The DVD just needed a few cosmetic edits (nothing the average viewer would even notice) and we even added seven minutes of a "Bonus Feature" entitled: "Who is Jesus?"

It's the best feature of the DVD and adds a lot of appeal especially as an introduction when it will be show to small groups as a five to ten week seminar. The video is divided into ten parts for this reason.

The final version is available now!

Check out the YouTube clips at TheRealJesus.com website. Then you can order it if you like what you see. The final version has over an hour of additional materials, interviews, a bonus feature and is re-edited with Eric Holberg as the host and narrator.

I've been doing a weekly radio show on Tuseday nights with Pastor Joe Dunn of Metro Praise Church in Chicago. It's a Skype-based web-cam/chat-room/radio-show with two pastors in Chicago and Indiana. A lot of diverse people show up in the chat room -- witches, atheists, nihilists, etc. -- and ask crazy questions.

I sent Joe Dunn an advance copy of The Real Jesus DVD. I was really pleased to hear his comments. He opened the show by holding it up to the web cam and saying, "I just got done watching the best video on Jesus that I've ever seen! This is the greatest thing ever! I've seen all kinds of stuff by Ankerburg and other guys like that and this is by far the best thing I've seen on the topic of The Real Jesus."

He loved the interviews with the experts, the graphics, the music, everything. He said he wished he had 100 to give away, and so on. He said he likes all the "charts" and was going to go back and study them on still mode. That, of course, speaks to me about what is needed in a future study guide, not just text, but the same visuals I used in the video.

This is a good review because I have all kind of ideas about how I want to continue. I have enough script material to do at least two more of these in the next few years. I was thinking that that there are at least 10,000 Joe Dunn's out there, pastors who are training young Christians in their churches how to stand up against postmodernist reinterpretations of Jesus and militant atheist attacks on the Bible. This video is the perfect training tool.

The big question is how to reach these pastors.

Obviously, we need to get about a dozen endorsement quotes from pastors and a few well-known church leaders on The Real Jesus -- then we need to advertise this to thousands of church leaders throughout the world.

Bible Babylon (part 2)

The Contribution of Dr. John Henry Ludlum, Jr.
Refuting the Marcan Priority Hypothesis and the Fabled "Q" Gospel

One of the theologians mentioned in The Real Jesus (DVD) is a little known linguistics prodigy named John Henry Ludlum, Jr.

Ludlum is known today for a groundbreaking article that was published in four parts in Christianity Today.

"New Light On The Synoptic Problem," Vol. III, Nos. 3 and 4, 1958

"Are We Sure of Mark's Priority?" Vol. III, Nos. 24 and 25, 1959

The article is cited in lots of places, but isn't on the WWW at this point. I am currently trying to locate copies of the article and if you know quick and easy way I can get them, let me know.

One book that cites the articles is The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship by Robert L.Thomas and F. David Farnell, which is on my reading list. You can read a limited version here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QtE1orv4Xg0C&dq

If you are like me, you can't get your hands on nearly enough articles and books on textual criticism for your reading pleasure, so I've pointed you to this paper by John Henry Ludlum. Sorry that it's 260 pages of tiff files and hence the size.

You can download the PDF file from the following link:

http://messiahskingdom.com/jhludjr/anewcomprehensiveapproachtothegospels.pdf

John Henry Ludlum, Jr. was the only doctoral candidate at Yale University to receive honors in all seven of his oral examinations. He was a linguistics expert and textual criticism prodigy. His first assignment after graduating gave him enough free time to read many of the German Higher Critics including Bruno Bauer, who has only one theological work translated into English.

He was shocked as a liberal to find out how flimsy the arguments of the historical criticism -- so widely accepted as iron-clad among liberals -- really were. They were so bad in fact, that Ludlum did his own Synoptic harmony of the Gospels and found many errors on the part of the liberal critics. He spent the rest of his career lambasting the liberals and he was blacklisted in his own denomination -- eventually founding a Bible College in Maine.

Today, there is very little published by Ludlum. His most notable work is the series of articles published in Christianity Today in the 1950s debunking the Marcan Priority Hypothesis. Many at the time thought his argument -- in embryonic form in the attached paper -- was irrefutable. I am not committed to any Synoptic hypothesis -- Matthean, Marcan or Independence -- at this point, but I am concerned that so many evangelicals accept the Marcan Hypothesis without understanding the liberal presuppositions that gave rise to its popularity.

Anyway, if you skim through the paper, I am sure you'll find a few fascinating insights even if you don't have time to read all of it carefully.

A Short Bio

Dr. John H. Ludlum, Jr. is one of those Bible scholars whose experience was the mirror image of other liberal theologians. Too often conservatives are corrupted by seminary education. Ludlum was one who began as a liberal, but as his education was steeped in skepticism, it made him question the foundation of such skepticism.

David Lutzweiler has written the following biography of Ludlum:

Back in 1951, Dr. Ludlum received his Ph.D. from Yale University and received on his orals in seven fields at the Department. of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literature the highest scores that anyone ever had received as far as they had records going back for the department at the time. (I have a copy of the department's report on his rating). At that time, of course, he was a liberal. He studied under Marvin Pope and that crowd.

Then he got a job that was more or less a sinecure, an office which requires or involves little or no responsibility, in NYC at a Reformed Church, and had a lot of time to pursue his own studies independently. He read the whole German higher criticism in the original language, and a lot of other stuff; and the more he read, the more he saw that the whole liberal position was just plain silly, not to mention dishonest. In a few years, he moved out of liberalism (or "Up From Liberalism," as William F. Buckley put it) and into evangelicalism.

This created problems. The RCA liberals could not stand up to him, because he was too good. He knew the scholarship inside out and backwards. Thus, the word went around that under no circumstances was Ludlum going to be permitted ever to teach at New Brunswick, etc.

They shunted him off to pastor a small church in Englewood, NJ.It was a bad decision on their part. That only gave him more time to study, write, and fight, which he did. I came to know him when he was in Englewood, in the middle of his prime, and that was one of the most enriching contacts in my life.

• 
  

The Real Jesus (DVD)

The Real Jesus:
A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ

Who is the Real Jesus?

Ever since the dawn of modern rationalism, skeptics have sought to use textual criticism, archaeology 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 archaeology and scholarship have all but vanquished the faulty assumptions of these doubting modernists. Regretably, 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.

This presentation 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!

For more information

The Real Jesus (DVD) now available!

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!

The Real Jesus (DVD) is available beginning today. You can now order the expanded two hour, ten minute presentation at the following link.

Order The Real Jesus

Although the DVD is completely finished, we have the DVD inserts on order. This is the insert here. However, it will take a week or two to get them in. You can pre-order the video or if you want the DVD right away without an insert, I can send it right away and will send the Amaray case later.

I am also looking for people to write reviews of The Real Jesus. If you order the DVD and write a review of it on Amazon.com, we'll be giving a free copy of Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism or God's Law and Society absolutely free. Send me an email if you are interested in this "two-for-one" offer. Then look for the product on Amazon in a week or two.

This offer is good through January 30th, so do it now. Over 100,000 people have viewed the 10 parts of The Real Jesus on YouTube. You can watch the V-log "podcast" version here:

http://therealjesus.com/

The DVD version has more than an hour of additional materials than the "podcast version" and is hosted by Eric Holmberg of the Apologetics Group. We've had literally hundreds of comments from atheists and skeptics on YouTube. So if you order this product, you'll also be helping to make other videos like this available to believers, seekers and skeptics alike. The scripts for The Real Jesus parts two and three are already written and production has already begun!

Was there really a "Massacre of the Innocents" in Bethlehem around the time of Jesus' birth?

According to Matthew chapter 2, in the days of Herod the Great, astrological portents brought Magi from the east naively inquiring about a newborn King. Ironically, this triggered a reaction from Herod that closely resembled the events surrounding Augustus Caesar's own birth.

Most liberals will say that the so-called "Massacre of the Innocents" is a myth. However, they are using the "argument from silence" fallacy. There is only one account of this isolated event in a small country that isn't recorded elsewhere. But that doesn't disprove Matthew's account by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the massacring of infants was a common practice in Roman days.

According to Julius Marathus, a personal confidant of Augustus Caesar, the Roman Senate ordered all the baby boys killed who were born in 63 B.C. because prophetic dreams and astrological signs suggested that a "King of the Romans" was to be born.

Ironically, Augustus was born on Sept. 23 of that year! Since we only have one account of this event, do we discount this massacre as well? No, historians accept Suetonius as generally reliable.

So all things being equal, Herod's "Massacre of the Innocents" recorded in Matthew 2 is not a myth.

The following is from Suetonius, The Divine Augustus, 94:

"Since we are upon this subject, it may not be improper to give an account of the omens, before and at his birth, as well as afterwards, which gave hopes of his future greatness, and the good fortune that constantly attended him. A part of the wall of Velletri having in former times been struck with thunder, the response of the soothsayers was, that a native of that town would some time or other arrive at supreme power; relying on which prediction, the Velletrians both then, and several times afterwards, made war upon the Roman people, to their own ruin. At last it appeared by the event, that the omen had portended the elevation of Augustus.

"Julius Marathus informs us, that a few months before his birth, there happened at Rome a prodigy, by which was signified that Nature was in travail with a king for the Roman people; and that the senate, in alarm, came to the resolution that no child born that year should be brought up; but that those amongst them, whose wives were pregnant, to secure to themselves a chance of that dignity, took care that the decree of the senate should not be registered in the treasury."

Is Josephus' passage about Jesus a forgery?

I get lots of responses to these YouTube videos from atheists and skeptics. One of the most common objections to The Real Jesus concerns Myth #1: “The Historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of the Bible.” This briefly mentions the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, the testimony of Flavius Josephus, the first century Jewish historian who mentions Jesus Christ and Christianity a few times in his works.

The common reaction is, "This was a FORGERY!!" or "Josephus was a FRAUD!!" But most people criticizing the validity this passage – or the reliability of Josephus as a historian – don't know too much about it. They are repeating the widely accepted conclusion that this passage on Jesus from Josephus' Antiquities may have been interpolated due to two suspicious phrases that make Josephus sound like a Christian. The consensus is that a Christian scribe may have tried to elucidate Josephus for his Christian audience.

Contrary to what you might hear, the passage is judged authentic by most scholars once the perceived Christian additions are removed. And whether the passage has been altered greatly or with just a few minor words or phrases added, Josephus' references to Jesus, James and John the Baptist are an authentic witness that validates first century Gospel stories.

I get a more than a little tired of answering this objection in the short 500 character responses allowed on YouTube. Skeptics want to believe the passage is a forgery and don’t want to go and do the research for themselves. So I wanted to briefly deal with this in a short video response. I decided to interview the well-known Internet apologist, J.P. Holding, and ask him some questions.

1. What is an interpolation?
2. Do most (or all) of ancient writings contain interpolations?
3. What is the difference between an interpolation and a forgery?
3. Are there any credible modern scholars who believe that the Josephus passage in question has not been interpolated?
4. Are there any who think it is an outright forgery?
5. What is the consensus of the textual critics on what the passage must have originally read like? How can we be certain of this?
6. What about the other passage containing the phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ"?

And just for fun: I hear a lot of comments about why there are not records of the crucifixion of Jesus in “Roman records.” They think that somehow the argument from silence applies here, even though there is not one existing “crucifixion record” from Judea during the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. People don’t know how common an occurrence crucifixion was in the first century. People also don’t know that Josephus’ description of crucifixion closely matches that of the Gospels in recounting what happened with Jesus’ body.

7. How many times does Josephus describe or record crucifixions in his History? Does any of this information corroborate the record of Jesus body being taken from the cross and buried?

“Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun” (Josephus Wars 4.5).

Compare this with Gospel account about Joseph of Arimathea.

“Now behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man. He had not consented to their decision and deed. He was from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who himself was also waiting for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near” (Luke 23:50-54).

My neighbor and Jesus Seminar scholar, John Dominic Crossan, thinks that Jesus’ body must have been eaten by dogs, despite this passage by Josephus and despite having no evidence or documents to back this up.

And on a related note:

8. What about the idea that Luke and Acts were written in the second century and that similar passages in Luke and Acts were based on Josephus (and not vice versa)?

These and other questions are answered in the Real Jesus DVD and you may see a preview of it on The Real Jesus Vlog at YouTube.

The Real Jesus DVD nears completion

We've had the podcast version on the Real Jesus done now for about six months. It's available by going to the What's New link at my website and of course at my V-Log channel on YouTube. In June, I started working with Eric Holmberg on the standups and getting some interviews with experts in history and theology to corroborate the points covered. I'll be receiving the last of these interviews next week. From there the DVD ought to be available in mid to late October.

I've worked on half a dozen projects with Eric and Reel to Real Ministries (now The Apologetics Group). By the way, if you haven't seen anything by The Apologetics Group, you should check them out.

Writing, producing and editing The Real Jesus been a long process. This is mainly due to the fact that I didn't have any video equipment when I first got started with the script. Then I got sidetracked by a couple of big life and career changes -- getting married for the first time at age 39, moving three times, starting as a first year teacher in two different schools. Finally, we got settled in a nice house in the Kissimmee/Clermont area about five miles west of Disney World. I was able to pull together a small production budget to move forward. All during this time, I told Eric about the project and tried to get him interested in being the host and narrator for the script. Of course, he is always busy with several other pressing projects.

In the meantime, I laid out a narration track and got two friends of mine from Melbourne, Joel and Ariel, who did a pro-life activism segment on MTV's Unfiltered, to do the "podcast version." Originally, I was going to release it as is, but then Eric saw it and got excited about the project. In the past few months, I've been re-editing the video with new material. It's definitely a big step up from the Internet version. I imagine that lot of serious productions start off as simple podcasts and are then produced on a higher level once they generate a buzz. That shows the revolutionary power of YouTube.

I was surprised to see that all 10 parts together have about 60,000 views to date. So it's not just a video that is being shown to other Christians. It's been interesting to note which parts draw the most viewers and the most comments. Most of the discussion generated on YouTube comes from skeptics and Jesus Mythists. I don't expect that these are people who will buy the DVD so it's a great apologetics outlet to generate controversy and let the enemies of Christ do some free advertising for us.

Here's what's left to be finished:

1. Edit interviews into relevant clips to be used in each section.
2. Create "B-Roll" material to illustrate the interviews.
3. Re-edit some of the musics tracks.
4. DVD packaging -- inserts and disc art (this is essentially finished).

Just a little bit more! At this point, I am really anxious to get it done. There are so many other projects to get to work on and this has taken most of my time. I am shooting for October 15th. That way we can start marketing it everywhere in November and December.

Time really flies when you get older. Six years come and gone since I first conceived of the idea. I am happy that I was able to accomplish a lot during this time through writing and publishing two books, staying involved with missions in an effort to reach teachers in Ukraine, and now getting started with several video projects. I am just thankful to God that He has brought me to a new threshold of opportunity.

Two Questions for the Jesus Mythists

They seem to be everywhere on the Internet. From the Blasphemy Challenge on YouTube and the Rational Responders website, to unfounded screeds such as The God Who Wasn't There, there is a small vocal minority who have presented the idea that Jesus was not a real person, but a myth.

A quick bit of research will show that the Jesus as Myth hypothesis was not formulated until after 1850. In fact, the first full treatment of the idea is not found until Bruno Bauer's book, Christ and the Caesars, which was published in 1877.

The idea gained some momentum in the early 20th century, but today even the most liberal of modern critics, such as the Jesus Seminar, do not support the Christ-as-Myth hypothesis. No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus and they have not succeeded in refuting the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Today, the hypothesis is promoted not by scholars, but by "popularizers," such as Rook Hawkins who, with nothing more than a high school diploma, claims to be a "historian" and "expert in ancient texts," papyrology and symbology (whatever that is!) and is notorious for mispronouncing big words on his Rational Responders video podcasts. Brian Sapient, an unemployed atheist activist, appeared last year on various news programs to promote his Blasphemy Challenge project on YouTube. Then we have Brian Fleming who produced a video full of ad hominem fallacies, The God Who Wasn't There, and organized a campaign to distribute copies in churches in order to defeat Easter.

So here are my two questions for the Jesus Mythists.

1. Can you name even one historian prior to 130 years ago who claimed that Jesus was not a real person?
2. Can you name any supposed historical person who was universally accepted to be a real figure, who was later discovered to by purely mythological?

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for answers to these questions. So in the meantime here are my comments.

1. The bulk of the writings of second and third century apologists dealt with attacks on Jesus Christ and Christianity. It would have been easy to the early pagan critics to simply claim that Jesus did not exist. But it was well-accepted just 100 years after the fact, that He did.
2. There are many figures such as St. Christopher, King Arthur, Beowulf, Odysseus and various legendary god-men or heroic figures who have no proven historical status. However, in these cases, the people who told their story seemed to have known that they were participating in the spinning of a folk-tale that later became a legend. And though it's debated whether these people actually existed, it is impossible to tell whether or not these figures were at least based on a true person who arrived at a legendary status after a few centuries. In short, Jesus could not have been a "myth" or a "legend" simply because the story of his life (even in the most liberal reckoning) appeared in written form too soon after he lived.

Update on The Real Jesus DVD

The Real Jesus: A Defense of the Historicity and Divinity of Christ

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.

This presentation 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!
Click here for more information

*********************************

UPDATE FROM SEPT 20th, 2007

*********************************

I am currently working on editing the Stephen Mansfield interviews for The Real Jesus. His comments on "Was Jesus a Myth?" were suitable for YouTube. I put one Mansfield clip up on YouTube last night and already it has a lot of views. This may end up in an "extras" assortment on the DVD. An entire video on "Jesus as Myth" might be a good seller. This idea is gaining momemtum among militant atheists and there isn't a lot out there to refute it simply because it is so ridiculous.

I am not going to use this clip in the Real Jesus because it's a can of worms. The old saying applies here, "He who frames he question wins the debate." In my next post, I'll frame a few such questions for the Jesus Mythists.

Strangely, I discovered how popular the Jesus Mythist position is among young postmodernists when I posted my refutation of the liberal critics on YouTube. The Jesus Mythist position is not covered in The Real Jesus simply because in refuting liberalism, the more extreme position of the Mythists just appears to be silly.

Besides Mansfield's sound bite, I don't have any other material on the "Jesus as Myth" position, so it seems out of place. I think there is one possible place it fits in, but I think it breaks the flow of ideas no matter where I would put it. Mansfield's other quotes will make up two good clips on the DVD and I will use a lot of B-Roll to cover it. His topic was to critique the sudden popularity of the Gnostic Gospels as a popular writer and historian.

I am having some difficulty knowing how expansive The Real Jesus DVD should be. With the added interviews and all the extra materials, part one is now well over 90 minutes up from about 60 minutes just a month ago. I'll see just how long when I finish the next section. I am constantly coming up with more material to add to part one and what I need to do is get this project in the can and move on to the next one. It's taken more than two years since I started editing the video, but several times I didn't work on it for a month or longer and I am doing this as a part time effort.

The YouTube cultural phenomenon rescued the project last year when I redid the entire series as a video podcast. From that I began to get a lot of interest in the project. It's now due out in November with Eric Holmberg as the narrator and host. There is a lot more to cover. There will likely be a Real Jesus parts 2 and 3. Judging just by the reaction to the YouTube videos, this is a powerful ministry for years to come. I'll soon have 100,000 views of the various parts. Even if this doesn't translate into a bestseller on DVD, it's something that can be done inexpensively and will remain relevant for years to come. I eventually forsee a three to four hour series in three parts. The remaining script is better and more interesting than part one. The main problem is going to be cutting it down to about half of what I have now. Otherwise, we are talking about at least four more hours.

There has been a special "podcast edition" of part one available since last spring. But I am not going to sell this DVD because the new version is going to be far superior. If you want a review copy however, contact me. I have several copies on hand.

The entire script for parts one, two and three are at http://therealjesus.com/. If you ever want to critique what is coming up, I am open to suggestions.

"Once more unto the breach!" -- Refuting the Jesus Mythists ... once again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q390o4hNXek

KabanetheChristian

The following is from a 14-year-old young man who has done extensive YouTube videos refuting atheism. He's brilliant for his age. I'd encourage you to check out Kabane's YouTube V-logs. (Be forewarned that he's also a theistic evolutionist. I am a creationist, so I'd like to change his mind of course.) He contacted me about The Real Jesus and has been asking a lot of questions. We are sharing information and debating.

The Jesus Mythist movement is a weird phenomenon. During my 20 year foray as a Christian writer, editor, publisher and promoter of biblical studies, I was always under the impression that even the most skeptical of the skeptics at least admitted that Jesus was a real person. The "Jesus as myth hypothesis" was popular for a brief time among skeptics in the early 20th century, but was soon rejected by even the most liberal scholars. Now suddenly in the 21st century, it's popped up again with a vengeance. Fueled by the Internet and the appearance of self-published "scholars," such as one high school graduate who claims to be a historian, many are intent on enlightening the world with the "well proven fact" that the historical person Jesus did not even exist.

Intitially, I didn't even want to give time to this idea. I put the Jesus Mythists in the same category as Roswell/Area 59 UFO believers and JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. But it's a growing movement especially among young semi-literates, pseudo-intelletual college age atheists and fervent Neo-Gnostics who have absorbed the ideas of The God Who Wasn't There DVD produced by Brian Fleming and other simple minded works of narcissism, such as Richard Dawkin's The Root of All Evil DVD.

______________________

Atheist Claims
Message from: KabaneTheChristian

Hey, I hate to annoy you, but an atheist is claiming some stuff, and I do not know how to respond. Here are his comments:

Let's lay out the facts that are available.

Writings of Jesus: none.

Contemporaneous records, such as tax receipts, or Roman administrative documents: none.

Books or other accounts written by eyewitnesses (more on the gospels further on): none.

Physical descriptions, such as height, weight, eye and hair color: none.

What do we have? Dozens of "gospels" composed by later followers, four of which were canonized into the New Testament. These were written between thirty and two hundred years after the claimed date of Jesus. But we also have references in the letters of Paul. Paul was a second generation Christian who probably never met Jesus. Most of the letters which bear his name are approved by scholars as really having been written by him. Incidental references to Christians and Jesus can be found in Tacitus and Suetonius.(**) Suetonius spells the name, "Chrestus"; either this is a confusion on his part, or it refers to someone else. ** Ref: Tacitus, Annales, 4.44; Suetonius Vita Claudii, 25.4, Vita Neronis, 16.

Suppose we use the canonical gospels for evidence of biographical detail about Jesus. Where was Jesus born? The writers of the gospels disagree among themselves. Matthew and Luke support the usual notion that the event took place in Bethlehem; while John and Mark give the impression that they had never heard of such a thing. Jesus was commonly known as a Nazarene, an inhabitant of Nazareth, a hundred miles away. When was Jesus born? According to Luke, it was during the reign of the Roman governor Quirinius,during a census ordered by Augustus throughout the whole world. According to both Luke and Matthew it was also during the reign of king Herod "the Great." The problem is that Herod died in 4 B.C.E., and this was fully ten years before Quirinius' census. Furthermore, during Herod's reign, no Roman census could have been held in his territory, which included both Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem and Nazareth. Herod would have collected his own taxes, and given tribute to the Romans. Lastly, the existence of a census throughout the whole empire is contrary to the practice of the Romans, who collected taxes province by province, often subcontracting the process to "publicans." Furthermore, during Herod's reign, no Roman census could have been held in his territory, which included both Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem and Nazareth. Herod would have collected his own taxes, and given tribute to the Romans. Lastly, the existence of a census throughout the whole empire is contrary to the practice of the Romans, who collected taxes province by province, often subcontracting the process to "publicans."

______________________________

I respond:

You have a lot of stuff here. I've seen it all because they usually regurgitate the same old stuff.
If you haven't seen the http://tektonics.org/ site, then check it out for extensive answers to these questions.

I'll answer the points not covered in The Real Jesus.

* On the Gospels being written by eyewitnesses prior to 70 A.D. Although I cover this in some detail in the video, no Jesus mythist challenges this fact: the Church Fathers, Clement, Polycarp, Papias and Ignatius claim to have known the Apostles and others who saw Jesus. They quote extensively from the Gospels and most of the letters of the New Testament. They refer to these books as authoritative, as scripture, and as written (not oral) documents. They claim to have received the books directly from the Apostles. They do not refer to the second century "Gnostic Gospels" since these were written later. If the Gospels were not written prior to 70 A.D. then these church fathers who lived at the end of the first century could not have received them as scripture nor could they have quoted from them in their works.

The demands for "contemporary" records (that is, accounts written during Jesus' life) are as unreasonable as the demands for eye and hair color in order to prove a person existed. Many people from history were not written about during their life times. Jesus was not an internationally known figure in 30 A.D. The Jesus movement was all of 120 people -- and later 500 by the time of the resurrection. Christians were initially thought of as a sect of Judaism, but as they started to grow there appeared enough literature by pagan authors to corroborate what the New Testament says about Jesus. There are hundreds of corroborating events in pagan literature that confirm the New Testament. None of the pagan or Jewish writers at the time claimed Jesus was not a real person. In trying to refute the early Christians, the Jews and pagans would have found this easy enough to do if He were not a true person. This idea has been made up in the last 150 years. No credible, credentialed historian holds this view.

The fact is that we know more about Jesus' life than we do about William Shakespeare. There are no "contemporary" biographies of Shakespeare. However, we have to explain the body of literature bearing his name and the other contemporary playwrights of his day who mention him after his death as being the true author.

The passage by Suetonius is similar to the passage by Tacitus in that either they both are reporting the same information about the persecution under Nero, or Seutonius refers to an earlier persecution of the Jews under Claudius (I think more likely) that has nothing to do with Christ. The sense of the passage indicates that "Chrestus" was a person among the Jews who instigated a riot. Either this is the case or Suetonius is confusing what happened to the Christians under Nero with this earlier revolt under Claudius. Other accounts are stronger, Josephus, Pliny and especially Tacitus. The Jesus mythists like to say that the accounts of early Christians by pagan historians don't prove Jesus existed as a real person, because all the early Christians were Gnostics, who believed Christ was a spiritual being only. But Gnosticism is condemned by the New Testament itself.

Quirinius was a ruler in the eastern Roman Empire from the time of 14 B.C. to 12 A.D. If it were not for Luke' account, we would not know exactly what he was governor of at the time of Jesus birth. Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus, Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31). There is some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the census in Palestine. Justin of Rome records that he was a "procurator" while Varus and Saturnius served as governors during this time. The word hegemonoi in Greek can mean a variety of titles meaning ruler, governor, procurator, etc. Pilate is called a hegemonoi, which is translated variously as governor, procurator, prefect, in the New Testament.

The account of Herod's death as occurring 4 B.C. is assumed by historians who see Josephus account of a lunar eclipse shortly before his death. There was a partial lunar eclipse this year, but there was a total lunar eclipse in 1 B.C. It's far from a settled issue when Herod died. If Luke records that he was alive durign the census, then from a purely historical analytical viewpoint, this favors the later year of 1 B.C.

Mark and John are silent on the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. However, in Revelation 12 we see an allusion to Matthew's account of Jesus birth. John records that the Pharisees thought Jesus could not have been the messiah or a prophet because he was from Nazareth. Jesus did not refute them in this account, but He almost never directly answers the Pharisees false accusations. This is a feature of John's Gospel. That John was familiar with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when he wrote his Gospel is assumed by most scholars and corroborated by the testimony of the Church Fathers. This is a great example of the famous "argument from silence" fallacy. It's a stupid way of thinking: since two of the Gospels don't mention it, then it could not have possibly happened.

There are numerous references to a worldwide census that occurred in 3 B.C. Josephus records this census as for an oath of allegiance. Some translations have "taxed," but the Greek word apographe can mean either tax or census. Seeing that Joseph as from a line of kings it makes sense that he would be required to travel to his birth town to swear allegiance. Some have theorized that Mary was the oldest daughter of her father, since her sisters are mentioned in the Gospels but no brothers. According to Jewish law, this would have made her the heir, and as one with a kingly heritage, she would have had to register with Joseph as well.There is a great book on all this called The Star That Astonished the World by Ernest L. Martin. It can be read on-line in it's entirety.

http://www.askelm.com/star/index.asp

The Real Jesus: Conclusion (10 of 10)

Debunking the Myths

Christians in our day do not need to be persuaded to lay aside the historical accounts of Jesus found in the Gospels, in order to find a historical Jesus. Although there is outside evidence, the greatest proof that the Bible is true comes from the Word itself.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14).

The name given to Jesus is the Word. The authority of the Word of God comes from the fact that it is the testimony Jesus Christ has given of himself:

“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true ... I am one who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me.” (John 8:14,18).

The authority of the Word of God does not come from the study of the historical accuracy of the Bible; the study of archaeology to prove the validity of the Bible; or the study of science to prove the account of creation. Instead we believe the authority of the Word because Jesus Christ Himself gave it.

The authority of the Word of God does not come from us being able to prove that it is true. The authority of the Word of God comes from the fact that it is God's Word. God spoke it; it is truth.

This approach is sometimes called presuppositionalism. The authority of the Word of God is presupposed (believed ahead of time). It is the opposite of evidentialism, the idea that we must seek to prove that the Bible is true by offering evidence. Evidentialism is not wrong; it is important to defend what we believe. However, it is impossible to “prove” Scripture using evidence from philosophy, history, archaeology, science, and other rational proofs. To do so would be to claim that these proofs have the same infallible authority as God himself.

The Word of God preached is all the evidence that a person needs in order to be saved. We do not need to “prove” the Gospel in order for it to be effective. The Word of God preached is a living and powerful sword that pierces the hearts of its hearers. While the Word preached is the only weapon of our warfare, there is already much evidence of the truth in natural revelation.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

But the truth preached, not the evidence that the Word is true, is the only effective message of salvation. Paul writes in Romans 3:4:

“Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

We should not lay aside the evidence completely. Paul preached a sermon in Athens (Acts 17:23-31), and appealed to evidences that God exists from Greek philosophy. But Paul concluded his Gospel message with this idea:

“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30,31).

Truth is revealed, not by evidence, but by the Word preached. Our problem is not that we lack understanding or need more information. Our problem is that each one of us is a sinner and needs repentance.

The Authority of the Word of God

The authority of the Bible is implied by the fact that we call it: “God’s Word.” Inspiration is the means by which the Bible received its authority. The apostolic writings of the New Testament were boldly described in the same authoritative terms that denoted the Old Testament as the Word of God. The New Testament books were called “scripture,” “prophecy,” “the Word of the Lord,” and so on.

[Scroll the following scriptures on screen over the narration in the following two paragraphs]

"Hear the word of the LORD ..." - Jeremiah 31:10

"But the word of God grew and multiplied." - Acts 12:24

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ..." - 2 Timothy 3:16

"... as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3:16

“Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.” - Revelation 22:7

"So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed." - Acts 19:20

Every book in the New Testament contains some claim to divine authority. The New Testament church read, circulated, collected, and quoted the New Testament books right along with the inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament.

The contemporaries and immediate successors of Jesus’ Apostles recognized the divine origin of the New Testament writings along with the Old. All of the great Fathers of the Christian church from the earliest times held to the divine inspiration of the New Testament. There is a continuous claim for the inspiration of both Old and New Testaments from the time of their composition to the present.

The “New" Skepticism

Of course, skepticism about the Word of God is nothing new. And there have been many great works defending the scriptures written by Christian apologists throughout the centuries. What is new to the challenge to divine inspiration of scripture are the voices of doubt coming from those within the Church. Only in the past 150 years has Truth been challenged by those professing to be Christians.

It is the attack on the Gospels by those claiming a connection to the church that has garnered the attention of the media. The fact that there is no positive evidence for the liberal critics’ “historical Jesus” does not discourage the media from repackaging the claims of the Jesus Seminar. It is startling that a small group of self-promoting liberals using poor scholarship have been able to focus the power of media attention to convince even sincere Christians that the “Historical Jesus” is the true Christ of the Gospels.

In recent years, there has been a flood of publications depicting some sort of newly discovered secret or scandalous information about Jesus. These books, and the TV programs and news articles that represent their findings, ought to be exposed as nothing more than self-promotion resting on flimsy scholarship.

John Spong, an Episcopal bishop, is a prime example of reductionist thinking on the historical Jesus. His position in books such as, Born of A Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus, is based on the recurring theme that “what really happened was covered-up” by the first century evangelists. Spong’s reading of the story of Mary, the mother of God, is that she was really a teenage girl who was raped and became pregnant with Joseph participating in a cover-up in order to protect her.

Such analysis prompted Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson to respond:

Having a bishop with opinions like these is a bit like hiring a plumber who wants to “rethink pipes.” — Luke Timothy Johnson, Professor of Theology, Emory University

From Jesus’ illegitimate birth, it is not a stretch for Spong to argue that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the wedding feast at Cana was really His own wedding. While conservative Christian scholars have dismissed these creative imaginations as pure fantasy, many less discerning people, who are nevertheless serious inquirers into the Christian faith, are led to believe that the liberals’ reconstructed historical Jesus and their version of the origin of Christianity must have a basis in fact.

Christological heresies, or errors about the person of Jesus Christ, are all around us in the modern media.

Although Christians may soon forget the books, films and TV programs of the skeptics, liberal heresy that distorts the true nature of our Lord Jesus Christ will be with us for generations to come.

That is, unless we act.

If we, the true believers of our age, will only use the resources we have before us, then we will confront the apostasy that has gripped much of the Church for the past 150 years and defeat the skeptics once and for all. We will defend the faith and pave the way for the people of God to fulfill the Great Commission.

Four Questions About the Resurrection

Hello, my name's Sam. I'm a freshman student in Mt. Vernon High School, Illinois. I greatly admire your passion to defend our faith. I think my favorite "subject" to defend is Jesus' Resurrection. Christianity has proven to be true for thousands of years and its core foundation, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, after many assaults from the enemies, still stands strong to this day. YEAH!!

Now, I have some questions concerning the resurrection:

1. I want to know how it is that Jesus has been there for three days in the tomb. Some believe that he has not been buried in the tomb for there days but less.

That’s one that some people stumble over. We have to understand that the ancients numbered a different way than we do today and they used different expressions for time. For instance, if you are 18-years-old, a first century Jew would say you are “in your nineteenth year.” They would say that even if you were 18 and one day.

Likewise the phrase “three days and three nights” is found in Matthew 12:40.

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

The Hebrew way of numbering days was from sunset to sunset. “Days and nights” does not mean a 24-hour period. The Jews counted any part of a day as a “day” or even using the idiom “a day and a night” whether it was a full 24-hour period or not.

• 1st day – Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday before sunset
• 2nd day – Jesus was in the tomb Saturday until sunset
• 3rd day – Jesus was in the tomb until sunrise Sunday morning

“Days and nights” doesn’t mean a literal 24-hour period. For instance, in Genesis it says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.

“For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (Genesis 7:4)

I can remember hearing the story as a child and wondering why the “nights” were significant. Why not just say it rained for 40 days?

Another example is Exodus 24:18: “And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.”

The answer is simply that it is an idiom or a figure of speech not a literal 24 hours. We use non-specific time references today as well.

“Can you give me just two more minutes to explain this?”

If I took one minute and 30 seconds, then was I lying? No one nitpicks over idioms that we all understand.

Further proof that this is an idiomatic expression is backed up by the fact that in other places the Gospels say Jesus was raised “on the third day,” and “after three days.”

In a strict literalist English rendering “on the third day” could be the Sunday after a Friday. But “after three days” would be Monday. Why two different idioms here? This is explained by the fact that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience and Mark is writing to a Roman Gentile audience.

"From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised" (Matthew 16:21).

"And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the