In regard to the claims about the extrabiblical texts on Christ being unreliable, the fact is that they are both reliable thus far, and available evidence. You mentioned being interested in what the evidence had to say, but then you turned around and tried to cast suspicion on what the evidence had to say. The passage youre talking about, written by Josephus, is only demonstrably forged in one particular line: He was [believed to be] the Christ. The words, believed to be were added by Jerome in his translation, because otherwise, the original statement would seem unbelievable... a Jewish historian, admitting that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. However, as the earliest Arabic translations omit only the believed to be line, the evidence supports the fact that the original record by Josephus admits Jesus was the Christ. On the other hand, you have the statements of skeptics, in spite of all the available evidence, which still only cast doubt on the addition of the more flattering passages about Him; specifically, the entire He was the Christ quote. They freely and openly admit that everything else about the passage is authentic. The passages from Tacitus, Pliny, and Eusebius are, of course, based on their own research of then-existing records and eyewitness testimonies. Whether you believe it or not, the objective, accurate historical analyses have consistently demonstrated the authenticity of these accounts. Enter Julio-Claudian Histories. Theres two paragraphs in that particular collection, which mention Jesus of Nazareth. In these passages, a Roman judge was told that Jesus of Nazareth, leader of a religious sect called Christians, was guilty of acts of sedition and rebellion against the Roman government. When this particular judge went to investigate, he discovered that this same Jesus of Nazareth had been executed, eleven years prior to the report reaching him. Whats my point? Since were covering conjecture, lets take a look at the other side of the argument... For a thousand years, no matter how much opposition the Christian church faced, the one and only contention to any account about Jesus, and His life and work, was based on accusations that, somehow, every single guard watching over the tomb fell asleep at exactly the same time, the 11 or so disciples that remained in Jerusalem and had the opportunity to do so went to the tomb - coincidentally, exactly when all of the guards happened to be asleep simultaneously, risking their very lives, - rolled a huge boulder up an incline several feet, took the time to carefully unwrap Jesus corpse and fold up the linens, and hauled His body away, risking uncleanness under the Law of Moses, in spite of the fact that they were all Jews that were under suspicion by the Jewish authorities at the time; after which, of course, the body was inexplicably disposed of by any number of implausible means. Why did it take over a thousand years for any other objection to the accounts of Christs life and work to come up? Why were there no other objections, especially when every opponent of Christianity - especially the highest ranked members of high-society organizations of the time, - had every reason to doubt absolutely everything about the existence and work of Christ? Why so many of what would have been contemporary examples of evidence and eyewitnesses? Why were his closest disciples willing to be tortured and killed? Not one thing about any of this makes sense, if (1) Jesus of Nazareth never existed, (2) none of the claims about His work or words were true, or (3) the torture, execution, burial, resurrection, and ascent never happened. In short, if these things were not true - if there was no evidence for them, ever, throughout all of history, - the Church wouldnt even exist today. The New Testament wouldnt exist today. There would be no Christianity. -- Will Spike, posted to Freedom From Atheism Foundation (FFAF)
Posted on: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:48:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015