Posted on 04/16/2003 6:36:15 PM PDT by Remedy
I set out as a young man to debunk Christianity. I met a young Christian woman who challenged me to intellectually examine the evidence for Christianity, and I accepted her challenge. I aimed to show her-and everyone-that Christianity was nonsense. I thought it would be easy. I thought a careful investigation of the facts would expose Christianity as a lie and its followers as dupes.
But then a funny thing happened. As I began investigating the claims of Christianity, I kept running up against the evidence. Time after time, I was surprised to discover the factual basis for the seemingly outlandish things Christians believe. And one of the most convincing categories of evidence I confronted was this: The resurrection accounts found in the Gospels are not the stuff of fable, forgery or fabrication.
I had assumed that someone, or several someones, had invented the stories of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. But as I examined those accounts, I had to face the fact that any sensible mythmaker would do things much differently from the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did in recording the news of the resurrection. As much as I hated to, I had to admit that if I had been some first-century propagandist trying to fake the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have done a number of things differently: I would wait a prudent period after the events before "publishing" my account.
Few historians dispute the fact that the disciples of Jesus began preaching the news of His resurrection soon after the event itself; in fact, Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) occurred within 50 days of the Resurrection. And textual research indicates that the written accounts of the Resurrection, especially the creedal statement of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, are astoundingly early in origin, possibly within two years of the event. Such early origins argue against any notion that the Resurrection accounts are legendary. I would publish my account far from the venue where it supposedly happened.
Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "One of the most amazing facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was that it originated in the very city where Jesus was crucified. The Christian faith did not come to exist in some distant city, far from eyewitnesses who knew of Jesus' death and burial. No, it came into being in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified, under the very eyes of its enemies." I would select my "witnesses" very carefully.
I would avoid, as much as possible, using any names at all in my account, and I would certainly avoid citing prominent personalities as witnesses. Yet at least 16 individuals are mentioned by name as witnesses in the various accounts, and the mention of Joseph of Arimathea as the man who buried Jesus would have been terribly dangerous if the gospel accounts had been faked or embellished. As a member of the Sanhedrin, a Jewish "Supreme Court," he would have been well-known. J. P. Moreland writes, "No one could have invented such a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case."
His involvement in the burial of Jesus could have been easily confirmed or refuted. Perhaps most important, I would avoid citing disreputable witnesses, which makes significant the record of Jesus' first appearances-to women-since in that time and culture women were considered invalid witnesses in a court of law. If the accounts were fabrications, the women would never have been included in the story, at least not as first witnesses. I would surround the event with impressive supernatural displays and omens.
As Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide writes, "We do not read in the first testimonies [of the Resurrection] of an apocalyptic spectacle, exorbitant sensations, or of the transforming impact of a cosmic event. . . . According to all New Testament reports, no human eye saw the resurrection itself, no human being was present, and none of the disciples asserted to have apprehended, let alone understood, its manner and nature. How easy it would have been for them or their immediate successors to supplement this scandalous hole in the concatenation of events by fanciful embellishments! But precisely because none of the evangelists dared to 'improve upon' or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels also gains in trustworthiness." I would painstakingly correlate my account with others I knew, embellishing the legend only where I could be confident of not being contradicted.
Many critics have pointed out the befuddling differences and apparent contradictions in the Resurrection accounts. But these are actually convincing evidences of their authenticity; they display an ingenuous lack of collusion, agreeing and (apparently) diverging much as eyewitness accounts of any event do. I would portray myself and any co-conspirators sympathetically, even heroically.
Yet the Gospel writers present strikingly unflattering portraits of Jesus' followers (such as Peter and Thomas) and their often skeptical reactions (Mark 16:11, 13; Luke 24:11, 37; John 20:19, 25, 21:4). Such portrayals are very unlike the popular myths and legends of that (or any) time. I would disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account.
If I were creating a resurrection legend, I would keep the tomb's location a secret to prevent any chance that someone might discover Jesus' body, or I would record in my account that the angels sealed it or carried it off into heaven after the Resurrection. Or I might have taken the easiest course of all and simply made my fictional resurrection a "spiritual" one, which would have made it impossible to refute even if a body were eventually discovered. But, of course, the Gospel accounts describe the owner of the tomb (Joseph of Arimathea) and its location ("At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb," John 19:41), and identify Jesus' resurrection as a bodily one (John 20:27). I would try to squelch inquiry or investigation.
I might pronounce a curse on anyone attempting to substantiate my claims, or attach a stigma to anyone so shallow as to require evidence. Yet note the frequent appeal of Jesus' disciples, to the easily confirmed-or discredited-nature of the evidence, as though inviting investigation (Acts 2:32, 3:15, 13:31; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6). This was done within a few years of the events themselves; if the tomb were not empty or the Resurrection appearances were fiction, the early Christians' opponents could have conclusively debunked the new religion.
As Dr. Edwin Yamauchi says of the citation of the resurrected Christ appearing to more than 500 people in 1 Corinthians 15, "What gives special authority to the list [of witnesses] as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' " I would not preach a message of repentance in light of the Resurrection.
No one in his right mind would have chosen to create a fictional message that would invite opposition and persecution from both civil and religious authorities of those days. How much easier and wiser it would have been to preach a less controversial gospel- concentrating on Jesus' teachings about love, perhaps-thus saving myself and the adherents of my new religion a lot of trouble. I would stop short of dying for my lie.
Lee Strobel has written, "People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.
"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the resurrection had happened."
•••
These are not the only reasons I believe in the truth of the Bible and the reality of the Resurrection. But these were among the "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3) that I encountered in my attempts to prove Christianity wrong, which eventually led me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be and that He really did rise from the dead. It didn't happen immediately, but eventually I gave in to the truth, and on Dec. 19, 1959, the Risen Christ radically changed my life. I've seen Him do the same for countless others, and I pray, if you haven't done so already, you will let Him do the same for you.
Josh McDowell is a speaker, author, and traveling representative for Campus Crusade for Christ. His books include Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Than a Carpenter, and The New Tolerance. He was assisted in writing this article by Bob Hostetler, an award-winning writer who lives in Hamilton, Ohio.
This article appeared in Focus on the Family magazine.
Copyright © 2000 Josh McDowell.
All rights reserved.
The problem is when the Aramaic and the Hebrew texts are translated into Greek, some mistranslations may be accidental, but some are purely deliberate. A deliberate one:
Isaiah 7:14 from the Tanakh (Jewish Bible from the Hebrew text)
Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
How did we go from “Young Woman” in the Old Testament to “Virgin” in the New Testament in quoting the same verse?
The word "HaAlmah" (which is in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Bethulah."
The Hebrew word “HaAlmah” was purposefully mistranslated by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, as “Bethulah” in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek.
According to the King James Version (KJV) the verses says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin" which came from the Hebrew word "almah." Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not virgin.
Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians? The Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin.
Some scholars further allege that "shall conceive" should have been translated as "is with" child which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time.
Other critics of Christianity's claim note that "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means “has Conceived." They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English.
The Jews, contrary to false tradition, did not translate the Prophets or the Writings into Greek. The Rabbis only translated the Torah. This means that Alexandrian Jews or non-Jews translated the rest of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek much later and the Rabbis from Palestine had nothing to do with it. This explains why pagan traditions crept into the text and the translation.
The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures chose another word in place of “almah-young woman” which conveyed a completely different idea... ”parthenos-virgin.”
71 Rabbis translated the Torah; yet it was not they who translated the sefer naviim (book of prophets)! It was the result of Essene (proto-Christians) authors who translated sefer naviim from Hebrew into the language of the pagans. When the Christian bible was translated to Latin, the mistake was intentionally kept in, even though the original Hebrew text was still available!
Not that it matters, because this isn't even a Messianic prophecy! Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and according to Luke 1:31 was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.
Incidentally, one version of the bible has made the proper correction to Isaiah 7:14: (although they have left the mistranslation in Luke) lol
Isaiah 7
14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
(Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].) Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1.
321 AD falls into the area of 'the first few centuries AD' (per your post), does it not??? The pagan sun worship WAS BROUGHT INTO THE CHURCH DURING THE FIRST FEW CENTURIES!!! lol
Oh, and for what it's worth, those fulfilled prophecies, by the church, pertaining to the changing of the Sabbath and the calendar, those prophecies pertain to .....
THE BEAST!!!!
I don't see how you could possibly reach this conclusion. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. You want to hang your whole argument upon the word probably? For that matter, why should this author be held as more authoritative than Gibbon, or Gibbon's source Orosius?
Your assertion that the Christians burned the library is without merit.
Nonsense. Your disregard of the facts is noted.
From the Egyptian government's official Bibliotheca Alexandrina web site:
The “Daughter Library” survived till the end of the fourth century. A decree by Emperor Theodosius in 391 AD forbade non-Christian (pagan) religions. Theophilus (the Bishop of Alexandria from 385 to 412 AD) destroyed the Serapeum and its “Daughter Library” as being the house of pagan doctrine. Scholars survived for another generation till the murder of Hypatia in 415 AD and the end of the era of Alexandrian scholarship. In 415 A.D., the Christian historian Orosius visited Alexandria and reported: “There are temples nowadays, which we have seen, whose bookcases have been emptied by our men. And this is a matter that admits no doubt” (Orosius 6.15.32). His statement confirms that the library never existed since the fifth century. This was over two centuries before the Arab conquest to Egypt in 642 A.D.
In the book of the prophet Daniel, the false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law — including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25).
For this example let's focus on verse 25:
Daniel
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
The biblical calendar has been around since the beginning. It was given to all mankind. The Babylonians used it. When the exile ended the Jews brought it with them. This is why the Jewish calendar has Babylonian names for the months. But, the papacy changed all that with the introduction of the Julian calendar, which was later revised and became the Gregorian calendar.
The days of the week were named as follows: Sunday was originally named afted the Sun; Monday was originally named after the Moon and was called Moonday, which evolved into Monday over time. The next day was originally named Mars Day after the Roman warrior god, but was later changed to Tiu's Day for the Teutonic warrior god. It later evolved into Tuesday as we know it today. Wotan's Day was named for the Roman god of peace, but it was later changed to Woden's Day after a Teutonic god. This day later evolved into our present day called Wednesday. Notice how the "e" and the "n" somehow got transposed over the years. Thursday was originally called Jupiter's Day, named after the Roman god of thunder and lightning. It later got changed to Thor's Day, named after the ancient god of thunder. Finally, it evolved into its present-day name. Venus' Day was the fifth day of the week, named after the Roman goddess who symbolized Spring. This name was changed to Frigg's Day after the Scandinavian Love goddess. The name finally evolved into Friday. Saturday has hardly been changed as it began as Saturn's Day, named after the Roman god of the harvest. Of course, it evolved over the years into our modern day Saturday.
Exodus 12
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying,
2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
This was commanded by God to Moses at the time of the Passover, which always comes in spring. Under the Gregorian calendar, the New Year is changed and is no longer in the spring as God commanded.
In accordance with its ancient beginnings (right from The Seven Days Of Creation when light was created after the darkness), Bible calendar days were, and are, determined to begin and end at sunset e.g "from evening to evening shall you keep your sabbath" (Leviticus 23:32 )
(Book of Genesis)
Chapter 1
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Book of Leviticus) Chapter 23
32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
Passover was changed to Easter and of course the Sabbath was changed to SUN day. That, along with starting the "day" at midnight, made their "change of times and seasons" complete.
The Bible calendar is a very simple and natural means of keeping time. Although today commonly known as the "Jewish calendar," it actually long predates the Jewish people. God Himself gave it to all humanity. It uses His earth and His heavens as a great clock that can always be counted on - the earth keeps on rolling, and the moon always goes around.
Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the God of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39).
The Sabbath was changed, not by God, but by man.
Synopsis:
In the book of the prophet Daniel, the false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law — including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8,
Passover was changed to Easter and of course the Sabbath was changed to SUN day. That, along with starting the "day" at midnight, made their "change of times and seasons and Law" complete.
LOL! Give you evidence but ignore the primary source documents? I'll give you a source or two if you agree that producing a source hostile to Christianity that admits His miracles is proof of His miracles. Will you admit that?
Of course there is external evidence and even the most superficial search would have revealed that to you. Not even the liberals doubt the existence of Christ.
Yes. It contains eyewitness accounts and is therefore a primary source document.
It is unverifiable
Unverifiable? Your ilk claimed there was no such high priest as Caiaphas-- until his bone box was unearthed. Your ilk claimed there was no such person as Pilate until an inscription in stone was discovered with his name on it. And recently, an ossuary was found that had a verified genuine inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" on it. The times, places, people and events of the NT are constantly being verified. Acts was likely a legal document prepared for Paul's legal team in his defense. It is packed with verifiable people, places and events.
subject to translation error
Wrong. It is subject to distortion by cultists such as JWs but there are over 25000 NT manuscripts, some of which date back to the 1st century (p52 for example). Transcriptional error is a mere two tenths of one percent. That is absolutely amazing for 25k copies by hand.
Do you know which ancient document has the second most copies of mss? Homer's Odyssey. It has 600 copies. There is nothing in all antiquity that is as well established as the NT. Nothing in all antiquity has been as scrutinized as the NT. There are no errors in the NT. FR has had several threads on the errors supposedly found in the NT and not one of the alleged errors can be proven. They are all alleged and often in ignorance.
deliberate falsification
That is your claim and you would have to support it if it is to be anything more than your subjective opinion. I've presented showing why it was not falsified.
In fact, your compatriot Diamond disproved Luke earlier, which throws the entire Pauline canon into question.
LOL! You think quite highly your abilities. You may have made a noise, but not a case.
Trying to be coy, by only offering your source material if I play some word game with you, does not do credit to your cause, or your religion. Provide your evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.
So far, none of the objections removed have made a difference to you and you have avoided my question indicating that you are prepared to reject all external evidence as well.
On the eve of Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover. The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a.
And again I tell you that Luke never claimed that all Roman subjects had to leave their homes and register. You asked me then why "everyone" did it, and I replied with a reference from Strong's exhaustive concordance indicating that "all" can and often is used in the N.T. as denoting members of a particular class. I did not actually state this explicitly, however, because I wanted to leave it to you to note it for yourself. I thought you had explicitly agreed with me that the text does not state that all Roman subjects had to leave their homes and register, so I have to confess that I am completely mystified as to why you state it again here .
The claim of an Augustinian registration is neither supernatural or extraordinary. I have simply asked for demonstrative (not mere conjecture or speculation, as fine as those might be) evidence that would tend to controvert even a single historical claim of Luke. In light of the complete absence of such data I see no reason to adopt the position that an historical reference from someone who has been proven time and time again to be correct about such details should be presumed false in the absence of present independent confirmation of one or two anachronistically particular evidential requirements. I see no valid principle of historical interpretation that would not allow such a document the benefit of the doubt about such details.
Please note that a plethora of historical facts does not make something non-fiction. For example, Tom Clancy writes very detailed fiction, with more historical and technical details than any other modern fiction writer. Almost all of the places in his books are real; most of the technical details of military and political activities are accurate, as well. However, that does not make Jack Ryan the *real* President of the United States.
Duly noted, and true enough, as far as it goes. You have correctly acknowledged that Luke wrote with many accurate details. Yet to interpret Luke's writing in light of, or as comparable to the modern fiction genre of a Tom Clancey is historically anachronistic and improper. I agree with you that our controversy hinges on a standard of evidence, and thus I am compelled to ask you again for the authority behind your proposition that presumption of doubt about historical details is required in the historical evaluation of a document by an author who has been proven correct about such mundane details time and time again.
I also agree with you that that attention to detail and the inclusion of factual places, politicians, and events does not necessarily make the whole of some writing non-fiction. Yet, if you have clear and convincing demonstrative evidence that would tend to controvert Luke about such details even once, you will have me over a barrel:^)
Cordially,
Cordially,
An interesting tidbit:
Religious differences made several states retain the Julian calendar. Germany did not adopt the Gregorian until 1700, Great Britain until 1752, Russia until 1918.
Deuteronomy 12:32
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.