If I Had Faked the Resurrection

Focus on the Family ^ | Wednesday, April 16, 2003 | Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler

[Aric2000]

Actually, I believe there is a 6th option.

Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, son of God, he claimed to be King of the Jews. AND HE WAS, through birth, and was a DIRECT descendent of King David.

He was indeed the messiah, but the Jewish messiah, not the Messiah that the Christians believe him to be. Problem was, the Romans were too strong and the Jews were not ready to revolt as they would have needed to, therefore he failed, and that is why he is a prophet to the Jews and not the messiah, if he had succeeded, history would have been VERY different.

Be that as it may, I am Pagan as well, good to meet another Pagan conservative, although, a Majority of Pagans that I know are also conservative, what else could you be?

Personal responsibility to the nth degree.

Welcome, and I hope you had a GREAT Equinox!! For all you Christians, that is Easter to you, although it is and was our holiday, before it was stolen by the christian church to fit in with Pagan beliefs in order to convert them.

BUt that little history lesson is for another thread.

[drstevej]

*** if he had succeeded, history would have been VERY different.***

He did, it is.

Jesus repeatedly foretold his death in Jerusalem. Isaiah 53 prophetically describes the same event.

Nice try.

[Aric2000]

LOL, OK, you have your faith, I have history.

Who am I to argue with faith? LOL

[Diamond]

I have been contemplating your reply for some time now.

Let me start by saying that in my analysis of your reply I cannot find therein a single objective documentary source for your rejection of the veracity of Luke on the subject of the registration or census, or anything else that he wrote. I do not see sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that Luke was writing a pious fiction. I see only conjecture, and an argument from (apart from Luke) silence.

Please allow me to address the issue of the veracity of Luke, and your rejection of the testimony of pre-eminent experts and scholars in their respective fields, such as Sir William Ramsey. Ramsey was a skeptic, perhaps similar to you in some respects, who is considered one of the world's greatest archaeologists, certainly one of the most famous of the 20th century. He believed that the New Testament, particularly the books of Luke and Acts, were second-century forgeries. He literally spent thirty years in Asia Minor, trying to dig up enough evidence to prove that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. But after his digging, in his book he states;

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

He further said:

"Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness." (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)

Dr. Clifford Wilson, another former skeptic, who, due to the discoveries that he made, concluded this: "It is the studied conviction of this writer that the Bible is ... the ancient world's most reliable history textbook..." (Wilson, Rocks, Relics And Biblical Reliability, p. 126)

Dr. Wilson, like Ramsey, says this concerning the accuracy of Luke:

"Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as the "temple-keeper of Artemis" (Acts 19:35) ... he refers to different local officers by their exact titles – the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Phillipi (Acts 16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile) – which was the title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23 ...)

Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images." (Ibid., pp. 112-113)

Wilson's statement:

"Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book..." (Ibid., p. 120)

In short, my dear PaganConservative, you have presented no documentary or archeological evidence to support your conclusion that Luke was writing a pious fiction.

"In Acts, Luke mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. And his references, where checkable, are always correct. [emphasis mine] This is truly remarkable, in view of the fact that the political/territorial situation of his day was in a state of almost constant change..." (Wayne Jackson, 1991b, 27[1]:2).

It is true that the conjectures of FF Bruce and Sir William Ramsay are NOT evidence. But when you as an expert in the field have spent thirty years digging up evidence to disprove Luke, as Ramsey did, come back and let me know what you find. So, on what rational, evidential basis do you question Luke's veracity on the historical details? If you wish to pit your opinion and expertise against the likes of Ramsey, Albright and Glueck, et al., be my guest.

True enough, on its face. So, "riddle me this, Batman": if it was not required by the Empire, why would "everyone (Lk2:3, TEV)" do it? How would they all know to do it? More importantly, why would Rome permit them to do it? Rome didn't care about ancestral hometowns.

Why then please explain the documentary evidence presented previously, namely, the Roman census edict from 104 A.D in neighboring Egypt:

"Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says: The house-to-house census having been started, it is essential that all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their homes be summoned to return to their own hearths, in order that they may perform the customary business of registration..." (See A.H.M. Jones, ed., "A History of Rome Through the Fifth Century", New York: Harper and Row, 1970, II, pp. 256 f.)

As to why "all" or "everyone" would do it:

Lexicon Results for pas (Strong's 3956)
Greek for 3956
Pronunciation Guide
pas {pas}
TDNT Reference	Root Word
TDNT - 5:886,795	including all the forms of declension
Part of Speech
adj
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) individually a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively a) some of all types ++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1243
AV - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31,      everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11,      no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6,      whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2,      any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243
Thayer's Lexicon (Help)
MORE (439 KBytes)

Word / Phrase / Strong's Search Here
Previous Strong's 3955	H G			Next Strong's 3957

------------------------------------------

You asked me for unbiased, verifiable source material, and I have listed some of what is available. You do not like the web sites on which some of this material resides. That's fine, but to assert the information is in error because of the web site on which it resides is to commit a classic example of a genetic fallacy. If you can impugn, discredit, or otherwise impeach the source material in some substantive way, however, please fire away:^) I'm all ears.

As it stand now, though, at least imho, you have presented no documentary, archeological evidence that impugns Luke's testimony, or any affirmative documentary or archeological support for your own opinion that what Luke wrote is nothing but a "pious fiction". Luke's references, where verifiable, have ALWAYS proved correct.

Cordially,

[malakhi]

There survives nothing of any Christians who denied Jesus made the claims recorded in the Gospels.

Are you familiar with the Ebionites? The Pseudo-Clementine literature?

Over the centuries, the church became very efficient at stamping out "heretics" and destroying their literature. Most of what we know about early Christian "heresies" is from the work of writers who opposed them. The original, "heretical" works were destroyed. Those that survived, such as the Pseudo-Clementine corpus, did so by pure chance.

[malakhi]

Even if only keeping their own side, that does survive to record the controversy. This one single issue would be unique if they destroyed or hid not only their oponents' writings, but their own.

How accurate do you think those characterizations are? How accurately do they portray Protestantism, for example?

[malakhi]

The point is moot, anyway, since the Ebionites (which can be documented in fact, if not in name, to mid-first century Jerusalem as part of the Nazarenes; to the Jacobian church in AD70; and with Trajan in AD96.) did deny divinity in Yeshua, and their sect is well-documented.

Bingo. Welcome to FR!

[malakhi]

"Pierced for our transgressions" has been stated as a prophecy of the piercing of Yeshua's side by a Roman spear. If it was necessary to make the early Christians believe in Yeshua's divinity, this "piercing" could be easily inserted into the narrative. No body, no evidence, no way to prove the gospel writer wrong!

"Pierced for our transgressions" is an inaccurate translation in any case. An accurate reading of the Hebrew is "But he was wounded from (or because of)..." -- NOT "for" -- "...our transgressions." A subtle but significant change in meaning, to accommodate a more Christological interpretation of the passage. This is one of many examples of questionable translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

[malakhi]

What is your authority for asserting that the cited verse applies to the Messiah? The context does not warrant it.

What is your authority for asserting that all the various other "prophecies" of Jesus apply to him? Context, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

[malakhi]

It is so powerful that some Jewish scholars are forbidden to even read this chapter.

Nonsense. Please post your evidence of this.

About 50 years later, King Cyrus of Persia (present day Iran) conquered Babylon in 538 b.c. After another 70 years, a Persian King came to power named Artaxerxes I. He reigned from 464 b.c. to 425 b.c. He issued a decree well over 100 years after this prophecy was written:

The original decree was issued by Cyrus, not Artaxerxes.

who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd,
and he shall fulfil all my purpose';
saying of Jerusalem, `She shall be built,'
and of the temple, `Your foundation shall be laid.'" (Isaiah 44:28)

However, there is one small problem. Jewish calendars have 360 days in a year (12 months of 30 days).

Another error. There is no such thing as a "prophetic year" as claimed here. Quoting from Revelation hardly verifies ancient Hebrew practice!

In our study of the different translations we will compare the Hebrew text with that of the King James Version of the Bible. It contains the grossest errors, which are, in whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible. First, the King James Version puts a definite article before "Messiah the Prince" (9:25). The original Hebrew text does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, it is to be rendered "a mashiach ["anointed one," "messiah"], a prince," i.e., Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).

The word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original Hebrew should be: "an anointed one, a prince."

Second, the King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation mark 'atnach functions as the main pause within a sentence. The 'atnach is the appropriate equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again . . ." (9:25).

By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.

Some Christians claim that there is something called a "prophetic year" of 360 days, thus shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years which they claim began in 444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the dates coincide, but the claim of a "prophetic year" is without any scriptural foundation.

Third, the King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should read: "And after the threescore and two weeks. . . ." By treating the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the 'atnach. Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks (Cyrus), and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks (Alexander Yannai).

Fourth, the words v'ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as "but not for himself." They should be translated as "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing." There are Christian commentators who maintain this phrase has both meanings, but that claim cannot be supported grammatically.

This prophecy is amazing because it accurately predicts the time that the Messiah will be killed more than 500 years before it happened.

Yes, if you manipulate the numbers just right, you get the results you want. Big surprise.

[Dataman]

What is your authority for asserting that all the various other "prophecies" of Jesus apply to him? Context, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

You were able to figure out the context of my comment and respond to it. Context is not difficult to discover. Just read what comes before. Context is context, not an arbitrary fiat of an antagonist.

My authority for deciding what prophecies apply to the Messiah is solid: The Scriptures that the Jews held to be Messianic before the Messiah arrived are indeed Messianic.

[Dataman]

More accurately, you should have said, "As I assumed before, you have problems with the Bible." You assume much. You don't know me, and don't know what I may "have problems with", if anything. I have not provided you with enough information to make judgments about me; deliberately, I might add.

Actually Remedy is correct. Here is just one of your statements that vindicates him:

Parts of your bible are not mythology, and parts are. That does not make it one of the greatest pieces of anthology literature ever assembled, and worthy of appreciation.

[Dataman]

Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, son of God,

He made such claims many times. If he didn't make those claims, all he would have to do is tell Pilate and Caiaphas that he was being misunderstood.

John 3:13- He called himself "Son of Man" the messianic title from Daniel 7:13.

When the woman at the well said she knew about the Messiah, Jesus said, "I who speak to you am He." John 3:26

John 5:18- For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

He claimed to be God in John 8:58 and they picked up stones to kill him.

Jesus also said, "I and the Father are one."

[Dataman]

Over the centuries, the church became very efficient at stamping out "heretics" and destroying their literature. Most of what we know about early Christian "heresies" is from the work of writers who opposed them. The original, "heretical" works were destroyed. Those that survived, such as the Pseudo-Clementine corpus, did so by pure chance.

This is pure fantasy. One would think that there were no pagan strongholds in the entire world that could protect the writings of heretics.

[malakhi]

The Scriptures that the Jews held to be Messianic before the Messiah arrived are indeed Messianic.

That is not really true, though. Most of the verses that Christians consider to be messianic are not considered to be such by Jews.

Context is context, not an arbitrary fiat of an antagonist.

Uh huh. Let me give an example. "Out of Egypt I have called my son" (Hosea 11:1ff). Please explain how, in its original context, this could possibly be considered messianic or a prophecy of Jesus.

Most of these so-called "prophecies" aren't prophecies at all.