Skip to comments.Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Posted on 10/13/2001 1:56:56 AM PDT by lockeliberty
click here to read article
And may the Blood of Jesus shield you from all the tinfoil hat comments that tend to come when folk start breaking out in hives over anything religious or beyond their experience.
Done lock *grin*.Have a Good day all!
Let us pray that what remains finds its demise with the Trade Towers..
The gospel demands a change and men love their sin above everything else ,even their own lives..
Do you want to be on the Christian bump list ..I could sure use another mom *grin*
Well.... if Ronald Reagan said that, he was quoting C.S. Lewis. That quote originated with him. I think it can be found in Mere Christianity.
And Urdu, Pushtan, Hindi, etc!
A personal journey recently done down this same path, by a skeptic who became a convert.
Did Mohammed Atta?
The account was reviewed by a Medical Examiner who traced through the trauma inflicted on the person of Jesus. From the beard pulling, beating, being struck with a Roman "flagellum" 39 times, being marched across Jerusalem and back three seperate times, and going without water or food for 18 hours prior to being even nailed on the cross, the conclusion reached is that Christ was in critical condition before even being nailed on the cross.
The crucifiction account itself has no historical flaws. The thieves needed to have their legs broken (to hasten death by suffocation) because they were not bleeding from a massive back trauma and in Hypovolemic Shock. The "Blood and Water" reference in John's account is consistent with Pulmonary Edema, brought on by Hypovolemic Shock and the Carbonic Acid buidup from being unable to properly exhale.
Finally, understand that the Romans that actually did the execution were well schooled in what dead people looked like, and that the usual penalty for a botched execution was replacing the intended victim with your incompetent self. The Romans would have made sure that Jesus was dead; hence the coup de gras administered with a spear driven into the heart.
He was dead alright. See the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel for additional (gory) details...
The work of Luke as a historian is actually one of the best in antiquity. Since the Bible has been proven correct by any corraborating archeology, it is an unstable peg to hang your hat on; especially consideration the extra biblical corraboration.
You're mighty confused. There weren't 500 other people who were resurrected with him. There was an appearance of the resurrected Christ to about 500 people.
The Gospels are the main, but not only, historical evidence that Jesus lived. The historical authority of the Gospels has been verified by a slew of scholars who have examined it by applying the same tests that are used to determine the accuracy of any other historical account.
Peter was crusified upside down, Paul was crusified, Stephen was bitten half to death then stoned, while the unbelieving Paul held the coats of the men that killed Stephen. James was sawed in half. I would never go through that for a lie, no one would, what would be the point? If these men really believed they were supporting a lie, then they would be well aware that this life is all they get of life and would cling to it. The very manner of their deaths are a testimony to their unshakeable belief in the ressurection of Jesus.
Did Mohammed Atta?
You're missing the point. Mohammed Atta was lied to. If the Apostles died for a lie, it was they themselves who were doing the lying.
That's beyond my limited capabilities. Do not computers have the capability to translate?
thanks for your response.
That is actually one of the easiest contentions to prove. There is secular Roman documents that mention Jesus and I would be happy to provide a link if you desire.
There most certainly is. Frankly, I doubt you even read the article. If you had, you would have attacked the historical evidence instead of claiming there isn't any.
The evidence of Jesus' life is the fact that Chistianity got started. In Jerusalem at the time the movement started, there were many people who had either seen or not seen the events happen. The apostles would have been laughed at had there been no such person as Jesus. As noted in the article above, the earliest Jewish polemics presuppose Jesus' tomb was empty by saying that the disciples removed the body. That they say there was a body in the first place means that the earliest enemies of Christianity, who had seen the events themselves and cannot be accused of making stuff up to support the very people they were killing, say Jesus existed. Should I believe them, or you?
The article also explains why, not only did Jesus have to have lived, he had to be resurrected. I'll go further and add that He had to fit the requirements for the Messiah, several of which he could not have faked. They include his own execution.
Yet you made an argument as if the points in it had never been made. If you read it, you just made your standard reply.
The author attempts to build his case strictly on biblical sources
And there's nothing wrong with that.
none of the writers of the New Testament were even alive at the time that Jesus allegedly lived.
Any proof of that?
Certainly someone who had done as much as Jesus did would have earned at least a footnote in non-biblical sources besides the passing reference made by Josephus.
That's an unwarrented asumption.
Pagan resurrecting god/men were common mythical characters dating to Sumerian times. There is no "historical fact" known about Jesus Christ that was not a part of some previous pagan myth. All the miracles, parables, and important events of the gospels are from stories told of previous god/men.
The Christian sect of Judaism was the creation of educated Alexandrian Jews who were steeped in the culture of the Greeks. They melded a popular Pagan Resurrecting god/man myth with the Jewish Messiah concept. The Jews for the most part weren't interested because they wanted their Messiah to be a military conqueror not a spiritual savior. Instead, Christianity found its most enthusiastic followers from among the uneducated slaves and disenfranchised commoners of Rome. The rise of literalist scriptural Christianity was attended in large measure by roving mobs of ignorant fanatical zealots whose primary task was the practically complete destruction of Pagan civilization. They also destroyed Gnostic Christianity in the process. You may have recently noticed that this is the characteristic attitude of certain present day religious fanatics toward Western Civilization.
Lazarismus, as it is called today, is a disease resulting from the consumption of garbanzo beans as the principle ingredient in one's diet. The effect after some weeks of this diet is to render the victim almost completely paralyzed. This was not historically uncommon in the middle east and recently occurred to large numbers of people in P.O.W. camps in that part of the world during WWII. Lazarus' medical chart, had he been visited by a competent modern day physician, would probably indicate a pathological preference for humus.
At least four, and possibly up to nineteen (depending on whether or not they were all in on the entire plan) chose to die for a lie on 9/11. So much for that argument.
The reference by Josephus was a later addition to his writings by a Christian forger. This has been proven by comparing Josephus' writing style with the obviously anachronistic grammar used by the forger in the early copies where the forgery occurred. The earliest copies do not include the reference to Jesus. In addition the reference is out of place with respect to the narrative and was obviously inserted without much thought.
"Objective" meaning anti-Christian. Instead of simply refering me somewhere else, why don't you make the arguments yourself?
Relying exclusively on the self referential scriptures of any religion for the validation of its historical authenticity is commonplace among the believers.
Christianity obviously got started somewhere. You assert(with no proof whatsoever) that it was invented in Egypt. I could take that on faith, but I won't. The early Christians were often killed for their beliefs. Would you suffer and die for a belief you knew to be false because you invented it? If it were invented in Egypt, they'd have a problem: everyone in Jerusalem would know it was total bunk. Not only that, but some people, such as traveling merchants, would have been there at the time and been in Egypt when Christianity was invented. If it started too late for witnesses to confirm or deny, that in itself would be a problem, because if it were true there would already be Christians. The lack of Christians would ruin the whole thing.
If something like the story in the Gospel didn't happen, there'd be no Christians and thus no Scriptures.
The rise of literalist scriptural Christianity was attended in large measure by roving mobs of ignorant fanatical zealots whose primary task was the practically complete destruction of Pagan civilization.
You're projecting your image of modern fundamentalists, with coloration provided by Islamists, on to ancient Christians. It doesn't fit. Classical civilization was destroyed by geopolitical events, and such of it as did survive was saved by Christians. In the East it didn't fall at all, it simply evolved into a new form(which was destroyed by Turks).
Your argument's been raised already, and answered. You might die for a lie that you believe, but if you are yourself the liar, almost certainly you won't. There might be situations it could happen ("The judge said, 'Son, what is you alibi? If you were somewhere else then you won't have to die.' I said not a word, though it meant my life, for I had been in the arms of my best friend's wife." Long Black Veil, Dave Matthews Band) but not with so many people.
So much for that.