Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

Times Online UK ^ | January 3, 2006 | Richard Owen

[Donald Meaker]

The gospels were only written long after, from 70AD for Mark to 200AD or so for Matthew.

Matthew contains Mark. That implies that it was a pious expansion on Mark.

Luke messed up Christ's birth, confusing a census that occured 6AD.

John doesn't have Jesus H. Christ even being born. A much more transendental figure.

So why is the middle initial H?

[skr]

Italy must have some interesting rules about what can and cannot be published in a parish newsletter.

[bigsigh]

Thanx

[kindred]

[under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.]

Hee, hee. No one in history was written of before the authors that wrote of them existed because they were not alive to to written of(except the prophets who wrote of the Messiah God would send)! All authors lived during or after the time of the people of whom they wrote existed.
Ignorant judge.

[InvisibleChurch]

It would indeed be a GREAT AUTHOR to have created the Gospel life of Jesus as a fiction, and a MIRACLE that it would turn into such a "best-seller".

He would have had to have worked in cross-references throughout the entire Old Testament and make them fit without any slip-ups, as well.

[The Red Zone]

The name is so controversial. There seems to be a tendency to not speak his name. Only in church.

Or, when cussing.

[AnAmericanMother]

So why is the middle initial H?

Three theories are extant: (1) it stands for "Hebrew", but that is redundant; (2) it stands for "haploid", but that's an anachronism; (3) it stands for "holy". That's Mark Twain's theory (in Roughing It) and he has hands down the best discourse on the middle initial. So I think I'll go with Mr. Clemens, near-infidel though he be. < g >

[The Red Zone]

So strange this "anti-religion" mouthpiece states no beef with, say, Buddhism, Islam, modern Judaism, or the Hindus. They thus bear testimony even in their opposition that Christianity is the only religion that really matters.

[Reaganesque]

How is this not hate speech? This man is motivated not by any fundamental set of morals or ideals. He is motivated by his hatred of Christianity. There is absolutely no point in this priest trying to prove the historical existence of Jesus. Christ himself could appear in the courtroom amidst the Heavenly Hosts and this jerk would still not accept it as proof.

He, like many atheists, is in love with the sound of his own voice, is greatly impressed with his own "intellect" and delights in the discomfort of others, specifically Christians. He lives to anger others so he will not be alone in his misery. The priest should ignore the court order.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

"Do you have a source for the four Gosples being eyewitness accounts?"

Statements of the writers, or the apostles is a start. See Luke 1:1-3, 1 John 1:1-3, Acts 1:1-3. II Peter 1:16. The New Testament claims to be either be eyewitness, or compilations of eyewitness accounts. Eusibius' "Ecclesiastical history" contains information on their writing but I do not recall the specifics.

It is hard to do justice to this subject and condense it to a few comments on a thread. F.F. Bruce was the Rylands professor of biblical criticism at the University of Manchester in England. He wrote 2 very good books on the subject which would be much better to refer to than this thread. The first is:

"The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?"

It has a good discussion on the date of the writings, eyewitness source of the documents, comparison of content to history of the time and to the known archeology. There is a chapter on early references to Christ in the Mishna, or Jewish law code. The second book is:

"Jesus & Christian Origins outside the New Testament"

which includes early evidence from pagan and Jewish writers as well as from Christian apocrypha. The copies that I have were published by Wm B Eerdmans Publishing.

[AnAmericanMother]

But to be serious for a moment . . . the 6 A.D. census is mentioned in Josephus, but Luke also mentions the 6 A.D. census (in Acts) so he was aware of it also. The tally mentioned in Luke may have been an enrollment rather than a census, or it may have been while Quirinius was holding a lower or adjunct office. The evidence is by no means clear in either direction, and certainly it's not proof that Luke was dead wrong throughout.

Some scholars opine that Mark postdates and borrows from Matthew, rather than the other way around. The hypothetical "Quelle" text invented by German scholars figures largely in the "pious expansion" theory. The textual evidence is not entirely clear.

Nobody dates Matthew as late as 200 AD. That's absurd on its face, because the Church Fathers were commenting extensively on all the Gospels by that point. Most scholars place it between 60 AD and 85 AD.

[bigsigh]

Thanx, it's a subject I get interested in now and then. Most of my readings were saying that they were the stories passed on by the actual apostle, but written by a follower of that apostle or some acquaintence.

[bigsigh]

BTW I think it was historian Michael Grant who made a case for the existence of Jesus by citing the Gospels including the agnostics. Something along the line that how did so many stories get written about one person by such a diverse group of people. He said from a historian's viewpoint it was expected and not unusual that the various accounts would not be exactly alike.

[jwalsh07]

(John 20:24-29 NIV) Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. {25} So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe (pisteuo) it." {26} A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" {27} Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." {28} Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" {29} Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hopefully, the Doubting Thomas in Italy will be assessed court costs and be subject to a penalty for a frivolous lawsuit.

[Grut]

...how exactly did that Christian Church come into being?

It started with a Roman government commission to extend the life of military footware; as time went by, the inevitable 'mission creep' set in and the simple task of saving soles....

[SuziQ]

The priest should have challenged the Judge to prove that Christ does NOT exist!

[Oztrich Boy]

The evidence is by no means clear in either direction, and certainly it's not proof that Luke was dead wrong throughout.

Perhaps the judge thinks Luke testified inconsistantly

[brytlea]

Thank you for saying that. When I was going thru my skeptical but open to the idea phase (shortly before I was saved) I did alot of reading, and this is one of the most convincing things I found. Why would people who should have known if it was not true, be willing to die horrible deaths for a lie? One or two crazies, perhaps, but all of them?
susie

[Reily]

What's idiotic about that judges order there are several historical figures where absolute historical physical(or multi-sourced!)proof is quite thin or non-existent. A good example that no one would claim didn't exist is Alexander the Great. We have several semi-legendary histories with some apparent embellishments (For example did you know that Alexander went deep-sea diving in a glass diving bell. I find that to be a bit of stretch !)
I once heard a historian say that sometimes the best proof a historical figure is the figures effect on history. If one uses that Christs existence is just as certain as Alexander's !

[metmom]

Funny how the Bible, well documented and verified, is given less credibility than other ancient documents and events that have far less to back them up.