Skip to comments.Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (Help Debunk this scepticism at Easter season.)
Posted on 03/26/2002 4:00:55 AM PST by xzins
Did Jesus Christ Really Live?
by Marshall J. Gauvin
Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God -- God himself in human form -- that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command -- such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales.
Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is -- what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.
What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.
But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself.
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.
But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.
Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero.
If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!
Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another.
Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious.
His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question!
After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain -- was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose.
Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day's journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear.
The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ's public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away.
John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts "show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined.
Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.
On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?
And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction?
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.
The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived.
Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: "It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians." Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the ablest Christian scholars reject all but our of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very existence of Paul is questionable.
But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy; and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.
In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ -- that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead -- is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written.
Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world -- that is, if the Epistles may be trusted -- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!
The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.
A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth.
Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ -- the human element as well as the divine -- is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.
If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth -- a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead.
John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.
Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.
In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."
Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew -- a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.
For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation."
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."
The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government.
These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs."
"But," says the Christian, "Christ is so perfect a character that he could not have been invented." This is a mistake. The Gospels do not portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, "I and my Father are one," but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm!
If there is a moment when a man's speech is original, it is when, amid agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his race!
A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real.
And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature, could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare's wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the genius of Charles Dickens.
Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ.
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.
Replying to some of my information about faith in Christ, he sent this article and said that "myth" and "lack of historical evidence" explain away any support for the Christian faith.
I believe that the huge friendship of Christians on FR can remember details and arguments that I never could. In light of that, please assist me in witnessing to him by debunking this anti-christian article.
Thanks to all who uphold the name of Jesus.
Luke 2:2 This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone went to his won town to register.
I looked up several notes on this verse and they all seem to agree that Quirinius was possibly in office for two terms. First 6-4 BC and then 6-9 AD. This verse is referring to his first term. King Herod, or Herod the Great was king from 37-4 BC. 4 BC seems to be the year.
I see no discrepancy with this point he tried to make. I'll be back later.
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever.....
Cornelius Tacitus: He was a Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE.
Suetonius: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE.
Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE.
The Talmud states that Jesus lived in the 2nd century BCE.
Like I said earlier, the assertion that Jesus is not a historical figure or that he did not live in the early 1st century CE is held by a very small number of academics. There were just too many eye-witnesses to his life, death, and resurrection.
I still think Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict (volumes 1 and 2) is still the best reference to give to someone who denies the obvious. And the best tool to use with the individual in such a state of spiritual blindness is prayer.
The Romans pretty much didn't care who you worshipped as long as you behaved yourself. The Jews knew prophesy that a "King" was coming. They thought the messiah was going to establish an earthly kingdom, and get them out from under Roman rule. Up until the day he died, that's what his own disciples thought. They didn't understand what Jesus was here to do. I think thats one of the reasons why they left him, bless their hearts. They were scared to death for one thing, but as the hours passed, they realized their dream of an earthly Kingdom was coming to an end. It took them a few days or weeks to put the pieces together.
The Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus because of his power and the following he had, among other things. They were the only authority on the scriptures, and along comes a plan Jewish carpenter, a NO BODY, telling them what to do. They were legalistic hand washers and only perfect people could go into the temple, meaning them. Jesus wanted everyone to have access to God. The symbolism of the curtain in the temple ripping when he died, is significant.
If you will remember, there was a strong and powerful group of Jews who HATED the Romans. HATED THEM!!!!!! They were the Zealots, right? There were Zealots in Jesus' following. The Romans were terrified of them and the trouble they could possibly cause. Pilot was under a great deal of pressure to keep the peace in his area. When dangerous mobs of Zealots are screaming "Crucify him", he did it because he was afraid, I would assume. His wife told him not to do it, but he didn't listen to her.
Romans may have been civilized, but crucifixion was a common execution. Another thing this writer needs to understand is some of the "story" may seem weird, but it HAD to happen the way it did, to fulfill prophecy.
I hope Im not too far off here, because it all came from my head without looking any of it up. Correct me if Im wrong.
Among the writings of Antiquity, nobody challenges Homer's existence, or that he wrote these works. It is commonly accepted as historical fact. And this comparatively abject acceptance is based upon a couple hundred surviving copies of his ancient texts.
Now to the person Jesus Christ.
There are over 10,000 authenticated historical texts documenting the fact that Jesus lived, and that he performed the miracles described in The New Testament. Yet people insist on quetioning it.
Even Pharaoh's scribes documented tha historic fact of the Plagues of Egypt which preceded the Jews' deliverance from slavery. Yet people question continue to this.
The Old and New Testaments made thousands of predictions and prophecies. There remain only a handful of major Biblical prophecies un-fulfilled. Every other one has happened just as predicted.
Among them was that the Light of God would come into the world, but that men would hate the light, because they prefer darkness. They mistakenly believe that it hides their evil deeds, and the sins in their hearts.
And Jesus said in the book of John (Chapter 12, verse 48):
"He who rejects me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."
Let all who have ears hear, and all who have eyes see. Amen.
These inane critics can't even get their facts straight. The stuff in this article is recycled garbage from a hundred years ago. It would take hours to refute all the idiotic statements in the article like the one about the dating of the Gosepels above. It is the height of arrogance for those who, twenty centuries after the fact, presume to know more than the people who witnessed the events at the time, who claimed to be witnesses, and who gave their lives in martyrdom for their testimony. People will sometimes willingly die for what they believe to be true, but seldom will you see anyone willingly die for what he knows is false and maintain that hoax to the end. The idea that the gospels are fiction or a hoax is absurd.
There are thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence of the most convincing types that the accounts in Scripture were written or confirmed by eyewitnesses to the events.
Here is a small sample of evidence from Chuck Colson:
A few years ago, people exploring caves outside Jerusalem came across the find of a lifetime: an ancient burial cave containing the remains of a crucified man.
This find is only one in a series of finds that overturn a century-old scholarly consensus. That consensus held that the Gospels are almost entirely proclamation, and contain little, if any, real history.
The remains belonged to a man who had been executed in the first century A.D., that is, from the time of Jesus. As Jeffrey Sheler writes in his book IS THE BIBLE TRUE? the skeleton confirms what the evangelists wrote about Jesus' death and burial in several important ways.
First, location -- scholars had long doubted the biblical account of Jesus' burial. They believed that crucified criminals were tossed in a mass grave and then devoured by wild animals. But this man, a near contemporary of Jesus, was buried in the same way the Bible says Jesus was buried.
Then there's the physical evidence from the skeleton. The man's shinbones appeared to have been broken. This confirms what John wrote about the practice of Roman executioners. They would break the legs of the crucified to hasten death, something from which Jesus, already dead, was spared.
This point is particularly noteworthy, since scholars have long dismissed the details of John's Passion narrative as theologically motivated embellishments.
Another part of John's Gospel that archeology has recently corroborated is the story of Jesus healing the lame man in John 5. John describes a five-sided pool just inside the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem where the sick came to be healed. Since no other document of antiquity -- including the rest of the Bible -- mentions such a place, skeptics have long argued that John simply invented the place.
But as Sheler points out, when archeologists decided to dig where John said that the pool had been located, they found a five-sided pool. What's more, the pool contained shrines to the Greek gods of healing. Apparently John didn't make up the pool, after all.
The dismissal of biblical texts without bothering to dig points to a dirty little secret about a lot of scholarly opinion: Much of the traditional suspicion of the biblical text can only be called a prejudice. That is, it's a conclusion arrived at before one has the facts.
Scholars long assumed that the Bible, like other documents of antiquity, was essentially propaganda, what theologian Rudolf Bultmann called "kerygma" or proclamation.
But this prejudice does an injustice to biblical faith. Central to that faith are history and memory. Christians believe that God has acted, and continues to act, in history. For us, remembering what God has done is an act of worship -- something that brings us closer to God.
Thus, while these discoveries in the desert may come as a surprise to some skeptics, they're no surprise to Christians.
While archeology alone cannot bring a person to faith, these finds are an eloquent argument for not dismissing the truth of Scripture before at least examining the evidence -- because, as we are learning every day, Jesus meant it when he said that "the very stones will cry out."
Hands down...I agree! <><
"...William F. Albright, considered the foremost archaeologist of the 20th century, began his excavations of the Middle East skeptical of the Bible's historicity. But his discoveries turned him into a believer. He concluded: "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries...has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
"...William Ramsey, the foremost archeologist of Asia Minor, was schooled to believe that the New Testament was merely a second century fabrication. However, when he went to the field to examine the evidence for himself he found that the places, topography, antiquities, titles and technical terms accurately matched those of the New Testament. With regard to the book of Acts he concluded: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of it trustworthiness.""
This at the end of the commentary may also help:
For further reading:
Jeffrey Sheler, IS THE BIBLE TRUE? (HarperCollins, 1999).
Visit the Biblical Archaeology Society website. http://www.bib-arch.org
Randall Price, THE STONES CRY OUT: HOW ARCHEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE (Harvest House, 1997).
Do others out there have additional help for the basic post above?
He Is Risen!
"C. S. Lewis, former Professor of Renaissance Literature at Cambridge and Oxford and a modern myth writer himself stated:
"First, then, whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading... If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent on that Gospel... I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this."
(Lewis, Christian Reflections [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], pp. 154-155)
By the first "every" thus this idiot damns his own argument. We needn't even get into dissecting the words "independent," "reason," "experience," "integrity," and "nature." Not to mention what he means by "faith" and "science."
I suppose I'll try to plow through the rest, but if it has the same quality as this one small, rancid paragraph, I may not make it.
Faith in Jesus is imbecilic if the facts aren't true.
These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life.
Completely untrue. True, these are the canonical Gospels, which are the ones that are said to most accurately tell the story of His life.
However, there are also a host non-canonical gospels, many of which have roots that go back to the times, plus whatever difficulties that caused them to be rejected from the Canon of Scripture in the 300s. For this argument, their importance lies in acknowledgement that Jesus lived.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought.
Yet if one looks at 1 Peter, one can see as much of John in it as one can of Mark, not to mention strong evidence that the fundamental principles of Christian theology and liturgy were already well-established. Whether the author of this letter is Peter or somebody else (concensus leans toward it being a genuine letter of Peter), it was certainly written no later than the AD80s, and probably no later than AD65. The point being, arguments about the adequacy of the Gospels is almost secondary: the evidence of the Epistles shows that knowledge about Jesus was widely disseminated and the basic elements of the Gospels already known. In the case of Paul's letters, we can trace this knowledge to within 20 years after His death.
Interestingly, both Mark and Luke were companions of Paul, and Mark was also a companion of Peter (who is said to have been a primary source for Mark's Gospel). IMHO it is very likely that Paul was instrumental in ensuring that the Gospels were written down.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe.
He's focusing only on written Gospels, and his arguments as to there earlier existence are both unsourced and unconvincing. Again, however, he completely ignores the Epistles, which indicate that the most important facts about Jesus were very well established by the time Paul wrote. (And Paul died in AD62.)
Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false.
The man obviously knows nothing of what the Gospels say. Jesus could not have been arrested in public. As Matt. 21:46 puts it, But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes, because they held him to be a prophet. So, like so many later police actions, they needed to take him at night, and alone. They needed somebody to tell them when and where -- enter Judas. Note also that they tried him at night, which suggests again that they were unwilling to act publicly.
At best, this argument fails miserably.
First, the early Patristic writings solidify the case for the preservation of the NT text and its early composition, as well as the extensive usage of the New Testament, especially that of the four Gospels:
"Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s-ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) and 325 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca. 339...) Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts and most of Paul's Epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, I Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive." (Norm Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics [Baker Books, Grand Rapids; 1999], pp. 529-530)
Furthermore, we have MSS portions which push the dates of the NT books right into the the first century.
The John Ryland Papyri:
Manuscript portions of the Gospel of John, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and believed to be the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original.
"The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!"
"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these pap yrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!"
"What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognized centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism leveled against the gospel accounts (such as the 'Jesus Seminar') that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD)."
(NOTE- The preceding citations can be found at the following web site.
Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Curator of the British Museum, says
"The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text." (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship [London: John Murray, 1948], 20, as cited in McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 49)
Add to this list the possible discovery of several NT quotations found in Qumran:
"Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran... as a piece of the Gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early...
Mark 4:28 7Q6 A.D. 50
Mark 6:48 7Q15 A.D?
Mark 6:52, 53 7Q5 A.D. 50
Mark 12:17 7Q7 A.D. 50
Acts 27:38 7Q6 A.D. 60+
Rom. 5:11, 12 7Q9 A.D 70+
1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1-3 7Q4 A.D. 70+
2 Peter 1:15 7Q10 A.D. 70+
James 1:23, 24 7Q8 A.D. 70+
"... Both friends and critics acknowledge that, if valid, O'Callahan's conclusions will revolutionize New Testament theories. If even some of these fragments are from New Testament, the implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. Mark and Acts must have been written within the lifetimes of the apostles and contemporaries of the events. There would be no time for mythological embellishment of the records... They must be accepted as historical... There would hardly be time for a predecessor series of Q manuscripts... And since these manuscripts are not originals but copies, parts of the New Testament would be shown to have been copied and disseminated during the lives of the writers. No first-century date allows time for myths or legends to creep into the stories about Jesus." (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 530)
...Hence, if further research confirms O'Callahan's theories this would establish beyond any reasonable doubt the reliability of the New Testament. Even without these discoveries, the evidence from the Patristic writings and MSS overwhelmingly supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical text.
Archaeology has also solidified the case for the eyewitness nature and accuracy of the Holy Bible. It should be first mentioned that most attacks on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent archaeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archaeology has failed to furnish evidence in regards to an event related in the Bible.
This is far different from archaeology providing evidence to show that certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact, not one archaeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading archaeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." (John Elder, Prophets Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16)
"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M. Blalklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983], pp. vii-viii)
Nelson Glueck, world-renowned Jewish archeologist, concurs:
..."As a matter of fact, however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." (Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)
Internal Evidence for Early Dating
The following info is taken from my article, The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection, and highlights the evidence that points to the early composition of the NT books:
Mark mentions the high priest without naming him. (cf. Mark 14:60-63) According to the other writers, the high priest at the time of Jesus' public ministry was Caiaphas. (cf. Matthew 26:57) Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37. This presumes that Mark's audience would have automatically known to which high priest he was alluding to, affirming that the tradition underlying this gospel is very early possibly no later than A.D. 40.
The consensus of NT scholarship agrees that Luke-Acts was authored by the same person. A great portion of the book of Acts centers on Jerusalem, the Temple, Paul's conversion and his missionary activities. The author also mentions the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:51-8:1) and James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2).
Interestingly, the author does not mention the deaths of James the brother of the Lord (A.D. 62), Peter (A.D. 65-68), and Paul (A.D. 67-68). He also does not mention the burning of Rome and the persecution of Christians there (A.D. 64) or the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 70) but ends at Paul's imprisonment at Rome (A.D. 63).
It seems rather strange that the author would choose to omit such information had he in fact been writing after these events had already taken place. This seems to strongly support the fact that the book must have been written no later than A.D. 63. In fact, the apostle Paul actually quotes from the Gospel of Luke:
"For the SCRIPTURE says, 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'" 1 Timothy 5:18
Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. The second quote is from Luke 10:7:
"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for THE WORKER DESERVES HIS WAGES. Do not move around from house to house."
Paul quotes Luke and places it on the same level of authority as that of Moses' writings! The consensus of scholars agree that Luke was the last of the synoptic gospels to be written, implying that all three were in circulation at the time of Paul's writing, which some scholars date at approximately 61-65 AD. This argues the fact that Luke must have been written between 55-60 A.D. with Acts following shortly.
The Gospel of John provides several lines of evidence supporting its early dating. The first is John 5:2
"Now there IS in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades."
John doesn't say that there "was" a pool, but that there still "is." This suggests that John's Gospel was written before the destruction of the Temple, and hence the destruction of the pool itself.
John also records an incident, which seemingly has no historical value other than a recollection, which only an eyewitness would know:
"So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed." John 20:3-8
How would the author have known these pieces of incidental information had he not been an eyewitness or at least have been recording the testimony of an eyewitness?
The NIV Study Bible furnishes additional evidence for the early dating of the Gospel of John:
"The author is the apostle John...'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20, 24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise. The author knew Jewish life well, as seen from references to popular Messianic speculations (e.g., 1:20-21; 7:40-42), to the hostility between Jews and Samaritans (4:9), and to Jewish customs, such as the duty of circumcision on the eighth day taking precedence over the prohibition of working on the Sabbath... He knew the geography of Palestine, locating Bethany about 15 stadia (about two miles) from Jerusalem (11:18) and Cana, a village not referred to in any earlier writing known to us (2:1; 21:2). The gospel of John has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness- such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3). Early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian say that John wrote this Gospel, and all the evidence agrees..."
The Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie continues to say in relation to the evidence furnished by the Dead Sea Scrolls and its effect on the dating of John:
The question is now affected by the relations of Jn with Qumran* documents; these have more affinities with Jn than any other NT book, and this seriously questions the authorship of Jn. Many critics have questioned the authorship of Jn because they thought the Gospel was the product of Hellenistic thought rather than Jewish thought; specifically, elements of Hellenistic-Oriental mysticism or mystery* religion, or Syrian or Iranian Gnosticism were proposed. Even before the discovery of the Qumran documents many studies had shown that the roots of the thought of Jn are satisfactorily shown in the OT; cf separate articles on theological topics. The affinities of Jn with Qumran go far to exclude anything but a Palestinian origin of the Gospel. If this be accepted, the question of the date becomes urgent once more.
If Jn is the most Jewish rather than the least Jewish of the Gospels, it becomes doubtful that it is the latest. If it is to be dated at the latest before 70. It is probably earlier than both Lk and Gk Mt, and possibly early as Mk..." (McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible [Touchstone Book; New York, NY 1995], p. 449) (see this article for more information).
Author Paul Barnett claims in relation to John's knowledge of the buildings and landscapes of ancient Palestine that, "the archaeological evidence is that the author had minute local knowledge which, however, he discloses in quite inconspicuous ways." (Barnett, Is The New Testament History? [Ann Arbor, MI; Servant 1986], p. 64)
Noted NT Scholar F. F. Bruce continues:
"The evangelist [John] was evidently a Palestinian. Although he may have been far from his native land when he wrote his Gospel, his accurate knowledge of places and distances in Palestine, a knowledge which appears spontaneously and naturally, strongly suggests one who was born and brought up in that land, not one whose knowledge of the country was derived from pilgrim-visits. He knows Jerusalem well; he fixes the location of certain places in the city with the accuracy of one who must have been acquainted with it before its destruction in AD 70.
"The author was also a Jew; he is thoroughly conversant with Jewish customs; he refers to their purification rites (ii. 6) and their manner of burial (xix. 40). Of their feasts, he mentions the Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Feast of Dedication, held in winter, together with the unnamed feast of v. 1 which was probably the Feast of the New Year. He shows himself intimately acquainted with the Old Testament passages which the Palestinian Jewish lectionary prescribed for reading in the synagogue at the festivals and other periods of the year.1 He knows the Jewish law of evidence (viii. 17). He is familiar with the superior attitude of those who had received a rabbinical training towards those who had not enjoyed this advantage- 'These people who do not know the law are accursed' (vii.49)-an attitude expressed even by the liberal Rabbi Hillel: 'No ignorant person is pious.'2...
"John's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, beliefs, and methods of arguments led a great rabbinical scholar, the late Israel Abrahams, to say: 'My own general impression, without asserting an early date for the Fourth Gospel, is that the Gospel enshrines a genuine tradition of an aspect of Jesus' teaching which has not found a place n the Synoptics.'3 Abrahams also emphasized 'the cumulative strength of the arguments adduced by Jewish writers favourable to the authenticity of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel, especially in relation to the circumstances under which they are reported to have been spoken.4"
"The internal evidence supports the claim that the author not only witnessed but understood the great events he records. The external evidence for the Gospel is as strong as for the Synoptics..." (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Ill 60515; Fifth ed. rpt. 1992], pp. 49-50)
All these preceding factors sufficiently debunk the belief that the Gospels were simply different strands of traditions laced together at a later period. Seeing that the Gospels were already in circulation during the first generation of eyewitnesses, it would have been highly improbable if not impossible for individuals to simply concoct traditions about Jesus and the Apostles that had no basis in fact and get away with it.
F. F. Bruce states:
"At any rate, the time elapsing between the evangelic events and the writing of most of the New Testament books was, from the standpoint of historical research, satisfactorily short." (Bruce, p. 14)
He continued to say:
"The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels are not later than c. AD 60; some of them have even been traced back to notes taken out of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered. The oral sources go back to the very beginning of Christian history. We are, in fact, practically all the way through in touch with evidence of eyewitnesses. The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of this first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. Indeed, the evidence is that the early Christians were careful to distinguish between sayings of Jesus and their own inferences and judgments. Paul, for example, when discussing the vexed question of marriage and divorce in I Corinthians vii, is careful to make a distinction between his own advice on the subject and the Lord's decisive ruling: 'I, not the Lord,' and again, 'Not I, but the Lord.'" (Bruce, pp. 45-46)"
What a thunderously stupid argument. The symbolism of Jesus as the Lamb of God is apparently lost on the man. This discussion of early Christian symbolism is completely without merit.
Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind?
Yes it is indeed amazing -- and yet humanity has shown itself remarkably willing to act in precisely the manner that he claims is so unlikely. Just the 20th century is filled with examples of good people being murdered because they threatened the power of some ruthless group. This argument is destroyed by the weight of human history.
From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false.
James Burnham had a "law:" Who says A must say B. In this case, A is that miracles are impossible. To say this requires us to say B: that there is no God. The eminently scientific and practical Mr. Gauvin merely assumes this without proof. Not that he could prove it, mind you -- he simply expects us to accept without question the Gauvin version of "nature" and "reality."
Given that up to this point just about everything Gauvin has said is at best inconclusive, and more likely to be demonstrably false, his charge that there is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, is more than a little ironic.
Ditto. Well said.
I might add that I had to wonder how Mr. Gauvin, presumably a materialist, could speak of, " contradictions, ...the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous, or, of "a kind and loving man who went about doing good", when materialism provides no coherent basis for either rationality or morality. What could possibly be 'monstrous' about mere physical and chemical reactions?
Well, he certainly knows better now!
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. - I Corinthians 15:1-8
If one of Paul's contemporaries wanted to challenge him, they could easily disprove his statement that there was a large number of living eyewitnesses. One of the best validations of the historicity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ is the impact these events had on the lives of those who witnessed them. They went to their deaths rather than renounce the Truth they had witnessed.
"Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, says Calvin, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same natural spontaneity displayed in our belief in the existence of other persons, or an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is in an epistemically defective position-rather like someone who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks that she is a... cleverly constructed robot--that has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness"...
Evolution only mophing animals-matter-science/laws--reality atheist--brain-soul dead zombies are pathetic!
Be right back/more--better!
Did Jesus live? Though there are thousands of miracles from the time of Jesus till today, there is much evidence within the last 50 years that prove Jesus existence.
The Miracle of Luciano, Italy (about 800 AD) would give you the blood type and has tissue from the heart of Jesus.
Padre Pio, who will be canonized on June 16, 2002, was living proof of the existence of Jesus.
The acts of levitation and many of other spectacular miracles all indicate those who have followed Jesus for 2000 years.
Finally, there were about 1 million martyrs -- dying very horrible deaths -- in the first 400 years of the Christian Church. What made them believe enough to be feed to Wild Beasts, crucified or die other horrible deaths?
Perhaps the Acts of the Apostles gives insight -- the many healings and even raising from the dead that the Apostles performed. There were Magicians interested in these miracles at that time (also in the Acts of the Apostles).
There are also the "Incorruptibles" -- saints whose body never have decomposed. We still have the bones of St Peter and many of the Apostles. St Rita is one of the most Famous of the Incorruptibles along with St Bernadette of Lourdes and St Catherine of the Miraculous Medal.
Finally, there is the great miracle of Guadalupe in Mexico in 1531 that helped to convert the native Americans (North and South of Mexico) to Christianity. Even after the miracle of Guadalupe, there was an Indian who was dying who was healed miraculously by the image of Guadalupe.
There is scientific proof to back Guadalupe.
Finally, there is the "Shroud of Turin". The original scientific team resulted in many of them being converted because of the research.
The media, being the normal idiots they are, gave only negative information from the result, and PAGAN and LIBERAL BIAS that we have come to associate with the media (the great baby killers of the 20th and 21st centuries).
One may recognize this style of writing as being a staple of the World Weekly News -- they are experts because the author says they are. As for the various claims, we're given no means by which to test them.
Note, however, this little gem: Schmiedel says that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus. Which is to say, Gauvin's own source affirms that Jesus did indeed exist. Gauvin fails to address this beyond citing a biased source who suggests that they might have been made up. Then again, they might not have been -- he offers no facts to back the claim.
If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.
He's presumably speaking of Paul of Tarsus -- not Paul of Jerusalem. The earliest mention of a young Saul/Paul is at the stoning of St. Stephen, ca. AD35. Given his city of origin, his Roman citizenship, and the fact that he lived another 30 years prior to his premature death, one can create a quite reasonable timeline in which Paul never saw Jesus -- and indeed, in which he never saw Jerusalem until after the crucifixion.
Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus.
This is a preposterous stretch. For one thing, Paul is writing to established churches! There is no need for him to rehash Christian basics in letters meant to address specific problems in specific churches. The epistles instead focus on the Risen Christ, on the meaning of Jesus and His Resurrection, and on how that fact affects Christians and their behavior. The omission of pre-resurrection quotes is quite simply immaterial -- that part of the Gospel message can be expected to have been known already.
In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.... The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude.... The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus.
Gauvin conveniently neglects to notice that because Paul met the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and learned from Him, and is presumably speaking from that singular perspective, that there's little need for him to be talk about Jesus' earthly presence.
Still, Paul does mention enough to let us conclude that he was well aware of the life of Jesus. In Phillipians, for example, Paul says: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:5-11)
Here we have Paul telling us the basic elements of the things Gauvin says he did not discuss. Instead, it tells us two things: that Paul was familiar with the story of Jesus' life, and also that the church in Phillipi was sufficiently familiar with the story that Paul saw no need to provide additional details!
And we're apparently supposed to ignore the fact that Paul's writings are entirely consistent with the Gospels themselves.
"If the Christ of God, in His sorrowful life below, be but a specimen of suffering humanity, or a model of patient calmness under wrong, not one of these things is manifested or secured. He is but one fragment more of a confused and disordered world, where everything has broken loose from its anchorage, and each is dashing against the other in unmanageable chaos, without any prospect of a holy or tranquil issue. He is an example of the complete triumph of evil over goodness, of wrong over right, of Satan over God,-one from whose history we can draw only this terrific conclusion, that God has lost the control of His own world; that sin has become too great a power for God either to regulate or extirpate; that the utmost that God can do is to produce a rare example of suffering holiness, which He allows the world to tread upon without being able effectually to interfere; that righteousness, after ages of buffeting and scorn, must retire from the field in utter helplessness, and permit the unchecked reign of evil. If the cross be the mere exhibition of self-sacrifice and patient meekness, then the hope of the world is gone. We had always thought that there was a potent purpose of God at work in connection with the sin- bearing work of the holy Sufferer, which, allowing sin for a season to develop itself, was preparing and evolving a power which would utterly overthrow it, and... sweep earth clean of evil---moral and physical. But if the crucified Christ be the mere self-denying man, we have nothing more at work for the overthrow of evil than has again and again been witnessed, when some hero or martyr rose above the level of his age to protest against evils which he could not eradicate, and to bear witness in life and death for truth and righteousness,-in vain."
A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real.
The proffered list of "contradictions" is a case of the blind man describing the elephant. Each "contradiction" disappears when taken in context. (Not that context matters to Gauvin....)
Which brings us back to this: is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind?
Is it not amazing that Mr. Gauvin can be engaged in such a venture as this and not notice how well it fits his own actions?
In all fairness, it fits our own actions as well: there's a reason why the Tenebrae service has the congregation saying, "Crucify Him!" We're all guilty -- Gauvin's just more visibly so.
Exactly. And likewise for the first claims of the resurrection. Where were these claims first made? In one place only on earth - Jerusalem. There were plenty of people there at the time (including Paul, f/k/a Saul) motivated by the desire to abort Christianity right in the womb, and all any of them had to do to disprove the claim of the resurrection was to walk over to the tomb and produce the body. They never did, and the earliest polemic of these enemies of the proclamation of the resurrection contains the tacit acknowledgment of THE EMPTY TOMB .
Actually, having myself played the role of "unbelieving husband," I can predict that a compiled list of arguments will have no effect until he's ready to address his cherished presuppositions.
Instead, I offer the words of Peter: Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you. (1 Peter 3:1-6)
This is not a call to abject surrender on the part of the wife, but instead to lead a holy life, that the unbelieving husband may see the benefits. My own blessed wife is proof that this not only works, but that a woman need not give up her life to make it work.
The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document.
He left out the important word some before the phrase Christian scholars. This is certainly not a widespread belief. But Marshall Gauvin isn't at all interested in such nuances.
Generally, the question of whether Jesus really existed is only raised by people who desire to disbelieve. People will say something like "Well, I don't believe Jesus ever did such and so." But what is their evidence? The documents say that He did. They don't point to source documents that say He never did, so they are simply choosing to disbelieve.
I don't see why that should ever be called scientific inquiry.
Outstanding point. People demand to see evidence of the Christian faith outside the Bible. But that just shows their ignorance of the origins of the Bible. Nobody ever sat down to write a Bible and the worshippers of G-d and of His Son, Yeshua, never thought about a book called a Bible. They shared writings from eyewitnesses to help keep their facts straight.
In the fourth century The Holy Church decided that it would be a good idea to collect these documents and bless them so that the documents would be preserved for all time. So they collected whatever they could find that they could be sure were historically accurate and called that the Bible. (The Old Testament was taken rather wholesale from Judaism since the Church accepted the scholarship of the Rabbis on that subject.)
Therefore, if there were another historical document available to the church at that time that bore witness to Jesus it would have been in the Bible. The Church had the greatest libraries in the world. It is unlikely you anyone will ever find anything that The Church didn't know about at that time. If they didn't have it, we're not going to dig it up somewhere.
Now, what the unbelievers would really like is an eyewitness account of everything that Jesus did, but where the eyewitness did not become a Christian.
But I ask, is that reasonable? Could you watch Jesus feed 5000 people with 7 loaves and 2 fishes, watch him heal the blind, the sick, the lame, watch him raise Lazarus from the dead, and finally rise Himself, just as He prdicted - could anyone watch all that and not be a believer?
All the criticism of the historicity of the Gospels is only wishful thinking. John explained it all in John 3:16-21.