1

Joe: Thanks for the 60-second review. You know, when I last read over the manuscript, I began to wonder about the Da Vinci Code stuff. If the book gets a second edition, I might tone it down a bit.

2

Not having read the little book, I can't comment on the content.

But, it's funny that I was just reading a chapter (chapter 12 "Can We Trust The Gospels?) in John Drane's Book "Introducing the New Testament."

Drane quotes Rudolf Bultmann in 1934 who said "I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus."

Drane then list some reasons why we should trust the Gospels and he summarizes by saying "Taken overall, facts such as these seem to suggest that, at the very least, the burden of proof must be with those who wish to deny the accuracy of the gospel account of Jesus, rather than with those who wish to assume that the gospels preserve a generally authentic picture of Jesus as he actually was."

I personally believe the Bible is the word of God and thus is infallable. If I trust God, I trust the gospels. If I don't trust God, I don't trust the gospels.

I'm a very imaginative person but I can't begin to imagine how the Christian religion would exist without gospels that at least some of us would or could trust.

Love
David

3

"Taken overall, facts such as these seem to suggest that, at the very least, the burden of proof must be with those who wish to deny the accuracy of the gospel account of Jesus, rather than with those who wish to assume that the gospels preserve a generally authentic picture of Jesus as he actually was."

And therein lies the bread and butter of religionist con artistry. That those who do not believe in the Gospel must be the ones to be made to explain why they doubt its veracity...as if the Gospel's so called accuracy was an established demonstrable fact when nothing could be further from the truth. we dont even know who wrote them and what qualifications they possessed to write them. We do know that the gospels contradict each other on some points AND that they were VOTED the word of god in a POLITICAL ASSEMBLY...hell,there isent even any evidence that there ever was a Jesus to begin with,not to mention that they relate magical events that would be rejected out of hand if they were ever presented as explanation in any court of law...events that no living human beings have ever observed....so you want a reason to doubt the Gospel?...they re absurd...thats all the reason you need...of course,if we intend to redefine what absurdity is to the point where the gospels are to be considered beyond all doubt,there would be no further reason for anyone to doubt that the epics of gilgamesh are in fact,"gospel" truth...they do after all contrain the very first "great flood" legend ever written.

4

"hell,there isent even any evidence that there ever was a Jesus to begin with"

That's all I need to dismiss this person as an un(der?)-educated fringe lefty.

5

Whoa, ChrisB
Who or what evidence told you to label Ludwig a "fringe lefty?" I'm a liberal and proud of it and for you to assume that Ludwig is a "fringe lefty" just because he's (she's?) written something you don't like, or that she's (he's) against God, well, does that make you a "conservative nutcase?" Not to me, but do you get the idea of what I'm complaining about?
I believe part of the problem in this country is that those on the right (in my experience) are too quick to blame anything bad (in their opinion) on "liberals and liberalism" thus demonizing something really good that they probably don't know anything about.
So, ChrisB, lay off the "lefty" labels, okay? Stop putting people into little mean colored boxes just because you disagree with them.

BTW. Ludwig was disagreeing with something I had written (or passed on...it wasn't me that wrote it, but it was me that quoted it.) Now, logically, since I'm a liberal, perhaps you had reason to call her (him?) a "fringe righty!"

And Ludwig, that's NOT the problem. Belief in the Gospels is faith. I believe them to be true. Thus if you wish to prove my FAITH wrong you must prove the gospels wrong. This is not a scientific argument, where I submit a paper and stand by the proof. Faith is not a provable substance. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." But then you're not going to believe that, since it's in the Bible.
Science ain't faith and faith ain't science, as they say and boy am I glad!

Love
David

6

Ludwig's comments are fair. I think his points deserve to be addressed:

1. Why should Gospel skeptics bear the burden of proof rather than Gospel advocates?

2. What evidence is there that Jesus historically existed (I think I already know the answer to this but present it! Don't just turn your nose at him and declare yourself to be more educated!).

7

Joe: "While I knew a scholar of Mark Roberts' caliber could convince skeptics the Gospels are reliable, I never expected to have my own preconceptions uprooted and replaced with a more solid trust in these biblical texts."

How many skeptics do you really think will be convinced by this book? Aren't these books really just intended to shore up the faith of the wavering Christian?

I haven't read this one yet, but I've read the Strobel books and found them quite unconvincing. Perhaps Roberts does a better job.

8

Great site! Please consider adding a link to the Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen for free to 25 of Americas top Talk Shows via Streaming Audio!
http://netradionetwork.com

9

"AND that they were VOTED the word of god in a POLITICAL ASSEMBLY"

Then again maybe dealing with the Da Vinci stuff remains important if it remains the source material for such risible historical ignorance.

The writing, collection, and canonical recognition for the New Testament texts has been studied and debated and documented in a veritable library of books from scholars who span the theological spectrum. The process took a few centuries and was not on the agenda of any of the early church councils that hammered out the creedal formulations that define orthodox Christianity.

Your purported political assembly never took place.

The historical evidence for Jesus has been presented in several mock trials bound by the same rules of evidence and procedures used in actual courts and have uniformly decided in favor of the gospel's historicity.

As a formal and disciplined student of Scriptures for several years I find discrepancies between Gospel accounts but no contradictions. Once one allows for translation choices (that inherently involve some interpretation),the theological purposes and emphases of the writers and their intended readers that determine their presentation, and the cultural and historical backgrounds that inhibit modern understanding, we are left with only such minor variations in details that contribute to a fully dimensioned historical whole. The contradictions that critics contend for, and can so poorly adduce, betray an unfamiliarity with the material.

10

"The historical evidence for Jesus has been presented in several mock trials bound by the same rules of evidence and procedures used in actual courts and have uniformly decided in favor of the gospel's historicity."

Is that so? barring that these were probably assembled by christian believers and thus completely biased to begin with,excatly which of these mock trials established the historicity of biblical "poof" magic and how? what evidence was presented that established the veracity of claims that dead corpses can be returned to life? that a single fish can be transformed into hundreds of baskets of fish? that water can spontaneously turn into wine? I d certainly be interested in reading the transcript of these mock trials in which such absurd claims somehow became historicaly accurate. And i would also rehiterate that if we are to loosen the standard of critical analysis to the point where the Gospels go from fiction to fact,are we also then prepared to accept the epics of Gilgamesh as historicaly accurate?

11

Though I would hope my book might have some impact on some skeptics, my experience tells me this is unlikely. Most hardcore skeptics are as dug in intellectually as most hardcore fundamentalists. Hardcore types of any stripe aren't usually convinced by evidence.

I wrote Can We Trust the Gospels? for people who aren't so dug in, for people who are inquiring and seeking, no matter their religious persuasion. Yes, I hope it will help Christians to know why they can have confidence in the Gospels. And I hope it will show others why its reasonable to believe that the Gospels contain a good bit of history, even if these folk aren't believers and don't intend to become believers.

12

"Is that so? barring that these were probably assembled by christian believers and thus completely biased to begin with"

Um...who were they supposed to invite - all the atheists?

13

Ludwig,

Eusabius, Josephus, Pamphilum and Origen all wrote about Jesus, the apostles and John the Baptist as early historians outside of the Gospels. (Josephus, a Jewish historian, as early as 93 AD.)

It seems as best can be established about anyone living 2000 years ago that Jesus the man did live.

Now, whether you believe he was God on Earth is another matter.

Perhaps that will help.

Love
David

14

Ludwig (and others)

You got me to thinking too along the lines of how difficult it is looking at history from 2000 years ago.

I thought of Julius Ceasar, who was the leader of the Roman Empire until his assassination (an unusual event in itself) and with all his high profile (compared to Jesus' low profile...at the time) his historical documents are not many. I quote from Wikipedia "Much of Caesar's life is known from his own Commentaries (Commentarii) on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of Caesar's political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo."

So, that's not a whole lot. There is a bust of Ceasar that helps. Compare that with Jesus as Jesus, the unknown, really has a great amount of historical documents to prove his life. Jesus has more than I or probably you will have 2000 years after we have lived. And don't forget that when we talk of the Gospels or the Bible, that's not one entity, that's four, and if you add Paul, that's five different people, all of whom lived, that wrote about Jesus. And then Peter and James wrote about Jesus and they lived. Many of these people you can go to their burial places today. And they are writing about hundreds of people in the Bible, all of whom lived.

So, I'd say that the evidence is there that Jesus did live.

Once again, hope this helps.

Love
David

15

"Um...who were they supposed to invite - all the atheists?"

well,since the mock trials exercises was done for the purpose of establishing a credible chain of evidence using a rational and trustworthy process,it might have helped if those mock trials had included at least SOME people who had not allready decided to accept whatever the Gospel says on blind faith alone.

16

"Josephus, a Jewish historian, as early as 93 AD"

there are many reasons to consider the passing comments attributed to Flavius Josephus to be highly suspect. For one thing,they look like there were inserted in the middle of a another subject being covered. And as you point out,Josephus was a devout jew until the end of his days and yet,in on of the passages in question,he actually recognises Jesus as Christ,which no jew would ever do and remain a jew. No these passages have all the telltale hallmark of later christian inserts. As for the other people you mentionned,i ll have to look into it further as i m not familiar with them. In any event,there still remains a world of diference between admiting the possibility that there might have been a revolutionary jew named Jesus back in those days who was excutated as a trouble maker or a blasphemer and embracing the claims of biblical poof magic as historicaly accurate.

17

David (and Ludwig),

1) By "lefty," I didn't mean the political kind.

2) There are liberal theologians, non-Christians, and atheists who can be reasonably and respectfully debated. Then there are those on the far fringe who will not even accept that Jesus existed. They are so entrenched in their position that they will disgard accepted historical standards. They are not worth the effort to debate, in my experience.

18

ChrisB,

I agree with your statement above, but would add there are so-called "bible believing" evangelicals entrenched in their positions that they will disgard accepted historical standards as well as the actual message of the Gospels.

Two examples are:

1. David Barton/Wall Builder's distorted revisionist history depicting the United States as being founded as some sort of "christian nation"

2. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al who support our country's decidedly unChrist-like foreign policy and the military industrial complex generally.

19

Ludwig,
Pardon me, but I thought what we were discussing was whether or not the man Jesus lived, not whether or not the Bible is historically accurate. I'm like someone else in that I'll not waste my time on the latter discussion since you do seem so firmly entrenched in your opinion. I'm sorry for you, but God gave everyone free will and you certainly are using your's up!

As to Josephus, the debate of his authenticity has been going on since the 1700 hundreds so join the crowd. I wonder though if anyone 2000 years from now will debate the authenticity of say Michael Beschloff? Do you get my point?

JohnW, you are right about David of the Wallbuilders. I once wrote a letter to the editor (and got it published) about him being soooooooo conservative.
And Tony Perkins is no relation to me!

And ChrisB,
You and I still have issues over this "lefty" business. Here's my take. I agree that there is a political and a theological left, but I ask you what makes the theological left? That division is not in the Bible, is it? So, I believe it is still a liberal POV/conservative POV thing.

It appears to me that you are believing anyone not believing in the diety of Jesus Christ is on the left. Why can't there be non-believers who are also conservative in nature? See where I'm going with this? I'm thinking you, and many others, have been "brainwashed" into believing everything on the right is relgious and almost everything on the left is not. Of course, that is far from true and that's the point I'm trying to get you to understand.
Without taking a show of hands I'm guessing that about a third of all Christian churchgoers in the US are liberal while 2/3 are conservative. A sizeable majority but still 1/3 U.S. Christians would interpolate into around 75 MILLION Americans. That's a bunch of citizens, Christians, to disregard, don't you think?

Love
David

Love
David

20

Ludwig, and others who do not believe Jesus the Man ever even lived.
I'm going to have one more go at it.
Here is a list of some of the Apostle's burial places. It's my understanding that you can go there and stand at these graves.

James, in Spain at Santiago de Compostela in Galacia.
Simon Peter and Paul, in Rome
Thomas, in Greece, Thessaloniki
John, (and possibly Mary) in Turkey, Ephesos
Andrew, in Byzantium (Istanbul)
Phillip and Matthew, in Turkey, Pasidia.

So, it seems to me that if one can go to these graves and see the characters that the Gospels said lived, and the Gospels said that Christ is no longer in his tomb (though one can see his empty tomb in Jerusalem), then logically one can deduce that Jesus Christ also lived.

Love
David

21

You can count me as a conservative atheist.

I think that the whole line of questioning as to whether Jesus was an actual, living person is a red herring, and I wish skeptics like Hitchens would drop it. The real question has to do with whether he was resurrected. His existence, his teaching, and his arrest and crucifixion are not extraordinary events. His alleged resurrection is.

The Christ story has many similarities with other stories that combine history and myth. I think that there is ample precedent to show that the mythologizing of history is a very common, almost inevitable aspect of human culture. Explaining how a group of people could come to believe in a miraculous event that didn’t happen is not a dubious proposition to defend. Such myth-making is not an extraordinary, unusual occurrence but rather a very common event. It happens all the time, even today. New religions and sects form all the time, based on purported claims of divinity or divine revelation. People become convinced that they have been abducted by aliens. Even with events as widely observed as the destruction of the World Trade Center, myths arise that are in direct contradiction to the observed facts.

The human propensity for mythmaking is so common that everyone needs to have a theory as to why people come to believe things that aren’t true, even Christians. Christians need a theory to explain how Joseph Smith came to falsely believe that he received divine communication from the angel Gabriel. If you are a Protestant then you need to explain how thousands of people could falsely come to believe that they witnessed a visitation from the Virgin Mary at Fatima. Given this acknowledged track record of mythologizing and false witness by people across cultures and across time, the burden is squarely on the shoulders of the Christian believer to convince non-believers that the Scripture accounts of Jesus’ resurrection must be accepted at face value.

22

"Pardon me, but I thought what we were discussing was whether or not the man Jesus lived, not whether or not the Bible is historically accurate. I'm like someone else in that I'll not waste my time on the latter discussion since you do seem so firmly entrenched in your opinion. I'm sorry for you, but God gave everyone free will and you certainly are using your's up!"

We were discussing the historicity of the Gospel and the claims of miraculous occurences are central to that discussion. Thats ws who the Jesus of the Gospel was said to be...a man who alledgedly could perform miracles. If one is going to claim that the Gospel presented Jesus as he really was,one must then also be able to demonstrate that he did in fact perform miracles. Otherwise,calling the whole thing into question is the only rational response. If for instance,history of the american revolution revolved around the claims of George Washington's ability to shoot laser beams from his eyes,spontaneously grow back severed limbs and erect force fields around his troops to protect them from bullet fire,all thing without demonstrating any evidence that any human being was ever capable of doing those things,i m sure you would agree that a healthy dose of skepticism here would be completely warranted.

As for my opinion being "entrenched" on the subject of biblical magic,i d say its no more entrenched than your opinion on greek gods magic,or do you actually believe that there is a being on mount Olympus named Zeus with the ability to throw bolts of lightning and who fathered a human child that once killed a hydra? And BTW,free will and belief have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I can no more choose to believe something that the sum of my life experiences taught me is most likely false and absurd than you could choose to believe that you are your own mother.

23

Robert Duquette,

Please go to my website www.JesusChristSaid.com and bring up the sermon entitled "The real resurrection of Jesus Christ." Listen to it. It's only 30 minutes long. But in there I lay out the reason I believe Jesus Christ actually was resurrected. You may not agree or believe afterwards but at least you've gotten my best shot.

Love
David

24

Can anyone be surprised that the Rev. Dr. Mark Roberts found the gospels to be completely reliable? Could it have been otherwise? Would you be shocked to find a high placed Imam or Mormon apostle to find their holy texts equally trustworthy? I am reminded of Upton Sinclair's quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

I'm curious, Joe, what preconceptions of yours were uprooted?

25

"Can anyone be surprised that the Rev. Dr. Mark Roberts found the gospels to be completely reliable? Could it have been otherwise?"

Does a motivating theology really make someone blind to facts, specifically the historicity of the gospels? Everyone sees the world based on their own presuppositions. For a Christian to have a bias towards their own religion I don't think means being blind to things that could undermine their faith (as you seem to suggest). Quite the opposite! There's motivation. Paul writes:

If there is no resurrection from the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.
1Cor 15:13-14

I believe my soul depends on it, not my status or my salary.

I've read about two thirds of Mark Robert's book and his arguments are reasonable and convincing. In fact, he touches on this very question of bias in Chapter 10, titled, "If the Gospels are Theology, Can They Be History?" You should read it.

Respectfully yours,
Kristen

26

Ludwig wrote:

"We were discussing the historicity of the Gospel and the claims of miraculous occurences are central to that discussion."

Not quite. Before that discussion can even take place, we need to first establish that Jesus even lived. You made this claim earlier:

"there isent even any evidence that there ever was a Jesus to begin with"

Are you now willing to admit that Jesus actually did live and that there is evidence which proves it?

27

Kristen,

I don't think it is impossible for one to be open to facts that undermine one's belief system, but it is very, very difficult. I know that it is possible, because I did it myself, and in the process resigned my position as a Bible professor at a Christian university, lost my career and strained family relations.

It's not just a coincidence that 95% or so of people follow the religion of their parents. There are incredibly deep and powerful psychological motivations to only see evidence that confirms one's presuppositions, especially in the field of religion.

Along with the willingness to be ostracized by your family and friends, there must a willingness to expose yourself to different viewpoints. I have read thousands of books written from the viewpoint of conservative Christians and I may very well read this one, though from what I've seen, it is written on a very basic level. Here's my question for you. How many books have you read that differ with your own theological presuppositions? In the field of biblical studies, have you read Ehrman, Ludemann, Crossan, Friedman or Borg?

28

ex-preacher I'm curious, Joe, what preconceptions of yours were uprooted?

The main one was that the reliabilty of the Gospels is ulimately predicated on faith commitments. Mark shows that is not the case, that one can be an unbeliever--even hostile to the message of the Gospels--and still be convinced that they are historically reliable.

In fact, the people most likely to dismiss their reliability are those who come to the texts with preconceptions about what is and is not possible.

29

"The main one was that the reliabilty of the Gospels is ulimately predicated on faith commitments. Mark shows that is not the case, that one can be an unbeliever--even hostile to the message of the Gospels--and still be convinced that they are historically reliable."

I find it a little hard to believe that this was new to you, but I'll take your word for it. Most historians of the Ancient Near East have always accepted that the gospels contain quite a bit of genuine history. The question has always been how much. As with the supposed miracles in other ancient accounts, though, most historians are reluctant to take those at face value. I approach the reliability of the gospels in much the same way that CS Lewis approached the reliability of the OT books of Kings and Chronicles. Said he, "The Court history of King David is probably as reliable as the Court history of Louis XIV." Lewis dismissed the tales of Noah and the Ark and Jonah and the Whale as fables.

"In fact, the people most likely to dismiss their reliability are those who come to the texts with preconceptions about what is and is not possible."

Yup. Those are the same people who also question the reliability of the Book of Mormon, the Qur'an, the Illiad, and anything by L. Ron Hubbard. In fact, I'd dare to say that you also question the reliability of the aforementioned books as you come to those texts with your own preconceptions about what is and is not possible.

30

"I never expected to have my own preconceptions uprooted and replaced with a more solid trust in these biblical texts."

It's amazing how the Bible is a book whose credibility is so often challenged, but when skeptics take the time to study the book in depth to reinforce their skepticism, they walk away with a brand new perspective!

innerstrife.com

31

"Are you now willing to admit that Jesus actually did live and that there is evidence which proves it?"

I am and always was perfectly willing to admit the very distinct possibility that SOMEONE who was named Jesus lived at some point around the first century and that he may have been executed for inciting rebellion against the established sanedrin/roman order. There is no real evidence that support any claim beyond that.

32

"Are you now willing to admit that Jesus actually did live and that there is evidence which proves it?"

I am and always was perfectly willing to admit the very distinct possibility that SOMEONE who was named Jesus lived at some point around the first century and that he may have been executed for inciting rebellion against the established sanedrin/roman order. There is no real evidence that support any claim beyond that.

33

"It's amazing how the Bible is a book whose credibility is so often challenged, but when skeptics take the time to study the book in depth to reinforce their skepticism, they walk away with a brand new perspective!"

Well for me it was the other way around...the more i studied the christian scriptures,the more skeptical i became. That being said,i still believe that there is something that may be called by some as "divinity" but its true and complete "nature" was never captured in any books written by man. The only true bible that exists is the universe itself along with everything it contains and i suspect even that is only a small part of "the whole truth".

34

The only true bible that exists is the universe itself along with everything it contains and i suspect even that is only a small part of "the whole truth".

Well said, Ludwig!

35

Ludwig,

Congratulations! You've just described God!

Now if only you'd listen to what God has to say. You can. It's all in the Bible, the word, the voice, of God.

How can you believe in the purity and love of the "Universe" and yet fail to recognize it's son sent to Earth in human form to get us into harmony with that "Universe?"

How can you believe in the "Universe" and fail to read it's owner's manual?

Love
David

36

Here's the problem I have with the whole "well if we think Ceasar existed then Jesus must have existed" line. We think Ceasar existed because assorted historians of the time said he put himself in charge of the Roman Empire. Well someone was in charge of the Roman Empire and it seems strange to think that a group of different people would, just for the fun of it, pretend it was a guy named Ceasar instead of talking about who it really was (not only that but also invented a fake bit of writing by Ceasar himself).

This is a bit like the difference between saying George Bush is the current President of the US and a 13 year old boy named Abdul Rahman was killed in Iraq 265 days ago. Both are quite plausible statements but there's plenty of reasons why I couldn't get away with pulling the first one off as a lie. Likewise 99% of people will accept the second statement as true even though I made it up.

Now when it comes to Jews executed by the Roman occupiers of Israel, well there was a lot of Jews executed so would a historian of the time have gone to any great length to confirm if one particular person some people claimed was executed by the Romans actually existed and was actually executed by them?

This is the problem I have with Josephus. What exactly did he do to confirm that Jesus was real? Did he ever meet Jesus? Probably not. I suspect he heard about this new sect and asked something like "what do they believe?" and someone told him "they believe that this guy called Jesus who was executed by Pilot was really the son of God and he rose from the dead." He then jotted down what he heard they believed.

Did he actually go out and try to confirm that Jesus was killed by the Romans or did he just assume it was so because the Romans did that a lot? And even if he did try to confirm it how would he? As far as we know the Romans didn't keep detailed accounts or transcripts of their trials and convictions. Unless he found actual eyewitnesses he probably couldn't even confirm it if he was inclined too.

So are we really getting independent confirmation from non-Christian sources that Jesus existed or are we getting non-Christian sources simply repeating the story they heard directly or indirectly from Christians?

37

Boonton,

I went back to see where I (or anyone else for that matter) wrote "well if we think Ceasar existed then Jesus must have existed"
You put it into quotes so you didn't write it. And neither did I! That's kind a dumb argument to me and I never said it, never even intimated it!
The thrust of what I said, which your commentary seems to back up, is that if Ceasar, with all of his greatness at the time only has so little written about him, then all that's written about an unknown carpenter from Nazareth is remarkable! That's not at all "well if we think Ceasar existed then Jesus must have existed" Not at all! It is if Ceasar was so powerful and had only so much written about him, then Jesus who was so unknown at the time having so much written about him is something of note.

As to Josephus, he wrote in AD 93. Jesus died in AD 33. Of course Josephus missed him by 60 years. Why would that negate what he wrote? Does a historian of today writing about say Lincoln of over 150 years ago get ignored because the writer didn't know Lincoln personally?

Love
David

38

I didn't mean to confuse you by the quotes, I used them to indicate a type of argument I've heard several times now.

The thrust of what I said, which your commentary seems to back up, is that if Ceasar, with all of his greatness at the time only has so little written about him, then all that's written about an unknown carpenter from Nazareth is remarkable!

I suspect there's more than just what you cited on Ceasar. I suspect there's a large collection of physical evidence, coins, monuments etc. But that's not really the problem with your argument.

Of course Jesus has a lot written about him but it's written after the fact, way after the fact. Because he was a 'nobody' you could get away with making up a lot of stuff about him as Christians have to admit (the Gospels are only a fraction of what was written, there's lots of unorthodox writing like the 'Gospel of Judas' which Christians would say is basically made up stuff written about Jesus).

As to Josephus, he wrote in AD 93. Jesus died in AD 33. Of course Josephus missed him by 60 years. Why would that negate what he wrote? Does a historian of today writing about say Lincoln of over 150 years ago get ignored because the writer didn't know Lincoln personally?

For the same reason you would negate what I wrote here about a 13 year old boy who died in Iraq some time ago. A lot of people were paying attention to Lincoln when he was alive. If someone started writing strange things about him 60 years after his death....like saying he wasn't the President, rose from the dead, performed miracles...there would be a lot of people who would notice the problem.

Who would notice Jesus, though? At that time who would have gone to Israel and actually tried to track down who this guy was, who knew him, who was there when he died, who was around town 3 days later etc? Even today with our modern media and plenty of time and resources and easy travel you'll hear reports every now and then of visions of the Virgin Mary, UFO's and other offbeat reports but no one really does a lot of work to take the thing apart. It's just reported and everyone moves onto whatever Paris Hilton is doing now.

Did Josephus do these things or did he just write down what he heard this new Jewish sect believed? Wasn't his work a general overview of Jewish history? He wasn't focused on Christians or on debunking or supporting their claims. The historians who were devoted to recording Ceasar's deeds were focused on him and while we don't accept all their reporting there is an important difference.

39

Boonton,
I like all your arguments. I really do and I don't mean that sarcastically, either.

It always comes down to inability to prove God using scientific (or quasi) methods.

It always comes down to faith in God and Jesus Christ. There is just no escaping that.

Love
David

40

David,

I appreciate that but I notice Joe and others here seem to have a secret wish to do away with faith. They seem like they wish that someone will put forth an argument so air tight, so logical that you no longer need faith...the Christian faith will follow as undeniably as a geometric proof. Here's just another example where someone tries and they want to pretend he pulled it off.

As you say it doesn't seem to be like that. While you may find some evidence here and there you're not going to find anything like a video tape of Jesus walking on water (and even if you did, that wouldn't prove the Christian faith...it would only prove he happened to walk on water). If this is what you're going to believe and what you're going to ask others to believe it's only honest to say part of that belief has to be on faith. Reason will only get you so close to it but it can't get you all the way there.

41

Boonton,

I agree with what you say. I don't know Joe enough but I have talked with other Christians (and others) who want absolute proof of God.

I celebrate that God cannot be "Proven" using scientific methods. It's my opinion that science, along with curiosity, is God's gift to us mortals to try to understand his physical workings. Many theologians have mis-used this in the past and many scientists (and logicians) want to turn science into a religion.

If some way faith could be removed from the wonderous happenings of God, then God wouldn't be God!

I wish everyone believed in God, not to have them believe as I believe, not as a control factor, but to get us all closer to some sort of cosmic love that replaces the war and strife that be-devils humankind.

Can we do this on our own? If history is any indicator, it would seem we cannot for the future looks bleak. Never-the-less, for me, because of my FAITH, the future never looked brighter.

Love
David