4 Comments
Published by Jeff
on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 3:19 PM. 
What we know about Jesus comes mainly from the New Testament of the Bible. Already, some of the critically minded are thinking, "Yeah, those are real objective sources." I admit that on first blush, it doesn't sound very objective. What if the sources of history were a group of documents - some letters, some accounts by historians and other manuscripts that were from different authors in different times. Would that be an objective way to uncover historical facts? That IS how the written history is determined for antiquity. That is also what makes up the New Testament of the Bible. Later, after they were written, those in authority put them together and declared them Scripture. Before that, they were just a number of independent documents.
In these documents, there are accounts of Jesus' life and many direct quotes from Him. There are also accounts and letters on the effect that Jesus had in the lives of people many years after his death.
In these accounts, Jesus was a teacher, a miracle worker, and a prophet. Jesus also proclaims his deity and by these accounts, backs that claim up. He announced that He will be killed, but asserts that He will rise from the dead. By these New Testament chronicles, He does it - a humble man from the family of a carpenter claims he is God (i.e. Son of God) and then backs up the claim. If these documents were not in the Canon of Scripture, nonbelievers may be a little more hesitant about their disdain. However, these documents are all from believers so the credibility (rightly or wrongly) comes into question.
What about the historical accounts of nonbelievers? What kind of clarity can be added to the equation? In my other blog, Psychosomatic Wit I wrote a post about Jesus and Easter called Easter, By Any Other Name:
I am reminded at this time of the year how miraculous the Christian faith really is. A fairly large group of individuals followed their spiritual leader only to watch him miserably and shamefully die. From all accounts, they and their new belief system took a large blow. This execution also killed the new religion of these men and women. They went back to their old lives with their tails between their legs.
Then, something happened. The new faith surged! There was talk of this man Jesus actually be seen – returning from the dead as He said He would and talking and teaching to His followers. Even though the tomb was empty and there was no sign of the body, that doesn’t mean he resurrected, does it? Many of the skeptics accused Jesus’ followers from bribing the soldiers guarding the tomb and stealing the body. There were all kinds of theories.
Yet, something happened that took these dejected followers from their hopeless lives and brought them back to preaching Jesus resurrected. They, by the hoards, were willingly dying for this new belief system. Non-believing historians such as the Roman Tacitis and the Jewish Josephus recorded the unlikely events of this new Christian group - that they grew from nothing and hopelessness, to zealots in the name of this Jesus who was rumored to have conquered death. The disturbing query was this: why would these people come back to this faith, preaching a resurrected Jesus if they merely stole and hid the body? Why would they willingly die for a cause they knew was a lie? They knew if they really saw Him. They knew if they really hid his body? What would they gain but death?
These were not the only nonChristian sources. Others include Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, and the Babylonian Talmud. When all these non-believing sources are pieced together, they are very much compatible to the documents now contained in the New Testament.
Unlike the other religions that I looked into, Christianity stood alone in both reliability, and the number of sources available to check the reliability. An intelligent Creator who wants to commune with his creation, for me, found "the Way" and provided it for us.
This one is overdue. My apologies for those who checked for it and kept checking and kept checking . . .
The prerequisites for this entry are as follows:
1. The Search
2. The Search Continues
3. Whittling Down the Choices
If you read (or re-read) these in this order before continuing to the rest of this post, it will make good, logical order sense. I know that no one does it, but I have to urge that anyway.
____________________________________________________________________
The prerequisites for this entry are as follows:
1. The Search
2. The Search Continues
3. Whittling Down the Choices
If you read (or re-read) these in this order before continuing to the rest of this post, it will make good, logical order sense. I know that no one does it, but I have to urge that anyway.
____________________________________________________________________
What we know about Jesus comes mainly from the New Testament of the Bible. Already, some of the critically minded are thinking, "Yeah, those are real objective sources." I admit that on first blush, it doesn't sound very objective. What if the sources of history were a group of documents - some letters, some accounts by historians and other manuscripts that were from different authors in different times. Would that be an objective way to uncover historical facts? That IS how the written history is determined for antiquity. That is also what makes up the New Testament of the Bible. Later, after they were written, those in authority put them together and declared them Scripture. Before that, they were just a number of independent documents.
In these documents, there are accounts of Jesus' life and many direct quotes from Him. There are also accounts and letters on the effect that Jesus had in the lives of people many years after his death.
In these accounts, Jesus was a teacher, a miracle worker, and a prophet. Jesus also proclaims his deity and by these accounts, backs that claim up. He announced that He will be killed, but asserts that He will rise from the dead. By these New Testament chronicles, He does it - a humble man from the family of a carpenter claims he is God (i.e. Son of God) and then backs up the claim. If these documents were not in the Canon of Scripture, nonbelievers may be a little more hesitant about their disdain. However, these documents are all from believers so the credibility (rightly or wrongly) comes into question.
What about the historical accounts of nonbelievers? What kind of clarity can be added to the equation? In my other blog, Psychosomatic Wit I wrote a post about Jesus and Easter called Easter, By Any Other Name:
I am reminded at this time of the year how miraculous the Christian faith really is. A fairly large group of individuals followed their spiritual leader only to watch him miserably and shamefully die. From all accounts, they and their new belief system took a large blow. This execution also killed the new religion of these men and women. They went back to their old lives with their tails between their legs.
Then, something happened. The new faith surged! There was talk of this man Jesus actually be seen – returning from the dead as He said He would and talking and teaching to His followers. Even though the tomb was empty and there was no sign of the body, that doesn’t mean he resurrected, does it? Many of the skeptics accused Jesus’ followers from bribing the soldiers guarding the tomb and stealing the body. There were all kinds of theories.
Yet, something happened that took these dejected followers from their hopeless lives and brought them back to preaching Jesus resurrected. They, by the hoards, were willingly dying for this new belief system. Non-believing historians such as the Roman Tacitis and the Jewish Josephus recorded the unlikely events of this new Christian group - that they grew from nothing and hopelessness, to zealots in the name of this Jesus who was rumored to have conquered death. The disturbing query was this: why would these people come back to this faith, preaching a resurrected Jesus if they merely stole and hid the body? Why would they willingly die for a cause they knew was a lie? They knew if they really saw Him. They knew if they really hid his body? What would they gain but death?
These were not the only nonChristian sources. Others include Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, and the Babylonian Talmud. When all these non-believing sources are pieced together, they are very much compatible to the documents now contained in the New Testament.
Unlike the other religions that I looked into, Christianity stood alone in both reliability, and the number of sources available to check the reliability. An intelligent Creator who wants to commune with his creation, for me, found "the Way" and provided it for us.
Labels: apologetics, comparing religions, finding God
I have failed to find out, what is your background/education...are you in religious studies? I am really curious. Okay, I'm going to send an email, since I am at the next level...heh. You;re fascinating.
I've been one waiting for the next section. :-)
Tonight I feel elated and.. dissapointed. :-\
Elated because it's the perfect ending to the search and yres, I agree - Jesus is (as far as I'm concerned) a very vital Key.
The dissapointment surprised me. Because You've written a beautiful blog post and presented a great argument for Jesus. THen I "got it", you've written this great argument where everyone gets to tell their opinion of Jesus, except you.
I'd have liked to have heard what Jesus means to you, even more than hearing what Jesus meant to Pliny, St Paul or.. you get the idea.
What is Jesus to you? How do you feel about him? Never mind the logic and the reasoning - what makes Him important just to Jeff and Jeff's life?
And I know I'm being cheeky, and you can growl at me for it, but for some reason it just felt too important not to say.
I'll be good and shut up now. :-|
(and it really was an excellent blog post)
Stepping: I have a degree in poli-sci and education. I am not in religious studies, but I do read a lot and study it quite a bit independently. When you discover that it really is the ONLY thing that matters, you tend to want to study it a lot.
Michelle: It is just one blog post. lol This isn't the swan song of this blog. I will certainly address my personal views, experiences, and feelings (especially now) in upcoming posts. I just didn't want to be one of those guys who states his faith and not have any credibility concerning WHY I believe it is true. Now when skeptics come along, I can at least point to the intellectual journey that I have outlined here.
Michelle, could you do me a favor? There is something private I would like to talk to you about. Could you email me so I can get back to you about this? My address is psycho.wit@gmail.com.
Don't worry, it is not anything that you will feel uncomfortable about. ;)
email sent. :-)