By Steve Tanska
Guest Column
“’For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he’ (Proverbs 23:7). If there is anything peculiar to the Protestant churches which emerged from the Reformation, it is this: All life must be grounded in truth. That which we believe is going to determine what we do, and the life we live will spring inevitably from the beliefs that we hold.” D. James Kennedy, Truths that Transform.
WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH A REAL PERSON?
Viterbo Italy, north of Rome, 2006. Atheist Luigi Cascioli sued Rev. Enrico Righi for allegedly deceiving people into thinking Jesus was an actual historical figure. The judge eventually threw the case out, but it leaves the question for those who do not know; Would the atheist have won in court? Could he have won? What is the evidence? What should we believe?
This article will touch on some of the evidence and also ask the question; “who is Jesus?” (Full Article)
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Who is Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You're argument sounds really good...to a layperson. Unfortunatley, your article is peppered with logical fallacies. I'll save myself the typing and just direct any believer who has the guts to read objectively to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I've read The New Testament and your article and many more - now you read the clearest exercise on the other side of the argument.
Could you point out just three of those logical fallacies, Anonymous?
Dawkin's arrogance and smarter-than-thou demeanor aside, The God Delusion is not about science or philosophy, or theology. It is an angry diatribe that reveals Dawkin's hatred of God above all else. In Chapter 3, the heart of the book, Dawkin's claims to prove the improbability of God by saying a designer has to be more complex than his design, and since nature as we know it is incredibly complex, God, the Designer, ergo, is incredibly improbable. Now, there we have a logical falacy. A computer is extremely complex, therefore Steve Jobs is extremely improbable!
I've read Dawkins, in fact, I engaged him in a debate at DePauw University, following a talk, some years ago, from which he withdrew promptly when challenged about the fossil record. Dawkins has his mind made up and will not let facts get in the way.
This article is a concise overview of the evidence for an historical Jesus, and a reading of the accounts of His life, death and resurrection, both Biblical and extra-biblical provide greater evidence of who He really is than what we know of Alexander the Great or Julius Ceasar.
You state that people apart from the bible talked about Jesus: "Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, etc. all refer to Jesus Christ." Then you make the leap after questioning "Were they referring to a myth? Not at all." Which seems like a bit of a jump, since all of these people lived after Jesus is supposed to have lived have been killed.
If you are looking for any critical evidence of whether Jesus of Nazareth lived, look to the Roman records of executions, because they seemed to be sticklers for keeping records, and see that there actually IS no record of the Christian savior being crucified.
Your logic is a bit flawed, Anonymous.
While record-keeping is tremendously easier and more prolific now than it was 2,000 years ago in the Roman Empire, your implication that these writers lived after the time of Christ is akin to saying that anyone who was born after John F. Kennedy cannot write authoritatively about John F. Kennedy because they were born after his time.
There is, of course, the Bible, which was written by men who spent three years in close company with Jesus, and by men who interviewed those men who followed Jesus. But somehow I imagine that would carry little weight with you, while a book written under similar circumstances today (or even back then, as long as it had nothing to do with a Biblical person), would carry considerable weight.
There are numerous references to Jesus from around that period (more period references than there are for Julius Caesar), and other historical figures such as Pontius Pilate. Why is the veracity of the existence of these other figures not in question, yet it is to some people regarding Jesus?
Could it have to do with an unwillingness to believe?
Post a Comment