As I See it!

[secondeve]

Christ appeared to over five hundred people after rising.

According, in history, to only four people.

[secondeve]

Let us take a look at another aspect of this. the twelve followers of Jesus were not the bravest most convicted of people when they were away from him especially when he was going through the arrest, trial (such as it was) and the crucifixtion. They hid, denied him and generally removed themselves from danger. This was prior to his resurection. After he arose and met with them they gained courage and direction. All but one died horrible deaths some crucified, some stoned, killed with spears-all but one died by frightening means. None of those men denied Christ during this, why? What changed their levels of courage and conviction? And John was exiled to the Island of Patmos not a tourist spot at this time in History. I feel that this confirms the fact that Jesus did appear to the twelve after his death. Only something of this magnitude could have taken twelve humanly weak individuals and converted them into strong wittnesses for Christ. God Bless

They were out of immediate danger from the Romans, because Jesus had been removed. They get to take over the reins of the belivers, make a matyr out of the dead, and start organising things as they see fit. Which isn't to say they didn't have dreams, or that they didn't believe he was God. If your best friend died, would you dream of him/her? Might they talk to you in the dream? And if, as the disciples must have, you felt guilty about something that you'd never had the chance to apologise for before that person died - if that guilt related directly to their death - might not you dream of talking to your friend? How is that unreasonable as a theory?

[SoulGrind]

Christ appeared to over five hundred people after rising.

According, in history, to only four people.

That's only the Biblical account. However, there is Josephus, a Jewish historian, general, and Pharisee; born Joseph ben Matthias. His Jewish War gives an eyewitness account of the events that led up to the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66, in which he was a leader. This account discusses the crusifixion, resurection, and eyewitness testimonies of Christ.

[secondeve]

Christ appeared to over five hundred people after rising.

According, in history, to only four people.

That's only the Biblical account. However, there is Josephus, a Jewish historian, general, and Pharisee; born Joseph ben Matthias. His Jewish War gives an eyewitness account of the events that led up to the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66, in which he was a leader. This account discusses the crusifixion, resurection, and eyewitness testimonies of Christ.

To the best of my knowledge, Josephus wasn't present at the crucifixion or when Christ supposedly appears to the 500. I would've thought that his reference for these events would have been second hand.

[SoulGrind]

To the best of my knowledge, Josephus wasn't present at the crucifixion or when Christ supposedly appears to the 500. I would've thought that his reference for these events would have been second hand.

Most news that we see, hear, or read about in today's society is also second hand.

The news comes from "Eye Witness" testimony. Very rarely do the reporters who write up the stories actually witness the news they are reporting about (unless it's like 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc.).

No one ever checks to see if witnesses are credible. They take them at their word. They were present, therefore, they must have seen what happened.

Even years after something has passed, when journalists start researching a story, they typically don't rule out eye witness testimony just because the person is dead and they were quoted in a single weekly news paper in some backwater town.

No - we give them the benefit of the doubt and say to ourselves, they gave a testimony to a local newspaper - they must be legit.

If we give such respect to some "nobody", quoted in some dinky weekly paper from some po-dunk town, why is it so hard to give credit to the Biblical account written by 40 different authors, some of which who even persecuted Christians at one point in time or another?

And Josephus - He was a Jewish Pharisee! For crying out loud - he was in with the people who were AGAINST CHRISTIANITY - what motive would he have for lying about Christ, especially in light of the fact that at that time, Jews hated Christ and persecuted those who pledged their alegance to Christ. Additionally, Josephus was a Jewish historian - it was his job to report such things.

"Josephus (c. 37

Edited October 21, 2006 by SoulGrind

[khalou]

To the best of my knowledge, Josephus wasn't present at the crucifixion or when Christ supposedly appears to the 500. I would've thought that his reference for these events would have been second hand.

Most news that we see, hear, or read about in today's society is also second hand.

The news comes from "Eye Witness" testimony. Very rarely do the reporters who write up the stories actually witness the news they are reporting about (unless it's like 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc.).

No one ever checks to see if witnesses are credible. They take them at their word. They were present, therefore, they must have seen what happened.

Even years after something has passed, when journalists start researching a story, they typically don't rule out eye witness testimony just because the person is dead and they were quoted in a single weekly news paper in some backwater town.

No - we give them the benefit of the doubt and say to ourselves, they gave a testimony to a local newspaper - they must be legit.

If we give such respect to some "nobody", quoted in some dinky weekly paper from some po-dunk town, why is it so hard to give credit to the Biblical account written by 40 different authors, some of which who even persecuted Christians at one point in time or another?

And Josephus - He was a Jewish Pharisee! For crying out loud - he was in with the people who were AGAINST CHRISTIANITY - what motive would he have for lying about Christ, especially in light of the fact that at that time, Jews hated Christ and persecuted those who pledged their alegance to Christ. Additionally, Josephus was a Jewish historian - it was his job to report such things.

"Josephus (c. 37

[SoulGrind]

I didn't notice anything about Jesus in that article.

Are you referring to the "article" on this thread, or the "article" on wikipedia?

The article on Wikipedia states the date that Josephus lived and the history of who Josephus was. With this information, all we need to do is look at history to realize when Josephus was alive - just after Christ was crucified. Then we look to where Jospephus was from - the same region where Christ was crucified. And who was Josephus - a pharisee - who were the pharisee's? Those who persecuted Christ. It's pretty simple to draw the line between them.

However, it is some of Josephus' books that discuss Christ - which was the purpose of the discussion between secondeve and myself.

"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 receive 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, (A.D. 33, April 3.) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (April 5.) 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."

Josephus - The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3

Edited October 21, 2006 by SoulGrind

[SoulGrind]

Sure. Josephus' words were added to by later Christians. Didn't you know that?

I have heard this on rare occassion, but as of yet, not one who has mentioned it has ever offered up any proof of this.

Edited October 21, 2006 by SoulGrind

[SoulGrind]

Sure. Josephus' words were added to by later Christians. Didn't you know that?

I have heard this on rare occassion, but as of yet, not one who has mentioned it has ever offered up any proof of this.

The works of Josephus are considered a forgery by most Christian scholors and you can find this out by yourself. Here is a list of reasons why this is so. First Josephus was a Jew working as an historian for the Roman govt. He was considered the final authority where accuracy was concerned and others sought him out as such. Being a Jew and under Roman authority he would certainly have never written about Jesus in that manner and expected to keep his job. That is not hard to understand or accept. Secondly you have to ask yourself if these words existed WHY did not the early church fathers use these words as verification for their beliefs. When you put forth new ideas and claims having authoritative support goes a long way. Only when the works of Josephus are in the hands of Christian apologists do these words come to light. When you read the words in question you need to read before and after and you will see that the words do not flow as they seem they should. It would be like going down the highway at 65 mph then hit a speed zone of 20 the go back up to 65. It doesn't flow with the way Josephus wrote. On top of that Josephus wrote pages on ordinary criminals and only few paragraphs on the man who shook up the world.

Where do you come up with this dribble?

You can find plenty of information on Josephus in most Bible bookstores - therefor, I contend that there are plenty of Christian scholors who recognize Josephus' works.

You ask why early church fathers didn't use his works - who knows, maybe for the same reason we didn't know about the Dead Sea Scrolls until 1947.

Recall, Jesus wasn't a threat to the Roman government - only to the Jews. The Jews are the ones who stirred the pot and got the romans involved. Even Pontius Pilate said he found no crime and put the blood of Jesus on the hands of the people. Sounds like a "common criminal" to me that was escalated to the level of "heinus" by the people, not the government. So why not write about it?

If you really want to prove Josephus wrong (or the Bible), throw out proof, not your personal opinion. Names of scholars and academic circles and quotes from their papers would be a good start.

[SoulGrind]

Here is what I believe:

I believe that the Bible the the inerrant Word of God. I think I'd made this point very clear throughout all of my posts.

I also believe that if someone present evidence AGAINST the Biblical account, that all scrutiny must be applied to this evidence.

If you believe what you wrote how do you reconcile the obvious errors in the following?

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

The number of beasts in the ark?

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

These are but a very few examples of errors in the bible. There are a number of excuses one could use to resolve the issues but claiming the bible is without error is not one of them. I have also gone to apologetic sites claiming they have in fact answered the claim that there are errors in the bible and they claimed to solve them but what I found was that the errors THEY alluded to were never found as issues on atheist or skeptics sites or pointed out by non believers or they were so insignificantly important as to not be worth mentioning.

You and your contradictions...

Go read "When Critics Ask" written by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe and then get back to me. I don't have the time, the energy, or the desire to even start to answer all of this mess especially when you can do a little research on your own (isn't that what you advised me to do?).