#Atonement #Death #Life #John #Skip #Heitzig
1. The Resurrection of Jesus (Introduction)
ARGUMENT VASKRSENJA ISUSA HRISTA Isusovo vaskrsenje jeste suštinska osnova hrišćanstva. Naša vera na ovome ili opstaje ili propada. Apostol Pavle postavio je ovu osnovu veoma rano, u svom prvom pismu Korinćanima. “Ako Hristos nije vaskrsnut iz mrtvih, onda je naše propovedanje uzaludno, i vaša vera je uzaludna. Tada smo čak i lažni svedoci Boga,
Jer smo svedočili o Bogu da je vaskrsnuo Hristosa, koga nije vaskrsnuo, ako je tačno da mrtvi nisu vaskrsnuti. Jer ako mrtvi nisu vaskrsnuti, onda ni Hristos nije vaskrsnut. A ako Hristos nije vaskrsnut, uzalud vam vera vaša, još uvek ste u gresima svojim. A i oni koji su zaspali u Hristu, nestali su.
Ako samo u ovom životu imamo veru u Hrista, onda nas treba sažaljevati više od bilo koga. Dakle, ako Hristos nije vaskrsnut onda nema ni hrišćanstva, i sve što radimo je uzaludno. Međutim, sa tako velikim ulogom ipak imamo sreće jer je vaskrsenje čudo koje ima više istorijskih dokaza od bilo koje tvrdnje o čudu.
Entoni Flu postao je deista pri kraju svog života ali dok je još uvek bio ateista, priznao je sledeće “Dokaz za vaskrsenje bolji je od čudotvornih tvrdnji iz bilo koje druge religije. Izuzetno se razlikuje i po kvalitetu i po količini…” Pre nego što pređemo na dokaze, moramo postaviti određene temelje.
Mnogi skeptici tvrde da, osim ako nemamo apsolutni dokaz, onda se vaskrsenje nije desilo i ne možemo reći da se desilo. Kao i obično, to nije tačno. Običan skepticizam i postavljanje izuzetno visokog praga neće predstavljati problem u istorijskoj odbrani vaskrsenja. Ako svi dokazi ukazuju na vaskrsenje, a neko ne misli da je to dovoljno,
Samo zato što su proizvoljno postavili prag tako da se ne može dostići, to neće opovrgnuti čitav slučaj, niti će ponuditi bolje objašnjenje za iznete dokaze niti će pokazati da dokazi nemaju zaključak da se vaskrsenje najverovatnije desilo. Možemo da nastavljamo da branimo slučaj vaskrsenja, bez da se brinemo za nekoga sa ovakvom dozom skepticizma.
To zapravo ne predstavlja problem za sam slučaj niti nudi bolje objašnjenje za dokaze. Pa, kako onda branimo slučaj i koji je cilj argumenta vaskrsenja? Cilj ne može biti pokazivanje da je vaskrsenje tačno na način kao što neko može da pokaže da se nešto dogodilo time što će ponoviti eksperiment.
Vaskrsenje je događaj koji se dogodio u prošlosti i ne može se ponoviti. Zato se zaključak može postići na način na koji se pokazuje istorijska činjenica ili na način kojim se zaključuje forenzičko istraživanje. Kao što Avizer Taker kaže, “Istoriografija ne rekonstruiše događaje. Ona ne može oživeti Cezara niti ponoviti bitku kod Akcijuma.
Istoriografija pokušava da pruži hipotetički opis i analizu nekih prošlih događaja kao najbolje objašnjenje prisutnih dokaza. Osoba procenjuje dokaze a zatim zaključuje prema teoriji koja najbolje objašnjava podatke. Ovo može da potvrdi vaskrsenje onako kako bi se pokazalo da se neki drugi istorijski događaj dogodio.
Tu predlažemo više teorija a zatim gledamo koja se najbolje uklapa u podatke. Ako teorija ne podržava podatke, ona se odbacuje kao nedovoljna i kao manje verovatna u odnosu na druge teorije koje bolje opisuju prisutne podatke. Takođe želim da kažem da jedini fer način pristupa prema vaskrsenju jeste pristup metodičke neutralnosti,
Gde onaj koji tvrdi nešto ima odgovornost da to i dokaže. Ako ja kažem da je Isus vaskrsao iz mrtvih, onda moram i da pokažem da ta teorija najbolje opisuje podatke, dok druge teorije to ne mogu. Međutim, ovo je mač sa dve oštrice. Jer ako ja prikažem slučaj, ateista ili musliman
Ne mogu samo da kažu da nisam u pravu i da Isus nije vaskrsao. On ili ona moraju da pruže kontraargumente sa boljim objašnjenjem onoga što oni misle da se dogodilo i moraju da pokažu zašto objašnjenje vaskrsenja nije u stanju da objasni podatke.
D. H. Fišer ističe da je “teret dokazivanja uvek na onome koji donosi tvrdnju, ali takođe i na onome koji opovrgava ili daje suprotstavljajuću tvrdnju.” Naravno, čovek može i da bude suzdržan i da ostane agnostik po ovom pitanju. Ali, to lično ubeđenje ne stvara objektivni argument protiv onoga koji iznosi istorijsku tvrdnju
Niti izaziva ili pobija predstavljen argument. Ako to žele da urade, onda moraju da predlože suprotstavljajuću teoriju i podrže je dokazima i verodostojnošću. Na kraju, za sam argument za vaskrsenje pomaže nam da prvo adresiramo ove tri stvari. One nisu nužno potrebne za slučaj vaskrsenja ali pomažu u celokupnom cilju.
Prvo, mogu se pružiti dokazi o postojanju Boga u vidu formalnih argumenata. Pre nego što pružimo dokaze za vaskrsenje i ustanovimo da je hrišćanstvo tačno, pomaže ukoliko prvo imamo dokaze za opštog teističkog tvorca. Kombinujući argumente iz prirodne teologije sa argumentom vaskrsenja dobijamo bolji, akumulisaniji slučaj za hrišćanski teizam.
Pošto smo ovo već uradili, naš slučaj bi ojačalo to ako već postoje dokazi da Bog postoji i da je u stanju da prouzrokuje takav događaj. Drugo, korisno je stvoriti slučaj i za pouzdanost Novog zaveta. Kad budemo prolazili kroz dokaze, nećemo da pretpostavljamo
Da je Novi zavet inspirisan ili da je precizan u svakom detalju, ili čak i u većini detalja. Samo ćemo se držati činjenica koje podržavaju naučnici i dokazi. Ali, barem bi trebalo da stvorimo slučaj da dokumenti nisu u potpunosti nepouzdani i da imaju dobar istorijski slučaj.
A pošto smo i ovo uradili, to će pomoći našem celokupnom argumentu. Treće, moramo da pokažemo da čuda nisu logični nemogući događaji, a ovo smo takođe uradili. Sada, kada smo dali dokaze za teistički pogled na svet, pokazali da je Novi zavet pouzdan i ustanovili da su čuda barem logički moguća,
Možemo nastaviti sa argumentom za vaskrsenje, uz ovo kao našu osnovu. Zatim ćemo ispratiti sa dodatnim dokazima, prikazaćemo sukobljene teorije i pobićemo prigovore koji postoje. INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY Preveo: Filip Eskić
#Resurrection #Jesus #Introduction
PASSOVER and the RESURRECTION – Isaiah’s New Exodus
Passover or the Feast of Freedom is the foundational feast of the Jewish people. In it, we remember God’s loving kindness in saving his people from bondage in Egypt and creating Israel as a nation. All that so that God himself would dwell among His people
And give us His Word in order to bless all nations. But could it be that this feast actually alludes to an even greater salvation yet to come? In the story of the crossing of the Red Sea. Moses encourages his nation to trust God. Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord.
Then, after God saves them from the Egyptians, it says. When Israel saw the great power which the Lord had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and they believed in the Lord and in His servant, Moses. But this would not be the
Last time at which God was gracious towards his people. God spoke to the Prophet Isaiah in Chapter 52 about a totally new exodus. Be cheerful, shout joyfully. Together you ruins of Jerusalem for the Lord has comforted His people. He has redeemed Jerusalem.
The Lord has buried His holy arm in the sight of all nations so that all the ends of the earth may see the salvation of our God. Isaiah prophesied that God would restore the nation of Israel, that He would save them from their enemies, grant them peace and security.
However, this time the salvation will not only include a physical redemption. Rather, it will include a spiritual redemption reaching the whole world. And this is what Isaiah talks about in the next chapter. Chapter 53. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way.
But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all to fall on Him, just like the Passover lamb. Isaiah prophesied that the servant of the Lord would give his life to save his people. In chapter 53, The Salvation that the servant of the Lord brings to
Israel is not from Egypt or from the plague of the first born. Rather, it is the salvation from our personal sinfulness. The salvation God offers to us is from our guilt. After Isaiah describes the death of the servant, he continues to prophesy that he would prolong his days.
How can it be the only way the servant of the Lord can prolong his days after his death is through His resurrection? No wonder that when we quote these verses to our Jewish brethren, they think we quote from the New Testament. But the Hebrew Bible states clearly
That the Messiah had to suffer and die to redeem his people. But he doesn’t remain in the grave. He rises and grants forgiveness of sins and justifies the sinner by the knowledge of the righteous one. My servant will justify the many. In first Corinthians 15, Paul boldly declares
That if the Messiah has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain. Your faith also is in vain. If the Messiah has not been raised, in other words, since the beginning of the faith in Yeshua, the Messiah, his resurrection stood as the cornerstone, the very foundation
Upon which the truth of Yeshua stands or falls. If you’re sure did not rise up from the dead, then his death is meaningless. We are still in Egypt without a savior. Guilty before God and slaves to sins, bondage. The disciples did not expect the resurrection of Yeshua.
They thought and hoped that he would free Israel from the Egyptians of that time, the Romans. They thought he would strike them and drive them out of the land. They missed part of the message of the prophets. They thought that the idea of a crucified
Messiah is a failing Messiah at best, or worse, a false messiah whom they would need to replace with another Moses who would deliver them from the Romans against all odds. And in contrast to their initial expectations after Yeshua’s death. Something happened. The disciples began to insist that
Yeshua, in fact, rose from the dead and conquered death. They began to proclaim their message in Jerusalem, in the very place where Yeshua was crucified and buried, where everyone could go and check if the tomb was in fact empty. Not only did they proclaim the message boldly,
But they were ready and willing to suffer and even die for it. And most of them did. The significance of the resurrection is that it validates Yeshua’s message. His gospel is true. Yeshua claimed to be God himself, who came to free us from sin, to cleanse us from our guilt and justify us.
The resurrection is the proof that his radical claims about his identity and work were true. Moreover, his resurrection gives us hope and assurance that this life is not all that there is. The death is not the end. On the basis of Yeshua’s resurrection, the New Testament proclaims that anyone
Who puts his faith in him will rise up from the dead to everlasting life. But the fact is, Messiah has been raised from the dead. The first fruit of those who are asleep for since by a man death came, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
Four as in Adam all die. So also in Messiah, all will be made alive. The gift of salvation is given freely. We receive it through faith, through putting our trust in the Savior of Israel. Yeshua, notice that in the story of the Exodus.
Or more specifically in the crossing of the Red Sea, the nation of Israel did not need to do anything to merit their salvation from the Egyptians. Their own power could not stop the Egyptian army God alone, granting them freedom and salvation. They only needed to step in faith towards the water.
As the author of Hebrews puts it by faith, they pass through the Red Sea as through dry land. All people, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God and find themselves separated from Him due to their personal sinfulness. In Hebrew, the word sin comes from the same root
As missing the mark in our inherent sinfulness as humans. We miss God’s mark, but through Yeshua, as death and resurrection, he opened a new way to enter into an eternal relationship with God through faith. Yeshua was delivered over because of our wrongdoings and was raised for our justification.
This relationship cannot be broken since it is established upon the perfect sacrifice of the ultimate Passover lamb. The sacrifice of Yeshua. Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. So what about you?
Have you put your faith in Yeshua? If not, today is the day of salvation. If you want to receive forgiveness of sins, eternal life and a living relationship with your loving creator, simply talk to your Heavenly Father in your own words. He listens and that is the meaning of prayer. Rejoice with us.
For He is risen. He is risen indeed.
#PASSOVER #RESURRECTION #Isaiahs #Exodus
John 20 | He Is Risen | The Bible
Luke 24 | The Risen Lord Jesus Christ Appears to the Apostles | The Bible
Peace be unto you. [MURMURING] Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Have ye here any meat? These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
#Luke #Risen #Lord #Jesus #Christ #Appears #Apostles #Bible
Jacob Teaches of the Atonement of Jesus Christ | 2 Nephi 6–10
I have great anxiety for our people. I am desirous for the welfare of their souls. Teach them the words of Isaiah, and speak unto them for their sakes. The Lord has shown me that those who were at Jerusalem, from whence we came, have been slain and carried away captive.
Nevertheless, the Lord has shown unto me that they should return again. And He will be merciful unto them, that when they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, they shall be gathered together again to the lands of their inheritance. And there are many things which have been spoken by Isaiah
Which may be likened unto you, because ye are of the house of Israel. For the Lord God will fulfil His covenants which He has made unto His children; and for this cause the prophet has written these things. I have read these things that ye might know
That He has covenanted with all the house of Israel. I know that ye know that our flesh must waste away and die; nevertheless, in our bodies we shall see God. I do not understand. How can our flesh waste away and die, but in our bodies we shall see God?
As death hath passed upon all men, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.
Wherefore, there must needs be an infinite atonement. O the wisdom of God, His mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.
O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape. Wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men
Will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel. He cometh into the world that He may save all men if they will hearken unto His voice; for behold, He suffereth the pains of all men,
Yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children. And He suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before Him at the great and judgment day. And He commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in His name,
Having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. Wo unto all those who die in their sins; for they shall return to God, and behold His face, and remain in their sins. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death,
And to be spiritually-minded is life eternal. I would speak unto you more; but on the morrow I will declare unto you the remainder of my words. -Amen. -Amen. It must needs be expedient that Christ— for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be His name—
Shall come among the Jews. But they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against Him, that He be crucified. But behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh,
Upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance. Seeing that our merciful God has given us so great knowledge concerning these things, let us remember Him, and lay aside our sins, and not hang down our heads, for we are not cast off; nevertheless, we have been driven out
Of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea. Cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves— to choose the way of everlasting death
Or the way of eternal life. Reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. Wherefore, may God raise you from death
By the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise Him through grace divine. -Amen. -Amen. Amen.
#Jacob #Teaches #Atonement #Jesus #Christ #Nephi
Was Jesus Actually Resurrected
With 1 out of every 3 people on Earth identifying as Christian, it’s the single most important event in human history. But was Jesus of Nazareth really resurrected from the dead, and is there any evidence for it? To examine the question first we have to establish the historicity of Jesus himself.
While some doubt that he ever lived, no critical historian alive today doubts that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who lived and died in the time attributed to him in the Gospels. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus twice in his histories.
The first mention is widely regarded- even amongst Christian scholars- as having been doctored by a later Christian scribe to be more flattering, but still mentions Jesus as having been condemned and crucified by Roman authorities. The second mention of Jesus by Josephus is when he references the death of Jesus’s brother,
James, who was stoned to death for his belief in Jesus as the Christ. Jesus is also mentioned by the Roman historian Tacitus approximately 86 years after his crucifixion, and affirms that he was in fact crucified by Roman authorities and that a sizable contingent
Of his believers were present in Rome at the time of his writing, which further strengthens the biblical account of Saint Paul. Next, we have to establish the reliability of the evidence used to argue that the resurrection was a real event- namely Paul’s letters and the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Today that material is together, along with other books, known as the New Testament, and a critic would be right in arguing that one cannot use one’s own source material to argue for the validity of his or her argument. Except that is a serious misunderstanding of what the New Testament actually is- or
What it originally was. Today the New Testament is considered to be the second half of Christianity’s ‘holy book’, the Bible. Yet before it was largely codified around 200 A.D., the New Testament was a collection of apocalyptic revelations, letters to various churches, and the formal writing down of oral
Tradition in the form of the gospels. Specifically, Paul’s letters and the synoptic gospels are considered to be valid historical documents, that due to their content were later turned into a ‘holy book’. In the words of historian and New Testament scholar Dr. Gary Habermas, if you don’t use
The historically accepted books of the New Testament to argue for the historicity of Jesus, then critics will use them for you. But have the gospels reliably preserved historical details through the ages, and are Pauls’ letters still in their original form and untampered with for the purpose of empowering a Christian agenda?
Historian, New Testament scholar, and textual critic Bart Ehrman- himself an agnostic leaning towards atheism- points out that we don’t have the original autographs by which to authenticate the modern gospels and Paul’s letters. At best we have copies of copies of copies of copies, with the earliest recovered fragments
Dated back to around halfway through the second century. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of tampering with the gospels, with some passages in modern texts today widely known to have been introduced into the text well after the originals. Perhaps the most iconic of these fabricated bible passages is John 7:53-8:11, the story
Of Jesus and the adulterous woman. This story tells of how Jesus came across a woman about to be stoned to death for the sin of adultery by the Pharisee authorities. Jesus however interrupts the process and simply asks that the first man without sin cast the
First stone, resulting in the accusers dropping their rocks and going home. Finally, Jesus comforts the woman and tells her that he does not condemn her, then encourages her to go forth and sin no more. It’s a wonderful anecdote and example of Jesus as what 20th century Atheist philosopher Antony
Flew called, “a first-rate ethicist”. Except it never happened, the story was fabricated and inserted by an unknown scribe into the text, and is only one example of several. In further questioning the historical reliability of the gospels, Ehrman also points out that
Between various surviving ancient copies of the biblical texts are thousands of errors, and that the first written versions of the gospels and Paul’s letters weren’t created until decades after Jesus’ death- leaving plenty of room for details to be omitted, forgotten, or outright fabricated.
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church wasn’t written until 55 A.D., with the gospel of Mark being written in 70 AD, Matthew in 80 AD, and John in 95 AD. That’s a spread of 25 to 65 years after the death of Jesus.
So with made-up stories, thousands of textual errors in the earliest available copies, and such a massive time gap between Jesus’s death and his history being recorded, is there any reason to think the New Testament is historically reliable? It’s well established that teachings about Jesus spread far and wide very quickly after
His death- in fact within as little as two or three years after the crucifixion, Jewish authorities were already persecuting Christians across the near-East in a bid to exterminate what they viewed as a heretical cult. This wide geographic dissemination of the core Christian knowledge about Jesus and his
Life events makes it incredibly unlikely that major revisions could have taken place without them being discovered- if for example Christian leaders in Rome wished to greatly change a core fact of the life, death, or teachings of Jesus, believers in Africa- which has one
Of the world’s oldest Christian communities- would have immediately identified the manipulation. The simple fact that we today are able to know that the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman was a fabrication is testament to how difficult it can be to make even minor changes
To the text without them being discovered thanks to the wide geographic distribution of the original material. Further, while Bart Ehrman is correct in pointing out the thousands of errors and discrepancies across various ancient manuscripts, the fact is that the overwhelming amount of these errors are insignificant to the core theology.
These errors are overwhelmingly misspellings and other textual errors, or errors so insignificant as to not affect the intended message of the scripture. While some may argue that over time errors can pile up, as in a game of telephone, the
Discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls proves the great diligence with which holy texts were copied and preserved by Jews. A medieval copy of the Old Testament compared with a copy discovered with the Dead Sea scrolls dating back to between the third century BC and first century AD showed that there were
Astonishingly few differences in the text- and once again, mostly copyist errors. The early Christians, being former devout Jews themselves, would have treated their religious texts with the same reverence and exacting care for precision. Further, while we don’t have the original autographs, we do have many preserved copies
Of some of the earliest church fathers’ writing on the gospels themselves. From their musings on these earliest versions of the gospels we can be confident that we do in fact, have an incredibly well preserved collection that if not perfectly, extremely accurately reflects the content and message of the autographs.
Professor Ehrman correctly points out to discrepancies in the gospel accounts themselves as proof that they are not reliable. On just the discovery of the empty tomb, the gospels vary in the telling. Matthew states that Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” went to the tomb.
There they found an angel, who told them that Jesus was risen and that they should tell the disciples and that they should go to Galilee to meet up with Jesus. Mark states that both Maries, and a third woman- Salome- went to the tomb and found
A young man inside who told them to tell the disciples to go meet the risen Jesus in Galilee. Luke states that “the women” went to the tomb, and entering the empty tomb they could not find Jesus when suddenly two men in bright clothes appeared before them.
They are not told to tell the disciples about the tomb nor to go anywhere. John states that Mary Magadalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance, so she went rushing back to Peter and one of the other disciples and
Claimed that the Jewish authorities or the Romans had removed Jesus’s body. Peter and the other disciple returned to the tomb to find Jesus’s burial clothing, while Mary somewhere outside the tomb and crying, sees two angels and Jesus- though is not allowed to immediately recognize Jesus.
So how can the various gospels be reconcilable if they differ so much in their re-telling of the empty tomb? It’s important to note that only one of the gospel acounts- John’s- actually differs in any significant way. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written side-by-side, but rather individually by different people,
Thus it’s unsurprising that they would slightly differ in their historical retelling. Neither of those three gospels contradicts the other, they merely mention details important to them. While Luke seems to state that a group of women went to the tomb, Matthew and Mark don’t
Omit the possibility- they simply focus on two of the women in that group important to the writer. Luke also does not say that the women are instructed to tell the disciples, or to tell them to go to Galilee to meet Jesus there, but the omission of this detail does not mean
It didn’t happen- the writer of Luke could have very correctly assumed that this part of the history was so well known, it was unnecessary to add it to his account. The presence of the angels is likewise complimentary, as Matthew and Mark may have simply chosen
To focus on the important angel- the one speaking. John is the only gospel that differs significantly, and is thus not considered a synoptic gospel- yet that is consistent with the overall theme of John which explores who Jesus was, not what Jesus historically did.
Most historians accept this fact and don’t consider John a purely historical document anyways, and neither should we. As we can see then, the differences in the gospel accounts are a) insignificant to the core facts, and b) largely an issue of focus, rather than irreconcilable discrepancies.
For comparison consider the accounts of the Titanic’s survivors- many of them swore that the ship sunk without breaking in two, while the rest swore that they saw the ship physically break in two. Nobody however doubted that the ship had sunk, or any of the events immediately after the sinking.
Further, if the gospel accounts had been perfectly accurate to each other, they would’ve almost certainly been collaborated, seriously damaging their value as historical documents. Lastly, while no serious historian objects to the time gap between the gospels and Jesus’s death as being cause for concern over inaccuracy, many non-historian critics do.
After all, how accurate can a historical account be if it’s written decades after the subject’s death? First, this is ignoring the strong oral tradition of ancient Jews. In the first century, very few people knew how to read or write, and thus most people
Would rely on oral retelling of history- and specially of their religious texts, with a very strong emphasis on accuracy. To a devout Jew, the thought of mangling holy scripture by poorly recollecting it was an unthinkable heresy. This strong oral tradition would have been present in the early Christians as well, themselves
Recently converted Jews. Next, while the earliest writings on Jesus date to 25 years after his death, the fact that we have at least 11 historical sources for Jesus within a century of his death makes Jesus of Nazareth the gold standard for ancient historians.
Take for example Alexander the Great, of whom there’s not a single history class in the world that doesn’t tell of his deeds. Yet the earliest available sources for Alexander date to over 300 years after his death. How about Tiberius Caesar then, the emperor of the Roman empire during the life and death
Of Jesus? Surely if anyone was to be well-attested to it would be the leader of the most powerful empire at the time. Yet while one contemporary source exists, it’s highly unreliable for historians as it speaks on an all-too personal note.
The best, and earliest, source for the life and times of Rome’s emperor when Jesus died is Publius Cornelius Tacitus, writing a full eighty years after Tiberius’s death. The next after that is Suetonius, 85 years after his death, and Cassius Dio almost two centuries later.
Simply put, to doubt the veracity of the historical account of the scriptures is to put into doubt every single event of ancient history, as the life, death, and teachings of Jesus are the best sourced histories in the ancient world. With the gospels and letters of Saint Paul accepted as valid historical documents, is
There then any evidence for the resurrection as a historical event? We can begin our investigation with the empty tomb. In the gospel accounts, the tomb is discovered empty by Mary Magdalene. Jesus’s burial clothes are there, but not the body. Critics have argued that the empty tomb was an early Christian fabrication, and presented
Various theories as to what really happened. The first is that the entire empty tomb narrative was a fabrication, yet this has been widely rejected by critical historians as the scriptures themselves record the Jewish authorities reacting to the empty tomb by claiming that the disciples had stolen the body, along with their own
Refutation to this claim. An obvious back-and-forth dialogue is preserved, showing that whatever the cause, the tomb of Jesus was in fact discovered empty. Next is the claim that the Jewish Sanhedrin was right, and the disciples did steal the body. This is frankly, an absurd proposition, as guards had been posted to the tomb.
In all likelihood these were actually Jewish temple guards, as it’s incredibly unlikely that Pilate would have bothered to involve Roman guards in what he saw as a purely Jewish religious dispute, and instead simply told the Sanhedrin to use the guards they already possessed themselves.
The idea of the disciples bribing Jewish temple guards successfully so as to perpetuate their heretical belief in a resurrected Messiah is incredulous to the point of sheer absurdity, let alone bribing Roman guards who would themselves face death for such a massive dereliction of duty when the tomb was found empty.
The next theory is the ‘apparent death’ theory. This theory states that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, and instead survived his crucifixion, somehow slipped past his tomb guards, and returned to the disciples who celebrated him as the resurrected Son of God.
Once more, it is completely absurd to believe that a severely injured Jesus, who had just survived a scourging, then being crucified, and in need of critical medical care, could possibly return to his disciples and convince them that despite his utterly broken body, he had in fact defeated death, quote, “in glory”.
Secondly, crucifixion was simply not a survivable event unless the person was immediately rescued. The way that a person was crucified would lead to a slow but sure asphyxiation as the downward pull of gravity forced an individual to physically push against the nails embedded
In his feet in order to lift their chest up and relieve the pressure, allowing them to gasp for breath. This would have been not only an excruciatingly painful experience, but an exhausting one, compounded by the effects of blood loss and exposure. Additionally, Roman guards were quite used to crucifying Jewish would-be Messiahs and
Rebels by this time, and were under pains of their own death to ensure that their prisoner could not be rescued and did indeed die on their cross. Lastly, in the account of the crucifixion in John 19, we have a Roman centurion ensuring
That Jesus is truly dead by piercing his side with a spear, stabbing upwards and into the heart to deliver a killing blow. The scripture states that “blood and water” came out of the wound, which perfectly mirrors exactly what modern medical science would expect from such a wound on a person who died
After being crucified. Before death, fluid would have collected in the membrane around the heart and lungs due to heart failure- this is known as a pericardial and pleural effusion. Upon Jesus’s body being pierced by the spear, this fluid would have leaked out of the wound,
Followed by blood, exactly as reported in John 19, strongly hinting that whoever wrote the John account either was physically present at the crucifixion or had testimony from a witness who was. So is the empty tomb narrative accurate? There is no realistic reason to believe that Jesus’s body was stolen, or that Jesus survived
His crucifixion. Without an empty tomb, there could be no Christian narrative of a resurrection. As a well-known figure due to his perceived blasphemy and heresy, the site of Jesus’s burial would have been known to anyone looking to debunk the disciple’s earliest claims of
Resurrection, and all the Jewish authorities would have had to do to shut the entire Christian movement down as soon as it arouse was to simply unseal the tomb and show that Jesus still lay there, dead, and that the disciples were liars. It’s important to note who discovered the empty tomb as well- women.
In the very patriarchal society of the ancient Jews, women were not regarded as credible witnesses in court. Both Jewish historian Josephus and Jewish philosopher Maimonides made it clear that women were not competent to testify in court. As Josephus pointed out, testimony of a deaf, mentally incompetent, or young person, as
Well as women, was excluded in most cases. Despite women being ineligible to serve as witnesses in most Jewish courts, the early Christians publicly proclaimed women- the least trustworthy members of society- as the discoverers of the empty tomb. This would not just have been an incredulous, but hugely embarrassing detail for the early
Disciples, and the fact that the detail remains is strong evidence that the disciples were simply accurately relaying the discovery of the empty tomb- no matter how embarrassing it was for them personally. Next in our investigation of the resurrection is the appearances of Jesus after his death.
The majority of new testament historians affirm that Jesus appeared to his disciples after his death. In the words of Ed Sanders, New Testament scholar and former professor at Duke University, “The following is an historical fact: the earliest disciples saw the risen Jesus.
I don’t know how exactly they saw him, but they saw him.” Most critics, including 20th century atheist philosopher Antony Flew ascribe to the hallucination theory to explain the postmortem appearances of Jesus. This theory posits that the disciples were stricken with grief-inspired hallucinations,
And confused them as the real, bodily appearance of a risen Jesus. There are, however, serious problems with this theory. First, any belief in Jesus’s resurrection due to a hallucination could have easily been dispelled by Jewish authorities by simply checking the tomb and finding the body still resting there.
Second, as is established by medical science, hallucinations cannot create new ideas- they simply work within the preexisting mental framework. As devout Jews, the disciples had no belief, let alone an ‘idea’ of a bodily resurrection that predated the end of days.
In the Jewish faith, resurrection only occurred on the last day, as God cast his judgment and called the faithful to live in paradise- before this event there could be no resurrection of the dead. Revivification of the recently dead, much like happens in our modern hospitals every
Day, was certainly possible, but not a resurrection to a “glorified body” as described by the disciples of Jesus. Therefore a hallucination could not have convinced a devout Jew that an event for which he had no basis for believing in, had occurred.
Secondly, the odds of all of the disciples- or at least enough to jump-start the Christian church- all suffering from grief hallucinations are astronomical to the point of, once more, absurdity. There is not a single other recorded case like it in verified medical history.
Further, it’s well recorded that Jesus appeared to groups of the disciples at the same time, and hallucinations cannot be shared between individuals. One individual cannot see what another is hallucinating, and vice-versa. Lastly, there’s the case of Saint Paul. Paul was in effect, a religious terrorist.
As the early Christian church spread rapidly, Paul was tasked with finding Christians and imprisoning or killing them on behalf of the Jewish authorities. Yet two to three years after the crucifixion, Paul- by his own account- encountered Jesus.
At the time he was on the way to the synagogues in Damascus to request their aid in arresting Christians and bringing them back to Jerusalem to undergo trial and possible execution. While on the road, Paul encounters Jesus and is blinded, and remains so until one of the
Very Christians he was sent to arrest or kill finds him and heals him. In ‘The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth’, Jack Kent argues that Paul suffered from conversion disorder, a very real psychological disorder that commonly affects soldiers, police officers, and prison guards.
Commonly, sufferers will experience physical maladies with no apparent cause while under severe psychological stress- thus Paul’s blindness is believed to be a psychosomatic syndrome of his conversion disorder, itself caused by his internal conflict in killing and imprisoning innocent Christians. However, there are as usual problems with this theory.
Conversion disorder is short-lived, and thus would not explain Paul’s dramatic and lifelong change from devout Jew and persecutor of Christians, to a champion of the early Christian faith. It’s also incredibly implausible that Paul experienced conversion disorder along with visual and auditory hallucinations which led him to believe that Jesus was talking to him
Personally- not to mention the Messiah complex that would arise as Paul took on the mission of spreading the Christian faith far and wide. In short, Paul would have had to have been one of the most mentally ill individuals in history to suffer from all four mental disorders simultaneously at exactly this stretch of
Road on the way to Damascus. Hallucination theory simply can’t explain why a sworn enemy of the Christian church would experience the same hallucination as Jesus’s own disciples, years after Jesus’s death. It also cannot explain the postmortem appearances to entire groups of people as recorded by the disciples, as hallucinations are a personal experience.
Finally, a hallucination could not have led the disciples to believe in something they had no concept of before the event- namely, the preapocalyptic resurrection of their former teacher. Next is the marked change in the disciple’s lives as a result of their postmortem encounters with Jesus.
As stated about Paul, hallucinations simply do not lead to lifelong ideological changes, and the disciples clearly underwent dramatic and unprecedented ideological and theological changes practically overnight as a result of their experiences after the crucifixion. Immediately after Jesus’s death, the disciples went into hiding, fearful that the Jewish authorities would crucify them next.
It can’t be understated how devastating the crucifixion was for the disciples- not only had they lost their teacher, but he had suffered a criminal’s death, one so abhorrent to Jewish society that it was believed those who were crucified would not experience resurrection on the final day.
In the eyes of the disciples, Jesus had proven himself to be no different than the dozens of other self-proclaimed Jewish messiahs that came before, and after, his death. Yet we know that within months of the resurrection, possibly even weeks, the disciples were boldly proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection.
This is evidenced by two facts: the first is that the Christian church had spread so quickly that Paul was on his way to root it out in Damascus just two to three years after Jesus’s death. The second is what is known as the ‘Corinthian creed’, written down by Paul in 1 Corinthians
15, which reads: …that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. This creedial statement in Paul’s letter is authenticated as an early Christian creed
By the format it is written in the original Greek, which differs from the way the rest of Paul’s letter is written. In the ancient world, when you wanted to help someone who couldn’t read or write remember
Something, you put it in the form of a creed, and as Bart Ehrman himself attests, the Corinthian creed can be dated back to within one or two years of the crucifixion, with some historians dating it as early as mere months after Jesus’s death.
This means that within months after the crucifixion, the earliest Christians were already teaching Jesus’s resurrection- a concept that they had no ideological basis for prior to the crucifixion. And not only were the demoralized and terrified disciples coming to believe Jesus had risen
From the dead, but they were almost immediately spreading their belief to thousands of other Jews. Belief in the resurrection was far from the only heretical belief of the disciples however, as almost immediately after the crucifixion the young Christian church changed their celebration of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
This move was motivated by the day of Jesus’s alleged resurrection and discovery of the empty tomb, and to first century Jews, would have been the height of heresy. Handed down to them by God himself, and honored for two thousand years, the sabbath and God’s
Commands to keep it holy were of paramount importance to the Jews, and suffused nearly every aspect of their culture. For the early Christians to be convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, and thus shift their sabbath celebration from Saturday to Sunday, defying almost two thousand years
Of tradition, would have required an incredible burden of proof. As observed across history, religious schisms simply don’t spring up overnight, and yet one of the immediate defining characteristics of the early Christian church was its adoption of Sunday as the new sabbath.
Belief in Jesus as the messiah also completely defied all Jewish messianic expectations. To first century Jews, living under the Roman yoke and having experienced no independence for hundreds of years, the messiah was supposed to triumph over Israel’s enemies and drive them out of the land.
The messiah was not supposed to be tried by his enemies and then sentenced to a humiliating death on a cross- let alone be resurrected three days later only to leave Israel’s enemies in power. For the early Jews, the messiah was a triumphant figure, leading them to victory- not an atoning
Sacrifice for the sins of the world. Explaining how so many 1st century Jews could come to believe in this radically different version of a messiah is difficult, unless the disciples had proof in the postmortem encounters with Jesus, and the instructions they received during those visitations.
Critics argue that the entire narrative was fabricated by the early church, yet fail to account for how truly difficult it would be to come to believe in Jesus as messiah when he defied centuries of messianic expectations within a deeply religious society by dying as a criminal and not driving out Israel’s enemies.
Lastly, we have the faith of the disciples themselves. Christian claims that all or most of the original disciples were martyred cannot be substantiated, but there are good sources for several of the disciples. Peter’s martyrdom is attested to by Clement of Rome, an early church leader elected from
Amongst individuals who personally knew the disciples. He was crucified upside down, not believing himself worthy to die the same way as Jesus. The apostle James, not to be confused with Jesus’s brother, was killed by King Herod in about AD 44.
The martyrdom is attested to in the book of Acts, but also recorded by Clement of Alexandria who was born 100 years after James died. Paul, the famous persecutor of Christians, is widely attested to by the earliest church leadership as having been beheaded by emperor Nero sometime before 68 AD.
James, brother of Jesus, is written about by Jewish historian Josephus, who writes that James was executed by stoning in 62 AD. James’ murder, according to Josephus, offended many of the citizens as it had been carried out by a hastily organized Jewish court during a lapse in imperial oversight of the region.
James’ martyrdom is particularly striking because as the gospels state, he believed Jesus was crazy while alive, and yet would later die for his faith that his own brother was indeed the messiah. While the rest of the disciples cannot be confirmed as having been martyred, the ones
Which can be confirmed paint a telling picture of a group of men who refused to give up their belief in Jesus as messiah despite the threat of death. Often painted as con artists by critics, there is no possible reason to believe that if the
Disciples were truly con men, they would have stuck to the con all the way up to their own execution- and yet history records no mention of their recanting of their beliefs. Simply put, men don’t die for false beliefs. The final argument for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical event argues
That the crucifixion and resurrection account simply lacks legendary embellishments, as is present in nearly every other religion. This however is only mostly true, as there are clear signs of legendary-ism that creep into scripture. For example, when Jesus dies the gospels speak of a period of darkness, or of many of the
Dead returning to life briefly, or of the veil in the temple separating the holy of holies from the public tearing in two. While there is some evidence that an eclipse may have occurred on the day Jesus died, there is no evidence that the dead walked briefly through the streets of Jerusalem, or that
The earth shook and the temple was damaged in any way. These are almost certainly, simply legendary embellishments. However, when compared with other religious texts what immediately stands out about the New Testament is the starkness of the text. In fact, the entire account of the life, death, and postmortem appearances of Jesus is quite
Embarrassing to the early church. Even before Jesus dies, the scriptures attest to bickering, whining, and complaining from his own disciples. Jesus frequently rebuffs them for their lack of faith or foolishness, and even outright chastises Peter- the man on whom the church would be built- as having an ungodly way of thinking about things.
One of Jesus’s closest disciples is a tax collector for the Romans- men who were seen as traitors and were so reviled by Jewish society that they were not allowed to worship at the temple and were considered unclean along with various animals.
Jesus’s own family was no better, with the gospels recording that they believed he was crazy- this would be most telling for James, his brother, who would shortly after the crucifixion come to believe in Jesus as messiah and even die for that belief.
When Jesus is arrested, Peter- again, the most important of the disciples- denies Jesus three times, then flees along with the rest of the disciples to hide in fear and shame. When Jesus is crucified, most of the gospel accounts state that at best, only a few of the disciples watched from a great distance.
Only the gospel of John, least reliable in this matter, mentions that a single disciple was even near the cross- though what’s clear is that the disciples didn’t dare come close for fear of their own arrest. After Jesus’s death, none of the disciples believe in his promise to return after three days.
They are so demoralized by the crucifixion that they are hiding from the Jewish authorities, and even when Mary Magdalene brings them news of the empty tomb, they refuse to believe. It’s only when Jesus appears bodily to them that they believe, and even then at least
One of them, Thomas, refuses to believe Jesus isn’t a ghost until Jesus offers that he physically touch him. The picture painted by the gospels of the original disciples is that of scared, doubting, at times unfaithful men- exactly the opposite of what you would expect if the entire narrative
Had simply been created for the purposes of legitimizing a belief in Jesus. Rather than painting them as great patriarchs of wisdom and faith as would be expected, the New Testament is downright frequently embarrassing in its portrayal of the disciples- evidence that the scribes who penned the original gospels were more interested in recording
Truth than fictionalizing accounts and infusing them with legendary attributes. From a radical and sudden shift in deeply held religious beliefs, to the independently attested accounts of bodily postmortem appearances of Jesus, to the inexplicable explosion in growth of the early church, the question of if Jesus rose from the dead or not remains
Without a plausible naturalistic answer. While a naturalistic theory can be posited that answers one or more of the facts behind the early church, no one theory can explain all of them together. The truth is something significant happened in Jerusalem in the early 30s AD, an event
So incredible that it immediately split the Jewish faith in two and led to an explosion in belief in Jesus of Nazareth, executed as a blasphemer and criminal, as the risen Messiah. Now go watch most weird passages in the bible, or click this other video instead!
#Jesus #Resurrected
Evidence of Jesus’ Birth Revealed | Full Episode
>> NARRATOR: In a backwater of the ancient world, a newborn child heralds new hope for mankind. It is a birth riddled with paradox. A virgin has become a mother; God has become human; a child is King. The biblical account of Jesus’ birth has enraptured millions. But the passage of 2,000 years
Has obscured the historical events that inspired it. What really happened? The answers, though elusive, may still be within our grasp– in clues contained in the Bible, in ancient historical documents and in recent new discoveries by scholars and scientists. Join us as we try to reconstruct the true story of a birth as
Mysterious as it was momentous. [Captioning sponsored by A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS] >> NARRATOR: For many, the search for the truth begins here. This sanctuary in Bethlehem was built in 326 A.D. at the behest of the mother of the most powerful man on Earth. A decade earlier, Constantine
The Great had altered history by declaring Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. His mother Helena became convinced by local residents that his newfound faith began on this spot. Visitors to the Church of the Nativity can descend to a grotto below, where Jesus is said to have been born.
Many share Helena’s belief. Others, who do not, still acknowledge the site’s symbolic if not historic value. Here, both can find satisfaction. Here, they can touch Christmas. For Christians, the birth of Jesus marks the moment when the world was transformed by the arrival of humanity’s savior. To others, it is an epochal
Turning point: the dawn of the dominant figure of Western culture. The mystery of Jesus’ birth is contained in two books of the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But many scholars believe that they are works concerned not so much with facts than faith. To extract history from their pages is problematic.
>> DANIEL SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The Hebrews knew that some truths are more profoundly communicated by telling a story than simply narrating historical events. That presents us an interesting difficulty. Sometimes we have to take a biblical passage and decide how much of this is the narration of events and how much of this is
Story and how do we tell the difference? >> ELIZABETH McNAMER: Our idea of history is different from writers who were writing then. We’re interested in the facts and only the facts. People writing at that point were interested not just in what happened, but in the interpretation of what happened.
It didn’t disturb them at all to add things to put forward their own theology, and it didn’t disturb their readers, either. >> JUDY YATES SIKER: They weren’t historians and they weren’t biographers. They were people whose communities had been impacted by the life of one they called Jesus of Nazareth, and it was
Imperative that they tell the story. >> NARRATOR: But did Matthew and Luke base their accounts of Jesus’ birth on actual events? Or did they merely invent the story after Jesus rose to prominence? The answers are all the more elusive because the narrative known to millions is in fact a fusion of two strikingly
Different tales. It begins when God chooses an obscure young virgin named Mary to carry his son. He tells her of his plan in an extraordinary encounter known as the Annunciation. >> “The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in
Your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.’ And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be since I am a virgin?’ And the angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.'”– LUKE 1:30.
>> NARRATOR: When Mary reveals her pregnancy to Joseph, her fiancé, he disbelieves her story. But when another angel visits him to verify it, his devotion to Mary is restored. Months pass… then a drama begins that is described by Luke but never mentioned by Matthew. The Emperor demands that all the
Roman world, including the Hebrew people, return to their ancestral homes in order to be taxed. >> “Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited Earth. And all were proceeding to register for the census,
Everyone to his own city.”– LUKE 2:1. >> NARRATOR: Joseph, originally from Bethlehem, must escort the pregnant Mary on an arduous journey to his home city, 90 miles away. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: One of the realities that we must always keep in mind in thinking about the Christmas story is that Palestine was Roman- occupied Palestine.
This was not a time or a place when the Hebrew people were in control of their own fate. Rome was very much in control of the fate of these people. So, there’s a human drama: There’s the drama of a father and a mother protecting their child and of trying to do the
Right thing. There’s a larger drama, and that is, this is a Hebrew family trying to do the right thing under the brutal occupation of Palestine by a foreign entity– the Roman Empire. >> NARRATOR: When Mary and Joseph arrive, they discover that Bethlehem is crowded to capacity. With no lodging available, the
Couple’s dilemma worsens. Mary goes into labor. >> “And she gave birth to her newborn son, and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.”– LUKE 2:7. >> NARRATOR: The setting where Jesus was born is not specified.
But the presence of a manger– a feeding trough for livestock– has led many to believe it was a stable. Both Matthew and Luke describe how God makes known the miraculous birth to a receptive few. But they differ about who was informed and how. According to Matthew, God conveys the news through a
Wondrous morning star. It serves as a beacon for foreign dignitaries, who travel hundreds of miles to pay homage to the infant Jesus. >> “The star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over where the child was. And they came into the house and
Saw the child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. And opening their treasures, they presented him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh.”– MATTHEW 2:9. >> NARRATOR: In Luke’s version, the message of the birth is carried by an angel. It is delivered not to powerful
Foreigners, but to the local area’s most humble inhabitants. >> “There were shepherds in the fields keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people.
For today, in the city of David, there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord.'”– LUKE 2:8. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The birth of Jesus represents one of those shining moments in human history when there seems to be a kind of sunrise in human darkness.
The birth of Jesus and the life and teachings of Jesus provide us with a level of hope, a message of trust and of just the human possibilities, and I think even non-Christians can come to appreciate that in Jesus as well. >> SIKER: Whether you are a person of faith or not, you have
Echoes of the story in art, in literature, and you can’t avoid it. And so, one needs to be aware of what this story is and what the significance of this story is in order to survive in Western culture. >> MARVIN MEYER: There’s something about the birth of any child that is a wonderful
Moment. It’s a wonderful moment for a family, but in the case of the story of the birth of Jesus, the point of it is, here is a birth that may have some meaning for a bigger family, for the family of Israel, for the family of humankind. >> NARRATOR: One man’s birth
Would turn the world upside down. A new faith would challenge the old order. Jesus, claiming to be the Son of God, would be seen as a threat to Caesar, who claimed to be a god himself. Two charismatic leaders, each asserting their divinity, would offer a revolutionary choice for the future.
>> JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN: For millions of people, Caesar as divine made sense. He owned the legions, he controlled the Mediterranean world, he brought peace to it and he lived in a huge palace over there on the Palantine Hill in Rome. Now, over here is another story, a counter-story, an anti-story,
Which says, “No, God is not the god of power and violence incarnate in Caesar; God is the Jewish god of justice and righteousness incarnate in a little child who was born in a tiny country, an occupied colony of the Roman Empire, born just about as low as you can imagine.
So you hear of the clash of two gods.” And the question of the story– and it is the Christmas question– “Where is your god? Is your god in power or in justice? Take your choice.” >> NARRATOR: For two people, the choice is never in doubt. The virgin and the carpenter who
Bring Jesus into the world are the first to love him and all he represents. Surprisingly, however, the Gospels tell us little about them. All efforts to trace the historical roots of Christmas lead back to two pivotal figures. The human drama in the story belongs to Mary and Joseph.
They are the parents of God’s only Son, responsible for bringing up the Savior of the world. Yet the Gospels provide little information about them. Today, we think of them simply as a virgin mother and a humble carpenter. Mary’s identity has been obscured by centuries of idealization, encouraged by the Catholic doctrine of the
“Immaculate Conception.” >> SIKER: The phrase the “Immaculate Conception” is often misunderstood as a reference to the immaculate conception of Jesus, when, in fact, it is a reference to Mary. There was a sanctifying grace that preserved her from the stain of original sin. It was important that Mary’s pureness be preserved.
And so, I think that in order for this young woman to be the mother of one who was later, in Christianity, considered God, that it was important that we not have original sin stain this family. >> NARRATOR: For a less romanticized, more accurate portrait of Mary, scholars take
A deeper look into the Gospels. According to Luke, she is neither meek nor mild, but driven by a sense of purpose. She reveals herself in a powerful proclamation now known as the “Magnificat.” >> “My soul exalts the Lord. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent away the rich empty-handed.”– LUKE 1:46. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: What is the image that Luke portrays for us of the young Mary? It is not an image of this kind of glowing, white, virginal woman floating in the air. It’s the image of a
Revolutionary young woman in Roman-occupied Palestine, who sees the implications of the coming of her child to be expressed in those powerful words that the rich will be sent away, the poor will be fed, and the powerful will be pulled down from their thrones. This is a very politically savvy young woman.
>> NARRATOR: If Luke saw Mary as a revolutionary, he also saw her as a virgin. For historians, the virgin birth defies analysis. They are not equipped or inclined to discuss miracles. In their quest to understand the Christmas story, they must confine themselves to a conventional approach. In recent years, they have
Discovered other possible explanations for Mary’s dual role as virgin and mother. Advances in reproductive biology have focused attention on a phenomenon called parthenogenesis. It is a rare process in some plants and animals in which an egg can develop into a new organism without being fertilized. No instance of the process
Occurring in a human female has ever been recorded. Still, it leaves open the possibility that a virgin birth could have a basis in science. Some scholars, however, believe the Gospel authors did not base the virgin birth on a real event, but were inspired by an Old Testament prophecy.
>> “The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.”– ISAIAH 7:14. >> NARRATOR: According to some scholars, the Gospel authors likely claimed Jesus was born of a virgin to remain consistent with Isaiah’s prophesy of the
Coming Messiah. >> ROHALD F. HOCK: Isaiah himself, so far as we know, had no intentions of looking that far ahead, but the standard procedure throughout the ancient world was to make connections between the present and the past, and Christians are doing that with Jesus by connecting him with the past Scripture– in
This case, the prophecy of Isaiah. >> NARRATOR: Ironically, however, some claim it is possible that Isaiah never intended to predict that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. His words, written originally in Hebrew, may have taken on an erroneous new meaning when translated into the Greek version available to Matthew and Luke.
>> MEYER: In the original Hebrew of Isaiah, the word that is used for, well, “virgin” is actually ” alma,” the Hebrew word that means “a young woman”– a young woman of the age when women can conceive and bear children. And there is no more baggage than that that is connected to
That particular term. >> SIKER: When this gets translated into the Greek, which is what the early Christians would have been using– the text that they would have had– is ” parthenos,” which is more heavily nuanced as “virgin.” >> MEYER: The fact of the matter is, the doctrine of the virgin
Birth works better with the Greek than it does with the original Hebrew. >> SIKER: I don’t think that the speculation that the whole idea of Mary’s virginity comes from this “mistranslation” is one that argues very well. For one thing, it’s not a mistranslation. It is one of several words that
Is perfectly acceptable as a translation. But it does have a more heavy nuance of virginity. >> NARRATOR: Scholars who scrutinize the virgin birth focus not only on Isaiah’s prediction in the Old Testament, but also the Gospels themselves. In an apparent contradiction, the same biblical authors who celebrate Mary’s virginity also
Write that Jesus had several siblings. >> “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters with us?”– MATTHEW 13:54. >> McNAMER: The orthodox tradition on this is that they were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage.
The Roman Catholic tradition is that these were simply cousins of Jesus. >> NARRATOR: Matthew and Luke, however, provide no information supporting this interpretation. >> MEYER: If one will insist, theologically, upon the perpetual virginity of Mary, then there are some great problems when it comes to the brothers and the sisters of Jesus.
And then some creative theological and historical work has to be done. The spin doctors have to go to work. I think that the simplest way to read those accounts is to understand that Jesus had real brothers and real sisters. It was that kind of an ordinary family. >> NARRATOR: If Jesus had
Biological siblings, it would negate only the notion that Mary was a virgin her entire life– not necessarily her virgin birth of Jesus. >> “Joseph knew her not until she had borne a son, and she called his name Jesus.”– MATTHEW 1:25. >> NARRATOR: Some scholars argue that this verse implies that Mary conceived Jesus
Miraculously, and later lost her virginity as she and Joseph assumed a conventional sexual relationship. For skeptics, the question remains: “If Mary was not a virgin, and God was not the father of Jesus, who was?” The most likely candidate, predictably, is Joseph. But in the first century, a rumor surfaced of another possibility.
It was chronicled by the Christian theologian Origen, who taught in Egypt in the second century. He wrote of an allegation that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier. >> “The Jew, speaking of the mother of Jesus, said that she was guilty of adultery, and that
She bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.”– ORIGEN, AGAINST CELSUS, CHAPTER 33. >> SIKER: Origen argues that they had to create this lie– this lie of Mary and the Roman
Soldier– because they knew, and they unwittingly admitted in their lie that Jesus’ birth was not a usual birth. And so, if they couldn’t accept the miraculous nature of this birth, what else would they do but create such a lie? >> CROSSAN: The accusation that Mary was raped by a Roman
Soldier and produced a child, therefore out of wedlock, seems to me to be the obvious rebuttal that I would make if I didn’t accept the virginal birth. This is the nasty, within-the- family, and therefore very nasty name-calling that goes on between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews in the first
Century, each sort of saying rather nasty things about the other. >> NARRATOR: But could this accusation have any basis in fact? One clue scholars have examined is the name of the Roman soldier mentioned by Origen– Panthera. >> MEYER: Lo and behold, it turns out that a tombstone of a
Certain “Panther” has been found in Germany– the tombstone of a Roman soldier whose name was Tiberius Julius Abdes Panther. And it is said that he was a Sidonian archer who was based in Palestine. And so, that leads then to the speculation: Could it be the case that Mary was actually
Raped by, seduced by– but, at her age, we would call that rape– raped by a Roman soldier? And it is one of the historical possibilities. >> NARRATOR: The tombstone, discovered in 1859 in the city of Bingerbruck, is an intriguing yet inconclusive piece of evidence. Some scholars have argued that
Panthera was likely a common name among the ancient Romans. So, finding it etched on an ancient tombstone should not seem surprising. The discovery has become part of a 2,000-year-old theological debate over Jesus’ parentage. But the issue was once a private crisis for one humble carpenter. After Joseph learns Mary is
Pregnant, say the Gospels, he naturally assumes she has betrayed his trust. Under the laws of his time, he could have Mary stoned to death for her perceived infidelity. Instead, he quietly breaks their engagement. God intervenes. He sends an angel to Joseph in a dream, who tells him that her child has been miraculously
Conceived. Joseph accepts the divine explanation. He and Mary resolve to carry out God’s miracle. In 1997, archaeologists make a remarkable discovery three miles from Bethlehem. The pinkish limestone appears utterly ordinary, except it is located precisely in the center of the ruins of a 5th-century church. The church, it seems, was built
Purposefully around it. The diggers believe they have found the fabled kathisma– the Greek word for “the seat.” According to an apocryphal text, Mary rested on it on her way to give birth to Jesus. Ancient Christians gathered here to commemorate her journey to Bethlehem. The find renews debate over an age-old historical question:
Where was Jesus born? >> McNAMER: I believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, just as the stories tell us. The reason I believe this is that there were very early traditions in the church of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. These would have surfaced very soon after his death, when
People still remembered things, that he was born in Bethlehem. >> MEYER: I think it was likely Nazareth. Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth. And, typically, people were known by their birthplace. This is where the family lived. The way in which Matthew and Luke go through some contortions
To get the family to Bethlehem in order for Jesus to be born there seems to indicate that there’s something that is theologically motivated about this kind of account. >> NARRATOR: Some scholars believe that the Gospel authors knew Jesus was born in Nazareth, but altered the truth in the name of faith.
Their inspiration, once again, may have been a prophecy from the Old Testament. >> “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel.”– MICAH 5:2. >> NARRATOR: From Bethlehem,
Predicts Micah, will arise a Messiah for God’s chosen people. If Luke and Matthew wished to exalt Jesus as the awaited King, no other city would suffice as his birthplace. Whether inspired by facts or faith, Luke’s account of the journey to Bethlehem is complex and colorful. His story begins in Nazareth,
Where Mary and Joseph await the birth of Jesus. But the Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus, orders a census of his empire. >> HOCK: A census involved essentially finding out the numbers of people, the wealth of people, for purposes of taxation. So you had to have figures. You had to have concrete data
About what a province could generate in terms of taxes so that when the Empire decided what its tribute should be, they would be able to raise those funds. And, presumably, the reason Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem is because Joseph has property there and, for that reason, is required to register
Himself there rather than at Nazareth. >> NARRATOR: Luke does not specify their means of transportation. But since donkeys were commonly used to move both goods and people, the popular image of Mary riding one is entirely plausible. The roads in Palestine, even by ancient standards, were primitive. The food commonly taken on an
Extended journey was bread and water. Scholars imagine the 90-mile trek would have been grueling. Slowed by Mary’s condition, they would have traveled perhaps ten miles a day. The entire journey would have lasted more than a week. The question remains whether Joseph and Mary really endured such a journey.
The key to the answer may lie in the census that Luke says motivated it. >> “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was Governor of Syria.”– LUKE 2:2. >> NARRATOR: Independent historical sources confirm that a Roman census did occur during the reign of Quirinius. But it occurred in 6 A.D., long
After Jesus was born. It has been suggested that Luke misidentified the Governor; he may have meant to specify the similarly named Quintillus. His reign began in 6 B.C., around the same time that another Roman census was conducted. Even if this is true, however, paradox persists. Roman records indicate that
Every census ordered by Caesar Augustus over a 42-year span involved only Roman citizens. Mary and Joseph would not have participated. Also suspect is a census that required registrants to return to the city where they were born. >> CROSSAN: If everyone goes back to their ancestral home to be recorded and then goes back
To wherever they live, that’s a bureaucratic nightmare. It’s not the way the Romans did it. They wanted you recorded where you were working. “We want to know where you are to pay your taxes.” So, it’s a story which Luke creates in order to get Mary and Joseph and Jesus, of course to
Be born yet, to Bethlehem. But it is not factual. It’s fictional. >> DR. RICHARD HORSLEY: For a long time, we thought that this was just a story, and that this was just a literary device. Well, we’ve discovered papyri in Egypt, now, that put a whole different slant on this.
The Romans required peasants who had found themselves unable to both pay their taxes to Caesar and provide for their families to return to their villages precisely in order to be down on the farm where they would raise crops and pay the Roman taxes. Then that puts some great credibility back in this legend
That Joseph and Mary journey to Bethlehem on the occasion of Caesar having decreed a tax. >> NARRATOR: Whether Luke’s story of the census is credible or not, there may be a completely different scenario that compelled Mary and Joseph to journey to Bethlehem. Some scholars suggest it is possible that Mary was aware of
The Old Testament prophecy in Micah. They believe she may have purposely delivered her baby in the predicted city to bolster his role as the Messiah. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Let’s remember Luke’s portrayal of Mary as a socially and politically very sophisticated young woman who sees her role as part of the resistance of the
Hebrew people to Roman-occupied Palestine. For this woman to associate the coming of this messianic child with the line of David and to make a move to Bethlehem to emphasize that association would be a politically very savvy move on her part. Is it possible? Absolutely, I think it’s possible.
>> NARRATOR: If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, it is still a mystery as to the precise setting. One passage, however, may hold the answer. >> “And she gave birth to her newborn son, and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there
Was no room for them in the inn.”– LUKE 2:7. >> McNAMER: Luke says to us, “There was no room at the inn.” Actually that can be translated: “It was not the place for them in the inn.” You know, an inn was simply an open field, surrounded by a wall
Where travelers could go to be safe from the animals and robbers, and there was a huge fire in the middle where they could do their own cooking, and many travelers would have been staying there. It probably would be the last place in the world you would want to have a baby.
>> NARRATOR: Luke’s mention of a manger implies Jesus was born in a stable, where it would most likely be found. But it is doubtful it would have been a freestanding structure. The more likely setting is a cave, as caves were commonly used to house livestock in the Holy Land.
Wherever Jesus was born, Matthew and Luke call attention to the modest nature of the setting. Though they decree Jesus a King, they make clear that he was not born in a palace. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Virtually all of the Gospel accounts want to emphasize the humble beginnings of Jesus– the poor beginnings of Jesus.
Look at the setting for the arrival of God’s Messiah. God chose the least, God chose the powerless as the stage upon which salvation shall be worked out. That’s a very profound and important point. >> NARRATOR: For Christians, Jesus’ birth signifies a new beginning for mankind. 2,000 years later, the centuries
Themselves are measured from this pivotal moment in history. But when it occurred still remains a mystery.ou a merry Christmas We wish you a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year… ♪ >> NARRATOR: Every December 25, millions embrace Christmas with reverence and revelry. >> ♪ Navidad, Navidad, hoy es Navidad… ♪
>> ( chanting in Latin ) >> NARRATOR: But unconsciously, the entire world celebrates it every day. In theory, every minute and second that ticks by is measured from the moment Jesus drew his first breath. On New Year’s Eve, the number emblazoned above Times Square declares how many years we believe have passed since Jesus was born. The only problem is that we are almost certainly wrong. The answer was a mystery even in Jesus’ own time. For the early Christians, the defining moment of his life was not its beginning, but its end. The question of when Jesus was born was not an issue until the second century. Christians found themselves
Challenged by a splinter group of believers who claimed Jesus had never been born in the conventional sense. >> McNAMER: I believe that the birth of Jesus only became important in the second century with Gnosticism. Gnostics were an heretical group within the church who were suggesting that Jesus never had a real body.
They essentially did not believe that matter was good. The only thing that was good was spirit. They did not believe in the incarnation. They believed in what we call the Docetic Christ– he only appeared to have a body– and I believe that the infancy narratives were written to counteract this heresy.
>> NARRATOR: When the early Christians became more curious about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, they began to speculate about the date it occurred. In Egypt, a bishop named Clement determined that Jesus was born on November 18. Elsewhere in North Africa, an anonymous scholar of the same era declared it to be March 28.
Why they chose these dates is unknown. By the fourth century, Christians were no closer to finding the truth. But they decided which day seemed most appropriate– at least symbolically. December 25 had long been celebrated as the pagan holiday honoring the Sun God, Mithras. It was part of a two-week
Festival of the winter solstice, when the days began to lengthen. For the first several centuries of Christianity, the church found itself in fierce competition with popular pagan religions. What better way to challenge them than to usurp their holidays? >> CROSSAN: In the same way that you might take a pagan temple
And put a Christian shrine right on top of it, you put a Christian feast, the birth of Jesus, right on top of the winter solstice, right on top of a pagan feast. You sort of obliterate the pagan layer with the Christian layer. >> NARRATOR: Beyond the practical motivation was the symbolic.
>> McNAMER: I suppose we could say that Jesus was the light of the world, and this was a wonderful time to have the celebration, when there is darkness and then there is light– this light suddenly appearing. >> NARRATOR: In the year 349, Pope Julius formally designated December 25 as Christmas.
Believers now had an official date on which to celebrate, but the declaration extinguished whatever curiosity remained to discover the actual date of Jesus’ birth. Throughout the centuries, few clues have surfaced to solve the mystery. One is provided by Luke in one of the best-known passages from his Gospel.
>> “There were shepherds in the fields keeping watch over their flocks by night.”– LUKE 2:8. >> NARRATOR: In ancient Israel, shepherds guarded their flocks at night only during the season when the ewes gave birth to their lambs. It happened in the spring. In December, sheep were generally kept in corrals, unwatched.
Some scholars believe Luke’s reference suggests we may be celebrating Christmas eight months too late. Ultimately, determining the month and day Jesus was born may be impossible. But determining the year offers scholars more hope. The effort began some 500 years after his birth. By then, the Christian Church had expanded its influence to
All dimensions of life. Perhaps the only untouched dimension was the most intangible of them all: time. To that point in history, calendars measured time beginning with the founding of Rome or the reign of some of its rulers. For Christians, this was no longer acceptable. >> Meyer: As Christians were contemplating a calendar, they
Thought, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there would be a calendar that would be geared into Christian values? Wouldn’t it be remarkable if there could be a Christian calendar that would begin with Jesus?” And then it becomes important to find out: “Well, when did Jesus begin?” >> MOSLEY: The question of the
Nativity– the date of the birth of Jesus– has puzzled people for 1,500 years. >> MOSLEY: Church Fathers decided that rather than count years from the beginning of the reign of an impious, non- Christian Roman emperor, that they should count the years with the birth of Jesus. And so Dionysus Exiguus, a monk
Within Rome, was given the project of determining when precisely Jesus was born. >> NARRATOR: For reasons known only to Dionysus, he decided to place Jesus’ birth in the year 753 of the old Roman calendar. He then invented a new calendar, decreeing that Jesus was born on December 25 in the year 1 B.C.,
With the year 1 A.D. beginning a week later. Today, many scholars believe Dionysus made a critical error. They say he failed to take into account a key piece of information from the Gospels. >> SIKER: One of the details in Matthew and Luke’s infancy stories is that his birth took
Place during the reign of Herod. So, if we can determine the reign of Herod and the death of Herod, then we can more closely determine the date of Jesus’ birth. >> HORSLEY: The question of the timing of Herod’s death is not in question. We’re fairly sure that Herod died in what would be
Chronologically 4 B.C., and then that provides the symbolic if not the actual point at which Jesus must have been born: just before that happened. >> NARRATOR: 4 B.C. Perhaps a few years earlier. Until additional evidence is discovered, this range is as close as we can come to the answer. This renowned astronomer
Believes he may have found the answer. For several years, he has been investigating yet another mystery of the Christmas story. >> NARRATOR: The search for Christmas transcends the bounds of Earth. Light years away might be one of the tale’s greatest mysteries: the Star of Bethlehem. >> “Behold, there came wise men
From the east to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him.'”– MATTHEW 2:2. >> NARRATOR: For centuries, the star has endured as a mesmerizing symbol of Christianity– almost as powerful as the cross.
But did it truly exist, or was it created after the fact to make Jesus’ birth seem more miraculous? >> McNAMER: Generally, after people died, it was often said that a star had proclaimed their birth. This was said for Alexander the Great. It was said for the Emperor Augustus himself, that a star
Appeared at his birth. In fact, Shakespeare tells us the heavens themselves tell forth the birth of princes. I don’t believe there was a star. I don’t believe that there were magi who came from the east. >> SIKER: I don’t know what that Star of Bethlehem was, but I do
Think that it’s highly likely that there was an astrological event that occurred in that region that was brought into the legend, brought into the story, brought into the tradition of the birth of Jesus. >> NARRATOR: For centuries, astronomers have tried to determine if the Christmas star was more than a myth, and what
Celestial phenomenon could have accounted for it. >> MOSLEY: The first astronomer to speculate on what the Star of Bethlehem might have been was the great Johannes Kepler, 400 years ago– the man who worked out why it is that the planets move the way they do– and when Johannes Kepler saw an exploding
Star in 1604, he thought, “Aha! That might have been what the Magi saw. What could be more glorious?” And we can look at the old Chinese records and they recorded all stars that exploded that they saw, but none appeared at the time of the birth of Jesus. So, despite the charm of the
Idea, and despite Kepler’s enthusiasm for it, apparently it was not an exploding star. >> MICHAEL MOLNAR: Some astronomers have proposed comets, or in particular, Halley’s Comet, which is probably the most famous comet of all, and it appeared at around the time that we believe Jesus was born. However, if you look at the
Ancient texts and try to understand what the people of ancient times believed in, they feared comets. Comets didn’t indicate the birth of a king. It really meant, usually, the death of a king or the start of a war. So, we really cannot propose that a comet, or in particular
Halley’s Comet, was the Star of Bethlehem. >> NARRATOR: For some modern astronomers, the key to unraveling the truth lies in understanding the point of view of the magi. The term “magi” is the root from which we derive the word “magic.” They were a respected class of advisors in the ancient Near
East who used astrology to predict the future. >> MOSLEY: The magi thought the planets moved because the gods were causing them to move. The gods were making them go this way and that way, and when one planet happened to line up with another planet, that that was because the gods had
Something in mind for us, and there was some correspondence between what happened in the sky and what happened down below. They believed in magic, and they believed in the magic of the sky. >> NARRATOR: In the ancient Near East, belief in astrology began several centuries before the birth of Christ.
It was almost universally accepted throughout the region. The only place where it had little influence was the nation in which Jesus was destined to be born. >> MOLNAR: We find that tiny Judaea is sort of an island in a sea of astrology believers. That is, all the countries, the
Cultures in and around Judaea, they believed that astrology did predict the future, that it was a science, and that it really helped them to understand their own lives. But only when we go to Judaea, we find that it is not practiced or believed in. >> NARRATOR: Judaea’s lack of astrological insight is evident
In a key passage from Matthew that may help explain what the Star of Bethlehem was. >> “Then Herod secretly called the magi, and inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.”– MATTHEW 2:7. >> MOSLEY: An important clue in Matthew is that only the magi saw this star, whatever it was.
Herod and his advisors didn’t know about it. They had to inquire diligently of the magi what they’d seen, so that tells us it wasn’t something spectacular in the sky, like a bright comet, that everyone cave seen. >> NARRATOR: Some astronomers believe that what the magi saw, and the Hebrews did not, was a
Visually subtle conjunction of planets. It happens when one heavenly body appears to cross the path of another. It is a common occurrence. But many scholars believe that 2,000 years ago, a specific conjunction may have been viewed as a sign that the Old Testament prophecy had been fulfilled– that the Messiah had finally
Been born. John Mosley, of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, has had an avid interest in the Star of Bethlehem for 20 years. He believes he has discovered the celestial phenomenon that attracted the magi. >> MOSLEY: I think that what the magi saw was a series of conjunctions. There were three conjunctions of
The planet Jupiter and the star Regulus, and two very close conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus over a ten-month period of time during the years 3 and 2 B.C., and the final of these conjunctions was really spectacular. It’s the sort of thing that I would love to see. Jupiter and Venus were so close,
They almost touched. So, if you were looking for something of great astrological interest– and after all, the magi were astrologers– then I think you could do nothing better than to look at these conjunctions– this series of events– as the sort of thing that would have made the magi think, “Aha, this is important.
The prophecies were fulfilled.” >> NARRATOR: Michael Molnar, an astronomer formerly of Rutgers University, has a different theory. His interest in the Star of Bethlehem began when he discovered a clue on an ancient coin at a New York collector’s show. It was minted in Syria in 13 A.D. His findings represent perhaps
The most significant recent insight into the Christmas story. >> MOLNAR: One side had the god Zeus on it, or our Jupiter. I’ve seen lots of coins with that god on it. But I flipped it over and the other side was a beautiful picture of Aries the Ram, a sign of the zodiac.
There was the ram, leaping across the sky, looking backwards at an overhead star. Aries the Ram is key to the whole puzzle. We astronomers were looking in the wrong part of the sky for the Star of Bethlehem. The star had appeared in Aries the Ram. >> NARRATOR: Molnar’s research into ancient astrological texts
Reveals that each sign of the zodiac represented a particular kingdom. Aries represented Judaea. Molnar discovered that a specific set of conditions occurring in Aries would have convinced the magi that a person of cosmic importance was to be born there. >> MOLNAR: The most important star that would confer
Kingships– make a young boy a king– was the star of Zeus, which we call the planet Jupiter today. So I knew that the star was most likely the planet Jupiter. I found that the moon played a very important role, and that the closer the moon was to Jupiter, the better were the
Conditions to have the birth of a young king. But most important was that Jupiter had to be in the east. Well, “in the east” means, according to the beliefs and practices of stargazers of 2,000 years ago, that it was about to emerge as a morning star– that is, in the eastern morning sky.
>> NARRATOR: Molnar’s challenge was to find the precise moment when this particular set of conditions occurred in the constellation of Aries. >> MOLNAR: Well, to make a long story short, I ran my computer program for a huge swath in time that biblical scholars believe Jesus was born, and we find that
In 6 B.C.– on April 17 to be exact– these events happened. Jupiter was in the east, in Aries the Ram, and at the same time, the moon came extremely close to Jupiter. The moon came so close, in fact, that it eclipsed Jupiter, and these celestial objects in Aries the Ram indicated, according to
The astrologers, that there was the birth of a great king. >> NARRATOR: Molnar’s findings are perhaps the most compelling evidence that the Star of Bethlehem was a genuine phenomenon. His theory is all the more intriguing in that it places the star’s appearance in the very year that many scholars believe Jesus was born.
The magi, whose belief in astrology compelled them to follow the star, are as much of a mystery as the star itself. Tradition holds that there were three wise men, but Matthew never specifies how many there were. Matthew also never tells from what nation they came, but many scholars think they were from
Babylonia– the site of modern- day Iraq. Outside of Israel, no other country was as aware of the tale of a coming Jewish Messiah. 500 years before Jesus’ birth, the Babylonians conquered the Hebrews and exiled tens of thousands of Jews back to their kingdom. Scholars believe that it was therefore inevitable that the
Ancient prophecy became common knowledge among the Babylonians. Ironically, their astrological interpretation of the star would compel them to believe that their true king had emerged from a nation they had vanquished. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The Babylonians were one of the most brutal ancient regimes to have ever conquered the Hebrew people, and here come the
Babylonian descendants, subservient to the birth of a Hebrew Messiah, so deeply impressed with the significance of this birth that they come on bended knee to this child. There is a wonderful irony in this story, almost as if the Gospel writers are saying to us, “Remember the people who thought
That they were so powerful and who conquered us so many centuries ago? Even they now are on their knees before the birth of our humble Messiah.” >> NARRATOR: According to Matthew, the magi present the infant Jesus gifts of gold and two aromatic resins: frankincense and myrrh. The gifts held deep symbolic
Significance for the readers of Matthew’s day. >> McNAMER: Some believed that the Messiah, when he came, would be a king. Some believed that he would be a great prophet. Some believed that he would be a priest. Gold is for a king, frankincense for a priest, myrrh would signify a prophet.
So, what Matthew is doing in this little story is simply telling his audience, “Whatever you were expecting in the way of a Messiah has been born.” >> NARRATOR: Although every nativity scene depicts the magi honoring a newborn, many scholars believe they arrived when Jesus was as old as two.
The Greek word Matthew uses to describe Jesus is one the Greeks attached not to a baby, but a toddler. For 2,000 years, the comforting images of the Christmas story have warmed the hearts of millions. But the search for the tale’s historical roots leads to one of the most horrifying incidents
Described in the Bible. The birth of Jesus triggers an event that bathes the streets of Bethlehem in blood. It begins when the Magi, led by the star, pause in Jerusalem. They seek an audience with King Herod the Great. For more than 30 years, Herod has ruled despotically over
Judea as a loyal ally to the Roman Empire. His power is matched only by his unpopularity. The Magi hope that Herod can help them find the infant destined to be king. But their questions inadvertently imperil Jesus’ life. >> “The Magi arrived in Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he
Who is born king of the Jews?’ And when Herod, the king, heard it, he was troubled.”– MATTHEW 2:1. >> NARRATOR: According to Matthew, Herod regards Jesus as a dangerous political rival. Fate has pitted an innocent child against one of history’s most ruthless and vengeful leaders. >> HORSLEY: This fellow was the
Very epitome of a tyrant. He had secret police. He had informers sort of spying on the people, especially in Jerusalem. The minute he would hear of any resistance, he’d send out the troops first and ask questions later. He was suspicious of his own sons, and he killed his own sons.
He put to death his own sons that would have been his heirs. >> McNAMER: He murdered so many of his own family, including his mother, his favorite wife, Marianna. He was unscrupulous and extraordinarily cruel. >> NARRATOR: Herod’s paranoia is ignited by the Magi’s news of the Messiah’s birth. His thoughts turn instantly to
Murder. But he keeps his intentions secret from the Magi, hoping that they will lead him to his target. >> “And he sent the Magi to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and make careful search for the child, and when you have found him, report to me, that I, too, may come and worship him.'”–
MATTHEW 2:8. >> NARRATOR: After the Magi honor Jesus, writes Matthew, an angel informs them of Herod’s scheme. They defy his order to return to his palace and hastily leave Judea. By taking a different route than the one they used to arrive, they avoid capture by Herod’s soldiers and interrogation as to Jesus’ whereabouts.
Enraged, Herod hatches an alternate plan. Estimating Jesus’ age from the time the Magi first saw the star, he orders that all boys in Bethlehem aged two and under be killed. From Jerusalem, the Christian Era’s first death squad approaches. At this moment, according to Matthew, the unsuspecting Mary, Joseph and Jesus are asleep.
But God sends an angel to alert them to the danger. >> “The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, ‘Arise, and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.'”– MATTHEW 2:13. >> NARRATOR: As the family escapes, Herod’s soldiers sweep into Bethlehem. The king’s cold-blooded order is
Carried out. The incident becomes known as “The Slaughter of the Innocents.” Matthew’s account of what occurred in these streets is the most dramatic episode of the Christmas story. But many scholars contend it never happened. They cite a lack of any corroboration from other sources. >> SIKER: If this event was indeed as horrific as Matthew
Described it, it seems that it would appear in Luke’s Gospel. It seems that it would have appeared in the writings of one such as Josephus, a significant Jewish historian of the first century. I think that those things indicate to us– especially the absence in Josephus– indicate to us that… Matthew may have
Been up to something else. >> NARRATOR: Some scholars say the lack of corroboration is not by itself proof that the slaughter is simply Matthew’s invention. They point out that the population of Bethlehem was then perhaps 1,000, and that there could have been as few as 20 infants under two.
The limited scope of the slaughter may have kept it from entering the history books. >> CROSSAN: It would certainly have been awful, but it would probably not have been a huge number. And yes, of course, it could easily have escaped Josephus. So I couldn’t argue that it didn’t happen because Josephus does not mention it. It’s quite possible he wouldn’t have heard of it, or he could
Have heard of it and not thought it was important. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Could the Slaughter of the Innocents have happened? Was Herod the kind of ruler capable of this kind of brutality? The answer to that question is, absolutely yes, he was capable of that kind of brutality. We have account after account of
Ancient rulers terrified of the idea amongst their captive population that a ruler was going to come, that a deliverer was going to come, and their attempts to try to deal with it. This is not at all an unbelievable element to the story. >> NARRATOR: Whether fact or fiction, the Slaughter of the
Innocents is reminiscent of another horrific episode from the book of Exodus. It describes how the Egyptian pharaoh tries to murder another messenger of God– the infant Moses– by ordering the execution of all Israelite boys. Some scholars believe Matthew’s account is an invention based on the older story, and an effort
To reinforce Jesus’ role as the deliverer of his people. >> CROSSAN: In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is the new Moses. So the same way that Pharaoh tried to kill all the children and almost killed Moses but Moses escaped by divine power, bad Pharaoh becomes bad Herod. This is Matthew working the
Parallelism between Jesus, the new Moses in his life, so Jesus must be born, as it were, and almost killed like the old Moses was. >> NARRATOR: In Egypt, writes Matthew, the young Jesus finds safety from Herod’s wrath. But Matthew provides no details about how Mary and Joseph endure
The 250-mile trek to bring him here. Some scholars speculate that they finance the journey by selling the gold, frankincense and myrrh given to them by the Magi. But other scholars doubt they ever venture here. No historical evidence has been found to support Matthew’s account. And Luke’s Gospel contradicts it, describing how Mary and
Joseph travel uneventfully with the newborn Jesus back to Nazareth. Where the holy family lived and how long they stayed in Egypt, Matthew does not say, but a number of legends have survived. In Cairo, the Church of Saint Sergius is built upon the site where it is believed that they stayed for three months.
Outside Cairo, Christians since the fifth century have gathered at this ancient sycamore. They call it the Tree of Mary… for here they believe she sought shade beneath its branches. >> McNAMER: I have visited those sites in Cairo, and they are fun to go to, and if they help people’s piety, that’s fine, but
I don’t think they have any, uh… have any basis in history. >> NARRATOR: One reason that scholars believe Jesus never visited Egypt is that his teachings many years later bear no sign of Egyptian influence. >> CROSSAN: I don’t find anything that Jesus would have learned in Egypt, even if I take
Literally the idea that he went there as a young child and lived there for a length of time. I do not find anything in the teachings of Jesus or the life of Jesus that does not come straight out of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish tradition. >> NARRATOR: Despite the lack of
Any Egyptian nuance to Jesus’ ministry, some scholars believe he may have indeed spent time in Egypt. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Jesus would’ve been a member of a minority in Egyptian culture. It could very well be that the Egyptian influence on Jesus was exactly the opposite of what some people speculate.
In other words, it may have solidified his Hebrew identity and not so much made him open to Egyptian influence. After all, we know that living in exile, living in Diaspora, sometimes makes people intensely more interested in their cultural tradition, and so less interested in the influences of the majority culture around them.
>> NARRATOR: After an unspecified time in Egypt, writes Matthew, Mary and Joseph receive a message from God that it is safe to return. >> “When Herod was dead, an angel appeared, saying, ‘Arise and take the child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for those who sought the
Child’s life are dead.'”– MATTHEW 2:19. >> NARRATOR: Joseph escorts his family back to Judea to the city of Nazareth. There, some 30 years later, Jesus will begin his earth-shaking ministry. Reconstructing the history of Jesus’ birth begins by examining the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But there is another version of
The first Christmas unknown to millions of believers: The Infancy Gospel of James. It was purportedly written soon after Herod the Great died, which scholars believe happened in 4 B.C. The author claims to be James, one of the brothers of Jesus alluded to several times in the New Testament.
James is identified as Jesus’ brother in the books of Matthew, Mark and Galatians. And Josephus, the first-century historian, corroborates James’ identity when he writes of James’ death at the hand of a treacherous high priest. >> “So he assembled a council of judges and brought it before James, the brother of Jesus,
Known as Christ, and several others, on a charge of breaking the law and handed them over to be stoned.”– JOSEPHUS, THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES. >> NARRATOR: Although The Infancy Gospel of James was accepted by early Christians, the church never authorized it as scripture. As such, it has been relegated
To the biblical literature known as the Apocrypha. It presents many of the same elements as the traditional story. There is the census, the trek to Bethlehem, the Magi and the Star. But there, the similarities end. James writes that Mary goes into labor not in Bethlehem, but before they are ever able to
Reach the city. >> “When they came to the middle of their journey, Mary said to him, ‘Joseph, take me off the donkey, the child is pushing from within me to let him come out.’ So he took her off the donkey and said to her, ‘Where will I take you and shelter you?
This area is a desert.’ And he found a cave and led her there while he went to find a Hebrew midwife in the land of Bethlehem.”– THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF JAMES 17:10. >> NARRATOR: In contrast to Matthew and Luke, James specifies that Jesus is born in a cave which coincides with what
Many scholars believe to be the true setting. While Joseph is away searching for a midwife, Mary begins to deliver the baby Jesus. At the same moment, a bizarre phenomenon occurs. Joseph is stunned as time literally stands still. >> “With utter astonishment, I saw the birds of the sky were not moving.
And I looked at workers picking food up and they were not picking it up. And I saw sheep being driven, but the sheep were standing still.”– THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF JAMES 18:4. >> HOCK: He is suddenly struck by everything in nature– the heavens, the stars, the birds, the workers, the animals all
Around him stopping right in their tracks, and then suddenly, everything returns to the way it was, and life goes on as it had formerly. And presumably in the context of that story, the moment of the suspension of time, Jesus himself is being born. >> NARRATOR: Joseph returns to the cave with two midwives.
But Mary has already given birth. One of the midwives believes Mary’s claim that she is a virgin. But the other, named Salome, is skeptical. >> “The midwife said ‘Mary, position yourself, for not a small test concerning you is about to take place.’ When Mary heard these things, she positioned herself.
And Salome inserted her finger into her body. And Salome cried out and said, ‘Woe for my lawlessness and the unbelief that made me test the living God. Look, my hand is falling away from me and being consumed by fire.'”– THE INFANCY GOSPEL OF JAMES 20:1. >> NARRATOR: Salome begs
Forgiveness for her lack of faith. God hears her prayer and sends an angel to heal her. James’ account reaches its dramatic peak with a version of the slaughter of the innocents that differs slightly from Matthew’s. >> HOCK: You do have the murder of the infants with Herod attacking the babies.
Mary, who had given birth to Jesus in a cave, now hides Jesus by placing him in the manger so the familiar manger from Luke is now used in a different way in The Infancy Gospel of James. >> NARRATOR: Is it possible this intricate tale is the most accurate version of the Christmas story?
Although James’ Infancy Gospel was supposedly written just after the death of Herod in 4 B.C., scholars believe it was produced as much as 150 years later after the books of Matthew and Luke. They note that it is written in a literary style not invented until the second century.
The style is known as an encomium, which follows strict rules of composition to praise virtuous persons– in this case, the Virgin Mary. And James, they argue, could not possibly have been the author. The historian Josephus records that he died in 62 A.D., a hundred years before the document was apparently written.
>> HORSLEY: One of the reasons why The Infancy Gospel of James seems to have less credibility, perhaps, than the stories contained in Matthew and Luke is it doesn’t seem to be quite as familiar with local color in Palestine– the thought being that maybe whoever put this together, didn’t really have
Much direct knowledge of Palestine. >> SIKER: It was also probably not someone who was Jewish, because there are errors in the understanding of Jewish customs and traditions. >> NARRATOR: Many scholars believe that the only knowledge the author had of Jesus’ birth was what had been recorded several decades earlier in the
Gospels now familiar to millions. >> CROSSAN: The major source that the author of The Infancy Gospel of James has is Matthew and Luke. There is not any clear evidence that he has any other real information. It does not seem that he has any sort of raw, unfiltered traditions that Matthew and Luke
Didn’t know about, but somehow this author has found out about. It’s possible, of course, but that doesn’t seem to be what the author has. What the author has simply is two sources and a very, very good imagination. >> NARRATOR: Although its value as an historical source is questionable, the Gospel of
James still provides valuable insight. Many scholars believe it represents the earliest effort to idealize Mary– an effort that centuries later would culminate in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The significance of these writings is often that they give us a picture into the concerns and
The cares of the time they come from. So sometimes these writings give us very interesting insights in what were Christians thinking and worried about in the 200s, in the 300s, in the 400s. For that question, these writings are very important and very valuable. But for missing historical information, not very important.
>> NARRATOR: The Infancy Gospel of James is ultimately more intriguing than it is enlightening. Rather than holding any key to the truth about Christmas, it is perhaps the earliest effort to speculate on what that truth may be. To what degree the Christmas story should be considered historical fact may never be known.
To Christians, the Christmas story is an imponderable miracle– God’s invasion of human history in a stable 2,000 years ago. The miracle, however, lies dormant for some 30 years. Then, as told by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus emerges with a message that redefines man’s purpose. The man born in the most humble
Setting imaginable teaches that the poor are imbued with as much dignity as the most powerful king. The man born beneath a shining star teaches that hope will burn brightly as long as men love each other as brothers. The man born of a virgin teaches that the world can be
Transformed by the pure in heart. >> McNAMER: The message of Jesus was the most powerful and the most idealistic message ever. I mean, to stand on that mountain and say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are you when you forgive your enemies. Be good to them that hurt you.”
>> MEYER: “To do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To turn the other cheek. To go the extra mile.” To do those sorts of things that may make our world a better place for all of us to live in. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: Suddenly we’re presented with an
Incredible hope that burns brightly, a hope that there is a god who cares about us, a hope in the possibility that we can live with each other differently than the way we so often have, a hope that there’s a different way of being a human society, and the very coming of Jesus
Embodies that hope in a profound sense. >> HORSLEY: Not only was he understood as the Savior and Christ by the new religion Christianity that developed, but Jesus was the one who really defined and articulated the agenda for ordinary people who were struggling for independence from domination by foreign powers and their own unjust
Rulers, and laid out an idea of what a life of justice and mutual caring could be. >> NARRATOR: Jesus’ revolutionary ministry is but a continuation of the Christmas story– as the Son of God carries out his plan to save mankind from sin and death. It continues further with his arrest, trial and execution.
The significance of his birth in the manger can be understood only by recognizing his sacrifice on the cross. Still, it is Jesus’ resurrection that marks the ultimate fulfillment of God’s plan. 30 years after a miracle brings Jesus into the world, another enables him to rejoin his heavenly Father.
From the empty tomb emerges the faith destined to transform the world. >> SIKER: There are those who would argue that it’s based on a lie, that’s it’s based on false rumors of disciples who stole the body of Jesus to make a good story, and yet, somehow, this story has made its way through
History and time in a way unequaled. >> NARRATOR: Beginning as a fringe faith, Christianity receives widespread acceptance after the Roman Emperor Constantine accepts Jesus as his God and Savior. 300 years after Jesus’ birth, Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire. As the centuries pass, its influence becomes immeasurable:
Art and science, politics and economics, self and society– all are transformed by Christianity. But Christianity’s impact on history is not always positive. During the crusades, medieval Christians try to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. In the name of Jesus, they kill thousands of innocent men, women and children. During the Inquisition, the
Church supports torture as a means of coercing confessions from those considered heretics. By the 16th century, the church grows so powerful, it becomes corrupted by its own success. One measure of its decline is that salvation, once only earned by the faithful, can now be purchased by the rich. A German monk, Martin Luther,
Declares his outrage. Inspired by Jesus, who cast the moneychangers from the temple, he fights for reform. The Reformation splits its believers into Catholics and Protestants. Today, millions of Christians still struggle to live up to the high standards of their own faith. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: We have had a very checkered history as
Christians of trying to embody the teachings of a peaceful Messiah who calls on us to care for each other rather than dominate each other, to share with each other rather than hoard from each other. And it’s unfortunate that the first 2,000 years of our attempt as humans to embody the
Teachings and example of Jesus have not been terribly successful. >> McNAMER: Gandhi once said about Christianity, “It is so magnificent. What a pity it’s never been tried.” I do believe it has been tried. There are just hundreds and hundreds of wonderful people in the pages of history of Christianity that show that
It has been tried and has made a difference. >> CROSSAN: Christianity has done many things in the name of Jesus for which I, as a Christian, am ashamed. It has also done many good things in the name of Jesus for which I am very glad as a Christian, and which makes me
Very glad to be a Christian. >> NARRATOR: 2,000 years after Jesus was born, a third of the world’s population professes to be followers of the faith he inaugurated in a manger. For Christians, Christmas celebrates how God gave the world a gift it never deserved but needed more than anything. To accept the gift is to acknowledge the responsibility of giving something back. >> SMITH-CHRISTOPHER: The Christmas story is intended to question us on the deepest levels of being a human being.
Here was the coming of a new way of living. Here was the coming of a new hope. Here was a profound challenge to how we as humans think that the world has to run, as opposed to our belief that the only way that we can live together is to
Be armed to the teeth and to be ready to fight. Here was one who brought a message: “No, that’s not the way. We can care for each other; we can take care of each other; we can live justly; we can live at peace.” If we miss that profound challenge, then we miss the
Significance of the Christmas story. >> SIKER: For me, the Christmas story is an account of the recollections of people like you and I who had an experience of God’s presence that was so powerful that they couldn’t hold it in. It’s a story of mystery and a story of hope replete with the
Possibilities of peace and goodwill in a world where both are in short supply. >> NARRATOR: For generations to come, the search for the historical truth of the day it all began– the search for Christmas– will continue. No matter what is discovered along the way, millions will always find comfort in the story.
They will find fulfillment in the images of an infant’s gentle smile and a virgin mother’s loving glance. [Captioning sponsored by A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS Captioned by The Caption Center WGBH Educational Foundation]
#Evidence #Jesus #Birth #Revealed #Full #Episode
R.C. Sproul: The Resurrection of Christ
That will be glory when we see him in the power of the resurrection. Let’s pray. Our Father and our God, as we consider now the mighty work that you performed by the power of the Spirit to raise Him from the tomb.
That certain sign that you have given by which the whole world is judged. We pray that we may see the full import of that moment in history when you raised Him from the grave. For we ask it in Jesus’ name – Amen.
Just a couple of days ago I was reading an article in the newspaper about the recently discovered bones of Jesus, which I refer to as the journalistic phase and sensational phase of theology. To get the press’ attention in religion the more bizarre the proposition is, the more attention they give it.
I was somewhat surprised at the beginning of the article than the writer indicated that this recent assertion had be responded to by scholarly archeologists with a certain amount of scorn, revealing it for the absurdity that it was.
So I was beginning to warm up to this journalist, thinking “wow, finally we find one that fights for the angels.” Then he went on to give the results of the most recent poll in which he said 78 % of Americans (and that is how we determine truth you know – by counting noses.)
Believe in the resurrection of Jesus. The author inserted a little extra phrase there. He said “78% of Americans believe in the myth of the resurrection of Jesus.” He just couldn’t hold it back. He had to get it in there. The myth of resurrection.
One of the oldest questions if not the oldest question of theology was the one asked by Job “if a man dies shall he live again?” And before we get to the New Testament answer to that question as set forth by the greatest
Apologist of the Christian church, the apostle Paul, I want to spend a little bit of time in background to refer your attention to two watershed events that radically changed the world in the decade of the 70’s. But I am not thinking of the 1970’s. I am not even thinking of the 1870’s.
But I am thinking of the 1770’s where most Americans believe the most important watershed event took place in that decade when some disgruntled colonists on this side of the ocean rose in protest against certain illegal procedures by parliament by declaring their independence, and inaugurating this country’s birth as an independent nation.
But I believe that something else happened in that same decade in Europe that had even far greater ramifications then the American Declaration of Independence. It was the work of a single man in Prussia who was a professor whose chief at the University of Cornisburg was the field of Astrophysics.
And he had contributed significantly by way of essays in the 18th century to the discipline of astro-physics. But his real claim to fame that catapulted him into international significance, this name who never traveled more than a hundred miles from his birth place and who was know
To take a walk every afternoon at exactly the same time, and was so punctual, indeed punctilious, was he that the villagers would check their timepieces by the afternoon stroll of this gentleman whose name ironically was Emmanuel, which hardly meant God with us, but came to mean “God unknown to us.”
This man was Emmanuel Kant who in the decade of the 70’s of the 18th century wrote the most definitive and comprehensive critique of the classical arguments for the existence of God in his book that was titled The Critique of Pure Reason, in which Emanuel Kant set
The bar for the centuries to follow for religious agnosticism. As a scientist he argued that we can not move from the visible world to the invisible world as the apostle Paul declares that not only can, but do in the first chapter of Romans.
He said we can’t move from the physical to the metaphysical, from the phenomenal world, as he called it, to the pneumenal world, which was the residence of God, the self, and the thing in itself. And so this critique of the classical arguments for the existence of God, given by Kant in
An effort not to save theology but to save science from the skepticism of David Hume, was as I say a watershed moment in western history because thereafter there was a seemingly un-breechable rift between science and theology.
But though Kant is known for ushering God out of the front door of the house, he ran around to the kitchen and opened the back door and tried to let God in through that entrance by the route not of metaphysical pursuit, but by reason of practical thinking.
Kant was very much concerned about morality and ethics. By the way when he considered his skeptical stance on the knowing of God, the one argument that he felt was most impressive was the argument to design. It was that which he could not explain.
But he was concerned with the study of man, that it would seem that in the heart of every human being there was this universally present sense of duty, or sense of “oughtness.” For which, he is famous for identifying as the categorical imperative.
It was Kant’s Germanic version of the golden rule if you will. But then he asks this question from a practical view point. Thinking transcendentally, what would the necessary conditions be to make this sense of oughtness, this sense of duty which provokes the pangs of conscience in human beings; what
Would be transcendentally necessary for this sense of duty to be meaningful? That is, he asked the question: What would have to be for ethics to be meaningful? And his concern, as I say, was practical. Because what he was concerned about was the survival of civilization.
And he understood that without some sense of ethics civilization can not survive for very long, as some of the other speakers have already addressed. And so, as he pondered that question: What would be necessary for ethics to be meaningful? He said the first thing is that there would have to be justice.
Because if there is no justice, then in the final analysis the person who acts according to this sense of ethic, this sense of duty would be involved in a fool’s errand in an exercise of meaninglessness. So, for ethics to be meaningful there must be justice.
And so then he looked around and he says that in the phenomenal world in which I live I notice that justice does not always prevail. And people were asking then as the Old Testament sages were asking “Why do the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer?”
And Kant said for justice to be true we must survive the grave. And not only must we survive the grave, in order for justice to prevail, but there must be beyond the grave to ensure justice a judge who would meet out and dispense pure justice.
And he went on to say: Well, what would the necessary conditions be for such a judge to ensure the distribution of justice? And he said, well first of all that judge would have to perfectly righteous and above reproach.
Because if the judge on the other side were an unjust judge then we would have no guarantee of the victory of justice and therefore no foundation for a meaningful ethic. Then he went on to say that judge would not only have to be righteous but we would also have to be omniscient.
Because for a judge to execute perfect justice, he would not only have to be just himself, but he would have to be free from being misinformed. A just judge could be responsible for a miscarriage of justice if he erred in his understanding of the case.
Then he went on the say that even if you say that you had a perfectly righteous omniscient judge, those two conditions would not guarantee the triumph of justice, because it would be possible that that perfect, just, and omniscient judge could give the correct sentence, but be powerless to carry it out.
So that judge in the next world would also have to have all power and authority within himself to guarantee justice. You see where Kant is going? He’s saying though on the basis of theoretical thought we can’t affirm the existence of God,
Metaphysically, never the less on the basis of practical considerations for a meaningful ethic we must assume the existence of God. Otherwise life is meaningless. And so we must live as if there were a God. Now that as it were, was the dyke that held back the full torrents of skepticism for a
Few years at the end of the enlightenment. But there were cracks in that dyke that soon gave way. And a metaphysical and ethical Katrina happened in western theoretical thought. Now, that is by way of introduction. Now, I’d like to show some parallel thinking that goes on between Kant and the apostle
Paul by looking at the fifteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Hear the word of God, in chapter fifteen, verse twelve. And I don’t know which is going to come to an end first, my message or my voice. So far the voice is losing. But we read in the text.
“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” That’s the question. If Christ has proclaimed that God has raised Him from the dead, how is it that some of
You (and he is writing to people in the church who were trying to have a Christianity without resurrection.) say that there is no resurrection from the dead. Now, what follows is a particular kind of argument. It is a particular form of debate common to ancient philosophers and one that was used
Regularly by the apostle Paul as an apologist. It is called the “ad hominum” form of argumentation. Now, be careful. Some of you studied logic in college or in high school perhaps. And you learned to identify certain fallacies of reasoning, both formal and informal.
And one of the most frequent informal fallacies is the fallacy of reasoning called “ad hominum abusive.” That is where if you can’t attack the cogency of a man’s argument, you attack the man. You say how can you believe what this speaker says when he is an adulterer.
Well, even adulterers who do not live the truth can from time to time argue cogently. And so the man’s character does not vitiate the man’s argument. But we do that all the time, particularly in the criminalization of politics as we witness everyday in Washington D.C.
So there is a fallacious form of argument that is called “ad hominum abusive.” And frequently to save breath and time, there is a kind of short hand that refers to that fallacy by simply calling it the “ad hominum” fallacy without qualifying it by the term “abusive.”
Now, I mention all this for this reason. There is another form of “ad hominum” reasoning that is a sound form and that is a form that has been in use by philosophers from time immemorial. And that is simply arguing to the man.
And that means that I step into the shoes of my opponent. We stipulate at the beginning agreement on certain premises, and now I take my opponent’s premise and I say “I grant you, your premise. But let’s see where this premise goes out of logical necessity.”
And so I take my opponents argument to its logical conclusion showing that if his premise is sound and true his conclusion will be absurd. Again going back to Zeno the ancient philosopher; this form of argument was called “reduxio ad absurdum” – arguing from the opponents premise, taking it to its logical conclusion
And showing by a resistless logic that the conclusion would be absurd. That is exactly what the apostle Paul is doing here with these folks in Corinth who are denying the resurrection. And they say there is no resurrection of the dead. That is a universal negative. That means it admits to no exceptions.
It is universal in the sense that it encompasses everybody because no on escapes it. It is called a universal negative because it is articulated in the negative form. If, let’s go now, there is no resurrection of the dead. That is premise A – no resurrection of the dead.
If that is true, then what else would be true? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised, obviously. We get that from the laws of necessary inference. If there is a universal negative, there can not be one positive.
So if there is no resurrection, than that means Christ can not have been raised. So, let’s see where that leads us. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. So let’s face facts the apostle is saying.
Let’s not live like Alice in Wonderland in some kind of religious dream world. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is an exercise in futility. I’m wasting my breath. I’m wasting my time. We’re all here wasting our time at a conference like this, if Christ has not been raised.
And not only is my preaching an exercise in meaninglessness, my faith is useless and worthless as is yours. Your faith is in vain, because you’ve invested your trust and your hope and your faith in a man whose man have just been dug up along with Mary Magdalene’s so recently.
Not only that but we are found, he says, to be misrepresenting God. Because we’ve said and testified that it is God who has raised Him from the dead. And if He has not been raised from the dead, then we ought to change the name of our church
To Jehovah’s False Witnesses because we have been attributing the power of this resurrection of Jesus to God. And that attribution is a false one. ”We have testified about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.”
He has to keep rubbing our noses in the consequences there. “For if the dead are not raised,” if you missed it the first time and the second time, not even Christ has been raised. “And if Christ has not been raised your faith is futile. And you are still in your sins.”
You are still in it. You are contained in sin. You are still enmeshed in sin. You are still in jail to sin without bail; because our justification does not end with the cross, but Jesus was raised for our justification. The resurrection is God’s apologia, certifying to the world that He accepted atonement that
Jesus made on the cross. But if He is not raised from the dead you’re still in your sins. You see, you look at the world religions today, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism; the thing that they don’t have is an atonement and because they don’t have an atonement.
You can’t expect them to have a resurrection either. It wouldn’t cause any crisis of faith for any Muslim to dig up the bones of Muhammad. Muhammad is dead. Buddha is dead. Confucius is dead. But Christianity stands or falls with a resurrected Jesus. And that is what Paul is saying here.
If he is not raised, your faith is nonsense and you are still in your sins. Not only that, those also who have fallen asleep in Christ, (let’s face it) our beloved ones, our husbands, our wives, our children, our parents, our friends who have died in the faith have perished.
That’s the grim reality if there is no resurrection from the dead. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ we of all people, are the most to be pitied. I say to the enemies of the Christian faith; if you don’t like what we preach; if you don’t
Like what we teach, don’t be mad at us. Pity us. Because if we are preaching a false doctrine of resurrection, if we are conjuring up a hope with no real foundation for it, then we forfeit much of the fun, supposedly, of this world, where you only go around once.
And you might as well go around and get all the gusto you can because you are on a fast pace to oblivion, to perishing without hope. It is a pitiable condition to be in. That is why the Bible says without Christ you are without hope.
So, I am just going to stop for a second and consider what Paul has just done here. Paul has drawn for us a ghastly picture of the consequences of no resurrection, no life after death. He is saying that if there is no resurrection then life itself under the sun is meaningless.
As Kant understood, your ethic, your sense of duty, your conscience is meaningless and without ethics of our society, civilization can not last. You are doomed ultimately to barbarianism, which our nation right now is rushing toward with such a velocity one wonders if anything other than the direct intervention of God
Will ever restrain it and stop it. Dostoevsky understood what Kant was arguing for in his practical reasoning that if there is no God, all things are permitted. The post-modernist understands that if there is not God and since there is no God and since
There is no resurrection from the dead, then what is left are personal preferences. Which can only be maintained if enough of you can exercise power for your complete liberty, you will make is right by your might. For you know of know other recourse.
What Kant was saying was this, since the alternative to life after death is so grim, since the alternative to life after death would make ethics impossible except for the fool. And since life without ethics is meaningless, we must live as if there is a God.
Talk about a justification for using religion as a bromide or as a crutch against facing meaninglessness. Here it is with a vengeance. Didn’t I say this put up a dyke that only lasted a little bit of time in western civilization?
A guy like Nietzsche comes along, and says: hey, let’s quit playing Alice in Wonderland. I’m not going to affirm the existence of God or the existence of life after death simply because the alternatives are grim and unbearable. Why don’t we just face it? There is not God. There is no afterlife.
There is no meaning. We are left with the nothingness, the nihil, the abyss of absurdity. This motion was seconded by Jean Paul Sartre, particularly in his little monograph, which title gave to the world his final evaluation of human existence: Nausea. That’s the end of human existence: Nausea.
Albert Camus said the only serious question left for philosophers left to examine is the question of suicide, because we are overwhelmed with the pressing and oppressing reality of the absence of God and the absence of hope. So you see Kant’s arguments didn’t stand up for the next generation.
They said “Kant gird up your loins like a man, face the inevitable. Quit trying to argue for the practical necessity of believing in God. And some can look at what Paul is doing here as the same thing.
Where he is saying if there is no resurrection your faith is in vain, your false witnesses, you preaching is an exercise in futility. But Paul does not argue for the resurrection on the basis of the hopelessness of life without it.
Yes, in the section I just read he agrees with Kant that without it life is hopeless, but that is not the foundation for his assertion that Christ is risen. He goes on to talk about the analogy that exists in nature with animals and plants and grass and human beings.
That you put a seed in the ground and before the life can come out of the ground there is a sense in which, at least metaphorically, that seed must die. It must rot to such a point that it releases and germinates the essence of life within it.
And in like manner, when our bones go into the ground, they await their final metamorphosis where God takes that which was mortal, sewn in mortality, is raised in immortality, sewn in corruption, raised in incorruption. And this analogy that the apostle uses in this same chapter closely resembles the argument
That Plato had used centuries before in arguing for life after death based upon analogies drawn from nature. When you think of the almost infinite varieties of life forms on this planet, it is hard to imagine that our life form, as high as it is, is the zenith of all life in the universe.
It could be, but what are the odds. But again Paul does not rest his case on analogies drawn from the butterfly or the seed. But why does assert the reality of the resurrection? At the beginning of the chapter, he reminds his readers of something.
He says “I would remind you brothers of the gospel. I want to remind you of the gospel that I preached to you which you received in which you stand and by which you are being saved.
If you hold fast to the word I preach to you unless you believed in vain, for I delivered to you as a first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” Now that was a compelling this to the Jew of the first century.
And it ought to be compelling to us. I said yesterday, or the day before that the two major tasks of apologetics is the defense of the existence of God, and secondly the defense of the scriptures as the word of God. And Paul now appeals to the scriptures.
“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures.” So, Paul’s first line of apologetics is an appeal to sacred scripture. He is saying I believe in the first instance, in the resurrection of Christ because the
Word of God proclaims it. That is why I said it is so vital that we address this question of the veracity and authenticity and trustworthiness of the scriptures, because if you have that, the rest is easy. “That He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.”
And then listen to this, “and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all as to one untimely
Born, He appeared also to me.” When Peter wrote to the church he says “My brethren we declare to you not cleverly conceived myths and fables. What we declare to you is what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears.”
We are not declaring to you, an unsubstantiated theory or even a religious proposition that we learned in Sunday School. We are declaring something of which we had an empirical experience. We saw it. We heard it. We beheld His glory on the plain of history. And this is what Paul is recounting here.
He is saying that He appeared to Cephas – that is to Peter, then to the twelve. He appeared. Again it is not like the disciples in the story of the resurrection, and the disciples ran to the tomb on Sunday morning and the stone was rolled away and they ran inside
The tomb and they found the grave cloths still in such beautiful arrangement. But there was no Jesus. There was no body – nobody. NO BODY there. There was nobody home. And then they came back and they scratched their heads. And they said “what happened to the body? We found an empty tomb.
What could that possibly mean?” And they figured it out. “Oh it must mean that He is risen so let’s go tell everybody that He is risen and let’s start celebrating Easter Sunday based on an inference drawn from an empty tomb.” No.
It is not the empty tomb that created the faith of the early church. It was the appearance of the risen Christ. He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. Well, these two could have cooked this up among themselves. But Paul says “wait a minute.
He appeared to more than five hundred at one time, most of whom are still alive. Go and ask them.” That’s their story and they are sticking to it. Eye witnesses, five hundred of them. We have more witnesses from history to the resurrection of Christ than we had to the life of Plato.
Then He appeared to James and to all the apostles, but what I am writing to you my dear friends in Corinth is not something that I believe on the basis of hearsay. It is good hearsay. These are good witnesses who told me this. I trust James. I trust Peter.
I trust the twelve, and you understand my credentials that I was the number one enemy of this new Christian sect that was running around proclaiming that Christ was raised from the dead. I was dragging them from prison, breathing out fire.
But last as all, “as one born out of due time, He appeared unto me.” See, the text that I just read to you was written by an eye witness to the resurrection. You are going to have to decide whether this is a credible witness or not.
Now, the one reason why the newspaper reporter says that this is a myth is not because he thinks that Paul was an idiot and fell out of the stupid tree and hit head on every branch along the way, or that he was just an uneducated fanatic from the first century.
They understand that Paul was the most educated man in Palestine when he wrote this apologia for the resurrection of Christ. His scholarly credentials were impeccable. The reason why the newspaper reporter would say it is a myth is because judging from our
Twenty first century understanding of biology, if there is anything we know now that primitive pre-scientific people in the first century didn’t know is that when people die they stay dead. And that it is impossible for the dead to rise.
Given that it is impossible for the dead to rise, then obviously the New Testament story of the resurrection of Jesus has to be a myth. What else could it possibly be? And calling it a myth is being kind, it could be an outright lie; if it’s impossible for the dead to rise.
What a different view of reality and of life we find in the New Testament, where there the impossibility according to the New Testament writers was for Him not to rise. The impossibility the premise in the New Testament is that it was impossible for death to hold Him.
And it is true that if there is any universal finding of experimental empiricism it is that when people die, they stay dead. But if there is anything more universally in our experience it is that when those people who died and stay dead, are people who are sinful people.
Now what happens if you get a people who is not sinful? Now what happens to the premise? Biblically, morality, “thanatos” death itself is inseparably tied to sin. It is the soul who sins that dies. So that if the New Testament testimony is true, that there was in Christ no sin, why
Would anyone expect Him to die. I can’t even believe – the real thing that is hard to believe is that He would die at all on the cross. And He couldn’t even die on the cross if it weren’t first that He took upon Himself the imputation of our sin.
Having taken our sin, then He met the necessary condition for human mortality. Apart from that the second Adam would never have died. But having paid that price, and finished that work, the Father raised Him from the tomb for our justification.
I can’t remember which speaker said what in this conference there were so many wonderful things said. But, this was God’s proof of the person of Jesus. Paul debated with the philosophers in Athens at the Areopagus, and I mentioned that when
He debated with the stoics and the epicureans he called attention to their monument to an unknown god. The philosophers were hedging their bets just in case they missed one. Paul said “What you worship in ignorance I proclaim to you in power.
For the God who made the world and everything in it being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by man, nor is He served by human hands as if He needed anything since He Himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.”
If you stumble at the resurrection, the recovery of life from the death let me take you back earlier. How about the beginning of Jesus’ life? How about the beginning of your life? How about the beginning of anybody’s life? How about life itself? Why is there life at all in this universe?
When we understand as Ravi so eloquently pointed out the necessary conditions for life can not be found in us. You did not create your own life. There was a time when you were not. There was a time when all of us were not.
But the only one who has the power of life in and of Himself eternally, the power of being in and of Himself eternally, the power of motion in and of Himself eternally, is the eternal self-existent living God who is the author of life, and the author of death.
He has the keys of life and death in His hands. And if the one who creates life in the first place in His Son can call a rotting corpse like Lazarus out of the tomb, so the same author of life can call His Son who touching
His humanity is now dead and bring Him back to life. What is so hard about that to believe? It is the opposite that is impossible. If there is such a thing as life in this universe, how can you attribute to the source of life
The fountain of life, the essence of life, the impossibility of bringing Jesus back to life and bringing you back to life? Paul goes on to say in Athens. “We ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
The times of ignorance God overlooked, the former days.” Let me just stop here and insert something. A few minutes ago I said that the assumption of the newspaper writer is that the story of the resurrection must be a myth because resurrection is impossible.
And we know that by our sophisticated postmodern understanding of biology. And those poor people in the first century, pre-scientific, unsophisticated, people living in Palestine had no problem with the resurrection of Jesus because they saw resurrections all the time.
Every week they could go out to the cemetery and see somebody or other getting up out of a tomb. Let me tell you what folks. It was as foreign to the experience of first century man that a dead man would come out of the tomb, as it is today.
That’s why Thomas said “I’m not going to believe it just because you guys think you saw something. I’m not going to believe it unless I see the wounds, and unless I can put my finger in His hands.” And when that man showed up before Thomas and said “Here Thomas, put your fingers
In my hand. Touch me.” You know the Bible doesn’t say whether Thomas ever did. I don’t think he did. He didn’t have time to. He was on his knees. And he was saying “my Lord and my God.” No apologist was ever more sophisticated than the one who wrote “Sometimes it causes me
To tremble, were you there? Were you there when He rose up from the grave?” Sometimes it makes me shout “Glory, Glory.” You better believe glory. That’s why we’re here today folks. I hate to tell Al that it is Saturday and not Friday.
Would you believe an apologist that doesn’t even know what day it is? Somebody said it was impossible for us to make mistakes. But, here is the final point that I want you to get, the former times of ignorance God has overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent.
Because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead. There is no other sign that will be given to you except the sign of Jonah.
And if you don’t believe that sign you are in trouble because God has already set the day to judge the world. And His patience is not infinite. God as an evangelist never ever issues an invitation. That is something we do. God never invites people to receive Jesus. He commands them.
He commands all men everywhere to repent and to come to Jesus because He has proven that Jesus is the one through whom He will judge the world. How has God proven that? By raising Him from the dead. Well you say “I wasn’t there, so I can’t holler glory.
Other people God, but unless I see I’m not going to believe it. You’re going to have to send Jesus back again into my neighborhood, put Him to death again, and then raise Him for me to see. ” Too late. Too bad, He does it once for all.
And if that is not enough for you, you are in trouble. God is going to judge you by that historical act of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believe in the resurrection, not because the alternative is grim. We believe the resurrection because of the Biblical testimony of it’s reality in time and space.
Paul ends this section by saying “Therefore” Here is the conclusion. “Be steadfast. Be steadfast. Immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord for now you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” Your preaching is not in vain. Your faith is not in vain.
Your labor is not in vain because God has raised Him from the dead. And George Frederick Handel knew the only appropriate response to that was to say what? Hallelujah. Let’s pray. Father how we thank you for the testimony of scripture to the reality of resurrection
That transcends all levels of mythology and in which we find our hope and our justification. Amen
#R.C #Sproul #Resurrection #Christ