- You seem rather confident in your opinions and have what seems a fair understanding of the New Testament."
Thank you. That is kind, maybe a little too kind. I have had formal education in the New Testament at Bob Jones University and am currently studying a self paced course New Covenant in the New Testament through Third M
illennium Ministries online. I neither consider myself a scholar, nor an expert theologian. But I have had both extensive formal education and informal education in the New Testament. However, I consider your usage of "opinion" rather circumspect in this discussion, (and plausibly I might find a grievance toward that word usage here.) It is a matter of understanding the difference between interpolation of an idea by the one doing the interpreting of the text (you and I) and extrapolation of the intended meaning of the text according to the original intended meaning.
One does not need to be familiar with any literary text to understand this distinction. The New Testament is a work of literature. (To me, it is more than that!!!!, but even supposing it were not, at face value, it is an antiquated written work, no?). Yes, I have a fair understanding of the New Testament, but in no means, would I consider myself a New Testament scholar.
- The question on my mind is that you speak about as if you were there?
Response: Unfortunately for you, I'm not a fan of complex questions, even if they are simplistic in tone. It doesn't suit my ADHD too well. Please, as a courtesy to me, if you will, continue the conversation, using one topical question at a time. It will be greatly appreciated. But I will dissect this, anyway:
- "You speak about as if you were there." [Essentially, you are asking "why do you talk as if you were there?"]
I certainly was NOT there, but who reads Shakespeare without putting themselves in the role of Mercutio, Romeo, or Juliet? Who watches a movie, without imagining what it would have been like to be the man behind the curtain, or the girl that walked on that "yellow brick road" to find her way home? Friend, no, I wasn't there, but admittedly, I
do put myself in the story. What if I was in the story and I was a Roman Soldier during the crucifixion? Would have I simply obeyed orders? Might I have rebelled? Might have I shouted "I WILL NOT HANG THIS MAN, HE IS NOT A CRIMINAL!" What would have I done? What about if I was Jesus' mother? What type of anguish would have I felt to see my son put on a cross for crimes he did not commit. Remember
according to the stories (all four accounts), Pilate found no explicit record of criminal activity :
"Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."(Luke 23:4); "Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 19:4); "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" (Matthew 27:24); "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.“Crucify him!” they shouted.“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:9-14)
- How could we rely upon anything given no written accounts were made until many many years after all these events?
- Are we to believe that accounts of what this person or that person said can be relied upon as an exact account of what was said by this person or that person.
In terms of literary analysis, this is a complete irrelevancy. I'm happy to discuss the historicity of the gospels with you on a personal basis (my email is
chadfisher2423@gmail.com), but it is
not immediately pertinent to
this topic.
Even, if the story is meant to be taken as a fictional account or a fantasy, we're still looking for why the character in the fantasy or fictional story was crucified according to this topic of discussion. (But I play along below.)
- Do you know how much time pasted from the events you discuss and when they were recorded in writing(spelling corrected.)?
Matthew was written between circa 70 to 100 A.D. , Mark was most likely written in 70 A.D., Luke was written between circa 60 to 90 A.D., John was written between circa 80 to 95 A.D., ALL of the New Testament works were completed by 100 A.D., The crucifixion happened between circa 21 to 36 A.D.
The earliest possible date of any of the accounts to have been written is 60 A.D. The earliest time of the crucifixion is 21 A.D. 21 subtracted from 20 is 39. Therefore, the earliest possible record is 39 years after the purported event! [Certainly NOT the
"centuries" that skeptics arbitrarily and ignorantly toss out there. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia, thank you.]
According to himself, Luke was acting like a reporter, gaining the information of the events...
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)
How is the timing of this investigation not problematic? [Let us pull in another source: "
Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...". Do you know what this is? This is probably the earliest non-biblical historical antiquated literary description. This is a writing by the Roman historian and senator Tacitus in 64 A.D. If Luke was making up this story, why would Tacitus a ROMAN historian write about it in historical language? Things that make you go
"hmmmmm???"
There is something even more surprising that a Roman would talk about "Christus" (the Latinized version of the Greek "Christos" or condensed form "Christ".) Yes, I said even more surprising.
There are a handful of clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally surmised that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states: "
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
The earliest possible date of this writing about Jesus as a historical person BY THE JEWISH RABBIS is 70. AD. The earliest possible date of the crucifixion was what again? 21 A.D. A little math. 21 subtracted from 70 is 49 years. (Of course, the Rabbi's are only alluding alliteratively to the crucifixion, but it is worth noting, nonetheless.) Are you also questioning the Jewish community about the timing of this particular writing? Probably not, but to be consistent you should call up the local synagogue immediately! This is not a biblical writing, but it mentions Yeshu (the Aramaic name for Jesus) as well as his execution, and uses alliterative language referring to death of the Yeshu character.) At the earliest, this text was possibly written 49 years after the event, and it is NOT a Christian sympathetic work!
Thallus is perhaps the earliest
secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD
does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion and the subsequent earthquake:
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Thallus wrote his account in 52 A.D. Research it, if you don't believe me. Now, let's go back, the earliest possible gospel account was Luke's at 60 A.D. A little math. 52 subtracted from 60 is 8. Thallus, a secular author, wrote of the crucifixion at least eight years BEFORE Luke finished his gospel! The earliest known recorded secular skeptic (i.e. Thallus) of the event of the crucifixion, was not a skeptic of the event itself, but was
skeptical about the meaning of the events that transpired! Thallus wasn't trying to claim that the purported events did not happen, only trying to reconcile the events from a miraculous interpretation. Now, that's something to think about!