ITW FRONTLINE APOLOGETICS QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
List of Questions Posed by Readers:
1) I've read somewhere that there are no Roman records during the time of Jesus that would confirm his existence. Can you verify this or point me to a source?
Reply: While there are certainly sources that cover the *period* in which Jesus lived, unfortunately, there is only one credible non-Christian source contemporary to the New Testament (but not contemporary to when Jesus lived) that implies His existence. It is found in the Jewish Antiquities by Josephus:
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others..." (Ant. XX.9.1)
By way of interest, there are also no contemporary literary sources that come from the time of Josephus that would positively confirm this great Jewish historian's existence either. The only external source that mentions Josephus is by Suetonius in book 8.5 written roughly 30 years after Josephus death. In other words, Josephus has no more support for his existence than does Jesus, yet, nobody disputes the existence of Josephus.
Thanks for that information. Could you clarify that just a bit? Were the sources that cover the "period" in which Jesus lived written at that time? In other words, do we have any Roman records from that actual period?
Reply: No. The particular source that I mentioned above (Josephus' Ant., which does touch on that period) is thought to have been written in the late first century. Other available sources that touch on the *period of time* in which Jesus lived were written in the second century (Tacitus, Suetonius) or later.
Some skeptics like to bring up the fact that Pliny the Elder lived as a contemporary in Jesus' time....and made no mention of Him. However, that fact must be tempered with the other fact that Pliny was about 10-14 years old when Jesus began his three year ministry. In short, while there are no disinterested or interested contemporary [1] records that confirm Jesus' existence, there are also no available *contemporary records* that cover the *period of time* in which Jesus lived. All our knowledge on these two aspects rests on interpretive authors shortly thereafter.
A good book that covers the evidences for Jesus' existence in an objective manner is: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Vol. 1). Other good resources are:
F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the NT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Gary Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.
David Wenham (Ed) Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, Volume 5, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.
------Footnote---------------------------
[1] By contemporary, I mean writings that come from the same time in which Jesus lived.
2) Are the gospels biographies? Or, something else?
Reply: Biographies imply that the evangelist have preserved for us photographic reproduction of Jesus' life. But this is not what we have, instead, it appears that the four evangelist have produced something like four interpretative portraits. Each of these portraits presents distinctive high-lights of Jesus' person and work, and taken together, the four provide a varied and balanced account of what Jesus said and did. A type of historiography if you will. (See: The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 80-96).
3) I remember reading somewhere that the Trinity was mentioned in the Bible. Is there a passage that explicitly uses this term?
Reply: Though the concept seems to be implied in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, the term "Trinity" does not appear in any portion of the Bible. From what we know, the term "Trinity" (trias) was first coined by Theophilus of Antioch in 180 A.D.
4) The fact that the word trinity is not found in the Bible is very telling. Many say the substance of the doctrine is there, however, I disagree. Where am I going wrong?
Reply: It is true that the developed concept of the Trinity by early creedal formulations cannot be *clearly* detected within the cannon. However, Christian theology has seen *adumbrations* of the doctrine in such Old Testament texts as the apparition of the three men to Abraham (Gen. 18) and similar episodes. Moreover, while the New Testament passages that seem to touch on the Trinity (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; II Corn. 13:14 etc..) reflect *unity* within that concept, it is also true that those same passages do not expound the *relationship* within the Godhead. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are looking for passages that detail that relationship? If so, then you have a valid point of concern. But realize this, our early church fathers after the close of the cannon experienced sever heretical tendencies of how the three are related (di-or tritheism). In response to these tendencies, a more clearly defined concept was put forth in creeds. While those concepts may be more defined than what scripture has to offer, they nonetheless reflect an underlining bases found in scripture of a *unity* within the Godhead.
5) I recently watched the movie "Stigmata" again, and I am always fascinated with the fact that The Gospels of Thomas are actual scrolls found in 1945. Do you know for a fact why these Gospels have not been added or proclaimed to be valid by the Christian faith?
Reply: It is my understanding that while there are certainly points of contact with the canonical Gospels, the Gnostic twists found therein render it out of orthodox bounds. For example (in the movie, if I remember correctly), there is reference made to Logion 37, where, Jesus is recorded as saying:
"I am the light that is over everything, I am the All; the All has gone forth from me, and to me the All has returned. Split (a piece of) wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there."
By way of theological comparison, Logion 37, appears to be inferior to what we find in the Gospels. Another example can be found in Logion 114:
"Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life. Jesus said: Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of Heaven."
No where in the New Testament is Jesus recorded as saying anything even remotely similar to this. The Bible was written with-in the type of culture that Gospel of Thomas reflects, yet, Jesus' teaching as recorded by the Gospels present a much different Jesus.
6) I wondered if you had any clear evidence that Christ was crucified on a cross (With a cross beam)? I am arguing with someone who is using the line that Christianity 'copied' from other religions on this point and that stauros ONLY means stake or post. (no, not a JW)
Reply: References diverge in how to interpret the meaning of stauros. However, the basis for assuming a cross beam is in John 20:25:
"The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails [plural], and put my finger into the place of the nails [plural], and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."
Notice in this passage the word "nails," this is in the plural suggesting each hand was nailed separately to a cross beam. It is possible that an upright post/stake was already in place, and the cross-section was carried to the site. Once there, Jesus was nailed to the horizontal beam which was then lifted up and fastened to the upright stake, thereby forming the cross.
7) Concerning Jesus’ resurrection, what on Earth makes you think that the his story is any more (or any less) believable than that of Osiris, Dionysius, Baldur, Tinkerbell or any of the others?
Reply: Because none of these stories have narrations, reported appearances, connected histories, embedded historical strata, or predictions for a future death and resurrection. However, all of these elements that lend credibility to Christ's resurrection are present. In other words, these elements put Christ's resurrection on a higher level of consideration than the fairy tale category assigned to "Osiris, Dionysius, Baldur," or "Tinkerbell" and so forth.
8) Doesn’t the Talmud provide further proof that Mary’s genealogy can be identified within Luke’s list at verse 3:23? After all, some apologetic books mention this! See: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mary_genealogy_talmud.html 9) Could you please tell me what verse(s) make reference to Jesus having half brothers and sisters? I am debating a Catholic. 10) What does the Bible say about tattoos? There are three primary verses in the Bible. They are: "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD" (Lev. 19:28) "They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh" (Lev. 21:5). "You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead" (Duet. 14:1). These verses, in their own context, are referring to marks made on the body for worshipping purposes of gods not identified with the God of the Bible. But what about tattoos that seem to be pro Bible-God orientated? Well, the Bible identifies those who align themselves with God as living temples. "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" (1Cor. 6:19) I think it is reasonable to conclude that God would not appreciate a purposely marked up temple. Having said, I also don’t think those who have tattoos will be on God’s bad side. In my opinion, God is more interested in what’s in the temple, than what’s on the temple. 11) Was Jesus really born on December 25th? If not, what is the significance of December 25th in Christian tradition? And, did Christianity copy this date from earlier religions? See: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/When_was_Jesus_Born_.html 12) When I quote scholars I’m often told that their opinion is worthless because they are Christian? How should I change my approach? For me, when in discussion with skeptics, referencing scholars is limited to scholars that are generally respected in the Skeptical community. Once you have spent some time in those circles you’ll begin to learn which scholars are respected and which aren’t (the demarcation being how objective they are generally known to be). In addition, using informed skeptics (such as Carrier, Lowder, Templeton, etc...) to argue points of contention is also very effective. It is this type of approach that goes a bit further in the eyes of skeptics. Another approach is to avoid opinion as much as possible. Use the data and/or argumentation of any scholar and let the weight of evidence stand for itself. It is always good to identify your source, even if you suspect to hear some complaint that you used the arguments of a Christian scholar. After those complaints, you need only to request that the skeptic deal with the evidence and argumentation rather than merely dismissing such things because they came from a Christian. This approach, added to the first, will challenge the skeptic - who has merely dismissed a scholar because he or she is a Christian - to be fair and open-minded. Furthermore, nobody's opinion is worthless. Opinions are what people have formed in their own mind due to various inputs. In that case, don't let the skeptic get away with saying that any Christian opinion is worthless. Such a thing could be said in both directions, but it would not be fair. But it is fair to say that all opinions are suspect without good reason and factual support. 13) How did Matthew and Luke come to the knowledge that Jesus was conceived by divine means? By inspiration? Or by some other means? See: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/Jesus__Birth_Announcement.html