Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
But have we just their word that they were there? Not at all! Hundreds of
references in writings of those days confirm that Peter and John, Paul and Luke
and the other writers of the New Testament history books were well-known figures
of the time. In his public defence before King Agrippa, Paul says: "the king knows
about these things, for this was not done in a corner." In his letter to the
Corinthians, he states that Jesus, after His Resurrection, "appeared to more than
five hundred brethren at one time most of whom are still alive," and all the
thousands of references to Paul in the letters of those days confirm that both the
eye-witnesses and the things they wrote about are true. The writings of men like
Clement, Barnabus, and Ignatius in the first century are filled with references to
the written records of the men who observed Jesus first-hand.
Even the next generation recorded their personal interviews with these eye-
witnesses of the Son of the Creator: Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old
apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become
Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not
record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the
Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter
who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and
not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed
no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For
he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state
nothing falsely in his narrative of them."
Irenaeus, who lived until 203 A.D., tells how Polycarp, who died in 154 A.D.
"would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen
the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard
from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp,
as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it
altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."
But, if "this was not done in a corner," surely even historians who were hostile
would make references to the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth! And so
they do non-Biblical, non-Christian historians like Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus,
Pliny, ect. These all confirm that the New Testament writers wrote truthfully
about the events they observed personally in Palestine in the first century.
Tacitus, the leading historian of Imperial Rome writes: "The author of that name
(Christian) was Christ who in the reign of Tiberius suffered punishment under his
Procurator Pontius Pilate," while the Jewish historian Josephus writes, "There was
about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a
doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.
He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was
Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,
for he appeared to them alive again the third day."
The public nature of the record and the objective corroboration of the facts
recorded by Paul and Peter and the others is evidenced most plainly in the
statement of Tertullian, the juris-consult, familiar with the Roman archives.
"Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the
world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had
clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the
senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not
given the approval itself, rejected this proposal. Caesar held to this opinion,
threatening death against all the accusers of the Christians." No other ancient
history has better corroborated eye witness records! The only true argument that
remains, is that Jesus was just a legend or myth. There is little likelihood that
Jesus' claims were legends. There simply wasn't enough time for any legendary
development of the story to replace what really happened. For instance, we now
know that the Gospels were written 30 to 50 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.
More dramatically, we now date some of the early Christian creeds, proclaiming the
life, death and resurrection of Jesus, from 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion.
This would include Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Galatians.
Finally, if Jesus' claim of deity was a myth, the early Jewish opponents of
Christianity would surely have presented the fact that these claims never
happened. Unlike modern skeptics, the Jewish rabbis never denied that Jesus made
the claim that He was God. Instead, they called Him a liar, and tried Him for
blasphemy. Some critics say that Christianity is nearly a duplication of the Horus
myth. Though true Christianity is not, Catholicism borrowed it's trinity from
Pagan sources along with some holidays and worship days. This was a blend of both.
It was in a vain attempt to win pagan. Yet it instead took away the power of God.
(It is in the name of Yeshua or Jesus, he hold all saving and command power for
all things. Acts 4:12, Colossiaans 3:17, and Matthew 28:18) Now the trinity and
other changes reduced Catholicism to a mere powerless religion. It does not now
resemble the word of God at all. Here are the claims of the critics. The Egyptian
mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. (Leedom,
Massey) For some examples:
Yet historically, it was shown that Jesus or Yeshua was resurrected. And that his
Holy Spirit power inspired miracles, baptisms, and healings in his name. Again,
there is enough data on the subject of Christ to prove he lived, died, and was
resurrected. Nobody doubts Julius Caesar's birth, life, or writings. Yet for all
his fame, nobody was saved by his name. You can be safely saved by the Holy One.
It is not a religion that saves a person but God himself can and will do so. That
is, if you are willing and obedient to his word and will. He never forced anyone
to serve him. This is true love at it's best. Trust God and his word alone,
without additions or add ons. As that is all that is needed, to have his grace
added to your active faith in him.