On October 21, 1997, the Lee County School Board in Florida voted 3 to 2 to adopt the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools program. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and People for the American Way were quick to bring a lawsuit against the School Board. The lawsuit contended that the planned course would present the Bible as history – and that would be unconstitutional.
In a split decision, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovakevich said that the School Board can implement a course based on the Old Testament, but may not teach a planned companion course based on the New Testament.
In her twenty-page ruling, the Judge said she had been convinced by the school’s argument that the Old Testament course was “ostensibly designed to teach history and not religion.” But she ruled out teaching the New Testament as history, saying that she “finds it difficult to conceive how the account of the resurrection or of miracles could be taught as secular history.” The judge’s ruling leaves us with a major question: Can the resurrection of Jesus be viewed as an historical event?
As a term, history may refer to what actually happened, or it may refer to an historian’s interpretation of what actually happened. The historian does not have to believe what happened, but is obligated to report what happened.
In attempting to determine what happened, historians ask questions about location and witnesses to the alleged events. They look for corroborative evidence. They examine archaeological findings in their quest to answer the big question, did it happen?
Judge Kovakevich suggests that such tests cannot be applied to the resurrection of Jesus. In essence, she finds it difficult to conceive that Jesus could rise from the dead. If that is her position, then she is not interested in investigating the event of the resurrection. Rather, she is expressing her inability to conceive of such an event.
Matt Perman makes the point that a method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it.
When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even comes close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
No one is asking the historian to explain the process of resurrection – that is the job of the theologian. However, we are asking the historian to respond to the Christians’ claim of an empty tomb. Following His death, Jesus was placed in a tomb, a common practice at that time. Three days later, Christians’ claim that the tomb was empty.
In order to avoid theft, the authorities actually secured the tomb in which Jesus was placed. Yet the tomb was found empty. The announcement of an empty tomb was not made in another city some years later. Rather, it was made in the same vicinity where Jesus was killed, a few days later. If the claim of resurrection was false, then why didn’t the authorities simply identify a sealed tomb?
Interestingly, it was in order to respond to an empty tomb, the Jews attempted to bribe the guards that were on duty to protect the tomb. The case of bribery would not have been necessary if the tomb was not empty.
Furthermore, the story of the empty tomb was not legend. There is clear evidence that within seven years after the alleged resurrection, the story began to be documented. Normally, it would take decades before a story is considered to be a legend. This story was documented within the lifetime of eye witnesses.
One finds it very strange that the tomb of Jesus was never venerated as a shrine. This is striking because it was the 1st century custom to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such cites in Jesus' day. Since there was no such shrine for Jesus, it suggests that his bones weren't there.
Following his conversion, Paul, a strong opponent of Christianity, made it very clear: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless, and so is your faith...” (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Scholars may debate the process of resurrection. However, there should be no debate about the fact of resurrection – the empty tomb continues to provide historical evidence that something phenomenal happened following the death of Jesus.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Sunday, March 29, 2015
He Chose Not to Fight for His Freedom
Clients expect their defense attorneys to make them look good. Whereas clients who are guilty expect leniency, clients who are innocent expect total exoneration. Unless for some unknown reason, innocent clients usually fight for their freedom.
The Easter story is the story of an innocent man who chose not to fight for his freedom. He had the resources to fight and He chose not to do so. In telling the story, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53).
Considering that a Roman legion had 6,000 soldiers, Jesus was claiming that he had access to at least 72,000 angels to protect Him from Roman crucifixion, one of the worst forms of capital punishment in the history of mankind. In his gospel, Luke contends that one such angel provided strength to Jesus before He was arrested by the Roman authorities (Luke 22:43). In other words, rather than provide release from the trial, the angel provided ability to cope with the trial.
Both the Jewish and Roman trials were mockeries and travesties of justice. Attorney Steven Allen analyzes these trials in his book, The Illegal Trial of Christ. Here he examines both Jewish and Roman civil and religious law and exposes the violations that occurred during Jesus’ arrest and trial. The trials were held in the wrong place, at the wrong time, by the wrong people and with the wrong witnesses. Yet Jesus never fought for a retrial.
Earlier in His ministry, attempts were made to kill Jesus. This is how John described one of those attempts: “At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’... At this they tried to seize Him, but no one laid a hand on Him, because His time had not yet come” (John 7:25-30).
John’s comment, “...His time had not yet come”, gives the impression that the death of Jesus was prearranged. Peter, one the disciples of Jesus, was convinced that the death of Jesus was no accident, it was prearranged. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter said, “This Man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge...” (Acts 2:23).
Interestingly, some 700 years before the death of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted that the promised Messiah would experience a tragic death. The prophet went as far as to say that the promised Messiah would be pierced (Isaiah 53:5). However, Isaiah did not say who was the Messiah to whom he was referring. Many Jews are still awaiting the arrival of that Messiah.
Unlike the Jews who are awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus contended that He was the Messiah. Following His death and resurrection, Jesus said to His disciples, “...everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). It was because of His claim to be the Messiah, first century Jews sought to kill Him (Luke 22:66-71).
As far as Jesus was concerned, the authorities killed the Messiah, and that killing was consistent with what was expected to happen to the Messiah. Therefore, to avoid the crucifixion would be to deny a messianic requirement. Jesus was no insurrectionist, as the authorities contended, in order to justify their murderous act - He died as was expected of the Messiah.
That being the case, one must now answer the question, why was it necessary for the Messiah to die? The apostle Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, answers that question in one of his letters: “...that Christ [Messiah] died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). His use of the word Scriptures here is in reference to the Hebrew Bible.
In other words, Paul is contending that according to the Hebrew Bible, Jesus died for the sins of the people. Could Paul have been referring to the words of Isaiah? “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:6).
Because Jesus was aware that His cruel death was consistent with His messianic role, it made sense not to seek a retrial or to avoid the consequences. He was aware that He was dying because of “our iniquities and our transgressions.” In addition, Jesus was aware that “by His wounds we would be healed.”
For this reason Jesus could shout triumphantly from the cross. His statement, “IT IS FINISHED” was similar to the shout of an athlete as he crosses the finish line. For Jesus, the mission was a victory, not a tragedy. That victory is what we claim when we commit our lives to Him – He died for me. I am so glad He did not seek a retrial.
The Easter story is the story of an innocent man who chose not to fight for his freedom. He had the resources to fight and He chose not to do so. In telling the story, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53).
Considering that a Roman legion had 6,000 soldiers, Jesus was claiming that he had access to at least 72,000 angels to protect Him from Roman crucifixion, one of the worst forms of capital punishment in the history of mankind. In his gospel, Luke contends that one such angel provided strength to Jesus before He was arrested by the Roman authorities (Luke 22:43). In other words, rather than provide release from the trial, the angel provided ability to cope with the trial.
Both the Jewish and Roman trials were mockeries and travesties of justice. Attorney Steven Allen analyzes these trials in his book, The Illegal Trial of Christ. Here he examines both Jewish and Roman civil and religious law and exposes the violations that occurred during Jesus’ arrest and trial. The trials were held in the wrong place, at the wrong time, by the wrong people and with the wrong witnesses. Yet Jesus never fought for a retrial.
Earlier in His ministry, attempts were made to kill Jesus. This is how John described one of those attempts: “At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, ‘Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?’... At this they tried to seize Him, but no one laid a hand on Him, because His time had not yet come” (John 7:25-30).
John’s comment, “...His time had not yet come”, gives the impression that the death of Jesus was prearranged. Peter, one the disciples of Jesus, was convinced that the death of Jesus was no accident, it was prearranged. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter said, “This Man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge...” (Acts 2:23).
Interestingly, some 700 years before the death of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah predicted that the promised Messiah would experience a tragic death. The prophet went as far as to say that the promised Messiah would be pierced (Isaiah 53:5). However, Isaiah did not say who was the Messiah to whom he was referring. Many Jews are still awaiting the arrival of that Messiah.
Unlike the Jews who are awaiting the arrival of the Messiah, Jesus contended that He was the Messiah. Following His death and resurrection, Jesus said to His disciples, “...everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). It was because of His claim to be the Messiah, first century Jews sought to kill Him (Luke 22:66-71).
As far as Jesus was concerned, the authorities killed the Messiah, and that killing was consistent with what was expected to happen to the Messiah. Therefore, to avoid the crucifixion would be to deny a messianic requirement. Jesus was no insurrectionist, as the authorities contended, in order to justify their murderous act - He died as was expected of the Messiah.
That being the case, one must now answer the question, why was it necessary for the Messiah to die? The apostle Paul, a Jewish convert to Christianity, answers that question in one of his letters: “...that Christ [Messiah] died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). His use of the word Scriptures here is in reference to the Hebrew Bible.
In other words, Paul is contending that according to the Hebrew Bible, Jesus died for the sins of the people. Could Paul have been referring to the words of Isaiah? “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:6).
Because Jesus was aware that His cruel death was consistent with His messianic role, it made sense not to seek a retrial or to avoid the consequences. He was aware that He was dying because of “our iniquities and our transgressions.” In addition, Jesus was aware that “by His wounds we would be healed.”
For this reason Jesus could shout triumphantly from the cross. His statement, “IT IS FINISHED” was similar to the shout of an athlete as he crosses the finish line. For Jesus, the mission was a victory, not a tragedy. That victory is what we claim when we commit our lives to Him – He died for me. I am so glad He did not seek a retrial.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Body Snatching!
Body snatching is the secret unearthing of dead bodies from graveyards. A common purpose of body snatching, in England during the 19th century, was to sell the bodies for dissection or anatomy lectures in medical schools.
In my home-state Florida, body snatching is a crime. The law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years and a fine of not more than $10,000.
From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead. The Bible’s description of witchcraft and sorcery in the Old Testament includes necromancy.
In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
Therefore, according to the New Testament record the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).
The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.
In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. This edict was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:
“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”
That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.
The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of body snatching in that area to warrant such an edict?
Students of Church History discern significance in the fact that the Roman Emperor’s edict coincided with a period of much growth in Christianity. Nazareth was the area in which Jesus, the founder of Christianity was raised.
Further, the primary message of Christianity was that Jesus was raised from the dead. Positive analysis in regard to this is that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen by the disciples. The Jewish authorities were in effect more deeply troubled by those facts than historically assumed – the facts that the tomb was empty and that the body could not be found.
What options could best explain that profound predicament? Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime, attracting even a death sentence.
As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?
In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from Nazareth. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!
What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – the New Testament. The New Testament writers contend that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.
The New Testament writers further contend that for forty days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.
Logically then, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for body snatching? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.
The resurrected Jesus was seen and heard for more than five weeks after the Roman authorities certified his death and burial. The Apostle Peter testified concerning the truth of such powerfully persuasive facts when he declared “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32)
In my home-state Florida, body snatching is a crime. The law states, “A person who willfully and knowingly disturbs the contents of a tomb or grave commits a felony of the second degree.” A conviction for such a crime can result in a prison term of up to fifteen years and a fine of not more than $10,000.
From ancient times, tombstones and coffins contained inscriptions warning offenders not to interfere with the contents. Tampering with the dead was a dishonor to the memories of the dead. In addition, the habit encouraged the practice of necromancy – communicating with the dead. The Bible’s description of witchcraft and sorcery in the Old Testament includes necromancy.
In the New Testament, after the death of Jesus, the Jewish authorities found a new reason to enforce this ban of tampering with dead bodies. The Jewish authorities realized that the tomb where the body of Jesus had been placed was empty – His body could not be found.
Therefore, according to the New Testament record the Jewish authorities devised a plan to bribe the soldiers who were on duty to guard the tomb. The soldiers were to testify that “His disciples came during the night and stole Him away while we were asleep” (Matthew 28:13).
The Roman soldiers accepted the bribe, thus implicating the disciples of Jesus. However, nowhere in history do we read where the disciples were charged for stealing the dead body of Jesus. Obviously, such a charge would require the prosecution to produce as irrefutable evidence the stolen body. There was evidence of an empty tomb, but not a stolen corpse.
In his volume, New Testament History, the late Professor F.F. Bruce tells the story of Roman Emperor Claudius and his edict to forbid tampering with dead bodies. This edict was issued within fifteen years after the resurrection of Jesus:
“It is my pleasure that sepulchers and tombs, which have been erected as solemn memorials of ancestors or children or relatives, shall remain undisturbed in perpetuity... Let no one disturb them on any account. Otherwise it is my will that capital sentence be passed upon such person for the crime of tomb-spoilation.”
That edict of the Roman Emperor Claudius has been housed in the Cabinet des Médailles in France since 1878. The inscription is said to have been “sent from Nazareth” to Paris. The writing-style on the inscription belongs to the earlier half of the first century.
The date and the source of the inscription leave unanswered a few important historical questions. For example, why would the Emperor of a region covering one million square miles be so interested in establishing an edict for a region covering six square miles? And that question leads logically to another - was there a presumed incident of body snatching in that area to warrant such an edict?
Students of Church History discern significance in the fact that the Roman Emperor’s edict coincided with a period of much growth in Christianity. Nazareth was the area in which Jesus, the founder of Christianity was raised.
Further, the primary message of Christianity was that Jesus was raised from the dead. Positive analysis in regard to this is that the corpse of Jesus had been stolen by the disciples. The Jewish authorities were in effect more deeply troubled by those facts than historically assumed – the facts that the tomb was empty and that the body could not be found.
What options could best explain that profound predicament? Was the charge of theft by the disciples possible? Clearly, such a charge is fanciful. The disciples were so scared of the authorities, why would they so foolishly implicate themselves? Such a stealing charge would constitute a serious crime, attracting even a death sentence.
As a matter of fact, why didn’t the authorities arrest them if they felt the disciples committed a crime?
In addition, the crucifixion had taken place in Jerusalem, some eighty miles away from Nazareth. Would they have disposed of the corpse in Jerusalem or travel with it for a few days in the Near Eastern hot temperatures? Preposterous!
What would seem to be the best option is the one recorded in the most reliable document of ancient literature – the New Testament. The New Testament writers contend that Jesus, who was crucified, came back to life on the third day following His death.
The New Testament writers further contend that for forty days the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds of persons in a variety of settings – in small groups, in personal encounters and even on one occasion by more than 500 persons at the same time.
Logically then, if those records were incorrect, why weren’t they challenged? Or, why did the authorities not locate the corpse and arrest the disciples for body snatching? Nothing like that was necessary because the evidence of the resurrected Jesus was overwhelming and irrefutable.
The resurrected Jesus was seen and heard for more than five weeks after the Roman authorities certified his death and burial. The Apostle Peter testified concerning the truth of such powerfully persuasive facts when he declared “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (Acts 2:32)
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Hoax or History?
Muslims do not believe Jesus died as the Bible claims He did. The Qur’an explicitly states (4:157-159): “And for their saying, ‘Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.’ Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.”
In commenting of this text, Baidawi, a highly esteemed thirteenth-century Muslim jurist and exegete said: “It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa [Jesus]...then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him [Jesus] that he would take him up to heaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, ‘which one of you is willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?’”
This claim of the non-death of Jesus is an argument of history, not only theology. The claim is alleging that the New Testament is wrong to state that Jesus was killed by means of crucifixion – Jesus did not die on the cross. Muslims believe someone else died in His place. Among other things, the Islamic claim is a challenge to the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament record.
The implications of this no-death claim is too serious to go unnoticed. Apart from challenging the credibility of the New Testament, the view is suggesting that all Christian doctrines that are based on Christ’s death on the cross are false, in that there was no death on the cross. In addition, the Christian claim of the resurrection is a hoax, in that there can be no resurrection if there were no death.
Furthermore, all the Old Testament references to the death of Jesus were misinterpreted. Added to these would be all the references to the death of Jesus, following the death of Jesus. In essence, the Christian Bible is unreliable, in that it records an event that did not take place. Some Muslims explain this dilemma by suggesting that the Early Church adjusted the records to fit their theology.
However, other than Christian writers, non-religious historians reported on the death of Jesus. Housed in the British Museum is a document entitled, “the letter of Mara Bar Serapion.” In this letter, written about thirty years after the death of Jesus, Mara asks, “what advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?”
Even the Jewish Babylonian Talmud states, “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”
In spite of the overwhelming evidence to support the death of Jesus, Islam is not the only ones supporting the non-death theory. As early as the second century, Gnostic Basilides denied the death of Jesus. He taught that at the crucifixion, Jesus changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carried the cross. The Jews, mistaking Simon for Jesus, nailed him [Simon] to the cross. Basilides contended that Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven.
In the third century, Mani of Persia taught that the son of the widow of Nain, whom Jesus raised from the dead, was put to death in Jesus’ place.
Many Muslim scholars cite the Gospel of Barnabas to support the Qur’anic teaching that Jesus did not die as told in the New Testament. Ironically, those who cite this sixteenth-century source, think they are quoting from the Letter of Barnabas, written in the first half of the second century. Whereas the Letter of Barnabas affirmed the death of Jesus and was considered to be among the most important post-New Testament writings, the same cannot be said of The Gospel of Barnabas.
The Gospel of Barnabas contends that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus (Section 217). This view has been adopted by many Muslims, since so many of them believe that someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus. Interestingly, most religious scholars will concur that The Gospel of Barnabas is a fake.
From my research, no credible historical source would challenge the crucifixion of Jesus. Many would debate the significance of His death – but not the fact of His dying on a cross.
Apart from the clear and frequent references to the death of Jesus in the New Testament, extra-biblical Jewish and Roman testimonies affirm that Jesus died. For instance, Tacitus’ Annals speak of “Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”
In the second century Justin Martyr referred to the “Acts of Pontius Pilate” under whom “nails were fixed in Jesus’ hands and feet on the cross...” Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote that “there was a wise man who was called Jesus ...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.”
We need not deny the death of Jesus – to do so would be to deny what actually happened. Unlike other deaths, the death of Jesus does not mean defeat. Rather, the death of Jesus means victory. That is why He gave a victory shout from the cross.
In commenting of this text, Baidawi, a highly esteemed thirteenth-century Muslim jurist and exegete said: “It is related that a group of Jews reviled Isa [Jesus]...then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him [Jesus] that he would take him up to heaven. Then Isa said to his disciples, ‘which one of you is willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?’”
This claim of the non-death of Jesus is an argument of history, not only theology. The claim is alleging that the New Testament is wrong to state that Jesus was killed by means of crucifixion – Jesus did not die on the cross. Muslims believe someone else died in His place. Among other things, the Islamic claim is a challenge to the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament record.
The implications of this no-death claim is too serious to go unnoticed. Apart from challenging the credibility of the New Testament, the view is suggesting that all Christian doctrines that are based on Christ’s death on the cross are false, in that there was no death on the cross. In addition, the Christian claim of the resurrection is a hoax, in that there can be no resurrection if there were no death.
Furthermore, all the Old Testament references to the death of Jesus were misinterpreted. Added to these would be all the references to the death of Jesus, following the death of Jesus. In essence, the Christian Bible is unreliable, in that it records an event that did not take place. Some Muslims explain this dilemma by suggesting that the Early Church adjusted the records to fit their theology.
However, other than Christian writers, non-religious historians reported on the death of Jesus. Housed in the British Museum is a document entitled, “the letter of Mara Bar Serapion.” In this letter, written about thirty years after the death of Jesus, Mara asks, “what advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?”
Even the Jewish Babylonian Talmud states, “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”
In spite of the overwhelming evidence to support the death of Jesus, Islam is not the only ones supporting the non-death theory. As early as the second century, Gnostic Basilides denied the death of Jesus. He taught that at the crucifixion, Jesus changed form with Simon of Cyrene who had carried the cross. The Jews, mistaking Simon for Jesus, nailed him [Simon] to the cross. Basilides contended that Jesus stood by deriding their error before ascending to heaven.
In the third century, Mani of Persia taught that the son of the widow of Nain, whom Jesus raised from the dead, was put to death in Jesus’ place.
Many Muslim scholars cite the Gospel of Barnabas to support the Qur’anic teaching that Jesus did not die as told in the New Testament. Ironically, those who cite this sixteenth-century source, think they are quoting from the Letter of Barnabas, written in the first half of the second century. Whereas the Letter of Barnabas affirmed the death of Jesus and was considered to be among the most important post-New Testament writings, the same cannot be said of The Gospel of Barnabas.
The Gospel of Barnabas contends that Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus (Section 217). This view has been adopted by many Muslims, since so many of them believe that someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus. Interestingly, most religious scholars will concur that The Gospel of Barnabas is a fake.
From my research, no credible historical source would challenge the crucifixion of Jesus. Many would debate the significance of His death – but not the fact of His dying on a cross.
Apart from the clear and frequent references to the death of Jesus in the New Testament, extra-biblical Jewish and Roman testimonies affirm that Jesus died. For instance, Tacitus’ Annals speak of “Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”
In the second century Justin Martyr referred to the “Acts of Pontius Pilate” under whom “nails were fixed in Jesus’ hands and feet on the cross...” Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wrote that “there was a wise man who was called Jesus ...Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.”
We need not deny the death of Jesus – to do so would be to deny what actually happened. Unlike other deaths, the death of Jesus does not mean defeat. Rather, the death of Jesus means victory. That is why He gave a victory shout from the cross.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Prophet or Politician?
During his speech before the U.S. Congress last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the Jewish Purim holiday. He cited the biblical deliverance of Jews from genocide under ancient Persian Empire rule and called attention to the story of a Jewish girl named Esther, who rose to become Queen of Persia.
Queen Esther, a courageous Jewish woman exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, "The plot was foiled, our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”
According to the Old Testament book of Esther, during the time of King Ahasuerus, Haman, a minister to the king, sought to annihilate the empire’s Jews in retaliation for being insulted by a Jewish man named Mordecai. The man learned of Haman’s plan for retaliation and warned his cousin Esther, who had become queen of the empire but whose Jewish identity had been kept secret.
On the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Adar, following several days of fasting and prayer, the Jews rose up against their enemies and were victorious. The Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated every year in early spring to commemorate the Jewish rise against the Persian Empire – the Prime Minister’s speech coincided with that annual observance.
Some 2,500 years earlier the Esther story unfolded. Then, as today, the threat against Israel is real. Instead of a Haman scheming to kill the Jews, it’s Iranian mullahs who are accused of plotting to wipe Israel off the map, and being aided in the process by the soon realization of a goal more than 20 years in the making – obtaining a nuclear arsenal.
In a November 14 sermon aired on Iran’s state-run television, Ayatollah Ali Movahedi-Kermani made the following statement: “The Sejjil ballistic missile can hit and raze to the ground any place in Israel, as well as any American base in the region.” Crowds listening to the speech shouted: “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel!”
Like the biblical character Esther, Prime Minister Netanyahu sees himself in a strategic position. Esther’s cousin Mordecai asked her, “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?”
To this Esther replied: “...I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:12-16). Other than Esther, the Jews seemed to have no other option – they were defenseless. That is no longer the case.
According to Business Insider, Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East, followed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition to being battle-tested against a variety of enemies, the Israel Defense Forces have a qualitative edge over all other militaries in the region, as well as a highly-capable air force. "Pilot to pilot, airframe to airframe, the Israeli air force is the best in the world."
From that position of military strength, much restraint is necessary from Israel. Despite the current divisions among countries in the Middle East, any aggression from Israel, can position the nation to become a common enemy – that will certainly unite militants in the region.
One must not forget that the regional dislike for Israel is less political and more ideological. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what some call “Apocalyptic Islam.”
Imam Mahdi is a messianic figure often referred to as the twelfth imam in Shiite Islam. According to one Islamic website, there are at least four signs that will precede the coming of Imam Mahdi. All of these signs include some kind of battle. Interestingly, both ISIS and Iran see themselves as key players in these apocalyptic battles.
Some analysts believe “Iran is controlled by religious hardliners afflicted with a messianic fervor whose primary goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi.
This is to be accomplished by annihilating Israel, waging war against infidels and sowing chaos. The price for Iran may be national martyrdom, for which its causalities will be richly rewarded in the afterlife, while survivors will enjoy the favor of the returned Mahdi.”
Queen Esther, a courageous Jewish woman exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, "The plot was foiled, our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”
According to the Old Testament book of Esther, during the time of King Ahasuerus, Haman, a minister to the king, sought to annihilate the empire’s Jews in retaliation for being insulted by a Jewish man named Mordecai. The man learned of Haman’s plan for retaliation and warned his cousin Esther, who had become queen of the empire but whose Jewish identity had been kept secret.
On the 13th day of the Hebrew month of Adar, following several days of fasting and prayer, the Jews rose up against their enemies and were victorious. The Jewish festival of Purim is celebrated every year in early spring to commemorate the Jewish rise against the Persian Empire – the Prime Minister’s speech coincided with that annual observance.
Some 2,500 years earlier the Esther story unfolded. Then, as today, the threat against Israel is real. Instead of a Haman scheming to kill the Jews, it’s Iranian mullahs who are accused of plotting to wipe Israel off the map, and being aided in the process by the soon realization of a goal more than 20 years in the making – obtaining a nuclear arsenal.
In a November 14 sermon aired on Iran’s state-run television, Ayatollah Ali Movahedi-Kermani made the following statement: “The Sejjil ballistic missile can hit and raze to the ground any place in Israel, as well as any American base in the region.” Crowds listening to the speech shouted: “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel!”
Like the biblical character Esther, Prime Minister Netanyahu sees himself in a strategic position. Esther’s cousin Mordecai asked her, “And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?”
To this Esther replied: “...I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:12-16). Other than Esther, the Jews seemed to have no other option – they were defenseless. That is no longer the case.
According to Business Insider, Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East, followed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition to being battle-tested against a variety of enemies, the Israel Defense Forces have a qualitative edge over all other militaries in the region, as well as a highly-capable air force. "Pilot to pilot, airframe to airframe, the Israeli air force is the best in the world."
From that position of military strength, much restraint is necessary from Israel. Despite the current divisions among countries in the Middle East, any aggression from Israel, can position the nation to become a common enemy – that will certainly unite militants in the region.
One must not forget that the regional dislike for Israel is less political and more ideological. The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what some call “Apocalyptic Islam.”
The term “Apocalyptic Islam” introduces the topic of end-of-the-world religious ideology. According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 750 million Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi.”
Imam Mahdi is a messianic figure often referred to as the twelfth imam in Shiite Islam. According to one Islamic website, there are at least four signs that will precede the coming of Imam Mahdi. All of these signs include some kind of battle. Interestingly, both ISIS and Iran see themselves as key players in these apocalyptic battles.
Some analysts believe “Iran is controlled by religious hardliners afflicted with a messianic fervor whose primary goal is to hasten the return of the Mahdi.
This is to be accomplished by annihilating Israel, waging war against infidels and sowing chaos. The price for Iran may be national martyrdom, for which its causalities will be richly rewarded in the afterlife, while survivors will enjoy the favor of the returned Mahdi.”
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Freedom of Religion?
There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of worship. Freedom of worship implies the right to gather, pray and sing. In essence, it is the liberty to conduct religious activities within areas designated for such practices.
Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.
However, freedom of religion is quite different. The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out one’s faith - not just in private, but also in the public square - without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.
The First Amendment of our Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.
The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience - carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action.
James Madison expressed this understanding in his original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” Hence, because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose.
In addition, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Both the United States and the United Nations understand freedom of religion as the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” one’s religion or belief in both “in public or private,” without interference from the state.
Despite this understanding, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs. The decision of the judge is part of a global ideological redefinition of religious rites. Some ideologues are now associating circumcision with mutilation or even child abuse.
For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). By prohibiting the rite of circumcision is to deprive Jewish and Muslim boys a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity.
Opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. But that is not true in that fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates the restrictive religious beliefs of the parents of the child.
This is much more than an intellectual discussion.
Attempts are already in place to restrict or outright violate religious liberty. Many are aware that the federal government has begun to gut the only federal conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care professionals.
In addition, through code enforcement and city planning, many cities are limiting the visibility of houses of worship. Property management firms are also limiting proselytizing in areas under their control. More and more, specific attempts are being made to restrict the freedom of religion as it relates to the public display of one’s faith.
Religious freedom is one of those unique rights that, to be fully enjoyed, other rights like association and speech must also be protected. Although critical, religious freedom provides more than religious liberties. Interestingly, whereas the freedom of religion guarantees the freedom of worship, it is not true to assume that the freedom of worship would guarantee the freedom of religion.
Worship at its core is essentially a private and personal process, a communion between God and an individual. No government could restrict such worship, any more than it could monitor and censor every citizen's thoughts and prayers. Even forbidding individuals to worship together in public cannot actually prevent individuals from worshiping God in private.
However, freedom of religion is quite different. The free exercise of religion under the American Constitution includes the freedom to openly express, follow and live out one’s faith - not just in private, but also in the public square - without government coercion, censorship or any other form of restriction.
The First Amendment of our Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The constitutionally guaranteed free exercise of religion in America extends well beyond the freedom to worship. It includes the freedom to live out our conscientiously held beliefs.
The concept of religious liberty held by the Constitution's framers included not merely the freedom to worship, but also the free exercise of conscience - carrying out one's moral beliefs with conviction and action.
James Madison expressed this understanding in his original amendment to the Constitution: “The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.” Hence, because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose.
In addition, Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Both the United States and the United Nations understand freedom of religion as the right to live according to one’s own faith, that is, to “manifest” one’s religion or belief in both “in public or private,” without interference from the state.
Despite this understanding, a German trial judge recently outlawed the circumcision of children on the basis that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, to carry out their religious beliefs. The decision of the judge is part of a global ideological redefinition of religious rites. Some ideologues are now associating circumcision with mutilation or even child abuse.
For millennia, faith adherents have believed that circumcision is done for boys (rather than to them). By prohibiting the rite of circumcision is to deprive Jewish and Muslim boys a religious benefit to which they are entitled while dispossessing them of a core aspect of their personal identity.
Opponents of freedom of religion may bring up the Aztecs, arguing that a robust view of religious liberty would require allowing children to be sacrificed to pagan gods. But that is not true in that fundamental liberties are not absolute. The law properly prohibits religious practice when there is a compelling government interest. For example, the state can force a child to be given life-saving blood transfusions even though doing so violates the restrictive religious beliefs of the parents of the child.
This is much more than an intellectual discussion.
Attempts are already in place to restrict or outright violate religious liberty. Many are aware that the federal government has begun to gut the only federal conscience regulation protecting the conscience rights of American health care professionals.
In addition, through code enforcement and city planning, many cities are limiting the visibility of houses of worship. Property management firms are also limiting proselytizing in areas under their control. More and more, specific attempts are being made to restrict the freedom of religion as it relates to the public display of one’s faith.
Religious freedom is one of those unique rights that, to be fully enjoyed, other rights like association and speech must also be protected. Although critical, religious freedom provides more than religious liberties. Interestingly, whereas the freedom of religion guarantees the freedom of worship, it is not true to assume that the freedom of worship would guarantee the freedom of religion.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Fire-Chief Fired
On Tuesday, January 06, Atlanta’s Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran was fired after more than 34 years of distinguished service as a fireman. According to Atlanta Mayor, Kasim Reed, Cochran was fired because of sentiments he expressed in a book.
The Mayor told reporters Cochran was ousted because of poor judgment. The mayor accused the chief of not getting permission to write the book, a charge Cochran denies.
The Mayor also alleged Cochran distributed the book to members of the fire department. Cochran readily admits that he gave copies of the book to close associates within the department. It should be noted that the individual who initially complained about the book did not receive a copy from the fire chief.
Sources in Atlanta City Hall told a local television station that Cochran was going to be fired, not for writing the book, but because he did not go through proper channels to write it in the first place.
According to the Mayor, “Not one time during the course of preparing this book did the chief ever think it was appropriate to have a conversation with me.” However, the former fire chief told reporters he received permission from the city's Ethics Department to write the book and in fact he sent a copy to the Mayor's Office, giving it to the Mayor's assistant.
Mayor Reed, surrounded by members of his administration, including city officials, some who are part of the LGBT community, said he fired Cochran for bad judgment, not for writing the book which calls homosexuality a perversion. Interestingly, a city investigation determined the fire chief had not discriminated against LGBT employees by writing his book.
The book, Who Told You That You Were Naked (2013), was really written for Chief Cochran’s Sunday School class. Cochran is a deacon, a Sunday School teacher and Bible study leader at Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church. In the book, aimed at helping Christian men overcome past sins, Cochran expressed his belief that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.
Cochran used about half a page of his 160-page book to refer to homosexuality as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate” behavior. He shared a few copies of his book with firemen colleagues who shared his worldview. About three members of staff, who did not share his worldview, also received copies. One fireman, who was not given a copy of the book, was reading it and noticed Chief Cochran’s description of persons who chose the gay lifestyle.
The allegedly offensive lines were shared with some in city administration who were sympathetic to the gay lifestyle. Following this, Chief Cochran was suspended without pay for one month. He was also instructed to attend a course in sensitivity training. At the end of his no-pay suspension, he was fired.
Interestingly, the Mayor was praised for dismissing Chief Cochran by openly homosexual councilman Alex Wan. Wan said, “...when you’re a city employee, and your thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”
Wan’s view is the epitome of bigotry. And so is The New York Times, which said it doesn't matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That's not the point, they argued Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled, God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department – “It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians."
The editorial went on to say, "His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens."
Where in this situation did Chief Cochran even attempt “to foist his religious views on other employees”? What crime did Chief Cochran commit to even deserve a one-month-no-pay suspension? Why should this decorated firefighter be subjected to this array of bigotry and ‘religiophobic’ rhetoric?
In one interview, Chief Cochran said, “...the LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.”
Did I hear an AMEN for that? Personally, I believe if Chief Cochran were gay and similarly expressed an opinion about persons who did not share his worldview, he would be still employed as Atlanta’s Fire Chief.
The Mayor told reporters Cochran was ousted because of poor judgment. The mayor accused the chief of not getting permission to write the book, a charge Cochran denies.
The Mayor also alleged Cochran distributed the book to members of the fire department. Cochran readily admits that he gave copies of the book to close associates within the department. It should be noted that the individual who initially complained about the book did not receive a copy from the fire chief.
Sources in Atlanta City Hall told a local television station that Cochran was going to be fired, not for writing the book, but because he did not go through proper channels to write it in the first place.
According to the Mayor, “Not one time during the course of preparing this book did the chief ever think it was appropriate to have a conversation with me.” However, the former fire chief told reporters he received permission from the city's Ethics Department to write the book and in fact he sent a copy to the Mayor's Office, giving it to the Mayor's assistant.
Mayor Reed, surrounded by members of his administration, including city officials, some who are part of the LGBT community, said he fired Cochran for bad judgment, not for writing the book which calls homosexuality a perversion. Interestingly, a city investigation determined the fire chief had not discriminated against LGBT employees by writing his book.
The book, Who Told You That You Were Naked (2013), was really written for Chief Cochran’s Sunday School class. Cochran is a deacon, a Sunday School teacher and Bible study leader at Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church. In the book, aimed at helping Christian men overcome past sins, Cochran expressed his belief that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.
Cochran used about half a page of his 160-page book to refer to homosexuality as “vile, vulgar and inappropriate” behavior. He shared a few copies of his book with firemen colleagues who shared his worldview. About three members of staff, who did not share his worldview, also received copies. One fireman, who was not given a copy of the book, was reading it and noticed Chief Cochran’s description of persons who chose the gay lifestyle.
The allegedly offensive lines were shared with some in city administration who were sympathetic to the gay lifestyle. Following this, Chief Cochran was suspended without pay for one month. He was also instructed to attend a course in sensitivity training. At the end of his no-pay suspension, he was fired.
Interestingly, the Mayor was praised for dismissing Chief Cochran by openly homosexual councilman Alex Wan. Wan said, “...when you’re a city employee, and your thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”
Wan’s view is the epitome of bigotry. And so is The New York Times, which said it doesn't matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That's not the point, they argued Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled, God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department – “It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians."
Where in this situation did Chief Cochran even attempt “to foist his religious views on other employees”? What crime did Chief Cochran commit to even deserve a one-month-no-pay suspension? Why should this decorated firefighter be subjected to this array of bigotry and ‘religiophobic’ rhetoric?
In one interview, Chief Cochran said, “...the LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.”
Did I hear an AMEN for that? Personally, I believe if Chief Cochran were gay and similarly expressed an opinion about persons who did not share his worldview, he would be still employed as Atlanta’s Fire Chief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)