Trivial? This whole thread is devoted to whether or not Jesus was born in Bethlehem. We have two Gospels that agree on this point and (and two that skip right to His adulthood) you call that agreement trivial? Hardly trivial in the arena of this topic.
“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 †
WHat can we discover of the life of Jesus from independent sources?
Norman Geisler writes in Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
One of the sources of the above data points include a quote from the Jewish Historian Josephus. However, Josephus’s disputed text is not the only thing that Geisler used to make his summary. Additional non-Christian sources include:
[ul][li]Tacitus and his ‘michevious superstition’ account.[/li][li]Thallus who wrote in 52 a.d. but has no extant mss, but is quoted by Julius Africanus, speaks about a ‘most fearful darkness’ about the time of the crucifixion[/li][li]Pliny the Younger describes early Christian wropship practices, and their beliefs.[/li][li]Talmudic writings include a phrase about the execution of Yeshu.[/li][li]Lucian wrote second century works that contain sarcastic critiques of Christianity.[/ul][/li]
So, to say there are no reliable non-Christian sources is being a bit broad brushed. I wouldn’t expect them to copy, or affirm, but that numerous sources mention, Christus or his followers, means that something remarkable happened.
Is the evidence so solid, that a reasonable person could discount it? Yes
Is the evidence sufficent enough, that a reasonable person could make a faith decision based on it? Yes
So once again we return to the choice everyone must make. The decision is yours, and mine. No one, not even God, will force you to choose Him.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
In the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Jesus ends the parable with the phrase:
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Do you have the citation for this?
Tom~
Nav sed:
Er, Jon? I thought this was a discussion of Christ as a historical figure. Why does his being or not being born in Bethlehem affect one’s acceptance of Christ’s divinity?
I mean, even if it’s impossible to be a “real” Christian without believing in Biblical inerrancy (which is certainly a different debate), just because one might believe that Christ was born in Bethlehem doesn’t make one a Christian. (Did that make any sense at all?)
-andros-
Nav sed:
Er, Jon? I thought this was a discussion of Christ as a historical figure. Why does his being or not being born in Bethlehem affect one’s acceptance of Christ’s divinity?
I mean, even if it’s impossible to be a “real” Christian without believing in Biblical inerrancy (which is certainly a different debate), just because one might believe that Christ was born in Bethlehem doesn’t make one a Christian. (Did that make any sense at all?)
-andros-
You are confusing two completely different concepts. On one hand we have the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth, and on the other we have Luke and Matthew’s agrrement on that claim. While the claim itself isn’t trivial, the agreement on that claim is trivial.
While it is possible for normally reasonable people to hold unreasonable views, such a condition does not reflect on the evidence supporting the view. The evidence “supporting” the Chritian view are four accounts (written by anomynous people) which conflict with each other, prior Jewish scriptures, and even themselves, and in some cases even contradict each other. These accounts include incidents that the writers almost certainly did not witness, yet no attempt is made to name specific sources.
It has been said that Luke was a historian “of the first rank”. Yet it is my understanding that he did not actually witness this alledged census, and he never claims to. Yet he provides no statements from anyone confirming that it occured, no reference to a document describing the census, no date of the census; nothing at all to substantiate his claim. If this is a “historian of the first rank”, what is a historian of the second rank? Someone who scribbles notes in books with crayons?
tomndebb asked:
Sanhedrin 43a
I’m sorry if I implied the question at hand was salvation dependent. That was not my intent. Thank you for setting me straight. 
The Ryan mused:
RE: contradictions, Dr. Gleason Archer (a Christian) who taught for over thirty years at the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism, states the following in his book * Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties*
*There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it. But this is only to be expected from the kind of book the Bible asserts itself to be, the inscripturation of the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God.
[/quote]
I’m not asserting that Luke was an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus, or even many of Jesus’ ministries. But he did know people that were, and did spend a great amount of time traveling with them, where he could have interviewed them, and written down their accounts. His attention to detail in so many areas lead me to trust his writings as authentic. His purpose in his gospel has been stated a couple of times in this thread, that he didn’t state sources and provides footnotes is not incredible since his target audience was Theophilus, most probably someone he knew, and had formed a good enough relation that he didn’t need to cite sources.
he continues:
The work that Luke did in the first century would certainly not hold to the rigorous standards of today. At that time (IIRC) authors didn’t cite sources, or quote accurately from other sources. To hold him to that same standard would be very difficult. He also wrote in the genre of Bios, or a biography, and the careful attention he paid in presenting the facts without glorification or exaggeration fits in with the rest of that body of literature in that time frame.
In regards to his historical accuracy, and naming places, and countires, Dr. Norman Geisler writes 'In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error." Additionally, Luke described the titles of prominent people properly, as well as the relative order of events. He was as careful with what he wrote in his Gospel, and Acts as was any of his other contemporaries.
Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian, details the following regarding the accuracy of Luke in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History:
[ul][li]Specialized details, which would not have been widely known except to a contemporary researcher such as Luke who traveled widely. These details include exact titles of officals, identification of army units, and information about major routes.[/li][li]Details archaeologists know are accurate but can’t verify as to the precise time period. Some of these are unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had visted the districts.[/li][li]Coorelation of dates of known kings and governors with the chronology of the narrative.[/li][li]Facts appropriate to the date of Paul or his immediate contemporary in the church but not to a dae earlier or later.[/li][li]'Undesigned coincidents" between Acts and the Pauline Epistles[/li][li]Internal correlations within Acts.[/li][li]Off-hand geographical references that bespeak familiarity with common knowledge.[/li][li]Differences in formulation within Acts that indicate the different categories of sources he used.[/li][li]Peculiarities in the selection of detail, as in theology, that are explainable in the context of what is now known of first-century church life.[/li][li]Materials the ‘immediacy’ of which suggests that the author was recounting a recent experience, rather that shaping or editing a text long after it had been written.[/li][li]Cultrual or idiomatic items now known to be peculiar to the first century atmosphere.[/ul][/li]
E. M. Blaiklock, professor of classics in Auckland University concludes, as well, that “Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks.”
I hope that helps.
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Navigator, the timestamp on your last post is 7-Apr-2000 at 8:31 PM central time, but according to my watch it’s only 5:21 PM central time right now. Are you hiding a time machine in your basement?
Someone call Ripley’s…
We have proof of time travel!
<seriously, I just hit the submit button once.>
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
I’ve always viewed the account of such an early cenusus as a bit of a theologoumenon, never literally.
This research surely indicates that Luke ain’t much of a historian:
I do not think we can trust Luke as an historian. And I do not think we can accuratly place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
Oh, and by the way, is there any independant verification for Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents”?