Jesus Christ –
the Extraordinary Person who lived in the history of the world
Could the disciples have invented Jesus?
Scripture quotations are from the
New American Standard Bible 1995
March 2023
Jesus lives in the literature and culture of the world since the
Roman Empire.
People who reject the Christian religion frequently
rest their unbelief on the assumption that such a man as Jesus Christ
could not have existed in the history of the world. They may object that
someone with the name of Jesus could have lived but that he could not
have been as wonderful or could not have performed such marvelous deeds
as have been reported of him. There are even those who maintain that the
Jesus of the gospels was a character invented by the early proponents of
the Christian religion; i.e., the apostles and writers of the New
Testament invented him.
These objections and beliefs are unfounded and this
may be seen in the testimony both of the apostles of Christ and of the
unbelieving Jews and pagans who were contemporary with the early
proponents of the Christian religion.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr, who was born in Palestine, (c.
100–167 AD),[1]
lived about the same time as the Epicurean philosopher, Celsus. Justin
was an early defender of the Christian faith. In his first defense
presented to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, about the year 140, having
spoken of the crucifixion of Christ and its attendant consequences,
adds, “And that these things were so done, you may know from ACTS made
in the time of Pontius Pilate." Thus, Justin Martyr confirmed the early
history of the church, of the crucifixion of Christ and the evangelistic
efforts of the early disciples.
·
The reality of Christ and his sufferings
are implicit in the statements of Justin Martyr as a defender of
Christianity.
Tertullian
Tertullian[2],
in his defense, A. D. 200, spoke of the crucifixion of Christ and of his
subsequent appearance to his disciples; he wrote, “Of all these things
relating to Christ, Pilate, in his conscience a Christian, sent an
account to Tiberias, then emperor."
·
It is difficult to believe that
Tertullian would have so spoken or that Pilate would have written such a
letter had the facts not been confirmed before them.
In another part of his defense Tertullian speaks as
follows:
“There was an ancient decree, that no one should
be received for deity unless he was first approved of by the senate.
Tiberius, in whose time the Christian religion had its rise, having
received from Palestine in Syria an account of such things as manifested
our Saviour's divinity, proposed to the senate, and giving his own vote
as first in his favor, that he should be placed among the gods. The
senate refused, because he had himself declined that honor. Nevertheless
the emperor persisted in his own opinion, and ordered that if any
accused the Christians they should be punished. Search, says he, your
own writings, and you will find that Nero was the first emperor who
exercised any acts of severity toward the Christians, because they were
then very numerous at Rome."
·
Would Tertullian have written this in a
defense had it not been well known that he cited facts available to
people in high authority and to all?
·
Further, would he have written that there
was an “account of …things as manifested our Savior’s divinity,” had
Christ not performed remarkable and notable acts that deserved attention
because of their ability to elevate him to consideration of godhood?
Eusebius
Concerning this subject Eusebius[3]
wrote:
When the wonderful resurrection of our Savior and
his ascension to heaven were in the mouths of all men, it being an
ancient custom for the governors of provinces to write to the Emperor,
and give him an account of new and remarkable occurrences, that he might
not be ignorant of anything; our Saviour's resurrection being much
talked of throughout all Palestine, Pilate informed the Emperor of it,
as likewise of his miracles, which he had heard of; and that, being
raised up after he had been put to death, he was already believed by
many to be a god. And it is said that Tiberius referred the matter to
the senate; but that they refused their consent, under a pretense that
it had not been first approved of by them; there being an ancient law
that no one should be deified among the Romans without an order of the
senate; but indeed because the saving and divine doctrine of the gospel
needed not to be confirmed by human judgment and authority. However,
Tiberius persisted in his former sentiment, and allowed not anything to
be done that was prejudicial to the doctrine of Christ. These things are
related by Tertullian, a man famous on other accounts, and particularly
for his skill in the Roman laws. I say he speaks thus in his apology for
the Christians, written by him in the Roman tongue, since translated
into Greek.
·
Eusebius confirmed Pilate’s account of
Jesus’ resurrection.
·
Would Eusebius have said that the
resurrection of Christ was in the “mouths of all men” if it wasn’t?
·
Such a report would be easy to refute if
it were not true.
Tacitus
Tacitus[4]
wrote, speaking of Nero Caesar,
But neither all human help nor the liberality of
the Emperor, nor all the atonements presented to the gods, availed to
abate the infamy he lay under of having ordered the city to be set on
fire. To suppress, therefore, this common rumor, Nero procured others to
be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon these people, who
were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name
of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus, who in the
reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator
Pontius Pilate.
In the quotation above at least three things are
established; (1) Christ founded a religion. (2) His followers were
called Christians during the reign of Nero Claudius Caesar (AD 54 to AD
68). And (3) Christ so inspired his followers that they maintained their
faith in Him even though they were tortured and executed in the most
cruel manner by the Roman emperor Nero.
·
Would Tacitus, who was regarded as one of
the greatest of Latin historians, have risked his reputation by
reporting that Christ founded a religion, and inspired such faith in His
disciples that they risked torture and death because of their faith if
it were not true?
·
Such a historical report confirms not
merely the existence of Christ, but also His moral character.
Celsus
Celsus was a Greek[5]
philosopher and an early opponent of Christianity. He lived during the
late 2nd Century AD. Origen, the Christian apologist, wrote a
defense of the Christian faith in which he addresses his remarks to the
arguments published by Celsus.
Origen quoted Celsus as saying, "It is but a few
years since he [Jesus] delivered this doctrine, who is now reckoned by
the Christians to be the son of God." (B. 1, s. 26, p. '21.)
·
Would Celsus have attributed the delivery
of a “doctrine” by Jesus if the philosopher had not known that He
existed?
·
Would Celsus write that the Christians
“reckoned Christ to be the son of God” if it were not true?
·
Would not the title “son of God” have
elevated Jesus Christ to a high moral position among the populace and
among the Christians?
Origen, in his argument against Celsus, wrote,
"Celsus, omitting those things that show the
divinity of Jesus, reproacheth Him with those things that are written of
Him in the gospels—His deriders, the purple robe, the crown of thorns,
and the reed in his hand' (Matt. xxvii.; Mark x v.; Luke xxiii.; John
xix.) Whence did you learn these things, Celsus, but from the gospels?
says Origen, and tells him that, instead of ridiculing these things, he
ought to admire the veracity of those who wrote them, and the greatness
of Him who voluntarily suffered such things for the good of men, and
bore all with meekness and patience; for it is nowhere written that He
bemoaned himself, or that He said or did anything mean and abject when
He was condemned." (B. 2, s. 34, p. 81.)
·
Celsus accepted the existence of Christ
and admitted the extraordinary works that He did.
·
Celsus also admitted the sufferings of
Christ.
·
Origen describes Jesus’ extraordinary
character by pointing out His patient suffering.
*** For additional information about Celsus and his
opposition to Christianity, see separate article entitled, “Celsus” -
https://www.jesusisnomyth.com/Articles/Articles.htm
Porphyry
Concerning Porphyry[6]
and his work Eusebius, in his Evangelical Preparation, has these words:
And that evil demons have had no power of doing
anything since our Saviour's dwelling among men, the advocate of demons
in our time somewhere testifies in his work against us in this manner:
And now people wonder that this distemper has oppressed the city so many
years, Esculapius and the other gods no longer conversing with men. For
since Jesus has been honored, none has received any public benefit from
the gods.'
So says Porphyry in those very words shown in the
quotation above. (B. 5, c. 1, p. 181.)
1.
The __________ of Christ and his
sufferings are implicit in the statements of Justin Martyr
as a defender of Christianity and its opponents.
2.
Tertullian spoke of the
_______________ of Christ and of his subsequent appearance
to his disciples.
3.
Eusebius said that Pilate informed
the Emperor of Jesus’ ______________, as likewise of his
__________ , which he had heard of; and that, being raised
up after he had been put to death, he was already believed
by many to be a god.
4.
In the quotation from Tacitus we may
establish the following, (1) Christ founded a __________.
(2) His followers were called __________ during the reign of
Nero Claudius Caesar (AD 54 to AD 68). And (3) Christ so
inspired his followers that they maintained their faith in
Him even though they were __________ and _____________ in
the most cruel manner by the Roman emperor Nero.
Fill in the blank
Summary of evidence from pagan writers and philosophers
Alexander Campbell, in his book,
The Christian Preacher’s
Companion, summarized his references to the statements of ancient
enemies and defenders of the Christian faith. He wrote that from ancient
pagan and Jewish writers the following facts can be established[7]:
1.
That the Jews' religion preceded the Christian,
and is of the highest antiquity, and is distinguished by the most
extraordinary peculiarities that cause it to differ from every other
ancient or modern religion.
2.
That John the Baptist appeared in Judea, during
the reign of Herod the Great; he was a reformer and a preacher of
exceptional abilities; he was of great sanctity of life, and was well
received by the people; but was cruelly and unjustly murdered in prison
by Herod the Tetrarch.
3.
That Jesus, who is called the Messiah, was born
in Judea, in the reign of Augustus Caesar, of a very humble and obscure
woman, and amidst a variety of extraordinary circumstances.
4.
That he was, while an infant, on account of
persecution, carried into Egypt, but was brought back again into the
country of his birth.
5.
That there were certain prophetic writings of
high antiquity, from which it had been inferred that an extraordinary
personage was to arise in Judea, or in the East, and from there to carry
his conquests over the whole earth.
6.
That this person was generally expected all over
the East about the time in which the gospel began to be preached.
7.
That Jesus, who is called Christ, taught a new
and strange doctrine.
8.
That by some means he performed certain
wonderful and supernatural actions in confirmation of his new doctrine.
9.
That he collected disciples in Judea, and though
Jesus was of humble birth and very low circumstances, he became famous
through various parts of the Roman Empire, in consequence of the
progress of the Christian doctrine.
10.
That Jesus Christ was the founder of a new
religion, now called the Christian religion.
11.
That while Pontius Pilate was governor in Judea,
and Tiberius emperor at Rome, he was publicly executed as a criminal,
12.
That this new religion was then checked for a
while.
13.
That, by some strange occurrence not mentioned,
it broke out again and progressed with the most astonishing rapidity.
14.
That in the days of Tacitus there was in the
city of Rome an immense number of Christians.
15.
That these Christians were, during the reign of
Nero, or about thirty years after the death of Christ, persecuted to
death by that emperor.
16.
That constancy [called obstinacy by some pagan
governors] in maintaining the heavenly and exclusively divine origin of
their religion is the only crime proved against the Christians, as
appears from all the records of their enemies, on account of which they
suffered death.
17.
That in the year AD 70, or before those who had
seen Jesus Christ had all died, Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed
by the Romans, and all the tremendous calamities foretold of that time
by Moses and Christ were fully visited upon that disobedient and
gainsaying people.
18.
That the Christians made a confession of their
faith, and were baptized, and met at stated times to worship the Lord.
19.
That in their stated meetings they bound
themselves, by the solemnities of their religion, to abstain from all
moral evil, and to practice all moral good.
20.
That the communities which they established were
well organized, and were under the superintendence of bishops and
deacons.
21.
That Jews, Gentiles, barbarians, of all social
classes, and persons of every rank and condition of life, at the risk
and sacrifice of the friendship of the world, of property, and of life,
embraced this religion and conformed to all its moral and religious
requisitions.
22.
These specifications, independent of all that is
quoted by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, from Old or New Testament, in
their proper import and connections, do fully contain all the peculiar
elements of the Christian religion, as displayed and enforced on the
pages of the New Institution.
Such a summary can be fairly made out of the works
of the Pagan authors. Indeed, if Josephus, Tacitus, Governor Pliny, the
Emperors Trajan, Adrian, and Antoninus the Pious, Celsus, Porphyry,
Julian the Apostate, be faithfully and candidly examined, to say nothing
of the Mishna, the Talmud, Philo, and those of humbler fame, we shall
find that the facts listed above came from them.
The citations from these pagan writers confirm that
the man Jesus most certainly did live in the history of the world at the
time alleged by the New Testament and that he was of an exceptional and
wonderful personality who taught godly morality and who was associated
with extraordinary works.
Anyone having considered the testimonies of writers
and historians who lived during or near the time of the rise of
Christianity must conclude that an extraordinary individual appeared,
one who arose from among the poor people of Galilee and Judea, and who
exerted an effect upon the people of that time that gained him
recognition not just as a gifted man but as someone who was more than
mere man.
The gospels and John
The gospels exist.
The gospels are documents that relate certain
details about the life, works and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. They
exist today in almost all of the languages of the world. They exist not
only today but they have existed in their original language for nearly
two thousand years.
Using popular terminology, there are four gospels,[8]
each written by a man who was a close associate and disciple of Jesus,
or of the Apostles of Jesus. These men were Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John. The documents were written in the common Greek language of the
First Century AD. That language is called Koine Greek and was widely
spoken throughout the Roman Empire during the period when Jesus lived
upon the earth.
They are not imaginary.
The gospels are not imaginary. They have existence
such that a person can see them, touch them and read the words they
contain. The writers of the gospels wrote their own biographical
sketches in different locations and at different times, thus reducing
the likelihood that they worked in concert. Yet in each gospel the
character of Christ is portrayed in the same uniform manner and the
description of Him shows Him to be the same extraordinary person.
The year in which the gospels originated are shown
below
New Testament book – date written.
Matthew
AD 50
AD 60 (into Greek fr. Hebrew)
Mark
AD 67-68
AD 60-70 (from Peter)
Luke
AD 58
AD 60
John
AD 85-90
AD 90 (fr. Earlier Heb. ?)
Acts
AD 61
The gospels tell of the birth, life and death of
Jesus of Nazareth. The works are not detailed biographies, but they
contain the testimony of “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses
and servants of the word”[11]
as it seemed fitting to them to write it out for us in order that we may
know the exact truth about the things we have been taught.
Did the disciples invent Jesus?
The thinking of the disciples of Jesus differed
markedly from that of their Teacher. For this reason it is unlikely that
they could have conceived within their own worldview a character who
differed so much from them, and one who taught in such sharp contrast
with that of the prevailing doctrines of the time in which the disciples
lived.
The student of the bible can readily see the
difference in thinking about important subjects if they were to compare
the remarks of the disciples with the remarks of Jesus. For example, in
referring to the kingdom of God the difference is readily seen. The
disciples looked for a kingdom on earth with a visible governmental
structure. Jesus, on the other hand, laid emphasis to the kingdom as
primarily the rule of God in the heart. In two references by Luke the
thinking of the disciples become evident:
Luke 19:11 While they were listening to these
things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem,
and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear
immediately.
·
Jesus’ listeners thought that the kingdom
of God as a visible governmental structure was about to appear.
·
The popular idea of that time was that
the Messiah would restore David’s throne to its glory and would throw
off the yoke of Roman tyranny. Apparently, this is the view that the
disciples held.
Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they
were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the
kingdom to Israel?”
·
Even after Jesus’ resurrection when He
was about to return to heaven the disciples did not understand the
nature of the kingdom of God that Jesus taught.
Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was the rule of God
Jesus laid emphasis to the spiritual nature of the
kingdom of God. This may be seen in a passage from Luke’s gospel,
Luke 17:20 Now having been questioned by the
Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and
said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21
nor will they say, ‘Look, here it
is!’ or, ‘There it is!’
For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”[12]
The New American Standard Bible 1995 adds the
footnote: “the kingdom of God is within you.” And this is in keeping
with a comment by Alfred Edersheim:
A review of many passages on the subject shows
that, in the Jewish mind, the expression ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ referred,
not so much to any particular period, as in general to
the Rule of God—as
acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the
equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself
of the ‘yoke’ of ‘the Kingdom,’ or of the commandments—the former
preceding and conditioning the latter.[13]
And,
While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God,
both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the
Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of
the Advent of Messiah.[14]
Therefore, as the disciples regarded Jesus as the
Messiah they were perhaps thinking that the outward and visible
establishment of the kingdom was imminent, but that was not the thinking
of Jesus. He was attempting to tell them that the kingdom of God was
inward and spiritual, and its influence was primarily on the heart.
Thus, it is much less likely that the disciples
would have invented such a Messiah considering the difference in
thinking they held regarding the kingdom of God.
Jesus and reward vs. the disciples
The disciples were ambitious. They sought reward and glory.
Another example of the difference in the way the
disciples and Jesus thought about rewards may be seen in the example of
sons of Zebedee. Mark wrote,
Mark 10:35 James and John, the two sons of
Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us
whatever we ask of You.” 36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to
do for you?” 37 They said to
Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in
Your glory.” 38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you
are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be
baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They said to
Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you
shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am
baptized. 40 “But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to
give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”[15]
·
The disciples were openly seeking glory
and power for themselves.
·
Jesus deferred to God to make such
choices.
Jesus and glory vs. the disciples
Jesus rejected the idea of entering the kingdom in
order to gain glory and power. Jesus proposed quite the opposite: the
greatest in the kingdom would be its slave. Mark wrote,
Mark 10:41
41
Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. 42
Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who
are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their
great men exercise authority over them. 43 “But it is not this way among
you, but whoever wishes to
become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to
be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 “For even the Son of
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a
ransom for many.”
Such an attitude toward glory indicates the stark
difference between the disciples and that of Jesus. This means that it
is unlikely that the disciples would have invented such a character as
Jesus.
Jesus and suffering vs. the disciples
The disciples evidently believed that Jesus would
declare himself to be the long promised Messiah as a prelude to
acquiring great political power. Jesus rejected this idea also. Matthew
wrote,
Matthew 16:21
From
that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to
Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and
scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22
Peter took Him aside and began
to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord!
This shall never happen to You.”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a
stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s
interests, but man’s.”
In this instance Peter’s conception of Jesus’
elevation to power differed considerably from that of the Teacher. Worse
still, Peter’s idea was an impediment to God’s rule.
Jesus and the kingdom vs. Peter
When the authorities came to arrest Jesus, Peter
showed his attitude toward the government representatives in Jerusalem.
He had determined to defend Jesus from them.
Matthew 26:51 And behold, one of those who were
with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the
high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your
sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall
perish by the sword.
John wrote,
John 18:10 Simon Peter then, having a sword,
drew it and struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear;
and the slave’s name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the
sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I
not drink it?”
Peter used his sword; Jesus did not resist the
authorities with force. Clearly, this indicates a wide difference in
attitude between Jesus and His disciples.
Jesus and self-denial vs. Peter
In the same passage Jesus revealed His attitude
toward submission to the Father’s will versus assertion of one’s own
will as Peter had done.
John 18:11 So Jesus said to Peter,
“Put the sword into the sheath;
the
cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”
Such a wide divergence in attitude toward
adversaries indicates that the disciples would
not have conceived of a
suffering Messiah, one who willingly accepted the abuse of enemies as
the necessary will of God.
Jesus’ insight vs the insight of the disciples
The insight of Jesus into the practices, and teaching of the Jewish
authorities as compared to the disciples.
Matthew recorded the following,
Matthew 16:5 And the disciples came to
the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6
And Jesus said to them, “Watch
out and
beware
of the
leaven
of the
Pharisees
and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying,
“He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus,
aware of this, said, “You
men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have
no bread? 9 “Do you not yet understand or remember
the
five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked
up? 10 “Or
the
seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you
picked up? 11 “How is it that
you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?
But
beware of the
leaven
of the
Pharisees
and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of
the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the
Pharisees
and Sadducees.
The disciples frequently misunderstood what Jesus
said to them because of their earthly and material mindset. This points
out further that the thinking of the disciples differed considerably
from Jesus’ thinking. Such incidents as this indicate a wide difference
in the thinking of the disciples and Jesus, thus ruling out the idea of
a contrived character.
Jesus’ courage vs the disciples
Measure the courage of the disciples with the courage of Jesus.
The courage of the disciples was physical; the
courage of Jesus was moral. The disciples could fight with the sword,
but they would shrink from criticism. Jesus would not veer the slightest
in his course of truth.
Matthew wrote,
Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus
said
to them, “You will all
fall
away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I
will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be
scattered.’ 32 “But after I have been raised,
I
will go ahead of you to Galilee.” 33 But Peter said to Him, “Even though
all may
fall
away because of You, I will never fall away.” 34 Jesus said to him, “Truly
I say to you that
this
very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 35
Peter
said
to Him, “Even
if I have to die with You, I will not deny You.” All the disciples said
the same thing too.
·
Jesus said they would deny him.
·
Peter vowed to be loyal unto death.
·
All the disciples said the same thing.
·
The moral courage of Jesus in contrast
with the physical courage of the disciples argues that the disciples did
not invent Jesus, but described Him as He revealed Himself to them.
Matthew said further,
Matthew 26:53 “Or do you think that I
cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more
than twelve
legions
of
angels? 54 “How then will
the
Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” 55 At
that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and
clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber?
Every
day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me. 56
“But all this has taken place to fulfill
the
Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.
·
Jesus would not defy the authorities in
Jerusalem.
·
All the disciples “left Him and fled.”
Jesus and Justice vs the Jews
The incident of the woman taken in adultery[16]
illustrates the difference between Jesus and those who advocated strict
observance of the rigors of the Law of Moses. In this case Jesus showed
how mercy triumphs over rigidly applied law. Would the disciples have
seen the incident in the same way? Not likely; the disciples were
instructed in the Law of Moses and knew its penalties for bad behavior.
Jesus and tradition vs the Jews
In the case of the paralytic[17]
whom Jesus healed before an audience of scribes and Pharisees one can
see how Jesus valued mercy and faith. The scribes and Pharisees believed
and taught that no one could forgive sins but God alone. Jesus said that
He had power on earth to forgive sins. So, He said to the paralytic,
“Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” Thus did Jesus juxtapose for them
the abilities of the Son of Man and the power of God. In this way did
the thinking of Jesus differ with his Jewish adversaries.
·
Would the disciples have seen this
confrontation turn on the authority of the Messiah and the power of God?
Not likely.
Jesus and inherited guilt
The healing of the man who was born blind from
birth provides insight into the understanding of the disciples and the
knowledge of Jesus regarding inherited guilt. John wrote,
John 9:1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind
from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man
or his parents, that he would be born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was
neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the
works of God might be displayed in him.
Jesus’ answer to their question was totally out
of conformity with what they thought and expected. In fact, they
provided him with two possible answers. He rejected both.
This incident indicates that the Jesus of the
gospels is not an invention because He did not conform to their
expectation of a teacher of morality.
Jesus and hypocrisy vs the Pharisees
Many of the Jews believed that an outward show
of religion was enough. For this reason Jesus called them hypocrites.
Jesus emphasized moral purity within the heart.[18]
·
Is it likely that the disciples would
have invented such a character as Jesus who so openly opposed and
denounced the Pharisees as hypocrites?
Did the disciples invent Jesus?
Were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John capable of such a fabrication?
The characters produced by historians, biographers,
or fiction writers all bear the impress and image of the individuals of
the period in which the fictional character is portrayed as having
lived. Compare Shakespeare's characters; examine the Satan of Milton.
Consider the occupations of the disciples. They were ordinary people.
They were fishermen, a tax collector, and a physician. Yet they produced
a description of an extraordinary man who differed from them in
knowledge, wisdom, insight, moral character and purposeful dedication.
The disciples themselves wrote the narratives
telling about the things that Jesus said and did; and their writings
depict a person quite at variance with themselves in almost every aspect
of personality. Jesus’ knowledge is much greater than theirs; His ethics
are qualitatively superior; His actions are not merely different from
what they could be expected to do, but are frequently so inconsistent
that a reader of the gospels must conclude that the writers were
bystanders and witnesses to someone whose methods and manners agreed not
at all with their predilections. Yet, the summation of the gospels
depicts one character, one individual, one extraordinary person even
though they are written in four different viewpoints, by different men,
at different times and at different locations.[19]
There was no previous agreement among the writers on a plan or design—no
concerted action governing the testimony to be delivered[20];
nevertheless, they described one man, yet someone more than mere man:
the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth.
Did the disciples invent Jesus?
·
If yes, then they have performed a
miracle greater than any that has been attributed to Jesus, for they
have created the one perfect character; and they created this character
without influence from their own worldview.
·
If yes, then they have produced a perfect
system of morals. Consider the Beatitudes and their superiority to the
rules of man.
·
If yes, then the disciples have portrayed
a person who lived every point that he taught -- to perfection.
·
The most reasonable conclusion to reach
is that the disciples had before them the Messiah in Jesus of Nazareth.
They did not invent Jesus; He was revealed to them in the flesh.
Conclusion: Jesus stands alone. The evangelists did not invent
Jesus.
1.
Was the teaching of Jesus about the
kingdom of God the same as the belief of the disciples?
2.
Did Jesus and the disciples have the
same attitude toward the duly constituted political
authorities?
3.
Did Jesus and the disciples have the
same regard for reward and glory?
4.
Did the disciples expect Jesus to
submit to suffering and death?
5.
Was the insight of Jesus into the
practices, and teaching of the Jewish authorities the same
as the disciples?
6.
Was the courage of the disciples and
Jesus of the same type?
7.
How did the justice Jesus provides
differ from that of His Jewish contemporaries?
8.
Was Jesus’ regard of Jewish
tradition the same as His disciples?
9.
How did Jesus’ attitude toward the
inherited effect of sin differ from the disciples?
10.
Which is more reasonable? The
disciples invented Jesus, or the disciples did not invent
Jesus,
Questions
1.
Reality
2.
Crucifixion
3.
Resurrection, miracles
4.
Religion, Christians, tortured,
executed
1.
No. They differed.
2.
No. Jesus would not defy the
established ruling authorities.
3.
No. The disciples desired honor and
power.
4.
No. Peter said, “…this shall not
happen to you.”
5.
No. Jesus possessed greater insight
than His
disciples.
6.
No. Jesus possessed moral courage.
The disciples possessed physical courage.
7.
Jesus found a way to forgive sin.
His opponents tended to enforce the letter of the Law of
Moses.
8.
Jesus’ regard for tradition differed
sharply with that of His opponents.
9.
Jesus said that condition of a man
was to show he works of God in him.
10.
The disciples did not invent Jesus
is more reasonable. He was revealed to them in the flesh.
Answers
Fill in the blank
Questions
[1] Cabal, T. (2007).
Notable Christian
Apologist: Justin Martyr.
In C. O. Brand, E. R. Clendenen, P. Copan, & J. P. Moreland
(Eds.), The Apologetics
Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith
(p. 1900). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
[2]
Tertullian, Latin in
full Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, (born c. 155/160,
Carthage [now in Tunisia]—died after 220, Carthage), important
early Christian theologian, polemicist, and moralist who, as the
initiator of ecclesiastical Latin, was instrumental in shaping
the vocabulary and thought of Western Christianity. He is one of
the Latin Apologists of the 2nd century.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tertullian
[3]
Eusebius, c. 260-339
A.D. Eusebius of Caesarea, also called Eusebius
Pamphili, (flourished 4th century, Caesarea Palestinae,
Palestine), bishop, exegete, polemicist, and historian whose
account of the first centuries of Christianity, in his Ecclesiastical
History, is a landmark in Christian historiography.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eusebius-of-Caesarea
[4] Tacitus, in full Publius
Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus,
(born AD 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official,
probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose
stylists who wrote in the Latin
language. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian.
[5]
Celsus (/ˈsɛlsəs/;
Hellenistic Greek: Κέλσος, Kélsos; fl. AD 175–177) was a
2nd-century Greek philosopher and opponent of early
Christianity.[1][2][3] His literary work, The True Word (also
Account, Doctrine or Discourse; Greek: Hellenistic Greek: Λόγος
Ἀληθής),[4][5] survives exclusively in quotations from it in
Contra Celsum, a refutation written in 248 by Origen of
Alexandria.[3] This Celsus might have been of the Epicurean of
Platonic school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus.
[6]
Porphyry of Tyre
(/ˈpɔːrfɪri/; Greek: Πορφύριος, Porphýrios; Arabic:
فُرْفُورِيُوس, Furfūriyūs; c. 234 – c. 305 AD) was a Neoplatonic
philosopher born in Tyre, Roman Phoenicia during Roman rule.
Porphyry was, and still is, also well-known for his
anti-Christian polemics. Through works such as Philosophy from
Oracles and Against the Christians (which was banned by
Constantine the Great), he was involved in a controversy with
early Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher).
[7] Alexander Campbell,
The Christian Preacher’s
Companion, Lambert Book House, Shreveport. pp. 155-156.
[8] Some biblical scholars
would prefer to classify John’s work as different from a gospel.
[9] Thiessen, Henry,
Introduction to the New
Testament.
[10] Henry M. Halley,
Halley’s Bible Handbook,
Grand Rapids, Zondevan, 1965. p. 457.
[11] New American Standard
Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Lk 1:2–4). La Habra, CA: The
Lockman Foundation.
[12]
New American Standard
Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Lk 17:20–21). La Habra, CA: The
Lockman Foundation.
[13] Edersheim, A.
(1896). The Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah (Vol. 1, p. 267). New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co.
[14] Ibid., Edersheim,
A. (1896). (Vol. 1, p. 268).
[15] In all cases where
scriptures are highlighted in bold print the emphasis is mine.
Author.
[16] John 8:3-11.
[17] Luke 5:18-26.
[18] Matthew 23:13-36.
[19] Henry C. Thiessen,
Introduction to the New
Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids,
1955. The gospel of
Matthew was written originally in Aramaic in Palestine in about
the year 45 AD; Matthew later prepared the Greek manuscript of
his gospel in about the year 50 AD. (p. 132) The gospel of Mark
was written at Rome (or possibly Antioch) in about the year 67
AD. (p. 146) Luke was written in Caesarea in about the year 58
AD. (p. 158) The gospel of John was written at Ephesus in about
the years 85-90 AD.
[20] Ibid. Thiessen, p. 154.
Thiessen insists that none of the Gospels is dependent on
another canonical gospel for its contents.