Refuting Missionaries (1) (M.Bell-H.Willis)
Helen Willis hhiwater@BRIGHT.NET
Tue, 26 May 1998 09:38:20 -0700 (00896218700, 356AEFFC.1922@bright.net)
Matthew Bell wrote:
>
> Hayyim ben Yehoshua says:
>
> 'I discovered that there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi
> Yehoshua....
>
> ....There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph
> or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or
> that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.....
>
> 'The idea that there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched
> in Christian society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to
> blindly accept this belief because they have never seen it seriously
> challenged....
>
> Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains
> that there is no historical Jesus'.....
>
> One should then point out that there are ample historical sources
> confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else
> is named, while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus'.
>
> M.BELL
> As you will be well aware Helen, discussion continues on the reference to
> Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus. Does your source just toss these out or was
> he not aware of them. Considering his statement preceding this 'When
> countering Christian missionaries it is important to base one's arguments
> on correct facts. Arguments based on incorrect facts can easily backfire
> and end up strengthening the arguments of the missionaries', this is hardly
> a good start he makes to his arguments. He also discounts the record of the
> four Gospels.
>
> Hayyim ben Yehoshua says:
>
> 'Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those
> who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu
> god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject
> the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who
> announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he
> was ever crucified'
>
> M.BELL
> What about the Hindus who do? What about the Muslims who 'certainly believe
> in Jesus' as a historical person? On what is their belief based? Certainly
> not on a favourable view of Christianity.
HELEN:
Muslims apparently base their believe on what they heard from Christians.
They have what they claim to be the true gospel which is basically an Arabic
version of Matthew. Since there is no evidence anyone but a Muslim would
accept that this book existed prior to the beginnings of Islam around 622 AD
I don't think it's a particularly good for historical documentation.
> Hayyim ben Yehoshua says:
>
> 'If Jesus was not an historical person....'
>
> M.BELL
> This is a big 'if' Helen, one he has not addressed by refutation of all the
> evidence.
> HELEN:
Matt even if there was no question of the authenticity of the quotes by
Josephus, and there is a great deal, neither of these short quotes represents
eyewitness accounts of Jesus. At best the Josephus quotes, we have some kind
of a record that there may have been some person as a historical root that
Christianity grew about. The Tacitus quote comfirms only that there were
Christians. This does not even begin to compare with the kind of evidence
there was a Queen Elizabeth or a Julius Caesar. Here we have eyewitness
accounts, busts and painting done during their lifetimes, accounts written by
them, clear record of things they did and places they order built and
archaeological evidence that these things were done and built. In their
lifetime countless friends and enemies attested to the reality of these folks
having actually existed.
In fairness, Matt, if you read carefully, ben Yehoshua compares the evidence
of Jesus to King Midas. (I, however, think this is extremely overly generous
to the claims for Jesus.) So ben Yohoshua has already made the point that
simply comfirming that Jesus existed would not be enough because we do know
that Midas did exist because we have found his skeletal remains, however that
does not comfire the story of his golden touch. He then makes the point that
there is very little historical comformation of Jesus even existing. I would
compare the evidence for Jesus to that for King Authur or Robin Hood. I
suspect ben Yohoshua would accept that comparison. I think he is not being
unfair with his "if". Please read on.
Helen
hhiwater@bright.net