Friday, April 15, 2011

Evidence for Jesus' Trial and Death as real history

HT: Justin Taylor's blog

The Presuppositional Method of Apologetics is not against using historical evidences.
We are to use these evidences also in apologetic outreach. One of the main points of the Presuppositional Apologetic approach, as I understand it, is that bare evidences are not enough to convince the sinner's darkened mind and hard heart to repent. (The "Noetic effects of sin") God has to change the heart, even after all the evidence is presented and argued for. The sinful heart of man is dead in sin; a slave to sin; and the effects of sin on the mind feed more rebellion and anger at God and His holiness and sovereignty, even after good evidence is presented; unless the Spirit of God does His work on the heart.

This video shows the oldest NT fragment, called P52, The John Rylands fragment from John 18:31-33 and on the back John 18:37-38. (Dated by many scholars as early as 120 AD) It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.

It confirms for us the trial of Jesus, the gospel of John as a whole, Pontius Pilate, and the reasons why Christ came and was to die by crucifixion.

This is very interesting that the oldest manuscript we have is about Jesus' and His statement about Truth (Arabic - Al Haqq الحق ; Farsi - حقیقت "Haqeeqat" and حق "Haqq" and راستی "Rasti"); and about His trial before Pontius Pilate and the reference to His death (John 18:32) "the kind of death He was to die". This is strong evidence against the Qur'an, Surah 4:157, which denies that Jesus was crucified and that Jesus died on the cross.

Even liberals and skeptics like John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong know that Jesus really lived in history and died on the cross, under Pontius Pilate as procurator of Judea while Tiberias was Caeasr of Rome, by the instigation of Caiaphas, the high priest and the Jewish council, the elders, scribes, Pharisees, and Saducees; and when Herod was a puppet king of the Jews under Roman rule.

Again, it is ironic that Muslims believe in the miracle and supernatural work of Allah, and that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (see Qur'an 3:44-48; 19:19-21); and yet deny real history. The liberals believe the evidence and history, but deny the miraculous events like the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ from the dead. True believers believe in both the historical truth and reality and that God actually did the miracles in history that the Bible records for us.

John 18:31-33

31 So Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death,"

32 to fulfill the word of Jesus which He spoke, signifying by what kind of death He was about to die.

33 Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?"

On the Back of the Fragment - John 18:37-38

37 Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

38 Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.

In Evangelism and missions efforts with Muslims, it is important to know historical evidences for the crucifixion of Jesus, because Muslims attack and deny the historical reality of the crucifixion.

It is very interesting that the oldest Greek manuscript is from the Gospel according to John, since most liberal scholars don't believe the apostle John actually wrote the Gospel of John; and they did not believe John was written in 90 AD or earlier (there is good evidence that John was also written before 70 AD. Even a liberal scholar, John A. T. Robinson, in Re-dating the NT, believed that the Gospel of John was written before 70 AD.) Before this fragment was found, liberals theorized that John was written much later in the second century.

Archeology confirms the Bible and its truth and its historical reality!

It is also very interesting that this fragment, coming to us by the Providence of God; is about Jesus trial and the statement about the kind of death He was going to die (by crucifixion) is a great evidence against Muslim attacks.

John 19:1-7 tells us later, that the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus put to death for blasphemy, "because He made Himself out to be the Son of God".

6 So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, "Crucify, crucify!" Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him."

7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."

Mark 14:61-64
also confirms this for us. They asked Him, "Are You the Messiah, the Son of the blessed one?" This shows the Jews knew that the OT taught that the Messiah would be the Son of God. (Psalm 2:1-12; Proverbs 30:4)

But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"


Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?

"You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death." (Mark 14:61-64)

Mark was probably written between 48-55 AD; Matthew 50-55 AD; and Luke 60 AD; and although most scholars believe John was written around 80-90 AD, there is good evidence that it also was written before 70 AD.

Here is another excellent video on the historical evidences for Jesus, as attested by Tacitus the Roman historian, Josephus, the Jewish historian, and Pliny the Younger and his correspondence with the Roman Emperor Trajan.

HT: Lane's channel

Part 2 of this at Lane's channel is also excellent, with evidence from the early church fathers about Jesus from Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others.

So, we see in Scripture that we must equip ourselves in the apologetic issues that come up in our evangelism and missions efforts, ready to give answers for people who ask questions and ask us about the hope within us. I Peter 3:15

And being ready in apologetics, Peter says, first, "set Christ apart in your hearts as Lord" or "sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts" or "treat Christ with honor and fear as the Lord in your hearts", in the same way that the Father is Lord (Yahweh) and holy, and we should treat Him as holy and fear Him, in the same way, treat Christ with the same respect. That is what the quote from Isaiah 8:12-13 is alluding to in I Peter 3:13-15. It points to the Deity of Christ. Fear and respect Christ as Lord-God before fearing man. Holiness in our lives, the fear of the Lord, and apologetics will prepare us for evangelism with Muslims.

Notice also the context of persecution, in I Peter 3:13-18; and in the rest of the book in I Peter 1:6-7; 2:12-15; 2:18-25; 4:1-2; 4:12-19; 5:9-10.

"O Lord, God Almighty in heaven, You are holy! - may Your name be treated as holy, since You are already Holy! May Your name be treated holy, first in my own life, and in my attitudes and thoughts and actions; and then may Your name be treated as holy among all the nations; May Your kingdom come and be spread on earth, may Your will be done here on earth as it is in heaven. Give me the grace to fear You and treat You as holy today in all I do. I need You Lord! Glorify Your name!" Amen

see also
Matthew 6:9-10
Leviticus 10:1-3
Deuteronomy 32:51
I Peter 3:13-18
Isaiah 8:12-13

In sharing the gospel with Muslims about the crucifixion, using the lamb sacrifice substitution truth from Abraham, see my previous article here

Praise God for Tyndale House and the scholars and others who have put together these excellent videos


PeaceByJesus said...

Thanks for the videos and evidences.

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam). (Sura 29:46; Y. Ali)

A major problem for the relatively brief Qur'an is that it claims the Bible as a basis for its truth claims, depending upon the Bible in its allusions to it, and evidences it sees the Bible was inspired and given by God, but it was written hundreds of years after the last book of the Bible was penned, and critically contradicts it.

This is perhaps due to Muhammad's alleged illiteracy and dependence upon similarly biblically illiterate and confused sources. This would explain how Muhammed could reprove such things as the Christian Trinity consisting of God, Jesus and Mary,[20] (Sura 5:116-117) in addition to speaking numerous contradictions of the Bible.

Islamic apologists recognize these contradictions, and therefore charge that the Bible was tampered with, though the amount of alterations required to explain the Quranic deviations from Biblical text would require a significant amount of changes to the Old Testament and virtually a complete rewriting of the New.

Christian apologists respond to these charges by evidencing that an abundance of manuscripts which predate the Quran yet exist,[14] such as the Codex Sinaiticus (c. 350 AD), with Aland numbering a total of 230 extant New Testament manuscript portions which pre-date 600 AD (192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament).[15][16] The doctrinal conflation of these with later manuscripts manifest that no such manner of alterations or rewriting took place. -

From an article i wrote here (not the greatest apologetical site to be sure)

This provides a side by side contrast btwn the Bible and the Qur'an in key areas.

Ron DiGiacomo said...

The description of presup-apologetics is not correct. It is described above as something that can be affirmed by those who embrace traditional apologetics. See comment box for latest post on my site if you like. It was briefly fleshed out there a couple of days ago.



Ken said...

Thanks for directing me to your blog and comment box. Yes, Dan caught the very first publishing of my article, but within a few hours, I realized my statement was wrong "the main point of Presuppositional apologetics . . ." So I changed it to "one of the main points"

here is the rest of what I wrote at Ron's blog.

Thanks for quoting me - Dan - your quote is the first edition of my statement. I published it on line on Friday evening, but kept re-reading it, and I realized it was wrong, so I changed it. (sometime later Friday evening, I think)

It now reads, "one of the main points of Presuppositional Apologetics is . . ."

"One of the main points of the Presuppositional Apologetic approach, as I understand it, is that bare evidences are not enough to convince the sinner's darkened mind and hard heart to repent. (The "Noetic effects of sin")"

But I changed it within a few hours (? I think) after I wrote it on Friday evening.

Do you guys think it is ok now?

I confess I don't fully understand all of the Presuppositional method, (I have not read Van Till; but I have read some of Bahnsen and John Frame's chapter in 5 Views, and hear James' White's explanations of it, etc.

[Ron wrote about R.C. Sproul's classical approach to apologetics -]

"but that is due to his Calvinism - it is not a unique tenet of Presuppositional apologetics."

I was under the impression that it was a unique tenent of Presuppositional apologetics - that is, that Calvinism consistently applied leads to Presuppositionalism - the Noetic effects of sin" (on the mind, dead in sin, inability to choose good over evil, etc. - the beginning of knowledge and wisdom is the fear of the Lord, etc.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Echo the first comment by Peace by Jesus.

Thanks for the videos.