From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidence or not ?
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:46:02 GMT

In <01be9c5a$c577b920>, "Robert Howard"
<> wrote:

>I might differ from Tigger on this but I have no difficulty accepting Jesus
>as an historical character, probably a charismatic person with good ideas
>who started a new religious movement. After all somebody must have started
>it.

I agree with all of the above.

>What should bother you is that Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus described Jesus
>as having been executed by the authorities of the day but said nothing
>about his coming back to life or performing any miraculous feats. 

Josephus does contain an acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity, but that
is widely regarded as being an editorial interpolation made by a pious
Christian copyist.

Having said that, you would hardly expect Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus
to say anything particularly positive about Jesus. You don't see much
that is positive about the Ayatolla Khomeni in the writings of Western
authors, you don't see much that is positive about the Pope amongst
atheist or extreme protestant authors, ... 
We all write from our own perspective. The fact that Jesus (or at
least, the movement which claims to follow him) rates a mention
amongst a few contemporary Jewish and Roman writers is significant,
but we cannot read too much into what they did, and did not, say.

>They said
>nothing about the dead rising from their graves and walking into town
>(Matthew). Fantastic events not even noticed outside of christian circles.

It is certainly difficult from any perspective (other than the
mindless "the  Bible says it so it must be true" argument) to suggest
that Matthew 27:52-53, to which you refer, is an historical report. If
it were true, it is truly remarkable that no-one other than Matthew
reported it, and it would seem to detract somewhat from the uniqueness
of Jesus' own ressurection. 

In the case of this and other "Fantastic" events described in the
Gospels, it is very unlikely that an objective witness would have
described what happened in the same words as the Gospel authors. A
"miracle" is often in the eye of the beholder, and it should always be
remembered that the intention of the Gospel authors was to inform
faith - not to objectively describe what happened (John 20:31).

I find it interesting to ask the question - what do you think you
would have seen, if you had been in the garden outside Jesus' tomb on
the first Easter morning?

Fundamentalists have all sorts of difficulties with that question,
because the Gospel accounts are so partial and contradictory. 

Atheists and skeptics say "nothing", and they are probably right. 

But I am sure that the disciples who were there - Mary Magdalene and
the other women, and later Peter and at least one other  - saw, heard,
or otherwise experienced something that convinced them that Jesus was
alive. Other believers shared that same experience in different ways
over the next few weeks, and that is why we have a Christian Church
today.

Under the careful and scientific analysis of the late twentieth
century, the words those erarly believers used to describe that
experience look clumsy, unsophisticated, and unconvincing. But the
Church that wrote them still exists today, and I can share the same
experience in my own life here and now. That is part of why I am a
Christian.

Cheers
I
N+

Nigel B. Mitchell