THE EDITOR, Sir:REVEREND CLINTON Chisholm has made a valiant attempt to defend the faith, in response to my article. However, I can only respond to a few of his main points, as space will not
permit me to be complete.
Nowhere in his defence has the good Reverend provided concrete evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Indeed, all he has done is to provide proof for the origin of the tradition, not the occurrence of the resurrection.
He mentioned that Jesus
accurately predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. However, Jewish history tells us that the Jews were always rebelling against Roman rule, even before Jesus' time.
Such destruction was long in coming. Jesus may have had the foresight in seeing this, but this in no way establishes his "prophetic powers".
The Reverend also mentions the quote made by the Jewish
historian Josephus in his Antiquities.
However, most scholars, even Christian scholars, now admit that that quote is a Christian forgery.
This for several reasons: It does not fit with the rest of the text (eg. "...doer of wonderful works..." immediately followed by "another terrible misfortune" that "confounded the Jews").
The non-use of the text by other Christian defenders before the fourth century and the scant regard Josephus, the detailed writer, gave to Jesus, contrary to the gospels are just a few good reasons to doubt its authenticity.
The other points that Reverend Chisholm made did not help the case for the resurrection and can thus be dismissed.
The case of Josephus, however, raises interesting questions. Why did the early Christian leaders see the need to alter the truth, if the truth was solid on its own? Is it because nobody would have seen Jesus as divine? Why the lies?
I am, etc.,
MICHAEL A DINGWALL
michael_a_dingwall
@hotmail.com
1 1/2 Lake Lane
Kingston
