* "Christus (Christ), the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also."(Annals XV 44) Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian and governor of Asia [Turkey] in 112 A.D. in reference to the persecution of christians following Emperor Nero's false accusation that christians had burned Rome.
* Suetonius, official historian of Rome in A.D. 125 refers to christians being banished from Rome for causing disturbances in his Life of Claudius (25.4)
* Plinius Secundus ("Pliny the Younger") stated that christians were "in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify thier word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up." This he wrote when requesting the emperor's instructions on interrogating the christians he was persecuting. He also wrote, in his Epistles X 96, that christians would not worship the emperor, would not curse Jesus Christ, even under extreme torture, and that they were a people who loved truth at any cost.
* Lucian of Samosata lived about a century after Christ. In his book The Passing Peregrinus he identified Jesus as the focus of worship for christians and that he was "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced the cult into the world."
* Flavius Josephus, born in A.D. 37 following the death of Jesus Christ was a Pharisee and priest in Jerusalem. Captured by Romans at Jotapata and befriended by Roman general Vesasian, he had access to both Jewish and Roman historical records and documents. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. XVIII, chap. III, Section 3 he states, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him: for he appeared to them alive again the third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of christians so named from him are not extinct to this day."
* Antiquities of the Jews (bk. XX, chap. IX, sect. I) "As therefore Anunas (the High Priest) was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus (the Roman Procurator) was now dead, and Albinus (the new Procurator) was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned."
* Antiquities of the Jews (bk. XVIII, chap. V, sect. 2) states "Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not to the order of putting away, [of the remission] of some sins [only] but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the body was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] there came to crowd around him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] to hear his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion [for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise], thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus (Masada), the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death"
* A pagan historian by the name of Thallus, who lived shortly after the resurrection of Christ (about A.D. 52) wrote concerning a miraculous darkness that covered the earth at the Passover of A.D. 32 and attempted to explain it as an eclipse of the sun. Julius Africanus, a christian teacher in North Africa in A.D. 215, wrote concerning this historian's assertions, "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seems to me." Julianus contends, and modern astronomers confirm, that the Paschal full moon in which the Passover occured (the Passover in which Christ was crucified) could not have been eclipsed. Thus, no known natural explaination can be presented to explain the darkness referred to in the bible as occuring during Christ's resurrection.
Liberal scholars have long argued that the New Testament cannot be considered reliable as it was, in their opinion, written over 100 years after the events it described. If this were true, considering that the authors claims to have personally witnessed their accounts, the Scriptures must be false, or at least unreliable. So widespread were these sentiments, and so loudly and publicly proclaimed, that even today, after overwhelming documentary evidence proves that these texts were written within 30-35 years of the actual events, many still believe them to be historically inaccurate. Capitalizing on this feeling, many scholars now claim that these Scriptures, while accurate historically, must have been contaminated over the years with additional and erroneous information, accounts and statements by well-meaning believers during the last few decades of the first century.
Consider that the modern scholars now possess over 5000 manuscript copies of the New Testament in the original Greek, as well as over 15,000 manuscripts in other languages, all from the first few centuries of this era. No other important historical or religious text has more than a few dozen copies surviving from this time. These 20,000 different texts can be shown to contain some minor differences, in spelling for example, but no difference in even one small fact or single doctrine. These documents give scholars the strongest possible evidence to confirm the accuracy of the New Testament text as well as confirming their widespread distribution among the churches during the last four decades of the first century. That is, within 30-35 years of the actual events. Simply put, if the liberal scholars claims are true, how were ALL these copies of Scripture altered in exactly the same way within only a few decades without any of the devout christians noticing?
In order to counter the assertion that changes had been introduced into the Scriptures during this time, consider a few points:
-These Scripures had been, and were still being, widely distributed throughout the churches during the few years after thier being written by the apostles.
-Many of the christians hearing or reading these Scriptures in the churches had personally known the apostles, or Christ Himself, or at least heard them minister. -These christians would have been keenly aware of any changes in the basic truths these Scriptures presented.
-One of Christ's original apostles, John, was still alive during this time and was bishop over the seven churches in Turkey until the first few years of the next century. He certainly would have instantly recognized any "new" or altered portions of the Scriptures that came before him.
-The Greek originals of the Scriptures were widely copied into a variety of languages and distributed widely in Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, Coptic, etc. to churches in surrounding areas many years before the turn of the century. These would certainly have proven as impossible to influence as the original Greek.
Furthermore, consider the significance of the fact that no Jew or Roman alive at the time ever openly denied the Scriptural record of Jesus Christ's life, death, ministry or resurrection. Certainly, with the christian "cult" growing so rapidly throughout the regions and even into nearby countries in those early days, anyone having evidence to contradict the Scriptural account would certainly have likely been compelled to present it publicly.
Why, then, are these scholars able to convince themselves and so many others that the most historically provable text in human history is somehow one of the least reliable? Obviously, it is not the text itself that is rejected, it is what the text says. The Scriptures, if accepted as accurate in their assertions, at the very least would demand that one accept that there is a Creator to whom we are beholden. This is a fact that is simply unacceptable to too many people, most especially, it would seem, liberal scholars. That is why the bible has weathered attacks from the most devious to the most ludicrous and everything in between. Not for it's accuracy or it's authenticity, but for it's message.
How can you reasonably argue that the miraculous events that occured in the New Testament did not take place when the very people alive at the time confirm that they did? Test this for yourself. Read the New Testament in it's entirety and ask yourself how the religion it spawned could have possible spread so quickly if it's claims were false. How many witnesses would have been able to produce evidence denying it's truth if these miraculous events never occured? Most of the people mentioned in the New Testament were alive and available as witnesses for or against the Scriptures at the very time when the church first began to grow and these same Scriptures we have today were widely published! Obviously, if the New Testament account were false christianity would be nothing more than interesting footnote in modern history books and certainly not the globe-spanning force that it is today.
Most people are completely unaware of the overwhelmingly christian nature of our forefathers and of this country from it's beginnings. Rarely taught in public schools or mentioned in politically correct history texts are the facts behind so many American institutions. Our forefathers fled the religious oppression of Europe not to free themselves from religion but to insure themselves and thier descendants a society where christian belief could be expressed freely. Our forefathers clearly intended to create a christian nation.
Even a cursory examination of the writings and the lives of the framers of the constitution reveals clearly that thier intent was not that the state should be forbidden to exercise religious expression but rather forbidden to inact legislation concerning religion. It is quite clear that they were, in fact, passionate in their belief that christian faith and biblical knowledge were essential to good government and a necessary virtue for political leaders. It should have been clear to all that the constitution's restriction of laws "respecting an establishment of religion" concerns only establishment of a state religion, which is exactly what our forefathers had fled from in Europe.
Consider that, in today's rather bizarre interpretation of the nation's constitution, the founding father's themselves would have found a good portion of their legislation to be "unconstitutional" despite the fact that they themselves wrote the constitution, or had part in it's drafting!
Look closely at the history of this nation for a peek into the motivations of our forefathers. Within a generation of landing on Plymouth Rock the puritan settlers established an educational system dedicated to training "a learned clergy and a lettered people". These christians founded Harvard College in 1636, not as an educational business but specifically with the intent of upholding spiritual truth and training ministers. In fact, during the first 100 years of the college's operation, every single graduate was a minister of the Gospels. The first charter of Harvard College states "Everyone shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know Jesus Christ which is eternal life."
Consider also that 87% of the first 119 colleges and universities built in America were built by christians to educate their young people in the Scriptures. Most of the major colleges and universities founded in this country were, in fact, created as christian institutions of learning - including Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia. More than 25% of the graduating classes of these institutions became ministers.
Genesis, chapter 11, describes "the people" coming together to build a great tower "whose top is in the heavens" so that they may "make a name" for themselves. Genesis further claims that God, Himself, came down to earth to witness this and, obviously concerned that this great enterprise might succeed, confounded the language of the people (thereby, incidently introducing the variety of language we witness today), scattered them and laid waste to the tower.
Now, why God reacted this way to this ambitious project is a lesson in itself. Though it is often presented as merely a condemnation of man's pride, it more accurately represents a clear condemnation of man's tireless attempts to replace God's rule with self-rule. That is, rebellion. Something the Bible concerns itself with time and again. The Tower of Babel represents man's pride in what he can accomplish without God. In the Genesis account God comes to earth to witness this thing, considers it...and then destroys it, scattering the persons responsible and taking steps to insure that man will not be able to do such thing for a very, very long time. A pretty strong statement by God.
But we must also consider that the Bible presents this story not merely as a strong message or fable but as solid fact. The Bible claims that this tower once actually existed and was destroyed by God Himself. Few realise that the ruined base of this tower was discovered and that the tower known as Borzippa is the one and same Tower of Babel. Consider the evidence: The word "borzippa", in Chaldean, translates as "tongue-tower". A similar word in Greek, "borsippa", has the same meaning.
In a long inscription written by King Nebuchadezzar, he describes rebuilding that tower and the surrounding city of Babylon. With only the base of the tower remaining (460' by 690' and 260' high!) King Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt it with gold, silver, cedar and fir and surfaced the top with bricks engraved with his seal. The inscription, presented below, clearly refers to the Tower of Babel described in Genesis.
"The tower, the eternal house, which I founded and built.
I have completed it's magnificence with silver, gold, other metal, stone,
enamelled bricks, fir and pine.
The first which is the house of the earth's base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it.
I have highly exalted it's head with bricks covered with copper.
We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the
seven lights of the earth, the most ancient monument of Borsippa.
A former king built it, they reckon 42 ages, but he did not complete it's head.
Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing thier words.
Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay.
The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building.
I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation.
In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day,
I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks.
I adapted the circuits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico.
I set my hand to finish it. And to exalt its head.
As it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit."
-King Nebuchadnezzar.
NEXT SECTION