And, as an added bonus, he does a great job of exposing the emptiness of Richard Dawkins’ philosophical thought processes.

(HT)

And so while I continue with my belief that the Bible is the perfect word of God, I also continue in my belief that the currently promoted “Bible Codes” don’t have anything to do with proving the Bible’s authenticity.  Of course, anyone who disputes this is welcome to try and show me where I’m wrong.  It’s always possible that some sort of strong statistical support for the Bible’s divine origin could be found;  there’s just no reason to think that’s already happened.

• No “ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century.”

• Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

• Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages

• Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).

• Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

Well, turns out the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announed the unearthing of a first-century house, on the exact spot where Catholicism has historically considered Mary and Joseph to have lived.

What’s the moral of this story? Even when the historical evidence seems to make the Bible appear to be lying, later historical evidence has vindicated it. Remember the Hittites? For a long time skeptics said the Hittites, mentioned about thirty times in the Bible, had never existed, but later evidence has confirmed their existence beyond any doubt. Same with Nazareth. Moral–the Bible is more reliable than the consensus of all the ancient authorities who seemed to indicate that Nazareth never existed.

Sources: Darrel Pursiful’s blog, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wikipedia.

Merry Christmas!

But we must look carefully at the accusation here. The key word here is “independent source.” This is how the atheist discounts the history given to us by four sources in the gospels. By independent, he means that Christian sources are not included. So then we are looking for non-Christian sources, sources who do not believe in Jesus’ resurrection, to confirm the resurrection. What the atheist is requiring of Jesus, then, is that someone who does not believe in the resurrection confirm the resurrection. It is no fault of Christianity if non-believers don’t believe. We cannot expect non-Christian sources to confirm the resurrection.

And yet we do. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish scholar who compiled the most complete account of history the first century ever saw, does not write from a Christian perspective. Frequently he defends Judaism, and never considers himself a Christian. And yet we read in his history:

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 amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those who 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 a myriad other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. ( Antiquities, 18:63-64)

Notice that Josephus does not consider himself a Christian; he merely notes that the Christians were not yet extinct at the time of his writing. And yet, as one who considered himself a Jew, he found himself unable to deny the plain historical facts: that Jesus Christ was a teacher who attracted those who loved the truth, that he performed miracles, that he was raised from the dead, that he fulfilled many prophecies of the Old Testament, and that he started the Christian movement.

And yet, the atheist mind does not accept the proof of Josephus. He rejects the gospels because they are written by the followers of Jesus. And the atheist likewise rejects the testimony of Josephus, saying it is a Christian fraud. Now–there is no evidence that Christians ever tampered with Josephus writings to make him match their beliefs. On the contrary, the chronologies given by Josephus contradict the Old Testament in so many places that it is clear that Christians preserved his writings even when they disagreed with the Bible. Similarly, Josephus, while telling us that Jesus Christ was indeed raised from the dead, contradicts the Biblical account by saying that when Jesus was crucified, his followers did not abandon him, although the Biblical account says that they did abandon him.

The atheist does not discount the gospels because they are not historical enough. The atheist does not discount Josephus because there is any real evidence of fraud. Evidence does, as it always has, support Christianity and terrify the atheist, who is then forced to hide behind impossible historical standards and unfounded conspiracy theories about fraud.

UPDATE: Upon thinking about it, maybe calling the belief that the passage in Josephus has been altered an “unfounded conspiracy theory” is a bit too strong. Maybe it’s not. Your thoughts are welcome.