James Camreon is the devil

Bar-Ilan University Professor Amos Kloner, a Jerusalem archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, dismissed the claims.

"It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post Saturday night.

"But it's impossible. It's nonsense," he said

...is the retard.

This is total absurd. Perhaps James Cameron has not had a hit since the Terminator and Titanic and he needs controversy to boost his career like the white trash Britney, Linsday, Paris, Nicole, and Vicky Hogan "Anna Nicole", as well as Michelle "Anna Lucia" and I can go on and on with every actresses, actors, and filmmakers. It is all about trash and money they are after. Liberal bollywood are doing this and perhaps James is a freemason in part of a team that will usher the Anti-Christ to power within next few years?

This is just a copout. Perhaps some prank 2000 years ago or Rome ordered this 2000 years ago to fool people or feared that Jesus really did rise from the Dead so Rome needed to cover up to fool people that Jesus was "not" God? Good questions to ask!

Jesus warned us about false prophets in the last days. He also told us that his followers would be hated and persecuted because of him. Well here we are. Christians unite and don't be in love with this world but rather keep your eye on the true target and that is eternal salvation

Who said that that the false prohets are not the pope, catholic church. Afterall thr roman church has changed the bible many times to suit its own needs, why would you need 4 books of the same story where each book removes more and more information about jesus and replaces it with some made up rubbish that makes no sense.

Is James Cameron a False Prophet!? Thats news to me

Newsweek has a great article on the whole thing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsw...

jesus will forgive james cameron. is up to j.cameron to choose hell or heaven.

Wow ... You're all idiots (all the ones that posted comments before me, so far!).

Jesus in no son of any God, you stupid cows, no more than Hercules is the son of all mighty Zeus! Go to school, for God's sake (smell my irony!) and learn how to pull yourselves out your miserable ignorant existence. He was just a man a bit smarter than all of you out there, it seems! Your God never was his father or a father at all for that matter, and Jesus didn't resurrect and flew to any "heavens" 'cause he was just dead and decomposed just like you all will, you carbon based uneducated creatures!

If you could just make the distinction between myths/religions and history/reality you'd definitely make a better Christian in the end, but you're not interested in all that because you're way too stupid to see past your own Church-fed ignorance and to think on your own ... chickens! Stupid chickens! And yeah, I am .... the devil, right?! Whatever ... stupid!

Christian fanatics; why is this news being so un-welcomed? They found Jesus for Christ sake!! How does this evidence negatively impact your faith? I do see how Jesus not physically ascending into heaven and him having a son and all can really shake up preconceived faith facts but why would that be ridiculous??? Why will James Cameron go to hell for this? It sounds to me that if this is the tomb of the most famous family in all of history anyone denouncing its importance would be on light speed to hell.

> Luke Says:
> "How does this evidence negatively impact your faith?"

Luke, this claim is the CENTRAL and MOST IMPORTANT thing for every Christian. Hope this makes it clearer:

"and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain" (apostle Paul in the letter to the Corinthians)

IF they found Jesus ALL of the Christian faith would be fake and nonsense, there is no other reason for "Love thy neighbor as yourself" except that God did it first for us when He died on the cross and then rose from the dead. if Christ hadn't risen from the dead it would be a lie the claim He made that anybody who believes in Him shall have eternal life. Is this fanatism? No, it's a matter of TRUTH and LIE. And I do like the truth, I want to know the truth and I did find the Truth, in
Christ's loving arms.

At Stefan, the guy who calls "ignorant" so many people but he himself is ignorant unfortunately: Pal, the Christians claim that every event in the New Testament HAS HAPPENED, in our world, in our History, with real men and women ant the authenticity of these FACTS make the faith we have credible.

We DO NOT believe in myths, please investigate this claim and check it for yourself, don't let the TV and cheap-quality books prejudice you!

More on the topic:

Why is Christ's resurrection important?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/resu...

Is the resurrection a myth?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009...

Best wishes,
Pavel

Hey man, are any of you christian fanatics even going to watch it? how do you know that this is "jewish propoganda" and that this jew is trying to bring you all down? do you not realize you rule the world, and have killed millions and continue to kill based on THIS VERY BELIEF? before you attack this guy, why dont you WATCH IT FIRST!!!!!! or are you scared that your entire lives will be proven meaningless in 90 minutes?

PUSSIES!

Jorge, Luke and Stefan, the last 3 posters, do not have a wit of intelligence or they would know that the ressurection has ALREADY been scientifically proven. This new "finding" is a hoax. Anyone could find a few unmarked graves and "name" them "Jorge, Luke and Stefan" and "presto!" you guys are all lovers, or brothers and suddely, all dead and buried together to be discovered years later. Yeah.
Listen to the writers before you . They have the real insight.

Wow. Christians can be VICIOUS!!
I have studied the Bible and cannot recall Jesus having said it is OK for you to condemn others to eternal damnation.
Come to think of it, is it ok to accuse people of being homosexual, or Freemasons?
James Cameron seems to me to be a man who is genuinely interested in archaology, and would like to learn what facts he can from this. I struggle to see how this would make him the Devil!
I suggest reading your Book again. NONE of the attitude you are displaying is compatible with it's teachings.

(Woops! Spelled Archaeology wrong!!!)

It is funny how "B" just says" Wow. Christians can be VICIOUS!!" out of thin air like saying sdomething makes it true. No one is perfect, but o no one is being VICIOUS to you. Do something better with your time.

PS: James cameron is NOT the Devil, just ignorant, no matter how much alleged research he has done. Read my first post.

"the resurrection has already been scientifically proven" ... Really? Don't be ridiculous. You Christians are the most gullible idiots out there.

It would be great if there were a way of proving this is indeed the body of Christ - it may just quiten you lot down for a while; but I suppose it wouldn't matter what scientific proof you're given, you prefer to believe mumbo jumbo.

The big difference between hardcore Christians and everyone else is the ability to ask questions. You Christians practice unquestioning obedience and in theory that is respectful but really it blinds you from being a free mind. Do you need Jesus ascension to be real for you to be faithful? Does Jesus having a son or a wife make you less of a follower? Why is it not ok to question? If fear of hell is your answer then stop damming us atheist and agnostics to it. You are wishing harm upon your fellow man. Doesn’t that contradict your teachings?? I am taking this discovery with a grain of Salt but I am willing to listen before I judge why dont you do the same!

IMHO... I am a firm believer that fire is man's best invention and a man's intellect can do as much to ignite passion as his affections. With that said, if it is true that one fights fire with fire, then I am persuaded, for some... their fire is folly... and their timber, insolence, as they fight ignorance with ignorance? (smell my irony!)

Stefan (and Luke), your accusations are that of a pubescent ... hormonally imbalanced and intellectually underdeveloped. Your words are full of gunpowder and cheap booze... your bravado is shallow and moronic... and expresses itself in puddles of thought attesting to that which you cannot possibly ascertain.

Your words are meant to accuse... but instead they are the flailing words of the uneducated and unenlightened... wielded about as impotent ammunition... manically manipulated phrases... resulting in the unrewarding and unsatisfied... premature emasculation.

Your haughty air emanates ill intent. You hurl noxious innuendos and fasten together rancid remarks with cheesy taunts like a diseased protein chain. Your slothful slang is intended to skewer truth, dislodge axioms and wound the well meaning.

While your soapbox may be sufficient to balance an oversized ego and your ample opinion, though excessive, nonetheless, very much your own, your careless means of expression, my Cro-Magnon Casanova, communicates a “character” of slow-wit and small stature.

“I have always loved truth so passionately that I have often resorted to lying as a way of introducing it into the minds which were ignorant of its charms.” ~ Giacomo Casanova

It is a sad truth that Christians really CAN be vicious.
My point was, "Is this really Christian behaviour"?
(I could cite the Crusades, for example, as explicitly non-Christian behaviour done in the name of Christianity).

Is James Cameron ignorant? I suggest not (With respect).

There are many people outside of Christianity who have tried to disprove the divinity of Christ. This has been going on for more than 2,000 years. There is no historical evidence that Jesus married and/or had offspring. Secular writers of that day would have reported it. Even the gospels would have recorded it. The Hebrew genology records would have recorded it.
Instead the records show something else... Jesus died, was resurrected and ascended into Heaven. He is what he showed and told us, The Son of God.

I dont understand how someone could say the "resurection" was SCIENTIFICLY PROVEN!! Whoever posted that has shown that anything and everything they say can not be listened to with any bit of seriousness, that is the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. That being said, all of you just attacking christians with such vile language is totaly uncalled for and I am guessing that you are in either High or Middle school... (please tell me I am right, because If not, then there is soemthing totaly wrong with you three posters as well...) Now all we have to find is Mohamed, the only religion we cant disprove is Judaism, cause well they dont have a human Deity barried somewhere to be discovered they were smart about it!! One more thing... DNA evidence only proves that all the coffins contained people who were related, no one today has Jesus' old hairbrush anywhere to compare it against!! I am not defending Christianity (growing up as a jew in the bible belt, that is the last thing I am going to do... I can tell you from personal experience that the so called "Evangelical Christians" are mostly white trash with someone called Cameron earlier (white trash is poor, uneducated, klan loving jerks!! mostly Evangelical Christians!!, I went through hell on earth as a CHILD because of these people, and I would love if their world would come down around them, they are scum (not all, but most of the ones i grew up around, not because of their beliefs, but because of the way they treat those who do not share their belife in the so-called Christ!! there is NOTHING Angelical about them) That also being said it isnt right to lump all christians into a group as assholes and uneducated and say horrible things about them in general. I am only speaking about the ones i know personaly who on an average og 88% are as I said assholes, but it isnt because of their faith!!

first, i would like to address what Jonquil said.........WTF? are you kidding? you Christians don't even beleive in scientific proof to begin with , so how can you sit there with an open mind and say that there is no way that this is true, yet you say in the same rambling that the resurection has already been scientifically prooven? show me that proof! please.and secondly......this is directed at Diane. what are you babbleing about? how can you say anyone else is ignorant if you won't even give the findings the benefit of the doubt? thirdly......for the ETC Ministries......there is actually no historical evidence to show that he NEVER married or had children or anything else that he did between the ages of like twenty one and thirty five.........the gospels sure didn't record ANY of that part of his life did they? and would somebody please show me how anyone could ever even in the least proove that ANY RESURECTION has ever taken place?Jesus was a man, not a God!

Maybe this didn’t come across in my previous post but I have no ill will towards you believers. If you are committed in your ways then so be it. I am no atheist knight trying concur religion. I am simply asking questions and that is my point. Why is it shunned upon to doubt , to question. Why are these hell worthy trespasses. I do not seek to slenderize or harm in any way those who find comfort in faith. To some degree I like religion; I think the bible has some nice stories and they have impacted my life in a positive way but it doesn’t matter if they are true or not. God is wherever you want him to be. Can someone please logically respond to my previous post.
Do you need Jesus ascension to be real for you to be faithful? Does Jesus having a son or a wife make you less of a follower?

Is James Cameron trying to disprove the divinity of Christ?
The existence of Jesus is generally undisputed. But did He tell us He was the son of God? (I remember "Son of man" being used in the new testament although I'm sure this is not invariably the case. This would be a different discussion, and one I would be very interested in).
I have an open mind as to whether or not He was devine, and have NO disrespect for devout Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus. I personally have a set of values wholly inspired the teachings of Jesus.
I suppose what I'm saying is "What is wrong with SEEKING the truth?"
I have to confess that I have little patience for people who haven't bothered to read the Bible who regard themselves a theologians. (I'm assuming that a couple of the angry people above fit this description, apologies if not). Surely reading the Bible would be a minimum requirement for one to call oneself a "Christian". Try it!! It's a good read!!

Luke you were respectful in ure posts, i shouldnt have said 3 posters cause it is only one that Stephan character... and I also want this scientific proof of the resurection, this I NEED to see, I have to see it someone please send me the link!! LOL

From my, European, perspective I find the beliefs and general attitudes of some of the (so called) Christians in the US, some examples of which have been posted above, to be deeply disturbing. Why are you so quick to judge and condemn when Jesus' teaching were the exact opposite - to love thy 'enemy' and to forgive those who trespass against you (or your fundamentalist beliefs in this case)? Your attitudes are rather Old Testament where God was vengeful and harsh, smiting people to the left and right, demanding blood sacrifice and so on.

To me, you guys seem to have more in common with the fundamentalist muslim extremists that you are say you are fighting in Iraq than with anything else. When someone claims to have a monopoly on the truth, alarm bells should be ringing to any sane person. Another curious point is that you cite science when it suits you (Christ's resurrection was proven? Huh? When? Did I miss the biggest news of the millenium, or is this 'science' from the same Think Tank that came up with bogus Creationism 'Theory').

Why do you just suck up everything your preachers tell you so blindly? If God didn't want us to think for ourselves, he wouldn't have given us brains, would he? To everyone else: watch 'Jesus Camp' if you feel like watching a horror movie sometime.

Oh, and i don't think that Cameron is in this for the money. He only made THE highest grossing film ever and a couple of others that rank pretty high on that chart. Christ on bike!

Joaquil stop ignoring us please give us the proof that you were talking about, and I promise you show me the scientific proof of the resurection and I will have no choice but the convert and accept Jesus... please isnt that what Christians love most in life, converting people? Show me the proof and I am all yours, I will never doubt Jesus after I see it.

Hey Jay!
Christians SHOULD love converting people!!
Well said Sir!!

(Woops! Or Madam).

See thats better Stephan why couldnt you speak like that in ure first post, when you just verbaly attack people you cant be taken seriously, you dont have to be mean, everyone who has been to a University know that christians are anti science and truth and proof without any reason other than an apostle said so in one of the man writen gosples...

I actually own the proof of christ's ressurection. yeah, passed down from generations on a laser disk. Unfortunatley, i can't find a laser disk player anywere in the free world. In seriousness, there is no proof, as well there shouldn't be. I ama devout christian, who believes we are all born agnostic (not a popular belief in the pentacostal church i was raised in) and must make a leap of faith. GOD CANNOT BE PROVEN TO EXIST. Not on this world anyway. We must belief with faith, not with proof. A leap of faith must be taken towards christianity or atheism. Or you could remain agnostic and say, "we have no way to know for sure". No crap we can't know for sure.

Oh... Just noticed there's another Stefan. That first one wasn't me, Jay. :-)

I have no link to any website with this evidence. This evidence is taken from:
Systematic Theology Volume 1: Introduction/Bible by Dr. Norman L. Geisler.

Historicity of the New Testament:

When exploring the historicity of the NT, we must insightfully examine the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the early epistles of Paul (other documents are obsolete in that they offer no information regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ). Negative criticism of the New Testament is based on pre-archaeological, unproven philosophical presuppositions. Such presuppositions have been disproved by archaeological discoveries. The evidence for the historicity of the New Testament lies within the number, dating, accuracy and confirmation of the New Testament manuscripts. The number of New Testament manuscripts is overwhelming compared to other books from antiquity. The typical book from antiquity is survived by approximately seven to ten manuscripts. The New Testament has nearly 5,700 Greek manuscripts, which makes it the best textually supported book from antiquity (the ancient world)! The book with the second most manuscripts is Homer’s Iliad, with 643 manuscripts. The earliest undisputed manuscript is John Ryland’s Papyri (dated 117-138 a.d.). Most scholars believe it to be composed in 95 a.d. Whole New Testament books are available from 200 a.d. Most New Testament books, including all four gospels, are available after 250 a.d. British manuscript scholar Sir Frederick Kenyon wrote:

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Thus, both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

The New Testament has proven itself to be more accurately copied from the original manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. New Testament scholar John A.T. Robinson said:

“The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant, makes it the best attested of any ancient writing in the world.”

Bruce Metzeger, a New Testament scholar and Princeton professor compared Homer’s Iliad, the Mahabharata of Hinduism, and the New Testament. He observed that the Mahabharata was 90% accurate from the original (10% textual corruption), Homer’s Iliad was 95% accurate from the original (5% textual corruption), and the New Testament was 99.5% accurate from the original (.5% textual corruption). He also mentioned that the general concern for textual criticism is only a thousandth part of the text, which would make the New Testament 99.9% pure! As a result, it is the best known of any ancient book in the world. Significant portions of other books from antiquity are missing. For example, 107 of Livy’s 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus’ original Histories and Annals, only half remain. All New Testament books are preserved and there is no significant portion missing. Sir Frederick Kenyon noted:

"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or the other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."

The Early Church Fathers cited the four gospels alone 19,368 times in the late first century. Justin Martyr is accredited with 268 citations; Iraneus with 1038; Clement of Alexandria with 1017, Origen with 9231, Turtullian with 3822, Hypollytus with 734, and Eusebius with 3258. Even before these men there were citations: Pseudo-Barnabas references the gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Clement of Rome cites the gospel of Matthew, the gospel of John, and 1 Corinthians; Ignatius cites six of Paul’s epistles; Polycarp cites all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s epistles; Shepard of Hermas cites the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and 1 Corinthians, among other books; the Didache cites the Gospel of Matthew, the gospel of Luke, 1 Corinthians; Papias, a companion of Polycarp (a disciple of John), quoted John’s gospel. All of these citations argue powerfully that this places the gospels in existence before they were cited well before the end of the first century while some eyewitnesses (like John) were still alive. Some Fathers overlap with their citations of the gospel of John (the latest New Testament book, written around 95 a.d.), which eliminates any time gap between the New Testament and the earliest citations of it.

The historicity of the book of Acts:

If Acts was written before 70 a.d. while the eyewitnesses ere still alive, then it has great historical value in informing us of the earliest Christian beliefs. What is more, if Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, it is place in the apostolic circle of the earliest disciples of Jesus. If Acts was written by 62 a.d., then it was written by a contemporary of Jesus (who died in 33 a.d.). And if Acts is shown to be accurate history, then it brings credibility to its reports about the most basic Christian beliefs in the miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Further, if Luke wrote Acts, then his “former treatise”, the gospel of Luke, should be extended the same credibility manifested in the book of Acts. Roman historian Colin Hemer cites numerous reasons for accepting a traditional early date of Acts. These reasons strongly support the historicity of Acts and the historicity of the gospel of Luke. The following is the first five of numerous reasons:

1) There is no mention in Acts of the crucial historical event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., which places Acts before that event.
2) There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of any serious specific deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews, which implies Acts was written before that time.
3) There is no hint of the more immediate deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4) There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62 a.d., recorded by Josephus in his Antiquities.
5) Since the apostle Paul was still alive (Acts 28), it must have been written before his death (65 a.d.).

Six more reasons for an early date of Acts are cited as follows:

1) Primitive formulation of Christian terminology is used in Acts, which reflects an earlier period.
2) Rackham points to the optimistic tone of Acts, which would not have been there after Judaism had been destroyed and Christians martyred in the Neronian persecutions of the late 60s.
3) The abrupt ending of the book of Acts is a factor. Surely, if Paul had died by then, for example, that would have been mentioned.
4) The “immediacy” of Acts 27-28 comes into play.
5) The prevalence of insignificant details of a cultural milieu of an early, even Julio-Claudian, date shows evidence.
6) There are areas of controversy within Acts that presuppose the relevance of an early Jewish setting while the Temple was still standing.

By comparison, claiming that Acts was written after 62 a.d. is like claiming that a book on the life of JFK was written after 1963 (when he was assassinated) but never mentions his death; if the event had already occurred, it was too important to omit. In the same way, any book like Acts that was written after the death of the apostle Paul (65 ad) or the destruction of Jerusalem (70 ad) would surely have mentioned these momentous events.

Evidence that the author of Acts was a first-rate Historian:

In addition to the arguments for an early date of Acts, Hemer demonstrates that the author was an historian of note:

1) Items of geographical detail and the like, which may be assumed to have been generally known
2)More specialized details, which may still have been widely know to those who possessed relevant experience: titles of governors, army units, major routes etc, which may have been accessible to those who traveled or were involved in administration, but perhaps not to those without such backgrounds
3)Specifics of local routes, boundaries, titles of city magistrates, and the like, which may not be closely controllable in date, but are unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had visited the districts.
4)The correlation of the dates of known kings and governors with the ostensible chronology of the Acts framework
5)Details appropriate to the date of Paul but not appropriate to the conditions of a date earlier or especially later
6)Undersigned coincidences between Acts and the accepted Pauline Epistles
7)Latent internal correlation within Acts
8)Independently attested details that agree with the Alexandrian against the Western text (or the reverse and may thus relate to the stages in the textual tradition of Acts
9)Matters of common geographical knowledge or the like, mentioned perhaps informally or allusively, with an unstudied accuracy that bespeaks familiarity
10)Differences in formulation within Acts as a possible indication of different categories of sources
11)Peculiarities in the selection of detail, such as the inclusions of details theologically unimportant, but explicable in other ways that may ear on the historical question
12)As a particular case of the preceding details whose immediacy suggests the authors reproduction of recent experience and which are less readily explicable as the product of longer-term reflective editing and shaping
13)Items reflecting culture or idiom that are suggestive of a first-rather than a second-century atmosphere
14)Interrelated complexes in which two or more kinds of correlation are combined or where related details each show separate correlations, so that the possibility arises of building a larger fragment of historical reconstruction from a jigsaw of interlocking units
15)Cases where the progress of discovery and knowledge simply provide new background information of use to the commentator of whatever viewpoint, while not bearing significantly on the issue of historicity
16)Precise details that lie within the range of contemporary possibilities, but whose particular accuracy have no means of verifying one way or the other

In addition to the above points, the author of Acts demonstrates detailed knowledge of the historical names, places, persona and events of the times. In addition, Luke manifests an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.

The historicity of the Gospels:

Since Matthew and Mark provide the same basic data on the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ, what argues for the authenticity of one also argues for the authenticity of the other. We will argue for the historicity of the gospel of Luke. The author of the gospel of Luke is known to be an accurate historian. Dr. Luke, the travel companion of the apostle Paul, is widely believed to be the author of the gospel of Luke for many good reasons. First, the author of Acts:

1)was highly educated, judging by the good Greek he used
2)was not one of the twelve apostles
3)Was a participant in many events himself
4)Was knowledgeable about the apostle Paul
5)Knew and quoted the Old testament in Greek
6)Had a good knowledge of the political and social situation in the first century
7)Was a traveler with the apostle Paul at times, as indicated by the “we” sections
8)Was not Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tycicus, or Trophimus, who are excluded by Acts 20:4
9)Had knowledge of medicine, as indicated by his use of medical terms and references. The only companion of Paul known to fit all these characteristics was “Luke the beloved physician” (Co. 4:14

However, it is not a question of who wrote the book that is important, but whether or not he was a reliable source. R.T. France noted, “Authorship is not a major factor in our assessment of the reliability of the Gospels”.
Second, the same person who wrote Acts also wrote the gospel of Luke, since:

1)both are written to “Theophilus” (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)
2)both are written in excellent Greek
3)both show medical interest,
4)Acts refers to a “former account” the author had written about Jesus (Acts 1:1)
5)There is an unbroken and virtually unchallenged tradition from the era of the early Christian church till modern times attributing tit to Dr. Luke.

Third, the author of Acts is known to be a top-notch historian, a fact established by both Sir William Ramsey and more recently by Colin Hemer. Another noted Roman historian strongly supports the historicity of the Gospels, saying:

“So it is astonishing that while Greco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, have taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism…that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious.”

Thus, the belief that the idea that these accounts are legendary is simply “unbelievable”. From all of this information, we can conclude that the gospel of Luke is also an excellent historical work written around ad 60. Since Matthew, Mark and John present the same basic picture of Christ, they too are historically reliable. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that Luke states his historical interest in his prologue (Luke 1:1-4) claiming that:

1)he is aware of other earlier written accounts of Christ’s life
2)the gospel of Luke is labeled on “eyewitness” testimony
3)he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning”

Furthermore, Luke proves his historical interest by correlating his narration of the life of Christ with secular history and exact dates. He not only tells when Jesus was born (when “Caesar Augustus” was king, Luke 2:1) but also the exact year when Jesus began his ministry, namely, “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Casear - when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Taconitisi, a Lysanais tetrarch of Abilene – during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1-2). All of these check out with secular history of the time. Also, Colin Hemer has provided strong arguments for Acts being written by a.d. 62., and since Luke was written before Acts, it follows that the gospel of Luke comes from around a.d. 60. But this is only twenty-seven years after Christ died and rose from the dead, which means that many of the generation of the eyewitnesses of Christ of which Luke speaks (Luke 1:2) were still alive when he wrote his gospel, a strong indication of its historical reliability (because eyewitnesses could refute the claims of the gospel)

William F. Albright, with a lifetime of research under his belt, wrote:

“In short, thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between a.d. 25 and a.d. 80.”

Albright also affirmed:

“I should answer that, in my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century a.d. (very probably sometime between about ad 50 and 75).”

Albright even went so far as to say:

“The evidence from the Qumran community shows that the concepts, terminology, and mindset of the gospel of John is probably early first-century.”

Albright also believed:

“Biblical and historical data are accurate to an extent far surpassing the ideas of any modern critical students, who have consistently tended to err on the side of hypercriticisms.”

Since Jesus died in a.d. 33, placing some books in the 50s and 60s would mean that it was written within twenty to thirty years of the events, while most eyewitnesses were still alive! That there are multiple records involved (eight or nine authors and twenty seven books) provides a strong basis for the historicity of their writings.

The gospels are too early to be mythological:

Julius Muller challenged the scholars of his day to produce even one example where in one generation a myth developed where the most prominent elements are the myths. None has ever met the challenge because none exist. Sherwin White observed:

“Herodotus enables us to test the temp of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.”

Archaeological confirmation of the gospels:

The mention of Pharisees, Sadducees, Jewish traditions, customs, and even the use of Aramaic words, along with the cities and topography of the land, are all very familiar to the documentation of first-century Judaism as recorded by Flavius Josephus and others. Also, the New Testament mentions historical figures like Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Casear, Quirinius, govern of Syria, King Herod, Pontius Pilate, Annas and Caiaphas, the high priests; John the Baptist, and others. All of these are known to have existed and operated in the time and place to which the New Testament locates them. Also, there are references in the gospels that are supported by specific archaeological discoveries, such as the Siloam pool, , the pool of Bethesda, the synagogue in Capernaum , the foundation of Herod’s temple, Pilate’s pratorium, the vicinity of Golgotha, and the Garden Tomb. Likewise, the “Titulus Venetus” helps to illuminate Augustus’s census (in Luke 2:1). A Latin Plaque mentions “Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea.” Even the bones of a first-century crucifixion victim, Yohana, support the gruesome presentation of Christ’s death. And the Nazareth Decree (found in 1878), perhaps circulated between a.d. 41 and 54, is curious in view of the Jewish claim that Jesus’ body have been stolen rather than resurrected. Since all previous Roman indictments of this nature involved only a fine, why should such a strong penalty be leveled in Palestine just after Jesus died, was reported to have risen from the tomb, and while His disciples were stirring up dissent in Palestine? Like the rest of Scripture, the life of Christ portrayed in the Gospels fits perfectly into the known fact unearthed by the archaeology of this period; nothing has ever been found to contradiction it, and numerous find have supported it.

Confirmation of the New Testament from the Basic Facts Position:

Professor Gary Habermas argues from what can be called the “basic facts position.” Beginning with the truths that almost all critical scholars of the New Testament agree upon, he maintains that the best explanation is that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead—all of which is at the heart of the historicity of the New Testament. He lists “at least twelve separate facts that are agreed to be knowable history” by “practically all critical scholars”. These include:

1)Jesus died by crucifixion
2)Jesus was buried
3)his disciples despaired
4)the tomb was later found empty
5)the disciples believed they later saw literal appearances of Jesus
6)they were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers after his resurrection
7)this message was the center of their early preaching
8)they preached this in Jerusalem shortly after it happened
9)the church was born and grew rapidly
10)Sunday was their primary day of worship
11)James was converted from skepticism to belief in the resurrection of Jesus
12)A few years later Paul was converted, proclaiming that he had seen the resurrected Christ.

On the basis it can be argued that no purely naturalistic theory explains all these facts and that the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts. Further, taking even four of these facts that are accepted by virtually all critical scholars (1, 5, 6, and 12) the case can still be made that the literal resurrection is the best explanation for these four facts. Habermas concludes:

“These core facts also provide the major positive evidence for Jesus literal resurrection appearances…thus these core historical facts provide positive evidence which further verify the disciples claims concerning Jesus’ literal resurrection, especially in that these arguments have not been accounted for naturalistically.”

The top reasons we know the gospels writers told the truth:

1)The gospel writers made no attempt to harmonize their accounts

Eyewitnesses offering truthful accounts rarely tell the same story word-for-word. Overlaps in testimony on crucial points are expected but exactness in details is rare. This is exactly what we have in the gospels, there is unanimity on the centrals facts about the life death and resurrection of Christ, along with significant but reconcilable differences in the details. Sometimes, there is even an apparent contradiction from one account to another. Surely no writers in collusion would have allowed all apparent contradictions in the record. While it has never been demonstrated that these are real contradictions (divergent details are not contradictory details, this much is certain: the writers were not conspiring together to tell story that was not true.

2)The gospel writers included passages that place Jesus in a bad light

Among these are the facts that Jesus was called a “drunkard” (Matt. 11:10), a madman (John 10:20), demon-possessed (John 8:48), and that his brothers did not believe in him (John 7:5). Surely no one trying to paint a perfect picture tell a myth would have allowed this in their record of their great hero, to say nothing of the one who they believed to be the Son of God.

3)The gospel writers left difficult passages in their text

If Jesus is really God, then why did they believe in Jesus’ statement “the father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and “no one times the time, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son” (Matt. 24:36)? Also, why did he rebuke the rich young ruler when he called Jesus “good master” and insist that only God was good (from whom he appeared to be disassociating himself)?

4) The gospel writers record self-incriminating stories

Granted that one of the apostles wrote a gospel, or had strong influence on someone who wrote a gospel, why would they leave in self-incriminating things on the record such as: all the disciples falling asleep when Jesus asked them to pray (Mark 14:32-41); Peter being called “Satan” by Jesus (Matt. 16:23); Peter denying the Lord three times (Luke 22:34); the disciples fleeing when things got really tough (at the crucifixion, Mark 14:50); Peter cutting of the ear of the servant of the high priest (Mrk 14:47), or, in spite of repeated teaching that he would rise from the dead, the disciples being doubtful and disbelieving when they heard of Jesus resurrection?
5) The gospel writers carefully distinguish Jesus words from their own

Any literate young adult could take a black and white version of the gospels and accurately add quotations marks around the words of Jesus, so carefully are they distinguished from the writers own words. The fact that all red-letter editions of the bible are virtually identical illustrates how clear this distinction is. But why should the gospel writers be so careful to distinguish Jesus’ words from theirs if they were simply putting words in Jesus’ mouth? This distinction demonstrates that, contrary to form and redaction criticism, they were really reporting, not creating, the words of Jesus.

6)The gospel writers claim they based their record on eyewitness testimony

If what the gospel writers said was fraud, pious or not, someone would have cracked under this pressure and confessed that what they said was not true. But no one did. This is itself is as strong testimony to the truth of the gospel records. First, there is the clear claim of the gospel of Luke to be historical, Luke 1:1-4 says, “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also for me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Furthermore, this is not a mere claim, since the author of the gospel of Luke has shown himself to be an excellent historian. Second, the author of John claims he was witness to the events recorded there, saying, “this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know his testimony is true” (John 21:24). Third, the author of 2 Peter claimed to be an eyewitness of Christ, saying “we did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16). Fourth, the entire New Testament record contains many indications of an eyewitness account, having a lively immediacy that bespeaks an eyewitness retelling, reflecting knowledge of first-century places, persons, customs, topography and geography. There are references to verifiable cities like Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and many other cities of first century Palestine, along with religious knowledge about Pharisees and Sadducees.

7)Non-Christian sources confirm the gospel record

In addition to the biblical data, there are non-Christian sources for the life of Christ, including Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, and Josephus.

8)The gospel writers did not deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death

One sure-fire way to determine whether a person is telling the truth is to persecute or threaten to kill them unless he changes his view. It is well known that the early Christians, among them were the gospel writers, were put in this situation repeatedly; Acts 4, 5, 7 and 8 are notable examples of this in the early church. Paul tells of his incredible woes for Christ, “Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger for my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea, and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have hunger and thirst and have often gone without food, I have been cold and naked. And besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:24-28). It is a psychological fact that few, if any, would endure these experiences for what they knew to be a lie.


Objections to the historicity of the New Testament

1) Are miraculous accounts unreliable?

No one has ever offered a definitive argument showing that miracles are impossible. Every attempt simply begs the question by defining miracles as impossible. If a theistic God exists, then miracles are possible. It follows then that the only way to disprove the possibility of miracles is to disprove the existence of God and, despite all the attempts, no one has been able to provide an absolute (or even convincing) disproof. Furthurmore, there is an inconsistency in the critics arguments. Ancient historians accept the reliability of other ancient accounts of events that contain miracle claims in them. As Gary Habermas notes, “Ancient histories regularly recounted supernatural reports of all sorts, including omens and portens, prophecies, healing miracles, various sorts of divine intervention, as well as demonic activity.” Inclusion of alleged miracles is also part of the reports of Tacitus and Suetonius, whose accounts are widely accepted by modern historians as well as containing reliable historical accounts.

2)Do unusual claims demand unusual evidence?

First, the word “unusual” is ambiguous. Does it mean supernatural? If so, then it begs the question, for it amounts to saying, “a miraculous claim demands miraculous evidence.” But if one provided miraculous evidence for that, the objector would ask miraculous evidence for that, and so on to infinity. In this case, one could never verify anything by a miraculous claim.

Second, if “unusual” simply means merely more than normal, then the New Testament meets the challenge, since there are more manuscripts, earlier ones, more accurately copied ones, with more witnesses, and more corroborated by external evidence for the New Testament than any other book from antiquity.

Third, the word “unusual” is imprecise. How unusual does the evidence have to be? Who determines its meaning? What are the objective criteria for unusualness? Are these applied consistently with other unusual claims in history and other disciplines?

Fourth, many views in modern science that are very unusual have been accepted. The Big Bang theory is a case in point: by the standards operating in modern science, the explosions of the universe out of nothing was a highly unusual event. Yet only normal scientific evidence has been required to believe it, such as the second law of thermodynamics, and an expanding universe, etc.

Fifth, many purely natural events are highly unusual; for example, virtually everything in nature contracts as it gets colder, yet when water reaches 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it expands. Scientists do not require high unusual evidence that this is so--only the regular observation demanded to establish other natural events.

In short, the claim that “unusual events demand unusual evidence” is an unusual claim that needs unusual evidence as to why it should be accepted. Thus, it fails to undermine the historicity of the New Testament, there is more than ample evidence for the miraculous claims it contains.

3)Long discourses could not have been remembered years later
T
here are many long discourse of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, including the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the denunciation of the Jewish leaders, the Mount Olivet Discourse, the Upper Room Discourse, and the high-priestly prayer. It is alleged to be very unlikely that these could have been remembered word for word a generation or more later, when they were recorded. In response, the critics overlook some important facts: First, their dates for the gospels are too late. Evidence places the writings closer to the events than previously thought, even within ten years, according to some (like liberal critic John A.T. Robinson). Second, memories were more highly developed in this pre-literary culture, making it feasible that all of this was memorized. Third, even today many persons have memorized much more than this, even whole gospels. Fourth, Matthew, who has most of the long discourses, was a record keeper by vocation. He may have kept records of Jesus actual words that were then available for others, just as the early Christian writer Papias said he did. Fifth, even if these long discourses were summaries and paraphrases of Jesus’ exact words, there is no evidence to indicate they they are not accurate. In fact, as we have seen above, all the evidence is to the contary. Sixth, Jesus’ promised a supernatural activation of the disciple’s memories, saying, “But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).

CONCLUSION

The historicity of the New Testament is based on more solid evidence than that for any other event of its era, for no other event is based on more manuscripts that are more accurately copied or that were written by more people who were eyewitnesses of the events and who wrote down the material within the lifetimes f its contemporaries. Were it not for an ungrounded supernatural bias of the negative critics, the gospel accounts would be unquestioned as to their historicity – which indeed they were among bible scholars some 1800 years after the events.

Here are some of my objections to the validity of this recent find (the bones of Jesus):

1) If they are the bones of Jesus, why didnt the Roman and Jewish authorities simply parade Jesus' dead body around the city? You may say, "because they apostles stole his body". However, why would they die for something they know to be untrue? Also, if they stole his body, why was it supposedly found 20 years ago?

2) As stated by the archaeologist that discovered the find, these names are very common.

3) Because the NT contains the most information regarding Jesus, the New Testament is the authority. Surely we cannot simply disregard all of the above evidence due to this 21st century find.

4) Because the NT makes no mention that Jesus was married and fathered a child, we should suspect that he did not.

The skeptic must also explain why the teachings of a first century peasant from Galilee became the greatest religion this world has ever seen. Also, why do non-Christians (even atheists) have near death experiences in which they are condemned to hell by Jesus Christ Himself? Also, what does the skeptic do with angelic experiences (not to mention other claims to the miraculous)? What does the skeptic do with biblical prophecy (10 of which Jesus made, and were fulfilled after his ascension to Heaven)? The best explanation is that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected.

Someone comming in here and debunking other peoples theories and statements by saying that the resurection was scientificly proven is what gives christians the sterotype of being stupid and uneducated, if more of them would approach it like Jonathan then there wouldnt be such animosity and name calling toward them.

Re: Jonothan's message:

Where did you learn this?

NONE OF THAT is proof of Jesus' dvinity and resurection, I am looking for the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Jesus was Resurected from the dead... that just proves that these people and places existed but not that they were holy!!

I do believe that Mr. Cameron agrees with the axiom that any publicity is good publicity. And someone like himself who has not had a successful film in some time will go to any means to get a little publicity. I'm sure he will find many angry people like Stephan, Luke and Mark who will pay good money to see Mr. Cameron's entertaining fiction in hopes of proving to themselves that there is truly NO GOD... and thus relieving the guilt and emptyness they feel about their own lives... I find that sad because God offers that relief and more to those who believe.

this isnt a movie it is something showing on the discovery channel, Cameron makes it a point not to make movies too often and ANY movie he makes is an instant hit... he does not need the publicity or the money, (people will not be paying to go see it) And he hasnt been making movies recently because he is into history and has been doing mostly documentaries just for fun, he is rich beyond imagination, to say he hasnt had a succesful movie in years, well because he hasnt made one!! I mean he has the Midas touch when it comes to movies!! And the only one of those people who are angry was the first stephan the others are simply asking questions!! And someone not believing in Jesus does NOT mean they dont believe in G-d!!

Thank you for the kind words Jay. I consider myself well educated. I've completed 3 and a half years of college, and am 3 years into my post graduate work (pharmacy). The problem i find with christians, being one myself, is how they are raised. I was essentially thrown out of the church i was raised in for reading the Apothacra. Where i'm from, most the kids from the church were home-schooled. They never met anyone who wasn't like them, they didn't know people existed who didn't think just like them. I believe everything the bible says is true and divine, but I can't know for sure. Faith is good enough for me. I hope it is for others, but yelling, shouting, and condemning people who don't think the same as i do, is not a very good way to persuade them to believe in jesus chrict as a personal lord and savior. It's actually the best way to turn people away from God.
With all this said, earlier someone asked if we would even watch this documentary. I will not. if i beleived a poor family from nazareth could own an expensive burial cave in juresalem i would, but it's just not possible. James cameron, in my opinion is chasing dwon a dollar

God bless all, i have studying to do now

Hey B., where did i learn what? compassion? faith? love? I learned all these things from the bible, just like alot of people who persecute others for not believing in the bible. I had good enough parents to teach me when i was young that a majority of people who claim to be christians don't show they are christinas in their actions. It is just as the bible says, judge a vine by it's fruit.

As to something else, you'll have to help me with what you're asking. I'll stay on here a little longer to give a response if this don't get it done

Hey B., I learned love faith and compassion from the bible ;) I was fortunate enough to have great parents, who taught me that many "christians" are simply lying to themselves, and those are the people who attack and oppress others. The bible says judge a vine by it's fruit, round-aboutley anyway. I think it actually says judge a man by his fruits. But if someone claims to be a christian, and is filled with hate and other vile things, he dosn't bare the fruit of christianity. They don't truly have christ within them, or they wouldn't be spewing hate.

Hope that answers it for ya. if that wasn't the question you were asking, i'll stay on here for a few minutes more. Just ask it again and i'll try to answer.

Hey B., I learned love faith and compassion from the bible ;) I was fortunate enough to have great parents, who taught me that many "christians" are simply lying to themselves, and those are the people who attack and oppress others. The bible says judge a vine by it's fruit, round-aboutley anyway. I think it actually says judge a man by his fruits. But if someone claims to be a christian, and is filled with hate and other vile things, he dosn't bare the fruit of christianity. They don't truly have christ within them, or they wouldn't be spewing hate.

Hope that answers it for ya. if that wasn't the question you were asking, i'll stay on here for a few minutes more. Just ask it again and i'll try to answer.

sorry about the tripple post. had a computer back up issue

Lovely dissertation Adam.
Very thorough.
It is, of course, something we have discussed above (ie. The proven existence of Jesus).
Re: Your objections/resevations
1. It is suggested that he may have survived.
2. VERY good point.
3. The New Testament is commonly suspected of being selected from a set of sometimes contradictary works.
4. There would, of course, be very good reasons for the established church NOT to mention this.

I PROMISE I mean no disrespect by this. I am genuinely curious.

Sorry Jonothan, for the delay.
Hello.
I guess my issue was with "We must belief with faith, not with [PROOF]. A leap of faith must be taken towards christianity or atheism". And I'm wondering whether this was learned from the Bible or from elsewhere.
I Wondered whether this meant we must ignore proof!!!
You DO make a lot of sense. I was just curious.

(Just so you know; I am not an atheist. I would describe myself as an agnostic, which means, according to my understanding, someone who doesn't know!)

I'm not saying ignore proof by any means. Hitler existed. holocaust happened. Napoleaon was RIDICULOUSLY short! I just mean that whether or not jesus christ is the son of god is a faith issue. There isn't any proof as to divinity of christ, although there is a lot of proof that jesus did walk the earth. There is about 5 books worth left by adam. As to divinity, I just don't think there's any proof to be found for or against christ's divinity. I would say i learned this elsewhere, as it is not specifically stated in my words in the bible, although the bible does teach to have faith in christ, and to believe and what we do not see, again paraphrased slightly ( 8+ years since i had to memorize it)

B.,

1) The Swoon Theory (the belief that Jesus survived the crucifixion) has been proven to be ridiculous and has more or less been laughed out of existence by modern day scholars. I apologize for not elaborating (you must do the research yourself--too time consuming for me, after all, i have nothing to prove to myself). I suggest the book "the historical Jesus" by Gary Habermas.

3) there are apparent contradictions in the new testament, but they are only apparent. Divergent details do not mean contradictory details, all supposed "contradictory details" can be reconciled with one another.

4) if the church believed Christianity, it would be a good idea for them not to mention this. But it isnt the church that created Christianity, it is christianity that created the church. The church was founded on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is similiar to saying that the apostles were fueled by religion, when in reality it was the other way around: religion was fueled by the apostles.

5) there have even been scholars who admit that Jesus performed miracles. The Jewish Talmund also admits that Jesus performed miracles "by practicing sorcery." If we have much evidence that Jesus performed miracles, we should suspect that he also rose from the dead, and as a result, the body in that tomb is not his.