Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[Spartan]

Philo wrote about Pontius Pilate during Pilate's time, so we do have written material on Pilate, there are also some artifacts that confirm his existence.

And there's forty-two authors who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his death - nine of whom were secular. Scholar Gary Habermas, in his Book "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" (p.233), listed the following: 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, and Thallus.

Why not more?

“New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, who served as an editor and contributor to a large scholarly work on the Gospels (‘Gospel Perspectives’), provides four reasons why more was not written on Jesus in his time: “the humble beginnings of Christianity; the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman empire; the small percentage of the works of ancient Greco-Roman historians which have survived, and the lack of attention paid by those who are extant to Jewish figures in general.” We know that about half of what the Roman historian Tacticus wrote is no longer available. Only a fragment of what Thallus wrote in the first century about ancient Mediterranean history has survived. Seutonius was aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, yet his writings are no longer available. Herod the Great’s secretary, Nicholas of Damascus, wrote a Universal History in 144 books, none of which have survived. Livy, the great Roman historian, has suffered a similar fate. Only his early books and excerpts of the rest survived.”

“We also know of several early Christian writings that are no longer available. For example, an influential church leader of the early part of the second century named Papias wrote five books that are quoted by several early church fathers. However, none of these books survived. Only a few citations and slight summary information remain. Quadratus was a Christian leader who wrote a defense of the Christian faith to the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 125. However, if Eusebius had not quoted a paragraph and mentioned his work, we would be totally unaware of its composition. The five books of ‘Recollections,’ written by Hegesippus in the second century, have likewise been lost.” – The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, page 127

One other thing, it’s entirely likely that numerous other historical works were lost when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Most scholars"?? Not in a million years. In fact, the mythical Q source has fallen out of favor, and here's the reasons why:

The Case Against Q: Ten Reasons

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One of the big ones is that Matthew and Peter and John, etc., most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. He's the PRIMARY source. Q is not necessary.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, 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."

That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.

And that's why Q and your Wikipedia is Biblically and Spiritually challenged!

How does any of that make the case for the existence of the supernatural? That would be something that needs to be demonstrated, rather than just asserted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You cannot compare the faith based on truth which is personal to faith in general.

Sorry, but that doesn't really make any sense to me. What is the difference between "faith based on truth" and "personal to faith in general?"
My definition of faith is, "the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence/reasons." If you had good evidence, you'd cite that instead of claiming "faith."

Why do you think you can keep avoiding the issues by not addressing the facts.

What facts, and what is it that you think I'm avoiding?

Faith as in the God YHWH tells you that you will know the truth and it sets you free. TRUTH is you never looked any deeper into the real issues needing debating.

No gods have ever told me anything. What evidence do you have to indicate that god(s) exist?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is a good source about Him! Apostles not only met Him - they practically were together all the time! But of course, the non-believers doesn't accept the Bible.

There were some mention of Him and Christianity outside the Bible, and what were written does not negate what was said about Him in the Bible.

There is no comparison between Jesus and Pilate - as to who they were at the time.
Being the governor, we know Pilate was an important man.
Jesus, on the other hand was known as the son of a carpenter from Nazareth though He had His followers (a lot of whom had left Him due to His teachings). Don't forget that even His own apostles did not really understand what He was on about.

It's also only rational to assume that the hearsays about Him and His miracles were most likely dismissed by many as well.

It was only AFTER His Resurrection that Christianity caught, and spread like wildfire in the region - because of the many witnesses to His coming back from the dead - and the movement had gotten much attention (which resulted in persecutions).

How do you know that what was said about Jesus in the Bible is accurate?

 

[Spartan]

How does any of that make the case for the existence of the supernatural? That would be something that needs to be demonstrated, rather than just asserted.

It wasn't posted to make the case for the supernatural. It was posted to show how lame and discredited the Q theory is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It wasn't posted to make the case for the supernatural. It was posted to show how lame and discredited the Q theory is.

Then why did you say, "That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural."

 

[lukethethird]

Red-flagged term that gives you away: you are biased against the Bible. Yours isn't in any way an objective argument.



Whether the author is known or unknown..... is irrelevant.


Why wouldn't be the Bible be any good as any ancient writing that talked about.......Babylon, as an example?

Credibility-wise, I think the Bible racks up point when it comes to reafirmation from science and archeology. And, Philosophy! Quite impressive for a single book!

Just because authors are known, doesn't mean they are credible in everything they write about. An example would be Herodotus.


Beautiful Babylon: Jewel of the Ancient World

So, there you go.

So you read gMark and you are saying it is not fantasy, the miracles were a daily occurrence for real?

 

[lukethethird]

And there's forty-two authors who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his death - nine of whom were secular...

But none in the first century, unless you want to count Josephus and lose that debate as well. People started writing about Jesus in the second century, interesting. How many of those Christian?

 

[Spartan]

But none in the first century, unless you want to count Josephus and lose that debate as well. People started writing about Jesus in the second century, interesting. How many of those Christian?

It doesn't matter how many wrote in the first century. You won't believe them either. So quit asking.

 

[Spartan]

Then why did you say, "That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural."

Just to throw you into a tizzy. It worked.

 

[lukethethird]

It doesn't matter how many wrote in the first century. You won't believe them either. So quit asking.

Aside from the NT writers, no one wrote about Jesus in the first century, however that is not to say that the author of Mark did not have an itinerant preacher in mind when he wrote his gospel. We just have no way of knowing what went down because gMark reads like a parable, and the other gospels are dependent on gMark, so we don't know the mythical Jesus from the historical.

 

[joelr]

Which story are you actually refrring to, that it was "stolen" from?
Name it please.

Don't just make a claim that we have no way of looking into. For all we know, you could've misunderstood what you read! No offense intended.
That happens sometime in other forums - an atheist thinks the article he's given supports his views when in fact, upon closer inspection it's really supporting my views!

It's a good idea for Christians or religious people to really read the sources that your atheist opponent gives you. It may surprise you!

Give your source.

There are many OT narratives stolen and transformed into the NT.
One example is Jesus as Elija-Elisha from Kings, the story is copied exactly sometimes with transformations/reversals etc..
Carrier explains it with examples here at 22:36

at 39:24 there is another example of a story from Luke being transformed into a NT story.
These are well known and accepted by scholarship of real examples of writers copying stories from the OT.


Beyond that we have clear evidence of the Persian Zororastrian religion being folded into the OT and the Jesus narrative following older pagan savior god religions. Plenty of examples there as well.

A brief touching on the subject without examples is in the article I linked to below:

"Jesus belongs to a fraternity of worshipped demigods peculiar to the Greco-Roman era and region. All were “savior gods” (literally so called). They were all the “son” of God (occasionally his “daughter”). They all undergo a “passion” (literally the same word in the Greek, patheôn), which was some suffering or struggle (sometimes even resulting in death), through which they all obtain victory over death, which they share in some fashion with their followers. They all had stories about them set in human history on earth. Yet none of them ever actually existed. Jesus can be shown to belong to several other typically mythical classes of person as well, unlike almost every other figure of antiquity (even the greatest of emperors and kings).[9] These people were, more often than not, not historical. Yet all were depicted as such in stories written by their believers. We cannot therefore simply declare Jesus the unusual exception. We need a reason. We need evidence. And when we look for it, it dissolves."

Well, they are deniers if they keep ignoring sound arguments/rebuttals.....and just simply digging in their heels and insist without even addressing the actual rebuttals that were given!
I notice that for some debaters - their method of a discussion is to skirt around the real issue and engage in deflecting: they bring up another issue!

There are no rebuttals except to keep ignoring the fact that all we have are 4 gospels, 3 copied from Mark and written in a religious mythical style. So they are not reliable sources of history.
Apologetics comes back at that argument with "it says in the gospels"...

The evidence for Hercules is about equal. There are no "Hercules deniers"? The only difference is we have more believers of Jesus but there are historical reasons - it was made law and militant evangelism and enforcement of the religion.

Why is it faulty assumption? Based on what?

By assumptions I mean assumptions that there was a historical Jesus that many in the field hold. Not the idea of a supernatural person. Historians do not argue for that.
He touches on some of the assumptions in this short article:
The Bible and Interpretation - Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?

Furthermore, Carrier had also said this about Anthony Flew:

So?

 

[joelr]

Why, what's wrong with historians from the actual 1st century?

Maybe, it was only the repercussions after His Resurrection that had made some impact for Christianity to be mentioned. Don't forget, it was after His Resurrection that Christianity EXPLODED in the region!

There were several outside references. Here is one:



https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence


Furthermore...

Jesus Christ: Myth or Genuine History?

There are no outside attestations that confirm Jesus was a demi-god. What there are are a few historians saying there were Christians who followed gospels and mentioned a few tenants of the religion. That's it.
Tacitus was writing that there were Christians who were persecuted by Nero 50 years prior. He mis-spelled Christos and it looks like he was just reading reports about Christians being persecuted and stated some of what the Christians believed. Hardly worth mentioning.

Christians NEVER mention this but Tacitus mentions dozens of Roman and other religions in much greater detail and took part in one Roman religion himself. Huh, chew on that.

"
Religion and Memory in Tacitus' Annals

.material in Tacitus’ Annals by analyzing them using cultural memory theory. Throughout his narrative of Julio-Claudian Rome in the Annals, Tacitus includes numerous references to the gods, fate, fortune, astrology, omens, temples, priests, emperor cult, and other religious material. Tacitus, who was not only a historian but also a member of Rome’s quindecimviral priesthood,


Religion and Memory in Tacitus' Annals - Oxford Scholarship




The source you provide- Bart Ehrman is a PhD historian, who argues for a historical Jesus. Not a demi-god Jesus. Bart believes Jesus was a man.


Christianity did not "explode" after the supposed resurrection.
In 3AD it was only 4% of Rome.

"Constantine required those who had not converted to Christianity to pay for the new city.[21] Christian chroniclers tell that it appeared necessary to Constantine "to teach his subjects to give up their rites ... and to accustom them to despise their temples and the images contained therein,"[23] This led to the closure of temples because of a lack of support, their wealth flowing to the imperial treasure;"

Through militant and financial measures the religion grew after 313 AD.
But before this Christianity was not what it is today, it was split between radically different theologies and the 1st canon the Marcionite is lost to us. Each group considered the other heretical.

Diversity in early Christian theology - Wikipedia[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

Sorry, but I really have to pound you on this. Still on Pontius Pilate.

Stop. Here's something for you to mull:

If there is not even a single Roman archival document about a prominent man, Pontius Pilate - the only mention of Pontius Pilate is written in the Bible - which is confirmed by archeology -

isn't that proof of the reliable historicity of the Bible?


Enough said.

They found a ring that may have been worn by an assistant on Pontius Pilate.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...ts/inscriptions/pontius-pilate-ring-herodium/

In case you hadn't figured this out yet, all myths and works of fiction set on Earth contain accurate historical information.
Greek myths contain references to wars happening and notable humans are always part of mythological tales.

The writers who wanted to create a Jewish version of the savior god craze would have set him in that area. If Pilate was some sort of leader why wouldn't he be involved in the death of the main character?
The gospel writers were highly educated and skilled writers (they tell the opposite in church settings) as the gospels make full use of all types of mythical devices, Markan sandwiches, ring structure, parables, allegory, it's excellent myth writing.
It's also not written as a history in any way.

Exactly none of the supernatural events from the bible that would have been noticed and recorded in all histories are there.
No zombies roaming around after the resurrection, no sun going out..

Spider Man is set in NY city, so is that real as well?
Have you noticed how extremely circumstantial and anecdotal all this "evidence" is that you are using?

 

[joelr]

And there's forty-two authors who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his death - nine of whom were secular. Scholar Gary Habermas, in his Book "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" (p.233), listed the following: 9 authors from the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude. 21 early Christian writers outside the NT - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabus, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophious of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum. 4 heretical writings - Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection. And 9 secular non-Christian sources, including Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Lucian, Celcus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, and Thallus.

AD.

Nope. It's demonstrated very clearly that all the gospels were just copies of Mark. In fact Matthew uses exactly 90% of the verbatin Greek.
The later gospels often disagree with canon but for some reason your using then as evidence?
Generally what Christians point out about those are that they were written after the fact so they don't count.

More fan-fiction.

All of the non-Christian sources are simply mentioning that there were a group of people named Christains and what they believed.

In fact Tacticus and most other non-Christian source also mentions all of the Roman and pagan religions at some point!?
Tacticus was part of a Roman cult?

"Tacitus includes numerous references to the gods, fate, fortune, astrology, omens, temples, priests, emperor cult, and other religious material. Tacitus, who was not only a historian but also a member of Rome’s quindecimviral priesthood,"

Same for all those outside sources, they mentions hundreds of gods and magic beings and it looks like Tacitus himself was a Sorceror.
wow, they all must be true then.

 

[Spartan]

Nope. It's demonstrated very clearly that all the gospels were just copies of Mark. In fact Matthew uses exactly 90% of the verbatin Greek.
The later gospels often disagree with canon but for some reason your using then as evidence?
Generally what Christians point out about those are that they were written after the fact so they don't count.

More fan-fiction.

That's what your post here is - fiction.

There should be no doubt that Matthew and Peter and John, etc., all likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, 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."

So, no need to copy Mark.

 

[Spartan]

Aside from the NT writers, no one wrote about Jesus in the first century, however that is not to say that the author of Mark did not have an itinerant preacher in mind when he wrote his gospel. We just have no way of knowing what went down because Mark reads like a parable, and the other gospels are dependent on Mark, so we don't know the mythical Jesus from the historical.

I don't believe that. See the post above.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Sorry, but that doesn't really make any sense to me. What is the difference between "faith based on truth" and "personal to faith in general?"My definition of faith is, "the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence/reasons." If you had good evidence, you'd cite that instead of claiming "faith."

The 'personal' aspect is very important in the issue of faith based on truth and personal faith in general.
Any person can claim they have faith which is a personal belief in any religion but the person who has personal faith based
In the Spirit and truth like the disciples are those born of the Spirit and receive the truth by the teaching of the Holy Spirit
which becomes a personal faith based on the real power that comes from God.

What facts, and what is it that you think I'm avoiding?

I believe the last answer shows you avoiding facts that are there for everyone to see and you overlook what is written and give
your own repy based on your limited knowledge and refusal to see past your own point of view.

No gods have ever told me anything. What evidence do you have to indicate that god(s) exist?

Did the teAchers come to your home and give you your lessons or did you have to go to school like everyone else and learn from
them? You see you have a choice with God, you can be lazy and do nothing putting no effort in and receive nothing.
Remain ignorant and showing you do not want to learn.
THAT, or make an effort to actually find out if any gods exist.

Your answers are not acceptable just putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes, won't make you beliefs right.
You need to have and show reasonable ideas for your belief. Truth is, it appears you wanted that belief and was never willing
to test it. With those in Spirit and Truth they have received what is promised by taking the necessary steps. But you! what steps have you taken to see if what you believe is correct?
If you just adopted that belief and are not interested in whether you are right or wrong, then you will never know for sure, will you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just to throw you into a tizzy. It worked.

Oh, okay, so then you were lying in post #1045?

Could you answer my questions?
Or are you just here to play games and try to work people into a tizzy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The 'personal' aspect is very important in the issue of faith based on truth and personal faith in general.
Any person can claim they have faith which is a personal belief in any religion but the person who has personal faith based
In the Spirit and truth like the disciples are those born of the Spirit and receive the truth by the teaching of the Holy Spirit
which becomes a personal faith based on the real power that comes from God.

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't convey anything meaningful to me

Can you demonstrate that your god exists, or is it just based on your faith belief?

I believe the last answer shows you avoiding facts that are there for everyone to see and you overlook what is written and give
your own repy based on your limited knowledge and refusal to see past your own point of view.

I believe I asked what facts you were referring to. I guess I have to ask again, because I don't see you listing of them here.

Did the teAchers come to your home and give you your lessons or did you have to go to school like everyone else and learn from
them? You see you have a choice with God, you can be lazy and do nothing putting no effort in and receive nothing.
Remain ignorant and showing you do not want to learn.
THAT, or make an effort to actually find out if any gods exist.

I'm not sure how this answers my question. What evidence do you have to indicate that god(s) exist?

I used to be a Christian. Don't bother telling me I didn't look, as you know nothing about me.

It seems to me like God is being the lazy one here. That's assuming "he" exists of course, which I don't do.

Your answers are not acceptable just putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes, won't make you beliefs right.
You need to have and show reasonable ideas for your belief. Truth is, it appears you wanted that belief and was never willing
to test it. With those in Spirit and Truth they have received what is promised by taking the necessary steps. But you! what steps have you taken to see if what you believe is correct?
If you just adopted that belief and are not interested in whether you are right or wrong, then you will never know for sure, will you?

What answers? I have been asking questions, and have received no answers that even address those questions. All I'm asking for is a demonstration that your claims are accurate. You can't seem to provide that.

I don't have a belief here. I lack belief. And I have in fact, asked you repeatedly to back up your repeated assertions about your beliefs.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]