• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the bible historically accurate?

noob

Member
They are documents drafted by men and should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other historical document.

I agree. What I want to know, is: Are the gospels historically accurate? Do they dictate the truth, or are they fictional?
 

noob

Member
What i mean is, if the bible has discrepancies, wouldn't their be a high possibility that the bible is fictional, whereas, if other documents corresponded and corroborated with what the bible says, than it is highly likely that the bible is an account of facts and truthful accounts.
 

Doktormartini

小虎
noob said:
I agree. What I want to know, is: Are the gospels historically accurate? Do they dictate the truth, or are they fictional?
To me they are fictional. For one, they were written written awhile after Jesus's death. If that is true, it would be pretty hard to remember everything and what Jesus said and what not.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
noob said:
So if their is a possibility that the bible is fictional, than their is a possibility that Christianity is a made up religion?
I wouldn't say Christianity is made-up, but i would say that it was designed.

Try and imagine you are back in the first century, you would find many people who believe in a man called Jesus but most of them have different beliefs about who or what Jesus was.
Small groups of people begin to take shape, people with similar views of who Jesus was. These groups then start writing texts about Jesus, some of them write biographical gospels, others collate sayings attributed to Jesus, still others write pure mythology centred on Jesus. We end up with various groups who all call themselves Christian but have very different beliefs and use very different religious texts.

Now skip forward to the second century, we have one group that stands out from the others as it is the largest and most organised. This group of people share a common set of beliefs, that Jesus was the son of God, that he died and was resurrected, and that by believing in his sacrifice and resurrection they will receive eternal reward.

This group collected together those texts that supported their view of Jesus, rejecting the vast majority of what had been written. They chose four similar gospels and several letters which supported their Christology, eventually one apocalyptic text was chosen to complete the canon.
This carefully constructed new testament canon portrays Jesus in a specific manner and delivers a specific message. With the addition of the Jewish Tanach we get todays Holy Bible.

The Holy Bible is the template for one form of Christianity, all other literature is declared heretical and other Christian religions are supressed and eventually destroyed - the Bible becomes the only source for Christians and Christian converts, the orthodox form of Christianity becomes the only form of Christianity avaliable.
 

ProfLogic

Well-Known Member
noob said:
Discrepencies in the bible would make anything stated in the bible as false or unlikely.

Maybe questionable is a better word to use. People who wrote the bible might have been under the influenced of another awareness that made them believe what they are writing is the truth is also a possibility. Since no one is alive from that era, it is hard to determine the validity of the facts of the bible, its just a tool that humanity uses to do its own purpose...
 

ProfLogic

Well-Known Member
noob said:
Hi.
Does anybody know any non-biblical sources that correspond with and reinforce the historical accuracy of the bible?
I have heard of a Roman Historian named Josephus... Who was he and does his writings show that the bible is historically accurate?

I have seen none.... if the bible is accurate then in one case, story of noah.. it loves bateria that grows in water, alligators, amphibians, crocodiles, water snakes, ducks, fish, water mammals, etc since the great flood was suppose to be a clean slate as believers claimed. King david, more than likely was taken form an Egyptian king..... so it might be factual in that sense... People living for hundreds of years is not factual either.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Fact: Jesus Christ existed.

can anyone disprove this fact?

The way facts are disproven is by attacking the basis upon which they have been justified. I will happily attempt to disprove your fact as long as you produce your justification. I'm sure you can see how unreasonable the request would be if your justification was not forthcoming.

You are right. Nothing can prove that God exists. But if it is true that a man named Jesus Christ exist, that he claimed to be the son of God, and that he was crucified, and ressurrected, it is highly likely that God exists. At the least, it shows that Jesus' prophesy that he would be ressurected was true.

If it were demonstrated that Jesus existed, that he claimed to be God, that he was crucified and resurrected then this would still not justify his claims for godhood. If you replace Jesus with any other name then the implausibility of the argument becomes apparent.

I agree. What I want to know, is: Are the gospels historically accurate? Do they dictate the truth, or are they fictional?

As far as historical methods are concerned, the gospels are not historically accurate. This does not mean they are fictional. Just that their accuracy cannot be verified by historical means.

Discrepencies in the bible would make anything stated in the bible as false or unlikely.

The Bible is a collection of books by different authors that were bound together hundreds of years after they were written. It would be totally unfair to discard them all if one were proved faulty.

What if I told you their is.

Then produce it :). It must be empirical in nature if you want to talk about historical accuracy, however.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Of course the Bible makes many claims; some as a narrative and some intended as a history.

Some of these claims can be validated externally. Some of these claims cannot be validated externally. Some of these can be refuted externally. Some are contrary with other parts of the Bible and so can be refuted internally.

Portions of the Bible are, at least in part, represetantive of reality. Other portions (the bulk I suspect) are not. If you have a question over a specific claim then I defer to Fluffy's post. Post your support and we can refute or agree.
 

ProfLogic

Well-Known Member
JerryL said:
.
Some of these claims can be validated externally.

Can you site key stories that can be proven without any question?


For example, The spanish conquistadors spread Christianity through out the world has been in multiple historical books and also where part of the countries' histories and were handed down from ancestors and also was in Spains historical records also. That to me seems factual.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
The xian bible is mainly a book of fiction meant to either teach simple lessons of philosophy, and to push the literal view of a Christ.
 

noob

Member
I will happily attempt to disprove your fact as long as you produce your justification. -Fluffy

Ok.
Fact: Jesus Christ Existed.

My reasoning is that, If the bible is the only source that speaks of Jesus, than it is highly possible that "Christians" made up the figure of Jesus, as well as "designed" a religion, and that Jesus Christ is a fictional character of the gospels. Basically, If Jesus appears in books only written by Christians, than it is likely that they made him up.

I believe that Jesus Christ did exist, was tried at a trial presided by Pontius Pilate, was crucified, placed in a tomb, and ressurected. I believe this is a fact.

First of all, the 4 gospels were written by different authors. It can be suggested that they got together and thought up 4 stories that told the same story, accurately, and without discrepancy.

But we have secular authors who also refer to Jesus Christ!
Josephus was a First Century Jewish Historian who wrote about Jerusalem.

He refers to Jesus: "... 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 20.9.1

"... 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..." Antiquities 18.3.3

Tacitus was an important historian of Roman Antiquity.
"... Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..."

We have a Jewish and Roman Historian who corroborate the gospels (matt, mark, luke, john). Jesus was tried by the Jews, and hated by many of them. He was put to death at a trial presided over by a Roman procurator. May I note that Josephus was connected to the sect of Pharisees, and that Tacitus was not a Christian.

Here is my proof. Please. Shake my foundations.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Is the bible historically accurate?
To a degree, I would say yes.

I don't think anything before the reign of Josiah as been historically accurate, and even then I would suspect even afterward it is not.

For example, do I believe what happen with Nebuchadrezzar II and Belshazzar as recorded in the Book of Daniel? No. I find this a bit hokey.

As to the gospels... well, I don't know.
 

noob

Member
This Post is directed toward ProfLogic:

People who wrote the bible might have been under the influenced of another awareness that made them believe what they are writing is the truth is also a possibility. Since no one is alive from that era, it is hard to determine the validity of the facts of the bible, its just a tool that humanity uses to do its own purpose...

An awareness that made them believe that what they were writing was the truth?
Well than, what is the purpose of this "awareness." To make people believe he is divine? That didn't happen. To give Humanity a tool to do its own purpose? In all cases, the emphasis is being placed AWAY from this awareness. Than is the awareness trying to hide or have people not notice him(/her)... ? Than why not just do nothing. No, this awareness has no need to befuddle us Humans, or create a new religion via Christians.

You are merely speculating with no basis or proof.
You state that it is hard to determine the validity of the facts of the bible. Well i say that Jesus Christ did exist, was crucified, and ressurrected. And I say this because the gospels have been corroborated by Josephus and Tacitus. The Roman method of torture and execution is accurately described in the bibly and will satisfy many Historians who have studied Rome.

And remember... the Bible's purpose is to bring Glory to God through His son, Jesus Christ. Not a tool used by Humans for the purpose of Humans. It is used by Humans for the purpose of God. The Bible itself is a testament to that.

Whether it makes us humane is up to you...
 

noob

Member
I will happily attempt to disprove your fact as long as you produce your justification. -Fluffy

Ok.
Fact: Jesus Christ Existed.

My reasoning is that, If the bible is the only source that speaks of Jesus, than it is highly possible that "Christians" made up the figure of Jesus, as well as "designed" a religion, and that Jesus Christ is a fictional character of the gospels. Basically, If Jesus appears in books only written by Christians, than it is likely that they made him up.

I believe that Jesus Christ did exist, was tried at a trial presided by Pontius Pilate, was crucified, placed in a tomb, and ressurected. I believe this is a fact.

First of all, the 4 gospels were written by different authors. It can be suggested that they got together and thought up 4 stories that told the same story, accurately, and without discrepancy.

But we have secular authors who also refer to Jesus Christ!
Josephus was a First Century Jewish Historian who wrote about Jerusalem.

He refers to Jesus: "... 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 20.9.1

"... 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..." Antiquities 18.3.3

Tacitus was an important historian of Roman Antiquity.
"... Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate..."

We have a Jewish and Roman Historian who corroborate the gospels (matt, mark, luke, john). Jesus was tried by the Jews, and hated by many of them. He was put to death at a trial presided over by a Roman procurator. May I note that Josephus was connected to the sect of Pharisees, and that Tacitus was not a Christian.

Here is my proof. Please. Shake my foundations.
 
In 71 he arrived in Rome in the entourage of Titus, becoming a Roman citizen and Flavian client (hence he is often referred to as Flavius Josephus - see below). In addition to Roman citizenship he was granted accommodation in Vespasian's former home, land in conquered Judea, and a decent, if not extravagant, pension. It was while in Rome, and under Flavian patronage, that Josephus wrote all of his known works.

Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100


We'll break this down step by step. Josephus wrote the history after the bible was written as will be seen below.
Josephus offers information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. His writings provide a significant, extra-biblical account of the post-exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a highly disputed reference to Jesus. He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity).
[edit]



now this isn't not set in stone, but there is some controversy over the topic

(or: Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 117)



Only the first four books and twenty-six chapters of the fifth book have survived, covering the year 69 and the first part of 70.

his work that survived isn't even on jesus' lifetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65).

The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.


http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

all of these 4 books draw on each other. especially john.

the history that tactius and josephus could of been based on the apostles words. since the books were written from c. 45 AD to c. 140 AD. luke is the definately the earliest. Both of these men were born after christ. Four years to be exact for josephus which is likely the most creditable if his mention of jesus. It is however disputed whether or not if jesus was added in by later christian scholars. Although widely accepted by most modern scholars there are others that dispute it.

Now tactius work covers the years after the first three books were written. Josephus's work was all written after the first three books of the bible were written.

We will never know and I can't make a logical conclusion on the evidence provided.

It makes sense there was a man, but because of all the other people that did the same exact things jesus did dating up to 3000 years before him. Things like dying on the cross for our sins, walking on water, curing lephyrs, making the blind see, casting out demons, rising again on the third day( a common religious number), ascending into the sky, yada yada yada.

I'm pretty convinced all of his life was ficticious besides the fact that he lived and he gave an amazing message that the apostles felt they need to elaborate on to inspire awe and a mass appeal in a time where people would believe such tales. Also drawing on the, probably, made up saying of him on him being the only way to the father- so others would have to believe or the alterative wasn't that great...
 
Top