• 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!

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

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
In your dreams. A novice atheist is Biblically-challenged. The ones I've encountered who do do some studies don't read anything but left-wing theological nonsense - whatever suits their biases.
Unless that atheist used to be a Christian, of course. Or has simply read the Bible.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
iT BOILS DOWN TO TRUTH. Something you reject and ignore according to your own unstable and unfounded beliefs, NOT once have you counteracted or been able to bring evidence to support
what you witter on about, You have been given factual truths but you bring down the shutters and write as above. You do not seek truth or to debate the issues or tenets of faith. Just write meaningless drivel that have no foundation in truth either known to scholars or even scientist. Go away and study till you can argue from a learned point of view. You waste everyones time with inuendo based on nothing but your own unfounded beliefs you cannot prove you have personal knowledge to sustain.
Faith is not a pathway to true, because anything can be believed on faith. That may be the problem.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Unless that atheist used to be a Christian, of course. Or has simply read the Bible.

Most Atheists I know were very well schooled in the Bible.. and actually had a burning interest in scripture. I choose not to be an atheist and have decades of Christian education under my belt.. but most of it is so squirrely..

How do you finally tell the truth about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, but insist they continue to believe in Noah's flood or Jonah and the fish?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Is that the best you have? Where's your evidence it's false? Now you want confirmations of the confirmation? ROTFLOL!

"We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems. Scholars since the 18th century have even invented facts about him,"

It's a bad source, unverified, no other actual historian of the time (there were many) recorded this event even though it would be world-wide.
And it appears to be a late addition by the church. If that works for you fine, but then you must believe the Roswell ufo crash, big foot and all sorts of strange phenomenon seeing your critera for evidence is so low.
ROTFL-ing until you pass out isn't going to make this a good source, a reliable source or a true source. But knock yourself out.

More absurdity. He wrote what he wrote. And that last denial (underlined) is a feeble attempt to represent (anonymous) support for your lackluster denial.
That's the problem, he didn't write what he wrote, a Christian apologist said he wrote a passage about an eclipse and earthquake. There is no actual evidence. This demonstrates nothing.
Had these events actually happened they would be in hundreds of historical records like every other eclipse.
There are secondhand accounts of all supernatural events including everything from Mothman to grey aliens in peoples bedroom. So you must believe in them as well.

"
Origen of Alexandria (182-254 AD), in Against Celsus (Book II, Chap. XIV), wrote that Phlegon, in his "Chronicles", mentions Jesus: "Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions." He referred to a description by Phlegon of an eclipse accompanied by earthquakes during the reign of Tiberius: that there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i. e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea." [2]"


You know, the long, long list of disciples, Gospel authors, early writers, and other people who have to be lying, mistaken, or charlatans in order for people like you to be credible is too voluminous to be believable.

No the list would be very short. The only original gospel is Mark, the rest contain literally pages and pages of verbatim Greek, this is how we know they were just copied from Mark.
The narrative was written from stories in the OT and the rest was made up using popular pagan religions that had their own savior dying/rising demi-gods.

Would people write extensive religious fiction? Of course they would, that's EVERY religion.
What do you think the extensive library of Greek gods are? Or the Roman gods? Or all the pagan gods? Those were elaborate stories about savior gods and were fiction.

Then we have Islam, Mormonism and so on.
There are no outside writers just 1 gospel, a bunch of additional fan fiction and Paul, who read some early scripture and decided he wanted to join.
The gospels themselves are anonymous and written in a highly mythical style used to write religions myths, parables and allegories.



"Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous."

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because of a similar sequence and wording. They are also composed in Koine Greek and the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim

"Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels."

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The myth is yours. The historical evidences for Jesus are many and varied. There's over forty writers who wrote about Jesus within 150 years of his life. And I doubt there were any, and certainly not more than a handful, who consider him a myth.

So your mythology claim is nonsense.

The rest of your post was just one self-serving denial after another.

There is not one source outside the gospels that confirms the reality of the christian stories, just that there were Christians around who followed the gospels. Everyone knows this fact that apologists often try to mis-use.

The entire historicity field considers the supernatural aspects of Christianity to be a mythised story borrowing from OT prophecies (borrowed from Persia) and older savior cult religions.
Besides a few fundamentalist scholars who are believers and actually do a terrible job when debating secular historians, the field is all in consensus.
Richard Price, Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Richard Purvoe, Thomas Thompson and many other PhDs have books that have been peer-reviewed by the PhD biblical history community and accepted as fact.
Although Richard Carrier has proven the mythicist theory to be most probable and has debated almost every relevant scholar on the topic and has not been shown to be wrong. But it doesn't matter, Jesus being a man is besides the point, all scholars still believe the supernatural aspects to be myth.

This is a panel of experts including a Pastor who go over every single piece of Jesus evidence. You seem to have some mis-understandings of that period regarding writings and evidence.

 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That's a load of horse manure. Do some reading other than left wing idiots.

There is no such thing as "left wing idiots" in respect to what you mean. What you mean are apologetics vs actual PhD scholars. The scholars who learn to speak relevant languages and learn how to source documents and also have a peer review system in place so they can keep their work honest and accurate.
Your lame and thinly vailed desperate attempt to downplay scholarship just shows your afraid of knowledge.
I bet you go to actual surgeons if you needed surgery rather than apologetics articles on how prayer can heal sickness. and would use X-ray and chemotherapy technology made possible by physicists from the very same scholarship. So don't pretend like suddenly in the PhD biblical history field they are all incapable of finding out actual information. No one buys that.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Where's your proof Josephus had drawn a faulty conclusion? Pie-in-the-sky claims like that one you made is typical of your lack of scholarship.

It's sketchy evidence that doesn't get us anywhere. I didn't say "proof" But if someone said Godzilla destroyed an ancient city we (including you) would not accept the claim without solid evidence. An ancient historian who mentioned a possible site is not evidence.
Again, we have actual Biblical Society archeologists working on this and because they don't support your conclusion your ignoring them. Over an amateur fraud. You actually did that. Then you talk about other people's lack of scholarship? Insane.

How dare you now say I have a "lack of scholarship" when you've been running scared from any and all historicity scholarship right along. That is so hypocritical?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Well here's something to burst your little bubble:

MUSLIMS CONVERTING TO CHRISTIANITY IN UNPRECEDENTED NUMBERS

Muslims Converting to Christianity | Open Doors USA


Why are So Many Westerners Converting to Islam?

It is a fact that Islam is growing rapidly in the West. In the U.S. alone the number of Muslims has risen dramatically, from about 10,000 in 1900 to 3 million or more in 1991 (some authorities say 4.5 million).

Muslims by 2050 there will be near parity between Muslims (2.8 billion, or 30% of the population) and Christians (2.9 billion, or 31%), possibly for the first time in history.
the projected Muslims population will equal the Christian population by 2070. While both religions will grow but Muslim population will exceed the Christian population and by 2100, Muslim population (35%) will be 1% more than the Christian population (34%).[217] By the end of 2100 Muslims are expected to outnumber Christians.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That hasn't been my experience - that left-wing theologians are infinitely more educated on Biblical matters. Most of the time they're anti-supernaturalists trying to rationalize Biblical miracles. Or they're making up wild Q theories or arguing against the Gospel Jesus, the resurrection, etc.


Real scholars present theories but they source their material so anyone is free to decide for themselves. Only people afraid of actual knowledge and truth try to make excuses for them like that.
They are not "anti" anything. They are "pro" truth. What information they find they report, that's it. Richard Carrier only came to the mythicist theory AFTER he studies all the evidence.
He said he actually expected far better evidence for Jesus being a man. It doesn't exist.

I gave you some "left-wing" scholars and you still ignored them.
No one rationalizes biblical miracles? They are stories just like all other cultures have. There are far more eyewitness stories to Sai Babbas magic from 1900.

How is Q theory wild? There are pages and pages of verbatim Greek among the gospels so they have to have a common source. If it were the gospels of Hercules you would be concluding the same thing? So why can't people come up with reasonable ideas about your magic god stories?

Most scholars hold the Q (or copied from Mark idea to be true) again, Wiki, conservative


"Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels.["
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
If you say something is false then you should provide your basis and evidence for that.

There is plenty of evidence. Once presented you'll start ad-homing the scholar, calling people "satanic" and other such devices of avoidance, "liberal" and overall short sentences that offer no counter example beyond "absurd"...

You won't admit the gospels are anon (even though it's not up for debate) because then this huge "list" of Jesus believers become invalidated. Nothing in the gospels is considered historically reliable.

this is just the Wiki page, a fairly conservative encyclopedia?
Historical reliability of the Gospels

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable
 
Last edited:

Spartan

Well-Known Member
There is plenty of evidence. Once presented you'll start ad-homing the scholar, calling people "satanic" and other such devices of avoidance, "liberal" and overall short sentences that offer no counter example beyond "absurd"...

You won't admit the gospels are anon (even though it's not up for debate) because then this huge "list" of Jesus believers become invalidated. Nothing in the gospels is considered historically reliable.

this is just the Wiki page, a fairly conservative encyclopedia?
Historical reliability of the Gospels

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable

You're on the wrong path. Here is INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence for the traditional Gospel authors.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
How is Q theory wild? There are pages and pages of verbatim Greek among the gospels so they have to have a common source. If it were the gospels of Hercules you would be concluding the same thing? So why can't people come up with reasonable ideas about your magic god stories?

Most scholars hold the Q (or copied from Mark idea to be true) again, Wiki, conservative

"Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels.["

"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!
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
It's sketchy evidence that doesn't get us anywhere. I didn't say "proof" But if someone said Godzilla destroyed an ancient city we (including you) would not accept the claim without solid evidence. An ancient historian who mentioned a possible site is not evidence.
Again, we have actual Biblical Society archeologists working on this and because they don't support your conclusion your ignoring them. Over an amateur fraud. You actually did that. Then you talk about other people's lack of scholarship? Insane.

How dare you now say I have a "lack of scholarship" when you've been running scared from any and all historicity scholarship right along. That is so hypocritical?

How dare I? You've just been handed a serious shellacking on your mythical Q Source.

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

And you STILL haven't provided evidence Josephus was mistaken about what he saw.
 

tosca1

Member
.

Or so the video below claims
. :rolleyes:





The List of Nine, which supposedly verify claims made in the Bible. (The narrator provides the relevant chapters and verses.)

1) A stone that confirms that Pontius Pilatus was the Prefect of Judea.

2) A tunnel was created under the city of David to carry water.

3) A clay cylinder describes how Sennacherib laid siege against various cities

4) A stone mentioning there was an Israelite king of the house of David.

5) A stone cites Omri as the king of Israel.

6) The remnants of a house was found that verifies the town of Nazareth existed in the first century AD.

7) A clay cylinder recounts Cyrus II declaration of human rights

8) The discovery of the pool of Siloam

9) A stone tablet shows the existence of the Hittites



Only 9?
Did I miss the discovery of Jericho - and how the ruins matched what was descrbed in the Bible?


Believers Score in Battle Over the Battle of Jericho

How about Sodom and Gommorah? Not mentioned?




Of course our young presenter in the video conveniently ignores all the evidence that disproves the Bible's historical accuracy,


Can you cite them?
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
There is not one source outside the gospels that confirms the reality of the christian stories[/MEDIA]

But then you haven't read either of these:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

And I just love your self-serving equivocation: "outside the gospels", LOL. You can't stand those historical sources, can you? They bust your chops and anti-Jesus follies day in and day out.
 

tosca1

Member
All of them? No one on Earth has that much time. :p Besides they're not the subject at issue here.

.

You made them part of the subject when you brought it up.
My challenge was a follow-up to your claim. :)

Why? You can't cite.....not even 9 - to match the numbers of findings in the video?
Okay, I'll cut you some slack - how about 5?

.......three?

.....two?

.....ONE?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You're on the wrong path. Here is INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence for the traditional Gospel authors.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship


This is the same article you posted last time around. An old apologetics writer with no PhD who doesn't even get into the actual Greek source material? The Greek actually says the writer is not the witness, literally.

Even the few fundamentalist PhD historians agree that the gospels are anonymous?
Do you know why? Because it SAYS SO IN THE GOSPELS?

PhD historian Bart Ehrman
"The Gospel manuscripts we have are from hundreds of years after the Gospels were first put in circulation, and these much older copies do have names on them. But the names are given as “According to Matthew.” No one, of course, would provide a title for his book as “According to me.” Whoever put that title on is telling you whose account this was understood to have been. And the main reason for doing *that* is to differentiate between *various* accounts that were in anonynmous circulation."


Why Are the Gospels Anonymous?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
"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!

I was just simplifying because it doesn't really matter who copied from who. But I agree scholarship is moving away from Q. There is better evidence that Matthew is Q.
Matthew added stuff to Mark and Luke redacted both of those.

Here PhD Carrier says this, mentions Goodacre's work and agrees there is no need for Q.
At 41:00

Pages and pages of verbatin Greek means they copied, your theory about "parchment" is unfounded and at best pure speculation but there was no written tradition but a known oral tradition and the material is far too exact for people to be memorizing but then suspiciously adding all sorts of changes?

Using John as a reference is ridiculous because it's already been established the gospels are not historically reliable. It is funny that as one of your reasons for supporting your idea you used - "it's true because my magic book said magic powers helped them remember".

Please notice I an NOT throwing ad-homs and acting like a big baby about your using Goodacre as a source and trying to discredit him with 8th grade level insults.


Wait, how can Wiki be "biblically challenged" are there no pro-Christian entries? It's just a consensus of different fields.
What about the "Christianity" page on wiki do you disagree with?
what I was looking under is the "historicity" of religion page. Modern historicity has never found any religion to be actually true? Wiki says that because the history field says that? Has nothing to do with Wiki? It's what history and archeology says.
 
Last edited:
Top