1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Skwim, Mar 12, 2019.

  1. joelr

    joelr Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    714
    Ratings:
    +287

    Whoops, you spoke too soon. You probably should have waited for the reply.

    You just linked to a thread (this thread) where you completely ran and hid from an argument. Did you think that mysteriously disappeared? It didn't. Your silly apologetics article doesn't even know the gospels say "as told to me by..." Did he think they were written in English? That's what you get from apologetics.
    So you don't get to pretend you shellacked anything.

    I never said Josephus was right or wrong. So we don't know. But we do have modern biblical archeologists, who are conservative and not biblically-challenged? Who have differences of opinion on the location.
    So you probably need some new ad-hom to fake a reason to ignore them.
     
  2. joelr

    joelr Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    714
    Ratings:
    +287

    No no I know there are apologetics around today? You mentioned historians from the actual 1st century, so I'm saying there are no outside attestations of Christianity being true from people around at the time Jesus would have been around?!
    It's just gospels which are copies from Mark and sourced from OT and pagan religions.
    How did you not get that?

    I have listened to Habermas, same old apologetics, already debunked.
    Habermas was easily out debated by Carrier and Finley here:


    and he had literally zero knowledge of the pagan cults that Christianity was derived from.
    But feel free to use any of his arguments, they all fail.

    In that debate Habermas actually tried to use out of body experiences as evidence to support his religious claims? A scholarly debate. Out of body experiences.



    Assumptions, judgments? Why is it Christians are the worst at following the sermon on the mount? I know it's just metaphorical language but I manage to follow it better?

    If scholarship provided evidence that the gospels were historical cool, why would I want to deny that?
    But they don't, they are written in religious metaphorical style, obvious copies and taken from OT and pagan myths. That's it.
    Also your canon is not even the original canon but 2nd to the Marcionite canon which is forever lost to us.


    "The Gospels appear decades later, their authors anonymous, and manifestly fictionalize and invent details and whole episodes; and no one to our knowledge verified or fact-checked anything in them, so we cannot know that any of their content dates to the time of Paul."


    There is no such thing as people "not admitting" to the supernatural. There is simply no evidence.
    Can you provide evidence? There are ways to test supernatural claims.
     
    #1022 joelr, May 19, 2019
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    842
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    Christian
    Believe whatever you want. I'm not going to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to debate someone who is in denial of the historical Jesus - and someone who has been shown the early references that confirm the traditional Gospel authors, etc. And still you harp that the Gospel authors are "anonymous". That's hogwash. You're in denial and I'm not going to entertain another forty or so posts of that nonsense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. RESOLUTION

    RESOLUTION Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    612
    Ratings:
    +82
    Religion:
    I am what I am

    35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:

    36 And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.

    37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

    IT does not answer what was asked in my post as I said do not answer my posts until your willing to discuss the subject at hand not make diversions to hide you get things so wrong.


     
  5. RESOLUTION

    RESOLUTION Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    612
    Ratings:
    +82
    Religion:
    I am what I am
    You cannot compare the faith based on truth which is personal to faith in general. Why do you think you can keep avoiding the issues by not addressing the facts.
    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.
     
  6. joelr

    joelr Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    714
    Ratings:
    +287
    I am not in denial of a historical Jesus. People deny the holocaust or the moon landings where we have reasonable evidence for these being historical.
    You are not a "Hercules denier" or a "Horus denier" and no one is a Jesus denier. 4 gospels demonstrated to be copied from the 1st means one gospel. Paul only mentions some scripture and "revelation" and that's it. The one gospel is full of OT re-writes and stolen pagan concepts of a savior god. The name of the main character in the story about a savior demi-god is "Savior"......? Are you serious?
    If people want to believe that stuff, fine, but non-believers are not "deniers" any more than you are a grey aliens denier or iIluminati denier or 9/11 was an inside job denier.

    To the historical Jesus (not the god version) all of the reasons scholarship believed there was a man named Jesus have more recently been shown to be faulty assumptions. Carrier puts it at 3 to 1 odds after his historicity study. Such a study has not been done since 1926. Carrier made his case and is debating scholars frequently. So far his points have held up. He does answer criticisms on his blog.
    But that doesn't matter, even if Jesus was a man the field is generally unanimous that the rest is mythology.

    You were nitpicking me because you thought I said Josephus was definitely wrong about seeing the city of Sodom. Obviously that cannot be known. But now you are doing the exact same thing?
    The article you linked to never says it "confirms the traditional Gospel authors", not even close? It says "evidence suggests"?
    I already pointed this out yet you continue to make false statements that this apologetics essay "confirms" traditional authorship? It's doesn't, it doesn't even try to. Did you even read it?
    It says "evidence supports the theory" and ends with that.
    But he never even mentions the Greek title which is clear evidence. So it's just suppositions based on only partial evidence which are all moot once you realize the title doesn't even claim authorship?

    I'm not "harping" on anything but stating what all historicity scholarship says?

    The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, romanized: Euangélion katà Maththaîon;[
    Authorship and sources

    The gospel itself does not specify an author, but he was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[7] The majority of modern scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew (who includes some 600 of Mark's 661 verses) and Luke both drew upon it as a major source for their works.[17][18] The author of Matthew did not, however, simply copy Mark, but used it as a base, emphasising Jesus' place in the Jewish tradition and including other details not covered in Mark.[



    Further proof that a Q gospel is not needed from thebiblejourney.org which explains that Matthew copies 90% !!!!!! of Mark while Luke uses over 50%. So obvious?

    Mark’s Gospel, the shortest of the four gospels, is widely thought to be the first one to have been written. Over a third of his account concentrates on the events surrounding Jesus’s death and resurrection. It was probably written as early as 62AD (a little over thirty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus) while Mark was staying with Paul in Rome. It is considered to be the earliest gospel because Luke and Matthew appear to borrow a considerable amount of their information from Mark’s narrative. About ninety per cent of Mark’s narrative is repeated in Matthew’s gospel, while Luke includes over half of Mark’s content.
     
    #1026 joelr, May 20, 2019
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  7. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    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.


    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!



    Why is it faulty assumption? Based on what?



    Furthermore, Carrier had also said this about Anthony Flew:

     
    #1027 tosca1, May 20, 2019
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  8. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    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?




     
  9. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52

    Consider this. Pontius Pilate!

    We know he existed - as described from biblical narrative - which is confirmed by archeology!

    Jesus Christ: Myth or Genuine History?

    Let's read this part again:




    If nothing is written about Pontius Pilate -

    why then should we expect anything written about the son of a carpenter - from some obscure town called Nazareth (which must be the "trailer park" of the time - John 1:46) - who goes around preaching religion - and, who must've been even considered by some as a nut case?
     
    #1029 tosca1, May 20, 2019
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  10. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    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.
     
    #1030 tosca1, May 20, 2019
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  11. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    968
    Ratings:
    +388
    Religion:
    Xian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    968
    Ratings:
    +388
    Religion:
    Xian


    Why does it matter if Christianity began with a mythical Christ rather than an historical Jesus? If Paul was OK with a heavenly Christ that was crucified by demons, what's the problem?
     
  13. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    Pilate was a prominent man - and he was involved in controvesies too - so, it's only understandable that there would be written things about him. However, apparently not a single ROMAN archival document exist about him.

    So I'm asking.....


    ....why then should we expect anything written about the son of a carpenter (during His lifetime) - from some obscure town called Nazareth (which must be the "trailer park" of the time - John 1:46) - who goes around preaching religion - and, who must've been even considered by some as a nut case?

    Christianity exploded in the region only AFTER the Resurrection - thus, what's written about Jesus or Christians mostly pertains to the ways of Christianity or treatment of Christians. In other words, that's when they started getting attention!
     
  14. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    968
    Ratings:
    +388
    Religion:
    Xian


    We have a contemporary for Pilate, Philo of Alexandria was in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate, he wrote about Pilate, offering facts and opinions about him. We don't have anything like that for Jesus, in fact no one that ever wrote about Jesus ever met the dude. We don't have sources for the original Jesus so we can't say anything about him with any degree of certainty.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52

    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).
     
  16. Spartan

    Spartan Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    842
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    Christian
    If Jesus isn't real like the Gospels and Epistles record, then people are dead in their sins and hell bound.
     
  17. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    968
    Ratings:
    +388
    Religion:
    Xian
    The gospels are not a good source for the historical Jesus, there may have been an itinerant preacher that inspired the unknown author of Mark to write his fantasy novel but we can't know anything with any certainty at all about an historical Jesus from reading the gospels.
     
  18. lukethethird

    lukethethird Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    968
    Ratings:
    +388
    Religion:
    Xian
    So, do we have a problem with that?
     
  19. tosca1

    tosca1 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Ratings:
    +52
    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. :shrug:
     
    #1039 tosca1, May 21, 2019
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Spartan

    Spartan Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    842
    Ratings:
    +111
    Religion:
    Christian
    It would just be sad to see so many lost, including such personalities as John Lennon and other Christ-deniers.
     
Loading...