A question about the bible.

reply to post by swordwords

Then outside of a few rulers, who can we prove lived 1500 years or longer ago? You want some one who witnessed the event to write about it and have that writing preserved for over a millenium. Historians don't accept your requirements.

“Do you believe in the existence of Socrates? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? If historicity is established by written records in multiple copies that date originally from near contemporaneous sources, there is far more proof for Christ’s existence than for any of theirs.” — Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, p. 296

The Tiberius provides a good example (he was the emperor when Jesus was crucified). Our best sources for Tiberius are Tacitus and Suetonius, both composed eighty or so years after the emperor's death in AD 37. The New Testament writings were composed much closer in time to their central figure. Several of its sources - Mark, Paul, Q, L and James - date to within 25 years of Jesus, and one crucial passage is dated to within a few years of the crucifixion, ruling out the suggestion that even the basic details of Jesus were part of a process of legendary accumulation.

www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by GeneralMishka


Even today we understand that history is mostly written by the victor, this practice is not something new. People seem not to have had proper History classes. History as a science is very recent, there is a clear distinction between what constitutes an historic document, a validated claim or historic report. Even the word or categorization of historian (those that record history), has changed largely across the time.

I believe this lack of historic understanding is intentional. For those not partaking in the faith, Christ existence is still historically unproven, but there is no denying the faith (Judeo-Cristianism), that the movement was real (and not even a unique attempt, there have been many dissident movements across the ages from Judaism. There is a high chance that something did occur, or a even Christ as a person existed, even if he did only faith would validate some of the claims. To me also none of that is relevant for the validity (not value) of the message.

There are many other figures that have not been historically validated for instance Marco Polo

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

Sure, why not? A rib women and a talking snake, a man living in the belly of a fish, A deity carefully and discriminately killing the first born son of every Egyptian family, 2 of every animal in a boat.............

LOOK...I have never once said the Bible is 100% factual I said that the people and places existed. Stories so old get re-told and convoluted anyone knows this.

Much of bibles stories are retold stories from other older societies. We have archaeological proof of this.

But OT was historical evidence of the Bible and there is as much or more than any other document that has survived as long.

How is the bible evidence of the Bible? The bible (OT) is the history of the Hebrew people as told and accepted by the Hebrew people. But there is a lot more that the Bible doesn't say. Alexander the Great, for example is not mentioned. The character Moses resembles Hermes / Thoth.

There is evidence of a flood proven by archeologist not a world wide one but one enough to spark all the myths. Jericho is one of the oldest surviving cities, Jerusalem is still a hot bed of conflict! And what if most of it is just parable? Does that give it less meaning? Thousands if not millions of other books have passed into the darkness of the ages never to found again. To say there is no evidence is groundless and folly.

I never said that there is no evidence of biblical historics. My argument started with and continues with the actual existence of the biblical character of Jesus, as described in the Bible.

I find it fascinating that this one book has lasted so long and still has such a profound impact today (as evident in our debate), I find that significance hard to argue.

I don't. I find it disturbing.

There is actual evidence that Pontious Pilate existed but only him for the bible. In fairness, biblical archaeology is very difficult. I think Jesus existed, simply as I look at other characters at that time from Greece and Rome that have been written about and they often turn out to be real characters. Troy turned out to be real.

Originally posted by windword
Much of bibles stories are retold stories from other older societies. We have archaeological proof of this.

No argument there!

Originally posted by Abeverage
But OT was historical evidence of the Bible and there is as much or more than any other document that has survived as long.

Originally posted by windword
How is the bible evidence of the Bible? The bible (OT) is the history of the Hebrew people as told and accepted by the Hebrew people. But there is a lot more that the Bible doesn't say. Alexander the Great, for example is not mentioned. The character Moses resembles Hermes / Thoth.

ORIGINAL TOPIC...not OLD TESTAMENT...geez. He asked for historical evidence and I have given it. How could the bible prove the bible that is ridiculous!

Originally posted by Abeverage
There is evidence of a flood proven by archeologist not a world wide one but one enough to spark all the myths. Jericho is one of the oldest surviving cities, Jerusalem is still a hot bed of conflict! And what if most of it is just parable? Does that give it less meaning? Thousands if not millions of other books have passed into the darkness of the ages never to found again. To say there is no evidence is groundless and folly.

Originally posted by windword
I never said that there is no evidence of biblical historics. My argument started with and continues with the actual existence of the biblical character of Jesus, as described in the Bible.

Gave evidence there to but in books which are harder to link being analog and all, but as soon as they are free digitally...

Originally posted by Abeverage
I find it fascinating that this one book has lasted so long and still has such a profound impact today (as evident in our debate), I find that significance hard to argue.

Originally posted by windword
I don't. I find it disturbing.

Why? Disturbed sounds Angry and Hostile? From an Intellectual, Cultural and Historical stand point it is very interesting.

reply to post by jjsr420

Any records to show Jesus actually existed?

Well, you can start here: The Historicity of Jesus Christ.

Peace

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

Sure, why not? A rib women and a talking snake, a man living in the belly of a fish, A deity carefully and discriminately killing the first born son of every Egyptian family, 2 of every animal in a boat.............

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.
Matthew 13:34

reply to post by abeverage

Originally posted by Abeverage
But OT was historical evidence of the Bible and there is as much or more than any other document that has survived as long.

Originally posted by windword
How is the bible evidence of the Bible? The bible (OT) is the history of the Hebrew people as told and accepted by the Hebrew people. But there is a lot more that the Bible doesn't say. Alexander the Great, for example is not mentioned. The character Moses resembles Hermes / Thoth.

ORIGINAL TOPIC...not OLD TESTAMENT...geez. He asked for historical evidence and I have given it. How could the bible prove the bible that is ridiculous!

"But OT was historical evidence of the Bible " Do you that see YOU just wrote that the OT (Old Testament) is evidence of the Bible?

Originally posted by Abeverage
There is evidence of a flood proven by archeologist not a world wide one but one enough to spark all the myths. Jericho is one of the oldest surviving cities, Jerusalem is still a hot bed of conflict! And what if most of it is just parable? Does that give it less meaning? Thousands if not millions of other books have passed into the darkness of the ages never to found again. To say there is no evidence is groundless and folly.

Originally posted by windword
I never said that there is no evidence of biblical historics. My argument started with and continues with the actual existence of the biblical character of Jesus, as described in the Bible.

Gave evidence there to but in books which are harder to link being analog and all, but as soon as they are free digitally...

You gave links to two books, both of who's authors I am familiar with. One of the authors is proponent of the theory that the biblical Jesus didn't exist as depicted in the Bible, Richard Carrie. If you have proof, from these available "digital copies", in the existence of this biblical Jesus character, then present it.

Originally posted by Abeverage
I find it fascinating that this one book has lasted so long and still has such a profound impact today (as evident in our debate), I find that significance hard to argue.

Originally posted by windword
I don't. I find it disturbing.

Why? Disturbed sounds Angry and Hostile? From an Intellectual, Cultural and Historical stand point it is very interesting.

edit on 19-6-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

It's disturbing that so many people, Jews, Christians and Muslims, all Abrahamic middle eastern religions, use this book, the Bible, to shame and condemn others and as excuses to oppress and kill too.

reply to post by charles1952


Actually my study of ancient allegory indicates that allegory has been presented as history by many authors and Socrates and Alexander the Great are two of the "historical" personages that I have identified as probably allegorical. (This is based on my interpretations and understanding of how this allegory works. While I am certain that the stories surrounding the lives of these men are allegorical, with a few pieces of real history thrown in to make them believable, I cannot say for certain that they never existed. Christ's "virgin birth", on the otherhand, leaves me with no doubt as to his non-historicity.) If you ignore what the "experts" tell us, Plato's Allegory of the Cave can easily be viewed as a description of people being fed false history.

In my opinion, Plato was a Sophist and he indirectly makes this admission by presenting himself as the "Stranger" in his dialogue Sophist which would mean that Socrates was his "veil". The allegory created and expanded upon by the Sophists is the key to many conspiracies discussed on this site and this idea to use examples like Alexander and Socrates to defend the historicity of Christ is most likely of Sophist origin.

reply to post by KidOK


I think you got your signals crossed...No evidence for Nazareth?

Nazareth

As far as the rest of it, Yashua would not have been considered the greatest man of history at the time, nor did he want to be...

It is like this...

We all get invited to to a party...we all have a story to tell right after the party...does anyone here actually think our stories will all be the same story?

Without a doubt, the answer is NO!

What is not questioned is this... there was a party...

Bart Ehrman, referenced earlier as

Bart Ehrman has all but destroyed biblical credibility.

Says "I don't think there are any serious historians who doubt the existence of Jesus."

Here's Ehrman talking about it:



Ehrman does not agree that everything in the New Testament happened as it is recorded, but there is no doubt in his mind that Jesus did exist, and that the thousands of scholars he knows agree with him.

If people are serious in this thread, they will say. "Yep, that pretty much tears it. There definitely was a Jesus." Now let's start a thread on whether what was written actually happened.

Originally posted by Miracula

Originally posted by swordwords

The Gospel of John opens with the idea of the "Word became flesh" so we might also see this as a suggestion that Christ was fiction presented to appear as historical non-fiction.

I think the idea of Christ being the Word and the Word becoming flesh means that when Christ wasn't walking the earth in the flesh that He was the one giving inspiration to holy men to produce scripture from Heaven.

Well yes, you can believe that if you believe in God, but for the non-believer it makes much more sense to view it my way.

reply to post by windword


Before you blow a gasket, the member posted the initials "OT," ...NOT in reference to the OLD TESTAMENT, but used it as an acronym for ORIGINAL TOPIC...comfy now?

reply to post by jjsr420


Within everyone is a incorruptible part that is connected to "THE GOD" that can give you the answers you seek.

I have found there are truths in the Bible

"Forgive them father for they know not what they do" is a true statement.

reply to post by charles1952


I'm sorry Charles but that was an appalling argument on Ehrman's part. I thought the atheist's arguments were dismissed and generally went unanswered, as Ehrman kept dodging questions and giving pat apologist's quips. His argument, that no one was written about until after their death, is invalidated by the writings of Josephus.

Bart Ehrman's basic logic was "Jesus existed because the bible says so." I think the atheist won that debate.

It's still arguable whether or not the biblical Jesus existed as the bible says or if he's a composite character.

(adult language warning)

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

Originally posted by Abeverage
But OT was historical evidence of the Bible and there is as much or more than any other document that has survived as long.

Originally posted by windword
How is the bible evidence of the Bible? The bible (OT) is the history of the Hebrew people as told and accepted by the Hebrew people. But there is a lot more that the Bible doesn't say. Alexander the Great, for example is not mentioned. The character Moses resembles Hermes / Thoth.

ORIGINAL TOPIC...not OLD TESTAMENT...geez. He asked for historical evidence and I have given it. How could the bible prove the bible that is ridiculous!

"But OT was historical evidence of the Bible " Do you that see YOU just wrote that the OT (Old Testament) is evidence of the Bible?

Are you kidding me on this?I think I explained it well enough sorry to use abbreviation in the religious forum that have a double meaning.

I used OT as in ORIGINAL TOPIC...my post would read

But OT (ORIGINAL TOPIC) was historical evidence of the Bible and there is as much or more than any other document that has survived as long.
NOT Old Testament (please stop trolling me on this)

It's disturbing that so many people, Jews, Christians and Muslims, all Abrahamic middle eastern religions, use this book, the Bible, to shame and condemn others and as excuses to oppress and kill too.

I couldn't agree with you more on this! It has been used like that.

But the book makes nobody do anything any more than a fictitious Satan does... The book itself is a pretty interesting piece of history. And I have to agree with what a lot is attributed to Jesus (Myth or Real Person) about.

Originally posted by jjsr420
I've thought about this alot. I'm a spiritual person; not religious. I'm not a believer in organized religion, or anything like that. I have my own beliefs.

However my question is this: Aside from the bible itself. Is there ANY -REAL- evidence supporting the claims in the bible? Any records to show Jesus actually existed? Any first-hand accounts written that aren't a part of the bible? Or does all the evidence come from the bible?

Yes. Lots of historical accounts. But, you would have to do the research because there is too much to list it all here.

reply to post by windword



Hey windword why did you post this video?


Was it to Answer the Question DID JESUS EXIST?

Perhaps you should re-listen he says DIRECTLY It is a difficult answer and I will not answer this question...

lol

He Repeats the epistles but not once does he refute them only ridicules them. I find his humor actually quiet funny as hell even if he is a pompous prick propping his language low brow vulgarity and pop culture to appeal to his ignorant culture induced audience.

The book was better for those who know how to read...

But he never once refutes Jesus and says HE DOES NOT EXIST why? When is next book comes out you will see why...

And the funnier thing...I will bet not even a hundred years from now he will be dead and forgot and yet the Bible will still be around.

I believe there is a lot of evidence to support the bible. 2 i know of is the ark... They believe they have found it... Cant remember where but i will search it out and post. The other is the cave where they buried him. I'll also post that claim. Like I said... There is quite a bit they've proven true... I just cant rember it all. What about the cloth of Terin... ( however u spell that) i thought they officially dated it? Anyways.... Thats what i know... lol

Good question S&F for u!!

reply to post by abeverage


And yet, he goes on to challenge the existence of the Biblical Jesus throughout his talk!
e
Edit: The video was posted as a rebuttal to Bart Ehrman's interview with "the atheist."