Prove something to me...

[Andreusz]

Christians just popped fully formed out of the rubble of the Second temple?

See 'cargo cults'.

Why does your authoritarian assertion mean anything on that? Or rather, how?

From a sceptic's point of view, the Bible is probably a collection of unsubstantiated legends.

Ceasar was the head of state.

Well, someone said that there is more evidence for Jesus than for any other ancient figure. I was just refuting this preposterous statement.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

See 'cargo cults'.

I know all about cults.

From a sceptic's point of view, the Bible is probably a collection of unsubstantiated legends.

OK. Fair enough. From a convert's point of view there is much evidence to believe.

Well, someone said that there is more evidence for Jesus than for any other ancient figure. I was just refuting this preposterous statement.

They need to read Lee Strobel.

A Caesar like Nero or Hadrian, is a great example of what Christians face today.

The same "kind" of enemy.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

The thesis that Jesus never existed has hovered around the fringes of research into the New Testament for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory. This is for good reason, as it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking. It is ironic that atheists will buy into this idea and leave all their pretensions of critical thinking behind. I will adapt what has become popular usage and call people who deny Jesus' existence 'Jesus Mythologists'.

A huge amount has been written on the web and elsewhere which you can find in the further reading section below. Not all Jesus Mythologists are lunatics and one at least, Earl Doherty, is extremely erudite and worth reading. Nevertheless, he is still wrong and, as I have seen myself, he reacts badly to those who demonstrate it.

It is not my intention to study the minutiae of the argument but instead focus on three central points which are often brought up on discussion boards.

These are the lack of secular references, the alleged similarities to paganism and the silence of Paul. Finally I want to bring all these together to show how ideas similar to those that deny Jesus' existence can be used on practically any ancient historical figure. With this in mind I set out to prove that Hannibal never existed.
Roman Historians

Occasionally people ask why there is no record of Jesus in Roman records. The answer is that there are no surviving Roman records but only highly parochial Roman historians who had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.

Once Christianity was established as a major cult in the Empire then Jesus became rather more interesting and he is mentioned by Tacitus in the early second century. However, Jesus Mythologists counter this by claiming that he could have got his information from Christians which means his evidence is not independent.

So, we have a very convenient situation for the Jesus Mythologists. Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out of court as they are tainted by association with Christianity. This sort of special pleading is one of the reasons that modern historians have no time for these theories as they are set up to be impossible to disprove.

In fact, Christian evidence for a human Jesus who was crucified is trustworthy because it ran counter to the myths of the time and suggested that he had suffered a humiliating death. If they made it up and then suppressed the truth with clinical efficiency, why did they come up with a story which even the Christian apologist, Tertullian, admitted was absurd? It seems far more likely that they had a large number of historical facts that they had to rationalise into a religion rather than creating all these difficulties for themselves.

Sometimes Jesus Mythologists will produce long lists of writers none of whom have the slightest reason to mention an obscure Jewish miracle worker and somehow think this strengthens their point. In fact, it has all the relevance of picking fifty books off your local library shelf and finding that none of them mention Carl Sagan. Does that mean he did not exist either? Jesus was not even a failed military leader of the kind that Romans might have noticed - especially if he had been defeated by someone famous.

 

[allhart]

I have a hard time seeing a point in ethic's and morality forum. To only debate or oppose people of God in a war of words? Yes there is a lot of rhetoric and pious talk action, but pointless. I guess that's the points. Why should I waste my energy with people that are opaque. There comes a time that this becomes pointless only argumentative. Where is the substance in all this or( purpose) To have a constant rebellion. Ya all look like you have come to a conclusion in your choice about God because most of the time its like shark frenzies in here, not a discussion.

 

[allhart]

I don't watch movies in like dumb or dumber for they are stupid. If you don't like or want God and you feel he is unfounded on logic. Why look for a discussion in unfounded war of words. That's retarded....

 

[Andreusz]

Polly, I actually think that's it's very probable that Jesus existed. I'm just saying there's no irrefutable evidence, of the kind that a historian would accept.

 

[allhart]

Polly, I actually think that's it's very probable that Jesus existed. I'm just saying there's no irrefutable evidence, of the kind that a historian would accept.

O.K. We base our Faith on logic that can't be proven one way or the other, but never the less in logical thinking. We base it in hope of a purpose driven life. Its building on the foundation of the virtues of God and God isn't a one liner.

 

[allhart]

Here is some information used in acronym M-A-P-S That we base are logic on. Manuscripts, Archeology, Prophecy and Statistics. There is no refutable evidence on any historical data for we wasn't there; however, we can come to some reasonalbe conclusion base on the evidence. Ya know scholars on both sides of the spectrum wrote about Jesus. There where witness testimony. People saw him crucified to only testify he was walking around three days later...http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2635115/k.AED8/DB011.htm

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Here is some information used in acronym M-A-P-S That we base are logic on. Manuscripts, Archeology, Prophecy and Statistics. There is no refutable evidence on any historical data for we wasn't there; however, we can come to some reasonalbe conclusion base on the evidence. Ya know scholars on both sides of the spectrum wrote about Jesus. There where witness testimony. People saw him crucified to only testify he was walking around three days later...http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2635115/k.AED8/DB011.htm

I don't recall any historians outside of the Bible that were witness to any miracles that Jesus supposedly performed.

And if you have extra-biblical eyewitness testimony to the resurrection, I'd love to see it.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Here is some information used in acronym M-A-P-S That we base are logic on. Manuscripts, Archeology, Prophecy and Statistics. There is no refutable evidence on any historical data for we wasn't there; however, we can come to some reasonalbe conclusion base on the evidence. Ya know scholars on both sides of the spectrum wrote about Jesus. There where witness testimony. People saw him crucified to only testify he was walking around three days later...http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2635115/k.AED8/DB011.htm

Here ya go http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2635115/k.AED8/DB011.htm:

Have you tried to show someone the historical reliability of the Scriptures, and not known where to start? A quick trip to your local well-stocked Christian bookstore likely will overwhelm you. Where among the dozens of impressive, comprehensive reference books should you start?

Fortunately, while there is a wealth of information available to support the reliability of Scripture, you don’t have to burn, the midnight oil to give a reasonable answer to those who ask, “How can we know the Bible is reliable?” Four basic principle chart your way to understanding basic biblical reliability.

To help you remember, I’ve developed the simple acronym “MAPS.” Remember the word MAPS and you will be able to chart Bible reliability.

Manuscripts

Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym — BEE — will help you remember these).

The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.

We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.

The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.

The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.

The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.

The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.

Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

Archaeology
Returning to our MAPS acronym, we have established ,the first principle, manuscript reliability. Let us consider our second principle, archaeological evidence. Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of solid archaeological evidence.

For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.

One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.