Evidence behind the new testament.

[Nicholas1024]

Alright, time for me to give the evidence behind what I believe (as it relates to the debate I've been having in the Intellectual design thread and I didn't want to derail it.) Here goes.

Theorem:
The God of the Bible exists.

Outline of Proof:
1) Show that the new testament when written accurately reflected the events of the time.


2) Show that the new testament has been reliably passed down to us since it was originally written.


3) Show that Jesus fills the profile of the Son of God.


4) Show that Jesus did indeed die on that cross, and was raised from the dead.

Proof of claim 1):
First off, it's important to note that the gospels were anonymous. However, the uniform testimony of the early church is that the gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (it was simply not in dispute) and the vast majority of the testimony points to the gospel of John being written by the disciple of the same name. Also, for the first three it is unlikely anyone would lie about being the supposed author: Mark and Luke weren't even members of the twelve, and Matthew was a hated tax collector . So, the four gospels were indeed written by people closely connected to the events. (Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was an associate of Peter, whilst Luke was an associate of Paul.)

Now, the dating for the four gospels (even in very liberal circles) is Mark around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke around 80 AD, and John around 90 AD. (The reason for this dating is that there is a portion of John's gospel dated from 100 - 150 AD that was found way down in Egypt, far away from where the gospels were originally composed.) However, that's still within the lifetime of plenty of eyewitnesses of Jesus's life. If false teachings had been going around, they'd have been blasted. Also, these datings aren't that late by historical standards.

The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great weren't written until over 400 years after Alexander's death, yet most historians consider them trustworthy. So, if Alexander's story can remain intact for centuries, it's quite reasonable to assume that Jesus's could remain intact for a mere 60 years or so.

2) through 4) I'll tackle later (not sure if I'll do it in this topic or another), but this is enough for a start.

(Sidenote: A lot of this information comes from "A Case for Christ", which got it from Christian professors who know what they're talking about. So I'm not just making stuff up here.)

 

[Ballistics]

There is no evidence that Jesus existed. As believer in science, in order to believe something is true, I need evidence.

Wiki:
There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus—no writings or artifacts of his, no accounts of him written in his lifetime – and critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image.[8][9][10] According to traditional Church teaching the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses, but a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.[11][12][13]
A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing including the very existence of Jesus can be determined from them.[14] Notables like John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins don't quite go that far, saying that while the Gospel accounts are no more historical than any other myth (Dawkins likens them to an ancient Da Vinci Code) the odds are Jesus did exist.[15][4] Others like G. R. S. Mead and Ellegard have argued that the Gospel Jesus is a myth based on an earlier historical person described in either the Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls. However, the majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus.[16][17][18] Rolf Torstendahl, professor of history at Uppsala University, has stated that the evidence for existence of Jesus is too weak for a historian to be able to say anything on Jesus' existence, based on evidence.[19] John P. Meier, professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated historians over second half of the 20th century "have produced a rough consensus on the valid sources, methods and criteria in the quest for the historical Jesus" [20] Mark Allan Powell, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, has stated that "most historians are reasonably certain we can know about" things Jesus said and did.[21]
Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, hypothetical sources that biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[22] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[23] Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable,[24][25][26][27][28][29] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[30][31][32][33][34]

 

[Crimson King]

One of the most ****ing things to disprove you is the fact that the gospels don't even agree with each other. For example, and forgive me, I am going solely by memory, in the book of Matthew (I can give you exact quotes if you want), it says Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the time Herod was King. Herod found out and wanted the death of all children to get to Jesus. Mary and Joseph then fled to Egypt.

In Luke, Joseph must go register at the census in Bethlehem, the land of his grandfather, which doesn't happen, and took a pregnant Mary with him. This census says it is under Augustus. Augustus didn't posses the region/call a census until 6CE, where Herod died in 4BCE. Wouldn't this make one of the books starting off with a complete lie?

The problem is simply this: Roman censuses weren't conducted in this manner. Roman censuses were for tax purposes and were proportioned based on land possessed. Also, Joseph wasn't from Judea (or wherever the exact location is, again this is from memory), but his grandfather was. So, somehow, there was a census that required you to return to the homeland of your grandparents with no record of such. Finally, and this is the most ****ing part, the gospel that mentions Jesus being born in a house offers tidbits that reference other events, I believe Herod in particular. There were two Herods, but the one attributed to the mass infantcide (of which there are no real records) was around 4 BCE. The census of the other Gospel would have been 6 CE.

 

[jaswa]

(Sidenote: A lot of this information comes from "A Case for Christ", which got it from Christian professors who know what they're talking about. So I'm not just making stuff up here.)

Really? I've got that sitting on my bookshelf and haven't gotten around to reading it. It's going up on my priorities list

There is no evidence that Jesus existed. As believer in science, in order to believe something is true, I need evidence.

To say this is blatant ignorance. The existence of a man named Jesus is more historically documented than Caesar of the same time period.

2 Things I want to put out there before the debate goes further is;
-Everybody keep in mind when arguing semantics that the bible has been translated and transcribed a few times between when it was written and the current day.
-As it's allready come up: siting Richard Dawkins is not a reputable source. He is an evolutionary biologist, not a theologian.

 

[Ballistics]

Really? I've got that sitting on my bookshelf and haven't gotten around to reading it. It's going up on my priorities list


To say this is blatant ignorance. The existence of a man named Jesus is more historically documented than Caesar of the same time period.

Everybody keep in mind when arguing semantics that the bible has been translated and transcribed a few times between when it was written and the current day

LoL what are these historical documents?

 

[jaswa]

Need 10 characters xD

There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence. The Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. The Bible has the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that document Jesus' life. The balance of the New Testament has references to Jesus. There are 66 books of the Bible. Almost every single book of the Bible has either a prophecy about Jesus or verses that point to the Gospel message. There are over 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 original manuscripts of portions of the New Testament.
.
.
.
The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.

Author-No. of Copies-Time Span
Caesar-10-1,000 years
Plato (Tetralogies)-7-1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals)-20-1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History)-7-750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum)-8-800 years
Homer (Iliad)-643-500 years
New Testament-Over 24,000-25 years

 

[Nicholas1024]

There is no evidence that Jesus existed. As believer in science, in order to believe something is true, I need evidence.

Wiki:
There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus—no writings or artifacts of his, no accounts of him written in his lifetime – and critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image.[8][9][10] According to traditional Church teaching the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses, but a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.[11][12][13]
A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing including the very existence of Jesus can be determined from them.[14] Notables like John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins don't quite go that far, saying that while the Gospel accounts are no more historical than any other myth (Dawkins likens them to an ancient Da Vinci Code) the odds are Jesus did exist.[15][4] Others like G. R. S. Mead and Ellegard have argued that the Gospel Jesus is a myth based on an earlier historical person described in either the Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls. However, the majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus.[16][17][18] Rolf Torstendahl, professor of history at Uppsala University, has stated that the evidence for existence of Jesus is too weak for a historian to be able to say anything on Jesus' existence, based on evidence.[19] John P. Meier, professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated historians over second half of the 20th century "have produced a rough consensus on the valid sources, methods and criteria in the quest for the historical Jesus" [20] Mark Allan Powell, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, has stated that "most historians are reasonably certain we can know about" things Jesus said and did.[21]
Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, hypothetical sources that biblical scholars argue lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources[22] such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.[23] Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable,[24][25][26][27][28][29] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[30][31][32][33][34]

Did you even READ what I said about Alexander the great? His earliest biographies didn't even come until 400 years after his death. Is he a myth?

As for non-biblical references to Jesus:

Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. Born in 37 AD, he wrote most of his four works towards the end of the first century.

Anyways, in his book The Antiquities he describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the roman governor Festus in order to have James (the brother of Jesus) stoned.

The book itself says:

"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

There's another passage he wrote about Jesus called the Testimonium Flavianum which is hotly disputed.

The passage is:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

The current scholarly verdict on this is that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some slight alterations (That is, some early Christian copyists might have inserted some phrases that the writer did not actually put in there.) However, these PROVE the existence of Jesus completely apart from the Bible.

Here's another passage from Tacitus.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

So there you have a roman historian documenting that Pilate sentenced Jesus Christ to the death penalty. Pretending that Jesus never existed is one of the most logically bankrupt things I have ever had the misfortune to witness.


@Crimson King
An archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work there.
Luke said that the census was conducted when Quirinius was governing Syria and during the reign of Herod the great (the infantcide one). The obvious problem is that herod died in 4 BC, and Quirinius didn't begin ruling until AD 6. However, Jerry Vardaman found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, called micrographic letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria from 11 BC until after the death of Herod. It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses. It wasn't uncommon to have plenty of people with the same Roman names, so there's no reason to doubt that there could have been two by the name of Quirinius. The census would have taken place under the reign of the earlier one. Given the cycle of a census every fourteen years, it works out. There's also other theories regarding this. One scholar Sir William Ramsay concluded that there was one Quirinius ruling Syria on two seperate occasions, and other scholars have pointed out that Luke's text can be translated "This census took place BEFORE Quirinius was governing Syria", which would also solve the problem.

Admittedly, the whole thing isn't an example of shining clarity for the gospels, but there are possibilities.

(Another side note: Yes, all of the above post got its material from the Case for Christ. Ka-)

 

[Dre89]

LoL what are these historical documents?

You mean you haven't looked at the case for the other side?

If you're going to say there is no evidence of Jesus, you'd think it'd make sense to at least look at the sources first.

 

[Ballistics]

Originally Posted by http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html
There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence.

Just because something is old doesn't mean its historical evidence

Did you even READ what I said about Alexander the great? His earliest biographies didn't even come until 400 years after his death. Is he a myth?
There is overwhelming evidence for Alexander the Great, and multiple sources for his historical figure. Jesus has none.
http://www.asktheatheists.com/quest...esus-than-they-are-about-alexander-the-great/

As for non-biblical references to Jesus:

Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. Born in 37 AD, he wrote most of his four works towards the end of the first century.

Josephus' account is a forgery.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Here's another passage from Tacitus.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

So there you have a roman historian documenting that Pilate sentenced Jesus Christ to the death penalty. Pretending that Jesus never existed is one of the most logically bankrupt things I have ever had the misfortune to witness.

Tacitus just proves that there were Christians, not that Jesus existed.

"The writings of Tacitus and Pliny do not prove the existence of Jesus as these authors were born late in the first century of the current era.. In the case of the Roman historian, the passage in question comes from his annals. It is no secret that after the fire that consumed Rome in 64 A.D. the emperor Nero scapegoated Christians because he had to blame the fire on someone. Tacitus, who is never objective when he mentions Nero, probably had to balance this with the dislike of the Christians typical of the Roman pagans of his day against his dislike of Nero. Although there is no evidence that Tacitus hated the early Christians, perhaps his hatred for the former emperor was greater. He does mention that the Christians were likely not the cause of the fire but merely a convenient and unpopular target to distract blame away.

The Annals do not prove that Jesus Christ existed but merely that Christians existed in the First Century A.D., which no scholar has ever disputed. Tacitus lived too far away from the events that supposedly took place in Galilee almost a hundred years before his birth to know about them first hand.



Read more at Suite101: Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Jesus: Why These Writers Don't Prove Jesus Existed http://www.suite101.com/content/pliny-tacitus-josephus-and-jesus-a28707#ixzz12D0yjlAf


(Another side note: Yes, all of the above post got its material from the Case for Christ. Ka-)

If you look at Christian theologians for your only sources of whether or not Jesus existed, you aren't running a very unbiased investigation.

Jesus is a total myth for three reasons:

1. There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
2. The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus—all that can be taken from the epistles, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, came into the world to die as a sacrifice for human sin and was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
3. The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/ Tammuz as examples, all of which survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity.

Take a look at some agnostic and unbiased research of various people throughout the world who question the very existence of Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

 

[Namaste]

To say this is blatant ignorance. The existence of a man named Jesus is more historically documented than Caesar of the same time period.

Nah that is blatant ignorance. While I do believe there is enough evidence for a historical Jesus I do not see how you can possibly try to say he was more historically documented then Caesar.

Need 10 characters xD (and the rest of that post)

Maybe I just did not understand what the chart, but how exactly was the New Testament supposed to have been over 24,000 years old?

The Bible cannot be used as evidence for itself, if there was a prophecy in the Bible that later became true then you have to use other references to both the supposed prophecy and the actual event that happened without using the Bible itself as your main reference point. For example, the Bible said Egypt would be barren for several years, you just have to go find when that happened and try to see if there is evidence that the prophecy had actually been around since the time that Egypt lost every human in that land.

 

[jaswa]

I think it's saying there have been 24,000 manuscripts containing New Testament, some of which were written 25yrs after Jesus' death, ie. within the same generation - hence people of the time could've refuted the incorrect documentation and had it purged if they as eye-witnesses to Jesus didn't think what was written about him added up.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Just because something is old doesn't mean its historical evidence



If you look at Christian theologians for your only sources of whether or not Jesus existed, you aren't running a very unbiased investigation.

Jesus is a total myth for three reasons:

1. There is no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources.
2. The epistles, written earlier than the gospels, provide no evidence of a recent historical Jesus—all that can be taken from the epistles, is that a Jesus Christ, son of God, came into the world to die as a sacrifice for human sin and was raised by God and enthroned in heaven.
3. The Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage. Baal, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dumuzi/ Tammuz as examples, all of which survived into the Hellenistic and Roman periods and thereby influenced early Christianity.

Take a look at some agnostic and unbiased research of various people throughout the world who question the very existence of Jesus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

I can't believe I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that. Here's the reasons why you're completely and totally incorrect here.

1) First off, you've only mentioned the controversy surrounding the one passage of Josephus and completely ignored the other one mentioning Jesus.

2) So, Tacitcus's account is supposedly "useless" because he wasn't there firsthand? Well, so much for Alexander the great. Our histories about him didn't come until many generations later, so obviously all of those accounts can't be trusted. That is one of the worst double standards I. Have. Ever. Seen.

3)Why WOULD secular historians mention Jesus? Jesus basically was to them what a rock star would be to people today. Only Christian historians would have a reason to mention it in any detail, but of course you'd throw them out for being biased, wouldn't you?

4)If Jesus never existed, where did Christians come from? I mean, do you really think that thousands of people back in the first century would die in horrible ways for something they knew to be fake? In particular, do you think that the 12 disciples would go through all types of trials and in the end a horrible death (for all but 1)? NO!

5)Now for the new testament itself. The new testament is the most well documented ancient text we have by FAR. There are 306 unical greek manuscripts that date as far back as the third century. A new style of writing emerged in the 8th century called miniscule, and we have 2,856 of those. There are also lectionaries (a sort of "lesson book" for early churches), and we have another 2,403 of those. In addition to those, we have plenty of ancient New Testament manuscripts in other languages. 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, plus around 8,000 in Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. In all, there's about 24,000 manuscripts in existence. Next to the new testament, the next best documented work would be Homer's Iliad, which was basically the bible of the ancient greeks, and they come down starting in the second and third centuries. Since Homer composed it at 800BC, that's a huge gap. Edit: Almost forgot, there's only 650 greek manuscripts of Homer's Illiad.

6)As to the gods dying and reviving in mythology, that doesn't prove anything. What's the point of even mentioning it?

So, if you're going to troll, please do it somewhere else. Your Jesus myth theory has been completely and utterly shown false.

 

[Sucumbio]

keep it civil folks. we don't picard's face palm, or jibes at each other. thanks in advance.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Outline of Proof:
1) Show that the new testament when written accurately reflected the events of the time.


2) Show that the new testament has been reliably passed down to us since it was originally written.

Good luck with 1), you know, with the whole walking on water, rising from the dead, feeding thousands with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, etc...

3) Show that Jesus fills the profile of the Son of God.


4) Show that Jesus did indeed die on that cross, and was raised from the dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0&feature=related

Proof of claim 1):
First off, it's important to note that the gospels were anonymous. However, the uniform testimony of the early church is that the gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (it was simply not in dispute) and the vast majority of the testimony points to the gospel of John being written by the disciple of the same name. Also, for the first three it is unlikely anyone would lie about being the supposed author: Mark and Luke weren't even members of the twelve, and Matthew was a hated tax collector . So, the four gospels were indeed written by people closely connected to the events. (Matthew and John were disciples, Mark was an associate of Peter, whilst Luke was an associate of Paul.)

Now, the dating for the four gospels (even in very liberal circles) is Mark around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke around 80 AD, and John around 90 AD. (The reason for this dating is that there is a portion of John's gospel dated from 100 - 150 AD that was found way down in Egypt, far away from where the gospels were originally composed.) However, that's still within the lifetime of plenty of eyewitnesses of Jesus's life. If false teachings had been going around, they'd have been blasted. Also, these datings aren't that late by historical standards.

And this presupposes that the gospels are actually non-fiction. Is there any evidence of the gospels being factually accurate? Why should we trust them, especially when you consider what I'm about to say below regarding a lack of reports on Jesus overall, when you consider that they are a part of the new testament, which was almost completely built to hype Jesus, and when you consider that Jesus did several things in these books which are scientifically impossible? (i.e. miracles) Please provide a reasonable explanation as to why these gospels should be accepted as truth, even if you assume that Jesus did exist.

Regarding the Testimonium:

There is broad scholarly consensus that the two passages referring respectively to John the Baptist, and to James the brother of Jesus are genuine. A third passage, the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form summarises the ministry and death of Jesus; but the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. The most widely held current scholarly opinion is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist. [4] [5][6] [7]


Géza Vermes offers a speculative reconstruction of the original text of the Testimonium Flavianum, removing later Christian additions, indicating deletions with '...':[15]

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

At this point, I suppose it's fair to claim that Jesus, as a person did exist. To conclude from that that any of the writings of the bible regarding him are accurate is, however, heavily fallacious.

The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great weren't written until over 400 years after Alexander's death, yet most historians consider them trustworthy. So, if Alexander's story can remain intact for centuries, it's quite reasonable to assume that Jesus's could remain intact for a mere 60 years or so.

It's worth mentioning that in Alexander's case, you have tons of eyewitness reports of a guy who literally conquered half of Asia. In Jesus's case, you have a supposed preacher who should've been the talk of the time if he was really doing all the miracles attributed to him, with... very, very little evidence that points to actual historical accuracy. Furthermore, this puts Alexander's story in question more than it backs up Jesus's.

(Sidenote: A lot of this information comes from "A Case for Christ", which got it from Christian professors who know what they're talking about. So I'm not just making stuff up here.)

It's very likely biased and very possibly incorrect. I should take a look at it, or at least a bibliography from it, before marking it off as bull****, but any text in favor of Jesus's existence or status as a son of god coming from Christians should be treated with extreme skepticism.

Furthermore, the entire basis of this debate is faulty. You want to prove that the new testament is accurate by proving individual events in it. You can easily cherry-pick truth out of any text, but calling the rest of its crap accurate afterwards, using that as a basis, is simply ridiculous.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Good luck with 1), you know, with the whole walking on water, rising from the dead, feeding thousands with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, etc...

Tell me, what would it take to convince you of a miracle? The best evidence I can give you here is that of the opposition. The Talmund, an important Jewish work finished about AD 500 that was complied about AD 200. It doesn't usually go into great detail about heretics (which Jews saw Jesus as), but there are several passages in the Talmund mentioning Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also mention a rumor that Jesus was born of a roman soldier and Mary, implying that there was something unusual about his birth (the virgin birth). So, if Jesus didn't cause miracles, why didn't the opposition say so? Instead they say he was demon possessed and his power to create miracles came from the devil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0&feature=related

I said I'd get to those points later.

And this presupposes that the gospels are actually non-fiction. Is there any evidence of the gospels being factually accurate? Why should we trust them, especially when you consider what I'm about to say below regarding a lack of reports on Jesus overall, when you consider that they are a part of the new testament, which was almost completely built to hype Jesus, and when you consider that Jesus did several things in these books which are scientifically impossible? (i.e. miracles) Please provide a reasonable explanation as to why these gospels should be accepted as truth, even if you assume that Jesus did exist.

Do you have any evidence about that? After all, if the whole thing was merely built to "hype Jesus up", why would the people who wrote them have died for something they knew to be a lie? And shouldn't an all-powerful, all-knowing God-incarnite have the capability to break his own scientific laws? Given the historical evidence corroborating the gospel, even outside of the new testament we have that:

1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher.
2) Many people believed he performed miracles.
3) Some people believed he was the Messiah.
4) He was rejected by the Jewish leaders.
5) He was crucified by Pilate.
6) Despite this shameful death, his followers believed he was still alive, spreading throughout the globe and dying for his cause.
7) All kinds of people from the city and countryside worshipped him as God.

I'd say that the burden of proof falls on YOU.

Regarding the Testimonium:



At this point, I suppose it's fair to claim that Jesus, as a person did exist. To conclude from that that any of the writings of the bible regarding him are accurate is, however, heavily fallacious.



It's worth mentioning that in Alexander's case, you have tons of eyewitness reports of a guy who literally conquered half of Asia. In Jesus's case, you have a supposed preacher who should've been the talk of the time if he was really doing all the miracles attributed to him, with... very, very little evidence that points to actual historical accuracy. Furthermore, this puts Alexander's story in question more than it backs up Jesus's.

Eyewitness reports? Those would be stories handed down to the 8th generation or so! 500 years is actually a general standard for stuff considered historically reliable. I don't know of any other examples firsthand though. Also, what do you mean very little evidence that points to historical accuracy? What would you consider "evidence"? Jesus's purpose here wasn't to be an international superstar, he came to seek and save the lost. He never went out of Judea during his ministry, which means that people out of Judea wouldn't have been that interested in him. (His ministry only lasted 3 years, and he didn't stay around long after the resurrection.)

It's very likely biased and very possibly incorrect. I should take a look at it, or at least a bibliography from it, before marking it off as bull****, but any text in favor of Jesus's existence or status as a son of god coming from Christians should be treated with extreme skepticism.

All right wise guy, where else WOULD it come from? Any text in favor of Jesus's existence as the Son of God would HAVE to be written by a Christian, else they'd present Jesus as merely "a wise teacher", or a rebel or something.

Furthermore, the entire basis of this debate is faulty. You want to prove that the new testament is accurate by proving individual events in it. You can easily cherry-pick truth out of any text, but calling the rest of its crap accurate afterwards, using that as a basis, is simply ridiculous.

I could say that about evolution. You want to prove that evolution is accurate by proving individual links in it. You can easily cherry-pick transitional forms out of the fossil record, but calling the rest of its crap accurate afterwards, using that as a basis, is simply ridiculous. What method of proving the new testament would you find legitimate?

 

[ballin4life]

Are you really saying that the burden of proof is on those saying that Jesus didn't walk on water and produce miracles? It's impossible to conclusively prove that something didn't happen.

Going through many historical documents we can find references to magic, but we don't just take those at face value. It's way too convenient to believe that magic used to exist but doesn't ever show up any more (besides stuff like magnets of course).

 

[Nicholas1024]

Look, the historical documents prove that Jesus was considered a miracle worker by many people. So either he somehow managed to fool EVERYONE (including faking his own death on the cross and somehow managing to recover enough to roll away a giant stone and get past roman soldiers within 3 days without food or water), or he's telling the truth.

 

[Namaste]

There aren't any other historical documents about the miracles or resurrection other then the Bible, and then others later on talking about the Bible's account.

 

[Deleted member]

Hi, just a few things I want to point out (don't want to say too much).

1. The reason why historians trust the documents referring to Alexander the Great is that among others things, there are no supernatural claims made about Alexander the Great (there might be, but they aren't taken seriously). The claims made about Jesus however are indeed supernatural, and therefore should not be put under the same level of scrutiny that is used for texts about Alexander the Great are.

2. Lifespans in those days were much shorter than they are now, the average lifespan was around 30 years. If you take into account infant mortality, we can say that the average person who lived past infancy lived about 40 years. This means that accounts from the year 70 AD or 80 AD (or later) are likely not eyewitness accounts. It would be the equivalent of me writing history books about World War 2 after hearing it from people who were there.

3. Saying "facepalm" or something like that (I saw multiple people do that) doesn't make you look cool, or like you know a significant amount more than the other person. It just means that you don't have the intellectual honestly to seriously consider both points of view.

4. Prophecies of the bible coming true (I think somebody mentioned that but I'm not sure) are not convincing evidence that he bible is correct. If it was, I would be a muslim (I think I've posted this video before). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2s14T6x5AM (To people who don't see the logical flaw to what he is saying, it's actually extremely convincing).

I ended up saying more than I wanted to, but I'll end it here, other people are responding to other things.

 

[ballin4life]

If you say that miracles happened because people back then believed that he caused miracles, does this not apply to mohammed/buddha/etc?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Hi, just a few things I want to point out (don't want to say too much).

1. The reason why historians trust the documents referring to Alexander the Great is that among others things, there are no supernatural claims made about Alexander the Great (there might be, but they aren't taken seriously). The claims made about Jesus however are indeed supernatural, and therefore should not be put under the same level of scrutiny that is used for texts about Alexander the Great are.

I concede the point, however the testimonies of the gospels have much better backing than the biographies of Alexander the Great. (60 years to 400). That makes it much less likely to merely be legend.

2. Lifespans in those days were much shorter than they are now, the average lifespan was around 30 years. If you take into account infant mortality, we can say that the average person who lived past infancy lived about 40 years. This means that accounts from the year 70 AD or 80 AD (or later) are likely not eyewitness accounts. It would be the equivalent of me writing history books about World War 2 after hearing it from people who were there.

Perhaps most of the people from Jesus's time would be dead, but surely back then there were some people who managed to live a good 60 years or more, which would cover the gap from Jesus's ministry (around 30 AD) to the 80 AD or so date. We don't need every eyewitness, merely a few.

3. Saying "facepalm" or something like that (I saw multiple people do that) doesn't make you look cool, or like you know a significant amount more than the other person. It just means that you don't have the intellectual honestly to seriously consider both points of view.

I know, but sometimes I get agitated when people attack me on points that I have previously covered. (By the way, has there ever been a case of death by facepalm? )

4. Prophecies of the bible coming true (I think somebody mentioned that but I'm not sure) are not convincing evidence that he bible is correct. If it was, I would be a muslim (I think I've posted this video before). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2s14T6x5AM (To people who don't see the logical flaw to what he is saying, it's actually extremely convincing).

I ended up saying more than I wanted to, but I'll end it here, other people are responding to other things.

The question is how many of their prophecies come true. For example, allow me to make some "prophecies".

The Phillies will win the 2010 world series.
The Yankees will win the 2010 world series.
The Giants will win the 2010 world series.
The Rangers will win the 2010 world series.

Obviously you see the problem here. No, a true prophet would need to have a 100% accuracy rate. Now, here's where the Bible comes into play.

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and call him Immanuel." A prediction of Jesus's virgin birth.

Micah 5:2
"But you Bethelhem, Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." A prediction that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem.

Genesis 49:10
"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." Saying that the Messiah will come from the house of Judah.

Jeremiah 23:5-6
"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness." showing that the Messiah will be a descendant of King David.

Anyway, you get the idea. If you want some more evidence, here's a list of prophecies fulfilled in Jesus's life:
http://100prophecies.org/page3.htm
as well as those fulfilled in his death:
http://100prophecies.org/page4.htm

The odds of anyone fulfilling even a fraction of those prophecies are astronomical. I rest my case.

@ballin
What's the documentation behind those other people's "miracles"?

 

[Ballistics]

I'm going to exit this debate as I don't believe Jesus even existed so I am not fit to talk about the validity of the New Testament. Just remember that alot of people feel the same way I do so I wouldn't talk about Jesus in your high class job interview.

 

[_Keno_]

The odds of anyone fulfilling even a fraction of those prophecies are astronomical. I rest my case.

Can't you even try to look at it from an atheistic point of view? The odds of a fictional character fulfilling prophecies that he was created solely to fulfill is 100%.

The fictional character might be based on a real person, but the character mentioned in the Bible has no historical evidence (that hasnt already been proven a forgery) showing that he was anything other than a man (and maybe not even that).

 

[Nicholas1024]

Can't you even try to look at it from an atheistic point of view? The odds of a fictional character fulfilling prophecies that he was created solely to fulfill is 100%.

The fictional character might be based on a real person, but the character mentioned in the Bible has no historical evidence (that hasnt already been proven a forgery) showing that he was anything other than a man (and maybe not even that).

Give me some evidence, I've given you mine. Why would the disciples all have died horribly for something they knew to be false? Why would the pharisee Saul have changed from persecuting and torturing Christians to the most zealous apostle of all time for a falsehood? How has my evidence been "proven a forgery"? Any idiot can make undocumented assertions, so back them up.

Edit: Oh yeah, one thing I forgot. If Jesus was a fiction, why would the disciples have left in bits like his baptism by John the Baptist? It can be explained, but on the surface an all-powerful all-knowing perfect being getting baptised by a sinner makes no sense. It would have been much easier just to leave it out altogether.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok, I'm calling shenanigans.

The prophecies in the bible are fulfilled in the bible ... really? That is supposed to be some sort of evidence?

I don't really see why spelling this out is necessary but those prophecies could have been inserted after the events happened, or the events could have been inserted to fulfill the prophecies, or they both could have been made up.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ok, I'm calling shenanigans.

The prophecies in the bible are fulfilled in the bible ... really? That is supposed to be some sort of evidence?

I don't really see why spelling this out is necessary but those prophecies could have been inserted after the events happened, or the events could have been inserted to fulfill the prophecies, or they both could have been made up.

Basic Bible knowledge 101:
The Bible is separated into

a) The Old Testament, written all before 400 BC or so.
b) The New Testament, written all after 0 AD.

There's this religion, called Judaism, that's based on the Old Testament. Jews have existed long before Christians.

Christianity, by comparison, is based on both the New and the Old Testament, and obviously didn't start until after Christ's death.

Most Jews are not Christians. If Christians had inserted new prophecies into the Old Testament to make Christ look good, the Jews would blast all that to smithereens. Therefore, the prophecies in the Old testament are all valid and fulfilled in Jesus. Similarly, the miracles of the New testament must have happened, because else the Jews would be claiming "Jesus never actually performed miracles, the Christians are lying!".

Thus (ironically enough), Christianity is confirmed by the actions of its critics.

 

[ballin4life]

And yet Jews still exist. Why didn't they all accept Jesus if he fulfilled all of these prophecies?

Note again that these events could have been inserted by the writers specifically to fulfill all these prophecies as well, in an attempt to convert others to the writers' religion. They have a large incentive to do that, wouldn't you say?

Take the "virgin birth", for example. Even if Jesus was conceived normally (it's really impossible to know either way, for us or for the writer), wouldn't the writer of the book say that Jesus was born of a virgin birth anyway?

 

[Nicholas1024]

And yet Jews still exist. Why didn't they all accept Jesus if he fulfilled all of these prophecies?

Note again that these events could have been inserted by the writers specifically to fulfill all these prophecies as well, in an attempt to convert others to the writers' religion. They have a large incentive to do that, wouldn't you say?

Take the "virgin birth", for example. Even if Jesus was conceived normally (it's really impossible to know either way, for us or for the writer), wouldn't the writer of the book say that Jesus was born of a virgin birth anyway?

Because he didn't fit their preconceived notions of a Messiah. The Jews were looking for a normal king, not an eternal one. They were looking for someone to deliver them from the Romans, but that wasn't what Jesus came for. In addition, the Jewish leaders were doing everything they could to stall and undermine Jesus, because Jesus blasted them for their hypocrisy and immoral ways.

If these events were fabricated, then why wouldn't people who knew of it simply have said so? Christianity was very unpopular with the ruling classes back then, so if one of the disciples or other key figures had simply denounced it all and claimed it was a big hoax, he'd not only avoid a VERY painful death, but probably greatly enhance their social status.

Think about it. If someone came in, held a gun to your head and said "Renounce evolution or die", what would you say? Now suppose you know theory X to be false, and he said "Renounce theory X or die!". What kind of idiot wouldn't give up his lies rather than suffer death?

Also, take for example the prophecy of Jesus getting betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. The pharisees (Jewish leaders) would have known if that never happened, and would have been in PERFECT condition to say so! So why on earth didn't they?

As for the virgin birth, the writers could have easily have just talked to Mary (Jesus's mother) or any of his brothers (who probably would have been told about it). And for the n-th time: Would. You. Die. For. A. Lie?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I'm just pointing this out to everyone, but the bible should never be used for proof (with some exceptions).

 

[Nicholas1024]

I'm just pointing this out to everyone, but the bible should never be used for proof (with some exceptions).

Why not? Obviously I can't use it like "The bible is true because the bible says so", but if I show the historical backing behind it and don't use circular reasoning it should be fine to use as evidence, right?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Why not? Obviously I can't use it like "The bible is true because the bible says so", but if I show the historical backing behind it and don't use circular reasoning it should be fine to use as evidence, right?

what do you mean, "historical backing"?

 

[Nicholas1024]

what do you mean, "historical backing"?

I mean that the gap between the events and the writing down of the gospels is excellent by historical standards (proven in the OP), and the testimony of the gospels is reliable (which is what we've basically been debating).

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What?

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your argument at all.

(oh, and your "Alexander the great" part is an example of the logical fallacy "proof by example")

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

What? I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your argument at all. (oh, and your "Alexander the great" part is an example of the logical fallacy "proof by example")

Immediate Hypothesis: Modern historical discoveries in the form of artifacts, journal accounts, and other articles of relevance reinforce the validity of the New Statement in the Holy Bible (with particular emphasis on the first four books of the Bible which consist of the gospel record from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) therefore indicating that the literature is also historical and not allegorical in nature.

Larger Hypothesis: If the New Statement of the Holy Bible is historically true in both content and context, then everything in the Bible is true which means that a monotheistic Christian deity exists.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Thanks for the clarification acrostic.

How does your argument make any sense? "because these scriptures were made 90 years later, a god exists. Doy"

If you're arguing "well, they happened around the same time": How does that prove anything.

 

[ballin4life]

Because he didn't fit their preconceived notions of a Messiah. The Jews were looking for a normal king, not an eternal one. They were looking for someone to deliver them from the Romans, but that wasn't what Jesus came for. In addition, the Jewish leaders were doing everything they could to stall and undermine Jesus, because Jesus blasted them for their hypocrisy and immoral ways.

If these events were fabricated, then why wouldn't people who knew of it simply have said so? Christianity was very unpopular with the ruling classes back then, so if one of the disciples or other key figures had simply denounced it all and claimed it was a big hoax, he'd not only avoid a VERY painful death, but probably greatly enhance their social status.

Think about it. If someone came in, held a gun to your head and said "Renounce evolution or die", what would you say? Now suppose you know theory X to be false, and he said "Renounce theory X or die!". What kind of idiot wouldn't give up his lies rather than suffer death?

Also, take for example the prophecy of Jesus getting betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. The pharisees (Jewish leaders) would have known if that never happened, and would have been in PERFECT condition to say so! So why on earth didn't they?

As for the virgin birth, the writers could have easily have just talked to Mary (Jesus's mother) or any of his brothers (who probably would have been told about it). And for the n-th time: Would. You. Die. For. A. Lie?

So the writers of the bible were killed for writing the bible, and knew that they would be killed for writing it, but decided to anyway. Well, people have done way crazier things for religion anyway. I mean, as you said, I probably wouldn't die for the truth either.

The writers may also have had a preconceived notion that Jesus was the messiah and therefore X, Y, Z must be true. They also were trying to, you know, spread their religion as well. Are there other accounts of Jesus besides those that believe he is the messiah? Ones which acknowledge these miracles?

Would you believe it if I told you I saw someone walk on water today, or feed a billion people with a loaf of bread or whatever? Probably not. But if someone 2000 years later finds that I wrote a book saying this, he should believe it?

 

[jaswa]

Would you believe it if I told you I saw someone walk on water today, or feed a billion people with a loaf of bread or whatever? Probably not. But if someone 2000 years later finds that I wrote a book saying this, he should believe it?

When you wrote the book, hundreds if not thousands of people who know you didn't do these things would've stopped the publishing going forth.

It wasn't just the writers of the Bible that saw Jesus perform miracles, but also the people across many different communities - ie. different tribes/providences and countries.

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Note the 'more than' and that that was 'at the same time'. Paul wrote this when hundreds and hundreds of eye-witnesses to Jesus' death and resurrection where still living and could contest his claims. Go look up how many eye-witnesses you need in a court of law

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Would you believe it if I told you I saw someone walk on water today, or feed a billion people with a loaf of bread or whatever? Probably not. But if someone 2000 years later finds that I wrote a book saying this, he should believe it?

I believe the amount is more around the realm of five thousand. Just clarifying.

According to Matthew 14: 17-21, "And they said to Him, 'We have here only five loaves and two fish.' He said, 'Bring them here to Me.' Then he commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass. And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes. So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that remained. Now those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Also the case is written in Mark 6: 38-44, "But He said to them, 'How many loaves do you have? Go and see.' And when they found out they said, 'Five, and two fish.' Then He commanded them to make them all sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in ranks, in hundreds and in fifties. And when He had taken the five loaves and the two fish, He looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to His disciples to set before them; and the two fish He divided among them all. So they all ate and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of fragments and of the fish. Now those who had eaten the loaves were about five thousand men."

And also it is written in Luke 9: 13-17, "But He said to them, 'You give them something to eat.' And they said, 'We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless we go and buy food for all these people.' For there were about five thousand men. Then He said to his disciples, 'Make them sit down in groups of fifty.' And they did so, and made them all sit down. Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude. So they all ate and were filled, ad twelve baskets of the left-over fragments were taken up by them."

Finally it is stated in John 6: 5-10, "Then Jesus lifted up His eyes, and seeing a great multitude coming toward Him, He said to Philip, 'Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?' But this He said to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do. Philip answered Him, 'Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may have a little." One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to Him, 'There is a lad here who have five barley loaves and two small fish, but what are they among so many?' Then Jesus said, 'Make the people sit down.' Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand."

 

[jaswa]

Feeding the 5000 (Jews - he feeds 4000 Gentiles later in accordance with earlier teachings) is the only miracle described across all 4 gospels, but most of them are mentioned by atleast 2.

 

[ballin4life]

When you wrote the book, hundreds if not thousands of people who know you didn't do these things would've stopped the publishing going forth.

It wasn't just the writers of the Bible that saw Jesus perform miracles, but also the people across many different communities - ie. different tribes/providences and countries.


Note the 'more than' and that that was 'at the same time'. Paul wrote this when hundreds and hundreds of eye-witnesses to Jesus' death and resurrection where still living and could contest his claims. Go look up how many eye-witnesses you need in a court of law

Those sorts of checks weren't exactly in place 2000 years ago, because there was not mass communication, and as far as I know plenty of people couldn't read anyway.

How would all these people know that my claims didn't happen anyway? Through the same reasoning that leads me to be skeptical of Jesus walking on water?

Also, what source are you getting these other eyewitnesses from? If the Bible, then that's kind of circular logic, right? There aren't any corroborating reports from non-Bible sources, are there?

I just checked and there's a whole wikipedia page about this actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I don't want to go in depth reading everything, so I'll end on the note that at least you should be able to see why reasonable people would be skeptical of a 2000 year old document that claims that miracles happened (which violate our current understanding of the world).

Also lol at the post above ... I really needed a wall of text explaining to me exactly how many people Jesus fed