Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[joer]

So here's an excerpt from the critical historical and literary analysis of the Gospel called Matthew. On these boards there is a lot of dispute over who wrote what when concerning the Bible. I’ve notice often times non-believers attack believers on the basis of old ideas, concepts and positions concerning the Bible. They try to get the believer to argue That the Gospels were written by the persons whose names are attributed to them. Where if fact in many more current Bibles are these conceptual errors concerning the who what and when of gospel creation are dealt with up front in the introduction to each Gospel. So here we have some of the introduction to Gospel called Matthew. Notice some of the critical analysis I highlight.

I know there will be a lot of petty attacks on this source But If someone really has a more authoritative account of who when and where these gospels were written by, I’d sincerely like to look at it.

Thanks in advance for reviewing this evidence from “outside the bible� about the “real basis� of the biblical writings to the best of the knowledge of some 50 experts with literary, historical and scholarly expertise to form a authoritative basis from which to make this knowledge available to those who are interested in where the Bible really comes from and who the heck really wrote it, and how did and does that affect the meaning we get from the Bible today.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV9.HTM

Matthew
Introduction

The position of the Gospel according to Matthew as the first of the four gospels in the New Testament reflects both the view that it was the first to be written, a view that goes back to the late second century A.D., and the esteem in which it was held by the church; no other was so frequently quoted in the noncanonical literature of earliest Christianity. Although the majority of scholars now reject the opinion about the time of its composition, the high estimation of this work remains. The reason for that becomes clear upon study of the way in which Matthew presents his story of Jesus, the demands of Christian discipleship, and the breaking-in of the new and final age through the ministry but particularly through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following.

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see ⇒ Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.
The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post - A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by ⇒ Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.
As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. That large and important city had a mixed population of Greek-speaking Gentiles and Jews. The tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians there in the time of Paul (see ⇒ Gal 2:1-14) in respect to Christian obligation to observe Mosaic law are partially similar to tensions that can be seen between the two groups in Matthew's gospel.

[Beto]

And in regards to this statement of yours, Beto came up with a suggestion as to how one might respond to this type of statement:

Regardless of how well a 2000 year old fairy tale was translated it still does not prove the bible as anything but fiction.

…it's a weak or false analogy..

No, I did not come up with a "suggestion as to how one might respond to this type of statement". The response was to YOUR statement. It does not apply to Niloc's, unless you can demonstrate the Bible is essentially different from what is known as a "fairy tale", and something other than fiction. Let's avoid quote mining, shall we?

[Zzyzx]

.
Joer,

It must be an oversight that you have not responded to my posts #287 and #289. I credit you with being honorable in debate and not one who ducks questions that they cannot answer. Is that true?

To refresh the memory, you are attempting to show evidence to support bible stories and have presented information regarding the "Star of Bethlehem" and have speculated about what it was.

I ask

1. How a celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet

2. How a celestial object can stop over a point on a rotating spherical planet

3. What the Urantia Book (that I seem to recall you supporting) teaches about the "star"

Unless you can address these issues successfully you have failed to provide any evidence to support bible stories. In fact, you will have provided exactly the opposite – evidence that bible stories CANNOT be supported.

Now you appear to be attempting to change the topic and avoid responding. I am accustomed to debating bible supporters who "duck and weave" when confronted with issues that they cannot address. Surely that is not happening here, is it?

You will address these issues honestly and openly, won't you?

[JoeyKnothead]

>opinion I hope adds to the debate<

I gotta say guys, Joer has put up one heck of a position here, in relation to the OP. To me, his explanation has just as much to be believed as other's counters.

As all we have is plausibility to go by, Joer has presented a rational, logical case for the Star of Bethlehem. Whether it was a star or not, to me, is not material to whether the event occurred. It sure seems to me, within the bounds of this OP, this forum, and 'the real world' that these folks wrote what they thought was accurate about 'the star'.

I personally lean towards another's OP that suggests this event is based on an alignment of stars pointing to a rising sun. Even under this theory, the Star of Bethlehem event still has enough probability, and plausibility, that I don't mind considering this event as having occurred, though maybe not explained in a sufficiently scientifically accurate way.

The details may be arguable, but this atheist must agree that Joer's case here seems just as or more plausible than any of the counters against it.

If I concede this event likely occurred, to me it still does not adequately address the divinity of Jesus. If I concede these folks followed this star, I still would only concede they did so thinking Jesus was divine.

>don't forget I'm still spewing opinion<
Going back to another theory on the event and how it may have played out; If some stars lined up and pointed to a location on the horizon, this would "guide" these folks towards their destination. Given they were not as sophisticated about such things, it is plausible they would then write such as "we followed a star and we got there".

So, I just don't think an effective counter can be made to such a plausible event. This does not necessarily mean it occurred, but that it is not so far fetched that it could not have occurred.

I think the Star of Bethlehem event should stand as an evidence according to the OP, the rules of logic/reason, and plausibility.

[Beto]

I think the Star of Bethlehem event should stand as an evidence according to the OP, the rules of logic/reason, and plausibility.

And suppose the "evidence", such as any given planetary alignment, and corresponding tales, was shown to belong originally to the Egyptians. Does the event still serve as evidence for the tale of the Star of Bethlehem? Can the same event serve as evidence for both "Horus" and "Jesus"?

[Goat]

>opinion I hope adds to the debate<

I gotta say guys, Joer has put up one heck of a position here, in relation to the OP. To me, his explanation has just as much to be believed as other's counters.

As all we have is plausibility to go by, Joer has presented a rational, logical case for the Star of Bethlehem. Whether it was a star or not, to me, is not material to whether the event occurred. It sure seems to me, within the bounds of this OP, this forum, and 'the real world' that these folks wrote what they thought was accurate about 'the star'.

I personally lean towards another's OP that suggests this event is based on an alignment of stars pointing to a rising sun. Even under this theory, the Star of Bethlehem event still has enough probability, and plausibility, that I don't mind considering this event as having occurred, though maybe not explained in a sufficiently scientifically accurate way.

The details may be arguable, but this atheist must agree that Joer's case here seems just as or more plausible than any of the counters against it.

If I concede this event likely occurred, to me it still does not adequately address the divinity of Jesus. If I concede these folks followed this star, I still would only concede they did so thinking Jesus was divine.

>don't forget I'm still spewing opinion<
Going back to another theory on the event and how it may have played out; If some stars lined up and pointed to a location on the horizon, this would "guide" these folks towards their destination. Given they were not as sophisticated about such things, it is plausible they would then write such as "we followed a star and we got there".

So, I just don't think an effective counter can be made to such a plausible event. This does not necessarily mean it occurred, but that it is not so far fetched that it could not have occurred.

I think the Star of Bethlehem event should stand as an evidence according to the OP, the rules of logic/reason, and plausibility.

Why should we accept the specific incident that is talked about in 7 bc. by the Book of Urania? Why not the comet in 5 bce, the lunar eclipse in 4 bce, the conjunction in 1 bce, and about a half a dozen different theories?

Considering that according to the source Joer quoted, the gospel of Matthew was written after Mark, which was written around the fall of Jerusalem, and probably written in Syria, why should it refer to an actual event?

What evidence gives it to be an actual event, rather than a teaching story?

[McCulloch]

Regarding the alleged Star of Bethlehem, I must reiterate Zzyzx's question, "How [can] a celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet?"

(Excepting Polaris)

[Zzyzx]

.
Joey (or anyone),

Can you help Joer explain how any celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet AND stop over a location? He REALLY needs help because he has not even attempted to explain how that can happen.

Unless both of those are explained, all the theories presented to explain "what it was" are meaningless. The bible story clearly claims that the "star" led people and stopped. That does not happen in nature.

If this is a "goddidit" tale it has no merit as evidence in ethical debate because it is just a story claiming some form of supernaturalism that has NOT been verified.

Another minor problem is that no one knows when Jesus was supposed to have been born, so attempting to correlate some celestial object or event with the birth are meaningless.

[JoeyKnothead]

In reading some of the replies, I realize I may have been a bit premature in my estimation of things. I'm thinking though, if these celestial events could happened around the time of Jesus' birth, then the specifics may be wrong, but the general idea would still be sound.

My position is predicated on Jesus being a factual person, regardless of divinity.
Do we know that Jesus was born around the time of 25 Dec?

As before, I don't think it necessary to consider this a star proper, but only that the story would originally suggest a star, and then it would become considered such at a later date.

Again I mention I'm only accepting this as plausible more than factual.

And suppose the "evidence", such as any given planetary alignment, and corresponding tales, was shown to belong originally to the Egyptians. Does the event still serve as evidence for the tale of the Star of Bethlehem? Can the same event serve as evidence for both "Horus" and "Jesus"?

That would seem to wrench it all up, wouldn't it. To me though, the story of Horus could influence the story of these magi folks, and still they might carry on as if it applied to them.

Why should we accept the specific incident that is talked about in 7 bc. by the Book of Urania? Why not the comet in 5 bce, the lunar eclipse in 4 bce, the conjunction in 1 bce, and about a half a dozen different theories?

Considering that according to the source Joer quoted, the gospel of Matthew was written after Mark, which was written around the fall of Jerusalem, and probably written in Syria, why should it refer to an actual event?

What evidence gives it to be an actual event, rather than a teaching story?

As I understand it the story is told as a factual account of events. I'm only going on my weak understanding, and know not from Urantia. The various celestial events spanning the several years does not tell us anything about the year in question. I'm thinking regardless of whether the events happened 1 year or 100 years from the actual date, it still bears little on the accounts as told.

I'm going here on what is plausible, since we can't know with proper certainty the factualness of any of these accounts.

I'm willing and prepared to retract my position, and my ignorance of Biblical matters are of Bible proportion, but I still think Joer's case has plenty of plausibility.

Can you help Joer explain how any celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet AND stop over a location? He REALLY needs help because he has not even attempted to explain how that can happen.

To me, this is the reason I would reject this event as being a star, but an asteroid of sufficient size, velocity, and dare I say miracle trajectory could account for anomalies in how this 'star' acts. As these accounts were passed down orally for many years and generations, I don't give much credence to the star stopping.

If this is a "goddidit" tale it has no merit as evidence in ethical debate because it is just a story claiming some form of supernaturalism that has NOT been verified.

I would agree completely here. It would be interesting to know how "locked in" the notion of this star stopping is. If the story demands this 'star' stops, then I would discard the story.

Another minor problem is that no one knows when Jesus was supposed to have been born, so attempting to correlate some celestial object or event with the birth are meaningless.

I wondered about this one above. If we could have something firm that Jesus was born around the time of year this story says, I would accept it if only under my plausibility scenario.


I'd like to point out here I reject much to all of the Bible, my intention here is to try to see this from 'the other side'. I'm pretty much a 'militant' atheist, and this event alone will not change that for me. All I'm conceding here is that maybe this story has a basis, however small, in happening. If these events did occur, they would point me only to this part of this story, of this story's part of the Bible. I do not accept or concede there is anything supernatural about this event. I would concede only that it is a perhaps rare physical event, if it happened at all.

[Zzyzx]

.

I I'm going here on what is plausible, since we can't know with proper certainty the factualness of any of these accounts.

It is quite plausible that "unusual" celestial events happened during various years within a decade or two of the proposed date of birth of Jesus.

It is quite plausible that "unusual" celestial events happened around the time of your birth. Has that made you divine?

Can you help Joer explain how any celestial object can lead anyone anywhere on a rotating spherical planet AND stop over a location? He REALLY needs help because he has not even attempted to explain how that can happen.

To me, this is the reason I would reject this event as being a star, but an asteroid of sufficient size, velocity, and dare I say miracle trajectory could account for anomalies in how this 'star' acts. As these accounts were passed down orally for many years and generations, I don't give much credence to the star stopping.

An asteroid is visible over large areas of the Earth's surface as the planet rotates – and does NOT lead anyone anywhere. One CANNOT "follow" an asteroid. That is a meaningless idea.

If one invokes a "miracle" for trajectory or anything else about the story that becomes a matter for Holy Huddle where "miracles" may be accepted as truthful. In public debate involving Non-Theists, "miracles" are NOT accepted as explanations or as evidence.

Religionists of certain sects may agree to accept some magical events attributed to favorite "gods" – and reject those attributed to competing "gods". That has no place in debate.

If this is a "goddidit" tale it has no merit as evidence in ethical debate because it is just a story claiming some form of supernaturalism that has NOT been verified.

I would agree completely here. It would be interesting to know how "locked in" the notion of this star stopping is. If the story demands this 'star' stops, then I would discard the story.

I AGREE 100%. The story is very clear in regards the star stopping.

Another minor problem is that no one knows when Jesus was supposed to have been born, so attempting to correlate some celestial object or event with the birth are meaningless.

I wondered about this one above. If we could have something firm that Jesus was born around the time of year this story says, I would accept it if only under my plausibility scenario.

It is not only the time of year that is questioned but the YEAR. Attempting to fix the date from biblical stories produces a wide range of dates – with no correlation.

It is interesting that the "birth narrative" occurs in only two of the four "gospels" and they do not agree.

Two different accounts of the birth of Jesus are given in the New Testament of the Bible, one in the Gospel of Matthew and one in the Gospel of Luke.[1] The Gospel of Mark, believed by most critics to be the earliest of the canonical gospels, is silent on the nativity;[2] the Gospel of John, likewise, has no detailed account of the birth.[3]

The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke have some elements in common; both relate that Jesus of Nazareth was the child of Mary, who at the time of his conception was betrothed as the wife of Joseph, said to be a descendant of the Biblical King David. His conception, preceded by an angelic annunciation, is presented as miraculous, in that he is conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than by Joseph.[4] The Gospel of Matthew presents the birth as the fulfillment of prophecies made by the Prophets of Israel.
.
Many modern scholars consider that the two Gospel accounts present two different and conflicting narratives, and view both stories as "pious fictions".[5] E. P. Sanders describes them as "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels",[6] while John Hick states that "the whole beautiful Bethleham Christmas story [is] created to fulfil supposed Old Testament prophecies".[7]

<snip>

Raymond Brown points out that the Gospels present two very different accounts:[23] the Gospel of Matthew relates the appearance of an angel, in a dream, to Joseph; the wise men from the east; the massacre of the innocents; and the flight to Egypt. The Gospel of Luke mentions none of these but describes the conception and birth of John the Baptist; the appearance of an angel to Mary; the worldwide census; the birth in a manger, and the choir of angels; none of these is mentioned by Matthew.[24] He also emphasizes the contradictions between the accounts, which explain the birth in Bethlehem in different ways (Luke says they lived in Nazareth and only moved to Bethlehem briefly for the census, Matthew implies that they lived in Bethlehem and only moved to Nazareth on their return from Egypt);[25] give two different genealogies of Jesus,[26] and appear to use a contradictory time frame (Matthew's account places the birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, but Luke dates it to the census of Quirinius in AD 6).[27]

As a result, many scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[28] or at least constructed from traditions which predate the Gospels.[29] Raymond Brown, for instance, who observes that "it is unlikely that either account is completely historical",[30] suggests that the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative patterned on traditions about the birth of Moses.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Jesus

All I'm conceding here is that maybe this story has a basis, however small, in happening.

Yes, it might possibly maybe have some basis. However, those who put for the story as truth are ethically REQUIRED to provide more than a plausibility. That has not been done.

Notice the scrambling for some event that could be "interpreted" to be the "star" within years of the "interpreted" date of birth propose (probably, maybe) for Jesus.

This is typical of results when a conclusion goes looking for "evidence" – and is an example of why an actual search for truth forms conclusions AFTER evidence is collected, analyzed and tested.

If these events did occur, they would point me only to this part of this story, of this story's part of the Bible. I do not accept or concede there is anything supernatural about this event. I would concede only that it is a perhaps rare physical event, if it happened at all.

Okay, we may let you back in the A Room.