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.

[WinePusher]

I challenge you to present "objective evidence" Jesus even existed, much less carried on like folks allow.

This would make for another interesting thread that I would happily participate in.

1. The New Testament Record

Written decades after the event, with a bias in place, where none of the writers were eye witnesses.

The writers were eyewitnesses, the fact that they were only written decades after the events gives them more credibility, and the bias you percieve is subjective only to you. Read the Introduction to Luke's Gospel, he tells us that he investigated everything carefully and after doing so wrote the written account so that others may know about it.

2. Early Christian Writings, such as Clement, Ignatius and the Didache.

Same comment as the new testament record, but futher in time.

Early Church Writings are representative of the fact that Jesus' existence had a strong impact on the world and that his message and ministry inspired many people to become apostles and evangelize (in the face of death).

3. The Gnostic Gospels

Same comment as the NT, but often contradict the NT.

The theology might contradict the New Testament, but they talk about a historical figure called Jesus. You can't just write off any mention of Jesus just ebcause it is inconvient to your beliefs.

4. Jewish Sources, such as the Talmud and Mara Bar Sarapion

Mara bar Sarapion was not Jewish, but was rather a Syrian Stoic who probably got his information from Christians. He probably wrote in the third century, and his entire comment was


For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay, Socrates did “not� die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.


Distant in time, and didn't even MENTION the name Jesus.

Historians disagree with your opinion, they see the references to a "wise king" murdered by the Jews as a reference to Jesus who was charged by Rome as being the "King of the Jews."

As for the Talmud, it was written down in the 3rd to 6th centuries, with a long time where a counter tradition can develop to counter act the claims of Christianity.

Did they mention Jesus or not? What you seem to be doing is taking any historical mention or allusion to Jesus and disregarding it because it contradicts your athiest beliefs. If this amount of evidence exists for any other person in history mainstream historical scholars would accept them; presented above was neutral, enemy, independent and eyewitness attestation. That criteria is good enough for discerning other historical events so it should be good enough for discerning biblical events.

5. Secular Sources: Tacitus and Suetonious.

Please show evidence that the passage quoted exited before the 10th century c.e. Also, please show where Tacitus could have gotten his information, and explain why it seems to be taken straight from the Gospels.

As for Suetonius http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ojfaq.html

Suetonius and Jesus

In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)

Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation:

1. "Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
2. The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
3. Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.

Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus
[/i]

Chrestus is the correct reference to Christ. Suetonious' date of 49BC also indicates that the Jews and the Christians wer not completely seperate sects as the date is before the Council of Jerusalem. Suetonius also mentions that the Chrestus figure was an instigator which consistent with the Gospel narratives.

[WinePusher]

You're trying to conflate rather simple, mundane claims with claims that assault the senses.

Where is the archaeological (or really other) evidence Jesus cured the blind?
Where is the archaeological (or really other) evidence Jesus walked on water?
Where is the archaeological (or really other) evidence Jesus arose from the dead?

That stories get set in known geographic locations is hardly a compelling case that the miracles attributed to someone living in a given known location are divine, or the offspring of gods.

If we have two events, and event X is more extraordinary then event Y, but event X has far better evidence and better meets historical criteria then event Y, we should still reject event X. Specifically, that is called supernatural bias and a rejection of miracles a priori, it is also approaching the world through the lens of naturalism which is not proven. The facts:

1) Miracles are possible, not impossible.
2) Reports of Miracles should be evaluted with the same method by which we evalute all of history, there should be only one method.
3) The same historical method should be applied to holy scriptures as they would be applied to secular texts.

The miracles of Jesus (which you asked me to verify) are reported in the Gospels and Flavius Josephus, both of these texts were written only decades after the event which grants them credibility according to the historical method. Archaology cannot directly prove miracles, but they set the context which is vital for discering a story to be true or not.

[Zzyzx]

.

This would make for another interesting thread that I would happily participate in.

1. The New Testament Record

Written decades after the event, with a bias in place, where none of the writers were eye witnesses.

The writers were eyewitnesses,

Since scholars and theologians generally agree that the identity of gospel writers is UNKNOWN -- HOW can anyone legitimately claim that they were "eyewitnesses"?

If you have information not available to scholars and theologians about the identify of bible writers, kindly bring it forth.

the fact that they were only written decades after the events gives them more credibility,

How, exactly, is credibility increased when a document is written decades after the event -- by anonymous writers, with no evidence of having witnessed events described, with no means to evaluate the veracity of their sources of information?

Read the Introduction to Luke's Gospel, he tells us that he investigated everything carefully and after doing so wrote the written account so that others may know about it.

Does "investigated everything carefully" suggest that the writer was compiling accounts from OTHER people?

Is everyone who claims to have "investigated everything carefully" to be regarded as writing a true and accurate account of events?

Early Church Writings are representative of the fact that Jesus' existence had a strong impact on the world and that his message and ministry inspired many people to become apostles and evangelize (in the face of death).

Exactly the same thing can be said of Joseph Smith, Mohamed, and Jimmy Baker. So what?

The theology might contradict the New Testament, but they talk about a historical figure called Jesus. You can't just write off any mention of Jesus just ebcause it is inconvient to your beliefs.

Do those extra-biblical accounts identify Jesus as "divine" and a "miracle worker" who "came back from the dead"?

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence?

Oh, you know that "famine and pestilence" were retribution for the death of Socrates????

How, exactly, do you know this to be true?

Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand?

Are you putting forth that story as truthful and accurate? A whole country covered with sand in one hour? Is there actual evidence that such a thing happened in the real world, or is that just another unverifiable bible story?

Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land.

Can you show that any of these are more than a fanciful tale in religion promotional literature?

You are aware, aren't you, that in these debates the bible cannot be used to prove anything true and cannot be cited as an authoritative source? What else do you have to demonstrate that the tales are true (besides the tales themselves)?

If this amount of evidence exists for any other person in history mainstream historical scholars would accept them; presented above was neutral, enemy, independent and eyewitness attestation. That criteria is good enough for discerning other historical events so it should be good enough for discerning biblical events.

Although I disagree with "neutral, enemy, independent and eyewitness attestation", I will (for purposes of discussion) accept that a preacher named Jesus (or something like that) lived two thousand years ago and was executed as a common criminal -- and that some may have referred to him (perhaps mockingly) as "king of the Jews".

Now, I ask you to provide "neutral, enemy, independent and eyewitness attestation" that Jesus:

Was born of a virgin
Had a star lead people to his birthplace and stop overhead
Walked on water
Cured leprosy or blindness with a touch or word
Turned water into wine
Brought back to life people who had been dead for days
Came back to life after days in the grave
Ascended into heaven

If (since) you cannot show any "neutral, enemy, independent and eyewitness attestation" support for those claims (outside the tales that make the claims), I ask you to be honorable enough to admit they are only bible stories to be believed on faith by those who wish to believe.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 871:

If we have two events, and event X is more extraordinary then event Y, but event X has far better evidence and better meets historical criteria then event Y, we should still reject event X. Specifically, that is called supernatural bias and a rejection of miracles a priori, it is also approaching the world through the lens of naturalism which is not proven. The facts:

I do NOT make that claim, and all you're doing here is 'strawmaning' my attempt at challenging Biblical claims.

That said, I will admit to never knowingly witnessing a supernatural event.

1) Miracles are possible, not impossible.

So I ask folks who claim a miracle has occurred to show they speak truth.

2) Reports of Miracles should be evaluted with the same method by which we evalute all of history, there should be only one method.

General agreement, with caveats regarding specifics.

3) The same historical method should be applied to holy scriptures as they would be applied to secular texts.

I do apply the same methods and standards - ask folks to show they speak truth.

The miracles of Jesus (which you asked me to verify) are reported in the Gospels and Flavius Josephus, both of these texts were written only decades after the event which grants them credibility according to the historical method...

Notice, I am NOT bound to the "historical method", nor is the C&A section bound to it either. I'm bound to the "can you show you speak truth method". This typically eliminates any errors the "historical method" may produce.

Archaology cannot directly prove miracles, but they set the context which is vital for discering a story to be true or not.

Again you're falling back on tales of the mundane as support for tales that assault the senses.

I can only conclude you can't possibly show - whether archaelogically or otherwise - that the miracles attributed to Jesus are true.

(Edit cause oops I fouled up a quotater)

[Flail]

To believe a claim that a man climbed a tree would not require the same degree of evidence or strength of persuasion for me as a claim that a cow jumped over the moon.

[WinePusher]

3) The same historical method should be applied to holy scriptures as they would be applied to secular texts.

I do apply the same methods and standards - ask folks to show they speak truth.

That is not a valid argument nor is it a means of historical discernment. I have presented my method for discerning history and will go further in depth, if you want to reject my evidence then present your own method or reasons as to why the evidence Life, Miracles and Resurrection of Jesus are not acceptable.

The miracles of Jesus (which you asked me to verify) are reported in the Gospels and Flavius Josephus, both of these texts were written only decades after the event which grants them credibility according to the historical method...

Notice, I am NOT bound to the "historical method", nor is the C&A section bound to it either. I'm bound to the "can you show you speak truth method". This typically eliminates any errors the "historical method" may produce.

Then what method would you suggest if it is not the mainstream, well accepted historical method? Let's give this one more go, biblical scholarship engages primarily in the criterion of authenticity to Jesus' life to determine what he said and did. This criterion is made up of 11 more criterion. I'll be focusing on only 5:

1. The Criterion of Dissimilarity: This criterion basically states that if the text reports something that hurts the authors credibility "or embarrases him" then it is more likely ot be true.

2. The Criterion of Sitz im Leben: This criterion states that the life and sayings of Jesus presented in the Gospel Narratives should be consistent with the setting around him, which was Palestine. According to this, if Jesus' life and discourses presented in the Gospels conform with Palestinian society then it is more likely to be true.

3. The Criterion of Coherance/Consistency: This criterion states that if a saying or action of Jesus (which is established fact) coheres and is consistent with another saying or action of Jesus which is not established fact. This correlates with the Criterion of the Crucifixion.

4. The Criterion of Multiple/Indepent Attestation: We gone over this criterion for the most part, it states that is a claimed event is attested to by more then one person it is more likely that it actually occured.

5. The Criterion of the Crucifixion: The criterion is based on the crucifixion, which is a 100% established fact. If we relate this criterion back to the Coherancy Criterion, it means that the crucifixion qualifes as a fact, and so the reasons for the crucifixion can also be inferred as facts and this grants credibility to Jesus' miracle ministry.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 875:

3) The same historical method should be applied to holy scriptures as they would be applied to secular texts.

I do apply the same methods and standards - ask folks to show they speak truth.

That is not a valid argument nor is it a means of historical discernment.

How is asking folks to show they speak truth, in debate, an "invalid argument"?

"Historical discernment" is your preferred method here, and I will not be bound to it.

I have presented my method for discerning history and will go further in depth, if you want to reject my evidence then present your own method or reasons as to why the evidence Life, Miracles and Resurrection of Jesus are not acceptable.

Because they can't be shown to have occurred.

It's not my fault the claimant suffers.

Then what method would you suggest if it is not the mainstream, well accepted historical method?

As I said previously, I prefer the "can you show you speak truth method" in determining the veracity of claims.

If every historian on the planet swore up and down that cow did indeed jump over the Moon, are we to conclude the cow actually did?

Let's give this one more go, biblical scholarship engages primarily in the criterion of authenticity to Jesus' life to determine what he said and did.

Is that the same Robert H Stein who works at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

Whodda thunk such a guy would present an argument seeking to have the Bible's claims considered "historically valid"?

...
1. The Criterion of Dissimilarity: This criterion basically states that if the text reports something that hurts the authors credibility "or embarrases him" then it is more likely ot be true.

Or the author doesn't know his fourth point of contact from a hole in the ground.

2. The Criterion of Sitz im Leben: This criterion states that the life and sayings of Jesus presented in the Gospel Narratives should be consistent with the setting around him, which was Palestine. According to this, if Jesus' life and discourses presented in the Gospels conform with Palestinian society then it is more likely to be true.

So then, Tara was a real plantation? By this reasoning then, I s'pose Miss Prissy really didn't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies.

3. The Criterion of Coherance/Consistency: This criterion states that if a saying or action of Jesus (which is established fact) coheres and is consistent with another saying or action of Jesus which is not established fact. This correlates with the Criterion of the Crucifixion.

What is coherent or consistent about sticks changing the coloring or patterning of animals?

What is coherent or consistent about someone hopping up from a three day dead?

4. The Criterion of Multiple/Indepent Attestation: We gone over this criterion for the most part, it states that is a claimed event is attested to by more then one person it is more likely that it actually occured.

Too bad all the "attestation" is from anonymous writers or questionable sources.

5. The Criterion of the Crucifixion: The criterion is based on the crucifixion...

I do 'preciate you clearin' that up, but I was figurin' that's what it was about

...which is a 100% established fact.

I challenge you to offer some means to verify you speak truth.

You got Jesus' body we can examine to see if He suffered from this crucifiction? Funny too how that there would have "fiction" in it, but I digress.

If we relate this criterion back to the Coherancy Criterion, it means that the crucifixion qualifes as a fact,

I really don't sweat that Jesus prolly went through all that, my problem is with the claims he got crucified, layed up for a few days deader'n a doornail, and then hopped up and took a stroll through town.

and so the reasons for the crucifixion can also be inferred as facts and this grants credibility to Jesus' miracle ministry.

Only to you.

Using the mundane to cover the outrageous seems the only way your "historical method" works - and I contend is evidence of why my "can you show you speak truth method" is a far superior means of determining the veracity of claims.

[Question Everything]

If we have two events, and event X is more extraordinary then event Y, but event X has far better evidence and better meets historical criteria then event Y, we should still reject event X. Specifically, that is called supernatural bias and a rejection of miracles a priori, it is also approaching the world through the lens of naturalism which is not proven. The facts:

1) Miracles are possible, not impossible.
2) Reports of Miracles should be evaluted with the same method by which we evalute all of history, there should be only one method.
3) The same historical method should be applied to holy scriptures as they would be applied to secular texts.

The miracles of Jesus (which you asked me to verify) are reported in the Gospels and Flavius Josephus, both of these texts were written only decades after the event which grants them credibility according to the historical method. Archaology cannot directly prove miracles, but they set the context which is vital for discering a story to be true or not.

Since miracles don't happen today (the James Randi million dollar challenge was never won by anyone), it is safe to assume at they didn't happen in the past either.

Do people today give accounts of miraculous things? Yep, they sure do (flight 19, bleeding statues, Roswell, talking to the dead, spoon bending, "physic surgery", Popov, on and on it goes). None have been substantiated, not a single one. Why would it not be different for first century Rome?

Also, the Flavius Josephus account is clearly an insertion made by the church centuries later, and no historian who lived at the time of Jesus recorded him even though the Gospels say that multitudes of people from all over the world flocked to see him. No Roman record of the Crucifixion, either, even though they recorded every one.

The Jewish Sanhedrin did not meet on Passover eve, either.

[bjs]

I find this an interesting statement since there is no archeological evidence for Alexander the Great.

This statement is incorrect. We do have the astronomical diary for example.
http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html

The link provided goes to a site about an ancient written source. Just to be clear, are you saying that written sources are considered archeological evidence? If so, there is abundant archeological evidence about Jesus.

[Cathar1950]

I find this an interesting statement since there is no archeological evidence for Alexander the Great.

This statement is incorrect. We do have the astronomical diary for example.
http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html

The link provided goes to a site about an ancient written source. Just to be clear, are you saying that written sources are considered archeological evidence? If so, there is abundant archeological evidence about Jesus.

Actually that would be "abundant archeological evidence about" the later followers of Jesus.