Bible evidence

[Sir Gareth]

I have seen a lot of people questioning how to prove the Bible, or saying that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the Bible.

For the new testament alone there is great evidence.

First off, we have manuscript assertation. There are literally thousands of new testament manuscripcts (both partials and mostly full) from the 1st century (some within the lifespan of the apostles and disciples who were firsthand witnesses). There is more assertation for the New Testament than there is for Homer, Alexander, Joesephus and Tacitus.

In fact, speaking of those two famous historians, it is interesting to note that both Joesephus and Tacitus mentioned Jesus, his death and his followers beleif of his ressurection.

That pretty much proves historical background for the Gospels, but how about evidence for the ressurection? (I am sure we can agree that if the ressurection is true, so could all other miracles be)

It is pretty much a consensus among all credible scholars (even very liberals) that Jesus died on the cross. After the scourging, beating being crucified and stabbed through the ribs, it is pretty much dead sure that Jesus was dead on the cross.

Here are the facts that I beleive strongly point to the ressurection.

1) The empty tomb; the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea was empty on the first Easter when Mary Magdeline and others went to check it out. The best proofs we have for this is that the Jewish elders, who were dead set against Jesus being worshipped, did not go and point out the body of Jesus, in fact they admitted it was empty and made up a preposterous story to explain it.

The idea that a few fisherman could overpower a group roman guards and take the body is like saying a few poorly armed American citizens could take out a battalion of armed marines.

2) Embarassement: In 1st century Jewish society, women were considered very low on the cultural totem pole. The fact that the Gospel writers ackowlege that not only did women find the tomb, but were the only ones to believe makes the aposltes-who were all men-look pretty bad for the time period. If they are going to lie why not have John, Peter or James-Jesus' half brother, find the empty tomb.

3) Apperances of Jesus; Jesus was seen by the apostles, by many disciples, by Paul and others. These apperances were so dramatic that they made the apostles-who had recently abandoned Jesus and gone back to their regular lives, it also made believers out of James- the skeptic half brother of Jesus who did not believe he was the messiah and a believer out of Paul, who was not just a skeptic, but a persecutor of the early church. And hey, speaking of persecution...

4) Persecution; Lets go on the assumption that Paul, the other apostles, the disciples and even-for some unknown reason-Saul (paul) decided to make everything up and lie about it. That leaves a few holes however. First off, why would Saul lie about it in the first place? Next why would so many of these people be willing to be beaten, imprisoned, even killed for what they knew to be a lie?

Now, if I or any other modern day Christian die for Christ you could certainly say that we died for a beleif, but Peter, Paul and the other disciples who suffered and died for Jesus would not have done it unless it was true, they were there, at ground zero of Jesus' death. If he had not come back to them, why would they have made it up and been willing to die for it rather than just living out the rest of their lives denying they knew him?

This sumerizes the defense of the Gospels that many have made, these are not my original findings but those of many well respected scholars like Mik\cheal Licona, Bruce Metzger, JP Moreland and many, many others who use archeological, historic and common sense evidence to help bolster their beleif in Jesus' life, death ressurection and place as the unique Son of God.

[Guest man]

Here is a document that is supposed to be from Pilate to Cesar.

But Herod and Archelaus and Philip, Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people,

deivered him to me, making a great tumult against me in order that I might try him.

Therefore, I commanded him to be crucified, when I had first scourged him, though I

found no cause in him for evil accusations or dealings.

Now when he was crucified, there was darkness over all the world and the sun was

obscured for half a day, and the stars appeared, but no lustre was seen in them;

and the moon lost its brightness, as though tinged with blood; and the world of the departed was swallowed up;so that the very sanctuary of the temple, as they call it, did not appear to the Jews themselves at their fall, but they perceived a chasm in the earth, and the rolling of successive thunders.

And amid this terror the dead appeared rising again, as the Jews themselves bore witness,

and said that it was Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, and Moses,

and Job, who had died before, as they say, some three thousand five hundred years.

And there were very many whom I myself saw appearing in the body,

and they made lamentation over the Jews, because of the transgression which was

committed by them, and because of the destruction of the Jews and of their law.

And the terror of the earthquake continued from the sixth hour of the preparation until

the ninth hour; and when it was evening on the first day of the week, there came a

sound from heaven, and the heaven became seven times more luminous than on all other days.

And at the third hour of the night the sun appeared more luminous than it had ever shone, lighting up the whole hemisphere. And as lightning - flashes suddenly come forth in a storm, so there were seen men, lofty in stature, and surpassing in glory, a countless host, crying out, and their voice was heard as that of exceedingly loud thunder, Jesus that was crucified is risen again: come up from Hades ye that were enslaved in the subterraneous recesses of Hades.

And the chasm in the earth was as if it had no bottom; but it was so that the very foundations of the eaith appeared, with those that shouted in heaven, and walked in the body among the dead that were raised. And He that raised up all the dead and bound Hades said, Say to my disciples,

He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall ye see Him.

And all that night the light ceased not shining. And many of the Jews died in the chasm of the earth, being swallowed up, so that on the morrow most of those who had been against Jesus were not to be found. Others saw the apparition of men rising again whom none of us had ever seen. One synagogue of the Jews was alone left in Jerusalem itself, for they all disappeared in that ruin.

Therefore being astounded by that terror, and being possessed with the most dreadful

trembling, I have written what I saw at that time and sent it to thine excellency; and I

have inserted what was done against Jesus by the Jews, and sent it to thy divinity,

my lord.

Can you provide a link to the source of this document please?

[Kubush]

I have seen a lot of people questioning how to prove the Bible, or saying that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the Bible.

For the new testament alone there is great evidence.

First off, we have manuscript assertation. There are literally thousands of new testament manuscripcts (both partials and mostly full) from the 1st century (some within the lifespan of the apostles and disciples who were firsthand witnesses). There is more assertation for the New Testament than there is for Homer, Alexander, Joesephus and Tacitus.

In fact, speaking of those two famous historians, it is interesting to note that both Joesephus and Tacitus mentioned Jesus, his death and his followers beleif of his ressurection.

That pretty much proves historical background for the Gospels, but how about evidence for the ressurection? (I am sure we can agree that if the ressurection is true, so could all other miracles be)

It is pretty much a consensus among all credible scholars (even very liberals) that Jesus died on the cross. After the scourging, beating being crucified and stabbed through the ribs, it is pretty much dead sure that Jesus was dead on the cross.

Here are the facts that I beleive strongly point to the ressurection.

1) The empty tomb; the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea was empty on the first Easter when Mary Magdeline and others went to check it out. The best proofs we have for this is that the Jewish elders, who were dead set against Jesus being worshipped, did not go and point out the body of Jesus, in fact they admitted it was empty and made up a preposterous story to explain it.

The idea that a few fisherman could overpower a group roman guards and take the body is like saying a few poorly armed American citizens could take out a battalion of armed marines.

2) Embarassement: In 1st century Jewish society, women were considered very low on the cultural totem pole. The fact that the Gospel writers ackowlege that not only did women find the tomb, but were the only ones to believe makes the aposltes-who were all men-look pretty bad for the time period. If they are going to lie why not have John, Peter or James-Jesus' half brother, find the empty tomb.

3) Apperances of Jesus; Jesus was seen by the apostles, by many disciples, by Paul and others. These apperances were so dramatic that they made the apostles-who had recently abandoned Jesus and gone back to their regular lives, it also made believers out of James- the skeptic half brother of Jesus who did not believe he was the messiah and a believer out of Paul, who was not just a skeptic, but a persecutor of the early church. And hey, speaking of persecution...

4) Persecution; Lets go on the assumption that Paul, the other apostles, the disciples and even-for some unknown reason-Saul (paul) decided to make everything up and lie about it. That leaves a few holes however. First off, why would Saul lie about it in the first place? Next why would so many of these people be willing to be beaten, imprisoned, even killed for what they knew to be a lie?

Now, if I or any other modern day Christian die for Christ you could certainly say that we died for a beleif, but Peter, Paul and the other disciples who suffered and died for Jesus would not have done it unless it was true, they were there, at ground zero of Jesus' death. If he had not come back to them, why would they have made it up and been willing to die for it rather than just living out the rest of their lives denying they knew him?

This sumerizes the defense of the Gospels that many have made, these are not my original findings but those of many well respected scholars like Mik\cheal Licona, Bruce Metzger, JP Moreland and many, many others who use archeological, historic and common sense evidence to help bolster their beleif in Jesus' life, death ressurection and place as the unique Son of God.

Copies of manuscripts don't authenticate the stories within them or make them more valid than Homer. Josephus and Tacitus talked about Christians and what they believed, and were not actual contemporary accounts of Jesus, his miracles or resurrection.

"It is pretty much a consensus among all credible scholars (even very liberals) that Jesus died on the cross"

The evidence is scant and nothing that can really be verified or call 'rock solid'. Appealing to authority by saying, ' even liberal scholars agree', is nonsense. Yes, a man named Jesus that people believed to be their messiah could have died on a cross. This does not verify any Christian doctrine as Christians believe it.

1) Your first point can't be verified. None of it can be verified, from the claim that there were guards to the claim that they couldn't be over powered.

2) That is a bold assumption to say that nobody other than only Christians would regard woman as being worthy enough to be put in a story.

3) This is circular reasoning. You are using the bible to prove the bible.

4) Is their extra biblical evidence of the direct disciples persecution? And is their anyway to verify that they weren't lying, other than assuming they weren't?

This maybe a bit of a jab but if this is the best you can do then you have a whole lot of work ahead of you.

[Fez]

You are using the bible to prove the bible.

And really, that's all you have to do.

It's called Faith....

Blessings

[Kubush]

You are using the bible to prove the bible.

And really, that's all you have to do.

It's called Faith....

Blessings

The topic was "Bible evidence" not "bible faith".

And using the bible to prove the bible is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

[Fez]

Nope it's called faith.

The bible does not need proving, it is the only truth.

The living, breathing, inspired Word of God.

One does not need anything else if one has Faith, there is nothing to prove or disprove.

Blessings

[Guest shiloh357]

You are using the bible to prove the bible.

And really, that's all you have to do.

It's called Faith....

Blessings

The topic was "Bible evidence" not "bible faith".

And using the bible to prove the bible is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

Logically, the onus is on YOU to demonstrate that the Bible fails all tests of credibility and thus, byt extension, the writers cannnot be considered reliable or credible witnesses.

Pointing to internal, textual evidence is not circular reasoning, particularly when such evidence squares with historical, geographic and cultural fact.

[Guest shiloh357]

1) Your first point can't be verified. None of it can be verified, from the claim that there were guards to the claim that they couldn't be over powered.

Nor can those claims be demonstrated as false.

2) That is a bold assumption to say that nobody other than only Christians would regard woman as being worthy enough to be put in a story.

It is not a bold assumption at all. In first century Israel, the testimony of a woman was worthless, and women were not allowed to testify in a legal precediing. The fact that a woman was the first to testify of the risen Christ would have been a significant fact in that particular culture. Had the story been manufactured, Jesus woud have been recorded as appearing to Peter or John, not Mary Magdeline.

3) This is circular reasoning. You are using the bible to prove the bible.

No he isn't. He is pointing to internal evidence in the text. That is not an attempt to "prove" anything. Rather it shows the basis for our faith, which you, up to this point, have not yet attempted to invalidate.

4) Is their extra biblical evidence of the direct disciples persecution? And is their anyway to verify that they weren't lying, other than assuming they weren't?

The disciples were not laying their lives down for a belief or a faith. They were claiming to be eye witnesses to the living Christ. No one would willingly suffer torture, imprisonment and death for something they KNOW is a lie, particularly if it is lie they made up themselves. To argue that the disciples fabricate a lie and then were willing to be tortured for a lie is ridiculous.

Furthermore, IF they were lying, it would have been no problem for their enemies to prove they were lying. All they had to do was produce the body of Jesus, and it would have been the end of Christianity. Christianity stands or falls on one thing: The resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity ceases to be.

This maybe a bit of a jab but if this is the best you can do then you have a whole lot of work ahead of you.

The one with the work to do is you. It is up to you to demonsrate that the Bible's claims are not factual or reliable.

[Guest shiloh357]

People tend to believe what they want to believe. Even if it is narrated by unreliable sources.

If your claim is that the sources are unreliable, the onus is on you to provide evidence that they cannot be trusted as credible. If you can't demonstratre that they lack credibility, there is no reason to disbelieve their claims.

Apologists might have crafted this story to make it look more believable

What apologists? When might they have crafted to story to make it look more believable? What makes the story look believable?

It is not clear why people decided to believe women in this particular occasion

You are missing the bigger picture. Had the story been fabricated by a contemporary, the story of a woman being the first person to see Jesus would not have been conceived of.

Your reasons are a bit weak.

[Believer112]

PONTIUS PILATE

THE LETTER OF PONTIUS PILATE WHICH HE WROTE TO THE ROMAN EMPEROR, CONCERNING OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

http://www.synaxis.org/cf/volume08/ECF00046.htm