Guest Archaeologist Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Historians have also recorded some of these stories. What historians record isn't necessarily true though is it? As far as the books of Genesis through to Judges is concerned, nothing in any of them really fits in with the history of the ANE as we know from archaeological and textual sources, while much of what is in these books is contradicted by the available evidence and common sense. "as a matter of fact there is no reports of jesus outside the bible either. " yes there are a number of them actually. One, from a Jewish source, said that Jesus spent time in Egypt where he gained 'magical powers'. Even this Jewish person who didn't see him as God's son, knew of his powers and wrote of them. I think the original poster may mean that there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible, and of course the Gospels themselves are not primary sources either since they are not contemporary and they are anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 "What historians record isn't necessarily true though is it?" I know that. The Sorgo said he lost faith based on a few things, one of them being that there were no recordings of Jesus or Biblical events outside of the Bible. This isn't true. "As far as the books of Genesis through to Judges is concerned, nothing in any of them really fits in with the history of the ANE as we know from archaeological and textual sources, while much of what is in these books is contradicted by the available evidence and common sense." There are 500 peices of archaeology that fit with the Bible. What archaeological evidence contradicts it? QUOTE "as a matter of fact there is no reports of jesus outside the bible either. " yes there are a number of them actually. One, from a Jewish source, said that Jesus spent time in Egypt where he gained 'magical powers'. Even this Jewish person who didn't see him as God's son, knew of his powers and wrote of them. "I think the original poster may mean that there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible, and of course the Gospels themselves are not primary sources either since they are not contemporary and they are anonymous." YEs there are contemporary accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible. That's what I was talking about. I think there are about 6-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 "No it's a possibility of God's existence, no one has been able to directly show that Universe needs or requires a Personal Eternal Creator God, much less the Man-God of the biblical scriptures. There are 1,000s of Creation stories, could you tell me why the Genesis account Is the only true account and discard the rest?" Many of these creation stories are remarkably similar? Same with flood legends. Yet the peoples who are telling the remarkably similar stories are scattered across the globe. Does that tell you anything other than the fact that they're all wrong? Can you choose to open your mind and look at this fact differently? If you're already an atheist, i'm sure this is difficult to do, but if some of you atheists starting looking at some of these things with the intent on dismissing everything immediately and explain it away, combined, all of these things might start to add up to a different belief. Why is Genesis correct? Well, we could say that the Babylonian account is correct but that race and religion died out. Or we could say that the Mayan account is correct but they died out and their legends now marked down as legends. Or, we could say that the accounts by the Australian aboriginals is correct except that that belief system pretty much stayed where it is and didn't thrive. If there IS a God, consider it for a moment, He would provide the BEST possible means to sustain the truth and bring it to all future generations, would He not? He had men write down the occurances and risk their lives to preserve them. God being God, knew how to get us the correct, original information so that all can know the truth, if they decide to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 FaithQUestions" On the other hand, stating that as most people have a theistic view, the burden of proof is on the atheist is both a misunderstanding of the concept of burden of proof, and a logical fallacy by appeal to numbers. If everyone in the world but me believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, it would not change the fact that our Solar System is indeed heliocentric." As most scientists have a belief in evolution, it's a logical fallacy to believe they have the truth today. Let's face it, in the world of science, the majority of scientists have certainly been wrong before. Consider that some of the major reasons why today's science beleive in evolution is the fact that they are taught this as fact in univeristy. If one believes in creation, he or she must make his beliefs unknown, otherwise he or she will not pass the courses. An when other students realize that creationism is completely and utterly ridiculed, this creates a peer pressure wherein they will not even consider creationist evidence with an open mind. Evolution is most certainly a philosophy, yet students are not allowed to think about it in a philisophical manner. They parrot back the conclusions they've been taught without thought that a God could have been responsible for a single bit of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Archaeologist Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 one of them being that there were no recordings of Jesus or Biblical events outside of the Bible. This isn't true. I think it is a silly reason to bring ones faith into question since faith does not require evidence. There are many mentions of biblical events in external evidence but it is the quality of evidence that counts, and this includes when these were written. But I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 "I think it is a silly reason to bring ones faith into question since faith does not require evidence." I would agree. If these accounts weren't there, I wouldn't question my faith. All in all, Christianity has far more answered questions that mysteries. There are many mentions of biblical events in external evidence but it is the quality of evidence that counts, and this includes when these were written. But I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2007 http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/historic...oricaljesus.htm Here is some reading material. Obviously all of these sources can be debated as well. You might also take a look at the works by Simon Greenleaf who was the Royale Professor ofevidence at Harvard. When a student posed a question 'who was Jesus" to him, he did the research and came out a believer. As an expert on evidence, he's a good source to sort truth from fiction. As well, some will argue that since some writers wrote AFTER the life of Christ, the texts aren't valid. So does this mean we can't trust anything written today if it was about JFK or Churchill? When it comes to Jesus, suddenly the standards change dramatically and evidence is scrutinized far more heavily than it would be for any other historical figure. I think you'll agree. Heck, the apostles didn't even write anything until after his death. Truth be told, they themselves weren't of strong faith and had many doubts while he was alive. It wasn't until after the ressurrection that these close followers of Jesus risked prison and ultimately died painful deaths to keep this truth going. So if writing during the the time of historical figures lifetime is a crucial parameter, the apostles themselves would have only have had 30 days by the time they finally figured out who he was an had great faith to the time of his ascention. If there was no Christ, which some may assert, why on earth were there Christians at all? Especially when they at the time faced death and died? In any case, we know that those who followed Jesus very closely during his life, wrote of him as God and chose a painful death rather than recant. Think about how ridiculous it would be to take another historical person, like Churchill and dismiss the works of those who were with him daily and even liked him, as though they were prejudiced or something. We'd never do that. In fact, the accounts of those closest to an historical figure would be received far greater as truth, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grungekid Posted September 8, 2007 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 660 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/01/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1990 Share Posted September 8, 2007 (edited) "What historians record isn't necessarily true though is it?" I know that. The Sorgo said he lost faith based on a few things, one of them being that there were no recordings of Jesus or Biblical events outside of the Bible. This isn't true. "As far as the books of Genesis through to Judges is concerned, nothing in any of them really fits in with the history of the ANE as we know from archaeological and textual sources, while much of what is in these books is contradicted by the available evidence and common sense." There are 500 peices of archaeology that fit with the Bible. What archaeological evidence contradicts it? We also know that there were various tribes of semitics in Egypt throughout its history, that I am aware of. One such tribe, the Hyksos, actually came from Northeastern Africa and invaded the country. If there were Semitics this far east, we can be certain that they were involved in Egyptian culture, especially because of its juxtaposition to Mesopotamia. Large groups of people migrated into Phoenicia and Mesopotamia several times from various cardinal directions, as well. I can't think of anything that contradicts what the bible says. QUOTE "as a matter of fact there is no reports of jesus outside the bible either. " yes there are a number of them actually. One, from a Jewish source, said that Jesus spent time in Egypt where he gained 'magical powers'. Even this Jewish person who didn't see him as God's son, knew of his powers and wrote of them. There is also a story by the Greeks that recounts Him as the 'son of adultery', unflattering and inaccurate, but nonetheless an example of another source which mentions the figure of the Nazarene. "I think the original poster may mean that there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible, and of course the Gospels themselves are not primary sources either since they are not contemporary and they are anonymous." YEs there are contemporary accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible. That's what I was talking about. I think there are about 6-7. Once again, you are correct artsylady. There are enough records of Christ to gaurantee His place as an actual, historical personage. Edited September 8, 2007 by Grungekid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redeemed098 Posted September 9, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 489 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/19/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/12/1964 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Would any atheist care to discuss Truth with me? Firstly, we must agree on a definition of truth. Here is mine. Truth is a 100% accurate account/record of all existence and all events. This definition is based on the following: That without existence there is nothing to account/record. That without events, existence is at a standstill and therefore truth stands still. Therefore truth is an accurate account of what IS and what OCCURS/HAS OCCURRED If you have a better definition of truth on which to base a debate concerning truth, let is discuss. Ruth I have a very simple definition of truth. The Truth is not a philosophy nor an ideal or an opinion. The Truth is a person. His name is Jesus. He claimed this himself. "I am the Way, the TRUTH and the Life." Based on the truth as revealed by God through his Word. When a person abides in the truth, he doesn't have to say "Prove it" for he knows that, "The righteous shall live by faith." Regards, Ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts