romans, jews ,greeks,and so on all kept good documentary evidence?

Question

of what was going on ,yet there is no documentary evidence about jesus by any of them,surelly if someone who purpoted to be the son of god would rate a mention somewhere in their historical papers of the time,whe know what was happening at that time as we learn about it in history , yet not one word mentioned about him,the only writings we have are by people that weren't even there at the time plus its been changed more times than my underpants,so why should we give it any credence at all,ps please no quotes from the n/t ,think for yourselves for a change,

Answer 1

Intersting that the only reference cited outside the bible is Josefus, who never mentioned Jesus. Any reference to Jesus in his writing was added 1000 years later by other 'christians 'trying to strengthen their arguement.

Greenleaf may have decided that the story was real but I don't believe that it would stand up in court. It would be interesting to look at his background.

Answer 2

the people Mentioning Josephus don't seem to realize that the part where he is supposed to mention Jesus is in a much later type of Latin than Josephus used, and uses terms that a Jewish Roman Slave would never have used. Even the Church scholars with the most to gain read it as something added by a later monk when copying the text down. Sorry.

Answer 3

Well, for starters, there is extra-biblical evidence to support the claims. Tacitus, for example, stated, "Nero fastened the guilt... 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... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."

Next, I take exception to your claim that the eyewitness evidence in the New Testament was written by those who weren't there, and have been changed more often than your underwear. You either have never done the research, and are parrotting what you have heard, or you just like making stuff up. I will demonstrate how the Bible has not been corrupted.

When the translators of the King James Bible wrote the Old Testament, the oldest available manuscript for them to use was known as the Masoretic Text. This had been written in the 9th century A.D. It was this text that the translators based their work on the Old Testament. In 1947, a shepherd boy discovered some pottery in caves in the area called Qumran, near the Dead Sea. In these jars, he discovered scrolls, which Bible scholars have researched ever since. Every book of the Old Testament (except Esther) was discovered. Most of these scrolls are dated to 150 B.C. After comparing these Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text, the scholars discovered an amazing degree of unanimity between the two, although they were written a thousand years apart. Further, the Septuagint (the Greek language translation of the Hebrew Bible) was also compared. With all of these references, we can be certain of the purity of the texts.

Next, there is no larger ancient body of manuscript evidence in the history of mankind, than the papyri and parchment manuscripts of the New Testament. With over five thousand actual Greek manuscripts, and numerous other manuscripts in four other languages, there are about twenty-four thousand available manuscript texts for the New Testament.

Even if we didn't have these documents, we could almost have a complete New Testament from extra-biblical sources, such as ancient lectionaries, church fathers' records/sermons/writings, etc.

No other body of ancient work comes close. No one really disputes Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph). No one really disputes Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed). Or Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed). No one disputes Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed). No one really disputes Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed). No one really disputes Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years elapsed.) Homer's Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts.

So, even though we don't have the originals, we have so many copies that we can duplicate what the originals contained, almost to unanimity.

Lastly, Simon Greenleaf was a founder of the Harvard Law School, and wanted to prove that the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ were false. After much research, he determined that the evidence contained in the New Testament accounts could stand scrutiny in a court of law.

Answer 4

I just posted this a few minutes ago...seems appropriate here as well...

There is actually plenty of evidence....in fact, Simon Greenleaf is generally considered to be the single greatest authority on legal evidences in history...And after an exhaustive review of the Biblical testimony, Greenleaf concluded that the Resurrection of Christ was an absolutely convincing reality. His decision was based on concrete and substantiated facts. In speaking of how he approached the evidence, he said (of “the writer”), “His business is that of a lawyer examining the testimony of witnesses by the rules of his profession, in order to ascertain whether, if they had thus testified on oath, in a court of justice, they would be entitled to credit and whether their narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents, coming from the proper custody.”

He is not the only respected legal scholar, also, to declare that the Resurrection of Christ is something that would stand up against the scrutiny of a judge and jury. There have been many others as well. For example, Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, was once quoted as saying that “no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.” And Alexander Hamilton, a framer of the U.S. Constitution and one of the United States’ most prominent and brilliant early constitutional lawyers, stated, “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

Answer 5

Having been a Protestant and now a Catholic, I completely disagree. The Catholic Church became the 1st to translate the Bible into the community language. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, it became infrequently used with the aid of fact a great style of the laity could no longer yet examine. Catholic Church emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass, which occurs on the altar, it is the place the priest is. My Church has many domicile windows and is amazingly vivid interior. i will persist with alongside with the Scripture readings...and that i do.

Answer 6

Try looking up Flavius Josephus. He was a Jewish Historian, actually a denouncer of Jesus (pbuh), who wrote down many depictions of events in the life of Jesus.
Try this site: http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/home.htm
I don't know how accurate he is, but he lived not long after Christ and he documents parts of his life (though in a negative way).

Answer 7

I'm sure some people here will mention josephus, so allow me to point out that most scholars agree that the mentioning of jesus in his works are an interpolation (i.e. someone else put it in there). hmm, perhaps eusebius, he prided himself on doctoring texts.

cheerio

Answer 8

One of the great Jewish historians, Josephus, mentions Jesus
in several of his writings. His is one of the few writings about Jesus outside of the Bible and the Quran,

Answer 9

Check archeology they have studied his entire life, the people you mentioned didn't like him because he opposed their ideas.
Plus they didn't realize his importance in the world til after he was gone then they started trying to learn more about him.

Answer 10

yeah, there isn't really any outside evidence for jesus, except for two... i.e. josephus, but most scholars say that both of these two references to jesus are actually forgeries