A majority of Christians feel that the stories in the "new testament" are actual recounting of historical events. Why are these people lead to believe that the accounts are actually factual when they're only for the readers EDIFICATION? These stories are no more than fables. Why in the 2006 do most Christians feel that Yehoshua bin Yosef (Jesus) was actually born of a virgin in Bethlehem on Christimas and the "SON OF GOD" ?
2006-12-23 08:59:45 · 18 answers · asked by Furibundus 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Why not
Where is your proof that it is fake?
Now remember when bringing froth this truth
I want to be able to see, touch, and smell it so I will know that it is fake
2006-12-23 09:02:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The foundation of your premise is false.
We believe because of eye-witness historians (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger) as well as the authors of the New Testament books. These are all legitimate historians. You don't question the legitimacy of Napoleon or Julius Ceaser for the same reasons we don't question the legitimacy of New Testament stories.
Archeological findings also confirm the stories from both the old and new testaments. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the prophecies written in the old testament were truly prophetic, as they have been dated 150 years before Christ.
A little research will go a long way. If you want to get the facts (historical, bibliographical, and arheaological), try checking out the book "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell at your local library.
2006-12-23 09:09:22 · answer #2 · answered by SearchForTruth 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. You can't expect to unearth an ancient city and find a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla!" For all we know ALL of the ancient cities that have been discovered in the western hemisphere are cities in the Book of Mormon. 2. DNA testing has not been done to try to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. In fact, there can't be any DNA testing done because we don't have the DNA of most of those who we are talking about. There is no way DNA can prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. So, that one doesn't bother me a bit. 3. So are the originals of the Bible. So what's the problem? 4. the account of Paul's conversion is different each time, also. Again, where's the problem? If joseph Smith's story was exactly the same each time, he would be vilified because he had a canned answer, which means he made it up and memorized it. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. 5. God is perfect, man is not. The Bible is not perfect either, and has had many corrections and translations and interpretations over hte centuries, also. Don't hold the Book of Mormon to a double standard. 6. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever did more than glance at the Kinderhook plates, there is certainly no evidence that he ever even tried to translate them. There is no evidence at all. Most of this is either made up or totally irrelevant to the subject. Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? If you haven't done that, I suggest you start there.
2016-05-23 02:22:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The New Testament was written by 10 different authors who witnessed and reported the events in their day. One simple test is to compare the New Testament with verifiable historical records. The life of Jesus and his disciples is filled with concrete facts that can be verified in history and archeology.
While we are not able to verify every fact, because some historical records are lost, and not all archeological finds have been uncovered. But each verified fact and event gives added credibility to the author as being truthful. When we compile the various pieces of evidence both from writers who lived during the time of Jesus and physical evidence that verifies events in the bible we can conclude the New Testament is historically truthful.
But alas, the history of the New Testament is not really on trial rather it is the contents of its claims. The claims the New Testament makes about Jesus are incredible to say the least. So if we can conclude the writers are correct about the “History” then we are forced to answer, are they correct about the person of Jesus?
2006-12-23 09:32:42 · answer #4 · answered by thundercatt9 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if this man really lived at that time. But he did mention Jesus and his brother James so they must have been around. So which part of History can we trust?
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For an examination of this please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
2006-12-23 09:25:17 · answer #5 · answered by Eh? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
where's your reasoning for saying that they're not fables? If a Christian specifically feels that they're historical events then they most likely have reasoning behind it.
and about believing Jesus is the Son Of God, well I would hope that all Christians believe that because that's what makes you a Christian.
also there's loads of Christians that aren't brought up into a Christian environment, you'd be surprised where God can reach
2006-12-23 09:06:30 · answer #6 · answered by andys 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
cause that's the party line and the church wouldn't have much of a following or a way to keep the cash flow coming if they copped to the fact that the bible is, in fact, second and third-plus hand retellings of events. and that it was written by fallible humans. why do shiites and suniis kill each other when they are muslim bothers who all say "allah akbar"? it's all in the interpretation. the bible is loosely based on actual fact. jesus was the son of god. he did walk the earth and was a great prophet. he did die on the cross. the rest...who cares?
2006-12-23 09:05:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
How do you get a book written by four different individuals telling the same story?
Atheists do not believe in the New Testament...leave us alone. Go away!
2006-12-23 09:05:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Try spewing actual facts instead of your opinion disguised as fact, and you'll have a much better chance of being taken seriously.
2006-12-23 09:04:54 · answer #9 · answered by shojo 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess because you say so we should take your word for it. Thanks for your opinion, don't mind me if I pay it little heed. Your a bit tainted arent' you, got any facts to go with that opinion or are you just going to spew some junk?
2006-12-23 09:03:19 · answer #10 · answered by Scott B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you really think you might change a believer's mind to your warped way of thinking, think again. I'll pray for you.
2006-12-23 09:05:42 · answer #11 · answered by Jeff C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋