Is history a conspiracy against religion, or is religion a conspiracy against history?

Question

The archeological and historical records verify the existence of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and other civilizations that are used as settings in the bible, but these records make no mention of Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua. Paul of Tarsus actually left letters, but the ones that have been verified as authentic make no reference to Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus as a real person, to include the crucifixion by the Romans or the resurrection and ascension to heaven. History seems to point to Jesus being a myth used allegoricaly by people who wanted to separate from Judaeism. So who's lying, christians or historians and archeologists?

Yes, these are arguments of silence. If in fact there was a historical Jesus that caused the commotion that is stated in the new testement of the bible, why are the only references of such in the new testement? I'm not trying to make you agree with me, I want you to perform the search yourself. Use non-biased sources. A biblical website is not an unbiased source. A history book is written by non-biblical historians is.

Also, the answer I expect actually is neither. The fact is that neither verifies the other is only meant to prove that religion and history are two SEPARATE subject, and one should not be misused to validate or invalidate the other.

P.S. history does indeed deny a historical Jesus, otherwise it would not be a question of belief, but a question of alliance. No one doubts whether Marcus Aurellius, Marcus Anthony, Cleopatra, Ramses II, or any of the Ceasars were actual people. They just decide what they think about their role in history.

nameless person, I've studied the history of the Mediterranean for several years, and although I don't claim to know everything there is to know, I can claim to have never run into anything concerning Jesus outside of the bible that hasn't been proven either a forgery or fabrication. That includes Falvius, the letters of Paul, and others. Your website is biased towards christianity. I would not get my history there if it were the last resource left. Why don't you try again with something REAL, like a HISTORY BOOK that ISN'T written by a self-proclaimed christian.

Answer 1

Most fictional stories take place in real places... it doesn't mean they're real

Answer 2

"Is history a conspiracy against religion, or is religion a conspiracy against history?"

False dilemma (a.k.a. either/or fallacy). It could be neither.

"The archeological and historical records verify the existence of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and other civilizations that are used as settings in the bible, but these records make no mention of Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua."

Argument by silence.

"Paul of Tarsus actually left letters, but the ones that have been verified as authentic make no reference to Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus as a real person, to include the crucifixion by the Romans or the resurrection and ascension to heaven."

Another argument by silence.

"So who's lying, christians or historians and archeologists?"

Another false dilemma.

Answer 3

History is a confirmation of Christianity.

Is there any waterproof evidence that points in opposite direction of the Bible's teaching?

The Bible holds reports from eyewitnesses that testifies the existence of Christ, what more do we need?

I don't think that the historians are lying, they just do not have the insight they need to discover the truth.

There is plenty of historians and scientists that holds to the Word of God.

Unfortunately, many peoples are so busy trying taking the "honor" that they simply forget to seek the truth.

All Glory to God.

Answer 4

Arguments from silence are not necessarily worthless, but someone usually says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Answer 5

"seems" to point? you dont very sure...

id like to hear what an historian has to say,

o wait, i do,

they don't deny historical jesus

Answer 6

I think you're right!