Ok, this is less a question than to clearify the tons of confused athiests (and Christians alike) who seem to like to believe that there is no evidence to back up the Bible. Here are some historical books from the Romans and Other sources outside of the Bible which verify the existance of Jesus and a number of the events in the Bible.
Herodotus 488-428 b.c.
Thucydides 460-400 b.c.
Tacitus 100 a.d.
Caesar's Gaelic War 58-50 b.c.
Livy's Roman History 59 b.c. - 17 a.d.
We have tons of copies of the New Testament going back to 130 a.d. only about 30 years after it was compiled. These verify that what people wrote has been accurately recorded and translated to the modern new testament. Not to mention it was written by many people. Of these least 4 who claim to be eyewitnesses to Jesus.
2007-06-08 07:39:44 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
thanks for the info, at least one brave pip here.. =)
2007-06-08 07:43:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of your book quoted verify the existence of Jesus. I've done historical research in those books and Know that you are wrong. Your statement that "We have tons of copies of the New Testament going back to 130 a.d." is not true. The New Testament was not compiled until the late 4th century and the earliest fragment of the New Testament is a fragment of Mark from the beginning of the 4th century.
If you want to make stuff up you need to know that there are people here that actually have educations in History and Theology that know the facts and will point out when you are in error.
Thank you and have a real day. Peace.
2007-06-08 07:48:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is and I quote 'a small fragment of papyrus' from a copy of the Gospel of John that has been dated to around 125 AD. Not 'tons of copies' as you state. Also the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke date to around 250 AD so how exactly could any of these be considered eye witness accounts? Also the other sources you mention only confirm that there was someone named Jesus alive at the time. What events you claim we can only guess at.
2007-06-08 07:58:23 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We know of the evidence and there are many more finds besides them. Take a look at what the archeologists have discovered in the past 100 years. Most recent King Herods chamber. Hmmm that was in the Bible 10 years ago they claimed there was no King Herod. Some of our eyes are open and others remain closed. I wish that we could show the non believers. That we will never be able to do because they will always try to find something wrong with it. They dont want to see His light because it means they have to change their lives. Repent and be baptized. Peace out.....
2007-06-08 07:55:04 · answer #4 · answered by powerliftingrules 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nobody is saying that there is no evidence to back up ANYTHING said in the Bible. We say that there's no evidence to prove the existence of a God. We know that there are some historical events that are accurately listed, it's just the supernatural elements that we think are not true.
2007-06-08 07:54:58 · answer #5 · answered by Jess H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ahem... cough just 2 sources are AD, and one of them is of the 100 AD.
Which leaves "Livy's Roman History 59 b.c. - 17 a.d." as the only contemporary source, and are you sure it mentions this jew messiah of yours?
Edit
Thinking more deeply, it can't say anything about your messiah, cause he supposedly kicked the bucket in the 33 AD(old by that time standards), therefore by far the only thing you could prove is that some teenage jew warlord called jesus existed .
2007-06-08 07:43:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
supply G wrote: "No, The issues interior the Holy Bible makes the Holy Bible genuine. for occasion, city's stated interior the Holy Bible have been dug up and found." religious/Mythological texts from antiquity frequently contain historic info interior the narratives. that isn't data for the supernatural, neither is it data for the reliability/credibility of supernatural claims.
2016-11-07 23:35:59 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, dude, hate to point out the obvious here, but not of these people lived during the alleged time of Christ, and not one of them were eyewitnesses - as you said yourself, they CLAIMED to be eyewitnesses. Problem is, it was written 100 years after his death at the earliest...and life expectancy wasnt that long then. Furthermore, Livy's Roman history would have been written well before the death of Jesus - so it doesnt "prove" anything.
Sorry, but Im not convinced. And, thanks for calling us confused, but not your fellow Christians. 'tard.
Perhaps you can explain why then, that the Egyptians archives failed to show a mass exodus of slaves from the country, ala Moses?? They kept such good records that they actually wrote down how much rations a royal guard could have - if those records have survived to today, why hasnt records of the largest exodus in history not also survived? There is ZERO historical evidence for the exodus.
2007-06-08 07:44:44 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋
So what? Just because some of the names and locations in the bible are real, that doesn't mean the whole thing is real. Harry Potter talks about London, does that mean everything in the Harry Potter books are reality?
As education does a brain good.
2007-06-08 07:47:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Is there any way you can rationally prove that Bible is the actually word of God? It is not legitimate to use the Bible to prove the Bible.
2007-06-08 07:45:59 · answer #10 · answered by Kedar 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that there is a lot of evidence to back up the Bible. There are also many archaelogical sites that support the Bible.
2007-06-08 07:44:16 · answer #11 · answered by future dr.t (IM) 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋