Archaeological evidence?

Question

I understand that there is a lack of archaeological evidence when is comes to events of the Bible(by the way I am not a Christian) but is a lack of Archaeological evidence enough to deem something untrue. There are a lot things we know happened in the past but we have little to no evidence of such as crucification. We know for a fact that tens of thousands of people have been crucified and it was a punishment used for like 800 years by the Romans, yet there is only one piece of of physical evidence of a crucifixation. The reason we know this is because of writings of scribes. One out of 10 thousand leaves evidence isn't is a little ridiculous to ask for 1 peice of evidence for one person.

Sorry for the misspellings ^^

I am not saying these things happened I am saying that having something physical to study is very rare in a lot of the Archaeological research. I am not saying they happened.

Answer 1

You're right. Archaeological evidence, or lack thereof, is not enough to deam something untrue. I mean, people who do not believe in evolution ask why there is no evidence of trans-species- but thats cos we haven't found the ardhaeological evidence yet. Doesn't mean there are none.
The same can be said of any historical event for which other evidence exists, or of what historical documents suggest. Just because we haven't found the archaeological evidence yet, doesn't make it untrue.

Answer 2

But that one person was not just a random convicted felon who didn't make claims like being a "savior" and such. This was the Charles Manson of religion. His "miracle" birth was allegedly forertold, know across countries allegedly witnessed by shepherds, wise men, he was supposedly a genius kid, he obviously was a charismatic person as his presence commanded thousands in attendance, his ministry involved miracles of healing, water into wine, multiplying food, he ascended into heaven when he was transfigured, he rose from the dead AND most importantly he claimed that he was the son of god and the only way to heaven. YET, despite everything that this man supposedly did, not one single artifact from his time has ever surfaced. Not a writing, sandal, peice of carpentry, cloak, utensil, nothing. No writer mentions him until at least sixty years after he supposedly was born. Man has changed little over time. Look at the modern day memorabilia market to get a glimpse of people's attitudes toward collectibles. People collect stuff like Beanie Babies! As the celebrity factor rises so does the rush to collect anything and everything they can get their hands on that relates to the celeb. It is not a current human condition either. Go look in the churches in Europe. The catholics have always been obsessed with relics from the past. Do you really think that a guy like jesus as described in the bible could get away with escaping all human notice while he walked the earth? Then, when you turn to the rest of the story, it just so happens that jesus story parallels many other god-man stories. Don't get me started on the fact that the writers of the nt based jesus' fulfillment of prophecy on mistranslations of the ot. So with everything wrong about this picture and nothing right, it isn't asking too much to ask for a single piece of legitimate evidence to back up the claims of man.

Answer 3

Some people accept nothing as "proof". Others are able to believe anything, I fall in the middle.

No historian worth his salt would reject the concept and use of crucifixion from Rome. They were notorious at it. But what physical evidence would need to remain? Wood, iron nails, and bone. Most of those crucified were criminals or vagrants ... its not like they made a museum for them! We will always be looking through the glass darkly when we expect modern historiographic evidences from that far back. I honestly am amazed that someone was buried on the crucifix. Typically the dead were stripped off and fed to the dogs. But we do have documentary evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for this fact of history.

That being said, the Bible's archaeological and historical veracity again cannot be argued with. A hundred years ago, people would say the Bible was false because of this mysterious tribe called "Hittites" which didn't exist .... until they found the Hittite capital.

Archeology will not prove God, but it will not disprove Him either. Repent and believe in Christ for your salvation.

Ath

Answer 4

IN 1968 one of the greatest archaeological finds occurred. In an ossuary from burial caves at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem were found the remains of a man, aged 24-28, who had been crucified and died near the year A.D. 70. Though thousands upon thousands had been crucified in antiquity, this was the first time that archaeologists had discovered actual physical remains of a victim. The bones in the ossuary showed the man’s legs had been broken deliberately after the arms and legs had been nailed to a cross of olivewood. The single nail that had pierced the feet had penetrated the ankle bones and could not be extracted before burial.

Answer 5

Granted, the fact that most/many crucifixions were recorded with the names of those crucified and that Jesus' is not one of them is not proof that he wasn't crucified. However there are notable omissions or lack of other evidence as well. No other culture documented the Star of Bethlehem, the 6 hours of darkness, or earthquake. There is no contemporary, i.e. from the time Jesus lived, account of him even though there were several writers that wrote about various religion and "miracles". Most of the later documentation is about his followers and the rest, notably Josephus, is suspect. The Babylonian Talmud states that Jesus was held for 40 days before being stoned.

At best it would not be surprising if Jesus had existed, but there still would be a problem with his divinity as the same lack of evidence exists for the rest of the Bible.

Answer 6

I don't care how much physical evidence exists or does not exist that proves or disproves the truth of the events that took place in the Bible.

I have been studying the Bible for 20 years, and I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the events that are written in the New Testament actually happened. I have no doubt that Jesus lived and was crucified.

It just doesn't matter to me. I wouldn't believe in his divinity even if I did have more evidence of his life and miracles.

Answer 7

Here is a problem.

If I say that a man lived 2500 years ago in Sweden and was the creator of the universe and died...do you believe me?

Why not? Men lived in Sweden then? So he must have lived. Right. You can;t expect actual evidence can you?

Well, yes we can. And there is none outside the Bible for the existence of Jesus - let alone anything that happened to him. There are more written records of the exploits of Harry Potter than there are of Jesus Christ. Is Harry real?

It is perfectly reasonable to demand evidence - as well as rationality - and only when faith is involved are we expected to abandon it. You can see the consequences in 2000 years of religious war, hate crime, murder, inquisition, torture, intolerance, terrorism...need I go on?

Answer 8

Lack? 4 or 5 of the world's top Archaeologists have been accused of being Christians or Jews, because what they find supports the Bible as an historic document.

Every time Archaeology has made discoveries of things mentioned in the Bible, the Bible has been vindicated 100%. Naysayers will deny everything in it, including existence of King David and Jericho, but have been proven wrong.

Answer 9

there is archaeological information that some places in the Bible existed, genuine. This, besides the incontrovertible fact that, is the comparable as asserting that Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes existed simply by fact there is archaeological information of London. there is quite little information of any particular activities in the Bible, and lots against (e.g., cities meant to have been conquered by making use of Joshua did no longer exist on the time, etc.). Bible prophecies are obscure adequate that they may be fulfilled numerous circumstances, and nonetheless be claimed as "information" of alternative issues. there is no longer something particular. and fairly some non-medical information as properly. There are no sturdy non-Biblical account of Jesus. people will die for issues they suspect are genuine, despite in the event that they do no longer seem to be. people have been keen to die for Jim Jones, David Koresh, and a goodly form of alternative lunatics. Koresh, specially, claimed he grew to become into the return of Christ. If people have been keen to die for him, does that advise he grew to become into good? The few places the place the recent testomony must be matched to historic activities, it has failed miserably (e.g., delivery dates for Jesus ten years aside, Nazareth did no longer even exist on the time, no record of a massacre or the launch of prisoners on the Passover, etc. etc. etc.) Given an no longer likely journey such simply by fact the spontaneous resurrection and assumption into heaven of a man or woman, the simplest assumption isn't that the resurrection and assumption exceeded off, yet that somebody made up a narrative, stole a physique, etc. Occamk's razor says the likely tale is genuine, no longer the least probably. If this assumption have been to be the desirable option, then each and every lacking man or woman must be pronounced to have died, resurrected, and been assumed actual into heaven. hello, there is not any information it did no longer take place, so it will be genuine, good? Your very final assertion is in line with great "if", and around good judgment. greater probably he purely believed he grew to become into the Son of God. there are fairly some people on the streets of great apple at present who have self assurance that - in case you do not have self assurance them, why have self assurance in a Judean anarcho-communist hippie?

Answer 10

Actually, we have plenty of evidence for crucifixion through contemporary writings, including Roman Senators, Generals, etc...; and not by scribes.