Historical Records of the Bible and Jesus.

EmptyForceOfChi

Banned
Banned
I have been doing some research into the facts and real historical records of the holy scriptures. I always hear people saying about its severe lack of historical evidence and records so I took a look myself. I found out quite the opposite actualy where I expected to find hardly any real records I found many accounts.

Here are some interesting quotes and records to Start the thread off.

Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6


Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."3


Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.1 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."2


the Jewish Talmud, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."4


A piece of the Gospel of John exists in a Manchester library in England and is dated 125 A.D. - 35 years after John wrote his life of Jesus; in other words, some contemporaries of John would still have been alive when that actual piece of material was being passed from hand to hand!!


Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them."10


Irenaeus, who lived until 203 A.D., tells how Polycarp, who died in 154 A.D. "would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."11


non-Christian historians like Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus, Pliny-- all confirm that the New Testament writers wrote truthfully about the events they observed personally in Israel in the first century.the text of this piece of John's gospel is corroborated by three great manuscripts containing most of the Bible: the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus dated from 350-450 A.D.

The Edom dig is described in Antiquity, a British archaeological quarterly, by Russell Adams of Canada's McMaster University; Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues in Britain, Israel, Germany and Jordan. They report that pottery and radiocarbon dating of organic materials from a major copper mill in Jordan show settlement in the 11th century B.C. and perhaps earlier. An impressive fortress site, 80 yards square, dates to the 10th-century era of David and Solomon.


This doesn't explicitly support the Bible's references to Edom, Adams says, but does prove that the Edomites thrived in the 10th century, and that lends credibility to the biblical chronology. Dever has examined pottery from the site and is convinced that some is Israelite, indicating David's kingdom engaged in international trading.


This team reported in Science magazine in 2003 that radiocarbon dating of olive pits and charred grain from the site dates between 940 B.C. and 900 B.C. That fits snugly with Solomon's biblical kingdom and the Pharaoh Shishak's invasion five years after Solomon died (1 Kings 14:25-6).





Quotes taken from many sites and sources.

Add more feel free, discuss.


peace.
 
Last edited:
I have to information to respond to you with; but I refuse.

I refuse to respond until you change "Palestine" to "Israel"; I mean seriously. Even when they had a temple in Jerusalem it was actually Palestine?
 
Ok whatever, I will change the name and look through/edit it if it means so much to you.


-I edited the quote that somebody else wrote for you, can we continue now?.



peace.
 
Last edited:
Just so we're clear, one of Josephus' passages regarding Jesus has been known to be a hoax since the 18th century. The other, which does not really say anything about him other than that he is the brother of James, is disputed as well.

There were a bunch of far more influential and respected historians in that era that never once mention Jesus. Just something to think about.
 
Just so we're clear, one of Josephus' passages regarding Jesus has been known to be a hoax since the 18th century. The other, which does not really say anything about him other than that he is the brother of James, is disputed as well.

There were a bunch of far more influential and respected historians in that era that never once mention Jesus. Just something to think about.

Ok, and wht of every other piece of documentation and recorded history?. thats a single account what of the rest?.

compared to many other classic historical figures the new testemant has more sources to refer to.

peace.
 
Ok, and wht of every other piece of documentation and recorded history?. thats a single account what of the rest?.

compared to many other classic historical figures the new testemant has more sources to refer to.

I have not done all the research on NT. What little I've done has been in regards to Jesus. I'll get back to you on that.
 
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6
In 2000 years does that mean Gone with the wind will be true? There's a lot of copies out there. Also, look at how many copies of the Mormon bible are out there. There were a lot of writings throughout history; these copies of the New Testament were distributed, not created over time.

Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."3
Is it potentially possible that Flavius learned that through the grapevine?

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.1 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."2
Those "Christians" he is referring to is actually a sect of Jewish Messianics unrelated to Jesus. They've become somewhat tucked away in history, but during that time there was a Messianic uprising which was quickly smashed down by the Romans, virtually slaughtering all of them. That's why they are called "Christians" = "Messianics"

the Jewish Talmud, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."4
Talmud does not concur, I would like to know what tractate you're citing. Talmud talks about a guy who was a bastardized mumzer who was full of blasphemy, there's no evidence it was Jesus.

A piece of the Gospel of John exists in a Manchester library in England and is dated 125 A.D. - 35 years after John wrote his life of Jesus; in other words, some contemporaries of John would still have been alive when that actual piece of material was being passed from hand to hand!!
No one is claiming John or Paul don't exist...they're claiming that they were sacm artists.

Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them."10
How's that evidence that he lived?

Irenaeus, who lived until 203 A.D., tells how Polycarp, who died in 154 A.D. "would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it altogether in accordance with the Scriptures."11
Again...not proof.

non-Christian historians like Porphyry, Celsus, Josephus, Pliny-- all confirm that the New Testament writers wrote truthfully about the events they observed personally in Israel in the first century.the text of this piece of John's gospel is corroborated by three great manuscripts containing most of the Bible: the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus dated from 350-450 A.D.
It would be easy to account for events occurring; for example if the New Testament were actually Roman Propaganda...hmmm?
 
See, considering that Chi is citing the Flavious reference as truth, when it is known to be a fabrication, I have to question his entire post. It's too bad I'm not informed enough on NT truth vs fabrication to comment...

But this about sums up how I feel about this:

In 2000 years does that mean Gone with the wind will be true?

Burrrrrrn!
 
Ok, and wht of every other piece of documentation and recorded history?. thats a single account what of the rest?.

compared to many other classic historical figures the new testemant has more sources to refer to.

peace.
Then you need to check out these by Iasion all alleged evidence for a jesus person totally refuted, and with verifiable links.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654
 
In 2000 years does that mean Gone with the wind will be true? There's a lot of copies out there. Also, look at how many copies of the Mormon bible are out there. There were a lot of writings throughout history; these copies of the New Testament were distributed, not created over time.


Is it potentially possible that Flavius learned that through the grapevine?


Those "Christians" he is referring to is actually a sect of Jewish Messianics unrelated to Jesus. They've become somewhat tucked away in history, but during that time there was a Messianic uprising which was quickly smashed down by the Romans, virtually slaughtering all of them. That's why they are called "Christians" = "Messianics"


Talmud does not concur, I would like to know what tractate you're citing. Talmud talks about a guy who was a bastardized mumzer who was full of blasphemy, there's no evidence it was Jesus.


No one is claiming John or Paul don't exist...they're claiming that they were sacm artists.


How's that evidence that he lived?


Again...not proof.


It would be easy to account for events occurring; for example if the New Testament were actually Roman Propaganda...hmmm?


Im not saying anything is evidence, Im saying it has recorded documented history with the same status of many other historical accounts we hold as history.




peace.
 
The first link is just a great bit of research.

It is just a cut and paste with personal opinion thrown in.

One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

Unless we come up with some.

Note: I am not inferring anything beyond existence.
 
Last edited:
Then you need to check out these by Iasion all alleged evidence for a jesus person totally refuted, and with verifiable links.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654


I read them all and it still stands to have much more documented histopry than many other classic historical figures that we see as real figures of history.

We hold many ancient philosophers as real people even though they don't have real evidence of existing other than a few recorded documentations from outside sources refering to thier lives.

The top link that Liason wrote has lots of personal opinion put into the facts. basically saying "he reffered to christ, so did he, so did he, so did he, but they are liars and thats not proof".


The fact is that by our standards of acceptance of other philosophers and figures of history, jesus holds more documentation than some we teach as factual existing figures.


It is too much personal opinion with sayings like "It was probabl;y a forged document, it is suspicious, it might not be true". Either they are proved to be forged or are not, many things are suspicious but we should be dealing with facts not assumptions or tainted opinions of people with agendas, if they are proven to be forged and fake then we class and write them off as false, if they are not proved to be false 100% then you should not portray them to be fakes unless they actualy 100% are.


How many historical figures who have far less documentation and records than jesus do we hold as true walking people that once lived?.


peace.


peace.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Plutarch write the life of alexanfer 350-400 yeaars after the death of the king?, I know there is 3-4 other sources for alexanders existence but they all came hundreds of years later. None of his sources were eye witnesses. Granted alexander left huge impact on people as evidence through his war mongering, but it seems jesus has left a far greater impact that could be held at the same level of evidence?.

what about Plato?.

peace.
 
At best just a man, and maybe a martyr... A god i see nothing to prove it. Miracles are just stories. And for Christians it matters not if he existed or not, as they have already made their minds up as to what is true.
 
It is just a cut and paste with personal opinion thrown in.

It *is* copy/pasted, but only because Iasion created the text and posted it elswhere before posting here. He is the original author of the text as near as I can tell. So, with that said, the entire thing is his opinion and perspective. So far, those opinions and perspectives appear to hold as premises, claims, and assertions.

One thing to consider is that no historical figure has ever been made up and passed off as as an actual person.

Gilgamesh. King Arthur. Several Mesoamerican figures. Even recent American figures of Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett, John Smith, and others have had their "histories" hyped & retold to the point that they are no longer the same individual. Perhaps this Jesus character is much the same -a regular guy, mortal in all respects who inspired a few people who hyped his importance and elevated him to a supernatural level. The word deified fits very well in that case.
 
Back
Top