The bible

[FallentoReason]

I would like to ask the question why is the Bible not historically correct? Can someone in some detail tell me why it cannot be correct or where it is said to be contradictory and also where it has mistakes?
thank you.

---THE GOSPELS---

No one knows who wrote them. My recent research has shown me that the four names we accept on a whim (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) only started getting used at the end of the second century. Prior to this, not one reference is made to e.g. the Gospel according to Matthew. This gaping hole in knowledge about who wrote them makes perfect sense with what can be known about the Gospels, primarily, that the 'tradition' that we get fed about how the Gospels came to be isn't true at all.

Mark was the first one written and it is evident that Matthew and Luke used it (Luke also heavily used Josephus) as a basis for what they would be writing. This is rather devastating considering that the original version of Mark wouldn't of had the ending depicting several eyewitnesses to a risen Christ (this is known from the earliest copies we have which don't have verses 16:9 onwards). What's even more devastating is the fact that 'Matthew', a supposed eyewitness, needs to borrow from 'Mark', who according to 'tradition' itself, wasn't an eyewitness. This makes it clear that 'Matthew' wasn't any sort of eyewitness let alone an Apostle of Jesus Christ. John is no better because it has shown itself to be theologically advanced when compared to the Synoptics. This is fairly typical of hearsay--the truth gets stretched. It's clear that 'John' wasn't any closer than 'Matthew' to being an actual eyewitness.

So in a nutshell, it's evident the events we get told about come from people who never saw Jesus for themselves. 'Mark' even leads me to believe he wasn't writing literal history either because so many of the scenes he depicts have come straight from the OT. He has intentionally grabbed verses and used them for the story Jesus would be in (Mark as allegory).

---Paul the apostle---

This self-proclaimed apostle always seems to speak in a way that undermines everything that Jesus 'achieved' here on earth. Some on this forum have argued that he didn't need to mention events because that's for young Christians that can't handle the deeper theology just yet. Well, you can only wonder why Paul keeps referring to the mysteries of Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 4:1, Romans 11:25, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 1:9, Ephesians 3:4, Colossians 1:26... the list is endless) and how he was made aware of them through spiritual revelation. The man (Jesus) was just on earth! What's the mystery here? Well, guess what.. Paul goes one further and says the gospel he preaches came from no man, but that he received the gospel through revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). This directly contradicts the notion that Jesus the Christ was a person walking on earth.

Paul's way of talking resembles very closely the mind of the time. People had no problems in believing that their saviour gods had achieved certain things in the heavenly realms. Paul is simply telling us that through revelation and the prophets (OT) he has been made aware that Jesus was crucified somewhere in the heavens, much like Mithra killed a bull in the cosmos and NOT on earth. Paul's preaching style makes it evident he is not referring to any Messiah that walked on earth like the Gospels make it out to be. This idea that Jesus never existed on earth is strongly backed up by the fact that no NT writer claims to even have met the man. In fact, no one in history tells us about Jesus. All we have left is non-contemporaries who supposedly wrote a brief sentence or two, but these have been shown to be forgeries by later Christian historians a few hundred years later.

Conclusion?

Well, getting back to the original question, I see many many reasons why the Bible isn't historically accurate. The whole image that the church portrays about Jesus today is a bunch of claims that cannot be supported through historical evidence. There are gaping holes where there should be evidence if a god-man had actually showed up 2000 years ago.