The written records as evidence

[themonkeyman]

Okay.

In my last thread I had atheists arguing left-right-and-centre that my evidence is not sufficient for the meagre "undisputed" claims. I want to focus on these "challenges" posed to me.

Jesus was a historical person. This is firmly established by having independent contemporary authors writing asymmetrical works. They were not bound together as "The New Testament" until some time in the second century. The first century writers did not all know about each other; although some certainly were familiar with some of the work of their contemporaries.

Now many atheists have reminded me that Luke's census of Quirinius cannot be independently verified unless it's the census of 6AD. This is an open point, it's a point that remains unsolved. But Luke offers far more certainty in the remainder of his works, and especially in Acts which ends in the present of the early church c. 61 AD. Even if Acts were to be written in 90 AD, all the events it talks about take place between the time of Jesus and c. 61 AD - we'll say about 30 years.

Nazareth. It has been partly excavated in 2009, and what archaeologists discovered was that it was a small town consisting of about 50 houses and populated by observant Jews, 4 miles from Sepphoris and linked via roads where it is theorized that Joseph and Jesus would have worked as carpenters/builders.

Pontius Pilate. In 1961 the "Pilate Stone", a block of of carved limestone was discovered, with an inscription naming Pontius Pilate. Josephus also names him.

Caiaphas. The high priest who condemned Jesus. Archaeologists discovered his ossuary in Jerusalem in 1990.

Crucifixion. Atheists long claimed there was no evidence for nails being used in crucifixion, prior to the Christian gospels. In 1968 a 1st century AD ossuary was discovered, inside a Jewish tomb, containing the remains of "Jehohanan the son of Hagkol". Jehohanan's right heel bone still had the crucifixion nail embedded in it.

The Merneptah Stele. Although I am talking about the NT chronology, this requires a mention. Discovered in 1896 in Egypt, it proves beyond doubt that Israelites were living in Canaan by the 13th century BC.

Many atheists still think that the ancient Jewish heritage doesn't really go back that far!

The Book of Daniel. Okay, it would take a whole new thread to discuss this properly, but suffice to say that the discovery of the Qumran scrolls put to bed for good and all the late authorship theory.

John the Baptist:

• Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

What you just read is not from the Bible, it is from Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2.

His account agrees with the gospels that John the Baptist: had crowds of Jews approach him, had followers dedicated to him, Herod puts him in prison and has him executed, and that John preached a message of virtue and righteousness for each other.

Without reading your drivel I will make 3 points to refute your big arguement

1) Matthew / Mark & Luke all used Mark as an original source.
2) Mark was written by a Friend of Pauls and Peters
3) Paul wrote the larger portion of the NT Books in his 'Own' version of Christianity which was also the source when Marks Gospel came around

So actually they all Deviate from a few main Characters
Paul / Peter / Paul's Writer

So saying that the collection of books is evidence is wrong as it was only really written by a handfull of people all of which knew eachother to some extent.

Unless you want to include the Gnostic Gospels but when people say they are bull shit it does show there is a sheer amount of made up stories that look real on the pre-face. So after realising that the Gnostic Gospels were completely fake its easy to see how a bible could come around.

---

And another thing. Generally God gives revelations to people known as 'Prophets' Why was there a large Gap between the last Prophesy and Jesus coming to earth?

Surely an Independent Prophet at the time could affirm or deny Jesus using the power of God. E.g. God is known for big show off events so why not make jesus look a little more God like?