(February 20, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Faith No More Wrote:(February 20, 2015 at 12:22 pm)dennyg Wrote: It doesn't necessarily. But it's much more reliable if it gives a correct history, which the NT and some of the OT does.
Ex: if you find a Jewish Temple at a dig site with the inscription Solomon on it, which only the Bible/Torah mentions, that adds validity to other claims. Like Solomon, David and a whole host of Jewish kings, as well as towns not mentioned in other texts, have been uncovered. They've even found non-Biblical references to Goliath recently. For at least 2000 years the OT was the only mention of him. Things like this add credibility.
In the case for Jesus having some sort of supernatural ability, that actually has some non-Biblical evidence as well. Some rabbinical records from the time Jesus is said to have been alive talk of him as a 'magician.' They hated Jesus and ultimately forced Pontius Pilate to kill him, but that suggests they believed in his supernatural powers. They attributed it to witchcraft and not divinity is the only difference.
That extra-Biblical reference to Jesus having powers is, to me, the most compelling argument for him actually being what he claimed to be
Undoubtedly, any extra-biblical support for the bible's claims is going to be scientifically controversial to say the least, but I think the legitimacy of that evidence isn't a worthwhile debate. What I want to know is that why would the claims of someone that comes from a time and place that is rife with superstition and irrationality hold any significance at all? We didn't even start developing a good process to interpret the reality around us until the time of the Enlightenment, so why should someone believe a claim written down 1600 years prior?
I'm not saying the Jewish magician reference is proof by any means but it's significant that people who were going out of their way to discredit Jesus believed themselves that he had some sort of power. The reason that the NT is considered by most theological scholars as having a high chance of being historically accurate, other than archaeological support, is that the multiple accounts all tell the same story, but they are just different enough to see that each is from a different perspective. No key details are different, but certain phrases or Jesus' closeness with a given person varies slightly. If 4 different authors had composed them, this is what you'd expect.
Jesus and interpretation of the natural world don't really contradict at any point. He doesn't speak much in terms of trying to explain nature. He just gives parables and supposedly performs miracles. So when you say that because the accounts of Jesus' life are 1600 years old they shouldn't be trusted I'm not sure what you're referring to. Maybe if you cite a specific example I'd better understand
