Reliable history in the Bible

quote:

---

we have zero evidence for jesus's existance

---

Even though we have verified existing authors such as Paul, Luke, and John that attested to his existence? Let's not even mention Josephus for the sake of it.Or does the mere mention of their names in the biblical account render them as useless individuals in the eyes of those who would like to shred every inch of biblical evidence they can?Compare the above the to evidence of King Nebuchadnezzar's existence, and you will see dear sir that you are on dangerous grounds with no basis whatsoever.I see clear, circular reasoning, which can prove very dangerous to our society.Your brazenly sharpened statements marr the good name of sincere debate.Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

quote:

---

all of which wrote well after his supposed lifetime, in a manner severely resembling propaganda. they're not good evidence for his existance for the same reason the statements of the pope today are not. the identity of john is highly questionable (there seem to be THREE johns), and neither luke nor paul knew jesus during his life.

---

It doesn't matter which John wrote it. It's written by different person other than Jesus nonetheless.

quote:

---

there are two entries commonly referred to in flavius josephus's works. one is forged. the other is highly suspect.

---

Please show me the evidence that these statements were forged. I have Josephus' original works, and it's all there written in chronological order.

quote:

---

no. evidence supporting the bible is the question. "the bible" does not count as evidence supporting the bible. we need real and external evidence. for instance...

---

You can say this for any document. The Bible as in itself can be counted an external document when supporting other documents not related to the Bible. Also, these documents are "separated" from one another. The Bible is composed of many books, and these books were simply "brought together". If the claims of Jesus are mentioned in one book, mentioning works from other books is considered as external evidence.

quote:

---

...nebuchadnezzar left monuments to his name all over sumeria. we have a lot more than just the bible to tell us he existed.

---

You don't need monuments to prove the existence of a person. A few simple internal and external writings is all that is necessary.All the teachings of Jesus could not have appeared out of thin air. There has to be a man that originally introduced the teachings.Unfortunately, what is evidence to me may not be interpreted as evidence to you. It's amazing how many different ways "evidence" can be interpreted.

There are also many different atheistic/agnostic groups too. Please don't forget this. In fact, there are different kinds of groups in just about every single religion/belief imaginable.

I never had time to read this whole thread, but here is some newly surfaced evidence that demonstrates some reliability of the Bible: Old Testament figure named on 2600-year-old tablet on News.com.auAlso found here: Museum’s tablet lends new weight to Biblical truth - TimesOnline.co.ukAlso, in addition to this, I will make clear what I know to be true:No archaeological discovery has ever proven the bible to be untrue. Facts have not changed, only perceptions and conceptions of those facts. Anything that may appear to "counter" the biblical account is only a "perception" or a "conception", but never a proof. Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

---

~Lysimachus