Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
The written traditions concerning the lives of the Apostles are found in ancient libraries kept by various churches or monasteries. These writings can be dated to be contemporary with the events written about thanks to the specific use of language in the first century. Much the same way one could identify a 20Th century piece of English literature as not possibly belonging to the 16th century. Although these accounts could be embellished they do offer independent accounts of the history which should be considered.
If you choose to disregard all written history that may be biased you must be wholly ignorant of all history before television and radio. Good thing CBC came along!
The New Testament contains 27 letters or books which all confirm the existence of Jesus Christ and His resurrection. There was at least 7 different authors who give independent witness and spoke of hundreds of other eye witnesses. The first 4 books or letters give specific information about Jesus' short ministry and resurrection. There are many historical events and figures we take for granted with far less of a witness.
Children believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus because they really want to think these magical creatures exist to bring them good things.
People don't believe in Jesus Christ because if they did then they would have to do something about Him. Maybe change their behavior or lifestyle. Maybe read there Bible. In any event you can't change the fact that Jesus existed 2000 years ago or is alive today any more than a child can make the tooth fairy real.
|
The problem with the bible is, that all Roman, Egyptian and Persian historians from that time, do not make references to the things that happened in the New Testament; their histories contain very little if anything at all about a man named Jesus. Likely there was a man who was a disciple of John the Baptist who created the legend of a man named Jesus when executed by the Romans.
The Bible, both new and old, are religious texts, and are not considered by most historians as having much value as an accurate historical document.