Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmytheT
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both new and old, are religious texts, and are not considered by most historians as having much value as an accurate historical document.
|
Why would Egyptian and Persian historians even know about Jesus unless they spent time in Palestine? It's really hard to get into history books without having killed a lot of people. As for the miracles; why would they report on things they never seen and probably didn't believe.
Legends generally are written long after the subject has died. They rely on few or no eye witnesses being left to refute their claims. The gnostic gospels are examples of legends being applied to Jesus Christ. Why do you suppose it takes centuries for a catholic to be elevated to sainthood? It's a lot easier to claim someone lived a sinless life and performed miracles if everyone that knew him is long dead.
The letters that comprise the New Testament were contemporary with the subject. They speak of other eye witnesses as well who at the time of the writings were alive and able to confirm or deny the writer's claims. We also have written accounts of how many of these eye witnesses died. Often horrifically and yet remained true to their testimony. For caparison: there were only 12 men who said they seen the golden tablets that Joseph Smith said he was led to and translated into the book of Mormon. Of those twelve three recanted their testimony(it might of been 4) . None of these had to endure torture to make such confessions.
Lastly, the bible has proven to be historically accurate. Its description of geography and events have been right on the money. The Bible has also been held to a higher standard of criticism then other historical documents. Even with its remarkable track record it is still presumed to be inaccurate when another outside source isn't found to collaborate its claim.