Question Home

Position:Home>History> Does history factually support or not support the New Testament of the Bible?


Question: Does history factually support or not support the New Testament of the Bible!?
I'm hoping for objective answers here!.Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
As a previous answer alludes to, the actual existence of Jesus as a real historical figure is debatable - there are surprisingly few extant sources other than biblical and religious texts, which clearly possess something of a bias!. Ultimately, if Jesus himself is open to question, many of the events in the new testament are themselves doubtable, even before you start dealing with miraculous goings on!.

What is also clear is that the new testament was a political construct - a great number of alternative writings were simply left out as they didn't fit with the aims of the people putting the new testament together, or indeed contradicted the words of other books!. What was ultimately accepted as the teachings of Christ were what was acceptable to Christ's followers at that time!. Other teachings that were unacceptable politically or were just inconvienient were simply discarded!. Again, this has to bring into question any historial accuracy claimed from the bible!.

In the end, the only real source we have for the truth of the words in the bible are the bible itself!. It's fairly simple logic that you can't argue the truth of the bible by saying that the bible says it's true therefore it must be!. As with most things religion, it all comes back to faith!.

Edit!.!.!. to clarify, my personal feeling is that jesus was a real person - I doubt much of the rest of attributed to him, but it would have taken an extraordinary effort to make him up out of nothing!. However, for those of your repliers to this question making blanket statements that Jesus was fact and so was the much of the rest of the new testament, the following websites demonstrate there is a lively debate about the man's very existence, let alone his actions or teachings:
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Historicity!.!.!.
http://www!.tektonics!.org/jesusexist/jesu!.!.!.
http://www!.religioustolerance!.org/chr_jc!.!.!.
http://www!.atheists!.org/christianity/did!.!.!.
etc!. There's plenty of others!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Pretty much all the major characters in the New Testament were real with additional documents , often from Roman sources, showing there existence!.

Of course many of the acts within it are not verifiable however a lack of evidence is not evidence against anything!.

Biblical archeology has been finding more and more each year to support both old and new testaments!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

please, elaborate on the answer you're seeking!.

"factual" or not, the new testament had (and still has) a huge impact on the development of "western" culture, political ideals, ruling methods, patriarchies, etc!. the language of the new testament is also important: greek!. why not latin, hebrew, or some other language of the time!?

look for the teaching company lectures by dr ehrman, he has one that deals specifically with this topicWww@QuestionHome@Com

Truth is a little of both!. I mean if you look at the trial and crucifixion of Jesus it is historically true overall!. There are some issues within it that seem to not be correct but the way it was handled is and is used by professors of history to show how Roman Law worked!. While some aspects can not be proven by historical record many can be!. We know where one of the church is that Paul wrote to in what is now Turkey!. So yes parts of the New Testament are supported by historical fact!. Now we do not know about things like the resurrection and so on that is something that is for faith!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

"EDITOR'S NOTE: This article does not debate the divinity nor the spiritual aspects of Christianity, but only the historical evidence that Jesus Christ did, in fact, exist!. The recent finding of the burial cave of Caiaphas, the high priest, adds even more evidence to the general historical truth of the New Testament!."


http://sonic!.net/sentinel/naij3!.html

Does that help!? Tried to find something non-religious to show the historical side of it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Some it does, some it doesn't, and some is for faith not historical knowledge!. Examples:
1!. John the Baptist, Herod, and pretty much everyone mentioned in the NT is historical!. There are no reasonable grounds for doubting the existence of Jesus!.
2!. The birth story cannot be true as stated!. At the time of Jesus' birth, Judaea was not in the Roman Empire and did not pay Roman taxes!.
3!. incarnation and resurrection!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Supports!. There is documentation in the reports sent to Rome by Pilate and there is a collection of writings called the Archko Volume that has reports from Pilate and from Caiaphas!. also, look at Josephus!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

See below for resources that give plenty of evidence to support the Bible!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

i believe it does for the most part ,history repeats it self!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It supports it!. Archaeologists have found that the NT is right on!.Www@QuestionHome@Com