Christianity Is Historically Verifiable.

As for 1 Cor. 15, Paul does list 2 people (aside from the list of 500) who were not in the "inner circle", James the brother of Jesus(v.7) - who was a skeptic until after Jesus appeared to him. He did not believe that Jesus was God, nor anything else important for that matter. He was not part of the "inner cirlce" in any way shape or form. James was one of the first skeptics to be converted to Christianity. The 2nd person that is mentioned, is Paul himself(v.8-9), who claims to have seen Jesus after his resurrection. Paul was a pharisee who persecuted the christian church, overseeing the stoning of Stephen.
As for the 500 to whom Jesus appeared, the way that Paul writes about them demonstrates that he knows the majority personally, probably because he went and checked out their claims. He knows that most of them are still alive, and that some have died. Therefore it is reasonable to assert that, if anyone wanted to go talk to a couple of them Paul could have given them names and addresses. Secondly, it wouldn't be that hard to find them, seeing as the majority were most likely still in Jerusalem meeting with the large group of believers there.(Acts 2:41-47)

How exactly do the other claims fall apart when you examine them?

Luke says, as I said above, that he examined the facts, before writing his gospel and book of Acts. He says "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed. "(Luke 1:1-4)

Peter says in his first sermon, "This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. " (Actes 2:32) Now any conscientious skeptic would have said, at least I would have said, yeah right, where's the tomb. Peter gave this sermon in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified, and buried. The tomb was a prominent tomb, having belonged to a richer person. Therefore, anybody could have gone and checked it out. The funny thing is that when Peter said this, some 3000 people believed. Why? Because the tomb was empty. Because, there was no other valid explanation as to why it was empty. (And in the last 2000 years there are people who have tried to reason it away, the first explanation ever given for the empty tomb that is not christian was that which was given by the pharisees - that the disciples stole the body. This explanation does not explain the facts however of the body never having been found (it is unreasonable to think that these disciples who so loved their master, would get rid of the body in a disrespectful manner, so they would have had to protect the body.), of the fact that from his crucifixion to this day in Acts the disciples had fallen into a deep depression. When the women first came back from the garden having seen the empty tomb, most of the disciples didn't believe them. And even after Peter and John had gone to the tomb certain disciples still didn't believe. The image that we have in the New Testament of the disciples after the crucifixion is one of absolute unbelief. All other theories of the empty tomb do not explain the birth of the church, the change of attitude of the apostles, the fact that they died affirming that Jesus was raised from the dead, the fact that the Jewish and Roman officials did not produce the body of Jesus or deny that the tomb was empty, the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, Communion, baptism, or the new day of worship.)

In fact Luke states in Acts 17:11 that the people of Beroea were more noble than the people of thessalonica because they checked out everything that Paul said, researching day and night to see if what he said was true.

Christianity stands or falls on the historicity and truth of the New Testament. This is what the authors themselves affirm, and this is what theologians and apologists of the christian faith, since the writing of the New Testament, affirm. In the last 2000 years there have been many attempts to discredit the historicity of the New Testament, however archaeologists have proven time and again that the historical facts of the New Testament stand the test of time and are verifiable. Two good books on the subject deal with the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. They are Colin Hemers "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", and Sir William Ramseys book, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen." This last book was recently republished by Kregel publishing company.

So, before claiming that there isn't any evidence for the claims of the Bible, please read these books. Some other authors who write on the archaeology of the Bible are William F. Albright, Kenneth Kitchen, Sir Frederick Kenyon, J.N.D. Anderson, F.F. Bruce, Gary Habermas, J. McRay, J.A.T. Robinson, A.N. Sherwin-White (who is a Historian of Roman History, and who says in his book "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament", that Roman historian would love to have as much evidence for Roman History as christian historians do for the historicity of the New Testament.), and Edwin Yamauchi.

Please read these books before reposting in this discussion, otherwise we are not discussing on the same level.

Romains1

08 Aug 2008 19:44

Comment

How exactly do the other claims fall apart when you examine them?

Luke says, as I said above, that he examined the facts, before writing his gospel and book of Acts.  He says "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed. "(Luke 1:1-4)

Peter says in his first sermon, "This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. " (Actes 2:32) Now any conscientious skeptic would have said, at least I would have said, yeah right, where's the tomb. Peter gave this sermon in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified, and buried. The tomb was a prominent tomb, having belonged to a richer person. Therefore, anybody could have gone and checked it out. The funny thing is that when Peter said this, some 3000 people believed. Why? Because the tomb was empty. Because, there was no other valid explanation as to why it was empty. (And in the last 2000 years there are people who have tried to reason it away, the first explanation ever given for the empty tomb that is not christian was that which was given by the pharisees - that the disciples stole the body. This explanation does not explain the facts however of the body never having been found (it is unreasonable to think that these disciples who so loved their master, would get rid of the body in a disrespectful manner, so they would have had to protect the body.), of the fact that from his crucifixion to this day in Acts the disciples had fallen into a deep depression. When the women first came back from the garden having seen the empty tomb, most of the disciples didn't believe them. And even after Peter and John had gone to the tomb certain disciples still didn't believe. The image that we have in the New Testament of the disciples after the crucifixion is one of absolute unbelief. All other theories of the empty tomb do not explain the birth of the church, the change of attitude of the apostles, the fact that they died affirming that Jesus was raised from the dead, the fact that the Jewish and Roman officials did not produce the body of Jesus or deny that the tomb was empty, the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, Communion, baptism, or the new day of worship.)

In fact Luke states in Acts 17:11 that the people of Beroea were more noble than the people of thessalonica because they checked out everything that Paul said, researching day and night to see if what he said was true.

Christianity stands or falls on the historicity and truth of the New Testament. This is what the authors themselves affirm, and this is what theologians and apologists of the christian faith, since the writing of the New Testament, affirm. In the last 2000 years there have been many attempts to discredit the historicity of the New Testament, however archaeologists have proven time and again that the historical facts of the New Testament stand the test of time and are verifiable. Two good books on the subject deal with the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. They are Colin Hemers "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", and Sir William Ramseys book, "St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen." This last book was recently republished by Kregel publishing company.

So, before claiming that there isn't any evidence for the claims of the Bible, please read these books. Some other authors who write on the archaeology of the Bible are William F. Albright, Kenneth Kitchen, Sir Frederick Kenyon, J.N.D. Anderson, F.F. Bruce, Gary Habermas, J. McRay, J.A.T. Robinson, A.N. Sherwin-White (who is a Historian of Roman History, and who says in his book "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament", that Roman historian would love to have as much evidence for Roman History as christian historians do for the historicity of the New Testament.), and Edwin Yamauchi.

Please read these books before reposting in this discussion, otherwise we are not discussing on the same level.

Comment

How exactly do the other claims fall apart when you examine them?

Please read these books before reposting in this discussion, otherwise we are not discussing on the same level.