Johnny Skeptic

This may not make any sense, but I am going to post it anyway.

Why aren't there a number of credible historical records from skeptic and neutral sources that confirm what the Bible says about supernatural events? If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why. If the God of the Bible does exist, Christians need to explain why he has not preserved any credible skeptic and neutral sources that back up what the Bible says about supernatural events. For example, if we had Egyptian and/or Syrian records regarding the Ten Plagues, that would make the Bible much more credible. Another example is that if we had some records that were written by the Pharisees that said that they saw Jesus perform miracles, that would make the Bible more credible. If all of the supernatural events that the Bible mentions actually happened, it is virtually impossible that Jews, Christians, and God would not have preserved credible historical record that backs up what the Bible says.

Isn't it true that all other religous books that make supernatural claims are in the same boat?

mountainman

There are two boats in the Bible Johnny.
One is the ancient BCE Hebrew texts.
The other is the "New CE Bullshit".

Dont you think you should try to
separate out these two things in
order to be more effective?

The ancient historical sources have
two separated spans of chronology.



Best wishes,


Pete Brown

jules?

If the question is, where is the rest of the evidence? then I think the confusion/issue?!? is founded on the fact that the world's largest religion, the world's best seller, the issue that has occupied minds for centuries is all a cultural mountain out of a rather little historical mole hill.

how can something so big be based on next to nothing? A mystery indeed.

Palestine was a rather tiny province, and Judea was a country that spent most of its time in somebody elses empire. A cross roads, without natural resources, a tiny population, without a natural harbour.

If Judea-christianity had never caught on the bible OT would be unique as a little countries ability to maintain an identity by borrowing from its neighbours and for taking the rather advanced step of a chronological history. If the NT had survived as a non religious historical document it would be praised as a great Greek narrative, a strange little mystery play that would be discussed in ancient languages classes.

A simple twist of fate distorts the littlest of things.

mountainman

That's right. Who first twisted fate
to bind these two things together?



Best wishes,



Pete Brown

ICinsideU

Probably their "best" answer would be, "If God gave us too much evidence, then we wouldn't need faith."

In my religious days, I read something from Philip Yancey (a prominent Christian author) to the effect of "Christianity is essentially paranoia in reverse."

Neutral sources, like Josephus, are proof of the accuracy of the Bible. The lack of neutral sources for (using your example) of the plagues is proves God wants us to have faith, and thus proves the accuracy of the Bible.