Can We Trust The New Testament As A Historical Document?
by Matt Slick

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below.¹

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/veritas/pdf_handouts/Manuscript%20Evidence%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

OLAADEGBU:

Can We Trust The New Testament As A Historical Document?
by Matt Slick

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below.¹

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/veritas/pdf_handouts/Manuscript%20Evidence%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. People still question if the documents are reliably transmitted to us; but they should rather ask if the biblical documents record actual historical accounts.

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

OLAADEGBU:

It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. People still question if the documents are reliably transmitted to us; but they should rather ask if the biblical documents record actual historical accounts.

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

The Bible is a book of History

It could be said that the Bible is a book of history--and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.

Nevertheless, many people used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about A.D. 27 (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias, and Luke had accurately recorded the facts.

Also, the walls of Jericho have been found--destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea that has verified its existence. Finds have verified the existence of Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).

There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records on places such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

1. An inscribed stone was found that refers to Pontius Pilate, named as Prefect of Judaea.’ (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.)
Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea . . . "

2. "A decree of Claudius found at Delphi (Greece) describes Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in ad 51, thus giving a correlation with the ministry of Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:12)." (The New Bible Dictionary)
Acts 18:12, "But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat."

3. Excavations have revealed a text naming a benefactor Erastus which may be a reference relating to the city-treasurer of Rom. 16:23. (The New Bible Dictionary)
Rom. 16:23, "Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother."

4. At Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:28-41. (The New Bible Dictionary)
Acts 19:28, "And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians."

5. "It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date . . . archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts: (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC–AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus’ birth."2

6. "The historical trustworthiness of Luke has been attested by a number of inscriptions. The ‘politarchs’ of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6, 8 ) were magistrates and are named in five inscriptions from the city in the 1st century AD. Similarly Publius is correctly designated proµtos (‘first man’) or Governor of Malta (Acts 28:7). Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and near by was a stone altar for ‘the Hearer of Prayer’ (Zeus) and Hermes. This explains the local identification of Barnabas and Paul with Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes (Mercury) respectively (Acts 14:11). Derbe, Paul’s next stopping-place, was identified by Ballance in 1956 with Kaerti Hüyük near Karaman (ASLuke 2:2) and to Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) have likewise received inscriptional support." (The New Bible Dictionary.) 7, 1957, pp. 147ff.). Luke’s earlier references to Quirinius as governor of Syria before the death of Herod I (Luke 2:2) and to Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) have likewise received inscriptional support." (The New Bible Dictionary.)
There are many such archaeological verifications of biblical events and places. Is the Bible trustworthy? Absolutely! Remember, no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. Therefore, since it has been verified over and over again throughout the centuries, we can continue to trust it as an accurate historical document.

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7gmgdk9qG8

Who is the father of Joseph, father of Jesus?

PastorAIO: Who is the father of Joseph, father of Jesus?

I think Joseph is the Father of Jesus, no doubt !

frosbel:

I think Joseph is the Father of Jesus, no doubt !

Oh yeah, (in the fleshly sense) but the father of Joseph, who was he? What was his name? What was his lineage?

frosbel:

I think Joseph is the Father of Jesus, no doubt !

Your case is fat worse than I thought!!! Chukwu mere gi ebele

chukwudi44:

Your case is fat worse than I thought!!! Chukwu mere gi ebele

PastorAIO:

Oh yeah, (in the fleshly sense) but the father of Joseph, who was he? What was his name? What was his lineage?

See the blind leading the blind. Joseph was Jesus' legal father, but not His physical one.

OLAADEGBU:

See the blind leading the blind. Joseph was Jesus' legal father, but not His physical one.

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 and Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 and Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins , according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.Acts 2:30


I'm just going by what the bible says here. You explain how Joseph is in the genealogy of Jesus then.


Actually, you know what... Don't bother. I'm not playing a game with you of Who Sabi Pass.

PastorAIO:

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 and Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 and Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 and Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 and Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 and after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins[b], according to the flesh,[/b] he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.Acts 2:30


I'm just going by what the bible says here. You explain how Joseph is in the genealogy of Jesus then.


Actually, you know what... Don't bother. I'm not playing a game with you of Who Sabi Pass.

Good decision.

@ PastorAIO

You got me thinking about this , though I had been doing some research in the past, it's a little confusing to be honest.

I opened a new article to further discuss this 'truth '.

OLAADEGBU:

See the blind leading the blind. Joseph was Jesus' legal father, but not His physical one.

i guess he's trying to bring up geneology issues. All this primary 1 questions asked by people who failed to attend or pay attention at Sunday school.

Image123:

i guess he's trying to bring up geneology issues. All this primary 1 questions asked by people who failed to attend or pay attention at Sunday school.

They probably slept through their Sunday school lessons only to wake up to say "Amen"!

oh, he already has.

frosbel:

I think Joseph is the Father of Jesus, no doubt !

Really?

Image123:

i guess he's trying to bring up geneology issues. All this primary 1 questions asked by people who failed to attend or pay attention at Sunday school.

Thank you very much for bringing it back on track. Yes I'm trying bring up the issue of the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the gospels.

And while you are doing that could you also tell us whether or not Jesus spoke on the road to Calvary and what words he said.

Thank you.

PastorAIO:

Thank you very much for bringing it back on track. Yes I'm trying bring up the issue of the contradictory genealogies of Jesus as found in the gospels.

And while you are doing that could you also tell us whether or not Jesus spoke on the road to Calvary and what words he said.

Thank you.

i'm not your Sunday school teacher and shouldn't suffer for your unseriousness at Sunday school.
Anyway, let's see if i can help you. It's easier to teach a child elementary stuff than full growns who don't really want to learn.
Hmmmm, your exact question again? one at a time.

Image123:

i'm not your Sunday school teacher and shouldn't suffer for your unseriousness at Sunday school.
Anyway, let's see if i can help you. It's easier to teach a child elementary stuff than full growns who don't really want to learn.
Hmmmm, your exact question again? one at a time.

What is the genealogy of Joseph, father (legal or anyhow) of Jesus?

What did Jesus say on the road to calvary? Did he speak at all?

What were Jesus' last words?

Did Jesus converse with the Thieves he was hanged with? What did he say to them?


I've added some more questions too, but you don't have to answer all of them. Just answer the ones that you feel intelligent enough to answer.

PastorAIO:

What is the genealogy of Joseph, father (legal or anyhow) of Jesus?

What did Jesus say on the road to calvary? Did he speak at all?

What were Jesus' last words?

Did Jesus converse with the Thieves he was hanged with? What did he say to them?


I've added some more questions too, but you don't have to answer all of them. Just answer the ones that you feel intelligent enough to answer.

i thought to answer all your questions one at a time before. However your tone tells me you're not worth that time.

Image123:

i thought to answer all your questions one at a time before. However your tone tells me you're not worth that time.

oh, it's my tone that is the problem now. okay! Please could any reader looking through this thread please try to answer these questions by looking them up in the various gospels. If they find contradictions then my point would have been made. To Wit, The Bible is NOT an historical book. Furthermore the writers of the gospels were not really attempting to write history the way we understand it today. They were writing portrayals of Jesus. They have Theological significance, NOT historical significance.

Image123:


i thought to answer all your questions one at a time before. However your tone tells me you're not worth that time.

OLAADEGBU:


Can We Trust The New Testament As A Historical Document?
by Matt Slick

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below.¹

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/veritas/pdf_handouts/Manuscript%20Evidence%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability. People still question if the documents are reliably transmitted to us, but they should rather ask if the biblical documents record actual historical accounts.

i can only trust the bible as a historical evidence if we can start trusting marvel and DC comic as historical references also, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander

hakeem4:


i can only trust the bible as a historical evidence if we can start trusting marvel and DC comic as historical references also, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander

What is a historical document to you, the Qur'an?

OLAADEGBU:
Can We Trust The New Testament As A Historical Document?
by Matt Slick

Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability. Please consider the chart below.¹

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/veritas/pdf_handouts/Manuscript%20Evidence%20Comparison%20Chart.pdf

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

Yes, we can.

OLAADEGBU:


What is a historical document to you, the Qur'an?

The Magna Carta

PastorAIO:


The Magna Carta

hakeem4:
i can only trust the bible as a historical evidence if we can start trusting marvel and DC comic as historical references also...

I 100% agree with you both.

Let the words sink into the inner most cordon of my mind and set me FREE as I read this text.

THE BIBLE IS A FRAUD!

The bible is not what it claims to be but is merely a biblography, a compilation of plagiarized text from ancient religions and stories from around the world; the contents and characters of which have been re-packaged, sexed-up or simply altogether made-up.

Can we trust the 'new testaments' as a historical document?

No, we cannot trust the 'new testaments' as a historical document.

In all fairness, we cannot trust the 'old testaments' as a historical document neither.

Amujale:


Can we trust the 'new testaments' as a historical document?

No, we cannot trust the 'new testaments' as a historical document.

In all fairness, we cannot trust the 'old testaments' as a historical document neither.

Why not?