@trentitybrehm5105

6 months ago

We have the writing of the disciples of the Apostles and the disciples of those disciples, and they not only quote much of the New Testament, but all the core idea of Christianty are present. Jesus being God, the Son of God, dying for sins, burial, resurrection, ascension to heaven.

We also have writing of Jewish and Pagan contemporary historians who were hostile towards Jesus, who say the same things : Jesus being worshipped as God, the Son of God, dying for on the cross, burial, resurrection.

The archeology matches the Bible perfectly all the way from Genesis through the New Testament.

It's mainly because of the archeology, "friendly" writers, and "hostile" writers mentioned above that the Jesus Seminar, who are PhD level ashiest/agnostics who study Christ and the Bible, concluded that Jesus really lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, was known as a miracle workers, died on the cross under Pilate, and that his disciples really believed they had seen him risen from the dead.

The fact that there are contradictions between manuscripts is often sited as proof against trusting scripture, when it actually does the opposite. The fact that there are so many manuscripts makes it easy to tell when someone changed one, and modern Bibles are transparent about any differences in the footnotes. Over 5,000 manuscripts in the original Greek and 20,000 in other lanuages. None of those differences found between manuscripts change anything about any core doctrines of Christianity, they are mainly a handwriting error on a letter or a different way to word something that means the same thing. There is 99.5% accuracy between the manuscripts according to scholars.

There is also all the undisigned coincidence between not only the four Gospels, but the rest of the New and Old Testaments too.

Matthew 2:22 talks about Joseph not wanting to return to Judea after fleeing to Egypt because Archelaus was ruling. That's all the info on that the Bible gives. Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us about the things Archelaus did and how evil he was. Put these two peices of evidence together, we get the full picture.

This sort of thing happens through the text with the seemingly useless details matching up perfectly with extra Biblical sources, lending to the credibility of the text.

The Apostles willingness to be killed not for saying they believed Jesus had risen, but they knew he had risen, because they saw him.

If the tomb wasn't empty, they would've paraded the body around to stomp out any idea of Jesus being ressurrected, but Christianty spread because there was no body in the tomb.

If someone stole the body, why were nearly all the Apostles willing to be killed for saying they'd seen Jesus risen? They were thousands of miles away from one another before phones and the internet and were being threaten, tortured, and murdered for their claim. Not one "broke" and said it was a lie to save themselves.


It's because of the evidence that I belie ve in Jesus.

|