Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 3
Generated: 17:31:05
Both roman history and jewish history corroborate the new testament in various ways. As a historical document, the new testament is way more reliable than what tons of history is based on. I.e. we have to trust 1 or 2 roman or greek historians for major pieces of history. The Bible is much more robust.
2025-10-18 02:35:18 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (3)

The bible is comprised of 2 parts, no? Aren’t the 10 commandments, the basis for how Christian’s should live their life in the Old Testament? all presented as one book with no suggestion that one part should be taken as more factual or more literally than the other. It seems disingenuous to me to say that only only the New Testament is relevant. To be fair I take less umbrage with the New Testament than the old but how do you reconcile the shift from a vengeful god in the Old Testament to a loving one in the new?
2025-10-18 03:04:00 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply
There are different books that make up the old testament and new testament. Jewish people accept the old testament. Christians accept the old and the new. The first 4 main books in the new are matthew, mark, luke and john and they are called the gospels. Basically are each a testamentary account of what they saw happen and knew of re Jesus.
2025-10-18 17:03:22 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 2 replies ↓ Reply