Why is your first sentence about an assumption? If by your own admission you're making an assumption, then what is the basis for that assumption? Now onto your next point. The Roman senator and excellent historian Tacitus clearly referred to Jesus (albeit indirectly) and His execution by crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Almost everything we know about the historical Roman empire comes from Tacitus. Even secular history scholars concede this point. If we know nothing else about Jesus, we can safely say from historical knowledge that a Jewish Rabbi pissed off the locals and got himself killed by crucifixion.I assume sufficient education and intelligence are present to accept the fact that… Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.
Yes Apologists (such as myself) are biased in our viewpoints, but it's because of the historical evidence we have found when properly evaluated in the appropriate context. If a doctor is going to argue for a procedure, it's because he or she has a biased interest to help a patient recover. If a police officer is going to argue for a law or method of enforcement, it's because he or she has a biased interest to protect and serve. Your argument against biased interest is not without merit, but it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be either.NOTE
Feel free to DISPROVE the following...
Please refrain from using Christian apologists as their viewpoints are clearly biased in favor of their dogma.
These alleged 'saviours/prophets' exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.
I'll continue, but I'll have to snip some of this to save space.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/moses-ex...Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.
Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.
For example, the Egyptians recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood.
Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus,
there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts."
For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.
Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.
It would spoil the story!
How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?
"Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...
Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites."
– John Romer, Testament
I cannot convert you, but I can discuss what I believe as I understand it, in a way that may show you truths you had previously had misconceptions about.In spite of this evidence you can, in fact, convert me! PTL. hallelujah!
1. Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do.
2. Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs.
May the force be with you!