Jesus Christ and the Resurrection (what does the evidence reveal?)

Originally posted by RZA
More evidence of miracles performed by Jesus...Yey...praise his name...

Reminds me of Chick Tracts 😘

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...Two: The Works of Jesus Went Unchallenged
Stories and miracles; feeding five thousand people, raising people from the dead, lame men walking, blind men seeking, that’s pretty far out stuff, did Jesus really do that?

One of the most important things to note is that Jesus’ miracles were never disputed by his foes. His number one archenemy, the Jewish establishment, never claimed that His miracles ceased to occur. They attested to the feats Jesus had done, however they attributed His power to Satan (Matthew 12:24). Yet, Jesus disputed their claim immediately, saying, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:25-26).

They never questioned the validity they only questioned the source; and Jesus knew how to deal with it. Boy, that’s powerful! He was making outrageous claims and He backed His statements up with miracles – power over nature, unprecedented teaching, divine insights into people, etc. He healed chronic illnesses in mere seconds, such as blindness and leprosy...
[/B]

No one disputed the miracles because they were made up, and added to the gospels ~100 years later, to boaster the claims the Jesus was divine.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one disputed the miracles because they were made up, and added to the gospels ~100 years later, to boaster the claims the Jesus was divine.

Most scholars agree that the gospels were written between 60 and 100 years AD. With the Crucifixion being around 34 AD that leaves plenty of time for someone to say, "Hey, that's not how I remember it".

Originally posted by docb77
Most scholars agree that the gospels were written between 60 and 100 years AD. With the Crucifixion being around 34 AD that leaves plenty of time for someone to say, "Hey, that's not how I remember it".

Just think about the JFK assassination and how many conspiracy theories there are out there. But I give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and I do believe that he did heal people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just think about the JFK assassination and how many conspiracy theories there are out there. But I give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and I do believe that he did heal people.

True, Biographies written right now about JFKwould be comparable to the first written gospels. You could still manage to find a few eyewitnesses.

And while there are conflicting views on whodunnit with JFK, There isn't anyone disputing that he was president or that he got shot.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one disputed the miracles because they were made up, and added to the gospels ~100 years later, to boaster the claims the Jesus was divine.

Your allegations have zero merit or credibility.

The scribes (teachers of the Mosaic Law) and the Pharisees (a Jewish, religious sect) never disputed the fact that Jesus performed miracles...

Luke 11:15
But some of them [i.e. the scribes and the Pharisees] said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

...they simply disputed the source. The scribes and Pharisees erroneously ascribed Jesus miracle-working power to the ruler of the demons, beelzebub (i.e. satan), instead of to God the true Source of Jesus miracles.

For Jesus said,

John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Jesus stated that the Father Who dwelled in Him was/is the Source of His ability to perform miracles, not satan. So this proves that there was never a doubt or issue that Jesus did miracles. They knew that He did them but in their ignorance they explained it away as the work of the devil.

In another instance a man who had been born blind was healed of his blindness by Jesus. That man's neighbors and others knew that prior to Jesus healing him that he was blind. They even asked each other whether he was the same person who used to beg because they knew that he used to be blind. They asked the man how his eyes had been opened. The man to them that a Man named Jesus made clay, anointed his eyes with and told him to go to the pool of Siloam and wash (his eyes). The man testified that he did that and thus had received his sight. They asked the man where Jesus was. The man replied that he didn't know. Finally, these people took the man to the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked the man how he had received his sight. The man told them the same thing that he told his neighbors and other people who knew him.

He told them,

"He [Jesus] put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see."

But the Pharisees reasoned and rationalized that Jesus could not be from God because He (in their eyes) had broken the Sabbath because the Sabbath was designated a day of rest by God. The Israelites were prohibited from doing any work.

But some of the other Pharisees said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs (i.e. miracles)?"

The Pharisees were divided on the issue. Finally, they asked the man what did He think of Jesus.

The man said, "He is a prophet."

The Jews did not believe that the man was blind until they called his parents and asked them. The stated that the man was their son and that he was born blind but by what means he now sees they did not know. He is of age ask him, he will speak for himself they added. Finally, the frustrated Pharisees called the man and insisted that he give God the glory. They just knew (or wanted to believe) that Jesus was a sinner and they did not want Jesus to get the credit for that man's healing.

The man answered and said,

"Whether He (Jesus) is a sinner or not, I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see."

These Pharisees were in complete denial so they asked the man again,

"what did He [Jesus] do to you, how did He open your eyes?" The man replied, "I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?" The Pharisees lost it. They told the man, "We know that God spoke to Moses, as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from. Here is the best part of this account: The man answered and said to them, "Why is this a marvelous thing that you do not know where He [Jesus] is from, yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing."

This man's testimony went right over the Pharisees head. They answered and said to him, "You were born in sins and are you teaching us? And they cast him out." They totally ignored what the man had just said. They didn't want to hear the truth so they persecuted the man but the point is that they did not dispute that the man was healed. So Jesus did perform miracles.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Your allegations have zero merit or credibility.

The scribes (teachers of the Mosaic Law) and the Pharisees (a Jewish, religious sect) never disputed the fact that Jesus performed miracles...

[B]Luke 11:15
But some of them [i.e. the scribes and the Pharisees] said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

...they simply disputed the source. The scribes and Pharisees erroneously ascribed Jesus miracle-working power to the ruler of the demons, beelzebub (i.e. satan), instead of to God the true Source of Jesus miracles.

For Jesus said,

John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Jesus stated that the Father Who dwelled in Him was/is the Source of His ability to perform miracles, not satan. So this proves that there was never a doubt or issue that Jesus did miracles. They knew that He did them but in their ignorance they explained it away as the work of the devil.

In another instance a man who had been born blind was healed of his blindness by Jesus. That man's neighbors and others knew that prior to Jesus healing him that he was blind. They even asked each other whether he was the same person who used to beg because they knew that he used to be blind. They asked the man how his eyes had been opened. The man to them that a Man named Jesus made clay, anointed his eyes with and told him to go to the pool of Siloam and wash (his eyes). The man testified that he did that and thus had received his sight. They asked the man where Jesus was. The man replied that he didn't know. Finally, these people took the man to the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked the man how he had received his sight. The man told them the same thing that he told his neighbors and other people who knew him.

He told them,

"He [Jesus] put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see."

But the Pharisees reasoned and rationalized that Jesus could not be from God because He (in their eyes) had broken the Sabbath because the Sabbath was designated a day of rest by God. The Israelites were prohibited from doing any work.

But some of the other Pharisees said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs (i.e. miracles)?"

The Pharisees were divided on the issue. Finally, they asked the man what did He think of Jesus.

The man said, "He is a prophet."

The Jews did not believe that the man was blind until they called his parents and asked them. The stated that the man was their son and that he was born blind but by what means he now sees they did not know. He is of age ask him, he will speak for himself they added. Finally, the frustrated Pharisees called the man and insisted that he give God the glory. They just knew (or wanted to believe) that Jesus was a sinner and they did not want Jesus to get the credit for that man's healing.

The man answered and said,

"Whether He (Jesus) is a sinner or not, I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see."

These Pharisees were in complete denial so they asked the man again,

"what did He [Jesus] do to you, how did He open your eyes?" The man replied, "I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?" The Pharisees lost it. They told the man, "We know that God spoke to Moses, as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from. Here is the best part of this account: The man answered and said to them, "Why is this a marvelous thing that you do not know where He [Jesus] is from, yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing."

This man's testimony went right over the Pharisees head. They answered and said to him, "You were born in sins and are you teaching us? And they cast him out." They totally ignored what the man had just said. They didn't want to hear the truth so they persecuted the man but the point is that they did not dispute that the man was healed. So Jesus did perform miracles. [/B]

Great. That still doesn't answer the question.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your allegations have zero merit or credibility.

The scribes (teachers of the Mosaic Law) and the Pharisees (a Jewish, religious sect) never disputed the fact that Jesus performed miracles...

Strictly speaking that doesn't prove it. Unless you give credence to miracles related to pagan religions which were equally undisputed. And who is writing that the these people didn't question the miracles but rather disputed them?

The people that claim the miracles in the first place. It comes back to that "claim proving a claim because it claims it is true" - Jesus performed miracles? How do we know? Because someone wrote as such. How do we know they didn't make them up? Because they wrote that people at the time didn't say they were false.

It is shaky ground.

...they simply disputed the source. The scribes and Pharisees erroneously ascribed Jesus miracle-working power to the ruler of the demons, beelzebub (i.e. satan), instead of to God the true Source of Jesus miracles.

Which casts doubt on it in my eyes - they accept miracles, but attribute it to another. Clearly that implies miracles weren't uncommon and could be attributed to other sources.

Jesus stated that the Father Who dwelled in Him was/is the Source of His ability to perform miracles, not satan. So this proves that there was never a doubt or issue that Jesus did miracles. They knew that He did them but in their ignorance they explained it away as the work of the devil.

The Bible claimed that Jesus stated.

In another instance a man who had been born blind was healed of his blindness by Jesus. That man's neighbors and others knew that prior to Jesus healing him that he was blind. They even asked each other whether he was the same person who used to beg because they knew that he used to be blind. They asked the man how his eyes had been opened. The man to them that a Man named Jesus made clay, anointed his eyes with and told him to go to the pool of Siloam and wash (his eyes). The man testified that he did that and thus had received his sight. They asked the man where Jesus was. The man replied that he didn't know. Finally, these people took the man to the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked the man how he had received his sight. The man told them the same thing that he told his neighbors and other people who knew him.

Bible claim - does not prove that this actually happened. As I have said before it is easy to claim such, and put words in peoples mouths, when one writes years after the supposed event. Certain historians were famous for making up speeches for individuals - which they could do because they were writing years after the event.

I don't see how the Bible which is, in terms of historicity, on fairly shaky ground, might not have done similar.

Question - is all the wondrous stuff portrayed in the myths of Greece etc. true or not?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't see how the Bible which is, in terms of historicity, on fairly shaky ground, might not have done similar.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Usually, in terms of reputablility a historic document would need multiplicity of documents, outside references, archaelogical backup, and a short distance between events and recording. The Bible is extremely accurate historically speaking and dependable because of all documents of antiquity there is not a single document with as much historical reliability as the Bible in these terms.

Ok, in order of what you listed:

Reputability - Questionable in Biblical terms. Religious texts must be taken with a grain of salt since they tend to become reputable through mass support of followers rather then due to the validity of what they are stating.

Multiplicity of Documents: In what sense? The Bible does not fully fit in with other narratives of the time, or those after, it has numerous cases of historical events, places and people put within a religious context that does not often work. There are few documents outside of the Bible itself that supports the claims it makes.

Outside references - Oh yes? One of the problems that many scholars have in declaring the Bible a reliable "historical document" is that the events it portray are not supported by outside reference. Typically something such as the works of Homer has just as much outside reference - more in fact. Doesn't make the events they portray historically accurate.

Archaeological Back up - Oh really? No archaeological evidence of the flood. No archaeological e vidence of the garden. Or of some of the cities mentioned in the old testament. Or of the Crucification of Christ. Or of the walls of Jericho coming down as described. Or of the exodus of the Jews being in anyway as serious as implied. Typically there is a great gulf between those who claim the Bible is "archaeologically supported" and the actual archaeological evidence.

Short distance between events and recording: Oh really? OT that isn't true. New Testament slightly truer, but still questionable due to the motives of religious promotion that would have been inherent.

I can tell you that every ancient text has some value historically - whether that was the purpose or not. They mention things, places, social attitudes etc - they teach. But there is a difference between picking out the valuable historical information, and claiming the text is historically reliable. The Bible is not the most reliable historical text of all time. Nor the most useful.

I can pick up any number of histories on WWII that are more reliable/accurate. Or biographies. And there are plenty of ancient texts with greater reliability simply because the contents are not mixed in with religious matters that most probably had no place in the historical event in question.

What he said ^^^.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Your allegations have zero merit or credibility.

The scribes (teachers of the Mosaic Law) and the Pharisees (a Jewish, religious sect) never disputed the fact that Jesus performed miracles...

[B]Luke 11:15
But some of them [i.e. the scribes and the Pharisees] said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

...they simply disputed the source. The scribes and Pharisees erroneously ascribed Jesus miracle-working power to the ruler of the demons, beelzebub (i.e. satan), instead of to God the true Source of Jesus miracles.

For Jesus said,

John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.

Jesus stated that the Father Who dwelled in Him was/is the Source of His ability to perform miracles, not satan. So this proves that there was never a doubt or issue that Jesus did miracles. They knew that He did them but in their ignorance they explained it away as the work of the devil.

In another instance a man who had been born blind was healed of his blindness by Jesus. That man's neighbors and others knew that prior to Jesus healing him that he was blind. They even asked each other whether he was the same person who used to beg because they knew that he used to be blind. They asked the man how his eyes had been opened. The man to them that a Man named Jesus made clay, anointed his eyes with and told him to go to the pool of Siloam and wash (his eyes). The man testified that he did that and thus had received his sight. They asked the man where Jesus was. The man replied that he didn't know. Finally, these people took the man to the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked the man how he had received his sight. The man told them the same thing that he told his neighbors and other people who knew him.

He told them,

"He [Jesus] put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see."

But the Pharisees reasoned and rationalized that Jesus could not be from God because He (in their eyes) had broken the Sabbath because the Sabbath was designated a day of rest by God. The Israelites were prohibited from doing any work.

But some of the other Pharisees said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs (i.e. miracles)?"

The Pharisees were divided on the issue. Finally, they asked the man what did He think of Jesus.

The man said, "He is a prophet."

The Jews did not believe that the man was blind until they called his parents and asked them. The stated that the man was their son and that he was born blind but by what means he now sees they did not know. He is of age ask him, he will speak for himself they added. Finally, the frustrated Pharisees called the man and insisted that he give God the glory. They just knew (or wanted to believe) that Jesus was a sinner and they did not want Jesus to get the credit for that man's healing.

The man answered and said,

"Whether He (Jesus) is a sinner or not, I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see."

These Pharisees were in complete denial so they asked the man again,

"what did He [Jesus] do to you, how did He open your eyes?" The man replied, "I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?" The Pharisees lost it. They told the man, "We know that God spoke to Moses, as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from. Here is the best part of this account: The man answered and said to them, "Why is this a marvelous thing that you do not know where He [Jesus] is from, yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing."

This man's testimony went right over the Pharisees head. They answered and said to him, "You were born in sins and are you teaching us? And they cast him out." They totally ignored what the man had just said. They didn't want to hear the truth so they persecuted the man but the point is that they did not dispute that the man was healed. So Jesus did perform miracles. [/B]

You don't know that. All you have is the very book that they changed. You are looking at what happened from the other side. There are many writings from the same time as the Gospels that shed a different light on the teachings of Jesus. You have not even read any of them, so you don't know.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ok, in order of what you listed:

Reputability - Questionable in Biblical terms. Religious texts must be taken with a grain of salt since they tend to become reputable through mass support of followers rather then due to the validity of what they are stating.

Multiplicity of Documents: In what sense? The Bible does not fully fit in with other narratives of the time, or those after, it has numerous cases of historical events, places and people put within a religious context that does not often work. There are few documents outside of the Bible itself that supports the claims it makes.

Outside references - Oh yes? One of the problems that many scholars have in declaring the Bible a reliable "historical document" is that the events it portray are not supported by outside reference. Typically something such as the works of Homer has just as much outside reference - more in fact. Doesn't make the events they portray historically accurate.

Archaeological Back up - Oh really? No archaeological evidence of the flood. No archaeological e vidence of the garden. Or of some of the cities mentioned in the old testament. Or of the Crucification of Christ. Or of the walls of Jericho coming down as described. Or of the exodus of the Jews being in anyway as serious as implied. Typically there is a great gulf between those who claim the Bible is "archaeologically supported" and the actual archaeological evidence.

Short distance between events and recording: Oh really? OT that isn't true. New Testament slightly truer, but still questionable due to the motives of religious promotion that would have been inherent.

I can tell you that every ancient text has some value historically - whether that was the purpose or not. They mention things, places, social attitudes etc - they teach. But there is a difference between picking out the valuable historical information, and claiming the text is historically reliable. The Bible is not the most reliable historical text of all time. Nor the most useful.

I can pick up any number of histories on WWII that are more reliable/accurate. Or biographies. And there are plenty of ancient texts with greater reliability simply because the contents are not mixed in with religious matters that most probably had no place in the historical event in question.

Pre-establishment of Israel as a kingdom you have a good argument. After that? The Bible starts getting some outside support. Egyptian documents, Persian, etc.

Basically the Biblical accounts of the patriarchs and the New testament texts area about as reliable as my private journal(talking about my life) will be in a couple thousand years.

The parts that deal with the government of Israel are more supportable because a government would be likely to have contact with other governments.

Originally posted by docb77
True, Biographies written right now about JFKwould be comparable to the first written gospels. You could still manage to find a few eyewitnesses.

And while there are conflicting views on whodunnit with JFK, There isn't anyone disputing that he was president or that he got shot.

Yes, you are right, some issues about the past will survive into the future. However, let us continue with our parallel example of JFK. There are many books about the death of JFK just like there wear many books about Jesus some 100 years after his death. What if someone selected only the conspiracy books and destroyed the rest, just like the other gospels of the Gnostics? 2000 years from now what would the people then think about JFK?

Originally posted by docb77
Pre-establishment of Israel as a kingdom you have a good argument. After that? The Bible starts getting some outside support. Egyptian documents, Persian, etc.

Ah huh. But it still comes back to relating historical events and figures in a religious context. Which is exactly the same thing historical fiction does (only the aim isn't religious conversion.)

And some of the Christian texts after the Roman Empire fell are mad - real events so squashed into religious support it isn't funny. Angel flying about, etc - the only thing missing is a giant Monty Python foot dropping down from the sky.

It is not accurate when they usurp motivations, dates and all the rest in order to fit it into a Biblical narrative.

Basically the Biblical accounts of the patriarchs and the New testament texts area about as reliable as my private journal(talking about my life) will be in a couple thousand years.

A journal being viewed as a different kettle of fish all together..

Page after page of the New Testament dealing with the life of Jesus - lacks any verifying support.

Old Testament - Historically shaky. Mentions many real events but exaggerates them, misplaces them, or misconstrues them. Everything before the creation of Israel is way off.

The stuff in revelations - Hasn't happened, and I doubt ever will.

The parts that deal with the government of Israel are more supportable because a government would be likely to have contact with other governments.

Don't see how that changes the fundamentally flaws with claiming the Bible is the most accurate and reliable historical text ever. It is a religious text, which has fundamental differences and problems that set it apart from, say, a Roman history or Imperial biography.

Differences and problems that make it unreliable to use it as a "historical text" - to teach history from the Bible would be madness.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Multiplicity of Documents: In what sense? The Bible does not fully fit in with other narratives of the time, or those after, it has numerous cases of historical events, places and people put within a religious context that does not often work. There are few documents outside of the Bible itself that supports the claims it makes.

Outside references - Oh yes? One of the problems that many scholars have in declaring the Bible a reliable "historical document" is that the events it portray are not supported by outside reference. Typically something such as the works of Homer has just as much outside reference - more in fact. Doesn't make the events they portray historically accurate.

Archaeological Back up - Oh really? No archaeological evidence of the flood. No archaeological e vidence of the garden. Or of some of the cities mentioned in the old testament. Or of the Crucification of Christ. Or of the walls of Jericho coming down as described. Or of the exodus of the Jews being in anyway as serious as implied. Typically there is a great gulf between those who claim the Bible is "archaeologically supported" and the actual archaeological evidence.

Documents supporting the existence of Jesus and the major events of this lifetime include the Jewish Talmud, Josephus's antiquities, and Tacticus the Roman historian. All are extremely reliable sources by standards. This is also more reference than is given to most other ancient documents. Therefore, the Bible is historically accurate. Example: the tomb was empty- but it is up to you to decide whether or not Christ rose from the dead or was stolen away.

There is no ancient middle eastern document that contains the wealth of archaelogical knowledge portrayed in the Bible. Most of the cities have been excavated, which should make one believe the few that are yet to be found will be eventually. Archaelogical and cultural evidence exists for the flood, I have no idea what you're saying otherwise for. And the walls of Jericho fell outwards as described the Bible. Only and earthquake could knock the walls down the way they were, but the rest of the city was unaffected by this apparent earthquake.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I was referring mostly to the NT. Multiplicity, as in it had more than 5000 copies of itself made and spread throughout the known world by 200 AD meaning that any editing to any of these documents would cause it to disagree with others from different parts of the world. This simply did not happen, therefore, the text has been unchanged. Since there is evidence that Mark was written within 5 years of the resurrection that would mean an incredible accurate document for those days.

Actually that is a faulty premise - merely being wide spread does not lend itself to giving a text a stamp of accuracy. There were a lot of Bibles - it was a religious text founded in the biggest Administrative empire of the day that liked nothing better then documentation. It was something new - a single, state religion. Never before had such a text been needed to be spread. There is nothing strange or exceptional about there fact a lot of Bible's appeared.

Simply because there were a lot of Bible's does not mean they are historical texts.

Documents supporting the existence of Jesus and the major events of this lifetime include the Jewish Talmud, Josephus's antiquities, and Tacticus the Roman historian. All are extremely reliable sources by standards. This is also more reference than is given to most other ancient documents. Therefore, the Bible is historically accurate. Example: the tomb was empty- but it is up to you to decide whether or not Christ rose from the dead or was stolen away.

I have dealt with all those texts in the history at one point or another:

Tacitus - written sometime after the events of the Bible. He does not confirm the existence of validity of Jesus or the like. He refers to the Christians - followers of Christus. Just as any Roman historian might refer to the temple of such and such, were the followers of Jupiter went. Christianity had been around for some time by this point - they had their mythos. It was known. The fact Tacitus mentions it is not unusual. Unless, once again, you are prepared to give equal weight to the other religions and myths he mentions - all those cults whose acts are refereed to. No?

Josephus is viewed with extreme caution, as it is seen that his texts have been "edited" over the years, and are no longer verifiable. Though once again he is like Tacitus - mentioning the common belief of a growing religious group.

There is no ancient middle eastern document that contains the wealth of archaelogical knowledge portrayed in the Bible. Most of the cities have been excavated, which should make one believe the few that are yet to be found will be eventually. Archaelogical and cultural evidence exists for the flood, I have no idea what you're saying otherwise for. And the walls of Jericho fell outwards as described the Bible. Only and earthquake could knock the walls down the way they were, but the rest of the city was unaffected by this apparent earthquake.

Technically when a document talks of a real place that is not archaeological knowledge.

And the Bible is full of real events - in a religious context.

There is no proof for a world drowning flood as the Bible describes. It would be impossible for the narritve of Noah to have happened like that. The archaeological evidence you mention? The likelihood the Jews merely appropriated a normal flood from Sumerian history. The Bible is not historically accurate in this case.

The exodus? Believed to have occurred during the reign of Ramesses II - this is the only time it could have occurred Historians believe - but the way it is portrayed in the OT in no way jells with Egyptian history. So it would be a case of the OT taking an actual event (maybe) and hideously exaggerating it. Not historically accurate.

The walls of Jericho? They feel all right, but there is not evidence that it was in any way divine in nature. Walls fell - earth quakes, enemy undermining, poor construction, shifting water tables etc etc. Once again an example of the Bible taking a real event and totally reimagining it.

The point that Christian advocates seem so resistant to is the fact that just because a text references a real place or a real event does not actually make it historically accurate - especially when that thing is taken and shoehorned into a religious story. The Bible is not a "historical text" in the sense Livy's histories are, or Tacitus or Herodotus - it is a religious text that can provide insight into the time, reference things of interest. But it is not something that can be looked at and said "this is a completely accurate history. No other text of the time comes close to providing such historical accuracy" - because, simply, that is not the case.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I was referring mostly to the NT. Multiplicity, as in it had more than 5000 copies of itself made and spread throughout the known world by 200 AD meaning that any editing to any of these documents would cause it to disagree with others from different parts of the world. This simply did not happen, therefore, the text has been unchanged. Since there is evidence that Mark was written within 5 years of the resurrection that would mean an incredible accurate document for those days.

Documents supporting the existence of Jesus and the major events of this lifetime include the Jewish Talmud, Josephus's antiquities, and Tacticus the Roman historian. All are extremely reliable sources by standards. This is also more reference than is given to most other ancient documents. Therefore, the Bible is historically accurate. Example: the tomb was empty- but it is up to you to decide whether or not Christ rose from the dead or was stolen away.

There is no ancient middle eastern document that contains the wealth of archaelogical knowledge portrayed in the Bible. Most of the cities have been excavated, which should make one believe the few that are yet to be found will be eventually. Archaelogical and cultural evidence exists for the flood, I have no idea what you're saying otherwise for. And the walls of Jericho fell outwards as described the Bible. Only and earthquake could knock the walls down the way they were, but the rest of the city was unaffected by this apparent earthquake.

As Imperial pointed out, you are very wrong.

To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

Correct, but as I implied that is far from unusual. The Christians were a growing movement by that point in time, with there own established history - the Christians believed in Christus, and believed he was killed by Pilate. Plenty of Roman historians, and Greek historians, were more then happy to weave mythology and divinity into their narritives, but in those cases it is not actually believed as proof of Fourtune popping down to advise some Vandell chief on how best to conquar.

Thus it comes down to interpretation - does simply mentioning something in a way of defining a group show that he believed it true, even though it is doubtful he would have accessed the documents that said "Jesus was executed?" Did he merely assume it true since it was so accepted by Christians so many years after the actual event? And while it is more then possible Jesus did live and die at Roman hands that still leaves a substantial gap in proving the claim he is the son of God. Tacitus states he was killed - he leaves out all those details that Roman historians and biographers love to include- the mythic aspects. Omens. Godly works. No mention of the resurrection.

In fact it is rather summery - "executed by" seems rather final, that is Jesus died and remained dead. And he refers to it, depending on the translation, as a "destructive/insidious superstition." Of course he might have thought the execution factual. But even in that case it seems to speak more of Tacitus finding no factual basis behind Christian claims. And of course Tacitus, due to the aims behinds his works, can be seen as biased. His dealing with Germanicus and Tiberius, the fire of Rome and Nero (in which the Christian's were mentioned) and various other aspects have to be taken with a grain of salt.