To my knowledge, archaeology has yet to prove by direct exhaustive contradiction that the historicity of the bible is mistaken. To the contrary, a myriad historians and archaeologists have seen the bible proved correct again and again (read William Fox Albright's accounts). The gospel writer Luke was unerringly accurate in his description of the first century Mediterranean landscape, cities, and peoples. This is undisputed. Sure, there are a lot of unsolved problems in the bible, but NO evidence to date that it is manifestly wrong--just a load of ad hoc theories having no coordinated essence, that require a degree of faith far exceeding that involved in just plain common sense. As an example, just read the theories to explain Jesus's body missing from the tomb(swoon theory, stolen body theory, etc). If you investigate what happened to 16 roman soldiers who fell asleep on guard duty, and if you think that a scourging together with 6 hours of crucifixion and a spear in the side would make one 'swoon', your historical analysis has also entered the realm of the miraculous. Secularists, in their desperation to dismiss the truly miraculous, resort to plain nonsense in the face of cold, hard, historical analysis and facts. God forbid that they apply their analytical swords to other events of ancient history that were written down by sometimes one person, sometimes hundreds of years after the events, then we would have no ancient history. I pity their poor desperation because they use all kinds of intellectual twists, turns, and semantics, to avoid the plainly obvious. Then, if Christians don't agree, they shake their heads and smile, all the while thinking what a gullible and close-minded sap you are. I am reminded of the bible verse: "they have so much knowledge, they have become FOOLS".

Logical fallacy. Something not being disproved does not make it true.

I'm sorry, you lost me here. Can you please enlighten us with some of these ad hoc theories? Oh wait... I think you do:

Who came up with these theories? I'd first ask the theist to prove that Jesus' body was there in the first place, before I came up with any theories as to how it might've gotten away. Also, please give us the location of this tomb. I'd sure like to see it.

Oh... so learning and knowledge are bad. Your ignorance, then, is good? Peh. Don't make me laugh.

It seems as though you've only read xian propaganda, and not any real criticisms of the bible, or its histerocity. None of what you brought up I've ever heard any athiest claim.

Perhaps I can bring up a problem with the bible, and you can make me face these "cold, hard, historical analysis and facts."

Why are there no Egyptian records describing Moses and the flight of the Jews? The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, and losing a few thousand slaves would've warranted note, don't you think?

I await your response.

To my knowledge, archaeology has yet to prove by direct exhaustive contradiction that the historicity of the Iliad and the Odyssy are mistaken.

In fact, since the city of Troy has been found, we must accept the existence of sirens and the Cyclops.

What year was Christ born?

See The Date of the Nativity in Luke by Richard Carrier.

Dear Sentinel, I am responding point by point. Yes, obviously, you're point is correct, but the preponderance of evidence is still heavily on my side. The onus is on you to show me an alternative theory with equally good (ie cohesive) evidence--you just dont have it. So if you want to play games with what is 'true' go ahead. All we have to go on (mainly)indirect evidence. If your friend had witnessed the crucifixion and ressurection last week and told you about it, you would say the evidence is weak, because it is secondhand!! You disbelieve anything you haven't seen with your own eyes--to you their is no objectively true history--only interpretation after the fact.
If we assume that by 350AD people still knew the cave's whereabouts and Helena had Constantine build the church on this spot, it is buried beneath the floor of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Then again, you would say that they covered it up because it was not there in the first place!!
Good try!! I didn't say knowledge is bad, you are not reading properly. All bible truth should withstand historical analysis. The gist was that when you use intellectual somersaults to pull apart the best (sometimes obvious) explanation in spite of good evidence for it, it is foolish--and I agree.
I've obviously read a deal more than you have--the best explanations are still the biblical ones, and until you lot come up with more substantial, coherent evidence, I will not be swayed.
You obviously don't even know that the Pharaohs only inscribed important events that were favorable; it was about positive publicity and chest thumping. Yes, daily records (slave food consumption etc.) were meticulous. But do you really think that Egypt, at the height of its power (~1600-1400 BC), would advertise that they couldn't even stop a large group of unarmed Jews from walking away??--you make me laugh.

sciteach,

Wow... when you're able to put words in my mouth, it's very easy to refute me!

Excellent! Perhaps I shouldn't say any more, since you seem to be doing such a good job conversing with the "imaginary sentinel00."

Let me know what he thinks about evolution!

If I understand the argument:

Premise #1: Archaeology can prove ALL of a holy book. [Unverified; illogical—archaeological verification would prove true ONLY archaeological claims]
Premise #2: Archaeology has proven the archaeological claims in the bible to be true. [Unverified—See the problem of verifying the archaeology of Nazareth below]]
Conclusion: The bible is 100% true. [False; unverified premises; illogical—verified archaeological claims would not necessarily prove that theological claims are also true]

One of the archaeological problems is determining if or not the name Nazareth was given in biblical times to the site now occupied by the modern day Nazareth. There is no mention of a village/town/city by the name of Nazareth in any ancient writings, and, contrary to some writers fantasies, modern [1962] archaeological digs at Caesarea Maritima did not produce ANY record of the name Nazareth being used for any site/village/town/city in biblical times. The town now called Nazareth did not receive its name until the fourth century AD in an apparent effort to feed the demand of Xn pilgrims.

Moreover, the prophecy that JC would be from a village/town/city named Nazareth does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament of the Xn bible although such prophecy is claimed in the New Testament [Matthew 2:19-23].

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited February 04, 2001).]

Bookman, Here is where Carrier is incorrect:


The Date of the Nativity in Luke (2000)

Richard Carrier

It is indisputable that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D.
It is also indisputable that Matthew dates the birth of Jesus to
6 B.C. (or some year before 4 B.C.). This is an irreconcilable
contradiction.


There is no need to go any further in his writing. Jesus was born
before Oct 1st, 7 b.c.e. He will celebrate his bar mitzvah in
6 A.D. and the child that Mary was "being great with" was 12 years
old. After his bar mitzvah he becomes a 1 year old Child and enters
the schools of the mysteries (good-bye momma).

also;


Luke 02:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to
Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

This event occurred in A.D. 17 and Jesus is 23 years old.

continuing;


Luke 02:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me?
wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Jesus' "Father's business?" is the teaching of the Samaritan high
priest Eleazar Annas. It is at this time that Jesus becomes
illegitimate. When he accepts the Samaritan calendar he is
accepting the Jubilee calendar with March 1 as his official
birthday. Prior to this, as a member of the cult of the "All"
his birthday was celebrated near to Oct 1. The Jubilee calendar
is a solar calendar whereas the calendar used by the "All"
is a lunar calendar. Those that used the lunar calendar were
sinners because of the Persian worship of the moon-god Sin.

thanks, offa

sciteach, there are enough bad theories about what 'really' happened to fill any Christian book on apologetics, including the swoon theory, stolen body and so on.

That the Jewish people got the basic facts of their history written down isn't too amazing, nor that they mentioned cities that really existed. It's the embellishments that people really care about; talking donkeys, pillars of salt, parting of the sea, sun standing still, God appearing here and there.

I don't think you'll find many people claiming that the Bible was all made up by someone unfamiliar with Jewish history. What you have is Jewish history with additions about how God told them to kill so and so and take the land, and how the laws were straight from God, and why everyone else is wrong and they are right, and what God will do to you if you're bad...

And what about Jesus? Pretty much everything we think we know about Jesus comes from Mark. Luke and Matthew remove some of the embarrassing parts of Mark and add a lot of sayings, as well as birth stories and more resurrection stories, but the general story was pretty much laid down by Mark. The question many scholars are dealing with is where did Mark get his 'facts' and why didn't Paul say anything about these 'facts'? Paul talks as if Jesus was mainly a 'theological' being who "died and was raised" but that's about it. Why not more? Why did Paul rely on 'visions' for information?

Why does Josephus talk about John the Baptist as if he was the only interesting religious man of that region and time? Why do Luke and Matthew make an effort to remove the 'embarrassment' of John the Baptist looking more important in Mark's story? Why does Matthew use such ridiculous 'prophecies' from the Old Testament to justify Jesus' messiahship? Why does Mark's story look like a reworking of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey mixed with Old Testament stories, perhaps the most widely read and influential writings in existence at the time?

Most of what we supposedly 'know' about Jesus comes from Mark. Why should we believe what we read in it?