MarkB4

Where is your evidence? For anyone on this thread who wants to look, they can check what I have presented. You give a date, but how do you explain John Rylands papyrus fragment 52? The writings of Origen, Ignatious, et al - were written long before 325. If this is the sum of your scholarship, Biff, you have simply not done a serious study. I don't know what is more fantastic a claim - that the original writers were the witnesses they claimed to be or that a writer of fiction in 325 was able to recast Euripides’ Bacchae, a ~400+ BC tragedy, in a 1st century setting and get so many of the current cultural, governmental and geographical specifics right - it would have to be supernatural to even pull it off. No, the National Geographic hasn't covered this with photos, yet. This does take a more serious study than you have apparently given it.

To the broader audience reading this, please do what you say you are willing to do. Check out the evidence - I've given you quite a bit in my last two posts - do a little bit of research. I know that this itself doesn't make the case for the veracity of the narratives, but let's get away from the nonsense that they were fictional accounts written in 325. You can dismiss them as inaccurate - or the writers as a group of bi-polar nutcases (as Frik suggested - and it was only a suggestion I know, Frik) - but to try to take it out of the time of its authorship is either ignorant or dishonest.

Toto

Biblical Archeology Review is a popular, not a scholarly magazine. It is a commercial enterprise that relies on subscriptions from Christians who are looking for confirmation of their beliefs. It has lost a lot of credibility since its editor, Hershel Shanks, was taken in by the faked James Ossuary.

Nothing that you site indicates that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The archeology only confirms that the author of Luke/Acts had some knowledge of his surroundings (but you know he or she also made a few mistakes.)

And I notice you copied most of what you have posted here from apologetic sites. Please do not post large blocks of copyrighted material, and please include sources.

Aradia

I'm quite aware of scholars on both sides of the debate. You made a universal statement ("christians believe...."), and I pointed out that not all christians believe such a thing ("it's generally agreed upon...."). Note the difference. You are making a universal statement, and I am making a qualified ("generally") statement.

Acts is a partial history. There was no single "christian church" at that time.


Start here, and check the cited references:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm

Biff the unclean

The oldest bibles with dates belong to the Vatican

How do I explain the date it is credited with? An educated guess.

And yet oddly we have no copies of them from before that year. I’m not saying that they were written in that year, but there is no way to tell how close what we have matches the original.

You are making a habit of responding to your fantasies instead of what people have written. I didn’t say, or even imply that these were written in 325 CE. However that year is the earliest date which can actually be confirmed. We don’t know when they were written further than “before 325�.
It is bizarre that you think a knowledge of history would have to be supernatural for those living in 325CE. Though it is more bizarre that you think the NT is so accurate in those areas you claimed. As for the Bacchae, Luke not only picked up the plot line but he even lifted some of Dionysus’ dialogue and put it in Jesus’ mouth. Frankly plagiarism wasn’t unusual for authors of the period. Luke was hardly the only one to use the same shipwreck story. But readers of today have to take such antics for what they are worth and not mistake them for “gospel� truth.

Then please stop doing so. Your assertion that the Apostles were the authors is laughable. Your ignoring the age of the Gnostics, when you equate age with factuality, has not gone unnoticed.

MiddleMan

RE: Jericho, see this article.

Asha'man

I'm looking at your notes, and the best you can do seems to be some research that is half a century old or older. Your own posting indicates that the more modern work in 1997 found nothing. I think your evidence is hopelessly outdated, and badly incorrect.

Let me quote a passage from The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (published 2002):
Their book, based on modern methods and a re-examination of older digs, essentially blows away half the OT as pure mythology. Everything from the Patriarchs to the Exodus to the unified kingdom of David and Solomon are unsupported or even contradicted by modern archaeology.

Not only did the entire Exodus leave no traces, even in places where traces would be expected, but positive evidence exists that shows the conquest of Canaan never happened. There was a complete continuity of culture across the centuries where the conquest supposedly happened. If a large migration of people departing Egypt were to suddenly kill and replace all of the local craftsman, you would expect a sudden shift in things like pottery and architecture and writing, each should abruptly change and gain at least some Egyptian influence. Instead, we see nothing but a continuous progression. In fact, we can even see evidence of the Hebrew culture slowly developing out of Canaan natives.

MarkB4

The Bible Unearthed - which is a review of data older than that which I am currently addressing - is not unchallenged. How do you respond to this critique by Paul Meier (who I mentioned earlier)?

http://www.equip.org/free/DA111.pdf

Asha'man

Respond? It barely deserves a response. It's a rant, not an examination of the evidence and conclusions. He's pissed that his sacred cows have been tipped over, and appear to be made of cardboard. I suspect he hasn't even read The Bible Unearthed. He gives a long list of 'evidences' that completely fail to address a single solid point in the book.

As a rebuttal, I'd give it an F- for failing to actually address the evidence, and for doing so in a winey way.

Biff the unclean

The Bible Answer Man?!!!
Mark, is this a joke?

Doug Shaver

That article is nothing but a farrago of fallacies.