Radcliffe Emerson

Archaelogy can, however show that the regional/historical background of the the events recorded are not accurate, indicating the people writing the events were not there and not witnesses, and also in some cases didn't even know about the region of which they are writing.
This alone can cast considerable doubt on the authenticity of the writings.
For example, I've read that Matthew talks about Jesus going to a synagogue in Galilee. No 1st-century synagogue has ever been found in the entire region. Archaelogical findings indicate Galilee was extremely poor, and the people gathered to worship in each other's homes, or outside in open areas. As Jesus would have grown up in this atmosphere, he might have held the opinion when he went to Jerusalem that the temple was not necessary, and this alone would have angered Jewish leaders considerably.
Archaelogical findings in Egypt indicate they were the first civilization to come up with the concept of one god (they thought it was the sun god), and up to that point in Israelite history they too have no concept of one god. There concept suddenly emerges after the Egyptians come up with it.
There are other parallels between Judaism, Christianity and ancient pagan religions that have been discovered through archaelogy, showing those beliefs were taken from earlier ones and modified.
Furthermore, Dr Hawi Zawass, the man in charge of the Great Pyramid digs at Giza, states all of their findings indicate the Egyptians did not have slaves. They did not use slaves to build their pyramids or monuments. That in itself indicates the Hebrew legend about being enslaved in Egypt could be myth.

Beach_MU

I believe actually what I said is that the accounts aren't identical, but simply because two accounts aren't identical doesn't make them false.

[*] indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god

What you can conclude from geographical mistakes is that the writer of Mark wasn't familiar with area in the similar way that if you wrote about the Middle East and used a wrong word for something. And are there people in Middle Eastern countries that believe in Christianity? Yes. But you would suggest that be impossible because they're from a different culture?

[*] depiction/re-arrangement of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs

You can't say a book that is based on a supernatural being, God, is invalid because it contains references to the supernatural. Such an argument is ridiculous.

[*] few or no critical views of subject

What sort of critical views are you looking for? The NT constantly depicts the disciples as not fully understanding what's going on, which seems rather critical of those disputed to be the authors.

[*] no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did

The Bible does give many details about Jesus, but didn't focus on every mundane detail. In the book of John it says that he didn't include everything.

[*] not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work

We discussed this earlier. The mention of a supernatural event in a book about a supernatural being is not a valid argument that it's flawed.

[*] the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left?

Jesus and most of the writers were probably Jewish, so why wouldn't they make reference to the OT? If anything, if they didn't I would question it.

[*] few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.

A couple do exist but not many because again they didn't focus on every mundane detail and wouldn't most people of the time know the people involved. Why would you explain to Jewish readers about the historical situation in Jerusalem? They were living it.

[*] no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made

Did we suddenly decide that the Bible was meant solely as a historical book. Luke does say that he took great pains to investigate and gather accounts, but simply saying "this is historical" doesn't mean anything, nor does it's omition.

[*] the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death[*] little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…."

You keep coming back to the fact that it uses supernatural events which should be expected and the very definition of something supernatural is that it can't be explained using the natural world.

[*] overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing

What propaganda?

[*]knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated.

You're right his trial wasn't legal, but does that make it invalid? Have we ever had an illegal trial? How about the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials? Were those made up too?

Beach_MU

I'm surprised that immediately after arguing that historical accuracy is so important that you would claim that Christianity or "right-wing Christianity", as you would probably define any group that believes the Bible to be the infallible word of God, has so incredibly destroyed our nation. I agree with you that our country has plenty of problems but I don't think it is as a result of Christianity. Things such as the incredible divorce rates are certainly not the result of Christianity which teaches that such an act is wrong. I think it's the result of our politically correct society which finds it's roots so deeply in post-modernism suggesting that the most horrible thing to do is to tell someone they're wrong. This is the same as saying there is no absolute truth no matter how you look at it. Christianity has had more positive impacts on our nation and world than probably any other religion through the establishment of universities and hospitals (both of which were started by Christians) along with many other things. If you're looking for someone to blame all the wrongs that others have done to you in your life I don't think Christianity is at the root of them. Granted there are some who claim to be Christians who aren't, but those are probably the people who suggest that the Bible isn't the ultimate authority rather than those who do. And as far as violence, if two of us is any indication, I think it would probably be fairly easy to conclude that you are certainly angrier and more violent than I am, so to suggest that Christianity is violent demonstrates and lack of understanding about what Christianity actually teaches.

Radcliffe Emerson

But the bible does have to be looked at for historical accuracy, because Christians believe it is historical, and they use it to condemn everyone else on the globe who does not accept Jesus as their personal saviour, regardless of whether the people in question are decent and lead moral lives.

As for:

What you can conclude from geographical mistakes is that the writer of Mark wasn't familiar with area in the similar way that if you wrote about the Middle East and used a wrong word for something. And are there people in Middle Eastern countries that believe in Christianity? Yes. But you would suggest that be impossible because they're from a different culture?

If Mark was divinely inspired by God like it's claimed, Mark surely would not have any errors in his account, regarding geography or anything, because God knows everything and the bible is God-inspired.

I just don't buy it.

Beach_MU

You're mixing up the idea of God-inspired and physically written by God. It's a difficult idea to explain so I'm sure I'm not going to the best job, but while the ideas and message is inspired by God, the writers still used their own writing styles as is obvious throughout the NT. If the Bible was physically written by God as the OT says of the Ten Commandments then I would expect every character to be exact. Does this mean it's not accurate? I don't think it means that at all. If anything the fact that the entire Bible was written over a span of 1500 years in 3 different languages on 5 different continents by people of every walk of life and yet still have a central theme and message suggests to me that it HAD to be directed and inspired by God.

I just don't buy it

That's fine. No one is trying to force you to buy it. That isn't the message of the Bible. It doesn't teach that we should force anyone to believe in contrast to religious texts such as the Koran which promote the idea of conversion by force which is why the Islamic flag has a sword on it. (And that's not to say that all Muslims are violent in the same way that not all Christians follow what the Bible says, but that is what the Koran teaches)

Radcliffe Emerson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beach_MU:
[QB]If the Bible was physically written by God as the OT says of the Ten Commandments then I would expect every character to be exact. Does this mean it's not accurate? I don't think it means that at all.

I could accept that, but fundamentalist Christians in particular, say every single word in the bible AS WRITTEN (despite the different English versions debate) is inspired and 100% true, even the contradictions.

I used to be one of the biggest bible-preaching guys around. Reading it from cover to cover on my own, along with studies on the different manuscripts, histories of the bible and the periods in which it was written, and the most recent archaelogical findings convince me beyond doubt it's no more true than Greek or Roman gods myths.

Radcliffe Emerson

[quote]Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
<strong>

Radcliffe Emerson

By the way, I have the Koran too. It makes just as much sense, if not more in its version of God as the bible does.

Radcliffe Emerson

[double post]

Beach_MU

In particular what recent archaelogical evidence has proven beyond doubt that the Bible is wrong? I don't follow archaeology very much but would be curious to hear.