Evidence for the Events in the NT

BrianCalgary

Fesh off the recent post of Wicknight:

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't be serious?

Ok, off the top of my head, events in the Bible that have not been confirmed by archaeological evidence.

1 - The census of Quirinius
2 - The birth of Jesus
3- The journey of the wise men
4- The slaying of the children
5- Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist
6- Jesus teaching and healing in Galilee
7- Matthew being a tax collector in Capernaum
8- The sermon on the mount
9- Jesus in Jerusalem
10- Jesus in the temple
12- Jesus arrest and execution
13- Jesus resurrection
14- Jesus tomb (empty or otherwise)
15- Romans guarding Jesus tomb
16- Jesus appearing after his death

So, to some up, the vast majority of it :rolleyes:

We have non-Christian sources for John the baptist, and we have non-Christian sources that there were Christians in the middle of the 1st century. That is about it.

We have archaeological evidence that the places described existed, but not any for the events that are supposed to have taken place at them. Which is a bit like saying the Da Vinci Code is probably real because Paris exists.

I will also roll my eyes wicknight because you are showing a clear ignorance of what archaeology can and can't show. I can state that last Saturday I attended a hockey game at the Saddledome in Calgary between the Brandon Wheat Kings and the Calgary Hitmen. Archaeology can prove that there is a Saddledoem in Calgary and that there are teams from Calgary and Brandon so named and that they did indeed play last Saturday night. Arhaeology can't prove whether or not I was there. Since however I am known to sopeak the truth about my comings and goings that if I were to write a biography you could be rest assured that I indeed was at the game.

Bearing that in mind lets look at the events that you mention.

The Census of Quirinius:

There was a Quirinius who was governor of Syria at this time and ther erare records of Cenus' taking place in the first and secnd centuries AD which required evryone to return to their ancestral homes.

Both Justin and Tertullian comment that recods of this census were available and could be checked out.

Bith of Jesus
See above with respect to Justin and Tertullian. There is no question that there was a man named Jesus who walked the Earth at that time.

3- The journey of the wise men
4- The slaying of the children
5- Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist
6- Jesus teaching and healing in Galilee
7- Matthew being a tax collector in Capernaum
8- The sermon on the mount
Events that can not be proven by Archaeology. What we do know is that wise men existed in this time and they were called magi. We also know that Herod was known for killing threast to his throne, so for him to remove potential threats as kids under 2 in Bethlehem wouldnot have been a newsworthy item considering thenumber of kids there would have been under the age of two in a village of less than 600 people.

Ex-Biblical sources describe Jesus as a man who taught and commtted sorcery during his time. That settles the healing and teaching problem.

Jesus in the Temple
Why would he not be there? There was a temple and He was Jewish. Makes sense that He was there. Brian Canadian loves sports, makes sense he'd be at a Hitman game.

Jesus Arrest and Execution
Josephus wrote aboutJesus arrest and execution. It was a knownhistorical fact that it did indded happen. Roman historian Tacitus also corroborates this.

Romans Guarding the tomb? Caesar made th followingproclamation. You have unrest in Judea, you are on a powder keg. You have a poplular innocent man being executed. It makes sense that a gurard would have been put there.

"Proclamation of Caesar. It is my desire that
graves and tombs remain sealed for the benefit of
those who have made them and for their children,
family members, and their religion. If, however, anyone
accuses that another has either destroyed them,
removed the buried, or with ill intent has taken them
to other places in order to wrong them, or has removed
the sealing on other stones, I order that
person be brought to trial. Just as a man should
respect the gods, so also with regard to men, for all
should respect the buried. It is therefore forbidden
for anyone to disturb them. Should this edict be
violated, the offender is to be sentenced to capital
punishment on the charge of violating a sepulcher."

Jesus Appearance
Something that can't be porven archaeologically but only historically.

Wickinight you make so much about people not understandig what science is.

Please understand the difference between Archaeology and history. Much of that which you raise is history not archaeology.

The Gosples are a history that recount events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth who lived in teh first century AD. Records that have been discovered, accounts that have been written corroborate the evenst that have been written.

Historically speaking we also see that no one has written from that time an account that contradicts the events. From a historical perspective this is very important.

Húrin

Indeed, history is composed not only of archaeological remains but also of primary and secondary written sources. However I have a worrying feeling that Wicknight may reject these writings as inventions.

studiorat

Which Quirnius are you refering to? I can think of two off the top of my head. For Publius Sulpicius Quirinus to have been governor at the time of Jesus' birth he would have had been governor of the same area on two occasions. No person through out Roman history was ever governor of the same area twice. If he had the privelege to have been, surely Tacitus would have mentioned it in the obituary he wrote for him. Especially since it would have been such an unusual thing.

Also there is no Archeology for Bethlehem being inhabited at the time in question. Beforehand and afterwards but no archeology at all except for a few hundred years before and and after the 1st century.

I have no doubt such a man as Jesus existed, evidence would make it pretty likely. What I do have a serious problem with is the relatively new idea of Biblical inerrancy, that is faith in the literal word of the bible, with no tradition of interpertation. The inerrancy debate began in the late 19th Century as effort to rebut Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species among other social changes and gained momentum during the 1920's right through to it's peak in the 1970's.

There is a very interesting essay on the evolution of European Calvinism to American Evangelism by Marcia Pally...

Biblical inerrancy, and individualist Bible-reading without priestly intermediary. Distinguishing itself from “evangelical” and “born again,” “fundamentalist” was the name taken at the turn of the 20th century by radical Protestants who felt other churches, particularly the Social Gospel, were focusing unduly on social and political projects that aided the poor, to the neglect of saving souls.

Fundamentalism was, if you will, a backlash movement against these socially-minded churches. These radical Protestants were alarmed too by imports of New Bible criticism from Germany, which they took to be both elitist and elastic in Biblical interpretation where there readings were literalist. And they were scandalized by the godless Bolshevik revolution, by socialist movements in the US, and by the immoral jazz age.

Seeking a return to the reliable Christian basics they had known, they became, for the first time, fundamentalist — a term coined by two oil magnates who published a series of pamphlets — called The Fundamentals — between 1905–1915.

studiorat

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed, history is composed not only of archaeological remains but also of primary and secondary written sources. However I have a worrying feeling that Wicknight may reject these writings as inventions.

So is Biblehistory.net a primary or a secondary source?

Considering they don't even know whether it was Tiberius or Claudius Ceasar who made that particular proclimation I'd say Wicknight will have a field day;)

The same Biblehistory.net ("Archeology for Bible Believers") also forgot or left out the fact that Cagulia was in fact between Tiberius and Claudius. Never mind being the only place I can find that quote and the fact that there are absolutely no references in the document.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I can state that last Saturday I attended a hockey game at the Saddledome in Calgary between the Brandon Wheat Kings and the Calgary Hitmen. Archaeology can prove that there is a Saddledoem in Calgary and that there are teams from Calgary and Brandon so named and that they did indeed play last Saturday night. Arhaeology can't prove whether or not I was there.

Agreed. Archaeology can't even provide middling support that you were there. It can, at best, provide support that you made this claim in or after a period when the Saddledome was build, but not before (unless you want to introduce supernatural prophecy, which I wouldn't be surprised)

Which is why the claim that archaeology confirms or supports your claim that you attended a hockey game at the Saddledome would be mighty stupid thing for someone to claim.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Since however I am known to sopeak the truth about my comings and goings that if I were to write a biography you could be rest assured that I indeed was at the game.

You are "known to speak the truth"... what has that got to do with archaeology and what it can and can't confirm?

Are you now saying that archaeology doesn't confirm the events of the New Testament took place, but that doesn't matter because we know Jesus spoke the truth, he was after all the son of God or some such?

You can imagine I'll have a few issues with that :pac:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Bearing that in mind lets look at the events that you mention.

Bearing what in mind? That you are known to speak the truth?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There was a Quirinius who was governor of Syria at this time and ther erare records of Cenus' taking place in the first and secnd centuries AD which required evryone to return to their ancestral homes.

Yes, a fact that some of the authors of the New Testament properly were aware of.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Bith of Jesus
See above with respect to Justin and Tertullian. There is no question that there was a man named Jesus who walked the Earth at that time.

And this confirms the story of the birth of Jesus how exactly?

If I said I was born in Australia during a flood (I wasn't by the way) does the fact that I exist (or Australia for that matter) give my story strong historical basis?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Events that can not be proven by Archaeology.

This would probably be a good time to remind everyone that you claimed that the events in the New Testament (all of them) were supported by archaeology, and challenged me to name one, just one!, that was not.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What we do know is that wise men existed in this time and they were called magi.

We know wise men existed? That is your evidence?

Are you sure you aren't winding me up here BC?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Ex-Biblical sources describe Jesus as a man who taught and commtted sorcery during his time. That settles the healing and teaching problem.

Are you kidding me? It is settled is it. We have historical confirmation that Jesus healed people in Galilee because he is described as "a sorcerer.." 200 years after he was supposed to be executed (by stoning by the way)?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Jesus in the Temple
Why would he not be there?

Why would he not be there is your historical evidence he was there and did the things he is described doing?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Jesus Arrest and Execution
Josephus wrote aboutJesus arrest and execution.

Leaving aside the debate about this passage, Josephus wrote one paragraph about the Jesus' arrest and execution and he doesn't describe any of it.

If you tell me what the game was like, does the fact that there was a game demonstrate historically (or archaeologically?) that what you just said was true and accurate?

Or do I go on the fact that you always tell the truth?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Romans Guarding the tomb? Caesar made th followingproclamation. You have unrest in Judea, you are on a powder keg. You have a poplular innocent man being executed. It makes sense that a gurard would have been put there.

What makes sense to you Brian is irrelevant. You claimed we had historical support for this. Your historical support seems to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Please understand the difference between Archaeology and history. Much of that which you raise is history not archaeology.

Archaeology is the study of human culture through the discovery of artifacts and materials from the time.

Which is why I was a little, shall we say, surprised, when you claimed that the stories in the New Testament were supported by archaeology.

Surprised might be the wrong word here ...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Gosples are a history that recount events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth who lived in teh first century AD. Records that have been discovered, accounts that have been written corroborate the evenst that have been written.

There is not a single event in the New Testament that is confirmed by non-Christian account except possibly for Jesus arrest and execution (none of the details described in the NT by the way, simply an arrest, an execution) and even that looks dodgy.

We have more historical corroboration about John the Baptist than Jesus.

What you classify as "corroboration", such as "why wouldn't he be in the temple" is just apologetics nonsense.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

I'd say Wicknight will have a field day;)

Oh you ain't wrong!

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreed. Archaeology can't even provide middling support that you were there. It can, at best, provide support that you made this claim in or after a period when the Saddledome was build, but not before (unless you want to introduce supernatural prophecy, which I wouldn't be surprised)

Which is why the claim that archaeology confirms or supports your claim that you attended a hockey game at the Saddledome would be mighty stupid thing for someone to claim. .

It would support theclaim because all that is needed exists, the building, the timing (Jnauary) and theteams. So archaeology would support that.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are "known to speak the truth"... what has that got to do with archaeology and what it can and can't confirm?.

It doesn't have to with arcaheology, here you go putting words into my mouth and twisting them. That is why I am so :mad:.

My practices in telling truth coupled with the arcaeology would show that indeed the possibility of me being at said game is very high.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you now saying that archaeology doesn't confirm the events of the New Testament took place, but that doesn't matter because we know Jesus spoke the truth, he was after all the son of God or some such?

You can imagine I'll have a few issues with that :pac:?.

HJere you go putting words into my mouth again. Pay attention: (if that is possible) Archaeology supprts the gospel accounts, other historical writing support the gospel accounts, so the gospel accounts are accurate.

Wicknight wrote: »

Bearing what in mind? That you are known to speak the truth?:?.

Yeah

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, a fact that some of the authors of the New Testament properly were aware of.

They were and the evidence support sthem: archaeological and biographical (thi smeans accounts written by others, and just in case you missed them: Josephus, tacitus, Pliny, Justin, Tertullian)

Wicknight wrote: »

And this confirms the story of the birth of Jesus how exactly?

Sheesh, Archaeological evidence plus biographical evidence supports the events of the NT, including the census of 4 BC. The evidence also says that there wa a Jesus. ergo, the account of His bitrth in the Bible is reliable.

Wicknight wrote: »

If I said I was born in Australia during a flood (I wasn't by the way) does the fact that I exist (or Australia for that matter) give my story strong historical basis??

No because there would be no record of you being born in Australia. Whereas as late as th etimes of Justin and Tertullian there was a record of a census that took place in 4 BC.

Wicknight wrote: »

This would probably be a good time to remind everyone that you claimed that the events in the New Testament (all of them) were supported by archaeology, and challenged me to name one, just one!, that was not. ??

And this is also a good time to remind everybody that everything thatcan be proven archaeologically has been proven. The events that youasked for can not be shown archaeologically but biographically.

Wicknight wrote: »

We know wise men existed? That is your evidence???

I'm sure that there were some smart ones. Including teh kind that studied the stars and would have seen the one over Bethlehem.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you kidding me? It is settled is it. We have historical confirmation that Jesus healed people in Galilee because he is described as "a sorcerer.." 200 years after he was supposed to be executed (by stoning by the way)????

Yes, He was described by Roman and Jewish writers as a man who performed healings. Again this is bigographical evidence we are looking for here. Not ARchaeological.

Executed by stoning?? Where did you pick this one up?

Húrin

What's the point? Brian is going to say that history points to the accuracy of the Gospels because his ideology demands it. Wicknight is going to try to discredit the Gospels accuracy because his ideology demands it.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It would support theclaim because all that is needed exists, the building, the timing (Jnauary) and theteams. So archaeology would support that.

All that is needed exists? As opposed to what?

If you were going to make up a story about going to the game would you not pick a stadium that actually exists?

And how does the fact that the stadium exists means what you told me was true?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It doesn't have to with arcaheology, here you go putting words into my mouth and twisting them. That is why I am so :mad:.

You mentioned archaeology. A good number of times on the other thread.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Archaeology supprts the gospel accounts, other historical writing support the gospel accounts, so the gospel accounts are accurate.

Ok, let me say this again. Archaeology DOES NOT support the gospel accounts.

The only way you get it to support them is by coming up with a totally nonsense idea of what "support" means, which basically goes that if you make up a story be sure to set it in a place that actually exists and then 2,000 years later someone will be foolish enough to say that because the place exists the story is supported by the archaeology.

The archaeology supports the idea that the authors of the Bible lived in the middle east and knew the names of towns and well known people.

So if someone wants to claim the New Testament was written by the Scottish in 400BC, then yes the archaological evidence supports that this wasn't the case. The people who wrote the New Testament living in the region and living after the founding of these towns and places

But didn't we already know that?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And this is also a good time to remind everybody that everything thatcan be proven archaeologically has been proven. The events that youasked for can not be shown archaeologically but biographically.

Well they can't be shown biographically either, but that wasn't the point. You claimed they could be shown archaeologically, and in fact challenged me to name ones that couldn't

"Almost all of the events and places in the NT have been verified through archaelogical finds.

Name one that hasn't?"

So, what do I win? A pair of "I HEART Jesus" steak knifes?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight is going to try to discredit the Gospels accuracy because his ideology demands it.

I couldn't give a rats bottom about discrediting the gospel accuracy. As someone said on the A&A forum, we will never know. It doesn't matter to me

What I do care about is this propagation of this nonsense idea that just won't die (because you guys won't let it) that the stories of the Bible are some how well supported by history. This goes from the flood, to exodus to the resurrection.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

What I do care about is this propagation of this nonsense idea that just won't die (because you guys won't let it) that the stories of the Bible are some how well supported by history. This goes from the flood, to exodus to the resurrection.

So you wish to discredit the idea that the Bible is accurate, but at the same time you don't care about discrediting the the idea that the Bible is accurate?

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you kidding me? It is settled is it. We have historical confirmation that Jesus healed people in Galilee because he is described as "a sorcerer.." 200 years after he was supposed to be executed (by stoning by the way)?

The Romans ruled Judea at the time of Jesus death. If a person was unfortunate enough to be sentenced to death under Roman ruling, then it was death by cruxification not stoning.Had the Jews had the authority to kill Jesus, then yes, he would have been stoned to death.

sorella

Exactly so.

Off to do something creative and constructive, like shovel snow..

Blessings...

Húrin wrote: »

What's the point? Brian is going to say that history points to the accuracy of the Gospels because his ideology demands it. Wicknight is going to try to discredit the Gospels accuracy because his ideology demands it.

studiorat

Húrin wrote: »

What's the point? Brian is going to say that history points to the accuracy of the Gospels because his ideology demands it. Wicknight is going to try to discredit the Gospels accuracy because his ideology demands it.

I'm an atheist, none of my ideologies demand that the Gosples need to be inaccurate. I'd say there is a percentage of accuracy and inaccuracy, however I don't believe it is from a divine source and I believe the text has been edited and changed over the centuries.

Still, if people will spread misconceptions of history as truth such as Brian here posted, all due respect Brian, I'm talking about Biblehistory.net and the likes. Others will have no choice but to provide a rebuttal and to discredit the information as the needs arise.

Now I'm off to do something constructive...

Nodin

The Census of Quirinius:

There was a Quirinius who was governor of Syria at this time and ther erare records of Cenus' taking place in the first and secnd centuries AD which required evryone to return to their ancestral homes.

No, theres no record of a Qurinius as Governor at that time, nor is there any evidence that he held the post twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_g...ia#cite_note-1
The dates don't match, and the given methodolgy and reasoning is wrong. If Qurinus was Governor at the time, it would have to be AD6, after Herod.

Nodin

We also know that Herod was known for killing threast to his throne, so for him to remove potential threats as kids under 2 in Bethlehem wouldnot have been a newsworthy item considering thenumber of kids there would have been under the age of two in a village of less than 600 people.

Yet Josephus, who gave the minutiae of Herods reign, doesn't mention it....

The Gosples are a history that recount events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth who lived in teh first century AD.

They're a written version of an oral tradition, with Mark serving as the basis for Matthew and Luke. Hardly a history in the modern sense.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

The Romans ruled Judea at the time of Jesus death. If a person was unfortunate enough to be sentenced to death under Roman ruling, then it was death by cruxification not stoning.Had the Jews had the authority to kill Jesus, then yes, he would have been stoned to death.

Wouldn't that lead one to conclude that the reports of Jesus the "sorcerer", and was executed by stoning (then crucified for public viewing) are inaccurate and untrust worthy?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

So you wish to discredit the idea that the Bible is accurate, but at the same time you don't care about discrediting the the idea that the Bible is accurate?

Groan ....

Let me say it again

"What I do care about is this propagation of this nonsense idea that just won't die (because you guys won't let it) that the stories of the Bible are some how well supported by history"

It is the same as the view I have about Creationism. I don't give a rats bottom if some red neck in Kentucky believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

I do care if he starts spouting off that this idea is well supported by science, particularly if he wants that taught in a public school system science class room.

I don't care if people wish to believe the Bible is accurate. I have very little interest in convincing them it isn't (something I imagine is not possible given the sort of mental convulsions that seem to take place to get to that conclusion in the first place), and since we have pretty much zero evidence either way I would have a hard time dragging up contradictory evidence for the vast majority of the stories in the New Testament. It would be like asking you to prove that the account of my birthday party didn't happen the way I said it did by using EU official documents and news paper articles.

What I do care about is if people go around saying that the Bible is accurate and this is supported by history and archaeology

Because it isn't, and just like the Creationists with science, the only way people make this argument it is is by greatly lowering the standards of the fields

Húrin

Brian is going to say that the Gospels are well supported by history because his ideology demands it. Wicknight is going to try to discredit the claim that Gospels are well supported by history because his ideology demands it.

DublinWriter

The only archaeological find to corroborate a character in the NT was the Pilate Stone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Brian is going to say that the Gospels are well supported by history because his ideology demands it. Wicknight is going to try to discredit the claim that Gospels are well supported by history because his ideology demands it.

That is better. I certainly do have an ideological motivation here, my ideology being that we should respect truth.

philologos

Did they not find Herod's Palace recently too?

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

Did they not find Herod's Palace recently too?

Indeed. Herod was an historical character, and a 'very bad man'. As was Pilate, on both counts.

Nodin

DublinWriter wrote: »

The only archaeological find to corroborate a character in the NT was the Pilate Stone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

Going a bit far there. There was a Herod, a Qurinus, a Pilate. Its a mixture of fact and mythology, though not on such a grand scale as the OT.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Did they not find Herod's Palace recently too?

We have quite a lot of historical evidence that Herod existed.

Herod would have been a well known figure the time the New Testament was written. It would be like a modern day author basing a story around something Robert Mugabe did.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

That is better. I certainly do have an ideological motivation here, my ideology being that we should respect truth.

This kind of evasion is not refreshing.

Pompey Magnus

Splendour wrote: »

The Romans ruled Judea at the time of Jesus death. If a person was unfortunate enough to be sentenced to death under Roman ruling, then it was death by cruxification not stoning.Had the Jews had the authority to kill Jesus, then yes, he would have been stoned to death.

According to Acts Stephen was stoned to death by the Jewish Authorities just a couple of years after Jesus was executed so presumably the Jewish authorities did have the authority to execute people...or did they?

In the Gospel of John we are told that the Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to Pilate specifically because they themselves were not allowed to put any man to death yet in Acts we are told that the Sanhedrin carried out the execution of Stephen. Can both be correct because it seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

HJere you go putting words into my mouth again. Pay attention: (if that is possible) Archaeology supprts the gospel accounts, other historical writing support the gospel accounts, so the gospel accounts are accurate.

I don't understand how you can conclude that just because archaeology and historical writings support to some degree the Gospel accounts then the Gospels are accurate.

If someone was to read the script to the film Gladiator in 2,000 years time they could look at the archaeological evidence and say that indeed there was a Roman campaign in Germany during the reign of Marcus Aurelius as portrayed at the start of the film, Emperor Commodus did succeed his father as emperor, there was a Colosseum in Rome where gladiator fights took place etc etc etc.

Just because the historical and archaeological evidence agrees with the script of the Gladiator (with some exceptions), could scholars in 2,000 years therefore conclude that the Gladiator script is a reliabe historical document of the life of a certain Maximus Decimus Meridius who lived in the Roman Empire during the late 2nd Century?

santing

There is a good article (See note) written on the Sensus by D.B. Wallace on bible.org.

Note: I think it is good - but I let you fight over it.

Nodin

santing wrote: »

There is a good article (See note) written on the Sensus by D.B. Wallace on bible.org.

Note: I think it is good - but I let you fight over it.

A mistranslation is possible, I suppose, but speaking no ancient Greek whatsoever rather rules me out of any such discussion.

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

They're a written version of an oral tradition, with Mark serving as the basis for Matthew and Luke. Hardly a history in the modern sense.

The Ot are not oral tradition they were written by eyewitnesses to the events or by someone closely connected to the eyewitness.

And yes you can not look at it in a modern sense you have to look at it in a historicl asense by the records of ancient Rome and the character and culture of Ancient Rome.

You have four gospels, all telling the story of Jesus of Nazareth and His ministry.

They are valid history, written by eyewitnesses or someone close to the eyerwitness. They are as much history as the writings of Josephus or Tacitus or Pliny.

And to boot archaeology supports the history. Discovered records support the events. Other writers of time support the events.

Not one writing that contradicts the events in the gospels. And yes this is a very important component of historical analysis.

Quote Charco:
I don't understand how you can conclude that just because archaeology and historical writings support to some degree the Gospel accounts then the Gospels are accurate.

If someone was to read the script to the film Gladiator in 2,000 years time they could look at the archaeological evidence and say that indeed there was a Roman campaign in Germany during the reign of Marcus Aurelius as portrayed at the start of the film, Emperor Commodus did succeed his father as emperor, there was a Colosseum in Rome where gladiator fights took place etc etc etc.

Just because the historical and archaeological evidence agrees with the script of the Gladiator (with some exceptions), could scholars in 2,000 years therefore conclude that the Gladiator script is a reliabe historical document of the life of a certain Maximus Decimus Meridius who lived in the Roman Empire during the late 2nd Century?

The difference being is that Gladiator would have been written by a fiction author 2,000 or so years after the events portrayed. No serious historian would accept it as being a portryal of someones life. In this case teh Gladiators.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Ot are not oral tradition they were written by eyewitnesses to the events or by someone closely connected to the eyewitness.

This has been mentioned many times before when discussing the Gospels and the fact of the matter is that the anonymous authors of the Gospels themselves never claim to have known Jesus personally or to have been closely connected to any eyewinesses and they do not write as if they were present and took part in any of the events they describe.

The difference being is that Gladiator would have been written by a fiction author 2,000 or so years after the events portrayed. No serious historian would accept it as being a portryal of someones life. In this case teh Gladiators.

Well I used Gladiator as an example, I could have used The Godfather or Rambo or whatever. My point was that if the fictional stories were handed to a historian in the future he would not necessarily believe the main storyline to be fact just because it refers to contemporary historical events which can be verified as actually having happened.

Similarly for the Gospels. Just because they refer to real people and places which can be verified as being historically accurate it doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that the details which can't possible be verified are also true.

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Ot are not oral tradition they were written by eyewitnesses to the events or by someone closely connected to the eyewitness..

NT, NT. Before wrathful hordes descend on thee.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And yes you can not look at it in a modern sense you have to look at it in a historicl asense by the records of ancient Rome and the character and culture of Ancient Rome...

Really? Why? Was it written entirely by Romans?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You have four gospels, all telling the story of Jesus of Nazareth and His ministry.

They are valid history, written by eyewitnesses or someone close to the eyerwitness. They are as much history as the writings of Josephus or Tacitus or Pliny....

None of them were written by eyewitnesses, as I understand it. Secondly, they catalogue the supernatural, in certain cases. This is obviously going to cause massive problems, because no-one in human history has catalogued and observed reproducable supernatural phenomena. Now you can of course just take it on faith. But thats a different kettle of fish entirely.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And to boot archaeology supports the history. Discovered records support the events. Other writers of time support the events.....

How can you have archaeological evidence for a man walking on water?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man attending a wedding?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man rising from the dead?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man losing his temper in a Temple?

This kind of thing always reminds me of a scene from "D'arby O'Gill and the Little People". Yer man brings the leprachaun into the pub in a box. The barman looks in and gives the leprachaun a drink. He takes the empty glass out of the box, and leaves it up on the shelf - "proof" he says, that it happened.

Fanny Cradock

Nodin wrote: »

How can you have archaeological evidence for a man walking on water?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man attending a wedding?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man rising from the dead?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man losing his temper in a Temple?

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

Presumably Nodin is correctly pointing out that archaeology doesn't support any of the claims that the Gospels make about Jesus.

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

I do, and thus would suggest your question would be best aimed elswhere.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem not to understand what archaeology can comment upon.

I think the issue is the belief that because the historical events in the NT can be collaborated that therefore those which can not must also be true.
That's the stance Brian seems to be taking taking.
While such collaborations perhaps strengthen the belief that the bible has a historical accuracy it does nothing to validate the supernatural claims it contains. And its those later claims which give the bible its significance.

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

Presumably Nodin is correctly pointing out that archaeology doesn't support any of the claims that the Gospels make about Jesus.

Fair enough.

Fanny Cradock

Apologies, Nodin. I didn't read your post properly and thought you were looking for archaeological evidence for those events. It's been a bad day for me.

BrianCalgary

Nodin wrote: »

NT, NT. Before wrathful hordes descend on thee..

Thanks for the correction.

Nodin wrote: »

Really? Why? Was it written entirely by Romans?..

No, but Rome was the dominant cultural influence at the time, with a healthy smattering of Greek.

Nodin wrote: »

None of them were written by eyewitnesses, as I understand it. Secondly, they catalogue the supernatural, in certain cases. This is obviously going to cause massive problems, because no-one in human history has catalogued and observed reproducable supernatural phenomena. Now you can of course just take it on faith. But thats a different kettle of fish entirely.?..

John was written by the Apostle John. Eyewitness.
Matthew written by the Apostle Matthew. Eyewitness.
Mark a companion of Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Luke a travel companion of Paul.

Supernatural power is not nor can it be reproducible. My knee has failed to have problems since it was healed with a prayer and faith. My daughters injury and recovery caused confusion amongst the doctors. Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders.

Nodin wrote: »

How can you have archaeological evidence for a man walking on water?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man attending a wedding?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man rising from the dead?
How can you have archaeological evidence for a man losing his temper in a Temple?

This kind of thing always reminds me of a scene from "D'arby O'Gill and the Little People". Yer man brings the leprachaun into the pub in a box. The barman looks in and gives the leprachaun a drink. He takes the empty glass out of the box, and leaves it up on the shelf - "proof" he says, that it happened.

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

BrianCalgary

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think the issue is the belief that because the historical events in the NT can be collaborated that therefore those which can not must also be true.
That's the stance Brian seems to be taking taking.
While such collaborations perhaps strengthen the belief that the bible has a historical accuracy it does nothing to validate the supernatural claims it contains. And its those later claims which give the bible its significance.

Thanks Rev. And that is how historical analysis is done. For any historicla event.

Is the author reliable? The items that can be shown to be true are they?
Corroborated accounts? Competeing accounts?

The gospels turn out to be very reliable when stacked up to historical analysis.

BrianCalgary

Charco wrote: »

This has been mentioned many times before when discussing the Gospels and the fact of the matter is that the anonymous authors of the Gospels themselves never claim to have known Jesus personally or to have been closely connected to any eyewinesses and they do not write as if they were present and took part in any of the events they describe..

Read prior post on gospel authorship.

Charco wrote: »

Well I used Gladiator as an example, I could have used The Godfather or Rambo or whatever. My point was that if the fictional stories were handed to a historian in the future he would not necessarily believe the main storyline to be fact just because it refers to contemporary historical events which can be verified as actually having happened.

Similarly for the Gospels. Just because they refer to real people and places which can be verified as being historically accurate it doesn't mean that we should automatically assume that the details which can't possible be verified are also true.

Why cant we trust them to be true?

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Apologies, Nodin. I didn't read your post properly and thought you were looking for archaeological evidence for those events. It's been a bad day for me.

These things happen.

If its any consolation, crap rolls down atheist hills in a similar fashon.

mdebets

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Thanks Rev. And that is how historical analysis is done. For any historicla event.

Is the author reliable? The items that can be shown to be true are they?
Corroborated accounts? Competeing accounts?

The gospels turn out to be very reliable when stacked up to historical analysis.

You forgot two important questions.
Who was the intended audience for the original text. And what was the reason for writing the text/what was the message the author wanted to get accross?

Especially the last one is important in regards to the Gospels.
The authors didn't intend to write a history of Jesus (if they had to do this they wouldn't have left out most of his life or only covered certain events of his ministry). They wanted to teach the new faith to belivers and possible converts.
It can't therefore be said that all Gospels are truthfully historical accounts.

mdebets

BrianCalgary wrote: »

John was written by the Apostle John. Eyewitness.
Matthew written by the Apostle Matthew. Eyewitness.
Mark a companion of Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Luke a travel companion of Paul.

How do you fit the Q document into this?
Even if these persons are the authors, it still leaves a gap of events where they weren't present e.g. birth of Jesus so at least part of the Gospels can only be second hand accounts.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

Could you please specify which dates and persons were confirmed by archaeology? I would be especially interested in dates as the dating evidence around the birth of Crist is notoriously bad, as a tableau exists around that time in C14 dating so that dates can only be specified with a margin of errors of several decades.

PDN

mdebets wrote: »

You forgot two important questions.
Who was the intended audience for the original text. And what was the reason for writing the text/what was the message the author wanted to get accross?

Especially the last one is important in regards to the Gospels.
The authors didn't intend to write a history of Jesus (if they had to do this they wouldn't have left out most of his life or only covered certain events of his ministry). They wanted to teach the new faith to belivers and possible converts.
It can't therefore be said that all Gospels are truthfully historical accounts.

I'd agree with you up to that last sentence.

No history is written to give an impartial account of everything that occurred. Historians select events that suit their purposes which may be varied (to show the power of the Roman Empire, to demonstrate the evil of war, to promote an ideology etc.).

The Gospel writers obviously selected the material that served their purposes, but providing they selected genuine events, and fabricated nothing, then their Gospels would indeed be truthfully historical accounts.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why cant we trust them to be true?

Because to accept the Gospels to be true historians would also be required to accept every supernatural event recorded in non-Christian sources as being true also, they can't make a special exception for Christian claims only.

If historians actually came out and said that it was an actual historical event that Jesus rose from the dead they would likewise have to say that it was an actual historical event that the god Augustus Caesar ascended into Heaven during the cremation of his mortal body, that Appolonius of Tyana actually rose from the dead at around the same time as Jesus did, and history books would record as fact that in 621 AD Muhammed flew up to Heaven on a winged horse to meet Jesus and other friends.

The Gospels are no more reliable than any other sources of supernatural claims, you can trust them if you like but historians cannot say they are anywhere near adequate to conclude with any certainty that the events described by them are historically true.

PDN

mdebets wrote: »

How do you fit the Q document into this?
Even if these persons are the authors, it still leaves a gap of events where they weren't present e.g. birth of Jesus so at least part of the Gospels can only be second hand accounts.

The hypothetical Q document may well have been a template used by the Synoptic Gospel writers. An eye witness will check his memories against the accounts of others who have written about the same events.

Nodin

BrianCalgary wrote: »

John was written by the Apostle John. Eyewitness.
Matthew written by the Apostle Matthew. Eyewitness.
Mark a companion of Peter, who was an eyewitness.
Luke a travel companion of Paul..

John? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism

Matthew? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Mark - early, but still probably no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

About the only one in with a good shout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Although external sources state that Jesus performed wonders...

Theres plenty of sources that say that x, y and z 'performed wonders'. They're taken with a grain of salt too.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We dont ask archaeology to do so. Archaeology confirms dates and places and people. And since the findings of arcaeology confirm the dates, places and people of the Bible and none refute we can say thatthe events as recorded are in fact true.

Regardless of the holes in that statement, consider this. Imagine you had an exact birth date and date of death for all the apostles, and Jesus. That leaves a vast amount to be filled in. You can't prove the water was turned into wine, the whole thing with the fishes, nor can you prove the the words ascribed to Jesus, are his, are a transliteration of his words etc and so on.

Its hard to pin down (nearly did a faux pas there) far better documented historical figures than Jesus, I might add, even those into the twentieth century.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Because to accept the Gospels to be true historians would also be required to accept every supernatural event recorded in non-Christian sources as being true also, they can't make a special exception for Christian claims only.

If historians actually came out and said that it was an actual historical event that Jesus rose from the dead they would likewise have to say that it was an actual historical event that the god Augustus Caesar ascended into Heaven during the cremation of his mortal body, that Appolonius of Tyana actually rose from the dead at around the same time as Jesus did, and history books would record as fact that in 621 AD Muhammed flew up to Heaven on a winged horse to meet Jesus and other friends.

The Gospels are no more reliable than any other sources of supernatural claims, you can trust them if you like but historians cannot say they are anywhere near adequate to conclude with any certainty that the events described by them are historically true.

No, you are confining yourself to only two possible approaches where more exist. You are saying our options are:
1. Dismiss any ancient text that mentions the supernatural.
2. Accept all ancient texts that mention the supernatural.

However, a third option is possible, namely to compare texts which refer to supernatural accounts and assess their credibility.

Fanny Cradock

Nodin wrote: »

John? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Modern_criticism

Matthew? Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Mark - early, but still probably no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Authorship

About the only one in with a good shout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist

It should be said that there isn't a consensus amongst critics that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.