A few questions come to mind....

[loco]

You want this one, Loco, or should I take it? 

I'll start with one of several examples of how Scriptures has contained historical accounts that Biblical skeptics believed to be false (due to their lack of belief and that that the Bible was the lone source of such accounts)....that is, until archaeological evidence confirmed the Biblical accounts to be accurate. Some of those skeptics became believers, as a result.

Ever heard of Belshazzar? He was a co-regent king with his biological father, Nabonidus, in Babylon. Skeptics claimed that Belshazzar never existed (and that whoever mentioned him in the book of Daniel, made the character up), until cuneiform evidence of his existence was found in the mid 19th century. Next, the skeptics said that he wasn't "king". However, that same archaeological evidence shows his father assiging the kingdom to Belshazzar, while he left to pursue other things.

That just happens to correspond with Daniel 5, in which Daniel is offered the position of third highest ruler in the kingdom, if he can solve a certain handwriting-on-the-wall mystery. For 100 points, why is it that Daniel can only be third-highest ruler, instead of second-highest?

You are doing fine, MCWAY!  But yeah, I can take this one.

You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)

Just because no archaeological evidence has yet been found to support something that the Bible mentions automatically means that it isn't true?
   
The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm

The Old Testament mentions the ancient Hittite civilization more than 50 times, either by their Hebrew name "Chitti" or by their designation as the sons and daughters Heth. However, prior to their rediscovery in the 19th century, there appeared to be no evidence for their existence outside of the Bible. Skeptics cited the missing evidence as evidence that the Bible actually fabricated their existence. This called the reliability of the biblical account into question. Basically the skeptics said, "We can't find any evidence for the Hittite civilization outside of the Bible. This demonstrates that the Bible cannot be trusted as an historical source."
Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries archaeologists hit the jackpot, not only identifying extrabiblical references to the Hittite civilization, but by actually finding and excavating the ancient Hittite capital city of Hattusa (modern day Boðazköy in northern Turkey). The rediscovery of this ancient civilization vindicated the Biblical record.
Evidence for the Hittites was bolstered in Egypt with the discovery of a treaty between Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite Empire. Originally written on silver tablets in Heliopolis and Hattusus, a huge copy was found on a wall of the great Karnak Temple. After years of fighting between the Hittites and the Egyptians, Ramses II and the Hittite king settled on a treaty whereby the territory of Syria and Canaan would be divided between them.

King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm

The House of David Inscription (also known as the "Tel Dan Inscription") was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.
The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David's reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a "king of Israel" (probably Joram) and a king of the "House of David" (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

 
Ancient Roman Crucifixion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archaeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus which was discovered in Jerusalem. It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.
The remains were found accidentally in an ossuary with the crucified man's name on it, 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol'. The ossuary contained a heel with a nail driven through its side, indicating that the heels may have been driven through the sides of the tree (one on the left side, one on the right side, and not with both feet together in front). The nail had olive wood on it indicating that he was crucified on a cross made of olivewood or on an olive tree. Since olive trees are not very tall, this would suggest that the condemned were crucified at eye level. Additionally, the piece of olive wood was located between the heel and the head of the nail, presumably to keep the condemned from freeing his foot by sliding it over the nail. His legs were found broken. It is thought that since in Roman times iron was expensive, the nails were removed from the dead body to cut the costs, which would help to explain why only one has been found, as the back of the nail was bent in such a way that it couldn't be removed.

[columbusdude82]

loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.

I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!

Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?

You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games You know perfectly well what I mean.

[Deicide]

loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.

I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!

Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?

You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games You know perfectly well what I mean.

Columbus dude, arguing with these people is like punching concrete; you're only going to break your hand and you will have gained nothing for it.

[loco]

loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.

I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!

Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?

You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games You know perfectly well what I mean.

No, I really thought you meant what you said, and I'm sure that so did MCWAY.

You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)

[columbusdude82]

Yes! If evidence for Jesus' resurrection existed, it would be taught in history classes!

Same for the virgin birth

That's a pretty important historical event, if it happened, of course.

Now where's the evidence?

Arguing that everything in the Bible is historically true because it references some things we know are historically true, is like arguing that the novel "Gone with the Wind" is historically true because it references the Civil War!

[loco]

Yes! If evidence for Jesus' resurrection existed, it would be taught in history classes!

Same for the virgin birth

That's a pretty important historical event, if it happened, of course.

Now where's the evidence?

Arguing that everything in the Bible is historically true because it references some things we know are historically true, is like arguing that the novel "Gone with the Wind" is historically true because it references the Civil War!

And the novel "Gone with the Wind" claims to be fact or fiction?

[MCWAY]

loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.

I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!

Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?

You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games You know perfectly well what I mean.

No word games are needed, Columbus. For starters, I already mentioned that, at present, we don't yet have historicity for "all the miracles", as you put it.

What you missed, however, and what I've pointed out is that we do have evidence for some of them. One of which, I mentioned before, is found in the book of Daniel. Daniel foretold that the Medes and Persians would overthrow Babylon (and that, while the empire was a joint one, the Persians would be slightly stronger). Guess what!!! It happened. He later stated that Greece would over throw the Medes and Persians. Check you history books to see if he got that right. He also mentioned something about the  "king of Grecia" having his empire split into the four winds. I wonder what ever became of that prophecy. The one that would follow the now divided Greek empire would be the most ruthless of the four. Check which empire follow Greece and see if their reputation for brutality is accurate or not.

And as Loco has so kindly reiterated, skeptics have claimed that the Bible's historical documentation has been false for centuries, only to have their claims refuted when archaelogical evidence supports what Scripture has to say. Every claim that Loco brought up was one that skeptics like you claimed was false or fabricated.

That hold especially true for books of the Bible with prophetic passage, related to world history. First, skeptics (before the evidence is unearth) claim the Bible’s account is false. But, once archaeological evidence shows that the Bible is right (and they can’t deny it), the skeptics revert to claiming that it was written after the fact, instead of beforehand.


Plus, your initial claim was not limited to "the miracles". So, when I or Loco give examples of what you claim doesn’t exist (historical and archaeological evidence that supports the Bible’s being true), you now switch to “I was talking about the miracles”.

To top it all off, your claim makes no sense. History classes have indeed taught about the birth of Jesus Christ. There have been historical debates about the validity of His birth from a virgin. But, to have such a debate, it would have to BE TAUGHT, in the first place.


 

[Butterbean]

Yes! If evidence for Jesus' resurrection existed, it would be taught in history classes!

Same for the virgin birth

That's a pretty important historical event, if it happened, of course.

Now where's the evidence?

Columbusdude, when subjects are taught in History Class, do you tend to believe them as true fact?

[columbusdude82]

MCWAY, you type a lot but don't say much.

I see a lot of words, but still no evidence for any resurrections or virgin births or miracles or stories of people flying...

Come back when you have some evidence

[MCWAY]

MCWAY, you type a lot but don't say much.

I see a lot of words, but still no evidence for any resurrections or virgin births or miracles or stories of people flying...

Come back when you have some evidence

You asked for evidence of "all the miracles". I stated before that I don't have that. What I presented was evidence supporting the miracles, of which I know.

When I did that, you (once again) pulled the old switcheroo, harping on what I didn't have.

But, that's to be expected. Skeptics have a habit of doing that. Once such evidence is found and the skeptical claims are shown to be false, it's off to another item.


And on that note, there's still the little matter of a simple question that you've yet to answer. Again, contrary to your previous claim, I do not desire a "fancy" answer. A simple "YES" or "NO" will do. If you wish to elaborate on why you picked "YES" or "NO" (based on info you do have, not on what you don't have), that's fine with me.

[Necrosis]

Columbusdude, when subjects are taught in History Class, do you tend to believe them as true fact?

when the history is of possible things, and can be verified by actual historians.  for example we know it is impossible to be born of  a virgin or walk on water, hence the story is a fairy tale. it takes a man and a women, sperm egg blah blah.. if it sounds fantastical like zeus throws lightning bolts from his cloud in the sky its probably fiction.

[Deicide]

You asked for evidence of "all the miracles". I stated before that I don't have that. What I presented was evidence supporting the miracles, of which I know.

When I did that, you (once again) pulled the old switcheroo, harping on what I didn't have.

But, that's to be expected. Skeptics have a habit of doing that. Once such evidence is found and the skeptical claims are shown to be false, it's off to another item.


And on that note, there's still the little matter of a simple question that you've yet to answer. Again, contrary to your previous claim, I do not desire a "fancy" answer. A simple "YES" or "NO" will do. If you wish to elaborate on why you picked "YES" or "NO" (based on info you do have, not on what you don't have), that's fine with me.

Mr. Biblical Maximist. You are a sophist and the only thing you know is ad hominems. Ask an archaeologist at Oxford, Berkley, Stanford, Yale or Harvard and they will tell you all about the Exodus that did not happen. Ask one at Liberty and they will tell you more than you need to know.

[Deicide]

Courtesy of a friend of mine, a very well informed man on archaeological matters concerning the bible:

What do we know about Merneptah?  We know he was already old when he came to the throne, perhaps 60.  He reigned for 10 years and spent most of that time fighting the Libyans and their Sea People allies.  Since Merneptah died c 1203 BC what this tells us is that the Sea Peoples were active in the region 50 years before Ramesses III finally defeated them and settled them, or allowed them to settle, on the southern coast of Canaan.  Egyptian influence was maintained in Canaan from their base at Beth Shean until the middle of the 12th century...right around the time that the Philistines settled in Canaan.  This can hardly be a coincidence.

As noted in Wikipedia:


Quote
Merneptah had to carry out several military campaigns during his reign, mainly fighting against the Libyans, who—with the assistance of the Sea Peoples—were threatening Egypt from the West. In the fifth year of his reign, Merneptah led a victorious six-hour battle in his fifth regnal year against a combined Libyan and Sea People force at the city of Perire, probably located on the western edge of the Delta. His account of this campaign against the Sea Peoples and Libu is described in prose on a wall beside the sixth pylon at Karnak and in poetic form in the Merneptah Stele, widely known as the Israel Stele, which makes reference to the supposed utter destruction of Israel during campaign in his 6th year in Canaan: "Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more." This is the first recognised ancient Egyptian record of the existence of Israel--"not as a country or city, but as a tribe" or people.


We'll get to the stele next.  Unfortunately, the whole thing has to be read to get the point and I rather doubt if most christian fuckwads bother because all those assholes care about is the "Israel" reference.

Here is a translation of the stele:


http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/finds/merneptah-translation.php

Look it over.  138 lines of this translation deal with Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans and their allies.

Here are the final 10 lines which, as I've said, is all that Fundie morons ever look at.


Quote
The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
 Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
 Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
 Yanoam made nonexistent;
 Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
 By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat, Given life like Re every day

Tjehenu is the Egyptian word for Libya.  Khatti are the Hittites.  Canaan we know.
Ashkelon is a Canaanite town as was Gezer. Yanoam was a Canaanite town in Galilee.
So the question rises as to why Merneptah, having already told us that Canaan is "captive with all woe" goes on to specifically deal with those three towns?
THEN we get the "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" line that causes Fundies to cum in their pants.
Khor (a region of Southern Syria) is a "widow" for Egypt?

Now, Merneptah has just spent 138 lines telling us how he overcame the Tjehenu (Libyans.)  He did not campaign against the Hittites...in fact the Hittites were about to go down to the Sea Peoples themselves so the notion that they were "at peace" seems stunningly incorrect.  Perhaps he means only that they were "at peace" with Egypt?  This makes sense as the Egyptians were also fighting the Sea People and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not a new concept.

Also, and this is very important, note that Merneptah never says that he campaigned in Canaan.  He was not shy about telling us about his exploits in battle against the Libyans?  Why would he suddenly be reticent about bragging of his conquest of Canaan?  In fact, he didn't have to conquer Canaan.  Canaan had been under Egyptian hegemony since Ahmose the first in 1500ish BC.  If he had suppressed rebellions why would he not say that he had put down rebellions?

I submit that in modern parlance, if you will, that the last 10 lines of the stele read like an "after-action" report.  His country has just won a major war with Libya and Merneptah is recounting the victories and the losses. 

Libya is defeated.  (Yay...I won.)  We are at peace with the Hittites.  We still hold Canaan but Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam have been sacked and burned.  Israel (a people not a place) is laid waste (but again, there is not a single word that says "I (Merneptah) did it."  Khor is a 'widow' for Egypt?  That last line throws me but it could be a loose translation or simply to imply that Egypt could no longer assert control of that part of Syria.  I don't know.  And then, the kicker..."all who roamed have been subdued."  Well, who roamed?  Answer:  The Sea People who played such an important part in his war against the Libyans. So it does not seem impossible that while the Egyptians and Libyans battled it out in the Western desert that their Sea People allies were the ones who launched the attacks on Canaan, burning Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam in the process.  Local Egyptian and whatever Canaanite forces they could have raised would have been hard pressed to stop them.  Further, it also seems reasonable that once their senior Libyan partners had been defeated the Sea People, who were basically pirates, would have broken off the attack before the full weight of the Egyptians could have been brought against them.  THAT seems like sound military strategy.

So, let's finally deal with "Israel."

First off, consider this comment from Hazelrigg, in the center of the page from Acharya's Christ Conspiracy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KnIYRi3upbEC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=issa+ra+el&source=web&ots=b7MtmZoHUc&sig=YdV9fWJXttsYGvQpodvbCUeqZ6w

Issa + Ra + El  = Israel
Issa = Isis, wife of Osiris
Ra = Egyptian Chief God
El = Canaanite chief god.

As noted, Egypt had control of Canaan for centuries and they continued to control it for another 50 years.  Is it so outrageous to think that some sort of syncretism hadn't occured in which the Egyptian gods of Isis and Ra were worshipped along with the local honcho, El?  Four centuries is a hell of a long time for cultural cross-pollination to take place.  So the reference to the people (remember there is no reference to a nation) of "Israel" could simply be a way of referring to the population of the whole area as the land of Is(sa) Ra and El, that would include Khor and Canaan. In much the same sort of shorthand way that we refer to the United States of America as simply "America." 

The point of this whole dissertation is that Fundie shitwads jump to an awful lot of conclusions based on one word...or maybe it was 3 words run together.  Archaeologist, Bill Dever, regards early iron age denizens of the region as proto-israelites and that is a century after Merneptah.  Israel Finkelstein will not even go that far.  Who is to say that when the Northern kingdom coalesced, in the 10th century, that they did not simply adopt the usage of the Egyptian period which must have seemed like a Golden Age to them by then.  There is not a single other reference to Israel until the Mesha stele, which  dates to around 850 BC by which time the name was clearly in use.  It's a long time from 1210 to 850.  Where the hell were they for that whole time period?

In any case...Merneptah does not claim to have conquered Israel.  Moreover, he was apparently so distressed with the  "victory" attained by other Egyptian units that he gives it scant coverage.  Kind of like Bush glossing over the 4,000 GIs killed in his unsuccessful hunt for Bin Laden.

[MMC78]

Columbusdude, when subjects are taught in History Class, do you tend to believe them as true fact?

Some things taught in history classes are not necessarily true fact.  There are many events for which we only know part of the story, the sacking of the library of Alexandria, the life of this Yeshua guy you're all obsessed with, etc.

Most of history is verified by first hand accounts and reliable documentation, however some of history is speculative without first hand accounts, written ex post facto, etc.  The life of your messiah fits into the latter category.

No first hand accounts, no written accounts at all until decades after his supposed death.  Many forgeries  with Josephus's being the most prominent.

[Deicide]

Some things taught in history classes are not necessarily true fact.  There are many events for which we only know part of the story, the sacking of the library of Alexandria, the life of this Yeshua guy you're all obsessed with, etc.

Most of history is verified by first hand accounts and reliable documentation, however some of history is speculative without first hand accounts, written ex post facto, etc.  The life of your messiah fits into the latter category.

No first hand accounts, no written accounts at all until decades after his supposed death.  Many forgeries  with Josephus's being the most prominent.

Don't mention Josephus; MCWAY hates to acknowledge that it is a forgery. In fact he flat out denies it.

[loco]

Many forgeries  with Josephus's being the most prominent.

Josephus, a forgery?  That is false.

Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date. - Antiquities xviii. 33

Josephus on Jesus - Testimonium Flavianum - Arabic Version
 
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
 
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.

Don't mention Josephus; MCWAY hates to acknowledge that it is a forgery. In fact he flat out denies it.

Back to outdated conspiracy theories about Josephus forgeries, are we?

Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate

Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:

Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.

Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416

Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As
Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.

1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus
into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the
high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the
report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man;
for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high
priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long
time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high
priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you
already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper,
and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23)
who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of
the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus
was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper
opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some
of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but
as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and
such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa],
desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for
that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey
from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for
Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24)
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in
anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to
punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and
made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus - Book 20, Chapter 9
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=648

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic by the majority of scholars.
Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.

[Butterbean]

No first hand accounts,

MMC78, have you ever read the book of John?

[Deicide]

MMC78, have you ever read the book of John?

John is not a first hand account; get with the times.

Date
Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars. Justin Martyr quoted from the gospel of John, which would also support that the Gospel was in existence by at least the middle of the second century,[17] and the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated between 125 and 160 CE.[18]

The traditional view is supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other gospels (Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This would place the writing of John's gospel sufficiently after the writing of the synoptics.

Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eye-witness (John 13:23ff, 18:10, 18:15, 19:26–27, 19:34, 20:8, 20:24–29), sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70. Barrett suggests an earliest date of 90, based on familiarity with Mark’s gospel, and the late date of a synagogue expulsion of Christians (which is a theme in John).[19] Morris suggests 70, given Qumran parallels and John’s turns of phrase, such as "his disciples" vs. "the disciples".[20] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[21]

There are critical scholars who are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50–70?) and culminating in a final text around 95–100. This date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple", supposedly the leader of the Johannine community that would have produced the text. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around 90–100 is reasonable.

Wanting to believe that the author of John was an eyewitness is just that, wanting to believe; there is no evidence for it.

[MCWAY]

Don't mention Josephus; MCWAY hates to acknowledge that it is a forgery. In fact he flat out denies it.

Once again, you display your rather short memory, as well as your gift for posting the inaccurate, Trapezkerl.

I made my stance on Josephus quite clear. To recap: The issue was with regards to the portions of the Testimonium that mentioned Jesus Christ. It’s in two languages: Greek and Arabic. When Loco first posed the Greek version, he made it clear that the interpolations (the parts added by Christian editors) from the first passage that mentions Jesus were in brackets. I later brought up the fact that, the Arabic version DID NOT contain those interpolations; but it still mentioned Jesus Christ, by name. That’s one of the reasons we can say that the portions in the Greek that mention Christ’s divinity were added to the original.

The interpolations emphasized Christ’s deity. Unfortunately for your argument at that time, the issue being discussed then wasn’t Jesus’ divinity but His simple existence and references to such, outside the New Testament. Again, we saw the famous skeptic shuffle, as demonstrated by you. First, you claimed that there were NO references to Jesus outside the Bible. Loco and I easily refuted that one. Then you claim that Josephus was the lone source of extra-Biblical references to Jesus. Of course, with both of us having mentioned multiple sources, to counter your first claim, your second claim rendered itself even more dubious.

Then came your plea that every source mentioned was a forgery, with a slew of ridiculous and readily refutable conspiracy theories about how such came to be.

Back to Josephus, you claimed that the addition of Jesus Christ’s name was a forgery. Loco and I asked to support that statement by producing a copy of the Testimonium that DID NOT mention Jesus Christ at all, which (of course) you didn’t. Every known copy of the Testimonium (in multiple languages) has the name of Jesus Christ mentioned in them.

So, your claim (and that of MMC78) of forgery is somewhat weak.

[MCWAY]

Some things taught in history classes are not necessarily true fact.  There are many events for which we only know part of the story, the sacking of the library of Alexandria, the life of this Yeshua guy you're all obsessed with, etc.

Most of history is verified by first hand accounts and reliable documentation, however some of history is speculative without first hand accounts, written ex post facto, etc.  The life of your messiah fits into the latter category.

So does the life of one Alexander the Great. Most of the works, known to man, that document his life and times, date at least 200 years after his death. The most significant work, documenting his life and activities (Anabasis of Alexander, written by Arrian) was penned nearly 400 years after Alex’s death. Like many historians, Arrian had access to historical documents that have long since been lost or destroyed.

Compare that to the documents that mention the existence of Jesus Christ. The gap is much closer (even if you use the later dates of the Gospels’ composition, given by liberal Bible scholars). Between the New Testament (using the dates of traditional Bible scholars), the works of Josephus, and other items, we have historical verification of Jesus’ within 100 years of his lifetime.

Basically, the historical verification of someone’s existence is not exclusively or predominantly dependent on first-hand accounts. Otherwise, our history books would be in scant supply.

No first hand accounts, no written accounts at all until decades after his supposed death.  Many forgeries  with Josephus's being the most prominent.

I refer you to my post to Trapezkerl. While the Greek version of the Testimonium has such interpolations (easily identified and usually put in brackets, when this work of Josephus is being referenced), the Arabic version has no such interpolations. And every known copy of the Testimonium makes reference to Jesus Christ.

Plus, there are two passages that mention Christ. The second (and much-shorter one) simply mentions Christ to identify James.

One has to pose the question to the skeptics who claim that the references to Christ are forgeries why exactly (in the Greek version, at least) the interpolators went through such effort to mention Jesus’ divinity in one passage but not the other.

In other words, why wasn’t James identified in the smaller passage as “the Lord’s brother”, as Paul called him in the New Testament, instead of  “, “….James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”?

That would suggest that, regardless of the interpolations, the reference to the simple existence of Jesus Christ were already in Josephus’ Testimonium.

[Butterbean]

John is not a first hand account; get with the times.

Wanting to believe that the author of John was an eyewitness is just that, wanting to believe; there is no evidence for it.

Sorry but a quote from a source that states a bunch of maybes from a bunch of different people isn't going to convince me that John was not an eyewitness.

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down....

[MMC78]

So does the life of one Alexander the Great.

I'm glad you brought him up.  Alexander the great was worshipped as a diety in ancient Egypt.  There are history books and second hand accounts describing his divinity.  I expect you will start worshipping him at any moment.

Basically, the historical verification of someone’s existence is not exclusively or predominantly dependent on first-hand accounts. Otherwise, our history books would be in scant supply.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm not debating the existence of a historical Jesus.  He may have existed, however the historical evidence for supernatural and miraculous events is no more reliable than Alexander's claim to divinity.

I refer you to my post to Trapezkerl.

I don't think we'll ever agree on the authenticity of these passages.

[columbusdude82]

Sorry but a quote from a source that states a bunch of maybes from a bunch of different people isn't going to convince me that John was not an eyewitness.

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down....

Stella, read the introduction to Robinson Crusoe.

[MCWAY]

I'm glad you brought him up.  Alexander the great was worshipped as a diety in ancient Egypt.  There are history books and second hand accounts describing his divinity.  I expect you will start worshipping him at any moment.

He was far from the first king to be worshipped as a deity. What's your point? Sorry to disappoint you, but I'll stick to worshipping the God, who told a certain Hebrew in Babylon, how and when Alexander would come to power, when he would die, and how his empire would be split (if it's all the same to you).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm not debating the existence of a historical Jesus.  He may have existed, however the historical evidence for supernatural and miraculous events is no more reliable than Alexander's claim to divinity.

I'm aware of that. This stems from a discussion I had with Trapezkerl, who claimed there was no extra-Biblical references to the existence of Jesus Christ. As for Alex's claim to divinity, his early death and subsequent division of his kingdom pretty much puts an end to his divinity claims. Jesus, on the other hand, has historical evidence supporting His divinity, namely:

- His prediction of the Temple being destroyed within one generation, which happened about 40 years after His death, resurrection, and ascension, courtesy of Titus.

- The works of both Tacitus and Josephus: Tacitus states that Christians were followers of Christ, who was put to death by Pilate. The "superstition", as he called was suppressed for a time but re-emerged. Josephus reports that the disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead.

The disciples saw Jesus die; they ran and hid, fearing for their lives. And when the women reported Jesus' resurrection, the disciples didn't believe it at first. Some didn't believe it, even when the other disciples (who saw Jesus face-to-face) told them of what occurred. And, there's the most famous "skeptic" of them all, Thomas, who would not believe, until He saw each of Jesus' wounds and touched them himself.

If you can think of an event, other than the Resurrection, that can explain what turned the fear and dread of the disciples into boldness and zeal to preach the Gospel (even at the cost of their very lives), I'm all ears (especially considering that producing Jesus' dead body would have easily killed Christianity, before it ever got started).

I don't think we'll ever agree on the authenticity of these passages.

Which passages would that be, The Greek or Arabic version of the Testimonium? My point was that, for the claim that the references to Jesus Christ are forgeries to be valid, you have to produce a copy of the Testimonium that contains no references to Jesus Christ, whatsoever.

With only one of the two passages in the Greek version (and neither passage in the Arabic version) giving such a flowery description, regarding Jesus' divinity, the charge that the references to Christ are forgeries are weak. That's why I've stated that Josephus is a good historical reference to Jesus Christ, IF the topic is His mere existence.

[Deicide]

He was far from the first king to be worshipped as a deity. What's your point? Sorry to disappoint you, but I'll stick to worshipping the God, who told a certain Hebrew in Babylon, how and when Alexander would come to power, when he would die, and how his empire would be split (if it's all the same to you).

I'm aware of that. This stems from a discussion I had with Trapezkerl, who claimed there was no extra-Biblical references to the existence of Jesus Christ. As for Alex's claim to divinity, his early death and subsequent division of his kingdom pretty much puts an end to his divinity claims. Jesus, on the other hand, has historical evidence supporting His divinity, namely:

- His prediction of the Temple being destroyed within one generation, which happened about 40 years after His death, resurrection, and ascension, courtesy of Titus.

- The works of both Tacitus and Josephus: Tacitus states that Christians were followers of Christ, who was put to death by Pilate. The "superstition", as he called was suppressed for a time but re-emerged. Josephus reports that the disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead.

The disciples saw Jesus die; they ran and hid, fearing for their lives. And when the women reported Jesus' resurrection, the disciples didn't believe it at first. Some didn't believe it, even when the other disciples (who saw Jesus face-to-face) told them of what occurred. And, there's the most famous "skeptic" of them all, Thomas, who would not believe, until He saw each of Jesus' wounds and touched them himself.

If you can think of an event, other than the Resurrection, that can explain what turned the fear and dread of the disciples into boldness and zeal to preach the Gospel (even at the cost of their very lives), I'm all ears (especially considering that producing Jesus' dead body would have easily killed Christianity, before it ever got started).

Which passages would that be, The Greek or Arabic version of the Testimonium? My point was that, for the claim that the references to Jesus Christ are forgeries to be valid, you have to produce a copy of the Testimonium that contains no references to Jesus Christ, whatsoever.

With only one of the two passages in the Greek version (and neither passage in the Arabic version) giving such a flowery description, regarding Jesus' divinity, the charge that the references to Christ are forgeries are weak. That's why I've stated that Josephus is a good historical reference to Jesus Christ, IF the topic is His mere existence.

Josephus, who covers the entire history of the region for the first few decades, has nothing more than a few lines to write about the most influential 'man' of all time? Why does he only have a couple of sentences? Why in general is there pitifully little biographical information on Jesus? Where does he go for about 20 years between his appearance in the Gospels and his 'childhood'?

BTW, you never got back to me on Nazareth, which according to the best archaeology didn't exist until the 3rd century CE.

I have no problem doubting Alexander's existence. Nothing hinges on his existence; perhaps it was multiple people generaling about. Who knows? Much less hinges on that. You are right, we lack the evidence for Alexander that we have for example for a Julius Caesar.