OK, now I can answer... Again, I am speaking of Christian worship/organization activity. Obviously, the gospels pre-date 250, but they do not represent what I am talking about. 1. Anyone can be a biblical archaeologist. In fact, it is often just code for "not trained." There are many out there who were doing something completely unrelated and then decide that they want to be archaeologists. 2. Unlike MacBeth seems to be asserting, their methods are both inconsitent and often unreliable (MacB, how can you say they go trying to disprove the Bible when they often use it as the foundation where and for what to look). Often since they are not educated they will use methods that make no sense and would never be accepted by real scholars. For example, I once read a work by a guy who "interpreted" Egyptian hieroglyphs to mean something (to support something from the bible - can't remember what) instead of actually learning vocabulary, grammar, etc and actually reading the damn things. He, of course, came up with something completely wrong. There are no standards, there is no organization, and research/digs are often done illegally. 3. There have been cases of fabrication. 4. Academic archaeology may not always be correct, but it is the closest. There are constant re-evaluation projects going on to check the work of previous digs, there is a much stronger preservation streak (as opposed to diggin up and looting), and they are the ones that have credentials (and accountability). One of the best in the field of Egyptology, Mark Lehner, started out through a kind of religious institution. They paid for him to go to Egypt where he was smart enough to discover that everything they had been saying was wrong (because they were not educated) so he went back to the US and got his PhD, returned to Egypt, and now has been making huge finds and works very hard to combat biblical archaeologists. 5. I am an academic so am a horrible, biased person.
Just to clarify pgabriel, most people that consider themselves Christians believe "leading a Christian life" cannot earn you a pass into heaven. God's law requires a death judgement on anyone who "sins". We believe that Jesus' death was the only one considered acceptable to God to be used to fulfill the blood sentence for whichever "sinners" Jesus chose. Because He chose everyone, all anyone had to do to receive it was believe that not only did He do it, but He was qualified to do it. That's the pass. The physical resurrection proves His qualifications.
That's a pretty strange definition of "Christian life" because the Gospels were clearly records (or stories, depending how serious you take them) of the very origin of Christianity. That is the most biased assertion I've seen in this thread. Have you ever met a biblical archaeologist? Are you aware of the fact that there are "non-believing biblical archaeologists"? Have you ever visited a theological school? Have you read any academic biblical archaeology literature? I'm sure there are untrained "biblical archaeologists" out there. But to assert that ALL bibical archaeologists are bogus is a HUGE jump to conclusion. It's like after watching Bruce Bowen shoot free throw, you concluded you were a better ft shooter than any NBA player. Same kind of reasoning as 1. and 2. Glad you see that.
Ugh...you are completely missing the point. My point is not even a negative one (in regards to Christianity). I can't say any more to clarify than I already have, so I won't. Ugh, p II. Questions: yes, yes, yes, yes. Now read below. I am not, I am just pointing out that, because of the inconsistencies and problems within, I trust academics - as a whole - over biblical - as a whole.
OK, I misunderstood your claim . . . but that's your fault. You seemed to make sweeping statements about ALL biblical archaeologists. Even with your qualification, I still think your dichotomizing "biblical archaeology" from "academic archaeology" is wrong. But I'll agree to disagree.
Deity... You make me sick. Mad Max - If they only evidence of the resurrection are the gospels, then I will have to say that I don't believe.
To me, the best evidence of the resurrection is Christianity itself. It could never have gotten off the ground without it. And I echo MadMax: Few historians debate whether Jesus existed. Most debate who he was.
Few historians debate whether Jesus existed MacBeth, since you are a historian, do you think the above statement is accurate? I suspect that most historians chose not to debate this issue, due to the unending grieve that they will catch. But I do not think that was the above point. I still think that most secualr historians who likely say that they just do not know, one way or the other. Since you can not prove that Jesus did not exist, this implies that the historical record of Jesus (the scant little that there is) is not conclusive that Jesus ever existed.
NW, It is definitely a minority that argue no Jesus existing (NHJ), however, there has been a proliferation of that argument in the last 5 years and it really didn't exist until maybe 10 years ago (as an academic argument). Here is a site that has a few of the bigger names accross the spectrum - 6 of the 25 it lists make a NHJ argument.
No Worries, I'm not a historian, so I'll let MacBeth answer your question. But I would think it very unlikely that a whole religion would take off with a phantom founder. There isn't much historical evidence of Gotama's existence outside of Budhist sources either. But I don't doubt that he was a real historical person. The contrary just doesn't make much sense. If you compare the foundational belief of Budhism and Christianity, Jesus' nonexistence is even less likely than Gotama's because while Budhism is grounded on the IDEA of Gotama, Christianity is grounded on the PERSON of Jesus.
If you take a look at the religions of that the time, some were based on mythical characters: Dionysos, Apollo, ... The argument about creating a religion without a historic founder is a bit weak.
But how many of the listed historians/authors are secular? Looking at the comments on the authors on the link you gave, many of the authors start off with listing the Bible as a historically accurate document. There is scant little secular historic record of Jesus, most of which is believed by many to be "transcription errors" by Christian scribes. And there is no historic record that is comptemporary with Jesus' life. None. Zippo. Nada. Even contemporary historians who should have mentioned Jesus did not. See link : There was living in the same time with Jesus a great Jewish scholar by the name of Philo. He was an Alexandrian Jew, and he visited Jerusalem while Jesus was teaching and working miracles in the holy city. Yet Philo in all his works never once mentions Jesus. A compelling argument can be made that a religion based on a historic founder must have then had a historic founder. But this is a knife that cuts both ways. The earliest NT writings, Paul's letters, do not mention a historic Jesus who had recently lived and died who born a virgin in a manger in Bethlehem who grew up in Nazareth/Galilee who was baptised by John the Baptist who worked miracles who was an ethical teacher who was tried by Pilate who died in Jerusalem etc. All of this does not rule out the possibility of a historic Jesus. It just makes the argument of one very difficult.
Yes, but all those religions treated the mythical characters as such. And none of these religions were from the Jewish context, which was stubbornly monotheistic. Christianity, on the other hand was based soley on the claim that Jesus died and rose again, and that he was "God became man." Such a claim was totally foreign from Judaism and presumed the belief of a real human person. Paul did state clearly that the resurrection was absolutely essential for the Christian faith. (1 Cor. 15) He was not talking about some sort of "spiritual awakening" type of resurrection. He pointed out eyewitnesses (people who actually saw the person of Jesus) who were still alive at the time of his writing. He then went on to talk about the nature of the "resurrected body." He clearly believed in the bodily resurrection of a real human being and staked this as the "make or break" doctrine of the whole religion.
I only want to say, If there is a way, Take this cup away from me For I don't want to taste its poison. Feel it burn me, I have changed. I'm not as sure, as when we started. Then, I was inspired. Now, I'm sad and tired. Listen, surely I've exceeded expectations, Tried for three years, seems like thirty. Could you ask as much from any other man? But if I die, See the saga through and do the things you ask of me, Let them hate me, hit me, hurt me, nail me to their tree. I'd want to know, I'd want to know, My God, I'd want to know, I'd want to know, My God, Want to see, I'd want to see, My God, Want to see, I'd want to see, My God, Why I should die. Would I be more noticed than I ever was before? Would the things I've said and done matter any more? I'd have to know, I'd have to know, my Lord, Have to know, I'd have to know, my Lord, Have to see, I'd have to see, my Lord, Have to see, I'd have to see, my Lord, If I die what will be my reward? If I die what will be my reward? Have to know, I'd have to know, my Lord, I'd have to know, I'd have to know, my Lord, Why should I die? Oh why should I die? Can you show me now that I would not be killed in vain? Show me just a little of your omnipresent brain. Show me there's a reason for your wanting me to die. You're far to keen and where and how, but not so hot on why. Alright, I'll die! Just watch me die! See how I die! Then I was inspired. Now, I'm sad and tired. After all, I've tried for three years, seems like ninety. Why then am I scared to finish what I started, What you started - I didn't start it. God, thy will is hard, But you hold every card. I will drink your cup of poison. Nail me to your cross and break me, Bleed me, beat me, Kill me. Take me, now! Before I change my mind.
Yeah. Did you see Discovery Channel backed away from the documentary? I've yet to read something positive about their "findings" from any scientist from any discipline, other than the guys they hired for the show, itself. I still don't understand why they didn't test the other DNA in all the ossuaries if they really wanted to understand what was going on. They stopped with 2 and then jumped to a conclusion.
Max, they said there was not enough material in the other ossuaries to do DNA testing easily. They said the ossuaries other than the Jesus and Mary Magdalene ones looked as if they had been swept clean. The director of the documentary was practically begging that more powerful DNA testing be done on the other ossuaries.
