Written histories were a little hard to come by back then, which is why it took almost 800 years for the Greeks to write down the epic poems of Homer.

Such a sharp contrast to today's era, where a small multitude of reporters flock to the scene every time Paris Hilton scratches her butt.

Excellent point….whereas the New Testament books were written starting as little as 30 years from the time of Christs death and resurrection.

Consider the following:

Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of Copies

Caesar 100-44 BC AD 900 1000 years 10

Plato 427-347 BC AD 900 1200 Years 7

Tacitus AD 100 AD 1100 1000 y 20

Thucydides 460-400 BC AD 900 1300 y 8

Herodotus 384-322 BC AD 900 1200 y 8

Aristotle 450-385 BC AD 900 1300 y 49

Homer (Illiad) 900 BC 400 BC 500 y 643

New Testament AD 40-100 AD 125 25 Years 24000

Historians have a high degree of certainty that Julius Caesar destroyed Gaul…Why? Because we possess 10 manuscripts of his writings on the Gallic Wars. We know that Socrates lived and taught, and was executed by drinking hemlock. Why? Because we possess 7 manuscripts of Plato's Tetralogies in which he documents the death of his mentor.

Only the Illiad ranks anywhere near the NT for manuscript testimony.

So why does it seem like all those other books are perfectly reliable historical records, and the NT is described by some as lacking evidence?

Umm, the Illiad is a work of literature, not a historical tract. The New Testament details the life of a man claiming to be the Hebrew Messiah, or claimed so by his disciples. Born of a virgin, he sacrified his life for humankind's sins, then arose three days later, and ascended in physical form to Heaven. Quite the story which is why some, like me, ask for more historical backup regarding these events. Would be very much interested in a text that details Christ's life, and works written in chronological concurrence with that life.

OK…so you picked out one book….do you deny the historical accuracy of the rest of them? The Gallic Wars? The works of Heroditus?

And Jesus was active for 40 days following his resurrection. The disciples all died rather horrible deaths for saying that he rose from the dead…can you think of a reason that people would willingly go to their deaths for a lie?

Would the Romans have benefitted from saying that Jesus rose from the dead? Or, do you think that they recognized it for the political nightmare it was, as well as the embarrassment that it would have been? That a group of unarmed Israelites somehow managed to come into the graveyard, overcome an entire troop of elite Roman soldiers and then rolled a 1 and 1/2 ton stone uphill and removed the body?

My point was that the Bible is extremely historically accurate, and yet many scholars try to discredit it as less than accurate…with no particular way to back up the assertion.

OK…so you picked out one book….do you deny the historical accuracy of the rest of them? The Gallic Wars? The works of Heroditus?

And Jesus was active for 40 days following his resurrection. The disciples all died rather horrible deaths for saying that he rose from the dead…can you think of a reason that people would willingly go to their deaths for a lie?

Would the Romans have benefitted from saying that Jesus rose from the dead? Or, do you think that they recognized it for the political nightmare it was, as well as the embarrassment that it would have been? That a group of unarmed Israelites somehow managed to come into the graveyard, overcome an entire troop of elite Roman soldiers and then rolled a 1 and 1/2 ton stone uphill and removed the body?

My point was that the Bible is extremely historically accurate, and yet many scholars try to discredit it as less than accurate…with no particular way to back up the assertion.

Somewhere in an "undisclosed location", former Vice President Richard "****" Cheney is busy writing his autobiography, in which he will state unequivocably that the Iraq War was all about stopping the spread of global terrorism, and that Saddam Hussein and GreenPeace liberals were fully behind the 9/11 attacks. Just like Julius Caesar and Herotodus, it will be his take on history. Unless you have many other accounts to corraborate them, a lone account (especially one from a man with the power to execute any who contradict him), is a best a source of doubtful veracity. That's the main problem with ancient histories, there weren't enough of them written at the time they were occuring.

We can't even get an accurate account of the Persian army that marched on Thermopylae, and that was in an "enlightened country" with a scholarly tradition.

The Old Testament is especially bad in that respect, since the stories that comprise it were handed down for hundreds of generations before being recorded, and were them rewritten several times at the whims of whoever had the power to do so. Ancient people were hugely superstitious, blaming every unfortunate thing on the deity of the day being angry with them over some perceived transgression. The priests of Ba'al got a lot of play with that before the "God of Abraham" arrived on the scene. Pacific Islanders believed that the volcano gods would destroy them if they didn't sacrifice virgins, yada, yada, yada.

Did God really destroy Sodom and Gommorah for their "sinful ways" or were they merely unlucky enough to live in the immediate vicinity of a volcanic vent?

At least the New Testament was written down fairly soon after it happened, but there are still contradictions in the gospels, and a lot of accounts have been buried or rewritten for the good of the order.

I am not convinced of your argument that the Bible is historically accurate, and if you want a good example of people giving their lives for a lie, there is no more startling example than the individuals that flew the airplanes into the buildings on 911, fully expecting their 72 virgins as they entered paradise. They did not view their text as a lie, but many others, myself and possibly yourself do. Do you understand my point?

Further, the other works you quoted are viewed as subjective accounts; the best we have, but not much beyond that. And as for using the alleged authors of the New Testament as proof of that text, I find that argument lacking, and must agree to disagree with you on that point.

If I haven't made my point clearly here, perhaps I never may. I am not trying here to cause offense, but offer an argument with as much eloquence as I can. If I have not, it is my failure.

What I have underlined above may be one of the reasons that you are having difficulty. The people you are referring to gave their lives for a book that tells them that they get something cool like a bunch of virgins…( Actually, other translations have found that the word was actually meant to be "wine"…go figure) . The disciples of Christ had no such thoughts. They were told to give everything away, live off what others would give them, and tell everyone what Christ had done and said. What they did NOT do however, was run into the nearest building full of people in order to blow themselves up. They did not want to die, but did so regardless of the personal sacrifice. The terrorists, on the other hand, believed that they would be given reward after reward in the afterlife, and that their families would be rewarded as well, monetarily as well as socially. Therein lies the difference.

Well they couldn't exactly write this stuff down, except in secret letters to different secret churches, for fear of being punished by either Rome or the Jewish hierarchy. There would not be many different sources, because all of the spoken and stored sparse text would have been compiled into one book, when one could do so. The Bible itself, regardless of "cannon" or not is a bunch of different accounts, letters, and memoirs combined into one book. The major difference between this and other taboo historical accounts is that instead of having a manuscript from one person, we have manuscripts from many, whether vocally or not; and through many people of the time who compiled these works.

Certainly it is indisputable that Jesus did live as much as it is indisputable that Rome existed. The difference is that there was much freedom in writing the history of Rome (as long as it was good or just fact anyway), but the biblical accounts there were not. Whether Jesus was resurrected or whether Jesus ascended can be debated as well as anything else, but if that is the only reason keeping someone from faith, then the faith would never be truly obtained anyway. What's the point anyway? If something is disproved in the Bible, then it will be argued that humans recorded and wrote things and it wasn't the Hand of Divinity. But also, if something is proven than that adds credence to the Bible.

It may not be fair, but people will believe what they want to believe regardless of debate. Debates are only good for one on the fence that can see both perspective of the arguments and generally speaking, religion is one of things that a person sees only one side of. Whether you are a Christian or a Jew, you may well know that the Bible will contain both inaccurate and accurate historical accounts.

To the point. Even if you were to believe that the Bible was in general a faithful recording of historical events and there were other texts to support this, then the Resurrection (or Ascension) of Jesus would still be debated anyway. It really doesn't matter, because to the Christians out there, it isn't about the book itself, but the messages from God and faith, but to disbelievers it isn't the messages from God and faith, but what is or isn't proven fact. Having Faith and having Fact are totally different things, and pure proven Fact would undermine the plan that God's followers must have faith.

And that is why you can debate either side until the end of time.

True…very true….if you're not on the fence, but solidly where you believe is right, then no amount of proof would make you change your mind….I suppose that's why I asked that people ask questions, but not argue….no one can possibly win an argument like that…

About ten years ago, I attended the Unity Church, which my mom used to refer to as "The Church of What's Happening Now". Unity considers itself a Christian church in that it bases much of its teachings on the teachings of Christ. At the same time, the church doctrine of Unity Church says that any path to God is a good path to God. At the time, that is what drew me to Unity – that "all paths" thing, as well as their acceptance of any lifestyle, sexual preference, etc., as a valid one who was welcomed to be members of the church. I have always felt that these things are self-evident – that people are welcome to choose a path to God and live in they way that they choose without judgment.

While I was a member at Unity, I wound up in a ton of conversations with people who knew I was attending there telling me that my chosen "Christian Church" wasn't the right one, and that if I continued to attend, I would go to Hell. These conversations were brought about in "concern for my soul."

This is why I have been unable be a part of a Christian church (including Unity – there are some pretty bad experiences that I had there that I don't wish to get into right now). While I was raised in the church, I have always been "different" from those who attended. I am a questioner. I believe that, if there is a God, being a questioner is the way that God made me. Even as a kid in a pretty darn liberal church (United Church of Christ), my questions weren't terribly welcomed. I have trouble reconciling my experiences in the church over the years. I do attend a local Methodist church occasionally now (mostly because of music). I told one of the people there that while I wanted to believe, I wasn't sure I did. That didn't go over so well.

I'm not trying to argue here really – just kind of relaying my experience with the church, which has been bewildering. I know it isn't necessarily Christianity or the church where I find the judgment, it is with individuals. But I do have difficulty reconciling my experiences with the churches I have attended – especially Unity. Turns out the most "non-judgmental" church might have wound up being the most judgmental of them all in terms of people who attended.

I live in a super small, relatively conservative town where going to church is part of the fabric of the town. I mostly have learned to keep quiet, except with a few people that I can trust. Jim – who is probably closer to atheist than agnostic (which is what I am, I guess) is often uncomfortable in sharing his views with anyone.

I even have some family members who don't accept well where I am belief-wise. And yet, I am a decent person. I give to charity. I volunteer. I am a hard worker. I am seeking ways to use my life in a manner that lifts others up. I go out of my way to smile at people and be kind to them. Surely, as I have been told by others, a loving God won't forsake me because He gave me a mind that questions everything and has to break everything down? Jim is a good person. He is a great father, an amazing husband, a terrific stepfather and a hard worker. He is kind, and he is generous. God gave him an open mind. Surely God wouldn't kick him out of heaven because he is using the mind that God gave him.

It is my difficulty with the church and something I have never, ever been able to reconcile. I am who I am because, if you believe in God, this is what God gifted me with to work with. Why then, when I used those gifts would that keep me out of Heaven?

Wow! Thanks for telling me….my experiences were much the same. I grew up in the church, and was also a "questioner". When I was a teenager, I was embarrassed by the pastor of a local church because I had a shirt on that he thought was apparently showing to much chest hair…LOL!!! It was the 80's after all, and v'necks were IN!!

The point is, that I went no more. To ANY church. I went the way of Dawkins. Choosing to believe that there was only people, and that was enough. It took me years to figure out that there were some things that science could not ever answer. Period. It may try to, but there was no way…they would come up with the old standby's of "we think" and "Maybe" and "It's possible"….all of it meant to sound authoritative, and designed to stop questions. That's when I started reading about Intelligent Design and getting a few of the books by Lee Stroebel. In the end, it was science that brought me back to theology.

IMHO, God made us to question all. Heck, I think that's part of the plan…after all, what else would we do if we didn't question everything? Seriously! What? We would sit around all day doing nothing, and achieving nothing, because it would never occur to us to question why we were doing nothing….

If you truly want to find another church, keep shopping around. One bad experience turned me off for over 20 years….but the church I go to now is AWESOME! We welcome the questioners…heck, I'm even starting a class just for those of us whom like to question everything…it will show the scientific proof, historical proof…all that good stuff. Because like it or not, everyone has questions. LOL!! I remember asking the pastor something one day..(This impressed the poop out of me BTW )…he looked at me, and in the funniest way, shrugged, and said "Heck if I know". There's nothing better than a group of people who aren't perfect. We like to say that if you think you're perfect, get out…because you'll ruin the mix! /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wacko:' />