It's interesting to see you cite Bart Ehrman. Here is a quote from his book Misquoting Jesus (p. 10) talking about the books of the bible: Presumably this helps to explain these. And makes most of the Bible pretty much useless as a source of information.
Here is another link regarding "Historical Evidence" of the Bible. Keep in mind that I am using "non-Christian" sites to validate the views. I'm sure many of you would just claim the Christians are using propaganda, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history and this quote on united monarchy
Possible, but this is again in response to tlong saying that history and the bible don't exist. That is totally false.
Bart is a skeptic and I respect him for that. But what Bart agrees on is there is Historical Evidence is the gospels. You don't have to believe in the "magic"; but it does give evidence on history of their time.
You do know that it's almost universally agreed that there was no "census" or groups of people traveling to their original villages, or directive by Herod to kill children? So that part is certainly made up.
Question. Are you agreeing or denying that the Bible has historical evidence? There is some historical documentation about Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mayan, etc that can be debated on being entirely accurate. That is where the historians distinguise between what is accurate and what may be exhaggerated.
Israelites spent 40 years in the desert and there's not one bit of archaeological evidence to be found. Fails the historically accurate test.
Did you know that there hasn't been any actual archeological evidence of the 300 spartans fighting the Persians? Guess that's not true either. There hasn't been any archelogical evidence that Washington crossed the Delaware. Guess that's false too right? So Washington crossing the Delaware and the Spartans fighting Persians failed the historical evidence records too. You can see where this is going right?
I wouldn't claim the Spartans vs. Persians battles occurred without physical evidence. Homer said there was an Atlantis. Where is it?
And with that; you need the historians to decipher what is real, backed with their interpretation of accurate. Just like Science; you have many different views on scientific models.
And you just pick and choose what's what? Hasn't what was superstition and what was history in the bible changed many, many times? I don't see how any intelligent, self-aware person can believe in the bible.
You seriously think he meant there is nothing in the bible that could be true? Angels and Demons has history in it, should I follow that as gospel?
Yes I actually do. Just like many are still trying to refute historical evidence in the Bible. Also, I've read the previous posts in the other religious threads that many refute that there is no such thing as a Historical Jesus either.
No Christians believe in the superstition and history; while most agnostics believe a lot of the historical truths.
They don't co-exist. I won't argue that a man named Jesus likely existed. However the historical chronology of the Bible is factually inaccurate in my opinion.
Not only did a MAN named Jesus existed, but he was called Jesus Christ, evangelist and was crucified by his own people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae#Monuments
I'm pretty sure he was called Jesus of Nazereth, not Jesus Christ. Christ means the messiah. it was not his name, it was a title later given.
Oh I know that's not his "Real" name; but Jesus Christ did exist. He was considered the Messiah for many Jews and Gentiles. He still is.
