"I'm using the Bible as evidence to show that it wasn't written at the later dates. "

"Wouldn't the destruction of the Temple have been important to have been included in the book of Acts considering it was prophesied by Jesus?"

Textbook examples of circular reasoning.

Thanks for demonstrating why some of think your arguments are silly.

@fjblau - 

Frank you and Richard are the ones who believe the Bible was written at a much later date, my point is if that is true, then why would such an important event of the destruction of the temple be left out.

"Frank you and Richard are the ones who believe the Bible was written at a much later date, my point is if that is true, then why would such an important event of the destruction of the temple be left out."

I don't KNOW when they were written (and neither do you!) ... 100, 200 years either way makes no difference to me... the content is still a subjective record of a pre-scientific account of a superstitious culture.

However, as to your actual question.... I offer the following rebuttals:

1. Lack of universal communication (language or otherwise) in an oral tradition.
2. It didn't happen.
3. The author's own biases as to what was important to report on may be different from yours.
4. There are other things left out that would also be indicative of later (and earlier) dates.

But primarily, its a pointless argument, as long as your reasoning is still circular.

I think you would agree that the Gospels were written and do exist, right?

So, the question is when were they written, my point has been that they couldn't have been written after 62 A.D.

What I find amazing is that even atheists through the years have accepted that Jesus actually lived, but that He wasn't the Son Of God, now they are trying to even discredit His very existence. Even the Koran refers to Jesus as a Prophet.

"my point has been that they couldn't have been written after 62 A.D."

And since you can't prove a negative... your argument remains circular.

"What I find amazing is that even atheists through the years have accepted that Jesus actually lived,"

Some have... but not all... and count me in as one that doesn't really know if he existed... but I've certainly seen no compelling evidence that he existed as the your chosen biblical translation portrays.

"Even the Koran refers to Jesus as a Prophet."

So? The Koran is no more authoritative than your Bible on the subject. As an oral tradition, it has even more holes than the Bible.

@fjblau - 

1. Lack of universal communication (language or otherwise) in an oral tradition.

Why is universal communication important?

2. It didn't happen.

Where's your proof?

3. The author's own biases as to what was important to report on may be different from yours.

Based on that we wouldn't be able to accept any historical records, because all of us have biases.

4. There are other things left out that would also be indicative of later (and earlier) dates.

You don't think that the destruction of the Temple, the most sacred of places to the Jewish people was not important enough to include?

@TimRayWV - 

"Why is universal communication important?"

Because the languages at play here (Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc...) are all highly contextual and don't have direct translations for many of the concepts that you claim as objective.

"It didn't happen."

I don't have to prove a negative. You have to provide evidence for it having happened. That's the way science works, sorry.

"Based on that we wouldn't be able to accept any historical records, because all of us have biases."

That is why we look for corroboration between sources. Well, at least some of us do.

"You don't think that the destruction of the Temple, the most sacred of places to the Jewish people was not important enough to include?"

Again, you are basing your "importance" of it on the circular notion of a "prophesy". It MAY have happened, but the "importance" of it is strictly subjective. As is the dissemination of the occurence and the timing of the event itself.

So, now you are even questioning the destruction of the Temple?

You were the one who said it didn't happen. Which is nothing more then your opinion and means absolutely nothing, it doesn't change whether Jesus existed or not.

The Temple was the most sacred of Jewish places on earth, and obviously you don't think it was important enough to include in the Gospel of Acts.

In the last post I meant to say "include it's destruction in the Gospel Of Acts"

"So, now you are even questioning the destruction of the Temple?"

Not at all. What I am questioning is the reporting on it and the subjective importance of it in relation to the bible's authorship.

And remember, if you go down the route of comparing who mentioned what when, you're going to have a lot of questions to answer about your version of the truth too... :)

"Which is nothing more then your opinion and means absolutely nothing, it doesn't change whether Jesus existed or not."

Agreed.

honestly - every time these two start arguing (like either are going to be swayed...hmmm, why argue then?) it serves me well because i don't have to remind myself why i took gary's blog off my bookmark bar in safari.

love gary, hate the annoying bickering. it's seriously...........it's just incredible.

Whether someone uses the Bible as part of their faith tradition or just studies it like one would study the work or Homer or Virgil, sound scholarship is sound scholarship.  In terms of dating the various books in the Bible, there are linquists who study word usage, etc., and figure out when the books were likely to have been written based on comparing vocabulary usages across time.  An example would be reading a letter.  If the letter mentions disco music, you know it was written at least after the mid-1970s.  If it uses the word "internet," you know it was written after the mid-1990s. 

Getting off of the New Testament bandwagon, linguists/philologists/scholars of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) now tend to agree that there were four distinct authors who wrote those books.  It's called the "documentary hypothesis." 

Most of the scholars I've read date Mark at 65-70 c.e., Mathew and Luke around 80 c.e., and John around 90 c.e.  I tend to defer to people who study this stuff on a regular basis -- just like I would expect a scholar of the Bible NOT to tell me what f-stop to use for portraits.

To say that Jesus did not exist, as a man, is almost like saying Herod did not exist.  There is enough historical evidence to account for his existence.  You might think that some of the stories, like walking on water, are "made up," or you may disagree with the theological claims about him, but historicity is not really an issue with scholars.  

Of the "neo atheists" who are now popular (Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris are the ones who are "the stars"), I think the best of them is Sam Harris.  He has a short book called "Letter to a Christain Nation" which is good.  You can also seem him in debates with believers on YouTube.  He's clever and funny.  And while most of these guys have read the Bible in order to refute it, I think they've read it in the way I might read a medical text book -- while I might have read it, I certainly would not really understand how to use the information. 

Here is a quote from Ehrman, who I mentioned above, “I have read the other neo-atheists, as they are being called: Dawkins and Hitchens and Sam Harris, and I think the thing that is most disappointing to me about these authors is that they know very little about religion as a rule. And they make claims about religion that are simply sophomoric and silly. I think if there is to be a bonafide attack on religion, it has to be somebody who actually understands religion and doesn’t make claims about religion that aren’t true.” 

"There is enough historical evidence to account for his existence. "

This is where you are wrong in an otherwise interesting post.

There is NO corroborated historical evidence for the existence of the jesus of the bible. There are anecdotal references (generally circular) that may or may not refer to someone who may or may not have lived in the first century AD. Personally, I place the authorship around the mid-2nd Century myself, at best.

"while I might have read it, I certainly would not really understand how to use the information."

I am interested in this argument. Pick one (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, I've read all three)... Pick a section of their writings... and explain what you mean by them not understanding religion. Really, I am interested in what you mean by them making claims about religion that aren't true.

ps: I love "neo-atheists". :)

Tim, Muslims accept Jesus as a Prophet. True. Very rare have we seen a "modern" religion come out of the blue. They had to build upon what they thought was a solid religious foundation to give their own version of religion some credence. Christianity was built upon judaism. Islam was built upon both judaism and christianity. Buddhism was built upon religious practices of ancient India. After experiencing ascetic rituals proposed by certain beliefs, Siddhartha who later became the Buddha decided to modify the practices towards a "middle way", which was less demanding on the physical body.

Some people claim that Siddhartha, born in the city of Lumbini around the year 485 BC, moments after birth, according to the scriptures, he performed the first of several miracles, taking a few steps and proclaiming, "Supreme am I in the world. Greatest am I in the world. Noblest am I in the world. This is my last birth. Never shall I be reborn."

Shortly thereafter, a wise man visited his father, King Śuddhodana. The wise man said that Siddhartha would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a holy man (Sadhu) based on whether he saw life outside of the palace walls. Of course, at age 29, Siddharha stepped out of the comforts of the palace to get first-hand look at suffering, i.e. reality.

See some similiarities with Jesus, except for the virgin story? Wise man, miracles, start of spiritual career around 30. Why did the Buddha not take hold like Jesus? Because of the proximity of the judean tradition, probably, with their scriptures and the supposed prophecies from the Old Testament, which could be carried to a promised Messiah. Jesus made his claim or rather his followers who supposedly reportes his sayings. Buddha said he would never come back. Jesus allegedly said that he would. People could associate more with that tradition than an Asian one.

Now, are all those stories really true? Has there been some artistic embellishments to make a story more believable? That is what is the point. Based on what is happening today with our highly advanced communication technologies where people can get scammed by all kinds of rumors and false news, how can we rely on oral tradition that has passed from hand to hand with individual agendas.

Some Muslims claim that you cannot really understand the Koran, unless you read it in its original language, because translations do not carry the "vibes", the subleties, and the emotional impact of original words. The Bible was translated numerous times, and edited, I don't know how many times. Many translators claim that their translations are the true ones. So translated words can take on a totally different meaning as you know.

@shotshot - 

Actually I'm not trying to sway either Frank or Richard. I know they won't be swayed, they have made up their minds. I'm just expressing an opposing view. If they are going to make statements that the Gospels were written 100 or 200 years A.D. and are therefore hearsay, then I'm just showing why I believe to the contrary.

I cannot speak for Frank. But, I've been swayed quite a few times. Eventually, as new information comes in and is cross-checked with other types of information that brings new facts into the fray, you start to wonder why you were lied to so much in the past. You develop your critical thinking - never mind "critical" - just thinking and wondering how you believed so many things that don't make much sense. You question everything, especially intentions behind claims.

Comes to mind, of course, power, money, control. Some have used corporations, some have used scams or other illegal acts, some lied to their voters, and some used religion to gather the sheep so that it can be better exploited for personal gain.

What's the MO? Create a problem - SIN. Make them fearful of something - ETERNAL DAMNATION, BURN IN HELL, BE LEFT BEHIND, NOT PART OF THE "GANG". Offer a solution - SALVATION, and...make sure (or make them believe) that you've got exclusive rights to providing them with SALVATION, a exclusive passage to HEAVEN, ETERNAL LIFE in a beautiful garden in flowing robes, beatific smiles, listening to the music of angels, sitting besides Jesus, soaking it all in for ETERNITY. A commune comes to mind with a resident guru.

Or (for Muslims) surrounded by virgins (note with all the sexual frustrations that make young men want to blow themselves up to reach the heaven of those virgins, I hope there are enough virgins to go around, unless by some miracle virgins can remain virgins even after use). I digress, sorry.

This way, by claiming exclusivity on reaching that "heaven", they have to rely on you to get it. Otherwise, sorry, you will be damned.

Earth is an open hunting ground for the credulous. How many people can I rally to my way of thinking so that I can massage my ego? How much of their sand box can I take away from them? How far can I go in their pockets, and take their money to put in my own? How deep can I go in their hearts (or souls) to call them my own? The gloves are off, it's a free-for-all. Winner takes all.

@garyfong1 - 

Gary, just curious and I'm asking again, what is it about Osteen that makes him a buffoon, funny, and stupid?

Is it his faith in God?
Is it because he is positive?
Is it because he smiles alot?

So, what if he doesn't know much about bailouts, credit crisis, pumping liquidity, the danger of naked short selling. Did he ever state that he was an expert about those issues. He happens to believe that God is the answer to our financial situation. I know you don't and that's okay.

@garyfong1 - Glad to hear that Gary. Wow what a compliment.  I am not trying to convert anyone, I'm just saying I was raised with Atheist parents and itsodd that all 2 out of 3 of us kids arnt that way. We wernet brain washed,we've just had things happen to us, that werent explainable.  If you are on a plane and its going down in flames, or on your death bed, I dont think anyone is an atheiest at that point. Do you?  Oh! I went to the dentist today. I wish i would of taken a photo too! I sure love that Nitrus, that and listening to CNN while getting a rootcanal sure makes the time pass quicker. haha. Have a good one.

Dixie

@garyfong1 - 

One other point Gary, did Osteen say not to prepare or make countersteps? I didn't see the interview, but I gather from your post that he believes God is in control. You also posted that Osteen said "don't take a victim mentality" what's wrong or stupid with that statement?

As I check Gary's blog at work, I don't have access to the books here.  But I did listen to Sam Harris on YouTube one night while filing.  On the face of it, while Sam Harris is well read and funny, he generally takes the view that fundamentalists speak for all Christains or Muslims.  Any example would be "creation" vs. "evolution."  Sam paints all people who read the Bible for religious reasons as believing in creation.  That is what I got out of reading/listening to him.  Stephen Hawking, the scientist who wrote "A Brief History of Time," which I read a couple of times in the late 80s/early 90s, said in the book that he was invited by the Pope (yes, the Catholic Pope) to come lecture about the Big Bang.  I'm not sure where the documents are, but the catholic church recently (last couple of years?)came out to say they were not in favor of teaching creationism in the schools.  The official stance of the church is something like "We accept that God used evolution as His way of creating mankind."  I don't remember the wording exactly.

As a related note, I also got a course from the Teaching Company called "Science and Religion" that goes over the history of the so-called "conflict" between the two camps.  One of the lectures went over Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Fides et Ratio," which translates to "Faith and Reason" in English.  The professor said that it was written not for the masses of the church, but for philosophers in the ongoing dialogue about faith and reason.  This professor thought it was excellently written.  I got the sense, by the way, that he had no ax to grind.  He seemed to a non-religious guy giving both sides a fair hearing.

Hitchens, in "God is not great" (Chapter 4?), basically takes on all religion for the problems they've created in exacerbating tribal tensions or racial tensions.  This is a fair accusation.  I think he brings up Belfast and other "hot spots" of violence with religion.  But it is also fair to level this same accusation at the Khmer Rouge, the USSR of Stalin, or the Hitler's Germany.  In these cases, the transcendental became "the state" or "the party" or "our race" to create fanatics who are willling to do atrocious things in the name of what is "transcendent."  Even the French Revolution, which tried to replace religious authority while rational enlightment, unleashed a reign of terror in the name of liberty.  So while the accusation of Hitchens is fair, he is claiming the phenomena are religious.  I would say they are result of a social psychology phenomena that is exhibited by many things.  To damn religion (no pun intended) because the people in it exhibit the same flaws as they do elsewhere within social organizations doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

As an analogy, I am happy to be a citizen of the USA.  I am happy to be in a country defined by the principles in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and (most especially) the 1st Amendment.  Does this mean I am happy with some of the things my country does?  No.  I'm not happy about our history of Jim Crowe, nor the My Lai incident in Vietnam, nor pictures of torture from Iraq that were broadcast all over the world.  We exhibit the same horrible tendencies, at times, of other countries that I do not like.  But, I'm not going to revoke me citizenship in the USA because of these.  I still think the ideal of the 1st Amendment is better than the KKK that is also part of our history.

Regarding history:  Josephus, writing in late 1st century, mentions Jesus in his history of the Jewish people.  I think twice.  He certainly did not view him with religious overtones.  Saul/Paul did not know Jesus personally, but he admits to killing people who did.  That's pretty good evidence that Jesus existed.  The gospels themselves are historical documents.  Because you disagree some of what is them does negate all of it.  As an analogy, let's take Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian and the "father of history."  He has got some wacked-out stories that he relates in his writings.  However, he also relates the story of Thermopolae, where 300 Spartans fought again the army of the Persian Empire.  Herodotus reports that the army drank rivers dry and it numbered a millioin.  Most historians accept that the battle took place, but are sceptical that the Persians numbered a million.  If you choose to say Jesus did not exist, you are in the minorty.  I don't know of any scholars who would agree with you, just like I don't know of any biologists who think Darwin is wrong.

OK, I've got co-workers that need my attention.  Sorry, but I need to get back to work.

Sorry. The last line sounded smug and self-righteous.  I didn't mean for it to come off that way.  I'm just out there searching, and I tend to defer to the commonly held opinions of experts who I respect, whether they be historians or biologists.  I like to learn, and I hope I can reflect well what I've learned from others.  In the case of Ehrman, I would also love to know what HE thought about the neo-atheists, and what he thought was sophomoric and silly.  His books are aimed at people like you and me -- lay people trying to grapple with difficult topics.  His writing style is wholly accessable.  And I'm not that good at typing/spelling, so also please excuse the typos.  So, again, sorry about the arrogant tone. 

Wow, great posts everyone!!

"If you choose to say Jesus did not exist, you are in the minorty. "

That's sort of like debating whether or not "Bob" exists, without being concerned about WHICH Bob, Where, and the nature of his life.

That SOMEONE named Jesus existed in the 1st Century AD I can accept. Beyond that, I bet we have more disagreements than agreements. :) But I am open to rational evidence as to the nature of his life.