Jesus and other "historical" figures

[Absurd]

coooool man, can I get yo autograph

Yup, you're the second one to ask for one - ThanksArthur was first. Where do you want it ?

And some say that history doesn't repeat itself

[Computer Loser]

I'm not convinced of your figures regarding the fidelity of the New Testament documents.

McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57.

You do realise that the Iliad isn't a true history?

Yeah dude, I was just making a point that no other literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed. Its historical facts are backed up- no other ancient documents comes close.

As for even "the smallest details" aligning with recorded history...there is also so much that does not.

What kind are you referring to? Historical fact, eyewitness? Stuff like this?

"Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization."

"Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

Nelson Glueck. Rivers in the Desert (New York: Farar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959), p. 136.

Often those bits that it does get right are ripped off from older texts and oral traditions (as evidenced by their inability to tell the difference between fact and fiction when ripping off the story), or they refer to very local sources. There are things that it gets disastrously wrong even in it's own backyard.

Disastrously wrong as in it changes the significant meaning of the gospels? Can I get some examples? I want to look into this edit/rip off stuff.

But yeah...I understand your frustrations and I'm also annoyed when people take these things for granted. Its better to be skeptical and question everything rather than blindly accept stuff.

[Enters Laughing]

McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57.

That is a pretty crummy book - and the title pretty much sums it up. "Evidence" should never demand a verdict.

Yeah dude, I was just making a point that no other literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.

This is a rather vague statement. The Bible took many centuries to be compiled into a final form, and many other texts have been just as well preserved. I suspect also when you say "historically confirmed", you are not referring to miraculous events, but a select number of things that have corresponded with hard evidence, along with a lot that has circumspect evidence or none at all.

What kind are you referring to? Historical fact, eyewitness? Stuff like this?

"Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization."

"Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It ... may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."

Nelson Glueck. Rivers in the Desert (New York: Farar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959), p. 136.

I mean for example claims that the City of Jericho was completely demolished by an earthquake (with the exception of one part), when the actually archaeological record shows many layers, some affected by earthquakes, but none that were completely disastrous. Jericho is one of the oldest continually inhabited settlements, and the archaeological record there for example perhaps has one of the oldest towers in history there, about 27 feet tall and almost completely intact.

The Bible has a prophecy where the city of Tyre is thrown to the wind, and is then never again inhabited...and yet...people still live there.

The stories attributed to Jesus are also very similar to those attributed to many other deities predating the supposed time of Jesus.

Disastrously wrong as in it changes the significant meaning of the gospels? Can I get some examples? I want to look into this edit/rip off stuff.

But yeah...I understand your frustrations and I'm also annoyed when people take these things for granted. Its better to be skeptical and question everything rather than blindly accept stuff.

I was referring particularly to the Old Testament, so naturally, those trifles wouldn't be so relevant to the gospels.

As for the gospels themselves, you would be hard pressed to prove that the gospels were written by people called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (or even 4 individual people). There is also reason to suspect that Peter (or someone of his school) edited some of the lines in those gospels to fit his own views, as represented in letters allegedly written by him. There is also a theory amongst some scholars that the four central gospels are based on two or even three key texts, which were then churned out into what you might call four separate eyewitness accounts.

I think that Thomas was the only true eyewitness, but even then, without a proper doctor and some form of DNA analysis, I'm a doubter.