Oh boy. Hold on. I have to try to hold my serious face for a second. It isn't easy.
What puts you in a bad place is arguing evidence. There just isn't any, unless you're counting the scattered and often contridictory claims of a book which is, by no stretch of ANYONE's imagination unbiased and impartial on the matter, any by most accounts was written DECADES after the events, largely as a reruiting tool.

Evidence just isn't a sound area for that particular side of the argument. Not when it's so thin and so limited to one very ... invested ... source. That's why arguing "evidence" puts you in a very difficult place to defend.

I linked and posted a very well put together evidence to back up my claim.
I seems like you didn't read it at all but instead have made the same old arguements.

Thats too bad because the truth is that there are very good sound logical rational reasons to believe.

That article assumes that the disciples were real people as opposed to fictional characters (perhaps based on real people) written about decades after the "fact." In other words, that article assumes that the Bible is an accurate historical record. Which it's not. It's a fairy tale.

Indeed. Critics of the Bible once said that King Belshazzar of Babylon named in the book of Daniel was a fictional character, a fairy tale in your words, because there was no references to him outside of Jewish literature. But then cuneiform tablets bearing his name was found in Iraq.

In 2 Chronicles 12, it describes how King Shishak invaded Israel. The 'Shishak Relief' in the Karnak Temple was found in Egypt and gives an account of this in great detail. Around eight other Biblical cities are named on this relief.

Caiaphas, a high priest, is noted in John 11:49 and other verses. His ossuary bearing his name was found in Jerusalem in 1990.

The Hittities were thought to be Biblical legend as well, until their capital was discovered in Bogazkoy, Turkey.

Once again, people said that there was no Assyrian King Sargo as mentioned in Isaiah 20:1 because his name wasn't to be found anywhere else. Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. Oops! The capture of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah 20 is recorded on the palace walls.

Other quick examples (Courtesy of http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html)

* Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

* Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.

* Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.

* Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.

* Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.

* Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.

* Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.

* Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

* Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.

* Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

* Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

* The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.

* Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Shall I go on with more examples? Because I can. This is one of the things that is unique to the Bible. No other religious text can claim such rich archaeological evidence that consistently confirms its historical accuracy. Out of the the thousands of archaeological finds, not once has the the Bible been proved wrong or contradictory.

Sticking to "New Testament" references only, these writers recorded the existence of "Christians" (of which there is no doubt that they exist), but none of them recorded the existence of "Jesus Christ" himself (beyond what the followers were claiming, which some of them simply passed on).

And yet there will never be any real evidence confirming that a man--the son of God--rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. This is where your faith comes in. You have evidence and use it to support Biblical claims as much as you can, but eventually you have to rely on faith.

One could go back and forth and debate on the veracity of these sources. I was just skimming through This Historical Jesus - Ancient Evidence For the Life of Christ by Habermas, and he lists seventeen non-biblical sources. I do not think one can say all of them came exclusively from Christian sources. Additionally, at the end of the Primal Sources: Creeds and Facts chapter, he states (I'm still reading this, so forgive my lack of details and explanation), "The data supplied by oral creeds that circulated before the actual composition of the New Testament and, often corresponding to these creeds, the facts that critical scholars admit as knowable history, together provide a formidable basis for knowledge about Jesus", and that He was in fact, a real person (emphasis mine).

Yes, I do understand that on the spiritual side of the Bible, one needs faith because archaeology alone cannot prove such things. But I wanted to demonstrate that one needs to consider the historical accuracy of the Bible. This is important because in a sense, it establishes trust.

Sir William Ramsay, once a skeptic, scrutinized the Gospel of Luke for thirty years, and in a conclusive statement said, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

So you have to ask yourself, if the Bible has been proven trustworthy in all of these historic facts, can I trust what it says about Jesus and God? For me, I would say emphatically 'yes'.

So, using your logic, if I produced a document that stated:

Because #1 & #2 are true, #3 must be true too!

All praise Groucho's butt!

Before George....?

I didn't say you have to come to the conclusion that since A and B are true, that C must be true too. I'm saying, at least in regards to the Bible, that since A and B have been proven true, the hypothesis that C may be true as well needs to be considered, that's all.

What about all the things Matthew, Mark, John and Luke don't agree on about Jesus? Considering how soon after his death the gospels were written you would think they could all remember his life fairly clearly since he was the most important person that ever lived. However, the gospels disagree on many, many details of Jesus' life and I really have to question how the bible can be considered something you would use as a source of facts. I realize the bible is a book of Jewish history, but separating the real history from the mythology and morality tales seems a difficult task.

There is a lot of sources with valid history mixed up with mythology. Almost all ancient history is like this.

Maybe you believe the actions of Zeus and his children were really such large influences in the Trojan War as suggested by the Illiad

People seem to take it as fact that the gospels, and Bible in general, are full of contradictions.
I've never seen one that isn't easily explanable.

"Never" seems to be a pretty big word given the things mentioned that were considered mythical yet were shown to be real. I could just as easily say, "And yet there will never be any real evidence confirming that life arose from non-life. This is where your faith comes in." Science makes assumptions as well, and there is faith in those assumptions. I have faith that the 2nd law of thermodymics will not suddenly reverse itself, but I have never really questioned why I believe that to be true.

There's a few in here I can't explain. Hopefully you're better at this than I am.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

I'm not sure I'd consider that to be faith, as religious people understand the term. Scientists extrapolate information in theory, but I've read to read one that didn't also take for granted that such extrapolation is temporary until quantifiable evidence has been collected. Just because we know what the observable speed of light is (for example) in this galaxy, most scientists are willing to assume that it's constant throughout the universe, but that's only until measurements can be made elsewhere.

To quote Archie Bunker, "faith is when you believe something that no one in their right mind would ever believe." That's not quite the same as working on the assumption that a physical law will continue as it has done unless some specific catalyst interferes.

Certainly that is true, and that was a bit tongue-in-cheek. But there is faith that answers to some questions that are currently unknown can and will be known through purely naturalistic means. I think the example of finding a naturalistic explanation for life emerging from non-life is a valid example of faith in science.

Some may argue (just like the argument for multiple universes) that "of course it arose naturalistically, or we wouldn't see it." but that is really no different that me saying, "Of course God made it, or it wouldn't be here for us to see."

Similarly, there are physicists who propose a "hidden" law of physics to account for the order that is seen in the universe (generally existing in the dimensions of the universe that are too small for us to observe). There is no observational proof of that, but it does help to explain something. But it is also completely taken of faith.

You've outdone yourself!

Fred

I personally don't hold string and M theory much above religion and agree its about as faith based since it will probably not be testable in our lifetimes, but at the very least physicists are basing this on real research done and proposing these theories to try and explain the unexplainable about the universe. It is one of many possible ways the forces of the Universe can be united. You don't have to commit to string theory the same unquestioning way most commit to religion.

I have never had a real problem with saying that God is also a possibility for the creation of the universe. Granted a God we neither know or understand as the religions around the world are all man made in my opinion. However, that still raises the question I asked in Sunday school 25+ years ago. Who made God?

I went down that list and either already had on my own or found answers to all. I could write or paste them all here, but I imagine you all know about this thing called google. But to be honest, many of those "contradictions" are absolute crap, just simply reading the two "opposing" verses will give you the answer.

Many contradictions in the Bible are alleged because two books don't say "exactly" the same thing. Let me give a current example. Let's say that each of us in this thread has a blog and writes an entry about this discussion. I may write something like "Wergo and I had a discussion on biblical contradictions". Wergo may describe it in more general terms. Someone may write about it as a discussion on science and whether faith in it is equal to religious faith. One of you may have written about it earlier in the thread before any Christians were giving defenses and describe it as the entire dvdtalk community universally agreeing that there is no god. You see how there could be 50 different blog entries each saying something different. Is my entry wrong because I describe it as a discussion between 2 people only? No. We are each writing from our own viewpoint and may choose to leave out certain details, or emphasize different aspects of what happened.

But you're suggesting that the bible can and should be taken as evidence for recorded historical fact. Either Jesus did or didn't enter Egypt. Either he ascended from Bethany (I'm a fan of Kevin Smith's 'Dogma', so I choose that one) or from Olivet. Either Elijah went to heaven or he didn't. This isn't Schrodinger's Cat here.

That there are four gospels and not one combined amalgamation with contradictions excised seems to indicate that these are not four differing views on the same events but four irrenconcilable histories. It sure seems to me that those four were chosen for inclusion BECAUSE they offered differing events, not because one was authentic. If I was on a jury and four witnesses came conflicting testimony such as this, I'd have a hard time convicting someone based on it.

LOVE Kevin Smith, and Dogma.

But again, they are not at all irrenconcilable. Every "contradiction" you mention or I've seen in lists is not a contradiction at all.

For example, your mention of Jesus' ascension. One book says he ascended from Mount Olivet and one from Bethany. Contradiction? Not at all. Bethany is on Mount Olivet.

For those who have faith in Wikipedia, Mount Olivet lies somewhere between Jerusalem and Bethany.

From wikipedia and everywhere else, "Bethany is on the southeastern slope of mount olivet." This is not at all disputed. Obviously, no town will be on the exact top of the mountain, and a map shows the summit, so any map will show the 2 places as separate.

It is not even close to a contradiction. The two accounts were written by the same author btw.

That gets us back to a debate earlier in the thread, and I won't bother starting that up again.