I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.”

If the events (fictitious?) had been done in a corner that would be a dangerous statement that could be expected to attract contemporary rebuttals. Likewise if Paul hadn’t said that to King Agrippa and Governor Festus you would think that they would have rebutted the claim. Surely the unwavering testimony and provocative challenges is consistent with a firm belief that they were speaking the truth.

Circumstantial inferences about the date that the books were written

Much has been speculated about the dates of the biblical writings. Apart from the date of the fragments as mentioned previously there is circumstantial issues that apply.

If a first century medical doctor convert was researching and recording events of the early Church and he was doing so in enormous detail including local politicians, local slang, local weather patterns, local topography, local business practices, the correct depth of water a quarter mile off Malta and the main human subject of his book was executed by Nero wouldn’t you expect the writer to record it? What if James a prominent figure in Christianity was killed by the Sanhedrin? If they didn’t doesn’t it scream that the book was written before the events took place? That is the situation with Luke. Paul was executed by Nero who’s reign ended in 68AD while James was killed in 62AD. Jesus was crucified in 33AD. That suggests that Acts was written before 62AD and 68AD. If Acts was written before 62AD then Luke’s gospel was also written before 62AD as he refers to it in Acts. Likewise Paul who was believed to be writing between 62AD and 65AD quotes from Luke’s gospel and calls it scripture. That puts Mark’s gospel even earlier as most believe it was first. So there is an absolute upper limit of 35 years and chances are Mark was significantly earlier.

I know this leads to potential inferences about the more supernatural aspects but as I indicated earlier I don’t intend to take it that far here.

mjpb, with the greatest respect, I too can regurgitate all the arguments for and against the historicity of the Bible, simply by trawling through the various entries and references provided by a Google search.

The main difference will inevitably be that I do not have any inclination to "prove you wrong" on anything you say, with the single exception of claims that - should they go unremarked - might lead others to the view that you are stating facts. The next thing you know, they will be telling their teacher the religious equivalent of that kid's "Great Wall of China? To keep the rabbits out".

And we don't want that, do we?

You are fully and unreservedly entitled to your views, beliefs and opinions. The only time that you and I will come into a discussion is when you say something that is so patently silly and unsupportable that a disinterested layman such as myself simply has to say "hold on there, you cannot twist the facts like that and expect to get away with it".

Incidentally - although it isn't really incidental, but very germane here - I commend you to count the number of occasions you have found it necessary to use the word "if" in your last post.

mjpb,
Thanks for a very interesting reading about the historical background of the NT books. Some people might have known all these facts, and cannot react but call them "regurgitation of arguments", but I as a non-historian found them very illuminating.

If ifs and ands were pots and pans, where'd be the work for tinkers hands?

I'm afraid the bible is most often used as a drunken man uses a lampost- more for support than illumination.

aaah Bugsy.. spoken from the darkness of ignorance I note. I'll throw you a life preserver here....

Pericles makes a fundamental flaw.. that is the due consideration of the Gospels and Epistles themselves.

He seem to feel that because they are from within the Church community, they are automatically suspect.

To my knowledge there is ONE dabble by the Church into scriptural enhancement for doctrinal purposes and that's a 1 John 5:8 variant reading and any textual critic knows exactly when it turned up..and why it should (and is) be rejected.

The simple fact that there are as yet unresolved differences between some of the Gospels should SHOUT loudly that the Church respected them so much that it did not seek to impose a harmony on them.

The internal evidence of these documents is supported by the absense of contrary documents of the same time. The Gospels of Thomas and Barnabus are non canonical for very good academic reasons.

Pericles declares he is a layman.. thus, why in the world would be venture into the dangerous territory of making wild assertions on things he knows so little about?

Pericles.. why not do some real study? I recommend the Bible itself (New Testament) and you can also read DrBart Erhman the foremost contemporary critic of the Evangelical mindset.

Erhman used to be evangelical, but lost his faith at Seminary.
I have no reservation in recommending reading him, as I personally think the Holy Spirit is greater than he :)

There's more lamposts in the world than the one you're pissing on Boazy.