Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2016, 12:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
*sigh* Fine, I'll cite the "other side" of the argument, against Salm.

Everything you have cited comes from websites that have copied (verbatim) the press release of the Israel Antiquities Authority, which has a vested financial interest in generating tourist attraction, so I'd take all of that with a grain of salt. Ehrman's reference to textual evidence of the site comes from the Gospels themselves, which he is more inclined to trust for accuracy than most... this is especially crucial if you recall that my hypothesis is that the Nazareth location was one of many places to which people fled in the Jewish Revolt, when Jerusalem was razed.

Even the most direct and harsh critics of Salm, at Apologetics Press, cannot state that he is wrong, only to challenge the assumptions he made in dating the pottery to the later dates rather than the earliest-possible dates. Repeatedly, they admit that there is a lack of evidence, but then trot out the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trope which, while true, is not helpful to the question of whether or not any of this is proof. They crow about the discovery of the dwelling at the modern town of Nazareth, but cite not a shred of actual evidence that it demonstrates what is claimed. They also don't deal at all with Salm's claim that there is a clear gap in the record between the ancient habitation of the area and the discovery of Herodian era pottery, which even though it began to be manufactured at the early date (pre-millennium) does not demonstrate at all that it was brought to that village by that time, or that it even was a village rather than a single dwelling.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConten...ticle=3579

I agree that it is possible there was a village there, at the time Jesus was alleged to be there. I have no issues with that. But the evidence does not currently prove that, and it is wrong to leap to the conclusions that are being tossed out, here, even by Ehrman's claims about the later Gospel writers attesting to such a place (which did exist by the time they were writing, and may have served to make Nazir into a village rather than a religious community to which John the Baptist and Jesus his cousin belonged) [Edit to Add: And to which Minimalist cited, using Ehrman's own words, above]. I would certainly love to see more-solid evidence and see the question settled, but for now it is not, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. To me, the claim that Jesus was a Nazarene, rather than "of Nazareth", makes more sense.

Calling us "fools" for considering all the points of view, rather than leaping to a conclusion, just makes you look like an ass.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-07-2016, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 03:19 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 12:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  *sigh* Fine, I'll cite the "other side" of the argument, against Salm.

Everything you have cited comes from websites that have copied (verbatim) the press release of the Israel Antiquities Authority, which has a vested financial interest in generating tourist attraction, so I'd take all of that with a grain of salt. Ehrman's reference to textual evidence of the site comes from the Gospels themselves, which he is more inclined to trust for accuracy than most... this is especially crucial if you recall that my hypothesis is that the Nazareth location was one of many places to which people fled in the Jewish Revolt, when Jerusalem was razed.

Even the most direct and harsh critics of Salm, at Apologetics Press, cannot state that he is wrong, only to challenge the assumptions he made in dating the pottery to the later dates rather than the earliest-possible dates. Repeatedly, they admit that there is a lack of evidence, but then trot out the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" trope which, while true, is not helpful to the question of whether or not any of this is proof. They crow about the discovery of the dwelling at the modern town of Nazareth, but cite not a shred of actual evidence that it demonstrates what is claimed. They also don't deal at all with Salm's claim that there is a clear gap in the record between the ancient habitation of the area and the discovery of Herodian era pottery, which even though it began to be manufactured at the early date (pre-millennium) does not demonstrate at all that it was brought to that village by that time, or that it even was a village rather than a single dwelling.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConten...ticle=3579

I agree that it is possible there was a village there, at the time Jesus was alleged to be there. I have no issues with that. But the evidence does not currently prove that, and it is wrong to leap to the conclusions that are being tossed out, here, even by Ehrman's claims about the later Gospel writers attesting to such a place (which did exist by the time they were writing, and may have served to make Nazir into a village rather than a religious community to which John the Baptist and Jesus his cousin belonged) [Edit to Add: And to which Minimalist cited, using Ehrman's own words, above]. I would certainly love to see more-solid evidence and see the question settled, but for now it is not, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. To me, the claim that Jesus was a Nazarene, rather than "of Nazareth", makes more sense.

There never will be conclusive proof when it comes to ancient history. All you can ever hope for is to come as close as possible to what the truth may actually be according to all the available evidence.

All the available evidence still will never prove the existence of Nazareth. Even if you did in fact find a sign, or some solid records from the 1st century, it still does not conclusively prove anything at all.

However, with that said, those who propagate the notion that Nazareth did not exist by using fallacious arguments from silence (Ken Humphreys), unqualified opinions (Rene Salm), un-evidenced assertions (Neil Godfrey) do absolutely nothing whatsoever to further our understanding of the past, and only serve to spread misinformation in favor of their own bias propaganda.

Also, those who constantly move the goal-posts in their unreasonable demands for greater evidence- after what is normally considered by all the experts as being enough sufficient evidence- are in themselves evidence of varying degrees of bias from the moderate to the extreme, and bring upon themselves ridicule and scorn, not because they are wrong, but because they insult the integrity of the subject and the intelligence of those who are masters of the craft.

The study of ancient history employs many sciences. Those sciences allow us to determine with reasonable certainty whether or not specific events actually occurred at a specific time in the past. It is not so unlike any of the other sciences.

Yet, when we see a creationist come here and challenge evolution, or the Big Bang et al, we immediately pick up our science books, point out our experts, and use them to fortify our beliefs in evolution and the Big Bang, among other things.

Why then is the science and the voices of the experts good enough for us in these matters, when these matters (evolution and Big Bang) cannot be conclusively proven either? After all, are both not also as much a part of history as anything else is?

History, and the experts who determine it, should not be disrespected in the same fashion that a creationist disrespects any other science or experts, and to launch an assault against what is reasonable and rational in respect to history- in this case Nazareth- should by all accounts bring shame to those antagonists who so obviously have ulterior motives.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 03:34 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Bla bla bla ... thanks for the sermon, pops.
We know ... we all hate religion, and anyone who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive. Like Carrier and Price. They have "ulterior" motives too.
You're hilarious.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-07-2016, 03:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 03:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bla bla bla ... thanks for the sermon, pops.
We know ... we all hate religion, and anyone who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive. Like Carrier and Price. They have "ulterior" motives too.
You're hilarious.

When you become as unreasonable and irrational as a creationist who rails against evolution, then you deserve the exact same ridicule they get.

Because you are absolutely no different in that respect whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 03:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  There never will be conclusive proof when it comes to ancient history. All you can ever h

The above is not exactly true. One must keep up to date on archeology. There are magazines one can subscribe too.

This is a good one I get.

Finding dwellings I say again, does not prove the existence of Jesus. It's like saying the destroyed temple proves his existence. It does not.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
15-07-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Hey, no fair using facts, Banjo. Religitards HATE facts like vampires hate sun shine!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
15-07-2016, 04:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 03:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 03:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bla bla bla ... thanks for the sermon, pops.
We know ... we all hate religion, and anyone who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive. Like Carrier and Price. They have "ulterior" motives too.
You're hilarious.

When you become as unreasonable and irrational as a creationist who rails against evolution, then you deserve the exact same ridicule they get.

Because you are absolutely no different in that respect whatsoever.

Because the likes of you says so ? Hahahaha.

You have repeatedly and continuously attempted, in your dishonest and disingenuous manner to align skeptics of Historicity with Creationism, as you really have no knowledge of the current topics and issues, and CAN'T DEAL with them, or anything really that threatens your autocratic (obviously VERY insecure) thought system, it is actually YOU that are most like Creationists, pops.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-07-2016, 05:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 03:52 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 03:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  There never will be conclusive proof when it comes to ancient history. All you can ever h

The above is not exactly true. One must keep up to date on archeology. There are magazines one can subscribe too.

This is a good one I get.

Finding dwellings I say again, does not prove the existence of Jesus. It's like saying the destroyed temple proves his existence. It does not.

This part of the argument has absolutely noting to do with proving the existence of Jesus.

The reality is that if Nazareth had never been mentioned in the Bible in relation to Jesus, not a single person in this discussion would ever doubt that it existed in the 1st century.

Ken Humphreys, Rene Salm, Neil Godfrey et al, would not even bat an eyelash concerning the existence of Nazareth in the first century.

You would all accept it without a second thought. Why?

Because the historian's all agree that it existed, and that would be good enough for you all.

But when you attach Jesus to it ... oh my!

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 07:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Step back and look at the big picture.

If there was good archaeological evidence for the existence of a town "Nazareth" in the first century, it would have been discovered by now, (it's not as though no one has had their spades out) and we would all know about it. There would be no arguments.

In today's Nazareth we would have fat, stupid Jeebus tourists gawking at 2000 year old bricks, proudly displayed by the locals collecting cash.

Instead of that we have fat, stupid Jeebus tourists waddling around, looking at....um....nothing from the first century....and the locals selling maccas to them.

Think Pompeii. Now that was a real first century town. Instead of evidence of houses, streets, sewage systems, pottery, coins, art etc etc, as in Pompeii, we have, in "Nazareth," maybe, possibly, just, some pottery from the period, a hole in the ground, some walls of a (single) hut, and fuck all in the literature of the time.

Does it matter there was no Nazareth? Yep! Because of Jeebus. No Nazareth undermines the Jeebus story, and that can only be a good thing for our world.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
15-07-2016, 07:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Which is why he clings to it like a rabid squirrel to the last acorn on earth.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: