Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2016, 07:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 05:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 03:52 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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

You've already been told your dishonest presumption is false. It doesn't matter one bit if Jesus existed or not, as a religious question. Your knee-jerk attempt to discredit the question concerning history is a gigantic fail, pops. History is history. Your NEED to attach a fake additional meaning to the questions is a dishonest theist antic. You really should stop your antics.

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
15-07-2016, 07:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 06:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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 has been.

The only one's who don't think it has are those who are unqualified to have a valid opinion. That includes you, all your sources, and anyone else who has entered into this discussion with the argument that it hasn't been discovered.


Quote: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.

Exactly, you have ulterior motives and will do anything to undermine the Jesus story.

I'm glad you admit that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 07:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 05:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 03:52 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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


"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"

This is where you are absolutely, totally, 100% WRONG. It is true that, without Jesus, the topic would have no interest to any of us, yet we have looked at the evidence for the existence of this place and found it lacking. You have been told this by numerous commentators here, yet you continue to claim we are biased because of Jeebus.

It is clear who has an agenda here...YOU.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 07:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 07:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 05:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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

You've already been told your dishonest presumption is false. It doesn't matter one bit if Jesus existed or not, as a religious question. Your knee-jerk attempt to discredit the question concerning history is a gigantic fail, pops. History is history. Your NEED to attach a fake additional meaning to the questions is a dishonest theist antic. You really should stop your antics.

And you need to understand that not one reputable relative scholar or archeologist thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century. Not one.

All the experts agree it existed.

Therefore, those of you who don't agree are obviously ill educated, and have no valid opinion on the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 07:18 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 07:11 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 05:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "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"

This is where you are absolutely, totally, 100% WRONG. It is true that, without Jesus, the topic would have no interest to any of us, yet we have looked at the evidence for the existence of this place and found it lacking. You have been told this by numerous commentators here, yet you continue to claim we are biased because of Jeebus.

It is clear who has an agenda here...YOU.

You're fucking hilarious. Here are your own words:

Quote: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.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1032289

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 08:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 07:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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 has been.

The only one's who don't think it has are those who are unqualified to have a valid opinion. That includes you, all your sources, and anyone else who has entered into this discussion with the argument that it hasn't been discovered.


Quote: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.

Exactly, you have ulterior motives and will do anything to undermine the Jesus story.

I'm glad you admit that.


"Exactly, you have ulterior motives and will do anything to undermine the Jesus story."

You are at it again. We don't think there is any good evidence for a first century Nazareth. Read that again.

We have that opinion regardless of what we may think of Jeebus.

That fact (that there was no city of Nazareth in the early first century) just happens to undermine the whole Jeebus story. Read that again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 07:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 07:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 07:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You've already been told your dishonest presumption is false. It doesn't matter one bit if Jesus existed or not, as a religious question. Your knee-jerk attempt to discredit the question concerning history is a gigantic fail, pops. History is history. Your NEED to attach a fake additional meaning to the questions is a dishonest theist antic. You really should stop your antics.

And you need to understand that not one reputable relative scholar or archeologist thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century. Not one.

All the experts agree it existed.

Therefore, those of you who don't agree are obviously ill educated, and have no valid opinion on the subject.

No one said it didn't "exist in the 1st Century". Yet more dishonest antics.
The question is, "Did it exist in the EARLY 1st Century, as a town ?"
You have no evidence it did. So instead of facing that fact, you dishonestly attempt to discredit the asking of any questions on the subject, by liking them to Creationism. You're an intellectual fraud. You insult those who ask questions which imply there are answers that you disagree with.

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, 07:55 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 08:29 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 07:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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 has been.

The only one's who don't think it has are those who are unqualified to have a valid opinion. That includes you, all your sources, and anyone else who has entered into this discussion with the argument that it hasn't been discovered.


Quote: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.

Exactly, you have ulterior motives and will do anything to undermine the Jesus story.

I'm glad you admit that.

"The only one's who don't think it has are those who are unqualified to have a valid opinion. That includes you, all your sources, and anyone else who has entered into this discussion with the argument that it hasn't been discovered."

This sort of statement is just terrible. It is pure ad hominem...
"...anyone who disagrees with me is unqualified..."

Pathetic!

How about you stick to the topic?

There are a number of internet articles about the discovery, in 2009, of a dwelling that may be from the first century, in Nazareth. They are all very similar. Here is one of them.

http://www.bible-archaeology.info/nazareth.htm

Note...
- the authors admit "Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period."
- the authors admit the dwelling may be second century
- an archaeologist is merely guessing that a hole in the ground was used to hide from the Romans in 67 CE
- it is a single dwelling...not a town, or a village or a city
- it sounds as though they have moved this remnant to be next to a church! That, to me, says something about how genuine a relic it really is!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
15-07-2016, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 08:25 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 07:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 07:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You've already been told your dishonest presumption is false. It doesn't matter one bit if Jesus existed or not, as a religious question. Your knee-jerk attempt to discredit the question concerning history is a gigantic fail, pops. History is history. Your NEED to attach a fake additional meaning to the questions is a dishonest theist antic. You really should stop your antics.

And you need to understand that not one reputable relative scholar or archeologist thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century. Not one.

All the experts agree it existed.

Therefore, those of you who don't agree are obviously ill educated, and have no valid opinion on the subject.


"And you need to understand that not one reputable relative scholar or archeologist thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century. Not one.

All the experts agree it existed"


Please explain what existed. What was "Nazareth" in the early first century? Don't dodge the question. You are very sure of yourself, and you claim to have the experts backing you up, so please explain yourself. As always, please back your claims up with evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 07:14 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you need to understand that not one reputable relative scholar or archeologist thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century. Not one.

All the experts agree it existed.

Therefore, those of you who don't agree are obviously ill educated, and have no valid opinion on the subject.


"And you need to understand that not one reputable relative scholar or archeologist thinks that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century. Not one.

All the experts agree it existed"


Please explain what existed. What was "Nazareth" in the early first century? Don't dodge the question. You are very sure of yourself, and you claim to have the experts backing you up, so please explain yourself. As always, please back your claims up with evidence.

All experts agree that Nazareth existed in the 1st century.

Clear enough?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: