Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2016, 07:33 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:33 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:29 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  All experts agree that Nazareth existed in the 1st century.

Clear enough?

No. You have just dodged the question. You claim "it" existed, so tell us what "it" was, and provide your evidence.

Are you resurrecting the claim that Nazareth existed?

It's interesting to see your selective memory on this, we've had this exact same argument a year or so ago here, here we even have archaeological evidence in supports of Nazareth's existence at the time, from graves, to coins, pottery, even an excavation of a farm, from that period in time.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 09:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have read this many times before you posted it here. Bart talks more about Salm than he does Nazareth.

But ... that's the point. Salm is being questioned over his position on Nazareth.

Quote:What "evidence" does Bart present?

Ummm ... the pottery? Coins? Tombs? Farm? House? The opinions of 3 professional archeologists?

What part of the evidence did you not understand? Or rather ...

... how much of this evidence are you making a conscious choice to ignore in favor of your pet and wholly rejected theories?

Big Grin

Quote:"archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus."

Um...what village?

Does Nazareth ring any bells?

Big Grin

Quote:So what if there was a farm?

Yeah ... about that ... it's this little thing that we all refer to as EVIDENCE.

Can you imagine that?

Big Grin

Quote:" a house that dates to the days of Jesus. Again the principal archaeologist was Yardena Alexandre, the excavations director at the Israel Antiquity Authority, whom I again wrote. She has confirmed the news report. The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery remains connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (i.e., the days of Jesus). "

This is the house found in 2009. One house..and it may be second century. One house is not a town or village or a city.

It also may be from 100 BC. Point is, it has been identified as a type of house wholly consistent with the time of Jesus.

Quote:"The AP story concludes that “the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.” "

"suggest that" Consider 50 houses? Shocking "four acres" Facepalm Evidence please Bart! Huh There is none! Thumbsup Or Bart would present it. Tongue

Bart finishes with a totally unsubstantiated claim...

That's because you don't understand how they- the experts and professionals- arrive at that conclusion.

And because you have absolutely no intention of understanding how archeology works, you never will understand how they arrive at that conclusion.

And then people who are like me will laugh at people like you for saying stupid shit.

Laugh out load

Quote:"Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources."

The only sources attesting to this are the bible and church fathers, who read it in the bible, and we know how unreliable the bible is on historical issues. Smartass

So? How does that make Bart wrong? Ohhhh yes ... the mythicist angle! You know ... the position that every damn thing about Jesus is some kind of conspiracy theory. The position that virtually every respectable professional scholar in the field completely rejects.

The position that only fools subscribe to.

Right?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Are you resurrecting the claim that Nazareth existed?

Still waiting ....
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1027414

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
16-07-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 08:30 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The position that virtually every respectable professional scholar in the field completely rejects.

The position that only fools subscribe to.

Yet you can't and won't name all these people. You won't define "respectable". We know you haven't read Carrier or Price, and refused to do so. Yet without even knowing why they raise the issues they do, you disrespectfully lump them, and everyone that disagrees with you, in your broad categories.

You're an intellectual fraud.

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
16-07-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 09:47 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  All experts agree that Nazareth existed as at least a town/community/village during the entirety of the 1st century, with clear evidence of it being a community for at least a century before the purported time of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman weighs in with the following:

Did Nazareth Exist?

"One question I repeatedly get asked is about my opinion on whether the town of Nazareth actually existed. I was puzzled when I started getting emails on this, some years ago now. What I came to realize is that mythicists (i.e., those who think that there never was a man Jesus; he was invented, a “myth”) commonly argue that Nazareth (like Jesus) was completely made up. I still get the emails today – a couple within the past month. I tried to deal with this issue at length in my book Did Jesus Exist? But since I get asked the question still, apparently by people who haven’t read my book (!) – I thought I would repeat some of what I say there. Here is an excerpt on the issue:

*******************************************************

One supposedly legendary feature of the Gospels commonly discussed by mythicists is that the alleged hometown of Jesus, Nazareth did not exist but is itself a myth. The logic of this argument, which is sometimes advanced with considerable vehemence and force, appears to be that if Christians made up Jesus’ hometown, they probably made him up as well. I could dispose of this argument fairly easily by pointing out that it is irrelevant. If Jesus existed, as the evidence suggests, but Nazareth did not, as this assertion claims, then he merely came from somewhere else. Whether Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or not (for what it is worth, he was) is irrelevant to the question of whether he was born.

Since, however, this argument is so widely favored among mythicists, I want to give it a further look and deeper exploration. The most recent critic to dispute the existence of Nazareth is René Salm, who has devoted an entire book to the question, called The Myth of Nazareth. Salm sees this issue as highly significant and relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus: “Upon that determination [i.e., the existence of Nazareth] depends a great deal, perhaps even the entire edifice of Christendom.” Like so many mythicists before him, Salm emphasizes what scholars have long known: Nazareth is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in the writings of Josephus, or in the Talmud. It first shows up in the Gospels. Salm is also impressed by the fact that the early generations of Christians did not seek out the place, but rather ignored it and seemed not to know where it was (this is actually hard to show; how would we know this about “every” early Christian, unless all of them left us writings and told us everything they knew and did?).

Salm’s basic argument is that Nazareth did exist in more ancient times and through the Bronze Age. But then there was a hiatus. It ceased to exist and did not exist in Jesus’ day. Based on archaeological evidence, especially the tombs found in the area, Salm claims that the town came to be re-inhabited sometime between the two Jewish revolts (i.e., between 70 CE and 132 CE), as Jews who resettled following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans relocated in northern climes.

Salm himself is not an archaeologist: he is not trained in the highly technical field of archaeology and gives no indication that he has even ever been on an archaeological dig. He certainly never has worked at the site of Nazareth. Still, he bases almost his entire case on archaeological reports about the town of Nazareth. In particular he is impressed by the fact that the kind of rock-cut tombs that have been uncovered there – called kokh tombs, otherwise known as locula tombs – were not in use in Galilee the middle of the first century and thus do not date to the days of Jesus. And so the town did not exist then.

This is a highly problematic claim, to start with. It is hard to understand why tombs in Nazareth that can be dated to the days after Jesus indicate that there was no town there during the days of Jesus. That is to say, just because later habitation can be established in Nazareth, how does that show that the town was not inhabited earlier? Moreover, Salm fails to stress one of the most important points about this special kind of rock-cut tombs: they were expensive to make, and only the most wealthy of families could afford them. There is nothing in any of our records to suggest that Nazareth had any wealthy families in the days of Jesus. And so no one in town would have been able to purchase a kokh tomb. So what does the fact that none were found from the days of Jesus indicate? Precisely nothing. The tombs that poor people used in Palestine were shallow graves, not built into rock, like kokh tombs. These poor-person graves almost never survive for archaeologists to find.

I should also point out that these kokh tombs from later times were discovered on the hillside of the traditional site of Nazareth. Salm, however, claims that the hillside would have been uninhabitable in Jesus’ day, so that, in his opinion, the village that eventually came into existence (in the years after 70 CE) would have been located on the valley floor, less than a kilometer away. He also points out that archaeologists have never dug at that site.

This view creates insurmountable problems for his thesis. For one thing there is the simple question of logic. If archaeologists have not dug where Salm thinks the village was located, what is his basis for saying that it did not exist in the days of Jesus? This is a major flaw: using forceful rhetoric, almost to the point of indiscretion, Salm insists that anyone who thinks that Nazareth exists has to argue “against the available material evidence.” But what material evidence can there be, if the site where the evidence would exist has never been excavated? And what evidence, exactly, is being argued against, if none has been turned up?

There is an even bigger problem however. There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’ day, and that like other villages and towns in that part of Galilee, it was built on the hillside, near where the later rock-cut kokh tombs were built. For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus. Salm disputes the finding of the archaeologists who did the excavation (it needs to be remembered, he himself is not an archaeologist but is simply basing his views on what the real archaeologists – all of whom disagree with him — have to say). For one thing, when archaeologist Yardena Alexandre indicated that 165 coins were found in this excavation, she specified in the report that some of them were late, from the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. This suits Salm’s purposes just fine. But as it turns out, there were among the coins some that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus. Salm objected that this was not in Alexandre’s report, but Alexandre has verbally confirmed (to me personally) that in fact it is the case: there were coins in the collection that date to the time prior to the Jewish uprising.

Salm also claims that the pottery found on the site that is dated to the time of Jesus is not really from this period, even though he is not an expert on pottery. Two archaeologists who reply to Salm’s protestations say the following: “Salm’s personal evaluation of the pottery … reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources.” They go on to state: “By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic [that is, coins], and literary evidence for Nazareth’s existence during the Late Hellenisitic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of ‘myth.’”

Another archaeologist who specializes in Galilee, Ken Dark, the Director of the Nazareth Archaeological Project, gave a thoroughly negative review of Salm’s book, noting, among other things, that “there is no hint that Salm has qualifications – nor any fieldwork experience – in archaeology.” Dark shows that Salm has misunderstood both the hydrology (how the water systems worked) and the topography (the lay out) of Nazareth, and points out that the town could well have been located on the hill slopes, just as other nearby towns were, such as Khirbet Kana. His concluding remarks are damning: “To conclude: despite initial appearances this is not a well-informed study and ignores much evidence and important published work of direct relevance. The basic premise is faulty, and Salm’s reasoning is often weak and shaped by his preconceptions. Overall, his central argument is archaeologically unsupportable.”

But there is more. As it turns out, another discovery was made in ancient Nazareth, a year after Salm’s book appeared. It is a house that dates to the days of Jesus. Again the principal archaeologist was Yardena Alexandre, the excavations director at the Israel Antiquity Authority, whom I again wrote. She has confirmed the news report. The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery remains connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (i.e., the days of Jesus). There is nothing in the house to suggest that the persons inhabiting it over this time had any wealth: there is no glass and no imported products. The vessels are made of clay and chalk.

The AP story concludes that “the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.” No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant. Most people had never heard of it and those who had heard didn’t care. Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources."


http://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/


"All experts agree that Nazareth existed as at least a town/community/village during the entirety of the 1st century,"


An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.

Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." [1]

Actually, you failed to read that Wiki in it's entirety:

"More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"[9] or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f...ty#History

Modern logic teaches us that appealing to arguments from persons such as Salm, Humphreys, Doherty, Godfrey, are all fallacious because none of them are legitimate authorities.

Modern logic now excludes labeling a collective of authorities as a reference as being fallacious, and regards them as a "Collective of Intelligence."

Get with the times Mark.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 09:21 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 09:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 08:30 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The position that virtually every respectable professional scholar in the field completely rejects.

The position that only fools subscribe to.

Yet you can't and won't name all these people. You won't define "respectable". We know you haven't read Carrier or Price, and refused to do so. Yet without even knowing why they raise the issues they do, you disrespectfully lump them, and everyone that disagrees with you, in your broad categories.

You're an intellectual fraud.


Credatis quia ego sum si tamen fraus et conuersari lets videre quomodo bene Latine agis.

Ή ίσως Έλληνες θα ήταν περισσότερο στην προτίμησή σας ;

Choose your poison, Mr. Ball.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 10:10 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 09:18 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:47 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "All experts agree that Nazareth existed as at least a town/community/village during the entirety of the 1st century,"

An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy that argues that a position is true or more likely to be true because an authority or authorities agree with it.

Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else." [1]

Actually, you failed to read that Wiki in it's entirety:

"More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"[9] or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f...ty#History

Modern logic teaches us that appealing to arguments from persons such as Salm, Humphreys, Doherty, Godfrey, are all fallacious because none of them are legitimate authorities.

Modern logic now excludes labeling a collective of authorities as a reference as being fallacious, and regards them as a "Collective of Intelligence."

Get with the times Mark.

Half-right.

The full name of the fallacy is, indeed, the argument from inappropriate authority, and it does distinguish between those who are capable of commenting on a subject and those who are not. All it means is that any given "authority" cited should be an authority in the appropriate field if their name is to carry any weight. For example, it would be fallacious to follow a man's financial advice just because he has a doctorate in theoretical physics.

Where you go off-track a bit is in forgetting that an argument from authority, while not necessarily fallacious if the authority is appropriate for the subject at hand, is also not necessarily correct. Authorities can be wrong, even in their own fields, and must back up their arguments with evidence like anyone else. Fallacies committed by authorities are still fallacies, and bare assertions made by authorities are still bare assertions.

If you want to claim that "all the experts" agree on the existence of Nazareth - and they well might, I haven't a clue and don't particularly care - then you need to name them so that their validity as sources can be checked. No one is going to take you at all seriously if you refuse to do so.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
16-07-2016, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 10:43 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 10:10 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 09:18 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, you failed to read that Wiki in it's entirety:

"More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority"[9] or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f...ty#History

Modern logic teaches us that appealing to arguments from persons such as Salm, Humphreys, Doherty, Godfrey, are all fallacious because none of them are legitimate authorities.

Modern logic now excludes labeling a collective of authorities as a reference as being fallacious, and regards them as a "Collective of Intelligence."

Get with the times Mark.

Half-right.

The full name of the fallacy is, indeed, the argument from inappropriate authority, and it does distinguish between those who are capable of commenting on a subject and those who are not. All it means is that any given "authority" cited should be an authority in the appropriate field if their name is to carry any weight. For example, it would be fallacious to follow a man's financial advice just because he has a doctorate in theoretical physics.

Where you go off-track a bit is in forgetting that an argument from authority, while not necessarily fallacious if the authority is appropriate for the subject at hand, is also not necessarily correct. Authorities can be wrong, even in their own fields, and must back up their arguments with evidence like anyone else. Fallacies committed by authorities are still fallacies, and bare assertions made by authorities are still bare assertions.

If you want to claim that "all the experts" agree on the existence of Nazareth - and they well might, I haven't a clue and don't particularly care - then you need to name them so that their validity as sources can be checked. No one is going to take you at all seriously if you refuse to do so.

I agree with this.

My point is really all about who has the most credibility. Like I keep saying here in regards to history, nothing can ever be conclusively proven. The best we can do is to leave it in the hands of those who are most qualified, and if those who are most qualified reach a consensus based upon the evidence, then we accept that consensus as being the most likely truth.

All it proves is what is most probable, not what is conclusive.

In regards to naming the professionals, there are so many of their names already listed in this conversation. I think it is unreasonable to be asked to provide say ... a list of 2 or 3 hundred scholars who subscribe to the Nazareth existing thing, when we have no reason to doubt the list that's already been provided, and when some on this list such as Ehrman states quite clearly that of all the people he knows who are scholars he has never encountered one of them who thinks Nazareth didn't exist.

It is more reasonable to ask those who think this subject of Nazareth not existing in the 1st century has merit to provide a small list of say ... 5 or 6 ... qualified persons who state that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century.

Now listen to the sound of the crickets chirping.

Laugh out load

Truly the concept of Nazareth not existing in the 1st century is even debunked by well known proponents of Mythicism such as Richard Carrier.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 10:15 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 10:10 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Half-right.

The full name of the fallacy is, indeed, the argument from inappropriate authority, and it does distinguish between those who are capable of commenting on a subject and those who are not. All it means is that any given "authority" cited should be an authority in the appropriate field if their name is to carry any weight. For example, it would be fallacious to follow a man's financial advice just because he has a doctorate in theoretical physics.

Where you go off-track a bit is in forgetting that an argument from authority, while not necessarily fallacious if the authority is appropriate for the subject at hand, is also not necessarily correct. Authorities can be wrong, even in their own fields, and must back up their arguments with evidence like anyone else. Fallacies committed by authorities are still fallacies, and bare assertions made by authorities are still bare assertions.

If you want to claim that "all the experts" agree on the existence of Nazareth - and they well might, I haven't a clue and don't particularly care - then you need to name them so that their validity as sources can be checked. No one is going to take you at all seriously if you refuse to do so.

I agree with this.

My point is really all about who has the most credibility. Like I keep saying here in regards to history, nothing can ever be conclusively proven. The best we can do is to leave it in the hands of those who are most qualified, and if those who are most qualified reach a consensus based upon the evidence, then we accept that consensus as being the most likely truth.

All it proves is what is most probable, not what is conclusive.

In regards to naming the professionals, there are so many of their names already listed in this conversation. I think it is unreasonable to be asked to provide say ... a list of 2 or 3 hundred scholars who subscribe to the Nazareth existing thing, when we have no reason to doubt the list that's already been provided, and when some on this list such as Ehrman states quite clearly that of all the people he knows who are scholars he has never encountered one of them who thinks Nazareth didn't exist.

It is more reasonable to ask those who think this subject of Nazareth not existing in the 1st century has merit to provide a small list of say ... 5 or 6 ... qualified persons who state that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century.

Now listen to the sound of the crickets chirping.

Laugh out load

Truly the concept of Nazareth not existing in the 1st century is even debunked by well known proponents of Mythicism such as Richard Carrier.


There is a view that Jesus was a military leader/prince of a Syrian dynasty and that he had a fortress at Gamala. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBdxGr29...redirect=1

Josephus was a commander at Gamala before being captured by the Romans. I would like to get an English translation of Donnini's book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 04:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 04:15 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 08:30 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have read this many times before you posted it here. Bart talks more about Salm than he does Nazareth.

But ... that's the point. Salm is being questioned over his position on Nazareth.

Quote:What "evidence" does Bart present?

Ummm ... the pottery? Coins? Tombs? Farm? House? The opinions of 3 professional archeologists?

What part of the evidence did you not understand? Or rather ...

... how much of this evidence are you making a conscious choice to ignore in favor of your pet and wholly rejected theories?

Big Grin

Quote:"archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus."

Um...what village?

Does Nazareth ring any bells?

Big Grin

Quote:So what if there was a farm?

Yeah ... about that ... it's this little thing that we all refer to as EVIDENCE.

Can you imagine that?

Big Grin

Quote:" a house that dates to the days of Jesus. Again the principal archaeologist was Yardena Alexandre, the excavations director at the Israel Antiquity Authority, whom I again wrote. She has confirmed the news report. The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery remains connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (i.e., the days of Jesus). "

This is the house found in 2009. One house..and it may be second century. One house is not a town or village or a city.

It also may be from 100 BC. Point is, it has been identified as a type of house wholly consistent with the time of Jesus.

Quote:"The AP story concludes that “the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.” "

"suggest that" Consider 50 houses? Shocking "four acres" Facepalm Evidence please Bart! Huh There is none! Thumbsup Or Bart would present it. Tongue

Bart finishes with a totally unsubstantiated claim...

That's because you don't understand how they- the experts and professionals- arrive at that conclusion.

And because you have absolutely no intention of understanding how archeology works, you never will understand how they arrive at that conclusion.

And then people who are like me will laugh at people like you for saying stupid shit.

Laugh out load

Quote:"Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources."

The only sources attesting to this are the bible and church fathers, who read it in the bible, and we know how unreliable the bible is on historical issues. Smartass

So? How does that make Bart wrong? Ohhhh yes ... the mythicist angle! You know ... the position that every damn thing about Jesus is some kind of conspiracy theory. The position that virtually every respectable professional scholar in the field completely rejects.

The position that only fools subscribe to.

Right?

Big Grin

Please tell us what "Nazareth" was in the first century, along with your evidence. Do not dodge the question. You have not told us what you think was there. The spiel from Bart, which was a quote from someone else, hasn't convinced me either.

"how much of this evidence are you making a conscious choice to ignore in favor of your pet and wholly rejected theories?"

What are my "pet and wholly rejected theories?" You obviously know something about what I think about Nazareth that I don't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: