Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2016, 04:16 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
What kind of car did Jesus drive? The Bible answers that question. Jesus and his disciples were all in one Accord!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Born Again Pagan's post
16-07-2016, 04:32 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.

"My point is really all about who has the most credibility."

So you keep saying. Ad nauseum.

Yet that's not really the point. The point is the evidence. So we can make up our own minds.

What is more, you keep mentioning that there is an avalanche of scholars who are adamant that Nazareth existed. I can't find them. Bart is one, but where are the rest?

I think the reality is that most scholars, and archaeologists, dodge the question of Nazareth the city/town/village's existence in the first century because of the lack of historical and archaeological evidence.

Now...I'm happy to be proven wrong about this, and will gladly look up the writings of any of this unanimous mountain of experts you keep mentioning, and I'll be very particular to consider their evidence, BUT I CAN"T FIND THEM. You obviously can, and you are adamant about this, so please provide some links.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
16-07-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I too would like evidence because the Roman empire is of major interest to me. I do know there were many small villages scattered around the empire. The Romans were very interested in the census and wanted to know who lived within the bounds of their empire.

There should be some record. We have major historical evidence of such things. (One reason I was going to learn Latin). Much of it is untranslated. In time it will be.

Please provide links.

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
16-07-2016, 06:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:My point is really all about who has the most credibility.


Horseshit. People like you define "credibility" as someone who agrees with you or at least tells you what you want to hear.

You seek vindication for your fairy tales. Not reality.

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
16-07-2016, 06:15 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 04:10 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 08:30 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  But ... that's the point. Salm is being questioned over his position on Nazareth.


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


Does Nazareth ring any bells?

Big Grin


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

Can you imagine that?

Big Grin


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.


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


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.

You've missed the boat, Mark. All you questions have already been addressed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 04:16 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  What kind of car did Jesus drive? The Bible answers that question. Jesus and his disciples were all in one Accord!

That's just your pet theory, and it has been wholly discredited. You are just trying to sell hondas.

All the people who know about these things, two or three hundred scholars, in fact, are absolutely convinced Jesus drove an hyundai. All the evidence, and there's lots of it, points unmistakeably to hyundai. For example, in 2009, a piece of tyre, with "made in Korea" printed on it, was found in a rubbish dump in Nazereth. Ipse facto, Jeebus drove an hyundai. So did all his disciples.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 06:28 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 06:34 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 04:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 10:15 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

"My point is really all about who has the most credibility."

So you keep saying. Ad nauseum.

Yet that's not really the point. The point is the evidence. So we can make up our own minds.

Yep, and the evidence is readily available and crystal clear. It strongly indicates that Nazareth existed in at least the 1st century, and likely even before that.

Quote:What is more, you keep mentioning that there is an avalanche of scholars who are adamant that Nazareth existed. I can't find them. Bart is one, but where are the rest?

There were at least 4 in the Bart article alone. Even Richard Carrier accepts it, so that's 5.

Quote:I think the reality is that most scholars, and archaeologists, dodge the question of Nazareth the city/town/village's existence in the first century because of the lack of historical and archaeological evidence.

Your reality is your own, for nobody else shares it. Most scholars and archeologists don't even get questioned about the existence of Nazareth because everybody knows the question is fucking retarded.

You act as if this is some big deal. This isn't a big deal to anybody of any credibility. It's only a big deal to suckers like yourself who buy into the internet sensations such as Humphreys and Salm, or any other conspiracy theory flavor of the week.

Quote:Now...I'm happy to be proven wrong about this, and will gladly look up the writings of any of this unanimous mountain of experts you keep mentioning, and I'll be very particular to consider their evidence, BUT I CAN"T FIND THEM. You obviously can, and you are adamant about this, so please provide some links.

Scholars have been listed. Now it's your turn. I will shorten my list just for you:

Please provide for me Just 1 history scholar or professional archeologist relevant in the field who even doubts the existence of the town of Nazareth in the 1st century.

Nice and simple, Mark.

Just 1.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 06:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 06:15 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 04:10 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

You've missed the boat, Mark. All you questions have already been addressed.

Show us the evidence of your first century hamlet/town/city/village. Stop dodging the issue.Big Grin

Do NOT tell us (again) how many people agree with you.

Do NOT claim you have already given us the evidence.

Present the goods, or shut up. Drinking Beverage
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
16-07-2016, 06:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 04:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "My point is really all about who has the most credibility."

So you keep saying. Ad nauseum.

Yet that's not really the point. The point is the evidence. So we can make up our own minds.

Yep, and the evidence is readily available and crystal clear. It strongly indicates that Nazareth existed in at least the 1st century, and likely even before that.

Quote:What is more, you keep mentioning that there is an avalanche of scholars who are adamant that Nazareth existed. I can't find them. Bart is one, but where are the rest?

There were at least 4 in the Bart article alone. Even Richard Carrier accepts it, so that's 5.

Quote:I think the reality is that most scholars, and archaeologists, dodge the question of Nazareth the city/town/village's existence in the first century because of the lack of historical and archaeological evidence.

Your reality is your own, for nobody else shares it. Most scholars and archeologists don't even get questioned about the existence of Nazareth because everybody knows the question is fucking retarded.

You act as if this is some big deal. This isn't a big deal to anybody of any credibility. It's only a big deal to suckers like yourself who buy into the internet sensations such as Humphreys and Salm, or any other conspiracy theory flavor of the week.

Quote:Now...I'm happy to be proven wrong about this, and will gladly look up the writings of any of this unanimous mountain of experts you keep mentioning, and I'll be very particular to consider their evidence, BUT I CAN"T FIND THEM. You obviously can, and you are adamant about this, so please provide some links.

Scholars have been listed. Now it's your turn. I will shorten my list just for you:

Please provide for me Just 1 history scholar or professional archeologist relevant in the field who even doubts the existence of the town of Nazareth in the 1st century.

Nice and simple, Mark.

Just 1.

Big Grin

Hugh Schonfield

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=b7b...th&f=false
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 06:40 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 06:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Present the goods, or shut up. Drinking Beverage

Already did.

Now show me Just 1 scholar who doubts the existence of the town of Nazareth in the 1st century.

Come on Mark. You can do it. Or do we need to call in the Christians to generate some faith in you?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: