Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2016, 06:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 06:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.


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


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.


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

No.


Hugh Schonfield did not have any doubts about the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century. His contention was not one of existence, but rather whether Nazara was the place Jesus came from as opposed to Nazareth.

Try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:07 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 06:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(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


Says the man who rails about arguments from silence.
Weeping

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, 07:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 06:40 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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


Says the man who rails about arguments from silence.
Weeping

But I am not asking for an argument from silence. I am asking for just 1 scholar who can support the Nazareth-Never-Existed position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:19 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

Peter Cresswell

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=D47...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, 07:24 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

Douglas Lockhart

http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE%20NAZ...20SECT.pdf
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.


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


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.


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

Peter Cresswell

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=D47...th&f=false

No.

He is neither a scholar in any relevant field, nor does he doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century.

Keep scratching the bottom of the barrel, Mark. You might get lucky.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:29 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

Rene Salm and Robert Eisenman....

“For René Salm in NazarethGate, the field of New Testament archaeology is becoming more and more dysfunctional and, in the process, many of its practitioners are creating more and more Christian ‘holy sites.’ With fearless clarity and persistence, he moves on once more to show there was no such thing as ‘Nazareth’ as such in the time of Jesus and ‘no Nazareth’ means, of course, there was no ‘Jesus of Nazareth’—though maybe ‘Jesus of something else.’… I am sure you will find reading NazarethGate an enjoyable, eye-opening, and enlightening experience.”—Dr. Robert Eisenman, author of James the Brother of Jesus, The New Testament Code, and liberator of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:10 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 07:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Says the man who rails about arguments from silence.
Weeping

But I am not asking for an argument from silence. I am asking for just 1 scholar who can support the Nazareth-Never-Existed position.

And without it, what you HAVE is an argument from silence. Facepalm

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, 07:48 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

Christoper Reyes...

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=y1-...th&f=false


That's 5. Shall I keep going?

When are you going to present your evidence for the existence of Nazareth the village in the first century? Do not dodge the question.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 07:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.


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


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.


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

Rene Salm and Robert Eisenman....

“For René Salm in NazarethGate, the field of New Testament archaeology is becoming more and more dysfunctional and, in the process, many of its practitioners are creating more and more Christian ‘holy sites.’ With fearless clarity and persistence, he moves on once more to show there was no such thing as ‘Nazareth’ as such in the time of Jesus and ‘no Nazareth’ means, of course, there was no ‘Jesus of Nazareth’—though maybe ‘Jesus of something else.’… I am sure you will find reading NazarethGate an enjoyable, eye-opening, and enlightening experience.”—Dr. Robert Eisenman, author of James the Brother of Jesus, The New Testament Code, and liberator of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

No.

Dr. Robert Eisenman does not believe that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: