Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2016, 08:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:48 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

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.

You have provided none.

Keep going.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 07:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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

"He is neither a scholar in any relevant field"

More ad hominems.


"nor does he doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century."

You haven't read his book. I have. Twice. There is no need to discuss the existence of "Nazareth" after one removes Jeebus from the equation. The same argument applies to Schonfield (who I'm sure you haven't read either...I have read 2 of his books.) You might as well be discussing a spot on the North pole.

When are you going to answer my question?
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, 08:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 07:48 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

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.

No.

E. Christopher Reyes is not a scholar in anything. He is a layman not unlike yourself.

That's 5 failures. Let me know when you find JUST 1 legitimate pretender.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:12 PM (This post was last modified: 16-07-2016 08:33 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 08:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 07:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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

"He is neither a scholar in any relevant field"

More ad hominems.

If you want to pretend he's a scholar, that's up to yourself. Anybody with half a clue can easily check him out and verify that he isn't a scholar in any relevant field. He's a social anthropologist, Mark, not a historian or an archeologist.


Quote:
Quote:"nor does he doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century."

You haven't read his book. I have. Twice. There is no need to discuss the existence of "Nazareth" after one removes Jeebus from the equation. The same argument applies to Schonfield (who I'm sure you haven't read either...I have read 2 of his books.) You might as well be discussing a spot on the North pole.

Faulty reasoning.

1. Jesus didn't exist, therefore Nazareth didn't exist.
2. Jesus didn't exist.
3. Therefore Nazareth didn't exist.

Anybody with a clue in logic can see the obvious problem.

You have reached the wrong conclusion that because he questions the existence of Jesus, it somehow means he also questions the existence of Nazareth. Yet, you have shown nothing to demonstrate that he questions the existence of Nazareth.

Therefore, if he believes that Jesus didn't exist, it has no bearing on whether or not he believes that Nazareth also didn't exist in the 1st century.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 06:44 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 06:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

"Hugh Schonfield did not have any doubts about the existence of Nazareth..."

How do you know? Had you even heard of him before now? How many of his books have you read?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 08:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "He is neither a scholar in any relevant field"

More ad hominems.

If you want to pretend he's a scholar, that's up to yourself. Anybody with half a clue can easily check him out and verify that he isn't a scholar in any relevant field. He's a social anthropologist, Mark, not a historian or an archeologist.


Quote:You haven't read his book. I have. Twice. There is no need to discuss the existence of "Nazareth" after one removes Jeebus from the equation. The same argument applies to Schonfield (who I'm sure you haven't read either...I have read 2 of his books.) You might as well be discussing a spot on the North pole.

Faulty reasoning.

1. Jesus didn't exist, therefore Nazareth didn't exist.
2. Jesus didn't exist.
3. Therefore Nazareth didn't exist.

Anybody with a clue in logic can see the obvious problem.

You have reached the wrong conclusion that because he questions the existence of Jesus, it somehow means he also questions the existence of Nazareth. Yet, you have shown nothing to demonstrate that he questions the existence of Nazareth.

Therefore, if he believes that Jesus didn't exist, it has no bearing on whether or not he believes that Nazareth also didn't exist in the 1st century.

Big Grin

Wrong wrong wrong.

Peter Cresswell thinks Jesus did exist, so what are you on about?

If J ain't from "Nazareth," then this discussion (about N) is pointless. We might as well be talking about my gum boot. That's my point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 08:45 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 06:44 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

"Hugh Schonfield did not have any doubts about the existence of Nazareth..."

How do you know? Had you even heard of him before now? How many of his books have you read?

Yes, I have heard of him. Yes, I have reviewed his work and his life.

He was a devoted Christian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 08:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 08:12 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  If you want to pretend he's a scholar, that's up to yourself. Anybody with half a clue can easily check him out and verify that he isn't a scholar in any relevant field. He's a social anthropologist, Mark, not a historian or an archeologist.



Faulty reasoning.

1. Jesus didn't exist, therefore Nazareth didn't exist.
2. Jesus didn't exist.
3. Therefore Nazareth didn't exist.

Anybody with a clue in logic can see the obvious problem.

You have reached the wrong conclusion that because he questions the existence of Jesus, it somehow means he also questions the existence of Nazareth. Yet, you have shown nothing to demonstrate that he questions the existence of Nazareth.

Therefore, if he believes that Jesus didn't exist, it has no bearing on whether or not he believes that Nazareth also didn't exist in the 1st century.

Big Grin

Wrong wrong wrong.

Peter Cresswell thinks Jesus did exist, so what are you on about?

If J ain't from "Nazareth," then this discussion (about N) is pointless. We might as well be talking about my gum boot. That's my point.

You implied he didn't. Here are your words.

"There is no need to discuss the existence of "Nazareth" after one removes Jeebus from the equation. The same argument applies to Schonfield."

But the same problem for you exists:

1. Jesus never came from Nazareth, therefore Nazareth never existed.
2. Jesus never came from Nazareth.
3. therefore Nazareth never existed.

Faulty reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 09:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 09:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 08:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Wrong wrong wrong.

Peter Cresswell thinks Jesus did exist, so what are you on about?

If J ain't from "Nazareth," then this discussion (about N) is pointless. We might as well be talking about my gum boot. That's my point.

You implied he didn't. Here are your words.

"There is no need to discuss the existence of "Nazareth" after one removes Jeebus from the equation. The same argument applies to Schonfield."

But the same problem for you exists:

1. Jesus never came from Nazareth, therefore Nazareth never existed.
2. Jesus never came from Nazareth.
3. therefore Nazareth never existed.

Faulty reasoning.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2016, 10:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(16-07-2016 09:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(16-07-2016 08:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Wrong wrong wrong.

Peter Cresswell thinks Jesus did exist, so what are you on about?

If J ain't from "Nazareth," then this discussion (about N) is pointless. We might as well be talking about my gum boot. That's my point.

You implied he didn't. Here are your words.

"There is no need to discuss the existence of "Nazareth" after one removes Jeebus from the equation. The same argument applies to Schonfield."

But the same problem for you exists:

1. Jesus never came from Nazareth, therefore Nazareth never existed.
2. Jesus never came from Nazareth.
3. therefore Nazareth never existed.

Faulty reasoning.

You are too stupid for me to bother with you any more.
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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: