Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2016, 07:43 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Uhm, we have a variety of archaeological evidence in support of Nazareth existing in the first century, from graves, an excavated farm, coins, and pottery, and even an inscription in synagogue, that chronicles that assignment of priests during the Bar Bar Kokhba revolt in 132.

I fail to see how mid-second century evidence supports Nazareth's existence at the dawn of the first century. :cup

Because the inscription indicates where and when these assignments took place, and by a non-christian source as well.

Nazareth does exist, the only question is when it came into existence. And the fact of the matter is we have a variety of archaeological evidence, to indicate that existed in the first century, graves, an excavated farmhouse, coins, pottery, etc...

But it does show that once again, even when archaeological evidence, is available, beyond any written sources, the denialism still festers.

Quote:There has not yet been shown any evidence that Nazareth existed as a town at the end of the 1st century BCE and beginning of the 1st century CE - the only time of actual interest on the issue.

Except of course the variety of archaeological evidence, as previously mentioned. But go ahead continue on.

"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
18-07-2016, 07:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
This is real interesting....

".........To my knowledge the earliest non-
Christian references to Nazareth occur in the 4th century CE, and its
earliest epigraphic reference is found in an inscription made at
Caesarea after 370CE. Christian references, of course, are of little
weight here, for they do not constitute independent witness and may
represent nothing more than reaffirmation of/within a developing
tradition.
........ while living at Japha, Josephus resided 2000 meters from what eventually
became the center of late Roman Nazareth, yet in his later survey of
the area he makes no mention of the town. Origen lived within a
day's journey of the future site of Nazareth for many years but was
unable to find such a city, eventually concluding that the Gospel
references to Nazareth should be interpreted figuratively or
mystically.
This indicates strongly to me that in the first
centuries of the Common Era local inhabitants had no idea there was
supposed to be a city called Nazareth in their area, much less that
they actually entertained thoughts of it. ........ There are positive
contexts that demonstrate funerary activity in the precise loci where
the Franciscans allege the 1st century occupation occurred. All of
the proposed 1st century habitation sites are found in an area that
was actively used for interments throughout the period, existing
within a belt of subterranean depressions that has marked the center
of the Nazareth necropolis for thousands of years. These purported
habitations exhibit none of the artifactual features characteristic
of a domestic context, and though a non-contextualized, 1st century
(i.e., typologically datable to ca. 50 CE) lamp neck was found on the
surface near these interments, its orientation and breakage pattern
was consistent with the post-funerary cleansing rituals specified for
such an area by the religious literature of the period. So, rather
than being "silent" on the issue of 1st century CE Nazareth, the data
emit a loud and deafening roar!"

From https://www.rationalresponders.com/forum...paign/6888

HA HA! Now we are getting closer to the truth!! Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 07:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Dear readers, consider the irony. This uninformed, grammar terrorist is suggesting my idea about the origin of the term "Nazarene" is a "cult," HuhHuhHuh whereas consider what emerged as Christianity, allegedly from Jesus "of Nazareth," was, in reality. Thumbsup Yes. A cult. Big Grin

No, dear readers, it was about as I recall your suggestion, that Nazareth was a title for Jesus, rather than a hometown, which was only later mistaken as a place. In fact if memory serves me correctly, you claimed the earlier Gospels don't suggest it was a place either.

"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
18-07-2016, 08:06 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 06:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-07-2016 08:16 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I'm unconvinced about the scale of the place. Yes, there was probably a first century dwelling. Yes, a grape farm. These do not make a town.

I'm not sure who claims it was large in scale, some estimates put the population at the time to a few hundred people.

Quote:I'm not aware of any good evidence the current site was called Nazareth in the first century.

Like the jewish inscription found in a synagogue, chronicling the assignment of priests, during the Bar Kocheba Revolt, in the first century.

Yes I know, the Gospels writers must have invited the town, and then it arose in the wake of this invention shortly afterwards. The alternative would just be too inconvenient for your whole cult of the Nazarene plot.

"I'm not sure who claims it was large in scale, some estimates put the population at the time to a few hundred people."

Goddam it boy, it's in da book, you should know dat. it musta been a big place...

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

(King James Bible, Matthew 2;23)
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
18-07-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 04:45 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-07-2016 08:24 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  On sites not like this I am known. I have no fear elsewhere because "elsewhere" doesn't deal with controversial subjects or with people I do not know.

I dislike Islam, and see no redeeming qualities in it. It has a very high degree of propensity to create extremists, and those extremist come from people we once viewed as moderates, or Americanized.

On forums like this I can freely express my views, but if I "come out" with my views it can hurt me professionally, let alone endanger me and my family.

Haven't any of you ever wondered why you don't see religious historians posting on forums under their real names? If they work at at a university, or have a great deal of respect in the scholarly community, the last thing they need is to have their words lifted from a forum and used against them as a reason to either be dismissed, or discredited.

I know for a certainty that I am not the only historian who posts on forums. This is an excellent avenue to test theories via debate, and i know of at least 3 or 4 other historians who frequent various web forums anonymously, and one of them is pretty well known.


You wrote

"There is virtually nothing you can teach me that I don't already know." (post 579) Gasp

and now

"I know for a certainty that I am not the only historian who posts on forums. This is an excellent avenue to test theories via debate..." Huh

So, on which occasion were you lying? Drinking Beverage

Aside from you- in your obvious desperation- taking my statements out of context, my obvious point to GWG was that since he is a student, and I am a teacher, there was virtually nothing he could teach me that I don't already know. Below is the context of the conversation:

goodwithoutgod Wrote:
GoingUp Wrote:You know why we are experts in theology? Because we have studied it, read the bible, applied analysis and comparative studies to the OT, NT and the story of jesus.

There is virtually nothing you can teach me that I don't already know. However ...

Multa profecto ostenderet tibi quod non possum etiam Latine et Graece.

I was demonstrating to him that on the contrary to his statement, I replied in Latin that "There was much I could teach him in regards to Latin and Greek."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2016, 08:18 AM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2016 08:45 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 07:45 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  This is real interesting....

".........To my knowledge the earliest non-
Christian references to Nazareth occur in the 4th century CE, and its
earliest epigraphic reference is found in an inscription made at
Caesarea after 370CE. Christian references, of course, are of little
weight here, for they do not constitute independent witness and may
represent nothing more than reaffirmation of/within a developing
tradition.
........ while living at Japha, Josephus resided 2000 meters from what eventually
became the center of late Roman Nazareth, yet in his later survey of
the area he makes no mention of the town. Origen lived within a
day's journey of the future site of Nazareth for many years but was
unable to find such a city, eventually concluding that the Gospel
references to Nazareth should be interpreted figuratively or
mystically.
This indicates strongly to me that in the first
centuries of the Common Era local inhabitants had no idea there was
supposed to be a city called Nazareth in their area, much less that
they actually entertained thoughts of it. ........ There are positive
contexts that demonstrate funerary activity in the precise loci where
the Franciscans allege the 1st century occupation occurred. All of
the proposed 1st century habitation sites are found in an area that
was actively used for interments throughout the period, existing
within a belt of subterranean depressions that has marked the center
of the Nazareth necropolis for thousands of years. These purported
habitations exhibit none of the artifactual features characteristic
of a domestic context, and though a non-contextualized, 1st century
(i.e., typologically datable to ca. 50 CE) lamp neck was found on the
surface near these interments, its orientation and breakage pattern
was consistent with the post-funerary cleansing rituals specified for
such an area by the religious literature of the period. So, rather
than being "silent" on the issue of 1st century CE Nazareth, the data
emit a loud and deafening roar!"

From https://www.rationalresponders.com/forum...paign/6888

HA HA! Now we are getting closer to the truth!! Big Grin

Yes, because everything you read on the Internet- especially from Rook Hawkins who incidentally accepts the evidence demonstrating the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century- must be true.

Laugh out load

Did you verify this from the works of Origen?

Please provide the relevant text from Origen.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
18-07-2016, 09:12 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 08:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I'm not sure who claims it was large in scale, some estimates put the population at the time to a few hundred people."

Goddam it boy, it's in da book, you should know dat. it musta been a big place...

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

(King James Bible, Matthew 2;23)

You do realize that the greek work for town and city is the same right? That the term polin doesn't indicate scale, as we might when we refer to place as a city, rather than a town.

When the Gospel of John wrote of Nazareth, he speaks of it as rather trivial place, in which nothing particularly good ever came out of it: " “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”. So there's little to no reason to assume that Nazareth was anything but a small town in that area, as indicated by the archaeological evidence as well. All you seem to be placing your chips on is your own anachronism.

I do notice that in this debate you seems to put your own pet views, that have been rather ignored as of late to the side, to help support the mythicist position, though you don't hold to that position.

I'm guessing a lack of attention leads you to be here tacitly supporting a position contrary to your own conclusions?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
18-07-2016, 12:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 08:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I'm not sure who claims it was large in scale, some estimates put the population at the time to a few hundred people."

Goddam it boy, it's in da book, you should know dat. it musta been a big place...

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

(King James Bible, Matthew 2;23)

You do realize that the greek work for town and city is the same right? That the term polin doesn't indicate scale, as we might when we refer to place as a city, rather than a town.

I have noticed that Mark and others often commit this fallacy, which is known as the Historian's Fallacy.

"The historian's fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision."

What we view as constituting a village/town/city in modern times and in our culture may have absolutely nothing in common with how they were viewed by ancient peoples in a distant ancient culture. For all we know, 2 families in one location could be enough to constitute a town in ancient times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
18-07-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 12:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You do realize that the greek work for town and city is the same right? That the term polin doesn't indicate scale, as we might when we refer to place as a city, rather than a town.

I have noticed that Mark and others often commit this fallacy, which is known as the Historian's Fallacy.

"The historian's fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision."

What we view as constituting a village/town/city in modern times and in our culture may have absolutely nothing in common with how they were viewed by ancient peoples in a distant ancient culture. For all we know, 2 families in one location could be enough to constitute a town in ancient times.

LMAO ... you mean the very fallacy that I taught YOU about (which you did not get, or understand) when YOU tried to tell us that the Salem Mass inhabitants' view of the witch events was "superstition".

Yes indeed. You are the teacher, we are the students.

My ass.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-07-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(18-07-2016 01:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 12:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I have noticed that Mark and others often commit this fallacy, which is known as the Historian's Fallacy.

"The historian's fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision."

What we view as constituting a village/town/city in modern times and in our culture may have absolutely nothing in common with how they were viewed by ancient peoples in a distant ancient culture. For all we know, 2 families in one location could be enough to constitute a town in ancient times.

LMAO ... you mean the very fallacy that I taught YOU about (which you did not get, or understand) when YOU tried to tell us that the Salem Mass inhabitants' view of the witch events was "superstition".

Yes indeed. You are the teacher, we are the students.

My ass.

Facepalm

Where did you get the idea that you taught me about the Historian's fallacy? It's been known by me for more than 15 years. It's one of the first things we learn.

And I never told you, nor implied, that our modern view of the Salem incident in which they viewed it as a reality should have been viewed by them in the same manner we in modern times view it.

Where did you get such a stupid idea? Certainly not from me.

And yes, I can teach you. The problem with you, however, is whether or not you can actually be taught. Some people just don't have it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: