Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2016, 06:22 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(20-07-2016 06:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Anyone whose position is a lack of belief/position one way or the other. Like you who doesn't actually believe that Nazareth didn't exist at the time, and just miraculously appeared shorty after the time of Jesus, but would rather classify your position as a lack of a belief in whether it existed or not at the time.

You seem to think there is a problem with not taking a position on something when there is insufficient evidence to do so.

There's an abundance of evidence regarding Nazareth, though most of the area hasn't been excavated, because you know people live there, the areas that have have uncovered quite bit.

In fact one other, excavation, besides the farm, revealed a house that was there at the time of Jesus. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/d...very-jesus

You're just hand waving. Being dishonest. Because like others here, you'd rather claim to lack a belief, than admit that your original suggestions were wrong, particularly when admitting you were wrong, requires acknowledging your enemies are right.

"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
21-07-2016, 06:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 12:14 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I know what a Master's is. As I said, I have friends who teach ancient history.

What you have not supplied is what period you actually got your Master's in.

Why is this?

Why is everyone seem more obsessed with his Master's, rather than than his arguments regarding historicity. I'm guessing because people here have done a shit poor job of arguing against his position, that they figure if they can find some way to attack the man, that's preferable.

"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
21-07-2016, 06:42 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 02:42 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 06:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 03:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Surely you can't be serious? I had to read this 3 times because I couldn't believe you would write it. If you are serious, you have your head in the clouds, and you are no historian.

Go ahead Mark, you know you've been waiting for the moment, to tell us all about the real Jesus. Now is your chance.

Been there, done that already. I'm not sure that you are genuinely interested, if you are...

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-of-Jesus?
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
21-07-2016, 06:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 06:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're just hand waving. Being dishonest.

This is not true. Mark is being very sincere as far as I can tell. A village has not been discovered. Even had it been, it still does not prove anything about Jesus.

Imagine saying "Tiberius was emperor, therefore Jesus existed."

That is basically not enough to prove the existence of another person.

From what I have read, some people have higher standards of evidence than others. This is all.

Mark has very high standards when compared to others, such as yourself. Myself? I seem to have even higher standards. I am of the opinion that Jesus is a work of fiction. Whereas Mark thinks he is an actual example.

So even amongst non believers there are discrepancies. To throw us all into your dishonest comment appears personal. Personal in that you lack evidence and your insults are born of frustration.

You must understand where you are. This is not a religious site where people swallow attempts at evidence rather than evidence itself.

You would be better served to actually do some study, stop attacking people, and have real arguments to make.

The idea here is not to prove whether Nazareth existed, Rather it is a subject regarding a citizen of this village. The focus has shifted from the subject matter of the OP and title of this thread. Some seem to believe if they prove this place existed, proves Jesus existed. This is a false assumption.

And a waste of time.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
21-07-2016, 06:45 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 03:08 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 11:24 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Sorry, but none of that says "town" to me. And you need to define "the period in question" and "at that time". "There were a few people living in the area some time during the first century" is quite different from "There was a town/village at this specific location in the year 4 B.C.". Other ancient towns (such as Pompeii, to give but one example) have a lot more in the way of building and structures than "an excavated farm".

I'm not saying there wasn't a town there. I honestly don't know. But none of your flimsy evidence proves there was.

Well said. You are perhaps the fifth person to point this out. I have read no further, but I bet he just repeats himself again or comes up with the "the vast majority of blah blah blah" line.


Tommy once again shows he full of shit first off no farm house was ever found a wall was found but it wasn't part of any grander structure. Second coins and pottery easily support (and no most of both date to after 1st century)a single farm or even more likely a funerary complex. Which easily explains the coins and pottery funny how you don't mention the well or the wine press(thou never dated)but both still fit the pattern i mention above. The tablet was neither found at the site and just reinforces the above

As for size nowhere is the place question discibded as small town or hamlet that's just christian desperately doubling down from not being able to find the" CITY" that the bible clearly says should be there. A" CITY' that can not mange a sustain a none related crowd but also it's own synagogue (something no small town could afford) and apparently has magic vanishing cliffs which locals throw people from that or it's inhabitants are Olympic sprinters able to force march someone 4m to the nearest elevation with no roads and up shear cliffs .

But the real death sentence is the grave complex itself as no self respecting jew would build there home so close to a grave site. As jewish custom clearly says the dead are unclean and are to be kept far away from towns or cities and placement of the graves is far to close .

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
21-07-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 06:45 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  But the real death sentence is the grave complex itself as no self respecting jew would build there home so close to a grave site. As jewish custom clearly says the dead are unclean and are to be kept far away from towns or cities and placement of the graves is far to close .

You don't say?

I guess you should of told that those who constructed the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery, in Jerusalem which has been a burial site for a few thousand years now, and is quite close to the Old City.

And perhaps to those who lived in the farm, as well as the small house that was also discovered in that area.

You're full of shit, making things up as you go along.

"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
21-07-2016, 07:02 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
As for your houses sorry you strike out again the AAI official report says nothing about first century housing

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalsix.html

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 07:02 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 06:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You don't say?

I guess you should have told that those who constructed the Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery, in Jerusalem which has been a burial site for a few thousand years now, and is quite close to the Old City.

And perhaps to those who lived in the farm, as well as the small house that was also discovered in that area.


FIXED.

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
21-07-2016, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 07:18 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 06:45 AM)Banjo Wrote:  This is not true. Mark is being very sincere as far as I can tell. A village has not been discovered. Even had it been, it still does not prove anything about Jesus.

Imagine saying "Tiberius was emperor, therefore Jesus existed."

That is basically not enough to prove the existence of another person.

From what I have read, some people have higher standards of evidence than others. This is all

Mark has very high standards when compared to others, such as yourself. Myself? I seem to have even higher standards. I am of the opinion that Jesus is a work of fiction. Whereas Mark thinks he is an actual example.

You clearly are not familiar with much of Marks arguments, where he makes shit up whole cloth, to support his views of Jesus and the early Christians, with hardly any early sources, evidence in support of them.

Mark's denial of Nazareth, is not because of supposed high standard that he has, but because it doesn't work well for his thesis. He used to argue that the earlier Gospel don't speak of Nazareth as a place, only after quoting the earliest Gospel of Mark did he take that argument back.

Quote:You must understand where you are. This is not a religious site where people swallow attempts at evidence rather than evidence itself.

I understand clearly where I am, in this discussion surrounded by severe group think, and a bunch of atheists making silly arguments to save face, not just of themselves, but of the group as a whole they're very protective of. These are you friends, and the last thing you'd care to watch is your friends made fools out of, so it's best to help their idiotic arguments out in such instances.

Quote:You would be better served to actually do some study, stop attacking people, and have real arguments to make.

I think you need to hit the books again. You've also made a variety of bad arguments on this topic, and run far away from them when confronted.

Quote:The focus has shifted from the subject matter of the OP and title of this thread. Some seem to believe if they prove this place existed, proves Jesus existed. This is a false assumption.

And a waste of time.

No, I don't believe that if Nazareth is existed that proves that Jesus existed. I just think those who claim that Nazareth existed are either liars, ignorant, or plain dishonest. I wouldn't even be discussing Nazareth, if one of your pathetic buddies didn't suggest it didn't exist at the time. So don't cry mercy for them now, when their arguments start to fall apart.

"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
21-07-2016, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 07:32 AM by OrdoSkeptica.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Sigh and again tommy your ignorance shows

1. the mount is a expectation as it's built on the holy grounds of Jerusalem and land that by it's very nature is holy thou the burning of the corpses of criminals was common

2. Bodies in Jerusalem as in underwent extensive cleansing anyway as the sort of people buried there tended to be wealthy enough to afford such treatment and even the lesser classes could afford greater attention this would not be so in a small village which tended to bury there dead well outside there cities as they didn't have the resources and in many cases they simply burned the dead as getting a priest to sit with the dead was costly

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: