Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2016, 08:23 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 06:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The problem that me, the scholars, and the educated layman have is that the argument against has a common theme:

1. An argument from silence.

Except it's not an argument from silence, as I explained to you. There are good reasons to expect certain things to be there, in the places already examined, which should be obvious if the tale (as told, for instance, in The Gospel According to Luke) was true as told. If the tale is not true as told, then it is just a tale, and we have good reason to doubt the rest of the account's basis in fact.

So here you are trying to validate an argument from silence by claiming that it is validated because you believe there's a lack of evidence to validate it. However, all of the world's foremost experts on the subject of ancient Nazareth are in 100% agreement that the evidence they have is more than sufficient to warrant the position that Nazareth existed in at least the 1st century, if not centuries before that.

Sorry, but you are no expert, and neither is anybody else in this discussion. You do not get to claim that the evidence they have is not the evidence they claim it to be. That's why they are experts, and you and everybody else in this discussion are not.


Quote:
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. Denial that the available evidence is in fact evidence at all.

Utter misrepresentation of what we're doing. We're questioning the interpretation of the evidence, or its application. For instance, when you say, "We have found Nazareth", we say, "No, you have found a single, small dwelling where a city supposedly large enough to house a temple with a library should be, and we have no evidence whatsoever that the people who lived in that house called that place Nazareth, or that they lived in the community that would (later?) be named Nazareth."

This argument blows goats right in the barn. Firstly, it isn't me that saying that Nazareth has been found, it is the consensus of all the experts in the field.

Secondly, you purposely understate the evidence because it's far FAR more than a single dwelling. It's also several 1st century (and older) tombs, 1st century ( and older) pottery, 1st century coins (from 104–76 BCE, 37–4 BCE, and 1 from 54 CE), and literally thousands of 1st century (and older) artifacts, 1st century bath houses, a hewn pit, etc.

Thirdly, since you are using the Gospel records as part of your argument and arguing that they claim Nazareth was big enough for a Synagogue and use this as evidence against, you therefore open the door for anybody else to use them as evidence to support the existence on Nazareth.

Fourthly, we have Justin Martyr in CE 140 mentioning the existence of Nazareth.

Fifthly, we have an inscription from the Jews (Not Christians) reassigning their priests to Nazareth as early as CE 70 or as late as CE 130, which would be ridiculous if Nazareth was a newly Christian created town.

Sixthly, we have Ireneaus in CE 170 telling us that Marcion possessed and butchered the Gospel of Luke sometime before CE 140 to create his own version of a Gospel, and he tells us enough information about what Marcion cut out for us to know that he cut out the parts concerning Nazareth at the beginning of this Gospel.

And finally, in regards to the archeology, there is a plethora of far more than I have listed here, and the sheer abundance of it all would take literally weeks to transmit here.

And you are trying to say it's all about some single house? And you wonder why we piss all over you personally? We do it because what you are doing is called:

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.


Quote:
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  3. Completely implausible and wholly unsupported conspiracy theories.

So you keep saying; I don't think they're implausible or wholly unsupported at all, nor do I consider them conspiracy theories. We're talking about the motives of a religious cult, a cult we know manufactured and edited/censored a great deal of their own literature, and even if we didn't know they did this, I don't see how their example would be any different from the behavior of other religious cults we see in operation today (and throughout history). The implausible thing is to take them at their word on how it all happened.

So, let me get this straight:

You think it is more plausible that early Christians created a town called Nazareth in the 2nd century to harmonize it with the Gospel records and then managed to erase every last bit of any literary evidence that complains about it, and you chose this conspiracy theory over all the available evidence and findings of the historians and archeologists?

And you choose this conspiracy theory when there is not a single shred of evidence to support it?

Dude, I know you are smarter than this, so like ... what the fuck are you doing?

Quote:
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  b) The argument that there is no archeological or historical evidence has been demonstrated as false, and that is not according to my mere opinion, but it's the opinion of all qualified experts who are all well trained in the subject. This is a consensus of professionals, and not merely a couple guys bickering on the internet.

The problem is you're not telling the whole truth, here. The archaeological evidence you have cited is not definitive, nor is it yet accepted as unassailable. There remain unexplained elements, and elements which you are applying incorrectly-- such as the "first century" crap, when as I have explained (and you have ignored) there is a world of difference between 1921 and 1970... yet you would describe them both as "in the twentieth century", as if that covered it. None of the evidence presented indicates, definitively, a turn-of-the-millennium dwelling, and all of the positive evidence points to a post-70-C.E. community.

Likewise, there's a great deal of scholarly debate over whether the assumptions that must be made in order to date things like the Gospels, the writings of Paul (and whether they're really by Paul at all), and which parts of them are and aren't interpolation (such as the final passages in Mark, for instance, or 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). Presenting it as though there is a solid consensus, and further stating that the interpretations used to form that consensus cannot be challenged, is not an honest approach... it certainly is undeserving of the level of derision which you apply here.

I am not saying the evidence is unassailable, for what I am saying is that it is in abundance and the evidence strongly indicates a habitation of ancient Nazareth from at least the 1st century BCE onward.

I am saying the collective of evidence from everything including the Gospels/Acts and all other texts and artifacts strongly indicates the existence of Nazareth from, at the very least, the 1st century BCE.

And if you want to challenge the consensus of all the professionals in this subject, then go ahead. No one is stopping one small voice from screaming his head off on some web page in some tiny insignificant corner of the Internet.

But don't expect to be heard, let alone taken seriously.

Quote:
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  c) The very notion that early Christians somehow conspired to create the town of Nazareth sometime after the 1st century in some effort to make it harmonious with the gospel record is not only completely lacking evidence for support, but is so incredibly implausible as to warrant ridicule.

No one is saying that the Christians conspired to create the town of Nazareth. We're saying they attempted to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to the same name as that town

Do you not see the obvious logic problem with what you are saying above?

You are saying that the early Christians attempted to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to the same name as that town, Nazareth.

But dude, how the fuck could the early Christians attempt to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to Nazareth if Nazareth didn't exist?

Again, what the fuck are doing? If you are trying to make that claim, then you have no fucking choice but to admit that Nazareth existed in the 1st fucking century!

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

And then you believe that Nazareth was created during the Jewish - Roman war, but provide no fucking evidence to support that.

And finally, Mark's position is that Nazareth was invented by early Christians:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1028599

Let the mocking begin!

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 08:41 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
This discussion went off topic so long ago even I lost interest.

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
24-07-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 08:41 PM)Banjo Wrote:  This discussion went off topic so long ago even I lost interest.

Believe it or not, there is contemporary evidence in all this, regarding the Gospel of Luke and Acts. I have been holding it back.

Analyze the following verses and tell me if you see what I see.

Act_16:11 Then having set sail from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act_16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we continued spending time in that city some days.
Act_16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was usually made. And we sat down and spoke to the women who came together there.
Act_16:16 And as we went to prayer, it happened that a certain girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by divining.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 08:48 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 08:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 08:41 PM)Banjo Wrote:  This discussion went off topic so long ago even I lost interest.

Believe it or not, there is contemporary evidence in all this, regarding the Gospel of Luke and Acts. I have been holding it back.

Analyze the following verses and tell me if you see what I see.

Act_16:11 Then having set sail from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act_16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we continued spending time in that city some days.
Act_16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was usually made. And we sat down and spoke to the women who came together there.
Act_16:16 And as we went to prayer, it happened that a certain girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by divining.

Dude. I stopped reading your posts. Even if that town existed, it does not prove Jesus was Christ.

Some historian you are. Facepalm

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
24-07-2016, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 09:03 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 08:48 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 08:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Believe it or not, there is contemporary evidence in all this, regarding the Gospel of Luke and Acts. I have been holding it back.

Analyze the following verses and tell me if you see what I see.

Act_16:11 Then having set sail from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act_16:12 and from there to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we continued spending time in that city some days.
Act_16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was usually made. And we sat down and spoke to the women who came together there.
Act_16:16 And as we went to prayer, it happened that a certain girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much gain by divining.

Dude. I stopped reading your posts. Even if that town existed, it does not prove Jesus was Christ.

Some historian you are. Facepalm

That's too bad.

You see, if you really want the truth, you would see what I see in those verses.

You would see the 1st person narrative that strongly indicates that the writer was traveling with Paul. You would see the "we" and the "us."

And then you might think, "Hmmm this author of Acts is widely considered to be the the same writer of Luke."

And then you might investigate further to find out who was traveling with Paul and come up with ...

Col_4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2Ti_4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with you, for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
Phm_1:24 and also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-laborers.

And then you might be able to reasonably conclude that Luke wrote Acts, and he did it in the 1st century, and since he was traveling with Paul, we then have evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Jesus and Paul.

But you know ... you lost interest in this so ..

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 09:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
There was no "one" (monolithic) Gnostic position on anything. There were many forms of Gnosticism. Whoever wrote the Gospel of John was a Gnostic, and did not subscribe to what GoingDown said about Gnostics.

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
24-07-2016, 09:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 09:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There was no "one" (monolithic) Gnostic position on anything. There were many forms of Gnosticism. Whoever wrote the Gospel of John was a Gnostic, and did not subscribe to what GoingDown said about Gnostics.

You have no argument from me. Gnosticism came in many flavors, and changed over 4 centuries considerably.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 08:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 08:48 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Dude. I stopped reading your posts. Even if that town existed, it does not prove Jesus was Christ.

Some historian you are. Facepalm

That's too bad.

You see, if you really want the truth, you would see what I see in those verses.

You would see the 1st person narrative that strongly indicates that the writer was traveling with Paul. You would see the "we" and the "us."

And then you might think, "Hmmm this author of Acts is widely considered to be the the same writer of Luke."

And then you might investigate further to find out who was traveling with Paul and come up with ...

Col_4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2Ti_4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with you, for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
Phm_1:24 and also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-laborers.

And then you might be able to reasonably conclude that Luke wrote Acts, and he did it in the 1st century, and since he was traveling with Paul, we then have evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Jesus and Paul.

But you know ... you lost interest in this so ..

Drinking Beverage

Absolutely impossible.
The travels of Paul as recounted in Acts and his letters have been proven to be impossible. Fakery. http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
The theology in Acts reflects concepts and thought from a much later, highly developed theology. It is not possible they were written in the First Century.

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
24-07-2016, 09:16 PM (This post was last modified: 24-07-2016 09:30 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 09:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 08:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  That's too bad.

You see, if you really want the truth, you would see what I see in those verses.

You would see the 1st person narrative that strongly indicates that the writer was traveling with Paul. You would see the "we" and the "us."

And then you might think, "Hmmm this author of Acts is widely considered to be the the same writer of Luke."

And then you might investigate further to find out who was traveling with Paul and come up with ...

Col_4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2Ti_4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with you, for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
Phm_1:24 and also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-laborers.

And then you might be able to reasonably conclude that Luke wrote Acts, and he did it in the 1st century, and since he was traveling with Paul, we then have evidence of a 1st century contemporary of both Jesus and Paul.

But you know ... you lost interest in this so ..

Drinking Beverage

Absolutely impossible.
The travels of Paul as recounted in Acts and his letters have been proven to be impossible. Fakery. http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
The theology in Acts reflects concepts and thought from a much later, highly developed theology. It is not possible they were written in the First Century.

Your link says nothing about it.

1. Explain why the travels were impossible.

2. Provide reasoning and evidence to support your position that the theology wasn't available in the 1st century.

(The teacher in me is testing you.)

PS: I view Acts the same way I view the Gospel records; as an embellishment of the life of Paul as the Gospels embellished the life of Jesus. I acknowledge that not everything is factual, as I understand how religious beliefs tend to distort history to varying degrees.

With that said, however, it has absolutely no relevance to the obvious 1st person narrative in Acts. It exists, with or without any and all proposed embellishments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 09:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 09:16 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 09:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Absolutely impossible.
The travels of Paul as recounted in Acts and his letters have been proven to be impossible. Fakery. http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152
The theology in Acts reflects concepts and thought from a much later, highly developed theology. It is not possible they were written in the First Century.

Your link says nothing about it.

1. Explain why the travels were impossible.

2. Provide reasoning and evidence to support your position that the theology wasn't available in the 1st century.

(The teacher in me is testing you.)

PS: I view Acts the same way I view the gospel records, as an embellishment of the life of Paul as the Gospels embellished the life of Jesus. I acknowledge that not everything is factual, as i understand how religious beliefs tend to distort history to varying degrees.

With that said, however, it has absolutely no relevance to the obvious 1st person narrative in Acts. It exists, with or without the other embellishments.

The Martin course proves the journeys were not possible. Take the course, and learn something.

You're not my teacher.

So the author wrote in the 1st person. So What. There were hundreds of "Acts" of "this or that" floating around. There are at least 2 "Pauls" evident in Acts. They have very different philosophies. The idea that Peter, a few weeks after the execution of Jesus is talking about him "dying for our sins" is preposterous.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: