Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2016, 09:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The stupidity, it almost hurts to see such large concentrations of it in one area.

I agree.

"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
25-07-2016, 09:37 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And here we go with another stupid ass conspiracy theory. So now we can add the Israeli Antiquities Authority to the pile of persons who conspire in some way to cover up the truth, or distort it in some way.

Yes, apparently a conspiracy by the Jews, which shouldn't be surprising judging by the fact they made up the holocaust.

Obvious sarcasm, and duly noted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 09:19 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 08:29 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  You are making the claim about the strangeness of Paul only mentioning James as being the brother of Jesus just once, and then making a huge jump to suggest it was interpolated based upon that one lone entry. You are suggesting that it was interpolated because Paul only mentions it once. Using your reasoning, I guess we should consider everything as being an interpolation because, as you reason, thousands of things in Paul's letters were only mentioned once?

No?

Then what is your reasoning for singling out this one line of text then? Why does this have to be an interpolation and not everything else that only mentions people, places, and things just once?

Because other things that he mentions only once are pretty ordinary things. Meeting the brother of God incarnate (what Paul believed Jesus to be) is not an ordinary thing, and would seem to be worth more than a single passing mention in one of the letters. If I met God's brother, you couldn't get me to shut up about it. That's why it seems odd that he only mentions it once.

Yeah okay.

Then everything else that Paul said that mentions this "God incarnate" only once- according to your reasoning- must also be an interpolation, right?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 09:39 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 09:19 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Because other things that he mentions only once are pretty ordinary things. Meeting the brother of God incarnate (what Paul believed Jesus to be) is not an ordinary thing, and would seem to be worth more than a single passing mention in one of the letters. If I met God's brother, you couldn't get me to shut up about it. That's why it seems odd that he only mentions it once.

Yeah okay.

Then everything else that Paul said that mentions this "God incarnate" only once- according to your reasoning- must also be an interpolation, right?

Big Grin

I said nothing about interpolations. I only pointed out that it is indeed odd that Paul met and talked to the brother of God, and only mentions it once. I draw no conclusions from that. But you didn't seem to think it was odd at all. I think it is. That's all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And here we go with another stupid ass conspiracy theory. So now we can add the Israeli Antiquities Authority to the pile of persons who conspire in some way to cover up the truth, or distort it in some way.

How the fuck does this not get old with you idiots? You have no grounds, no reason, and no evidence to make such an accusation.

For that alone, you are a fucking retard.

For thinking that a group that profits immensely from the tourism industry might want to encourage such tourism by playing up the Christian angle to a story? Yeah... wild. Rolleyes

I simply observed that numerous articles on the subject were verbatim copies of the original report by the IAA, rather than independent articles, and that there really wasn't much in the way of scholarly conclusions that actually supported the tone of the article.

(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yet, here you are arguing against the existence of the town of Nazareth as not being big enough for a synagogue, yet agree that a company of priests were sent there in CE 70 when, according to you, there would not even have been a synagogue to send them to?

First, I am not arguing "against the evidence". There is no evidence to which you can point which would support a large town there, even after 70. At best, we may have some priests sent in 70 to a village that was growing up enough to need some.

Why would they need "a synagogue to send them to"? If a town suddenly had a Jewish population, they would need priests to be sent there to serve the needs of the growing populace. Priests build temples (or have them built), if there's a big enough population to need a synagogue, but in smaller communities they would not have one.


(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Your shit is so deep you're drowning in it. You don't even fucking understand that priests are assigned to towns that need to be big enough to support them. But no, using your fucked up understanding, this company of priests was sent to minister to a town that barely had anybody in it and had no synagogue to preach in.

Dude, what's the fucking point of sending priests to minister to nobody?

It just doesn't occur to you that the town must have pre-existed CE 70 in order for it to even be listed as a town in CE 70. And it would be required to be big enough to have a synagogue to send the priests to.

Get a fucking clue.

As I said, I think sending new priests to the town is an indication that it was growing, not that it was pre-existent on any large level.

(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  This is yet another fallacious presumption of yours. You are assuming that the gospel writers never knew anything about Nazareth, but again you provide no evidence to support this, and actually attempt to manufacture evidence such as insisting that the gospel records were originally written outside of Judea.

Mark is believed to have been written in Rome or southern Syria. Matthew is believed to have been written in Antioch, Syria. Luke is also acknowledged that it was not written in Palestine, although there's more doubt about its location... some suggest Rome or other large cities, partly due to the literacy level of its author and the type of Koine Greek being employed. If you have some reputable scholar who claims the Synoptic Gospels were written in Judea, I'm all ears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...p_and_date

And obviously the authors knew that there was a town named Nazareth, if they mentioned it as such. That still doesn't mean they're accurately representing Jesus as having actually come from there, or accurately reporting the events that supposedly took place there.


(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And yet you continue to use an argument from silence as a means of holding to this fucked up theory of yours?

So let me summarize your position here:

According to you, the Jews sent a company of priests to basically "create" a town called Nazareth around CE 70. Then, the Christians- sometime before CE 140- in their desperation to justify why Jesus was regarded as a Nazarene seized upon the idea that if they interpolated and/or created all 4 gospels texts and Acts, and included this newly created town of Nazareth, it would bring some kind of justification as to why Jesus was regarded as a Nazarene?

Why would priests create a town? Why would you even think that was my argument?

What's the "desperation" part? I don't think they were desperate. I think it was unpopular among the people who were being preached to in Hellenized regions, where the Jewish diaspora had caused religious elements of Judaism to mix with Hellenic philosophies and created an environment ripe for this new faith, to see Jesus as a mere Nazarene cultist. So rather than trying to change the tales that would become the text, they simply shifted the meaning of "the Nazarene" to say "a person from Nazareth", to where the two terms are interchangeable rather than the first being of its own significance. It's not some conspiracy, it's how churches reinterpret meanings of passages throughout history.

(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And then you say these same Christians all somehow conspired to erase any mention of this "Nazareth Conspiracy" from every available text, leaving absolutely no trace whatsoever of their deeds?

What?

(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you say this all happened during a period of time (CE 70 - 140 because Justin mentions Nazareth around CE 140) when both the Jews and the Romans were persecuting scores of Christians who were forced to hide their beliefs to avoid persecution?

I'm not saying 9/10ths of the things you're claiming I say. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 10:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  For thinking that a group that profits immensely from the tourism industry might want to encourage such tourism by playing up the Christian angle to a story? Yeah... wild. Rolleyes

You mean the jewish archaeologist in charge of the dig, lying about their discoveries, the dates, what was found at the dig sit, for the sake of tourism. These archaeologist apparently know the secret, that atheists such as yourself have discovered, that the town didn't exist at the time, and they're just covering that up for the sake of Tourism. Because we all know about those hooked noses Jews and their love of money.

Quote:First, I am not arguing "against the evidence". There is no evidence to which you can point which would support a large town there, even after 70. At best, we may have some priests sent in 70 to a village that was growing up enough to need some.

No a variety of evidence has been provided, you just attempt to accuse everyone of lyings, and peddle a conspiracy theory angle to dismiss it, while avoiding the absurdities your suggestions rise. Hence why you're like not going to be able to address the variety of questions I raised in regards to your suggestion, because it's gonna end badly for you.

You invited a schism between the Nazarene and the writer's of the Gospels like Mark, with no support what so ever for the schism. A schism so severe that these writers decided to portray Jesus as from a town called Nazareth, that apparently didn't exist at the their time, to resolve association with the group, while at the same time referring to Jesus as "The Nazarene" on numerous occasions.

You lost the plot a long time ago, and have yet to retrieve it. If you were making such arguments to a group other than to your homeboys, you would be embarrassing the shit of yourself. Your wife and children would likely disown you, lol.

"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
25-07-2016, 10:30 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You seem to believe it's more likely that the town derived it's name from the sect, rather than sect deriving it's name from Jesus's hometown.

Is it likely that the sect derived its name from a town? Hrm, consider...

Nazarene is a title applied to Jesus, who, according to the New Testament, grew up in Nazareth, a town in Galilee, now in northern Israel. The word is used to translate two related terms that appear in the Greek New Testament: Nazarēnos (Nazarene) and Nazōraios (Nazorean). The phrases traditionally rendered as "Jesus of Nazareth" can also be translated as "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazorean", and the title "Nazarene" may have a religious significance instead of denoting a place of origin. Both Nazarene and Nazorean are irregular in Greek and the additional vowel in Nazorean complicates any derivation from Nazareth.

The Gospel of Matthew explains that the title Nazarene is derived from the prophecy "He will be called a Nazorean", but this has no obvious Old Testament source. Some scholars argue that it refers to a passage in the Book of Isaiah, with "Nazarene" a Greek reading of the Hebrew ne·tser (branch), understood as a messianic title. Others point to a passage in the Book of Judges which refers to Samson as a Nazirite, a word that is just one letter off from Nazarene in Greek.

The Greek New Testament uses "Nazarene" six times (Mark, Luke), while "Nazorean" is used 13 times (Matthew, Mark in some manuscripts, Luke, John, Acts). In the Book of Acts, "Nazorean" is used to refer to a follower of Jesus, i.e. a Christian, rather than an inhabitant of a town.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(title)

(Internal citations omitted.)

Epiphanius uses the spelling nasaraioi (Νασαραῖοι), which he attempts to distinguish from the spelling nazoraios in parts of the New Testament, as a Jewish-Christian sect. According to the testimony of Epiphanius against the 4th century Nazarenes, he reports them as having pre-Christian origins. He writes: "(6,1) They did not call themselves Nasaraeans either; the Nasaraean sect was before Christ, and did not know Christ. 6,2 But besides, as I indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoraeans," (Adversus Haereses, 29.6)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(...tury_CE.29

(Bold emphasis mine; internal citation omitted.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 10:52 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2016 10:56 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 10:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  For thinking that a group that profits immensely from the tourism industry might want to encourage such tourism by playing up the Christian angle to a story? Yeah... wild. Rolleyes

You mean the jewish archaeologist in charge of the dig, lying about their discoveries, the dates, what was found at the dig sit, for the sake of tourism. These archaeologist apparently know the secret, that atheists such as yourself have discovered, that the town didn't exist at the time, and they're just covering that up for the sake of Tourism. Because we all know about those hooked noses Jews and their love of money.

What. The. Fuck!? How dare you accuse me of antisemitism because I would treat their interests as the same as any other group with financial-backer motivations? Anyone who has worked in science knows that no matter what your conclusions are, you should be careful to shade your phrasing in a way that makes your financial backers happy, or at least doesn't piss them off.

So let's look at what the "jewish archaeologist in charge of the dig", Yardenna Alexandre, actually says, in the IAA article:

“The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period”.

I disagree with nothing she has said here... what I do reject is the interpretations that have been added to what she's actually saying. "At the time of Jesus" does not mean she has pinned it down to definitively being there at the beginning of the first century CE. You'll note that she references "the few written sources there are" to even place Nazareth there at all, and we know that she's referring to the "priestly course" document to place it there at 70 CE. And as I've repeatedly pointed out, if you read the actual acrchaeologists' reports on the pottery, rather than the excited interpretations of the writers of the public articles, they're saying that they only date from a period which runs from before the time of Christ to a time after him, which encompasses nearly two centuries (once, as they point out in those reports, you account for the fact that the technology did not arrive everywhere-at-once, and dispersed from the cities to the more distant towns over time). And I am not accusing anyone of lying; I am accusing them of playing up one aspect of the finding while downplaying the level of uncertainty about specifics that is being reported by those archaeologists... I would expect nothing different in any other nation or sensational discovery.

You see it all the time in popular reporting on discoveries of hominid fossils: "HUMAN ANCESTOR FOUND!", when the scientists actually have not said that they've demonstrated it's ancestral to our specific line. Keep in mind, I'm an evolutionary biologist, and am excited as fuck about every hominid found... but I recognize the bending of the story that occurs on too many occasions.

(25-07-2016 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No a variety of evidence has been provided,

Something I haven't seen? Please... provide again! I'd be curious to see something that demonstrates the specific date range required to make your case very [Edit: I meant "over"] my objections.

(25-07-2016 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  you just attempt to accuse everyone of lyings, and peddle a conspiracy theory angle to dismiss it, while avoiding the absurdities your suggestions rise.

I don't believe I've accused anyone of lying or peddled any conspiracy angle. You're the ones endlessly trying to insert those words into that narrative.

(25-07-2016 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Hence why you're like not going to be able to address the variety of questions I raised in regards to your suggestion, because it's gonna end badly for you.

Wow. You're really good at psychic predictions of the behavior of atheists, aren't you, buddy? However, at this point I'm thinking that any further conversation with someone so predisposed to behaving like an uncivil asshole is a Bad Idea™.

(25-07-2016 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You invited a schism between the Nazarene and the writer's of the Gospels like Mark, with no support what so ever for the schism. A schism so severe that these writers decided to portray Jesus as from a town called Nazareth, that apparently didn't exist at the their time, to resolve association with the group, while at the same time referring to Jesus as "The Nazarene" on numerous occasions.

I think Nazareth did exist at the time of the writers of the Gospels. I don't think it was there, or there in a size remotely significant enough for the events to occur, in the stories the Gospel writers claim for the town, prior to their time-of-writing. If you'll look at the article I posed above on the etymology of Nazir, you'll see how this conflation can easily happen.

But yes, the writers did use Nazareth to establish why Jesus was called a Nazarene, as part of their "he is the fulfillment of The Prophecies" myth-building. It's a poor understanding of the term found in the Old Testament, same as they did with "alma" and "virgin" in Isaiah. There are quite a few articles out there about the "he would be called a Nazarene" passage, if you look.



(25-07-2016 10:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You lost the plot a long time ago, and have yet to retrieve it. If you were making such arguments to a group other than to your homeboys, you would be embarrassing the shit of yourself. Your wife and children would likely disown you, lol.

And this is why I call you an asshole, Asshole.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
25-07-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 10:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And here we go with another stupid ass conspiracy theory. So now we can add the Israeli Antiquities Authority to the pile of persons who conspire in some way to cover up the truth, or distort it in some way.

How the fuck does this not get old with you idiots? You have no grounds, no reason, and no evidence to make such an accusation.

For that alone, you are a fucking retard.

For thinking that a group that profits immensely from the tourism industry might want to encourage such tourism by playing up the Christian angle to a story? Yeah... wild.

So ... we have all these numerous archeologists all conspiring to intentionally misrepresent their data in an effort to increase tourism to Nazareth?

Really?

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yet, here you are arguing against the existence of the town of Nazareth as not being big enough for a synagogue, yet agree that a company of priests were sent there in CE 70 when, according to you, there would not even have been a synagogue to send them to?

First, I am not arguing "against the evidence". There is no evidence to which you can point which would support a large town there, even after 70. At best, we may have some priests sent in 70 to a village that was growing up enough to need some.

Why would they need "a synagogue to send them to"? If a town suddenly had a Jewish population, they would need priests to be sent there to serve the needs of the growing populace. Priests build temples (or have them built), if there's a big enough population to need a synagogue, but in smaller communities they would not have one.

So you believe - without a shred of evidence- that the Jews sent a company of priests to some obscure virtually unheard of town, and this company of priests and their families would be a significant number as to increase the population enough to warrant the construction of a synagogue?

Do you even understand that a synagogue could be very small, and in fact the oldest known synagogue seated only about 70 people? The Wadi Qelt Synagogue has been dated to the 1st century BCE, and it only seated about 70 people.

What you are asking me to believe - with no evidence for support- is that in AD 70, Nazareth was too small for a synagogue, and that it required a literal horde of Jewish priests and family members to populate the town and build a synagogue.

You fail to understand Jewish culture. Priests do not build a synagogue for themselves. There must be enough people there to qualify a synagogue, and the reality is that there is no set amount of people needed to qualify the presence of a synagogue.

So where did you, or anybody else for that matter, get this crazy idea that in order for a community to have a synagogue that it had to be some kind of bustling metropolis of some sort?

In fact any single Jew or group of Jews can build a synagogue. All that is required to have a synagogue is 1 solitary Jew.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Your shit is so deep you're drowning in it. You don't even fucking understand that priests are assigned to towns that need to be big enough to support them. But no, using your fucked up understanding, this company of priests was sent to minister to a town that barely had anybody in it and had no synagogue to preach in.

Dude, what's the fucking point of sending priests to minister to nobody?

It just doesn't occur to you that the town must have pre-existed CE 70 in order for it to even be listed as a town in CE 70. And it would be required to be big enough to have a synagogue to send the priests to.

Get a fucking clue.

As I said, I think sending new priests to the town is an indication that it was growing, not that it was pre-existent on any large level.

All it takes is 1 solitary Jew to have a synagogue. Nazareth was obviously large enough to warrant the sending of a delegation of Jewish priests. It obviously preexisted CE 70.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  This is yet another fallacious presumption of yours. You are assuming that the gospel writers never knew anything about Nazareth, but again you provide no evidence to support this, and actually attempt to manufacture evidence such as insisting that the gospel records were originally written outside of Judea.

Mark is believed to have been written in Rome or southern Syria. Matthew is believed to have been written in Antioch, Syria. Luke is also acknowledged that it was not written in Palestine, although there's more doubt about its location... some suggest Rome or other large cities, partly due to the literacy level of its author and the type of Koine Greek being employed. If you have some reputable scholar who claims the Synoptic Gospels were written in Judea, I'm all ears.

Still, you are assuming the authors knew nothing about Nazareth, and provide no evidence for this at all.

Quote:And obviously the authors knew that there was a town named Nazareth, if they mentioned it as such. That still doesn't mean they're accurately representing Jesus as having actually come from there, or accurately reporting the events that supposedly took place there.

No, it doesn't. All it tells us in regards to Nazareth- in the context of this discussion- is that it existed in the 1st century, as it portrays Jesus in the 1st century and relates him to Nazareth.


Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And yet you continue to use an argument from silence as a means of holding to this fucked up theory of yours?

So let me summarize your position here:

According to you, the Jews sent a company of priests to basically "create" a town called Nazareth around CE 70. Then, the Christians- sometime before CE 140- in their desperation to justify why Jesus was regarded as a Nazarene seized upon the idea that if they interpolated and/or created all 4 gospels texts and Acts, and included this newly created town of Nazareth, it would bring some kind of justification as to why Jesus was regarded as a Nazarene?

Why would priests create a town? Why would you even think that was my argument?

I used the word "basically" to imply that your position is that Nazareth was a virtually desolate place, and these priests would increase the population significantly enough to warrant building a synagogue.

Quote:
(25-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  And then you say these same Christians all somehow conspired to erase any mention of this "Nazareth Conspiracy" from every available text, leaving absolutely no trace whatsoever of their deeds?

What?

Yes that is what, by necessity, is implied. Since we have no record of this event whatsoever in which any Christians seized upon the opportunity to interpolate the gospel records to include Nazareth in relation to Jesus of Nazareth/Nazarene, and we know it had to happen before CE 140 because we see Justin mentioning it in the Gospels to Trypho, then that means that there should be a record of this interpolation from at least 1 of the persons who did it, or from someone whp knows that it was done.

Since we see Nazareth in relation to Jesus in all 4 Gospels and in Acts, it would mean that the 4 Gospels and Acts that we currently have were all interpolated sometime after AD 70 and before CE 140 to include Nazareth. Yet, we know according to church fathers that there were several Christian churches in existence at the time.

What this means is that any and all of the numerous Gospels in any of these churches would have had to have been interpolated to include the Nazareth stuff, and since no one person could accomplish that feat, it means that it would require numerous people to conspire to do it.

Yet, we have no evidence for this at all despite the numerous people that would need to be involved.

Dude, this is fucked. Royally.

And if you saying the gospel writers wrote Nazareth into the gospels to make Jesus the Nazarene harmonize with them, then you still have at least 3 different writers conspiring here because Acts mentions it also.

You have no evidence whatsoever to base this claim upon. None.

Besides, this is not unlike conspiracy freaks who say we never walked on the moon, or the Illuminati is among us, or we have reptilian aliens among us.

It's just too far fetched to be taken seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 03:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 04:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  In the end, Jesus and/or Nazareth may or may not exist. Who cares? But the positions are worth considering, rather than being dismissed out-of-hand and mocked. We are neither stupid nor uneducated. Our ideas are endlessly straw-manned and falsely lampooned, even when we're simply pointing out for instance that there's zero evidence of Nazareth existing at the time it's claimed by the Gospels (written after it definitely DID exist) to be there... including archaeological finds that try to sell tourists a pipe dream, even though there's nothing there to indicate the sort of Nazareth portrayed by Luke. It's not an argument from silence, it's "the evidence should clearly be right there, if this claim is true, and it is not there".

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.
2. Denial that the available evidence is in fact evidence at all.
3. Completely implausible and wholly unsupported conspiracy theories.

a) The argument from silence doesn't provide any positive evidence whatsoever to support the argument. The lack of positive evidence is what qualifies it as a fallacious argument.

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.

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.

d) The idea that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century can be traced as originating from a couple people such as Ken Humphrey's and Rene Salm- both of whom have absolutely no qualifications in any relevant field- and further investigation into their character reveals that they harbor extremist views against the religion of Christianity. This totally demonstrates excessive bias which is unsuitable to warrant credibility.

The absolute truth may never be known, but the absolute truth about virtually anything may never be known. But what we don't do is deny evidence when it certainly does exist, and contest a consensus of experts when we are not qualified, especially when we don't have a pot to piss in as a means of contesting them.

Anyone who contests a consensus of experts while they have no evidence or solid reasoning to contest them absolutely deserves ridicule. If you are going to claim that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, or even claim that it POSSIBLY didn't exist, then you are required to provide evidence to support that position.

If you cannot provide any, then it is mere unsupported assertion, and nothing more.

"The argument from silence doesn't provide any positive evidence whatsoever to support the argument."

Well I think a man named Mr Ford built a spaceship that went to Mars in 1920. You have no evidence that he didn't...the argument from silence doesn't provide any positive evidence whatsoever to support the argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: