Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 09:46 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, and the 70 C.E. date absolutely demonstrates that Nazareth, by necessity, must have existed prior to 70 C.E., and since we have wide-spread agreement that the gospels' dating begins sometime later then the pre-70 C.E. existence of Nazareth, it sort of throws an obvious problem into your position.

Mind you, I think the gospels were created earlier. Luke-Acts, despite being full of fairy tales, has a 1st person narrative that appears to end around C.E. 60.

No, it doesn't "absolutely demonstrate". It suggests, and only if there's not another viable explanation, which there is.

There is no problem with my position. As you will note, even Carrier, who thinks that Nazareth was likely there prior to the 70 CE date, points out that more recent scholarship has begun to accept, in these discussions, that an early first century Nazareth is undemonstrated and must be assumed by speculating about the rate at which it could have been built/populated. I happen to think that the upheavals of the war were more than enough for that effect-- the Roman-Jewish War resulted in massive resettlement of the population that had previously been around Jerusalem but settled more heavily in the Galilee in the wake of all that destruction.

As I said, it may well be that 1) there was already a tiny village there, and 2) it was called Nazareth rather than something else in the early first century, and 3) it had sufficient population for a temple and "multitudes", as attested to by the Gospel version. But it is not a fact demonstrated by any of the archaeological evidence, nor which can be inferred directly from the texts, and so all of those are assumptions (or if you prefer, "educated-guess conclusions"), regardless of how confident you feel about making that assumption.

Assumed is pretty much the opposite of demonstrated. It also means that you owe me an apology for the slurs against my person, denigrating my intelligence, my integrity, and my alleged agenda.

"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
27-07-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I'll put my position another way:

What were the priests, in the priestly courses that resettled in Galilee from Jerusalem, when the city and Temple were destroyed?

They were refugees. Refugees who went to Galilee and settled in this town of Nazareth...

...to live with the other refugees already building a city there, and who (presumably) needed priests. The priests, likewise, needed places to set up a watch, in order to await the day the Temple could be rebuilt and they could return to Jerusalem.

The war started in 67 C.E. That's three years of destruction before it caught up to Jerusalem. Three years of refugees and burned-out homes, seeking to resettle elsewhere.

"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
27-07-2016, 05:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:They were refugees. Refugees who went to Galilee and settled in this town of Nazareth...

Yes, but when? Jews were not barred from Judaea after the suppression of the Great Revolt in 70. The ones who survived continued to live in Judaea although not in the burned out ruin of the city which was soon claimed as the permanent base of the Xth Legion. The Sanhedrin relocated from the burned out temple to Yavneh about 30 miles west as the crow flies.

After the bar Kochba revolt (c 135) Jews were kicked out of Judaea and some apparently went to Galilee.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...edrin.html

Quote:After the Temple was destroyed, so was the Great Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin in Yavneh took over many of its functions, under the authority of Rabban Gamliel. The rabbis in the Sanhedrin served as judges and attracted students who came to learn their oral traditions and scriptural interpretations.

It was where rabbinic judaism was born.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
27-07-2016, 06:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-07-2016 05:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'll put my position another way:

What were the priests, in the priestly courses that resettled in Galilee from Jerusalem, when the city and Temple were destroyed?

They were refugees. Refugees who went to Galilee and settled in this town of Nazareth...

...to live with the other refugees already building a city there, and who (presumably) needed priests. The priests, likewise, needed places to set up a watch, in order to await the day the Temple could be rebuilt and they could return to Jerusalem.

The war started in 67 C.E. That's three years of destruction before it caught up to Jerusalem. Three years of refugees and burned-out homes, seeking to resettle elsewhere.

Cool story bro.

Any evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 06:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-07-2016 03:25 PM)ohio_drg Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 09:46 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, and the 70 C.E. date absolutely demonstrates that Nazareth, by necessity, must have existed prior to 70 C.E., and since we have wide-spread agreement that the gospels' dating begins sometime later then the pre-70 C.E. existence of Nazareth, it sort of throws an obvious problem into your position.

Mind you, I think the gospels were created earlier. Luke-Acts, despite being full of fairy tales, has a 1st person narrative that appears to end around C.E. 60.

Even though I am on ignore I feel compelled to ask.

Have you seen any evidence for existence prior to 70? Genuinely curious. If such evidence exists I have either overlooked it or just haven't stumbled across it yet.

I had already removed you from ignore, and apologize for my previous conduct.

Yes, they have plenty of evidence.

1. They have coins that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus. They can tell the dating simply by the inscriptions.

2. They have a house that dates to the time of BCE 30 - CE 70. This house compares to other Jewish houses in Judea common in the 1st century.

3. They have numerous other artifacts- including much pottery which is very easy to date and dates for all periods from 100 BCE to 100 CE - which dates before, during, and after the purported time of Jesus.

So yes, the physical evidence is very convincing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 07:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 07:07 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 03:31 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  So you keep saying, ad nauseum. Please stop it. The majority of people here don't buy this. You have been asked to prove it, many times, but you just repeat it.

We have proven it here, many many times already. We have listed and linked to numerous scholars and archeologists in the field. We gave you the scholarly consensus of:

Bart Ehrman
Yardena Alexandre
Ken Dark
Bellarmino Bagatti.
Père Viaud
Richard Carrier
Mark Chancey
Adam Porter
LaMoine DeVries
John McRay
Stephan Pfann
Yehudah Rapuano
Dr. Justin Bass

But when we ask you to find one single scholar related to this subject of Nazareth who makes the claim that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, you have never provided even one.

What's your response to this?

Thank you for at long last at least posting some of these names.

I have read what Richard Carrier and what Bart have to say. While I have great respect for them, I'm not convinced by their arguments. I've tried googling a few of these others and I can't see any convincing argument there either.

This topic has been done to death and it's actually not that important anyway.

I'm just going to let it go.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-07-2016 02:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:09 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Nazarenes did not think Yeshua was the son of God...that was blasphemy.

The Nazarene knew that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth. in fact their views paralleled the views of christianity, with their only real difference being in regards to the Jewish law.

"They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2"

Quote:The Nazarenes upheld the Jewish law ...to them there was no such thing as a "new covenant" that replaced their ancient traditions.

The writer of Mark doesn't replace the Jewish law either.

Quote:The Nazarenes hated Paul's guts, to them he was a heretic.

More a part of your imagination than fact. Judging that the contention between Paul and some of the early jewish followers of Jesus, is documented by Paul only, that this contention revolved around one issue only, whether Gentiles need to follow the jewish ritual laws. Paul while disagreeing with the others here, hardly paints it as amounting to "hating each others guts".

Quote:Mark adopted Paul's ideas.

No, there's nothing in Mark that indicates he adopted Paul's idea. Mark's Jesus is the least miraculous and divine of the bunch, doesn't do away with Jewish laws, or anything of the sort. Doesn't draw connections between Jesus and Adam, etc....
.

Quote:The Nazarenes did not think Jesus died to save people from their sins, they knew he was executed by the Romans.

The Nazarene's knew Jesus' death was a Roman execution. Marks Gospel made out Jews were responsible for his death.

Mark also indicated that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If your claim that the Nazarenes's didn't believe that this was partly instigated by the Jews, I'm calling bullshit, that you made that up. If you want to prove me wrong, site the actual early sources, that support this.

Quote:The Nazarenes were zealots... they were willing to fight against the Romans. Mark's gospel has Jesus saying "love your enemies," "turn the other cheek," "blessed are the meek" and "pay your taxes." No Nazarene would ever say such things.

False, for variety of reasons, primarily because Mark's Gospel doesn't have Jesus saying "love you enemies" or "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek". Nor does Jesus say "pay your taxes" in any of the gospels. Though I'll give you a pass on the last one, which you likely meant the passage about "rendering unto Caesar". Which was a response to the Pharisees trying to trap him, into saying yes or no, instead he gives them a non-answer.

The Nazarenes on the other hand did have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, and this Gospel unlike Mark has all the turn the other cheek, love you enemies bits,.

Quote:The Nazarenes were against paying Roman tax, Mark's Gospel has Jesus eating with tax collectors.

He also ate with sinners, and prostitutes. Doesn't mean he wasn't against what they were doing. The fact that Mark categorizes sinners and tax collectors together, doesn't paint them in the best of light.

Quote:The Nazarenes believed the kingdom of God was to be in Israel in the here and now, Mark's Gospel had the kingdom of God in heaven.

Yet Luke's Gospels indicates that the Kingdom of God is among you. Mark's placement is ambiguous.

I would like to know where you derived that the Nazarene held a view similar to Luke here. What early source your derived that view from.

Quote:In the few centuries after Jesus's death, the Nazarenes were suppressed and persecuted by Christians. The holy Roman Catholic Church, strongly aligned with the Roman government, produced the definitive versions of Mark's Gospel, a Gospel that totally undermined the true history, beliefs and traditions of a proud Nazarene sect. History was written by the winners.

Yes, and they supposedly spoke to you from the dead, telling you all about the wild beliefs you ascribe to them, that remain entirely unsupported by the sources we do have regarding their views. Sources which negate the very claims you suggested here.

You are very closed to the idea that the Nazarenes were fundamentalist Jews in direct opposition to Paul. I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else interested but I don't want to turn it into a boxing match where you automatically attempt to refute everything I say. That sort of conversation is tedious for everyone. I can present a lot of evidence that the Nazarenes and Paul were at odds with each other, however I've presented it before on this forum and I don't want to get the reputation for being a repetitive bore. If you or anyone else is genuinely interested I'll post it all again... it really is fascinating history in my opinion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 07:41 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-07-2016 07:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 02:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  False, the Nazarene believed in both the resurrection, and that Jesus was God, in adoptionist view of divinity, they also believed in the virgin birth. in fact their views paralleled the views of christianity, with their only real difference being in regards to the Jewish law.

"They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2"


The writer of Mark doesn't replace the Jewish law either.


More a part of your imagination than fact. Judging that the contention between Paul and some of the early jewish followers of Jesus, is documented by Paul only, that this contention revolved around one issue only, whether Gentiles need to follow the jewish ritual laws. Paul while disagreeing with the others here, hardly paints it as amounting to "hating each others guts".


No, there's nothing in Mark that indicates he adopted Paul's idea. Mark's Jesus is the least miraculous and divine of the bunch, doesn't do away with Jewish laws, or anything of the sort. Doesn't draw connections between Jesus and Adam, etc....
.


Mark also indicated that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If your claim that the Nazarenes's didn't believe that this was partly instigated by the Jews, I'm calling bullshit, that you made that up. If you want to prove me wrong, site the actual early sources, that support this.


False, for variety of reasons, primarily because Mark's Gospel doesn't have Jesus saying "love you enemies" or "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the meek". Nor does Jesus say "pay your taxes" in any of the gospels. Though I'll give you a pass on the last one, which you likely meant the passage about "rendering unto Caesar". Which was a response to the Pharisees trying to trap him, into saying yes or no, instead he gives them a non-answer.

The Nazarenes on the other hand did have a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, and this Gospel unlike Mark has all the turn the other cheek, love you enemies bits,.


He also ate with sinners, and prostitutes. Doesn't mean he wasn't against what they were doing. The fact that Mark categorizes sinners and tax collectors together, doesn't paint them in the best of light.


Yet Luke's Gospels indicates that the Kingdom of God is among you. Mark's placement is ambiguous.

I would like to know where you derived that the Nazarene held a view similar to Luke here. What early source your derived that view from.


Yes, and they supposedly spoke to you from the dead, telling you all about the wild beliefs you ascribe to them, that remain entirely unsupported by the sources we do have regarding their views. Sources which negate the very claims you suggested here.

You are very closed to the idea that the Nazarenes were fundamentalist Jews in direct opposition to Paul. I will be happy to discuss this with you and anyone else interested but I don't want to turn it into a boxing match where you automatically attempt to refute everything I say. That sort of conversation is tedious for everyone. I can present a lot of evidence that the Nazarenes and Paul were at odds with each other, however I've presented it before on this forum and I don't want to get the reputation for being a repetitive bore. If you or anyone else is genuinely interested I'll post it all again... it really is fascinating history in my opinion.

I concur, they were at odds.

It really came down, believe it or not, to the circumcised verses the uncircumcised; Jew verses Gentile; Judaism verses Christianity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2016, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2016 09:31 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-07-2016 04:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 09:46 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, and the 70 C.E. date absolutely demonstrates that Nazareth, by necessity, must have existed prior to 70 C.E., and since we have wide-spread agreement that the gospels' dating begins sometime later then the pre-70 C.E. existence of Nazareth, it sort of throws an obvious problem into your position.

Mind you, I think the gospels were created earlier. Luke-Acts, despite being full of fairy tales, has a 1st person narrative that appears to end around C.E. 60.

No, it doesn't "absolutely demonstrate". It suggests, and only if there's not another viable explanation, which there is.

There is no problem with my position. As you will note, even Carrier, who thinks that Nazareth was likely there prior to the 70 CE date, points out that more recent scholarship has begun to accept, in these discussions, that an early first century Nazareth is undemonstrated and must be assumed by speculating about the rate at which it could have been built/populated. I happen to think that the upheavals of the war were more than enough for that effect-- the Roman-Jewish War resulted in massive resettlement of the population that had previously been around Jerusalem but settled more heavily in the Galilee in the wake of all that destruction.

As I said, it may well be that 1) there was already a tiny village there, and 2) it was called Nazareth rather than something else in the early first century, and 3) it had sufficient population for a temple and "multitudes", as attested to by the Gospel version. But it is not a fact demonstrated by any of the archaeological evidence, nor which can be inferred directly from the texts, and so all of those are assumptions (or if you prefer, "educated-guess conclusions"), regardless of how confident you feel about making that assumption.

Assumed is pretty much the opposite of demonstrated. It also means that you owe me an apology for the slurs against my person, denigrating my intelligence, my integrity, and my alleged agenda.

Let me explain something to you.

The inscription for the priestly courses has them going to a town, that by necessity, had to already exist with the name of Nazareth in 70 CE, otherwise there would be no Nazareth on the inscription.

So what you are asking me to consider is the following:

1. Some yet unnamed village was renamed Nazareth in or circa 70 CE. - no evidence.

2. This new town of Nazareth was known to have expanded significantly due to the displacement of the Jews due to the Roman-Jewish war of 70 C.E. - no evidence

3. The Gospel writers who may have written sometime after 70 C.E. seized upon the newly named town of Nazareth to include it as part of the Gospel narrative. - no evidence.

Now, since there is no record of any of the 3 presumed events above in existence, when it is perfectly reasonable to expect to have these records entered into evidence, then what we have in the argument for historicity camp is a validated Argument of Silence because of the Evidence of Absence.

What you have is a theory, but to see if you have any kind of framework you then need to see if it qualifies as a hypothesis. Now, because of a lack of any evidence for your position, it does not even qualify as a legitimate hypothesis because you have no way of testing it.

And that is where your argument sits. Completely unproven, un-testable, and fallaciously unfalsifiable in every respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 03:21 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2016 03:24 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Let me explain something to you.

No. Go fuck yourself, talking that way. I am not an elementary school student to whom you can lecture like you're the teacher and I'm the student. Make a reasonable argument, and I'll listen. Talk like some pedantic asshole, and I'll call you one. I'm a pretty reasonable guy, but I've taken about as much of your verbal abuse as I'm willing to handle.

(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The inscription for the priestly courses has them going to a town, that by necessity, had to already exist with the name of Nazareth in 70 CE, otherwise there would be no Nazareth on the inscription.

Sure. I agree that it "already existed with the name of Nazareth in 70 CE", as I have repeatedly said. I simply think that it's more than reasonable to conclude that, until we have evidence that the town was long-standing, it was instead the result of a rapid buildup of population during the time when people were fleeing the destruction of a genocidal campaign by the Romans to suppress rebellion in the original population centers, and that refugee priests went there along with all the other people going there. It fits the pattern better than "significant town that no one mentions until after the war".

If you have an actual argument for why my hypothesis is inferior to yours (that it was always there despite the silence), I welcome you to address why my conclusion is implausible. So far I have seen nothing other than emotionally-charged assertions with no support other than essentially calling me stupid for not agreeing with you and "all the experts" (who do not all agree, despite your assertions, as Carrier pointed out).

(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So what you are asking me to consider is the following:

1. Some yet unnamed village was renamed Nazareth in or circa 70 CE. - no evidence.

I'm not even sure there was a village there. None of the evidence demonstrates there was anything there prior to 70 CE. It allows for it within the low end of the range of dates, but it does not demonstrate it. This is more assertion/assumption. However, I think it was named as soon as it was founded-- this is pretty much how all towns have been named since humans began to make settlements, as far as I'm aware.

(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. This new town of Nazareth was known to have expanded significantly due to the displacement of the Jews due to the Roman-Jewish war of 70 C.E. - no evidence

"Was known"? I suggested no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

However, it makes sense to me, based on how the Hebrews relocated to the Galilee after the BK Revolt, and based on other tales of the Diaspora I have read (though in most of those, of course, the Jews relocated outside of Judea completely... mainly to Egypt and what is now Turkey, providing the blended culture that was fertile ground for the Hebrew/Greek hybrid that is the Christian theological philosophy). Most likely, there were a few small dwellings scattered about, at some nameless crossroads in a valley like lots of other places in Galilee, and people started coming there in larger numbers as they were pushed out of the more populous areas during the revolt. Why this is so insane of an idea to you, I don't grasp.

(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  3. The Gospel writers who may have written sometime after 70 C.E. seized upon the newly named town of Nazareth to include it as part of the Gospel narrative. - no evidence.

Again, I am trying to parse out motive and human behavior, here. If you are followers of an wandering apocalyptic Messiah-claimant, who says the end of the world is upon us ("before this generation passes", and all that), but then you find yourself being mocked because people are actually passing away and the slaughtered "Messiah" hasn't returned in glory, yes, you might start looking around for ways to improve your story, including constructing an "early life" and trying to tie Jesus to the Old Testament prophecies. I consider it entirely probable that the early followers of Jesus were Nazarenes (or that he was one of them, as Mark suggests), and that the group we'd come to call Christians pulled away from that (as detailed by Epiphanius) in order to reject more of the Judaism in favor of a more-Hellenic version promoted by Paul (and the "church fathers" who as victors wrote the history).


(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Now, since there is no record of any of the 3 presumed events above in existence, when it is perfectly reasonable to expect to have these records entered into evidence,

Slow your roll there, Tiger. So your answer to "we have no evidence of a pre-70-CE-Nazareth" is to challenge the fact that there's no evidence of my hypothetical construction of why that might be?

You are far too confident in your conclusions. I acknowledge that it may have been there; I simply conclude that it did not need to be, and does not seem to be based on the silence of the record and the (to me) likely possibility that its use by the Christians is a matter of historical convergence shortly after the town was founded.

(27-07-2016 08:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  What you have is a theory, but to see if you have any kind of framework you then need to see if it qualifies as a hypothesis. Now, because of a lack of any evidence for your position, it does not even qualify as a legitimate hypothesis because you have no way of testing it.

And that is where your argument sits. Completely unproven, un-testable, and fallaciously unfalsifiable in every respect.

It is not a theory, but it is my hypothesis. My hypothesis is easily falsifiable, should evidence be shown that the town was there before I claim, or that it would somehow be impossible for such a town to have grown at that rate, or that there is no way people in adjacent territories would have heard of this town with the same name as the sect of which they were accused of being members (and from which they wished to distinguish themselves and their Savior).

Now I want you to take a moment, take a deep breath, and realize something important:

You just attempted to lecture about the definitions of theory and hypothesis to a biologist.

Get a grip on yourself, learn some humility, and realize that you don't know as much as you think you do. If you have formed such hard conclusions that you cannot even consider another point of view without berating it because it does not match your own, I suspect you have serious personal issues to work out. Projecting them onto us will not help you-- perhaps professional counseling could help?

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: