Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2016, 07:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 07:48 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  But that is not what the Gospels say. You're making that up. Drinking Beverage

You've provided an elaborate fiction to explain an ignorant misunderstanding of plain language.

Elaborate fiction? Hardly.

This information is actually in the gospel records.

There are 7 high sabbaths

On the Jewish calendar the 15 and 21 Nisan are the first and last day of the Feast of Unleavend Bread.

The Day of Pentecost or "Shavout" is 50 days (7 X7 days after the first fruit feast).

The Feast of the Trumpet 1 Tishri,

The Day of Atonement 10 Tishri

The 15 and 22 of Tishri for the Feast of the Ingathering.

So, with the eve of the Passover being a Thursday, then that Friday was a high sabbath. The following Saturday would be a regular Sabbath.

Now we look at John:

Joh_19:31 Then the Jews, because it was Preparation, begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath. For that sabbath was a high day.

Both Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 both show the use of the plural "sabbaths," and both indicate more than one.

Why is this such a big deal?

Truth is a big deal. "On the third day" does not mean "after three days". Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 08:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 07:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 07:48 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Elaborate fiction? Hardly.

This information is actually in the gospel records.

There are 7 high sabbaths

On the Jewish calendar the 15 and 21 Nisan are the first and last day of the Feast of Unleavend Bread.

The Day of Pentecost or "Shavout" is 50 days (7 X7 days after the first fruit feast).

The Feast of the Trumpet 1 Tishri,

The Day of Atonement 10 Tishri

The 15 and 22 of Tishri for the Feast of the Ingathering.

So, with the eve of the Passover being a Thursday, then that Friday was a high sabbath. The following Saturday would be a regular Sabbath.

Now we look at John:

Joh_19:31 Then the Jews, because it was Preparation, begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath. For that sabbath was a high day.

Both Luke 24:1, and John 20:1 both show the use of the plural "sabbaths," and both indicate more than one.

Why is this such a big deal?

Truth is a big deal. "On the third day" does not mean "after three days". Drinking Beverage

Are you certain?

Mat_27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was living, After three days I will rise again.

Mar_8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 08:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 07:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Truth is a big deal. "On the third day" does not mean "after three days". Drinking Beverage

Are you certain?

Mat_27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was living, After three days I will rise again.

Mar_8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Those are prophecy, not reporting of events.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 08:13 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 08:16 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 07:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You're still doing it! After reading all of these,

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Bart Ehrman - Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources.

http://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/

Except that Ehrman did a bad job, here. He mentions that it "dates to the time of Jesus", but it does not. It dates to a range that at its low end includes the time of Jesus, if you actually read Yardena Alexandre's report. The only other piece of evidence Ehrman mentions is the coins from just prior to/during the time of Jesus, which are not evidence that pins the site to a specific date... I have coins in my pocket right now that date from the 1970s... but it's 2016.

Ehrman does, however, do an amazing job of trying to validate Dark's work by throwing shade on "lack of qualifications", even though that is not a standard held to when assessing well-documented work by people who confirm the presuppositions in that field of study, as Mark has already shown you in previous posts. Salm has tried repeatedly to get Dark to address the issues, rather than simply attack his lack of qualifications, and he will not do so.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yardena Alexandre - The dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres. It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Yes, Ehrman mentions this, too. But he points out that we see wealthy tombs are from after/around the 70 CE date, which validates my hypothesis that people were emigrating there in the wake of the destruction of other cities... and the relative absence of "poor person" tombs Ehrman excuses as being irrelevant because they weren't buried in a way that was preserved. It's hand-waving to excuse the absence of the evidence.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/d...very-jesus

Ken Dark - In 2012, archaeologist Ken Dark, Associate Professor at Reading University, announced he had found remains of an exceptionally well-preserved domestic building, probably a ‘courtyard house’ dating from about the middle of the first century. The house later went out of use, and several tombs were constructed on the site, probably late in the first century.

Cool! It's what I've been saying all along. Thanks!


(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/bethnaz/

A blog by this guy:

"My name is Eric Hatfield (aka unkleE) and I live in Sydney, Australia. I have worked in environment protection, studied and read widely in theology, New Testament history, philosophy and some areas of science (cosmology, DNA and neuroscience), and have a keen interest in ethics and beliefs in our 21st century culture. I believe in God, try to follow the way of Jesus, and prefer to connect with people of different beliefs rather than argue with them."

Really?!? You do know that repeating the same two peoples' arguments a whole bunch of times doesn't turn it into a more legitimate argument, right?

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Stephan Pfann - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report

http://www.uhl.ac/files/8613/3552/5109/N...Report.pdf

You made me re-read (yes, I had already read it) a 78 page report only to find yet again that it repeatedly states exactly what I've been saying all along, which is that the pottery dates to a period with a range of possible dates, and that this range only just barely covers the time Jesus was alleged to be growing up there, at the very low end?

The closest thing it says to evidence of earlier habitation is this:

The surface finds include examples at either extreme of the chronological
range of our site. A single potsherd of an Early Bronze Age III platter (Fig.
37:1), with a thickened, incurved rim, represents the earliest find at the
Nazareth Farm. It is finished with a typical burnished net pattern on its
interior surface. To date, no Early Bronze occupation has been recognized
and this is the only artifact recovered from this period at the site.


(Emphasis mine.) So, like my 1970s coins, they had an artifact from earlier, probably some sort of heirloom, which was out-of-date with the main material found there, from the first-to-third-century-C.E. period.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yehudah Rapuano - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002):Final Report

http://www.uhl.ac/files/8613/3552/5109/N...Report.pdf

This is the same thing. They are co-authors on the same paper, which still says nothing that supports your contention.

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Dr. Justin Bass - Archaeological discoveries have definitively proven that Nazareth did, in fact, exist at the time of Jesus.

https://danielbwallace.com/2015/08/01/fa...ne-6-2015/

All this does is re-quote Bart Ehrman. This seems to be a theme with you and your "sources".

(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  PS: by the way, the Ken Dark entry above details a 2nd House discovery in Nazareth dating to at least the middle of the 1st century.

Now all we need to find is a sign post that says, "Welcome to Nazareth. The year is C.E. 34, and Jesus lived here."

Well, technically, Jesus would have been dead by 34 C.E., but I get what you're saying. And it's neat that it dates to "the middle of the 1st century", since that's what I've been fucking saying all along.

At some point, are you planning to present actual evidence that we're wrong, or are you going to just keep repeating stuff I've already read like there'll be something else in it, next time?

Dude, if you want to believe that the possibility that Nazareth didn't exist in the early part of the first century is a big enough possibility to warrant substantial doubt, then by all means believe what you like.

I will finish this with a note from the Israel Antiquities Authority:

The conclusions of the archaeologists:

These last two discoveries were seen by the Israel Antiquities Authority and others (The Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Biblical Archaeological Review and New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist right through the first century, and before. Based on the number of tombs found previously, many conclude that it was a small agricultural hamlet of about 50 houses, although Ken Dark suggests it may have been a little larger.

Bart Ehrman has written: René Salm’s claim that Nazareth did not exist in the days of Jesus is dead wrong and is rejected by every recognized authority – whether archaeologist, textual scholar, or historian; whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic, or other.


So go ahead and maintain your doubts, for whatever reason you deem necessary.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Sorry, fell asleep.

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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
31-07-2016, 08:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 08:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Are you certain?

Mat_27:63 saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while He was living, After three days I will rise again.

Mar_8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Those are prophecy, not reporting of events.

Irrelevant.

But both are relevant to the resurrection story.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 08:46 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 08:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Those are prophecy, not reporting of events.

Irrelevant.

But both are relevant to the resurrection story.

Prophecy isn't real. Facepalm

All it shows is that there is reason to twist facts and concoct stories to seemingly 'fulfill' them.
They are not evidence of any actual events.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
31-07-2016, 08:59 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2016 09:24 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 08:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Irrelevant.

But both are relevant to the resurrection story.

Prophecy isn't real. Facepalm

All it shows is that there is reason to twist facts and concoct stories to seemingly 'fulfill' them.
They are not evidence of any actual events.

Aren't you already predisposed to the gospels being nothing but a crock of shit anyways?

3 days and 3 nights really doesn't matter. Whether I am right, or you are right, isn't going to change the fact that we are dealing with ancient beliefs, various translations, contradictions, and points of views that are shaped by our current states of belief, disbelief, and "I-don't-give-a-fuck-either-way."

Personally, I don't give a fuck for the theists' beliefs, and I don't give a fuck for the atheists' disbeliefs. Neither position matters to me in the slightest. Both are just opposite sides of the same coin. Both have the same propensity to cultivate extremist views depending on the individual's life experience and cultural environment.

So if you want to believe that 3 days and 3 nights means something other than what we both can agree on, go right ahead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2016, 09:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Mark and GoingUp.




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
31-07-2016, 11:37 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:13 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Dude, if you want to believe that the possibility that Nazareth didn't exist in the early part of the first century is a big enough possibility to warrant substantial doubt, then by all means believe what you like.

I will finish this with a note from the Israel Antiquities Authority:

The conclusions of the archaeologists:

These last two discoveries were seen by the Israel Antiquities Authority and others (The Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Biblical Archaeological Review and New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist right through the first century, and before. Based on the number of tombs found previously, many conclude that it was a small agricultural hamlet of about 50 houses, although Ken Dark suggests it may have been a little larger.

Bart Ehrman has written: René Salm’s claim that Nazareth did not exist in the days of Jesus is dead wrong and is rejected by every recognized authority – whether archaeologist, textual scholar, or historian; whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic, or other.


So go ahead and maintain your doubts, for whatever reason you deem necessary.

Big Grin

These are your "all the experts"? You're doing it again, citing to the same couple of guys (and those who copy-paste their opinions as gospel), and representing their claims as if they are universal.

The first part you plagiarized ("these last two discoveries...") comes from that blogger I mentioned, earlier, who is neither an expert nor someone who is objective by the same standard you applied to me. You might as well quote from my blog and call it valid. And yet again, it cites to the work of Ken Dark but ignores what has actually been found. If you look at the link Mr. Blogger cites to for the claim you mention, the "Biblical Archaeology Review" magazine, it's a you'll see it's a Christian (not scholarly) periodical published by no other than this guy:

Hershel Shanks (born March 8, 1930, Sharon, Pennsylvania, United States) is the American founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society and the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review and has written and edited numerous works on Biblical archaeology including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Shanks communicates the world of biblical archaeology to general readers through his magazines, books, and conferences. Hershel Shanks is "probably the world's most influential amateur Biblical archaeologist," wrote New York Times book critic Richard Bernstein. [...] He used the pseudonym "Adam Mikaya" for a few articles published in the Biblical Archaeology Review.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershel_Shanks (Emphasis mine, of course.)

Yeah, he "published" in his own magazine. Neat trick. I thought you hated amateurs?

As to the citation of Bart Ehrman, I don't care what he says there in the slightest, since I can see for myself that the claims he's casually making don't match the published data in the way he is claiming. I can read the actual reports and SEE that none of the data actually supports the claims being made by Dr. Ehrman, in a field (archaeology) that I will note is not his area of expertise. However, he does have a book to promote, and I don't blame him for doing so.

But before you keep berating me for accepting the arguments made by Mr. Salm, which I find more consistent and convincing than the work of Dr. Dark, I will leave you with Salm's description of "pious fraud" and the trouble with those who cite to Dr. Alexandre's unpublished work on the subject:

In biblical archaeology, there is a considerable looseness of terminology regarding what constitutes an “archaeologist.” Regarding those who have actually dug at Nazareth we may ask: How extensive was their scientific training? How rigorous was that training? These are not idle questions for, over and over, we find that the excavators on Catholic Church property have failed to observe standard guidelines of stratigraphy, documentation, publication, and preservation.

Amnon ben Tor, a respected Israeli archaeologist and the author of the well-known reference work, The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, notes the pervasive need in some circles to validate scripture, a desire which he finds corrosive of archaeological integrity. He observes that many archaeologists active in the Land of Israel “received a large part of their education at various theological seminaries, while their archaeological training was often deficient.” Ben Tor adds: “This is particularly evident among American archaeologists.” He notes that “This state of affairs has given biblical archaeology a reputation for amateurism in some archaeological circles. Modern scientific excavation is so complex that those who have not received adequate training (which is the case with most of those educated at theological seminaries) cannot conduct” an excavation properly (MoN p. 9).

The excavators digging in the ground at Nazareth have by-and-large been seminary-trained priests, pastors, and ministers intent on seeking out “evidence” that corroborates the gospel accounts. On this basis, their work must be characterized as tendentious. “Tendentious” means that they present data lacking adequate foundation in the material evidence and conforming to preconceived conclusions. I call this “pious fraud.”


(Emphasis my own.)

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: