Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2016, 02:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:56 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 03:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I asked you to prove Jesus followers thought he'd risen from the dead without using the gospels and you respond with quotes from the gospelsFacepalm How can the historian in you take these ramblings at face value? Surely you are not that credulous?

Actually, you said no such thing. In fact, you didn't ask me to prove anything at all. The post I quoted is yours, and can be view HERE.

Quote:I'll ask you again… show me some good quality evidence that Jesus' original followers thought he had risen from the dead.

I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence. I can't help it that you then make claims that don't exist, and then with the non-existent claims, you move the goal-posts.

Amazing.

Big Grin

I wrote...

I asked you to prove Jesus followers thought he'd risen from the dead without using the gospels and you respond with quotes from the gospelsFacepalm How can the historian in you take these ramblings at face value? Surely you are not that credulous?[/quote]

You replied

Actually, you said no such thing. In fact, you didn't ask me to prove anything at all.

Oops! The following is a cut and paste of my writing addressed to you in post 1806...

"If you have any evidence, and I mean good evidence, that any of the original followers of Jesus thought he had risen from the dead, please post it. In this particular instance, quotations from the gospels or from the book of Acts will not do, as both you and I know Jesus didn't rise from the dead, so these authors were creating a myth ie lying."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 03:01 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:42 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 02:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Good luck, Mark. I gave up after I quoted one of the experts he listed, saying that some of the experts are beginning to discuss the possibility that there was no Nazareth in the first half of the First Century, and he continued to use that "consensus of the historians" line anyway.

I googled 3 of them, in relation to Nazareth, and couldn't find any definitive statements about the existence of Nazareth in the first century.

I can understand why you wouldn't put much effort into it, so I will excuse your lack of effort.

Meanwhile, I merely took the top 3, and the bottom 3 on the list and got the following results in about 5 minutes.

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/

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.

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.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/bethnaz/

Stephan Pfann - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report

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


Yehudah Rapuano - Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002):Final Report

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


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/

Cool

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."

Big Grin

"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."

Bart, on this occasion, provides no good proof. He resorts to your favourite ploy...claiming there are heaps of others who think Nazareth existed.

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,

Note the language..."suggests that..." Once again, no actual proof.

"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."

A "domestic building" is not a village!

Dr. Justin Bass - Archaeological discoveries have definitively proven that Nazareth did, in fact, exist at the time of Jesus.

Ok. Is this a quote? I open the door to you to present Dr Justin Bass' archaeological evidence for a village of Nazareth. I find it highly unlikely that there is any such archaeological evidence, given that Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman know nothing about it, but I'm open minded.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 03:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 03:56 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 03:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I asked you to prove Jesus followers thought he'd risen from the dead without using the gospels and you respond with quotes from the gospelsFacepalm How can the historian in you take these ramblings at face value? Surely you are not that credulous?

Actually, you said no such thing. In fact, you didn't ask me to prove anything at all. The post I quoted is yours, and can be view HERE.

Quote:I'll ask you again… show me some good quality evidence that Jesus' original followers thought he had risen from the dead.

I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence. I can't help it that you then make claims that don't exist, and then with the non-existent claims, you move the goal-posts.

Amazing.

Big Grin


"I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence."

I believe you that YOU think the gospels are "reasonably good evidence."

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are, in fact, a bible thumping Christian who merely pretends he is an objective historian.

Your pro babble bias is not the only thing that gives your game away. The fact you never get other people's points, and that you repeat yourself ad nauseum, and that you're a lazy thinker, all points to a mind that has been indoctrinated with Christianity.

Why don't you go back to church, where you belong? You can't mix it with the smart people.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 03:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 03:29 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 03:56 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Actually, you said no such thing. In fact, you didn't ask me to prove anything at all. The post I quoted is yours, and can be view HERE.


I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence. I can't help it that you then make claims that don't exist, and then with the non-existent claims, you move the goal-posts.

Amazing.

Big Grin


"I consider what I showed you to be reasonably good evidence."

I believe you that YOU think the gospels are "reasonably good evidence."

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are, in fact, a bible thumping Christian who merely pretends he is an objective historian.

Your pro babble bias is not the only thing that gives your game away. The fact you never get other people's points, and that you repeat yourself ad nauseum, and that you're a lazy thinker, all points to a mind that has been indoctrinated with Christianity.

Why don't you go back to church, where you belong? You can't mix it with the smart people.

Agreed. He's like no pro historian I know who all have doubts and hungrily await new evidence.

He has an idea about the history of the Bible. He has not mentioned later dates though claims to know about times after the 1st century. And what was that whole Nazareth BS about???

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
01-08-2016, 04:39 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 04:59 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 04:47 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Mark does not, and has not, used the gospels as evidence. Some of us are reading this nonsense.

Meanwhile in Nazareth a horse race plays out.

Perhaps "some of us" need to read a little closer?

Listed below are just the first two posts I randomly chose, and between them I can point out at least 15 bible quotes he uses to further his arguments:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1039676

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1039949

And if that isn't enough, Mark flatly admits to it here:

Quote:I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...pid1039953

So I'm not sure what "some of us" are reading here, but I have spent a lifetime analyzing words, and I am trained to intensely view things.

It is what it is.

I have spent a lifetime analyzing words, and I am trained to intensely view things.

You have great trouble understanding the very simple concept that there are truths, some half truths and many outright lies in these writings. You go to great length explaining what you think the "correct" context is, by which you mean what you think the authors wanted you, the reader, to believe. You are shocked when someone else like me claims he sees through the fabrications and prejudice in the texts and puts forward a hypothesis of what he thinks really happened, not what the author wants the reader to believe happened. That sort of commentary is so far removed from your world you dismiss it without even making the effort to understand it.

Yet what I try to do is is what all real historians do when discussing literature. They place themselves in the shoes of the author(s) so as to understand why they wrote what they wrote, which means understanding the social, political, economic and religious beliefs of the author and the other players he writes about. That takes effort and time.

You haven't done this...you take nearly everything you read in the bible at face value, and then claim anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand it. Yes, you have "spent a lifetime analyzing words," yet you have not understood the history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-08-2016, 04:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:59 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 08:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

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.

I don't believe you. You have written over 30 pages, repeatedly saying that Nazareth existed because a lot of people allegedly said so. For you, this is bigger than Texas. You would give your left testicle to prove all the atheists wrong Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
01-08-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 08:59 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(31-07-2016 08:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

That was an empty non-answer except for the editorial crap. 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
01-08-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(31-07-2016 11:37 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(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.)

So you just can't handle the fact that your argument against the existence of Nazareth is refuted by every known professional scholar relative to the field, and you attack ME for that?

I am satisfied with my argument for its existence before, during, and after the 1st century. I trust all the pros involved with it.

But who are you trusting? Some nut-job conspiracy theorist named Rene Salm who has no credentials whatsoever, and who has been completely refuted by all the professionals.

So I am satisfied with who I am siding with, and everybody can see who you are satisfied with. We've both made that abundantly clear.

So why do you insist on continuing this discussion? You need to get the fuck over it, dude. Accept what you believe and move on, before you bore our readers into oblivion.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-08-2016 02:46 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I wrote...

Quote:I asked you to prove Jesus followers thought he'd risen from the dead without using the gospels and you respond with quotes from the gospelsFacepalm How can the historian in you take these ramblings at face value? Surely you are not that credulous?

You replied

Actually, you said no such thing. In fact, you didn't ask me to prove anything at all.

Oops! The following is a cut and paste of my writing addressed to you in post 1806...

"If you have any evidence, and I mean good evidence, that any of the original followers of Jesus thought he had risen from the dead, please post it. In this particular instance, quotations from the gospels or from the book of Acts will not do, as both you and I know Jesus didn't rise from the dead, so these authors were creating a myth ie lying."

Except you are intentionally leaving out a major detail:

The post I responded to had nothing to do with the quote above, and that quote above was not in the post I responded to.

Nice try, Mark. But you don't need to lie to people to save face. Just admit it and move on.

Again, the post I responded to is HERE.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2016, 08:54 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:"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."

Bart, on this occasion, provides no good proof. He resorts to your favourite ploy...claiming there are heaps of others who think Nazareth existed.

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,

Note the language..."suggests that..." Once again, no actual proof.

"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."

A "domestic building" is not a village!

Dr. Justin Bass - Archaeological discoveries have definitively proven that Nazareth did, in fact, exist at the time of Jesus.

Ok. Is this a quote? I open the door to you to present Dr Justin Bass' archaeological evidence for a village of Nazareth. I find it highly unlikely that there is any such archaeological evidence, given that Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman know nothing about it, but I'm open minded.


For the sake of our readers, whom have often rightfully complained how Nazareth is a non sequitur to this thread, and also because both you and RocketSurgeon have already stated that you are "out" as far as the conversation regrading Nazareth is concerned, I must ask why you want to jump on that bandwagon again and start the merry-go-round all over again?

I mean if you are satisfied with accepting the arguments of a non scholar such as Rene Salm who has absolutely no professional experience with the subject of Nazareth whatsoever, and think he has a better argument than all the professional historians and archeologists involved, then who am I to argue with that?

Just go and be happy with your conspiracy theorist and move on.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: