Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But what prophecy was fulfilled with Nazareth? You know as well as I do that there is no known ancient prophecy concerning Nazareth, or that anyone would come to be known as a Nazarene.

It doesn't matter. Matthew said there was a prophesy. They bought that.

Quote:He came from some obscure town called Nazareth, and therefore the Gospel writers were stuck with that, and invented a prophecy because no such prophesy ever proclaimed a messiah coming out of Nazareth.

As was pointed out, CHRISTIAN archaeologists looked for, and found no "town" of Nazareth. What is far more likely, is that a Christian scribe, much later, didn't know what a "Nazorite", or a "Nazorene" was.

Quote:You can't just eliminate a town from history because Paul never mentioned it. You, Mark, and I all know that Paul's embellished concept of Jesus barely resembles the embellished Jesus of the Gospels, and that Paul barely ever quotes anything from those gospels. So why would Paul refer to him as Jesus of Nazareth like the gospels do?

I said nothing about Paul eliminating anything. Paul said nothing about a "Jesus". All he ever talked about was his apocalyptic hero "Christ". There is no archaeological evidence for a town named Nazareth.

Quote:Besides, I can tell by your passive argumentation on this issue that you don't fucking believe Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century anyways. Big Grin

It may have been a place. It certainly wasn't a "town".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-07-2016, 08:27 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I haven't heard one piece of evidence from you that Nazareth existed in the first century. All you have is the gospels. Please present your evidence.

I'm not the one making the positive claim that Nazareth didn't exist because Paul never mentioned it. You are.

And your argument is fallacious.

Enough evidence has already been provided in this discussion on previous pages to support the existence of Nazareth. But none of that will even be considered by you, as you are far too busy ignoring the principle of total evidence in favor of your conspiracy theories that support that work of fiction you wrote and self published.

Quote:
Quote:"And like I said, many other towns are listed in the gospel narrative that Paul never mentioned,"

This is irrelevant. Paul mentioned his Christ over 200 times. If his Christ was from Nazareth, Paul would have mentioned Nazareth.

It's not irrelevant whatsoever, as it clearly demonstrates the application of the principle of total evidence to be considered.

Sure, Paul mentions his Christ, but does he mention any of the towns Jesus visited in the Gospels? Does he mention what Jesus did in those towns like the Gospels do?

Paul doesn't mention Nazareth, or any other town Jesus went to for the simple reason that Paul had his own idea of Jesus and embellished the life of Jesus with his own ideas about him.

Paul shows almost no signs of having any knowledge of what was written about Jesus in the Gospels, so why would he be making any claims about Nazareth, or any other town?

Your position is completely fucked up by mere reason.

Quote:
Quote:"Since you are excluding the more plausible explanation that the Jesus of the Gospels had his life embellished"

Huh? Your imagination about what I think is out of control.

No, you ARE excluding the more plausible explanation that the Jesus of the Gospels had his life embellished.

Full stop.


Quote:
Quote:"and failing to consider all the evidence supporting his existence as an ordinary man,"

Huh? I have written a whole chapter on him being an ordinary man. The "evidence" you have presented for his existence is a lot weaker than mine.

Not in this argument you are not presenting any evidence. You are purposely excluding it to preserve your Nazareth never existed bullshit.

Quote:
Quote:Bethlehem is far more prominent to the embellished life of Jesus than Nazareth could ever be, so should we think Bethlehem never existed as well?


Pathetic argument. You should be embarrassed you wrote this.

And that is a cop out if there ever was one. You have no argument against that logic, and therefore can't dispute it. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 07:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "big deal" is they *needed* it to claim prophesy fulfillment. They *needed* Bethlehem to claim the Davidic reference. The POINT is, the census was a fraud, NOT that Bethlehem was a fraud. It makes no difference if the non-important places existed or not. It DOES matter if there was a census, and if there was a Nazareth. Your comparison to other towns is invalid. The point is, if the birth narratives were fake, the census is fake, so much else is fake, then where does the fakery end ? The references in Greek myths to real places doesn't make them real history. There is so much bullshit, there is no way to 'tease out" the (possible) core of truth.

But what prophecy was fulfilled with Nazareth? You know as well as I do that there is no known ancient prophecy concerning Nazareth, or that anyone would come to be known as a Nazarene.

It would seem quite plausible to me that the prophesy concerning Nazareth/Nazarene was made up because Jesus came from Nazareth, and no actual prophecy existed.

He came from some obscure town called Nazareth, and therefore the Gospel writers were stuck with that, and invented a prophecy because no such prophesy ever proclaimed a messiah coming out of Nazareth.

So the POINT here could easily be- and far more believable- that the prophecy was a fraud, NOT that Nazareth was a fraud.

You can't just eliminate a town from history because Paul never mentioned it. You, Mark, and I all know that Paul's embellished concept of Jesus barely resembles the embellished Jesus of the Gospels, and that Paul barely ever quotes anything from those gospels. So why would Paul refer to him as Jesus of Nazareth like the gospels do?

No, just because someone doesn't mention Nazareth by no means eliminates it from history. That is sofa king we todd it.

Besides, I can tell by your passive argumentation on this issue that you don't fucking believe Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century anyways. Big Grin

"You can't just eliminate a town from history because Paul never mentioned it."

The point is the town never was there in the first century. There is no written, or archaeological evidence for its existence, other than in the gospels....which we know were heavily edited in the 2nd, 3rd and early 4th centuries, and were NOT accurate records of history (a fact you admit.)
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
13-07-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:27 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 08:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I haven't heard one piece of evidence from you that Nazareth existed in the first century. All you have is the gospels. Please present your evidence.

I'm not the one making the positive claim that Nazareth didn't exist because Paul never mentioned it. You are.

And your argument is fallacious.

Enough evidence has already been provided in this discussion on previous pages to support the existence of Nazareth. But none of that will even be considered by you, as you are far too busy ignoring the principle of total evidence in favor of your conspiracy theories that support that work of fiction you wrote and self published.

Quote:This is irrelevant. Paul mentioned his Christ over 200 times. If his Christ was from Nazareth, Paul would have mentioned Nazareth.

It's not irrelevant whatsoever, as it clearly demonstrates the application of the principle of total evidence to be considered.

Sure, Paul mentions his Christ, but does he mention any of the towns Jesus visited in the Gospels? Does he mention what Jesus did in those towns like the Gospels do?

Paul doesn't mention Nazareth, or any other town Jesus went to for the simple reason that Paul had his own idea of Jesus and embellished the life of Jesus with his own ideas about him.

Paul shows almost no signs of having any knowledge of what was written about Jesus in the Gospels, so why would he be making any claims about Nazareth, or any other town?

Your position is completely fucked up by mere reason.

Quote:Huh? Your imagination about what I think is out of control.

No, you ARE excluding the more plausible explanation that the Jesus of the Gospels had his life embellished.

Full stop.


Quote:Huh? I have written a whole chapter on him being an ordinary man. The "evidence" you have presented for his existence is a lot weaker than mine.

Not in this argument you are not presenting any evidence. You are purposely excluding it to preserve your Nazareth never existed bullshit.

Quote:

Pathetic argument. You should be embarrassed you wrote this.

And that is a cop out if there ever was one. You have no argument against that logic, and therefore can't dispute it. Facepalm


"Not in this argument you are not presenting any evidence. You are purposely excluding it to preserve your Nazareth never existed bullshit."

Unfortunately for you, I can cut and paste from my post 855 in this argument my statement that I believe Yeshua existed...


"Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 08:09 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  But what prophecy was fulfilled with Nazareth? You know as well as I do that there is no known ancient prophecy concerning Nazareth, or that anyone would come to be known as a Nazarene.

It doesn't matter. Matthew said there was a prophesy. They bought that.


Quote:
Quote:He came from some obscure town called Nazareth, and therefore the Gospel writers were stuck with that, and invented a prophecy because no such prophesy ever proclaimed a messiah coming out of Nazareth.

As was pointed out, CHRISTIAN archaeologists looked for, and found no "town" of Nazareth. What is far more likely, is that a Christian scribe, much later, didn't know what a "Nazorite", or a "Nazorene" was.

That is all speculation, not supported with any evidence. I also find it exceptionally unlikely that an entire town would be created in the 2nd century to support an invented prophecy, and yet no one in ancient history ever contested it.

Mr. Ball, how deep are you willing to let yourself get into this crazy shit?


Quote:
Quote:You can't just eliminate a town from history because Paul never mentioned it. You, Mark, and I all know that Paul's embellished concept of Jesus barely resembles the embellished Jesus of the Gospels, and that Paul barely ever quotes anything from those gospels. So why would Paul refer to him as Jesus of Nazareth like the gospels do?

I said nothing about Paul eliminating anything. Paul said nothing about a "Jesus". All he ever talked about was his apocalyptic hero "Christ". There is no archaeological evidence for a town named Nazareth.

Not true. We have 1st century artifacts, and in fact, there are a large number of ancient tombs discovered.

http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_en...40&id=1638


Quote:
Quote:[quote]
Besides, I can tell by your passive argumentation on this issue that you don't fucking believe Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century anyways. Big Grin

It may have been a place. It certainly wasn't a "town".

At least you admit the possibility that Nazareth existed as, at the very least, a place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:54 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2016 08:59 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
Quote:"Not in this argument you are not presenting any evidence. You are purposely excluding it to preserve your Nazareth never existed bullshit."

Unfortunately for you, I can cut and paste from my post 855 in this argument my statement that I believe Yeshua existed...


"Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature."

Unfortunately for you, my statement was valid:

"Not in this argument (regarding the existence of Nazareth) you are not presenting any evidence. You are purposely excluding it to preserve your Nazareth never existed bullshit."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 08:56 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
First century artifacts are not contemporary.

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
13-07-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  That is all speculation, not supported with any evidence. I also find it exceptionally unlikely that an entire town would be created in the 2nd century to support an invented prophecy, and yet no one in ancient history ever contested it.

The FACT there is no archaeological evidence for Nazareth is not speculation. The town doesn't "support" an invented prophesy. The invented town IS part of the fake prophesy.

Quote:Not true. We have 1st century artifacts, and in fact, there are a large number of ancient tombs discovered.

Yes. A place. A GRAVEYARD. Not a town. There is no evidence for a TOWN.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-07-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 08:56 PM)Banjo Wrote:  First century artifacts are not contemporary.

Can I buy some drugs off you?

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-07-2016 09:02 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-07-2016 08:56 PM)Banjo Wrote:  First century artifacts are not contemporary.

Can I buy some drugs off you?

Big Grin

It depends upon when one considers the "First century" to have begun. "First" Rome dates from 750 BC. I tend to think of it as beginning at the death of the so called Christ.

Obviously it was not the first century. When Rome began the pyramids were considered ancient and the Sphinx is approx' 7500 years. I dislike the xian calendar. For one it ignore the Roman republic.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: