Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2016, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2016 06:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 05:33 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  It's obvious from your own words what your thoughts are.

I have consistently, since I came here, said there is no difference between European Christian contemplative mysticism, (John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairvaux, John of Ford, many others, including the English mystic who wrote "The Cloud of the Unknowing") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing , and agnostic atheism, or Eastern Tao mysticism. You are simply a presumptuous old ignorant fool. I have also talked about my conversations with my friend who is an abbot of a well known US monastery. You know nothing of my experience with or attitudes towards religion. You on the other hand, have never demonstrated ANY knowledge of any nuanced topic concerning anything. All you know is black and whites, and an arrogant "I know more than you, I'm always right".

Quote:And the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century is some kind of fundamentalist belief, right?

The question of Jesus' historicity is not a religious one, despite your idiotic, OLD, repeated attempts to make it one, and your childish Fundie dismissal of it it as anger towards religion. The question of Nazareth is in no way a religious one, fundamentalist or otherwise. Whether Jesus was an historical person is not a religious matter. It's ONLY about history. Your inability to separate issues and nuanced positions, demonstrates your simple-minded, ignorant, uneducated, childish, ANCIENT mentality towards every subject, including these ones.

Quote:Like I have said, I read your threads with other posters, and have assumed nothing.

You keep telling yourself that. What a simple-minded fool, who is not even versed in the present topics of the questions in this thread, thinks, makes no difference to anyone.

Quote:You brought him up several pages ago, and Mark kept referring to a thread regarding "Who was Saint Paul" in which Free participated. I'm not sure what you see about it as being hilarious, but then again ... with the way your mind works, off kilter and all , who the fuck knows? Consider

You know damn well what is hilarious.
Facepalm

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
14-07-2016, 06:28 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 05:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  My point was simple and ignored in your last response... the archaeological evidence you cited points to a single, small dwelling.

This is what I fucking mean by cherry picking. What about the rest of the archaeological evidence regarding the tombs, the war trenches, pottery etc?

Do you really think that people would venture from miles away while carrying their dead only to entomb them there? Does that fucking make sense to you?

If nobody was living there, why dig a defensive war trench?

Why do we have all this 1st century pottery used for food preparation if all this place was was a graveyard?

The first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian source is a fragmentary fourth-century inscription from Caesarea Maritima. This mentions Nazareth as one of the Jewish towns in the Galilee to which priests had relocated when exiled from Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple around 70 CE. The inscriptions regarding Nazareth on this artifact are re-confirmed from other written sources dated afterwards, which also detail Nazareth as one of the Jewish towns in the Galilee to which priests had relocated.

So ...

1. We have a house.
2. We have burial tombs.
3. We have a Jewish war preparation trench.
4. We have pottery and graffiti.
5. We have a written record etched in stone that details that priests were relocated to Nazareth due to the destruction of the Temple in CE 70.


And all of the above is archeological evidence that provides more than enough reason to accept the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century.

But guess what we don't have?

We don't have one fucking stitch of evidence whatsoever to support any positive claim that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century. None whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2016 06:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in the early 1st Century, and THAT is the point. No one gives a shit if it was a town in 70 CE.

Fail again.
Yet another example of your inability to actually follow the POINTS and nuances of an argument.

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
14-07-2016, 06:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 06:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in the early 1st Century, and THAT is the point. No one gives a shit if it was a town in 70 CE.

And even if we did, assholes like you would again move the goal posts and say something to the effect of "You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in 50 BC."

The fact that it was a town in 70 AD, or anytime at all in the 1st century, utterly destroys your stupidity that Nazareth never existed in the 1st century.

And that's my fucking point.

Quote:Fail again.
Yet another example of your inability to actually follow the POINTS and nuances of an argument.

And your inability to effectively reason just got you to shoving your foot in your mouth in this very post.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 06:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 06:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in the early 1st Century, and THAT is the point. No one gives a shit if it was a town in 70 CE.

And even if we did, assholes like you would again move the goal posts and say something to the effect of "You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in 50 BC."

This is what I mean by calling you a manipulator. You're not being rational at all, at this point. If the town was demonstrably there in 1 C.E., a the time young Jesus was supposedly there, then it would be on point... whether the town was there 50 years prior would be irrelevant.

And yet you psychologically project onto us a false conclusion, that we would "move the goal posts" to an irrelevant point. You have straw-manned us, YET AGAIN, in your desperate attempts to paint us as being unreasonable simply because we cannot agree with your premise.

You are the only person here being unreasonable. Reasonable people can disagree on points, and bring up new points or evidence. Unreasonable people (that'd be you) prefer to attack the person against whom they are arguing, ignore the points being made by the other side (or dismissing them out-of-hand), and try to broad-brush every datum to cover "facts" that are not in evidence.

This is what you are doing, presently. Stop it.

"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
14-07-2016, 08:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 06:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 06:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in the early 1st Century, and THAT is the point. No one gives a shit if it was a town in 70 CE.

And even if we did, assholes like you would again move the goal posts and say something to the effect of "You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in 50 BC."

The fact that it was a town in 70 AD, or anytime at all in the 1st century, utterly destroys your stupidity that Nazareth never existed in the 1st century.

And that's my fucking point.

Quote:Fail again.
Yet another example of your inability to actually follow the POINTS and nuances of an argument.

And your inability to effectively reason just got you to shoving your foot in your mouth in this very post.

Laugh out load

Pointing out the weakness of your arguments does not make us assholes or zealots.

Your arguments are all strongly tainted by confirmation bias. You see only what you want to see.

Now, before you go all "militant atheist", "zealot", "hard-core atheist", "atheist fundamentalist", and "zealot-angry-militant-atheist" on me,
you should note that I have not taken the mythicist position, merely pointed out the weakness of your argument.

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
14-07-2016, 08:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 07:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 06:57 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And even if we did, assholes like you would again move the goal posts and say something to the effect of "You have nothing that demonstrates Nazareth was a town in 50 BC."

This is what I mean by calling you a manipulator. You're not being rational at all, at this point. If the town was demonstrably there in 1 C.E., a the time young Jesus was supposedly there, then it would be on point... whether the town was there 50 years prior would be irrelevant.

Since all the archeological evidence indicates 1st century or even older, and the fact that Nazareth would had to have existed as a town prior to priests being assigned to it in AD 70 otherwise it wouldn't even be known as a place to assign any priests, then you are splitting hairs here by the bushel. By necessity, the town would have to preexist the assignment of the priests, and since it takes time for a town to grow, it would take considerable time for one to grow in the 1st century.

You cannot reasonably and logically project how a town grows in modern times and compare it to ancient times. Sure, in modern times a town can grow from nothing into a town in just a few years, but that is only because of modern contrivances and population.

But back in ancient history, towns slowly grew mainly from births, and they took much longer to develop. This means that for Nazareth to be considered as being worthy enough as a town to assign priests to it in AD 70, it would have had to have existed many decades before AD 70.

And I am glad that you said it would be irrelevant regarding whether the town was there 50 years prior, for the mother of all this bullshit attempts to use the following argument from his website:

"Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list."

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Anybody who agrees with what fucked-up Ken says above is fucking retarded. Firstly, he assumed that if Nazareth existed in the 1st century, well by fuck it must have existed at least 750 years earlier too, back when this OT was dated to have been written. On this fucked up typical myther premise, the stupid bastard is making a claim by using a fallacious argument from silence and then projecting it some 750 years into the past!

Don't you see how fucked up the reasoning actually is here? How the fuck do you not see this? It's right there in black and white ffs.

And because many of you are using the very same arguments, you wonder why I hold you in suspicion of being chronically unemployed in the field of reason? When you employ such stupid shit as comparing population growth in modern times and assigning the same formula to ancient times, then you fucking deserve to be called out for it.

Quote:And yet you psychologically project onto us a false conclusion, that we would "move the goal posts" to an irrelevant point. You have straw-manned us, YET AGAIN, in your desperate attempts to paint us as being unreasonable simply because we cannot agree with your premise.

You are the only person here being unreasonable. Reasonable people can disagree on points, and bring up new points or evidence. Unreasonable people (that'd be you) prefer to attack the person against whom they are arguing, ignore the points being made by the other side (or dismissing them out-of-hand), and try to broad-brush every datum to cover "facts" that are not in evidence.

This is what you are doing, presently. Stop it.

No strawman at-fucking-all. I am merely applying simple and basic reasoning to tear apart your arguments, and the arguments of idiots like Ken Humphreys. You might not like my attitude, but it is what it is, and when I see this fucked up bullshit- and then have to sit here while you make false claims about my position- you can bet I will give you all the fucking attitude you can handle.

So stop it.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 08:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 05:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  My point was simple and ignored in your last response... the archaeological evidence you cited points to a single, small dwelling.

This is what I fucking mean by cherry picking. What about the rest of the archaeological evidence regarding the tombs, the war trenches, pottery etc?

Do you really think that people would venture from miles away while carrying their dead only to entomb them there? Does that fucking make sense to you?

If nobody was living there, why dig a defensive war trench?

Why do we have all this 1st century pottery used for food preparation if all this place was was a graveyard?

The first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian source is a fragmentary fourth-century inscription from Caesarea Maritima. This mentions Nazareth as one of the Jewish towns in the Galilee to which priests had relocated when exiled from Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple around 70 CE. The inscriptions regarding Nazareth on this artifact are re-confirmed from other written sources dated afterwards, which also detail Nazareth as one of the Jewish towns in the Galilee to which priests had relocated.

At this point you are either being dense or deliberately disingenuous.

1) The written source does not "detail Nazareth as one of the Jewish towns in the Galilee to which priests had relocated", it details a list of towns in the Galilee to which priests had relocated, with just one of those priests going to Nazareth. The way you wrote it implies that a cohort of priests went to Nazareth, which is not what it says. Given the vehemence with which you assert this evidence, I cannot believe that you are doing this anything but willfully. And, again, this is 70 years after the childhood of Jesus in that town, which means you are STILL ignoring my point, made earlier.

2) Grave sites were always placed some distance from the regular dwellings, as bodies were consider ritually impure. No one would build houses on top of them.

3) However, if the land was used for agricultural purposes, such as growing olives or other crops, we'd expect to find a small hovel in the area, of the type that shepherds or farm hands might use as a resting or storage place. The discovery of several pots of olive oil, dating from about 25 C.E. - 115 C.E., on the site shows that there was increasing use of that temporary location over the middle part of the century. If you're referring to the ancient pottery discovered at the site, you're ignoring that the archaeological evidence shows that the site was abandoned as a dwelling place after the Assyrian invasion, and the pottery from that period stops and does not pick up again until the above-mentioned oil pots.

If I had to propose a guess, I'd say it was a tiny site that was co-opted into use as a residence on a larger scale only after the destruction of the temple and the almost-genocidal wars around 70 C.E., after which many of the dispossessed would have settled elsewhere, outside of the devastated population centers. Yes, it's a guess, but not a totally wild one.

I am just following the facts as I read them. Again, keep in mind that I think there really was a Jesus who preached in that area in that time period-- but I think it's important to remain skeptical about all of the "evidences" put forward to "prove" the messiah-story, after-the-fact, and to me this looks like an after-the-fact explanation by later storytellers. It's why people keep bringing up Paul's lack of mention of Nazareth (since he was writing in the 40s, before the place existed, it was unlikely he would have known about it-- but if the Jesus tale already contained that element of the story during the time he was writing, it seems likely he'd have brought it up, in the 100+ times he mentions Jesus in his writing!), which you so casually dismiss.


(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So ...

1. We have a house.

We have one dwelling from anywhere near that time period. One. Not the same as a village by a long stretch, especially given that it may have had other purposes besides being a mini-village. (See farmer/sheepherder concept, above.)

(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. We have burial tombs.

Which makes the presence of a village immediately adjacent highly unlikely. However, the use of the location as a burial ground actually dates back to the Neolithic period, which is why the guys are pointing out to you that any dwelling located there is likely related to the grave-keeper's home. Indeed, several archaeologists refer to the site as a "regional funerary center", the opposite of what you're stating, here.

(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  3. We have a Jewish war preparation trench.

Wut? You'll have to show me evidence of that one... I missed it.

(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  4. We have pottery and graffiti.

Yes, and they could only have been there if there was a village there. Dodgy

I'm not sure what graffiti you're referring to-- I know of quite a bit from later periods, after the Nazareth-as-hometown-of-Jesus story circulated, but nothing that indicates an early 1st century village.

(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  5. We have a written record etched in stone that details that priests were relocated to Nazareth due to the destruction of the Temple in CE 70.

And all of the above is archeological evidence that provides more than enough reason to accept the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century.

But guess what we don't have?

We don't have one fucking stitch of evidence whatsoever to support any positive claim that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century. None whatsoever.

Yep. You're definitely being dishonest. We have exactly that sort of evidence. We have evidence the location was destroyed with the Assyrian invasion, was mainly unoccupied in the interim, and we have evidence that it began to be reoccupied in the mid-first century, particularly around/after the time of the Jewish Revolt. You are the one ignoring the visible GAP in the evidence we do have, into which ignorant Gospel writers accidentally tried to insert Jesus' hometown, not realizing it simply wasn't there at the time they were alleging it to be.

The evidence appears to me to be that there was an ancient city there, and an ancient burial ground, which was intermittently occupied from the destruction of the city at the Nazareth site in 720 BCE up through the re-introduction of people to that area in the wake of the Revolt and diaspora.

In short, could there have been a Nazareth that no one cared about enough to mention (as Ehrman thinks)? Sure. Why not? But it strikes me as worth noting that no one cared about it enough to mention it until the myth of Jesus the Christ was built up quite a bit more than its roots... which supports my primary contention that Jesus was just some crazy preacher-dude whose followers kept adding to his legend over time. I find Mark's contention about the Nazarenes to be pretty compelling, and suspect that they assigned Jesus the hometown of the new city of Nazareth, in the years it was growing post-Revolt and in which the Gospels were written, to disguise the fact that he was a Nazarene, not a resident of Nazareth.

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-07-2016, 08:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 08:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No strawman at-fucking-all.

As an historian of the period, I do in fact believe you are creating a strawman. Just because a dwelling has been discovered does not prove the existence of Jesus. Which is the subject of this thread. You may as well say "Tiberius existed, as did Rome" so that proves Jesus was a true figure. It does not.

Stay on topic.

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
14-07-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 08:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Since all the archeological evidence indicates 1st century or even older, and the fact that Nazareth would had to have existed as a town prior to priests being assigned to it in AD 70 otherwise it wouldn't even be known as a place to assign any priests, then you are splitting hairs here by the bushel. By necessity, the town would have to preexist the assignment of the priests, and since it takes time for a town to grow, it would take considerable time for one to grow in the 1st century.

Fixed that for you.

You are ignoring the effects of displaced persons resettling with the start of the war in 67 C.E. The fact that the town needed a priest assigned indicates the buildup was rapid.


(14-07-2016 08:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  You cannot reasonably and logically project how a town grows in modern times and compare it to ancient times. Sure, in modern times a town can grow from nothing into a town in just a few years, but that is only because of modern contrivances and population.

But back in ancient history, towns slowly grew mainly from births, and they took much longer to develop. This means that for Nazareth to be considered as being worthy enough as a town to assign priests to it in AD 70, it would have had to have existed many decades before AD 70.

Well I thought I fixed that for you, but you felt the need to expound. Slow growth of that city has never been my assertion. So, would you like some help in dismantling that strawman you built? I'd love to help you tear it down.

(14-07-2016 08:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And I am glad that you said it would be irrelevant regarding whether the town was there 50 years prior, for the mother of all this bullshit attempts to use the following argument from his website:

"Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list."

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Anybody who agrees with what fucked-up Ken says above is fucking retarded. Firstly, he assumed that if Nazareth existed in the 1st century, well by fuck it must have existed at least 750 years earlier too, back when this OT was dated to have been written. On this fucked up typical myther premise, the stupid bastard is making a claim by using a fallacious argument from silence and then projecting it some 750 years into the past!

Don't you see how fucked up the reasoning actually is here? How the fuck do you not see this? It's right there in black and white ffs.

And because many of you are using the very same arguments, you wonder why I hold you in suspicion of being chronically unemployed in the field of reason? When you employ such stupid shit as comparing population growth in modern times and assigning the same formula to ancient times, then you fucking deserve to be called out for it.

Um, okay then I'll avoid ever going to read that website. Thanks?

As for the rest of your fucking bullshit in the preceding paragraphs, fuck yourself you arrogant fuck. I'm sick of you straw-manning my arguments and then crowing about your alleged intellectual superiority. My argument has never been that the town grew normally, but that the resettlement of populations in the wake of the troubles brought about by the Roman invasion and later Revolt caused populations to shift around. The fact that the only scenario you can imagine is breeding shows a paucity of intellectual rigor that staggers me.

(14-07-2016 08:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No strawman at-fucking-all. I am merely applying simple and basic reasoning to tear apart your arguments, and the arguments of idiots like Ken Humphreys. You might not like my attitude, but it is what it is, and when I see this fucked up bullshit- and then have to sit here while you make false claims about my position- you can bet I will give you all the fucking attitude you can handle.

So stop it.

I don't even know who Ken Humphreys is... but you appear to think I'm him. (Oh, I went and looked... he's that "welcome to enlightenment" guy everyone was making fun of, a few posts back. Fuck you for even bringing him up in the same sentence as me.)

So I guess we're back to my original question, then:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

"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: