Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(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."

Hahahahaha. So. All you can do is come back with a lying conjecture. You are really a fool. The POINT is, that to place a Jesus there, in Nazareth, to say he was from there, it HAD to be a town in EARLY 1st Century. All the rest is irrelevant bullshit, and you know it. You can't do that.

Quote: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.

You;'re a fucking liar. I never said that. you are SO fucking desperate, you make up shit. It needs to be a town in EARLY 1st Century, or there's no point to the argument AT ALL. You're even dumber than I thought.

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

Sorry. Everyone can see the fool you've made of yourself here, despite all you presumptuous bluster and pissing and moaning.

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, 10:06 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 08:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 06:28 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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.

Uh-huh. We'll keep that in mind as we go along here ...

Quote: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.

No.

"In 1962, during the excavations at Caesarea in Palestine, Christian archaeology made a signal discovery: the sands of Caesarea offered up two fragments of a Hebrew inscription concerning the twenty-four priestly families or "courses" (1 Chr 24:7-18) , naming the villages in Galilee where each family migrated probably after the Bar Kochba Revolt (135 CE) and after the dispersion of the Hebrew people. One of the fragments contained the word "Nazareth"

Source

For your Jewish education on what a "priestly course" actually is, it refers to either a family, ritual work group which includes multiple priests, or a combination of both.

More info is here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_divisions

"HAPPIZZEZ" is not the name of a specific priest in the 1st century, but rather it is the name of one of the sons of Aron, who was drawn out in lots as being the 18th of the 24 priests assigned to the temple. The HAPPIZZEZ "course" in the 1st century (and for hundreds of years previous and afterward) are a priestly group or family.

Quote:[The way you wrote it implies that a cohort of priests went to Nazareth...

Yep, because that is what it is.

Quote: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.

No one said they did. And "some distances" does infer miles down the road. Tombs were normally carved out of the stone by families living nearby. It would take years to carve out a nice tomb, and actually having a nice tomb was a status symbol. These tombs were FAMILY tombs as opposed to single person.

Quote: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.

The pottery and other artifacts simply do not correspond to the Assyrian invasion some 750 years previous. They are all typically circa 1st century.

Quote: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.

Again you need to understand that in Jewish orthodoxy the designation of priestly courses means that they are to minister to a Jewish population, and the populations needs to be significant enough to qualify the presence of priestly course.

Quote: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.

Paul's letters predate the dating of the Gospels as far as we know, so Paul really had no clue about the life of Jesus other than what other apostles would have told him, and then what he made up in his head.

Quote:
(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.

Actually the contrary is true. That's exactly why a Jewish village would be there. You really need to learn of Jewish burial customs. Burial places in Jewish culture have always been nearby for many reasons, with one reason being that they buried the dead in family tombs to be "Gathered with their fathers" as p[er Torah teachings, and also they needed to be buried the same day they died, with rituals being performed for several days afterwards.

More info on this is here:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3842-burial

Quote: 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.

Regardless of the burial tombs, the culture absolutely necessitates a Jewish community must be living in the general area.

Quote:
(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.

"Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, “Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE”."

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

Quote:
(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.

Nothing dodgy about it when you understand Jewish culture. The pottery would be used for daily routines and rituals.

Quote:
(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,

Some 750 years previous does not have anything to do with Nazareth 750 years later.

This argument fails as miserably as Humphrey's argument regarding the OT not mentioning Nazareth.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2016, 10:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 10:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 08:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  At this point you are either being dense or deliberately disingenuous.

Uh-huh. We'll keep that in mind as we go along here ...

Quote: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.

No.

"In 1962, during the excavations at Caesarea in Palestine, Christian archaeology made a signal discovery: the sands of Caesarea offered up two fragments of a Hebrew inscription concerning the twenty-four priestly families or "courses" (1 Chr 24:7-18) , naming the villages in Galilee where each family migrated probably after the Bar Kochba Revolt (135 CE) and after the dispersion of the Hebrew people. One of the fragments contained the word "Nazareth"

Source

For your Jewish education on what a "priestly course" actually is, it refers to either a family, ritual work group which includes multiple priests, or a combination of both.

More info is here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_divisions

"HAPPIZZEZ" is not the name of a specific priest in the 1st century, but rather it is the name of one of the sons of Aron, who was drawn out in lots as being the 18th of the 24 priests assigned to the temple. The HAPPIZZEZ "course" in the 1st century (and for hundreds of years previous and afterward) are a priestly group or family.

Quote:[The way you wrote it implies that a cohort of priests went to Nazareth...

Yep, because that is what it is.

Quote: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.

No one said they did. And "some distances" does infer miles down the road. Tombs were normally carved out of the stone by families living nearby. It would take years to carve out a nice tomb, and actually having a nice tomb was a status symbol. These tombs were FAMILY tombs as opposed to single person.

Quote: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.

The pottery and other artifacts simply do not correspond to the Assyrian invasion some 750 years previous. They are all typically circa 1st century.

Quote: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.

Again you need to understand that in Jewish orthodoxy the designation of priestly courses means that they are to minister to a Jewish population, and the populations needs to be significant enough to qualify the presence of priestly course.

Quote: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.

Paul's letters predate the dating of the Gospels as far as we know, so Paul really had no clue about the life of Jesus other than what other apostles would have told him, and then what he made up in his head.

Quote: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.)


Which makes the presence of a village immediately adjacent highly unlikely.

Actually the contrary is true. That's exactly why a Jewish village would be there. You really need to learn of Jewish burial customs. Burial places in Jewish culture have always been nearby for many reasons, with one reason being that they buried the dead in family tombs to be "Gathered with their fathers" as p[er Torah teachings, and also they needed to be buried the same day they died, with rituals being performed for several days afterwards.

More info on this is here:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3842-burial

Quote: 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.

Regardless of the burial tombs, the culture absolutely necessitates a Jewish community must be living in the general area.

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

"Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, “Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE”."

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

Quote: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.

Nothing dodgy about it when you understand Jewish culture. The pottery would be used for daily routines and rituals.

Quote:Yep. You're definitely being dishonest. We have exactly that sort of evidence. We have evidence the location was destroyed with the Assyrian invasion,

Some 750 years previous does not have anything to do with Nazareth 750 years later.

This argument fails as miserably as Humphrey's argument regarding the OT not mentioning Nazareth.

Drinking Beverage

None of the above is 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
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
15-07-2016, 01:27 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Yeah he's pretty good at that. He's also good at "It can possibly mean what I'm saying, therefore my version must be right", as in the priestly "groups" thing (rather than just meaning a country priest and his family, the usual situation for a village), pretending "in the area" is the same as "on this spot", and pretending that my mention that there was pre-Assyrian-invasion-era detritus there means I'm paraphrasing Humphrey's argument, which as I pointed out to him previously, I still have not read. And so on.

Also, calling what amounts to a fallout shelter "a war trench". I love it! I didn't know what he was talking about because I was looking for *war* defenses that fighters would use, a la a city proto-wall, or something. What he's talking about is a camouflaged entrance to a pit in which the family could hide if the Romans came looking for them, during the Revolt. None of this is a clue that the house was built prior to the execution of Jesus, let alone in time for his birth.

Presuppositionalists, man, Geezus! (No pun intended.)

"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
15-07-2016, 01:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 01:27 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  None of this is a clue that the house was built prior to the execution of Jesus, let alone in time for his birth.

I could not agree more.

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
15-07-2016, 02:10 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 06:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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

"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."

Nailed! BowingBowingBowingBowingBowingBowingBowingBowing
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 02:17 AM
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.

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.

Big news! Big news!

We don't have one fucking stitch of evidence whatsoever to support any positive claim that the flying spaghetti monster did not exist in the 1st century. None whatsoever.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 06:23 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(14-07-2016 10:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "In 1962, during the excavations at Caesarea in Palestine, Christian archaeology made a signal discovery: the sands of Caesarea offered up two fragments of a Hebrew inscription concerning the twenty-four priestly families or "courses" (1 Chr 24:7-18) , naming the villages in Galilee where each family migrated probably after the Bar Kochba Revolt (135 CE) and after the dispersion of the Hebrew people. One of the fragments contained the word "Nazareth"

You have just proved my point. You are exhibiting grotesque confirmation bias.
How does something happening in 135 CE support your contention?

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
15-07-2016, 08:10 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 06:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-07-2016 10:06 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "In 1962, during the excavations at Caesarea in Palestine, Christian archaeology made a signal discovery: the sands of Caesarea offered up two fragments of a Hebrew inscription concerning the twenty-four priestly families or "courses" (1 Chr 24:7-18) , naming the villages in Galilee where each family migrated probably after the Bar Kochba Revolt (135 CE) and after the dispersion of the Hebrew people. One of the fragments contained the word "Nazareth"

You have just proved my point. You are exhibiting grotesque confirmation bias.
How does something happening in 135 CE support your contention?

Because, unlike you, I am not reading the Wikipedia entry and go directly to the source, which says nothing about 135 CE. Where the Wikipedia entry got its information is a total mystery, since the inscription is all about what to do with the 24 priestly families following the destruction of the 2nd Temple in circa AD 70, and mentions nothing about the the Jewish revolt of CE 132-135.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 06:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have just proved my point. You are exhibiting grotesque confirmation bias.
How does something happening in 135 CE support your contention?

Because, unlike you, I am not reading the Wikipedia entry and go directly to the source, which says nothing about 135 CE. Where the Wikipedia entry got its information is a total mystery, since the inscription is all about what to do with the 24 priestly families following the destruction of the 2nd Temple in circa AD 70, and mentions nothing about the the Jewish revolt of CE 132-135.

And yet, you quoted it in support of your argument. Consider

You trying to have it both ways?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: