Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  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?

Quoting what was quoted. The reality is that it actually says nothing in the original paper regarding 132-135 CE. I suspect the Wikipedia entry was tampered with to include the 132-135 CE crap by some mythicist who is desperately trying to put some distance between Nazareth existing in the 1st century. In fact, that appears to be the case as I am reviewing the entries in Wiki as we speak.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:33 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 01:27 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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.

Because I am correct. What you are describing is NOT the usual situation in Jewish culture. It's not about some "country priest and his family"- an obvious comparison to Christian culture- because that is not how the designation of priestly courses works.

Quote: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.)

It is a camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war with the invading Romans. Again, here is the info:

"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”.

And please note the year the trench has been dated to; AD 67.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 08:52 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Because I am correct. What you are describing is NOT the usual situation in Jewish culture. It's not about some "country priest and his family"- an obvious comparison to Christian culture- because that is not how the designation of priestly courses works.

Are you kidding? I'm talking the best-case scenario, for your argument (about a town which grew slowly over time). If they had to assign, in a single action, more than one priest to the area, it means there was a major and sudden expansion of the town such that the town would have required the services of more than one priest. Your logical skills need work.

And yes, I am talking about the traditional Judean cultural version, not the Christian. In truth, the term doesn't require that there be a family or multiple priests at all. There is no evidence of multiple men being assigned there, and as I stated, the *best case* for your contention of a small town slowly growing would be for it to finally reach a point that a single young rabbi from the House of Levi was sent there. You're just too arrogant to grasp that I was trying to give your side the benefit of the doubt. Instead of trying to manipulate the conversation emotionally by trying to project/insert anti-Christian bias (again) into my arguments, try really reading what I'm saying.

(15-07-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote: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.)

It is a camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war with the invading Romans. Again, here is the info:

"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”.

And please note the year the trench has been dated to; AD 67.

Right. That'd be the year after the Revolt's beginning. Hardly a surprise. You clearly aren't paying attention or thinking it through. A house is not a defensive position, in the sense of fighting a war. That's just not how some country village would be built; even if I offer your best-case village size, it would not be able to stand up to a Roman military assault. So a "camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war" means "a place to hide when the Romans come searching villages", not a fortification.

Think Anne Frank, rather than Yosef ben Matisyahu. And, well, just think.

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to assert things not in evidence because you leap upon these evidences to support your preconception.

Hell, I think it'd be neat if we found the birthplace of the historical Yeshua.

"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, 08:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:29 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  And yet, you quoted it in support of your argument. Consider

You trying to have it both ways?

Quoting what was quoted. The reality is that it actually says nothing in the original paper regarding 132-135 CE. I suspect the Wikipedia entry was tampered with to include the 132-135 CE crap by some mythicist who is desperately trying to put some distance between Nazareth existing in the 1st century. In fact, that appears to be the case as I am reviewing the entries in Wiki as we speak.

Your desperation is showing. 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
15-07-2016, 09:15 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:29 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Quoting what was quoted. The reality is that it actually says nothing in the original paper regarding 132-135 CE. I suspect the Wikipedia entry was tampered with to include the 132-135 CE crap by some mythicist who is desperately trying to put some distance between Nazareth existing in the 1st century. In fact, that appears to be the case as I am reviewing the entries in Wiki as we speak.

Your desperation is showing. Drinking Beverage

Hardly.

The Wiki article states the date of 132-135 as if it were fact, and quotes one single reference to it from one historian's book some 20 years ago. All other available sources state AD 70 as well. AD 70 makes more sense, since that is when the Temple was destroyed, and the priests had no temple to reside in, and would need to be reassigned.

In Ad 132-135, where we these priests be if there was no Temple? They would already have been reassigned according to Jewish culture and religion.

The Temple was where all 24 courses lived. Without it, they were all assigned to live elsewhere until a new Temple was constructed, which never happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Because I am correct. What you are describing is NOT the usual situation in Jewish culture. It's not about some "country priest and his family"- an obvious comparison to Christian culture- because that is not how the designation of priestly courses works.

Are you kidding? I'm talking the best-case scenario, for your argument (about a town which grew slowly over time). If they had to assign, in a single action, more than one priest to the area, it means there was a major and sudden expansion of the town such that the town would have required the services of more than one priest. Your logical skills need work.

And yes, I am talking about the traditional Judean cultural version, not the Christian. In truth, the term doesn't require that there be a family or multiple priests at all. There is no evidence of multiple men being assigned there, and as I stated, the *best case* for your contention of a small town slowly growing would be for it to finally reach a point that a single young rabbi from the House of Levi was sent there. You're just too arrogant to grasp that I was trying to give your side the benefit of the doubt. Instead of trying to manipulate the conversation emotionally by trying to project/insert anti-Christian bias (again) into my arguments, try really reading what I'm saying.

(15-07-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  It is a camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war with the invading Romans. Again, here is the info:

"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”.

And please note the year the trench has been dated to; AD 67.

Right. That'd be the year after the Revolt's beginning. Hardly a surprise. You clearly aren't paying attention or thinking it through. A house is not a defensive position, in the sense of fighting a war. That's just not how some country village would be built; even if I offer your best-case village size, it would not be able to stand up to a Roman military assault. So a "camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war" means "a place to hide when the Romans come searching villages", not a fortification.

Think Anne Frank, rather than Yosef ben Matisyahu. And, well, just think.

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to assert things not in evidence because you leap upon these evidences to support your preconception.

Hell, I think it'd be neat if we found the birthplace of the historical Yeshua.

No. It was exactly what i said it was. A war trench.

It's you who are jumping to conclusions to the meaning of it. I never said it was any kind of a fortification.

And in addition ...

Numerous grottoes, silos, cisterns, presses, millstones, and other artifacts have been discovered. In the silos some of the pottery found dates as far back as the Iron II (900- 539 B.C.) period. Other pottery found dates back to the Hellenistic (332-63 B.C.), Roman (63 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Byzantine (A.D. 324-640) periods.

n addition twenty-three tombs have been investigated. Of these, eighteen are of the kokim type, a type that "virtually became the canonical form of the Jewish family grave" between 150 B.C. and A.D. 150; four were sealed with "rolling stones," a type of closure that "seems to have been a characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period;" 10 and two contained a variety of objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels that date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D.

The archeological evidence indicates that the area has been occupied for centuries before the time of Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 09:24 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Are you kidding? I'm talking the best-case scenario, for your argument (about a town which grew slowly over time). If they had to assign, in a single action, more than one priest to the area, it means there was a major and sudden expansion of the town such that the town would have required the services of more than one priest. Your logical skills need work.

And yes, I am talking about the traditional Judean cultural version, not the Christian. In truth, the term doesn't require that there be a family or multiple priests at all. There is no evidence of multiple men being assigned there, and as I stated, the *best case* for your contention of a small town slowly growing would be for it to finally reach a point that a single young rabbi from the House of Levi was sent there. You're just too arrogant to grasp that I was trying to give your side the benefit of the doubt. Instead of trying to manipulate the conversation emotionally by trying to project/insert anti-Christian bias (again) into my arguments, try really reading what I'm saying.


Right. That'd be the year after the Revolt's beginning. Hardly a surprise. You clearly aren't paying attention or thinking it through. A house is not a defensive position, in the sense of fighting a war. That's just not how some country village would be built; even if I offer your best-case village size, it would not be able to stand up to a Roman military assault. So a "camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war" means "a place to hide when the Romans come searching villages", not a fortification.

Think Anne Frank, rather than Yosef ben Matisyahu. And, well, just think.

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to assert things not in evidence because you leap upon these evidences to support your preconception.

Hell, I think it'd be neat if we found the birthplace of the historical Yeshua.

No. It was exactly what i said it was. A war trench.

It's you who are jumping to conclusions to the meaning of it. I never said it was any kind of a fortification.

And in addition ...

Numerous grottoes, silos, cisterns, presses, millstones, and other artifacts have been discovered. In the silos some of the pottery found dates as far back as the Iron II (900- 539 B.C.) period. Other pottery found dates back to the Hellenistic (332-63 B.C.), Roman (63 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Byzantine (A.D. 324-640) periods.

n addition twenty-three tombs have been investigated. Of these, eighteen are of the kokim type, a type that "virtually became the canonical form of the Jewish family grave" between 150 B.C. and A.D. 150; four were sealed with "rolling stones," a type of closure that "seems to have been a characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period;" 10 and two contained a variety of objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels that date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D.

The archeological evidence indicates that the area has been occupied for centuries before the time of Jesus.

Ah. I suspected you were citing from some of Dr. Dark's work.

Perhaps you would enjoy a scholarly review of those conclusions he made... in particular, the bit about "rolling stones".

http://www.academia.edu/7756858/A_Critiq...th_Convent

"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
15-07-2016, 11:18 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 08:52 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Because I am correct. What you are describing is NOT the usual situation in Jewish culture. It's not about some "country priest and his family"- an obvious comparison to Christian culture- because that is not how the designation of priestly courses works.

Are you kidding? I'm talking the best-case scenario, for your argument (about a town which grew slowly over time). If they had to assign, in a single action, more than one priest to the area, it means there was a major and sudden expansion of the town such that the town would have required the services of more than one priest. Your logical skills need work.

And yes, I am talking about the traditional Judean cultural version, not the Christian. In truth, the term doesn't require that there be a family or multiple priests at all. There is no evidence of multiple men being assigned there, and as I stated, the *best case* for your contention of a small town slowly growing would be for it to finally reach a point that a single young rabbi from the House of Levi was sent there. You're just too arrogant to grasp that I was trying to give your side the benefit of the doubt. Instead of trying to manipulate the conversation emotionally by trying to project/insert anti-Christian bias (again) into my arguments, try really reading what I'm saying.

(15-07-2016 08:33 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  It is a camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war with the invading Romans. Again, here is the info:

"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”.

And please note the year the trench has been dated to; AD 67.

Right. That'd be the year after the Revolt's beginning. Hardly a surprise. You clearly aren't paying attention or thinking it through. A house is not a defensive position, in the sense of fighting a war. That's just not how some country village would be built; even if I offer your best-case village size, it would not be able to stand up to a Roman military assault. So a "camouflaged trench to be used in the event of a war" means "a place to hide when the Romans come searching villages", not a fortification.

Think Anne Frank, rather than Yosef ben Matisyahu. And, well, just think.

It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to assert things not in evidence because you leap upon these evidences to support your preconception.

Hell, I think it'd be neat if we found the birthplace of the historical Yeshua.

I guess for people such as yourself, nothing would work unless archeologists found a sign that said, "Nazareth, Population 568, AD 5."

That's what makes you a joke.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 11:24 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2016 11:38 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(15-07-2016 10:47 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-07-2016 09:24 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  No. It was exactly what i said it was. A war trench.

It's you who are jumping to conclusions to the meaning of it. I never said it was any kind of a fortification.

And in addition ...

Numerous grottoes, silos, cisterns, presses, millstones, and other artifacts have been discovered. In the silos some of the pottery found dates as far back as the Iron II (900- 539 B.C.) period. Other pottery found dates back to the Hellenistic (332-63 B.C.), Roman (63 B.C.-A.D. 324), and Byzantine (A.D. 324-640) periods.

n addition twenty-three tombs have been investigated. Of these, eighteen are of the kokim type, a type that "virtually became the canonical form of the Jewish family grave" between 150 B.C. and A.D. 150; four were sealed with "rolling stones," a type of closure that "seems to have been a characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period;" 10 and two contained a variety of objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels that date from the first to the fourth centuries A.D.

The archeological evidence indicates that the area has been occupied for centuries before the time of Jesus.

Ah. I suspected you were citing from some of Dr. Dark's work.

Perhaps you would enjoy a scholarly review of those conclusions he made... in particular, the bit about "rolling stones".

http://www.academia.edu/7756858/A_Critiq...th_Convent

A scholarly review from Mythicist Rene Salm? Dude, you need better drugs. This Salm fellow has no formal archaeological training and is in fact just an amateur historian.

He makes no waves, is ignored, and summarily dismissed. Certainly you could do better than a bias mythicist who is predisposed already to the idea that Nazareth doesn't exist?

Here's what the "real scholars" think of Rene Salm:

In my post yesterday I began to explain why 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 . Here is my second and final post on the subject, again, with apologies to those who have read it already, lifted from my treatment in Did Jesus Exist?

Salm also claims that the pottery found on the site that is dated to the time of Jesus is not really from this period, even though he is not an expert on pottery. Two archaeologists who reply to Salm’s protestations say the following: “Salm’s personal evaluation of the pottery … reveals his lack of expertise in the area as well as his lack of serious research in the sources.” They go on to state: “By ignoring or dismissing solid ceramic, numismatic [that is, coins], and literary evidence for Nazareth’s existence during the Late Hellenisitic and Early Roman period, it would appear that the analysis which René Salm includes in his review, and his recent book must, in itself, be relegated to the realm of ‘myth.’”


Bart Ehrman -

http://ehrmanblog.org/rene-salm-at-the-s...r-members/

In other words, Rene Salm is a joke whom only fools will follow.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2016, 11:51 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
From Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities."

Quote:We do not know what the Ebionites called their version of Matthew’s Gospel.
It may have been identical with a book known to some early church writers
as the Gospel of the Nazareans. Nazarean was a name sometimes used for
groups of Jewish Christians, of which there were others besides the Ebionites.

Pg 102


Jesus the Nazarean makes a lot more sense than Jesus of Nazareth which was a Greco-Roman naming convention rather than Jewish.

From there it is easy to see how early jesus freak morons garbled that into what GU swears is true.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: