Facebook Preachers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2011, 04:22 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(26-12-2011 02:30 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  5. No ruins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Bat...f_Nazareth

I actually clicked that one to see the ruins.
So the article actually starts with
Quote:The Ancient Bath House of Nazareth was discovered in the late 1990s by Elias and Martina Shama during renovations inside their shop near Mary's Well in Nazareth. Archaeologists that examined the bath house have assigned its construction to various periods, the oldest of these being the Greek or Roman period in Palestine.
I bolded the important part here. "Various periods" > this stone is approximately from this year and that stone is appriximately from that year, this way of building a door is from that year and these kind of pots where made in that year.... tap tap tap in the dark.

Furthermore it says
Quote:Samples were collected for radio-carbon dating and the initial data from GPR readings seem to confirm the presence of additional subterranean structures.
So again just guesswork.

And the last part
Quote:Carbon 14 dating was done on 3 samples of charcoal, each was found to come from a very different time period, indicating the bath house had been used in multiple periods, and at least was used sometime between 1300-1400, although with only 3 samples dated, it is possible for the bath house to be older.
So the only thing they are sure about is 1300 - 1400 (well after Jesus obviously) and the rest again is guesswork.
And the 3 samples of char coal... Well they could date them all, they could date everything they find there and I am sure that by now they dated more. But there were no huge headlines or reports on the news that "NAZARETH HAS BEEN FOUND!"... I wonder why Wink

As for the sources used for this article (yep I checked them all):
1. Homepage of a freelance reporter living in Nazareth (not objective/not a scientist)
2. A page for tourists to visit the Bathhouse of Nazareth (not objective)
3. The link isn't even working, the server is not responding. (obsolete)
4. An article of the guy from the first source. He is not stating his sources. (obsolete)
5. There is no report with that name to find on google. There is a hit on the third place but when performing a sitesearch it does not give you results (obsolete)

>> You wanted to prove that there are real ruins of Nazareth from that time, but still there is not prove. All in that article is guess work and the quoted sources are not reliable.
I tried to find something by searching the web for something that would prove there was a place (more than a graveyard) called Nazareth at Jesus' time, but I could not find anything trustworthy.
If you find something, let me know, I would like to see the real prove.
Do you have any other sources?

(26-12-2011 02:30 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  Nazareth wasn't a city, it was a tiny village. Also, there's an 8th century Hebrew inscription which uses the same form so it's unlikely it's a typo.
Even IF there was a Nazareth, if it was the real home of an important guy who made so much noise, and had so many followers, the village would have been mentioned somewhere during his lifetime. In some records, at least in the paperwork of the guys who judged and killed him. Even if it was only a list stating the people who had to be cruzified that day with name and the town they came from. But obviously there is nothing. No records and as far as my search goes no ruins that date back far enough in time.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leela's post
26-12-2011, 04:38 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(26-12-2011 11:04 AM)Leela Wrote:  Any evidence for a Nazareth at Jesus' time outside the bible please. I would like to check your source. (For your marble statement, check Malleus' comment)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...-nazareth/


Quote:Nope, I don't think that. But what I think is that people don't listen to evidence when they don't want to. So Dr Phil has a lot of fewers who take his word for granted. Everyone who doesn't is either ignored or dismissed by the majority of people wanting Dr Phil to be right. Same goes for Nazareth.

A lot of Dr. Phil's stuff is just opinion though. Nazareth was a physical place that anyone could've checked out to see if it was there.

Quote:Where is your source, I would like to check that, please.
Those people btw mean nothing to me, I need backrounds to them as well, to see who they were and how they lived. (That is because I don't have a strong christian backround, so please point me in the right direction. Are they real historical people who have records somewhere or are they out of the bible and there are no historical records on them but the bible?)
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content...ostles.pdf

It gives you a probability on the accuracy of each date of death as well.
I'm not going to write about every disciple, I don't have that kind of time on my hands. Here's a starting point though and you can check out all their pages seperately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Disc...e_Apostles

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Does it ever bother you, just in the least little bit, that the first gospel appears following the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD?

The first Gospel, Matthew, was even under the best of timings, doesn't appear before 70AD, and in fact is pegged to somewhere between 80-90AD.

You believe Matthew came first? I thought most people accepted Mark as the first being written, though it would be interesting to hear a different opinion.

It doesn't bother me because from what I've read, Mark uses a number of sources that would have been written prior to the destruction of the temple(Q document).

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  The Gospels were not written for Christians - at least not in the sense you think. It was written for Jews as a logical extension of Judaism - for a people that were distraught having lost their telephone booth to god (i.e., the temple).

I'm not arguing whether a man named Jesus ever existed, or that he was an influential rabbi, or that some even thought he was a messiah. In fact, I'm inclined, based on the evidence (especially that of Paul and his writings to the churches in the 50's), but Paul's messages to gentiles and his advocacy for spreading Jesus is completely different than that of the gospel writer's intent. The gospels were primarily designed for Jews and Jews alone and they were designed to provide an alternative to god through belief rather than prayer in the temple.

What within the Gospels makes you think they were only designed for Jews?

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Moreover, do you not find it troubling that during the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries there were hundreds of gospels floating around out there. In fact, many of the churches Paul was writing to in the 50's were following "alternative" texts - those that pissed him off enough to admonish them for using.

These "heresies" were being followed even as the church in Jerusalem was growing stronger. By the time Rome adopts Christianity, there is the realization that standardization of the texts needs to take place. Here is a troubling thought - all those "Christians" thrown to the lions - are you sure they were adherents of the right belief system? There is ample historic evidence to not only suggest, but to prove that Rome fed heretical Christians to the lions as a way to purge the multi-Christian faiths that were springing up all over the land and force adherence to the one true faith.

By the time the Council of Nicea comes around, we are late in the 4th century and that is when the bishops gather to cherry pick the texts that make up the New Testament, along with the the Older Judaic prophesies.

Not really, Irenaeus talks about a four gospel canon in mid 2nd century and most of the disputes were over smaller and less important books than the Gospels.

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Now whether you accept the historical record, or reject it as a matter of faith - that's entirely up to you. But since you are here on an atheist forum - you are either trying to dazzle the ignorant with your knowledge of god and trying to win converts or you have some lingering doubts in you faith and you are looking to dispel them by arguing with heathens as a way to strengthen you beliefs.

I wouldn't say lingering doubts, I've just started getting really interested in apologetics and this is a good place to test and increase my knowledge.

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I too was once a Christian looking for answers, and looking to validate my belief and trying to strengthen my faith. My problem was every time I looked harder in to the issue I found the house of cards shaking until it violently came crashing down.

Sorry to hear that.


(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  I highly recommend reading J.D. Crossan's The Birth of Christianity

Amazingly, Crossan is and remains a self-described Christian, so you may not feel threatened by his work - but it at the very least theologically and historically honest.

If you still wish to accept the challenge of strengthening faith against the odds, then try reading Burton Mack's Who wrote the New Testament

Then read Elaine Pagels Beyond Belief

Ask yourself why the Book of Thomas wasn't included as a gospel or why it was deemed heretical.

My final nail in the coffin was reading Lee Strobel's the Case for Christ. I was looking for a great counter to any of the great books listed and his "case" was so incredibly weak, so incredibly lacking, so incredibly pedantic I almost cried out in frustration - here I am looking to find god and looking to Lee Strobel for answers - swing and a miss - lol!

I've heard The Case for Christ is a pretty simplistic summary of arguments so I'm not surprised you didn't like it. Sorry but I probably won't read those books, at least not right now. My life's pretty busy and I don't have a ton of time for extra reading but I did briefly check out their summaries and none of them really seemed to be "counter-apologetics" as it were so I'm kind of curious as to why they led you to lose your belief. Maybe PM me a bit about each book so I can better know what they're about.

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  My point in all this is that the reason most people believe in Christianity is because we were raised in it. It is the ultimate cult - take that pejoratively or not - it just is what it is. The message is great, and we've believed in it for nearly two millennium. Most Christians truly believe we are the cusp of the end of days - all the "signs" are there - what happens if we as a species are still around in another 1,000 years or 2,000 years. DO you really think people will still be pushing Jesus as as the answer to their problems in another 2,000 years? Honestly, and you have to know this just by the trends you can see today - there is no f'ing way. Islam has a better chance at survival than Christianity over the long haul (not that that makes me any happier).

I agree, but I also have met a TON of people who weren't born into Christianity but are now believers and world wide it's still increasing. I really have no idea about when the world's going to end and I would actually be surprised if we survived another 2,000 years even without a second coming.

I disagree and it's kind of ridiculous to guess at what the world will be like in 2,000 years.

(26-12-2011 01:23 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  For the Jesus story to hold value, you need a second coming - and that second coming is not happening because it's not real. That's not me being mean, it's just recognizing that a nomadic tribal religion that morphed by sheer luck and some good sweat on the part of a handful of people to become a world-wide religion doesn't mean it's accurate or real.

I know you're not being mean, you're just saying what you believe and I honestly have appreciated and enjoyed your post. You seem like a very smart, honest and kind individual.

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2011, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2011 05:32 PM by Leela.)
RE: Facebook Preachers
@ Shark:
Your first link: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...-nazareth/
They are not stating their sources either. I do not simply believe what abc news tells me.
abc news in general (having read some) is not very trustworthy, but that's just my opinion.

Your second link: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content...ostles.pdf
The author Michael Patton based his whole argument on the bible, as the bible contradicts itself so much I do not count the bible as a trustworthy source. It also states people getting 900 years old...

Your third link: Thanks for that, I didn't know the names of the apostles.

So now I checked birthdays and death dates and ages of the apostles (in case they did historically exist > have records outside the bible)
The only thing I found that was not based on the bible (but on another religious book so this is not a reliable source anyway)
http://www.truthbook.com/faq/dsp_viewFAQ.cfm?faqID=1496
Quote:Andrew - 33 years-old
Simon Peter - 30 years-old
James Zebedee - 30 years-old
John Zebedee - 24 years-old
Philip - 27 years-old
Nathaniel - 25 years-old
Matthew Levi - 31 years-old
Thomas - 29 years-old
James Alphes - 26 years-old
Judas Alpheus - 26 years-old
Simon Zelotes - 28 years-old
Judas Iscariot - 30 years-old
Even though the source is not reliable, I do feel more comfortable with these ages as they seem more reasonable for people of that period and life style.
Anyway, two holy books saying different stuff about the same people is no surprise I guess.



Edit (because I forgot that point): As for Dr Phil, he was one example of many. In the case of Dr Phil, you are on my side Wink But many people will take for granted what he says. So that's the whole point. Lots of people are too lazy to think and question and check things, they just believe what they are told. And I am very sure this was no different back then. Even worse because they wasn't the kind of media available, reading and books was for the rich, no newspaper, no nothing, you just heard about stuff from someone who heard about stuff....

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2011, 06:28 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(26-12-2011 04:22 PM)Leela Wrote:  I actually clicked that one to see the ruins.
So the article actually starts with
Quote:The Ancient Bath House of Nazareth was discovered in the late 1990s by Elias and Martina Shama during renovations inside their shop near Mary's Well in Nazareth. Archaeologists that examined the bath house have assigned its construction to various periods, the oldest of these being the Greek or Roman period in Palestine.
I bolded the important part here. "Various periods" > this stone is approximately from this year and that stone is appriximately from that year, this way of building a door is from that year and these kind of pots where made in that year.... tap tap tap in the dark.

I thought the most important was "the oldest of these being the Greek or Roman period in Palestine." But whatever floats your boat I guess.

Quote:Furthermore it says
Quote:Samples were collected for radio-carbon dating and the initial data from GPR readings seem to confirm the presence of additional subterranean structures.
So again just guesswork.

And the last part
Quote:Carbon 14 dating was done on 3 samples of charcoal, each was found to come from a very different time period, indicating the bath house had been used in multiple periods, and at least was used sometime between 1300-1400, although with only 3 samples dated, it is possible for the bath house to be older.
So the only thing they are sure about is 1300 - 1400 (well after Jesus obviously) and the rest again is guesswork.
And the 3 samples of char coal... Well they could date them all, they could date everything they find there and I am sure that by now they dated more. But there were no huge headlines or reports on the news that "NAZARETH HAS BEEN FOUND!"... I wonder why Wink

"Further excavation of the site is not yet assured: Mr Shama's discovery is mired in financial difficulties and sectarian acrimony. Given the find's significance, it is surprising that Mr Shama, a Christian Arab, receives no outside support. Since he and his wife sank the last of their life savings in excavating and developing the site, the shop - and perhaps the bathhouse project - is close to collapse.

The Christian world's most powerful player, the Vatican, has so far refused to throw its weight behind the dig, possibly fearing that Mr Shama's find threatens its own dominance where tourism in the city is concerned."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/2...14069.html

That was in 2003, so no idea what's happened since then, maybe they still haven't received funding to do more tests.


Quote:>> You wanted to prove that there are real ruins of Nazareth from that time, but still there is not prove. All in that article is guess work and the quoted sources are not reliable.
I tried to find something by searching the web for something that would prove there was a place (more than a graveyard) called Nazareth at Jesus' time, but I could not find anything trustworthy.
If you find something, let me know, I would like to see the real prove.
Do you have any other sources?

What I've found was the bathhouse and the other house which I also linked for you.

Quote:Even IF there was a Nazareth, if it was the real home of an important guy who made so much noise, and had so many followers, the village would have been mentioned somewhere during his lifetime. In some records, at least in the paperwork of the guys who judged and killed him. Even if it was only a list stating the people who had to be cruzified that day with name and the town they came from. But obviously there is nothing. No records and as far as my search goes no ruins that date back far enough in time.

We didn't even have archaeological evidence of Pilate until 1961, so why would we have records of those he executed? Have you found comprehensive lists of every other person to be executed during the Roman Empire?

(26-12-2011 05:19 PM)Leela Wrote:  @ Shark:
Your first link: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...-nazareth/
They are not stating their sources either. I do not simply believe what abc news tells me.
abc news in general (having read some) is not very trustworthy, but that's just my opinion.
There were other links to that story, feel free to google them.

Quote:Your second link: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content...ostles.pdf
The author Michael Patton based his whole argument on the bible, as the bible contradicts itself so much I do not count the bible as a trustworthy source. It also states people getting 900 years old...

Does he? All I saw was he said "The following is my attempt to take the best of all the sources and share the most likely scenario
for each Apostle’s death. At the risk of spoiling some of the “legends,” I have given each
account a grade of probability from A (highest probability) to D (lowest probability)."

I think you can admit it's pretty good of him to give us probabilities of how accurate the years of death are.

Quote:Your third link: Thanks for that, I didn't know the names of the apostles.

So now I checked birthdays and death dates and ages of the apostles (in case they did historically exist > have records outside the bible)
The only thing I found that was not based on the bible (but on another religious book so this is not a reliable source anyway)
http://www.truthbook.com/faq/dsp_viewFAQ.cfm?faqID=1496
Quote:Andrew - 33 years-old
Simon Peter - 30 years-old
James Zebedee - 30 years-old
John Zebedee - 24 years-old
Philip - 27 years-old
Nathaniel - 25 years-old
Matthew Levi - 31 years-old
Thomas - 29 years-old
James Alphes - 26 years-old
Judas Alpheus - 26 years-old
Simon Zelotes - 28 years-old
Judas Iscariot - 30 years-old
Even though the source is not reliable, I do feel more comfortable with these ages as they seem more reasonable for people of that period and life style.
Anyway, two holy books saying different stuff about the same people is no surprise I guess.

You know that site is just stating their age at the time they started following Jesus? Not how old they were when they died?


Quote:Edit (because I forgot that point): As for Dr Phil, he was one example of many. In the case of Dr Phil, you are on my side Wink But many people will take for granted what he says. So that's the whole point. Lots of people are too lazy to think and question and check things, they just believe what they are told. And I am very sure this was no different back then. Even worse because they wasn't the kind of media available, reading and books was for the rich, no newspaper, no nothing, you just heard about stuff from someone who heard about stuff....

I think a better comparison instead of Dr. Phil would be Barack Obama. Look at everything that happened with his birth certificate and think about the fact that Jesus was to the Pharisees something similar to what Obama was to the Republicans. You don't think they would've checked out his birthplace?

James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world"

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." C.S. Lewis
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2011, 06:54 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(26-12-2011 02:30 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  Nazareth wasn't a city, it was a tiny village.

Like 20 houses or so, right? And, according to your archaeological find they had a Roman bath? Now that's what I call civilized. Those Romans certainly were something, weren't they? (sarcasm)

It was such a tiny village that it was overlooked by *all* historians, geographers and Hebrew texts and somehow Nathanael from Bethsaida (or Cana, depending on your source) heard about it. (about 20 houses, right?) Very cultural boy that one. (John 1.46)

And look! They had a synagogue too:

Quote:And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
(Luke 4.16) Tiny village, huh? Do you have an example of another tiny village with a synagogue? I'm asking because holy manuscripts were rare and *very* expensive and they also needed to afford at least one rabbi.

Quote:Also, there's an 8th century Hebrew inscription which uses the same form so it's unlikely it's a typo.

800 years? Maybe it appeared in the mean time

Quote:1. The book of Joshua was written around 600 BC. It's entirely possible Nazareth was uninhabited at that time. (It's likely it was abandoned for a time around 720 BC when the Assyrians invaded)

OK. Anything to fit your story.

Quote:2. Not too familiar with the Talmud, link maybe?

http://www.lmgtfy.com

Quote:3. Why would he?

Ummm I don't know, maybe because, according to you, people called him (Paul) a Nazarene and Jesus of Nazareth should have been an appropriate way to call Jesus to avoid confusion with an entire bunch of Jesuses they had around? I guess he didn't read the Bible so he never heard of the place either. Matthew's+Luke's fuck-ups didn't happen for another bunch of years.

Quote:4. Again, it was a small and insignificant village.

Again, the bible seems to disagree.

Quote:5. No ruins? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Bat...f_Nazareth

Ah yes, I read your wikipedia article to the end (nice source, BTW, reliable too) and they say that carbon dating placed it around 1300. Oh yes, that result didn't fit their completely unbiased hopes, so they hope they will be able to prove it to be older, but not yet. Yes. No ruins placing it in the early first century. Archaeological digs there revealed graves. Graves, you know, the kind of things that Jews liked to keep quite far from their settlements, so they wouldn't have built graves close to houses and definitely not houses close to graves. Uncleanliness and shit. They took it seriously.

Quote:6. What's really funny is when you ignore the fact Josephus said that Galilee had 219 villages total, so he's listing less than 20% of the villages in the area and you're saying that's proof Nazareth didn't exist at that time? Hilarious.

Yeah, but then again Nazareth was not as small as you would like and also he did live 1 mile away from that graveyard, I mean city. Funny that he omits to mention something so close.

Quote:But what about those who did live within walking distance? Why didn't they say anything about this non-existent village?

Walking distance from what? When a place does not exist *nobody* lives within walking distance. Everybody assumes that it's somewhere else.


Quote:The fact that Jesus was from Nazareth probably made Matthew misunderstand what the word and attribute it to the town instead of just to Jesus directly. Jesus was a Nazarene in the sense that he was the branch that was prophesied as well as being from the town of Nazareth.

Sure. Either that or the author of Matthew tried too hard to make it look like prophecy fulfilled and he made sure that Jesus came from Nazareth (whatever that may be) so that he can be called 'the Nazarene'. And Luke, to make him come from Bethlehem too, made up a story to fit the other prophecy. Looks like a habit of the trade to me.

Quote:And still waiting on word from any credible historian who doubts the existence of Nazareth.

This is where I quote names and you start dismissing: this one is an amateur, that one wears a funny beard, that one is a woman and the bible says that women need to put up and shut up etc.

I'm not playing that game. I doubt the existence of Nazareth because of the reasons I quoted.


Quote:Your arguments don't prove in the slightest that Nazareth didn't exist, all they amount to is mostly arguments from silence, hardly convincing.

Graveyard. Or well-known town that nobody heard of and also built on top of *graves*. Which one would you like?

Quote:Congratulations. You must feel so proud of yourself.

Totally! Thanks!


Quote:Not at all, it's not as if he started a violent rebellion. Not surprising the Romans wouldn't have considered him a threat and they might've even been happy at the trouble he was causing the Jews.
He didn't need to be violent. The Jewish people wanted any kind of pretext to riot against the Romans. He was charismatic and he gathered crowds around him for religious reasons (the same reasons that the Jews were using to support ethnic unity against the Romans). That was enough to make him a target for the Romans.

Think about it this way: A new guy that nobody knows appears among fundamentalist Muslims. He is quickly rising and fundamentalist Muslims seem to love him and follow him. He travels around all over USA with a group of people from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere he goes, the Muslims appear from everywhere and gather around him and call him King and they talk who knows what.

Look me in the eye and tell me that America would ignore him. *That's* why the lack of Roman attention means he was either completely insignificant, or he never existed.

Quote:Really? The "counter-apologetics wiki" is your source?
Sounds about as reliable as conservapedia.

Yes, It's one of the sources for finding other sources. As I'm writing this to you I have about 15 tabs open for checking and re-checking my information. In that case, I took a shortcut because I had already worked for hours on that post. As this was the first time, I also quoted my source. I kinda expected you to dismiss the arguments, objective as they were, due to the source, but I guess I wanted to be fair.

But I'm sure that everything you say comes straight from your laboratory. That being said, why don't you tell me what's wrong with the information in those quotes? I couldn't have said that better myself, that's why I used it.

Quote:Feel free to recommend some "scientific" texts that hold the gospels as false.
Nah, forget it. I saw how you work. Forget about it. Answer to me and forget about my sources.

Quote:Not neccessarily. I'm sure you've heard of the Q document, it's possible that was written soon after the death of Jesus and was used as source material for the Gospels which would explain why there are no records immediately after his death. It's also possible any of those records could've been destroyed.

I have to say, this is more of a personal curiosity of mine. Even if they did write sooner, that wouldn't be enough to convince me, so don't sweat it. I'm more bothered by the lack of independent records and you are yet to give a good explanation for that.

Quote:Also, could all of the disciples even write? Probably, but I've never looked into that.

Probably not. But that was a good story. It wrote itself. Finding a scribe in that case would not have been too hard. Never mind that.

Quote:Jews mainly used oral tradition to keep their stories alive, the Talmud was only written in 200 AD and was the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law. It's not surprising that the disciples(Jews) could've kept Jesus' story alive orally and only later have written it down.

Nope. They knew then just like we know now that if you want an accurate record, you need to write it down and fast. In fact the story was pretty shaky and inconsistent in a synopsis, it had multiple holes in it and the writers used imagination to fill the gaps. This type of behavior and results are more consistent with a made-up story than a witness account.

Quote:
Quote:Awesome. In that case please do tell me where Jesus was born. And if he was born in Bethlehem, what exactly was he doing there without a census forcing his mother to travel pregnant (so far along too)?

Does it matter?

It does. The author invented this story because people around him asked the same question. It didn't make sense to them, just like it doesn't make sense to me. If he wasn't born in Bethlehem, he is not the Messiah. If he was born in Bethlehem, what could ever get a close to birth pregnant woman to make that kind of long trip? All her relatives lived in "Nazareth". For anything else, any other messenger would have been more appropriate. I know! The government ordered it for some reason. Hey, didn't they have a census around that time? That is called "making shit up" and it does not belong in a book worthy to be called the word of god.

Quote:You probably would if the person had predicted rising from the dead and you knew there was no way he could've done it by mortal means.

Sure. I will believe the bible because it's the word of god. I know that it's the word of god because god says that it is. I know what god says because the bible tells me. I see where I'm wrong now. (sarcasm)

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2011, 07:40 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  I thought the most important was "the oldest of these being the Greek or Roman period in Palestine." But whatever floats your boat I guess.
No, sorry. The most important is how accurate is what they find out and what are their sources and how trustworthy are these. And all they did is guesswork. This is not what I think, this is what was in the wikipedia article that you linked, and where I did check the stated sources and outlined that these sources are all together not trustworthy.

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  "Further excavation of the site is not yet assured: Mr Shama's discovery is mired in financial difficulties and sectarian acrimony. Given the find's significance, it is surprising that Mr Shama, a Christian Arab, receives no outside support. Since he and his wife sank the last of their life savings in excavating and developing the site, the shop - and perhaps the bathhouse project - is close to collapse.
If it would be a really important find and Mr Shama would have a case, archeologists, and scientists and theists and everyone would be all over it. Noone would just simply ignore something of this importance. And it has been checked and nothing of real importance has been found obviously.
Did you think about the possibility that what he found under his house is really nothing special and that he simply tries to make some money of it by saying that this could be from Jesus' time?
I can understand that he put a lot of money into it and ran low.
The quote that you just gave is a quote itself inside the wikipedia article from one of the sources that are not trustworthy.

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  The Christian world's most powerful player, the Vatican, has so far refused to throw its weight behind the dig, possibly fearing that Mr Shama's find threatens its own dominance where tourism in the city is concerned."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/2...14069.html
Two point here: Especially the Vatican would push a lot of ressources and energy into this would they think this could be of importance for them. It is about Nazareth after all! Obviously they don't.

Second point is that if the Vatican saw a point in pushing ressources into this case, they would make sure they get a fair share out of the tourism point. Church is a business > If they have to put some money in there and know that they will get a lot out of it, they will do it. But is simply makes no sense to them or they would do it.
They are not scared of anything, they just don't care.

For the link, it again lacks sources. It is simply what Mr Shama thinks - well I guess Mr Shama is desperate to get some money out of this because he lost so much and nothing has come out of it yet. So of course he tries but as I said before, if he had a case everyone would be all over it, the press, historians, vatican, archeologists, scientists. He wouldn't have to pay a single cent, depending on country law he would either get a lot of cash to let people dig, or government would simply go there and dig and research because they can (just making clear I do not know the laws there), but no matter what, there would be some serious digging going on if he had a case.

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  What I've found was the bathhouse and the other house which I also linked for you.
I already stated what I think of these

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  We didn't even have archaeological evidence of Pilate until 1961, so why would we have records of those he executed? Have you found comprehensive lists of every other person to be executed during the Roman Empire?
The list was an example, I can't believe I have to explain this but here we go again:
If something or someone is this important and makes so much noise and is known by so many people there *has to be* some records, no matter how tiny, there has to be something. If it was for real and if it was so important (I mean actually died because of the whole thing) there must be some kind of record. Anything, ok? It does not have to be a list from the execution, it could be anything, anything but the bible because no eyewitness has written something in there. (or at least the church has not approved of it to be in the bible)

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  There were other links to that story, feel free to google them.
I already googled about this whole case to be able to make the points I am making to you. I spent a lot of time researching the stuff I said. I asked you for proper sources, if you don't have any, that's fine, just don't pretend please.
Just one little remark: You are the one who should give proper sources and evidence for the claims you make, so you do your research properly and come back with real sources when you found them if you still feel like it.

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  Does he? All I saw was he said "The following is my attempt to take the best of all the sources and share the most likely scenario
for each Apostle’s death. At the risk of spoiling some of the “legends,” I have given each
account a grade of probability from A (highest probability) to D (lowest probability)."
I think you can admit it's pretty good of him to give us probabilities of how accurate the years of death are.
Still his basis is the bible and his own opinion. No good sources (by now I feel like a parrot)

(26-12-2011 06:28 PM)Sharks9 Wrote:  You know that site is just stating their age at the time they started following Jesus? Not how old they were when they died?
As I said, that site is not a good source, it is just the only other source apart from the bible that I found. But I said that, didn't I.


So last thing for now from me here:
I will come back to this once I found proper evidence for both points 1. Nazareth existed back then, 2. the apostel's ages
Your sources haven't proven anything to me, sorry. I would have liked to agree if the sources would have been trustworthy.

cheers

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2011, 03:45 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
Could anyone share a link for one?
Someone who has their profile public?

The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.
-Karl Marx


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2011, 09:19 AM
RE: Facebook Preachers
I am in awe of the knowledge possessed by the TTA family. Would each one of you would be willing to put together a short synopsis of the main reason(s) for your stance.

Mine has always been science based not theological. For instance the Bible claims that God created man in his own image starting with Adam. Modern scientific evidence shows us that evolution by natural selection is actually the most likely means by which humans came to be. While believers in Theistic Evolution have conveniently woven this into their belief system as "God got the ball rolling on evolution", the time frame for going from a single celled organism to current state is billions of years, not 6,000 as would be the case if the bible were accurate.

Thank you for the education as I continue to learn

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2011, 12:34 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
(24-12-2011 09:00 AM)Sharks9 Wrote:  3. That doesn't disprove that it happened back then.

Check this out.

1. I believe in this becasue I can't or haven't disproven it.

2. I believe in this becasue I can or have proven it.


Why do so many people allow themselves to be like #1? I can't understand how an intelligent person could justify it.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2011, 01:39 PM
RE: Facebook Preachers
So much has happened since I promised to come back to this topic.

Will someone give me a summary?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: