Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2014, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 30-10-2014 02:46 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 02:14 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Is there anyone reading this thread apart from Tomasia here who would like me to answer his questions? I've already addressed more than half of them... he just hasn't read my answers.

Here's the problem. I'll try and explain it via an analogy, in this analogy what I mean by primary sources, is a book.

I encounter a person who gives an interpretation of this book, in which he reviews and talks of it's various themes and meaning. Then I ask him if he can show me the book, to see if I can agree with his various themes and meanings, so that I can see if what he says of the book can actually be found in the book.

And rather than providing the book, he continues to give me an interpretation of the book. Then I ask him again if I can see the book, then he gives me another interpretation of the book. And sometimes he'll even provide another author's interpretation of the book as well. And this continues so and so on.

He insists the he has provided what I asked for, but i'm sure you can see how in this analogy he hasn't.

This is the predicament we find ourselves in. I've already acknowledged your interpretations of the primary sources, but I want to know what these primary sources are?

The ones I can think of are Josephus, the writings of the Church fathers, some of the Epistles, and since you mentioned the Essenes, the Dead Sea scrolls as well.

Are there other relevant primary sources, of what these sects believed that I am missing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
30-10-2014, 05:29 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(29-10-2014 06:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"“There is an even bigger problem, however. Many compelling pieces of archaeological evidence indicate that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’s day and that, like other villages and towns in that part of Galilee, it was built on the hillside, near where the later rock-cut kokh tombs were built. For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus. [...] “ Yardena Alexandre indicated that 165 coins were found in this excavation, she specified in the report that some of them were late, from the fourteenth or fifteenth century....But as it turns out, among the coins were some that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus..... [.....]

The conclusion drawn there is ass-backwards. A site can be no older than its newest relics.

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
30-10-2014, 05:56 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  The conclusion drawn there is ass-backwards. A site can be no older than its newest relics.

Huh, why would that be? Wouldn't it be the other way around?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 06:13 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 05:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  The conclusion drawn there is ass-backwards. A site can be no older than its newest relics.

Huh, why would that be? Wouldn't it be the other way around?

There is no way to know that the coins found there are original to the site.
I have some coins from the 1800's but my house was not built until 1997. My furnace was manufactured in 1995, my car in 2005.

If some future archeologist were to dig up my property, would she date it to the 1800's?

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
30-10-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 06:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no way to know that the coins found there are original to the site.
I have some coins from the 1800's but my house was not built until 1997. My furnace was manufactured in 1995, my car in 2005.

If some future archeologist were to dig up my property, would she date it to the 1800's?

She'd probably wondered why you were in possession of a coin from the 1800s, and if all the other artifacts in your house pointed to the late 90s, this might give her reason to assume perhaps you were just collecting this. Though I don't think coin collecting of defunct coins was a thing in Galilee.

Even so, it's not just coins here, we have pottery, graves, a farm, a house, not to mention the inscription at Caesarea Maritima that establish the region at the time of Jesus. Any sort of denialism at this point is as delusional as creationism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 02:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 10:20 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  It's been a while since I read Josephus' long description of the Essenes in The Jewish War but I can't recall anything in there which indicates that they were waiting for an apocalypse at all. They were tradesmen and agriculturalists living in a communal setting.

Don't forget that it was almost certainly an Essene community that hid the dead sea sea scrolls, and the scrolls contain her a lot of apocalyptic literature.

That idea has been under serious attack for quite a while now. Josephus tells us that the Essenes maintained communities in the cities and towns. He says nothing about them going off into the wilderness. Magen and Peleg's excavations at Qumran concluded that the site was a pottery factory when the Romans swept in in 68. This had nothing to do with Qumran itself but was part of Vespasian's campaign to cut the roads leading north and East from Jerusalem, thus isolating it. The Romans already controlled the coast.

Robert Cargill suggests that Qumran had nothing to do with the DSS which were found near Qumran in caves which would have been known to any traveler going through the area and would have been an ideal place for the Jerusalem nobility to stash important documents which would have been an impediment to quick flight. No one in their right mind could have thought that Jerusalem could really withstand a Roman siege.

But, I'll tell you what really pisses me off about this whole topic. It is jesus-centric. The mashiach was a jewish concept and they had very firm idea about what the mashiach would do.

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

Quote:Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

Not that I have much good to say about jews but it annoys me when xtians come along and try to co-opt their religion for their own purposes.

As far as the jews were concerned the tale of jesus just shows that he would have been a flunky if he had ever existed.

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
30-10-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Quote:Even so, it's not just coins here, we have pottery, graves, a farm, a house, not to mention the inscription at Caesarea Maritima that establish the region at the time of Jesus.

Stephen Pfann, a xtian scholar, determined that the site was occupied by a single family farm in the first century. One farm does not a city make.

And the Caesarea inscription dates to the 3d/4th century and, even if it did say "nazareth" which is dubious it doesn't matter. We know there was a town there by then.

But Josephus commanded an army which tramped through the entire region c 67 noting many towns and villages and has nothing to say about any "nazareth" in the first century. After being shut out of Sepphoris when the city went over to the Romans he would have literally had to retreat through Nazareth...had it been there.

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
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
30-10-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 02:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 02:14 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Is there anyone reading this thread apart from Tomasia here who would like me to answer his questions? I've already addressed more than half of them... he just hasn't read my answers.

Here's the problem. I'll try and explain it via an analogy, in this analogy what I mean by primary sources, is a book.

I encounter a person who gives an interpretation of this book, in which he reviews and talks of it's various themes and meaning. Then I ask him if he can show me the book, to see if I can agree with his various themes and meanings, so that I can see if what he says of the book can actually be found in the book.

And rather than providing the book, he continues to give me an interpretation of the book. Then I ask him again if I can see the book, then he gives me another interpretation of the book. And sometimes he'll even provide another author's interpretation of the book as well. And this continues so and so on.

He insists the he has provided what I asked for, but i'm sure you can see how in this analogy he hasn't.

This is the predicament we find ourselves in. I've already acknowledged your interpretations of the primary sources, but I want to know what these primary sources are?

The ones I can think of are Josephus, the writings of the Church fathers, some of the Epistles, and since you mentioned the Essenes, the Dead Sea scrolls as well.

Are there other relevant primary sources, of what these sects believed that I am missing?

Go back and read posts 112 and press on the links, and press on the links in post 193. Then demonstrate to me you've actually done this by making specific comments or asking relevant comments. Use the information to discover facts and ideas for yourself....google is a wonderful tool. The commentary is littered with primary sources. At the moment talking to you is like trying to teach an obstinate 3 year old calculus. You need to do some basic homework first, then we can discuss.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
31-10-2014, 06:49 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Go back and read posts 112 and press on the links, and press on the links in post 193. Then demonstrate to me you've actually done this by making specific comments or asking relevant comments. Use the information to discover facts and ideas for yourself....google is a wonderful tool. The commentary is littered with primary sources. At the moment talking to you is like trying to teach an obstinate 3 year old calculus. You need to do some basic homework first, then we can discuss.

Okay I went through them, clicked on the links and checked out their cited sources. They mainly refer back to other interpreters, and the ones that mention the primary sources they were interpreting all this from, were the ones I previously mentioned:

"Josephus, the writings of the Church fathers, some of the Epistles, and since you mentioned the Essenes, the Dead Sea scrolls as well. "

There's only going to be a handful of primary sources, so there may be like 1-2 that I'm missing here, but since these are the only ones being references by everyone else, this seems to be about it.

So are you going to be a bit more forthcoming and admit this much, that these are pretty much our only primary sources on what these various groups believed or might have believed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2014, 07:26 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(30-10-2014 03:01 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Stephen Pfann, a xtian scholar, determined that the site was occupied by a single family farm in the first century. One farm does not a city make.

lol. It wasn't a city, it was a town.

"“The AP story concludes that “the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres…populated by Jews of modest means.” -Ehrman

Like I said we have pottery, we have coins, we have references in the Gospels, plenty of 2nd century references from Christian sources referencing the town. An inspiration from the Synagogue in Caesarea Maritima chronicling the assignment of priest, around the Bar Kokhba revolt around 130AD.

Quote:And the Caesarea inscription dates to the 3d/4th century and, even if it did say "nazareth" which is dubious it doesn't matter.

No, it's not dubious at all. The spelling on inscription is: נצרת, which is in fact the Hebrew spelling for Nazareth as well. Though the inspiration dates to the 3rd Century, the events it reference occurred on or about the 1st century.

At this point it requires some creationist like delusions to be a Nazareth-denialist, either that or you just have to be plain stupid, even Carrier knows better.

Quote:But Josephus commanded an army which tramped through the entire region c 67 noting many towns and villages and has nothing to say about any "nazareth" in the first century. After being shut out of Sepphoris when the city went over to the Romans he would have literally had to retreat through Nazareth...had it been there.

Yes, because Josephus mentioned every podduck town of about 4 acres, about a quarter of a square mile on his treks. Josephus might not have mentioned it, but other people certainly had, and with the only gripe being that they were Christians. And we have way more that enough archaeological evidence, to verify that their reference to the town holds up.

So the argument that these writers made up the town, and all the evidence we found to verify it, was merely an uncanny coincidence, at this point is delusional. Anyone who wants to still make it, is just a hypocrite in the same league as the creationist they despise.

What's funny is that at least creationist like denialism is because they have some religion they admire and want to preserve, so what's your excuse?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: