Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
One might think that the "Chosen People" of the "Almighty Creator of the Universe" would merit a better plot of land... like California. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
27-06-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 09:06 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  One might think that the "Chosen People" of the "Almighty Creator of the Universe" would merit a better plot of land... like California. Angel

One would think that an Almighty Creator of the Universe could have just started out with his Chosen people in said plot of land.

"Now I don't want to be sane either, but I'm just saying there may be other delusions and hallucinations worthy of consideration before jumping to an irrational conclusion, that's all."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fisty_McBeefpunch's post
27-06-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 08:50 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It's been a tourist site since - well, almost since the events in question did or did not occur. Pilgrimage was huge business, and even little things like the crusades hardly dented it. The Ottomans didn't like it much, and recent prospects have been at times dim, but...

The smart locals are the ones selling cheap knockoff relics as souvenirs.

(27-06-2013 08:53 AM)maklelan Wrote:  On the contrary, many people living in the Middle East do their best to take economic advantage of the tourism. That's the case with locals from many tourist destinations. As far as war zones go, it's all too real and prominent for many living in and around places like Jerusalem and the west bank.

How wonderful it must be for these newest inhabitants to be reminded each day of their insignificance and to know they are not nearly as important as the dead people and places they live on.

I shall immediately prepare to conduct tours and sell small, hand crafted replicas of my 90 year old house. Drinking Beverage Who is this god you speak of?$?$?$?$

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 09:27 AM)kim Wrote:  How wonderful it must be for these newest inhabitants to be reminded each day of their insignificance and to know they are not nearly as important as the dead people and places they live on.

Few of them have the luxury of such existential concerns. Rather, the concern is making a living.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 09:46 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 09:27 AM)kim Wrote:  How wonderful it must be for these newest inhabitants to be reminded each day of their insignificance and to know they are not nearly as important as the dead people and places they live on.

Few of them have the luxury of such existential concerns. Rather, the concern is making a living.

Indeed religious tourism and the locals being more interested in making a buck over facts (which by and large they do not care about) is one of the things that gives the argument here some merit. For Americans it is like all the places that George Washington supposedly slept, it would be impossible for him to have done so even sleeping in a different bed every night of his life, yet you still see those signs up and it draws business.

Relieving christians of their money in place of "Artifacts from the Holy Land" has been going on since the 2nd century CE, which btw is the first time that this village shows up in any record outside the bible. So to place Yeshua there we have a book that is the literary equivalent of a 200 year old game of telephone and a Local who saw a way to make a buck by showing some dumb tourists the "Childhood home of Jesus".

Then we have a major problem with the archeology in the region that, for most of the last 100 years, began with the principle that the Bible was true and the facts must fit it. The old Biblical Archeologist, a bible in one hand a pick in the other. Now Mac here is arguing from Authority by stating that most in the field do not doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century, but since we know that the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong, I don't find fault in asking for some actual proof that the held theory is not just convenience and actually has some real facts behind it.




(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-06-2013, 10:59 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 10:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Then we have a major problem with the archeology in the region that, for most of the last 100 years, began with the principle that the Bible was true and the facts must fit it. The old Biblical Archeologist, a bible in one hand a pick in the other. Now Mac here is arguing from Authority by stating that most in the field do not doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century, but since we know that the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong, I don't find fault in asking for some actual proof that the held theory is not just convenience and actually has some real facts behind it.

1 - The maximalist approach to biblical archaeology has been directly challenged for over 50 years now and has fallen by the wayside of the mainstream. It has not been "most of the last 100 years," it was "the first few decades of the last 100 years." The "spade in one hand and Bible in the other" notion characterizes 19th century biblical archaeology. These days those who presuppose the accuracy of the biblical texts are confined to the fringes of scholarship, if they're there at all. It is a naive and demonstrably false notion to say that "the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong." If you want to make that argument for bias these days, you have to show it, not just assert it.

2 - Flippantly sweeping aside the archaeological data presented in this thread solely because of an assumption of unilateral bias on the part of all people supporting the first century existence of Nazareth is a flagrant and asinine fallacy.

3 - Not a word of what I have said is an appeal to authority, and if you want to continue that line of thought, I'll thank you to produce something in the way of an actual case. I am pointing out that these are consensus views precisely because people are asking about the consensus view and challenging the notion that they are consensus views.

4 - You have been given the facts. If you choose to reject them in favor of your a priori assumptions of crippling bias then that sounds an awful lot like a you problem.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 10:59 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 10:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Then we have a major problem with the archeology in the region that, for most of the last 100 years, began with the principle that the Bible was true and the facts must fit it. The old Biblical Archeologist, a bible in one hand a pick in the other. Now Mac here is arguing from Authority by stating that most in the field do not doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century, but since we know that the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong, I don't find fault in asking for some actual proof that the held theory is not just convenience and actually has some real facts behind it.

1 - The maximalist approach to biblical archaeology has been directly challenged for over 50 years now and has fallen by the wayside of the mainstream. It has not been "most of the last 100 years," it was "the first few decades of the last 100 years." The "spade in one hand and Bible in the other" notion characterizes 19th century biblical archaeology. These days those who presuppose the accuracy of the biblical texts are confined to the fringes of scholarship, if they're there at all. It is a naive and demonstrably false notion to say that "the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong." If you want to make that argument for bias these days, you have to show it, not just assert it.

2 - Flippantly sweeping aside the archaeological data presented in this thread solely because of an assumption of unilateral bias on the part of all people supporting the first century existence of Nazareth is a flagrant and asinine fallacy.

3 - Not a word of what I have said is an appeal to authority, and if you want to continue that line of thought, I'll thank you to produce something in the way of an actual case. I am pointing out that these are consensus views precisely because people are asking about the consensus view and challenging the notion that they are consensus views.

4 - You have been given the facts. If you choose to reject them in favor of your a priori assumptions of crippling bias then that sounds an awful lot like a you problem.

I said it was an argument from not an appeal to Authority. You are stating the accepted mainstream view, that is an argument from authority it's not a fallacy and I wasn't accusing you of anything. You are also correct on the time period for the "Spade in one hand Bible in the other"

You are actually winning this argument, I was mistaken in my original assumption that Nazareth totally did not exist in the early 1st century. I was merely explaining why Mark and I, amongst others, wanted a little more direct evidence as there is a perceived bias towards confirmation of biblical events. If we are mistaken about that , and it is entirely possible we are I am not nor have ever been an archaeologist working in the near east so I don't have first hand experience, it comes from dealing with apologists and others that slant the findings to that end.

What is boils down to is I am ceeding the point on the existence of Nazareth in the first century CE, you are more correct and closer to the facts than was my stated opinion and from here out I won't be using that in any debates. Thank you for dealing with us prickly heathens I know we can be a handful but I really do appreciate the fact that you have been willing to have this discussion.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-06-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 10:59 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 10:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Then we have a major problem with the archeology in the region that, for most of the last 100 years, began with the principle that the Bible was true and the facts must fit it. The old Biblical Archeologist, a bible in one hand a pick in the other. Now Mac here is arguing from Authority by stating that most in the field do not doubt the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century, but since we know that the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong, I don't find fault in asking for some actual proof that the held theory is not just convenience and actually has some real facts behind it.

1 - The maximalist approach to biblical archaeology has been directly challenged for over 50 years now and has fallen by the wayside of the mainstream. It has not been "most of the last 100 years," it was "the first few decades of the last 100 years." The "spade in one hand and Bible in the other" notion characterizes 19th century biblical archaeology. These days those who presuppose the accuracy of the biblical texts are confined to the fringes of scholarship, if they're there at all. It is a naive and demonstrably false notion to say that "the bias has always been the bible is right until it is proven wrong." If you want to make that argument for bias these days, you have to show it, not just assert it.

2 - Flippantly sweeping aside the archaeological data presented in this thread solely because of an assumption of unilateral bias on the part of all people supporting the first century existence of Nazareth is a flagrant and asinine fallacy.

3 - Not a word of what I have said is an appeal to authority, and if you want to continue that line of thought, I'll thank you to produce something in the way of an actual case. I am pointing out that these are consensus views precisely because people are asking about the consensus view and challenging the notion that they are consensus views.

4 - You have been given the facts. If you choose to reject them in favor of your a priori assumptions of crippling bias then that sounds an awful lot like a you problem.

Actually the "spade in one hand, and the Bible in the other" very much characterized early 20th Century biblical archeology,
and a case could be made for even 1/2 of the 20th C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright
It certainly was not confined to the 19th Century.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
Dammit, Rev, your needle's slipping into the Ralph Zone. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Of Nazareth or the Nazarene?
(27-06-2013 11:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I said it was an argument from not an appeal to Authority.

I don't see a difference.

(27-06-2013 11:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are stating the accepted mainstream view, that is an argument from authority it's not a fallacy and I wasn't accusing you of anything. You are also correct on the time period for the "Spade in one hand Bible in the other"

I stated the mainstream view because I was asked about the mainstream view.

(27-06-2013 11:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You are actually winning this argument, I was mistaken in my original assumption that Nazareth totally did not exist in the early 1st century. I was merely explaining why Mark and I, amongst others, wanted a little more direct evidence as there is a perceived bias towards confirmation of biblical events. If we are mistaken about that , and it is entirely possible we are I am not nor have ever been an archaeologist working in the near east so I don't have first hand experience, it comes from dealing with apologists and others that slant the findings to that end.

What is boils down to is I am ceeding the point on the existence of Nazareth in the first century CE, you are more correct and closer to the facts than was my stated opinion and from here out I won't be using that in any debates. Thank you for dealing with us prickly heathens I know we can be a handful but I really do appreciate the fact that you have been willing to have this discussion.

I appreciate the honesty. Sorry if I got a little defensive.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: