Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Sun May 19, 2013 5:35 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 398 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 27  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:11 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Rene Salm does a great job addressing the Nazareth issue at his website The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus.

A comment from Acharya:

Quote:
As I demonstrate in Who Was Jesus?, the term "Nazareth" was a cover-up for Jesus being a Nazarene, which is the name of someone belonging to a particular sect, not a resident of a town:

"The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears in quotations because in the "original" Greek of the Bible (Textus Receptus) the term often translated as "of Nazareth" in actuality reflects three different Greek words. Although the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears 29 times in the King James Bible, the original Greek phrase is "Jesus the Nazarene" the majority of the time. In fact, the Greek word for "Nazareth" (Strong's G3478) appears 11 times total in the gospels: three times in Matthew, once in Mark, five times in Luke and twice in John. The word for "Nazarene, Nazarite" or "Nazarite"—Nazaraios (G3480)—appears in the Greek 15 times, but it is only translated as such twice, the remaining 13 rendered as "of Nazareth." Another version of "Nazarene, Nazarite"—Nazarenos (G3479)—appears four times but is always translated as "of Nazareth." This fact is significant in that it seems the term "Nazareth"—which was not much of a place for people to inhabit, if it even existed at the time—was used, as stated at Matthew 2:23, to make Jesus a "Nazarene." Rather than being inhabitants of a particular town, the Nazarenes or Nazarites were members of a certain sect, to which the Old Testament hero Samson likewise belonged. It is possible that the mistranslations occur in order to cloak the fact of this pre-Christian sect that contributed much to Christianity."

- Who Was Jesus?, page 103

Re the story of "Yeshua ben Pantera," who supposedly lived around 100 BCE, even IF there was a real person there and his tale was integrated into the gospel story, it would be a tiny percentage of the New Testament figure. The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament would still, therefore, be a composite character made up of several figures, some possibly historical but most mythical - that's STILL a fictional character.

Acharya has brought up in her books some good points regarding "Jesus ben Pantera/Pandira" when she notes that Dionysus, whose epithet was "IES" was called the "son of the panther," which is what "ben Pantera" means. That would make Dionysus "Yeshua ben Pantera," so to speak.

Some of people at FreeRatio.org have taken seriously Rene Salm's hypothesis, and it has always struck me as especially bizarre. We have archaeological evidence of a town existing in the same place as modern Nazareth before and after the time of Jesus, and the name "Nazareth" has been attached to that town at least as far back as the fourth century. Why not just accept that Nazareth was a small town in the first century? There would have been thousands of such small villages that made it in only one place in the historical record at best. We have no other apparent examples of towns being founded to cause mythical towns to exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4331
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
ApostateAbe wrote:
Some of people at FreeRatio.org have taken seriously Rene Salm's hypothesis, and it has always struck me as especially bizarre. We have archaeological evidence of a town existing in the same place as modern Nazareth before and after the time of Jesus, and the name "Nazareth" has been attached to that town at least as far back as the fourth century. Why not just accept that Nazareth was a small town in the first century? There would have been thousands of such small villages that made it in only one place in the historical record at best. We have no other apparent examples of towns being founded to cause mythical towns to exist.

It's as if you didn't read my post at all, Abe. I see no valid evidence to substantiate your claims. Rene Salm's hypothesis is not "especially bizarre" in any way as it's based on credible evidence and the facts. The Gospel claims are what's truly bizarre.

Biblical archaeologists don't have a very honest record: Worldwide Biblical Artifacts Fraud Ring Exposed. Perhaps I should add my quote above about Nazareth to that thread?

ApostateAbe wrote:
We have no other apparent examples of towns being founded to cause mythical towns to exist.

"Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, with a large number of magical elves, and ... flying reindeer." "Canada Post has a special postal code for letters to Santa Claus, and since 1982 over 13,000 Canadian postal workers have volunteered to write responses. His address is: Santa Claus, North Pole, Canada, H0H 0H0"

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:00 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
Ah, much like the Santa Claus link.

:lol:

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote:
Some of people at FreeRatio.org have taken seriously Rene Salm's hypothesis, and it has always struck me as especially bizarre. We have archaeological evidence of a town existing in the same place as modern Nazareth before and after the time of Jesus, and the name "Nazareth" has been attached to that town at least as far back as the fourth century. Why not just accept that Nazareth was a small town in the first century? There would have been thousands of such small villages that made it in only one place in the historical record at best. We have no other apparent examples of towns being founded to cause mythical towns to exist.

It's as if you didn't read my post at all, Abe. I see no valid evidence to substantiate your claims. Rene Salm's hypothesis is not "especially bizarre" in any way as it's based on credible evidence and the facts. The Gospel claims are what's truly bizarre.

Biblical archaeologists don't have a very honest record: Worldwide Biblical Artifacts Fraud Ring Exposed. Perhaps I should add my quote above about Nazareth to that thread?

ApostateAbe wrote:
We have no other apparent examples of towns being founded to cause mythical towns to exist.

"Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, with a large number of magical elves, and ... flying reindeer." "Canada Post has a special postal code for letters to Santa Claus, and since 1982 over 13,000 Canadian postal workers have volunteered to write responses. His address is: Santa Claus, North Pole, Canada, H0H 0H0"

OK, so, just to be clear, is that the closest example you have at this point to make Rene Salm's claim plausible?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
Well let's see, reading through the link on Nazareth we find right away:
Quote:
The Myth of Nazareth meticulously reviews the archaeology of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age to the present, and shows that the settlement of Nazareth came into existence in the early second century C.E., well after the time of Christ. In this study René Salm reviews all the structural and movable evidence from the first excavations in the late 19th century to the most recent reports. This review also encompasses the extensive secondary literature, found in books and reference articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Salm shows that traditional conclusions found in all these works regarding the settlement of Nazareth are radically inconsistent with the itemized evidence in the ground.

Moving along:
Quote:
These six oil lamps were discovered in a Nazareth tomb, and have been used in the scholarly literature as proof of a village at Nazareth in Hellenistic times, as early as the third century BCE. In fact, the six lamps date from the Middle Roman to the Late Roman periods, long after the time of Christ. Gross misdatings of the primary evidence, sometimes involving discrepancies of up to 500 years, are frequently encountered in the Nazareth literature.

Interesting. What else?
Quote:
The Myth of Nazareth shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 CE (the climax of the First Jewish War), and most likely in early II CE—the same era in which the canonical gospels were being edited. Furthermore, this study shows that there was a long hiatus in settlement in the Nazareth basin between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). Finally, it is probable that the extensive remains in the Nazareth basin from the Bronze and Iron Ages are in fact to be identified with biblical Japhia. These conclusions are based on a unanimity of the material evidence from multiple excavations in the Nazareth basin. Whether we are speaking of “Herodian” oil lamps (which constitute the earliest Roman evidence), glass, metal, or stone objects, inscriptions, coins, “kokh” tombs with or without rolling stones, wall foundations, or agricultural installations—all of these point to a Jewish settlement beginning in early II CE and thriving in Late Roman and Byzantine times. Extra-archaeological data confirm this conclusion.

And the rebuttle to this comes from Biblical Archaeology I assume. That is all consistent with the fact that the NT was written in the second century. Likewise, there's no evidence of it existing any earlier. There is wishful thinking to try and validate the tales told therein and that's about it.

And on that note I can imagine how someone using the Septuagint during the second century read OT prophecy about a "Nazarene" sect projected future messiah and then decided to refer to the then existing town of Nazareth in order to try and make it appear that the messiah figure of there myth making was a "Nazarene", as OT suggested the messiah would be. People in the second century making use of a town that existed in the second century.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:51 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
Well let's see, reading through the link on Nazareth we find right away:
Quote:
The Myth of Nazareth meticulously reviews the archaeology of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age to the present, and shows that the settlement of Nazareth came into existence in the early second century C.E., well after the time of Christ. In this study René Salm reviews all the structural and movable evidence from the first excavations in the late 19th century to the most recent reports. This review also encompasses the extensive secondary literature, found in books and reference articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Salm shows that traditional conclusions found in all these works regarding the settlement of Nazareth are radically inconsistent with the itemized evidence in the ground.

Moving along:
Quote:
These six oil lamps were discovered in a Nazareth tomb, and have been used in the scholarly literature as proof of a village at Nazareth in Hellenistic times, as early as the third century BCE. In fact, the six lamps date from the Middle Roman to the Late Roman periods, long after the time of Christ. Gross misdatings of the primary evidence, sometimes involving discrepancies of up to 500 years, are frequently encountered in the Nazareth literature.

Interesting. What else?
Quote:
The Myth of Nazareth shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 CE (the climax of the First Jewish War), and most likely in early II CE—the same era in which the canonical gospels were being edited. Furthermore, this study shows that there was a long hiatus in settlement in the Nazareth basin between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). Finally, it is probable that the extensive remains in the Nazareth basin from the Bronze and Iron Ages are in fact to be identified with biblical Japhia. These conclusions are based on a unanimity of the material evidence from multiple excavations in the Nazareth basin. Whether we are speaking of “Herodian” oil lamps (which constitute the earliest Roman evidence), glass, metal, or stone objects, inscriptions, coins, “kokh” tombs with or without rolling stones, wall foundations, or agricultural installations—all of these point to a Jewish settlement beginning in early II CE and thriving in Late Roman and Byzantine times. Extra-archaeological data confirm this conclusion.

And the rebuttle to this comes from Biblical Archaeology I assume. That is all consistent with the fact that the NT was written in the second century. Likewise, there's no evidence of it existing any earlier. There is wishful thinking to try and validate the tales told therein and that's about it.

And on that note I can imagine how someone using the Septuagint during the second century read OT prophecy about a "Nazarene" sect projected future messiah and then decided to refer to the then existing town of Nazareth in order to try and make it appear that the messiah figure of there myth making was a "Nazarene", as OT suggested the messiah would be. People in the second century making use of a town that existed in the second century.

OK, so do you think maybe someone founded the town of Nazareth in Galilee to cause the mythical town to exist, or do you think maybe Nazareth existed first and "Nazareth" was written in the gospels next? I ask because Rene Salm seems to take the former position. The subtitle of his book is "The Invented Town Of Jesus," and he believes that Nazareth was a "literary invention."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:34 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
It may well be a literary invention Abe. I was just tossing around possibilities. The problem is that Biblical archaeologists have a record of trying to force fit artifacts into an accepted interpretation that compliments the Bible. And it seems more often than not that they are exposed as dead wrong. Take Israel Finstelstein's work with "The Bible Unearthed" for instance. As a non-believer I don't see why you would want to hold so tight to believer positions, aside from the fact that you've created a theory that you want to regard as competitive and plausible which involves having to take believer type positions at their word at the very base of the theory. It seems more a 'house built upon the sand' more than anythings else.

I do agree that you have to sift through all of these different sources from both sides to find what seems probable and what doesn't though in anycase. The Theologians, apologists, and Biblical Archaeologist have all set forth positive claims in favor of the Bible tales. The backlash has been skepticism, extreme skepticism in some cases. You can find bias on both sides of the fence of course. But in this back and fourth debate I'd have to say that the Believer side is far more biased. And evemerist types in the middle of it often have to rely on assuming that the believers have presented something valid in the way of historicity. GodAlmighty shot down the list you posted with no problem readily showing how each item shows a sense of lifting prophecy from the OT. Here with this Nazarene thing as a religious sect, it goes back to Samson, which wasn't even mentioned by GA. You've stated before in discussion that you understand that the gospel writers were doing a piss poor job of trying to make it appear that their hero character Jesus fulfilled prophecy and that the Jews could see this for what it was. It was errant. The lift from Isaiah about Emmanuel is just plain laughable for a Jew who was knowledgeable about the prophets.

So for us, presenting a list like you've presented is also laughable because we already known where that list leads. It's like hiking down a mountain path until you reach a dead end at a cliff, turning around and walking back, passing another hiker on his way towards the end and telling him that there's a dead end up ahead. That hiker then brushes off your advice thinking he knows better and continues believing the path is continuous and carries on anyways. That hiker just has to go ahead and see for himself at that point. And eventually I think you'll see for yourself if you continue trying to take these dead end avenues in support of a one fixed historical Jesus theory....

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:39 am 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:
It may well be a literary invention Abe. I was just tossing around possibilities. The problem is that Biblical archaeologists have a record of trying to force fit artifacts into an accepted interpretation that compliments the Bible. And it seems more often than not that they are exposed as dead wrong. Take Israel Finstelstein's work with "The Bible Unearthed" for instance. As a non-believer I don't see why you would want to hold so tight to believer positions, aside from the fact that you've created a theory that you want to regard as competitive and plausible which involves having to take believer type positions at their word at the very base of the theory. It seems more a 'house built upon the sand' more than anythings else.

I do agree that you have to sift through all of these different sources from both sides to find what seems probable and what doesn't though in anycase. The Theologians, apologists, and Biblical Archaeologist have all set forth positive claims in favor of the Bible tales. The backlash has been skepticism, extreme skepticism in some cases. You can find bias on both sides of the fence of course. But in this back and fourth debate I'd have to say that the Believer side is far more biased. And evemerist types in the middle of it often have to rely on assuming that the believers have presented something valid in the way of historicity. GodAlmighty shot down the list you posted with no problem readily showing how each item shows a sense of lifting prophecy from the OT. Here with this Nazarene thing as a religious sect, it goes back to Samson, which wasn't even mentioned by GA. You've stated before in discussion that you understand that the gospel writers were doing a piss poor job of trying to make it appear that their hero character Jesus fulfilled prophecy and that the Jews could see this for what it was. It was errant. The lift from Isaiah about Emmanuel is just plain laughable for a Jew who was knowledgeable about the prophets.

So for us, presenting a list like you've presented is also laughable because we already known where that list leads. It's like hiking down a mountain path until you reach a dead end at a cliff, turning around and walking back, passing another hiker on his way towards the end and telling him that there's a dead end up ahead. That hiker then brushes off your advice thinking he knows better and continues believing the path is continuous and carries on anyways. That hiker just has to go ahead and see for himself at that point. And eventually I think you'll see for yourself if you continue trying to take these dead end avenues in support of a one fixed historical Jesus theory....

OK, it is cool with me if you would like to talk more about my list. I claimed that there is no apparent reason that Jesus should be from the town of Nazareth. I claimed that there was no prophecy that the messiah would be called a "Nazarene," and, I should add, neither is there any apparent connection between the messiah and the "Nazirite" religious practice. I claimed that the best explanation for the prophecy from the "prophets" cited in Matthew 2:23 is that it was manufactured by the community of Matthew in order to legitimize the hometown of Jesus, and I argued that point at length. GA believed that the claimed prophecy in Matthew 2:23 was an actual prophecy (prophecies?) that is no longer extant, so he would be taking the gospel of Matthew at its word. What hypothesis do you think is most probable in this case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:32 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:45 am
Posts: 523
ApostateAbe wrote:
I claimed that the best explanation for the prophecy from the "prophets" cited in Matthew 2:23 is that it was manufactured by the community of Matthew in order to legitimize the hometown of Jesus, and I argued that point at length. GA believed that the claimed prophecy in Matthew 2:23 was an actual prophecy (prophecies?) that is no longer extant, so he would be taking the gospel of Matthew at its word. What hypothesis do you think is most probable in this case?


Let me just clarify here and say that I don't see a dichotomy there, that is essentially what I was driving at, I simply wasn't attributing its origins to the author of Matthew.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:44 am 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
GodAlmighty wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote:
I claimed that the best explanation for the prophecy from the "prophets" cited in Matthew 2:23 is that it was manufactured by the community of Matthew in order to legitimize the hometown of Jesus, and I argued that point at length. GA believed that the claimed prophecy in Matthew 2:23 was an actual prophecy (prophecies?) that is no longer extant, so he would be taking the gospel of Matthew at its word. What hypothesis do you think is most probable in this case?


Let me just clarify here and say that I don't see a dichotomy there, that is essentially what I was driving at, I simply wasn't attributing its origins to the author of Matthew.

Right. Christians would be the only people interested in there being a prophetic connection between the messiah and "Nazarene," and they were strongly interested, so the myth was likely to have originated with a Christian community.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:16 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:17 pm
Posts: 2247
Location: Everywhere
So then you'd have Jesus alive during the second century, when the town of Nazareth came into existence?
Quote:
The Myth of Nazareth meticulously reviews the archaeology of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age to the present, and shows that the settlement of Nazareth came into existence in the early second century C.E., well after the time of Christ. In this study René Salm reviews all the structural and movable evidence from the first excavations in the late 19th century to the most recent reports. This review also encompasses the extensive secondary literature, found in books and reference articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Salm shows that traditional conclusions found in all these works regarding the settlement of Nazareth are radically inconsistent with the itemized evidence in the ground.

And so you have the author of Matthew trying to make this "Nazarene" living in a town established during the 'second century' when also these gospels actually appear into the historical record, appear as if he were foretold in the OT? Or do you have hard evidence proving that Nazareth was already established during the early first century as the Theologians and apologists love to assert or hard evidence for the book of Matthew as we know it before the late second century?

If we stick to hard facts and not Theological speculation then you've just provided a theory for a second century Jesus Christ born in the town of Nazareth that didn't exist until the second century...

Apostate Abe wrote:
Christians would be the only people interested in there being a prophetic connection between the messiah and "Nazarene," and they were strongly interested, so the myth was likely to have originated with a Christian community.

The motivation for the writer wanting to make Jesus a "Nazarene" is usually explained via the religious sects at the time that were competing with each other to have the savior figure mythology reflect their sect. In this case the Nazorite or Nazarene sect seems to have a hand in it. Were there any Nazorites living in Nazareth during the second century? And if so, would they have influenced the book of Matthew, for instance?

Apostate Abe wrote:
I have a list of aspects of the character of Jesus in these sources that are likely to be attributable to the human character of Jesus, in part as follows:
Jesus was a native of the town of Nazareth in Galilee.
Jesus was a son of Joseph and Mary and a brother of James.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
Jesus had twelve disciples.
Jesus predicted an imminent doomsday.
Jesus was betrayed by his disciple Judas.
Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem.

GA went through all of these. Instead of addressing him you dropped it and decided to focus on just Nazareth for a while because you said that these forums can be a waste of time. Really? Then why pray tell have you been posting over and over again as long as you have? It seems to only be a waste of time when you've confronted something that you have no choice but to drop. This of course happened in the debate and is a matter of public record at this point. You've repeated the same thing here with us now. You simply can't take the bible and try to prove the bible, with the bible. That's your first mistake.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:22 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4331
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Back to the topic of Bart Erhman and his not yet released e-book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph Atwill has written a blog about it and he has done a great job of pointing out the very serious flaws in a few methodologies that Bart Ehrman has incorporated into his own previous books. It's fair to assume that Dr. Erhman would use these same arguments in his e-book if it ever sees the light of day.

Quote:
"As there has been public interest in Ehrman’s forthcoming book indicating Jesus was historical, I thought it might be useful to critique the methods he has previously used to determine historicity.

Though Ehrman’s methodology to determine historicity is coherent, even if it were correctly applied it could never produce anything approaching certainty. In brief, Ehrman analyzes the Christian canon using principles he sees as useful in separating historical from fictional literature. For example, one principle is “multiple attestations” which maintains that many authors writing about an individual is stronger evidence of historicity than few. To give a simple example, by this principle four different Gospels are stronger evidence of history than one.

Here is an example of Ehrman’s application of the principle to the question of whether Jesus came from Nazareth:

But what if a story is found independently in more than one source? That story cannot have been made up by either source, since they are independent; it must predate them both. Stories found in multiple, independent sources therefore have a better likelihood of being older, and possibly authentic. . . . For example, both Matthew and Luke independently indicate that Jesus was raised in Nazareth, but their stories about how he got there differ, so one came from M and the other from L. Mark indicates the same thing. So does John, which did not use any of the Synoptics or their sources. Conclusion? It is independently attested: Jesus probably came from Nazareth.” (Jesus, Interrupted, p. 155)

Though the principle is logical, Ehrman’s use of it is not. He considers only coincidental fabrication versus historicity, while failing to consider the obvious possibility that independent groups recorded different versions of a fictional story. (In general, this possibility should not be overlooked when musing on the provenance of stories about people who rise from the dead.) To illustrate, a great number of contradictory stories about Hercules from a great number of authors would not make the character more historical. Ehrman is incorrect, the “probability” of Jesus coming from Nazareth cannot be determined by his technique.

- Criticism of Bart Ehrman’s Claim that Jesus was a Historical Character

There's much more, please read the full article.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Tat Tvam Asi, I think I am in the minority, in that I like to debate by focusing on a narrow range of topics. That is the way I learn, I believe that is the best way to learn, and obviously not so many other people agree with me, which may explain in part why I lost the debate at debate.org. "Gish galloping" is commonly accepted as a good debating technique. In this thread, I am not trying to win a debate. Again, I get the strong feeling that you do not want me here, and I am happy to leave if you will only say so. If you do want me here, then I can't explain your seeming personal affronts. Should I not share anything about me with you for fear that you will use such information to embarrass me?

I believe that Nazareth existed in the first century, because the synoptic gospels were written in the first century, and the archaeological evidence places the origins of Nazareth well before the first century, and its existence was continuous. I know that Rene Salm somehow thinks that Nazareth began in the 2nd century and no earlier, but the dating of the archaeological evidence can not possibly be unambiguous enough to warrant such a conclusion. The evidence is specific enough only to warrant dating to broad periods of time, such as the "Roman" period or the "Hellenistic" period, each lasting centuries. If any writing from the second century, fictional or not, presumes that Nazareth existed in the first century, then Nazareth very probably existed in the first century. If we have evidence that can be effectively dated prior to the first century, then I don't think there should be any mystery left about it. Rene Salm chose the second century seemingly because that is what serves his conclusion.

I chose to focus on Nazareth because that was the first on the list of topics. I am going to move on to the baptism of Jesus, and I will do that with a new thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm
Posts: 4331
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
ApostateAbe, you still haven't provided any links or references to your best evidence for a Nazareth.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:17 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
ApostateAbe, you still haven't provided any links or references to your best evidence for a Nazareth.

Well, I suppose this would be a good place to start:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nazareth, ... l&t=m&z=12

Beyond that, you can go to Wikipedia and you can find a pretty good rundown of the archaeological evidence pertaining to Nazareth around the time of Jesus. Go to the footnotes for further details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Archaeology


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 398 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group