Tellurian
Active Member
The biblical Jesus character in the gospels never existed, therefore, Judas of Galilee would have existed before the biblical Jesus character was invented,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
The biblical Jesus character in the gospels never existed, therefore, Judas of Galilee would have existed before the biblical Jesus character was invented,
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's unfounded because it doesn't logically follow that, on the basis of an unexcavated, not interdisciplanarily verifiable first century Roman bath-house that all of the sudden there is a Roman military camp.
Now if there was even a shred of proof that there was a military camp, I'd allow that possibility.
BUT SINCE ONLY A MINORITY OF BATH-HOUSES WERE PART OF ROMAN MILITARY CAMPS, we can't even begin to entertain the idea that this part of a camp.
The logic would have to be:
1) There were Romans in Palestine in the first century
2) there's a Roman bath in Nazareth
3) Roman baths were in Roman military camps
4) Therefore there must have been a Roman military camp at Nazareth
So I'll refute:
1) Yes. Obviously there were Romans in Palestine
2) Yes. There's a Roman bath in Nazareth, whose nature and date have not been verified by ANYONE. Yes, the Roman period is from about 100BCE-400CE. So yes, it could be first century, but it almost certainly isn't.
3) Yes. Roman baths were part of Roman military camps. But most baths were attached to other buildings and houses in an urban setting.
4) Yes, there were Roman military camps with bath-houses. But in Nazareth, the Roman bath-house is only evidence that a Roman-era bathhouse was in Nazareth. Maybe.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Judas of Galilee was actually Frankie the nutless monkey.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha ok
There's a lot more evidence for Jesus than there is for a Roman military camp in Nazareth.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No, no.
Judas was the messiah of the munchins from Dubinland
Jesus was the shebniah of Christians. Messiah is an unfortunate mistranslation.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You have 'clarified' nothing. All you have done is to beat around the bush. You made comments about my source as if to say it is not a credible one. In post #447, all you said in response to the info I posted from biblos.com was:
I never 'made up stuff about the Greek', as you claim.
...then you went on to harp about the city-state in 4 BCE, which has nothing to do with the question I have posed:
Is biblos.com correct or incorrect in translating 'polis' as 'town' and 'city'? I ask the question because of your downgrading my source. If it is incorrect in its translation of the words in question, show us where, that's all. What's the problem?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
See what I mean?
godnotgod
Thou art That
No! You have no adequate answer and you know it, so I won't pursue the issue with you any longer. I accept biblos.com,( as well as other sources), who translate 'polis' in the same manner. The NT writers meant 'town' or 'city', and that is rather obvious, because that is what they actually thought was the case. The Greek words for village and hamlet were available to them, as is apparent from their use elsewhere in the Bible, but chose not to use them, and to use 'polis' instead. The reality is that no such town or city even remotely existed; the site that is Nazareth today was a family farm and perhaps a funerary during the 1st century, at least until otherwise demonstrated via new archaeological finds.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha - too late. I've already refused to discuss it with you any longer.
It's like quitting when you've already gotten fired.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Sure you did. It was neither original nor entertaining, so it was three times a failure.
You can pretend you didn't make anything up and continue in such tiresome games, or at least for the love of Pete make up something good.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The wonderfully funny thing about all this is:
1) You don't know Greek, so you wouldn't know if you were making stuff up
2) Everything you know about history you learned from spam. So you wouldn't know there, either.
:biglaugh:
godnotgod
Thou art That
You have a bad habit of making statements without qualifying them or even pointing to what your're talking about, as if all you need to do is open your mouth and we all need to accept what you claim on face value, because you are an established 'authority' of some sort.
'That's crap', 'this is a joke', 'they have no credibllity', 'you are ignorant', (a favorite), and fallingblood's constant 'you don't know what you're talking about!'.
Now, if you want to get down off your high horse and answer a simple question without raising all the dust that you do, by all means. Otherwise, I am tired of you and your machinations while pretending that you actually know something.
I have made nothing up. The translation of 'polis' into 'town' and 'city' comes direct from biblos.com, as my links indicate, and yes, I consider biblos.com far more knowledgable than you in this matter.
The only thing that is 'made up' is that a city called Nazareth actually existed in the 1st century, a concoction which modern archeaology shows us is not factual.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Lookie here, tenderfoot: it is rather obvious that you fall back on pedantry and intellectual one-upsmanship in order to try to appear credible.
'Oh, you don't know Greek, so blah blah blah'
If you were in possession of any real scholarship regarding this matter, you would know that snobbish condescension is not the right approach. You would have quietly answered the very simple question at hand several pages back. Instead, you decided to make a fuss, while avoiding the issue and claiming some sort of superior knowledge that the rest of us are incapable of understanding, and so why bother to explain, etc, etc. You want to mystify the issue so no one will question its veracity, and that has been the case with you and fallingblood all along.
What you really seem to be saying, in keeping in line with your brand of 'logic', is that biblos.com does not know Greek, and is rather sophomoric in its depth of knowledge.
As I stated, I will not pursue an answer from you, because it is obvious at this point that you really have no answer, but as long as you continue with peripheral comments, accusations, and false claims, I will continue to address them.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You refused because you have no answer;
I refused because you have no answer.
So we agree!
godnotgod
Thou art That
...while you may actually know Greek, you still don't know Jack ****!
In other words, while you are filled with something or other, it's all just so many empty calories.
Sometimes, in fact quite often, the informed consensus is accurate.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Really? Was biblios.com so stupid as to say that it's incorrect to translate "Nazareth" as "city" because polis has to mean an independent city-state?
That's an exquisite mixture of ignorance of Greek and very, very poor knowledge of history.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Which archaeological report from the digs at Nazareth indicate such a thing?
Making up stuff is fun, but for Pete's sake do a better job.
Why feed it?
godnotgod
Thou art That
I previously stated that the idea of 'polis' meaning 'city-state' had nothing to do with the question at hand. I had mentioned the city-state because that is what Wikipedia said 'polis' meant, straight up.