No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[godnotgod]

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.

Which one demonstrates the presence of a 1st century city or town called Nazareth?

 

[godnotgod]

Sometimes, in fact quite often, the informed consensus is accurate.

Yeah, like when they were convinced the Sun orbited around the earth, and when they carried out the 400-year long Inquisition without batting an eyelash....and the Nazis and the Jews... Then there was the time when.....and furthermore.... :biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

I dont always agree with this but.

It is the general thought on the subject in realization that there is a gray area about certain facts.

But, there was a very very small village in jesus time that was not described accurately due to oral tradition and a growing theology written by men who never heard or witnessed the jesus charactor.

there is very little evidence other then scripture that points to a first century village as said village would not leave much. What evidence we do have points to people living there 67ad and later but that doesnt mean there were not people there before. they have just left so little.

because so little is known it could leave allot to the imagination of those who dont have all the specific facts at hand that histotians sift through to make their calls.

 

[Tellurian]

haha ok

There's a lot more evidence for Jesus than there is for a Roman military camp in Nazareth.

What you call "evidence" would not hold up in court. We have physical evidence of a military style Roman bath house from the first century buried beneath modern Nazareth, but we have NO physical evidence for the alleged biblical Jesus.

We have no bones. We have no ossuary. We have no tombstone (except the one for the Roman soldier Pantera who some say was his father). We have no writings from him. We have no mention of his existence from first century Jewish historians such as Philo of Alexandria or Flavius Josephis (despite some 4th century redacted passages that the naive and gullible WANT TO BELIEVE came from Josephus). We do not have any mention of him from Roman or other first century, non-Jewish sources. We do not have any evidence that the alleged home/hamlet/village/city of "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in the early first century. We do not have any mention of "Nazareth" in the Talmud or the Old Testament. His story in the gospels seems to have been copied from the stories of other persons found in the works of Josephus, and from other persons such as Apollonius of Tyana, and from OT predictions that were used to make it look like he had supposedly fulfilled old prophesies.

We have physical evidence for a Roman presence in early first century "Nazareth", but where is your physical evidence for your biblical Jesus?

 

[godnotgod]

But, there was a very very small village in jesus time that was not described accurately due to oral tradition ....

As far as archaeology is concerned, there was one house, wine presses, farm implements, tombs, etc. but NO village or hamlet. You have more up-to-date evidence to the contrary? Tell us about this 'village' you say existed 'in Jesus time'. Could it be that they were made of gingerbread and the Cookie Monster ate them all up? :biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

We have physical evidence of a military style Roman bath house from the first century buried beneath modern Nazareth

false

you have a tourist attraction

the date is not certain and no real work has been done to date it.

 

[outhouse]

As far as archaeology is concerned, there was one house, wine presses, farm implements, tombs, etc. but NO village or hamlet. You have more up-to-date evidence to the contrary? Tell us about this 'village' you say existed 'in Jesus time'. Could it be that they were made of gingerbread and the Cookie Monster ate them all up? :biglaugh:

you can denounce modern scholarship all you like

doesnt make you right because you believe what you will from biased sources

 

[fallingblood]

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.

Just so you are aware, various other villages, in the Gospels, are also called cities. Just look at Bethlehem. Definitely not a city. It was a village, yet it was still called a city in the Bible. So we do have precedence, in the Gospels, for a village to be called a city. That being so, you really don't have an argument.

 

[fallingblood]

What you call "evidence" would not hold up in court. We have physical evidence of a military style Roman bath house from the first century buried beneath modern Nazareth, but we have NO physical evidence for the alleged biblical Jesus.

That is just asinine to say. We are not talking about court here. The evidence does not have to hold up in court. That is not what history is about (and much of the evidence in history would not hold up in court, because we are talking about two different types of evidence, we are talking about different types of research, we are talking about completely different subjects).

And again, you have not shown any evidence that the bath house is from the first century. You do not have evidence of such. Your sources could not even point to actual evidence.

We have no bones. We have no ossuary. We have no tombstone (except the one for the Roman soldier Pantera who some say was his father). We have no writings from him. We have no mention of his existence from first century Jewish historians such as Philo of Alexandria or Flavius Josephis (despite some 4th century redacted passages that the naive and gullible WANT TO BELIEVE came from Josephus). We do not have any mention of him from Roman or other first century, non-Jewish sources. We do not have any evidence that the alleged home/hamlet/village/city of "Jesus of Nazareth" existed in the early first century. We do not have any mention of "Nazareth" in the Talmud or the Old Testament. His story in the gospels seems to have been copied from the stories of other persons found in the works of Josephus, and from other persons such as Apollonius of Tyana, and from OT predictions that were used to make it look like he had supposedly fulfilled old prophesies.

Now you are just closing your eyes to the evidence. Flavius Josephus does write about Jesus. I have shown this to be true. You have yet to provide a rebuttal to my thread, or even to my response to your links. You really have no argument here, so it is asinine to just repeat yourself over and over again even though you have no evidence.

Josephus is more than enough. Add to that Paul, and the Gospels, and we have more than enough evidence that Jesus existed. Now, instead of just repeating yourself and ignoring all of the evidence that is stacking up against you, maybe you would like to put up for once. Offer some logical rebuttals. You should probably start with Josephus. Otherwise, all that you're showing is that your ignorant and blindly following garbage.

We have physical evidence for a Roman presence in early first century "Nazareth", but where is your physical evidence for your biblical Jesus?

We have more evidence for Jesus, than for the so called evidence of Roman presence in Nazareth. Really, all that you are showing is that you have massive blinders on and will ignore all the evidence that points contrary to your biased and uniformed view.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, like when they were convinced the Sun orbited around the earth, and when they carried out the 400-year long Inquisition without batting an eyelash....and the Nazis and the Jews...

You're babbling - it does little to restore your credibility. That you would opportunistically seek to manipulate the Shoah to your benefit is a particularly disgusting piece of drivel that I will remember.

 

[Tellurian]

false

you have a tourist attraction

the date is not certain and no real work has been done to date it.

The place is a "tourist attraction" now because the owner is not getting any financial help to expand his excavations. He hopes that by showing the bath house he may be able to raise additional funding for more exploration of the area. The Roman military bath house in Nazareth is not the only one that has been found. Another Roman military bath house was found in Jerusalem.

Ancient Roman soldiers' bathhouse found in Jerusalem - CNN

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah, like when they were convinced the Sun orbited around the earth, and when they carried out the 400-year long Inquisition without batting an eyelash....and the Nazis and the Jews... Then there was the time when.....and furthermore.... :biglaugh:

So you consider these the result of informed consensus.

Well, now we can see what you're definition of "information" amounts to, not that most of us couldn't already.

 

[fallingblood]

The place is a "tourist attraction" now because the owner is not getting any financial help to expand his excavations. He hopes that by showing the bath house he may be able to raise additional funding for more exploration of the area. The Roman military bath house in Nazareth is not the only one that has been found. Another Roman military bath house was found in Jerusalem.

Ancient Roman soldiers' bathhouse found in Jerusalem - CNN

Just because anther one has been found does not mean that the structure in Nazareth is a Roman bath house or comes from the first century. You are trying to make a claim that simply is not supported by the evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Just because anther one has been found does not mean that the structure in Nazareth is a Roman bath house or comes from the first century. You are trying to make a claim that simply is not supported by the evidence.

a 135AD bath house in another town has nothing at all to do with evidence of habitation in Nazareth pre 67AD.

only imagination could link the two

I agree

 

[godnotgod]

you can denounce modern scholarship all you like

doesnt make you right because you believe what you will from biased sources

Excuse me? Modern scholarship? You mean the one that magically transforms the hard findings of a single house into a village you claim existed? Now who's believing in 'biased sources'? I'm just trying to follow the facts, and the fact is that a single dwelling a village does not make. Unless, of course.....

 

[godnotgod]

So you consider these the result of informed consensus.

Well, now we can see what you're definition of "information" amounts to, not that most of us couldn't already.

Why are you trying to pin the definition on me? I am not the one who held these beliefs to be informed consensus, but those who believed them did. Those who tortured and murdered for the Inquisition did so in the belief that they were doing it for the good of the victim's soul. 'Informed consensus' is not necessarily based on accurate information. Did'nt we learn that from George Bush and his completely faulty sources, upon which crucial decisions were made in the name of 'informed consensus'?

I maintain that those who hold, via of 'informed consensus', that Jesus was a real historical figure, are basing such a notion on faulty information.

 

[godnotgod]

Just so you are aware, various other villages, in the Gospels, are also called cities. Just look at Bethlehem. Definitely not a city. It was a village, yet it was still called a city in the Bible. So we do have precedence, in the Gospels, for a village to be called a city. That being so, you really don't have an argument.

Again, you are referring to the the use of the word 'city' in the NT, many decades AFTER the time of Jesus. When you say 'city', do you mean the Greek 'polis'?

 

[Quagmire]

Why are you trying to pin the definition on me?

Because you're the one who came up with it:

Sometimes, in fact quite often, the informed consensus is accurate.

Yeah, like when they were convinced the Sun orbited around the earth, and when they carried out the 400-year long Inquisition without batting an eyelash....and the Nazis and the Jews... Then there was the time when.....and furthermore.... :biglaugh:

Obviously, you consider all of the above instances of people acting in accordance with informed consensus.

I

am not the one who held these beliefs to be informed consensus,

But even in retrospect you're offering them as examples thereof. At least the people acting upon them at the time had the excuse of being misled.

but those who believed them did. Those who tortured and murdered for the Inquisition did so in the belief that they were doing it for the good of the victim's soul. 'Informed consensus' is not necessarily based on accurate information.

In that case it's mis-informed consensus. You should attempt to make that distinction. It's an important one.

Did'nt we learn that from George Bush and his completely faulty sources, upon which crucial decisions were made in the name of 'informed consensus'?

I maintain that those who hold, via of 'informed consensus', that Jesus was a real historical figure, are basing such a notion on faulty information.

You hold that, and apparently no one is going to be able to get you to let go of it long enough to take a look at what the other side is saying.

You can't just dismiss arguments that disagree with yours just because they disagree with yours and then consider your own validated. A claim of "truth" isn't validated by the stubbornness or obstinacy of it's proponents.

There's a difference between disagreement and disregard.

You aren't disagreeing with what's been said to you in this read so far, you've merely been disregarding it.

 

[godnotgod]

You're babbling - it does little to restore your credibility. That you would opportunistically seek to manipulate the Shoah to your benefit is a particularly disgusting piece of drivel that I will remember.

I have nothing to gain by using the Shoah as an example of 'informed consensus', as misinformed as the basis for it's motives were.

Did the Nazis firmly believe that what they were doing was the right thing to do? Did they think their actions were of a superior nature, intellectually, spiritually, racially, or otherwise?

 

[godnotgod]

Because you're the one who came up with it:

No, I did not; it was already in place. I just took note of it to demonstrate that what the majority may consider to be 'informed consensus' is not necessarily so.

[/COLOR]

Obviously, you consider all of the above instances of people acting in accordance with informed consensus.

I think you are misunderstanding something here: what I consider is that they are acting in accordance with the belief that their consensus is an informed one, when, in fact, it is mis-informed.

I

But even in retrospect you're offering them as examples thereof. At least the people acting upon them at the time had the excuse of being misled.

What is the diff between they and those who believe, via 'informed consensus', that Jesus is a real historical figure and is to be taken seriously? The potential for being misled is huge, since they won't know if they're being misled until after death.

[/COLOR]

In that case it's mis-informed consensus. You should attempt to make that distinction. It's an important one.

Yes, of course, but I thought that was all too clear due to the way I initially responded. Of course I do not believe the examples I gave to be the result of any kind of valid information, in exactly the same way that I do not take the notion of a historical Jesus seriously.

What I am saying is that people can operate under what they consider to be 'informed consensus', when, in fact, they are operating under completely mis-informed consensus. All of the examples I provided demonstrate that condition. From our modern point of view, we now know them to be falsehoods, but at the time they came into being, they were considered as valid views.

[/COLOR]

You hold that, and apparently no one is going to be able to get you to let go of it long enough to take a look at what the other side is saying.

I have responded squarely to what they are saying in almost every instance. If you go back and look at the record, I think you will find that to be the case. It's just that I am no longer in the realm of belief or not-belief; I have already made a decision based upon the story as a whole. There is nothing that one can come up with at this point to show me that there is a valid argument on the 'other side'. I base my decision on what I know intuitively to be false. There are some things that just don't hold water, and modern Christianity is one of them.

You can't just dismiss arguments that disagree with yours just because they disagree with yours and then consider your own validated. A claim of "truth" isn't validated by the stubbornness or obstinacy of it's proponents.

There's a difference between disagreement and disregard.

I agree 100% with the above, but as I stated, I have NOT disregarded the arguments, in spite of the fact that I have made a decision. You know, it is sort of like the Theory of Evolution: we all KNOW it to be true, yet we still leave room for exploration and adjustment. However, the Theory of Evolution is not dogma; it is a DYNAMIC system; religious belief systems ARE dogma, and are STATIC. If anything, it is rigid dogma which is disregarding the argument, based upon FACTS, that Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century, nor did any 'Jesus', as described in the Gospels. So to persist in the argument that such a place existed, in light of the hard evidence that it did NOT, is to disregard the FACTS.

What I see here is that some are attempting to manipulate the facts to fit the dogma. They begin with the premise that their belief system is Absolute Truth. Belief and Absolute Truth for them are interchangeable, and any inconvenient facts which come along must be subjugated to the belief system. When the belief system makes certain claims which the facts indicate are false, then those claims must be challenged. That is all that is happening here, from the first post with Randi doing the challenging. OK? That's the way we see it.

You aren't disagreeing with what's been said to you in this read so far, you've merely been disregarding it.

Show me where.