No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

There's only one example from the classical period of polis and kome used interchangeably:

Herodotos calls Athelea a polis in 7.176.2 and a kome in 7.200.2 /// Alpenos is a polis in 7.176.5 but a kome in 7.216.1.

"In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, on the other hand, the terminology fluctuated and a settlement called polis by one author is often called kome by another and vice versa..."

Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis by Mogens Herman Hansen, Kurt A. Raaflaub
page 62

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Next time godnotgod, please for the love of Pete make up something funny.

 

[fallingblood]

godnotgod- Your ignorance and willful attempt to ignore all of the evidence that is stacking up against you is just incredible. Instead of going point by point with you, which really is not worth my time, I will break down everything simply for you.

First, Josephus is more than enough evidence for Jesus. Here is my argument for the authenticity of his passages: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html. As for not being a contemporary or knowing Jesus first hand, that really is not necessary. If that was necessary, then most of history would have to be thrown away. In fact, the vast majority of the information that you've said is not from first hand accounts either. Really, that is not a requirement. The fact is, most scholars accept that Josephus mentioned Jesus. He didn't call Jesus Christ, he just mentioned that Jesus was called Christ. I explain that all in my thread. Until you can make a logical rebuttal to the information in my thread, I consider this part of the discussion over.

Second, you have the burden of proof. I have shown more than enough evidence for Jesus. Josephus is more than enough evidence. If you can't show that Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, then you really have no argument.

It doesn't matter if the idea of Jesus being a historical figure is not an informed opinion in your idea. That doesn't take away from the fact that the vast majority of scholars accept that it is an informed opinion. I can tell from what you've said up to this point though that you have read absolutely no scholarly information on the subject. But that is all regardless. You have the burden of proof. You need to put up or shut up.

Finally, you can deny all you want (really, it just shows that your research is lacking, as I pointed out in my previous post), but Bethlehem, according to the archeological findings, was just a village in the first century (and again, the source you provided did not cover Bethlehem during this time period). That is definite proof that the Gospel writers used the word polis to describe villages. Add to that everything that A_E has been saying, and there really is no denying that villages were also described by the word polis.

Now it is time for you to address the information and stop just running around in circles like a chicken with its head cut off.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hey fallingblood - I may have missed it, but have you seen "hamlet" described as a polis/kome (or vice-versa)? I think that it's a perfectly good translation and captures what Nazareth was -- I'm just curious.

It seems to me that we really wouldn't know from polis/kome how large a settlement the author refers to, unless of course the author clarifies herself or we have some other information to help us.

 

[Tellurian]

First, Josephus is more than enough evidence for Jesus.

Not true. Josephus NEVER wrote about the biblical Jesus. Forged passages about the biblical Jesus were redacted into the works of Josephus in the 4th century. I see you continue to ignore a_e and his statement several pages back that discussions of Josephus should be started on a new thread instead of corrupting this Nazareth thread. I am still waiting for a separate thread on Josephus.

The fact is, most scholars accept that Josephus mentioned Jesus.

Anyone who believes the passages about the biblical Jesus were written by Josephus is certainly not a "scholar". They are just naive, gullible, and ignorant of the scholarly analyses regarding the redacted interpolations. There are a few desperate Christians who try to hold on by "believing" that part of the forged passages were written by Josephus and just "expanded" by later copiers, because without the passages placed into the works of Josephus there would be NO EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE NT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE BIBLICAL JESUS.

Second, you have the burden of proof. I have shown more than enough evidence for Jesus. Josephus is more than enough evidence

.

You have shown NO evidence

If you can't show that Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, then you really have no argument.

I can agree with you there.

 

[fallingblood]

Hey fallingblood - I may have missed it, but have you seen "hamlet" described as a polis/kome (or vice-versa)? I think that it's a perfectly good translation and captures what Nazareth was -- I'm just curious.

It seems to me that we really wouldn't know from polis/kome how large a settlement the author refers to, unless of course the author clarifies herself or we have some other information to help us.

Off the top of my head, I really can't recall of seeing hamlet, but then again defining a hamlet is difficult as well.

I personally call Nazareth a hamlet, but from the last that I read, Bethlehem, during that time, may not have been much bigger than Nazareth. The last report I saw placed the population of Bethlehem at 300-1000. Off the top of my head, that seems to be in the general vicinity of what the population of Nazareth was as well. Then I know there is also debate as to whether or not that constitutes a hamlet or village.

But then again, the Greek I've read is basically the NT (in part) and some comedies (so I could be missing a lot).

 

[fallingblood]

Not true. Josephus NEVER wrote about the biblical Jesus. Forged passages about the biblical Jesus were redacted into the works of Josephus in the 4th century. I see you continue to ignore a_e and his statement several pages back that discussions of Josephus should be started on a new thread instead of corrupting this Nazareth thread. I am still waiting for a separate thread on Josephus.

You keep repeating this, but you haven't backed up the claim. As for the separate thread on Josephus, why not just go here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html
I've invited you multiple times now to offer a rebuttal to my argument. And actually, that is where I keep directing you. So really, you have no excuses. There is a separate thread for Josephus, and there has been for longer than this thread has been in existence.

Anyone who believes the passages about the biblical Jesus were written by Josephus is certainly not a "scholar". They are just naive, gullible, and ignorant of the scholarly analyses regarding the redacted interpolations. There are a few desperate Christians who try to hold on by "believing" that part of the forged passages were written by Josephus and just "expanded" by later copiers, because without the passages placed into the works of Josephus there would be NO EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE NT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE BIBLICAL JESUS.

That's funny. Instead of dealing with the passage, you just try to dismiss everyone who opposes your idea. That is just asinine. As for the scholarly analyses, if you read my thread, you would see that I consult a number of different scholars. If you are aware of modern scholarship, there are only really 3 pieces of literature that has been written recently that claim that the passage is a complete forgery.

More so, both agnostic and Jewish scholars agree that they passages are at least partially authentic.

So really, you have no point here. If you looked at my thread that I started on the subject, you would see that I offer a rebuttal to all of your points.

.

You have shown NO evidence

I guess if you close your eyes and pretend, you would be correct. However, if you read the thread on Josephus, you would see that my argument sticks. You haven't shown any reason to deny the partial authenticity of the TF, or complete authenticity of the shorter passage. You can also go over to my thread and debate it if you want though. Maybe you can finally put up for once, instead of just repeating the same ignorant and tired ideas.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Off the top of my head, I really can't recall of seeing hamlet, but then again defining a hamlet is difficult as well.

I personally call Nazareth a hamlet, but from the last that I read, Bethlehem, during that time, may not have been much bigger than Nazareth. The last report I saw placed the population of Bethlehem at 300-1000. Off the top of my head, that seems to be in the general vicinity of what the population of Nazareth was as well. Then I know there is also debate as to whether or not that constitutes a hamlet or village.

But then again, the Greek I've read is basically the NT (in part) and some comedies (so I could be missing a lot).

I just don't use the word "hamlet." I don't hear it, either.

That just may betray your age.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But then again, the Greek I've read is basically the NT (in part) and some comedies (so I could be missing a lot).

Yes, you are. :yes:

Don't worry, you'll have 10 years in your doctoral program to get caught up. :biglaugh:

 

[crystalonyx]

"Josephus is more than enough evidence for Jesus."

Except his very short references to some "Jesus" are considered forgeries by many scholars,
since they are out of context with the rest of the passeges, and were very odd statements to
make for one of Jewish heritage.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Josephus is more than enough evidence for Jesus."

Except his very short references to some "Jesus" are considered forgeries by many scholars,
since they are out of context with the rest of the passeges, and were very odd statements to
make for one of Jewish heritage.

Such as?

From the mighty wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testamentum_Flavianum#Authenticity

Recent scholarly discussion has favoured partial authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum.[31] Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".[32]

 

[fallingblood]

"Josephus is more than enough evidence for Jesus."

Except his very short references to some "Jesus" are considered forgeries by many scholars,
since they are out of context with the rest of the passeges, and were very odd statements to
make for one of Jewish heritage.

Incorrect. The short passage is almost universally accepted as authentic. I am not going to go into much detail as I already have here http://http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, you are. :yes:

Don't worry, you'll have 10 years in your doctoral program to get caught up. :biglaugh:

:thud: And just think, if I became an Internet scholar, I wouldn't need any schooling.

 

[krsnaraja]

This is my first time to reply to this thread simply because the title alone I can`t understand. Why 1st century & not 2nd century? & what evidence I should look for to disprove that there`s indeed an evidence? The debate here goes round & round no end to this issue. No amount of evidence needed of a 1st century Nazareth if he believes it`s only a myth but those who have faith & believe in him, no amount of evidence is needed.

 

[fallingblood]

This is my first time to reply to this thread simply because the title alone I can`t understand. Why 1st century & not 2nd century? & what evidence I should look for to disprove that there`s indeed an evidence? The debate here goes round & round no end to this issue. No amount of evidence needed of a 1st century Nazareth if he believes it`s only a myth but those who have faith & believe in him, no amount of evidence is needed.

When looking at it from a historical perspective, there is an amount of evidence needed. We are not talking about just faith here. For me, looking at it from a historical perspective, I am not going to believe Nazareth existed just for the sake of believing it existed. When I formed my idea, I looked at the information, and what scholars had to say.

Those who deny it, I agree that no amount of evidence, for many of them, will change their minds. However, that is because their idea is based on willfully ignoring any evidence that might contradict their view point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is my first time to reply to this thread simply because the title alone I can`t understand. Why 1st century & not 2nd century? & what evidence I should look for to disprove that there`s indeed an evidence? The debate here goes round & round no end to this issue. No amount of evidence needed of a 1st century Nazareth if he believes it`s only a myth but those who have faith & believe in him, no amount of evidence is needed.

Ancient cities didn't just fall from the sky. A lot of these places could have been inhabited on and off for quite some time.

And we have the ancient biblical and few extrabiblical references, and at least some archaeological evidence from the Roman era. If Nazareth was around in the second century, chances are that the area had been inhabited for quite some time because the area would be near a water source and reasonably defensible geographically - the aspects that make an ancient site attractive for settlement don't change - and if they do, the people leave.

A significant problem is that Nazareth isn't fully excavated yet, and comparatively speaking, almost nothing has been reported by archaeologists aside from some religiously based expeditions.

EDIT: To me, if someone were to insist that there was a Roman bath-house in Nazareth -- dated from 100BCE-400CE, that would be a very strong argument that Nazareth had been there for some time before that. Or the Romans could have founded the city or a military camp with no administrative record, monument, letter, or any other indication that the Romans even knew that there was a military interest or a new city there.

 

[krsnaraja]

Ancient cities didn't just fall from the sky. A lot of these places could have been inhabited on and off for quite some time.

And we have the ancient biblical and few extrabiblical references, and at least some archaeological evidence from the Roman era. If Nazareth was around in the second century, chances are that the area had been inhabited for quite some time because the area would be near a water source and reasonably defensible geographically - the aspects that make an ancient site attractive for settlement don't change - and if they do, the people leave.

A significant problem is that Nazareth isn't fully excavated yet, and comparatively speaking, almost nothing has been reported by archaeologists aside from some religiously based expeditions.
.

Nazareth is Atlantis or Dwaraka. You have to dig deeper & deeper. Until, you discover it always there. The archeologues just don`t know where to find it. It`s because they probably don`t pray to Jesus of Nazareth for him to find Nazareth for them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

By the way: If Nazareth were a Roman city or military camp, PERHAPS IT WOULD HAVE A LATIN NAME.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nazareth is Atlantis or Dwaraka. You have to dig deeper & deeper. Until, you discover it always there. The archeologues just don`t know where to find it. It`s because they probably don`t pray to Jesus of Nazareth for him to find Nazareth for them.

My god that's hilarious.

This is just what I'm looking for, godnotgod!

Greetings from the planet Zarkon, my friend.

We come in pieces! Boot to heel!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nazareth is Atlantis or Dwaraka. You have to dig deeper & deeper. Until, you discover it always there. The archeologues just don`t know where to find it. It`s because they probably don`t pray to Jesus of Nazareth for him to find Nazareth for them.

Reply to my posts any time.

I love this ****!