-
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
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes!
I am certain that they make up Zarkonian, the language of the great Zarkos.
If not, they could make up something nice.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Wow. I don't even know where to start. From reading what krsnaraja has to say, I might just go start digging a hole in my back yard and see what I come up with.
hey fallingblood:
I expect a lucid and intelligent response to this post.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, it's good to see how the other side lives.
Just think - when we dig deeper we are going to discover that Nazareth is Atlantis. I was thinking about those poor grad students who excavate Nazareth and suddenly fall into the sea.
That makes me long for our other friends, who were at least in a similar thought world.
I can see Plato: that's NOT what I was talking about.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Holy crap. lol
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No posts on this thread for more than 24 hours.
I claim this thread for Spain!
I claim this thread for Spain!
Tellurian
Active Member
Jerusalem was destroyed and the Roman city Aelia Capitolina was built on the site, so why doesn't the city still have its Latin name?
Tellurian
Active Member
fb
Apparently you are not familiar with the long history of people considering the Testimonium Flavianum to be forgery. Back in the 15th and 16th century there were those who considered it to be forgery, but were not too open about saying so due to the Inquisition. Christians claimed that the passages in Antiquities supposedly proved the existence of the biblical Jesus, but the Jews said there were no such passages in the Hebrew language versions of Antiquities.
Claiming that the "passages are at least partially authentic" is simply a way of admitting that the passages are redacted interpolations that were added about 200 years after Josephus had died, but desperately trying to hang on to some reduced version for which there is no support in the remaining text of Josephus.
Obviously, since Josephus had written about John the Baptist and James the Just and Pontius Pilate they were simply used by the gospel writers who were creating a composite biblical Jesus in order to try to provide some kind of connection to real people for the fictional biblical Jesus the gospel writers were creating. Since the gospel writers had added those real people to the gospel stories in order to make it look like biblical Jesus had been a real person, Eusebius of Caesarea simply did the reverse by adding the biblical Jesus character to the works of Josephus to make it look like his existence had been validated by Josephus.
Apparently you are not familiar with the long history of people considering the Testimonium Flavianum to be forgery. Back in the 15th and 16th century there were those who considered it to be forgery, but were not too open about saying so due to the Inquisition. Christians claimed that the passages in Antiquities supposedly proved the existence of the biblical Jesus, but the Jews said there were no such passages in the Hebrew language versions of Antiquities.
Claiming that the "passages are at least partially authentic" is simply a way of admitting that the passages are redacted interpolations that were added about 200 years after Josephus had died, but desperately trying to hang on to some reduced version for which there is no support in the remaining text of Josephus.
Obviously, since Josephus had written about John the Baptist and James the Just and Pontius Pilate they were simply used by the gospel writers who were creating a composite biblical Jesus in order to try to provide some kind of connection to real people for the fictional biblical Jesus the gospel writers were creating. Since the gospel writers had added those real people to the gospel stories in order to make it look like biblical Jesus had been a real person, Eusebius of Caesarea simply did the reverse by adding the biblical Jesus character to the works of Josephus to make it look like his existence had been validated by Josephus.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Can you stop saying, "apparently you are not familiar with...?" Because really, you have no idea what I am familiar with or not, and by saying such, you only look like a fool.
Honestly though, I don't care what people in the 15th and 16th century thought about the TF. Really, we have discovered better copies, we understand the language more, and we have better scholarship in general. More so, the first real mention of Jesus not existing didn't come until 1791. Up to that point, we don't really have evidence of people questioning the existence of Jesus. More so, the passage of Josephus was not used to support the idea that Jesus existed. Why? Because no one was doubting that Jesus didn't exist. I mean, it wasn't until 1850-52 that a scholar actually took the position that Jesus didn't exist. And even then, it was largely ignored. So no, the TF really wasn't used to show that Jesus existed.
More so, if you did your research, the Jews, for quite some time, ignored Josephus in general. In fact, they saw Josephus as a traitor. It was Christians who kept the work in writing. And from what we can see with the history, Jewish scholars agree that the passage is at least partially authentic. Really, you're just doing poor research. As a side note, I cover this all in my thread on the subject, which you continue to avoid. Why?
No, saying that they are at least partially authentic is being honest to the scholarship that has been done on them. We can look at the passages, and see that there are some interpolations. And we can see what those interpolations are. The fact that Christians, Jewish, Agnostic, etc scholars accept this to be true is quite telling.
And even if we ignore the TF, we have another passage in Josephus that is nearly universally accepted as being authentic.
Mark, Matthew, and Luke were written before Josephus's work. So no, the Gospel writers did not rely on Josephus or use his work to add to theirs. The fact that Paul also mentions some of these ideas, well before Josephus was writing, shows that your idea simply is illogical.
You have no evidence that Eusebius added Jesus to the passages. In fact, you really haven't made any real argument besides repeating that they are forgeries. Maybe you can now take the time and move this discussion over to my thread on Josephus and Jesus, which I have linked to many many times. And maybe, just maybe, you can finally actually make a rebuttal to my argument instead of avoiding it and making lame excuses.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Tellurian
Active Member
fb
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that the four gospel books were written in the first century. There is no evidence for their existence before the mid to late second century. Some Christians "believe" they were written in the first century simply because they WANT TO BELIEVE they were written then.
The first gospel we have for Isu Chrestos, aka Jesus Christ, was written about 140 CE , and it was called the Euangelion. The Euangelion was later modified by the Christians and renamed the gospel of Luke. The gospels called Mark and Matthew were copied from "Luke". Later, Irenaeus felt there were some errors in Luke, Mark, and Matthew so he wrote a new gospel which became known as John. All four biblical gospels were created in the later half on the second century, NOT the later half of the first century, so there was plenty of time to take information out of the works of Josephus to create the gospel stories.
As for not believing in the existence of the biblical Jesus, you seem to have forgotten what happened in the early 4th century when there were more than 50 different gospel stories about the biblical Jesus character, but those choosing which gospel stories were going to be included in their new testament went through the different gospel stories deciding, "Nope, that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist" until they decided all the Jesus characters did not exist except for the character created in the four gospel stories they decided to keep for their new testament.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that the four gospel books were written in the first century. There is no evidence for their existence before the mid to late second century. Some Christians "believe" they were written in the first century simply because they WANT TO BELIEVE they were written then.
The first gospel we have for Isu Chrestos, aka Jesus Christ, was written about 140 CE , and it was called the Euangelion. The Euangelion was later modified by the Christians and renamed the gospel of Luke. The gospels called Mark and Matthew were copied from "Luke". Later, Irenaeus felt there were some errors in Luke, Mark, and Matthew so he wrote a new gospel which became known as John. All four biblical gospels were created in the later half on the second century, NOT the later half of the first century, so there was plenty of time to take information out of the works of Josephus to create the gospel stories.
As for not believing in the existence of the biblical Jesus, you seem to have forgotten what happened in the early 4th century when there were more than 50 different gospel stories about the biblical Jesus character, but those choosing which gospel stories were going to be included in their new testament went through the different gospel stories deciding, "Nope, that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist, and that Jesus did not exist" until they decided all the Jesus characters did not exist except for the character created in the four gospel stories they decided to keep for their new testament.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Now make up a good Latin name for your Roman military camp at Nazareth.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Well I guess if you say so it must be true. I mean, really, even though pretty much every scholar would disagree with you, and you really have no logical support, it must be right. So when are you going to write a book with your findings? I'm sure many others would be interested in hearing how you single handedly turned NT scholarship on it's head.
So, even though we have a fragment of John dating to about 125 C.E., Irenaeus (which possibly predates his birth, or is right around that time) still wrote it? How is that logical at all?
There is a reason why virtually all scholars date Mark to about 70 C.E., and all of the canonical Gospels in the first century. That is what the internal and external evidence shows. I mean, it is accepted that Marcion took Luke and modified it into his Gospel. Not the other way around, as there is no evidence for that.
And really, it is not just Christians who accept what I am saying. Scholarship as a whole does. That includes Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, etc.
Again, claiming that you know what I have forgotten or the like. Seriously, just give up man.
As for your scenario, I guess if you're talking to a bumbling monkey, it might pass. But if you knew anything about the formation of the Canon, you would see that the four Gospels had been accepted by Orthodox Christianity long before the fourth century. Even before the Council of Nicaea, the NT canon was somewhat set. And the council didn't vote on which books when into the canon either. Constantine simply ordered for copies to be made. There is no suggestion that there was a committee looking through the books and determining which ones were good or not. In fact, for quite some time after the council, there were still debates about the canon. Those debates lasted for centuries later.
Really, your knowledge of the formation of the NT canon is drastically lacking. It is almost laughable. You know if it wasn't so saddening.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
It was probably Chrestos. That is how they got the last name of Christ for Jesus.
Tellurian
Active Member
What was Nazareth's Latin name?
If there was no Nazareth, then there would have been no Latin name for a city that did not exist.
outhouse
Atheistically
what are you doing???? making this stuff up as you go???? :slap:
Marcion had a nice little collection in 150AD that is not up for dispute and was laughed at for taking the other known gospels and not including them in his works.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
But you haven't shown that there was no city. You claimed that there was a Roman bath house there, so obviously there must have been a city, or something. What was the Latin name of that something?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
There would be a Latin name for the military camp! :biglaugh:
You're the best