No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

I have given you explanations, and knowing that you would reject my explanations as just being my opinions, I have also provided links to other sources with academic references, but since those links do not say WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, you simply ignore or denigrate them and eventually go into denial claiming that I have not provided any explanations. Contrary to what you claim, the majority of knowledgeable academic biblical scholars do acknowledge the Testimonium Flavianum as being a redacted interpolation. The fundamentalist Christians who are ignorant of the research results because they have never investigated the evidence still "believe" it to be legitimate and mistakenly use it as supposed "evidence" from outside of the bible for the existence of the fictional biblical Jesus. Other Christians desperately try to come up with modified versions of the TF in order to use it for external evidence that the fictional Jesus actually existed. Obviously you intend to remain in denial so why should I continue to try to enlighten you to the reality that has resulted in the general consensus that the TF was not written by Josephus?

I did respond to your asinine posts. You're the one refusing to actually address the subject. All that you do is make asinine comments about how you are either unwilling to, or unable to address the question seriously. Case in point, you have refused over and over (and in fact, blamed me for your refusal) to respond to my thread on the subject.

But to appease you, I addressed the links you provided, and you didn't say a word about it. I did so here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2612034-post513.html True, I didn't cover every single aspect, as much of it I had already addressed in my thread, which I have given a link to many many times: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

As for most academic Biblical scholars believing that the TF is redacted interpolations, that is only if you ignore the vast majority of Biblical scholars. In fact, in the past 30 years, there have only been around 3 works that stated that the TF was a complete forgery.

But I understand. You're afraid to actually get into a debate on the subject, so you have to dodge and duck. I would to if I knew that I couldn't actually support my position.

As for the existence of Nazareth in the the first century the archaeology provides evidence that the stories about "Jesus of Nazareth" found in the gospels are simply NOT TRUE, because the Jewish community did not exist there in the early first century, but again you go into denial so you can hide from the reality you do not want to believe.

You haven't shown that to be true. As you are making the claim, one that goes against the general consensus, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove something that is already accepted by the general consensus.

But don't worry, I'm not expecting you to come up with a logical defense of your position. I've given up on that quite some time ago. Your blatant refusal to actually address any point in my thread on Josephus and Jesus, even though you have belittled it and me, shows that you simply have no argument. I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong on that, but I simply won't hold my breath.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As for most academic Biblical scholars believing that the TF is redacted interpolations, that is only if you ignore the vast majority of Biblical scholars. In fact, in the past 30 years, there have only been around 3 works that stated that the TF was a complete forgery.

Yes, but we must dismiss all the biblical scholars who are "Christian" and therefore hopelessly blinded by bias.

How do we tell? We don't review their work but chase them down and look up their skirts!

And we must disregard every other scholar who has the gall to disagree with Tertullian's spam.

After that, we have consensus between the three sources that agree with him, BUT it would be hilarious if all of them were Christian.

 

[godnotgod]

And godnotgod, if you had any culture at all you would have known that I was alluding to this:

[youtube]pGL2rytTraA[/youtube]
Kelis - Milkshake - YouTube

The Gifts of the Incarnation, ala Eastern wisdom, came my way without charge, not like those bloody and expensive Western crucifixions.

'I ain't buying what you're peddling', said the owl to the pussycat.

Pssssst...I'll give you a little birdie clue: NOTHING SPECIAL!

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think it will help. It's a bit like two guys butchering a mantra while chanting off-key.

I think it's more like we found the mantra already butchered, so our chanting merely sounds off-key to those who think the butchering is OK.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course you do not want me to reply because I am always pointing out the problems with your "beliefs". but a_e wants me to reply so he can throw some more ad hominems into the thread.

Yup! I think you've got that one pegged just so.

 

[godnotgod]

By no means. I never intended to insult you and I'm sorry that you read it like that.

Think of it as an evaluation of the performance. One can be displeased with the performance but have the highest regard for the performer.

Your performance has not been entertaining, but I don't know anything at all about your character, so I don't comment on it.

I say we take up a collection to get AE on a bus to Vegas ASAP.

 

[godnotgod]

You do me a great disservice, my friend: the inane comments of those on my ignore list gain visiblity when you quote them. Let me briefly declassify one of the ignored so that I might suggest a more humane approach:

Now, should one wish to reference a particular post, one might simply offer ...

​

... thereby supplying both the reference and an appropriate apology without further pollution. It's just a thought.​

And now, to restore the classification ...

So now you want everyone to be inconvenienced just because you feel miffed. I explained my position to you, and even offered to delete the post you took offense with, but you chose instead to go to your dark corner and brood. I offer no apology, however, and if you still choose to take the path you are on, I say Hurray for you! Makes no difference to me. :beach:

 

[godnotgod]

Consider it done, Jay.

*kiss*

 

[godnotgod]

re: Josephus: The trouble is that Christians begin with an assumption they turn into a belief, and then use the tail to wag the dog. A real scholarly approach would be one which looks at the evidence exactly as it lay, dispassionately, instead of trying to tweak it in the direction of one's belief system. If Christians only understood that it is to their detriment to do so, and that to work with the truth instead is far more rewarding than the fluff they insist on living on.

 

[fallingblood]

re: Josephus: The trouble is that Christians begin with an assumption they turn into a belief, and then use the tail to wag the dog. A real scholarly approach would be one which looks at the evidence exactly as it lay, dispassionately, instead of trying to tweak it in the direction of one's belief system. If Christians only understood that it is to their detriment to do so, and that to work with the truth instead is far more rewarding than the fluff they insist on living on.

Well golly Jees, I never thought of that. Even though that is how I based my research on the subject, I guess I just can't be taken seriously because I guess Christians are just idiots and can't be scholars. And just think, I'm wasting all of that time completing a real education when I could just become a non-Christian and use Google, and be an authority on spam. And it's free. :faint:

 

[godnotgod]

What Josephus shows though is that there really is no reason to doubt that Jesus existed.

There is but one disputed paragraph alluding to Jesus, written some 90 years after Jesus's death. That means, for one thing, that Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. Now, if you are claiming that Josephus's single paragraph is sufficient to establish that Jesus existed as a historical figure, what were his sources if none existed other than his?

 

[godnotgod]

Well golly Jees, I never thought of that. Even though that is how I based my research on the subject, I guess I just can't be taken seriously because I guess Christians are just idiots and can't be scholars. And just think, I'm wasting all of that time completing a real education when I could just become a non-Christian and use Google, and be an authority on spam. And it's free. :faint:

You are a Christian first and a 'scholar' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your BELIEF SYSTEM, and belief is not the starting point of scholarship. Dialectical reasoning is. In other words, you have created a model of reality which you then superimpose over reality itself, and then proceed to attempt to make reality fit your model by force.

Look at your post above. It goes from one extreme to another. You continue to live in the delusion of the dual world, of which Christianity is a prime proponent, as it pits and polarizes the opposites against each other as absolutes, when, in fact, they are completely relative and complimentary. No real scholarship can ensue from such a position, especially when you also make it a point to take sides in the delusion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are a Christian first and a 'scholar' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your BELIEF SYSTEM, and belief is not the starting point of scholarship.

Better keep this in mind always, fallingblood.

I have the first sentence tattooed on my left hand, and the second on my right. That way I never forget.

It's informative how someone like godnotgod views scholars.

It's been a while since I've seen such ruthless prejudice. What would we say of someone if he said:

1) You are a black person first and a 'scholar' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your BLACKNESS, and blackness is not the starting point of scholarship

2) You are a feminist first and a 'scholar' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your FEMINIST BELIEF SYSTEM, and the feminist belief system is not the starting point of scholarship

3) You are a homosexual first and a 'scholar' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your HOMOSEXUALITY, and your homosexuality is not the starting point of scholarship

4) You are a hopeless moron first and an 'idiot' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your MORONIC SYSTEM, and your moronic system is not the starting point of scholarship

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A real scholarly approach would be one which looks at the evidence exactly as it lay, dispassionately, instead of trying to tweak it in the direction of one's belief system. If Christians only understood that it is to their detriment to do so, and that to work with the truth instead is far more rewarding than the fluff they insist on living on.[/COLOR]

I agree that the real scholarly approach examines the evidence, but regardless of one's belief system. But you clearly value this only inasmuch as your bias allows.

For Nazareth, it seems the sharp bias of those who are "convinced" that the city never existed causes more errors than most other atheist, Christian, and Jewish scholars who examine the same evidence.

Funny thing is, the Nazareth polemists are just using their idea as a means to attack Christianity. The results of their "studies" are encased deeply in anti-Christian bias, whereas the archaeological reports from Nazareth are perfectly dispassionate.

Atheists, Christians, and Jewish scholars have nothing to gain by establishing Nazareth as a first century village. Now some businesses would benefit from it, but I don't think that any atheists (etc) are going to suddenly believe that Jesus is the son of God if they read an archaeological report that says that Nazareth existed in the first century.

 

[fallingblood]

There is but one disputed paragraph alluding to Jesus, written some 90 years after Jesus's death. That means, for one thing, that Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. Now, if you are claiming that Josephus's single paragraph is sufficient to establish that Jesus existed as a historical figure, what were his sources if none existed other than his?

Actually, there is one paragraph, and then an additional shorter passage. You really need to do your research.

It doesn't matter that Josephus was not a contemporary. A lot of history is not written by contemporaries.

As for his sources; word of mouth, possibly some written sources. Josephus was a contemporary of James, the brother of Jesus, as well as many of the disciples. So he was in a pretty good place.

Also, by the time that Josephus was writing, the Gospel of Mark had been written, Paul had already written his stuff, and Luke and Matthew were most likely written. John, maybe.

Finally, Josephus wasn't writing 90 years after the death of Jesus. You're off by a couple of decades.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good grief ...

 

[fallingblood]

You are a Christian first and a 'scholar' second. All of your 'research' is directed by your BELIEF SYSTEM, and belief is not the starting point of scholarship. Dialectical reasoning is. In other words, you have created a model of reality which you then superimpose over reality itself, and then proceed to attempt to make reality fit your model by force.

Wow. That is possibly the most asinine statement you've made so far. And really, it shows no familiarity with my work. Honestly, I am getting sick of people dictating my beliefs, my ideas, etc. You don't know me, and from your statement here, you haven't even tried to understand me.

If I was a Christian first, then I wouldn't cut down the Bible, I wouldn't deny many of the aspect of the Gospels, I wouldn't have many of the beliefs I do today, unless one understand that Christianity isn't some one path, unchangeable ideal.

If you read my posts, and my work, you will clearly see that it is not a Christian belief system that fuels my work. In fact, there are a number of Christians here who would deny that I am even a Christian at all.

More so, if Nazareth doesn't actually exist, or even if Jesus doesn't exist, and the evidence supports such an ideal, I would follow it. I am not bound by a belief system, especially one that changes quite frequently based on new information.

Look at your post above. It goes from one extreme to another. You continue to live in the delusion of the dual world, of which Christianity is a prime proponent, as it pits and polarizes the opposites against each other as absolutes, when, in fact, they are completely relative and complimentary. No real scholarship can ensue from such a position, especially when you also make it a point to take sides in the delusion.

Of course it does, as I was being sarcastic. Are you really that thick?

You really haven't been actually paying attention have you. I am not pitting Christianity against anything. And I live in delusion? You're the one who is spouting off asinine assumptions that you are either unwilling, or unable to back up. I mean, I'm still waiting for the ancient sources that back up your positions.

Really, instead of making baseless assumptions, maybe try to read the information I provide, and the work that I have done, and then put that together. Because as it stands, you're just making a fool out of yourself. Which usually happens when someone pretends they know another better than that person knows themselves.

 

[fallingblood]

Better keep this in mind always, fallingblood.

I have the first sentence tattooed on my left hand, and the second on my right. That way I never forget.

It's informative how someone like godnotgod views scholars.

I'm a little surprised by his statement, especially considering that there are a number of Christians here who have argued that I can't have the title. But godnotgod is one of the reasons why I had a problem being Christian.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm a little surprised by his statement, especially considering that there are a number of Christians here who have argued that I can't have the title. But godnotgod is one of the reasons why I had a problem being Christian.

Curious how something so insignificant can impact such a significant choice.

 

[fallingblood]

Curious how something so insignificant can impact such a significant choice.

It's morehis attitude which I have seen in quite a few people. The mentality that just because someone is Christian, that aspect influences anything they study and thus they are not competent or credible.

For me, the dismissal based on what title I have just ticks me off.