No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

I'm indifferent to it.

The same kind of bonehead thinks that all biblical scholars are Christian. I see it as more of a parade of ignorance on their part rather than an affront to me.

I will say that I don't read or cite anything that even looks like it came from an evangelical journal, unless of course I recognize the name. They can do research well, but their application is more than a little slanted.

 

[godnotgod]

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

One primary paragraph...

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.

Was he? He may have been a contemporary of James, but did he actually conference with him or the other disciples? 'Possibly' some written sources is neither here nor there. It's just pie in the sky, especially since Josephus did not reference any. So all we really have is an allusion to Jesus without any firm prior historical basis.

Furthermore, Origen quoted Josephus when writing 250,000 words against the pagan writer Celsus, but he never uses this passage even when it would have been most useful.

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.

Yes, but that is the trouble. The Gospels cannot be considered a reliable historical source for Josephus to have based his assertions about Jesus upon.

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

The Antiquities, from which the passage in question is found, was written in 94 AD.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Antiquities, from which the passage in question is found, was written in 94 AD.

Now you're entertaining! Finally.

 

[godnotgod]

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

The problem with your 'analogies' is that, unlike Xtianity, the subject material exists in the here and now. Xtianity concerns itself with the hereafter, which is unverifiable.

 

[godnotgod]

Funny thing is, the Nazareth polemists are just using their idea as a means to attack Christianity.

Oh. It's merely an 'idea' without any foundation? And they wish to attack Xtianity, for...what purpose?

The results of their "studies" are encased deeply in anti-Christian bias, whereas the archaeological reports from Nazareth are perfectly dispassionate.

Can you provide an example of such bias? And are the archaeological reports you are referring to as 'perfectly dispassionate' the ones from non-sectarian or from Christian sources?

Could it be that Rene Salm is not so much 'anti-Christian' as 'anti-religious propaganda' in his approach, and you are just reading it that way because you are being defensive?

...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.

That is not the concern at all.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The problem with your 'analogies' is that, unlike Xtianity, the subject material exists in the here and now. Xtianity concerns itself with the hereafter, which is unverifiable.

That's hilarious. Thanks, man.

Keep it up. :foryou:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh. It's merely an 'idea' without any foundation? And they wish to attack Xtianity, for...what purpose?



Can you provide an example of such bias? And are the archaeological reports you are referring to as 'perfectly dispassionate' the ones from non-sectarian or from Christian sources?

Could it be that Rene Salm is not so much 'anti-Christian' as 'anti-religious propaganda' in his approach, and you are just reading it that way because you are being defensive?



That is not the concern at all.

You're playing dumb. I refuse to think that you would be stupid on purpose.

Just for your sake - you should rethink all this.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm indifferent to it.

The same kind of bonehead thinks that all biblical scholars are Christian. I see it as more of a parade of ignorance on their part rather than an affront to me.

I will say that I don't read or cite anything that even looks like it came from an evangelical journal, unless of course I recognize the name. They can do research well, but their application is more than a little slanted.

That's why I decided to just embrace the title Christian. I was being told that I was a Christian anyway and being dismissed.

Being dismissed outright though just annoys me, especially when I have taken the time to make an argument. It could just be that I'm argumentative in the first place anyway.

 

[fallingblood]

Now you're entertaining! Finally.

I found that entertaining as well. Probably one of the best things he has said yet.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I found that entertaining as well. Probably one of the best things he has said yet.

You'll be happy to know that we religion majors made the math majors keep score at all those hearts games in college.

 

[fallingblood]

The problem with your 'analogies' is that, unlike Xtianity, the subject material exists in the here and now. Xtianity concerns itself with the hereafter, which is unverifiable.

That's news to me. I personally don't think about the afterlife, and I know many other Christians who don't either. But maybe you know better than all of us.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's news to me. I personally don't think about the afterlife, and I know many other Christians who don't either. But maybe you know better than all of us.

I do. Especially when I'm doing research. And it guides both selection of materials and my conclusions.

 

[godnotgod]

That's news to me. I personally don't think about the afterlife, and I know many other Christians who don't either. But maybe you know better than all of us.

You're playing poker face with me.

Paul said: “Since by one man came death, by one man also came the resurrection of the dead.”

If you don't believe in the afterlife, then you don't believe in Jesus, and you're not a Christian, at least not the orthodox variety. Without the Resurrection of Jesus, there is no resurrection of man.

 

[godnotgod]

That's hilarious. Thanks, man.

Keep it up. :foryou:

Glad to help you understand your own religion.

 

[fallingblood]

You're playing poker face with me.

Paul said: “Since by one man came death, by one man also came the resurrection of the dead.”

If you don't believe in the afterlife, then you don't believe in Jesus, and you're not a Christian, at least not the orthodox variety. Without the Resurrection of Jesus, there is no resurrection of man.

Please reread my post. I didn't say I didn't believe in an afterlife, just that I don't think about it. As for the rest of your post, it is illogical mumbo jumbo.

You don't need to believe in an afterlife to believe in Jesus, or be a Christian.

 

[fallingblood]

I do. Especially when I'm doing research. And it guides both selection of materials and my conclusions.

That sucks, as I usually find myself agree with you. And I thought I was being objective.

 

[godnotgod]

Please reread my post. I didn't say I didn't believe in an afterlife, just that I don't think about it. As for the rest of your post, it is illogical mumbo jumbo.

You don't need to believe in an afterlife to believe in Jesus, or be a Christian.

Yes, you do. Read Paul. Without the Resurrection, you have zilch.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, you do. Read Paul. Without the Resurrection, you have zilch.

Paul does not define Christianity. Especially when the person referencing Paul ( I am talking about you) really has no idea what Paul is talking about.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Now you know how non-Christians feel when Christians try to tell them that just because they are NOT Christians, they are going to hell, no matter how good a person they are. Let us remember that it is YOUR members who come forth first, attempting to foist their doctrine and dogma onto the rest, under threat of eternal hellfire. No, not all Christians believe that, as some say it is up to God, but the general consensus (there goes that word) amongst most Christians seems to point to that.

But the real question here is: how scholarly can a person be who puts faith in a virtually non-existent personage, and even if Jesus DID exist, the 'love' involved is of the idolatrous kind. So how can a person claim to be 'scholarly' who projects his ego onto an idol?

You keep telling me how little I know, but I was raised a Christian, so I think I qualify to comment.

 

[godnotgod]

Paul does not define Christianity. Especially when the person referencing Paul ( I am talking about you) really has no idea what Paul is talking about.

You know, it is getting a bit tiring to hear you always telling me that I don't understand your doctrine, as if you possess some superior or secret knowledge. Well, it is exactly that kind of 'special knowledge' that I am challenging. On the contrary, it is YOU who do not have an understanding of the spiritual world. Many of your comments demonstrate your ignorance.

The fact is Paul does indeed define Christianity. What modern Christians follow today is Paulanity. The real Yeshua did not teach what modern Christians believe. Real scholars are discovering that fact on a daily basis. What is slowly occurring is like what happened to the Sistine Chapel paintings to reveal the teachings in their original form before sensational themes were overlayed onto them.

I am surprised that you, who claim to be 'scholarly', do not understand Paul and his importance to how modern Christianity has taken shape.

From where I stand, it is the Crucifixion that is the central theme of Christianity, but modern Christians have focused on the Resurrection and made it the centerpiece ala Paul. What Paul is saying, is that if Jesus were not raised, then man will also not be raised on the last day. What could be clearer than that? In addition, the Resurrection represents proof that Jesus was who he said he was. Christians love to point out that Jesus's grave was empty because he ascended into heaven, while all other spiritual leaders are in their graves.

See here: http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/90-408#.To_wad2Gm6Y

Unfortunately, what Christians fail to see is that their case would be better served if Jesus WERE in his grave. At least we would have a body to show that he was historical. Instead, we have mumbo jumbo and a puff of smoke, and you best believe, or else. Pure Virgin Poppycock!