No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

That you find it boring and uninformative is not my problem.

Oh, my friend, I could not agree more.

I've got a fever. And the only thing that can cure it is MORE COWBELL!

Since you're holding it, you've got to beat it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What IS entertaining is the fact that you call for ME to 'get over myself', when YOU are the one posting "Got Angellous" in large type with accompanying applause.

The difference between you and I is that when I am obstinate and arrogant, it is adorable because I have a sense of humor. And it doesn't hurt that I know a something about the topic at hand, instead of spamming sensantionalist crap.

And I can tell the difference between when I'm making stuff up and when I'm not, and when I'm making stuff up at least it's interesting.

So yes, you are uninformed and that is your problem. I can care less if you never learn a blessed thing, but at least you can probably develop a sense of taste and style and make up stuff that's at least useful to yourself and others in its humor and entertaining quality.

Other than that it's the same old spam. At least put a dress on it and teach it to sing and dance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So yes, you are uninformed and that is your problem.

The problem is one of being radically and intentionally uninformed. It is as intellectually dishonest as it is bombastic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The problem is one of being radically and intentionally uninformed. It is as intellectually dishonest as it is bombastic.

Yes, but I'm keeping in mind the extremely low level of competence.

I was thinking that in this specific case that being uninformed is excusible, but lacking taste is not. Even people who obstinately refuse to recognize that they are thoughtlessly using bad sources can grab a cane and hat and do something useful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, but I'm keeping in mind the extremely low level of competence.

I was thinking that in this specific case that being uninformed is excusible, but lacking taste is not. Even people who obstinately refuse to recognize that they are thoughtlessly using bad sources can grab a cane and hat and do something useful.

You suggest that he is thoughtlessly using bad sources, I that he is purposefully using bad sources.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You suggest that he is thoughtlessly using bad sources, I that he is purposefully using bad sources.

Of course you're probably right. But it is clear that there's a healthy measure of thoughtlessness because if he did, he'd be unhappy with the source and search somewhere else.

The refusal to use other sources - as you know - is rooted in a sharply prejudicial bias that assumes everyone who thinks Nazareth exists is a Christian or Christian sympathizer and therefore whatever they say is bunk. So the range of sources is de facto limited to the crap that he's using, and ironically he's trapped in a bias that will only allow one conclusion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The refusal to use other sources - as you know - is rooted in a sharply prejudicial bias that assumes everyone who thinks Nazareth exists is a Christian or Christian sympathizer and therefore whatever they say is bunk. So the range of sources is de facto limited to the crap that he's using, and ironically he's trapped in a bias that will only allow one conclusion.

So, let's assume Markan priority and a date of 70 CE. I'm trying to understand the brain-numbing conspiracy theory in which someone foolishly manufactures Nazareth and, by doing so, risks exposure by the Jews and Pagans who could simply note that the location was fictive. And yet there is no hint of such a polemic against nascent Christianity. It's a stupid theory driven by need, not knowledge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, let's assume Markan priority and a date of 70 CE. I'm trying to understand the brain-numbing conspiracy theory in which someone foolishly manufactures Nazareth and, by doing so, risks exposure by the Jews and Pagans who could simply note that the location was fictive. And yet there is no hint of such a polemic against nascent Christianity. It's a stupid theory driven by need, not knowledge.

Yes - where we expect it, we find just the opposite. The pagans (and Jews?) refer to Jesus of Nazareth to distinguish that Jesus as the one the Christians follow/worship from all the other "Jesuses."

 

[Tellurian]

So, let's assume Markan priority and a date of 70 CE. I'm trying to understand the brain-numbing conspiracy theory in which someone foolishly manufactures Nazareth and, by doing so, risks exposure by the Jews and Pagans who could simply note that the location was fictive. And yet there is no hint of such a polemic against nascent Christianity. It's a stupid theory driven by need, not knowledge.

With the Jesus of the gospel stories being based partially on Yeshu ben Pantera, then his being the son of the Roman soldier Pantera, stationed at the Roman military garrison at Nazareth, would give more meaning to the statement that "no good thing comes out of Nazareth".

The gospel stories also tell how the people of Nazareth turn against the biblical Jesus and attempt to throw him off a cliff. If a Roman/Jewish hybrid tried to evangelize the Roman soldiers at Nazareth into accepting the Jewish god, then the Roman soldiers would have had reason to turn against him thus causing him to make his escape.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

With the Jesus of the gospel stories being based partially on Yeshu ben Pantera, then his being the son of the Roman soldier Pantera, stationed at the Roman military garrison at Nazareth, would give more meaning to the statement that "no good thing comes out of Nazareth".

The gospel stories also tell how the people of Nazareth turn against the biblical Jesus and attempt to throw him off a cliff. If a Roman/Jewish hybrid tried to evangelize the Roman soldiers at Nazareth into accepting the Jewish god, then the Roman soldiers would have had reason to turn against him thus causing him to make his escape.

So many choices, Jay.

Dionysus
Apollonius
Yeshu ben Pantera
Vespatian
Julius Ceasar
Augustus

All camping happily in Nazareth. I can't think of any more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So many choices, Jay.

Dionysus
Apollonius
Yeshu ben Pantera
Vespatian
Julius Ceasar
Augustus

All camping happily in Nazareth. I can't think of any more.

Too soon to put Tellie on my ignore list. Perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime, PM me if he actually says something of substance.

 

[fallingblood]

You have already presented yours, and I have responded at almost every turn. All yours seems to be saying is: 'Well, it COULD have been that.....'

FB, for example, continues to insist that Josephus is more than enough to establish the historicity of Jesus, in spite of the fact that there are problems with his statement, and that it is the only historical scrap he has to defend such a position.

I keep insisting upon that as I understand history. More so, you have shown no reason to not accept that. So of course, since you can't offer a logical rebuttal, I'm going to keep that position.

And no, that is not the only historical scrap I have to defend such a position. The NT itself should be more than enough; however, people ignorantly dismiss it because simply, they don't understand history.

Finally, my position at least has more historical evidence than yours. Where are the historical documents speaking about a Nazarene sect of Essenes, or even Essenes at Mt. Caramel? You simply have nothing.

 

[fallingblood]

Too soon to put Tellie on my ignore list. Perhaps tomorrow. In the meantime, PM me if he actually says something of substance.

I don't think you should hold your breath. He has a tendency of repeating the same garbage over and over again, and then ignoring any and all arguments against him.

 

[fallingblood]

With the Jesus of the gospel stories being based partially on Yeshu ben Pantera, then his being the son of the Roman soldier Pantera, stationed at the Roman military garrison at Nazareth, would give more meaning to the statement that "no good thing comes out of Nazareth".

The gospel stories also tell how the people of Nazareth turn against the biblical Jesus and attempt to throw him off a cliff. If a Roman/Jewish hybrid tried to evangelize the Roman soldiers at Nazareth into accepting the Jewish god, then the Roman soldiers would have had reason to turn against him thus causing him to make his escape.

Do you ever get sick of blindly repeating the same drivel? It's almost if someone vomited a bunch of bunk into a hat and randomly dumped it out until if fit into a sentence, regardless of what it said.

I mean, we have even been over your idea that Jesus was based off of Yeshu ben Pantera, and I showed why your idea falls flat on the ground. I do find it funny though that you refuse to accept Josephus as historical, or the NT, but you are fine with taking a very late story and assuming it is correct, even though one can see that it is heavily biased. But hey, whatever means necessary huh?

 

[Tellurian]

Do you ever get sick of blindly repeating the same drivel? It's almost if someone vomited a bunch of bunk into a hat and randomly dumped it out until if fit into a sentence, regardless of what it said.

I mean, we have even been over your idea that Jesus was based off of Yeshu ben Pantera, and I showed why your idea falls flat on the ground. I do find it funny though that you refuse to accept Josephus as historical, or the NT, but you are fine with taking a very late story and assuming it is correct, even though one can see that it is heavily biased. But hey, whatever means necessary huh?

No matter how hard you try to go deeper and deeper into denial, you cannot erase the archaeological evidence of a large, first century, sophisticated, heated, ROMAN, bath house that has been discovered beneath Nazareth.

Where did you show me that the fictional, biblical Jesus written about in the gospel stories could not have been based on the historical Yeshu ben Pantera?

 

[fallingblood]

No matter how hard you try to go deeper and deeper into denial, you cannot erase the archaeological evidence of a large, first century, sophisticated, heated, ROMAN, bath house that has been discovered beneath Nazareth.

Where did you show me that the fictional, biblical Jesus written about in the gospel stories could not have been based on the historical Yeshu ben Pantera?

What evidence? You posted two links that both said that there hadn't been much research into it. The evidence only exists in delusion

As for our discussion on Jesus, that was about fifty pages back.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No matter how hard you try to go deeper and deeper into denial, you cannot erase the archaeological evidence of a large, first century, sophisticated, heated, ROMAN, bath house that has been discovered beneath Nazareth.

Where did you show me that the fictional, biblical Jesus written about in the gospel stories could not have been based on the historical Yeshu ben Pantera?

The Yeshu ben Pantera stuff notwithstanding, which archaeological reports have you read that lead you to your conclusions about the bathhouse?

Without those reports, you're simply pretending.

(Not that I mind, because when you make up stuff, at least it's entertaining)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(Not that I mind, because when you make up stuff, at least it's entertaining)

You are easily bemused.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are easily bemused.

The sarcasm is quite thick.

 

[godnotgod]

The difference between you and I is that when I am obstinate and arrogant, it is adorable because I have a sense of humor. And it doesn't hurt that I know a something about the topic at hand, instead of spamming sensantionalist crap.

If you know something, it has not yet made its appearance. All I see you doing is posturing, with no substance forthcoming. Both you and FB, 'much ado about nothing'. Oh, you keep TELLING us how knowledgable you are, and how ignorant I am, but what have you to show for your so-called 'knowledge' to date? Fluff. So I will continue to ignore your attacks and post more and more info, in spite of the fact that you don't feel entertained or see my sources as valid ones.

Who thinks themselves 'adorable'? :biglaugh:Are you kissing yourself yet, because you're so full of yourself?

Sensationalist crap? You mean like that some poor fellow was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, raised the dead, claimed the shedding of his blood redeemed 'sin', was crucified on a bloody stick and died, then resurrected himself and shot up into the sky? That kind of crap? The kind of crap that says he lived in a town called Nazareth, went 'missing' for 18 years, but when we actually go to the place in question, find it simply is'nt there? That sensationalist crap? OK. Now I get what you're talking about.

And I can tell the difference between when I'm making stuff up and when I'm not, and when I'm making stuff up at least it's interesting.

So yes, you are uninformed and that is your problem. I can care less if you never learn a blessed thing, but at least you can probably develop a sense of taste and style and make up stuff that's at least useful to yourself and others in its humor and entertaining quality.

Other than that it's the same old spam. At least put a dress on it and teach it to sing and dance.

Not interested. I'll leave the cheap theatrics up to you, since you seem to have a talent for it. Yes, indeed, that bit about the guy shooting up into the sky is both cheap and theatrical. Too bad most people focus on that kind of sensation and can't find satisfaction in the simple truth. But every sensation requires its carnie-barkers, and you're right up there with the best of them. Trouble is, there are guys like myself who just don't buy your crap. And so here we are, pointing to the moon. Just try to stop rabidly attacking my finger. It shows a lack of attention on your part.

I wish I could be more entertaining for you than that, Elvis, but, alas, all I can offer is a buck or two for that trip to Vegas, where the cheap glitter and neon beckon you. Maybe you would prefer a subsidized trip to Orlando, Fla, where "Jesus' is crucified in a bloody ritual daily. I hear they're working on a way to get him to fly up into the sky as part of the show, in front of tens of thousands. The 'real' crucifixion, resurrection and ascension will pale in comparison, thanks to modern technology and science. Well and good, as the old version is now threadbare and showing its age. What we need is...well...more SENSATION, folks! The old narcotic is wearing off, and we all need a stronger fix to get at least the same high.

What do you think of having him ascend at night, and wearing a flashing, phosphorescent gown?

Ooooooooh! I'm SO impressed! But I'd be MORE impressed if Xtian apologists would begin to admit the awful truth about Nazareth, instead of making things up, such as that a single dwelling is evidence of a 'town'...er...excuse me...a small teeny weeny lil'ol hamlet, which, if you stretch your imagination just a bit more, (c'mon folks, have more FAITH!) COULD be a 'polis'...could'nt it? Ha ha ha ha...now THAT's entertainment, especially when performed with a straight face operating under the color of divine authority.

'Oh, the Bible says this and the Bible says that, and blah blah blah....and this is very serious stuff, folks!'