• 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

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
A good thread, too bad it seems to have run out of steam. I've made some of these arguments myself [for nonexistence prior], and met with similar resistance. Ah well.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I always brag about casting doubt on the falsehoods propitiated by the bible :D

I realize you are in the 'existed' camp; and I'm the opposite. Since the matter is far from settled, to pretend I'm somehow at fault, is baseless hubris.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I always brag about casting doubt on the falsehoods propitiated by the bible :D

I realize you are in the 'existed' camp; and I'm the opposite. Since the matter is far from settled, to pretend I'm somehow at fault, is baseless hubris.

:biglaugh:
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
He won't get it. He has a mantra to defend.

The funny thing is that there are actually many ways to criticize, attack, or otherwise express hatred for all things Christian. There are legitimate failures / stupidities in every Christian denomination and in church history.

Why people feel the need to fabricate reasons to attack the church is beyond me. The only thing that does is ruin their credibility.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The funny thing is that there are actually many ways to criticize, attack, or otherwise express hatred for all things Christian. There are legitimate failures / stupidities in every Christian denomination and in church history.

Why people feel the need to fabricate reasons to attack the church is beyond me. The only thing that does is ruin their credibility.
I'm not sure that the intent is to attack the church so much as to posture as a skeptic. It truly does have a childish quality to it. There is also the unbridled arrogance of those - wholly unschooled in the fields of history and historiagraphy - who deem themselves qualified to adequately judge, embrace, and then promote fringe positions simply because they align with their presuppositions. Its a process that weds intellectual fraud with a contempt for scholarship.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I'm not sure that the intent is to attack the church so much as to posture as a skeptic. It truly does have a childish quality to it. There is also the unbridled arrogance of those - wholly unschooled in the fields of history and historiagraphy - who deem themselves qualified to adequately judge, embrace, and then promote fringe positions simply because they align with their presuppositions. Its a process that weds intellectual fraud with a contempt for scholarship.

I certainly agree that's part of it.

godnotgod is certainly attempting to use the "Nazareth myth" to attack the church and so does at least one of his sources.

And I was thinking more specifically of Heathen Hammer's:

I always brag about casting doubt on the falsehoods propitiated by the bible
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
You people certainly subscribe to the false mantra that my criticism, or that of others, is hate. Live in delusion if you like. Your ad homs are certainly a form of it.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Out of curiosity, has godnotgod explained why the Gospel writers would foolishly fabricate a village and why the pagans and Jews never attacked the fabrication?
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I'm not sure that the intent is to attack the church so much as to posture as a skeptic. It truly does have a childish quality to it. There is also the unbridled arrogance of those - wholly unschooled in the fields of history and historiagraphy - who deem themselves qualified to adequately judge, embrace, and then promote fringe positions simply because they align with their presuppositions. Its a process that weds intellectual fraud with a contempt for scholarship.

My, you people certainly walk the line of insults, but I note this forum isn't as closely moderated. Very well. If you want to be stupid fundies who want to gladhand each other over your victory, on a subject that is actually alive and well [Nazareth most likely not existing during Jesus' supposed life], well, knock yourselves out. Preferably against a wall. You don't know anything about me yet, but make all sorts of asinine assumptions simply because your holy book is full of errors, to which your slavish obedience blinds you; and somehow my stating the obvious is 'hate'. Your childish behaviors are probably a good reason why you feel so persecuted.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Out of curiosity, has godnotgod explained why the Gospel writers would foolishly fabricate a village and why the pagans and Jews never attacked the fabrication?

I can explain it: they were repeating a falsehood told to them in earnest, and certainly weren't going to go tromping across the desert to simply go check if the place existed. Pretending a group of fringe Hebrew schismists were going to go checking their facts, is ludicrous. Also, it's not our job to police your holy book.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Out of curiosity, has godnotgod explained why the Gospel writers would foolishly fabricate a village and why the pagans and Jews never attacked the fabrication?

Nope. His spam doesn't tell him that, so he doesn't know.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I can explain it: they were repeating a falsehood told to them in earnest, and certainly weren't going to go tromping across the desert to simply go check if the place existed.
And you know that how?

Pretending a group of fringe Hebrew schismists were going to go checking their facts, is ludicrous.
Your knowledge of 2nd Temple Period Israel is laughable. More interesting is your willingness to denigrate 1st century Jewish and Pagan society as "fringe Hebrew schismists."
 
Top