No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, let's see. We have one Josephus, who ran his military campaign just about on top of where Nazareth was supposed to be, but nary a whisper of any Nazareth from his pen..

Shhhhhhh! The city of Nazareth is a very quiet, obscure 'lil 'ol hamlet inhabited by church mice.

So any historians, archaeologists, or scholars who believe that Nazareth never existed?

It difficult to confuse Josephus, who didn't mention Nazareth, with someone who argues that the polis was never there.

Logic not a strong suit I see.

 

[godnotgod]

You need to have some experience and training in order to SEE.

Due to lack of training, these two have piled up one big load of crap together, talking about topics that they obviously know nothing about.

No, you need to get your training and experience out of the way in order to see.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, you need to get your training and experience out of the way in order to see.

Sure. Training as a composer and experience as a magician will adequately prepare me to look at topics completely unrelated to those fields.

Congrats.:sad:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now can it can more stupid than this.... ask yourself:

"hmmm - I wonder if Nazareth existed. I'll go ask a composer and a magician."

They are obviously qualified on the subject.

No need to think. They've done it for me.

 

[godnotgod]

So any historians, archaeologists, or scholars who believe that Nazareth never existed?

It difficult to confuse Josephus, who didn't mention Nazareth, with someone who argues that the polis was never there.

Logic not a strong suit I see.

Hmmmm? Let's see now...1 plus 1 equals 2, correct?

Based on the FACT that Josephus did not mention Nazareth, together with a bevy of OTHER pertinent facts, such as tell-tale archaeological and biblical ones, it can be reasonably argued that a hamlet or village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, let alone a polis.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Save us some grief next time and just go straight to Bozo the Clown.

Or Big Bird.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hmmmm? Let's see now...1 plus 1 equals 2, correct?

Based on the FACT that Josephus did not mention Nazareth, together with a bevy of OTHER pertinent facts, such as tell-tale archaeological and biblical ones, it can be reasonably argued that a hamlet or village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, let alone a polis.

Don't you just love those arguments from silence?

You could argue that Jesus was a cow because the Gospels don't say that he isn't.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Save us some grief next time and just go straight to Bozo the Clown.

Or Big Bird.

Aha! How about Dr. Seuss? He wrote lots of good books.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hmmmm? Let's see now...1 plus 1 equals 2, correct?

Based on the FACT that Josephus did not mention Nazareth, together with a bevy of OTHER pertinent facts, such as tell-tale archaeological and biblical ones, it can be reasonably argued that a hamlet or village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus, let alone a polis.

If you can find a scholar who buys into this crap, I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure. Training as a composer and experience as a magician will adequately prepare me to look at topics completely unrelated to those fields.

Congrats.:sad:

There is a spiritual dimension through which the data must be understood. An archaeologist, historian, scholar may or may not possess this dimension of seeing.

 

[godnotgod]

Don't you just love those arguments from silence?

You could argue that Jesus was a cow because the Gospels don't say that he isn't.

No, you cannot.

Now who is displaying his ignorance of basic logic? Use your head: your analogy is apples and oranges.

 

[godnotgod]

Aha! How about Dr. Seuss? He wrote lots of good books.

I prefer AE, Elvis, and Walt Disney muhself...yuk...yuk...yuk

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, you cannot.

Now who is displaying his ignorance of basic logic? Use your head: your analogy is apples and oranges.

A naked argument from silence is equally valuable in describing both an apple and an orange.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is a spiritual dimension through which the data must be understood. An archaeologist, historian, scholar may or may not possess this dimension of seeing.

Sure. But a composer and a magician doesn't have the basic tools to examine the material in the first place.

You need both: training and "spiritual dimension" (I call it 'historical imagination')

 

[godnotgod]

If you can find a scholar who buys into this crap, I'll be happy to discuss it.

Oh, you're in the wrong forum. The scholar forum is down the hall to the left. This one is for the general public, just like the Bible is.

William Buckley, please show AE to the proper forum.

Thank you!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh, you're in the wrong forum. The scholar forum is down the hall to the left. This one is for the general public, just like the Bible is.

William Buckley, please show AE to the proper forum.

Thank you!

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were talking about the existence of first century Nazareth.

 

[godnotgod]

A naked argument from silence is equally valuable in describing both an apple and an orange.

But in this case, we have OTHER evidences, which, taken together as whole, create a reasonable argument for no Nazareth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But in this case, we have OTHER evidences, which, taken together as whole, create a reasonable argument for no Nazareth.

.... to some people, I guess.

But it's irrelevant that Josephus doesn't mention it, or any other document. Absence of a mention does not mean that it wasn't there -- only that it wasn't mentioned.

If it's proven that Nazareth didn't exist then by other means, then we can know why it's not mentioned.... not before.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure. But a composer and a magician doesn't have the basic tools to examine the material in the first place.

Maybe not solely the archaeological data, but we need to look at that in the conjunction with other evidence. Neither Salm nor Randi nor anyone need be credentialed archaeologists or historians to put two and two together. If we were talking about dependence solely on the archaeological evidence, I would be open to agreeing with you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Maybe not solely the archaeological data, but we need to look at that in the conjunction with other evidence. Neither Salm nor Randi nor anyone need be credentialed archaeologists or historians to put two and two together. If we were talking about dependence solely on the archaeological evidence, I would be open to agreeing with you.

Yes, they sure do. History takes a lot of practice.... like your misunderstanding of "polis" as a "city state" in the first century. That's just sloppy.

There are many problems with the Nazareth-myth theory that can be solved with a very basic experience in doing ancient history, just like the "polis" thing. Proving that a city never existed is extremely difficult, and the authors don't have the historical acumen to realize their folly.