No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My reference to your instructor has always been

...you talking about stuff you don't know about. You haven't trained, and despite the fact that my instructor is one of the leading experts in the world you insist on demeaning an actual master of Eastern arts by insisting on calling him a qigong teacher. Your arrogance knows no bounds, apparently. I'm sorry that you haven't even had as much training in Eastern arts as I have an you continue to regurgitate junk on mysticism without knowing what you are talking about. I really am. Because maybe if you had some experience with actual mystics and masters you'd realize your anti-intellectual, Westernized, commercialized, internet-based mysticism isn't all there is. You can actually know what you are talking about, study mystic practices, and not eschew reason, logic, and knowledge as you do.

You apparently have not looked more closely at the links I provided in which he explains how that is possible.

That's because I can actually read the language and I don't need to trust random websites because I like what they say and pretend that we know what dialect Jesus spoke (or that Paul wrote Aramaic or the other idiotic nonsense your source writes of).

The very fact that he has a published Aramaic Bible

Means he's pretending Syriac is Aramaic or otherwise ******* up the basics. He's an ex-film student whose English isn't great but we're supposed to believe he's a language expert.

says that he knows Aramaic

Lots of people know Aramaic. People on this forum do as do multiple scholars I've quoted for you. Yet real evidence is eschewed in favor of some random internet sources.

In addition, the fact that he translates, as one example, 'Word' as 'Manifestation'

Only the word in "Aramaic" isn't manifestation. How do we know? Because none of the "Aramaic" bibles have that word. So either your random source is lying completely and just made **** up or is taking a later Eastern Aramaic (Syriac) text and pretending it is the "Aramaic" of Jesus and then ascribing a meaning to the word that isn't there. Do you know this? NO. Why? Because you can't produce the bible or a single scrap of evidence you didn't get off of some website. But apparently this pathetic excuse for a "source" is suddenly "evidence" such that we can write off historical evidence for Nazareth.

to the original meaning than the Greek.

Which you also can't read.

I am surprised that a 'scholar' such as yourself would stoop to glossing over some of the things I've posted

Because it's crap.

Did you note, for example, the two videos I posted by Alan Wallace, who is not only a Buddhist monk, but a professor of physics who is also published?

I've seen the crap youtube videos you post. When you actually study physics, get back to me.

I have no training, no education?

Correct.

I don't need to prance around the forum making a cheap show of what I know

You do anyway. You even malign actual Eastern experts like my instructor by repeatedly reducing him to a "qigong instructor". You claim physicists don't understand physics. You claim Western scholars (which, apparently, includes Eastern scholars but you haven't read enough scholarship to realize this) are too biased to understand historical evidence or languages or textual criticism or basically anything. You claim to have godlike access to some mystical source that allows you to understand everything better than everybody.

 

[godnotgod]

But apparently this pathetic excuse for a "source" is suddenly "evidence" such that we can write off historical evidence for Nazareth.

What historical evidence?

 

[godnotgod]

I've seen the crap youtube videos you post. When you actually study physics, get back to me.

Why, when you choose to iabel the videos as 'crap', even though the speaker is a Phd in physics who is published several times?

When you have a video and write a book, get back to me.

Seems your academia has failed to teach you basic logic, and has, instead, created a narrow, biased 'intellectual' (LOL) view that thinks itself somehow superior to others. Again, when you do eventually visit your instructor, he might show you how to get over this egoic barrier which continues to manipulate your thoughts Pavlovian fashion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why, when you choose to iabel the videos as 'crap', even though the speaker is a Phd in physics who is published several times?

Because people with PhD's are capable of producing crap. Usually they know it too. Deepak and clowns like him are the exception- they produce crap and seem to think it is worth something. Sensationalism sells, and it is difficult to produce good, interesting books that aren't largely crap especially when we are talking about highly mathematical topics like QM. There is so little that can really be understood about QM without knowing Dirac notation, Hermitian matrices, vectors, statistical mechanics, etc. When you through Eastern philosophy into the mix of a highly technical topic dumbed down you get crap. You want quantum mysticism read Bohm, Deutsch, or Zeh (and stop holding Einstein, the guy who was so convinced that the universe was governed by the classical paradigm he rejected the very quantum mechanics he helped found, as the paradigm of physicist mystics).

What historical evidence?

Start with the NT and the early Christian fathers.

 

[godnotgod]

Because people with PhD's are capable of producing crap. Usually they know it too. Deepak and clowns like him are the exception- they produce crap and seem to think it is worth something. Sensationalism sells, and it is difficult to produce good, interesting books that aren't largely crap especially when we are talking about highly mathematical topics like QM. There is so little that can really be understood about QM without knowing Dirac notation, Hermitian matrices, vectors, statistical mechanics, etc. When you through Eastern philosophy into the mix of a highly technical topic dumbed down you get crap. You want quantum mysticism read Bohm, Deutsch, or Zeh (and stop holding Einstein, the guy who was so convinced that the universe was governed by the classical paradigm he rejected the very quantum mechanics he helped found, as the paradigm of physicist mystics).

So is Alan Wallace's information 'crap'?

Start with the NT and the early Christian fathers.

The NT is not a reliable source, nor is it historical. Talk about 'crap'! It's so obvious, you can smell it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So is Alan Wallace's information 'crap'?

Yes, at least insofar as it concerns physics. The Conscious Universe?

The NT is not a reliable source, nor is it historical.

It is a historical source. I don't often quote Wikipedia, but as I wrote this I will:
Gospel Genre

One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings.[72] " Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical Jesus,[48] then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography.[73][74][75][76][77] Although not without critics,[78] the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today.[79]

One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings.[72] " Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical Jesus,[48] then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography.[73][74][75][76][77] Although not without critics,[78] the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today.[79]

Talk about 'crap'!

You do. Frequently. However, you aren't usually able to back up anything you say with anything substantive. The gospels are historical sources. When you study ancient history you get accustomed to the idea that historiography of the past isn't that of today and a great deal (particularly details) is inaccurate. That the authors would have invented a town and nobody noticed is idiotic.

 

[outhouse]

You do. Frequently. However, you aren't usually able to back up anything you say with anything substantive.
.

I agree.


I cannot believe this thread still has a pulse of any kind.

That the authors would have invented a town and nobody noticed is idiotic.

Agreed.


Th eonly way one can follow a mythical Nazareth is with a heavy handful of intelectual dishonesty. Salm is a perfect example.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no such evidence. Again, we have one small house and some farm implements, a wine press, etc.

No village, no Nazareth.

No 1st century mention of a Nazareth, esoteric or exoteric, ANYWHERE, not even from Josephus, who lived one mile away.

Then, almost half a century later, BANG! Everyone is talking about 'Nazareth'.

Bull!

Dude, Salm reviews the archaeological reports from Nazareth. I am referring to material cited by your source.

 

[godnotgod]

The Conscious Universe?

Yeah, YOU!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because people with PhD's are capable of producing crap.

Say it ain't so!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The gospels were written years later by unknown authors. By that time, there was a Nazareth, so they didn't exactly invent a town, but probably extrapolated their currently existing Nazareth onto the past.

I could fly a passenger jet upside down through the hole in that argument.

I'm now satisfied with this nonsense.

[godnotgod waves the white flag]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Say it ain't so!

I meant other people with PhDs. Clearly you could never produce crap. Of course, until you do, you'll never make real money (unless you publish a few textbooks).

 

[godnotgod]

i could fly a passenger jet upside down through the hole in that argument.

you haven't, so no white flag, and no cigar. The facts remain:

No first century nazareth, no matter what you think!

[godnotgod waves the white flag]

not! It's red! You're color blind. Time to make another road trip to las vegas for sustenance and mental well-being.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

There are three basic reasons for historians accepting that Nazareth existed:
1) Nazareth is mentioned in the literature [yes, this includes the New Testament, which is not rejected on a simple bias]

Except that it suddenly appears only in the NT. No mention in the OT and other sources of the time. Josephus lived 1 mile (ONE MILE!) from what is present day Nazareth, and he makes no mention of any 'Nazareth', even though he conducted a military campaign all around that area for years, and documented other existing towns. He would have encountered many citizens coming to and from Nazareth. Instead, we have a vacuum, like so many other vacuums in Christianity. Taken altogether, Highly Suspicious, if not da-mn-ing.

2) Excavations have located Nazareth on no uncertain terms [though anyone can say that it's located somewhere else]

So a 1st century town or village verified as having been Nazareth has been excavated?

3) Cities do not just fall from the sky. Nazareth did not suddenly appear the first time that it was mentioned in a non-Christian text.

Is that a 1st century non-Christian text? Which? Cities DO fall from the sky; they did when they suddenly appeared in the NT.

4) Excavations have located early [first to third century] material in Nazareth

So what?

 

[godnotgod]

Let's see...so far, how far have we gotten. square one: no 1st Century Nazareth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let's see...so far, how far have we gotten. square one: no 1st Century Nazareth.

Right. You yawned on about a PhD in physics on youtube and ignored a NT studies PhD on this forum.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let's see...so far, how far have we gotten. square one: no 1st Century Nazareth.

Yes - it sprung, perfectly formed, out of Mithras's thigh when Zarathustra spake, "Nazarus, come forth!"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's actually a date - 221 CE, when Nazareth fell from the heavens, summoned by the mighty Sextus Julius Africanus. Unfortunately, it fell on his mother, and he wept the Ganges.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There's actually a date - 221 CE, when Nazareth fell from the heavens, summoned by the mighty Sextus Julius Africanus.

Nice.
No, folks! The reference isn't to the first battle in Gladiator in the coliseum. Different Africanus.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

There are three basic reasons for historians accepting that Nazareth existed:
1) Nazareth is mentioned in the literature [yes, this includes the New Testament, which is not rejected on a simple bias]

Except that it suddenly appears only in the NT. No mention in the OT and other sources of the time. Josephus lived 1 mile (ONE MILE!) from what is present day Nazareth, and he makes no mention of any 'Nazareth', even though he conducted a military campaign all around that area for years, and documented other existing towns. He would have encountered many citizens coming to and from Nazareth. Instead, we have a vacuum, like so many other vacuums in Christianity. Taken altogether, Highly Suspicious, if not da-mn-ing.

2) Excavations have located Nazareth on no uncertain terms [though anyone can say that it's located somewhere else]

So a 1st century town or village verified as having been Nazareth has been excavated?

3) Cities do not just fall from the sky. Nazareth did not suddenly appear the first time that it was mentioned in a non-Christian text.

Is that a 1st century non-Christian text? Which? Cities DO fall from the sky; they did when they suddenly appeared in the NT.

4) Excavations have located early [first to third century] material in Nazareth

So what?