Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On Nazareth and 'In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."'.
None of her findings were published in a history journal, and historians reviewing her unpublished findings point out the articles are late 1st century or early 2nd century AD. To this date, we STILL have no credible evidence for the existence of Nazareth during the early part of the 1st century AD, whether it existed or not.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement.
“[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
The strong majority of historians acknowledge that the creed dates back to AD 30-35. A very small minority go to AD 41.
Yes, "according to scripture". What scripture? The only scripture Paul (with one exception) ever quotes is the OT. "And he appeared", using the Greek for seeing in a vision.
And this is ignoring the position that this 'creed' may not just be an interpolation, but possibly an interpolation within an interpolation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
If you say "but the documentation on Alexander the Great was based on eyewitness accounts", there's no reason we can't conclude the same for Jesus.
Of course there is a reason. Our earliest texts for Alexander tells us the name of the eyewitnesses, and then quotes them. We do NO have this for Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And even if we say Paul described the appearances as visions, they still need an explanation as does the empty tomb as does the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead instead of just being confirmed as dead.
Explanation of visions - Jesus the angel is revealed in scripture, people then have ecstatic visions of this revealed Jesus. No historical Jesus required.
Explanation for the empty tomb - later fiction.
Jesus risen from the dead - Syncretism of Judaism and Hellenism.
"There is no such place as Nazareth in the Old Testament or in Josephus' works, or on early maps of the Holy Land."—(Holley, 1994, p. 190)
"The prophecy [that Jesus is a Nazarene from Nazareth] is based on Matthew's total misunderstanding of a passage from Isaiah (11:1), where the Messiah is called a nezer (branch); in other words, a branch from Jesse's (father of David) "stump". Matthew reads into "nezer" the city of Nazareth..."—(Uta Ranke-Heinemann , 1994, p. 22)
There is, in fact, no record of Narazeth's existence at that [Jesus'] time...Nazareth is not to be found in any book, map, chronicle or military record of the period so far discovered"—(Gardner, 2007, p. 53)
There exists no epigraphic or archaeological evidence that a city called Nazareth even existed prior to 60 or 70 CE at the earliest, and even if a tiny village did exist, would residence there be what the prophets had in mind to fulfil a messianic prophesy. "It was a tiny rural hamlet. The problem is that it wasn't known by that name. It was actually a tiny, unnamed collection of about a dozen huts near the town of Gat-Hyefer, and was never known by the name of Nazareth until it was picked by a fifth-century Christian Roman emperor to be Nazareth, because he was embarrassed by the fact that no town by that name actually existed."–Scott Bidstrup,
While living at Japha, Josephus resided 2000 meters from what eventually became the centre of late Roman Nazareth, yet in his later survey of the area he makes no mention of the town. Origen lived within a day's journey of the future site of Nazareth for many years but was unable to find such a city, eventually concluding that the Gospel references to Nazareth should be interpreted figuratively or mystically. Nazorean roots of Christianity
Quote:
How do you figure Paul, Mark, Luke, John, etc. to be theologians? Again, it seems like you're just wanting to dismiss these documents out of hand for no reason.
There ya go again...seeing the gospeels as a reliable source.
Quote:
Neither of those statements are a far cry from what I've argued! They just are what I've been arguing, so I don't know what you're on about.
[/quote]Just exactly WHO are you arguing for...
1. an itinerant rebel rabbi with no supernatural powers who, if executed by the Romans, remained dead.
or
2. Jesus the Christ, divine and supernatural son of the Hebrew war god Yahweh, doer of miracles, allegedly executed by the Romans but who came back to life and flew of to heaven.
Please....which one are you arguing for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
For an alleged atheist, you like your Christian apologetics.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement.
“[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
The strong majority of historians acknowledge that the creed dates back to AD 30-35. A very small minority go to AD 41.
Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].). AD 51, at least, is indisputable Terminus quo.
• Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33).4 Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online a bethinking.org]
We know this because Paul received the creed. This is relevant because the most parsimonious view is that he received it during his trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, when he went to with Peter to obtain information and successfully got 15 days worth of information from him while staying.
• Galatians 1:18-19 — Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Notice how in the creed he pays special mind to name these witnesses:
• 1 Corinthians 15:5,7 — and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. … then He appeared to James,
Gary Habermas says this is the “most popular view” [“Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), 288-297.].
• Michael Goulder: “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. D'Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.]
If you say "but the documentation on Alexander the Great was based on eyewitness accounts", there's no reason we can't conclude the same for Jesus.
And even if we say Paul described the appearances as visions, they still need an explanation as does the empty tomb as does the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead instead of just being confirmed as dead.
Do you really think that quoting the bible is an effective way to get support from atheists? That flaw in your thinking makes everything you post of dubious value.
Do you really think that quoting the bible is an effective way to get support from atheists? That flaw in your thinking makes everything you post of dubious value.
None of her findings were published in a history journal, and historians reviewing her unpublished findings point out the articles are late 1st century or early 2nd century AD.
Citations please.
Quote:
To this date, we STILL have no credible evidence for the existence of Nazareth during the early part of the 1st century AD, whether it existed or not.
1. You haven't given any reason not to think the references I gave are not credible.
2. By saying "whether it existed or not", you're not in agreement with the claim I was addressing, which was that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, "according to scripture". What scripture? The only scripture Paul (with one exception) ever quotes is the OT. "And he appeared", using the Greek for seeing in a vision.
I don't find that it matters, quite frankly, what "according to scripture" is referring to. The point is that these events were reported as occurring very soon after Jesus' death. It's only to highlight how early these attestations are.
Quote:
Of course there is a reason. Our earliest texts for Alexander tells us the name of the eyewitnesses, and then quotes them. We do NO have this for Jesus.
Well for starters, you don't need a name to conclude that the documents were based on eyewitness testimony, just a reason in general. But to repeat,
The most parsimonious view is that Paul received it during his trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, when he went to with Peter to obtain information and successfully got 15 days worth of information from him while staying.
• Galatians 1:18-19 — Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Notice how in the creed he pays special mind to name these witnesses:
• 1 Corinthians 15:5,7 — and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. … then He appeared to James,
Gary Habermas says this is the “most popular view” [“Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), 288-297.].
Quote:
Explanation of visions - Jesus the angel is revealed in scripture, people then have ecstatic visions of this revealed Jesus. No historical Jesus required.
Explanation for the empty tomb - later fiction.
Jesus risen from the dead - Syncretism of Judaism and Hellenism.
Notice first and foremost how you need multiple explanations to account for all the data. Christian apologists love it when you guys list them out like this, because it makes it appear like your methods fail in terms of explanatory scope. Just a pro-tip. And I would say, at least, that it relies on coincidence to say that the reason they didn't take these "visions" of Jesus as confirmation he was dead (as they would normally) was because of "syncretism of Judaism and Hellenism".
As for the empty tomb...
1. Paul's testimony implies its historicity.
2. The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity.
3. The use of 'the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition.
4. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and nonapologetic.
5. The discovery of the tomb by women (instead of men) is highly probable.
6. The investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable.
7. It would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty.
8. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Just exactly WHO are you arguing for...
1. an itinerant rebel rabbi with no supernatural powers who, if executed by the Romans, remained dead.
or
2. Jesus the Christ, divine and supernatural son of the Hebrew war god Yahweh, doer of miracles, allegedly executed by the Romans but who came back to life and flew of to heaven.
Please....which one are you arguing for?
I've certainly never argued that Jesus did in fact come back to life. I'm only saying there are various well-attested historical facts that do need explanation. One of them is that Jesus was seen after his death, sure.
As for the Nazareth debate, it appears we're simply quoting scholars at each other. I'd be content with just saying it's not an open and shut case (but of course that means you can't use it as some sort of refutation of Christianity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Do you really think that quoting the bible is an effective way to get support from atheists?
"The bible" is a collection of historical documents, which even mythicists like Richard Carrier have admitted has historical value (we can learn from them). And I'm not expecting "support" from anyone. Just taking anti-theists to task.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul quotes a pre-existing creedal statement.
“[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
The strong majority of historians acknowledge that the creed dates back to AD 30-35. A very small minority go to AD 41.
Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].). AD 51, at least, is indisputable Terminus quo.
• Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33).4 Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online a bethinking.org]
We know this because Paul received the creed. This is relevant because the most parsimonious view is that he received it during his trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, when he went to with Peter to obtain information and successfully got 15 days worth of information from him while staying.
• Galatians 1:18-19 — Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Notice how in the creed he pays special mind to name these witnesses:
• 1 Corinthians 15:5,7 — and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. … then He appeared to James,
Gary Habermas says this is the “most popular view” [“Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection” in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), 288-297.].
• Michael Goulder: “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. D'Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.]
If you say "but the documentation on Alexander the Great was based on eyewitness accounts", there's no reason we can't conclude the same for Jesus.
And even if we say Paul described the appearances as visions, they still need an explanation as does the empty tomb as does the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead instead of just being confirmed as dead.
Whether or not you are atheist or Theist or just discussing, this is all good stuff. It is by discussing the arguments and explanations and indeed referring to the 'general concensus', which deserves attention even if I disagree with the 'concensus' that Jesus actually said what the gospels say he said - and which is a view that I think can be demonstrated - like "david and the Shewbread"- you can SEE that this is something faked up by Christians to persuade their followers and could Never have been said by a Jew who knew his scripture.
I believe that the Authorities - believer and non -believer - have made a basic error in their approach. It assumes that the gospels are basically reliable. That has screwed all their reasoning from the start. Too sadly often I see them pull a Theory out of their ass and then cherry pick and interpret the text to fit it. No. Authority on the Bible is a bit suspect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
