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.
Now there. Isn't that easier and making more sense now that we have a clue?
We probably don't have anything in common with regard to what brings me here. I'm here because I would like to see religion gone gone from our society ... and if I can point out the pitfalls of religious belief it might just persuade a lurker or two to walk away from it.
...but I think we might be off topic. Why don't you start another thread about it?
i would, but if you cannot see where we have anything in common, and maintain that tilting at windmills--with all due respect--in respect to whether there was an actual person named Jesus is the best way to go, i doubt there would be a point. You seem convinced that religion = Bible, whereas i detest religion, and read that God does, too; so perhaps that is the answer--one you surely do not accept.
i would, but if you cannot see where we have anything in common, and maintain that tilting at windmills--with all due respect--in respect to whether there was an actual person named Jesus is the best way to go, i doubt there would be a point. You seem convinced that religion = Bible, whereas i detest religion, and read that God does, too; so perhaps that is the answer--one you surely do not accept.
What is religion, to you? the definition?
Start a new thread or we'll get a *******ing for being off topic.
Gremlins old thing. That was supposed to be for TRANSPONDER. It's at the end of his post 981. Technology...don't ya just love it?
I guess it would have been cool from Arch, I mean if somebody else gotta talk for me, Arch might just say enough cool things to make me look good, just don't start using words of Last Amelikite or Cupper, I might have to debate myself.
yet i notice that i am suddenly incomprehensible, speaking in tongues i guess, when i ask for something really quite easy to understand, that being "what do we seek in common," from an atheist, ok. I think it is denial, and i don't think they can give me a word, and i think all of the deliberately "wrong" answers are an answer, all by themselves. There is some avoiding going on, because a truth does not want to be faced. There weren't any problems understanding me far enough to provide bogus answers, now was there.
I found it a bit obscure too, beause you were asking rather than telling and we had to guess what you were getting at. What do you think we seek in common? You tell us, and we'll say what we think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
What in the world? I sure don't remember saying anything like what you quoted me saying, did I say that to you some other place?
Yes, to me (alias Arq) tipping me off that a thread addressing the more relevant argument about Gospel reliability rather than a Jesus historicity, has been started.
Good posting btw Raffs on the claims that are made to look like they are showing excavated remains in Nazareth to be early 1st c when that is by no means demonstrated. It is a point well taken that there may well have been a 1st c Nazareth, but post Jewish war - long after Jesus was dead.
I found it a bit obscure too, beause you were asking rather than telling and we had to guess what you were getting at. What do you think we seek in common? You tell us, and we'll say what we think about it.
Yes, to me (alias Arq) tipping me off that a thread addressing the more relevant argument about Gospel reliability rather than a Jesus historicity, has been started.
Good posting btw Raffs on the claims that are made to look like they are showing excavated remains in Nazareth to be early 1st c when that is by no means demonstrated. It is a point well taken that there may well have been a 1st c Nazareth, but post Jewish war - long after Jesus was dead.
Meh, sure don't remember, and what you said looks thought out and intelligent but you know me, I can't put things together and a professor like you is always talking over my head. If we could chill and share a dube and a Budweiser, maybe you would be saying,'' Yo Hannibal, look at this ^%$%, get all deep and I could listen to you all night cause I know there is some deep things in the somewhere, but Please, Ask Raf to send me a friend request, I have feelings to ya know, wassup with that kingfish anyway?
Meh, sure don't remember, and what you said looks thought out and intelligent but you know me, I can't put things together and a professor like you is always talking over my head. If we could chill and share a dube and a Budweiser, maybe you would be saying,'' Yo Hannibal, look at this ^%$%, get all deep and I could listen to you all night cause I know there is some deep things in the somewhere, but Please, Ask Raf to send me a friend request, I have feelings to ya know, wassup with that kingfish anyway?
Good posting btw Raffs on the claims that are made to look like they are showing excavated remains in Nazareth to be early 1st c when that is by no means demonstrated. It is a point well taken that there may well have been a 1st c Nazareth, but post Jewish war - long after Jesus was dead.
Quite so dear heart! It's just another example of the dubious tactics of Bible archaeologists. Nobody but nobody other than Alexandre and her team are claiming that the house is early first century. The house is dated to the 'Early Roman' not early first century. Claiming that it's from 'the time of Jesus' is simply Bible archaeology wishful thinking.
I have no problem with a late 1st century Nazareth. No doubt that Jews that were dispersed by the first war c70CE moved to other areas and started building, probably even incorporating hiding places in their houses just in case the fun kicked off again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
Ask Raf to send me a friend request, I have feelings to ya know,
Done old pal. Can I have a ride on one of your elephants now?
Now there. Isn't that easier and making more sense now that we have a clue?
We probably don't have anything in common with regard to what brings me here. I'm here because I would like to see religion gone gone from our society ... and if I can point out the pitfalls of religious belief it might just persuade a lurker or two to walk away from it.
...but I think we might be off topic. Why don't you start another thread about it?
Well that explains a lot. With a hate like that how can you or anyone else think you have been objective throughout this whole thread. You sound like you want to tear Christianity down at all cost. To carry around a hate like that is not healthy.
With a hate like that how can you or anyone else think you have been objective throughout this whole thread.
I have been objective because I have followed the evidence, unlike you who just went with what you desperately want to be true.
Quote:
You sound like you want to tear Christianity down at all cost.
I want to tear down ALL religions. I don't have a good word to say about about religion. It's divisive, primitive, dangerous, it takes advantage of the weak and then has the cheek to expect immunity from criticism for no other reason than it's someone’s "belief".
Quote:
To carry around a hate like that is not healthy.
No. It's walking around in the 21st century believing that gods, angels and demons are real and dedicating one's life to ancient, superstitious nonsense that is not healthy.
I also 'hate' and would like to tear down cruelty to animals and people, racism, bigotry, poverty, corruption, apartheid, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, war, internet pop-ups and Justin Bieber. Is that unhealthy too?
...and criticising me simply because you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to dispute my arguments is just being a bad loser. You need to learn to live with the fact that verifiable evidence, logic, reason and common sense is going to trump ancient superstitious beliefs like yours every time. Sorry...but that's just how it is.
You're an idiot if you think that one single dwelling is evidence for the city of Nazareth. Do you really think, even in your wildest dreams, that all that will have been discovered since 2009 is one single house had there REALLY been a city there? Oiy vez! You can really be THAT dumb.... can you???
Have I said anything about a city? Please produce where. I have only spoken so far about the 1 century finds in Jesus day.
Quote:
If anyone thought that that was Nazareth, you wouldn't be able to move without tripping over 'Bible archaeologists'. There would be more archaeologists there shifting dirt than ants moving soil out of their nest after a rain storm....all desperate and fired up with proving that there was a city for their man-god to have come from.
Opinion is not fact and that is only your opinion.
Nazareth today is a city of about 70,000 people. Now I do not know about anyone else but I would not let a bunch of archaeologist come onto my property and just start digging it up.
Quote:
Google is your friend. Look it up. The only mention of this 'house' comes from apologists and the IAA (read tourism). No serious archaeologist is interested. Apart from Franciscan monks digging around there, the only 'archaeologist' that is there is Yardenna Alexandre. Who is Yardenna Alexandre? Well she actually works for the IAA (what a surprise) and she is the 'archaeologist' that claim to have found the found the actual wine jars with which JC performed his miracle at Cana.
Your twisting her words to suite your own cause. Yardenna Alexandre said they were the same type of vessels that were used in the time of Jesus. Read it again in the thread you provided here.
and who sponsored both the wine jars dig AND the Jesus house dig.... Well what a surprise!! It was the Nazareth Municipality and the Government Tourist Corporation
Excavations by Yardenna Alexandre and Butrus Hanna of the Israel Antiquities Authority in 1997-98 – sponsored by the Nazareth Municipality and the Government Tourist Corporation – . . . .
Source Wiki - Mary's well.
So Nazareth Tourism sponsorship makes an appearance when one searches for Yardenna and the IAA
... we find that ...The “Association Mary of Nazareth” intends on conserving and presenting the remains of the newly discovered house inside the building planned for the “International Marian Centre of Nazareth”.
"Alexander believes that with more substantial investment, the site could became a major tourist attraction and pilgrimage destination."
Do you hear the jangle of tourist dollars folks?
Every major find is put up as a tourist attraction, old things seem to fascinate people. You seem to be under the impression that archaeologists work for free. Do you have the same objection about the Roman coliseum being used as a tourist attraction? Your bias is simply getting in the way again.
Quote:
On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement (recently taken offline) from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.
The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”). Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE). The excavation took place between Nov. 11 and Dec. 7, 2009, under the direction of IAA archaeologist Y. Alexandre. It took place in the so-called “venerated area” next to the Church of the Annunciation, located on the Nazareth hillside. At this time, the official release from the IAA is the primary report and ultimate source of information on this excavation. As is normal, statements going beyond it must be supported by the presentation of verifiable evidence, and statements contradicting it must be viewed with skepticism. No house from the time of Jesus
Surely the mythicist Rene Salm is not one of your credible evidences you speak about. Like a mythicist does not have a bone to chew, he can hardly be said to be objective. Mythicist's have the same objective you do, to tear down Christianity at all cost. Are you a mythicist?
Salm is not an archaeologist, has no expertise in the field and yet mythicist use his opinion on archaeology in place of actual archaeologists and their finds. Mind boggling, and here I thought we were looking for evidence not opinion. But as we seen in the Tacitus topic Raf. Seems to believe opinion trumps actual evidence.
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.
