Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-07-2016, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,325,881 times
Reputation: 600

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post

Well I am aware of it and this nonsense was debunked years ago. 'Bible archaeology' LMAO! It's a house...one house. Nazareth was described as a city in the Bible so where are all the other houses, the shops, the municipal cemetery, the roads and the synagogue that this 'city' would have had? This 'house' is simply apologist wishful thinking. It's 'bible archaeology' - find something and then try to make it fit the story. Trowel in one hand and Bible in the other.

When you get down to the real evidence, Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature. Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus.
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

The archaeology rather than the Bible archaeology says Nazareth did not exist as a town until the third century CE. Exhaustive archaeological studies have been done by Franciscans to prove that such a town existed but actually they have shown the site to have been a cemetery during the first century CE.



'Nazareth' is a mistranslation. It's not 'Jesus of Nazareth' (because there was no Nazareth) but Jesus the 'Nazarene/Nazorean.'


"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

If you are going to rely on 'Bible Archaeology' you are going fall on your face aaaaaaaaall day!
Here we go again. First you deny written historical evidence, now you deny archeological evidence.

Take a look at the dates of your quotes Raf. the house was not discovered until 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2016, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,325,881 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I don't know what you and Raffs are disagreeing about, other than what seems to be whether Tacitus is valid evidence or not. I know in the early atheist days, we mocked at the claims of 'extra -Biblical evidence for Jesus' and indeed when we looked into Phlegon, Thallia and Pliny it was nothing. Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus was arguable, and you are now familiar with the arguments.

But a historical Jesus was really a minority view and the claims that the whole Gospel story was based on Osiris, Mithras and Tammuz and Paul's letters were faked by Marcion seemed far - fetched. True, there do seem to be those elements in there. Various resurrected gods fed into the resurrection idea, Isis and Horus contributing to the Madonna and child Icon and the Matthew nativity seems uncannily like the birth story of Mithras.

But like the Shekel - eating fish, these are just add -on incidentals that don't in themselves debunk a real Jesus, just as the debunking of Nativity, Resurrection and the Jews dunnit claim doesn't mean there wasn't a real Jesus.

In fact, it isn't about the 'Real' Jesus at all. It is about the credibility of the Gospel Jesus. And that is something that ...well as you say: 'some atheists'. I may say I have been gravely disappointed in the irrationality of some. I may mention a very erudite Jesus debunker I rather admired and I tried to discuss my ideas with him.

I was dismayed to find that he wasn't even listening. He just dismissed it and when I pointed out he hadn't even addressed the points, he called me a liar. Yep. Some atheists.

That makes no difference to the argument. Just like 'they say there is no God'. Even if they do (aside what they actually mean by that) the rationale for atheism is not affected by any mistaken or immoderate remarks this or that atheist may make.. The argument stands on its own merits, not by how many asshats you can find wearing that particular hat. And the same goes for Christians. Someone putting up a bunkum case only means his particular argument in bunk. If a decent case is put up, I respect that, even if I may not buy it. But it's the case itself that matters. Which is sometimes why I'll work out the other person's case for them. Because getting at the truth is what matters, not just winning.




I think if you dig into those claims - apart from that house which does seem to be of early 1st c date - there is nothing that suggests a town or even decent sized village in Jesus' time. I looked up a lot of these claims and it seemed that these features dated to either earlier of later but it was presented as contemporary with Jesus. I gather that the terraces were at least worked in Jesus' time and perhaps some of the farm -features can be dated to a farm at that time. Which is why I say - one farm, not a town. You don't have farms where towns ought to be.

Since it's on topic, I don't at all mind a 'Nazareth in Jesus' time?' thread. I may also mention that even if there was a Bethlehem - of- Judea in Jesus' time (archaeology seems to suggest that it was abandoned in the early 1st c) Jesus still was not born there, if one really looks at the Nativity stories.

I may mention to be going on with that I spent a long time wrestling with the idea of 'The Nazorene' meaning belonging to the society of the Nazorenes, perhaps those who had taken a Nazirite vow. But the counter was that all the gospels refer to Jesus of Nazareth. I am now inclining to the view that Jesus did indeed come from Nazareth, but the 'area' of Nazareth ('Gen-Nesaret' -see Matthew 14.35...I would have used Mark 6.5, but he gets his geography confused) derived perhaps from the old 'Kinnereth'.

As I recall. It seems from some Online browsing that post Jewish war, some Jews under the leadership of a Rabbi or two,were sent to settle in Gennesaret (there is some written verification and maybe an inscription) and of course built a town. That town was Nazareth. That's my current theory, anyway. That of course would give you 1st c remains, but not early 1st c remains.
Start the thread then Trans, even though I like you and the method you approach things, I am not going to take your word for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,797,345 times
Reputation: 2879
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
If something is written and someone disagrees with that which is written the BOP should be on the one who brings up the disagreement to prove what is written is incorrect. Until what is written can be proven to be wrong, what is written must stand as it is.
So if you write that mermaids exist and I disagree that mermaids exist we must assume that mermaids exist until I can prove you wrong huh? Now, even now after all the times that it has been explained to you, you still don't get it. THE BoP IS ON THE ONE WHO MAKES THE INITIAL CLAIM - NOT ON THE ONE WHO DISAGREES. Disagreeing with a claim does not move the BoP from the one making the claim and place it on the one who disagrees. If it did, you could say...'Rafius stole my wallet' and if I said, 'No I didn't'.... then the BoP would fall on me to prove you wrong! You're an idiot if you think that's how it works. If you write that mermaids exist then YOU have to show that they do. If you claim there is is an elephant living under your bed then YOU have to show that it is there not for me to prove that it is not. If you say that i stole your wallet then YOU have the BoP to show that I did. I do not take the BoP onto myself if I disagree with you.

For goodness sake...READ, STUDY and INWARDLY DIGEST and stop making a fool of yourself....


Holder of the burden.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

[Sorry about the red text mods but he's clearly not seeing it. It needs something drastic to get it into his head.]

Do you see it??

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.

It's saying that if YOU make the initial claim then YOU have to prove the claim.

then....

An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

So here it is saying that by saying that the claim holds until proven wrong, you are creating a logical fallacy in attempting to shift the BoP from yourself to your opponent and make your opponent prove your claim wrong.


Will someone PLEEEEEAAAASE try to explain it to him.

Quote:
Belief does not need proof. If belief does not need proof all anyone has to say is I do not believe what is written to be true so it is up to the other guy to prove what they believe to be wrong. In other words they do not have to defend what they believe, it's an idiotic stance.
Whether you think it idiotic or not that is how it works. Haven't you even got enough brain cells to understand that a BELIEF is NOT a statement of FACT.


Quote:
So shall we begin or is the gospels still off limits, Raf needs to pipe in here.
I thought the idea was that you were going to argue that the gospels were reliable and we were going to oppose you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Are you saying the gospel are now accepted in this thread?
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma;45740122[QUOTE
]Here we go again. First you deny written historical evidence, now you deny archeological evidence.
What historical evidence?? Really man, I am beginning to doubt your sanity. You see 'evidence' where none exists! Are you seriously arguing that the discovery of a small house is all we need to accept the existence that there was once a city of Nazareth??

Quote:
Take a look at the dates of your quotes Raf. the house was not discovered until 2009.
It doesn't matter if it was discovered yesterday. It is not evidence for a city. Again, Where are the other houses, where are the roads and other infrastructure, the shops, the cemetery, where is the synagogue that the Bible says was there? What has been found is one house that is probably a farm of some sort and you are claiming a city. It isn't even a hamlet, it certainly isn't a village, no way is it a town and you have sawdust for brains if you think it's a city.

Last edited by Rafius; 10-07-2016 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,325,881 times
Reputation: 600
[quote=Rafius;45741123]So if you write that mermaids exist and I disagree that mermaids exist we must assume that mermaids exist until I can prove you wrong huh? Now, even now after all the times that it has been explained to you, you still don't get it. THE BoP IS ON THE ONE WHO MAKES THE INITIAL CLAIM - NOT ON THE ONE WHO DISAGREES. Disagreeing with a claim does not move the BoP from the one making the claim and place it on the one who disagrees. If it did, you could say...'Rafius stole my wallet' and if I said, 'No I didn't'.... then the BoP would fall on me to prove you wrong! You're an idiot if you think that's how it works. If you write that mermaids exist then YOU have to show that they do. If you claim there is is an elephant living under your bed then YOU have to show that it is there not for me to prove that it is not. If you say that i stole your wallet then YOU have the BoP to show that I did. I do not take the BoP onto myself if I disagree with you.

For goodness sake...READ, STUDY and INWARDLY DIGEST and stop making a fool of yourself....


Holder of the burden.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
[Sorry about the red text mods but he needs something drastic to get it into his head.]

Do you see it??

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.

It's saying that if YOU make the initial claim then YOU have to prove the claim.
then....An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

So here it is saying that by claiming that your opposition has to prove you wrong, you are creating a logical fallacy in attempting to shift the BoP from yourself to your opponent.


Will someone PLEEEEEAAAASE try to explain it to him.

Whether you think it idiotic or not that is how it works. Haven't you even got enough brain cells to understand that a BELIEF is NOT a statement of FACT.


I thought the idea was that you were going to argue that the gospels were reliable and we were going to oppose you.

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma;45740122What historical evidence?? Really man, I am beginning to doubt your sanity. You see '[I
evidence'[/i] where none exists! Are you seriously arguing that the discovery of a small house is all we need to accept the existence that there was once a city of Nazareth??

It doesn't matter if it was discovered yesterday. It is not evidence for a city. Again, Where are the other houses, where are the roads and other infrastructure, the shops, the cemetery, where is the synagogue that the Bible says was there? What has been found is one house that is probably a farm of some sort and you are claiming a city. It isn't even a hamlet, it certainly isn't a village, no way is it a town and you have sawdust for brains if you think it's a city.
A simple yes or no, are the gospels now to be used in this thread? I want no misunderstanding here.

And you seem to be the only one who does not want to give any proof for what you believe, which is understandable seeing you have no proof and are only going on faith, which by the way atheist say they do not base anything on faith, are you sure your an atheist?

oh for pet sake, you seem to be under the impression archeological evidence can be found over night. You do realize that all archeological finds started out with finding 1 thing and then finding more and more, it does not just spring up over night.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,325,881 times
Reputation: 600
what the heck happened there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,797,345 times
Reputation: 2879
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
A simple yes or no, are the gospels now to be used in this thread? I want no misunderstanding here.
Sure. I'm more than happy to prove the discrepancies in your gospels...where ever it is.

Quote:
And you seem to be the only one who does not want to give any proof for what you believe, which is understandable seeing you have no proof and are only going on faith, which by the way atheist say they do not base anything on faith, are you sure your an atheist?
Give it up. I have shown that you do not even come close to understanding what the BoP is or what it says. It's noted that you put up no rebuttul to my last post. Do you disagree with the Wiki article regarding the BoP and if not, do you now accept that he that makes the initial positive claim bears the BoP not the one denying the claim?

P.S. I don't operate on 'faith'.

Quote:
oh for pet sake, you seem to be under the impression archeological evidence can be found over night.
Overnight?? Your house was found in 2009. What more of the city has been uncovered in the past 17 years? The answer is NOTHING...which in my book says that there was no city, town, village or even a hamlet of Nazareth. The best you'll get is that there was some kind of farm, homestead or house. Big deal!

Quote:
You do realize that all archeological finds started out with finding 1 thing and then finding more and more, it does not just spring up over night
Do you realise that when archaeology makes a find it continues to dig until it finds nothing more...especially when it claims to have found such a world-shattering discovery as 'Nazareth'? It doesn't stop for 17 years and if it has continued to dig in the 17 years since the house was found - why haven't they found the rest of the city? Answer = because there was no city, town, village or even hamlet of Nazareth for the Christian man-god to have come from.

Score 1 for the unreliability of the Gospels.

Last edited by Rafius; 10-07-2016 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 04:22 PM
 
63,455 posts, read 39,704,022 times
Reputation: 7789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Do you realise that when archaeology makes a find it continues to dig until it finds nothing more...especially when it claims to have found such a world-shattering discovery as 'Nazareth'? It doesn't stop for 17 years and if it has continued to dig in the 17 years since the house was found - why haven't they found the rest of the city? Answer = because there was no city, town, village or even hamlet of Nazareth for the Christian man-god to have come from.
Score 1 for the unreliability of the Gospels.
What special knowledge do you possess, Rafe, of just exactly what would have constituted a city, town, village or even hamlet in that era? Is there some standard yardstick of ancient communities? Why wouldn't a large farm constitute such a community?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 04:37 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,479,719 times
Reputation: 2070
The above posts prove it doesn't matter anymore. get over it. Literal people will make up a ton of convoluted logic to support literally true or convoluted logic to show literally false ... as seen above. "literal" people have real issues. More proof that the internet will prove anything you want it to.

We have to get past "literally died" and then "literally" rose.
Weather he is real, or not, is not for normal people to worry about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2016, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Canada
11,123 posts, read 6,325,881 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Sure. I'm more than happy to prove the discrepancies in your gospels...where ever it is.

Give it up. I have shown that you do not even come close to understanding what the BoP is or what it says. It's noted that you put up no rebuttul to my last post. Do you disagree with the Wiki article regarding the BoP and if not, do you now accept that he that makes the initial positive claim bears the BoP not the one denying the claim?

P.S. I don't operate on 'faith'.

Overnight?? Your house was found in 2009. What more of the city has been uncovered in the past 17 years? The answer is NOTHING...which in my book says that there was no city, town, village or even a hamlet of Nazareth. The best you'll get is that there was some kind of farm, homestead or house. Big deal!

Do you realise that when archaeology makes a find it continues to dig until it finds nothing more...especially when it claims to have found such a world-shattering discovery as 'Nazareth'? It doesn't stop for 17 years and if it has continued to dig in the 17 years since the house was found - why haven't they found the rest of the city? Answer = because there was no city, town, village or even hamlet of Nazareth for the Christian man-god to have come from.

Score 1 for the unreliability of the Gospels.
Believing in something that cannot be proven is called faith Raf. and that is you to a T.
Atheist laugh at Christians who use faith to make a claim, how much more are they going to laugh at one of their own doing the same thing. Do you hear laughter Raf.


What year is it? oh ya it's 2016.

You might be an English teacher but you sure ain't a math teacher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2016, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,797,345 times
Reputation: 2879
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What special knowledge do you possess, Rafe, of just exactly what would have constituted a city, town, village or even hamlet in that era? Is there some standard yardstick of ancient communities? Why wouldn't a large farm constitute such a community?
Special knowledge...none. Common sense plenty. Certainly enough to know that a city, town, village or hamlet constitutes more than a single dwelling. I would class Jerusalem as a city. I would class a single dwelling as...well, a single dwelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Believing in something that cannot be proven is called faith Raf. and that is you to a T..
...and where do I do that?

Quote:
Atheist laugh at Christians who use faith to make a claim, how much more are they going to laugh at one of their own doing the same thing
Show where I have ever relied on faith.

Quote:
Do you hear laughter Raf.
Yes. You should stop making a fool of yourself and doubtless it will stop.

Quote:
What year is it? oh ya it's 2016.

You might be an English teacher but you sure ain't a math teacher.
If that is all you have then you might as well give up now. The point remains the same...that since 2009 all that has been found is a single dwelling which is probably some kind of farm. Where is the rest of the city of Nazareth?

...and I note once again that you offer nothing to my rebuttal of your ridiculous concept that - he who disagrees with the proposal must prove the proposer wrong. That concept must be where all that laughter you hear is coming from.

Last edited by Rafius; 10-08-2016 at 01:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top