The Biblical god Is No Better Than An Abusive Husband (prophet, Jesus)
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.
Because you, Vic, and Raf go back and forth (continuously) restating the same facts/arguments
That's because the same arguments are being presented. Just how do we deal with the same arguments without using the same rebuttals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
You should be. I keep seeing this tack employed on the forum. "The evidence so far is that I'm right" being used interchangeably with "We don't have any evidence that you're right". But that doesn't follow. If the blog is correct and there is still a great deal of research to be done there, how do we conclude that the research confirms you're right when they've already found something (which some definitions allow to be called a village or town).
What they have 'found' is a house that experts (other than the likes of Alexandre, who is more into tourism) have dated to the Early Roman Period which is generally described as being up to 200CE, so the house could well be from a period when Nazareth did have a growing population, which would have been after the Jewish wars. All other evidence that has been found so far, most of which has come from the 1950's by Franciscan monks desperate to find evidence of their man-god, have been mostly funerary items and a few pots. The conclusion, even by your hero Bart is that, at best, Nazareth at the time when the Christian man-god was alleged to have been born, was a few impoverished hovels and an odd farm.
Another thing that is against your town/city of Nazareth is that the amount of funerary artefacts that have been found would suggest that the area was a cemetery.
That's it fella. That is the verifiable evidence that we have. One single house does not make a town or a city as described in your Bible, it doesn't even make a decent hamlet. When you have found 5 houses, come back and we'll discuss Nazareth being a hamlet. When you have found 15 we can discuss it being a village. When you have found 200 I will concede that Nazareth was a town and when you can present 1000 houses and a synagogue, I will be more that happy to concede that the gLuke was correct.
Quote:
Even if they had found no settlement there, the conclusion that therefore there wasn't a town there is questionable (mostly because, as I said, there's a lot more to explore).
Granted but the area has been extensively explored already by Franciscan monks and no sign of notable habitation has been found. We can only go on what has been found so far...and that would be...nothing that would indicate anything more than a few impoverished hovels. Perhaps this week they will uncover a whole metropolis. Perhaps this week Yahweh will suddenly reveal himself from behind a cloud but until that happens, we have to go with what the evidence dictates and that is that there was no town/city of Nazareth as described in the gospels and there is no Yahweh hiding behind a cloud
Quote:
That is not what I've been told, typically.
Then you have been told wrong and the verifiable evidence supports what I'm saying.
Quote:
And you yourself, in the post I originally quoted which started this conversation, said plainly "...and yet there was no 'city'/town' of Nazareth at the alleged time of the Jesus man-god".
Well there wasn't!
Quote:
Evidently, there was something that at least some dictionaries can call a town.
You really are grasping at straws if you are clinging to some dictionary calling a few houses (which is a hamlet) a 'town.' Hamlets are called hamlets for a reason and towns and cities are called such for a reason.
Quote:
I can grant that we've no evidence of a synagogue or of a large city.
They you must also grant that gLuke is wrong.
Quote:
But that's not what "Nazareth didn't exist" typically implies,...
I'm not saying that Nazareth didn't exist and I've already explained to you what I'm saying. I'm saying that Nazareth, from what the verifiable evidence we have, was not a town/city with a synagogue as gLuke describes. It was at best, a few impoverished hovels...and thus it is yet another valuable example (not that more are required) that the NT cannot be relied upon for historical facts.
Quote:
And we've plenty of evidence for concluding that Jesus existed.
So you keep saying...and we are still waiting for you to produce the evidence.
The conclusion, even by your hero Bart is that, at best, Nazareth at the time when the Christian man-god was alleged to have been born, was a few impoverished hovels and an odd farm.
What NT scholar Ehrman says is this: "The AP story concludes that 'the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.'"
He doesn't say "at best" anywhere, much less "At best, it was just a few hovels and a farm". And it's interesting you're willing to appeal to Ehrman when (you think) he agrees with this small point of yours but not with his actual conclusion, which reads: "No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant... Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources." (emphasis mine)
Quote:
That's it fella. That is the verifiable evidence that we have.
Right, so we do not have evidence "that Nazareth at the time of the Christian man-god was a a few poor hovels and a farm or two", as you claimed. It doesn't follow that because all we've found (according to you) is x that therefore x is all there was. If that were valid logic, then Nazareth was simultaneously nothing, but also a few hovels, but also a few hovels and a farm all at once.
Quote:
One single house does not make a town or a city as described in your Bible,
I never said it did make a town or city as described in your Bible
Quote:
They you must also grant that gLuke is wrong.
As I've said, I'm not arguing (and certainly neither is Ehrman) that the gospels are accurate in everything they say. I don't know why you're fighting so hard to establish something I already agree with.
Quote:
it is yet another valuable example (not that more are required) that the NT cannot be relied upon for historical facts.
I don't know of any historical document (or collection thereof) where the historian just assumes it's all true or all false. What they do is try to determine what is/isn't historical in the texts, based on several criteria. But- and I know you're not going to like this- the existence of other sources which are thought to be independent and still corroborate with the source in question, lends credibility to at very least those specific claims in the document. "Early, independent sources". You hear it all the time. So that is the real question, not whether any given gospel is accurate in all the things they say. Including how they may/may not have embellished on what Nazareth was like.
That's why Ehrman concludes not that Jesus didn't exist, but that Nazareth wasn't as described in the gospels.
Quote:
So you keep saying...and we are still waiting for you to produce the evidence.
I don't know how much more you need or think you're justified in expecting.
What NT scholar Ehrman says is this: "The AP story concludes that 'the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.'"
He doesn't say "at best" anywhere, much less "At best, it was just a few hovels and a farm". And it's interesting you're willing to appeal to Ehrman when (you think) he agrees with this small point of yours but not with his actual conclusion, which reads: "No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant... Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources." (emphasis mine)
Right, so we do not have evidence "that Nazareth at the time of the Christian man-god was a a few poor hovels and a farm or two", as you claimed. It doesn't follow that because all we've found (according to you) is x that therefore x is all there was. If that were valid logic, then Nazareth was simultaneously nothing, but also a few hovels, but also a few hovels and a farm all at once.
I never said it did make a town or city as described in your Bible
As I've said, I'm not arguing (and certainly neither is Ehrman) that the gospels are accurate in everything they say. I don't know why you're fighting so hard to establish something I already agree with.
I don't know of any historical document (or collection thereof) where the historian just assumes it's all true or all false. What they do is try to determine what is/isn't historical in the texts, based on several criteria. But- and I know you're not going to like this- the existence of other sources which are thought to be independent and still corroborate with the source in question, lends credibility to at very least those specific claims in the document. "Early, independent sources". You hear it all the time. So that is the real question, not whether any given gospel is accurate in all the things they say. Including how they may/may not have embellished on what Nazareth was like.
That's why Ehrman concludes not that Jesus didn't exist, but that Nazareth wasn't as described in the gospels.
I don't know how much more you need or think you're justified in expecting.
they fight it so hard for the exact same reason a fundy theist fight so hard for it to be literally true. Their whole world view is based on thinking their view infallible.
can you imagine if jesus was shown to real for them? For us regular non believers it wouldn't make a hill of beans diference that a man named jesus lived. it changes nothing.
what really scares me is when we actually raise a dead person. These fundys, and raf would probably join them, will go Berzerko on us. Not realizing that if it did, indeed, happen, we should be grateful the aliens were friendly.
What NT scholar Ehrman says is this: "The AP story concludes that 'the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.'"
The evidence for which is one house and a few graves. LOL!
Quote:
And it's interesting you're willing to appeal to Ehrman ....
I don't appeal to Ehrman other than to point him out as your poster-boy.
Quote:
"No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant...
It's not mentioned because there was no town or city there. That is what the evidence says. I really don't know why you are arguing other that the fact that you seem to want to argue about anything with anybody as long as you can support your beloved Christianity. My stance is and always has been that Nazareth did not exist as the town/city described in the Bible. That's it! WTF is your problem with that?
Quote:
Right, so we do not have evidence "that Nazareth at the time of the Christian man-god was a a few poor hovels and a farm or two", as you claimed.
It doesn't follow that because all we've found (according to you) is x that therefore x is all there was. If that were valid logic, then Nazareth was simultaneously nothing, but also a few hovels, but also a few hovels and a farm all at once.
So your argument now becomes...'Just because we haven't found it doesn't mean it wasn't there'. Ye gods!! LMAO!
Quote:
"Early, independent sources". You hear it all the time. So that is the real question, not whether any given gospel is accurate in all the things they say.
Yes we do hear it ...and we are STILL waiting for you to produce these 'independent' sources. All you have produced so far are four documents by anonymous authors who were not there, saw nothing and produced unreliable documents.
Quote:
I don't know how much more you need or think you're justified in expecting.
The evidence for which is one house and a few graves. LOL!
Well, neither of us know how they drew that conclusion, but it might have something to do with this talk of not having excavated much of it (it being beneath modern-day Nazareth and all), which even the mythicists admit. If they have indeed only explored a small fraction of the area that Nazareth was expected to have been in, then I have no problem seeing how "one house and a few graves" (nevermind the quality of the house or that the graves were tombs, or that there was a farm as well, etc.) could indicate a settlement of about 50 homes.
Quote:
I don't appeal to Ehrman other than to point him out as your poster-boy.
He's officially just as much your poster-boy, since you did in fact appeal to what he said, because you thought he was saying we can conclude at best there were a few hovels and a farm and that's it.
But alas, he wasn't.
Quote:
It's not mentioned because there was no town or city there. That is what the evidence says.
An argument from silence, then. Nevermind what we do find. If we don't find it everywhere, then ignore it. Is that it?
Quote:
I really don't know why you are arguing other that the fact that you seem to want to argue about anything with anybody as long as you can support your beloved Christianity.
I could say something very similar about your desire to oppose it.
Quote:
My stance is and always has been that Nazareth did not exist as the town/city described in the Bible. That's it! WTF is your problem with that?
No problem with that stance (besides the aforementioned misleading language behind "...didn't exist" rather than "looked very different"). I quoted and responded to a very differently worded stance, that's all.
Quote:
and we are STILL waiting for you to produce these 'independent' sources. All you have produced so far are four documents by anonymous authors who were not there, saw nothing and produced unreliable documents.
Notice that none of this contradicts that they're early, independent sources. All dated at different times and seemingly pulling from different sources of their own. That's in addition to Paul, including the tradition he was given and reported. And less than half of this would still put Jesus on par with a lot of people we know existed from that time period.
I don't know what you think has convinced the majority of scholars, if not evidence. I swear, don't convert to Christianity! If you did, you'd surely be a Young Earth Creationist!
I don't know what you think has convinced the majority of scholars, if not evidence. !
To be honest with you, I don't know what has convinced them. If we look at historical Jesus on Wiki we find...
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.
Quickly followed by...
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus,
So just what is is it that leads people to believe that a personage for which there is not a scrap of physical or archaeological evidence was a real person. All they have are biased documents from biased sources such as the Gospels, of which they go on to say that the authenticity and reliability of these Gospels has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.
So given all that, why do they believe that Jesus existed when there is no physical or archaeological evidence for him and the only documentary sources available to them are, by their own admission, unreliable!
Beats me other that they don't want to be controversial.
To be honest with you, I don't know what has convinced them.
The evidence, same as with any discipline. There are methods they use to do history. And they're not based (typically) on who's going to be mad/happy about their conclusion.
Quote:
If we look at historical Jesus on Wiki we find...
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.
Quickly followed by...
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus,
Well keeping in mind that the Wiki is written by Justin E. One, I think "physical" is probably "archaeological", they're just saying the same thing twice. Because surely the documents are in physical form, even if you don't agree with how the archaeological findings have been assessed (No, I'm not talking about Nazareth, relax).
Quote:
All they have are biased documents from biased sources such as the Gospels, of which they go on to say that the authenticity and reliability of these Gospels has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.
All true. That's why they do things like seeing how well what's reported fits in with outside reports, determining what language the document probably was in originally (they make more sense in Aramaic than in Greek), etc. to get at whatever is probably true. It's worth reiterating that Ehrman debates against Christians all the time and admits that the gospels are full of problems and that's why he stopped being a Christian. But even he thinks it's absolutely bonkers that anyone would think Jesus never existed.
Quote:
Beats me other that they don't want to be controversial.
That doesn't explain the passionate rantings against Christian belief in Ehrman's speeches and debates (which, BTW, should disqualify him even in your mind as my hero of all things). I think all the same things you're saying could be said by any YEC. "Who knows why they keep saying the Earth is older than 6,000 years old! So what if they've got rocks they claim are older? That's not really evidence, they need to provide (blah blah blah) or they're just siding with the majority so they're not kicked out of their professions for being controversial!" I'm sorry, but that's what a NT historian hears when people start going on and on about Osiris supposedly being the basis for 'the Jesus myth', etc.
The evidence, same as with any discipline. There are methods they use to do history. And they're not based (typically) on who's going to be mad/happy about their conclusion.
Well keeping in mind that the Wiki is written by Justin E. One, I think "physical" is probably "archaeological", they're just saying the same thing twice. Because surely the documents are in physical form, even if you don't agree with how the archaeological findings have been assessed (No, I'm not talking about Nazareth, relax).
All true. That's why they do things like seeing how well what's reported fits in with outside reports, determining what language the document probably was in originally (they make more sense in Aramaic than in Greek), etc. to get at whatever is probably true. It's worth reiterating that Ehrman debates against Christians all the time and admits that the gospels are full of problems and that's why he stopped being a Christian. But even he thinks it's absolutely bonkers that anyone would think Jesus never existed.
That doesn't explain the passionate rantings against Christian belief in Ehrman's speeches and debates (which, BTW, should disqualify him even in your mind as my hero of all things). I think all the same things you're saying could be said by any YEC. "Who knows why they keep saying the Earth is older than 6,000 years old! So what if they've got rocks they claim are older? That's not really evidence, they need to provide (blah blah blah) or they're just siding with the majority so they're not kicked out of their professions for being controversial!" I'm sorry, but that's what a NT historian hears when people start going on and on about Osiris supposedly being the basis for 'the Jesus myth', etc.
And we've plenty of evidence for concluding that Jesus existed. Not that proving where he lived is necessary.
All based on Mark's piece of fiction. Because everyone who said Jesus existed based their works on Mark. Houses built on sand and all that jazz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
That's like me saying Ehrman, Feldman, and Bauckham have demonstrated otherwise. Proves nothing.
No, I have read their papers. They make solid arguments. Whereas just saying "Ehrman, Feldman, and Bauckham have demonstrated otherwise" would be an argument from authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Even the Wikipedia page dates Mark to no later than 70 AD.
Wikipedia on anything to do with Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
If you know something that the majority of scholars don't (which seems to be a trendy claim among mythicists these days), then present it.
I did. You quoted me doing it. Straw men are fallacies, remember? The majority of scholars accept a date range for Mark. Many argue the early 70's (maybe the 80's) is more probable, but they accept it could be as late as 150 AD (when Justin Martyr mentioned Mark).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I was asked about how these were dated. I took that to mean "typically", so I answered. I'm sure, if you want to get technical, some nutcase out there dates the gospel of Mark to 30 AD. Should I have answered, "30-2019", just to be safe?
You mock, I will stay with doing history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And there are arguments against the passages in Josephus being Christian interpolations, such as how the author referred to James. We could go in circles all day over these details.
Yes, James and the odd grammar used to describe him. I know (and can present) the evidence. You just say there are people who disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Well there are reasons so many (I keep hearing most) scholars agree there was some sort of narrative Mark pulled from (and some claim it was quite early, even to late 30s). One was that the high priest isn't mentioned by name. So they reason that it must be referring to Caiaphas since Christians would not have explicitly mentioned him due to fear of the religious leaders. Since Matthew and Luke were later, they do not have to fear mentioning Caiaphas by name.
Gerd Theissen and Richard Bauckham later added that prominent members of the church were also left unnamed for their protection because they would have been open to prosecution or violence from the authorities. And then the other gospels identify these people because they were later, after they didn't have these concerns.
Most scholars? I ask myself how many who are not apologists would argue for an early narrative (other than Paul and the OT)? As to the people being not being named, yes, we understand the early fictional characters were later given names and histories. We see this not only in the gospels, but it was common in the 2nd - 4th century AD as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Or possibly not...
Except my position is backed by evidence, not wishful thinking. I do not agree with the idea the visions passage was added later (it makes more sense to be 1st century AD), but I accept it may be possible due to the 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.
LMAO! 
