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.
No, it is not. The book is nothing but Jewish apologetics, and is blantantly
anti-Christian.
And YOU don't know what you're talking about.
John Meier is a christian, and a Catholic Biblical scholar as well as a Catholic priest. He's highly respected in his field and knows more about early Christianity than most people - and most definitely you or me. Are you claiming that a Catholic priest is "anti-Christian"? That's funny. Really funny.
Unless you've read the 5 volumes, you can't really comment that "the book is nothing but Jewish apologetics, and is blatantly anti-Christian" - because you don't know that, AND:
You're wrong.
The first volume, for example, has an Imprimatur from the Catholic Church - which is: "an official license by the Roman Catholic Church to print an ecclesiastical or religious book". That means the contents of the work have been reviewed by and are officially approved of by the Catholic Church.
But according to you, it's "anti-Christian" and full of "Jewish apologetics".
Again, you obviously and painfully don't know what you're talking about, and you're dead wrong.
i couldn't give two figs about Rene Salm. In fact, I'd never even heard about him until this thread.
You should, otherwise the whole "Nazareth not existing" would not even be a poor argument. Most of the arguments you are using come straight from websites that are influenced by Salm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Well you've quoted a bible archaeologist and neither Trans or I have any good to say about them.
God forbid you rely on experts. Are you one of those people that tell a Nuclear Scientist they are doing it all wrong, and then get mad when they laugh at you? Do you mock computer engineers and suggest they build their computers with playdoh instead?
That reminds me of Fundamentalists who try to tell me that they don't need to know Hebrew, and can understand all the details of the Bible from an English translation - and then completely try to argue against someone who knows Biblical Hebrew. I see it all the time on this forum. It's nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
i really don't know what you are arguing about because we basically agree with each other that there was no city of Nazareth for jesus to have come from and thus the gospel account of a city of Nazareth is historically false.
Do you even read what I post? It was more of a village, a podunk village - NOT a city. The Gospels themselves state this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
That is the only argument that we should be looking at. I happen to accept the evidence that, in the early first century, Nazareth was at best one or two farms which developed into a small vilkage following the first Jewish war after 70CE. You believe that 'at the time of' the Christian man-god, there was an established village there. At the end of the day, it really doesn t matter which of us is correct. All that matters is that the CITY OF NAZARETH with it's synagogue...as described in the gospels, did not exist. The story is not historically correct. Job done. Let's move on for goodness sake.
Nah, job not done. You're playing semantic games. You're focusing on "city with a synagogue" when that is not the picture of the Gospels. A story may be wrong on some details, but this does not mean the story never happened. Do you think the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib never happened - simply because we have discrepancies in the two accounts we have of the siege, from both sides of the conflict? That's pretty bad historical method. A siege happened - the different details of the accounts don't remove that fact. Nazareth existed - the different details of the accounts don't remove that fact. Do you think Jesus never existed, because we can't "prove" he did miracles? Buddha? Mohammed? Again, you're insisting the ENTIRE story be correct, or none of it happened. That's just bad historical method - well, terrible historical method.
Show me ONE credible historian who agrees with you - Biblical scholar or not Biblical scholar. ONE.
Luke has the Christian man-god being born during the census of Quirnius (6CE) and Matthew says he was born before the death of Herod (4BCE). They can't both be true because there is 10 years difference between the two events. It is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled, however hard apologists try to twist and 'invent' history. The verifiable history is against them.
The one and only time that Quirinius was governor of Judea was 6CE. Apologist attempts to invent a Quirinius census prior to 6CE fail miserably because before that time there was no need for a census because then, Judea was a client kingdom and the Romans did not need a census for a client kingdom....the king took care of taxes. The Romans took over the area in 6CE and that is why the census was required.
So...
1. Quirinius wasn't governor before 6CE so there could not have been an earlier Qurinius census of Judea.
2. Before 6CE, Judea was not under the control of Rome. It was a client state that was, until 4BCE, ruled Herod.
3.The Romans didn't collect taxes in client kingdoms.
4. Following the death of Herod, his son Herod Archelaus took over. In 6CE, Herod Archelaus was kicked out for screwing up and the Romans took control of Judea. 5. They installed Quirinius as governor and his first job was to conduct a census so that the area could be taxed.
There was no Roman census of Judea before 6CE because Judea was not under the control of Rome, so no census was required. The census was a literary tool to get the Christian man-god to Bethlehem to be born.
Even if we completely ignore that the time line makes no sense, the rest of the story does not make any sense either. One has to be a idiot to believe that the Romans uprooted their entire empire and had people travel for days to sign a tax form at the home of some dead ancestor. That it was for tax purposes makes the story even more ridiculous because for tax purposes it does not matter where you are from, what matters is where you live NOW.
....and what kind of jerk would Joseph have to be to make his wife who is due to pop any day make a 90 mile journey on foot to watch him sign a tax form? She did not matter...only Joseph would have to have been there.
The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. The Jewish historian Josephus portrays the annexation and census as the cause of an uprising which later became identified with the Zealot movement. The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means by which Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5) and places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who actually died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE. No satisfactory explanation has been put forward which could resolve the contradiction, and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
THE NATIVITY
Luke has the Christian man-god being born during the census of Quirnius (6CE) and Matthew says he was born before the death of Herod (4BCE). They can't both be true because there is 10 years difference between the two events. It is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled, however hard apologists try to twist and 'invent' history. The verifiable history is against them.
The first things we should acknowledge is that exact dates that long ago are impossible to know with certainty.
Luke has Jesus born during the FIRST census of Quirnius. There was at least 4 Herods and the only one mentioned by name is Agippa, who died in 44 AD.
Quote:
The one and only time that Quirinius was governor of Judea was 6CE. Apologist attempts to invent a Quirinius census prior to 6CE fail miserably because before that time there was no need for a census because then, Judea was a client kingdom and the Romans did not need a census for a client kingdom....the king took care of taxes. The Romans took over the area in 6CE and that is why the census was required.
At that time, Quirnius did not have the official title of governor and was probably only the acting governor.
Quote:
So...
1. Quirinius wasn't governor before 6CE so there could not have been an earlier Qurinius census of Judea.
2. Before 6CE, Judea was not under the control of Rome. It was a client state that was, until 4BCE, ruled Herod.
3.The Romans didn't collect taxes in client kingdoms.
4. Following the death of Herod, his son Herod Archelaus took over. In 6CE, Herod Archelaus was kicked out for screwing up and the Romans took control of Judea. 5. They installed Quirinius as governor and his first job was to conduct a census so that the area could be taxed.
The Romans took a census for taxing its citizens ever 5 years. This was extended to include all of it s empire in 5 BC.
Quote:
There was no Roman census of Judea before 6CE because Judea was not under the control of Rome, so no census was required. The census was a literary tool to get the Christian man-god to Bethlehem to be born.
Luke dates the census in 8 or 7 B.C. which I consider more accurate.
Quote:
Even if we completely ignore that the time line makes no sense, the rest of the story does not make any sense either. One has to be a idiot to believe that the Romans uprooted their entire empire and had people travel for days to sign a tax form at the home of some dead ancestor. That it was for tax purposes makes the story even more ridiculous because for tax purposes it does not matter where you are from, what matters is where you live NOW.
Then prove it wrong. The FACT it makes no sense too YOU is meaningless.
Quote:
....and what kind of jerk would Joseph have to be to make his wife who is due to pop any day make a 90 mile journey on foot to watch him sign a tax form? She did not matter...only Joseph would have to have been there.
He was obeying the law. That is what every good citizen should do. How do you know she walked? The Bible doesn't say she did. In any event they Got there safely. One would have to be an idiot to think God would not watch over them and get them there safely. His eye iis even on the sparrows so it is logical that He would keep His eye on the birth of His "Son.
Quote:
The
Quote:
Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. The Jewish historian Josephus portrays the annexation and census as the cause of an uprising which later became identified with the Zealot movement.
It is doubtful that Quirinius was ever the official governor of Syria.
Quote:
The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means by which Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5) and places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who actually died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE. No satisfactory explanation has been put forward which could resolve the contradiction, and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.
Much of the Gospel narratives are fanciful, unhistorical and made up - that's for sure.
How do you know?
Quote:
But why is there such an emphasis on "disproving" Nazareth? As far as I'm aware, no such thing has happened since archaeological evidence points to a small village during the Hellenistic and Roman period. There is even a Herodian period tomb.
This all sounds like an argument from silence.
An argument from silence is still better than personal, biased OPINIoNS.
Contrary to what was stated in the OP, early Jewish and Rabbinic sources DO mention Nazareth. A priestly family settled in Nazareth shortly after the time of the Jewish Revolt (70 CE), the Hapizez family (see Mishmaroth 18); there is a Byazantine inscription in Hebrew detailing a Priestly tradition at Nazareth; Midrash Qoh. Rabba 2:8, in the 3rd century, mentions a priestly tradition at Nazareth.
As for the village itself,
The general archaeological picture is that of a small village, devoted wholly to agriculture, that came into being in the course of the 3d century BC. Although there are traces of earlier Bronze Age or Iron Age occupation, none of these suggests a continuity of more than a generation at a time. It is the late Hellenistic period that gives life to Nazareth, as it does with many other sites which have been surveyed or excavated in the Galilee. People have continued to live in Nazareth from the 3d century BC to the present day.
(James F. Strange, ABD IV, Doubleday 1992, p. 1051)
Nazareth is spoken of as some dirt-poor little podunk village. I wouldn't expect to see it massively attested in historical sources - why would it? It is unlikely that the tradition of Jesus coming from Nazareth (which was viewed so negatively by many), which Matthew and Luke had to leap around to match the tradition of the messiah coming from Bethlehem, was a mere reflection of the so-called prophecy that the messiah would be a "Nazarene".
I understand the desire to "negate" the existence of Nazareth, but it's really not needed. One can support the historical existence of a Jesus, or of a town, without having to admit that he was some sort of divine Messiah. There are many other historical problems with the Gospel narratives - I don't really see how this one adds to that picture.
Anyways, I'm no expert on the New Testament or anything, but I did study the Historical Jesus problem many years ago - and the existence of Nazareth as a town was never a major stumbling block, as far as I can recall. There are SO many other problems that are much more obvious.[/quote]
If the Bible mentions something, it is trued unless you can prove otherwise.
Try reading the points made and debunking them. Saying 'Yes, they are credible' when the evidence is against you may convince the fundies here but doesn't do a thing for those of us that prefer evidence. Try the Nativity problem for a start.
I read them and debunked them. What you presented may convince the secular fundies, but doesn't do a thing for real evidence.
The nearest point where such a thing could have taken place is Mt Kedumim, 2.5 miles South of the alleged Nazareth. Can you imagine a mob marching the man-god 2.5 miles just to chuck him off a cliff. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha! Why not just stone the bugger?!?!
If the important things in the gospels are false (miracles, crucifixion, resurrection etc) then Christianity is false...and that should be important to you.
To bad you have no evidence that miracles, the crucifixion, resurrection etc are not true. I have 4 eyewitnesses that say they are true.
I'm so sweet, I make it easy for you. Take any one of the 3 you just mentioned and prove it is not true.
The Bible is not historically credible. There is no evidence that there was a worldwide flood, or that Jesus fed a several thousand people with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread. Contrary to what the Bible says, we know that the human species evolved and there was no "first human" placed on earth by God.
WE have a record written by men who considered it a sin against God to bare false witness. All you have is personal opinions.
Quote:
There are videos on YouTube featuring Bart Ehrman, arguably one of the foremost authorities on the subject. He explains in unbiased, logical terms why the Bible is not given credibility as an historical document.
Ehrman is one of the most liberal theologians in the world. He was part of the Jesus Seminar, which stacked the deck with liberal theologians and made rules that guaranteed the outcome originator wanted.
It was such a farce because the voted on if what is attributed to Jesus He actually said. When you have to vote on what is true, it is because you don't have any evidence. They started our with a preconceived formula---ther is no such thing as miracles and fulfilled prophecy.
Ehrman is far from being the foremost authority on the subject. Try reading R.C Sproul. if you want to know the truth.
the bible was never assembled to be used literally. Literally true or literally false is irrelevant. But it amazes me the lengths pathological's will write and write and write and write ...
... and write. boat loads of nothing.
It is not irrelevant. If it is not true, Christianity is fraud. If it is true secularism is a fraud.
If secularism is true, what I believe is irrelevant. If what I believe is true, what others believe is critical.
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.
Why not just stone the bugger?!?!
