Are the Gospels Historically Credible? (evolution, verse, Christ, science)
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.
Quite simply because the archaeology does not show a decent sized town in Jesus' time. Just this one arguable house. Josephus doesn't mention the place. That wouldn't matter if we had the archaeology just as it wouldn't matter if Philo, say, had recounted the massacre of Innocents. But the situation is that the question of the existence of an early 1st c. Nazareth has come up and so far those who want to prove that it existed have nothing, other than this one house and that increasingly suspect fragment "C".
Far be it from me to cast nasturtiums on a prefessional archaeologist, but some doubts about the reading of the text, the finding of the fragment and how it came to be lost means that I would require some explanation before I give the Caesarea inscription credit as support for Nazareth.
It isn't desperation. It is legitimate questions about that fragment.
Trans who said Nazareth was a city or even a good size town? Both myself and Whopper have only stated Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. I have not argued for anything other then that.
Look again how polis is used.
What is a Polis? Polis is a term that is used to describe a tight-knit, small community of ancient Greek citizens who agreed on certain rules and customs. Usually a polis was centered on a small town and the countryside that surrounded it. The ancient Greek poleis (the plural of polis) are among the first recorded democratic governments in the world.
The polis centred on one town, usually walled, but included the surrounding countryside. The town contained a citadel on raised ground (acropolis) and a marketplace (agora). Government was centred in the town, but citizens of the polis lived throughout its territory. Ideally, the polis was a corporation of citizens who all participated in its government, religious cults, defense, and economic welfare and who obeyed its sacred and customary laws.
I said a decent -sized town because that is what you'd need, or so it seems to me, to be where you 'came' from. If you could be known as Joseph, or Jacob of a village, I'll change my view on that.
'City' (polis) is really appropiate for walled cities, but the writers appear to apply it to unwalled towns as well. But not a village, or 'nome' would be used. Maybe a village of at least 50 houses would do.
That is what we haven't seen yet in Nazareth archaeology. That one house doesn't look very urban, as I said, and no other houses have come to light.
It is, old chum, the fallacy I warned about to regard the possibility that can't be disproven as the one that you regard as evidence in the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that this is Jesus' house and (supposing there are a few more yet to be discovered) more likely that it isn't.
Excited headlines of the 'could be the house Jesus lived in' are simply attention -grabbers, and have more to do with journalism than archaeology, even without the undisprovable possibility (which should therefore be the one you take as true) that Biblical archaeology is more about Bible evidence than archaeological evidence.
I am still leaving it open between three possibilities I can think of
(1) Jesus was a Nazarene because he had taken a vow, or followed a doctrinal path.
(2) Jesus came from a town (large village or small city) of Nazareth.
(3)Jesus came from "Nasret" which was referring to the plain of gennessaret.
The first is supported by Paul's failure to refer to Nazorenes, though Matthew has heard of the title.
the second is supported by the tradition, the courtyard house and the Caesarea inscription suggesting that the place was already there to go to. Those are all arguable.
(3) the 'area' of Nazareth would do it, but Nazareth is further away from the plain that I would like and I'm not sure of the etymology.
That's where it seems to be right now. As I say, it is a sideline, but if it turne out that there really wasn't a Nazareth before the Jewish war (apart from earlier settlements not even called Nazareth) it is another swipe at gospel credibility.
As to Aramaic, histories, even if written in Aramaic, Latin or Persian, would be published in Greek. But Matthew couldn't read Hebrew - he had to real the Bible in Greek (Septuagint) ad that means, as the most interested in OT and the Law of the writers, is good evidence that he was Greek, not Jewish (as his particular hatred of Jews supports) and if he wasn't, none of them were. Thus they only used aramaic passages they got from somewhere else and explained to their readers what it meant.
I originally thought 'lama sabachthani' on the cross suggested a reliable source, and Luke and John simply altered that as the despair didn't suit them. But, when I found out it was a quote from Psalms, I efused to believe that Jesus on the nails would quote Psalms, and since it is Mark and Matthew, not Luke, I put it down as 'M' material, not synoptic original.
If I had to place a bet, I'd say that the original story had Jesus 'cry out' and then die. The writers thought that he should have some last words and John puts in triumph, Luke resigned acceptance (taking his cue from Paul's "Obedience") and Mark and Matthew follow the Decapolis material.of "M" (or "P").
I note by the way, that "Peter" supports Mark and Matthew, though in the Arian form of Jesus power leaving him, a mere man, on the cross. And I suppose that means I should do in the resurrection next.
Gospel of Peter. V. 15 Now it was noonday, and darkness prevailed over all Judaea: and they were troubled and in an agony lest the sun should have set, for that he yet lived: for it is written for them that the sun should not set upon him that hath been 16 slain (murdered). And one of them said: Give ye him to drink gall with vinegar: and they mingled it and gave him 17 to drink: and they fulfilled all things and accomplished 18 their sins upon their own heads. And many went about with 19 lamps, supposing that it was night: and some fell. And the Lord cried out aloud saying: My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me. And when he had so said, he was taken up.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-19-2016 at 08:04 AM..
Trans who said Nazareth was a city or even a good size town? Both myself and Whopper have only stated Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus. I have not argued for anything other then that.
...but of course, he doesn t say what it existed as. This of course gives him the benefit of never being proven wrong. 'It existed' will cover him if evidence of a city comes to light and it will cover him if Nazareth turn out to be just a farm or two. It is a simple case of intellectual dishonesty.
When you come to think of it, even if Joseph was a maker of Shaker chairs rather than a builder as 'Tekton' is sometimes read, you would need a sizeable town to trade in, or you couldn't live. I'd say you are looking at a thousand families or you have a damn' thin trade. Unless he had built -in obsolescence or he does houses, plumbing and kitchen unit installation, he is going to run out of customers even with 1,000 families.
Just a small village, let alone a few farms doesn't work. Joseph would move to Sepphoris or Jotapa or at least Caperrnaum or Tiberias, so as to have people to sell his product to.
It wouldn't work either as leaving there and going to Capernaum (Matth 4.13, Luke 4.31) as his family was still at Nazareth, and even if Joseph went to Capernaum, taking Jesus, the sons at least would go too, to learn the trade.
What you think Pneuma? Is a Nazareth with a hundred or less houses simply not reconcilable with the gospels?
Ps. cue someone proposing rewriting the Bible ("Joseph must have been a farmer, not a carpenter") to fit in with the faith.
But first indulge me. I read the thread on Nero 'The beast'. The vid was well worth a look. I am inclined to agree that Nero was "666". And perhaps his persecution of "Christians" after the great Fire was part of it. But I think it the Jewish war.
The problem was that Nero didn't want to administer the empire. he left that to his favourites, and they provoked a revolt in Britain and one in Judea. I have long suspected a connection between revelation and some of the more warlike scrolls of the Qumran collection.
Boudiccan revolt AD 60 or 61 AD.
Great fire of Rome 64 AD
Jewish war 66-73 AD
Ok...
Mark 16. 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
Matthew 28. 1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.
5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
Luke 24.1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words,
9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
John 20.1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
John pretty much debunks the synoptic version. The don't see any angel, let alone Jesus. And Matthew stands alone is having Jesus put in an appearance. If we take it that the last reliable agreed part of the story is that the women (John says "we" so I accept that one other at least was with her) go to the tomb and find it open and empty, as surely they'd look inside. Then they run away. Mark probably is the first version and there is no reporting to the disciples. That has to be added as the disciples become involved in the subsequent stories.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-20-2016 at 01:50 PM..
When you come to think of it, even if Joseph was a maker of Shaker chairs rather than a builder as 'Tekton' is sometimes read, you would need a sizeable town to trade in, or you couldn't live. I'd say you are looking at a thousand families or you have a damn' thin trade. Unless he had built -in obsolescence or he does houses, plumbing and kitchen unit installation, he is going to run out of customers even with 1,000 families.
Just a small village, let alone a few farms doesn't work. Joseph would move to Sepphoris or Jotapa or at least Caperrnaum or Tiberias, so as to have people to sell his product to.
It wouldn't work either as leaving there and going to Capernaum (Matth 4.13, Luke 4.31) as his family was still at Nazareth, and even if Joseph went to Capernaum, taking Jesus, the sons at least would go too, to learn the trade.
What you think Pneuma? Is a Nazareth with a hundred or less houses simply not reconcilable with the gospels?
Ps. cue someone proposing rewriting the Bible ("Joseph must have been a farmer, not a carpenter") to fit in with the faith.
You must be a city boy to write what you just did. I live in a small town, I work in the city. There was a city just a few miles from Nazareth.
...but of course, he doesn t say what it existed as. This of course gives him the benefit of never being proven wrong. 'It existed' will cover him if evidence of a city comes to light and it will cover him if Nazareth turn out to be just a farm or two. It is a simple case of intellectual dishonesty.
Your an idiot. I showed you what polis meant and just because it does not have to refer to a city like you wanted it to, you come up with nothing more then slander. Slander seems to be your whole case, you cannot provide any evidence for what you believe and must work off faith so all you do is slander anyone who disagrees with you even when the evidence has been provided.
The sad thing about it is you have led Trans away from his usual method of going where the evidence leads to working off of faith also.
What is really ironic about all this is atheist always say they do not work off of faith but follow the science, archeology, history, etc. yet here we have two atheist who cannot provide any evidence (with is faith) via science, archeology, history, etc. to back up there claims about Nazareth and a Christian who is following where the evidence leads.
Maybe some of your fellow atheist should speak up here as their silence is giving the impression all atheist work off of faith when the evidence goes against what they believe.
So until you, my little faith believing atheist, can provide evidence showing Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus I am done with this topic.
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.
that gave me a laugh this morning my old tadpole.
My tail is now purely vestigial!
The resurrection
I read the thread on Nero 'The beast'. The vid was well worth a look. I am inclined to agree that Nero was "666". And perhaps his persecution of "Christians" after the great Fire was part of it. But I think it the Jewish war. 
