Are the Gospels Historically Credible? (salvation, prophets, Holy Spirit, faith)
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.
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 find it ironic that the Bible Archaeologists, KJV in one hand and *****xe in the other, seriously try to identify the hill those neighbours tried to throw Jesus off. They might as well search France for the site of Amon Sul. That story in Luke is garbage.
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?!?!
Simply because someone is a so-called "Biblical Archaeologist" does not mean they climb around with a KJV as their guide. This isn't the time of Albright anymore. Things have changed. Their methods are no longer aimed at "proving" anything. I don't know where you get your research on Nazareth from, but J. Strange has a lot of experience in his field of study - and while not personally familiar with the majority of his work, I don't find many biases that would be typical of the old-style American Biblical Archaeology School - now discredited for the most part. See his works and digs here: http://religious-studies.usf.edu/fac...strange_cv.pdf.
A priestly family doesn't move to a non-existent village around 70 CE. They move to an established village. As I said, the Jewish sources (who have everything to gain by disproving Nazareth) have no problem admitting its existence from early on.
The point I was trying to make about Nazareth is that the tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth is not from Matthew or Luke. It is Matthew and Luke who have to deal with that prior tradition and embellish their narratives in order to harmonize the Nazareth tradition and the Bethlehem prophecy - the latter being the more important point for them. They certainly wouldn't have had to jump through so many hoops, if they could simply have omitted the Nazareth tradition. Which should suggest to any reasonable person that the Nazareth tradition is reliable. It is the Bethlehem tradition that should be questioned, and has been for hundreds of years now!
Ta, old cob, but I'm more doing what I always do - setting out my stall and inviting people to criticize my wares. It seems sound to me but I could always be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
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.
Vizza is of course free to state his views. It just means that he is tossing his hat in the ring when we challenge them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-11-2016 at 05:51 PM..
Simply because someone is a so-called "Biblical Archaeologist" does not mean they climb around with a KJV as their guide. This isn't the time of Albright anymore. Things have changed. Their methods are no longer aimed at "proving" anything. I don't know where you get your research on Nazareth from, but J. Strange has a lot of experience in his field of study - and while not personally familiar with the majority of his work, I don't find many biases that would be typical of the old-style American Biblical Archaeology School - now discredited for the most part. See his works and digs here: http://religious-studies.usf.edu/fac...strange_cv.pdf.
A priestly family doesn't move to a non-existent village around 70 CE. They move to an established village. As I said, the Jewish sources (who have everything to gain by disproving Nazareth) have no problem admitting its existence from early on.
The point I was trying to make about Nazareth is that the tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth is not from Matthew or Luke. It is Matthew and Luke who have to deal with that prior tradition and embellish their narratives in order to harmonize the Nazareth tradition and the Bethlehem prophecy - the latter being the more important point for them. They certainly wouldn't have had to jump through so many hoops, if they could simply have omitted the Nazareth tradition. Which should suggest to any reasonable person that the Nazareth tradition is reliable. It is the Bethlehem tradition that should be questioned, and has been for hundreds of years now!
Good post. Yes. The tradition of Nazareth in the gospels is there. But was it a village or a district? I think there are hints that it could be the latter. You make a good point that they could have used an existing village as a starting point for a post AD 70 town, but after a devastating war - Sepphoris and Jotapa no longer existed - could they simply not have have built a new town?
I agree: rather like a real historical Jesus, a real historical Nazareth (or not) is not the issue so much as the credibility of the gospel stories told about them.
A few quick notes per Nazareth.Simply because someone is a so-called "Biblical Archaeologist" does not mean they climb around with a KJV as their guide.
Yet nearly all of them do. It is their general MO, that's why it's called Bible Archaeology. Do you know of any Bible archaeologist admitting that the evidence disproves the Bible. I certainly don't. But I do know of many that deliberately lie, mislead and misrepresent the evidence.
Quote:
This isn't the time of Albright anymore. Things have changed. Their methods are no longer aimed at "proving" anything. I don't know where you get your research on Nazareth from, but J. Strange has a lot of experience in his field of study - and while not personally familiar with the majority of his work, I don't find many biases that would be typical of the old-style American Biblical Archaeology School - now discredited for the most part. See his works and digs here: http://religious-studies.usf.edu/fac...strange_cv.pdf.
I don't deny his academic credentials but then...we have many eminent scientists that believe in a 6 day 'creation'.
Quote:
A priestly family doesn't move to a non-existent village around 70 CE. They move to an established village
You are arguing against a strawman old thing. The evidence suggests that some kind of tiny settlement was being established there in the late first century. Could it be that the family moved there in order to establish a settlement where there wasn't one? It's possible isn't it.
The questions is not whether there was a farmstead or two there in the late first century. The question is...was there a city there in the early first century for Jesus to have come from? Was there a synagogue there for him to visit? Was there enough people living there to form a large hostile crowed to drag the man-god to a cliff 2.5 miles away? The gospels say that there was. If there was not then the Gospels are not historically accurate and we can drive another nail into the coffin...as Trans says.
Quote:
As I said, the Jewish sources (who have everything to gain by disproving Nazareth) have no problem admitting its existence from early on.
To which Jewish sources do you refer? The Talmud mentions 63 towns of Galilee but no Nazareth. Josephus listed 45 other villages and cities of Galilee, including Japha, which was located just over a mile from the present-day Nazareth....but no Nazareth. Even the good Dr. James Strange will only go so far as to describe Nazareth as being a very small place, about 60 acres, with a maximum population of about 480 at the beginning of the first century. Well...that isn't a city is it? Had the gospels described Nazareth as a tiny, insignificant, dung heap with about 400 inhabitants, we wouldn't be having the discussion...but it doesn't. I agree with you old horse, in that that whether a Nazareth existed or not is not relevant for disproving the man-god, there are many more and easier ways of doing that but the thread is to show how historically unreliable the Gospels are...not to show that the man-god didn't exist.
Quote:
It is the Bethlehem tradition that should be questioned, and has been for hundreds of years now!
What I find interesting and confusing in your presentation on Nazareth is the quote: "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"
So, what you are saying is that there was a tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth BEFORE Origen lived near where the currently identified site would be built later. Isn't all this demonstrates that the site currently identified is wrong?
The fundy has a guy literally walk on water. literally raise a person from the dead. Die himself, wake up, and fly away. And we go round and round about some dusty town? Its funny. It also tells us something about humans.
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?!?!
