Are the Gospels Historically Credible? (souls, agnostics, Adam, evolutionary)
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.
when you think about it, the 'you act like you're so smart' sneer pretty much conceded me the win.
How about you tell me exactly what is wrong with my explanation of the 4 brother issue rather than get me rummaging through your old posts?
It won't have escaped the notice of the readers that we have moved off examining the evidence to debating tactics. I haven't time or inclination for that. If you have an argument to make, make it. I maintain that the nativities totally conflict. The argument you made to put the Lucan census in Herodian times failed, though you raised the loyalty oath of 3 B.C and some dating problems that raises. However that doesn't look like Luke's census and the Roman 6 AD census does. I need hardly repeat that you failed to make a case for scrapping Josephus as credible for general order of events and dating. Or that you didn't touch the real reasons why the nativities utterly conflict and just kept trying to reconcile Luke's census date with Matthew's Herod -date -without much success.
So I reckon we're done unless you can come up with something better than trivia about Archelaus arresting rebels or what 'polis' actually means. I'm going onto something else.
P.s I forgot. Last night I read that in Herod's time, the total number of Pharisees was reckoned at 6,000. So when he wrote that 6,000 refused to take the oath, he is just saying they all did. It doesn't at all mean some kind of head -count.
This is the type of post that makes me think you do not even read my post, maybe scan them , but not read them. It also the type of post that show me you are not after the historical facts as it is all about a win for you and your thesis.
Couple of things
Did you not see where I said I would address your post of 479 but would need some time to put all my thoughts together?The 479 post is your thesis post.
My post of 546 shows you where you took the chronological order out of order so that it would look like Archelaus was back in time to capture the one brother. You did not even try to address this post.
And if I wanted to really debunk Josephus as you say I am doing I could point out so many errors, deletions, additions, and contradiction that would make it look like the bible was indeed infallible, but I have only pointed out some of Josephus contradictions in 1 chapter of his Ant.17 because that is the one we are dealing with.
So yes I would say we are done until I have time to put together my thoughts on your post 479.
Your posts are often long and discusrsive, as mine are, so I can't recall all the points in them, and I can't allow myself to get bogged down in irrelevant points.
I deny that I am confused about the order of events from when Archelaus came into the rulership of Judea to when he came back, confirmed by Caesar. The putting down of the supporters of the eagle revolt ringleaders was before he left for Rome.
The brothers (the eldest he arrested) was clearly related to the revolt of Athronges which was one of those that broke out after Archelaus had gone to Rome and Varus (acting governor of Syria ) had to come and see to it.
Please say if you can what's wrong with that? I don't mind how long you take, but all the time you put no case you have put no case and Josephus remains valid.
Indeed I am sure you could pick a lot of holes in Josephus as you could in many other historians. But he is the best source we have for the times and he broadly stands up to scrutiny. So I shall continue to use him as you do when it suits you. And I would point out that my debunking of the nativities are relating one to the other and using Acts, the archaeology (the Egyptian census form -often cited by apologists) and Josephus only in providing a context for the census of Quirinus - after Archelaus was deposed and Rome took over.
Your case is not about any of this or even showing that Josephus is unreliable, but in trying to get Luke's census into Herod's time. And the point is to reconcile Luke with Matthew, and I don't believe you when you say it isn't.
Finally (until you come up with something to get my teeth into) I should point out to the browsers (if they haven't seen it themselves) that the only case you are making is for a 3rd c B.C Lucan census. At least you are no longer arguing for a Roman tax census in Herod's time, but a census that wasn't about tax but about a loyalty oath.
This is getting close to arguing about piddling details that don't really affect the issue as the Loyalty oath is nothing to do with Luke's census and the exact date of Herod's death is not going to make any difference to that.
I'll keep in reserve the Eusebian special that I see looming, trying to turn the need to validate your case into a need for me to validate mine (reversal of burden of proof). It isn't enough for you to say 'that's just your opinion'. If I debunk your case, the burden of proof is back on you to make it, not for me to prove accepted history or defend Josephus.
Of course I have to make my case about my Thesis . I accept that and that's what I am trying to do.
Mike555 and I think pneuma hold the guy up as evidence for their gospels and their Jesus. Well he certainly doesn't have much good to say about the gospels.
Mike555 and I think pneuma hold the guy up as evidence for their gospels and their Jesus. Well he certainly doesn't have much good to say about the gospels.
That was Erhmann? I have read a bit of him as I have read bits of the others, whether critical or apologist. The point he was making is a good one and doesn't do the Bible apologist much good.
But it doesn't impact on me very much, because I don't think the gospels reveal the changes of copies of copies of copies, but the evidence of a common text for the synoptics substantially rewritten in several stages in successive Versions, "Q" being added in by Matthew and Luke and "M" or "P" being added in by Mark and Matthew, and "Floating stories" like the Sunday appearance in Luke and John; and I suspect the walking on water and centurion's son may also be Floating stories, as I can't otherwise explain how one of the synoptics omit it and John has it.
The Apologist explanation that it was 'left out' or 'got lost' is nonsense.
The Critical explanation that it got changed in repeated copying is, I have got to say, old conker, also nonsense.
I am obliged to think that explaining it all as discrepancies arising through recopying is inadequate to explain the common textual underpinning of the synoptics and thus how important stories and even whole common sections could be entirely lost.
I say that the exact changes and revisions and where they originated (as an outside document or story or just some plan in the writer's head - like Matthew's Herodian plot) can be traced, the exact text of the imported documents recovered, and the original form of the synoptic original recovered.
Thus, while Mystic's term "Hubris"might very well apply to me Here I stand, and can do no other: the textual criticism up to now seems inadequate, not to say sloppy. I may be acting the total fool, but by the cringe, it all fits and explains pretty much everything.
Just take Luke's mention of Jesus appearing to Simon. Doesn't occur anywhere else, so Bible apologists are left high and dry.
We are left with the Ehrmanns and their 'recopying'. Why am I the first (so far as I know) to relate this to Paul's mention that Jesus appeared first to Simon (though Paul's appearances were in the head) and then recall that Luke was Paul's biographer and based much of Acts (suitably fiddled ) on Paul's letters?
This, old cowpat, is so freikin' obvious when you see it, that I am at a loss to understand why nobody else seems to have spotted it. That is why I say I am either groundbreaking or making a complete fool of myself. So far I haven't been given reason to think it is the latter.
Pneuma made admirable efforts to make the nativities work. In fact he addressed only one point - Luke's census was in 3 B. C In fact he failed in making the loyalty oath Luke's registration, and one suspects that Luke went not only to Paul for his material, but to Josephus.
There's evidence for that - in Acts (Luke surely wrote it) Gamaliel refers to the revolts of Judas (in the days of the Census) and Theudas (arrested by Felix). There are a couple of Daters and could certainly have come from Josephus, and the Lucan census look like the 6 A.D one, not the loyalty oath.
So even that point didn't really work, and of course left the other monumental contradictions ignored.
This isn't explainable by recopying - it was two stories made up for a particular purpose - to get Jesus born in Bethlehem where in fact he wasn't. 'Recopying' is just the start of the argument.
And now old trouserburr, berate me for neglecting the Next Bit (Bethany) I will do it! I swear!
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-30-2016 at 06:26 AM..
Reason: romove some of the Floating brackets.
This thread follows on from the 'Historical Jesus' thread and I trust that the mods will move whatever material they think necessary from that thread to here.
I will give a brief summary of my arguments against the existence of the city of Nazareth here before moving on. I would also respectfully ask pneuma to refrain from bringing up the same 'Jesus House' argument that I feel has been adequately dealt with in the other thread. Both sides of the argument can be reviewed here https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...cal-jesus.html and I see no purpose in reintroducing it here. Those that wish to view the argument or comment on it can do so in the other thread.
I would of course welcome any NEW evidence for Nazareth that hasn't been covered in the other thread.
NAZARETH.
The Gospels state that Jesus came from the city of Nazareth. A city large enough to have a synagogue.
As things stand, we have ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no city of Nazareth at the time of Jesus for 'Jesus of Nazareth' to have come from. Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. It 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 nor is it 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.
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
Exhaustive archaeological studies have been done by Franciscan monks for decades to try to prove that there was a city of Nazareth but they have failed miserably. Of the artefacts uncovered from the area known as the bath-house, none are known to pre-date the 2nd century CE.
There is verifiable evidence of a settlement on the site during the middle Bronze Age and Iron Age which would be around 2300 BCE - 600BCE and verifiable evidence of a settlement there from the end of the first century CE.
However, excavations in the area have failed to show any evidence of habitation as a city, town etc for the Assyrian, Persian, Hellenistic and Early Roman times. Thus the verifiable evidence tells us that whatever settlement was there BCE was likely to have been destroyed c710 by the Assyrians, who destroyed many towns in that area and, other than perhaps a farm or two, the site was not resettled until the late 1st - early 2nd century CE.
If an area is exhausively excavated and that area gives us artefacts from the Bronze Age and Iron Age and items from the late 1st century - 2nd century CE but nothing from the period between the Iron age and the late 1st century - early 2nd century, it is not unreasonable to conclude that, between those times, there was nobody living there.
A building discovered by an Israeli Bible archaeologist and 'claimed' (along with her claim of finding the actual wine jars used by Jesus at Canaan) to have been there at the time of Jesus has only been dated to the 1st century rather than to the time when Jesus is said to have existed. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) will only commit themselves to saying that it's 'Early Roman'. There is no verifiable evidence that it was there at the alleged time of Jesus and could just as well have been built in the late 1st century or early second....and even if it was dated between say...1CE and 33CE, one single dwelling does not make a city.
The area became repopulated at the end of the 1st to early 2nd century and has grown to what it is today.
So Nazareth is 'strike one' against the historical accuracy of the Gospels.
So moving on. What is next in the quest for historically reliable Gospels? How about the NATIVITY?
TRANSPONDER is much more learned on this subject and hopefully he will bring his expertise here.
Let's recap a quote out of your quote;
Quote:
The area became repopulated at the end of the 1st to early 2nd century and has grown to what it is today.
So there was a Nazareth. One good solid home run there and not a strike.
This site offers some refutations for reconsideration;
Many Christian were probably not aware that skeptics have been saying for a long time that Nazareth never existed during the time of Jesus' lifetime.... (Note: Nazareth does exist NOW, it's quite big even - that's because Emperor Constantine built a church there in the 4th century and became a center of Christian pilgrimages.
The skeptics were saying that Nazareth did not exist when Jesus was alive - so they are saying that Nazareth was built later !!!)
This is an indirect claim that the New Testament is nothing more than a fairy tale, because if Nazareth did not exist, Jesus never grew up in Nazareth.... so Jesus never existed.... In other words, Jesus is just as real as Peter Pan....
Surely, you know that the New Testament mentioned Nazareth (Jesus is often called "Jesus of Nazareth" because He grew up there) However, no ancient historians or geographers before around 400 AD mentioned Nazareth....
The earliest appearance of Nazareth in Jewish literature was in a poem written around 700 AD
Source: Case for Christ, pp 102
Obviously, this give the skeptics lots of ammunition in discrediting the New Testament....
It is no wonder that Nazareth was not mentioned by historians:
John 1:46 -- And Nathaniel said to him (Philip): "Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth ?"
This implies that Nazareth is a lowly, poor and backward place where it will never produce any person of significance....
Historians write about kings and emperors; not about people in rat holes...
The evidence that Nazareth DOES existed in Jesus' time came from the finding of a list in Aramaic (Jewish language) describing a number of famlies of priests that were no longer needed in 70 AD. It is the custom to select priests from every town and city to serve in the temple ,
When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priests were no longer needed....
Archaelogists have discovered a list of 24 families of priests who were relocated after the temple's destruction and one of the family was registered as having moved to .... you guessed it.... Nazareth ! So Nazareth does exist in 70 A.D. !
Nazareth:
We know now that Nazareth is about 60 acres with a max. population of about 400. They think the population of Nazareth was about 80 in Jesus' time.... (Now you may understand better why Nathaniel said "Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth ?")
The evidence that Nazareth exists today and your very own words that it was repopulated, suggest that the "supposed" lack of evidence to support Biblical Nazareth is rather moot.
There are other kinds of refutations at that site.
People that do not want to believe can dismiss evidence that exists for why others still believe.
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-02-2017 at 02:04 PM..
Reason: Dpon't post using red text. Read the Sticky thread.
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.
when you think about it, the 'you act like you're so smart' sneer pretty much conceded me the win. 
) had to come and see to it.
that I see looming, trying to turn the need to validate your case into a need for me to validate mine (reversal of burden of proof). It isn't enough for you to say 'that's just your opinion'. If I debunk your case, the burden of proof is back on you to make it, not for me to prove accepted history or defend Josephus. 
