Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-21-2012, 07:41 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
Some claim Japhia was moved to its current location from there. Its suspect to poor work by those that claim this, but the main point is that people have lived in there off and on for a very long time but i think you did catch me there. I thought there was anouther name from the bronze age but i cant find my source i trust better then Japhia |
|
08-21-2012, 08:42 PM | #12 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
|
Hi show_no_mercy and Steven Carr et. al.
Lets look at four possibilities 1) Historical Person in Historical setting 2) Fictional Person in Historical setting 3) Fictional Person in Fictional setting 4) Historical Person in Fictional setting 1 is extremely common and happens nearly 100% of the time. For example, President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. 2 and 3 happen about equally. Sometimes fictional persons are placed in fictional setting, sometimes in real settings. Alfred Hitchcock often used famous historical settings for the climax of his films with fictional characters - Mount Rushmore (North By Northwest, 1959), (Saboteur, 1942), Royal Albert Hall (The Man who Knew too much, 1956). The fictional James Bond movies usually end in fantastic stage-settings, the fortresses of the story's imaginary villains. These fictional sets were usually built at Pinewood studios in England. However, the 3rd James Bond film used a real vault in the Midland Bank headquarters at 27-35 Poultry and 5 Princes Street, EC2, in London for the real world Fort Knox vault. Sometimes fictional characters can go to both fictional and historical places in the same story - Dorothy lives in Kansas, but visits Oz. It is the fourth case that is most interesting because it actually happens quite rarely, practically 0% of the time. It is possible that someone could make a mistake and assign a real person to a fictional place, but it is not usual at all. If we could prove that Nazareth was a fictional place, it would seem to add evidence to support the likelihood of Jesus being fictional. On the other hand proving Nazareth was an historical place would not add support to the idea that Jesus was historical. Warmly, Jay Raskin |
08-21-2012, 09:08 PM | #13 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Quote:
the authors who were removed from the area completely and wrote decades after the facts, could have attributed it through cross cultural oral tradition which doesnt remain accurate. oh! wait, that is excatly what we see. only difference is Nazareth probably was there at that time as a jewish work camp for Sepphoris |
|
08-22-2012, 12:19 AM | #14 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Please name a single village or town that was in the 1st century City of Nazareth. Name any other person who lived in CITY of Nazareth?? Matthew 2:23 KJV----And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets , He shall be called a Nazarene. Luke 1:26 KJV---And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth. 1. No one mentioned the CITY of Nazareth or any village or town of the City OUTSIDE the NT. 2. No other person was known to have lived there but the family of Jesus. 3. Jesus did NOTHING in the City for 30 YEARS. 4. A supposed contemporary of Jesus mentioned the name Jesus Christ over 200 times and never mentioned he lived in the City of Nazareth. The CITY of Nazareth was an INVENTION. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|