Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-11-2012, 09:20 AM

the whole point besides the NT authors believing what they wrote.

is that people lived in the area while rebuilding Sepphoris. It had people before jesus and had people after for a fact. theres no reason to think a small camp would have been there while rebuilding Sepphoris

Nazareth would have been what amounts to a jewish slave encampment and would not have been that large. it would have been needed in jesus time with the influx of roman population in Sepphoris. Someone had to build it and feed the romans, and it surely wasnt the romans doing the work, we know for a fact oppressed overtaxed jews were used for hard labor

just because we cannot dig where the town might have been doesnt mean it was fabricated in mythology.

hjalti · 08-11-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...arethAMyth.htm

heres another rebuttle of rene's lackluster work

From that article:

Quote:

Fourth, even the man with an unclean demon acknowledged that Jesus was “of Nazareth” (Lk. 4:33-34). This would have been the perfect opportunity for the demon to challenge the moral character of Jesus by catching Him in a lie about his hometown. Instead, the demon is forced to confirm the truth about His holiness, deity, authority, identity, and place of residence (Lk. 4:34).

:rolling:

hjalti · 08-11-2012, 09:40 AM

outhouse, here's a little tip: when it comes to scholarship about the bible and early Christianity, don't depend on inerrantists.

jdboy · 08-11-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

http://normangeisler.net/articles/Bi...arethAMyth.htm

heres another rebuttle of rene's lackluster work

From that article:

Quote:

Fourth, even the man with an unclean demon acknowledged that Jesus was “of Nazareth” (Lk. 4:33-34). This would have been the perfect opportunity for the demon to challenge the moral character of Jesus by catching Him in a lie about his hometown. Instead, the demon is forced to confirm the truth about His holiness, deity, authority, identity, and place of residence (Lk. 4:34).

:rolling:

It's even more funny cause the same site tells us the word Nazareth didn't even exist in jesus time, it was created from the hebrew;"others have indicated that the Hebrew word netzer (meaning “branch”) is the word from which Nazareth was named (since it sounds similar). Several prophets mentioned the “Branch” as being a title of the Messiah (Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12)."
jesus the branch came from the city of branch it must be true it's so silly

aa5874 · 08-11-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...just because we cannot dig where the town might have been doesnt mean it was fabricated in mythology.

Why don't you first read the Bible to see what it ACTUALLY states???

The CITY of NAZARETH was FABRICATED.

NO CITY called NAZARETH has ever been located at around the time of Pilate.

Matthew 2:23 KJV

Quote:

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

Quote:

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth...

outhouse · 08-11-2012, 10:11 AM

Those in question of Nazareth should follow Carriers leed on the subject

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...stence-of.html

Carrier argues that Nazareth probably existed in the time of Jesus

Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

jdboy · 08-11-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Those in question of Nazareth should follow Carriers leed on the subject

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...stence-of.html

Carrier argues that Nazareth probably existed in the time of Jesus

Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

But this confirms what Rene says, that the city was created sometime after 70ad.
The word Nazareth didn't even exist let alone the city in jesus time. It was created by the Bible writers who wrote sometime after 70ad

outhouse · 08-11-2012, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Those in question of Nazareth should follow Carriers leed on the subject

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...stence-of.html

Carrier argues that Nazareth probably existed in the time of Jesus

Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

But this confirms what Rene says, that the city was created sometime after 70ad.
The word Nazareth didn't even exist let alone the city in jesus time. It was created by the Bible writers who wrote sometime after 70ad

it states Carrier thinks it could be there and that rene is a quack

it confirms nothing you state, try refuting what Carrier stated as to why he thinks it existed in jesus time

jdboy · 08-11-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Those in question of Nazareth should follow Carriers leed on the subject

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...stence-of.html

Carrier argues that Nazareth probably existed in the time of Jesus

Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

But this confirms what Rene says, that the city was created sometime after 70ad.
The word Nazareth didn't even exist let alone the city in jesus time. It was created by the Bible writers who wrote sometime after 70ad

it states Carrier thinks it could be there and that rene is a quack

it confirms nothing you state, try refuting what Carrier stated as to why he thinks it existed in jesus time

Jesus time was apprx 1ad to 33ad. Both Rene and Carrier show that Nazareth at the earliest existed after the jewish war around 70ad.

The first Jewish War is dated to; First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), sometimes called The Great Revolt (Hebrew: המרד הגדול‎, ha-Mered Ha-Gadol, Latin: Primum Iudæorum Romani Bellum.).

Again the word Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus time

Also Josephus tells us where the priests went to after the jewish war and it wasn't Nazareth? I'm not sure where in Josephus
Maybe someone else on the board knows.

aa5874 · 08-11-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

it states Carrier thinks it could be there and that rene is a quack

it confirms nothing you state, try refuting what Carrier stated as to why he thinks it existed in jesus time

Again, your statement is NOT logical.

If Carrier's opinion make Rene to be a Quack then alternatively Rene's opinion make Carrier to be a Quack

Please, get a course in basic logics.

No CITY of Nazareth has ever been found in Judea.

Please name a Village or town in the CITY of Nazareth in the 1st century???

Based on gLuke, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Ghost [SoG], lived in the CITY of Nazareth for about 30 years yet Jesus, the SoG, is NOT known to have done anything there.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2012, 09:20 AM	#21
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	the whole point besides the NT authors believing what they wrote. is that people lived in the area while rebuilding Sepphoris. It had people before jesus and had people after for a fact. theres no reason to think a small camp would have been there while rebuilding Sepphoris Nazareth would have been what amounts to a jewish slave encampment and would not have been that large. it would have been needed in jesus time with the influx of roman population in Sepphoris. Someone had to build it and feed the romans, and it surely wasnt the romans doing the work, we know for a fact oppressed overtaxed jews were used for hard labor just because we cannot dig where the town might have been doesnt mean it was fabricated in mythology.

08-11-2012, 09:40 AM	#23
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	outhouse, here's a little tip: when it comes to scholarship about the bible and early Christianity, don't depend on inerrantists.

08-11-2012, 10:11 AM	#26
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Those in question of Nazareth should follow Carriers leed on the subject http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...stence-of.html Carrier argues that Nazareth probably existed in the time of Jesus Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from). Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D. for its founding or renaming, but if it could happen then, why not earlier?).I know Salm has arguments against all this, but they don't seem that strong to me (in his book, in fact, all he has are mere possibilities, and some quotations of Schürer, a long-dead historian whose assertions were often vague and speculative and whose work has been rendered largely obsolete by more recent scholarship on the 1st century and Judaism). I leave it to the experts to debate the matter. Until there is a consensus against an early 1st century Nazareth, we should be skeptical of claims to the contrary.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.