Antipope Innocent II

Again we get this "no evidence of Nazareth before the Fourth century" crap. We have a settlement in Galilee that we know was called Nazareth from extra-Biblical sources from at least the Fourth Century. We have archaeological evidence that this settlement was continuously inhabited from before the First Century onwards. And we have gospel references to a settlement in Galilee called Nazareth in the First Century.

So we have no logical reason to assume that the Fourth Century Nazareth wasn't the First Century Nazareth mentioned in the gospels, given that we know the Fourth Century Nazareth had been around in the First Century.

Unless someone can give me a rational reason to conclude otherwise, the idea the Fourth Century Nazareth and the Nazareth of the gospels are one and the same makes perfect logical sense.

Can someone give me a rational reason to think otherwise?

Solitary Man

Aren't you asking a little much from them?

rlogan

Hilarious.

The origin of the whole Nazareth claim is a literary error to begin with.


Sheesh, it is amazing how much of a charade the superstitious put on about being critical thinkers.

LOGIC! REASON! I tell you it is SCIENCE!


Jesus Christ is my personal saviour. I go to hevun becuz he died for my sins and blah de blah.


OK well I'm the boogey man.

patcleaver

How could you be so far into this thread and still not understand the facts?

You have not presented any evidence that there is a consensus of archeologists that the site called ancient Nazareth was continuously settled.

There is no evidence that the settlement in Galilee that was called Nazareth in the 4th century was known as Nazareth when the gospels were written, unless your claiming that the gospels were not written until the 4th century.

I am someone.

The fact that the archeological site called ancient Nazareth does not fit the description of Nazareth in the Gospels is evidence that its not the same place.

Third century Christians in Galilee could have just mistakenly thought that this place was the Nazareth of the gospels because there was no other town in Galilee called Nazareth. Just another overnight urban legend.

You can not show that the Nazareth of the Gospels was not mythical when the Gospels were written. New towns are often named after mythical places. Christians would naturally want to give the name Nazareth to a newly established town in Galilee. Once a town was established and called Nazareth, then even if it were true that a Jewish family settled there after 135 CE, the name would probably remain the same.

aa5874

You seem not to be aware that names of geographical locations can be changed, extended or applied to other locations.

Look on any map of the World.

There is a city in Pennsylvania, USA, called Nazareth. Was it always called Nazareth?

And, until you can prove that there was a CITY called Nazareth, in the 1st century as depicted by the NT, you are just wasting time. You cannot disprove any assertion without credible evidence.

You have NO proof that there was a CITY of Nazareth as described in the NT in the 1st century. You just BELIEVE the NT is true.

Antipope Innocent II

That argument makes no sense. Especially since we have an actual settlement that is known to have been inhabited since before the First Century and which we know was called Nazareth from at least the Fourth. The existence of this Nazareth needs to be explained if the gospels' Nazareth is merely some kind of typo.

I've read everything in the literature on the subject that I've been able to find and contacted a Jewish archaeologist who is currently excavating there is see if he's ever come across any scepticism on this point. I have yet to find a single archaeologist who thinks it wasn't. If you want to claim it wasn't, perhaps you should produce an archaeologist who believes so.

Er, no. But the idea that the Fourth Century Nazareth and the First Century one are one and the same, given the archaeology doesn't rule this out, makes far more sense. I can see no reason to assume otherwise, other than contrived Jesus Myther wishful thinking.

Can you give a reason to assume otherwise? A real reason I mean.

Nope - that just means that the gospel description isn't accurate. Several gospel descriptions and other geographical elements aren't accurate. And the only inaccurate element I can see is the "cliff", since a "synagogue" doesn't have to be a dedicated building in this period.

That's a nice story. So, evidence? Or is this more wishful thinking to allow you to continue to conclude your pre-assumed conclusion? After all, the Fourth Century evidence has non-Christian Jews referring to the place as Nazareth.

Another nice story. Now, the evidence that this is actually what happened would be ... ? :huh:

Lots of wishful thinking here. Not much evidence-based argument. I'll stick with Occam's Razor thanks - the Fourth Century Nazareth and the First Century Nazareth are one and the same.

spamandham

I can only guess he means this one:

...from post 51.

:wave:

patcleaver

logical argument from silence fallacy:

P1 there is no evidence that X is not true
C1 X is true from P1

This is of course a logical fallacy

-----------------

negitive argument from silence:

P1 there is no evidence that X is true
C1 X is not true from P1

This is not a logical fallacy, it is simply a statement of the burden of proof for any positive statement.

------------------

argument from probability:

P1 there are an infinite number of entities that do not exist but that could be imagined to exist without any reasonable evidence that they exist.
P2 there are only a finite number of real entities that exist without any reasonable evidence that they exist.
C1 the probability that an entity exists without any reasonable evidence that it exists is the number of entities that do not exist but that could be imagined to exist without any reasonable evidence dividend by the number of entities that actually exist without any reasonable evidence that they exist.
C2 the probability that an entity exists for which there is no evidence is zero, from P1 and P2 and C1.

This is not a logical fallacy.

The argument from silence fallacy does not apply to real entities.

--------------------------

principal of scientific elegance
principle of parsimony
Leibnizian Principle of Sufficient Reason

The simplest sufficient explanation of the evidenceis the most likely explanation

According to the law of parsimony, if there is no evidence for an entity then its unlikely that it exists.

This is not a fallacy.

------------------------------

argument from unexpected silence

P1 if x was true then it is likely that we could find reasonable evidence that x was true.
P2 we can not find reasonable evidence that x is true
C1 it is unlikely that x is true.

This is not a fallacy.

-----------------------------

The logical non-fallacy-fallacy

It is of course a logical fallacy to claim that something is a logical fallacy when its not a logical fallacy

FathomFFI

Right, now take a look at what I see ...

In the context of the discussion, we are speaking about ancient literary sources relevant to them not mentioning of a town called Nazareth.

Therefore, the words in the quote above indicate that he is speaking of other relevant sources, and those other sources also do not confirm Nazareth as existing. All it takes to understand how I understood it is a simple stress on the word "other" as so:

Therefore, from my position I can ask, "Okay, are there any other relevant sources that don't speak of Nazareth? What are they? If they exist, then if those sources do not mention Nazareth then they are also an argument from silence."

It is not unreasonable for me to accept that he would not be speaking of sources that were totally irrelevant. He could only be speaking of ancient relevant sources from circa 1st century, therefore I can assume he knows of some other sources from that period that have not yet been mentioned.

And that's the argument from silence that I see; the unnamed other sources also do not mention Nazareth.

If the statement had said, "There are no other sources that can confirm ..." then it would have been quite clear. But the English that it uses is horrible, and it's not toto's fault, but jesusneverexisted's fault. They wrote it.

youngalexander

Fathom Mate, GDay!
Could not let this one go.
Now, statements of fact are datum. They are either true or false. They are not logical propositions.
Q: Is this fact true or false? I would suggest, that unless Team FFI can supply convincing evidence to the contrary, it is true.

ie. no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

Please note, this says nothing with regard to any logical proposition that may use this datum.

Pardon?
It, a fact, has not and cannot, be proven to be a logical fallacy!