ddd3dturner

I am certain than if reasoning abilities don't improve, archaeology will support the existence of a god-like alien creature called E.T., who, for a short time, lived in the Los Angeles area around 1982.

Of course they got some names, dates and locations correct in the bible. They probably had a continuity guy.

Diogenes the Cynic

Skeptics used to say that Reece's Pieces never existed- that they were only a "mythical" candy. But recent excavations near the remains of ancient Los Angeles uncovered a case of this very candy. Once again, the skeptics were wrong and SPIELBERG WAS RIGHT!

Steven Avery

MM ... My last few posts were not writing about biblical archaelogy in general. Simply showing the example of the obtuseness of the skeptics on one issue that they raise again and again and again, Nazareth. And the forum posters have done an excellent job of verifying and demonstrating my points on this thread.

There are lots of substantive biblical archeology issues to discuss. The Nazareth thing was a canard from the get-go and never should have been raised in serious historical discussion. At least one skeptic, Jeffrey Lowder fully understands this. Another, Richard Carrier, sort of understands this, although he weaves in and out of the historicity and errancy issues.

Forum members can see here how attached the skeptics are to this one. The curious question is .. why ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Then you have the New Testament in four different Gospels, and the book of Acts, strongly in favor, and an inconsequential silence from Josephus, since he names less that a 1/3 of the Galilee villages.
Now if you say "from professionals", that would mean you discount the Talmud completely. Also isn't "from professionals" itself often the very point of attack of bias. Writings like Josephus and Eusebius are attacked all the time, if not, for their own perceived "professional" biases, as well as conjectured interpolations and redactions in their writings.

Would you list the professionals you accept, top to bottom, as sources ? To make it easier, who write about 1st century Israel from 500 BC to 500 AD.

No evidence of a major dispersion from Jerusalem in 135 AD?
No evidence of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD ?
No evidence for the end of the priestly courses ?
No evidence of the villages mentioned in the inscription ?

(remember I am wating for this argument:
"The inscription must be a fraud, look it mentions Nazareth which did not exist")

You must be referring to some other type of evidence, so tell us what 2nd century writings you feel would most likely discuss in detail the movements of Jewish priests.

You do raise one good point, that should be considered in the 70 AD vs. 135 AD. discussion. If this was a 70 AD dispersion rather than 135 AD, would Josephus be likely to mention it ?

Perhaps the inscription was written as a plant to foil later 20th century arguments against the historicity of Nazareth ?

Five first century books. From books that are very accurate in 1st century Israel geography. The inscription above. And various archaelogical sites. And the common sense that there is no consistent scenario answering Leonardes simple questions in a comprehensible way.

Did the city by the same name come to pass coincidentally ?
Or was its creation a response to the fervor created by the Gospel accounts ?
If it did exist in the 2nd century doesn't that dovetail nicely with the inscription ?
Do you agree that it existed earlier than the 1st century as well ?

Is this one possible scenario ?

==============================================
c700 BC to c200 BC
Nazareth existed in some of this time

200 BC to 100 AD
Nazareth desolate

70 AD
Four writers in far-off lands in five books use the name Nazareth in their Gospel and Acts accounts, a fictional name, either not realizing that it was desolate, or just having created that name because of its confluence with netzar/branch and it made a good story line.

2nd century
City named Nazareth established in Galilee

2nd century
Jewish priests flee to this new city

================================================

So I have to add something to above.
The original books actually did NOT mention Nazareth
... all of those references were added in later, and corrected in every manuscript in Greek, Latin and Aramaic ?

Thank you for the Jeffrey Lowder quotes. It was nice to read some sensible writing from a skeptic relating to the question at hand.

And thanks again for demonstrating why this question is such an excellent skeptic test case.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

Lowder, alas, doesn't even understand the argument he is attempting to refute.

As usual, twisting. Are there no such thing as professional archaeologists?

Again, let me know when you have some evidence from the time period in question. Twisting won't help you here. Just the facts, please.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

You ignored my questions about your proposed Nazareth theory in #54.
For this ?

Here was your very ambiguous claim.

"we prefer to go with evidence from the era in question, from professionals"

It is completely unclear what you were saying, and what evidences are acceptable to you and what are not.

The only cities you accept as historical in ancient times are those that have a particular level of archaelogy ? Any city that does not, is presumed ahistorical ? Do you apply this theory to all history, or only Biblical accounts ?

Why not really answer #54 and adjust my reconstruction of skeptic Nazareth scenario to be your "best shot" scenario ? It would help folks to see what you are proposing in a clear and methodical manner.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

rlogan

Who raised nazareth here? You did.

again and again and again.

To derail.

So who continues to harp on it?

you do.

Why?

So that you can avoid posting any archaeological evidence about your sky-daddy.




Haw! Talk about hypocrisy.


I predict yet more posts with your attachment to derailing.


remind us how you've been struggling to post archaeological evidence of Sky daddy junior and how nobody will let you.

Vorkosigan

I'll accept any qualified archaeologist who has no religious agenda to grind. So far all the excavations show that there was no habitation at the site. Analysis of the Gospels and other texts shows that Nazareth is a later introduction into the Jesus tales. Hence, my disbelief that (1) Nazareth existed at the time and (2) the Gospels really mention Nazareth in a way that you can be confident about making historical pronouncements. The silence on the existence of Nazareth until the third-fourth century simply confirms (1) although I do not see how it bears on (2) at first glance.

See, this is why it is nearly impossible to talk to you. Who said anything about any other city? Who said anything about proposing a general methodology for determining what was historical about cities or not? What does the historicity of Nazareth have to do with the historicity of any other city from antiquity? It's just more of the usual twisting prax. That sort of stuff might go over well at TWeb or ChristianForums, where the quality of posters is generally lower, and you can find lots of cheerleaders but it won't fly here.

And we're all awaiting that evidence from the time in question.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

If a Christian or Orthodox Jew said "I'll accept any qualified archaeologist who is not an atheist or agnostic" what would be your response ?

What is "the site" ? Do you know exactly where is Biblical Nazareth ?

So your view against the historicity of Nazareth is dependent on accepting a vague redaction theory on five books of the New Testament ?

Could you show us this published ...

"analysis of the Gospels and other texts" that determines these late "introductions"

I am very interested to know the base of textual analysis by which this conclusion was reached.

Vork, you are proposing a rejection of the historicity of Nazareth on a selective and scalpelled archaelogical and historical silence grounds. It is only fair and reasonable to ask iif this is a standard methodology of yours, or a one-time custom-tailored methodology of convenience.

You have never been asked this before ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

yalla

re the Nazareth inscription at Caesarea

I found this at a website.
I have no idea of its validity but thought it was worth reporting. I do not know who the author is.

Quote:

"The first inscriptional mention of the place-name Nazareth is thought
to be on a fragment of marble found at the site of ancient Caesarea in
1962. ["A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea," M. Avi-Yonah,
Israel Exploration Journal, 12:137-9] The synagogue in which the
marble fragment was found appears to date from the end of the third or
the beginning of the fourth century CE [The Archeology of the New
Testament, Jack Finegan, Princeton Univ. Press, 1992, p. 46], thus
ruling out the inscription as a witness to any first-century place
called Nazareth.
It is doubtful, however, that the inscription really mentions
Nazareth. The several related fragments of the inscription were
interpreted by means of Hebrew liturgical poems dating from the sixth
to seventh centuries - when present-day Nazareth was already a
thriving tourist site and the name was well-known. The letters
n-ts-r-t are bounded by broken edges of the stone (in fact, the n is
only partially present), and it is not certain what letter may have
preceded the n. In my opinion, the damaged n probably was preceded by
a g (a narrow letter in Hebrew, easily fitting into the space
hypothesized by the discoverers of the inscription) and read
Gennesaret, not Nazareth. Gennesaret was founded in Hellenistic times
and was well known. [back]

[MOD Hat on]
Please provide a link when quoting from websites. The text above is taken from here: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html
[MOD Hat off]