spamandham

That dating does not even begin to be realistic if you're talking about the entirety of the Jewish scriptures. None of the pre-christian Jewish sources mention Nazareth.

Are you claiming that Nazareth didn't exist in the 7th century BCE, but then did exist in the first century CE, and was then lost immediately after that only to be rediscovered in the 4th century CE? This is the type of mental gymnastics required to stick to the party line.

The nonmention of Nazareth in the Jewish scriptures makes the traditional story of Nazareth existing in the 1st century somewhat implausible, which is why it's relevant to the argument.

This is completely disingenuous. The Mishnah is dated to ~200 CE.

You've got to be kidding. Surely you know that Paul did not write Acts. Even the ridiculously early datings used by apologists show Acts being written decades after Paul.

(never mind that more realistic datings show it to be a late 2nd century work just like all the other numerous noncanonical "acts" documents).

At this point it's clear you're an apologist towing the party line.

Yellum Notnef

Forensic science would disagree with you.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/1282186.html

Toto

The best reconstruction of what Jesus would have looked like as a first century Jewish male of about 30 years of age show him clean shaven, with short, dark hair and Mediterranean features. The flowing hair comes from much later European pictures. The white hair might come from the Revelation of John.

(cross posted with Fenton.)

Note that "Caucasian" includes a lot of different human types, not just fair skinned anglos.

FathomFFI

[QUOTE=spamandham;5395512]Surely you can't be serious? Are you trying to tell me that Nazareth may not have existed because the OT doesn't mention it? Are you even attempting to assert that an old religious book written hundreds if not thousands of years before the time of Jesus is a reliable historical record which would attest to the non-existence of a town hundreds if not thousands of years later?

In order for you to prove any of this at all, you need to find some evidence of any assertion from the Christians, their doctrines, or otherwise that Nazareth existed during OT times. Only then could you build any kind of case against them. But since you have absolutely no evidence of such a claim, you have not a single leg to stand on.

For anyone to make such a claim as Nazareth may not have existed because it was not mentioned hundreds if not thousands of years before Jesus in the OT is ridiculing human intelligence through intellectual dishonesty. The Christians, nor anyone else, has ever claimed that Nazareth was supposed to exist during the time of the OT, so therefore to use this OT as a claim against the existence of Nazareth during the time of Jesus transcends the boundaries of reason.

In short, it is utterly stupid. The argument completely fails to consider that with hundreds and thousands of years between the OT and the Gospels that new towns could be created. We don't see Bethany in the OT, nor do we see dozens of towns listed in the NT as being also listed in the OT.

Jesusneverexisted completely fails at credible scholarship when put to the litmus test, and you can argue until you are blue in the face, but it's your integrity being sacrifcied to do it.

Enjoy.


You mean the beginning of the Mishnah, don't you? You are aware it was not completed until hundreds of years later, and that it totally admits to being incomplete? You want to use an incomplete oral tradition from hundreds of years after the time of Jesus as a historical record?

When does this absurdity end?


Not kidding at all.

And does that somehow negate that Paul is quoted as making the statement in Acts, even if it was 2nd century? It's doesn't make a single dent in it whatsoever, for you have admitted that you believe the text to have existed sometime in the late 100s, and by your admission you completely confute jesusneverexisted's assertion of no literary evidence until the 4th century, as well as the fact it's been demonstrated that their claim that "St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all," is false. They never specified that they are only speaking of Paul's letters, now did they? The said, "St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'," which is indicative that there is no record whatsoever of Paul knowing nothing about Nazareth. It does not exclude other records outside his epistles.

Aside from that, you have offered no evidence at all regarding the dating of Acts, other than assertions and the opinions of ... what scholars? Could you name these guys please? Let's check them out.


Regards.

Yellum Notnef

Maybe the historical Jesus used Dr. Miracle's hair relaxer.

Toto

Yes, they did. An epistle is a letter. Paul's speeches in Acts are clearly not epistles, and are never, by any scholar or commentator, anywhere, included in the term "epistle."

FathomFFI

Read clearly.

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

That has been proven as demonstratably false, because they are making two assertions here.

patcleaver

That is not evidence that a town in Galilee was called Nazareth before the 4th century or that 4th century town of Nazareth is related to the archeological site called ancient Nazareth.

There are an infinite number of entities that could be imagined, but only a finite number of entities that actually exist, so the probability that something that we have no evidence for exists is nearly zero. Thus, absence of evidence is very good evidence of absence of ordinary things (e.g. towns and people) and practically absolute proof of absence of extraordinary things (e.g. magical beings like fairies and gods).

You have to prove that at the beginning of the first century there was a town in Galilee that was called Nazareth as described in the gospels. The ruins of a well and a couple of farm buildings does not prove that at the beginning of the first century there was a town in Galilee that was called Nazareth that fit the descriptions in the gospels.

According to Luke 4:20, Jesus preached in the synagogue in Nazareth, but there was no synagogue until the 4th century at the archeological site they call ancient Nazareth.

According to Luke 4:27 Nazareth is built on a hill with a cliff that the people of Nazareth wanted to throw Jesus off, but the archeological site they call ancient Nazareth is not on a hill and there are not any nearby cliffs.

There is nothing that connects the archeological site they call ancient Nazareth with any town that existed in the first century as described in the gospels and that was called Nazareth in the first century.

Most likely Nazareth was a fictious town in a fictional story just like Arimathea.

FathomFFI

Uh, no.

I don't have to prove Nazareth existed at all; all I have to do is demonstrate how the arguments against its existence are false.

aa5874

To Team FFI:

Logical fallacy #1: Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus because other people are illogical.