Mountain Man

That's something that will never happen as long as he is allowed to derail with off topic discussions on Nazareth.

Steven Avery

The Nazareth 'question' makes a perfect example of a type of bias in examining historicity, the fabricating of an argument for public consumption from sheer cloth combined with skeptic/mythicist presups. As such it remains a textbook case.

Note, however, that in the midst of that brouhaha we had some good discussions about the historicity of the Caesarea inscription and the idea that the 'traditional' location for Nazareth could be quite a bit off.

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

rlogan

didn't I predict more derailment?

sure thing.

hey - Prax forgot again to submit any archaeological evidence for skydaddy junior.

Sorry we keep prying you away from your sacred duty to submit that evidence.



Haw! What odds you want to place on another post regarding...guess what.

Amaleq13

I have to admit that I do not understand why you think this is off-topic.

The OP questions the claim that archaeology supports the Bible and the current discussion is about whether that is true for the specific claim of Nazareth as the birthplace of Jesus. Establishing that the town existed at the time is clearly fundamental to the question.

Mountain Man

The topic is archeology and the bible. Not archeology and Nazareth. So what if it was? That does not mean that the rest of archeology supports the bible. It's just ONE little village among thousands. It's existence, or not, proves nothing. Instead of looking at the broader picture, they're focusing on one insignificant point, and focusing on it to the point of derailing.

Mountain Man

No, it doesn't. It's an irrelevant 'question'. It does show our bias though.

Steven Avery

Amen

Amaleq13

The topic can only be addressed by considering specific examples. The town of Nazareth is a specific example of a biblical claim that allegedly has archaeological support. It is clearly relevant.

Who is making this false generalization? Each claim must be considered on its own.

How do you intend to "look" at the "broader picture" without considering whether individual claims are supported by archaeological evidence?

The claim that the Bible is supported by archaeological evidence is as meaningless as the claim that it is not unless specific claims are considered.

I have no idea how you think a rational discussion of the OP can be accomplished without considering specific examples.

Mountain Man

It is an example of what can be talked about, but not the the exclusion of anything else. There has been only one claim presented by the believers, and it has been presented as THEE proof.By not focusing on one inconsequential village.Yes, but not ONE specific claim ad nauseum. That's my whole point that you are ignoring! Spending all the time on ONE unimportant point is not going to advance the topic but derail it.... which is thier goal in the first place.The reason you can't understand that point is because it's a strawman argument and not my point at all. :huh:

rlogan

Bearing in mind the Hopkido background of my southern brother, I respectfully wish to point out that since the derailment there has been zero discussion of archaeological evidence for sky daddy junior and the discussion has been successfully commandeered into "was there something at what is now known as Nazareth".

There are obvious distinctions at several levels between the OP and the derailment.

The first and most obvious distinction is the priority of claims made in the Bible. Clearly, the exodus of over a million people is of such astonishing character, so easily detected, and so central to the whole HB scenario that this claim is of the highest priority in any discussion involving archaeology in the Bible.

Walls tumbling down, cities destroyed by specific means (eg fire) - these are also things that can both be verified and dated. Global floods. Etc.

Now, instead a cunning apologist has introduced a claim that he pretends others made. None did here. The subject is ideal for avoiding anything of real substance because the claim isn't really even specific enough to make a flat negation.

The location of a necropolis or a vineyard at a place subsequently called "Nazareth" is ideal for turning the argument into "something was there" instead of a meaningful check on the absurd things stated in the Bible.

Were the Bible to make a claim such as a temple scene implying a population base that could be negated or confirmed - then we'd be on much firmer ground on why we should even consider it. I think spin has skewered this with the linguistics previously, but all that requires is referencing a previous thread.

because first, rationality requires the scientific method, and negation of "was there even one solitary person living in the region now known as Nazareth" is not only impossible, but secondly the energy devoted to the question serves the derailment purpose beautifully in shifting attention away from the > million person exodus and all of the other vastly superior matters for archaeology.

In other words, we are not considering "examples" at all. It is the antagonist harping one one case he intorduced himself, pretending others did - and having the gall to continue on incessantly while at the same time complaining it is others doing it.

So again I point out our antagonist has offered nothing to rebut the post by Diogenes, which is pretty much a defining one as far as the OP is concerend.

not to detract from you and vork. It is a matter of priorities.

I think you guys like suffering the insufferable.