yalla

Julian

Sorry.

Actually I got it from another place and have since found it again where you said.
I don't know how to provide links but the first site was something like "So Sick Discussion". I just tried putting it in but couldn't.
Either way I now understand the error of my way.

The author appears to be Frank Zindler.
Sorry again.

Vorkosigan

I didn't say that, prax. Read again:

I'll accept any qualified archaeologist without a religious ax to grind. Some people have religions, but they keep them out of their work. Others can't.

Actually, I should include "nationalistic ax" in the grinding as well. And I try to keep an eye out for theoretical axes -- people who dig to confirm a theory. They all set off my spidey sense, and they should yours as well.

No, not having been to Israel. I don't know exactly where Cahokia is either, nor do I know the exact location of Mohenjo-daro. I imagine, though, that the competent archaeologists who have dug in those places know.

Nothing vague about it. You are welcome to reject my view of the evidence, but then there's still the silences and the lack of archaeological evidence.

It's mine, and not yet published. The arguments are on my Commentary:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMar....html#Nazareth

No, and once again, we see the twisting. The use of "adjectives" like "selective and scalpelled" makes it difficult to interact with you. There's nothing selective about it as I take in all the evidence. False dichotomies like the one below do not help either:

It's neither.

BTW, we are still absent any evidence for the existence of Nazareth from the time period under discussion.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Thanks, Yalla.

Here is an earlier thread that touched on some of this.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116518
"Nazareth" from "Gennesaret"

And here are the three verses with Gennesaret.

Matthew 14:34
And when they were gone over,
they came into the land of Gennesaret.

Mark 6:53
And when they had passed over,
they came into the land of Gennesaret,
and drew to the shore.

Luke 5:1
And it came to pass,
that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God,
he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,

This is quite interesting. A friend of mine, Kevin Kleutz, has a theory that the New Testament Nazareth is in what appears to be that exact area (in the hills a bit west of Migdal).
http://www.geocities.com/athens/part.../nazareth.html
The Real Nazareth?

And of course this places Nazareth much closer to Capernaum and the Lake (Kinneret/Genneseret) where such a large amount of the accounts of the life of Jesus occur.

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

Steven Avery

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. It looks like you have an understanding that talking about "the site" of Nazareth implies a level of knowledge we don't have. In a sense also it undercuts your own position, if you state there is a "the site".

If you reject Christian-source evidences, even archaelogical Christian-sources evidences, that is clearly selective. And then if you develop theories of the NT text to match your ahistorist/mythicist approach then that would be scalpelled. However, in respect for the fact that you try to keep up a chipper dialog, I will keep the adjectival words to a minimum.

btw, I didn't even realize that Vork=Michael Turton.
You learn something new every day.

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

Vorkosigan

That's true, so we're fortunate that I don't reject Christian source evidences, eh?

That may well be true.

Well, we are not equal, but we are closely related. Why, did you know Michael Turton somehow?

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Perhaps I should have said "==". I bump into Michael's blog and articles at time.

yalla

Thanks prax
I say again that the fascination and problem with early christianity is that it is so hard to work along straight lines of thought and fact...so many tangents.

I note that spin, in that thread seemed to reject the equating of Gennesaret with Nazareth.
I also note that your mate is trying to fix a place into the description of Nazareth as described in the gospels. Now I would reckon that you and I, if we were young and fit and healthy and hiked the general area, could probably find several suitable candidates for the site of Nazareth.
And I reckon thats probably what has happened in antiquity with lots of things such as the footsteps, bits of the cross, where is Capernaum, locals showing Helen, the mum of Constantine, where things are.
If you start with the presumption that such and such should be hereabouts I reckon someone will find it and then everyone afterwards will say "He found it!" and from then one everyone will be able to find it because it can now be pointed to.
I reckon thats what happened to lots of places in the area. Someone said "This is where...should be" and so it became that place.
Hopeful speculation becomes assertion becames fact therafter.
Recently, for example, I note that Cana has been found.
In two different places.

I strongly suspect this process is the villain with respect to Nazareth.
But I'm not certain.
And I would love to look at the Caesarea inscription.
Very interesting
cheers
yalla

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: Anyone who wants to can easily accurately write about the archaeology and geography where he lives, so why does it make any difference whether or not the archaeological claims in the Bible are true?

Archaeology and geography do not have anything whatsoever to do with supernatural claims. Accurate archaeological and geographical claims most certainly do not verify the supernatural claims in the Bible any more than accurate archaeological and geographical claims verify supernatural claims that are found in other religious books. You are obviously not very familiar with the tricky business of establishing cause and correlation. The Internet has hundreds of articles on the subject. I suggest that you read some of them.

Mountain Man

And they were off topic and irrelevant.Yet you chose one, irrelevant, issue. Why is that?You are the one attached to it. Several of us have told you that the existence, or not, or when, of ONE village does not prove anything except your need to derail the topic. One can only assume that you needed to derail the topic because there are no "substantive biblical archeology issues to discuss."

Mountain Man

Why do you insist on posting off topic? Don't you have any relevant material?