It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus Never Existed. End of story.

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Toelint
Another thing, on the page titled Did Ceasar Exist? do you honestly think any two of those images are the same guy?


The first two look like the same guy but with decades in between. I don't know what relevance that has. If the point is that we don't really know how much of Julius Caesar is legend and how much true, I would agree! "History is written by the victors" reasonably suggests that such histories are highly biased and can not simply be taken at face value.



Ack! You gotta be kidding!! One's a skinny bald guy with a skinny nose..and the next has plenty of hair, is stocky, and has a W-I-D-E nose!!

But of course you're right on target when it comes to the victors and their spoils...(now spelled spooiillss...just because...)

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Toelint]




posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The bible characters know of Nazareth, so that is evidence supporting that the title Jesus of Nazareth refers to a real city? Using the source of the claim as proof of the claim? If I claim something and you ask for proof, can I offer my support of the claim as proof?
Josephus mentions Nazareth is the only other 'evidence'? supporting the claim. He is also the only other source to mention Jesus, and has been accused of making up the whole story himself by writing the 4 gospels?
What else is there from that period that confirms that a single character in the NT existed, besides the prominent names which can be found in lots of books. Herod, Pilate, Caesar..... supported.
Jesus, disciples, family, friends, acquaintances, enemies, eyewitnesses, Nazareth, etc. ........ not supported.
If due diligence is what spamandham is good at, then please point me towards your sources of 'evidence' to support any of the second group. If you can find me a single contemporary reference to any disciple, or follower of Jesus, family member, or Nazareth as existing at that time, I would be ecstatic. You have my eternal gratitude if you can help me there.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
If you can find me a single contemporary reference to any disciple, or follower of Jesus, family member, or Nazareth as existing at that time, I would be ecstatic. You have my eternal gratitude if you can help me there.


The Gospel of Thomas which is thought to have been written around 50 AD by most scholars, is probably the closest you'll get to a contemporary reference to Jesus.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Okay, just this one time, I'm going to put some REAL effort into this and prove that Nazareth existed. Here's what I got out of the Catholic Encyclopedia at


www.newadvent.org...


The town is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor even in the works of Josephus. Yet, it was not such an insignificant hamlet as is generally believed. We know, first, that it possessed a synagogue. Neubaurer (La géographie du Talmud, p. 190) quotes, moreover, an elegy on the destruction of Jerusalem, taken from ancient Midrashim now lost, and according to this document, Nazareth was a home for the priests who went by turns to Jerusalem, for service in the Temple.


Here's what I found at en.wikipedia.org...



The oldest known human life in the region of Nazareth is attested by the skull found in 1934 by R. Neuville in a cave about one and one-half miles southeast of the city, a skull which may be older than that of Neandertal man. In Nazareth itself a complex of burial caves was found in the upper city in 1963, in which there was pottery of the first part of the Middle Bronze Age (Revue Biblique 70 [1963], p. 563; 72 [1965], p. 547). Down in the area of the Latin Church of the Annunciation there was certainly an ancient village of long continuance. Archeological investigation in and around this church was conducted by Benedict Vlaminck in 1892, by Prosper Viaud in 1889 and 1907-1909 and by Bellarimo Bagatti in 1955 and thereafter when the previously standing eighteenth-century (1730) church was demolished to make way for the new and larger Basilica of the Annunciation (No. 49). The area under and around the church, as well as at the Church of St. Joseph not far away, was plainly that of an agricultural village. There were numerous grottoes, silos for grain, cisterns for water and oil; presses for raisins and olives, and millstones. While the silos are of a type found at Tell Abu Matar as early as the Chacolithic Age (Israel Exploration Journal 5 [1955], p. 23) the earliest pottery found in them here at Nazareth is of Iron II (900-600 B.C.). Vardaman calls attention to the characteristic large jar with a small "funnel" beside the mouth; this appendage, though designed like a funnel, is simply attached to the shoulder, and does not actually pierce the wall of the jar (for an illustration of this jar, see Bagatti in DB Supplément VI, col. 323, Fig. 601). Other pottery of the site comprises a little of the Hellenistic period, more of the Roman, and most of all of the Byzantine period. Of the numerous grottoes at least several had served for domestic use and had even been modified architecturally for this purpose. One of these, where walls were built against a grotto to make a habitation, under the convent adjoining the Church of the Annunciation. Twenty-three tombs have also been found, most of them at a distance of something like 250 to 750 yards from Church of the Annunciation to the north, the west, and the south. Since these must have been outside of the village proper, their placement gives some idea of the limits of the settlement. Eighteen of the tombs are of the kokim type, which was known in Palestine from about 200 B.C., and became virtually the standard type of Jewish tomb. Two of the tombs, one (PEFQS 1923, p. 90) only 60 yards from the other (QDAP 1 [1932], pp. 53-55) 450 yards southwest of the Church of the Annunciation, still contained objects such as pottery lamps and vases and glass vessels, and these date probably from the first to the third or fourth centuries of the Christian era. Four of the tombs were sealed with rolling stones, a type of closure typical of the late Jewish period up to A.D. 70. From the tombs, therefore, it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period. (The Archaeology of the New Testament, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1992: pages 44-46)


And lastly, here's what I found at

www.inisrael.com...


Nazareth History

The Importance of Nazareth in the Christian Tradition

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47) characterized the site's seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth.
And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) - meaning that the "King of the Jews" is from "nowhere." The early name "Nazarenes" given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) - but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah's hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BCE.

Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited. Most of the archeological finds consist of caves, cisterns and grain storage bins. The agricultural character of the site is made obvious with the discoveries of oil mills and mill stones. There were a large number of underground rooms because the soft chalk of Nazareth made it easy to hew caves.



I think we can safely say Nazareth existed prior to Jesus's birth there.




[edit on 29-1-2006 by Toelint]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
The Gospel of Thomas which is thought to have been written around 50 AD by most scholars, is probably the closest you'll get to a contemporary reference to Jesus.


50 CE is the earliest date. It may be as late as 140 CE. However, even if it were from 50 CE, that doesn't do much for a historical Jesus, as it doesn't address the primary contention - that Jesus could very well have been a fictional character used by mystic teachers. It's a common technique even today among mystical religions to attribute all teachings to someone who can not be questioned.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint

Now, will everyone please SHUT UP on the subject of Nazareth's existance, prior to Jesus??


If you'll present something that actually answers the contentions, I'll be happy to shut up. Archaeology shows that there were settlements in the region now know as Nazareth. No-one debates that. The debate centers around whether or not there was a town named Nazareth in the early/mid 1st century. The modern city we call Nazareth was declared to be the Biblical Nazareth by the Catholic church in the 4th century, after a long search for the 'lost city' of Nazareth initiated by Origen.

You seem to be so busy searching for information in support of Nazareth, that you have failed to even notice that jesusneverexisted deals with all these issues quite thoroughly. Try reading through the "Nazareth - the town that theology built" page and check the claims for yourself.

The town that theology built



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I understand what you're saying, however, check out the last box in my post. The word Nazareth may wel have been an ancient Roman word meaning "from Nowhere." Of course it wouldn't show up in the other lists.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Adding to the above box, I've checked out no less than Thirteen on line Encyclopedias and Dictionaries and guess what? NOT ONE offers a definition for the word Nazareth itself. No, not even the Hebrew dictionaries.

I think this adds to the notion that just maybe, the WORD Nazareth comes from ancient Latin, not Hebrew. Hmm...perhaps a slang word? I DO know that the word Nazarene was originally a derogatory term for the followers of Jesus.

Also, Spamandham, check out this site:

www.kingdavid8.com...

This site makes an excellent argument against Jesusneverexisted.com.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Here is a site that discusses the idea Jesus was a Nazorean.

essenes.net...

and another

biblesearchers.com...

"The Nasaraeans - they were jews by nationality . . . They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. . . (Panarion 1:18)



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
I understand what you're saying, however, check out the last box in my post. The word Nazareth may wel have been an ancient Roman word meaning "from Nowhere." Of course it wouldn't show up in the other lists.


Yes, well, perhaps Nazareth meant "pickles" instead. Your presenting the purest of apologetic speculation as if there were substance to it. However, if "Nazareth" was associated with "no-where", you're really not making a very good case that it was a real city. To be a truly good insult, "Nazareth"
would have to be idiomatically equivalent to "no-where", meaning it was understood at the time to be a fictional city.

But, we already know where "Nazareth" came from. It resulted from a transliteration error (being gracious, the ungracious answer is it was an intentional fraud) from Nazorite to Nazorene/Nazorean. This would have been an easy mistake to make by someone who was not well versed in Aramaic, because various forms of the word Nazorean were common at the time (none of them referred to people from a city called Nazareth). Once you have such an error being propogated to those who speak only Greek, it would be natural to misunderstand that Nazorean/Nazorene/etc must refer to someone from a city by the same prefix - Nazareth.

The evidence is really overwhelming in favor of no city existing by the name of Nazareth in the first century:

- we have the lists by Josephus et. al. of the Jewish communities in the area that were intended to be comprehensive, that all excluded Nazareth, even though Josephus lived for a while in a city within spitting distance of the place now called Nazareth

- we have a total absence outside Biblically based sources of the city of Nazareth until the 3rd century

- we have Origen initiating a quest for the long lost city of Nazareth. I mean come on! That was the city god grew up in, and everyone forgot where it was!!??

- we have a false prophecy in the NT "he would be called a Nazorean" which is clearly a transliteration error of the OT prophecy that the messiah would be called a "Nazorite", which means "one devoted to god".



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I often wonder if or when will people get more original ... seriously.... this Jesus bashing/whinning is becoming very tiring...

Jesus did exhist, and if you don't believe the Judeo Christina books at least read Ancient Roman history...Why on Earth would the Romans create a fake Jewish Messiah that never exhisted and would only make them look like shamefull murderous beasts?

If they wanted to make up a lie , they would make up A ROMAN MESSIAH !... not one that came from their slave people...

Seriously, I am no genious... and i'm certainly not an "enlightened popular liberal knower of all truths", but would it be too much to ask people to think beofre they post... just enough to at least be original ?



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

The evidence is really overwhelming in favor of no city existing by the name of Nazareth in the first century:

- we have the lists by Josephus et. al. of the Jewish communities in the area that were intended to be comprehensive, that all excluded Nazareth, even though Josephus lived for a while in a city within spitting distance of the place now called Nazareth

- we have a total absence outside Biblically based sources of the city of Nazareth until the 3rd century

- we have Origen initiating a quest for the long lost city of Nazareth. I mean come on! That was the city god grew up in, and everyone forgot where it was!!??

- we have a false prophecy in the NT "he would be called a Nazorean" which is clearly a transliteration error of the OT prophecy that the messiah would be called a "Nazorite", which means "one devoted to god".


You call me the apologist, while never mentioning the blantent bigotry toward Christianity that screams from this guys website! Every NonChristian expert on his page is held in the highest of esteem, while the Christian experts are called out-and-out frauds and liars! What kind of crap is that?? I guess the page I offered from an Israeli website (and written, I might add, by a Jew) is also bullcrap?? Did you even READ the stuff I posted?

How about reading THIS...from Jesusexisted. BTW the italicized passages are from Jesusneverexisted


Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

Humphreys has a whole page about this argument, which is again an argument from silence. But even non-Christian historians that Humphreys uses as sources for his site disagree with him on this one. "...archeology indicates that the village [Nazareth] has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301), Doubleday, 1991.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament

An argument from silence. There were many, many towns not mentioned in the O.T.

nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns.

And there are undoubtedly dozens of others that he didn't mention. Does this mean they didn't exist, either?

In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

More argument from silence.


And as far as Josephus's list is concerned, check out what I found at a Wikipedia article on King Herod.


According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was a PARTIAL eclipse on March 11, 4 BC. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.

However, there was a total eclipse of the moon January 9-10, 1 AD, about three months before Passover, which would give a logical sequence of events [Onischuk]. When we consider the Annunciation of Christ (see Anno Domini) occured March 25th, just after Christ's Birth, it is possible that Christ was born in late February-early March, during Pisces zodiacal period, followed by Passover. Two of the earliest symbols of Christianity were the symbol of the Ark, and zodiacal symbol of Pisces the Fish.

Another line of calculation centres around the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 BC), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Accordingly, Herod's death occurred in 2 BC or 1 BC whereas Appianos would place it at 1 BC or 1 AD.


If Josephus can't even get the DATE right of Herod's death, much less his appointment as the Governor of Galilee, why should I trust his list of cities??


[edit on 1-2-2006 by Toelint]

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Toelint]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
You call me the apologist, while never mentioning the blantent bigotry toward Christianity that screams from this guys website!


He is blatantly bigoted against Christianity. Happy?

...that doesn't make him wrong though. I am blatantly bigoted against flat earthers, aren't you?


Originally posted by Toelint
nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns.

And there are undoubtedly dozens of others that he didn't mention. Does this mean they didn't exist, either?


If you're willing to throw Josephus out as a credible source, so am I. But his was not the only listing of cities in which Nazareth was conspicuously absent.

Further, none of this explains how the city god grew up in could be forgotten. Don't forget that his mother and other relatives (brother and sisters, or cousins at least) supposedly still lived there after his death. There were already multiple Christian churches by the time Paul started writing in the mid 50s CE. The idea of collective amnesia about the location of his home town is ludicrous. Think about the story of the crowd in Nazareth who threatened to throw Jesus off a cliff. Who wrote the story?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Spam, there are many researchers who say Jesus was indeed a Nazorean Rabbi. It was, allegedly, a sect of the Essene Jewish faith. As I posted earlier, not one of the characters in Jesus' circle of disciples, family, friends, or followers has been found in any other record from his time. Two books I read declare that. Only the prominent public figures have any timely documentation at all. Still, that is not proof.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Spam, there are many researchers who say Jesus was indeed a Nazorean Rabbi. It was, allegedly, a sect of the Essene Jewish faith.


I'm aware of this. If true (and I readily admit it could be), it indicts the Gospels as works of fiction, since "Nazorean" does not mean "someone from the city of Nazareth", but rather, indicates a member of a group devoted to god. You end up with the gospel stories being totally, or highly fictional whether there was a historical Jesus or not.

That's obvious anyway to anyone who has no stake in Christianity, even without this analysis.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
It could be that the translators were not aware that a Nazorean sect existed, and upon research, chose to go with the Nazareth option. But, just because Nazareth may not have been around in Jesus' day, and that some verses tell of goings on in Nazareth, does not disprove the entire NT. Of course, as I have posted all along, theories that Josephus authored the whole story have been proposed. A Jewish friend of mine lent me two books by Jewish writers which put together a good case for that. It has a more substantive evidentiary foundation than the accepted one, imo, but does not prove anything. I hope they are wrong, considering how many peoples' faith will be undermined. I think that there are likely to be far more conclusive records either confirming or refuting the NT's veracity in the libraries of the RCC and various European Royal families, like the Hapsburgs. I am not a Christian, but I am spiritual. It may turn out that proof of the fiction comes out.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
But, just because Nazareth may not have been around in Jesus' day, and that some verses tell of goings on in Nazareth, does not disprove the entire NT.


True, but it does strengthen the mythical Jesus argument, since the single best source for information about Jesus is exposed for the mythology it is. If basic errors of fact are made regarding Jesus, that does throw into question the veracity of the rest of the NT. Combining that with the mythical nature of the NT Jesus, and the momentum for a mythical Jesus increases.

In my mind, if it were determined that the Ebionites and other gnostics syncretized their ideas about Jesus based on the NT gospels, the case for a mythical Jesus becomes rock solid. If on the other hand the gospels derived from these more mundane writings, then the case for a mythical Jesus becomes quite weak.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Of course, as I have posted all along, theories that Josephus authored the whole story have been proposed. A Jewish friend of mine lent me two books by Jewish writers which put together a good case for that.


I don't know enough about this to add anything to the discussion, but I do know linguistic analysis supports numerous authors involved in writing the gospels, which is consistent with a myth evolving over time.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
It has a more substantive evidentiary foundation than the accepted one, imo, but does not prove anything. I hope they are wrong, considering how many peoples' faith will be undermined.


Take comfort in knowing that faith, by it's nature, can not be undermined. However, those who believe because they think the evidence is strong might very well reconsider.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Toelint
You call me the apologist, while never mentioning the blantent bigotry toward Christianity that screams from this guys website!


He is blatantly bigoted against Christianity. Happy?

...that doesn't make him wrong though. I am blatantly bigoted against flat earthers, aren't you?


Originally posted by Toelint
nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns.

And there are undoubtedly dozens of others that he didn't mention. Does this mean they didn't exist, either?


If you're willing to throw Josephus out as a credible source, so am I. But his was not the only listing of cities in which Nazareth was conspicuously absent.

Further, none of this explains how the city god grew up in could be forgotten. Don't forget that his mother and other relatives (brother and sisters, or cousins at least) supposedly still lived there after his death. There were already multiple Christian churches by the time Paul started writing in the mid 50s CE. The idea of collective amnesia about the location of his home town is ludicrous. Think about the story of the crowd in Nazareth who threatened to throw Jesus off a cliff. Who wrote the story?


Am I blatently biased against the Flat Earthers? Hmm....

For a moment, imagine we're listening to an argument between "Round Worlders" and "Flat Earthers". If they're presenting the same evidence, but proclaiming different outcomes, THEN I'd say, "sorry, I'm with the Round Worlders." and blame pure bias for tipping the scale. Unfortunately, this argument doesn't work when it comes to the existance of UFOs, and I find myself sitting on the fence to this day, wondering if they can exist. Why I get so fired up when the same argument is used to slam the New Testament is beyond me.

As for the absense of Nazareth on any list, I would have to wonder for whom, why, and how these lists were compiled. Perhaps Josephus had some very good reasons for leaving Nazareth off the his list intentionaly.

BTW, where in the Bible does Jesus say that he and God are the same person?

Jesus always and invariably refers to himself as "The Son Of Man."



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
If they're presenting the same evidence, but proclaiming different outcomes, THEN I'd say, "sorry, I'm with the Round Worlders." and blame pure bias for tipping the scale. Unfortunately, this argument doesn't work when it comes to the existance of UFOs, and I find myself sitting on the fence to this day, wondering if they can exist. Why I get so fired up when the same argument is used to slam the New Testament is beyond me.


You brought up the issue of bias. I agree that the author of jesusneverexisted certainly appears to be highly biased against the existence of a historical Jesus, and is also biased against religion as a whole, and has singled out Christianity.

The question becomes, does bias itself invalidate an argument? If it did, virtually all arguments on any subject are thereby invalidated, since the author of an argument is almost invariably biased toward it.


Originally posted by Toelint
As for the absense of Nazareth on any list, I would have to wonder for whom, why, and how these lists were compiled.


Josephus listed them because it was politically important. I don't know why the Talmud listed them, but here is a summary of oddities regarding the non-mention of Nazareth (partly summarized from jesusneverexisted):

- The Old Testament never mentions Nazareth anywhere, including the chapter of Joshua which lists the cities in the area of Nazareth

- The Talmud names numerous Galilean towns but omits Nazareth

- Josephus also lists the cities in the area but neglects Nazareth

- None of the writings of Paul mention Nazareth; this one can't be hand waved away

- None of the 1st century or earlier apocryphal books mention Nazareth

- No other historian or geographer mentions Nazareth until the 4th century


Originally posted by Toelint
BTW, where in the Bible does Jesus say that he and God are the same person?


It doesn't matter if the Bible says it or not. What matters is what early Christians believed regarding the importance of Jesus. It is absolutely incredulous that the home town of Jesus could simply be forgotten for a few hundred years, especially when he still had family living there who supposedly played a role in the early church!!!

If you want to hand wave away everything else, at least explain how this could be even remotely rational. This combined with Paul's total absence of ever mentioning any details of the life of Jesus (including Nazareth) are a slam dunk. The rest of the argument is mere decoration in comparison.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
'But, just because Nazareth may not have been around in Jesus' day, and that some verses tell of goings on in Nazareth, does not disprove the entire NT.'

'True, but it does strengthen the mythical Jesus argument, since the single best source for information about Jesus is exposed for the mythology it is.' spamandham


Originally posted by spamandham
I agree that the author of jesusneverexisted certainly appears to be highly biased against the existence of a historical Jesus, and is also biased against religion as a whole, and has singled out Christianity.
The question becomes, does bias itself invalidate an argument):

- The Old Testament never mentions Nazareth anywhere, including the chapter of Joshua which lists the cities in the area of Nazareth

- The Talmud names numerous Galilean towns but omits Nazareth

- Josephus also lists the cities in the area but neglects Nazareth

- None of the writings of Paul mention Nazareth; this one can't be hand waved away

- None of the 1st century or earlier apocryphal books mention Nazareth

- No other historian or geographer mentions Nazareth until the 4th century



'...for the mythology it is.' God'll get you for that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree, there is a glaring absence of contemporary documentation to support the historicity of Jesus, his disciples, family, followers, and Nazareth. That list you posted could apply to all of those people as well. Not one writer living in the lifetimes of these people mentions any of them. The possible reasons for that are many. It is not unheard of for later power figures to try to erase people out of history. Also, I am sure that there are far more people not mentioned than are mentioned by those writers, so it is more likely that they would not be mentioned than that they would be. Or, they may not have existed. It is possible that your claim of it being mythology is accurate, but I am sure you understand if I don't just take your word for it. I don't know, but I believe in the reality of a person we now call Jesus. In my view, he was far different than he is commonly imagined.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join