Christian Archeology

Archeology

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Christian Archeology

#61  Postby duvduv » Jan 17, 2017 3:50 pm

For those who believe that the Jesus/NT universe existed in the first century, what does it mean to those people that there is no evidence for the existence of Nazareth in the first century??
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Christian Archeology

#62  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 17, 2017 3:59 pm

duvduv wrote:For those who believe that the Jesus/NT universe existed in the first century, what does it mean to those people that there is no evidence for the existence of Nazareth in the first century??

What do you mean by "Jesus/NT universe"?
Presumably you accept that Jerusalem and Bethlehem existed then, so why not Nazareth as well?
What's so special about Nazareth that it alone would not have existed?

EDIT: I think Jesus existed, but was nothing like as portrayed in the NT. He was an anti-Roman acitvist, and the Romans were brutal with such people.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#63  Postby duvduv » Jan 17, 2017 4:55 pm

DavidMcC, you haven't noticed that unlike Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Sepphoris, no Jewish sources such as the Talmud or Midrash mention a place called Nazareth at the time of the NT story. Check further on the work and study of archaeology of Rene Salm on this issue, Because IF in fact there is no evidence of Nazareth, how could the NT have been composed in the first century?
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#64  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 17, 2017 5:11 pm

duvduv wrote:DavidMcC, you haven't noticed that unlike Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Sepphoris, no Jewish sources such as the Talmud or Midrash mention a place called Nazareth at the time of the NT story. Check further on the work and study of archaeology of Rene Salm on this issue, Because IF in fact there is no evidence of Nazareth, how could the NT have been composed in the first century?

When did I claim that it WAS composed in the first century?
Who cares when it was composed? It was mainly a load of bull anyway. However , that doesn't alter the fact that local people resented the Romans taxing them to pay for a new Roman temple at Tiberius, and there were politico-religious activists agitating against them because of the hardship it caused..
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#65  Postby duvduv » Jan 20, 2017 1:21 am

The point had significance for those who believed the texts were composed in the 1st century. You replied in a way that made me think you believed they were written in the 1st century.
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#66  Postby RealityRules » Jan 20, 2017 7:18 am

duvduv wrote:
For those who believe that the Jesus/NT universe existed in the first century, what does it mean to those people that there is no evidence for the existence of Nazareth in the first century??
.
DavidMcC wrote:
Presumably you accept that Jerusalem and Bethlehem existed then, so why not Nazareth as well?

What's so special about Nazareth that it alone would not have existed?


The jesusneverexisted.com page on Nazareth contains a lot of basic, but older information; referring to René Salm's first book The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (2007/8). Salm received quite a lot of flak over that book (i.e. people attacking him without addressing points he had made in the book), so he responded with yet another book addressing some of the spurious points raised -

'NazarethGate: Quack Archeology, Holy Hoaxes, and the Invented Town of Jesus', 2015.




On his mythicistpapers site, Salm also highlights a video (also available at http://www.nazarethmyth.info/) -

    http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/10/07/new-nazareth-video-october-2016/

    "This data-rich video presents a concise review of the Nazareth (non-)evidence for a town in the time of “Jesus.” The power-point format with 18 slides (beginning at minute 10) includes the bogus 2009 claim of a “house from the time of Jesus” (even with an astonishing invented wall); the forgery of the Caesarea Inscription mentioning Nazareth (universally considered authentic and often dated to the first century CE); the shockingly early dating of scores of tombs, pottery shards, and oil lamps; water worn (and completely unreadable) coins from Mary’s Well groundlessly attributed to Hellenistic times; and other remarkable material from both my Nazareth volumes. A must see, particularly for those who have not yet read my books. (1 hour)—R.S."


DavidMcC wrote:
edit: I think Jesus existed, but was nothing like as portrayed in the NT. He was an anti-Roman activist, and the Romans were brutal with such people.

    In other words, the Jesus portrayed in the NT is not the Jesus DavidMcC believes in (or vice versa).
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2819

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#67  Postby dejuror » Jan 21, 2017 10:39 pm

DavidMcC wrote:

EDIT: I think Jesus existed, but was nothing like as portrayed in the NT. He was an anti-Roman acitvist, and the Romans were brutal with such people.


Your claim that Jesus was an anti-Roman activist is unsubstantiated--modern fiction. There is no mention of any character called Jesus of Nazareth or an anti-Roman activist named Jesus of Nazareth in any writing attributed to contemporary writers.

It is simply absurd to suggest that what you imagine about your Jesus is true without a shred of historical evidence.

Jesus of Nazareth was not an anti-Roman activist in ancient manuscripts.

Jesus of Nazareth is a fiction character with zero history in all manuscripts.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4712

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Christian Archeology

#68  Postby duvduv » Jan 27, 2017 6:17 pm

One of the most interesting things that is not addressed is that Judaism places a high regard on marriage especially for rabbis and holy men. It is unheard of that a leading holy man should be 33 years old and unmarried, and revered by Jews. the Roman authors of the NT texts apparently did not know this. In Yiddish he would be referred to as an "alter bokher" (and old bachelor, the opposite of an old maid). Add to it that all his followers were apparently also unmarried. Including the character called Paul. That a religious leader as rabbi should be unmarried and revered is ridiculous in Judaism.
This is also why the stories of celibate Essenes and another alter bokher, John the Baptist, has no basis whatsoever in Judaism and are also myths.
Ironically, this would be a reason why Yeshu Pandera himself was ignored and fell into oblivion when he lived about 75 BCE.
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#69  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 28, 2017 1:30 pm

Perhaps you (duvduv and dejuror) should take this up with Wikipedia, which is probably not managed by the devout.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#70  Postby Alan B » Jan 29, 2017 1:37 pm

duvduv wrote:That a religious leader as rabbi should be unmarried and revered is ridiculous in Judaism.

Yes. But I get the impression that in Jesus' case, the title 'Rabbi' was a casual 'honorific' such as one might call a knowledgeable person 'Professor' even though they are not qualified as a 'Professor'.
Coupled with being unmarried and revered by his followers would point a uniqueness apart from conventional Judaism of those times. :dunno:
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9792
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#71  Postby dejuror » Jan 30, 2017 3:38 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Perhaps you (duvduv and dejuror) should take this up with Wikipedia, which is probably not managed by the devout.

Your suggestion is of very little use since no source, including Wikipedia, provides archaeological evidence for the supposed Jesus, his alleged followers or Churches in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

All manuscripts, artifacts and archaeological evidence about the supposed Jesus and his followers are dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

It is only in the 2nd century and later that writings attributed to non-apologetic sources begin to mention or started to be influenced by the Jesus story which is evidence that the Jesus story and cult originated very late.

The writings attributed to 1st century writers like Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius and even the Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence that the Jesus story and cult was not known at all until at least after c 110 CE.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4712

Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#72  Postby dejuror » Jan 30, 2017 3:54 pm

duvduv wrote:That a religious leader as rabbi should be unmarried and revered is ridiculous in Judaism.


Alan B wrote:
Yes. But I get the impression that in Jesus' case, the title 'Rabbi' was a casual 'honorific' such as one might call a knowledgeable person 'Professor' even though they are not qualified as a 'Professor'.
Coupled with being unmarried and revered by his followers would point a uniqueness apart from conventional Judaism of those times. :dunno:


The use of the word "Rabbi" in NT writing may also be evidence that the Jesus story was invented in the 2nd century.

The title "Rabbi" is not found in 1st writings attributed to Jews like Philo and Josephus.

The title "Rabbi" in the NT appears to be an anachronism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi
Rabbi is not an occupation found in the Hebrew Bible, and ancient generations did not employ related titles such as Rabban, Ribbi, or Rab to describe either the Babylonian sages or the sages in Israel.[6]

The titles "Rabban" and "Rabbi" are first mentioned in the Mishnah (c. 200 CE).
dejuror
 
Posts: 4712

Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#73  Postby Alan B » Jan 30, 2017 4:08 pm

And so it goes on... No real evidence for his existence - just suppositions.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9792
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#74  Postby Tracer Tong » Jan 30, 2017 4:09 pm

Alan B wrote:And so it goes on... No real evidence for his existence - just suppositions.


You mean archaeologically, or in general?
Die Alten sind weder die Juden, noch die Christen, noch die Engländer der Poesie. Sie sind nicht ein willkürlich auserwähltes Kunstvolk Gottes; noch haben sie den alleinseligmachenden Schönheitsglauben; noch besitzen sie ein Dichtungsmonopol.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1597
Male

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#75  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jan 30, 2017 4:13 pm

When did historians actually tell the truth or actually recoded real events especially in the early centuries. Even today events of 100 years ago are still in dispute never mind 1800 years ago.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Christian Archeology

#76  Postby Alan B » Jan 30, 2017 4:16 pm

Archaeologically.

Generally, a person named Jesus was written about, so maybe he did exist. Though I suspect that many of the stories were inventions as part of the attempt to control the gullible. These days we have, er, 'Fake News'... :whistle:
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9792
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#77  Postby dejuror » Jan 30, 2017 8:40 pm

Alan B wrote:Archaeologically.

Generally, a person named Jesus was written about, so maybe he did exist. Though I suspect that many of the stories were inventions as part of the attempt to control the gullible. These days we have, er, 'Fake News'... :whistle:

The speculation that Jesus may have actually existed has zero negative effect on the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of a Jesus cult in the 1st century.

By the way, stories were written about Romulus, Remus, Aesclepius, Jupiter, Satan, Diana, Apollo, Ghosts, God and Angels so maybe they did exist??
dejuror
 
Posts: 4712

Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#78  Postby Leucius Charinus » Feb 02, 2017 1:46 am

dejuror wrote:The speculation that Jesus may have actually existed has zero negative effect on the fact that there is no archaeological evidence of a Jesus cult in the 1st century.


This is an understatement. There is no UNAMBIGUOUS archaeological evidence for the existence of the Jesus Cult aka the "Nation of Christians" in the first three centuries of the common era. If anyone has any element or item of archaeological evidence (from WIKI or anywhere) which can stand up to common sense critical questioning then link to it.

If anyone thinks that I am making an overstatement of the primary evidence then lets see the evidence itself.

Does anyone wants to make a wager that I am mistaken?

Is there at least one such item of archaeological evidence that unambiguously (that is, leaving "Confirmation bias" at the door) attests to the existence of the nation of Christians before Eusebius started using this specific expression?

This is a final call for evidence.

Pretty fucking simple task.

What the fuck is this obvious primary or secondary evidence < 312 CE?


OVER


    On 28 October 312
    the Christians
    suddenly and unexpectedly
    found themselves victorious.
    The victory was

    "a miracle"

    though opinions differed
    as to the nature of the sign
    vouchsafed to Constantine.


    ///


    The winners became conscious
    of their victory in a mood
    of resentment and vengeance.
    The revolution of the fourth century,
    carrying with it a new historiography
    [ <<====== "The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius" === ]
    will not be understood if we underrate
    the determination, almost the fierceness,
    with which the Christians
    appreciated and exploited

    "the miracle"

    that had transformed Constantine
    into a supporter, a protector,
    and later a legislator
    of the Christian church
    .


    Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987)


    [my formatting.


    Arnaldo Momigliano is the greatest contemporary scholar of the history and historiography of classical civilization. M.I. Finley has written in the New Statesman that “there is no one alive today who knows the subject as he does.”]
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 810

Print view this post

Re: Christian Archeology

#79  Postby duvduv » Apr 06, 2017 6:03 pm

I see more and more articles and books being propagated about the archeological "evidence" for 1st century Christianity, and yet none of it does anything of the sort. One would imagine that the pop scholars and others would be tackling this issue head on! Where are Bart Ehrmann and others to explain that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in archaeology of any Christian sect anywhere in the first century?!
duvduv
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 463

United States (us)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest