The Bible Fraud

[Badger]

Marty, sorry being rude. It seems you have been honest on your search. So why you think an agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman still belive Jesus did exist as a historical figurer? Or why former Jesus mythist G. A. Wells changed his opinion and came to thinking there was a real person behind this?

[Ouroboros]

Marty, sorry being rude. It seems you have been honest on your search. So why you think an agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman still belive Jesus did exist as a historical figurer? Or why former Jesus mythist G. A. Wells changed his opinion and came to thinking there was a real person behind this?

I think the problem is that when someone say "historical Jesus" it can mean so many things. It's very hard to know where the person draws the line as "historical." Ehrman believe that most of the Gospel stories are not part of the historical Jesus, as do I. So when we say "Jesus," do we mean Gospel-story-mythical-magical-miracle-doing-God's-son Jesus, or Jesus who-happened-to-be-the-head-of-some-fringe-cult-and-causing-religious-tumult? So maybe the question back is: "Which Jesus?"

 

Here's a list of different historical Jesus theories and links to different scholars in the subjects: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

[Badger]

Here's an extract from MacMillan's Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899, (Vol III, 3360)

It seems that first-century Nazaret was a small peasant village (Crossan & Reed, 2002, p. 18), with about 400 inhabitants (Reed, 2002, p. 83). "The general picture drawn from the archaeological data is of a village devoted almost exclusively to agriculture, though some artisans would have populated the village as well." (Witherington, 2006, p. 112-113) "Since Nazareth (Gk Nazaret) is not mentioned in the OT, in the Apocrypha or in rabbinic literature, some during the last century disputed its existence in NT times. In addition to an inscription mentioning it as a settlement for priests in the third to fourth century, exacations of recent years have removed every doubt (GBL II.1031-37) -- Remains dating from NT times consist especially of cisterns and silos hewn from rock, along with tombs." (Green, McKnight, & Marshall, 1992, p. 36)

 

Crossan, J. D. & Reed, J. L. Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. HarperOne (2002).

Green, J. B., McKnight, S., Marshall, I. H. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. InterVarsity Press (1992).

Reed. J. L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. Trinity Press (2002).

Witherington III, B. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Baker Academic (2003).

[Ouroboros]

So you maintain the idea that the MacMillan is nonsense stated by not real scholars and archeologists?

 

The issue I'm bringing up is not about if the Nazareth existed or not, but if questioning it is nonsense. You claim it's nonsense to question it. You claim it's nonsense to say it. Yet, scholars have stated it.

 

So, again, is your opinion that scholars who state it are stating nonsense are not true scholars?

 

I'm going after your attitude, not the actual argument or issue. My problem with you, to be blunt here, is that you take some scholars--who support your belief--and use them frequently, and when anyone, for any reason, use any argument from any other scholar that doesn't match your belief, you call it nonsense and claim they're not legitimate scholars. And I think you're wrong.

 

Lets have a look at your quote:

It seems that first-century Nazaret was a small peasant village (Crossan & Reed, 2002, p. 18), with about 400 inhabitants (Reed, 2002, p. 83). "The general picture drawn from the archaeological data is of a village devoted almost exclusively to agriculture, though some artisans would have populated the village as well." (Witherington, 2006, p. 112-113) "Since Nazareth (Gk Nazaret) is not mentioned in the OT, in the Apocrypha or in rabbinic literature, some during the last century disputed its existence in NT times. In addition to an inscription mentioning it as a settlement for priests in the third to fourth century, exacations of recent years have removed every doubt (GBL II.1031-37) -- Remains dating from NT times consist especially of cisterns and silos hewn from rock, along with tombs." (Green, McKnight, & Marshall, 1992, p. 36)

 

"seems" expresses a slight doubt.

"general picture" also a statement of opinion.

"though some" doesn't state fact.

"a settlement...in the third to fourth century", is that BC or AD?

The excavations have found a settlement... not a city.

Remains can be misleading at times, and yes, there could have been the settlement for a vegetarian cult called: The Nazareenes, but was that a common, open, city, with a given name?

 

They found remains which dates thousands of years before too. Does this mean Nazareth was a city by that name all that time? I don't know.

 

But the key here is that some are debating this, and some are doubting it, and it is not "nonsense." But rather your attitude towards opposite opinion is nonsense.

[Badger]

The issue I'm bringing up is not about if the Nazareth existed or not, but if questioning it is nonsense. You claim it's nonsense to question it. You claim it's nonsense to say it. Yet, scholars have stated it.

I did not said question in itself is nonsense.

[Ouroboros]

You are aware that the town of Nazareth did not exist untill the middle of the 2nd century? Since jesus' birth is what started the first century, how do you explain this?

Easily. Such claims are simply nonsense.

No, such claims are not simply nonsense.

 

The excavation show that it at best was a small settlement of a few families, and not a city as it is depicted in the Bible.

 

And there's no textual evidence that the name Nazareth was used for this settlement, but the textual evidence points to that this "city" didn't become a city under that name until later.

 

Hence, Nazareth as city and by that name, is sensible to question.

[Badger]

My problem with you, to be blunt here, is that you take some scholars--who support your belief--and use them frequently, and when anyone, for any reason, use any argument from any other scholar that doesn't match your belief, you call it nonsense and claim they're not legitimate scholars. And I think you're wrong.

Marty did not give any scholar or reason. And I already apologize my behavior, by the way.

[Badger]

The excavation show that it at best was a small settlement of a few families, and not a city as it is depicted in the Bible.

 

And there's no textual evidence that the name Nazareth was used for this settlement, but the textual evidence points to that this "city" didn't become a city under that name until later.

There is in the Gospels. Oh, but they are in the Bible! Darn.

[Ouroboros]

Marty did not give any scholar or reason. And I already apologize my behavior, by the way.

Oh, you did. I didn't realize that. M'kay. Sorry them. We're good then.

 

But to take your side a little, I do think there was a group there, and I think there's some to the idea that "Nazarene" meant more like "Pentecostal" or "Lutheran" do today, rather than "New Yorker" or "European." And it is very possible they lived in that settlement, and that's why it later did become "Nazareth" as a city. Just like we name cities and streets after people and ideas today. It would mean however that the authors must have written the Gospels after it became a city, and not while it was still a few holes in the ground.

[Ouroboros]

The excavation show that it at best was a small settlement of a few families, and not a city as it is depicted in the Bible.

 

And there's no textual evidence that the name Nazareth was used for this settlement, but the textual evidence points to that this "city" didn't become a city under that name until later.

There is in the Gospels. Oh, but they are in the Bible! Darn.

Which means, based on the archeological evidence, that the Gospels were written after it became a city. In other words, much later. And that the authors did not know the story about the place. They winged it, based on the contemporary knowledge, and not on complete research.

 

Your favorite friend Josephus canvased Israel and documented most of the cities, but not Nazareth. Did he? And that was after Jesus's death. So it is most likely that it didn't become an open and recognized city, and under that name, until a while after, and before the Gospels were written. So was Jesus from Nazareth (the city that didn't exist at his time)? Or was he a Nazarene, and his settlement later became Nazareth, the city?

[Badger]

Serisouly, I can accept if someone question the existence of Jesus or Nazareth. But I have difficulties to take seriously sceptics like those behind the site http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

[Badger]

Your favorite friend Josephus canvased Israel and documented most of the cities, but not Nazareth. Did he? And that was after Jesus's death. So it is most likely that it didn't become an open and recognized city, and under that name, until a while after, and before the Gospels were written.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I must read more about this Nazareth some day, I have no enough information to make a judgment.

[Ouroboros]

Serisouly, I can accept if someone question the existence of Jesus or Nazareth. But I have difficulties to take seriously sceptics like those behind the site http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Yes, I can understand your view. And I usually try to take a stand a bit more towards the middle ground. So do I believe there was a Jesus of some kind, yeah, I think some kind of guy was there, from where all the ideas and concepts were built upon. Just like the John Frum cult. He's sent by the gods and will come back again one day. And most likely, John was from USA.

[Ouroboros]

Your favorite friend Josephus canvased Israel and documented most of the cities, but not Nazareth. Did he? And that was after Jesus's death. So it is most likely that it didn't become an open and recognized city, and under that name, until a while after, and before the Gospels were written.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I must read more about this Nazareth some day, I have no enough information to make a judgment.

Right. But it does cast a doubt, plus that the excavation did show that the settlement was extremely small. Not a city by any standards, but rather a farm with a couple of families. A village at best.

[Badger]

But it does cast a doubt, plus that the excavation did show that the settlement was extremely small. Not a city by any standards, but rather a farm with a couple of families. A village at best.

It may cast a doubt. Crossan & Reed argues (Excavating, 2002, 19) it is no surprise Nazareth is never mentioned. "These few atop the social pyramid cared little about the vast majority of people and what went on in small town, rural villages, or countryside hamlets like Nazareth, unless they caused trouble or threatened stablility and income."

[Ouroboros]

But it does cast a doubt, plus that the excavation did show that the settlement was extremely small. Not a city by any standards, but rather a farm with a couple of families. A village at best.

It may cast a doubt. Crossan & Reed argues (Excavating, 2002, 19) it is no surprise Nazareth is never mentioned. "These few atop the social pyramid cared little about the vast majority of people and what went on in small town, rural villages, or countryside hamlets like Nazareth, unless they caused trouble or threatened stablility and income."

And: "There is no evidence beneath the modern, Crusader, or Byzantine strata from pits, crevices, or debris packed together for their foundations, suggest that first-century Nazareth was anything other than a modest village void of public architecture... no fortification, no palace, no basilica, no bathhouse, no paved street, nothing" (J. Crossan & J. Reed, Exacvating Jesus, p. 65)

 

The final report of Survey and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997-2002) states, "The initial evidence concerning the character of the site indicates that the small valley and its slopes likely comprised the property of a single extended family, which produced a variety of crops." (21) And, "The ceramic finds from the Nazareth Village Farm excavations were for the most part quite fragmentary, as might be expected of pottery recovered from agricultural installations and terraces. Several periods are represented, illustrating the extensive duration of time from the earliest to the latest settlement and use of the farm (Figs. 37–44; Table 1). It is apparent that the farm territory was not occupied continuously. It seems that each area may have been in use during some of the periods represented, and was abandoned or at least left dormant in other periods. In no single area of the site was pottery of all the periods represented found." (68-69)

[Badger]

What is the point, HanSolo? I'm curious.

[Thegodthatfailed]

The excavation show that it at best was a small settlement of a few families, and not a city as it is depicted in the Bible.

 

And there's no textual evidence that the name Nazareth was used for this settlement, but the textual evidence points to that this "city" didn't become a city under that name until later.

There is in the Gospels. Oh, but they are in the Bible! Darn.

 

You still didn't answer my question, Badger. The burden of proof rests upon the believer making extraordinary claims.

Yes, there may have been a historical figure that the writers of the Bible based the character of Jesus on. I will give you that.

But,That can be said of many ancient myths and legends.

 

What about the Biblical accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead, healings, the big earthquake that was said to take

place after the crucifixion, and the hundreds of undead zombies that were supposedly walking around after his resurrection.

It would seem that at least one independent observer would have recorded this.

 

BTW- I see that you are from Finland. I live in the Bible Belt of Fundyfied America. You live in a fairly civilized and

rational place of the world from what I hear. Do you want to change places with me?

[Badger]

You still didn't answer my question, Badger. The burden of proof rests upon the believer making extraordinary claims.

Yes, there may have been a historical figure that the writers of the Bible based the character of Jesus on. I will give you that.

But,That can be said of many ancient myths and legends.

I didn't answer since I had serious difficulties to take you seriously. Sorry. You first asked a piece of evidence, but then, in the same breath, you make it clear you're not willing to accept the evidence we have.

 

What about the Biblical accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead, healings, the big earthquake that was said to take

place after the crucifixion, and the hundreds of undead zombies that were supposedly walking around after his resurrection.

It would seem that at least one independent observer would have recorded this.

Now that's is a wholly different question. Let me say this: NT scholars are generally ready to admit that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcism. However, this does not necessarily mean he did something supernatural. You see here ones view of reality get invovled in the question. Naturalists would of course deny the possibility of miracle, whereas supernaturalists can accept that. Your question is not merely historical one but philosophical also.

 

BTW- I see that you are from Finland. I live in the Bible Belt of Fundyfied America. You live in a fairly civilized and

rational place of the world from what I hear. Do you want to change places with me?

[Jedah]

Badger:

 

Please provide evidence of the following:

 

Prove that there is NO evidence of a flying spaghetti monster.

 

Prove that there is NO evidence of a magical equation in another unobservable dimension that solves all of lifes mysteries.

 

Prove that there is NO evidence of an invisible pink unicorn floating above your head.

[Badger]

I'm not going to play with you. Sorry.

[Thegodthatfailed]

I didn't answer since I had serious difficulties to take you seriously. Sorry. You first asked a piece of evidence, but then, in the same breath, you make it clear you're not willing to accept the evidence we have.

 

Then I should just accept what the Bible says as evidence, because it supposedly is the word of God, because it that is

what it teaches, so I have to accept that at face value? Talk about circular logic. And don't even start with Josephus's

forged testimony that has be proven false a long time ago. If this is all the evidence you have I have serious difficulties

in taking you seriously.

 

Now that's is a wholly different question. Let me say this: NT scholars are generally ready to admit that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcism. However, this does not necessarily mean he did something supernatural. You see here ones view of reality get invovled in the question. Naturalists would of course deny the possibility of miracle, whereas supernaturalists can accept that. Your question is not merely historical one but philosophical also.

 

So, what is your position? Do you believe in the supernatural, miraculous healing, exorcism, etc.? If not you must not believe in the resurrection,

because that by definition is a supernatural event. If you do not believe in the resurrection, then your faith is in vain according to Paul, and you

are a far more liberal christian than I was.

[Ouroboros]

What is the point, HanSolo? I'm curious.

The point is that Nazareth was not a city by the time of Jesus.

 

It's barely a village, but rather just a farm. A no mention of its existence by contemporary writer. Hence, the logical conclusion, the authors didn't get that information right.

 

That's the point. The authors didn't get it right. For whatever reason. Bad information, bad sources, bad investigation, or plain assumptions, who knows, they just didn't get it right. So can we trust them fully about any other information?

 

I thought the discussion was if it was legit to doubt Nazareth as a city at the time of Jesus, and obviously archeology does doubt it was a city.

 

So what is your point?

[Jedah]

I'm not going to play with you. Sorry.

 

You have been blatantly committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof in every other post you make. I'm not asking you to "play" with me, or whatever condescending nonsense you meant by that snarky comment. I'm simply asking you to quit using bad logic if you want to prove a point.

[centauri]

What about the Biblical accounts of Jesus raising people from the dead, healings, the big earthquake that was said to take

place after the crucifixion, and the hundreds of undead zombies that were supposedly walking around after his resurrection.

It would seem that at least one independent observer would have recorded this.

Now that's is a wholly different question. Let me say this: NT scholars are generally ready to admit that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcism. However, this does not necessarily mean he did something supernatural.

 

There are claims that Jesus performed miracles.

How exactly do these NT scholars know that the stories aren't embellishments?

 

According to the acclaimed historian "Luke", Jesus of Nazareth was quite famous during his lifetime.

Why did such a famous wonder worker from Nazareth escape the notice of contemporary writers?

Do you find it a bit odd that Paul never referred to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth" and omitted the wonders that he performed, such as raising Lazarus from the dead?

 

Also, if Luke was writing as a historian, why did he fail to mention an event that was even bigger than the resurrection of Jesus, that of a mass resurrection?

Why does his birth narrative history conflict with that of Matthew?

Why does his history of when and where Jesus first appeared to his disciples after he was resurrected differ from that of Matthew, Mark, and John?

Why does his genealogy of Jesus differ from that of Matthew?

The author of Luke claims he was writing to confirm with certainty things that had been taught to his reader.

If someone had been taught by "Matthew" that Jesus went to Egypt as a child, had a specific pedigree, escaped an infant death decree issued by Herod, and went to Galilee to first appear to his disciples after he was resurrected, where does Luke confirm this history?

Which version of history do you prefer?