FEATURED ARTICLE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

[freethinker]

Hi, freethinker! Welcome to TWeb.


1.1 I beg to differ. I'm not sure anybody would have been drunk in the first place, since this isn't like your typical 21st century wedding, but even if they were, are you telling me drunk people don't have any sense of taste?
1.2 Are you saying Jesus was the joker, or someone else? If the first, then it's a rather foolish way to pull a prank. He set it up like a miracle. If the second, that surely doesn't make sense when you read what actually happens in the story.
1.3 People would have noticed that easily.

None of those explanations make any sense at all when you read the story in John 2:1-11.


2.1 Okay, then. Explain why Peter thought it was water and sank into the rock.
2.2 If water is shallow enough to walk on top of it, you have practically no water at all. Certainly not enough to float a boat on, unless it's one that comes in Happy meals.
2.3 Explain how Peter sank into it, and how the boat was out there floating to begin with.


None of those explanations make any sense when you read the story. This says nothing about everyone bringing their own food.

As I explained elsewhere I didn't bother to find the most probable natural explanations. Here are some more thoughts.
A wedding party in Biblical times lasted several days. The host was not in the position of somebody who realizes at midnight that the booze is finished and the shops are closed. If he was inclined to hide his miscalculation he had the opportunity. In any case this story is unsavory to me because alcoholics use it to justify their addiction.
What probably happened on lake Gallilee was that the strong wind made the apostle's boat drift to about 20 meters from the shore in pitch darkness. When they unexpectedly were hailed by Jesus from he shore it must have been very disorienting. Peter's first thought was obviously that Jesus was standing on the water. His next thought was that they were ashore, but he disproved that by stepping overboard. Fortunately they were close enough to shore at the time so he didn't drown: like most fishermen he probably couldn't swim.

[P-Dunn]

OK. There are two miracles in the Bible that can't be explained naturally.
First: Pontius Pilate governed Judaea from Caesarea om the coast, about 100 km away. He is known to have been in Jerusalem once, an unusual event duly recorded. His alleged presence in Jerusalem in time for the the crucifixion means he was multicorporal.
Second: Jesus Christ is alleged to have lived in Nazareth. The most likely founders of Nazareth and the earliest possible settlers were the Evyonim-Nosrim in 135 AD. There is no record of Nazareth in the Old Testament or the Talmud.

With comments like that, you should probably start bracing for impact of the Stupid Hammer. I am, merely because I quoted you.

*braces for impact*

As I explained elsewhere I didn't bother to find the most probable natural explanations.

Why not? Did you really think posting the first thing that came to your head with no research would suddenly disprove miracles, or less, even make us doubt their historicity for one moment?

A wedding party in Biblical times lasted several days. The host was not in the position of somebody who realizes at midnight that the booze is finished and the shops are closed. If he was inclined to hide his miscalculation he had the opportunity. In any case this story is unsavory to me because alcoholics use it to justify their addiction.

Since drunkenness as a condition was condemned by the Scriptures, and since the wine they were drinking would have been diluted to prevent drunkenness, it's unlikely anyone would have been drunk at a party that Jesus was at. I also don't understand why an alcoholic would use this story to justify themselves, as it's a huge decontextualization.

What probably happened on lake Gallilee was that the strong wind made the apostle's boat drift to about 20 meters from the shore in pitch darkness. When they unexpectedly were hailed by Jesus from he shore it must have been very disorienting. Peter's first thought was obviously that Jesus was standing on the water. His next thought was that they were ashore, but he disproved that by stepping overboard. Fortunately they were close enough to shore at the time so he didn't drown: like most fishermen he probably couldn't swim.

This explanation fails completely, because you haven't taken into account Matthew 14:24: "but the boat was already a considerable distance[a] from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

And this one: "Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus."

[jpholding]

OK. There are two miracles in the Bible that can't be explained naturally.
First: Pontius Pilate governed Judaea from Caesarea om the coast, about 100 km away. He is known to have been in Jerusalem once, an unusual event duly recorded. His alleged presence in Jerusalem in time for the the crucifixion means he was multicorporal.

Wow. That WAS stupid. I didn't think you could do it.

I can't imagine who the procurator/prefect of Rome's most troublesome province would take the responsibility to be present in Jerusalem at a time when trouble was most likely. After all, he had fax machines to send orders if a rebellion started, right?

Of course, the ultimate proof he has is that there is evidence of "Super Glue" on Pilate's seat in Caesarea.

Second: Jesus Christ is alleged to have lived in Nazareth. The most likely founders of Nazareth and the earliest possible settlers were the Evyonim-Nosrim in 135 AD. There is no record of Nazareth in the Old Testament or the Talmud.

No, sorry, that's even dumber. For one thing, if you want to say it existed in 135 AD, then that there's no mention of it in the Talmud (3rd-4th century) only defeats the point you're trying to make. Second, I'd like to see you show us that every other village in Galilee the size of Nazareth was mentioned by the OT or by the Talmud, as well as that every Greco-Roman city of such size was mentioned by Greco-Roman historians.

Being a freethinker is great. It means you have absolute license to be this stupid at any time.

[freethinker]

Wow. That WAS stupid. I didn't think you could do it.

I can't imagine who the procurator/prefect of Rome's most troublesome province would take the responsibility to be present in Jerusalem at a time when trouble was most likely. After all, he had fax machines to send orders if a rebellion started, right?

Of course, the ultimate proof he has is that there is evidence of "Super Glue" on Pilate's seat in Caesarea.



No, sorry, that's even dumber. For one thing, if you want to say it existed in 135 AD, then that there's no mention of it in the Talmud (3rd-4th century) only defeats the point you're trying to make. Second, I'd like to see you show us that every other village in Galilee the size of Nazareth was mentioned by the OT or by the Talmud, as well as that every Greco-Roman city of such size was mentioned by Greco-Roman historians.

Being a freethinker is great. It means you have absolute license to be this stupid at any time.

I'm always willing to elucidate.
The first sentence seems to have a spelling mistake, I can't make out the intention. Rebellions were ubiquitous and Romans had a standard way of dealing with them. No orders needed. In any case in 33 the Jews were still wailing and tearing their clothes, not revolting. Pilate resided in Caesarea because it was the civil and military capital of Judaea since 13 BC.
Let me make the story of Nazareth more clear. It did not exist between 1 AD and 33 AD. It is not listed anywhere. The Bible reports a synagogue in Nazareth therefore it had to be listed. The present Nazareth does not correspond to Bilical descriptions: it is located in a depression instead of on a mountain. There are no ruins where Nazareth was supposed to have been.

[jpholding]

The first sentence seems to have a spelling mistake, I can't make out the intention.

That stupid, huh?

Rebellions were ubiquitous and Romans had a standard way of dealing with them. No orders needed.

Oh, really? And would you mind telling us what gumball machine you got this factoid out of? Pilate never had to give orders, eh? So what was his office for? Decoration?

Listen...go to your fridge right now, get some mustard, and slather it all over your foot, OK? Cuz you want it to taste real good after this:

http://www.interhack.net/projects/li...jews/b2c9.html

After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban (10) upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.

Wars of the Jews, 2.9.4 (old cite method)

That sound you hear is your credibility blowing into itsy bitsy pieces.

If the man was in Jerusalem for one thing, nothing stops him from coming for others unless you want to be so stupid as to "special plead" your way into gluing him to his chair.

In any case in 33 the Jews were still wailing and tearing their clothes, not revolting.

Oh yes. Incidents like the shields bit were no cause to keep an eye on things, now, were they?

You do have documentation that ALL procurators and prefects were stuck to their chairs, right?

Let me make the story of Nazareth more clear. It did not exist between 1 AD and 33 AD. It is not listed anywhere.

Neither are dozens of other Galileean villages and hundreds of Greco-Romans burgs of the same size. What's your point?

The Bible reports a synagogue in Nazareth therefore it had to be listed.

Had to be listed in WHAT? You have some list titled, "All places with a synagogue in Galilee between 1-33 AD"?

The present Nazareth does not correspond to Bilical descriptions: it is located in a depression instead of on a mountain

Snore -- you're misreading Luke. Nazareth was and still is situated in a hollow "high up against the slopes of a mountain" so that it is enclosed on three sides by portions of the mountain. The "brow" of Luke refers rather to a 30-40 foot limestone cliff at the southwest corner of city, and he is read incorrectly as implying that the city was built ON the brow of the hill, when it is actually saying that it was built on the hill, and the brow is part of the hill also.

There are no ruins where Nazareth was supposed to have been.

The modern city is built on top of it, you moron.

How stupid, guy. Be more stupider.

[freethinker]

That stupid, huh?
Oh, really? And would you mind telling us what gumball machine you got this factoid out of? Pilate never had to give orders, eh? So what was his office for? Decoration?

Pilate was second-rate nobility lording it over a backwater place making as much money as possible. His office was for collecting taxes. He had auxiliary local troops (3000) at his command, a sort of police force. An uprising would be quelled with a legion from Syria.

Listen...go to your fridge right now, get some mustard, and slather it all over your foot, OK? Cuz you want it to taste real good after this:
http://www.interhack.net/projects/li...jews/b2c9.html
Wars of the Jews, 2.9.4 (old cite method)
That sound you hear is your credibility blowing into itsy bitsy pieces.

It pains me to have to write about Josephus, a Jewish traitor and generally unsavory character. He wrote his history in 70AD and was obviously prejudiced against Pilate. His writings while interesting are not acceptable. By the way, mustard is used by eaters of dead animals which I'm not.

If the man was in Jerusalem for one thing, nothing stops him from coming for others unless you want to be so stupid as to "special plead" your way into gluing him to his chair.

True. Not enough is known about Pilate to consign him to a certain place at a certain time. His presence in Jerusalem is not completely impossible, just very unlikely. His casual brutality makes it clear that he would not have patience with a non tax-paying troublemaker.

Had to be listed in WHAT? You have some list titled, "All places with a synagogue in Galilee between 1-33 AD"?

The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any "Nazareth" from its list.
Not a single ancient historian or geographer mentions the place before the 4th century.
St. Paul was obviously unaware of the existence of Nazareth.

Snore -- you're misreading Luke. Nazareth was and still is situated in a hollow "high up against the slopes of a mountain" so that it is enclosed on three sides by portions of the mountain. The "brow" of Luke refers rather to a 30-40 foot limestone cliff at the southwest corner of city, and he is read incorrectly as implying that the city was built ON the brow of the hill, when it is actually saying that it was built on the hill, and the brow is part of the hill also.

The point is present Nazareth is not built on a mountain except for the part added in 1957. The cliff is not suitable for casting someone down. At most the unfortunate victim would part with his dignity while rolling down the slope.

The modern city is built on top of it, you moron.

No, there are no ruins below present Nazareth. Archaeologists know how to locate them. They have a good incentive in this case. There was no lack of trying.
A few km from present Nazareth is the village of Sepphoris, the ruins of which do exist.

How stupid, guy. Be more stupider.

[jpholding]

Pilate was second-rate nobility lording it over a backwater place making as much money as possible. His office was for collecting taxes. He had auxiliary local troops (3000) at his command, a sort of police force. An uprising would be quelled with a legion from Syria.

So what? This proves he never went to Jerusalem, how?

It pains me to have to write about Josephus, a Jewish traitor and generally unsavory character. He wrote his history in 70AD and was obviously prejudiced against Pilate. His writings while interesting are not acceptable.

Yep, he's wiser than all the Josephus scholars like Feldman and Thackery, that "freethinker" boy. So let's try again: This invalidates his comments about Pilate's travel to Jerusalem how, exactly?

And again: Please show us evidence that procurators and prefects in the Empire as a whole Super Glued themselves to their seats and never left the office.

I suspect I'm asking Shari to eat Lambchop here. But it's so much fun to put Stupid on display like this. I've asked you for some documentation several times now and all I get is intestinal gas.

You don't happen to accept the Roman Piso theory, do you?

By the way, mustard is used by eaters of dead animals which I'm not.

Aye. Your corpse decayed a long time ago....

True. Not enough is known about Pilate to consign him to a certain place at a certain time. His presence in Jerusalem is not completely impossible, just very unlikely.

Oops. Was that a concession? OK, now let's move to the next step: Let's have that documentation that procurators and prefects were stuck in the office all the time. Start with those that govered in Asia Minor, if you please. Assuming you can even name any.

The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any "Nazareth" from its list.

Uh, yeah, well, there were a lot more than 18 villages and towns in Galilee 1400 years later, Dum Dum, so that Nazareth isn't listed there doesn't prove jack dip. Really, how much stupider can you get? Oh...wait...

Not a single ancient historian or geographer mentions the place before the 4th century.

Please name three historians or geographers that should have mentioned it but didn't. Then show that they consistently named similar sized villages and towns in Galilee.

St. Paul was obviously unaware of the existence of Nazareth.

Why? Because he didn't go out of his way to mention it? He doesn't mention Capernaum either -- so did that not exist too? How about Bethany? I guess we're just lucky that he happened to mention Jerusalem, or that wouldn't exist either.

Wow. I mean, you're just so...STUPID. There's no other word for it.

The point is present Nazareth is not built on a mountain except for the part added in 1957. The cliff is not suitable for casting someone down.

It is if your plan is to stone them after you throw them, which was why people were usually thrown from such places, you moron.

No, there are no ruins below present Nazareth[. Archaeologists know how to locate them.

Oh? What do they do? Pick up the modern city and look underneath?

Keep going. The more you say, the stupider you'll look.

[freethinker]

I suspect I'm asking Shari to eat Lambchop here. But it's so much fun to put Stupid on display like this. I've asked you for some documentation several times now and all I get is intestinal gas.

Not at all. Your lambchops have hormones and antibiotics in them.
I did provide references.

You don't happen to accept the Roman Piso theory, do you?

No

Oops. Was that a concession? OK, now let's move to the next step: Let's have that documentation that procurators and prefects were stuck in the office all the time. Start with those that govered (sic) in Asia Minor, if you please. Assuming you can even name any.

Little is known about Roman governors besides their names. This is as exciting as reading a telephone book. Request denied. It is known however that governors or prefects including Pilate were perambulatory: they traveled. Pilate hated the Jews and Jerusalem; only unusual circumstance would compel him to travel to the city.

Uh, yeah, well, there were a lot more than 18 villages and towns in Galilee 1400 years later, Dum Dum, so that Nazareth isn't listed there doesn't prove jack dip. Really, how much stupider can you get? Oh...wait...
Please name three historians or geographers that should have mentioned it but didn't. Then show that they consistently named similar sized villages and towns in Galilee.

That's not how it works. Please provide one reference to Nazareth by one of about 20 contemporary historians. Not? Then provide one reference by anybody before the 4th century. Explain why compulsive chroniclers like the Egyptians do not mention Nazareth ever. Explain why the well-known itinerary for pilgrims compiled in 333AD the Itinerarium Burdigalense mentions holy places in great detail including Jerusalem and Bethlehem but not Nazareth. Explain why Origen didn't find Nazareth despite living 50 km away from it.

Why? Because he didn't go out of his way to mention it? He doesn't mention Capernaum either -- so did that not exist too? How about Bethany? I guess we're just lucky that he happened to mention Jerusalem, or that wouldn't exist either.
Wow. I mean, you're just so...STUPID. There's no other word for it.

Paul mentioned Jerusalem because he worked there. The fact that he never mentioned Capernaum or Bethany or Golgotha or Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem has significance but falls out of the scope of the present thread.

It is if your plan is to stone them after you throw them, which was why people were usually thrown from such places, you moron.

Irrelevant. The point is there is no cliff. The Bible specifies a cliff.

Oh? What do they do? Pick up the modern city and look underneath?
Keep going. The more you say, the stupider you'll look.

They dig.

[jpholding]

I did provide references.

You didn't provide anything at all. I'm waiting for all of them, including the one that by a Roman historian that shows that procurators and prefects stayed glued to their seats.

Little is known about Roman governors besides their names. This is as exciting as reading a telephone book. Request denied. It is known however that governors or prefects including Pilate were perambulatory: they traveled.

Thanks for conceding both your error and your inability to defend it.

Pilate hated the Jews and Jerusalem; only unusual circumstance would compel him to travel to the city.

*cough* Passover festival with hundreds of thousands of restive Jews in one place *cough*

Nah. Nothing unusual about that.

That's not how it works.

Yes, that IS how it works. You're making the following claim:

* City X should be noticed because Y

You've named "X" and now you need to fill in "Y". Then you need to show that other cities with the characteristics Y received mention by historians, in order to validate your claim that it ought to have been mentioned.

Explain why compulsive chroniclers like the Egyptians do not mention Nazareth ever.

Show us that they were compulsive enough to mention EVERY city the size of Nazareth in Galilee. Otherwise you're just flabbling.

You get this crap put of 19th century freethinker works, don't you? Or maybe second-hand from "jesusneverexisted.com".

Explain why the well-known itinerary for pilgrims compiled in 333AD the Itinerarium Burdigalense mentions holy places in great detail including Jerusalem and Bethlehem but not Nazareth.

Uh, before you said that Nazareth existed in 135 AD, so I dunno what the heck you think you're helping yourself with here.

Anyway, the IB is a list of places the guy visited, not a list of all cities and villages in Palestine, so there's no reason to demand that Nazareth be mentioned. Does it mention Capernaum? Samaria? Tyre? No? Then I guess those places didn't exist either.

Good night, you are stupid.

Explain why Origen didn't find Nazareth despite living 50 km away from it.

What do you mean, "didn't find" it? Please stop copying uncritically from jesusneverexisted.com and explain yourself for once, if you even understand what you're posting. Try quoting directly from Origen, for example, saying, "I dunno where this place is, duh."

Paul mentioned Jerusalem because he worked there. The fact that he never mentioned Capernaum or Bethany or Golgotha or Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem has significance but falls out of the scope of the present thread.

In other words, you saw the hole you'd dig for yourself if you followed through on the logic. For once you're showing some intelligence.

Irrelevant. The point is there is no cliff. The Bible specifies a cliff.

It specifies a brow of a hill.

They dig.

Wow. They dug under all of modern Nazareth? Do tell.

[freethinker]

*cough* Passover festival with hundreds of thousands of restive Jews in one place *cough*
Nah. Nothing unusual about that.

Nice try. I tried and failed to conjure up an image of a suave Pilate travelling to the hated city bursting at the seams with hated Jews and lending a kindly ear to the incoherent diatribes of wild barbarians.

Yes, that IS how it works. You're making the following claim:
* City X should be noticed because Y
You've named "X" and now you need to fill in "Y". Then you need to show that other cities with the characteristics Y received mention by historians, in order to validate your claim that it ought to have been mentioned.

Here is how it works. If somebody makes a claim she has to prove it. I could state that Nazareth should be noticed because miracles were performed there or Romans exacted a levy based on property or because bible-history.com ordains that 20,000 people lived there compared with an average 500 per village. But I don't have to.

Show us that they were compulsive enough to mention EVERY city the size of Nazareth in Galilee. Otherwise you're just flabbling.

If there would be a Richter scale of chronicling the Egyptians would rate a 10.

You get this crap put of (sic) 19th century freethinker works, don't you? Or maybe second-hand from "jesusneverexisted.com".

Yes, and many other sources. Congratulations on making the effort to investigate. I know only one historian whose sources are not second-hand: David Irwing.

Uh, before you said that Nazareth existed in 135 AD, so I dunno what the heck you think you're helping yourself with here.

In the interest of brevity I shortly mentioned this as the earliest possible record of habitation without qualification. The settlers were probably fugitives of the latest revolt and did not stay. They probably did not name the place.

Anyway, the IB is a list of places the guy visited, not a list of all cities and villages in Palestine, so there's no reason to demand that Nazareth be mentioned. Does it mention Capernaum? Samaria? Tyre? No? Then I guess those places didn't exist either.

If a pilgrim did not visit the most holy places there would be no purpose to the enterprise. Nazareth would be one of the three most important places.

What do you mean, "didn't find" it? Please stop copying uncritically from jesusneverexisted.com and explain yourself for once, if you even understand what you're posting. Try quoting directly from Origen, for example, saying, "I dunno where this place is, duh."

From sites like wikipedia.org it is obvious that Origen knew about Nazareth but could not locate it. The location close to Caesarea would have helped him greatly because Christians were already at each other's throats vying for the souls and small change of followers.

In other words, you saw the hole you'd dig for yourself if you followed through on the logic. For once you're showing some intelligence. It specifies a brow of a hill.

I've seen pictures. The menacing multitude could conceivably roll a victim down the slope. I can't see a rabble baying for blood taking so much time. The proper way to stone somebody is to bury him to the waist and let fly.

Wow. They dug under all of modern Nazareth? Do tell.

I've been at some archaealogical digs myself. It is sobering to be in a Roman villa 2000 years old with modern traffic a few meters overhead. I doubt that there is any place on this planet where so much digging has gone on as in Nazareth.

[jpholding]

Nice try. I tried and failed to conjure up an image of a suave Pilate travelling to the hated city bursting at the seams with hated Jews and lending a kindly ear to the incoherent diatribes of wild barbarians.

Here's a better idea: Clean your your brainpan, then conjure one of a Pilate conscious of his job as prefect over Rome's most troublesome province travelling to the hated city to be able to give orders at a moment's notice should something happen.

Where you get the idea that I was saying he was offering psychotherapy sessions, I don't know, but it probably came from a 19th century freethinker who was just as miseducated.

Here is how it works. If somebody makes a claim she has to prove it. I could state that Nazareth should be noticed because miracles were performed there or Romans exacted a levy based on property or because bible-history.com ordains that 20,000 people lived there compared with an average 500 per village. But I don't have to.

Whatever all that was about. You're making a claim about why cities are mentioned in sources. You can't back it up, quite obviously.

If there would be a Richter scale of chronicling the Egyptians would rate a 10.

Then where's the beef I asked for, Clara?

Yes, and many other sources

Not one of them credible, from the looks of it.

In the interest of brevity I shortly mentioned this as the earliest possible record of habitation without qualification. The settlers were probably fugitives of the latest revolt and did not stay. They probably did not name the place.

But the record of their arrival did name it, huh?

Not much more needs to be said to that contrived "excuse o rama". So let me ask you a question:

* What year was Nazareth named?
* What year were the Gospels written?
* If the answer to the first is a later year than the second, please explain how it is that the Gospel authors managed to pick a correct name for a city that wasn't built yet. Then explain why they were oblivious to the fact that this city, being recently built, could not have been around in the time of Jesus.

If a pilgrim did not visit the most holy places there would be no purpose to the enterprise. Nazareth would be one of the three most important places.

By whose reckoning? Nothing is recorded as having happened in Nazareth except a very unheartfelt welcome at the synagogue, and a notable lack of miracles.

From sites like wikipedia.org it is obvious that Origen knew about Nazareth but could not locate it.

I ask for a quote, I get "wikipedia" -- the Abomination that Causes Misinformation.

Either quote Origen as saying, "Duh, I dunno where Nazareth is" or admit you're is denial.

I've seen pictures. The menacing multitude could conceivably roll a victim down the slope. I can't see a rabble baying for blood taking so much time. The proper way to stone somebody is to bury him to the waist and let fly.

However "proper" it is (and who made you the world's leading expert on stoning, I don't know -- I would have thought "being stoned," yes, not stoning), it was done often by throwing someone down from a higher place first. Check the story of James in Josephus.

I've been at some archaealogical digs myself. It is sobering to be in a Roman villa 2000 years old with modern traffic a few meters overhead. I doubt that there is any place on this planet where so much digging has gone on as in Nazareth.

Care to validate that view with some backup from a credible archaeological source? Last I heard it was Jericho that had that distinction.

At this point, you're clearly so stupid and gullible that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

[freethinker]

Here's a better idea: Clean your your brainpan, then conjure one of a Pilate conscious of his job as prefect over Rome's most troublesome province travelling to the hated city to be able to give orders at a moment's notice should something happen.

Why then isn't there a record of Pilate going to Jerusalem on other Passovers? The previously mentioned historian Josephus chronicled the most boring and unimportant things in his Jewish wars. Pilate was his favorite villain, surely worth mentioning. In an uprising Jerusalem would have been a trap and the two cohorts of auxiliaries wouldn't save Pilate. Caesarea had an escape route. There is also an inconsistency that has to be pointed out. The priests had immediate access to Pilate in the middle of the night. On another more serious occasion petitioners asking to remove Roman standards (sometimes called shields) had to wait five days before being addressed. Admittedly the average Bible reader does not know this.

Then where's the beef I asked for, Clara? [ Nazareth & Egyptians]

Sorry, time pressure. And you could rightly claim that it would not prove anything one way or the other.

* What year was Nazareth named?
* What year were the Gospels written?
* If the answer to the first is a later year than the second, please explain how it is that the Gospel authors managed to pick a correct name for a city that wasn't built yet. Then explain why they were oblivious to the fact that this city, being recently built, could not have been around in the time of Jesus.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
The name Nazareth existed before the foundation of the village. It was first named in the gospel of Mark but this was a mistake. Mark thought that "Nazarene" had to refer a place while in actual fact it can be translated as "the one of the truth." This dates Nazareth as a name to 70 AD. The village was finally founded by empress Helena between 300-327 AD, exact date unknown. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Keep in mind that the early Christians had an incentive to keep the non-existence of Nazareth secret.
The gospels were written between 70 AD and 1563 AD.

[Nazareth unmentioned] By whose reckoning? Nothing is recorded as having happened in Nazareth except a very unheartfelt welcome at the synagogue, and a notable lack of miracles.

One would expect a number of false prophets and some stonings of true prophets, scandals, murder in a decent sized Jewish city, and at least one unfavorable remark by an Essene. The usual run of things.

Either quote Origen as saying, "Duh, I dunno where Nazareth is" or admit you're is (sic) denial.

Origen would rather cut off a body part than admit anything of the sort. His complete silence on the matter is eloquent.

However "proper" it is (and who made you the world's leading expert on stoning, I don't know -- I would have thought "being stoned," yes, not stoning), it was done often by throwing someone down from a higher place first. Check the story of James in Josephus.

I approve of casting someone down first. It would break limbs and the victim could be stoned at leisure. Alas, Nazareth has no suitable cliff or brow. It is unrealistic to expect an unconstrained victim to meekly await death by stoning. The multitude would witness a new record being set in the 100 meter dash. I'm not an expert on stoning, Arabs are, but I can guarantee the forementioned .

[archaeaology underground]Care to validate that view with some backup from a credible archaeological source? Last I heard it was Jericho that had that distinction.

The site is in in the middle of Tongeren, densely populated. It is open to the public. In Troy there are seven cities each one built upon the other, all excavated. It is good to be skeptic so go and look. In Nazareth furious digging has gone on since the time of the crusades when there was more open space. The result of eight centuries of effort is zero.

At this point, you're clearly so stupid and gullible that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

[jpholding]

istorian Josephus chronicled the most boring and unimportant things in his Jewish wars. Pilate was his favorite villain, surely worth mentioning.

Yeah. Right. Even if on a visit he didn't do anything rotten. If he came, he saw, and nothing bad happened, Josephus sure would record it wouldn't he? Kind of like Beaver Cleaver writing in his diary:

"Woke up. Went to school. Came home. Went to sleep."

In an uprising Jerusalem would have been a trap and the two cohorts of auxiliaries wouldn't save Pilate. Caesarea had an escape route.

So now we'll contrive the excuse that Pilate was a coward? Well, then he would never go to Jerusalem ever by that logic, and you've already had to admit your error and allow that he did go once recorded by Josephus.

Just keep gyrating and writing more history to excuse away history. It's funny.

There is also an inconsistency that has to be pointed out. The priests had immediate access to Pilate in the middle of the night.

Sigh...more ignorance.

1) Because the day was so hot, ancient people often awoke very early (4-5 AM) to do work and took a midday siesta. This was normal.
2) In capital cases, the priests would have notified Pilate IN ADVANCE that they were going to make an arrest, because Rome had to approve all executions, legally. So Pilate would be ready for it.

Any more dumb ideas?

On another more serious occasion petitioners asking to remove Roman standards (sometimes called shields) had to wait five days before being addressed. Admittedly the average Bible reader does not know this.

I do. And there's a difference between that and a capital case. Of course the priests had been plotting this for the prior week, so don't be too sure Pilate wasn't in on it five days before. And that five days, you might consider an example of Pilate trying to hold out against his better judgment. Which would have informed him this time around.

Sorry, time pressure. And you could rightly claim that it would not prove anything one way or the other.

In other words, you realize you can't buffalo me so you withdraw the argument.

How old are you? 15?

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Zeus help us. He uses Wikipedia as a source.

The name Nazareth existed before the foundation of the village. It was first named in the gospel of Mark but this was a mistake. Mark thought that "Nazarene" had to refer a place while in actual fact it can be translated as "the one of the truth."

That's baloney. As example of why Wikipedia is a farce. Quote me a source that knows Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that says this. I have several source scholarly sources and have never seen such a thing.

But let me get this straight. Mark saw Jesus as "one of the truth" so he assumed he was from a town with a name that means what? "One of the truth place"? And then someone in 70 conveniently named a town this very thing? And yet it wasn't on an itinerary from the 3rd-4th century, so it didn't exist then? What happened? Did some aliens come down and phase shift it into another dimension for like 500 years after 70?

This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Keep in mind that the early Christians had an incentive to keep the non-existence of Nazareth secret.

*cough* *splutter*

Wow. Can you give me some hints on how to do that? There's this real backwards burg near here I'd like to have hidden for a while.

The gospels were written between 70 AD and 1563 AD.

1563 AD???

That wins you another screwball award. Now then, let's see how dumb you can get.

1) What date were the Annals of Tacitus written?
2) Why do you say that date?
3) Why do you date the Gospels to the dates you do? Pick Mark to start.

One would expect a number of false prophets and some stonings of true prophets, scandals, murder in a decent sized Jewish city, and at least one unfavorable remark by an Essene. The usual run of things.

None of that happened in Nazareth. What the heck is your point?

Origen would rather cut off a body part than admit anything of the sort. His complete silence on the matter is eloquent.

So in other words, you admit you have nothing to show that Origen did not know where Nazareth was (even though it was founded in 70 AD, or is it 135?). Thank you.

Alas, Nazareth has no suitable cliff or brow.

Um, it's real simple. All you need is a place that's higher than another. Nazareth has that. Case closed.

It is unrealistic to expect an unconstrained victim to meekly await death by stoning.

That's why you roughed him up on the way, dum dum.

In Nazareth furious digging has gone on since the time of the crusades when there was more open space. The result of eight centuries of effort is zero.

In other words, you can't quantify your earlier statements or compare to other cities to show that this is unusual. Thank you.

Pitiful indeed you are.

[freethinker]

<Plate>Yeah. Right. Even if on a visit he didn't do anything rotten. If he came, he saw, and nothing bad happened, Josephus sure would record it wouldn't he? Kind of like Beaver Cleaver writing in his diary:
"Woke up. Went to school. Came home. Went to sleep." (...)

Let it stand that there is no independent record of Pilate being in Jerusalem on a critical day. Circumstantial evidence is against him being there also. Miracles have been claimed for lesser reasons.

1) Because the day was so hot, ancient people often awoke very early (4-5 AM) to do work and took a midday siesta. This was normal.

I wasn't aware that siesta had such a long history. Is there any evidence of this?

<Jesus the Nazarene>That's baloney. As example of why Wikipedia is a farce. Quote me a source that knows Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that says this. I have several source scholarly sources and have never seen such a thing.

OK, I studied Greek. At the time when the Bible was being penned Greek was the lingua franca in the East and there must have been some translation problems. The Greek word "Nazaraios" as used in the Bible means Nazarene, "Nazarethaios" would mean "of Nazareth". The following search: "http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=nazarene&btnG=Search&meta=" will result in 4,610,000 references.

But let me get this straight. Mark saw Jesus as "one of the truth" so he assumed he was from a town with a name that means what? "One of the truth place"? And then someone in 70 conveniently named a town this very thing? And yet it wasn't on an itinerary from the 3rd-4th century, so it didn't exist then? What happened? Did some aliens come down and phase shift it into another dimension for like 500 years after 70?

Here is the timeline: The first followers of Jesus Christ called themselves Nazarenes, not Christians. In 135 AD they settled for a short while in an empty area and may have called it Nazareth, but this is not certain. Sometime after 303 AD empress Helena, a devout Christian, came looking for Nazareth, didn't find it, founded it. With the resources available to her Helena would have found Nazareth if it existed. Interestingly Jesus of Nazareth is on record as saying "I am the Truth."

<hiding Nazareth>*cough* *splutter*
Wow. Can you give me some hints on how to do that? There's this real backwards burg near here I'd like to have hidden for a while.

Easy: obfuscation. Politicians do it all the time. Read their lips.

Bible1563 AD???
That wins you another screwball award. Now then, let's see how dumb you can get.
1) What date were the Annals of Tacitus written?
2) Why do you say that date?
3) Why do you date the Gospels to the dates you do? Pick Mark to start.

1) AD 117. It may have taken a few years.
2) If falls within the lifetime of Tacitus and was his last great work. The Roman practice of keeping track of dates using the name of the ruling emperor and historical events makes Roman dates somewhat inaccurate.
3) ref http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/...an_gospels.htm
The very first version of Mark was probably written around 66AD, as Mark seems unaware of the siege of Jerusalem. Exact dates are impossible to get but the gospel of John was probably written before 110 AD. Different sects proceeded to tailor the gospels to their requirements.
The Bible was finalized at the council of Trent in 1563. No more changes were allowed after that.

<events>None of that happened in Nazareth. What the heck is your point?

It is circumstantial evidence that the place didn't exist. Nothing happens in Neverville so that place doesn't exist.

So in other words, you admit you have nothing to show that Origen did not know where Nazareth was (even though it was founded in 70 AD, or is it 135?). Thank you.

The onus is on the apologist to prove that Origen knew about Nazareth. The missing quote should sound like this: "Nazareth is 50 kays from me therefore Caesarea (which is me should be the center of Christianity, not Jerusalem." Here is a thought experiment that illustrates how convincing negative evidence really is. You go to a helicopter. Ask the pilot if he can fly the thing. The pilot looks at you, doesn't answer. At this point the negative evidence will assume overriding importance.

Um, it's real simple. All you need is a place that's higher than another. Nazareth has that. Case closed.
That's why you roughed him up on the way, dum dum.

No and no. A mob in a killing frenzy doesn't drag a victim up a slope to roll him down. And the victim in this case was not handled roughly: he was still able to evade the mob.

In other words, you can't quantify your earlier statements or compare to other cities to show that this is unusual. Thank you.
Pitiful indeed you are.

In every big city in Europe you will find a museum of natural history with a compound total of millions of artifacts on display. Each artifact has a description including the retrieval site. You will find museums in Israel too. You will never find an artifact hailing from pre-300AD Nazareth. In Jerusalem, Caesarea, nearby Sepphoris and all old cities in Israel you can find guides to bring you to ancient ruins. Not so in Nazareth

[jpholding]

Let it stand that there is no independent record of Pilate being in Jerusalem on a critical day.

There's no "indepedent record" (whatever that is in context!) of Pilate doing any single thing he did. Your point is what?

Circumstantial evidence is against him being there also

There's no such thing against him being there whatsoever. You have simply contrived a rule about travel of Roman officials out of nothing.

I wasn't aware that siesta had such a long history. Is there any evidence of this?

You bet. And I'll give it to you once I get all that I've been asking you for on stuff like travel of Roman officials.

<Jesus the Nazarene>That's baloney. As example of why Wikipedia is a farce. Quote me a source that knows Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that says this. I have several source scholarly sources and have never seen such a thing.

OK, I studied Greek. At the time when the Bible was being penned Greek was the lingua franca in the East and there must have been some translation problems. The Greek word "Nazaraios" as used in the Bible means Nazarene, "Nazarethaios" would mean "of Nazareth". The following search: "http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=nazarene&btnG=Search&meta=" will result in 4,610,000 references.

In other words, you haven't got any reputable authority to back up your claim. Thank you.

Here is the timeline: The first followers of Jesus Christ called themselves Nazarenes, not Christians. In 135 AD they settled for a short while in an empty area and may have called it Nazareth, but this is not certain. Sometime after 303 AD empress Helena, a devout Christian, came looking for Nazareth, didn't find it, founded it. With the resources available to her Helena would have found Nazareth if it existed. Interestingly Jesus of Nazareth is on record as saying "I am the Truth."

In other words, all you have is this contrived fantasy.

* "Christians" was coined by pagans....not followers of Christ.
* They did not call themselves "Nazarenes". The movement was call "The Way."
* Before it was Jewish preists who settled there. Now you say it is Christians/Nazarenes. What year do you plan to make up your mind?
* If they did call it Nazareth in 135 for the first time (or even if it was 303), may I ask why it is that someone didn't choose a town that was known to have existed?
* Do you ever plan on proving to me that other burgs the size and worth of Nazareth always received mention in these sources you keep rambling about but never validate?

Easy: obfuscation. Politicians do it all the time. Read their lips.

In other words, you have no real answer. Thank you again.

That wins you another screwball award. Now then, let's see how dumb you can get.
1) What date were the Annals of Tacitus written?
2) Why do you say that date?
3) Why do you date the Gospels to the dates you do? Pick Mark to start.

1) AD 117. It may have taken a few years.
2) If falls within the lifetime of Tacitus and was his last great work. The Roman practice of keeping track of dates using the name of the ruling emperor and historical events makes Roman dates somewhat inaccurate.
3) ref http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org...ian_gospels.htm
The very first version of Mark was probably written around 66AD, as Mark seems unaware of the siege of Jerusalem. Exact dates are impossible to get but the gospel of John was probably written before 110 AD. Different sects proceeded to tailor the gospels to their requirements.

Wow. You actually got something right for a change on 1 and 2.

Now let's dive into Mark on 3. Explain why the date has to be 66 and not earlier, like 50. That's where I put it -- c. 50-55.

You have a whole week to think about it, because I have to travel for a while.

The Bible was finalized at the council of Trent in 1563

Did Trent also forge the mss. that scholars date to the 3rd and 4th century?

It is circumstantial evidence that the place didn't exist. Nothing happens in Neverville so that place doesn't exist.

That...made no sense at all.

The onus is on the apologist to prove that Origen knew about Nazareth.

No, it is not. The onus is on the claimant, and you claim that he did not know where it was. You have been asked again and again to provide evidence. You have not. I make no claim here other than that Origen did not say any such thing, and that I have found to be true.

No and no. A mob in a killing frenzy doesn't drag a victim up a slope to roll him down.

Sure, just like they don't take him to a tree to hang him.

And the victim in this case was not handled roughly: he was still able to evade the mob.

Oh. I guess they just took out little tweezers and gently picked him up with them when they were trying to stone him, huh?

You will find museums in Israel too. You will never find an artifact hailing from pre-300AD Nazareth.

Then all you have to do is show me that there are pre-300 AD artifacts from ALL similar sized towns with similar situations, and you're starting to get somewhere.

Pitiful indeed. This is a classic example of why we need critical thinking taught in our schools.


I'll be back next week to see what other nonsense you come up with.