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

[freethinker]

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

My point is that if Pilate was in Jerusalem, it was a miracle.

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

In Acts, xxiv, 5 the Christians are spoken of by Tertullus as "the sect of the Nazarenes".
There is a tradition as early as Tertullian that an early name for Christians was Nazarenes.
Epiphanius in Panarion 29,7 describes Nazarenes as decidedly orthodox in all matters including the deity of Christ, except that of observance of Jewish customs.
Jerome has written extensively about Nazarenes :"The Nazarenes, who accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law ..."
Talmudic literature: a dozen or so refs to 'Nazarene' and all but two of these refer to Jesus.
For an exhaustive report on Nazarenes read Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., Stephen G. Wilson, Fortress: 1995.

* 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?

Who cares what they were. The called themselves Nazarenes, came and went.

* 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?

Why indeed. The only thing I know for sure is that I didn't do it.

* 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?

I did: The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns. What's the purpose of an incomplete list? I also explained that the good empress Helena went looking, couldn't find it, built it. Helena was a saint, incapable of lying.

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.

Most Biblical scholars refer to chapter 13 of Mark as referring to the Jewish Revolt of 66-73. Therefore the earliest possible date for the gospel is 66. A more likely date is after 70 when Herod's temple was destroyed. Geisler seems to think Mark was even earlier than 50 AD and he makes money out of it.

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

You misconstrue. The council of Trent ended the age of forgeries. The alleged Tacitus forgeries are dated to the 14th century. Absolute certainty is equal to insanity, so a reasonable person will always allow for doubt. The probability of forgery in the case of Tacitus is below 1%.

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.

Very little is known of the life of Jesus in Nazareth. I can't imagine the kind of nonchalance that would result in Origen foregoing the opportunity to visit Nazareth and try to find out more and then shout it from the rooftops.

Sure, just like they don't take him to a tree to hang him.
Oh. I guess they just took out little tweezers and gently picked him up with them when they were trying to stone him, huh?

This stoning theory is pure conjecture. It does not correspond to the Bible. The Bible clearly states casting someone down a "brow" with lethal intent. Don't change the Bible.

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.

The best example is Nazareth itself. There are in fact artifacts from the Nazareth area indicating early habitation in the stone, bronze and iron age. Usually these are connected to funeral sites, and there is some pottery. There is no sign of occupation from about 500 BC to 300 AD. This includes the Babylonian, Greek and Roman age. One would at least expect burial sites and the foundations of the alleged synagogue.

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

Dead right, but it's probably too late.

[jpholding]

My point is that if Pilate was in Jerusalem, it was a miracle.

A point you have yet to validate by any reasoning whatsoever, especially the habits of Roman officials.

At this point I've become tired of your stupidity. You are completely unable to back up your points and merely contrive excuses.

In Acts, xxiv, 5 the Christians are spoken of by Tertullus as "the sect of the Nazarenes".

The same author you cite (Luke), the earliest of all you cited, also regards Nazareth as a real city that existed. So why do you accept what he says here as true but reject his testimomy on the existence of Nazareth?

Is it possible for you to get any stupider, or do you have limits?

For an exhaustive report on Nazarenes read Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., Stephen G. Wilson, Fortress: 1995.

I noticed that none of this showed that Christians called themselves Nazarenes, other than a late sect well past the time of the first century.

Who cares what they were. The called themselves Nazarenes, came and went.

They'll also no doubt be whatever else you need them to be for your convenience: Purple aliens from Pluto....dentists....retired parachutists.

I did: The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns. What's the purpose of an incomplete list?

If the Talmud does not say that the list is intended to be an exhaustive list of all towns in Galilee (which it is certainly not), then the "purpose" is not for you to decide or change on a whim.

Come on -- THINK for once in your life!

I also explained that the good empress Helena went looking, couldn't find it, built it.

It's too bad your explanation doesn't have the backing of a credible source. Real archaeologists know that small villages leave behind little or no evidence -- just the sort your hero Humphreys notes.

I'm waiting for you to produce evidence that villages of similar size and nature left much more substantial artifacts. Well?

Most Biblical scholars refer to chapter 13 of Mark as referring to the Jewish Revolt of 66-73. Therefore the earliest possible date for the gospel is 66.

Yawn...same old nonsense.

Apocalyptic Prediction. 70 seems to be a very popular date for Mark (and the other Gospels as well); but why? The answer lies in the "little apocalypse" of Mark 13, where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This took place in 70 AD, and since it is assumed that predictive prophecy is impossible, skeptics (and even some who are not skeptics) must date the book no earlier than 70, and some after 70. (See [Perr.NTI, 159]; [Spiv.ANT, 62-3]; [Ander.GM, 26]) Other than noting the anti-miraculous bias of this position, we may counter that:

The context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed. Verses 13:1, 3 and 11 imply that the temple is still standing, referring to it in a very casual way. (In fact, this stands as a reason to date Mark BEFORE AD 70!)

The warning of fleeing to the mountains does not fit the picture. By AD 68, Jerusalem was isolated, and there were Romans and hostile Sicarii in the mountains - people fled INTO Jerusalem, and to forts like Masada and Herodion - NOT from Jerusalem and into the mountains. Christians, according to Eusebius, fled to Pella in the Decapolis [Robin.RNT, 16-7], which is decidedly not where Jesus said to flee. This did not happen in 70 AD or anywhere near then; and if it is suggested that Mark writing in 70 (or slightly before) and was guessing that such things would happen shortly, we may ask why his Gospel was not trashed for missing the boat!

A prediction of the destruction of the Temple is hardly unique anyway. First, destruction of the temple (or Jerusalem) would not be too wild a guess, in light of how turbulent relations with the Romans were. Second, several contemporaries of Jesus made similar predictions; they were a dime a dozen, and seemingly about as common as modern Americans suggesting blowing up the White House. The most familiar of these predictors, mentioned by Josephus, was Jesus the son of Ananias, a bit of a madman who made predictions of the Temple's destruction between 63-70 AD [ibid., 15]. Third, warnings of the Temple being completely torn down - which to a Jewish mind, would have beem the only conceivable method of judgment involving the Temple [Heng.Mark, 15]- are found throughout the OT and in the Book of 2 Maccabees.

Therefore, there is no reason to use this section of Mark 13 as an argument for dating the whole of Mark at 70 or later.

Care to be a little more critical this time?

Geisler seems to think Mark was even earlier than 50 AD and he makes money out of it.

Ken Humphreys gives his book away free, does he?

You misconstrue. The council of Trent ended the age of forgeries. The alleged Tacitus forgeries are dated to the 14th century.

There is also no evidence of forgery in the Gospels. But feel free to lay out what I know you will lay out as "evidence". It's all old news.

Very little is known of the life of Jesus in Nazareth. I can't imagine the kind of nonchalance that would result in Origen foregoing the opportunity to visit Nazareth and try to find out more and then shout it from the rooftops.

Then perhaps you need to inform your ignorance. Ancient people thought personality was static; what happened as a person grew up was considered overwhelmingly irrelevant. A person's childhood would never be featured in a biography unless there was a special event which served to illustrate how they were prodigies and how they would be in the future. People of this culture (as in most cultures today) did not have your Western golly-gee mentality and did not "get to know" each other as people.

Thus there is nothing that would compel Origen to do any such thing as you describe.

This stoning theory is pure conjecture. It does not correspond to the Bible. The Bible clearly states casting someone down a "brow" with lethal intent. Don't change the Bible.

Don't be ignorant of the contexts. Stoning was the normal and expected way a false prophet would be dealt with. That is what the picture fits no matter how hard you stamp your feet.

The best example is Nazareth itself. There are in fact artifacts from the Nazareth area indicating early habitation in the stone, bronze and iron age. Usually these are connected to funeral sites, and there is some pottery. There is no sign of occupation from about 500 BC to 300 AD.

Wrong -- there are Herodian era tombs. There's the burial sites.

One would at least expect burial sites and the foundations of the alleged synagogue.

Listen, stupid....a "synagogue" was just at least 10 Jewish men -- not a building. They just as readily met outdoors or in someone's mud or straw hut.

Dead right, but it's probably too late.

For you, definitely.

[freethinker]

Before destroying some more theist theories I want to draw attention to the original theme of this thread "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" Presumably this means theist protagonists will use rational arguments, at least in this thread. Wishful thinking, assumptions, extrapolations are all faith-based.

"The same author you cite (Luke), the earliest of all you cited, also regards Nazareth as a real city that existed. So why do you accept what he says here as true but reject his testimomy on the existence of Nazareth?"
- A liar can speak the truth by mistake.


"If the Talmud does not say that the list is intended to be an exhaustive list of all towns in Galilee (which it is certainly not), then the "purpose" is not for you to decide or change on a whim.
Come on -- THINK for once in your life! "
- Let's have it in black and white. The name Nazareth is never mentioned anywhere before the 3rd century. Hands up all those who think this is irrelevant.



"It's too bad your explanation doesn't have the backing of a credible source. Real archaeologists know that small villages leave behind little or no evidence -- just the sort your hero Humphreys notes."
An article in New Scientist in October states that remnants of uninhabited stone buildings are expected to survive at least 3,000 years.


"I'm waiting for you to produce evidence that villages of similar size and nature left much more substantial artifacts. Well?"
- http://erfgoed.gemeentemol.be/produc...vs=0_N&id=2426
This is a museum in a rather small village, early population a few dozen. Evidence of habitation during the Gallo-Roman age and stone age is available. Most locations in Europe have such museums. Space forbids me to make 10,000 entries.
Even worse: Nazareth has evidence of occupation before and after Biblical times, not during. I explained this before.


"There is also no evidence of forgery in the Gospels. But feel free to lay out what I know you will lay out as "evidence". It's all old news."
- There was a motive and opportunity.


"Then perhaps you need to inform your ignorance. Ancient people thought personality was static; what happened as a person grew up was considered overwhelmingly irrelevant. A person's childhood would never be featured in a biography unless there was a special event which served to illustrate how they were prodigies and how they would be in the future. People of this culture (as in most cultures today) did not have your Western golly-gee mentality and did not "get to know" each other as people.
Thus there is nothing that would compel Origen to do any such thing as you describe. "
- You just descrived why Nazareth is so important. In any event two seconds of applied common sense will show that there is then also no reason to give places like Bethlehem and Jerusalem special status.


"Wrong -- there are Herodian era tombs. There's the burial sites."
- You mean the bronze age caves discovered by father Bagatti? The tombs are too close to where Nazareth should have been. There was a taboo against burial sites close to habitation.


"Listen, stupid....a "synagogue" was just at least 10 Jewish men -- not a building. They just as readily met outdoors or in someone's mud or straw hut."
- Not true. There were and are strict rules concerning the synagogue building, which direction it must be facing , where the Torah scrolls are kept etc.. Read Luke 4:20 and explain why you think there is no building.