Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:31 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
Jesus
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:37 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Charleston, WV
The debate has resurfaced even within the mythicist community. Did the Galilean town of Nazareth exist in the 1st century CE? See the new video by James Randi.




http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... p?t=263650
alias http://tinyurl.com/cd47kq

I am inclined to agree with Randi, Frank Zindler, and Rene Salm that the preponderance of evidence (or lack of evidence) militates against it.... Why would a entrenched settled community simply stop existing?

Evidence shows that human settled topography was constantly shifting in ancient times. Political turmoil of the Hellenistic era such as the Maccabean revolt or the purges of Alexander Hyrcanus could have wiped a community out. More plausible is that the town of Japha so very close had expanded settled boundaries which shifted to agriculture and then also cemetery. 1) At one point the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire could have started demanding tribute from the output of harvest, obligating more land use for agriculture. 2) A major aquifer could have been discovered, hence the well of Mary and land use of agriculture could have outpaced domicile for utility in the vicinity. 3)- a combination of 1 and 2.

More than just an argument from silence, the Church father Origen in the early 2nd century CE specifically mentions that he lived very close by and never was able to locate the town.

Richard Carrier notes the excavation of small Jewish devotional columns on the location. These were from the late 1st century CE and could have been fashioned by Diaspora Pharisees after the the fall of Jerusalem in 70, or they could have been brought to the vicinity by the same from devastated Judea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:11 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Great video by Randi. I like the part about Tinkerbell in Disneyland!

Good lord, what a travesty. $60 million to shore up the fakery!

Scams like this one prove there's no good god in charge of everything.

I think this case has been settled. As I demonstrate in Who Was Jesus?, the term "Nazareth" was a cover-up for Jesus being a Nazarene, which is the name of someone belonging to a particular sect, not a resident of a town.

It's a shame more people aren't reading that book. :(

From WWJ, p. 103:

Quote:
The phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears in quotations because in the "original" Greek of the Bible (Textus Receptus) the term often translated as "of Nazareth" in actuality reflects three different Greek words. Although the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" appears 29 times in the King James Bible, the original Greek phrase is "Jesus the Nazarene" the majority of the time. In fact, the Greek word for "Nazareth" (Strong's G3478) appears 11 times total in the gospels: three times in Matthew, once in Mark, five times in Luke and twice in John. The word for "Nazarene, Nazarite" or "Nazarite"—Nazaraios (G3480)—appears in the Greek 15 times, but it is only translated as such twice, the remaining 13 rendered as "of Nazareth." Another version of "Nazarene, Nazarite"—Nazarenos (G3479)—appears four times but is always translated as "of Nazareth." This fact is significant in that it seems the term "Nazareth"—which was not much of a place for people to inhabit, if it even existed at the time—was used, as stated at Matthew 2:23, to make Jesus a "Nazarene." Rather than being inhabitants of a particular town, the Nazarenes or Nazarites were members of a certain sect, to which the Old Testament hero Samson likewise belonged. It is possible that the mistranslations occur in order to cloak the fact of this pre-Christian sect that contributed much to Christianity. (See The Christ Conspiracy and Suns of God for more information on the Nazarenes.)

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Randi is right
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:38 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:36 am
Posts: 31
JR is right. I have been researching Christianity for a while now. The Jesus myth was cooked up at the Council of Nicea.

Also, Would a man make his wife, 8 months pregnant travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, about 90 miles? About 9 days march for a Roman Legion.

Image

_________________
Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 9:18 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
The Nazareth quiz by Rene Salm

Over 80 responses by Jesus mythicists to Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?

Nazareth Myth

And certainly don't forget: Worldwide Biblical Artifacts Fraud Ring Exposed

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
I highly recommend Rene Salm's essay "The Natsarene and hidden gnosis"

I read this essay and thought it was brilliant. It raises many questions about the nature of wisdom and the formation of Judeo-Christian religion. It presents a persuasive analysis of the Nazarenes as going back to Noah as watcher for the flood, as allegory for Jesus Christ as gnostic watcher. So too, the discussion of how the cult of Yahweh was premised on the exclusion of gnosis.

It is sometimes asserted that Gnosticism arose in reaction to orthodoxy Christianity, but this essay, and my studies, suggest the reverse, that orthodoxy emerged from Gnosticism, which was a far older and deeper tradition. I would be interested in views on this causal relation.

This question of the nature of gnostic wisdom is one of the biggest problems for Biblical studies. My view is that gnosticism was closely related to worship of the sun, moon and stars. The Yahwist cult, that Rene associates with Aaron, could well have emerged through what we could call the transcendentalist meme, the panentheist idea of God as beyond the universe.

It perplexes me that people regard wisdom as a mystery, rather than as grounded in objective knowledge. Understanding Jesus Christ as a Nazarene, meaning a mythic archetype of cosmic wisdom, seems to provide a coherent explanation.

Generally I thought Rene's discussion of Bethlehem made sense, although I had assumed the "house of bread" etymology had more than the folk status he gives it. Some further sources about 'Beth Lahmu' would be interesting.

Overall, the association between gnosis and ancient astronomy is a topic that can be explored in much more detail. For example, the links between the River Jordan and the constellation Eridanus, between the Milky Way and the River of Life, between the Ark and Argo might help to explain the origins and meaning of some Biblical myths.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
I might as well post this new blog here as well:

Archaeologists find oldest artifact to mention Bethlehem, traditional birthplace of Jesus

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:05 pm 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:11 pm
Posts: 85
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
The archaeological evidence found in Nazareth seems to indicate the site was a Roman military camp in the early first century. A sophisticated, heated Roman bath house from the early first century has been found beneath a shop called the "Cactus". The bath house was determined to be early first century because the Roman design for bath houses changed to a more efficient design in the later part of the first century.

The location of Nazareth for a military camp makes sense because it is only about 3 miles from the major city of Sepphoris, plus it is also located above the plain of Jezreel, also known as the plain of Megiddo, where many armies have fought.

The biblical Jesus character seems to be a composite created from the stories of several people written about in the Jewish Talmud and the works of Flavius Josephus. One historical Jesus written about in section Sanhedrin 43a in the Talmud was Yeshu ben Pantera, or Jesus, son of Panther. This man was arrested by the Sanhedrin and tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for sorcery and leading the Jewish people astray. It was also written that he was the bastard son of a Jewish girl who had an affair with the Roman soldier Pantera. (There is a tombstone in a German museum for a Roman soldier named Pantera who was stationed in Galilee during the early first century.)

If the historical Jesus, Yeshu ben Pantera, was considered the bastard son of a Roman soldier, then calling him "Jesus of Nazareth" would have been an insulting term referring to him being the bastard son of a Roman soldier stationed at the Roman military camp in Nazareth.

http://www.nazarethbathhouse.org/en/

Rik


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:13 pm
Posts: 5
Hi,

This is my first comment in this forum, so I hope not to make a fool of myself...

Here I go:

Tellurian wrote:
The archaeological evidence found in Nazareth seems to indicate the site was a Roman military camp in the early first century.

Even if we aknowledge that early date, we don´t still have evidence of a city with a synagogue as it is mentioned in Luke 4:16...

By the way, such a settlement is not either mentioned by Josephus...

Tellurian wrote:
The location of Nazareth for a military camp makes sense...

Indeed, everything makes sense if the archaeology can prove it. And the story of a Jewish girl "having an affair with" or, in a less romantic way, being abused by a Roman soldier, also would make sense, but I´m afraid that none of it is enough to create a historical Jesus which can read the so-called Holy Scriptures in a remote synagogue... Furthermore, the name of Nazareth is not mentioned in the ancient sources, and, if I´m not mistaken, it does not even appear in the early Byzantine mosaic map of Madaba...

Bearing in mind that Nazareth seems to be an anachronism, I find it difficult to imagine someone in the 1st century using that term as an insult...

Regards


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:47 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
nopriestess wrote:
Bearing in mind that Nazareth seems to be an anachronism, I find it difficult to imagine someone in the 1st century using that term as an insult...


Hello nopriestess, thank you for your comment and welcome.

It seems obvious that the town Nazareth was invented to conceal the identity of the imagined Jesus as a Nazarene, or gnostic.

Nazarene must have been used as an insult, since it was a term closely associated with gnosis, the original movement which gave rise to Christianity. Gnosticism was suppressed, ignored, denied and forgotten, in a process that is a fine example of the rich heritage of Christian bigotry that continues even today. If Nazarene was not an insult, there would have been no need to change it to Nazareth.

At http://www.renesalm.com/mp/Nielsen_(1904)_Chp._3-4.pdf

Rene Salm wrote:
The publication of my 2008 book, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus, has challenged the all too facile assumption that Nazarene in the New Testament means “from Nazareth.” As a result, new attention is now being placed on the enigmatic term. For perhaps the first time, we can now see that Natsarene (or a close cognate, with Semitic tsade) was widely used in early Middle Eastern religions to designate the person of advanced spirituality, a spirituality linked to hidden gnosis. Hence the title of the Addendum, “The Natsarene and hidden gnosis.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:04 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:13 pm
Posts: 5
Robert Tulip wrote:
Nazarene must have been used as an insult, since it was a term closely associated with gnosis, the original movement which gave rise to Christianity.


Since I´m no academic authority I don´t think it would be sensible to discuss the historicity of the "Nazarenes" in the 1st century and whether the term was an insult at that time (or not), as you stated in your last comment. Should we regard as historical the book of the "Acts", along with the historicity of Paul, Tertullus and the whole gang in the first place and, in addition, accept the 1st century as an accurate date for the book?

But my first comment referred to the term "Nazareth" (not "nazarene") which seems anachronistic not only in the 1st century but also much later -as a toponymic term, to be more precise. I don´t question Salm´s work and I´m very aware of the lack of honesty displayed by some members of the academic establishment in recent publications on the issue. But it is the negativity associated with "Nazareth" which appears in John´s gospel which puzzles me. Is the gospel of John (1:46) "historical" at this point? By the way, is this mentioned in other sources and are those credible?

As regards the Pantera guy, I think there is no need to engage in quarrel on this matter. The only primary source available seems to be the tombstone and there are a couple of articles in German, some fan fiction or the like and I´m pretty sure there must be a film or two somewhere, but considering the fact that most of it is part of a legend conveniently fabricated to keep non-believers busy (since I assume that believers don´t usually read the Bible or the Talmud) I´m not going to let the thing bother me for the rest of the night.

Best


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Nazareth Debate
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:28 pm 
Nonpriestess, have you considered what Zacharias Thundy has to say about Nazareth? I had a chance to interview him on his book Buddha and Christ and he told me that his family belongs to a Syrian Christian tradition in India, who, if I'm not mistaken, he told me were called heretics.


From his paper at JesusisBuddha.com:

""""""""""
"Nazraya" simply means "rebel" or "heretic"; it has nothing to do with the place Nazareth, as though Nazraya were a derivative from Nazareth as the synoptics would like to have it, which derivation apparently is rejected by the Fourth Gospel.
I like to think that the original title of Jesus in Palestine was Isho/a, meaning god (Sanskrit ishah); it was cleverly connected with the Hebrew Jeshua and the Persian Massieh, a variation of divine Mithra. This clever combination will give us "Isho Mshiha"--translated into Greek as Iesus hristos. Is it possible that ishah became ishow when coupled with massieh, according to usual sandhi rules? I don't deny several of your Grecisms, but I am also for Hebraicisms in the gospels. The synoptic gospels are more for Hebraicsation than the Fourth gospel Writer; the synoptics, in fact, literally repeats some Aramaic phrases and sentences besides a host of quotations from the LXX, still the hebrew Bible. One interesting point: It is Aramaic they are quoting and not Hebrew in "Eli, Eli, lama shabaktani" a garbled Aramaic version, in which the verb "Shwak" is not a Hebrew word at all; the bystanders thought Jesus was calling on Elijah! (Certainly a dialect is used in this scriptural quotation from the pslams). In other words, sometimes the authors replaced Sanskrit words with Aramaic (or Greek) equivalents. A case in point is Dharma which was rendered as "sandikuza" or "chakra" with the Aramaic "shmayya" or Greek "ouranos," instead of retaining the Sanskrit word itself. You can probably cite hundreds of other examples. Or "Subhashita" or "suvishesha" with "euangelion"--sutra/sukta/sutta notwithstanding. I agree with you that the sutra-genre is used by the evangelists. I like to give the gospel writers more imagination and freedom to operate in a different cultural environment, where they were propagating the essential Buddhist doctrines in a Greek/Hebraic garb. It is like what we find in the Acts, where Paul and Barnabas are equated with Zeus and Apollo. Paul makes Jesus into a Greek deity with Greek philosophical underpinnings, especially in his oration in the Areopagus. Later at the Council of Ephesus Mary would be declared "theotokos," giving her the attributes of the Artemis of Ephesus or of Hera. In other words, it is like the transcendent bodhisatva becoming incarnate in different forms and shapes and names in different countries: in substance same but in appearance and name garb different. No wonder that the white elephant image is replaced by the Ruha (spirit or wind from Genesis 1:3 and Kings etc) descending upon Mary. The same spirit of adaptation is found in the Synoptic writer quoting LXX for parethenogenesis--Hebraicisation coupled with Grecisation, both together! Intentionally speaking, the Hebrew "ha almah"--young woman--is replaced by parthenos! These writers knew what they were doing.
"""""""



In his "India in Greece", Pococke derives 'Zeus' from Sans. 'Jayas' "the victor" (th = z = j, ‘theos’, ‘zeus’,’ jeyas’, or “Jesus”; Joshua from Sans. ‘jaya’; Sans.’aj-’ Avestan ‘az-‘, Sans. ‘yaj’, Avestan ‘yaz’. Sanskrit ‘yas’, “to froth”, ‘yusa’, which formed our words “juice”, “soup” and “yeast”. Also noted is that T and CH are often interchangeable, such as in the Sanskrit word ‘zanti’, which is also spelled ‘sanchi’ and in English ‘saint’)which would make "Sujaya", a Buddha, equal to "Jesus". According to Pococke (whose name incidentally carries the Christian "cock") Jason and Joshua are only later variations.


I argue in my book, where I can present the the evidences more orderly, that the Buddhist missionaries, or "Bhanaks", or the "Phoenix-s", sent west to Palestine, Alexandria, Meroe, Antioch, Palmyra, Cyrene, Bernike, Scythopolis, etc. played with words. They would search for a tree like their pipal (pronounced "people" which is derived from "poplar" [ppl-ar, ar=el= oak or terebinth]) that was known for its ability to USE and strangled out the Banyan (the new church growing out of the old & the 'ossa robur agunt' of Ovid, Attis and Bata also changed into trees. Addas = Buddas), such was the case with the Udumbaras tree and the Mastik tree which is also, similar to the Butm tree of Palestine, called "betoum' and in Persia baneh, the Buddhist "bana" = "book" made from the Tal-pat tree, the other Buddhist birch bark books, the previous words deriving, via the Saxons, from the Pali 'bhurja' ; Mastik is said to be derived from the Greek word for 'chew' but this is not the case as many trees were 'chewed' such as the Terebinth Alexander ate at Darius' tomb. The correct deriviation of "mastik" must be from Sans 'mastaka', "head", said of the India Palmyra tree (kalpa, also the "sak tree" and the tal tree of Tal-mud-r, see Pococke's India in Greece for the Afghan TALS)and in Palmyra Syria, a place through which Scythianus, who, according to the early church fathers had the earliest circulating "Gospel" in Palestine, moved his Indian silk & spice and in Palmyra unknown Hellenizers introduced a tree as a main god.



"The unarmed betoum and the armed jujube have a very interesting relationship, which is as follows: When the seeds of the betoum germinate the seedling is eagerly eaten by animals if it chances, as is usually the case, that the germination occurs on the open daya floor: but if the seeds are carried to a Zizyphus and germinate in its midst, the young plants may attain to a considerable height before being seen by animals, and, being protected by the encircling jujube, will continue growing until they are too large to be easily killed through grazing. It usually happens that once the betoum plant appears above the top of the protecting shrub the camels attempt to reach the attractive shoots and the jujube is trodden under foot. The jujube is thus ultimately destroyed and a mound around the base of the young betoum is all of it that remains. If the jujube is relatively small and the developing betoum is all of it that remains. If the jujube is relatively small and the developing betoum is discovered while still small, it will be this region, and this fact is probably of great influence in restricting its distribution. Fairly numerous on the desert at present, according to Tristram the gazelle was very abundant in earlier times.. From what we have already seen regarding the ill effect of grazing, it will appear that the relation between the betoum and the jujube is a very vital one to the former; and it probably is not too much to say that the distribution of the betoum in the daya region is entirely dependent on that of the jujube" -Botanical features of the Algerian Sahara, p.34


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:30 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:14 am
Posts: 35
This is probably the wrong time to post my concern about the existence of Nazareth because of the newly published Barth Ehrman and The Quest For The Historical Jesus, but if I don't post it now, I might forget to do it in the future.

Reading through the book I find that Rene Salms writes a defense for the lack of evidence for a Nazareth of 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE. So I wanted to know what Carrier had to say about this town; among the writers of the book mentioned above, he has apparently the only opposing view on the issue. So, I found this podcast dated March 2013, & after listening to it I'm posting a transcript of the relevant conversation:



Around minute 20:00 into the podcast the interviewer says:

Quote:
I have read accounts that there is no proof, there are no historical documents or references to a city called Nazareth until the 4th BCE. Did you want to speak to that? It wasn't mentioned in any of the OT books. It wasn't mentioned by Josephus. Is that accurate? Have you dealt into the Nazareth question?


This is Carrier's response:

Quote:
I have. That is a more difficult question to answer. Those things are true; Josephus doesn't mention it, but Josephus says there is some 200 villages in Galilee, and he only names like a third of them.

So the fact that Josephus doesn't name Nazareth doesn't mean it wasn't there. The same with the Talmud or the OT. There were tons of towns that existed that didn't happen to be mentioned in the Talmud or the OT, and the claim usually made is “The archaeology is suspect because there were certain Christian archaeologists whose methods have been challenged to be shoddy.

So there are questions about the custody of evidence & things like that, and the way it's been treated, but it's problematic because there's an actual working inhabited town sitting on top of Nazareth right now. And if you know anything about archaeology, you know that that means you're gonna not be able to excavate most of the original town. Most of the original town is sitting underneath things that are already there. People's houses, and buildings and things like that.

So we can't make strong arguments from silence because we can't excavate the whole area. So we don't know what was really there. Even, even if we throw out all the archaeology that's been done, that still doesn't get us to a conclusion that it didn't exist or that it didn't exist there. There could have been a Nazareth somewhere else for example.

So that, I find an argument from silence too weak there. The biggest problem for this argument against the existence for Nazareth is that we have an inscription, and it's a copy of a previous inscription & so on. I think the inscription itself dates to the 3rd or 4th century, but it's a copy of an inscription that was put up after the fall of the temple of, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD. So this text goes back to 70 AD.

And on it it lists all the villages that took in priests after events. Because once the temple was destroyed, & that occurred in 70 & it was never rebuilt, once the temple was destroyed, the priests that used to live there, conducted business there, they had nowhere to go, so they had to be taken in. So this inscription lists who took these priests in.

So that tells us that this text was created in 70 or shortly after 70 AD. And among the towns there is Nazareth, very plainly listed. I think in Hebrew or Aramaic; I can't remember the language of this inscription. So it's very plain that Nazareth obviously existed as of the 70's AD.

So I think it's very very unlikely that the town just happened to appear after the 30's. Basically, you're arguing, you have to argue that the town didn't exist when Jesus was born, but then did exist by 70 AD.

Man, it's possible, but it's seams unlikely. And also because it can't have been renamed by Christians because Christians were viewed as heretics by Jews & that the Jews wouldn't take priests in to a town named by heretics, you know what I mean. So the quote was named by Jews of the time & not named by Christians & so on. So the town's name can't be based on the gospels either.


I think Carrier refers to the inscription recovered in a 1962 excavation by Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea.

I don't know if I can trust his assessment due to a) the fact that he shows a not too convinced mythicist position with statements like “I think that probably Jesus didn't exist.” And b) the reality that Acharya totally destroyed his arguments on that Luxor thing & that luxor thing again whole fiasco. I know that it's unrelated to our Nazareth discussion, but it shows that sometimes (some may argue often) he has weak conclusions.

Following the scientific method, can anybody come up with ideas that would falsify his arguments in this podcast? I would appreciate it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Thanks for posting, MightyAgrippa. Yeah, R. Carrier flies into an endless fit of knee-jerk reactions and false assumptions when it comes to Acharya or her work - take notice how he can never acknowledge that she may be right about anything at all. Btw, Richard Carrier has still never read a single book of hers, btw.

It looks like Richard Carrier is leaning towards a mythical Jesus more and more if you watch these videos posted in this thread.

It's difficult to tell what Carrier's views are on the issue of Nazareth and Bethlehem, but Carrier probably does need to address them both as a historian, however, he has posted nothing on neither his own website nor his blogs. However, according to the thread I found, SBL on Fraud, Nazareth ... well, see for yourself, here's post #44:

Quote:
Quote:
"So, does Richard Carrier still stand by all of his comment below? What are his thoughts on the chapters about Nazareth in the new book response to Bart Ehrman by Frank Zindler, Rene Salm and D.M. Murdock/Acharya S?

Either way, will Carrier address the issue of Nazareth in his forth coming book about Jesus?

"Richard Carrier posted on IIDB (FRDB's predecessor) in 2005 that "there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus".

From here (emphasis in the original):
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...=59493&page=20

[A]rchaeology has confirmed a stone building in Nazareth of the size and type to be a synagogue, and it dates from the time of Christ. See the entry in the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land...

The evidence is insurmountable that there were numerous permanent structures--most of Nazareth's buildings even before the 1st century were partially carved from the rock of the hill, in a manner similar to Pella...

I was able to track down on my own the most extensive report, that of Bagatti (Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1, 1969), and I looked through all the subsequent reports on Nazareth from Excavations and Surveys in Israel, and this is what I found:

(a) Very little of Nazareth has been excavated, and therefore no argument can be advanced regarding what "wasn't" there in the 1st century.

(b) Archaeological reports confirm that stones and bricks used in earlier buildings in Nazareth were reused in later structures, thus erasing a lot of the evidence. Therefore, it is faulty reasoning to argue that there were no brick or stone structures simply because we have not recovered them from the relevant strata (i.e. one of Hoffman's sources assumed that the absence of this evidence entailed mud-and-thatch housing, but that is fallacious reasoning--especially since no clear evidence of mud-and-thatch housing has been found, either).

(c) One example of the above includes four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war). This is not iron clad proof of a 1st century synagogue (since the pieces had been moved and thus could not be dated by strata), but it does demonstrate a very high probability--especially since calcite bases are cheap material compared to the more expensive marble of structures archaeologists confirmed started appearing there around a century later, i.e. by the end of the 1st century AD (or early 2nd century at the latest, since marble fragments have been found inscribed in Aramaic that is paleographically dated to this period), and more extensively again in the 3rd century (when a very impressive Jewish synagogue was built there, this time using marble, which was later converted to Christian use).

(d) I confirmed beyond any doubt that Nazareth was built on a hill--more specifically, down the slope of a hill, with a convenient "brow" roughly one city block away from the edge of the ancient town as so-far determined archaeologically. Because the town was built down the slope of a hill, we have found numerous examples of houses, tombs, and storage rooms half cut into the rock of the hill, leaving a diagonal slope for structures to be built up around them to complete the chambers (as I described above). Since these structural elements were so completely removed and apparently reused by later builders, no evidence remains of what they were composed of (whether mud, brick, or stone).

The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus."

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:30 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:14 am
Posts: 35
Quote:
he has nothing on either on his own website or blogs.


Woa, so Carrier didn't even post anything to substantiate his claim about the encryption that supposedly proves that Nazareth existed in the entire 1st century. How are we suppose to know that his claim is factual?

Quote:
Btw, Richard Carrier has still never read a single book of hers


It seems to me that he completely ignores the scientific method. A scientist first task is to try to destroy his/her favorite hypothesis, and later have the rest of the scientific community help him/her falsify it.

If Carrier wants to help the history community remain scientific, he has to attempt to falsify Acharya's claims (or more precisely the mainstream Egyptologists & ancient history scholars) that she brings to the table. But he can't prove her wrong without first reading her books.

To tell you the truth, I don't trust Acharya's word per se, though I'm truly thankful for the huge amount of scholars she presents. But I can't argue with the mainstream Egyptologists for example that she quotes in almost every page of CIE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 7:21 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 804
Carrier has focussed on the commentary about Nazareth in his review of the new book about Ehrman

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... #more-3522


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group