Post Reply
Page 38 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2010 - 2:58PM #371
teilhard
Posts: 48,223

You continue to confuse your a priori World-View Assumptions and Conclusions ( Opinions ) with "Facts" ...


Nov 3, 2010 -- 2:38PM, Dennis wrote:


You didn't list anyone who said that since Josephus didn't mention Nazareth it didn't exist, but you were working on a strawman to knock over. There was silence because it was & is largely a non-issue. The title, incidently, is Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus Nazarene or Jesus the Nazorean, not Jesus of Nazareth. Check the Greek. The title is translated using the preposition "of," which doesn't seem to be a part of the earliest title. You imply that because there was an archeological find in this town, later called "Nazareth," from between 100 bce and 100 ce, then the Bible is correct, seeing how you quoted it in the second post for some foolish reason. The find is really irrelevant to anything but the fact that there was a house in that location at that time. End of story.


 

Feb 3, 2010 -- 2:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Why the Total SILENCE from The Skeptics, who FORMERLY have claimed that since


"Josephus" didn't include "Nazareth" in his Published List of Towns and Cities of Galilee,


THEREFORE there WAS no "Nazareth" in First Century Galilee, and THEREFORE


The Title, "Jesus of Nazareth," was a FICTION ... ???


 


( so much for an "Objective" Examination of The "Evidence," eh ... ??? )


 


Does "Archeological" Evidence COUNT as "Evidence" ... ???









Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2010 - 4:50PM #372
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

That's the best you can do, isn't it? Just bleating your mantra. You can't rebut the statements, because they are correct. Instead, you convince yourself that it is my "world-view," and that is all you are capable of drooling.  Sad, Teil. You aren't much, are you...


Nov 3, 2010 -- 2:58PM, teilhard wrote:


You continue to confuse your a priori World-View Assumptions and Conclusions ( Opinions ) with "Facts" ...


Nov 3, 2010 -- 2:38PM, Dennis wrote:


You didn't list anyone who said that since Josephus didn't mention Nazareth it didn't exist, but you were working on a strawman to knock over. There was silence because it was & is largely a non-issue. The title, incidently, is Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus Nazarene or Jesus the Nazorean, not Jesus of Nazareth. Check the Greek. The title is translated using the preposition "of," which doesn't seem to be a part of the earliest title. You imply that because there was an archeological find in this town, later called "Nazareth," from between 100 bce and 100 ce, then the Bible is correct, seeing how you quoted it in the second post for some foolish reason. The find is really irrelevant to anything but the fact that there was a house in that location at that time. End of story.


 

Feb 3, 2010 -- 2:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Why the Total SILENCE from The Skeptics, who FORMERLY have claimed that since


"Josephus" didn't include "Nazareth" in his Published List of Towns and Cities of Galilee,


THEREFORE there WAS no "Nazareth" in First Century Galilee, and THEREFORE


The Title, "Jesus of Nazareth," was a FICTION ... ???


 


( so much for an "Objective" Examination of The "Evidence," eh ... ??? )


 


Does "Archeological" Evidence COUNT as "Evidence" ... ???













Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 03, 2010 - 5:46PM #373
teilhard
Posts: 48,223

My "Mantra" in THIS Case is


(1) that INDEED, a ( REAL ) Scholar MUST be aware of his/her own a priori World-View and how that World-View COLORS her/his Investigations and Conclusions, AND


(2) that there IS a DIFFERENCE between a FACT and an OPINION or a CLAIM, AND


(3) that "Scholarship"  ISN'T  ABOUT  making snarky ad hominem Remarks ...


Nov 3, 2010 -- 4:50PM, Dennis wrote:


(1,2) That's the best you can do, isn't it? Just bleating your mantra. You can't rebut the statements, because they are correct. Instead, you convince yourself that it is my "world-view," and that is all you are capable of drooling.  


(3) Sad, Teil. You aren't much, are you...


Nov 3, 2010 -- 2:58PM, teilhard wrote:


You continue to confuse your a priori World-View Assumptions and Conclusions ( Opinions ) with "Facts" ...


Nov 3, 2010 -- 2:38PM, Dennis wrote:


You didn't list anyone who said that since Josephus didn't mention Nazareth it didn't exist, but you were working on a strawman to knock over. There was silence because it was & is largely a non-issue. The title, incidently, is Jesus the Nazarene or Jesus Nazarene or Jesus the Nazorean, not Jesus of Nazareth. Check the Greek. The title is translated using the preposition "of," which doesn't seem to be a part of the earliest title. You imply that because there was an archeological find in this town, later called "Nazareth," from between 100 bce and 100 ce, then the Bible is correct, seeing how you quoted it in the second post for some foolish reason. The find is really irrelevant to anything but the fact that there was a house in that location at that time. End of story.


 

Feb 3, 2010 -- 2:11PM, teilhard wrote:


Why the Total SILENCE from The Skeptics, who FORMERLY have claimed that since


"Josephus" didn't include "Nazareth" in his Published List of Towns and Cities of Galilee,


THEREFORE there WAS no "Nazareth" in First Century Galilee, and THEREFORE


The Title, "Jesus of Nazareth," was a FICTION ... ???


 


( so much for an "Objective" Examination of The "Evidence," eh ... ??? )


 


Does "Archeological" Evidence COUNT as "Evidence" ... ???

















Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2010 - 2:22PM #374
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Still nothing... a million posts and Teil has said nothing worthwhile to any discussions. Grasping at meta-cognition "straws" doesn't get it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2010 - 3:12PM #375
Jenandew7
Posts: 12,275

Let's see . . . I cannot for the life of me figure out what about this makes you think you can reclassify the Bible on any grounds as anything other than a sacred text.  Or that you have that power.  You can't decide that for the billions of ppl who see it as a sacred text.  It was NOT written to be a history.  And, the religion/faith was real to the authors of it.  There is nothing you can say that undoes that, Dennis.  All you can prove is that you dismiss it. 


Nov 3, 2010 -- 2:51PM, Dennis wrote:


The Tanakh: It's a foundation myth, compiled and severely edited/rewritten beginning after 164 bce, when the temple was rededicated. It follows a straightforward chronology, also using eponymy and toledoth. The characters are basically fictive. The events are generally thematic and these themes recur throughout. Anything "historical" is incidental to the Tanakh. Poetry, sapiential sayings books, parody and courtier's tales (the last two mainly for entertainment) became part of the canon. Other, equally important books, apocalyptic, sapiential, poetry and so forth, did not make the canon. The winners reflected their political views in the book. It was not modern times - there was no difference in "church and state." They were the same... Kings were good or bad because they did what was pleasing, to the gods, or what was not pleasing to the gods.


Nov 3, 2010 -- 12:54PM, Jenandew7 wrote:


Oct 29, 2010 -- 1:46PM, Dennis wrote:


There is nothing "sacred" about the Bible.



Unfortunately for you, there is.  But trying to prove that to a skeptic is even more difficult than proving that Jesus was a real man. 


The fact remains that the only reason the books were composed, cherished and preserved was because it was a matter of faith.  Actually, I admire the ancient Jews a great deal and I see the beginning of the story with Moses as an establishment of a written code of Law and a basis for following that law in faith.  *No, I don't believe that all that is written is the word of God.  But it was in fact all presented to the people as a written code and the people did believe their very lives as a society depended on following it and that the favor of their god was the very ground they walked on.*


In short, yes, it IS a sacred book.  And people today perceive that it is a sacred book.  Billions have and billions do.  There is no argument that you can create that can deny that very historical fact whether or no YOU see it as a sacred text. 


 


(Try to tell an Amalekite that, if you find one the gods didn't "smite!") It was and still is a group of various writings, from poetry to prophecy, put together in various forms at various times, the Hebrew scriptures to provide a foundation myth for "Israel," political in purpose (basically for the purpose of Judean supremacy),



It's a beautiful collection of writings seen exclusively as a work of literature for its time and place.  And even for the unbeliever, there are some redeeming and wise things written within its pages.  As a politically expedient document?   I think it more likely that they used the power of the written word and the authority of the scroll to consolodate their political base, perhaps.  And to create a mythology and identity for their own people.  It laid out a moral code to be strictly followed and that gave order to their communities and their society as a whole.  If that is what you mean by saying "basically for the purpose of Judean supremecy", which I take as an attempt to prove their supremecy to their enemies and I don't think their enemies could care less.  What you are looking at here is the foundation of civilization and the formation of a nation of people.  It is an amazing work! 


However, as an ancient tribal people their view of their god was all encompassing and every natural event had a supernatural cause and effect.  Their religion dominated their lives in a way we can't even imagine.  So their view of God is one where God must be placated and feared with the belief that he punishes the entire society for the cumulative sins of the society.  He not only assists them in conquering the enemy, he punishes them by allowing their enemies to conquer them.  So everything must be explained in terms of their faith in their god. 


So it is a sacred text and it was written to be a sacred text.  The ancient Jews who wrote the OT had no concept of history as we know it.  History was incidental to the story they were recording and accuracy was not as important as other considerations that varied over time. 


and the Christian canon put together just as politically politically, with a mind to compete against Gnostics and Marcionites (the latter who had the earliest canon).



No argument there.


Looking it as sacred, as being consecrated by the gods (or by one, take your pick) and looking to "prove" or "disprove," as Annie says below, is irrelevant, as well as the major stumbling block of the fundamentalist, as we have in her posts and in Teil's posts.



Growing up in a Dewey household, we clearly understood that attempts to disparage those with whom we disagreed not only did not prove our case, it discredited our entire argument.  I ask you, Dennis, does this sort of behavior prove the superiority of your argument or your intelligence?  No, what it looks like is that you feel that you are on shakey ground and attacking your opponent's character is all you have left. 


It is, however, possible to find a few historical tidbits in it, as well as a multitude that are probably not historical. Nazareth as the hometown of Jesus belongs in the latter. The site now considered "Nazareth" is another. To paraphrase one of the rules of historiography, "You don't know it if you can't show it."



And neither can you, as I have pointed out repeatedly.  As an archeological dig it is informative, however. 


Here is an example, however, as to the significance of the find in the location we call Nazareth today, which I have also attempted to point out many times.  Luke has Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem of Judea for the birth of Jesus.  BUT, in fact, archeology has shown that Bethlehem of Judea did not, in fact, exist at the time of the birth of Jesus.  It was an iron age town, it had once existed and it came back into existence around the 6th century CE.  Now that IS a fact! But unfortunately, Nazareth is appearing to be more real than you want it to be. 


But, then, of course, you won't check on Bethlehem of Galilee or attempt to unravel the mystery that has presented itself.  If your hope is to prove that Jesus did not exist, you might as well give up your quest.  You will never be able to prove that a particular man did not exist 2,000 years ago.   


So, the fact that rumor has it that the present location of Nazareth was Nazareth and the fact that a 1st Century town has been found there, does lend credence to the myth that it is Nazareth.  And for a fact, that town HAD A NAME and you must find it to discredit the human memory that placed Nazareth at that location.


And, besides, the archeological exploration of the find has purpose outside of the search for the historical Jesus.


A. 









If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. --Isaiah 58:10
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2010 - 5:23PM #376
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Annie stated, "Let's see . . . I cannot for the life of me figure out what about this makes you think you can reclassify the Bible on any grounds as anything other than a sacred text. Or that you have that power. You can't decide that for the billions of ppl who see it as a sacred text. It was NOT written to be a history. And, the religion/faith was real to the authors of it. There is nothing you can say that undoes that, Dennis. All you can prove is that you dismiss it."


"Sacred" is a religious statement, a statement of belief. When one uses it in connection with texts, one is not looking at the historicity of the text but at its use for religious purposes. When it comes to "historical Jesus" research,  one is looking at history, not religious beliefs. The writings came after the figure of history.  About historiography: "The final principle is that history has nothing to say about the truth of religious beliefs" (Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence, edited by Brandon Scott, p. 15).  Calling the Bible "sacred" violates this. It's fine for a believer to consider the Bible sacred, but if this has anything to do with his or her study of the history of the Bible, it doesn't get past the writings, which, in the case of the historical Jesus, were written roughly 40 to 100 years later... And, which were considered "sacred" at some point after this, as seen by the differences in the texts of the second and third centuries. (Origen was extremely upset about these differences. We can also see the differences in other writings of that time.) "Sacred" is a term that people considered the Christian writings at one time, but it is, at best, irrelevant to discussions about the historical Jesus, except to denote what later people thought of the texts. It also implies some kind of standardization of text, which occurred some centuries after the setting of the gospels. (If there are a multitude of texts with differences, which one is sacred?)


No, one has to get rid of the idea of "sacred" to really begin to sift through the textual material. What billions of people believe is as irrelevant as what people believed about the canons of Plato or Shakespeare, (or for that matter, the once popular belief in the three-tiered universe), if one is interested in looking at the historicity of the Bible.


Then, what about the Jesus material not in the canon? Isn't it also "sacred," using your criteria? I'm sure "... the religion/faith was real to the authors of it," as you stated. Was there some magical mist that floated over the heads of the early Church Fathers that caused them to consider some books "sacred" and others "heresy?" No. It was political. As for that, most scholars I know consider all of the books when they look at the historical Jesus and Christian origins. In the second century (and later), they were, to those who believed the words, just as sacred as what made the canon.


Sacred is a word that has no place in historical Jesus studies. It is literature. Period.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2010 - 10:45AM #377
teilhard
Posts: 48,223

The Ideological Agenda IS obvious, isn't it ... ???  ( So much for, "Objectivity" ... )


Nov 4, 2010 -- 3:12PM, Jenandew7 wrote:


Let's see . . . I cannot for the life of me figure out what about this makes you think you can reclassify the Bible on any grounds as anything other than a sacred text.  Or that you have that power.  You can't decide that for the billions of ppl who see it as a sacred text.  It was NOT written to be a history.  And, the religion/faith was real to the authors of it.  There is nothing you can say that undoes that, Dennis.  All you can prove is that you dismiss it. 







Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2010 - 10:47AM #378
teilhard
Posts: 48,223

 ... another snarky ad hominem Remark ...


BUT ... The Israel Antiquities Authority DID find a First-Century "Jewish" House in "Nazareth" ...


It's THERE ... There IS a "There" there ...


Nov 4, 2010 -- 2:22PM, Dennis wrote:


Still nothing... a million posts and Teil has said nothing worthwhile to any discussions. Grasping at meta-cognition "straws" doesn't get it.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2010 - 10:55AM #379
Jenandew7
Posts: 12,275

Nov 4, 2010 -- 5:23PM, Dennis wrote:


Annie stated, "Let's see . . . I cannot for the life of me figure out what about this makes you think you can reclassify the Bible on any grounds as anything other than a sacred text. Or that you have that power. You can't decide that for the billions of ppl who see it as a sacred text. It was NOT written to be a history. And, the religion/faith was real to the authors of it. There is nothing you can say that undoes that, Dennis. All you can prove is that you dismiss it."


"Sacred" is a religious statement, a statement of belief. When one uses it in connection with texts, one is not looking at the historicity of the text but at its use for religious purposes.



You are conflating methodology, the premise for objective research, with your prejudices.  You're really a terrible spokesman for the Jesus Seminar.  Even they can't and don't dismiss the original purpose for which the Bible was written.  The Bible is officially classified as a sacred text alongside the many other sacred texts of other religions.  The Qu'aran is considered a sacred text.  The Vedas are the oldest of all sacred texts.  You cannot reclassify the Bible and say it is not a sacred text just because you don't believe in its underlying premise. 


When it comes to "historical Jesus" research,  one is looking at history, not religious beliefs.



True, but that does not mean that the Bible is reclassified in any way.  For example, Hamlet would never be considered to be anything but a play, but someone may gain insight into the life and times of Shakespeare by studying it. 


The writings came after the figure of history.  About historiography: "The final principle is that history has nothing to say about the truth of religious beliefs" (Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence, edited by Brandon Scott, p. 15).  Calling the Bible "sacred" violates this.



Your understanding of the prinicipal is skewed.  In order to be objective, it is required that there is no valuation of the truth of religious beliefs.  Again, I am not Muslim and so for me the Qu'aran is not sacred, but it is in fact a sacred text whether or no I believe the veracity of its teachings.  I could read the Qu'aran to learn more about what is taught by the religion of Islam.  The purpose for which it was written remains inherently important even to the researchers, even if they are objectively separating themselves from the assumption that it is true. 



Sacred is a word that has no place in historical Jesus studies. It is literature. Period.




It is literature.  It is an antiquity.  And it is classified as a "sacred text".  You are totally confused as to the effort researchers are making in order to maintain objectivity in their research.


A. 

If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. --Isaiah 58:10
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2010 - 11:33AM #380
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

I am not a spokesperson for the Jesus Seminar. (I agree with about half of their literature.) I disseminate their findings, as well as those from dozens of other scholars. Other than that, I didn't read and don't read crap by "negative ones" who have to break up what someone has written in order to feebly attempt to rebut it. It's sad when one hasn't the memory to compose anything substantial of their own, just having to snip and paste, add a comment, snip and paste.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 38 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook