Post Reply
Page 1 of 39  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 39 Next
5 years ago  ::  Dec 22, 2009 - 11:11AM #1
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

In today's daily Newspaper


( I haven't seen the Scientific Paper yet ),


an Archaeology Team has announced Discovery


of a modest Jewish House in Nazareth,


dated to The First Century C.E. ...


 


The Household appears to have been Observant,


based upon the Type of Pottery found ...


 


They estimate the Population of Nazareth


in The First Century C.E. to have been ca. fifty Families ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 24, 2009 - 8:54PM #2
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

"Joseph went from the Town of Nazareth in Galilee


to Judea, to The City of David called Bethlehem ... "


 -- Luke 2:4

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2010 - 2:11PM #3
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

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
4 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2010 - 7:18PM #4
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E ... Hello ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 1:27PM #5
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

Feb 3, 2010 -- 7:18PM, teilhard wrote:


E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E ... Hello ... ???



WHY don't The Skeptics care to comment on this ... ???  Hello ... ???


There WAS a "Nazareth" In First Century C.E. Galilee ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 12:02AM #6
Kodiacman
Posts: 2,541

hmmmm,


perhaps they don't really want to beleive??Surprised


It is much easier being a contrarian rather than an honest critic.


blessings

If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism.~Editor fourth R
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 2:58AM #7
Blü
Posts: 24,646

mark


It's a question of relevance.


I'm not aware of anyone around here whose argument would change depending on whether Nazareth existed or not.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 10:23AM #8
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

Mar 22, 2010 -- 12:02AM, Kodiacman wrote:


hmmmm,


perhaps they don't really want to beleive??

It is much easier being a contrarian rather than an honest critic.


blessings




Some ( "Materialist"-"Atheist" ) Folks prefer to TRY to  " ... live and move and have their being ... " in a tightly wound "World-View" which is "flat" and "narrow," entirely sans significant Complications ...


In order to preserve such Illusion, indeed Facts-to-the-Contrary must quite actively be either
ignored or "explained away" ...


So, in this particular Case, actually FINDING The Authentic First-Century Nazareth FROM  WHICH came The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth goes AGAINST an a priori CLAIM that The First-Century Greek Testament Documents are essentially WORTHLESS as "Historical" Documents ...


So ... the ignoring-explaining-away Attempt HERE seems to be ... " ***sniff***sniff*** ... huh ... ???  .... what ... ???  Who cares ... ??? ... "

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 11:32AM #9
Kodiacman
Posts: 2,541

Mar 22, 2010 -- 2:58AM, Blü wrote:


mark


It's a question of relevance.


I'm not aware of anyone around here whose argument would change depending on whether Nazareth existed or not.





Blu,


Relevance??? good hard reliable evidence has been discovered, the discovery of a city mentioned in the Bible,  that has the potential to make the Bible more reliable and damage the skeptics postion more and it is dismissed due to a "lack of relevance"!?!?!?


If anything the lack of debate upon this very subject by the skeptics, scoffers, and contrarians indicates that the position they maintain is not evidentiarly arrived at. You stated it yourself.


This evidence does not change your argument......Huh???? This statement implies your argument against the Historical Jesus is not based upon evidence that is accurate!!


Evidence should always prove ones case stronger or weaken ones case depending upon thier previously held postitions when the evidence was discovered. If one dismisses the evidence as being "not relevant" then this dismissal of evidence that has been discovered that can weaken/strengthen thier position reveals thier position is not reliant upon evidence!! 


I think this is accurate....


hence my statement that it is not about evidence but about one's willingness to beleive....


sorry for the repetitousness but I wanted to ensure I was being heard properly....It does seem to be an issue sometimes in forums....


blessings mark

If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism.~Editor fourth R
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2010 - 12:50PM #10
teilhard
Posts: 49,880

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" ... ???




In my Opinion, Archaeological Evidence DOES count as Evidence ... And it IS Interestingly Revealing that SOME of The Skeptics continue-to-choose to IGNORE Actual Evidence that doesn't fit well with their a priori Assumptions and Prejudices ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 39  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 39 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook