| 3 years ago :: Dec 22, 2009 - 11:11AM #1 | |
|
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
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Dec 24, 2009 - 8:54PM #2 | |
|
"Joseph went from the Town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to The City of David called Bethlehem ... " -- Luke 2:4 |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Feb 03, 2010 - 2:11PM #3 | |
|
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
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Feb 03, 2010 - 7:18PM #4 | |
|
E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E ... Hello ... ??? |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Feb 06, 2010 - 1:27PM #5 | |
There WAS a "Nazareth" In First Century C.E. Galilee ... |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Mar 22, 2010 - 12:02AM #6 | |
|
hmmmm, perhaps they don't really want to beleive?? 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
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Mar 22, 2010 - 2:58AM #7 | |
|
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
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Mar 22, 2010 - 10:23AM #8 | |
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 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
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Mar 22, 2010 - 11:32AM #9 | |
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
|
|
| 3 years ago :: Mar 22, 2010 - 12:50PM #10 | |
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
|
|
