Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Christians, atheists, theists and skeptics: make your best case here.
Forum rules
Keep it real, minimal cutting and pasting please: we want to hear what YOU have to say!

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby TimONeill » Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:42 pm

searchengineguy wrote:This is really like asking a Christian for evidence of God.


Ummm, no. It's like a Creationist asking for fossil evidence of evolution and, when he's given plenty and shown there is a consensus of biologists and palaeontologists on the matter, waves around some crackpot amateur's Creatonist book and says "That's been debunked! Show me some REAL evidence. Why can't you?"

Again, until you come up with an archaeologist who disagrees with the unanimous archaeological consensus, you've got nothing.
TimONeill
resident
resident
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 am
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:09 am

TimONeill wrote:Again, until you come up with an archaeologist who disagrees with the unanimous archaeological consensus, you've got nothing

Speaking of such, why is it that no archaeologists have found not only no verifiable artifacts from that period, but also no tombs? In over 100 years of digging they have found over 2 dozen tombs from Late Roman times, but not a single tomb from Hellenistic or Early Roman times. Just unlucky??
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby TimONeill » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:52 am

searchengineguy wrote:
TimONeill wrote:Again, until you come up with an archaeologist who disagrees with the unanimous archaeological consensus, you've got nothing

Speaking of such, why is it that no archaeologists have found not only no verifiable artifacts from that period, but also no tombs? In over 100 years of digging they have found over 2 dozen tombs from Late Roman times, but not a single tomb from Hellenistic or Early Roman times. Just unlucky??


"Why have no palaeontologists found any transitional fossils that prove evolution? In over 200 years of digging they have found thousands of fossils, but not a single one that shows one kind changing into another. Just unlucky???"

Can you spot the problem with that question?
TimONeill
resident
resident
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 am
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:45 am

TimONeill wrote:
searchengineguy wrote:
TimONeill wrote:Again, until you come up with an archaeologist who disagrees with the unanimous archaeological consensus, you've got nothing

Speaking of such, why is it that no archaeologists have found not only no verifiable artifacts from that period, but also no tombs? In over 100 years of digging they have found over 2 dozen tombs from Late Roman times, but not a single tomb from Hellenistic or Early Roman times. Just unlucky??


"Why have no palaeontologists found any transitional fossils that prove evolution? In over 200 years of digging they have found thousands of fossils, but not a single one that shows one kind changing into another. Just unlucky???"

Can you spot the problem with that question?

You are missing my point yet again. Remember that if you or anyone else asserts that Nazareth was a city/town/hamlet then you or anyone else has to produce evidence that is verifiable and unambiguous that it was in fact inhabited during the so called time of Jesus. If that sort of evidence can't be produced, it reduces it to hearsay, theological fiction and gossip. Your straw man argument is pathetic. Evolution has a vast amount of verifiable and unambiguous evidence that can easily be proven using multiple facets of scientific methodology. Your so-called evidence just sucks on many levels. It relies upon anonymous contradictory accounts of non-witnesses from a book that is riddled with legendary accounts, interpolations, redactions, scribal errors and outright lies. In over 100 years of religious digging quests, there is not one verifiable and unambiguous artifact that ties this place to the time of Jesus. This is separate from the multi-million tourist industry that absolutely thrives on up to a million gullible Christians trekking there every single year, buying up crap souvenirs and spreading the "Word". If this was an actual city or town with hundreds of inhabitants, there would be not only loads of verifiable and unambiguous artifacts, there would be eye witness attestation, numerous documentary evidence on maps, OT and Talmud accounts, etc, etc. This is a very sound argument from silence and you are enabling religious bullshit.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby TimONeill » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:44 am

searchengineguy wrote:You are missing my point yet again.


I'm not "missing your point", you ridiculous little twerp. I just consider your "point" to be laughable shit.

Remember that if you or anyone else asserts that Nazareth was a city/town/hamlet then you or anyone else has to produce evidence that is verifiable and unambiguous that it was in fact inhabited during the so called time of Jesus.


Gosh. You mean like multiple peer reviewed archaeological reports from several different sites in the area by reputable and independent archaeologists detailing pottery finds, coins, agricultural structures and a house, all from the appropriate period? Okay, here you are:

Yardenna Alexandré, Mary's Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods, IAA Reports, 49 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2012), 139–52.
Ariel Berman, "The Numismatic Evidence," in Mary's Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods, ed. Yardenna Alexandré, IAA Reports, 49 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority,
2012).
K. R. Dark, "The Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape between Sepphoris and Nazareth," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140, no. 2 (2008).
K. R. Dark, "Early Roman-Period Nazareth and the Sisters of Nazareth Convent," Antiquaries Journal 92 (2012).
K. R. Dark, "The Byzantine Church of the Nutrition in Nazareth Rediscovered," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144, no. 3 (2012).
N. Feig, “Burial Caves in Nazareth,” 'Atiqot 10 (1990), pp. 67-79
Aviam, Mordechai. Jews, Pagan and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Land of Galilee 1. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004.
Stephen Pfann, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano, "Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997-2002): Final Report," Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007).

there is not one verifiable and unambiguous artifact that ties this place to the time of Jesus


All the actual archaeologists above disagree. And their peer reviewers found no problem with their conclusions or their methodology. Nor have any of their peers who have read their work. You even went off on a wild goose chase and apparently tried to find ANY archaeologist who could see any problem at all with their work and came up with zip. You're just a bizarre little boneheaded yapping fanatic who can't accept that all the experts agree YOU ARE WRONG.

Now fuck off, you weird little nutcase.
TimONeill
resident
resident
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 am
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:51 pm

I wish Tim and SEG would be nicer to each other. I don't mind people being criticised but I wouldn't mind losing the name calling and ad homs.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:18 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I wish Tim and SEG would be nicer to each other. I don't mind people being criticised but I wouldn't mind losing the name calling and ad homs.

Yes, it gets a little tedious Moon. I have tried to engage him civilly a few times now, and failed. It's obvious that he refuses to have formal debates with myself or anyone else for fear of losing. I had a much more qualified expert lined up to visit our forum and educate him on numerous points, but in the end couldn't bring himself to be reduced to the same level on an unmoderated platform. I personally don't care about the insults back and forth, but yes, it detracts from disseminating useful information and dissolves into tediousness after a while. I'm going to let it go after making a few more points before I attend to sorting my sock draw.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:32 pm

TimONeill wrote:
searchengineguy wrote:You are missing my point yet again.


I'm not "missing your point", you ridiculous little twerp. I just consider your "point" to be laughable shit.

Remember that if you or anyone else asserts that Nazareth was a city/town/hamlet then you or anyone else has to produce evidence that is verifiable and unambiguous that it was in fact inhabited during the so called time of Jesus.


Gosh. You mean like multiple peer reviewed archaeological reports from several different sites in the area by reputable and independent archaeologists detailing pottery finds, coins, agricultural structures and a house, all from the appropriate period? Okay, here you are:

Yardenna Alexandré, Mary's Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods, IAA Reports, 49 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2012), 139–52.
Ariel Berman, "The Numismatic Evidence," in Mary's Well, Nazareth: The Late Hellenistic to the Ottoman Periods, ed. Yardenna Alexandré, IAA Reports, 49 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority,
2012).
K. R. Dark, "The Roman-Period and Byzantine Landscape between Sepphoris and Nazareth," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 140, no. 2 (2008).
K. R. Dark, "Early Roman-Period Nazareth and the Sisters of Nazareth Convent," Antiquaries Journal 92 (2012).
K. R. Dark, "The Byzantine Church of the Nutrition in Nazareth Rediscovered," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 144, no. 3 (2012).
N. Feig, “Burial Caves in Nazareth,” 'Atiqot 10 (1990), pp. 67-79
Aviam, Mordechai. Jews, Pagan and Christians in the Galilee: 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods. Land of Galilee 1. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004.
Stephen Pfann, Ross Voss, and Yehudah Rapuano, "Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997-2002): Final Report," Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 25 (2007).

there is not one verifiable and unambiguous artifact that ties this place to the time of Jesus


All the actual archaeologists above disagree. And their peer reviewers found no problem with their conclusions or their methodology. Nor have any of their peers who have read their work. You even went off on a wild goose chase and apparently tried to find ANY archaeologist who could see any problem at all with their work and came up with zip. You're just a bizarre little boneheaded yapping fanatic who can't accept that all the experts agree YOU ARE WRONG.

Now fuck off, you weird little nutcase.

Sure I'll leave you alone once you give me what is crucial to your assertions. Evidence as oulined. Let's talk about the tombs first of all.
1. Show me your evidence of all the tombs found dating to the time of Jesus.
2. What was the estimated population in that location at that time?
3. Where is your proof of that estimate?
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby Tim-the-Hermit » Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:59 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I wish Tim and SEG would be nicer to each other. I don't mind people being criticised but I wouldn't mind losing the name calling and ad homs.


Absolutely, because this insult ping-pong distracts from trying to work out what happened. At the moment, I think there was a historical Jesus who is not god, but both he and the authors did really think he was god for some reason(s.) Otherwise, he wouldn't have said he's going to return, but fail to do so, and the authors wouldn't have believed he was going to return. Maybe the teachings were so unusual and attractive that It was believed they were divinely inspired.
Tim-the-Hermit
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Wales, UK.
Affiliation: soft atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby TimONeill » Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:40 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I wish Tim and SEG would be nicer to each other. I don't mind people being criticised but I wouldn't mind losing the name calling and ad homs.


He had his chance to actually engage in a civil discussion about two months ago. He seemed on the brink of taking it up, but then began to realise it would lead to him having to give ground. So he went back to his usual ridiculous bluster and trying to pretend he can talk down to me, despite his stupidity, ignorance and bias. Sorry, but at that point the gloves came off and they are staying off until he stops peddling fringe theories and bullshit crackpot loons.

searchengineguy wrote:Yes, it gets a little tedious Moon. I have tried to engage him civilly a few times now, and failed.


You've failed because talking down to someone who is vastly more well-read, competent and intelligent than you is not "trying to engage civilly", it's just a passive aggressive tactic by someone who knows he's lost the debate.

I had a much more qualified expert lined up to visit our forum and educate him on numerous points, but in the end couldn't bring himself to be reduced to the same level on an unmoderated platform.


Who? Name them. What are the qualifications of this shadowy "much more qualified expert"?

I'm going to let it go after making a few more points before I attend to sorting my sock draw.


As I've told you many times, the beatings will continue until you learn to stop peddling your pseudo historical crap. Stick to baiting and trolling Christians and you won't hear a peep out of me.

Sure I'll leave you alone once you give me what is crucial to your assertions. Evidence as oulined.


YOU'LL leave ME alone?! That's hilarious.


Let's talk about the tombs first of all.
1. Show me your evidence of all the tombs found dating to the time of Jesus.
2. What was the estimated population in that location at that time?
3. Where is your proof of that estimate?


1. Where have I or anyone else claimed that "tombs found dating to the time of Jesus" have been found? Why are you asking about this, in particular? Only small portions of the site have been excavated and so far no tombs that early have been identified. So? Other elements from the areas that have been excavated have convinced ALL archaeologists who have dug there that the site was inhabited from the Hellenic Era onward. ALL of them. Are you now going to, bizarrely, claim that unless tombs in particular are found this conclusion is wrong? On what basis? And your idiot friend the Piano Tuner drew a similar line in the sand over the supposed lack of relevant coins on the site. Until coins were found. Then it was the supposed lack of houses. Until one of them was found. How about you just abandon this whole stupid idea that no archaeologist takes seriously - it just makes you look dumb.

2. They vary, but are generally in the low hundreds, based on the poverty and size of the sites excavated so far.

3. How do you "prove" an "estimate"? Try a dictionary.

Seriously, stop flogging this dead horse. It's dead and is staying that way.
TimONeill
resident
resident
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 am
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby TimONeill » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:06 pm

Tim-the-Hermit wrote:Absolutely, because this insult ping-pong distracts from trying to work out what happened.


As I say above, a couple of months ago I maintained a fairly civil tone even when dealing with SEG, in the hope that he would drop the childish sneering and ridicule of anything said that runs counter to his half-based ideas and try to actually have a discussion about "what happened". I've done this in the past with people who are inclined toward Mythicism and in some cases they have changed their minds and in others they didn't. In the latter, we agreed to disagree respectfully. But SEG has all the maturity of a bratty child and so he just couldn't manage to maintain an adult conversation. I suppose he's been prancing around here like a toxic troll-clown for so long it's all he's capable of. And I'm sorry, but when someone as totally clueless and uncritically gullible as SEG - a person who will champion anything however totally crazy, so long as he can pretend he isn't giving ground - starts talking to me like I'm the one who doesn't know his stuff, I start punching.

If you'd like to actually discuss "what (most likely) happened" I'd be happy to have that conversation with you. It would make a nice change from the bumbling cut-and-paste drive by postings and repetitive brain-dead squeaking about a crazy piano tuner's views on qualified archaeologists by the Toxic Toddler.

At the moment, I think there was a historical Jesus who is not god, but both he and the authors did really think he was god for some reason(s.) Otherwise, he wouldn't have said he's going to return, but fail to do so, and the authors wouldn't have believed he was going to return. Maybe the teachings were so unusual and attractive that It was believed they were divinely inspired.


Kind of. First of all, there is no evidence that anyone considered him "a god" at the time or for quite a while afterwards. Jesus and his first followers were all devout monotheistic Jews and the idea of Yahweh taking human form would have been totally bizarre to them. None of the three earliest gospels depict Jesus claiming to be God or anyone claiming this about him. Nowhere (despite Christian claims to the contrary) does Paul do so either in any of the seven letters scholars agree were actually by him. Nor is this idea found anywhere in Acts - not even in the sermons that text depicts Peter and Paul and others preaching, where you'd expect them to make this supposedly rather central idea clear. In all the earliest material, Jesus is depicted as the Jewish Messiah - a man exulted by God and eventually raised from the dead by God and even a man who, as Messiah, had a heavenly, angelic pre-existence (at least in Paul's thinking and possibly in the conception of him by the writer of gLuke-Acts). But they did not see him as God.

That came much later, after the earliest Jesus Sect was disrupted by the Jewish War of 66-70 AD and when it began to drift from its Jewish roots and become more of a Greek-spreaking gentile cult. This is why we only begin to see the idea of Jesus as, in some (confused) sense, a personification of God appear in the latest of the gospels - gJohn.

And all this runs totally counter to the claims of Mythicists. They claim the earliest conception of Jesus was one where he was fully divine and entirely celestial, with no earthly existence or historical life on earth at all. Then (somehow) this got "historicised" (by someone) and these stories about a historical Jesus began to appear. If this was the case, we'd expect the earliest stories to reflect this origin - in them Jesus should be far more than a man and a preacher, but should be an exalted, divine figure from the start. But this is not what we find. The progression posited by Mythicism, of Jesus going from divine, celestial figure to an earthly, human one, is actually the opposite to what we find when we look at the source texts in chronological order. Over and over again, Mythicism doesn't fit the evidence (which is why Mythicists spend so much time and effort trying to make parts of the evidence go away).

Jesus was Yeshua bar Yosef, a Jewish peasant preacher who taught about a coming apocalyptic intervention in history by God. He was a Galilean peasant from the tiny village of Nazareth who most likely spent his brief preaching career preaching this very Jewish message to other peasants in Galilee. This is why most of the later stories are set in this tiny world of minor Galilean villages and rural towns and couched in the language and imagery of farming, herding and fishing. Again, this all makes perfect sense if he was such a peasant from this world. It makes no sense at all as a "historicised celestial deity" story.
TimONeill
resident
resident
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 am
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby Tim-the-Hermit » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:19 am

Thanks, Tim2, I find this fascinating. No wonder the study of history (especially ancient history, I would have thought) is sometimes compared to detective work, looking into the possibilities and trying to work out what is most probable. I had forgotten that important starting point - that nobody originally considered Jesus to be god; the chronology you describe seems to flow very well from there. If I were still a Christian, this would make for uncomfortable reading, but doubly so if I were a mythicist.

Maybe a lot of mistakes are made because people underestimate the research that you have to do to work things out well – not just the bible but the attendant history, archaeology, socio-economic etc material. And that’s even before we factor in the bias from emotional investment.

My school history teacher used to bang on about this word ‘bias;’ at the time I didn’t know why she was so exercised, but I do now!
Tim-the-Hermit
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Wales, UK.
Affiliation: soft atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby TimONeill » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:21 am

Tim-the-Hermit wrote:Thanks, Tim2, I find this fascinating. No wonder the study of history (especially ancient history, I would have thought) is sometimes compared to detective work, looking into the possibilities and trying to work out what is most probable. I had forgotten that important starting point - that nobody originally considered Jesus to be god; the chronology you describe seems to flow very well from there. If I were still a Christian, this would make for uncomfortable reading, but doubly so if I were a mythicist.

Maybe a lot of mistakes are made because people underestimate the research that you have to do to work things out well – not just the bible but the attendant history, archaeology, socio-economic etc material. And that’s even before we factor in the bias from emotional investment.

My school history teacher used to bang on about this word ‘bias;’ at the time I didn’t know why she was so exercised, but I do now!


Learning how to put aside what you may want to be true and analysing the evidence objectively is part of the key to historical analysis. Some people simply aren't rational enough to manage it. SEG is clearly one of those. He's driven by emotion and his lack of a grasp of the relevant material and the fact that he isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed means that he will never be able to escape his prejudices. People like that always end up as kooky fanatics of one variety or another.
TimONeill
resident
resident
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:51 am
Affiliation: Atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby Tim-the-Hermit » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:27 am

Forgot to follow through on my second last post. So maybe Jesus was sort of evolved into god by gJohn? If the writers were liable to get carried away by their own wishful thinking, then perhaps it did not seem like such a big leap from Messiah. The way they scripted Jesus' return as literal and impending perhaps suggests that they believed their own wishful thinking, but then had to tone it down when it started to look like it was not going to come about.

p.s. just saw your new reply, thanks.
Tim-the-Hermit
veteran
veteran
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:42 pm
Location: Wales, UK.
Affiliation: soft atheist

Re: Tim O'Neill's Best Evidence For a Historical Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:43 am

TimONeill wrote:As I say above, a couple of months ago I maintained a fairly civil tone even when dealing with SEG, in the hope that he would drop the childish sneering and ridicule of anything said that runs counter to his half-based ideas and try to actually have a discussion about "what happened".

A civil tone? A civil tone? Here is how you ended your first post (Liar) after I called you out and you came flailing out of your imaginary boxing ring :
Er, yup. Bring your best game kiddo. I think you are about to be smacked around until you spit blood.

Cue Rocky theme song:

I've done this in the past with people who are inclined toward Mythicism and in some cases they have changed their minds and in others they didn't. In the latter, we agreed to disagree respectfully. But SEG has all the maturity of a bratty child and so he just couldn't manage to maintain an adult conversation. I suppose he's been prancing around here like a toxic troll-clown for so long it's all he's capable of. And I'm sorry, but when someone as totally clueless and uncritically gullible as SEG - a person who will champion anything however totally crazy, so long as he can pretend he isn't giving ground - starts talking to me like I'm the one who doesn't know his stuff, I start punching.


Cue Rocky theme song yet again:



And all this runs totally counter to the claims of Mythicists. They claim the earliest conception of Jesus was one where he was fully divine and entirely celestial, with no earthly existence or historical life on earth at all. Then (somehow) this got "historicised" (by someone) and these stories about a historical Jesus began to appear. If this was the case, we'd expect the earliest stories to reflect this origin - in them Jesus should be far more than a man and a preacher, but should be an exalted, divine figure from the start. But this is not what we find. The progression posited by Mythicism, of Jesus going from divine, celestial figure to an earthly, human one, is actually the opposite to what we find when we look at the source texts in chronological order. Over and over again, Mythicism doesn't fit the evidence (which is why Mythicists spend so much time and effort trying to make parts of the evidence go away).

Ever heard of Marcion, Gnosticism and all the mystery cults of that era? They were by far the earliest accounts which Tim2 likes to avoid like the plague.
Jesus was Yeshua bar Yosef, a Jewish peasant preacher who taught about a coming apocalyptic intervention in history by God. He was a Galilean peasant from the tiny village of Nazareth who most likely spent his brief preaching career preaching this very Jewish message to other peasants in Galilee. This is why most of the later stories are set in this tiny world of minor Galilean villages and rural towns and couched in the language and imagery of farming, herding and fishing. Again, this all makes perfect sense if he was such a peasant from this world. It makes no sense at all as a "historicised celestial deity" story.

Ever heard of John Frum, Tom Navy and Ned Ludd of the Luddites?
Notice how Nazareth went from being a polis or a city, to a town, to a hamlet, to a "tiny village?" The ever diminishing size of Nazareth is equally comparative to the minuscule verifiable evidence of artifacts. Salm and I have reduced it to none, but Tim2 has reduced it to ambiguous dating from biased experts that are yoked by the multi-million dollar religious tourist industry.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests