Author Topic: Nazareth and archeology  (Read 1999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jackson02

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,014
Nazareth and archeology
« on: January 04, 2018, 12:30:01 PM »
I've recently read many articles claiming that Nazareth didn't exist until the fourth century. These people usually toss aside the bible and its interpretations as being "an invention of the church". Is there any archeology or other source to suggest that Nazareth existed during the time of Christ?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2018, 12:40:35 PM »
I don't know which articles you're looking at, but it's rather odd that a town mentioned in 1st century texts (even skeptics date the gospels to 2nd century at latest) would not exist until the 3rd century.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Jackson02

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,014
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2018, 12:50:40 PM »
I don't know which articles you're looking at, but it's rather odd that a town mentioned in 1st century texts (even skeptics date the gospels to 2nd century at latest) would not exist until the 3rd century.
Here's a link to the website:
http://www.nazarethmyth.info

Offline Agabus

  • The user formerly known as Agabus.
  • Section Moderator
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,166
  • Faith: without works is dead.
  • Jurisdiction: DNA compatible with Alexander
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2018, 12:58:45 PM »
I don't know which articles you're looking at, but it's rather odd that a town mentioned in 1st century texts (even skeptics date the gospels to 2nd century at latest) would not exist until the 3rd century.
+1
Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

Take a breath, read Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2018, 01:02:03 PM »
I really don't have the patience or time to peruse some atheist crank's ill-designed webpage. Maybe you can summarize his most important arguments and how he accounts for the fact that 1st century texts mention this place.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Jackson02

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,014
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2018, 01:09:28 PM »
The Compromised archeology of Nazareth

The Myth of Nazareth shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 CE (the climax of the First Jewish War), and most likely in early II CE—the same era in which the canonical gospels were being edited. Furthermore, this study shows that there was a long hiatus in settlement in the Nazareth basin between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). Finally, it is probable that the extensive remains in the Nazareth basin from the Bronze and Iron Ages are in fact to be identified with biblical Japhia. These conclusions are based on a unanimity of the material evidence from multiple excavations in the Nazareth basin. Whether we are speaking of “Herodian” oil lamps (which constitute the earliest Roman evidence), glass, metal, or stone objects, inscriptions, coins, “kokh” tombs with or without rolling stones, wall foundations, or agricultural installations—all of these point to a Jewish settlement beginning in early II CE and thriving in Late Roman and Byzantine times. Extra-archaeological data confirm this conclusion.

In an explosive revelation, The Myth of Nazareth shows that a number of Roman tombs (not mentioned in any guidebook) exist directly under the Church of the Annunciation, the most venerated site in Nazareth. This locus was part of a cemetery during later Roman times. It could not have been the domicile of the Virgin Mary—a proposition abhorrent in a Jewish context for, according to Torah, tombs were never located within the precincts of a Jewish village, nor near or under habitations. Both the traditional chronology and location are in error, for the cemetery at Nazareth came into existence several generations after the alleged time of the Virgin.

The shell game with Nazareth evidence

Our eyes should be opened when the primary archaeologist at Nazareth (Father Bellarmino Bagatti) assigns an artefact on one page to the IRON AGE (c. 1200 BCE-c. 600 BCE), and a few pages later assigns the same artefact to the MIDDLE ROMAN PERIOD. The difference, of course, is 1000 years. . . Was the priest confused? Inattentive? Inebriated? Unfortunately, his error is hardly unique in the Nazareth literature, and points up the need for a wholesale reassessment of the primary data by neutral, objective archaeologists.

The main source for scholarly information on Nazareth is the 325-page book Excavations in Nazareth by Fr. Bagatti (English edition 1969). This book is considered the definitive study of Nazareth archaeology and is repeatedly cited in the scholarly literature. It is no small thing, then, when one reveals Bagatti’s book to be full of blunders.

One could study Bagatti’s book for months and not realize anomalies such as the following example, which becomes apparent only if one makes a written itemization of the hundreds of artefacts in his work, as I have done while researching The Myth of Nazareth. The example I choose for this Scandal Sheet is the following:

(a) While discussing pottery of the Iron Period (1200-587 BCE) Bagatti comes to a v-shaped piece of pottery which he calls a “rim of the vase.” (For those with access to his book, it is on page 269, item 215:7.) He also diagrams this pottery shard in his figure 224.1. Bagatti continues his discussion, “Other elements of the Iron Period…” So, there is no question at all that the archaeologist considers this shard to be from the Iron Age.

(b) On page 282 of his book, in the section discussing “Pottery of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods,” Bagatti notes “fig. 224.1” and “fig. 215.7” (the same references as above, both referring to one artefact). Evidently he forgot that a dozen pages earlier he called the shard the rim of a vase, for he now calls it the neck of a “cooking pot.” More importantly, Bagatti is oblivious to the fact that he earlier assigned this artefact to the Iron Period. Now, on p. 285, he writes: “The oldest element of these cooking pots appears to be No. 1 of fig. 224… The neck, with the splayed mouth, recalls the Hellenistic-Roman custom for these artifacts.” So, we see that on one page the archaeologist assigns a shard to the Iron Age, and on another page he assigns it to the “Hellenistic-Roman” period.
Our confidence must be shaken in an archaeologist who ascribes the same material to two eras separated by up to a thousand years. Doesn’t Bagatti know what he is talking about? Or is there something more nefarious at play, something which goes beyond error? For we see that the priest’s use of the word “Hellenistic” on p. 285 is entirely inappropriate. He signals the typical Roman features of this jar, not Hellenistic ones! It would appear that the archaeologist has simply found another excuse to falsely introduce the word “Hellenistic” into his book.

For a village of Nazareth to have existed at the time of Christ, it had to come into existence before that time. That is why Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth is so important. It is also why Bagatti has, as seen in the above example, contrived to falsely introduce the word "Hellenistic" into his book. In fact, every one of his uses of that word is inappropriate, for there is no Hellenistic evidence from Nazareth! This is clearly shown in Part Three of my study.
In a subsequent Scandal Sheet, I will show how more Nazareth artefacts have been falsely called “Hellenistic,” thus furnishing more bogus evidence for a village at and before the time of Jesus. All those artefacts do not date before the time of Christ, but they are Middle Roman (second-third centuries after Christ).

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,818
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2018, 02:18:04 AM »
IIRC this conspiracy theory was started by a piano instructor. He used to change the Nazareth page on wikipedia to include references to his self-published conspiracy book.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 02:18:32 AM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Jackson02

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,014
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2018, 02:41:31 AM »
IIRC this conspiracy theory was started by a piano instructor. He used to change the Nazareth page on wikipedia to include references to his self-published conspiracy book.
Umm.. wow! I was not expecting that.

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2018, 04:00:48 AM »
I've recently read many articles claiming that Nazareth didn't exist until the fourth century. These people usually toss aside the bible and its interpretations as being "an invention of the church". Is there any archeology or other source to suggest that Nazareth existed during the time of Christ?

You're dealing with Christ-Mythicists here. No reputable or serious scholar actually accepts their views.

And actually, there has been archaeological evidence for the existence of Nazareth in Jesus's time. Various tombs and artifacts have been discovered there dating to the 1st century, and an entire house has even been uncovered:

https://www.israel21c.org/house-from-jesus-time-excavated/

The reason why Nazareth is not mentioned before the 3rd century is because of how small and unimportant is was. Historians and archaeologist alike posit that only around 400-500 people inhabited Nazareth in the 1st century A.D.  It was an insignificant little village in the middle of nowhere in Jesus's time. Why do you think Nathanael exclaimed "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" when he first heard about where Jesus came from.

Also, the Gospels mention Nazareth, and scholars believe the Gospels were written in between 65 A.D. - 100 A.D. All of these are 1st century sources.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 04:08:54 AM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,370
  • Ευλογημένη Σαρακοστή
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2018, 12:17:21 PM »
I was wondering if the wars of 70 AD  and 132 AD could have destroyed a lot of archaeological evidence?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,337
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2018, 12:22:22 PM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,818
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2018, 02:10:22 PM »
IIRC this conspiracy theory was started by a piano instructor. He used to change the Nazareth page on wikipedia to include references to his self-published conspiracy book.
Umm.. wow! I was not expecting that.
It's telling that his site looks like it was airlifted out of Geocities on the last chopper.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2018, 03:01:55 PM »
Ike and Nick are on a roll here. :)
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2018, 03:09:01 PM »
I've recently read many articles claiming that Nazareth didn't exist until the fourth century. These people usually toss aside the bible and its interpretations as being "an invention of the church". Is there any archeology or other source to suggest that Nazareth existed during the time of Christ?

Even if this weren't a crank, still, I would ask myself: Who knows better the ancient world? The ancients, or some prep school grad with a shovel millennia later? The characteristic traits of a skeptical theory are, first, it is always changing -- today Troy is here, tomorrow that very dig is proof there was no Troy, the next day Troy is over there -- and, second, it is always very proud of itself and proclaimed worldwide as an oracle against all other witnesses and conceptions. Wherever these two traits are found together -- and they usually are, if one has a proper attention span -- then they make modern "scientific" thought uniquely entertaining.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Jackson02

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,014
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2018, 04:33:15 PM »
I was wondering if the wars of 70 AD  and 132 AD could have destroyed a lot of archaeological evidence?
Thats a good question, Though the wars didn't take place near Nazareth so I wouldn't think so.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 04:33:48 PM by Jackson02 »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2018, 04:43:46 PM »
I was wondering if the wars of 70 AD  and 132 AD could have destroyed a lot of archaeological evidence?
Thats a good question, Though the wars didn't take place near Nazareth so I wouldn't think so.

Are you sure about that? Josephus reports the loss of 100,000 Galileans in the first action by Vespasian in 67. He marched south on Jerusalem soon after.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,818
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2018, 05:32:24 PM »
He also claimed that, when new c.a. 1st century structures were discovered in Nazareth and announced by the IAA (Israeli Antiquities Authority), it was clearly a hoax archaeological dig created in response to his book.
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2018, 09:42:25 PM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,817
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2018, 10:02:46 PM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 10:04:48 PM by augustin717 »
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2018, 10:34:39 PM »
It must not be that limited if the overwhelming majority of professional academic historians accept his historical existence.

Scholar and historian, Bart Ehrman, writes, 

Quote
"He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" - B. Ehrman, 2011, Forged: Writing in the name of God, p.285

Further, historian and New Testament scholar, James D.G. Dunn, notes,

Quote
"Two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent... One is Jesus' baptism by John. The other is his death by crucifixion. Because they rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of his historical 'facts', they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission." - James Dunn, 2003, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, p.339

« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 10:37:55 PM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2018, 11:19:32 PM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.

If you call a matter of four biographies, a score of contemporary letters, and a following that rapidly grew and ultimately became the largest in the history of the world "scant" then you have greater difficulties in your thinking than simply being wedded to an academic movement a hundred years obsolete.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,817
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2018, 11:24:53 PM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.

If you call a matter of four biographies, a score of contemporary letters, and a following that rapidly grew and ultimately became the largest in the history of the world "scant" then you have greater difficulties in your thinking than simply being wedded to an academic movement a hundred years obsolete.
the four biographies are actually only two (or one if John knew the Synoptics which some think he did ) and they aren't biographies. At least it's a debatable matter what litterary genre the gospels belong to . Then the letters don't care about biographical info dismissing the desire to want to know Christ according to the flesh iirc.  Once you l
Get rid of some deeply ingrained cultural reflexes what seemed solid rock becomes sand dunes.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2018, 11:43:48 PM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.

If you call a matter of four biographies, a score of contemporary letters, and a following that rapidly grew and ultimately became the largest in the history of the world "scant" then you have greater difficulties in your thinking than simply being wedded to an academic movement a hundred years obsolete.
the four biographies are actually only two (or one if John knew the Synoptics which some think he did ) and they aren't biographies.

Then what you were trying to say was not that history of Christ is "scant" but that you feel able to oppose it, in all its abundance, by dismissive pseudo-intellectual means.


Quote
Then the letters don't care about biographical info dismissing the desire to want to know Christ according to the flesh iirc.

Well this is flatly false. (St. Paul: "Called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God concerning his son Christ Jesus our Lord who was made the seed of David according to the flesh"; St. John: "Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life.") Not that an outright falsehood is really worse than a convoluted one. Just more insulting.

Quote
Once you get rid of some deeply ingrained cultural reflexes what seemed solid rock becomes sand dunes.

You describe cultural and mental suicide and yet marvel that others would express concern for your condition.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,817
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2018, 11:49:56 PM »
I take it you think Philo's Life of Moses or Plutarch's Life of Romulus are biographies too.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2018, 11:54:06 PM »
I take it you think Philo's Life of Moses or Plutarch's Life of Romulus are biographies too.

For a man who prides himself on speaking forthrightly out of turn, you do sink repeatedly to begging the question.

Take a break, get some rest. You can fight God again in the morning.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,817
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2018, 11:54:19 PM »
And the Epistle of Jesus Christ is just what it says it is. A letter mailed from heavens.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 11:56:11 PM by augustin717 »
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2018, 11:54:57 PM »
Maybe have a whiskey and a massage from a loved one. You know, recuperate.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2018, 01:11:44 AM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.

If you call a matter of four biographies, a score of contemporary letters, and a following that rapidly grew and ultimately became the largest in the history of the world "scant" then you have greater difficulties in your thinking than simply being wedded to an academic movement a hundred years obsolete.
the four biographies are actually only two (or one if John knew the Synoptics which some think he did ) and they aren't biographies. At least it's a debatable matter what litterary genre the gospels belong to . Then the letters don't care about biographical info dismissing the desire to want to know Christ according to the flesh iirc.  Once you l
Get rid of some deeply ingrained cultural reflexes what seemed solid rock becomes sand dunes.

We have Q, Mark, and John. Three independent sources. (Q wasn't exactly a biography, but it contained many sayings embedded in oral tradition, and many which are no doubt authentic.) The Gospels are considered close to other Greco-Roman biographies, this doesn't negate the fact that the Gospels aren't without their own theologies. It's clear that each of the Gospel writers, particularity John, had a theological agenda. Yet at the same time, much authentic material can be drawn from them, especially in regards to the teachings of Jesus concerning the Kingdom. Scholars have been able to paint a good overall pictures of who Jesus was and what he was doing based primarily on the 1st century literature that we have, using the Gospels in particular.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 01:20:38 AM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,818
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2018, 01:14:51 AM »
thread just died
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2018, 01:30:22 AM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.

If you call a matter of four biographies, a score of contemporary letters, and a following that rapidly grew and ultimately became the largest in the history of the world "scant" then you have greater difficulties in your thinking than simply being wedded to an academic movement a hundred years obsolete.
the four biographies are actually only two (or one if John knew the Synoptics which some think he did ) and they aren't biographies. At least it's a debatable matter what litterary genre the gospels belong to . Then the letters don't care about biographical info dismissing the desire to want to know Christ according to the flesh iirc.  Once you l
Get rid of some deeply ingrained cultural reflexes what seemed solid rock becomes sand dunes.

We have Q, Mark, and John. Three independent sources. (Q wasn't exactly a biography, but it contained many sayings embedded in oral tradition, and many which are no doubt authentic.) The Gospels are considered close to other Greco-Roman biographies, this doesn't negate the fact that the Gospels aren't without their own theologies. It's clear that each of the Gospel writers, particularity John, had a theological agenda. Yet at the same time, much authentic material can be drawn from them, especially in regards to the teachings of Jesus concerning the Kingdom. Scholars have been able to paint a good overall pictures of who Jesus was and what he was doing based primarily on the 1st century literature that we have, using the Gospels in particular.

No, we have four Gospels composed by four Evangelists contemporaries of the Lord, all but one also his close companion. Perhaps open them sometime. Perhaps do bodily obeisance to them sometimes, and to the icons of their holy, and honest, authors. Perhaps prepare to meet them personally someday in heaven, as well as there to prostrate yourself before their subject as Eternal King.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 01:32:11 AM by Porter ODoran »
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2018, 01:53:33 AM »
I notice one of the other supporting scholars is Robert M Price, the noted Lovecraft scholar (not especially known for his archaeology, though).

Robert Price is a joke, few scholars take him seriously.
that might be so but the historical traces the Lord left of his incarnation are really thin and scant. And he's pointing that out -not the first one-  attracting the ire of apologists and conservative scholars.

If you call a matter of four biographies, a score of contemporary letters, and a following that rapidly grew and ultimately became the largest in the history of the world "scant" then you have greater difficulties in your thinking than simply being wedded to an academic movement a hundred years obsolete.
the four biographies are actually only two (or one if John knew the Synoptics which some think he did ) and they aren't biographies. At least it's a debatable matter what litterary genre the gospels belong to . Then the letters don't care about biographical info dismissing the desire to want to know Christ according to the flesh iirc.  Once you l
Get rid of some deeply ingrained cultural reflexes what seemed solid rock becomes sand dunes.

We have Q, Mark, and John. Three independent sources. (Q wasn't exactly a biography, but it contained many sayings embedded in oral tradition, and many which are no doubt authentic.) The Gospels are considered close to other Greco-Roman biographies, this doesn't negate the fact that the Gospels aren't without their own theologies. It's clear that each of the Gospel writers, particularity John, had a theological agenda. Yet at the same time, much authentic material can be drawn from them, especially in regards to the teachings of Jesus concerning the Kingdom. Scholars have been able to paint a good overall pictures of who Jesus was and what he was doing based primarily on the 1st century literature that we have, using the Gospels in particular.

No, we have four Gospels composed by four Evangelists contemporaries of the Lord, all but one also his close companion. Perhaps open them sometime. Perhaps do bodily obeisance to them sometimes, and to the icons of their holy, and honest, authors. Perhaps prepare to meet them personally someday in heaven, as well as there to prostrate yourself before their subject as Eternal King.

I'm approaching this from a general scholarly point of view. It's generally agreed among New Testament scholars that Mark was the first Gospel written (around 68 to 70 A.D.), probably to a gentile community in Rome. Matthew and Luke (around 80 - 85 A.D.) drew material from Mark and combined it with the hypothetical Q source. The Q source is thought to have been a "sayings Gospel" containing three layers of sayings known as "logion", most of which were derived from oral tradition.  Scholars have actually been able to reconstruct Q with a fair amount of confidence. Then we have the Gospel of John ( around 90 - 95 A.D.) written by a community in the middle of separating from the synagogue. It is both independent of the Synoptics and Q, though the author probably knew the Synoptics, and while it is generally a theological Gospel, there are many great historical insights we find in John. The community that wrote it seems to have gotten their source for the Gospel of John from the "beloved disciple" himself (tradition says it's John) or those closely connected with him. The research conducted it utterly fascinating.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 02:04:39 AM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2018, 02:27:20 AM »
It's not "research" and it is the work begun by Enlightenment-era sophists, enemies of the Lord. That's the stark reality. And at some point, I think even a goodhearted naif such as you seem to be has to "choose you this day whom ye will serve."

I did mean to clarify that this bit of your previous post -- the Gospels are in the model of Greco-Roman biography, are not without theological frameworks -- I guess this paraphrase is enough -- was sound in my opinion. But any models of criticism that can be analysed as rooted in the a priori assumptions put forward ca. 1700 -- that the Gospels are late amalgams of barbarous Semitic superstition, or are fruits of competing Jewish mystery and reform movements, or are devious works of ecclesiastical intrigue, etc. ad nauseam, i.e., all models touted by the mainstream academy, at least of which I'm aware, in spite of how coy about or perhaps sincerely naive of such roots departments nowadays may be, can only be rejected by an ingenuous Christian as the slander they actually are.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2018, 02:54:19 AM »
It's not "research" and it is the work begun by Enlightenment-era sophists, enemies of the Lord. That's the stark reality. And at some point, I think even a goodhearted naif such as you seem to be has to "choose you this day whom ye will serve."

I did mean to clarify that this bit of your previous post -- the Gospels are in the model of Greco-Roman biography, are not without theological frameworks -- I guess this paraphrase is enough -- was sound in my opinion. But any models of criticism that can be analysed as rooted in the a priori assumptions put forward ca. 1700 -- that the Gospels are late amalgams of barbarous Semitic superstition, or are fruits of competing Jewish mystery and reform movements, or are devious works of ecclesiastical intrigue, etc. ad nauseam, i.e., all models touted by the mainstream academy, at least of which I'm aware, in spite of how coy about or perhaps sincerely naive of such roots departments nowadays may be, can only be rejected by an ingenuous Christian as the slander they actually are.

You misunderstand the entire discipline. The goal is not to dismiss the Gospels as "Semitic superstitions" or as "Jewish mystery" works. New Testament scholars apply virtually all the same methods of research to the New Testament and early Christianity as they would any other historical object that can be examined. Biblical criticism is also an ever changing dynamic and isn't rooted in a single ideological camp. You're making too many presumptions about the discipline. Critics may lean many different ways, and indeed, a large portion of critics, if not most, are Christians. This doesn't negate there being generally accepted elements among scholars such as with the two source hypothesis, the existence of Jesus, the reality of the apostles having what they believed to be experiences of the risen Jesus, etc. Scholars on all sides of the spectrum usually accept these because they all conform best to the standard models of historical research and judgment whereas other theories don't hold up as well under the lens of investigation.   

Perhaps you'd like to see the scholarly research on the resurrection of Jesus? I will tell you that trends are very favorable towards it, though, since history deals with the realm of the natural, it cannot make the grand lead of either affirming or denying it, it can only look at and present the evidence. The rest is up to you. Here you go:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 03:03:34 AM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #33 on: January 07, 2018, 03:33:24 AM »
It's not "research" and it is the work begun by Enlightenment-era sophists, enemies of the Lord. That's the stark reality. And at some point, I think even a goodhearted naif such as you seem to be has to "choose you this day whom ye will serve."

I did mean to clarify that this bit of your previous post -- the Gospels are in the model of Greco-Roman biography, are not without theological frameworks -- I guess this paraphrase is enough -- was sound in my opinion. But any models of criticism that can be analysed as rooted in the a priori assumptions put forward ca. 1700 -- that the Gospels are late amalgams of barbarous Semitic superstition, or are fruits of competing Jewish mystery and reform movements, or are devious works of ecclesiastical intrigue, etc. ad nauseam, i.e., all models touted by the mainstream academy, at least of which I'm aware, in spite of how coy about or perhaps sincerely naive of such roots departments nowadays may be, can only be rejected by an ingenuous Christian as the slander they actually are.

You misunderstand the entire discipline. The goal is not to dismiss the Gospels as "Semitic superstitions" or as "Jewish mystery" works. New Testament scholars apply virtually all the same methods of research to the New Testament and early Christianity as they would any other historical object that can be examined. Biblical criticism is also an ever changing dynamic and isn't rooted in a single ideological camp. You're making too many presumptions about the discipline. Critics may lean many different ways, and indeed, a large portion of critics, if not most, are Christians. This doesn't negate there being generally accepted elements among scholars such as with the two source hypothesis, the existence of Jesus, the reality of the apostles having what they believed to be experiences of the risen Jesus, etc. Scholars on all sides of the spectrum usually accept these because they all conform best to the standard models of historical research and judgment whereas other theories don't hold up as well under the lens of investigation.   

Perhaps you'd like to see the scholarly research on the resurrection of Jesus? I will tell you that trends are very favorable towards it, though, since history deals with the realm of the natural, it cannot make the grand lead of either affirming or denying it, it can only look at and present the evidence. The rest is up to you. Here you go:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

I'm not unaware that you take a normal stance. This isn't about personalities, or times and mores, but about the truth. I'm certainly not opposed to your good-natured way of, as you suppose, educating others. But it remains that you -- as is normal -- are profoundly naive in this area and profoundly unaware of the disrespect you do to God by supporting his enemies, i.e., not persons so much as the world of fraudulent assertions in which persons can be, however, certainly implicated. The truth is simple and cannot be opposed: The Christ of the Gospels is the Son of God, the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the Gospels are not the work of any well-intentioned or evilly-intentioned conspiracy, are not the product of ignorance or speculation, are not susceptible to pretended criticism of any variety; and the truth they comprise is truth by any description, mundane or eternal. Conversely: that the scholarship is overreaching at best, perjuriously claims tools it does not have, functions a priori altho it assiduously conceals this as a priori speculation is precisely what is out of favor; is rooted directly in the anti-Semitism and anti-ecclesiasticism of the early modern academy, an openly belligerent age; has no care for the things of God or the needs of man, i.e., (since you will say this is a secular virtue) would never think if it acts injuriously. As an aside, I'd thank you not to address me as you just did as some poor soul in need of intellectual salvation, whom a webpage can cure. I am more serious about this than, I imagine, you have been about anything in your life. So I commend you and anyone else reading to pause and breathe whatever different air my few words have been able to bring to the thread -- perhaps the change in air will do you some good, if not now, in due season.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2018, 03:54:02 AM »
It's not "research" and it is the work begun by Enlightenment-era sophists, enemies of the Lord. That's the stark reality. And at some point, I think even a goodhearted naif such as you seem to be has to "choose you this day whom ye will serve."

I did mean to clarify that this bit of your previous post -- the Gospels are in the model of Greco-Roman biography, are not without theological frameworks -- I guess this paraphrase is enough -- was sound in my opinion. But any models of criticism that can be analysed as rooted in the a priori assumptions put forward ca. 1700 -- that the Gospels are late amalgams of barbarous Semitic superstition, or are fruits of competing Jewish mystery and reform movements, or are devious works of ecclesiastical intrigue, etc. ad nauseam, i.e., all models touted by the mainstream academy, at least of which I'm aware, in spite of how coy about or perhaps sincerely naive of such roots departments nowadays may be, can only be rejected by an ingenuous Christian as the slander they actually are.

You misunderstand the entire discipline. The goal is not to dismiss the Gospels as "Semitic superstitions" or as "Jewish mystery" works. New Testament scholars apply virtually all the same methods of research to the New Testament and early Christianity as they would any other historical object that can be examined. Biblical criticism is also an ever changing dynamic and isn't rooted in a single ideological camp. You're making too many presumptions about the discipline. Critics may lean many different ways, and indeed, a large portion of critics, if not most, are Christians. This doesn't negate there being generally accepted elements among scholars such as with the two source hypothesis, the existence of Jesus, the reality of the apostles having what they believed to be experiences of the risen Jesus, etc. Scholars on all sides of the spectrum usually accept these because they all conform best to the standard models of historical research and judgment whereas other theories don't hold up as well under the lens of investigation.   

Perhaps you'd like to see the scholarly research on the resurrection of Jesus? I will tell you that trends are very favorable towards it, though, since history deals with the realm of the natural, it cannot make the grand lead of either affirming or denying it, it can only look at and present the evidence. The rest is up to you. Here you go:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

I'm not unaware that you take a normal stance. This isn't about personalities, or times and mores, but about the truth. I'm certainly not opposed to your good-natured way of, as you suppose, educating others. But it remains that you -- as is normal -- are profoundly naive in this area and profoundly unaware of the disrespect you do to God by supporting his enemies, i.e., not persons so much as the world of fraudulent assertions in which persons can be, however, certainly implicated. The truth is simple and cannot be opposed: The Christ of the Gospels is the Son of God, the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the Gospels are not the work of any well-intentioned or evilly-intentioned conspiracy, are not the product of ignorance or speculation, are not susceptible to pretended criticism of any variety; and the truth they comprise is truth by any description, mundane or eternal. Conversely: that the scholarship is overreaching at best, perjuriously claims tools it does not have, functions a priori altho it assiduously conceals this as a priori speculation is precisely what is out of favor; is rooted directly in the anti-Semitism and anti-ecclesiasticism of the early modern academy, an openly belligerent age; has no care for the things of God or the needs of man, i.e., (since you will say this is a secular virtue) would never think if it acts injuriously. As an aside, I'd thank you not to address me as you just did as some poor soul in need of intellectual salvation, whom a webpage can cure. I am more serious about this than, I imagine, you have been about anything in your life. So I commend you and anyone else reading to pause and breathe whatever different air my few words have been able to bring to the thread -- perhaps the change in air will do you some good, if not now, in due season.

I'm naive? Have you even considered anything I wrote? It looks like you did not, as you continue in your quick judgments and baseless presumptions.

What it looks like you're trying to do is incite fear. But I will tell you that I have found great faith and truth in this. Your opinion is your opinion though. Just remember that there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 04:00:04 AM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #35 on: January 07, 2018, 04:43:23 AM »
It's not "research" and it is the work begun by Enlightenment-era sophists, enemies of the Lord. That's the stark reality. And at some point, I think even a goodhearted naif such as you seem to be has to "choose you this day whom ye will serve."

I did mean to clarify that this bit of your previous post -- the Gospels are in the model of Greco-Roman biography, are not without theological frameworks -- I guess this paraphrase is enough -- was sound in my opinion. But any models of criticism that can be analysed as rooted in the a priori assumptions put forward ca. 1700 -- that the Gospels are late amalgams of barbarous Semitic superstition, or are fruits of competing Jewish mystery and reform movements, or are devious works of ecclesiastical intrigue, etc. ad nauseam, i.e., all models touted by the mainstream academy, at least of which I'm aware, in spite of how coy about or perhaps sincerely naive of such roots departments nowadays may be, can only be rejected by an ingenuous Christian as the slander they actually are.

You misunderstand the entire discipline. The goal is not to dismiss the Gospels as "Semitic superstitions" or as "Jewish mystery" works. New Testament scholars apply virtually all the same methods of research to the New Testament and early Christianity as they would any other historical object that can be examined. Biblical criticism is also an ever changing dynamic and isn't rooted in a single ideological camp. You're making too many presumptions about the discipline. Critics may lean many different ways, and indeed, a large portion of critics, if not most, are Christians. This doesn't negate there being generally accepted elements among scholars such as with the two source hypothesis, the existence of Jesus, the reality of the apostles having what they believed to be experiences of the risen Jesus, etc. Scholars on all sides of the spectrum usually accept these because they all conform best to the standard models of historical research and judgment whereas other theories don't hold up as well under the lens of investigation.   

Perhaps you'd like to see the scholarly research on the resurrection of Jesus? I will tell you that trends are very favorable towards it, though, since history deals with the realm of the natural, it cannot make the grand lead of either affirming or denying it, it can only look at and present the evidence. The rest is up to you. Here you go:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

I'm not unaware that you take a normal stance. This isn't about personalities, or times and mores, but about the truth. I'm certainly not opposed to your good-natured way of, as you suppose, educating others. But it remains that you -- as is normal -- are profoundly naive in this area and profoundly unaware of the disrespect you do to God by supporting his enemies, i.e., not persons so much as the world of fraudulent assertions in which persons can be, however, certainly implicated. The truth is simple and cannot be opposed: The Christ of the Gospels is the Son of God, the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the Gospels are not the work of any well-intentioned or evilly-intentioned conspiracy, are not the product of ignorance or speculation, are not susceptible to pretended criticism of any variety; and the truth they comprise is truth by any description, mundane or eternal. Conversely: that the scholarship is overreaching at best, perjuriously claims tools it does not have, functions a priori altho it assiduously conceals this as a priori speculation is precisely what is out of favor; is rooted directly in the anti-Semitism and anti-ecclesiasticism of the early modern academy, an openly belligerent age; has no care for the things of God or the needs of man, i.e., (since you will say this is a secular virtue) would never think if it acts injuriously. As an aside, I'd thank you not to address me as you just did as some poor soul in need of intellectual salvation, whom a webpage can cure. I am more serious about this than, I imagine, you have been about anything in your life. So I commend you and anyone else reading to pause and breathe whatever different air my few words have been able to bring to the thread -- perhaps the change in air will do you some good, if not now, in due season.

I'm naive? Have you even considered anything I wrote? It looks like you did not, as you continue in your quick judgments and baseless presumptions.

What it looks like you're trying to do is incite fear. But I will tell you that I have found great faith and truth in this. Your opinion is your opinion though. Just remember that there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light.

1. Why is this suddenly personal?

2. Why do you think I am ignorant of the basic academics you've offered here? Have I said I'm ignorant? Don't you think most people with an interest in scriptural studies know these things?

3. "Incite fear" of what? What on earth could you be talking about? Fear of God? Fear that the ghost of Tischendorf will rise to avenge his reputation?

4. You have found "great faith and truth in" what? This you really have to explain. If the plain belief in the Gospels is fear, and great faith and truth is anywhere else, well, I have to assume you know not of what you speak. Lord, have mercy.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Isaiah53IsMessiah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #36 on: January 07, 2018, 08:47:55 PM »
Quote
1. Why is this suddenly personal?

You made it personal with name calling and denunciation.

Quote
2. Why do you think I am ignorant of the basic academics you've offered here? Have I said I'm ignorant? Don't you think most people with an interest in scriptural studies know these things?

You clearly are ignorant. You've addressed nothing of point, all you've done is denounce the discipline.

Quote
3. "Incite fear" of what? What on earth could you be talking about? Fear of God? Fear that the ghost of Tischendorf will rise to avenge his reputation?

Your calling practitioners of this discipline "enemies of God" when it's clear you're just trying to instill fear.

Quote
4. You have found "great faith and truth in" what? This you really have to explain. If the plain belief in the Gospels is fear, and great faith and truth is anywhere else, well, I have to assume you know not of what you speak. Lord, have mercy.

The fact that you can't even wrap your mind around me finding great faith in my investigation of this proves your ignorance.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 08:48:53 PM by Isaiah53IsMessiah »

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,817
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #37 on: January 07, 2018, 10:12:51 PM »
4. You have found "great faith and truth in" what? This you really have to explain. If the plain belief in the Gospels is fear, and great faith and truth is anywhere else, well, I have to assume you know not of what you speak. Lord, have mercy.
####
Back to battling God 😜.
Experience says that most certainly yes.  Most people reading the Bible devotionally are unaware of any serious  issues with it or criticism .  I wasn't terribly interested in the Bible as a believer it I still had a better grasp of it on an anecdotal level than most of my peers, and even though I was vaguely aware of some criticism of it, I had no interest in that whatsoever .
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #38 on: January 07, 2018, 10:15:08 PM »

No, I have not called you names, I am not ignorant of the subject, and I have said nothing fearful.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2018, 10:20:54 PM »
4. You have found "great faith and truth in" what? This you really have to explain. If the plain belief in the Gospels is fear, and great faith and truth is anywhere else, well, I have to assume you know not of what you speak. Lord, have mercy.
####
Back to battling God 😜.
Experience says that most certainly yes.  Most people reading the Bible devotionally are unaware of any serious  issues with it or criticism .  I wasn't terribly interested in the Bible as a believer it I still had a better grasp of it on an anecdotal level than most of my peers, and even though I was vaguely aware of some criticism of it, I had no interest in that whatsoever .

If as you say -- and I agree -- most people reading the scriptures -- and, mind you, diligent readers, as you're implying yourself to have been -- yet remain unaware that the Gospels have deep textual problems, then the simplest explanation is that this is because they don't.

There's also an idea here in your post that matches Isaiah53's unfortunate idea, that you are somehow the only Orthodox to know about the higher criticism. As I told him, I'll tell you: many people have learnt the present state and history of the scholarship, in college and on their own -- indeed, it's quite common for someone to have learnt these things. I would excuse your ignorance of this as a normal if slightly egotistical naivete, except for the fact that you both seem in my case to have decided my ignorance a priori on no greater basis than that my conclusions differ from yours. How sad.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
  • Sink me, I can hardly bring myself to look upon it
Re: Nazareth and archeology
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2018, 11:20:52 PM »
I dunno. You've also mentioned you extensive career as a nursing home aide. Maybe that's what led them to "decide your ignorance," whatever that means.


4. You have found "great faith and truth in" what? This you really have to explain. If the plain belief in the Gospels is fear, and great faith and truth is anywhere else, well, I have to assume you know not of what you speak. Lord, have mercy.
####
Back to battling God 😜.
Experience says that most certainly yes.  Most people reading the Bible devotionally are unaware of any serious  issues with it or criticism .  I wasn't terribly interested in the Bible as a believer it I still had a better grasp of it on an anecdotal level than most of my peers, and even though I was vaguely aware of some criticism of it, I had no interest in that whatsoever .

If as you say -- and I agree -- most people reading the scriptures -- and, mind you, diligent readers, as you're implying yourself to have been -- yet remain unaware that the Gospels have deep textual problems, then the simplest explanation is that this is because they don't.

There's also an idea here in your post that matches Isaiah53's unfortunate idea, that you are somehow the only Orthodox to know about the higher criticism. As I told him, I'll tell you: many people have learnt the present state and history of the scholarship, in college and on their own -- indeed, it's quite common for someone to have learnt these things. I would excuse your ignorance of this as a normal if slightly egotistical naivete, except for the fact that you both seem in my case to have decided my ignorance a priori on no greater basis than that my conclusions differ from yours. How sad.