Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

[Hakurei Reimu]

Ah, yes, the homestead of Nazareth. Very convincing. Oh wait. It isn't.

A single house does not a city, town, or even a village make. People certainly settled in the Nazareth region long before a town was founded. Indeed, that people settled in the region was the reason there would be a town to begin with.

Find something like what we found at Hisarlik dated to the right period, and you might have a case:



And keep in mind, the Hisarlik site is for a city that is thousands of years older than Jesus's Nazareth.

[LittleNipper]

Ah, yes, the homestead of Nazareth. Very convincing. Oh wait. It isn't.

A single house does not a city, town, or even a village make. People certainly settled in the Nazareth region long before a town was founded. Indeed, that people settled in the region was the reason there would be a town to begin with.

Find something like what we found at Hisarlik dated to the right period, and you might have a case:



And keep in mind, the Hisarlik site is for a city that is thousands of years older than Jesus's Nazareth.

Philadelphia is many hundreds of years older than me. SO?   Nazareth was a little nothing of a town (if that). It was not the education capital of the world. It wasn't a cultural or artistic mecca. It was a poor likely rundown area. And Christ was born in a stable in Bethlehem. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

[Baruch]

What is shocking is that the NT never mentions the two largest towns in the area, both within walking distance ... Sepphoris and Tiberias.  The majority of the population of Galilee were in those two towns ... wasn't that an opportunity for preaching, better than a little fishing town like Capernaum?

[Mike Cl]

Right...
Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?

28 May, 2012 â€"27 Comments


Nazareth house

Not so very long ago, many internet critics of Christianity were pointing out that there was no archaeological evidence of settlements at Bethlehem and Nazareth in the first century. This demonstrates, they said, despite the fact that few scholars agreed with them, that these towns didn’t exist, and that therefore the Bible accounts are not historical.

But three years later the situation has changed.

Nazareth

Until a few years ago, the only archaeological evidence for Nazareth amounted to little more than the remains of a winepress, a few tombs and a few artifacts. However in December 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority issued a press release announcing that a house in Nazareth (see photo above) had now been excavated and had been found to contain artifacts from the “early Roman period” (first and second centuries). The archaeologists also found a pit hewn out of stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as protection during the Jewish revolt of 67 CE.

This was seen by the Authority and others (The Guardian and the Huffington Post) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the first century. Based on the number of tombs found previously, they conclude that it was a small hamlet of about 50 houses.

Those who believe Nazareth didn’t exist have adjusted to this evidence, and tend to denigrate it as “sensationalist” (Nazareth: the town that theology built), or argue that the evidence doesn’t relate to the exact period of Jesus’ life, but several decades later (nazarethmyth.info). Nevertheless, scholars, who generally didn’t doubt that Nazareth existed as a small village, have been reinforced in their conclusions.

Bethlehem

There was even less archaeological evidence for Bethlehem â€" virtually nothing before the fourth century â€" giving sceptics even more basis for their arguments that this showed the unreliability of the New Testament. But that has changed slightly in the past few weeks.

Bethlehem bulla

Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that archaeologists working in the city of David area of Jerusalem had discovered a small (1.5 cm) ‘bulla’ (see photo), a piece of clay used to make an impression in wax, sealing a document so it couldn’t be altered. This small bulla apparently accompanied a delivery of goods to the king of Judah about 7 centuries BCE, and identifies that the shipment was despatched from Bethlehem.

This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven centuries before Jesus, the first independent corroboration of the Bible’s references to the town. This doesn’t prove it existed in Jesus’ day also, but if it was there 700 years before and 400 years afterwards, it suggests that it probably did indeed exist at the time of Jesus (see report in the Los Angeles Times).

Cautionary tales

Scholars say that only a very small fraction of the artifacts of the time have ever been discovered, and no-one knows what discoveries are yet to come. This makes perilous any argument that a place doesn’t exist based on the lack of finds, and most scholars are cautious about making such claims.

Let me tell you a little story.  George Washington was clearly, a real live person.  And he was as honest as the day is long................and we know this from grade school.  He was so honest, from such an early age, that he could not keep from getting the blame of a chopped down cherry tree by lying about it.  He 'fessed right up.  Except that didn't happen.  Oh, he may have been honest, but the story was a made up story by a Paster Weems who had wanted to make a character study by using good old George.  I guess his intentions were okay--Character Counts is a good class, but why make stuff up.  So, that illustrates two things for me.  Just because a person really existed, does not mean every story about them is real.  One still needs to use critical thinking and good sources to evaluate what one reads or hears about a person or event.  And that christians are more intent upon the outcome than the journey there--in other words, the ends justify the means.  And for a good christian those means could easily consist of fibs/lies, cheating, stealing, fraud, or anything else on up to and including murder. 

The places of the bible are not so much of an importance as is the content that is supposed to deal with real people.  Fictional people are put into a real physical setting all the time.

[LittleNipper]

Let me tell you a little story.  George Washington was clearly, a real live person.  And he was as honest as the day is long................and we know this from grade school.  He was so honest, from such an early age, that he could not keep from getting the blame of a chopped down cherry tree by lying about it.  He 'fessed right up.  Except that didn't happen.  Oh, he may have been honest, but the story was a made up story by a Paster Weems who had wanted to make a character study by using good old George.  I guess his intentions were okay--Character Counts is a good class, but why make stuff up.  So, that illustrates two things for me.  Just because a person really existed, does not mean every story about them is real.  One still needs to use critical thinking and good sources to evaluate what one reads or hears about a person or event.  And that christians are more intent upon the outcome than the journey there--in other words, the ends justify the means.  And for a good christian those means could easily consist of fibs/lies, cheating, stealing, fraud, or anything else on up to and including murder. 

The places of the bible are not so much of an importance as is the content that is supposed to deal with real people.  Fictional people are put into a real physical setting all the time.

What about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
And http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm
And you may wish to consider this: http://untencm.com/apologetics/was-there-really-a-census-during-the-time-of-caesar-augustus/

[LittleNipper]

It may be astounding to most young people today that prior to the internet and computer files, hundreds of thousands upon millions of documents and artifacts were routinely simply thrown away, trashed, incinerated ---- etc. I know for a fact that the matrixes (original molds) to most of the National Phonograph Co. recording were simply thrown away and destroyed at a North New Jersey dump.  I know for a fact that the RCA Victor record achieves which were protected and mentioned and revered in the 1950's and on to the 1980's are largely unaccounted for today. It is feared that most of this valuable historical evidence of the early recorded history has been irretrievably lost.   

Now, you may say, what has this to do with anything? Well, if important facts were being thrown away only "yesterday" why would anyone be so insensitive to the fact that 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, year old information is scant to say the least!

If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.

[LittleNipper]

It may be astounding to most young people today that prior to the internet and computer files, hundreds of thousands upon millions of documents and artifacts were routinely simply thrown away, trashed, incinerated ---- etc. I know for a fact that the matrixes (original molds) to most of the National Phonograph Co. recording were simply thrown away and destroyed at a North New Jersey dump.  I know for a fact that the RCA Victor record achieves which were protected and mentioned and revered in the 1950's and on to the 1980's are largely unaccounted for today. It is feared that most of this valuable historical evidence of the early recorded history has been irretrievably lost.   

Goodness, I found out that all the records of my retired family doctor were entirely deposed of. This included dates of births, illnesses, examinations, complications, epidemics. I was told that most of the files were impossible to read and considered insignificant if not private. You will find that most documentation of students who once attended now closed schools, say even 40 years ago, has been lost!

Now, you may say, what has this to do with anything? Well, if important files and objects were being thrown away only "yesterday" why would anyone be so insensitive to the fact that 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, year old information is scant to say the least!

If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct --------- but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.

[Mike Cl]

If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.

Really????!  And you get to determine that?  In actual fact, it is up to nobody to 'prove' or 'disprove' the bible (oh, BTW, which one?????  There are many many more than just one.); more accurately, it is up to me and me alone to determine that.  And I have determined that by reading it and also reading  where the various parts of it came from, and who the various authors were and the documentation of how it came to be in it's present form(s).  It is a falsehood that there is "The Bible"--there never was.  It comes in many forms and variations.  One cannot be shown to be more accurate than the other.  So, apparently, you chose a version to deem to be "The Bible"--are there reasons why you chose that version? 

[reasonist]

Right...
Did Bethlehem and Nazareth exist in Jesus’ day?

28 May, 2012 â€"27 Comments


Nazareth house

Not so very long ago, many internet critics of Christianity were pointing out that there was no archaeological evidence of settlements at Bethlehem and Nazareth in the first century. This demonstrates, they said, despite the fact that few scholars agreed with them, that these towns didn’t exist, and that therefore the Bible accounts are not historical.

But three years later the situation has changed.

Nazareth

Until a few years ago, the only archaeological evidence for Nazareth amounted to little more than the remains of a winepress, a few tombs and a few artifacts. However in December 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority issued a press release announcing that a house in Nazareth (see photo above) had now been excavated and had been found to contain artifacts from the “early Roman period” (first and second centuries). The archaeologists also found a pit hewn out of stone with a concealed entrance, which they believe was constructed as protection during the Jewish revolt of 67 CE.

This was seen by the Authority and others (The Guardian and the Huffington Post) as conclusive evidence that Nazareth did indeed exist in the first century. Based on the number of tombs found previously, they conclude that it was a small hamlet of about 50 houses.

Those who believe Nazareth didn’t exist have adjusted to this evidence, and tend to denigrate it as “sensationalist” (Nazareth: the town that theology built), or argue that the evidence doesn’t relate to the exact period of Jesus’ life, but several decades later (nazarethmyth.info). Nevertheless, scholars, who generally didn’t doubt that Nazareth existed as a small village, have been reinforced in their conclusions.

Bethlehem

There was even less archaeological evidence for Bethlehem â€" virtually nothing before the fourth century â€" giving sceptics even more basis for their arguments that this showed the unreliability of the New Testament. But that has changed slightly in the past few weeks.

Bethlehem bulla

Recently the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that archaeologists working in the city of David area of Jerusalem had discovered a small (1.5 cm) ‘bulla’ (see photo), a piece of clay used to make an impression in wax, sealing a document so it couldn’t be altered. This small bulla apparently accompanied a delivery of goods to the king of Judah about 7 centuries BCE, and identifies that the shipment was despatched from Bethlehem.

This shows the existence of town named Bethlehem seven centuries before Jesus, the first independent corroboration of the Bible’s references to the town. This doesn’t prove it existed in Jesus’ day also, but if it was there 700 years before and 400 years afterwards, it suggests that it probably did indeed exist at the time of Jesus (see report in the Los Angeles Times).

Cautionary tales

Scholars say that only a very small fraction of the artifacts of the time have ever been discovered, and no-one knows what discoveries are yet to come. This makes perilous any argument that a place doesn’t exist based on the lack of finds, and most scholars are cautious about making such claims.

None of what you are stating makes any of the supernatural claims true. The provable fact is that the story of Jesus is identical to the story of Horus from 2,500 years earlier. The Egyptians meant all their fables to be nothing but mythically/spiritually/metaphorically. Only the early Christians took the story literally and mutilated  beautiful metaphors and poetry into a monotheistic nightmare. Jesus never existed in flesh and blood, neither did Horus, the sUn of God. Jesus is but the latest sun god. The truth lies in the Gnostic or Apocryphic gospels, which were excluded from the NT. And for a good reason, because they state exactly what I just wrote.

A really good book on the subject, which I quoted from before, is Tom Harpur's "The Pagan Christ". The author is a Rhodes scholar, Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the University of Toronto. I would say he knows what he is talking about. He is actually making a good case for Christianity but in a different context. If you read it, the question if Bethlehem or Nazareth existed during 'Jesus'/Horus' time is a complete non sequitur.

[widdershins]

...
If you do not wish to believe the Bible, it is really up to you to prove that what is documented there is not historically correct but realizing that the Bible you are attempting to discount is also an historical achieve worthy of any other ancient document you do accept.

No, it is not.  That is not even CLOSE to how it works.  If it were I could have you running in circles for the rest of your life proving that all the stupid things I claimed weren't true.  I would start by simply claiming there was a little troll-like creature which stood 2' 5" tall and inhabited the Amazon forest 85,000,000 years ago.  I just made that up, just now, but it's up to YOU to prove it.  And how, exactly, are you going to do that?  You can't find one and ask him to give you a deposition saying that he never existed.  You can't look for graves marked, "No 2' 5" troll-like creature lies here because they never existed".  You can't find ancient documents listing this creature and specifically claiming that I would make them up at some point in the future.  I didn't describe its exact location, behavior or anatomy, so you can't look for missing evidence where there should be some.  More to the point, you would be wasting your time because the claim is ridiculous.  It is NOT "up to me" to prove your beliefs are false.  You're the one claiming Jesus ran around casting magic spells left and right 2,000 years ago and all you have to do to prove it to me is cast a magic spell right now.  You don't have to show me Jesus, you don't have to introduce me to God, all you have to do is, say, grow back, an arm on an amputee.  That should do it for me.

Now, before you get all huffy about how God has nothing to prove to me and how miracles don't work that way, let me remind you, that's not what Jesus said.

Mark 16:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

He didn't say "these signs MAY accompany SOME of those who REALLY, REALLY believe and hold high up offices, and then only on the 5th Tuesday of the month in odd numbered years divisible by 17 when absolutely NO atheists are present..."  He said "And these signs WILL accompany THOSE WHO BELIEVE..."  You believe.  So show me the sings the Bible says WILL accompany you.  Cast a spell.  Go to the terminal ward of the nearest children's hospital right now and clean it out and I GUARANTEE YOU I will follow you to the ends of the Earth and hang on your every word.

Alternatively, you could simply either ignore this post or start making excuses for why you can't do what Jesus said you would be able to or how that's not what he meant.  Maybe it was a parable, huh?  Maybe he was talking about "spiritual" healing?  That's not what he said, but hey, whatever excuse gets you through the night with your beliefs intact.

As for proving the Bible isn't a "historical" document, no problem.  Show me ONE other document ANYWHERE which is both taken as historically accurate AND has copious claims of magical powers in it.  Just one.  Come up with just a single document about magical powers which is accepted as historical fact.  My proof that the Bible is not "historically correct" is that NO documents claiming magical powers are taken as "historically correct".  Not one.  And the Bible isn't special until that children's hospital is out of business.

[LittleNipper]

No, it is not.  That is not even CLOSE to how it works.  If it were I could have you running in circles for the rest of your life proving that all the stupid things I claimed weren't true.  I would start by simply claiming there was a little troll-like creature which stood 2' 5" tall and inhabited the Amazon forest 85,000,000 years ago.  I just made that up, just now, but it's up to YOU to prove it.  And how, exactly, are you going to do that?  You can't find one and ask him to give you a deposition saying that he never existed.  You can't look for graves marked, "No 2' 5" troll-like creature lies here because they never existed".  You can't find ancient documents listing this creature and specifically claiming that I would make them up at some point in the future.  I didn't describe its exact location, behavior or anatomy, so you can't look for missing evidence where there should be some.  More to the point, you would be wasting your time because the claim is ridiculous.  It is NOT "up to me" to prove your beliefs are false.  You're the one claiming Jesus ran around casting magic spells left and right 2,000 years ago and all you have to do to prove it to me is cast a magic spell right now.  You don't have to show me Jesus, you don't have to introduce me to God, all you have to do is, say, grow back, an arm on an amputee.  That should do it for me.

Now, before you get all huffy about how God has nothing to prove to me and how miracles don't work that way, let me remind you, that's not what Jesus said.

Mark 16:
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

He didn't say "these signs MAY accompany SOME of those who REALLY, REALLY believe and hold high up offices, and then only on the 5th Tuesday of the month in odd numbered years divisible by 17 when absolutely NO atheists are present..."  He said "And these signs WILL accompany THOSE WHO BELIEVE..."  You believe.  So show me the sings the Bible says WILL accompany you.  Cast a spell.  Go to the terminal ward of the nearest children's hospital right now and clean it out and I GUARANTEE YOU I will follow you to the ends of the Earth and hang on your every word.

Alternatively, you could simply either ignore this post or start making excuses for why you can't do what Jesus said you would be able to or how that's not what he meant.  Maybe it was a parable, huh?  Maybe he was talking about "spiritual" healing?  That's not what he said, but hey, whatever excuse gets you through the night with your beliefs intact.

As for proving the Bible isn't a "historical" document, no problem.  Show me ONE other document ANYWHERE which is both taken as historically accurate AND has copious claims of magical powers in it.  Just one.  Come up with just a single document about magical powers which is accepted as historical fact.  My proof that the Bible is not "historically correct" is that NO documents claiming magical powers are taken as "historically correct".  Not one.  And the Bible isn't special until that children's hospital is out of business.

Did you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible? The Bible is not a book of magic. It is a book of salvation and a wise pattern to live by.

[Mike Cl]

  Did you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible? The Bible is not a book of magic. It is a book of salvation and a wise pattern to live by.

Yes, at one time I thought that may be the case.  Then I read it.  And then I studied it even more deeply.  And my conclusion is that it is not a book at all, but a collection of essays.  Those essays were cobbled together by a group of people who had an agenda and it was not one of a spiritual nature.  Have you ever wondered why the NT was put into the order it is?  It is not by historical chronology.  It is not by facts.   It is not by the story, for the beginning is not at the beginning.  Why this particular order?  I don't have an answer, but only a guess.  It was for politics and control.  A simple experiment.  Read the NT in the order of the books chronological composition.  Read all of Paul's writings first.  Then Mark, Matthew, Luke/Acts and John--etc.  The impact is quite different.  But for a person of your conviction it would be a very difficult thing for you to do, I understand that.  But if you are sure of your faith, give it a shot.

[Hydra009]

Did you ever think that there is no other "religious" document that is equal with the Bible?

Yes.  Literally all of them.  Legendary figures.  Supernatural powers.  Miraculous events.  The main difference between my beliefs and yours if that I don't look at them and think that one book is special.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Philadelphia is many hundreds of years older than me. SO?   Nazareth was a little nothing of a town (if that). It was not the education capital of the world. It wasn't a cultural or artistic mecca. It was a poor likely rundown area. And Christ was born in a stable in Bethlehem. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Hisarlik's only claim to fame was that it may have been the site of Homer's Troy. Troy was not a cultural or artistic mecca either, nor was it the educational capital of the world â€" it was a well-off satellite state of the Hittites. It (and the Illiad) was thought a myth until Schliemann dug it up. Yet there it is, in among the rubble that entombed it, after Greeks and other invaders did their level best to wipe it from the map. It was clearly a city â€" in fact, a whole succession of cities of a thousand years of near-consistent settlement.

It is a site even older and even more obscure than Nazareth, yet it survived the thousands of years to be dug up at the dawn of archeology.

What archeologists have found at your Nazareth is a house. One. Singular. If your Nazareth was a town like you claim, there should be other ruins located quite close to this house, at least as well-preserved as Hisarlik.

[leo]

They will---- once Christ returns along with the raptured CHURCH after the 7 years of Tribulation. The Jews will fully understand that Jesus is the Messiah and the entire world will be under Christ's rule for 1000 years. Christ will fulfill the Davidic promise as the heir to the throne.

I want some of what you are smoking. Seriously Jesus will never fulfill the " Davidic " promise because Jesus isn't the jewish Messiah. Tribal affiliation is determined by the father side according to the Bible and the new testament claims Jesus never  has a human father. The new testament genealogy  is ridiculous. Joseph "davidic" ancestry is irrevelant because he wasn't the father of Jesus.  Old testament prophecies about " Jesus " are mostly based in mistranslations.  The Isaiah " prophecy " about virgin birth is horseshit.  The original Hebrew Text says young woman and it's mistranslated virgin in the Christian Bibles.  The suffering servant songs in Isaiah  are NOT about Jesus. It's actually about the nation of Israel.  Infact in the previous Isaiah chapters ( previous Isaiah 53 ) Israel is identified as the suffering servant several times.  According to Judaism Jesus isn't the Messiah because he never fulfilled a single prophecy: A) There isn't world peace .B) There isn't universal and direct  knowledge of the  Israel god. Most people are debating the existence of god and atheists are winning the debate by the way. C) There isn't resurrection of the death. D) In the messianic era the third temple will be build and what about the ingathering of Israel ? In the messianic era all jews will return to Israel.   The concept of the second coming is horseshit. The jewish messiah is supposed to accomplish everything in one coming.  Also the jewish Messiah will  be married and have offspring.  I don't believe in Judaism but I can understand why the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah.