1101. Comment #52781 by Quetzalcoatl on June 28, 2007 at 4:21 am

Got it, thanks Billy. Will try to pop over there later.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1102. Comment #53037 by LeeC on June 29, 2007 at 3:57 am

Hi Philip,

Simple thing would have been to allow the carnivorous animals to feed on the dead in the other boats! hehehehe

But I have now been told they were all vegetarians – even those with their big pointy teeth?

I have been following that Alistair McGrath thread, I stopped posting on it after I could not get my head around what exactly Dianelos's god actually is and what he believes in, very interesting though

I've now been over there and read Dianelo's comments…just posted a reply, not sure how well I did, I think it is a clear case of too much Matrix, Star Trek and other rubbish.

I bet also Dianelo changes his(?) worldview more times then his underpants.

Time will tell, I will give it a go for a while.

It is all good fun after all.

Oh well, I hope Theo and Mark return to this as I really have enjoyed this thread a lot, heck, I am even starting to learn stuff!

I agree, I'm getting bored… I tried the forum for a while, but this is just like drinking aftershave instead of single malt whiskey.

I'm not addicted by the way... I can stop.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1103. Comment #55375 by dkreller on July 10, 2007 at 9:56 pm

I have the feeling that the issue that underlies your first question, i.e. about something coming from nothing, is about the improbability of the universe. I totally agree with you that it is very hard for us to understand where the universe may have come from. However, if we want an answer to the meaning of the universe that satisfies our apparent need for probability, do you really think the best answer is by imagining that some great omni-powerful being must be behind it? That is making the matter even worse. A great omni-potent being is infinitely improbable. And if there is one, well, there's no way it will (or could) let itself be known to us, and it does not affect anything in the realm of the tangible and empirical, i.e. measurable.

Similarly, if someone asserts that everything has to be designed, then the question has to be addressed 'who designed the designer?'. It is a great circular argument, like being on a circle, that of course has no beginning and no end.

You should simply read the God Delusion. Keep it hidden from your friends if you don't want anyone to know about your possession of the book. It really is very clearly written and addresses all of your questions. If you read it and don't find any redeeming value in it, or don't find that it makes any of these great issues any more clear, I will buy it from you myself.

Other Comments by dkreller

1104. Comment #55433 by Mark Taunton on July 11, 2007 at 4:54 am

To drkeller:
I'm not sure to whom or which comment you're responding - it doesn't seem to be any of those on this page (26) of the thread. Nevertheless I'll pick up a couple of your points.

You say an omnipotent being is infinitely improbable. How do you know that? What is the basis of "absolute probability" on which you make such an assertion?

Similarly for your other statements implying that you - a finite, non-omniscient, non-omnipotent being - know necessary attributes of such a (to you, hypothetical and nonexistent) omnipotent being, such as that it could not let itself be known to us. How do you know? on what basis?

Are you not reaching for or claiming omniscience for yourself, in making such assertions?


To everyone:
Yes, I'm back, and plan shortly to explain what has kept me away for so long. I won't do so in this message - I need time to put it together succinctly and clearly. But yes, it has to do with Tyre.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1105. Comment #55454 by Philip1978 on July 11, 2007 at 6:44 am

Mark, its great to have you back and that you are not too Tyred hehehehahahahah, please troll me now, that was awful!

I actually have been meaning to ask you a question, I have posted somewhere else about the subject of Nazareth and if it actually existed during the time of Jesus in the 1st Century. The only information I have garnered so far has shown me that the site that modern day Nazareth sits on was in fact a graveyard for the people of a nearby town called Japha up until the year 67Ad when Emperor Trajan destroyed the place. I was wondering if you knew of any historical writings other than the Bible that there was an actual city called Nazareth around the start of the 1st Century. I know you have a load to catch up on, I think you might want to reply to other posts on here first but if you could offer some advice I would be grateful

Lee, I could quit too, I could, just...dont...want to...

More Single Malt, less CK One, it will do you good!

Cheers, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1106. Comment #55600 by Mark Taunton on July 11, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Philip,

I will briefly come back on your question, though I owe Lee a detailed response as well.

No, I do not know of any specific evidence about the town of Nazareth in Jesus' day, outside the Bible. But I would caution you as to how you seem to want to proceed. It seems you are persuaded by arguments from absence of evidence, in suggesting (by implication) that if we know of no evidence that Nazareth existed in Jesus' day, that therefore the Bible is not reliable, since it speaks of such a place.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I suggest that such a line of argument is (from your current position) rather risky, with lots of unhelpful precedents.

For hundreds of years sceptics said that Babylon was a myth, and since the Bible spoke of it as a real place, and of its king Nebuchadnezzar as a real person, the Bible must be wrong. But then Babylon was found, buried in the sands in Iraq, with Nebuchadnezzar's name printed into millions of its bricks. In fact that discovery showed the accuracy, not only of the purely historical aspects of the Bible, but also that the prophets were 100% correct in what they said would happen to the city. As Jeremiah says so clearly, Babylon was to be dried up, becoming a waste place that only animals would live in; it would never be inhabited again (see e.g. Jer 50:35-40). And that is exactly what happened: the flow of the river systems in the area changed significantly, and the city ceased to be habitable. Now unearthed after probably over 2000 years, there seems a possibility that Jeremiah could be proved wrong. But no: despite Saddam Hussein's best efforts to restore it, the resident population of Babylon (not counting soldiers just stationed there, whose homes are elsewhere) has remained resolutely at zero.

Mythical status was similarly accorded to Nineveh, in mockery of the Bible, but with the same (for the critic) unfortunate development occuring.

Down to more recent times, Pontius Pilate was noted as a character known only from the New Testament. Since there were no known Roman records of him, it was asserted that he must be a purely fictional invention by the NT writers, who therefore could not be trusted. But then (you know what happens, now) there was found an inscription, identifying him in a way that agrees perfectly with the Bible account.

On another distinct but comparable tack, the list of components of the human body with no perceptible function, once held up as supporting evolution (since an all-wise Creator would not include such things) has not proved helpful to the atheist's cause. Almost every one of well over a hundred human body parts, listed in a 19th Century book as superfluous, have since been shown to have a genuine function at some time during a human's life.

Do you really want to join the long list of people who thought they'd proved the Bible wrong, only to be proved wrong themselves, as human knowledge increases?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1107. Comment #55675 by Philip1978 on July 12, 2007 at 1:09 am

Mark, thank you for your advice, I really appreciate it. I did indeed read in the paper yesterday about that discovery they made that proves part of the Old Testament that was previously thought to be false all because a scholar managed to catch sight of a name, very interesting
I have no desire to become weird over all this, rather I wish to learn more about this particular piece of history simply because it interests me greatly. I see what you mean about getting too pedantic over it and then being made to look daft later on. I don't mind being proved wrong on something that I am convinced of being right, I just think its good to have somewhere to start from and see where it takes me. I will always question what I see as wrong but am not too stubborn to accept others advice and ideas.

I have been an atheist all my life, through no coercion from anyone, I stopped praying at about 8 years old to see what would happen and nothing did, nothing changed for me. I enjoyed studying English and History because it allowed me to question things, research it, formulate opinions and back them up with evidence ( Am still completely rubbish at it hehehe!). The Bible, in my opinion, has many questionable aspects to it and I want to investigate them to see what I can find out. Looking through this thread the others have also found amazing and interesting facts that they have presented you with, you have also produced some well put together arguments and I have decided that I want to know more about it. Until I have proof or evidence to change my mind I will keep up with the opinion that the Bible is wrong on many levels, but that could change, I hope you too would change your mind too if properly convinced. ( Judging by what I have seen you type on this thread I get the impression you would)
Right, I will sit back for a while and let you get back to your discussions with Lee and the others, I hate to interrupt but did want to hear your opinion, thank you for your time,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1108. Comment #55728 by Mark Taunton on July 12, 2007 at 5:03 am

Philip:

Thanks for your courteous response. Re-reading my previous comment to you, I realise it perhaps comes over a little too sharply - that was not my intention, and you did not take it badly.

I would indeed encourage you to dig into the history of Nazareth. However, in doing so, the best position to take is to treat the Bible as being as worthy of consideration as a historical source as any other ancient document, even if (as I presume) you currently reject its many references to supernatural events and an omnipotent God. Historians are quite prepared to accept Roman and Greek texts as speaking of real events, people and places, even if they also mention Zeus, Artemis, or any one of a whole host of ancient deities in the same breath.

I would hope you can be objective about doing this. There are plenty of examples of scholars who moved from a sceptical position on the Bible to a very different one, when they investigated the issues in depth. The record of the book of Acts, for example, long derided as being invented much later than the times it describes, has actually proved to match the facts of history in extremely fine detail. To illustrate: Luke's account of Paul's journey by ship to Italy is loaded with specialist technical terms relating to ships, sailors, navigation, sea and weather conditions, local geography, etc. Recent comparative analysis in relation to first century Mediterranean maritime history has demonstrated just how precise and accurately used his language is.

Given that, when Luke in his gospel account mentions Nazareth eight times, I am strongly inclined to think that he was not making it up.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1109. Comment #55736 by Philip1978 on July 12, 2007 at 6:04 am

Mark,
Cheers tons again, I promise I will treat the Bible, both testaments, as a historical document along the same lines as you said about Zeus and the ancient gods. Good example is the Trojan War, I love reading about it, I have read Homer's Iliad and Oddessey in the poem form and small books as well, they may not be completely historically accurate, heck the Trojan War may not have been fought, Troy may not have existed but I still think there is some historical worth to it.
Right, stop bothering this poor man Philip, let him answer other questions!! hehehe
All the best,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1110. Comment #55737 by steve99 on July 12, 2007 at 6:08 am

Ah yes, so you all believe that everything came from nothing....by accident! Now that's faith I admire.

Something comes from nothing by accident all the time. It is called the uncertainty principle, and the presence of 'something from nothing' virtual particles has been demonstrated in the lab.

Perhaps you could refer me to the scientific papers which have so convincingly descibed and proved the mechanism?

There are, of course, thousands. The explanations are available in popular science books in any good bookstore. If you want me to recommend some, I can.

Other Comments by steve99

1111. Comment #55747 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 6:33 am

Welcome back mark.
There are a lot of things in the human body for which there is no function. Junk DNA being a particularly good example.
Your evidence about pilate however loses its punch, because I am fairly that sure Josephus mentions him.

Other Comments by BillySands

1112. Comment #55756 by Mark Taunton on July 12, 2007 at 6:57 am

Billy:

You say that "junk DNA" has no function. Are you 100% confident of that? How do you know? Have you done the experiment of removing all "junk DNA" from single celled creatures and verifying that they can continue to function and reproduce perfectly well without it?

OK, I know, that can't (so far as I am aware) be done, even if some day it becomes possible in the lab. But surely it would take such an experiment to prove the point, and even then, not for human beings anyway (I sincerely hope!). Your assertion is far from proven.

On Pilate, you confuse me: I'll check my copy of Josephus later, but the implication of what you say is quite opposed to the phrase you use. Critics have alleged that Josephus' text was tampered with by Christians in order to support the New Testament account. But you seem in this context willing to accept his record (if indeed Pilate does appear in it). So it's hardly that Josephus mentioning Pilate causes my case to "lose its punch" - quite the reverse! If what you say is correct, we now have two separate pieces of evidence for the factual accuracy of the NT text in relation to Pilate. Thank you for the support!

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1113. Comment #55763 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 7:14 am

Hi Mark, Just back and you bombarded with more questions, we should give you some peace :-).

Experiments are performed routinely now where DNA can be deleted from organisms and no effects are noticed, so this claim is backed up by experimental evidence - sometime even deleting functional genes has no effect on the organism. We actually have a non functional form of a gene for vitamin C deficiency. It has become corrupt and cant work. It makes no difference to us because we get enough vitamin C from our diet. It is therefore junk, but reflects our evolutionary past, when our recent ancestors had a functional copy.

Josephus mentions Pilate(Antiquities 18:3:1,) "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws." The vere is not in relation to Jesus so I am more inclined to believe that is true than the testimonium flavium, which has some big problems associated with it. I didn't doubt pilate was real, I think Christians are making something out of nothing here.

only to be proved wrong themselves, as human knowledge increases?

Do you apply this philosophy to those who argue god's existence from incredulity? Sorry, another question :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1114. Comment #55783 by J.C. Samuelson on July 12, 2007 at 9:03 am

Heavens To Murgatroid! Fourty-six posts since I last peeked in here! It's going to take awhile to get back up to speed. How long have you been back, Mark? And I see we have some new "players." Welcome!

Peace to all!

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1115. Comment #55794 by J.C. Samuelson on July 12, 2007 at 10:32 am

Very briefly, as I'm moving backward through the posts...

Mark,

As Billy points out, Josephus also mentions Pilate. He actually does so in two different works, Wars of the Jews (2.9.2-4) and Antiquities of the Jews (18.2.2, 18.3.1-4, 18.4.1-2, and 18.6.5). Interestingly enough, both works were written well after the traditional dates of Jesus' ministry (Wars - ca. 78 CE; Antiquities - ca. 94 CE), but the Testimonium Flavium doesn't appear at all in the earlier work. Apparently, 40+ years wasn't long enough for Jesus' story to reach the desk of Josephus, in spite of the former's alleged importance. Instead, we find a suspicious-looking entry in a work 16 years later.

Not only that, but Philo mentions him in his Embassy to Gaius (38), as does Tacitus in the Annals (15.44, though he gets Pilate's title wrong, if memory serves).

I happen to agree with Billy that Christians make too much of Pilate's historicity. Taking things one step further, it doesn't seem important to dismiss Jesus as an historical figure. There have been several historical figures that have had superhuman abilities attributed to them, and I see no reason to quibble over whether they actually existed or not. That said, I also see no reason to believe they possessed superhuman qualities, either.

There's more that could probably be said, but the long and short of it is that acknowledging Pilate's historicity does little, if anything, to support a case of divine authorship. If, in fact, that is the direction you would like to continue in.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1116. Comment #55817 by Quetzalcoatl on July 12, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Thought I'd take this opportunity to welcome Mark back, and JC too! Unfortunately, this thread is no longer the longest one on the site, its been overtaken, thanks to a certain Dianelos Georgoudis- Lee will know about him. We're going to have to do a lot more commenting to restore this thread to its rightful position.

A long shot guess I know- Mark, is the reason you've been away so long is that you've actually gone and visited Tyre? That would definitely give you the advantage over JC for on-the-spot knowledge!

Philip- interesting point you bring up about Nazareth. I had always assumed that it was real, simply because the Bible described it in a certain way. Might look into that myself.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1117. Comment #55823 by LeeC on July 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Hi Q,

We are only about 100 behind... we can do it.

Damn - have to go to work... I'm late again.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1118. Comment #55847 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Concerning Nazarareth, there seems to be some confusion in the bible as to whether jesus was from bethlehem or Nazareth
Matthew 1:24-2:1
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea...

vs

Mark 6:1
"He [Jesus] left that place and came to his hometown of Nazareth"

There is also confusion concerning how Jesus got to Nazareth. Matthew says Jesus went from bethlehem to Egypt (actually, there is a problem with that prophecy too - it is not about Jesus )then Nazareth. Luke says he went via Jerusalem

this thread is no longer the longest one on the site

To catch up, what's everyones favorite colour?

Mine is red

Other Comments by BillySands

1119. Comment #55853 by Mark Taunton on July 12, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Quetz:

A long shot guess I know- Mark, is the reason you've been away so long is that you've actually gone and visited Tyre? That would definitely give you the advantage over JC for on-the-spot knowledge!

I would dearly love to be able to say yes, but in fact I've not left the UK in all this time. However I have indeed been pretty busy on that particular subject. All should become clear shortly...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1120. Comment #55889 by J.C. Samuelson on July 12, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Q,

Thanks! And thanks as well for the info on how "our" thread has been overtaken. Can't let that challenge go unanswered now, can we? ;)

Oh, and a visit to Tyre would definitely give Mark a leg up on me, I cannot deny. As it is, I suspect the hammer is about to fall, so I'll content myself with fastening a helmet on and waiting for it.

Lee,

I do apologize for never getting back to you on the last post you addressed to me. Life does have a way of asserting itself, and to be perfectly honest, I needed a break. Plus, I got busy with organizing a Brights group in my town and trying to generate some interest.

Is it alright if we start again from here?

Billy,

My favorite color is a toss-up between red or yellow. I used to prefer darker earth tones, but as my mood improved over the years since leaving Christianity, that too changed.

Mark,

If you are true to form, your forthcoming post on Tyre should be quite thought provoking and insightful. I'm looking forward to reading it!

Cheers!

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1121. Comment #55948 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 2:35 am

Could someone tell me exactly what inscription was discovered the other day

Other Comments by BillySands

1122. Comment #55950 by Quetzalcoatl on July 13, 2007 at 2:49 am

My favourite colour is also red. If Mark has a different preference, perhaps we could start a debate on it!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1123. Comment #55956 by LeeC on July 13, 2007 at 3:11 am

To catch up, what's everyones favorite colour?

Ah – that's simple… erm Black… no white… no Black.

I like white because, in light, it contains all the colours in the visible spectrum, however black, with paint, contains all the colours on the palette…

Decisions, decisions.

I choose Black… when I miss my mouth with Red wine, my clothes are not ruined, but with White – I'm doomed.

Other Comments by LeeC

1124. Comment #55957 by LeeC on July 13, 2007 at 3:22 am

Lee,

I do apologize for never getting back to you on the last post you addressed to me. Life does have a way of asserting itself, and to be perfectly honest, I needed a break. Plus, I got busy with organizing a Brights group in my town and trying to generate some interest.

Is it alright if we start again from here?

No problem…

As for the "Brights" movement… I have to admit I am unsure on this myself.
I do like the game/idea of changing the meaning of a word similar to what the homosexuals did with gay and queer, but there is something about the word "Bright" I do not like – it could imply that we see ourselves are more intelligent than "the other team". I know Dan Dennett suggests the theists should be called "Supers" but it all seems a little weird to me.

Good luck though.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1125. Comment #55958 by Nails on July 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

Down to more recent times, Pontius Pilate was noted as a character known only from the New Testament. Since there were no known Roman records of him, it was asserted that he must be a purely fictional invention by the NT writers, who therefore could not be trusted. But then (you know what happens, now) there was found an inscription, identifying him in a way that agrees perfectly with the Bible account.

I'm sorry but I thought that Pilate was a tyrannical figure who was responsible for ordering the slaughter of uprisers against the Romans, including their women and children.
Slightly at odds with the biblical man who suddenly runs out of bottle when faced with one political prisoner....
I'll have a dig around and see if I can remember where the evidence for my claim came from...

Other Comments by Nails

1126. Comment #55961 by LeeC on July 13, 2007 at 3:32 am

"And thanks as well for the info on how "our" thread has been overtaken. Can't let that challenge go unanswered now, can we? ;)"

It's OK... the theist on the "other" thread has retired.

We are now just over a hundred behind.

This should not be a problem... now with our colour questions in hand. We could debate that for days!

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1127. Comment #55963 by _J_ on July 13, 2007 at 3:42 am

this thread is no longer the longest one on the site

To catch up, what's everyones favorite colour?

Mine is red

Good lord, the McGrath/Dianelos thread digressed through some pretty diverse topics in its repeated orbits around the point, but this is just ridiculous! You don't count as winning the marathon if you take a taxi, folks. ;)

Anyway, Dianelos has signed off, so you've got nothing to race against. And I must say it's a relief to be liberated from the discussion, so I'm not even getting started on this one. Count this post as a free gift towards your bid for supremacy.

Other Comments by _J_

1128. Comment #55967 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 3:56 am

I found the inscription its a bit like saying witches are real because Salem exists really

Be sure to get your favorite colour right or else :-)

Thanks for the gift J - I found Danielos too "different" to get involved with, but hats off to those who had the patience

Other Comments by BillySands

1129. Comment #55969 by Quetzalcoatl on July 13, 2007 at 4:10 am

Yeah, some of the commenters to that article seemed to be making entirely too much of it. After all, the guy mentioned was a very minor character in the Old Testament, the fact that he actually existed only proves the Bible correct in THAT respect, not in regard to anything else. Interesting, but not exactly revelatory.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1130. Comment #55971 by LeeC on July 13, 2007 at 4:23 am

So does the debate really to start up again?

I don't believe it!

I have seen a few false dawns before though. Theo for example promised a return - but this has not happened yet. Jesus I believe also made a similar promise, to return a 2nd time within the lifetime of those present and knew him(?) (I cannot quote verse and chapter, only what I hear – I will look it up)

I read also that to resolve the issue of a 2,000 year absence - and the fact that everyone who knew Jesus in the flesh (so to speak) are now long dead - the resolution was to "curse" a poor Jew (well he did make fun of Jesus right?) who is now wandering the Earth - immortal - waiting for Jesus' return?

Nice... I have been reading so much junk recently - I need the focus of a good debate.

Welcome back Mark,

I will briefly come back on your question, though I owe Lee a detailed response as well

I had nearly given up hope on a reply to my post... it will take me time to get up to speed on the bible again, I have been reading some strange debates of late. (Thanks Q BTW - Dianelos is a funny card - too much Sci-Fi and Philosophy is not a good mix – although it looks like he has retired from the game now.)

Anyway Mark, I will give you chance to settle in before hitting you with my questions (again) I have so many outstanding…

On the matter that Philip raised, and also your reply.

I personally have no problem at all believing in "everyday" events in the bible. A town here, a man there. As you rightly pointed out, just because we cannot prove a piece of dirt was named "Nazareth" does not mean it did not exist.

However, if you are to use the bible as evidence for a supreme God, well - then we had better test further some of the book's claims.

"Minor" issues such as no evidence for a town is one thing, no record of a single man is another. Neither is that important in itself.

It also depends on how much importance is made of the book or writing in general.

Philip (did you say you read history at Uni?) will understand that when reading history – you sometimes have only one document or writing on a particular event. And sometimes this one passage may be debated by many.
However the debate is normally on something "minor", did a battle take place on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, or did the battle happen in field A or B, or did Lovelace betray the Yorkists at the 2nd battle of St Albans since no eyewitnesses mention him at the battle.

Such historical documents are not held to prove the existence of a god, and no one has died fighting over the meaning of them.

It is very different with the bible though.

If a contradiction appears – then the bible has problems (if it is meant to be taken literally). If an event cannot be logically rationalised – then the bible has problems (or requires evidence as to how this may have occurred).

So I will give you Nazareth, it is not important – but I raise you this: can you answer why Jesus did not come back in the lifetime of his followers as promised, or did I just hear this wrong?

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" Matthew 16:28

This is evidently not referring to his resurrection after 3 days, since this at the time was not his kingdom.

Interesting…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1131. Comment #55972 by Philip1978 on July 13, 2007 at 4:25 am

I...cant...help...it...must post!!

My favourite colour is blue!

Ok, here's my full take on Nazareth, I am convinced there is a big problem with this whole thing because of the prediction supposedly made in Judges 13.5 where it is said:


'For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.' '

Now as far as I know Nazarite means 'he who vows to grow long hair and serve god', (Ozzy Ozbourne?heheh!)The Nazarenes were a Jewish/Christian split off group from the 2nd Century Jewish/Christian group called the Essenes. They even had their own Gospel of the Nazarenes, nothing of course to do with Nazareth the city and more the Hebrew name for Truth or Flower(netser)

I find it a huge and strange coincidence that then Matthew attributes it to the Old Testament prophesy by twisting a word to fit a city name.

I nicked this from another site http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html cos I am a lazy man and I think this is a clearer explanation than I could give

"It seems that, along with the Nozerim, a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – 'the Poor' (later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – 'The Gospel to the Hebrews'. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or Nazarene!

In other words, when it came to the crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)

Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village 'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty.


So, there be the history of Nazareth, I just cant see Jesus having lived there when it was a graveyard (well, old JC has a reputation for raising folk from the dead, it could have happened..hehe) I think the story of Jesus being there is just a confusion with the earlier prophesy made in the Old Testament that Luke et all managedd to merge into their interpretations of the Christian/Jewish religion that had managed to gain such a reputation in the 1st Century
I hope I am not talking wiffle here, someone please help me out if I am being daft!

Billy, here is the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ntablet111.xml
Cheers All!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1132. Comment #55976 by Quetzalcoatl on July 13, 2007 at 4:45 am

Philip1978-

'For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.'

I had thought that this verse refers to Samson, and I also thought that Nazarites and Nazarenes were separate- Mark, any insights?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1133. Comment #55979 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 4:57 am

Hi Quetz,
I think they are separate, and the verse is about Samsom, but that has never prevented christians trying to claim a verse about someone else is supposed to be about jesus - Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2 being good examples. It all seems that the life of jesus was constructed around other (non relevant) prophecies in an attempt to make him appear to be divine.
I have seen a few sites where fundies (usually barking mad inerrantists) claim the verse about samson is about Jesus and nazareth though - This truely is clutching at straws.
I would be interesting to hear Mark's take on it.

Other Comments by BillySands

1134. Comment #55981 by Philip1978 on July 13, 2007 at 4:59 am

Quetz,
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2.22,23)

So if that is Samson in the Judges quote, what prophesy is Matthew referring to in his gospel? I am going cross eyed...

Other Comments by Philip1978

1135. Comment #55984 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

So if that is Samson in the Judges quote, what prophesy is Matthew referring to in his gospel? I am going cross eyed...

As well you should, but that doesn't stop apologists claiming it is about jesus. In Comment #55847 I mention the return from Egypt to fulfil that prophecy. However, click on the link to hosea 11:1-2 and you will see that the son here is not jesus, but the sinful nation of Israel - another attempt by Matt to make jesus appear to be divne

Other Comments by BillySands

1136. Comment #56001 by J.C. Samuelson on July 13, 2007 at 6:59 am

Lee,

As for the "Brights" movement… I have to admit I am unsure on this myself.
I do like the game/idea of changing the meaning of a word similar to what the homosexuals did with gay and queer, but there is something about the word "Bright" I do not like – it could imply that we see ourselves are more intelligent than "the other team". I know Dan Dennett suggests the theists should be called "Supers" but it all seems a little weird to me.

I share your concern. So do others, including Michael Shermer (though he's a Bright as well). It does seem a bit silly in some respects, and I agree that it seems to imply something about intelligence, but the principles and aims of the movement are agreeable regardless of its appellation.

From their website:

The movement's three major aims are:

1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.


2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.


3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.

Their principles can be found here

Whether the movement actually amounts to anything remains to be seen.

The reason I chose to organize a Brights' group was partly because I didn't want to step on another group's toes. There is a Freethinker's group in my area that meets during the week, and it's unfortunately very difficult for me to attend, being a single parent. In the interest of creating a group that would meet on weekends but wasn't in competition with the other group, I settled on Brights so as to clearly distinguish it without imposition. The organizer of the other group is also a member of mine, and I'm a member of his, so there's some crossover, but I think he appreciates that I didn't set it up to compete with the one he organizes.

Good luck though.

Thanks! Maybe I'll meet some nice atheist girl if one joins my group and finally I can settle down, since I didn't manage to do that with my first wife (a sincere, if somewhat abusive and selfish theist). If nothing else, I plan to enjoy the company of some adult conversation.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1137. Comment #56142 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 2:35 am

Hi JC,

Hope I didn't seem to condescending about the Brights – I like the idea of what they are doing, it is just the word "Bright" – although I don't know a better word since of course we would not want to use a "negative" such as "non-believers" or "atheist"- these are statements about what we are not – it does not say what we are - how about the "Enlightened" – no doesn't work erm – I guess these people thought long and hard and Bright was the best.

Anyway, it sounds fun – don't really have these types of clubs were I live – the Aussies I know are only interested in "Footy" (a strange game, but surprising interesting to watch and the only sport I know you get a point for missing the goal).

On a different note – how do you get those web-links labelled as a word?
It looks a lot better than a nasty web address all the time.

See – I am not a Bright, but rather Dim.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1138. Comment #56145 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 3:01 am

All,

You know what... I may be slow (a "dim"?) but with all these comments from Billy, JC, Philip and Q quoting the bible - they seem to point to contradictions in the bible - things don't seem to add up – it is not logical – there are errors – observations have been made about the world that go against what has been written in the bible – and this cannot be right, not if it was written by a god, so I am beginning to think that it was written by men who did not actually know that much about the world?

I know this may come as a shock to you all… so I hope you were all sitting down when you read this. I should have warned you first – sorry.

Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope Mark can help me understand because as I have shown before, I am not very good at reading the bible.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1139. Comment #56146 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 3:13 am

Philip

Now as far as I know Nazarite means 'he who vows to grow long hair and serve god', (Ozzy Ozbourne?heheh!)

Tell me it isn't so!!!

I thought Ozzy was a nice man who just played his music for the pleasure of others. OK – a couple of bats no longer have to worry about having a headache, so he could never turn out to be serving god?

Oh no… I have seen the movie, its true… Ozzy is working for God – he kills Satan's son to save Heaven and Earth!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpZSZw3be4U

I will have to cut my hair short…. NNNNooooooo


Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1140. Comment #56157 by BillySands on July 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Lee

"I will have to cut my hair short…. NNNNooooooo"

I should think so too

1 cor 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

I'm allowed long hair because I'm an apostate and going to hell

Other Comments by BillySands

1141. Comment #56288 by LeeC on July 14, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Hi Billy,

Not so fast… I have read a little more of the bible last night, and I think we are safe.

The "beauty" of men with long hair is mentioned in the bible:

"Now in all Israel there was no one who was praised as much as Absalom for his good looks. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.

And when he cut the hair of his head—at the end of every year he cut it because it was heavy on him—when he cut it, he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels according to the king's standard." 2 Samuel 14:25-26

Now according to some web-site (must be true then?), this is around 2.3 Kg or 5 pounds… this is a lot of hair, (Cannot believe it myself) so he was a true Hippy at the end of the year.

So God likes the look of men with long hair (Not sure if I am worried about that or not) but we are OK in the eyes of the LORD.

And lets not forget the other famous hippies in the bible.

Samson:
"That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man." Judges 16:17

Having Long hair is good for your strength and health – it is written in the bible.
(Not sure about intelligence though, Delilah asked Samson before what his weakness was, and she tried to kill him, she then did it again, and the fool Samson then told her the secret to his strength on the 3rd time of asking)

Then of course, the most famous hippy of them all, no not John Lennon, Jesus!!

Have you ever seen a picture/painting of him with short hair?

No of course not…
(God's own son was a hippy? – I have not found anywhere in the bible which confirms this yet – but how can so many painters be wrong?)

So, do we have ourselves another problem with the bible?

On one page it says long hair is a "disgrace" and on another it is seen as beauty and source of strength.

Surely we just cannot pick and choose out of the bible the passage we like, so something is wrong here.

Oh well, I do not think my long hair is the only problem St Peter at the Pearly gates will have with me…

Peter : "Sorry Sir, you cannot come in"
Me : "But look, I cut my hair and everything… last minute at the barbers, confession with the priest and all that"
Peter : "Sorry Sir, your name is not on the list, so you cannot come in."
Me : "Damn, now Ozzy will laugh at me with my short hair in hell"
Peter : "No sir, Ozzy is in already, he is at the bar."
Me : "Damn and Damn"

See ya

Lee

(I noticed, we are not onto any serious discussions yet, but we are catching up on the other thread bit-by-bit and this time we really are debating the bible – so not cheating as was suggested by J in post 1280)

Other Comments by LeeC

1142. Comment #56340 by BillySands on July 15, 2007 at 6:26 am

Mark,
Sorry to increase your workload, but that Pilate business has got me wondering, what exactly was the case against the existence of Babylon. Shaun mentioned this before as an example of how sceptics were wrong in the past. From what I can see the existence of Babylon was always well supported. I worry this may be an attempt by christians to pretend they have one over us, when no such serious claim was ever made - just like Pilate. I certainly am not accusing you of dishonesty here, but sometimes things we trust turn out to be false when we check them out properly.

Other Comments by BillySands

1143. Comment #56504 by LeeC on July 16, 2007 at 4:41 am

I'm with you Billy on this one.

Mark wrote: -

For hundreds of years sceptics said that Babylon was a myth, and since the Bible spoke of it as a real place, and of its king Nebuchadnezzar as a real person, the Bible must be wrong.

Erm… now people may be debating the existence of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, but that is not the same as debating the existence of the city itself (and this debate is more about the location).

So not sure who doubted the existence of Babylon, and I too would be interested learn more.

It is true that Western Europe did their best to "lose" the writings and history of the great Greek philosophers along with other great teachings and learning (lucky for us that the Muslims kept a copy so the Europeans could rediscover this "new" teaching)

So it is not these "hundreds of years" that are being discussed between losing the writings and re-discovering them again in the Middle Ages? It would be a little unfair to claim the intellectual high ground on this period in history.

Once "discovered" though, the Greek writings discuss Babylon and so these are independent accounts outside the bible to suggest that Babylon actually existed. (Strabo and Diodorus are just a couple of names I found who wrote about the Hanging gardens).

So I would be surprised to find many sceptics out there who would question several sources regarding a city in history.

Also, I find it more surprising to suggest that just because it is in the Bible, the "non-Christian" scholars would dismiss the bible as a source of information - I certainly wouldn't. (I also remember watching a TV documentary by David Rohl who actually used the bible just like any other historical document so this seems like a strong claim – the religion of god does not come into play here so why not use the bible?)

Anyway, I also realise you have only just come back to the thread and we are all bombarding you with questions… hope we don't scare you away – sorry.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1144. Comment #56508 by Quetzalcoatl on July 16, 2007 at 4:51 am

I've got to agree. I always thought that the issue with Babylon was not so much whether the city existed, but whether the Hanging Gardens did, and if so, where the hell the damned things were. I didn't think there was much debate about whether Babylon itself existed. Mind you, it didn't really come up much during my teenage years, my friends being more concerned with girls and football than debating ancient cities- Philistines!

EDIT- it's also possible that the Gardens were actually at Nineveh, not Babylon. Ancient geography obviously wasn't too great. Don't think that the Gardens were mentioned in the Bible- Mark?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1145. Comment #56509 by LeeC on July 16, 2007 at 4:55 am

Kids Hey!!!

They don't know they're born.

Must go..

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1146. Comment #56531 by Mark Taunton on July 16, 2007 at 6:45 am

Hi folks,

Very quickly: higher critics in the late 18th/early 19th centuries were certainly very sceptical of at least the Biblical characterisations of Babylon (e.g. in regard to its size); this was before the ruins of the city were found, and their view was shown to be in error. However, of such critics I cannot at this point prove that any disputed the existence of the city altogether. So I perhaps did go a little beyond what I can directly justify, though I may yet find evidence for what I said (just as evidence for Nazareth in Jesus' day could turn up).

My basic point remains: as time goes on, new discoveries in various fields have tended to provide evidence to support the Biblical accounts, not to disprove them. The latest finding - the name of Nebuchadnezzar's chief eunuch, present during his campaign against Jerusalem, with details matching the scriptural record - is but one of a great number.

Quetz: I am not aware of any Bible reference to the hanging gardens.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1147. Comment #56532 by BillySands on July 16, 2007 at 7:04 am

Hi Mark, was bracing myself for an enormous reply there.
I do believe there is quite abit of truth in the history of the bible - although, like any document written with an agenda, there are many errors too. There are anachronisms concerning Grerar and Moab. JC previously pointed out an error in the title of Nebuchadnezzar. The exile only lasted 49 years (not 70) and Sennacherib actually won in 701 BCE, and certainly did not die. There is also the date of the nativity, and Archaeological evidence points to jericho not having a wall at the time of joshua, and Ai was not inhabited then either. The Kingdom of David seems to have been grealy exagerated in size - to name a few off the top of my head, so I dont think it is a totally reliable history book - then there are the creation accounts and the flood - those never happened. In fact, the flood is clearly refuted

Other Comments by BillySands

1148. Comment #56592 by LeeC on July 16, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Hi Mark,

I mentioned the Hanging gardens to show that people, outside the bible, were writing about Babylon at the time. That is all.

As I have said, I am happy to use the bible as I would any other historical document. You have to remember who was writing it and why - they may have another "hidden" agenda.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1149. Comment #56775 by J.C. Samuelson on July 17, 2007 at 7:19 am

Lee,

Hope I didn't seem to condescending about the Brights

Not at all! Even if you were, I would not be offended. I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to critically examine all that we believe or get involved in. At least, inasmuch as it is possible in spite of our innate human irrationalities.

On the word "Bright." To my mind, it's an unfortunate term that does seem to imply that if there's a Bright there is also a Dim. The movement's website goes to great lengths to explain that it doesn't actually mean anything of the kind, but the fact that they do go to such great lengths highlights how unfortunate their choice really is, at least in the English speaking world. But like you said, there are few terms that are adequate.

I would prefer that no labels were needed at all, but people do like to form groups around clearly defined ideals with neat labels easily understood. It's really too bad that "atheist" carries the baggage that it does.

how do you get those web-links labelled as a word?

I'll send you a PM about this, if someone hasn't already.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1150. Comment #56780 by J.C. Samuelson on July 17, 2007 at 7:39 am

This may be a bit redundant, but Lee, you have a PM.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson