A few questions come to mind....

[MCWAY]

That's where you're wrong. Since I don't believe in a higher power running the show, I don't have to explain why it would let bad things happen to good people, any more than I have to explain why it would let good things happen to good people.

I'm not wrong, because I never claimed that you HAD TO explain anything. What I said was, "if you or any of the "many, many people" of your atheist ilk have some explanations and solutions, please bring them forth.. Last time I checked, that was a request.

My point was that saying that God isn't loving, because children suffer for the sins of their parents is incorrect. To go back to my analogy, that would be like saying your ex-landlord isn't a loving guy, simply for throwing your family out of the street because YOU didn't pay the rent.

[Deicide]

That would make them, at the very least, second-hand accounts, as is the case with two of the Gospels (Luke and Mark), only the comments are done much sooner.

'Second' hand accounts of miracles? Hmm...

And, that puts you right back at square one, believing that Alexander the Great existed, based on accounts far, FAR removed from his lifetime; but not doing so, when it comes to the existence of Jesus, who has historical documentation of His existence much closer to His lifetime.

I don't know where you got this from but I believe in the likelihood of Alexander's existence not because of documentation of his person but because of the total political and imperial transformation of the known world within two decades of the time he is supposed to have lived. Besides we have solid archaeological evidence for his existence, including contemporary coins with his image and architecture created on his orders, none of which can be said for the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

[MCWAY]

'Second' hand accounts of miracles? Hmm...

Second-hand accounts of the existence of historical figures, which would apply to Alexander the Great. That's also the case with two of the Gospels, (especially considering that Luke states at the very beginning of his Gospel that he has interviewed witnesses).

I don't know where you got this from but I believe in the likelihood of Alexander's existence not because of documentation of his person but because of the total political and imperial transformation of the known world within two decades of the time he is supposed to have lived.

We have documentation of the political impact, occurring in the Roman empire, that started with the advancement of Christianity. Remember that Christians were being falsely blamed for some of the social ills in Rome, as documented by Tacitus (another extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, that you said didn’t exist, only later to claim that such was fraudulent).

Plus, that documentation of the political and imperial transformation, to which you make reference, comes primarily from second-hand sources. So, it’s back to square one for you.

Besides we have solid archaeological evidence for his existence, including contemporary coins with his image and architecture created on his orders, none of which can be said for the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

Of course not, Trapezkerl. Kings tend to have coins and architecture made like that. Jesus was not an earthly king. How many carpenters, from Nazareth or any else, have coins or buildings minted or sculpted in their honor?

With the Testimonium written around 90 A.D., we have one historical reference to Jesus Christ (who was NOT a royal figure on Earth, but a carpenter from a poor town, executed as a criminal) written within 60 years of His reported lifetime. With regards to ancient history, that is an extremely good reference, as such documentation is rare.

[Deicide]

Second-hand accounts of the existence of historical figures, which would apply to Alexander the Great. That's also the case with two of the Gospels, (especially considering that Luke states at the very beginning of his Gospel that he has interviewed witnesses).

We have documentation of the political impact, occurring in the Roman empire, that started with the advancement of Christianity. Remember that Christians were being falsely blamed for some of the social ills in Rome, as documented by Tacitus (another extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, that you said didn’t exist, only later to claim that such was fraudulent).

Plus, that documentation of the political and imperial transformation, to which you make reference, comes primarily from second-hand sources. So, it’s back to square one for you.

Of course not, Trapezkerl. Kings tend to have coins and architecture made like that. Jesus was not an earthly king. How many carpenters, from Nazareth or any else, have coins or buildings minted or sculpted in their honor?

With the Testimonium written around 90 A.D., we have one historical reference to Jesus Christ (who was NOT a royal figure on Earth, but a carpenter from a poor town, executed as a criminal) written within 60 years of His reported lifetime. With regards to ancient history, that is an extremely good reference, as such documentation is rare.

Yes, Nazareth, a town that didn't even exist before the 3rd century, 2 centuries after the alleged Son of Man lived there...

[MCWAY]

Yes, Nazareth, a town that didn't even exist before the 3rd century, 2 centuries after the alleged Son of Man lived there...

Correction: The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Of course, I'm sure the skeptic claim used to be that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL. But, as usual, archaeological discoveries put and end to that blurb.

[Necrosis]

where does god exist?

[Deicide]

where does god exist?

THAT construct exists in the delusional minds of its adherents.

[Deicide]

Correction: The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Of course, I'm sure the skeptic claim used to be that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL. But, as usual, archaeological discoveries put and end to that blurb.

Haha...from an archaeologist friend of mine...

quote author=Minimalist link=topic=2158.msg24126#msg24126 date=1201204866]
Let's try this.....it's history not archaeology but it will do for a beginning.



This Arab village (Yafia) is adjacent to Nazareth, 3KM southwest on the road to Haifa. Today it is part of greater city of Nazareth (bold added)  It is near but not exactly in the same spot as the battlesite of Jotapata, which remains an unexcavated ruin.

The photo is of the modern town of Yafia   As noted in text accompanying the photo, modern Yafia is a suburb of modern Nazareth, and Nazareth is duly noted by a directional arrow.  The estimated distance between the two is 3 km, or roughly a mile and a half.

Now, we know lots about Jotapata in the last third of the first century bc because it was a fortified town in 67 and defended by Flavius Josephus (before he defected to the Romans) during a siege by the army of Titus Flavius Vespasianus.  What does dear old Josephus have to say about the siege.  Let's go to the source.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-3.htm

The Jewish War, Book 3. Chapter 7, 7

Now Jotapata is almost all of it built on a precipice, having on all the other sides of it every way valleys immensely deep and steep, insomuch that those who would look down would have their sight fail them before it reaches to the bottom. It is only to be come at on the north side, where the utmost part of the city is built on the mountain, as it ends obliquely at a plain. This mountain Josephus had encompassed with a wall when he fortified the city, that its top might not be capable of being seized upon by the enemies. The city is covered all round with other mountains, and can no way be seen till a man comes just upon it. And this was the strong situation of Jotapata.

bold added.

This photo of ancient Jotapata (Yodfat)



contains this caption. 

This photo is from the north, where the Roman General Vespesian set up his HQ during the siege.

AS near as I can tell from the directional clues, ancient Jotapata is off the eastern (right) edge of the Yafia photo which would make it even more "southerly" from Nazareth than modern Yafia.  Thus, as Josephus recounts his fortress, which is approachable only the north (and the photo makes it pretty clear that this is the most reasonable axis of attack) is thus "south" from "Nazareth" and only a bit over a mile in distance.  Josephus has already told us (in paragraph 4 from the above citation) that:

Vespasian also, the very next day, took his whole army and followed them, and by marching till late in the evening, arrived then at Jotapata; and bringing his army to the northern side of the city, he pitched his camp on a certain small hill which was seven furlongs from the city, and still greatly endeavored to be well seen by the enemy, to put them into a consternation

A furlong was the rough equivalent of a Roman stade ( about 1/8 of a mile) so Josephus is telling us that Vespasian's camp was 7/8 of a mile north of Jotapata, in the precise direction of Nazareth, which likely would have been the nearest water source for the Romans, but never, in the course of his whole discourse mentions any town/village/hamlet by that name.   Josephus gives a virtual catalog of Galilean sites during the course of his campaign but Nazareth, which was virtually in the front lines during a month and half siege, is never even noted. 

Given Josephus' talent for mind-numbing detail about mundane points and given the fact that he personally was present for the siege it is simply impossible to accept that if Nazareth had been there he would have failed to mention it.










[/quote]

[Necrosis]

LOL pwnage

[Deicide]

LOL pwnage

Indeed. 

[MCWAY]

Haha...from an archaeologist friend of mine...

quote author=Minimalist link=topic=2158.msg24126#msg24126 date=1201204866]
Let's try this.....it's history not archaeology but it will do for a beginning.



This Arab village (Yafia) is adjacent to Nazareth, 3KM southwest on the road to Haifa. Today it is part of greater city of Nazareth (bold added)  It is near but not exactly in the same spot as the battlesite of Jotapata, which remains an unexcavated ruin.

The photo is of the modern town of Yafia   As noted in text accompanying the photo, modern Yafia is a suburb of modern Nazareth, and Nazareth is duly noted by a directional arrow.  The estimated distance between the two is 3 km, or roughly a mile and a half.

Now, we know lots about Jotapata in the last third of the first century bc because it was a fortified town in 67 and defended by Flavius Josephus (before he defected to the Romans) during a siege by the army of Titus Flavius Vespasianus.  What does dear old Josephus have to say about the siege.  Let's go to the source.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-3.htm

The Jewish War, Book 3. Chapter 7, 7

bold added.

This photo of ancient Jotapata (Yodfat)



contains this caption. 

AS near as I can tell from the directional clues, ancient Jotapata is off the eastern (right) edge of the Yafia photo which would make it even more "southerly" from Nazareth than modern Yafia.  Thus, as Josephus recounts his fortress, which is approachable only the north (and the photo makes it pretty clear that this is the most reasonable axis of attack) is thus "south" from "Nazareth" and only a bit over a mile in distance.  Josephus has already told us (in paragraph 4 from the above citation) that:A furlong was the rough equivalent of a Roman stade ( about 1/8 of a mile) so Josephus is telling us that Vespasian's camp was 7/8 of a mile north of Jotapata, in the precise direction of Nazareth, which likely would have been the nearest water source for the Romans, but never, in the course of his whole discourse mentions any town/village/hamlet by that name.   Josephus gives a virtual catalog of Galilean sites during the course of his campaign but Nazareth, which was virtually in the front lines during a month and half siege, is never even noted. 

Given Josephus' talent for mind-numbing detail about mundane points and given the fact that he personally was present for the siege it is simply impossible to accept that if Nazareth had been there he would have failed to mention it.

"Impossible to accept" based on what? Why would Josephus be obligated to mention the town of Nazareth, especially given its reputation for being a rotten town, if nothing of significance (as it relates to the subject of his accounts) happened there?


Once again, you're doing the whole skeptic two-step, when your points get taken apart. Again, my statement was, The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Nowhere did I (or anyone else) make the claim that Josephus' Testimonium has a reference to Nazareth.

Furthermore, the presence or absence of such a reference has no bearing on the data, contained in the Testimonium, regarding Jesus Christ.

The irony of it all is how convenienly Josephus' writings have become valid, when it comes to supporting your argument of a allegedly non-existent Nazareth.

[Deicide]

"Impossible to accept" based on what? Why would Josephus be obligated to mention the town of Nazareth, especially given its reputation for being a rotten town, if nothing of significance (as it relates to the subject of his accounts) happened there?


Once again, you're doing the whole skeptic two-step, when your points get taken apart. Again, my statement was, The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Nowhere did I (or anyone else) make the claim that Josephus' Testimonium has a reference to Nazareth.

Furthermore, the presence or absence of such a reference has no bearing on the data, contained in the Testimonium, regarding Jesus Christ.

The irony of it all is how convenienly Josephus' writings have become valid, when it comes to supporting your argument of a allegedly non-existent Nazareth.

Archaeologically Savy One's Response to Fundy MCWAY:

Tell the fundie that his own book, Luke 4 says:

[16] And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
[17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
[21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
[22] And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
[23] And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
[24] And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
[25] But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
[26] But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
[27] And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
[28] And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
[29] And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

So this insignificant little village was called a city and had it's own synagogue?  Also probably horseshit but he IS stuck with it. It's his "holy book" isn't it?  Once again, Vespasian's camp would have been sitting right in front of "Nazareth" (had it been there) and both Josephus and Vespasian would have had to march right through the fucking place.


I do agree with your pal that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the Testimonium Flavianum which is clearly a late (probably 4th century) forgery.  The fact that no Christian writer, including Origen who specifically referred to Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews in his work, makes any reference to the TF prior to Eusebius in the 4th century is crystal clear evidence that it did not exist until then.

So, on that one he's right.  The TF is nothing but bullshit.

[MCWAY]

Archaeologically Savy One's Response to Fundy MCWAY:


So this insignificant little village was called a city and had it's own synagogue?  Also probably horseshit but he IS stuck with it. It's his "holy book" isn't it?  Once again, Vespasian's camp would have been sitting right in front of "Nazareth" (had it been there) and both Josephus and Vespasian would have had to march right through the fucking place.

Again, what obligates Josephus to talk about Nazareth, if  it has little or no bearing on his account?

If they marched right through it (with nothing of significance happening during such time), there is no need for Josephus to mention it, especially if Nazareth had as bad a reputation as Nathaniel (one of Jesus' disciples) implied that it did. Regardless, Josephus' lack of mentioning Nazareth had NO bearing on the issue of the town's existence.

With that said:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources.....Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians (Now where have I heard that before? - MCWAY  ); the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." -  Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament

Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century B.C. " - Eric Meyers and James Strange, Journal of Biblical Literature Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity

Again, you pick and choose when Josephus' work is valid. You use it to support your claim that Nazareth didn't exist. Yet, you call it a fraud, when it mentions the existence of Jesus. Make up your mind, please.

I do agree with your pal that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the Testimonium Flavianum which is clearly a late (probably 4th century) forgery.  The fact that no Christian writer, including Origen who specifically referred to Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews in his work, makes any reference to the TF prior to Eusebius in the 4th century is crystal clear evidence that it did not exist until then.

So, on that one he's right.  The TF is nothing but bullshit.

On the contrary!! At best, it would indicate that (assumimg your date is correct) such is the earliest-known copy, not that it was initially generated during that time. Yet again, you pick and choose with Josephus. Why would Origien NEED to make a reference to the TF? He isn't doubting the existence of Jesus. Therefore, he would not use the Testimonium to verify someone, of whose existence he had no doubt.

With that said, with your references to Origen, you remove yet more toes, from your argument. Origien proclaimed that Josephus "didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ". That, however, is with regards (once again) to Jesus' divnity, not His existence. Of course, that begs the question as to why Origen would make such a statement, if he weren't referring to the Greek version of the Testimonium. To top it all off, Origen DOES reference chapter 20 of Antiquties of the Jews, which has the smaller reference to Jesus, ".....the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."

The other Christian writers (before Origen) do not doubt the existence of Jesus, either. When dealing with non-Christians, they made the case for Jesus' divinty. An earlier version of the Testimonium (without the "brackets") would be of no use to an early Christian writer, trying to convince a Jew (or anyone else) of Jesus' divinity.

Of course, your actually producing an example of the Antiquities that dates earlier than 4th century A.D. and DOES NOT contain the Testimonium would help your dubious argument. But, for some reason, I doubt you can do that.

And as Loco and I have asked of you REPEATEDLY, it would help your claim if you actually showed an example of the Testimonium that contains no reference to Jesus Christ, whatosever, and business will pick up.

[MCWAY]

Yes, Nazareth, a town that didn't even exist before the 3rd century, 2 centuries after the alleged Son of Man lived there...

That's funny!!! The "Nazarethmyth" link you gave on your other thread states, "A remarkable conclusion of my research into Nazareth archaeology is that not a single artefact can with certainty be dated before 100 CE" In fact, this Rene' Salm cat claims on the opening page that "...the village came into existence not earlier than 70 C.E.

That would mean that there's archaelogical evidence of Nazareth, Jesus Christ's hometown, that dates less than FORTY TO SEVENTY YEARS after Jesus' reported death and Resurrection.

In other words, ONCE AGAIN, archaeological discoveries are showing the accuracy of the Bible and making skeptics sound rather silly.

All of a sudden, Nazareth has gone from not existing at all, to not existing until 3rd century A.D., to not existing until 70-100 A.D.

Here we go again!!!

[Deicide]

Again, what obligates Josephus to talk about Nazareth, if  it has little or no bearing on his account?

If they marched right through it (with nothing of significance happening during such time), there is no need for Josephus to mention it, especially if Nazareth had as bad a reputation as Nathaniel (one of Jesus' disciples) implied that it did. Regardless, Josephus' lack of mentioning Nazareth had NO bearing on the issue of the town's existence.

With that said:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources.....Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians (Now where have I heard that before? - MCWAY  ); the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." -  Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament

Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century B.C. " - Eric Meyers and James Strange, Journal of Biblical Literature Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity

Again, you pick and choose when Josephus' work is valid. You use it to support your claim that Nazareth didn't exist. Yet, you call it a fraud, when it mentions the existence of Jesus. Make up your mind, please.

On the contrary!! At best, it would indicate that (assumimg your date is correct) such is the earliest-known copy, not that it was initially generated during that time. Yet again, you pick and choose with Josephus. Why would Origien NEED to make a reference to the TF? He isn't doubting the existence of Jesus. Therefore, he would not use the Testimonium to verify someone, of whose existence he had no doubt.

With that said, with your references to Origen, you remove yet more toes, from your argument. Origien proclaimed that Josephus "didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ". That, however, is with regards (once again) to Jesus' divnity, not His existence. Of course, that begs the question as to why Origen would make such a statement, if he weren't referring to the Greek version of the Testimonium. To top it all off, Origen DOES reference chapter 20 of Antiquties of the Jews, which has the smaller reference to Jesus, ".....the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."

The other Christian writers (before Origen) do not doubt the existence of Jesus, either. When dealing with non-Christians, they made the case for Jesus' divinty. An earlier version of the Testimonium (without the "brackets") would be of no use to an early Christian writer, trying to convince a Jew (or anyone else) of Jesus' divinity.

Of course, your actually producing an example of the Antiquities that dates earlier than 4th century A.D. and DOES NOT contain the Testimonium would help your dubious argument. But, for some reason, I doubt you can do that.

And as Loco and I have asked of you REPEATEDLY, it would help your claim if you actually showed an example of the Testimonium that contains no reference to Jesus Christ, whatosever, and business will pick up.

So speaks the Minimalist to MCWAY the fundy...

Tell the shitstain that he should actually read all of Josephus, (as I have done) and not just the TF which is the only part that Josephus did not write.

Josephus has a mind-numbing capacity for detail.  He mentions many insignificant little hamlets in the course of his campaign across Galilee but somehow, he "missed" the "city" of Nazareth?  Not fucking likely.

In general, Josephus' geographical points have been proven by archaeology.  About the only time when one needs to look askance at his writing is when he is either, a) kissing Titus and Vespasian's asses (which, as a good little toady he does quite often) and b) when he is trying to explain away his execrable conduct after the siege of Jotapata.

In any case, with Vespasian camped for a month and a half in front of Nazareth it is simply inconceivable ( to all but the stupidest fundies, apparently) that he would not have mentioned the existence of this "city."  More, one wonders why he would have chosen to defend Jotapata when he could have had this "city" as his base and thus deny its resources to the Romans.  Looks like Jesus is a shitty general in addition to everything else.

Then....there is the archaeology which it seems the church fucks have lied about in order to conceal the fact that there was no "Nazareth" at the time they need it for their godboy.  Christians lie a lot, it seems.

[MCWAY]

So speaks the Minimalist to MCWAY the fundy...

Let me guess: You've run out of gibberish to say, so now it's back to "cut and paste" time, using the words of foul-mouthed atheists, whose blubbering is no more informing than yours is.

Tell the shitstain that he should actually read all of Josephus, (as I have done) and not just the TF which is the only part that Josephus did not write.

Perhaps, Mr. Minimalist should remember that, even if this silly statement of his were actually true, the Testimonium in chapter 18 isn't the only part of the Antiquties that has a reference to Jesus Christ.

Josephus has a mind-numbing capacity for detail.  He mentions many insignificant little hamlets in the course of his campaign across Galilee but somehow, he "missed" the "city" of Nazareth?  Not fucking likely.

Galilee had over 200 cities and towns, Josephus mentioned 45 (roughly a fifth of them) by name. Does that mean that the other ones he didn't mention are fabrications? NO!!! One more time, why does Josephus NEED to mention Nazareth?

In general, Josephus' geographical points have been proven by archaeology.  About the only time when one needs to look askance at his writing is when he is either, a) kissing Titus and Vespasian's asses (which, as a good little toady he does quite often) and b) when he is trying to explain away his execrable conduct after the siege of Jotapata.

In any case, with Vespasian camped for a month and a half in front of Nazareth it is simply inconceivable ( to all but the stupidest fundies, apparently) that he would not have mentioned the existence of this "city."  More, one wonders why he would have chosen to defend Jotapata when he could have had this "city" as his base and thus deny its resources to the Romans.  Looks like Jesus is a shitty general in addition to everything else.

Funnny that he should mention archaeology. Does the author of this foolishness you just posted know of the "nazarethmyth" link you just posted last night? Does he/she know about the archaeological evidence that YOU linked to this forum, that shows evidence for the existence of Nazareth that dates (by the standards of the atheist who authors the site) 70-100 A.D.?

Since you're constantly running to the "Minimalist" to feebly attempt to save your sinking arguments, why don't you ask him to PROVIDE REFERENCE TO AN ANCIENT COPY of Josephus' Antiquities that DOES NOT contain the Testimonium, to back his warped claim. Loco and I have been asking you to do that for weeks and you've produced zip. Maybe, your buddy has the hook-up.


Perhaps, he should check out the Nazarethmyth link you provided, because, thanks to you, that link just proved a point of mine, namely: Josephus' not mentioning the town of Nazareth has NO BEARING on whether or not the town existed.

Then....there is the archaeology which it seems the church fucks have lied about in order to conceal the fact that there was no "Nazareth" at the time they need it for their godboy.  Christians lie a lot, it seems.

How appropriate, folks, that Trapezkerl runs to a site, run by someone called the "Minimalist". After all, minimalization is EXACTLY the next step that skeptics/atheists take, when historical and archaeological evidence found supports the Bible and renders their claims to be FALSE.

Again, we see the pattern. First, there was no Nazareth AT ALL; then, there was no Nazareth, before 3rd century A.D.; now, the claim is that there was no Nazareth during Jesus' lifetime, although this atheist that Trapezkerl linked says "with certainty" that the archaeological evidence dates 70-100 A.D. (which, by the way, is a mere 40-70 years after Jesus' death and resurrection).


And, if all this weren't enough, the author of the same site, provided by Trapezkerl, states that "A remarkable conclusion of my research into Nazareth archaeology is that not a single artefact can with certainty be dated before 100 CE (unless, of course, one goes back to the Iron Period).

Perhaps, Trapzekerl or the "Minimalist" can kindly explain how Christians can lie and make up the town of Nazareth, when there's archaeological evidence for the existence of the town, that dates nearly SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS before the Man (from whom this pesky religion and its followers are named) was even born.

Assuming that the "Minimalist" isn't simply your alter ego, run and tell that to him Trapezkerl. And, while you're at it, why not show him the link you provided with late 1st/early 2nd-century evidence for the town you, he, and a host of atheists once claimed didn't exist.

[Necrosis]

sorry guys, i realize i started this thread and i haven't responded.  busy life.

thanks mcway for fighting for the truth. 
i wish i had the time to make thought out replies.  but anyway, you anti-god people made your responses like i thought.  shallow. 
i still did not read any hard evidence against the existence of God from anyone.  just the arguement of faith.  so, why should i believe you??  ya'll aren't very convincing.   
i've lived without God in my life and, now, with God in my life.  and i'm telling you, i'm much more happy, content and fulfilled.  and, by the statemet; "with God in my life" i mean praying, reading His Word, having faith in tough times and trusting Him.  some people think that all they have to do is believe in God and He will bless you.  wrong. 

anyway, since i've pretty much lived on both sides of the fence, why should be swayed to NOT believe in God??  there is no life on that side of the fence.  people, and much worse kids, are being taught they descend from animals, monkies, goo are whatever you guys believe and society tries to figure out why they act like animals.  they wonder what life is about and a lot of people believe life is pointless.  what else would can they believe when "scientists" tell them their cousins are apes. 

we have dismantled your god as there is no more evidence for your god then any other. also, we keep telling you that you cannot prove something does not exist, your ignorance in spite of being told otherwise shows you are not here to reason.

[MCWAY]

we have dismantled your god as there is no more evidence for your god then any other. also, we keep telling you that you cannot prove something does not exist, your ignorance in spite of being told otherwise shows you are not here to reason.

And this "we" would be whom? And where, oh where, did this alleged dismantling occur?

Such has been the claim by atheists for over two centuries. Yet, our God is alive and well.

[Necrosis]

And this "we" would be whom? And where, oh where, did this alleged dismantling occur?

Such has been the claim by atheists for over two centuries. Yet, our God is alive and well.

will you stop saying that, jesus. your god is no where to be found but in your book and your head.

what of the dying children? your god does nothing, what a pitiful being. how come all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time?

[MCWAY]

will you stop saying that, jesus. your god is no where to be found but in your book and your head.

I'm sorry. Weren't you supposed to be telling us on how you have "dismantled" God?

what of the dying children? your god does nothing, what a pitiful being. how come all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time?

But, when God does do something, you and all your atheist buddies start bleating and whining about how mean He is for bringing judgment.

Of course, if man would actually obey God's word, there'd be far, FAR fewer children dying, because of his disobedience, now wouldn't there?

As for your claim of "all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time", apparently you've been asleep at the wheel. I've given examples of supernatural prophecies fulfilled, as predicted by the Bible. They are based in history and validated by archeaological discovery.

One such example was the prophecies of Daniel, fulfilled quite nicely I might add. Check the prophecies in Dan. 7 and 8 and bounce them against world history. Of course, skeptics denied that such ever occured, until the evidence found the Bible's predictions to be accurate. Then, they backtracked (as usual), claiming the prophecies were written after the fact.

You can see another prime example of skeptic-dancing from one Trapezkerl, regarding the existence of Nazareth, another Biblical item that skeptics like you claimed was false and didn't exist. But, alas, when the evidence comes forth, the Bible is proven right again.

But, again, I'll ask you, where is this allegedly dismantling of God that you (and whoever else that comprised the "we") have done?

[Necrosis]

I'm sorry. Weren't you supposed to be telling us on how you have "dismantled" God?

But, when God does do something, you and all your atheist buddies start bleating and whining about how mean He is for bringing judgment.

Of course, if man would actually obey God's word, there'd be far, FAR fewer children dying, because of his disobedience, now wouldn't there?

As for your claim of "all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time", apparently you've been asleep at the wheel. I've given examples of supernatural prophecies fulfilled, as predicted by the Bible. They are based in history and validated by archeaological discovery.

One such example was the prophecies of Daniel, fulfilled quite nicely I might add. Check the prophecies in Dan. 7 and 8 and bounce them against world history. Of course, skeptics denied that such ever occured, until the evidence found the Bible's predictions to be accurate. Then, they backtracked (as usual), claiming the prophecies were written after the fact.

You can see another prime example of skeptic-dancing from one Trapezkerl, regarding the existence of Nazareth, another Biblical item that skeptics like you claimed was false and didn't exist. But, alas, when the evidence comes forth, the Bible is proven right again.

But, again, I'll ask you, where is this allegedly dismantling of God that you (and whoever else that comprised the "we") have done?

all over the board.

there are many problems, one is the problem of evil. two is the problem of suffering, three is the fact that there is no naturalistic evidence for him. four is that your god has no more proof then any other god.

you where just proven wrong actually on the above exchange, but if you prefer to read it that way so be it.

here watch these videos, they are christians trying to offer proof and they look absolutely foolish on live television , with not a single shred of evidence, and arguments that are purely fallacious.

[MCWAY]

all over the board.

there are many problems, one is the problem of evil. two is the problem of suffering, three is the fact that there is no naturalistic evidence for him. four is that your god has no more proof then any other god.

1 and 2) Death and suffering come as a result of the same thing: Disobedience to the law of God.

3) Last time I checked, historical and archaeological evidence that back the Bible's statements and prophecies qualify as "naturalistic evidence".

4) I've already given examples of such, with regards to God and His existence. Why don't you compare the statements and prophecies of some of thost other gods (i.e. Dagon, Asheroth, Molech, etc.) and see if their edicts have the same veracity, as those found in the Bible.




you where just proven wrong actually on the above exchange, but if you prefer to read it that way so be it.

here watch these videos, they are christians trying to offer proof and they look absolutely foolish on live television , with not a single shred of evidence, and arguments that are purely fallacious.
[/quote]

So, the "we" that you referenced, when making claims of having "dismantled" God is from a Youtube video?

YOU made the claim that you'd dismantled God. So, for once, let's hear YOU (not a YouTube video) give some examples on the matter.

[Necrosis]

1 and 2) Death and suffering come as a result of the same thing: Disobedience to the law of God.

3) Last time I checked, historical and archaeological evidence that back the Bible's statements and prophecies qualify as "naturalistic evidence".

4) I've already given examples of such, with regards to God and His existence. Why don't you compare the statements and prophecies of some of thost other gods (i.e. Dagon, Asheroth, Molech, etc.) and see if their edicts have the same veracity, as those found in the Bible.




you where just proven wrong actually on the above exchange, but if you prefer to read it that way so be it.

here watch these videos, they are christians trying to offer proof and they look absolutely foolish on live television , with not a single shred of evidence, and arguments that are purely fallacious.


So, the "we" that you referenced, when making claims of having "dismantled" God is from a Youtube video?

YOU made the claim that you'd dismantled God. So, for once, let's hear YOU (not a YouTube video) give some examples on the matter.

i have offered many arguments on this site for and against gods existence. the fact is your god has no role in this universe.

1) if sin is a result of mans choice, why did god create man knowing he would sin since he can see the future? this makes no sense. also, it is logical that god being omnipotent could create a world that lacks suffering and teaches the same principles in life as they are very basic, this sin and suffering is a very weak argument.

for one, him knowing the future fucks that whole idea up and two it is a very poor design with far to grave a consequence for minor acts.

also. who created god? ive answered this a few times and i know your answer but id like to rebutt it.

these two will do for now.

[Necrosis]

also if youd kindly keep your points short that would be nice as i wont respond to page long rebuttals as im extremely getting an education from the devil.