Topic for Atheists

[Aardverk]

You didn't really mean 1650 now did ya?...

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Nazareth
Nazareth is first mentioned in the New Testament, although its settlement antedates historic times.

If Nazareth wasn't a real place until 1650... ehh, we won't even go there. That's just silly.

Hey 'StoveBolts', you sound like a man who appreciates the subtle superiority of a good six! Wrong bolts in your signature picture though.

Yes, 1650 is obviously wrong. It was somewhere around then that the Pope bought lots of land in the Nazareth Valley. After that the pilgrim trade really took off and Nazareth certainly appears on all pilgrim maps with the level of prominence that you would expect. The year 650 would be a more reasonable guess, I have certainly seen pilgrim maps before then which do not show Nazareth. Have you any idea when it did first appear on maps?

It is a fascinating mystery isn't it? Why didn't anyone know where it was? Not even Origen, who lived just down the road, mentioned it, nor his student Porphery. As far as I know, no archaeological dig has ever found the biblical 'City' of Nazareth. There was apparently a big settlement in that valley but it was destroyed several hundred years BC. Even the papal archaeological team could only find evidence for a small farm or hamlet on the land that they bought, not a town and certainly not a city.

Add all this to the mix-up over the words Nazarene and Nazarite and it makes you wonder if the interpretation that Nazarene means someone from Nazareth is actually right. The original Greek documents just say Jesus the Nazarene. No mention of Nazareth at all now matter how you spell it.

For many centuries there was a huge trade in 'holy relics' and maybe some clever salesman sold the idea that particular valley was the location of Nazareth?

 

[MarbleShooter]

What about iguanas?

They eat us O.O

 

[Nick]

They eat us O.O

Yeah, something like that. I once heard that Iguanas like to sneak about, pretending to be others. I could be wrong, but that's what I heard.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

The main reason I'm not convince is that the site works from the assumption that God already exists or that its trying to retro fit modern discovery with vague bible passages. If it works for you, thats cool. For me I just don't see the overall connection and just do what I do best. Dance like a banana.

Actually, Godandscience.org hardly uses God to site evidence for anything. Most of those articles on there are pure science fact, unless they are addressing an issue such as old vs. young.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Actually, Godandscience.org hardly uses God to site evidence for anything. Most of those articles on there are pure science fact, unless they are addressing an issue such as old vs. young.

What I mean is that in the first point about the theodice position, the author makes a lot of assumptions. Stating that God would be in a dimension beyond what we can understand. Well, the next question would be why? The author states that the Bible says that the universe can't contain God, well that dosen't mean God is in the 4th dimension. Then the Author brings up Sting theory and Multiverse theory. At point the author is just moving God into areas where there is still research going on and little is know in public circles. So far the only thing the article has done is put forth a hypothesis. As I stated before if it convinces you, that is great. Just filling in gaps and throwing out random references to accepted theories isn't enough to convince me. Sorry.

 

[Jam]

Most of those articles on there are pure science fact

Somewhat intriguingly, this is the exact issue that I have with godandscience.org: they are good with their theology and apologetics, but their science is ah... well, it's not good. Simplified, out of context or just wrong in many circumstances.

The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began (2), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. A single dimension of time (a line) has a beginning point and can only travel in one direction. Two dimensions of time (a plane) has no beginning or ending so that a being existing in such a plane would be free to move to any point along any line of time within that plane.

-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

This represents a fairly thorough misunderstanding of the concept of a dimension. For something to be able to go more than one direction in a dimension does not mean that that something must exist in more than one dimension of that something. I can move forwards (+) or backwards (-) in the x plane (let's call it width), but it would simply be wrong to assert that I therefore exist in more than one dimension of width. Width itself is the dimension. In the quoted case, time is the dimension! We can illustrate this absurdity by substituting "a dimension" instead of "time" into an excerpt from the quotation: "Two dimensions of a dimension (a plane)...". Clearly, it is nonsense. Dimensions do not have dimensions.

According to particle physics and relativity, at least nine dimensions of space existed at the creation of the universe.

-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

A grossly simplified concept that is not widely accepted among particle physicists. The introduction of relativity here either highlights a lack of understanding of relativity theory, or simply a hidden appeal to scientific authority: as far as I am aware, relativity does not imply any more than four dimensions.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to humans, since we a restricted to only one dimension of time. God, existing in two or more dimensions of time can know all properties of all particles, since He can exist at any point on our line of time any numbers of times. Therefore, God can measure both the position of a particle, remain at the same point on our line of time, then measure the speed of the same particle. Two dimensions of time allow one to do some pretty awesome things. Think about the implications of this characteristic of God.

--http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

False: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle arises not from our lack of measurement ability, but arises from fundamental propoerties of quantum systems. It does not apply "only to humans". An extra dimensions would not "solve" the uncertainty principle, and I have already explained that to talk of anything existing in more than one dimension of a dimension is nonsensical.

n.B. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies only to quantum systems.

(on Occam's razor)
Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation [than current theories].

This highlights a misunderstanding of the idea of simplicity with respect to Occam's razor. And, indeed, Occam's razor is only a heuristic used when theories are already considered equal in "correctness".

Since science tells us for God to exist and to have created the universe, He must exist in at least 11 dimensions of space and time (the four within the dimensions of our universe and at least 7 outside of those dimensions).

Only a few forms of string theory propose exactly 11 dimensions. To assert this as scientific fact is absurd.



Now, all these errors are from only one of the pages that you originally posted. How many are there on the entire website? It is somewhat concerning, I must say.

 

[Free]

The Bible also says God created time and was acting before time began (2), confirming that God exists in at least two dimensions of time. A single dimension of time (a line) has a beginning point and can only travel in one direction. Two dimensions of time (a plane) has no beginning or ending so that a being existing in such a plane would be free to move to any point along any line of time within that plane.

-http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html

This represents a fairly thorough misunderstanding of the concept of a dimension. For something to be able to go more than one direction in a dimension does not mean that that something must exist in more than one dimension of that something. I can move forwards (+) or backwards (-) in the x plane (let's call it width), but it would simply be wrong to assert that I therefore exist in more than one dimension of width. Width itself is the dimension. In the quoted case, time is the dimension! We can illustrate this absurdity by substituting "a dimension" instead of "time" into an excerpt from the quotation: "Two dimensions of a dimension (a plane)...". Clearly, it is nonsense. Dimensions do not have dimensions.

I would question how God can create time and yet be subject to time or exist within time, or within dimensions, which would also be a part of creation.

 

[Jam]

I would question how God can create time and yet be subject to time or exist within time, or within dimensions, which would also be a part of creation.

As would I. I am not claiming that God is subject to time; simply that the author of the article clearly lacks understanding of dimensions.

 

[Free]

As would I. I am not claiming that God is subject to time; simply that the author of the article clearly lacks understanding of dimensions.

Yes, I was actually agreeing with you. Perhaps I should have said "I would also question...".

 

[stovebolts]

Hey 'StoveBolts', you sound like a man who appreciates the subtle superiority of a good six! Wrong bolts in your signature picture though.

Yes, 1650 is obviously wrong. It was somewhere around then that the Pope bought lots of land in the Nazareth Valley. After that the pilgrim trade really took off and Nazareth certainly appears on all pilgrim maps with the level of prominence that you would expect. The year 650 would be a more reasonable guess, I have certainly seen pilgrim maps before then which do not show Nazareth. Have you any idea when it did first appear on maps?

It is a fascinating mystery isn't it? Why didn't anyone know where it was? Not even Origen, who lived just down the road, mentioned it, nor his student Porphery. As far as I know, no archaeological dig has ever found the biblical 'City' of Nazareth. There was apparently a big settlement in that valley but it was destroyed several hundred years BC. Even the papal archaeological team could only find evidence for a small farm or hamlet on the land that they bought, not a town and certainly not a city.

Add all this to the mix-up over the words Nazarene and Nazarite and it makes you wonder if the interpretation that Nazarene means someone from Nazareth is actually right. The original Greek documents just say Jesus the Nazarene. No mention of Nazareth at all now matter how you spell it.

For many centuries there was a huge trade in 'holy relics' and maybe some clever salesman sold the idea that particular valley was the location of Nazareth?

Hello Aardverk,

Nice to know somebody knows their sixes ;)

As far as the pilgrim maps, I don't know anything about them. However, Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth.

Could it be like the city of Salem in the OT? Also, if it was a little podunk town that held little value, why would it be on a map? I'm sure there are lots of podunk towns that aren't on the map and nobody really has reason to write about them cause there really isn't much to say about them.

Growing up in a little logging / farming community where there was one school that housed kindergarten to seniors, there was a watering hole everyone went swimming at that we called King Kong's piss hole. It wasn't on any map, but everyone knew where it was. It was just on the outskirts of Cusick, and even people in Usk knew about it.

So just because Nazareth wasn't recorded until later, doesn't mean it didn't exist when Jesus was around.

 

[Aardverk]

....if it was a little podunk town that held little value, why would it be on a map? I'm sure there are lots of podunk towns that aren't on the map and nobody really has reason to write about them cause there really isn't much to say about them.

So just because Nazareth wasn't recorded until later, doesn't mean it didn't exist when Jesus was around.

I don’t think it is as simple as that Stovebolts. I certainly agree that a small settlement would not appear on anything grand like a map of the Roman Empire or even maybe even a map of ‘Israel’ but we are talking here about pilgrim maps and a so called ‘City’ not a podunk town. A pilgrim map is exactly where you would expect to find Nazareth because people would obviously want to go there. By the time the bible was written 10% of the Eastern Roman Empire were said to be Christians and that grew rapidly.

Perhaps we can take the term ‘City’ of Nazareth (in the bible) with a pinch of salt and just think of it as a town with enough people to form a crowd to take him to the nearby cliff top and throw him off (the nearest cliff is miles away though). But how could a town get lost?

In the days before TV etc it is easy to imagine sitting around the fire telling tales and having professional story tellers travelling from place to place; as they still do in some primitive communities. If we assume that the gospels, written down (let’s say) 40 years later, were based on these professional story tellers, it is reasonable to assume that they told their stories on average once per day, so 365 x 40 x M,M,L&J = 60,000 times without even considering the gnostic gospels which may also mention Nazareth. If we add to that the non-professional repeats of those stories we quickly get into hundreds of thousands of people hearing about ‘Jesus of Nazareth’. It is improbable that no one asked, ‘where is Nazareth?’ and once that question was asked, the story teller would have been ready with the answer. Its location would thereby have become very common knowledge. Leap forward to Origin, living just down the road, apparently not knowing where it is and the plot thickens.

If we look at the archaeological evidence we find nothing to suggest that there was a town or a city there in Jesus’ days. Even worse than that, the place they now claim to be the ‘hamlet’ (not a town) where Jesus lived has catacombs under it but Jews always built their catacombs out of town. Something is clearly wrong here.

What of Nathanael’s question, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’. I suppose the question may simply be because he had never heard of Nazareth or he may have actually said, ‘Can anything good come from a Nazarene?’ as the Greek translations say.

To try to understand this better, I started a thread asking for early pilgrim maps but I have not got any responses. I am left with the conundrum of why the early pilgrim maps (that I have seen) do not show Nazareth. I currently subscribe to the cock-up theory. The pope bought that bit of land and that was then ‘sold’ to us as Nazareth even though the archaeological evidence says it is not. The truth may be that there was no such place as Nazareth, it was just a translation error or it could be somewhere else completely – but that also seems unlikely given the incredible effort that has gone into finding it.

 

[stovebolts]

Well, you certainly make a good point. Honestly, I can't answer your questions because I honestly don't know. Not only do I not know, but I've never even heard of the Pilgrims map before you brought it up.

Anyway, I suppose if you need for some reason to justify yourself that the Pope made it up, then more power to ya. You know, we're both going to find reasons to justify our belief. So until other wise, I"ll just see it as a little podunk settlement until otherwise noted. ;) Hey, works for me anyway lol. And no, I'm not asking you to agree either.

But I do have a question that maybe you could help me out with. You said that Nazareth was a city, not a small settlement. How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Kendray]

I agree with the OP in the fact that there is no way of proving entirely that there is no God, however this does not mean that God does exist. There is no way of entirely disproving any other religious beliefs that are not Christian, does this mean you think they exist? Anyway, I have only met one person who has claimed that they believe that they have disproved the existence of God, and they are completely idiotic.

I can't be bothered to reply to every point in all 3 links, however there is one point that stood out to me particularly:

It makes no sense to make up something offensive - unless it were true.

How is this true? So if anything offensive to yourself is made up then it must be true? So the people persecuted for their beliefs in other religions must be telling the truth because it was unfavourable for them?
Also, making up something that is seemingly unfavourable, i.e. A virgin birth, to cover up something that would be more unfavourable, i.e. Having had pre-marital sex, would suit Mary and Joseph better off surely? This is purely hypothetical. I'm not implying that they did have pre-marital sex, merely that if this were the case the making up of said story would benefit them.

 

[Aardverk]

Well, you certainly make a good point. Honestly, I can't answer your questions because I honestly don't know....... .....But I do have a question that maybe you could help me out with. You said that Nazareth was a city, not a small settlement. How did you come to that conclusion?

From memory there are many references to the ‘city’ of Nazareth in the bible. Here are a random couple…..

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth. Luke 1:26 KJV

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. Luke 2:39 KJV​

Some later versions of the bible do call it a town but no one can find evidence of even a town.

 

[stovebolts]

I'm just wondering what the writer constituted as a city?...

Anyway, I found this. What do you think?


"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... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

 

[Aardverk]

I'm just wondering what the writer constituted as a city?...

Yes indeed, the current definitions do not apply do they. As I pointed out earlier, it had to have enough people to form a crowd to carry him up to the cliff top (a long way off!) and presumably none of that crowd remembered him from when he was a younger man living there or they would simply have got him again later after he slipped away through the crowd. That sounds like it must have been at least a moderate town and certainly far more than a hamlet.

We must not forget that the original Greek documents don't mention a city, they just refer to 'the Nazarene'. I'm certainly not a philologist but a translation of that today (whatever it may mean) is likely to be just as accurate as any translation 1700 years ago. I doubt anyone would translate it as 'city of Nazareth' today because we know rather more about it than they appeared to know.

Anyway, I found this. What do you think?

"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... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

Thank you, I had never heard of that but I will research it with interest.

From memory though, it may well conflict with the beliefs of the 'Church of the Nazarene' who also trace their origins to the Nazareth area and claim to have developed/descended from the Essenes who populated that area, rather than Elkalir. I have always found the notion that Jesus was an Essene highly likely but some theologians dismiss the idea by saying that there is no evidence to support that view.

 

[Aardverk]

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

I've had a quick look and your extract is repeatedly copied all over the 'net. I must admit that I misread it originally to mean that the inscription was made somewhere around 66-70 AD but the full articles suggest 4th century - you didn't include that bit. I think I could accept 4th century; that ties in believably with the archaeology of the area and the Essenes may well have been displaced by then.

 

[stovebolts]

I've had a quick look and your extract is repeatedly copied all over the 'net. I must admit that I misread it originally to mean that the inscription was made somewhere around 66-70 AD but the full articles suggest 4th century - you didn't include that bit. I think I could accept 4th century; that ties in believably with the archaeology of the area and the Essenes may well have been displaced by then.

They actually say third or fourth century. And what you didn't mention is their records (Priests of Elkalir) date back to the first century when they were pushed out of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The pope bought that bit of land and that was then ‘sold’ to us as Nazareth even though the archaeological evidence says it is not. The truth may be that there was no such place as Nazareth, it was just a translation error or it could be somewhere else completely – but that also seems unlikely given the incredible effort that has gone into finding it.

Not only that, but Jews and Gentiles don't get along very well. And when it comes to Jews and Christians, they don't get a long at all. The inscription comes from a priestly Jewish source in the original Hebrew. When you factor these into consideration, there isn't any way in the world that the Jews and the Pope were in cahoots.

 

[Aardverk]

They actually say third or fourth century. And what you didn't mention is their records (Priests of Elkalir) date back to the first century when they were pushed out of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Not only that, but Jews and Gentiles don't get along very well. And when it comes to Jews and Christians, they don't get a long at all. The inscription comes from a priestly Jewish source in the original Hebrew. When you factor these into consideration, there isn't any way in the world that the Jews and the Pope were in cahoots.

All Jews were expelled from Jerusalem in 70 AD, not just the Elkalir and there is nothing to suggest that they went straight to Nazareth.

Several archaeological estimates I have seen put the start of a town growing at 'Nazareth' between 150 & 200 AD. On that basis 3rd & 4th centuries are plausible, the only reason I hesitate to accept anything earlier than 4th century is the lack of mention on any pilgrim map or chronicle that I have seen. They MAY exist, hence my request in another thread for any information about them; nothing yet though.

As far as the involvement of the pope is concerned, do remember that I proposed that as a 'cock-up' theory. I certainly was not suggesting any sort of collusion; the two events are over a thousand years apart! The pope bought that land in 1620 and from then onward it appears on all pilgrim maps - just as you would expect. Is it possible that Nevalti's suggestion of 1650 is right?

Where do you get that date from Nevalti?

 

[stovebolts]

As far as the date, I read it somwhere, can't remember where. As you've already found, that quote pops up on every google search. Sorry...

You did mention the pilgrim maps and again, I can't speak for them. However, history affirms that the Jews shunned Christians and that was a pretty hostile time. Not sure what you've read from a Jewish perspective on 66-70 AD, but it's not pretty. Actually, they still shun Christians. With that, they would not have welcomed any gentile, let alone Christian to Nazareth, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be on a pilgrim map since they would not have been welcome there. Think about it for a moment. You would't put a hostile place on the map for pilgrims to visit knowing it was a hostile place. People could have gotten killed.