You have no way of proving that everything exists.

Do you mean the concepts of all things exist?

Quote:Read what I stated to Shell B, I'm glad I've left an impression on you, no matter how you view it and I will never forget you either my friend.

If your heart's desire is to be acknowledged a world class asshole then I'm glad that I have provided you that comfort. You and George W. Bush..... what a pair.

---

(July 6, 2011 at 1:41 am)BethK Wrote:

(July 5, 2011 at 8:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Actually, Nazareth does not seem to have existed in the beginning of the first century, either. And even if it did, it was part of the kingdom of Herod Antipas a client king of the Romans who paid tribute to them which was set by treaty not by direct taxation to Rome.

By the time this bullshit was written down the authors had forgotten the partitioning of Herod the Great's kingdom.

True. According to the archaeological evidence, it (or Kfar HaHoresh - about 2 miles away) was inhabited from about 7000 BCE until 720 BC, when it was apparently destroyed by the Assyrians. At the beginning of the Christian Era, it appears to have been nothing more than a tiny village with a few houses - similar to what are commonly called "settlements" or "communities" in rural America. "James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD.", according to Wikipedia. James Strange is connected with the University of South Florida. Interestingly, in another paper http://www.afglc.org/Hellenistic_Sepphor...m_2010.pdf , indicates that Nazareth, at the beginning of the CE, was administered by another city Sepphoris, which was an Hellenistic Greek city. He shows that some of the ideas espoused in the gospels were Greek ideas.

Why is it that the closer you look at any of this the more it crumbles before your eyes? _Gullivers Travels_ seems to have more historical accuracy!

Here you go, Beth.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html



Sepphoris was sacked by the Romans under Quinctillius Varus during the revolts which followed the death of Herod the Great ( c 4 BC...for the proud asshole ) and was rebuilt by Herod Antipas. However, as your source suggests, Sepphoris was rebuilt as a standard Roman town complete with temples to Greco-Roman gods.

http://www.physorg.com/news137669594.html

(July 6, 2011 at 11:39 am)Epimethean Wrote: You have no way of proving that everything exists.

Do you mean the concepts of all things exist?

Everything must exist, even if it is nothing. Hence: it is proven.

Nothing also exists. Isn't that fascinating?

(July 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Everything must exist, even if it is nothing. Hence: it is proven.

Nothing also exists. Isn't that fascinating?

You know, Miss Aerzia, I become more and more convinced you are a Discordian every post you make. Hail Eris. Fnord. Here's a quote from the holy book of Eris; The Magnum Opiate of Malcalypse the Younger: Principia Discordia; or, How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her, 5th ed.

From the introductory matter, last page before the beginning of Principia (the intro pages are not numbered), an interview with Malcalypse the Younger, KSC (Knight of the Sacred Chao, one of the founders of Discordianism; his official title is "Omnibenevolent Polyfather of Virginity in Gold and High Priest of the Para-theoanametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric [POEE]")

Interviewer: Is Eris true?
Mal-2: Everything is true.
I: Even false things?
M-2: Even false things are true.
I: How can that be?
M-2: I don't know, man, I didn't do it.
I: Why do you deal with so many negatives?
M-2: To dissolve them.
I: Will you develop that point?
M-2: No.

James, Discordian Wiccan, POEE.

(July 6, 2011 at 11:43 am)Minimalist Wrote: Here you go, Beth.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Thanx. I've been reading that site, and I keep finding MORE instances of the whole story crumbling.

For instance, I knew how preposterous it was for the Roman Governor to have some kind of vote on which of the convicted prisoners was to be set free and which were to be crucified, as if plotting against the State of Rome was some sort of minor offense they could forgive. And, the crowd chose Barabbus - known in some texts as "Jesus Barabbus", who was an enemy of the State. Barabbus means "Son of the father". Are we to believe that Pilot had both a "Jesus, son of God" and a "Jesus, son of the Father" slated to be executed at the same time? Also, like many other world governments throughout history, those accused did not need to be tried even in a kangaroo court - they were just executed if those in charge believed the accusations held any water. So, Jesus got a TRIAL? Why was he so special?

It's a plot device, just like having Pilate in Jerusalem for Passover or having Herod Antipas in Jerusalem instead of his own kingdom where, as you have just noted above, he was such a devout "Jew" that he allowed Greco-Roman temples to be built in his friggin' capital. Pilate as a gentile had no official function on Passover. He could not even enter the temple. His presence could only serve to remind Jews that the last time the temple had been desecrated it was by a Roman commander ( Pompey Magnus ). There is no indication in Josephus or Philo that there was any inherent discord during Passover during the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius. In fact, the Jews had it pretty good at that precise point in history. But by the time this bullshit was all written down all of that had changed. The Jews had been decimated by 3 severe revolts and in the run up to the Great Revolt in 66 there was nearly constant turmoil as one procurator or another attempted to control the region.

That is the period reflected in the passion story and it shows that the gospel writers had the same miserable understanding of history as modern fundie morons. Are you listening, G-C?

Glad to see that someone else enjoys the actual history of this particular period, and takes the time to show that appreciation by relating the facts even when it will be lost on certain segments of the audience. The thing about all of this, is that to the believer, the history is just detail, they can brush it off. It seems that many folks are unclear as to why he HAD to be from Nazareth, born in bethlehem. Why Joseph was chosen as the "father", or mary the mother, and why the idea of god impregnating her rather than he simply being Josephs actual son are important. You could take this back to the stories of the old testament as well, but many christians are willing to just write that book off completely.

Want to see me




Matthew 2:23 is horseshit.

Quote: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.

There is no such "prophecy" in the OT.

So it must have come from one of the lost books of Babbel Ohn.

(July 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Want to see me




Matthew 2:23 is horseshit.

Quote: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.

There is no such "prophecy" in the OT.

There where other traditions and local myths being mixed in the narrative..we still have those myths, again, lost on the believer.