Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?

[Minimalist]

Perhaps you are not aware of this but there are a great many European and Israeli archaeologists and biblical scholars who regard their American colleagues as too far under the thumb of fundamentalist nutjobs. Archaeology underwent a prolonged period where preachers masquerading as archaeologists went to the mid east and pronounced every rock they found to be something that "moses" had pissed on.
When the recent Noah's Ark scam was announced it was US-based whack jobs who jumped up and down and shouted 'Hallelujah' (and they have gotten very quiet indeed in the aftermath of yet another hoax from the Ark-eologists.)

Are you perhaps suggesting that Strange, in spite of his bible-thumper education, is able to objectively discuss his own faith? Because it sure as shit is not apparent.

You know, just before christmas a find was announced which got big headlines. "Jesus' House" found in Nazareth. At least that's how xtians portrayed it. The actual announcement from the Israel Antiquities Authority was a bit more subdued. They pointed out that the find was from the Early Roman Period (which they then defined as the first AND second centuries, BC) but somehow that little explanation got edited out of the more sensationalistic reports. Well, WTF, tourism is a big industry there and separating xtians from their money is one of the few things that Jews and Arabs can agree upon.

Oddly, the political situation does explain the later growth of "Nazareth"...or whatever it was called.

As Josephus notes in The Jewish War, Book 3, Ch. 4:

On this account it was that Josephus marched against the city, as hoping to take what he had lately encompassed with so strong a wall, before they revolted from the rest of the Galileans, that the Romans would have much ado to take it; by which means he proved too weak, and failed of his hopes, both as to the forcing the place, and as to his prevailing with the people of Sepphoris to deliver it up to him

The good citizens of Sepphoris, being perhaps somewhat smarter than the rebels, invited Josephus to go fuck himself and went over to the Romans. Screwed there, Josephus withdrew a couple of miles to Jotapata which was a highly defensible site, approachable only on one side because of deep ravines and Josephus had already begun building a wall to defend that side. He held out for a month and a half and then (from Chapter 7 of the above):

And on this day it was that the Romans slew all the multitude that appeared openly; but on the following days they searched the hiding-places, and fell upon those that were under ground, and in the caverns, and went thus through every age, excepting the infants and the women, and of these there were gathered together as captives twelve hundred; and as for those that were slain at the taking of the city, and in the former fights, they were numbered to be forty thousand. So Vespasian gave order that the city should be entirely demolished, and all the fortifications burnt down. And thus was Jotapata taken, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Nero, on the first day of the month Panemus [Tamuz].

Archaeology confirms that the city was demolished...even if, as usual, Josephus' numbers are ludicrous. It is also true that Josephus managed to avoid the fate of his soldiers and surrendered to the Romans where he became Toady in Chief to Vespasian and later his son, Titus.

Nonetheless, there had to be survivors, escapees, or people who were simply away when the siege began. Given the destruction of their homes and the likely reluctance of nearby Sepphoris to want anything to do with former rebels the idea that they may have moved to the area now known as Nazareth and started over is not so far fetched.

If, however, they were Jews...even nominally...they would not reside on the hillsides where there were tombs. Jews would not live in a cemetery. The valley floor makes more sense. At any rate, in is in this time period that human activity seems to begin at the site.

Of course, this is a tad too late to be of any use to the gospel stories.

[tackattack]

"Perhaps you are not aware of this but there are a great many European and Israeli archaeologists and biblical scholars who regard their American colleagues as too far under the thumb of fundamentalist nutjobs. " No I wasn't aware, I don't study that area typically. Pile it under all the walls of data you want.

Are you perhaps suggesting that Strange, in spite of his bible-thumper education, is able to objectively discuss his own faith? No min I'm saying his background has nothing to do with evidence. Regardless of his background, if he has evidence let's take a look and verify it's authenticity.

" Archaeologist have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty four families of priest and their relocation and one is listed as being reassigned to Nazareth. " Is this verifiable? yes.. is it true idk I'm no scholar in this area and haven't seen it.

[Minimalist]

If you'd like to see for yourself.

http://www.textexcavation.com/priestlyco...ption.html

Three fragments of a Hebrew inscription on a marble slab have been discovered at Caesarea. Fragments 1 and 2 were found in 1962 in controlled excavations near the remains of the synagogue. Fragment 3 was discovered some years earlier, and was photographed but has since disappeared. It is probable but not certain that they all came from the same physical inscription.

Fragment 1 has the putative mention of Nazareth; it was dated by Professor N. Avigad to the 3rd or 4th century (presumably on paleographic grounds).

First off, the inscription is in Hebrew, not Aramaic. That again is the kind of thing that I would expect Strange to know and he well might, because the original source for the quote is a 16 year old jesus freak who hasn't shown a great affinity for facts himself.

The inscription itself is on a smashed piece of marble which itself dates to the 3d century and the (probable) construction of a synagogue in Caesarea which (probably) makes a reference to Nazareth and the town certainly existed by that time.

The Franciscan order of Monks has had a monopoly on the site which is up on the hillside. What they have found has been underwhelming. In essence, a handful of pottery shards from oil lamps which may have illuminated tombs for the workmen who were carving them out of the limestone. There was no city located there in the first century.

Well....you can find all you want to know about dishonest monks, here.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/




Your second point strikes me as odd. Surely you know that everyone has the same "evidence." It is the interpretation of that evidence that breaks down along ideological lines. In the early 20th century it was common for virtually every find to be attached to some bible story. The reason for this was quite simple. Those"archaeologists" were either funded by churches or were conducted by preachers with the proverbial 'bible in one hand and a spade in the other.' I'll accept your word that you don't know much about this stuff so perhaps you are merely being naive. There is still some of this 'bible-first' archaeology being done today but the people who do it have been marginalized by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

I would suggest you take a little time to read "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein. It's archaeology written for laymen and Finkelstein calls himself a "centrist" on the issue of when was the bible written but it is still a useful recap of the last 30 years of archaeology. A 30 year period which has seen the carefully constructed house of cards of "biblical archaeology" come crashing down much to the chagrin of the bible thumpers.

[Godscreated]

Hey Min uncovered anything interesting in your sandbox. When does the size of a school have something to do with its quality of education and like you pointed out Rice and Yale are prominent schools.
Why did you neglect your boy Ian Wilson he's a prominent atheist and he disagrees with you. I bet you see him as a traitor or something of that sort don't you. His comment I referred to is in his book Jesus: The Evidence page 67.

[tackattack]

1- Ok so there's a marble stone that is carbon dated to the 3rd century and mentions nazareth as an actual place. It existed at least by the 3rd century. Since town's didn't pop up overnight , it could have existed for any indeterminant times before that, but no longer has any findable evidence of it's exisstence today. Is that about it? That seems pretty simple. Unless the census of that town was on the marble was on that fragment no one will know for sure in concrete who lived there. However there are theese documents of biblical origin that I believe were from the 1st century (Luke I believe) that talk about one guy from that town. plausible that the town was then still forming and someone named Jesus could have lived there for a short time.

2-Yes we all havethe same evidence, with a different perspective on it. Those not in denail (not saying you of course or anyone here)will take the evidence on it's merits with as little bias as possible. That evidence can then be used to shape their beliefs of reality. True a lot of people have tried twisting/ adding/ editing words and evidence to support their beliefs in the past. I think we can both agree that it's much harder to twist the evidence in today's time and we're both thankful for it.

[SleepingDemon]

One thing you guys have to take into account is the fact that the catholic church did a lot of book burning throughout it's early period well into the last millenium. To me it seems convenient that very little evidence about Jesus the person exists whereas the bulk of what does exist depicts the divine savior as opposed to the 33 year old virgin carpenter.

[Godscreated]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='71083' dateline='1274226899']
[quote]We can be absolutely certain that there were plenty of people named Yeshua bar Yosef in first century Palestine. Both names were very common. "Jesus of Nazareth" is a bit dicier. First of all, in Judaea the residents used the patronymic rather than a place name which was, not surprisingly, more of a Greco-Roman thing.

Second, there was great enmity between Jews in Judaea and "Jews" in Galilee or any of the other areas which were conquered by the Hasmoneans in the first/second century BC and forcibly converted to Judaism. Much as with our resident xtians there was a continuous 'No True Scotsman' argument going on. Given the feelings of Judaeans towards Samaritans and other groups the odds that a Galilean would amass any sort of following is doubtful.

As far as Nazareth goes, the fairly reputable Xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann has excavated there and found one single-family farm. Xtians create much of their own problem by claiming some grandiose status for Nazareth in the first century. No one else had heard of the place. As the observation goes, the most likely question for a Judaean to ask would be "Jesus of where?"
[/quote]

Min a home has been excavated in Nazareth in 2009 this home is close to the Church of the Annunciation and dates back to the days of Jesus.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/world/meast/nazareth

Also a roman bathhouse may have been found at Nazareth dating back to the days of Jesus. The reason I say may I'm still researching the reliability of the story. If this is true it means that a roman garrison was in Nazareth will Jesus was living there. This would make for some interesting ideas about Nazareth.

[Minimalist]

Yes, keep searching.

The Israel Antiquities Authority press release....I'd find it for you if I thought you'd bother reading it... specified that the handful of pottery shards were from the Early Roman Period which it then went on to define as the first AND second centuries AD. We know there was a settlement there by the second century so this is hardly news. Moreover, the fairly well respected xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann has already excavated and found a single, family farm on the site. So what? In order for your stories to be true "Nazareth" would have had to have been a going concern during the first century BC. The fact that Josephus and Vespasian maneuvered their armies over the spot and never mentioned a town at all...let alone "Nazareth" is pretty compelling evidence that it grew up later.

As far as the "bath house" goes, again...so what? The Romans (and their Byzantine offshoots) loved bath houses. They were major recreational centers in any ROMAN town, ( i.e. not "Jewish.") As Wiki notes:

"In the mid-1990s, shopkeeper Elias Shama discovered tunnels under his shop near Mary's Well in Nazareth. The tunnels were eventually recognized as a hypocaust (a space below the floor into which warm air was pumped) for a bathhouse. The surrounding site was excavated in 1997-98 by Yardena Alexandre, and the archaeological remains exposed were ascertained to date from the Roman, Crusader, Mamluk and Ottoman periods."

Direct Roman rule of Galilee did not begin until 44 AD when Herod Agrippa I died. Within 10 years, his son Herod Agrippa II was king of an area larger than Herod the Great's kingdom because for whatever reason the Romans felt compelled to keep dumping the region back onto a Herodian. In any case, after Herod Agrippa II's death (c 95 ) Galilee reverted to direct Roman rule, along with everything else.

Listen, I do understand your willingness to jump to conclusions but it is the same sort of thing every time some moron shouts "I found NOAH'S FUCKING ARK!!!" Believers get all excited because apparently they are willing to suspend reason any time there is any claim made that seems to support their deepest desires. Note that the announcement of the "Jesus House" ( which was usually edited to avoid the implications of the IAA's press release) was timed to right around christmas. You know, if there is one thing that the Israelis and Palestinians agree on it is the desirability of separating xtian pilgrims from their money.

For that matter the Fransciscan order purchased the site in 1620 from the Ottomans (Turks). The population had been massacred during the Crusades ( by Arabs the last time ) and was uninhabited for some 3 centuries prior to the arrival of the Turks. So the Franciscans show up, build a church and make all sorts of claims about it. It really isn't all that different from what the Arabs and Israelis do, is it? You aren't catholic. You're not supposed to be impressed by all this relic crap.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think I just invented a new law;

"The historicity of Jesus will be regularly questioned on any atheist forum. "

[Minimalist]

I think I just invented a new law;

"The historicity of Jesus will be regularly questioned on any atheist forum. "

There are multiple layers to the question, though.