|
Some more evidence against the Jesus myth
|
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
- Buddha "Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it." - Dennis McKinsey 
Um...no.
There is a reference in the Amarna letters to Bethlehem. Further, when they finally got around to writing this shit down Bethlehem in Judah was made the home town of "David." While it is true that there is no "Nazareth" mentioned in any text prior to the mid 3d century the archaeological evidence uncovered by the Franciscan priest, Bellarmino Bagatti, showed that significant settlement in the area ended during the Assyrian assault c 720 BC. Finds after that are extremely problematic and not indicative of a settlement. The noted xtain scholar, Stephen Pfann, found a family farm which is not so surprising as the main metropolis in the area, Sepphoris, a few miles away, would have been an obvious draw for farmers to bring their produce to market.
Yeah, I knew about the farmhouse and Sepphoris, and the Bethlehem idea is a little weak, but I don't think it's ridiculous (not that you used that term).
I think you have to remember that the OT stories are just as far-fetched (if not more) than the NT. The OT has terms and ideas in it that come from the 2nd or 3rd century BC. A great deal of it is nowhere near as old as it says it is. The story and even existence of David can be debated, although I'd have to read back a ways to do that, and seeing the lack of interest in this thread, it's not worth the effort.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
- Buddha "Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it." - Dennis McKinsey
Oh, the OT is total bullshit. No question about that. The problem with xtians who understand that is that they can't quite connect the dots about its ultimate meaning.
A story was concocted for them based on the OT. If the OT is a pile of shit so is the NT. You can't build a house on a foundation of sand. 
The Hebrew Bible/OT is a bigger problem for Abrahamic theists than the New Testament. While the NT has some known interpolations and at least one falsely attributed Pauline, a literalist reading of the OT brings forth a plethora of ahistorical nonsense, either in supposed size or actually occurring at all. Ignoring the more ridiculous supernatural nonsense, the account of the exodus of the Israelites is particularly lulzy from a historical standpoint.
As for Jesus, he seems to be essentially unknowable in any useful sense, aside from being an crucified Jew from Galilee. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
