Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on April 25, 2001 16:20:39 UTC


Just a few clarifications:

>>>H:"What is not mentioned is that Bagetti believed that a village also existed at Nazareth." J: This isn't the best thing to do, use an expert's work, but then ignore their expert conclusions. It's sort of like me accepting O'Connors conclusions that Luke made up the "Go Home to be taxed and counted" edict, but rejecting his belief that Matthew's account is reliable. I don't know what source Zindler is using. I want to ask him.>>H: "It wouldn't be if the occupation started in the second century since this is already when the OT documents were all mostly written. In addition, Galilee was already the outskirts of
late Hebrew writings which were centered in
Jerusalem." J: Perhaps. I can't decide whose argument is better.>Good point about his arguments being non-archaelogical. I see Zindler trying to show that some of the scholars who try to put it all together come up with some unreasonable conclusions. If the geography allowed for a more reasonable conclusion, why did some theologians propose such outlandish ones? That's part of Zindler's point, I think.H: "This shows a profound ignorance for archaeology and the limitations involved in conducting archaeological digs. You can't just tear down the whole downtown Nazareth to find evidence of ancient dwellings. You look for evidence of occupation and this is enough to justify that Nazareth was inhabited during the first century." J: I don't understand your criticism. Zindler is saying that among the digs that have been done, none of them indicate habitation during the days of Christ. You seem to be saying that it's ok to assume there was habitation during the days of Christ because habitation has been validated during the centuries after the days of Christ. What buildings HAVE been dated early enough to disprove Zindler and validate your position?>This could be important in distinguishing between Zindler and yourself if the wine press farm, watchtowers, or cultivated terraces can be reliably dated early enough. According to Pfann, when were these structures in existence?>I hope you will. Arguments like "Josephus probably didn't say that about Jesus because if he had then Origen and others would have used it" are powerful ones in my view. Explaining Origen's words is important, I think, to your argument.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins