AFA Forums Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus
 Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

 Religions Discussions on the various world religions and their impacts now and throughout history.

#521
13th March 2018, 01:31 PM
 wearestardust What me socialist? Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: not telling Posts: 8,587
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 Kapyong said Gday all Indeed. wearestardust brought snark, then tried to excuse it by blaming others for snark. Poor form. Kapyong

I would say, poor form is criticising an individual without paying attention to what they are actually saying.

What do you think my actual issue is with these discussions on the historical Jesus?
__________________
WAS2018
 Logic please liked this post Mark Sean disliked this post Logic please thanked this post Mark Sean laughed at this post
#522
13th March 2018, 02:41 PM
 vridar Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Australia Posts: 124
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 wadaye said FFS. If somebody claims to publish a book for free they can certainly post a page for free here. They wouldn't even breach their own copyright. No we are not going to hand over credit card details so that we can decipher what somebody has written elsewhere.
You may be right but I don't know if you are. We cannot assume the copyright is with the author. It is usually with the publisher and they are the ones who impose the conditions. But really .... why copy and past when someone can just click and open?
#523
13th March 2018, 02:43 PM
 vridar Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Australia Posts: 124
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 Blue Lightning said No doubt Vridar will be along soon to confirm the correctness or otherwise of the second part of information he profferred.
Kapyong beat me to it: you probably have seen it long before I did but for the (redundant?) record see #512
#524
13th March 2018, 02:45 PM
 vridar Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Australia Posts: 124
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 wadaye said Seriously Kapyong and SEG, there are more important matters to stake your intellectual reputation, not to mention your time, and it seems life commitment to, than establishing whether Nazareth existed as an historical town at the time of JC.
Don't you have something more important to be doing than coming to a thread discussing matters of no interest to you?
 Mark Sean thanked this post
#525
13th March 2018, 03:51 PM
 vridar Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Australia Posts: 124
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 toejam said ^What is the evidence that such pre-70CE coins were notoriously in circulation through to the 4th C?
One of the studies cited:
Hanson, Richard S., and Michael L. Bates. 1976. “Numismatic Report.” Edited by Eric M. Meyers, A. Thomas Kraabel, and James F. Strange. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema’, Upper Galilee, Israel 1970-1972. AASOR 42: 146–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3768529.
Some extracts from that report:

Quote:
 A surprisingly large number of Hasmonean coins were found at Khirbet Shema' — all of them bronze, as one would expect, and almost all of them minted by Alexander Yannai. (p. 150)
Quote:
 The quantity is rather amazing when we consider that they represent a span of time scarcely more than the ruling dates of Alexander Yannai (103-76 bce). . . . . When we first encountered these coins and were finding them together with Roman coins of the 4th century ce, we explained to ourselves that the Jewish inhabitants of this site were so ardent in their feelings toward the Hasmonean age that they were keeping and using those coins for five centuries beyond the time that they were minted. And that must remain a possible explanation for their presence in some later layers of debris. (p. 151)
Then in the Summary and Conclusions section of the report, pp. 167-169:

Quote:
 If it were coin evidence alone that informed us of the times of habitation, we should say that the first period of occupation began in the 1st century bce or even earlier. Our very earliest coins are three Ptolemaic specimens which may come from the 3d century bce and, in addition to that, there is a group of Seleucid coins from the 2d century bce. It would be rash, however, to suggest that occupation began that early, for we can be reasonably certain that coins were kept in circulation long past the time when they were struck. The earliest settlers at Shema' may well have had coins a hundred years old in their purses when they came. The significantly large number of coins of Alexander Yannai must suggest something more than the quantity of coins struck by that ruler. The quantity is so large that we can only suggest a significant number of persons either camping or living at the site in the 1st century bce. . . . . . . . The most interesting political data supplied by our coins is the presence of a large quantity of coins minted by the Hasmonean rulers and, particularly, Alexander Yannai. For the most part they arc so miserable in quality that only a patriotic Jew could have loved them. Unlike the coins of Tyre, which are generally impressive for their size if not for their quality, these coins can only reflect the eagerness of Yannai to declare himself sovereign in an emphatic way. Coins are a means of declaring political power and a way to spread political propaganda, and this was even more true in the centuries that precede the development of mass media of communication such as the printing press. Because they passed from hand to hand rapidly and thus reached many people, coins were a most effective device for letting the world know that sovereignty was asserting itself. Yannai minted huge quantities of coins in conjunction with his efforts to win and control the old territories of the glorious Kingdom of David. There seems to be evidence, though it is shaky and hard to control, that these coins were used as currency for an unbelievably long time at Shema'. Some of them are worn to near nothing by handling, and many occur in proximity to coins from as late as the 4th century c.e. Could it be that our site was the home of Jewish folk who valued the memory of the days of autonomy so much that they kept the old Hasmonean coins in hand or even in usage that long? In juxtaposition to this suggestion, we must note the complete absence of coins of either of the Jewish revolts.
As time, inclination and availability of sources permit I may cite other reports making the same point.
#526
13th March 2018, 04:02 PM
 SEG Suspended Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Hills District of Sydney Posts: 896
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 vridar said Beware published finds by reputable archaeologists: Archaeology is More Untrustworthy By the Day Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement I'm sure they are not all dishonest. But anyone who has worked for many years in academic institutions with particular focus on research publications will be well aware of the history of academic fraud and the constant need for vigilance by the gatekeepers. The point is that naive trust of reports is excusable only for readers with a casual interest. Serious researchers need to check every time how each sausage has been made.
Like Jerry Vardaman's sausages?
 NazarethMyth laughed at this post
#527
13th March 2018, 07:14 PM
 SEG Suspended Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Hills District of Sydney Posts: 896
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
 wearestardust said I disagree, the mods disagree, the people in the conversation disagree. I am not sure there is much more to say on that. The majority of your own comments in this thread seem to be full of what you are complaining of. For example, "Why Nazareth rather than, say, what is wearestardust's hat size?" and in this very post, "the turning-on of tape recorders in lieu of paying attention to what others are saying." Would you call those comments snark? I can't see much humour, only unhelpful vitriol.
That wasn't snark. Snark is indirect, passive-aggressive or personal. That was intended to be a direct, blunt comment. But I see it was not blunt enough. Let me be blunter.

Mostly, this has not been a reasoned discussion: it's been a shit-slinging match. As a member of this forum where - it has sometimes been said - bad ideas go to die. I am vicariously embarrassed by these discussions.

I have not been attempting humour. Where have I been "vitriolic"?

Actually, you may well be.

Quote:
 If you or others are bored with it, ...
Quote:
 wearestardust said Where have I said I am bored with it? For the second time, what do you think my issue is with these discussions?
I'll go through your posts and get back to you shortly. I'm off to play TT.
#528
13th March 2018, 11:43 PM
 Logic please Wonder if the beer tastes as good? Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melb (capital of The Nanny State!!!) Posts: 16,329
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Mod note:

Just a selection to illustrate:
Quote:
Kapyong said
Gday all

Quote:
 SEG said The majority of your own comments in this thread seem to be full of what you are complaining of. For example, "Why Nazareth rather than, say, what is wearestardust's hat size?" and in this very post, "the turning-on of tape recorders in lieu of paying attention to what others are saying."
Indeed.
wearestardust brought snark, then tried to excuse it by blaming others for snark. Poor form.

Kapyong
Quote:
vridar said
Quote:
 wadaye said Seriously Kapyong and SEG, there are more important matters to stake your intellectual reputation, not to mention your time, and it seems life commitment to, than establishing whether Nazareth existed as an historical town at the time of JC.
Don't you have something more important to be doing than coming to a thread discussing matters of no interest to you?
Quote:
SEG said
I have not been attempting humour. Where have I been "vitriolic"?

Actually, you may well be.

Quote:
 If you or others are bored with it, ...
Quote:
 wearestardust said Where have I said I am bored with it? For the second time, what do you think my issue is with these discussions?
I'll go through your posts and get back to you shortly. I'm off to play TT.
The very next extraneous personally-directed commentary, asking/telling people to leave threads, guesses about states of boredom, or indeed anything other than legitimate discussions of content and evidence (such as they are), will be liable for infractions to commence. I would strongly suggest not testing the limits of this mod direction.

Cheers.
__________________
*Gods* are not only a legal fiction, but a fiction in every way. Just ask the nearest hippie...
 Mjt liked this post Mark Sean disliked this post wadaye thanked this post
#529
14th March 2018, 12:03 AM
 Logic please Wonder if the beer tastes as good? Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melb (capital of The Nanny State!!!) Posts: 16,329
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Mod note:
Quote:
NazarethMyth said
Quote:
 Blue Lightning said Nazareth Myth, you signed up to the forum rules. Voluntarily. The forum rules require you to answer a direct question when asked.
BL, do please take off your 'Boss' hat... I think this is the first time anyone's ever attempted to coerce me to speak against my will. Even in an American court of law that's not permitted.

I haven't been on this forum long (and may not much longer), but how many times has Toejam not answered Kapyong's direct question re: the Middle Roman water channels at Mary's Well? I think it's about five. --RS
Excuse me.

The bit about the forum rules that was pointed out to you? That's absolutely correct. By registering an account here, you voluntarily agreed to abide by them.

Every other member here, BL included, has every right and interest in drawing your attention to them. You're not in an American court now, it doesn't matter what you think your rights are there.

If you are simply here to generate interest and/or sales for your books, we would take a pretty dim view of that. If you don't want to breach copyright etc, there's a simple solution - don't refer to answers that relate to copyrighted material. Including your own books. No teasers.
Quote:
 NazarethMyth said I'm simply not interested in regurgitating ad infinitum what's in my books. I do have better things to do.
You're not the only one with better things to do.

Cheers.
__________________
*Gods* are not only a legal fiction, but a fiction in every way. Just ask the nearest hippie...

Last edited by Logic please; 14th March 2018 at 12:05 AM.
 DanDare liked this post Blue Lightning, DanDare thanked this post wadaye laughed at this post
#530
14th March 2018, 12:19 AM
 Logic please Wonder if the beer tastes as good? Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Melb (capital of The Nanny State!!!) Posts: 16,329
Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Mod note:
Quote:
SEG said
Quote:
 Blue Lightning said I ask out of ignorance: is it truly free, available other than through the ~$10/month Kindle app? C'mon BL! On your astronomical wage you can't afford$12 for the kindle edition? I'll take \$12 from my daughter's braces account (started in 1984) and send it to your account so you can have a look at what Rene has put together in his 8 years of research - sheesh!
Ummm... what?!?

There won't be a repeat of this blatant shaming of other members, will there?
__________________
*Gods* are not only a legal fiction, but a fiction in every way. Just ask the nearest hippie...
 Blue Lightning, DanDare, Mark Sean thanked this post

 Bookmarks