Gods never care anyhow!

[Zaytsev]

How can it be a contemporary account written over 100 years after the alleged events?

 

 

 

Are you twelve?

 

 

You will never get a reasonable response from someone who believes as a consequence of their religious beliefs that 10 year victims of paedophile murder and rape victims are to blame for what appended to them.

[Grahame]

How can it be a contemporary account written over 100 years after the alleged events?

 

It talks about events contemporary to Jesus for goodness sake.

[Zaytsev]

It talks about events contemporary to Jesus for goodness sake.

 

But it doesn't say Jesus existed only what the houses were like.

 

They are referring to the time the Bibles states he existed ie 2000ish years ago.

[Grahame]

But it doesn't say Jesus existed only what the houses were like.

 

They are referring to the time the Bibles states he existed ie 2000ish years ago.

 

For starters my reply was about the "Acts of Andrew."

 

Secondly Nazareth existed 2000 years ago. John said it didn't.

 

What with you misquoting me and now not even understanding two simple posts, I really wonder who I am talking to.

[redrobbo]

This thread has gone off topic. This is the discussion topic, asposted by the OP ....

 

It becomes somewhat tiresome hearing about all these caring Gods. They all appear to believe in their own divine right to make human beings suffer. They of course, being Gods, never offer any reason for making vast amounts of us mere mortals suffer.

 

All these Gods apparently enjoy the suffering and starvation of mere mortals. WELL....I hope that it amuses them......it certainly does NOT amuse me!

 

Earlier in the discussion I posted this -

 

I'm always confused by those who pray to their god to assist the victims of natural disasters.

 

Wouldn't it be more useful for believers to pray to their god to prevent natural disasters occuring in the first place, and thus prevent any suffering?

 

Or doesn't god respond to prayers?

 

Would any god believer care to reply to my question?

[John1954]

See the "Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society." failing that see here.

 

 

"Israeli archaeologists said Monday that they have uncovered remains of the first dwelling in the northern city of Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus.

 

The find sheds a new light on what Nazareth might have been like in Jesus' time, said the archaeologists, indicating that it was probably a small hamlet with about 50 houses populated by poor Jews.

 

The remains of a wall, a hideout and a cistern were found after builders dug up an old convent courtyard in the northern Israeli city, said archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

 

Alexandre told reporters that archeologists also found clay and chalk vessels used by Galilean Jews of the time - an indication the home belonged to a simple Jewish family.

 

"It was likely Jesus and his childhood friends would have known the house," said Alexandre."

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1136599.html

 

It appears the archeologist works for the Israeli Tourist Board and the dates attributed to the find are her personal guess, not yet verified by her peers. The official report of the dig does not claim the dates suggested by you and Yardenna but it was a nice Christmas story.

 

On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.

 

The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”). Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE).

 

The excavation took place between Nov. 11 and Dec. 7, 2009, under the direction of IAA archaeologist Y. Alexandre. It took place in the so-called “venerated area” next to the Church of the Annunciation, located on the Nazareth hillside. At this time, the official release from the IAA is the primary report and ultimate source of information on this excavation. As is normal, statements going beyond it must be supported by the presentation of verifiable evidence, and statements contradicting it must be viewed with skepticism.—René Salm

[John1954]

It talks about events contemporary to Jesus for goodness sake.

 

This post of yours is about events contemporary to the alleged time of Jesus. Does that make you an eyewitness?

[Grahame]

This thread has gone off topic. This is the discussion topic, asposted by the OP ....

 

Earlier in the discussion I posted this -

 

Would any god believer care to reply to my question?

 

Its alright pontificating about the existence of God but Christianity is about following the teaching of Jesus who among other things said to help the needy.

 

I would rather get my hands dirty than be like the Pharisees in Jesus day who stood on the street corners ostensibly praying and making out how righteous they were. Jesus had no time for them.

 

The epistle of James is about 'practical Christianity'.

 

Jesus never said to do anything like you suggest.

[grgrsmth]

If people really have an answer to the God debate, somehow I doubt it will be resolved here. So just calm down everybody.

[Zaytsev]

For starters my reply was about the "Acts of Andrew."

 

Secondly Nazareth existed 2000 years ago. John said it didn't.

 

What with you misquoting me and now not even understanding two simple posts, I really wonder who I am talking to.

 

No it was a copy of the Acts of Andrew.

 

Can you point out where I have misquoted you.

 

Do you deny that you posted this:

 

Children of that age are not that innocent, they would have known the facts of life, they are taught them at school from a young age and they didn't have to get in the bath. I think things like that are best left alone. [/Quote]

 

How can this be a misquote?