It's said Jesus' sacrificed himself to save us...

[outhouse]

However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have Mark writing in 70 saying it was there.

So ask yourself. If you have a good well and the only well around for a ways, and 20000 people move in a few miles away, why would not some move in and use the well?



You also quote mined that link. It also doesn't have the pottery found dated to 70CE in it.

Also Failed to mention this.

In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."

A few authors have argued that the absence of 1st and 2nd century CE textual references to Nazareth suggests that the town may not have been inhabited in Jesus' day.[50] Proponents of this hypothesis have buttressed their case with linguistic, literary and archaeological interpretations,[51] though one writer called that view "archaeologically unsupportable".[52]

 

[JoStories]

However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks but I am not sure that Wikipedia is the best source for academic study. However, it did provide some intriguing links I have set aside for later, will look at and get back to you. Thanks,again!

 

[JoStories]

Sepphoris was also leveled in the beginning of the first century. Yet 20000 people moved in.

You may not know this but that usually brings with it satellite villages to help feed the people in the city.

Evidence does exist from the first century, you just don't know it.

Thanks outhouse. I can always count on you for source material I may not be aware of. Love to pick,your brain sometime dear one.

 

[outhouse]

• Excavations in the 1950s and 1960s on the site of the Basilica of the Annunciation in central Nazareth were judged by the Israel Antiquities Authority to be “the nucleus of the small Roman-period village.”

• A number of tombs and graves dated to the first century have been found in the vicinity of Nazareth.

• First century coins have been found at Mary’s Well in Nazareth (located about a kilometre from the convent site, and probably outside the ancient village), and there is some evidence of a Roman bath house nearby. On their own, these provide little conclusive evidence, but they add to the picture.

• The Nazareth Village Farm site is located nearby to the above sites, and was once a farm on a hill just outside ancient Nazareth. Excavations over the past decade have found several structures (a winepress, several watchtowers and agricultural terraces). Coins and pottery found at the site confirm that there was an agrarian community at Nazareth in the first century.

• In 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced it had uncovered the remains of a first century house at the International Marian Center site nearby to these others. Artefacts again indicated the house was occupied in the first century, probably before 70 CE.

• Finally there is this latest excavation, indicating a house occupied in the middle of the first century.

Nazareth – the evidence mounts



René Salm’s claim that Nazareth did not exist in the days of Jesus is dead wrong and is rejected by every recognized authority – whether archaeologist, textual scholar, or historian; whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic, or other.

Bart Ehrman

 

[Etritonakin]

...but then it says in the bible that on the 3rd day he rose into heaven.


So where the hell is the sacrifice?

One might argue that he sacrificed his earthly body and yet...

"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." - Mark 14:38

So god clearly didn't think that much of the flesh to make losing it a sacrifice.

The whole point is that losing the flesh is losing nothing, and that the sufferings of this time will mean nothing later -though they are worth enduring because of the end result.

The sacrifice was experiencing it for our sake when he didn't have to -or even though he was not subject to death due to sin.

In letter, he paid the "death penalty" for us to satisfy the law. Practically, he became us so that he could know things from our perspective and better represent us before the Father....

among other things.

 

[Mycroft]

• Excavations in the 1950s and 1960s on the site of the Basilica of the Annunciation in central Nazareth were judged by the Israel Antiquities Authority to be “the nucleus of the small Roman-period village.”

• A number of tombs and graves dated to the first century have been found in the vicinity of Nazareth.

• First century coins have been found at Mary’s Well in Nazareth (located about a kilometre from the convent site, and probably outside the ancient village), and there is some evidence of a Roman bath house nearby. On their own, these provide little conclusive evidence, but they add to the picture.

• The Nazareth Village Farm site is located nearby to the above sites, and was once a farm on a hill just outside ancient Nazareth. Excavations over the past decade have found several structures (a winepress, several watchtowers and agricultural terraces). Coins and pottery found at the site confirm that there was an agrarian community at Nazareth in the first century.

• In 2009, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced it had uncovered the remains of a first century house at the International Marian Center site nearby to these others. Artefacts again indicated the house was occupied in the first century, probably before 70 CE.

• Finally there is this latest excavation, indicating a house occupied in the middle of the first century.

Nazareth – the evidence mounts



René Salm’s claim that Nazareth did not exist in the days of Jesus is dead wrong and is rejected by every recognized authority – whether archaeologist, textual scholar, or historian; whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic, or other.

Bart Ehrman

But all of this evidence is contested. I mean, whose more likely to build a roman village? A bunch of Israelites or Romans?

Also, none of these findings conclusively prove that the village they found was Nazareth. Just that there happens to be a settlement of some sort in the same geographical location that Nazareth is alleged to be.

 

[outhouse]

But all of this evidence is contested.

LOL sorry your sorely mistaken.


BY who?


Who is contesting it?

 

[outhouse]

I mean, whose more likely to build a roman village? A bunch of Israelites or Romans?

Nothing indicates it was a Roman village.

When did Romans start living in, or create villages?

 

[outhouse]

Brother I have no reason to steer you away from credible historical knowledge.

Just trying to keep you on the path of academia and knowledge

 

[Mycroft]

Brother I have no reason to steer you away from credible historical knowledge.

Just trying to keep you on the path of academia and knowledge

Understood. I'll look into it more. It doesn't answer my original question, though!

So far all I've had is people playing Semantic Spaghetti.

 

[JoStories]

Understood. I'll look into it more. It doesn't answer my original question, though!

So far all I've had is people playing Semantic Spaghetti.

I'm not sure there will be an accepted answer. It is contested on both sides of the issue. I posted two who argue on opposite sides, using tons of references and that link that you have me has enough references to keep the interested reader busy for days, if not weeks.

 

[JayJayDee]

Regarding your second paragraph, not all Christians celebrate Easter in the manner you suggest. For example, my mother and her sisters and brothers all celebrate with solemnity and the days have absolutely nothing to do with chocolate, eggs, rabbits or the like. There are some who take the holiday, (they don't see it that way but it is considered thus)' very seriously. Just my two cents.

Thank you, I appreciate that some do commemorate Jesus' sacrifice with reverence, without the trappings that the world likes to add to what have become very 'commercial, occasions.

Easter is however, a four day holiday. Each of the days have their own religious significance and some even add the preceding period they call "Lent" or the preceding Wednesday and Thursday to the mix. This is not what Jesus told us to do.
Going "beyond what is written" has always been a trap for humans. They tend to have the attitude that "if a little is good, a lot must be better".....but often that just leads to the introduction of human ideas that do not belong. And if the churches themselves do not stop the rot before it takes hold, then you end up with something that is so far removed from the original, that it is no longer acceptable to the one who commanded it.

 

[JayJayDee]

You know good and well that there is not a shred of evidence for this. The stuff about Easter being a goddess is flimsy but possible, as at least there is a kind of source for it, however sketchy. There is no way to support the assertion that Protestant churches reached across the millennia in their time machines to copy a hypothetical pre-Christian Roman ritual for which there is zero attestation. You're just making this stuff up and claiming it as fact—or parroting someone else who did the same.

It is well attested to on many Internet resources. Flimsy you say? It's just a co-incidence that a pagan fertility goddess who just happened to be named Oestre, (pronounced Easter) whose festival was held at the time of the Spring equinox, and who just happened to have the fertility emblems of rabbits and eggs.....? Flimsy? I'd say it was a no brainer.

Sunrise service is a Protestant evolution of the Easter Vigil in traditional Christianity. As with pretty much everything Easter-related, it can all be explained as a natural outgrowth of the tradition, without having to appeal to hypothetical pre-Christian practices for which we have no evidence. But when people get it into their heads that Easter is bad, they have a habit of seeing what they want to see, evidence be damned.

Well, I think we all know what human traditions lead to.....Jesus said to the Pharisees who were using their tradition to shirk their responsibilities as outlined in God's word......

“Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?,,,,,You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” (Matt 15:3-9)

Paul also warned...."Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8)

According to Wiki....

Sunrise service is a worship service on Easter practised by some Protestant churches, replacing the traditional, ancient Easter Vigil preserved by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches.

The service takes place outdoors, sometimes in a park, and the attendees are seated on outdoor chairs or benches.

The first recorded "Sunrise Service" took place in 1732 in the Moravian congregation at Herrnhut in the Upper Lusatianhills of Saxony.[1] After an all-night prayer vigil, the Single Brethren -- the unmarried men of the community -- went to the town graveyard, God's Acre, on the hill above the town to sing hymns of praise to the Risen Saviour.[1] The following year, the whole Congregation joined in the service. Thereafter the "Easter Morning" or "Sunrise Service" spread around the world with the Moravian missionaries.[1] The procession to the graveyard is accompanied by the antiphonal playing of chorales by brass choirs.[2].....

Sunrise service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Command of God....or traditions of men?

Since our Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, (we only have to look at our calendar and see which day is the seventh) why do you think Christendom changed its "sabbath" to Sunday?....the very day the Romans dedicated to the sun.

 

[psychoslice]

The way people count like that is a function of the language, not an objective fact that exists outside language. In English people typically count days starting at the moment a thing begins, then counting all 24-hour periods until the moment a thing ends, even if it's in the late afternoon on both sides. In many languages, ancient and modern, that's not how counting works.

It's a question of whether a "day" is a movable unit of time or a fixed one. English-speakers are accustomed to talking of "days" that can begin at 4pm and end at 4pm the next day, if the context calls for it. In ancient Greek, that would be two days, since it includes a portion of two different calendar days. Those are both just practical conventions; neither is objectively correct.

No its more simple than that. Jesus was said to be entombed just before the Sabbath, which is sunset Friday, that day would end sunset Saturday, which is one day. Now the next day started sunset Saturday and ended sunset Sunday which he didn't reach, because he was said to rise from the grave Sunday morning the first day of the week. So all up he was in the tomb for only one day and about 12 hours, and that's it.

 

[outhouse]

It doesn't answer my original question, though!

I answered that in full earlier.

He was a man who died the most gruesome death fighting for the common man against the tyranny of corrupt government.

That is about the strongest sacrifice one can make.

"For our sins" is mythology in my opinion that grew after his death.

 

[pro4life]

...but then it says in the bible that on the 3rd day he rose into heaven.


So where the hell is the sacrifice?

One might argue that he sacrificed his earthly body and yet...

"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." - Mark 14:38

So god clearly didn't think that much of the flesh to make losing it a sacrifice.

It says Jesus sacrificed himself??
Where does that say in the bible?

 

[InChrist]

I'll refer you to St. Frankenstein's post first. Then I'll point out that Penal Substitution has only been around for about 400 years and ask you if you think Christians for the first 1600 years had just got it all wrong. Thirdly, I'll assert that murdering someone, or arranging their murder, is incompatible with wisdom, justice, or mercy. And you don't get to cop-out with the "limited human perspective" business, since those are human words, developed by and for humans, that have no meaning outside of human experience. There's no exalted perspective from which things like murder, rape, or genocide are wise and compassionate acts. That kind of absolute relativism makes a mockery of the very concept of morality.

Then you have the problem of circular reasoning. If God is good, but only in a way that God understands (and contrary to our concept of good), then it's a meaningless assertion that robs "good" of any coherence. You can have an ineffable God or a good one, not both. And then there's still the problem that Penal Substitution is based on a concept of God that is no different from what you see in Greco-Roman paganism, for example. If Christianity is really just the same thing with a new coat of paint, then what's the point? Lastly, it turns salvation into a protection racket: if the one who's doing the saving is the same as the one responsible for the horribleness that you're being saved from, then he's not actually doing you a favor.

Basically, Penal Substitution entails a concept of God that is fundamentally depraved and impossible to admire, much less worship, and that displays considerably less moral development than most people I know. It only makes sense in light of the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, which makes humans out to be even worse, to the point where any treatment of them is justified, no matter how horrendous. Without that misanthropic doctrine, the whole edifice comes crashing down.

As for the Paul stuff, it's really all over the place, but his discussion of the resurrection in the first Corinthian epistle is a good starting point. But my question was what you meant by the word, although you could take it as rhetorical if you wished.

I would like to first state that I am not a Calvinist and am opposed to the doctrines of Calvinism which I believe go against the biblical scriptures. Having said that, it really only matters to me what the scriptures say in reference to the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. The scriptures are plain enough that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) This concept is also pictured throughout the OT with the sacrificial system God laid out for Israel.

If God Himself chose to come to earth and pay the penalty for the sins of the world, sacrificing His own life in the flesh, it is not murder, but love and mercy upon His fallen creation.

"Sinful man must be reconciled to a holy God and brought back into an intimate relationship so that the very life of God becomes once again the life of man—or man's doom is eternal. The first three chapters of the Bible tell of man's creation in God's image and of the defacing, deforming, and defiling of that image through man's sin and separation from God. The rest of the Bible is all about the reconciliation of man to God.

This reconciliation comes about through what the Bible calls "redemption" and "atonement." It is a thrilling love story of God's willingness to leave His glory to become a Man through a virgin birth, to be rejected, misunderstood, hated, falsely accused, mocked, scourged and nailed to a cross—and as He hung there to take upon himself the sins of the world, suffering the penalty for all mankind demanded by his perfect justice. www.thebereancall.org/node/5202.

It is mankind which is responsible for the horribleness and God who offers freedom and deliverance for any who desire new life in Christ.

In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:9-10

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I will simply paste from my thread here:
Atonement theories. | ReligiousForums.com

"Personally, when I evaluate an Atonement theory, I look for two things:

First, that it factors in the whole of Christ's life in His saving work and doesn't obsess over the crucifixion to the point where everything else is glossed over or placed in the backdrop. After all, Christianity has always understood Easter to be the centerpiece of the liturgical calender, not Good Friday. Unfortunately, Western Christianity makes it a habit of focusing on the crucifixion to the point of nearly ignoring the Resurrection. This is not good. Our Eastern brothers and sisters don't do this and we would do much good to be like them in this matter. Eastern Christianity is much more optimistic and hopeful than Western Christianity tends to be and that is how it was in the early Church. I think it's past time to return to our ancient roots on this matter.

Second, the theory can't imagine God to be like some bloodthirsty, wrathful pagan god. That is obscene and offensive and an affront to the New Testament God of mercy and compassion, the God Who loves us so much that He would die to show us the depths of His love.

So, that in mind, the Satisfaction theories and the Penal Substitution theories are out the window. Both take a legalistic view of God as demanding a blood sacrifice of His Son. Both pretty much ignore the Resurrection and the teachings of Christ's life. Both make salvation into just being a legal transaction or even a financial transaction. So those two theories should be dismissed out of hand. All the criticism about it making it seem like God is demanding a human sacrifice is true. Even Benedict XVI made the same criticism of the Satisfaction theory.

To be honest, I don't recall ever being taught Anselm's Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory. (I never would've been taught the Penal theory as that is a Calvinist invention that is rejected by the Church.) How I always understood it is that Christ's sacrifice was one of limitless love to the Father, Who found this more pleasing than the imperfect animal sacrifices given. He did not have the sins of humanity laid upon Him, but rather became one with our sinful nature in a mysterious way while remaining sinless Himself. This ties into Christ being the New Adam Who succeeded where Adam failed (Mary is the New Eve who succeeded where Eve failed.) So already, my position is closer to the Recapitulation theory. There's nothing about a legalistic idea of God's wrath (such as in the Penal theory) or God's honor being offended (Satisfaction theory). 3 days after that, He triumphed over death, thus destroying the power of evil in the world. In this too, He reveals Himself as the New Adam Who makes humanity anew. So there's elements of the Christus Victor theory in my belief. As for Moral Influence, His life is one of perfect moral example to us that causes inner change when we meditate upon it and follow Christ."

I'm trying to follow you here. What in your mind is required, if anything, from an individual for salvation? I'm wondering because you say humanity is made anew, which to me means there is no more need for salvation. So do you believe that every person is saved? What is salvation?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm trying to follow you here. What in your mind is required, if anything, from an individual for salvation? I'm wondering because you say humanity is made anew, which to me means there is no more need for salvation. So do you believe that every person is saved? What is salvation?

From the individual, it is required that they undertake the daily journey of becoming more Christ-like. Christ is the Archetype, so to speak, for the renewed humanity. He leads the way to Salvation and it is up to us to make the choice to follow Him.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

From the individual, it is required that they undertake the daily journey of becoming more Christ-like. Christ is the Archetype, so to speak, for the renewed humanity. He leads the way to Salvation and it is up to us to make the choice to follow Him.

But if humanity is remade, then why isn't humanity free to be naive? Adam & Eve were naive. Why must remade humanity struggle daily to meet the goal of being more Christ-like?