No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[godnotgod]

[youtube]WSzQC1zKesU[/youtube]
James Randi Speaks: Questioning the Bible - YouTube

See here for Rene Salm's website re: the myth of Nazareth:The truth about Nazareth

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not even and interesting myth.

You'd think that if you made something up, it would at least be creative.

 

[godnotgod]

It's not even and interesting myth.

You'd think that if you made something up, it would at least be creative.

But what if you don't know that you made it up? Or, at least that you don't remember that you did?....or why?

What if you were to think of the myth as having taken the form of God in the form of man pretending not to know that he is God, and then collectively projecting his own divinity outward onto an imaginary image he calls 'God'? In other words, it is man in the ultimate denial of his own godmanship, in a cosmic game of hide and seek. Are we getting creative yet?

There is a little story I heard:

A man dies and goes to heaven. Knocking on the Pearly Gates, a voice from within responds: 'Who is it?", to which the man replies: 'Me. It is me.' The voice says: "Sorry! We have no 'me's' on our list. Please go away.' The man leaves, perplexed, and stays away for a full week, pondering the problem. He then returns, knocking at the Gates once more:

'Who is it this time?' the voice from within asks:

'You know! ME! ME! It's ME!' the man screams.

'No, there are no 'me's' here. Begone!'

Now the man leaves and stays away for an entire year, and one day, the answer comes to him. Excited, he rushes back, pounding wildly at the Gates: 'Yes? Who goes there?' the voice from within asks.

'Why, it is none other than YOU, oh Lord!'

...at which the Gates swing wide open.:angel2:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But what if you don't know that you made it up? Or, at least that you don't remember that you did?....or why?

What if you were to think of the myth as having taken the form of God in the form of man pretending not to know that he is God, and then collectively projecting his own divinity outward onto an imaginary image he calls 'God'? In other words, it is man in the ultimate denial of his own godmanship, in a cosmic game of hide and seek. Are we getting creative yet?

No. And you're not talking about Nazareth anymore, either.

 

[Tellurian]

The archaeological evidence shows that there was NO Jewish village located at the place called Nazareth in the early first century. The archaeological evidence shows that the place was a Roman military camp. Beneath the Cactus shoppe there is a Roman bath from the first century. There is NO evidence that the location was a Jewish village until the second century, or possibly sometime AFTER the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 CE at the earliest.

This shows that the fictional stories about the biblical Jesus of the gospels were not created until the second century when there was a Jewish village at the Nazareth location. Part of the problem was the use of the term Notzri used to describe the biblical Jesus. Some thought it referred to the movement he belonged to, while others thought it referred to the place he came from. Calling him "Jesus of Nazareth" proves the stories about him are not true.

The Ancient Bath House in Nazareth

 

[Shermana]

There was no evidence for Troy for a long time until they discovered it.

The word "Nazareth" means "Place of the Nazarenes". The very point of "What good can come from Nazareth" is from Pharisees who disapproved of the Sect. At what point did the city suddenly spring up? As for the Archaeological evidence of it being a "Roman military camp", a Bath house is hardly such evidence. If anything, it could have been a city of tents like other "sect cities" that was built up later (sometime after the Jewish destruction apparently as if the Romans allowed the Jews to rebuild right after), but even then, when was it built?

 

[Tellurian]

Who would be more likely to build a sophisticated ROMAN bath house, the Roman military, or Jewish farmers in a primitive village? The bath house can be dated to the early first century because the Roman design for their bath houses changed later in the first century.

 

[crystalonyx]

Some highlights:

"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. [/FONT]
​

"

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

 

[Shermana]

Who would be more likely to build a sophisticated ROMAN bath house, the Roman military, or Jewish farmers in a primitive village? The bath house can be dated to the early first century because the Roman design for their bath houses changed later in the first century.

Why is it impossible to conclude that the Romans set up shop in an area that was populated by a Jewish sect living in tents? At what point did Nazareth get built up, and why was it called "Nazareth" considering it specifically means "Place of the Nazarenes"? It wouldn't even be a "town", but more of a "Hamlet".

What year did the Jews get permission from the Romans to return and build up Nazareth exactly and did they just choose the name Nazareth for the heck of it?

 

[fallingblood]

I copied this from another topic I made on this subject: Carrier said, primarily based on the inscription that Jayhawker Soule brought up, that we can be fairly certain that Nazareth existed during that time period (the first century).

Not too long back, they also found a house that dated to around the time of Jesus, in Nazareth. I haven't seen any work that has claimed this to be false.

There are a variety of other archeological discoveries that also place Nazareth in the first century. The only thing against Nazareth from that time period is written accounts outside the Gospels. However, there have been a variety of villages never mentioned in text that we have later discovered. It really is evidence of anything, except that Nazareth was a nowhere place.


The biggest thing for the existence of Nazareth is why would they create such a village? It serves no real purpose. It would have been easier just to place Jesus in Bethlehem (Luke and Matthew even jump through hoops to get Jesus born there). But we can see that the tradition for Jesus being born in Nazareth was so strong, that he had to be placed there.

As for population numbers, there are rough estimates. However, we see this to be true for many ancient villages. They just didn't keep population records, so we have to try to figure them out through archeological evidence.

and:
We do know that it was there. The tablet that Jayhawker provided is all of the evidence we need. What you are asking us to believe is that during a war, a city pops up. That simply is not a very plausible explanation.

The fact that Jesus was said to be of Nazareth is also clear evidence that Nazareth existed during that time. All of the evidence we have of Nazareth points to it being a village of no real importance. It was a village of a few hundred people. Really nothing to write about. However, we do see that there was a very strong tradition about Jesus being from there. So strong was this tradition that Matthew and Luke have to jump through hoops in order to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. And instead of just leaving him there, which would make sense, we see that they are forced to put Jesus back in Nazareth. The Gospel writers simply were not able to get Jesus out of Nazareth because the tradition was too strong. And really, if they could have, they would have. John is the best example of this. There we see negative remarks about Nazareth. There is no reason to doubt that Nazareth existed.

Add that to the archeological evidence dating from around the time (the house, pottery shards, graves, etc), there is more than enough evidence to be sure that Nazareth existed during that time.




James Randi is not a Bible Scholar. I respect him, but he really has no background in this. And really, he seems to be more dealing with the tourist trade there than anything.

The fact that Jesus is said to be from Nazareth is more than enough evidence to suggest that it was a real site. The reason being, it would be ridiculous to put Jesus there if he wasn't from there. Why not just stick with the idea that he was born in Bethlehem and stayed there? It would have been much easier to do that. However, the Gospel writers were forced to place Jesus in some obscure village because that is where it was accepted that he lived. More so, there is never any sources during that time that state that there was no Nazareth. And really, if someone wanted to attack the Jesus story, and there were plenty, that would have been a prime discussion point.

As for the last thing that Randi stated, it simply was ignorant. When speaking of synagogues in ancient times, before the rise of Rabbinical Judaism and the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem, synagogues were different from the idea we have of them today. Many times, it was just a gathering place for Jews. It wasn't necessarily a distinct location set off just for that. Many times there were in someone's home, or the like. Not finding a synagogue structure really means nothing in this aspect, as one should not expect to find such.

Really, I just have to say that I am disappointed by the lack of credible research that James Randi did here.

 

[Shermana]

Randi probably has no idea what "Nazarene" means in the first place.

 

[fallingblood]

Some highlights:

"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. [/FONT]
​

"

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

So basically your argument is that since no one mentions it outside of the Gospels (an argument from silence) it must not have existed? That simply is a poor argument. We will just look at Paul quickly. He hardly even speaks about the earthly life of Jesus. He is more interested in his death and more so the resurrected Jesus. Nazareth simply does not factor into that. More so, Paul never states that he wasn't aware of Nazareth. His silence only means that either he wasn't questioned about it, or even possibly he didn't care. It does not automatically mean he didn't know of it. To state such simply is false.

So why wouldn't they mention Nazareth? Probably because it was a hamlet, of no real importance. Which begs the question, why place Jesus there at all then? It would have been easier to place Jesus in Bethlehem (as the birth stories do), and make that his home town. It would have worked better for his case of being the Messiah (the Gospel of John even mentions this. One of the accusations against Jesus being the Messiah or the like is that he was not from Bethlehem. More so, Nazareth is even insulted there, by it being implied that nothing good can from there, showing that it did not have a very good reputation). Really, there is no reason to have put Jesus in Nazareth if that wasn't where he was born, and if that isn't where people knew him to have been from.

As for others not mentioning it. That is true with many various small cities, especially in ancient times when writing was not a common practice.

 

[fallingblood]

Randi probably has no idea what "Nazarene" means in the first place.

I agree. I like Randi. I have talked to him in the past, and on some subjects, he has a wealth of knowledge. He is a nice guy for the most part. But he is over stepping his knowledge base, and really is just making a fool out of himself.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I mentioned Nazareth in 200 BCE.

 

[godnotgod]

OK. If you are so certain Nazareth existed, show us the archaeological evidence. The Bible refers to Nazareth not as a tent city, nor a hamlet, but either a TOWN or a CITY. That's C-I-T-Y!


Matthew 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”


Luke 1:26
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,


Luke 2:4
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

Luke 2:39
And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

And where are the remains of the 'synagogue' where Jesus supposedly preached?

Luke 4, 16-31; Mark 1, 15; Matthew 4, 17.
JESUS came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. When he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

'The Spirit of the Lord....[etc.]'

He closed the book, gave it again to the minister, and sat down. The eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him: and he began to say unto them,.....[etc.]

Yes, a 1st century house has recently been unearthed; that's a house, as in 'one'. So we know the depth at which 1st century evidence exists, but one house does not qualify as a hamlet, town, or city. To date, no other 1st century archaeological evidence of any hamlet, town, or city of Nazareth has been found at that level, in spite of extensive excavations.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree. I like Randi. I have talked to him in the past, and on some subjects, he has a wealth of knowledge. He is a nice guy for the most part. But he is over stepping his knowledge base, and really is just making a fool out of himself.

We have the audio-video recording of his delivery concerning the 'town of Nazareth' for reference. Show us anywhere in that recording where Randi is making a 'fool of himself'. Show us anywhere in that recording where he relates erroneous information.

The ball is in your court. Use it wisely.

 

[godnotgod]

So basically your argument is that since no one mentions it outside of the Gospels (an argument from silence) it must not have existed?

No! The FACT that it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, IS mentioned (many times) in the New Testament, along with the FACT that no archaeological evidence exists to support the Biblical references is the argument!

In other words, why is there no mention of Nazareth in the Old Testament, but there is in the New Testament? Achaeological evidence should, therefore, exist to support the testimony. It does not.

Something is wrong with this story.

If someone says that Martians exist, but there is zero evidence to support the claim, Martians do not exist until evidence is produced to support the claim. The claim is a substantial, delusive idea until then. Same goes for the Boogey Man, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Bigfoot, Satan, Jesus, and all the rest.

 

[Shermana]

What is a town? What is a city? What is a "Polis"? What did the author mean? Was it a community? Does it matter if the buildings are tents or if its a small size? Does Greek have words for "Hamlet"?

What would you call a community that is called "Nazareth" that is initially inhabited and made up of the Nazarene sect? Why was even Paul called the leader of the "sect of the Nazarenes", if Jesus himself was not the original Nazarene?

 

[fallingblood]

OK. If you are so certain Nazareth existed, show us the archaeological evidence. The Bible refers to Nazareth not as a tent city, nor a hamlet, but either a TOWN or a CITY. That's C-I-T-Y!


Matthew 2:23
And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”


Luke 1:26
In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,


Luke 2:4
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

Luke 2:39
And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.

And where are the remains of the 'synagogue' where Jesus supposedly preached?

Luke 4, 16-31; Mark 1, 15; Matthew 4, 17.
JESUS came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. When he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

'The Spirit of the Lord....[etc.]'

He closed the book, gave it again to the minister, and sat down. The eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him: and he began to say unto them,.....[etc.]

Yes, a 1st century house has recently been unearthed; that's a house, as in 'one'. So we know the depth at which 1st century evidence exists. To date, no other 1st century archaeological evidence of any hamlet, town, or city of Nazareth has been found at that level, in spite of extensive excavations.

You should read what I said before. But I will cover this.

You gave New Testament support for Nazareth being either a town or city. Can you show that those terms mean that Nazareth was a large population area like a modern day city or town? No. Archeological evidence supports the idea that Nazareth was a hamlet. Would it be incorrect for me to call it a town, village, etc. Most likely not as the words are defined by my perspective on them. Me calling Nazareth a hamlet is how I perceive it. I perceive it this way based on my current knowledge of population areas.

The terms city, town, village, etc, change their exact meanings from one person to another. I used to live in a small town in central North Dakota. People were I live now, a fairly decent sized city, would have described that same area as a village. Why? Because perspectives different. The Gospel writers calling Nazareth a city or town really does not mean that it was this large urban area or that it had a population that was of a large size. And we see what I am talking about right in the Gospels. As you pointed out, the Gospel writers, even in their own writings, will interchange the words town and city. Simply, they are not giving us clues or implying the size of Nazareth when they label it either city or town.

As for the synagogue. As I stated before, Randi, and others who complain that we can't find one, simply have done shoddy research. The synagogue, in the form we have it today, was not the norm. For the most part, a synagogue was just a gathering area. Many times, it was inside a home, thus, one would not have been able to discern it from any other building. There is no reason to even assume we would ever find a synagogue, as in a separate building defined as just that, as in the modern day sense, in a small area like Nazareth. If we did, that would be very odd, as it simply would go against what we know.

As for the extensive excavations, a house is actually quite a bit. More so, we do have textual references, later on: The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.[12] This fragment gives the town's name in Hebrew as "נצרת" (n-ts-r-t). The inscription dates to c. 300 AD and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, 132-35 AD. (Wiki)

That in itself would be enough to show that Nazareth existed.

 

[fallingblood]

We have the audio-video recording of his delivery concerning the 'town of Nazareth' for reference. Show us anywhere in that recording where Randi is making a 'fool of himself'. Show us anywhere in that recording where he relates erroneous information.

The ball is in your court. Use it wisely.

Read my post before that one you quoted.