No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

What type of Aramaic did Jesus speak? Aramaic ceased to be a uniform language during the anti-Semitic period of the Hellenistic Seleucids prior to the Maccabean revolt. During this period various dialects began to form on a regional basis, each with variations in pronunciation and vocabulary. These influences caused Aramaic to divide into a Western Branch with several dialects and an Eastern Branch with its dialects. The five periods of Aramaic, dating from 1000 B.C.E., are as follows:


Old Aramaic 1000 BCE to 700 BCE.
Imperial (Official) Aramaic 700 BCE to 200 BCE.
Middle Aramaic 200 BCE to 200 CE.
Late Aramaic 200 CE to 700 CE.
Modern Aramaic 700 CE to present

Jesus spoke the Galilean dialect of Middle Western Aramaic. The Galilean dialect was recognizable by Judeans much as a deep south dialect of English is recognized in the United States. Likewise, the Galilean dialect was considered provincial by the Judeans. Galileans had a tendency to drop the gutturals much like the Cockney "Enry" for Henry. An initial aleph was usually dropped, which explains why Jesus' good friend Alazar was called `Lazar by Jesus and eventually Latinized in the Vulgate to Lazarus. It is also why Simon Peter was recognized as a Galilean outside of the house of Caiaphas.

After a little while the men standing there came to Peter. "Of course you are one of them," they said. "After all, the way you speak gives you away!" Matthew 16:73

HISTORY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
*****

"The Hebrew name for Jesus, Yeshu, is evidence for the Galilean pronunciation for the period, and is in no way abusive. Jesus was a Galilean, and therefore the ‘a’ at the end of his name, Yeshua, was not pronounced" (Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, 1987, 15). This fact can also be substantiated by referring to the educated comments of the great theologian, Professor Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, in the NIDNTT (Colin Brown, ed), II, 331,332). [NIDNTT stands for New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.]

Biblical Research Institue {BRI}
*****
SCHOLARS

"Start with Yeshua. That's his name, not 'Jesus.' It's what his father and mother and his brothers and sisters called him and it's how his followers knew him. Probably the name was pronounced in the rough regional dialectr of Galilee as 'Yeshu'... (Akenson, 2000, p. 57)."

"In pre-exilic times, the name Yehoshua consisted of ... two roots. The first, yeho, is the theophoric referring to God. The second, shua, means "help" and the name meant, "Whose help is YHWH/God." In 2nd temple times, it became a practice NOT to use full theophorics to prevent accidentally voicing the name of God so the theophorics were truncated and Yehoshua became Y'shua. In the Galilee, Aramaic was pronounced differently and Galileans dropped their alefs and ayins like Cockney English drop their H's. Jesus' Galilean friends would have called him Yeshu. Therefore, in Judea and formally, his name was Yeshua, yehSHOO-ah, and in the Galilee his name was pronounced Yeshu, pronounced YEHshoo. Because of strong Hellenistic influence in Palestine at the time, some Jews with the name of Yeshua used a Greek transliteration of the name. Yeshua ben Sirach was one of them who went by the name IHSOUS, pronounced YAYsoos. Hence, Yeshua was rendered IHSOUS." (Jack Kilmon, 2006)

His Name Was Jesus Christ - Jesus Police Website

So Jesus and Yeshua were the same person, just different names. Great, you just supported what I have been saying.

 

[fallingblood]

If YOU knew how 'history works' you would not be using the Bible as a historical source. The Bible is not a historical document; it is a religious one.

Stop talking about history when at the same time you refuse to acknowledge the complete lack of archaeological evidence, which is hard historical evidence, that a 1st century place called 'Nazareth' existed. It did not. Period.

The Bible is a historical source. It concerns past events. It belongs to the past, not the present.

Sure, all of the books contained in the Bible are not history books. However, you have to realize that the Bible is a collection of books that spans many different genre. There are history books in the Bible.

More so, when concerning Jesus, early Christianity, etc, the Bible is a very valuable source. There really is no denying that.

As for Nazareth, you have never shown that it didn't exist. You didn't supply evidence it existed. A lack of evidence simply is not good enough.

Especially when one considers that the Gospels, the earliest having been written around 70 C.E., is clear evidence that Nazareth was in existence during at least that time. And since the author of the Gospels would have been living for some time before they wrote their Gospels, it would be quite odd for them to state that Nazareth existed earlier on if they knew it didn't.

Add to that the fact that we have found some archeological evidence dating from that time period (such as the recently discovered house), that adds much more to the argument that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus and certainly shows that Nazareth existed during the first century.

History is more than just archeological evidence.

I and outhouse have been demanding the evidence from the get-go, but you have come up with NOTHING! Maybe you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'. You know...as in 'FACTS'? So...now that we know what we are looking for, show us the evidence for YOUR idea that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus.

Arguments and evidence have been provided. You simply dismiss them for one reason or another. More so, as Nazareth is generally accepted to have existed during the first century, during the time of Jesus, I don't have to burden of proof.

You claimed that Nazareth did not exist. That is a statement that goes against what is generally accepted. Thus, you have the burden of proof in the first place. You have not shown any reason to doubt that Nazareth existed. You haven't provided evidence for your claim. So really, you're being hypocritical here.

What 'idea'? I am not the one with any 'ideas'. YOU and others are the ones proposing that a town or city called 'Nazareth' existed in the 1st century. That is an idea. When we go there and look, there is no evidence to support YOUR idea. That there is no evidence is not an idea. It is a FACT.

You have no idea what an idea is do you? The fact that you state that Nazareth didn't exist, that is an idea.

And yes, there is enough evidence for Nazareth to say that it did exist. You simply dismiss them without showing why the evidence is not good enough. At the same time, you're only argument is a lack of evidence. That is not good enough. Especially when the accepted stance on the subject is that Nazareth did exist. Really, I don't have to prove something that is already generally accepted.

Your 'arguments' are not evidence. They are mere conjecture on your part, and not very scholarly conjecture at that.

My arguments are based on evidence. Within my arguments, I have presented evidence.

As for being scholarly; as most scholars would agree that Nazareth existed during the first century, during the time of Jesus, I would say that my "conjecture" is quite scholarly, as it follows what most scholars would say on the subject.

As for conjecture, you really are in no place to criticize that.

That it is a fact that he is 'said' to be from there does not mean he actually was from there. Your argument is based on hearsay, which is not factual, and your logic is faulty. It is a FACT that it is said that Santa Claus is from the North Pole, but that does not make it so.

That is just asinine. The main difference here is that Jesus was a historical figure. That is accepted. Santa Claus was never said to be a historical figure, and his story has always been fiction. There is a huge difference here.

And yes, Jesus being said to be from Nazareth means a lot. I have already explained this over and over again. There is no reason to place Jesus in Nazareth unless he was actually from there. It caused various problems.

As for hearsay, you really are in no place to talk. The works I'm using, the Gospels, are not that distant from the subject they are speaking about. Some 40 years really isn't that long considering the time period in which they were being written. The sources that supported your position, that Jesus was an Essene, and from Mt. Caramel, etc, are so distant that they really tell us nothing. They are worst then hearsay, they are fabricated conjecture based on nothing that is logical at all. Like I said, you are in no place to talk.

Hearsay can be factual though. That is why, in certain cases, it is allowed in a court of law. More so, when you read a newspaper, you are hearing hearsay many times. Much of history is based on hearsay. History does not rule out hearsay as being factual.

Finally, as for my logic being faulty. I am not the one talking about Santa Claus.

How would YOU know what the credibility of the 'authors' is/was? The fact is that they were NOT the authors. The actual authors are unknown. You just want to use whatever you may find to support your religious beliefs, and that is not scholarly. Stop making things up to suit your fancies.

Did I mention who the Gospel authors were? Did I say that the traditional authors were truly the authors of the Gospels? No, I did not. More so, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are. So your statement is just ignorant.

We know that the Gospels were written in the first century. It doesn't matter who wrote them in this case. They were in a great position to state whether or not Nazareth existed, as they were living at that time. The fact that they stated that Nazareth did exist, gives the existence of Nazareth quite a bit of credibility.

I'm not making anything up. I'm not the one saying that Yeshua and Jesus were not the same person.

More nebulous conjecture and faulty logic on your part. The only 'reasonable' thing you can show me about Nazareth is the archaeological evidence. I know. You're saving it up for the end, huh?

So basically you have no argument against mine, so you ignorantly dismiss it? That is great, now I know that responding to you is a waste of time as you have blinders on. Until you can actually take the time and fight your ignorance on the subject, I will no longer be responding to you.

 

[Shermana]

Is there any actual evidence that Napoleon was from Corsica?

 

[Tellurian]

I find it funny how you don't actually deal with the vast majority of the arguments offered to you. In fact, I'm still waiting to see your argument as to why my article on Josephus and Jesus is so bad. I mean, you did dismiss it quite a few times, and I am still waiting to see why. However, I doubt I will ever see an actual argument as to why my information was lacking.

Angel lous evangel lous said this thread had branched off from the original Nazareth topic, and he thought the Josephus discussion should be put into another thread, and since your long, long article was about Josephus instead of Nazareth I was just waiting for the thread to be divided before replying because there were so many problems with your article.

But for this post. Jesus ben Pantera is a specific figure. You admit such. We see this individual being introduced in the Talmud, which is the place where we see the name first appear. Celsus never refers to Jesus as such. Celsus insteads relates a story in which the father of Jesus is a Roman soldier named Pantera. The difference is quite a bit, when one actually reads about Jesus ben Pantera (or Yeshu ben Pantera to be more accurate) in the Talmud.

So how many sons named Yeshu (Jesus) do you think the Roman soldier named Pantera had? Do you understand that the name Yeshu ben Pantera means Jesus, son of Pantera?

When one reads of Yeshu ben Pantera in the Tosefta and Talmud, one will notice that what we do hear about this fellow does not resemble the man Celsus is speaking of. From what we can gather, they are probably speaking of two different individuals. In fact, it is not until even later, with the Toledot Yeshu that we hear about Jesus being the illegitimate son of a Roman solider, and that account is of such a late date it really can not be held as credible in any sense.

When we do see Celsus speak of Jesus though, he does make it clear that he is speaking of the Jesus that Christians worshipped. Celsus makes it clear that he is speaking of Jesus, the Jesus we know of from the Bible. He may have been convinced that Jesus was the son of a Roman solider; however, he still accepted the idea that Christians believed that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Similarities between Yeshu ben Pantera in the Talmud and the Jesus, son of Pantera who was mentioned by Celsus:

Both had a Roman father named Pantera

Both were born to a poor woman named Miriam (Mary) who gave birth away from home

Both spent time in Egypt

Both were arrested for deceiving the Jewish people

Both were condemned for sorcery/magic

Both were arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin

Again, Celsus never doubted that Jesus actually existed. He doubted some of the stories that revolved around him. But he did not deny that Jesus existed.

Celsus did not deny that the Christians had taken Yeshu ben Pantera and turned him into their divine "son of god".

As for reading Celsus. Yes, his works themselves may not have been preserved. However, like you said, Origen did preserve them to a point, meaning that we can still read what Celsus wrote. And really, you need to do exactly that.

What we have is what Origen claims was said by Celsus.

 

[Shermana]

Who said that Jesus was born of Pantera first, Celsus or the Talmudists?

The Talmud also says that Nero became a Jew. But I do believe what it says about Clement. (Pseudo-Clement that is).

 

[godnotgod]

So Jesus and Yeshua were the same person, just different names. Great, you just supported what I have been saying.

Nope! Nope! and Nope!

One more time:

Yeshua was a real man.

Yeshua did not teach:

a> virgin birth
b> bodily resurrection
c> eating/drinking of flesh and blood

Yeshua's teachings were overwritten to include the above doctrines. The result is the fiction known as 'Jesus'.

Jesus is not Yeshua.

 

[outhouse]

Nope! Nope! and Nope!

One more time:

Yeshua was a real man.

Yeshua did not teach:

a> virgin birth
b> bodily resurrection
c> eating/drinking of flesh and blood

Yeshua's teachings were overwritten to include the above doctrines. The result is the fiction known as 'Jesus'.

Jesus is not Yeshua.

Yeshua and jesus were one in the same, no matter how you slice it, they were.

theology was added, no one will deny that.


You cannot seperate the two other then interpretation of different languages.

 

[fallingblood]

Nope! Nope! and Nope!

One more time:

Yeshua was a real man.

Yeshua did not teach:

a> virgin birth
b> bodily resurrection
c> eating/drinking of flesh and blood

Yeshua's teachings were overwritten to include the above doctrines. The result is the fiction known as 'Jesus'.

Jesus is not Yeshua.

Yes, Jesus and Yeshua are the same. The information that I quoted of yours stated just that. Jesus is just the Greek name for Yeshua.

More so, Jesus never taught about the virgin birth. Bodily resurrection was actually not a foreign idea during that time, so it is likely he mentioned the idea of resurrection. And Jesus never taught anyone to eat flesh or drink blood. Your lack of understanding of Christianity and Jesus simply is dumbfounding.

Yeshua and Jesus are the same, just different names.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus is not Yeshua.

In Hebrew Jesus is: Yehohshu'a
In Greek Jesus is: Iesous'

In Hebrew God [YHWH] is: Yahweh' or Yehowah'

 

[fallingblood]

Angel lous evangel lous said this thread had branched off from the original Nazareth topic, and he thought the Josephus discussion should be put into another thread, and since your long, long article was about Josephus instead of Nazareth I was just waiting for the thread to be divided before replying because there were so many problems with your article.

Why not just address the subject in the original thread I had made, the one you had such a problem with? Here is the link again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html Have at it.

So how many sons named Yeshu (Jesus) do you think the Roman soldier named Pantera had? Do you understand that the name Yeshu ben Pantera means Jesus, son of Pantera?

Considering that Jesus was quite a common name, I wouldn't say it is impossible there was another. Especially since the Talmud, or Tosefta never state that this character was the illegitimate son of a Roman solider. In fact, Jesus and Mary are never even directly associated. More so, the accounts don't even always agree with each other anyway.

More so, Celsus also does not use the name Pantera (or Pandera, or the other spellings found in the Talmud or Tosefta). Instead, he uses a Greek spelling of Panthera. So again, we see another difference.

Similarities between Yeshu ben Pantera in the Talmud and the Jesus, son of Pantera who was mentioned by Celsus:

Both had a Roman father named Pantera

Yes, both are called the son of Pantera. We are not told if he was a Roman solider in the Talmud or Tosefta. He is called a solider in Celsus account. So there is one difference here.

Both were born to a poor woman named Miriam (Mary) who gave birth away from home

That also isn't true. In fact, Jesus and Mary are never directly associated in the Talmudic texts. More so, they never state that Mary gave birth away from home. Celsus may, but again, we see differences.

More so, if we look at the Talmudic text in this regard, they are not consistent with each other.

Both spent time in Egypt

Yes, a Yeshua in the Talmud is said to have spent time in Egypt; however, he is not associated with Yeshua ben Pandera. There are quite a few people named Yeshua in the Talmud, and we should expect that as Yeshua was quite a popular name.

Both were arrested for deceiving the Jewish people

Yes, a Yeshua was said to have been arrested for such. However, again, not associated with Yeshua ben Pandera. And really, there were many individuals name Yeshua during that period.

Both were condemned for sorcery/magic

Again, yes a Yeshua was said to be condemned for such, but he is not associated with Yeshua ben Pandera.

Both were arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin

Same as above. Not associated with Yeshau ben Pandera.

All I can say is that you haven't read the accounts in the Talmud or Tosefta very carefully. There were multiple Yeshuas mentioned in the Talmud and other Jewish texts. They do not all refer to the same character as Yeshua ben Pandera. In fact, if you read the content, many are identified as various other people.

Celsus did not deny that the Christians had taken Yeshu ben Pantera and turned him into their divine "son of god".

Again, you need to read Celsus. He makes it clear that the Jesus he is talking about is the Jesus who was supposedly born of a virgin Mary, is the Jesus of Christianity worshipped, the Jesus we see in the Bible. To deny such simply is foolish.

What we have is what Origen claims was said by Celsus.

And as that is all we have, that is what we have to rely on. If you want to discuss Celsus, Origen is the source we have. You can take that or leave it. However, if you want to dismiss what Origen claims was said by Celsus, then you have to dismiss what he says about Jesus all together. You can't pick and choose what of Celsus you want to accept, and what you don't, simply because it fits your beliefs.

So again, if you want to continue discussing this, you need to read Celsus. And as the source we have for Celsus is Origen, then you need to read those accounts.

 

[Tellurian]

Considering that Jesus was quite a common name, I wouldn't say it is impossible there was another. Especially since the Talmud, or Tosefta never state that this character was the illegitimate son of a Roman solider. In fact, Jesus and Mary are never even directly associated. More so, the accounts don't even always agree with each other anyway.

More so, Celsus also does not use the name Pantera (or Pandera, or the other spellings found in the Talmud or Tosefta). Instead, he uses a Greek spelling of Panthera. So again, we see another difference.

It is becoming more obvious that you are getting your misinformation from sources that are either ignorant of the facts or are trying to intentionally misrepresent the facts. The following link provides information from one biblical scholar who has done a lot of investigations into Pantera and Yeshu ben Pantera:

The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is becoming more obvious that you are getting your misinformation from sources that are either ignorant of the facts or are trying to intentionally misrepresent the facts. The following link provides information from one biblical scholar who has done a lot of investigations into Pantera and Yeshu ben Pantera:

The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

It's so difficult to stay on track.

Talk about misrepersenting the facts.

James Tabor writes - on your own source -

entry dated 10/10/2010

My own position is that Jesus’ biological father remains unknown but is unlikely Joseph, husband of Mary.

 

[godnotgod]

The Bible is a historical source. It concerns past events. It belongs to the past, not the present.

Sure, all of the books contained in the Bible are not history books. However, you have to realize that the Bible is a collection of books that spans many different genre. There are history books in the Bible.

It is not written AS a history; it is written as religious doctrine. While there is some history within its pages, its primary focus is on religious matters such as sin and salvation. The resurrection, for example, cannot be verified as a historical fact. It is merely a religious belief. Neither can the parable of the loaves and fishes, or the changing of water into wine, and on and on. Whatever history the Bible contains must be carefully validated, since it must serve doctrine and belief first.

More so, when concerning Jesus, early Christianity, etc, the Bible is a very valuable source. There really is no denying that.

On the contrary: the Bible, especially in the telling of early Christianity, is very corrupted. Most of early Christianity was Gnostic and mystical; The Vatican eliminated or destroyed many of these kinds of works from the Bible at the Council of Nicea.

As for Nazareth, you have never shown that it didn't exist. You didn't supply evidence it existed. A lack of evidence simply is not good enough.

Heh heh heh.....Oh, you silly people! You come forth and make claims, and when they are questioned, you try to turn the tables on those you are trying to convince by placing the burden of proof on them, when it is YOU who must bear the burden of proof of your initial claim. In case you fail to understand how this works: The Bible states that Nazareth existed during Jesus's time; OK, fair enough. So we go look, and look, and look. No Nazareth. Now you say you want proof that it does'nt exist. If a lack of evidence is not good enough, then what is? There is no evidence that 1st century Nazareth existed. Therefore, it does not exist, until proven otherwise. To state that it does until proven otherwise is illogical, since there is no evidence to support the false claim that it does. Get it?

Especially when one considers that the Gospels, the earliest having been written around 70 C.E., is clear evidence that Nazareth was in existence during at least that time. And since the author of the Gospels would have been living for some time before they wrote their Gospels, it would be quite odd for them to state that Nazareth existed earlier on if they knew it didn't.

So why did they state that it did?

Add to that the fact that we have found some archeological evidence dating from that time period (such as the recently discovered house), that adds much more to the argument that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus and certainly shows that Nazareth existed during the first century.

It shows nothing of the kind. It merely shows that a house...one house...existed at that time in that place. What was also uncovered was a wine press. The house was most likely a farmhouse in a vineyard. One house is not Nazareth. Your logic is quite distorted.

History is more than just archeological evidence.

You have neither archaeological evidence nor history. As was pointed out previously:


".....there is a wealth of evidence that Nazareth did not even exist at the time of Jesus as it is described in the New Testament. It may have been a tiny spot where transient Arabs established tent cities or where people lived in "wretched caves", but it certainly wasn't a City that supported a sizable population and a synagogue. Cross and Reed (2001) claimed its inhabitants "lived in hovels and simple peasant houses (p. 32)." Keller (1988) calls them "cave dwellers". In support of this, Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament, or in the works of Jewish historian Josephus nor in any of the Epistles, nor in the Talmud [1]. Nor was there a major road in that area at that time (Sanders, p. 104). In fact, from the archeological evidence available to date (Crosson & Reed, 2001), the town of Nazareth was created after the time of Jesus, partly as a result of a mis-translation. One scholar (Gardner, 2004) dates it from 60 A.D. and Crosson (1991) from 70 A.D. Finegan (1969) provides a thorough discussion of the archeological evidence, and offers the belief that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus (largely because of the number of graves), yet the earliest date he can muster is after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., more than 30 years after Jesus’ death."

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Arguments and evidence have been provided. You simply dismiss them for one reason or another. More so, as Nazareth is generally accepted to have existed during the first century, during the time of Jesus, I don't have to burden of proof.

That's insane! I dismiss them because there is no evidence to support such unfounded 'arguments'. 1st century Nazareth is 'generally accepted' because an untruth has become standardized dogma. If you refuse to accept the burden of proof, then your claim is without merit. It is then based soley on belief and hearsay.

You claimed that Nazareth did not exist.

Well, I hate to inform you, but it does not, in fact, exist! Sorry!

NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST CENTURY! PERIOD!

That is a statement that goes against what is generally accepted.

HA HA HA HA.....:biglaugh: Listen up: That the earth was flat was 'generally accepted' for centuries until Galileo proved otherwise. You see...Galileo made a statement that went against what was generally accepted, and he was right! So now what shall we do with your pile of erroneous logic?

Thus, you have the burden of proof in the first place.

How so? I am not the one advancing the idea that it existed in the first place. You are the one trying to convince me, with your original statement, that Nazareth existed in the 1st century. I did not initially come forth with the statement that it did not, remember?

You have not shown any reason to doubt that Nazareth existed. You haven't provided evidence for your claim. So really, you're being hypocritical here.

Uh...zero archaeological evidence is not a good reason to doubt its existence, along with the fact that:

• 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.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

You have no idea what an idea is do you? The fact that you state that Nazareth didn't exist, that is an idea.

No, it is evidence, based on facts. Your stating that it exists is an idea which has now been refuted. An idea is something that may be true or not. The evidence shows that, in this case, it is not true. If you are going to come forth with such an idea, you should be prepared to show evidence of its validity. I have shown that the idea is invalid, based on the lack of evidence to support its truthfullness.

And yes, there is enough evidence for Nazareth to say that it did exist. You simply dismiss them without showing why the evidence is not good enough.

It is NOT good enough, and that has been adequately demonstrated in the previous paragraphs. Taken as a whole, the evidence points to it NOT existing, in spite of what the Bible says.

*****

 

[godnotgod]

At the same time, you're only argument is a lack of evidence. That is not good enough. Especially when the accepted stance on the subject is that Nazareth did exist. Really, I don't have to prove something that is already generally accepted.

So you still believe in the flat earth theory, which was generally accepted as true....and you are under no obligation to assume the burden of proof for your claim? The earth is flat, and the fact that everyone believes it to be flat is proof that it is. Good thinking, there, genius.

My arguments are based on evidence. Within my arguments, I have presented evidence.

Yes indeed! Good evidence! 'Everyone believes Nazareth existed in the 1st century, therefore it MUST be true.' Uh huh. Right.

The people of Mexico believe that the Lady of Guadalupe is real, but when presented with the truth that she is actually an Aztec goddess, Tonantzin, who was adopted by the Church in order to convert millions of indigenous Indios into Christianity, they deny it and continue to affirm that, well, their ancestors and those who went before them believed she is the Lady of Guadalupe and they are'nt going to change now, just because the truth proves otherwise. Why, that would be just too inconvenient!

As for being scholarly; as most scholars would agree that Nazareth existed during the first century, during the time of Jesus, I would say that my "conjecture" is quite scholarly, as it follows what most scholars would say on the subject.

'scholars, shmolars'. Stop trying to hide behind the color of authority. You are far from scholarly. You haven't a clue as to what the word entails. You admit you think something is true because you go along with the status quo. A real scholar thinks for himself. What is genuinely scholarly is to surrender your preconceptions in light of the evidence, and the evidence is now showing that what most scholars previously accepted has now been overturned, just as Galileo overturned the dogma that the earth was flat.

In fact, Yeshua came along to overturn entrenched but false ideas in HIS time.

As for conjecture, you really are in no place to criticize that.

I'm not criticizing it; I'm merely pointing out the fact that you are using conjecture to defend your claim. Conjecture is not evidence. You are bending the truth to fit your teeth, and that ain't nice.

That is just asinine. The main difference here is that Jesus was a historical figure.

So you say. Do you have any historical evidence to demonstrate your claim?

That is accepted.

But not because it is historical, but because it serves people's emotional and psychological needs, which have to do with metaphysical anxiety over their existence, death, and their ultimate fates.

Santa Claus was never said to be a historical figure, and his story has always been fiction. There is a huge difference here.

No, there is not. Children believe him to be real, just as Christians believe Jesus to be real. Santa has as much historical validity as does Jesus. It's just that children one day awaken to the fact that Santa is fiction, while Christians are still asleep and in a hypnotic trance, a trance just like the prisoners who are locked onto the cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave Allegory. Both believe in things that do not actually exist.

And yes, Jesus being said to be from Nazareth means a lot. I have already explained this over and over again. There is no reason to place Jesus in Nazareth unless he was actually from there. It caused various problems.

Oh, and we must be careful to avoid problems at all costs, should'nt we, especially when facts get in the way.

As for hearsay, you really are in no place to talk. The works I'm using, the Gospels, are not that distant from the subject they are speaking about. Some 40 years really isn't that long considering the time period in which they were being written. The sources that supported your position, that Jesus was an Essene, and from Mt. Caramel, etc, are so distant that they really tell us nothing. They are worst then hearsay, they are fabricated conjecture based on nothing that is logical at all. Like I said, you are in no place to talk.

The difference between Yeshua the Essene and Jesus is like Michelangelo's original Sistine Chapel paintings which were covered over for decades to hide their true beauty. On top of the pure and simple teachings of Yeshua, we have doctrinal goop like thick syrup poured over them. For now, I will just tell you this:

Yeshua is a product of the East, not the West. The Essenes of Mt. Carmel were connected to the Therapeutae of Egypt and Greece, who in turn were sects of Theravada Buddhism from India, sent by the Buddhist King, Asoka, around 200 BC. All were spiritual healers. Where do you think the healing powers of 'Jesus' came from? In the East, the life force is in the breath, not the blood. This is consistent with Yeshua's original teachings. Superstitious beliefs that the blood is the life force are found in paganism, such as Mithraism and other mystery religions which abounded at the time, and in which St. Paul was immersed. It was these pagan ideas which became interwoven into the teachings of Yeshua, corrupting them.

More on this later....

Hearsay can be factual though. That is why, in certain cases, it is allowed in a court of law. More so, when you read a newspaper, you are hearing hearsay many times. Much of history is based on hearsay. History does not rule out hearsay as being factual.

True, but in this particular case, the facts surrounding the statements found in the NT point to it not only as being possible hearsay (ie; a mistake replicated over and over by others), but false, since it exists in a vacuum, those facts being the ones I pointed out such as no mention of Nazareth in the OT, etc.

Finally, as for my logic being faulty. I am not the one talking about Santa Claus.

There! You see how faulty your logic actually is? Unfortunately, you are so convinced by your own delusions that you fail to see their inconsistency.

Did I mention who the Gospel authors were? Did I say that the traditional authors were truly the authors of the Gospels? No, I did not. More so, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are. So your statement is just ignorant.

Now you're just being defensive. I am the one who volunteered the information to indicate the further unreliability of the authorship of the Gospels, which you seem to put so much stock in.

We know that the Gospels were written in the first century. It doesn't matter who wrote them in this case. They were in a great position to state whether or not Nazareth existed, as they were living at that time. The fact that they stated that Nazareth did exist, gives the existence of Nazareth quite a bit of credibility.

Why? Because the thought fills you with egotistical affirmation of your beliefs? Half a century is an eternity when it comes to rendering factual information. The truth is that we have no OTHER information about Nazareth to support the statements about it being made in the NT. They are being stated in a vacuum. If Nazareth had been an ongoing community, we would have data about it from many other sources, including maps. We have none.

I'm not making anything up. I'm not the one saying that Yeshua and Jesus were not the same person.

To say that they are the same person is to make things up, or to believe in things that are made up. They are completely different personages.

So basically you have no argument against mine, so you ignorantly dismiss it? That is great, now I know that responding to you is a waste of time as you have blinders on. Until you can actually take the time and fight your ignorance on the subject, I will no longer be responding to you.

Now is'nt that convenient! In the meantime, maybe you can take a nice long trip across the flat earth to clear the cobwebs out of your brain.

Bon voyage![/QUOTE]

 

[fallingblood]

It is becoming more obvious that you are getting your misinformation from sources that are either ignorant of the facts or are trying to intentionally misrepresent the facts. The following link provides information from one biblical scholar who has done a lot of investigations into Pantera and Yeshu ben Pantera:

The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

Why not actually argue against what I am saying instead of just dismissing it and posting a link? You may get further. Especially if you had even read your links.

 

[fallingblood]

So you still believe in the flat earth theory, which was generally accepted as true....and you are under no obligation to assume the burden of proof for your claim? The earth is flat, and the fact that everyone believes it to be flat is proof that it is. Good thinking, there, genius.

I just couldn't pass this up. This shows your lack of understanding in general as well as your ignorance. Is the accepted idea today that the Earth is flat? No. If one wants to argue such they have the burden of proof as it is generally accepted that the Earth is round.

You need to think before you post and you actually need to read what is said. Otherwise you just look foolish.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Vatican eliminated or destroyed many of these kinds of works from the Bible at the Council of Nicea.

So you criticize fallingblood for using poor sources. Then you present a source that directly contradicts your position.

Now you're making stuff up.

What's hilariously pathetic is that you can't even make stuff up that is believable because it has such a disconnect with what you're lying about.

I hope that you didn't read anything like this in a book. But if you did, I wish that I had written it and that you had paid good money for it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

'scholars, shmolars'. Stop trying to hide behind the color of authority. You are far from scholarly. You haven't a clue as to what the word entails. You admit you think something is true because you go along with the status quo. A real scholar thinks for himself. What is genuinely scholarly is to surrender your preconceptions in light of the evidence, and the evidence is now showing that what most scholars previously accepted has now been overturned, just as Galileo overturned the dogma that the earth was flat.

Well, where do we start?

Galileo did not overturn the dogma that the world was flat. If you had the ability to distinguish a scholar from your elbow, you would at least know something about one of the most famous scientists that has ever lived. It is useful that you do this because it demonstrates once again that you're willing to make up stuff whole cloth in order to support your beliefs. Stop doing this. You're embarassing yourself.

It is easy and convinent for you to dismiss scholarship because scholars can't anticipate what you're going to try and make up next. You barely know of one scholar and you misquote and abuse him to suit your ever changing purposes.

 

[Quagmire]

At the same time, you're only argument is a lack of evidence. That is not good enough. Especially when the accepted stance on the subject is that Nazareth did exist. Really, I don't have to prove something that is already generally accepted.

So you still believe in the flat earth theory, which was generally accepted as true....and you are under no obligation to assume the burden of proof for your claim? The earth is flat, and the fact that everyone believes it to be flat is proof that it is. Good thinking, there, genius.

My arguments are based on evidence. Within my arguments, I have presented evidence.

Yes indeed! Good evidence! 'Everyone believes Nazareth existed in the 1st century, therefore it MUST be true.' Uh huh. Right.

The people of Mexico believe that the Lady of Guadalupe is real, but when presented with the truth that she is actually an Aztec goddess, Tonantzin, who was adopted by the Church in order to convert millions of indigenous Indios into Christianity, they deny it and continue to affirm that, well, their ancestors and those who went before them believed she is the Lady of Guadalupe and they are'nt going to change now, just because the truth proves otherwise. Why, that would be just too inconvenient!

As for being scholarly; as most scholars would agree that Nazareth existed during the first century, during the time of Jesus, I would say that my "conjecture" is quite scholarly, as it follows what most scholars would say on the subject.

'scholars, shmolars'. Stop trying to hide behind the color of authority. You are far from scholarly. You haven't a clue as to what the word entails. You admit you think something is true because you go along with the status quo. A real scholar thinks for himself. What is genuinely scholarly is to surrender your preconceptions in light of the evidence, and the evidence is now showing that what most scholars previously accepted has now been overturned, just as Galileo overturned the dogma that the earth was flat.

In fact, Yeshua came along to overturn entrenched but false ideas in HIS time.

As for conjecture, you really are in no place to criticize that.

I'm not criticizing it; I'm merely pointing out the fact that you are using conjecture to defend your claim. Conjecture is not evidence. You are bending the truth to fit your teeth, and that ain't nice.

That is just asinine. The main difference here is that Jesus was a historical figure.

So you say. Do you have any historical evidence to demonstrate your claim?

That is accepted.

But not because it is historical, but because it serves people's emotional and psychological needs, which have to do with metaphysical anxiety over their existence, death, and their ultimate fates.

Santa Claus was never said to be a historical figure, and his story has always been fiction. There is a huge difference here.

No, there is not. Children believe him to be real, just as Christians believe Jesus to be real. Santa has as much historical validity as does Jesus. It's just that children one day awaken to the fact that Santa is fiction, while Christians are still asleep and in a hypnotic trance, a trance just like the prisoners who are locked onto the cave wall shadows in Plato's Cave Allegory. Both believe in things that do not actually exist.

And yes, Jesus being said to be from Nazareth means a lot. I have already explained this over and over again. There is no reason to place Jesus in Nazareth unless he was actually from there. It caused various problems.

Oh, and we must be careful to avoid problems at all costs, should'nt we, especially when facts get in the way.

As for hearsay, you really are in no place to talk. The works I'm using, the Gospels, are not that distant from the subject they are speaking about. Some 40 years really isn't that long considering the time period in which they were being written. The sources that supported your position, that Jesus was an Essene, and from Mt. Caramel, etc, are so distant that they really tell us nothing. They are worst then hearsay, they are fabricated conjecture based on nothing that is logical at all. Like I said, you are in no place to talk.

The difference between Yeshua the Essene and Jesus is like Michelangelo's original Sistine Chapel paintings which were covered over for decades to hide their true beauty. On top of the pure and simple teachings of Yeshua, we have doctrinal goop like thick syrup poured over them. For now, I will just tell you this:

Yeshua is a product of the East, not the West. The Essenes of Mt. Carmel were connected to the Therapeutae of Egypt and Greece, who in turn were sects of Theravada Buddhism from India, sent by the Buddhist King, Asoka, around 200 BC. All were spiritual healers. Where do you think the healing powers of 'Jesus' came from? In the East, the life force is in the breath, not the blood. This is consistent with Yeshua's original teachings. Superstitious beliefs that the blood is the life force are found in paganism, such as Mithraism and other mystery religions which abounded at the time, and in which St. Paul was immersed. It was these pagan ideas which became interwoven into the teachings of Yeshua, corrupting them.

More on this later....

Hearsay can be factual though. That is why, in certain cases, it is allowed in a court of law. More so, when you read a newspaper, you are hearing hearsay many times. Much of history is based on hearsay. History does not rule out hearsay as being factual.

True, but in this particular case, the facts surrounding the statements found in the NT point to it not only as being possible hearsay (ie; a mistake replicated over and over by others), but false, since it exists in a vacuum, those facts being the ones I pointed out such as no mention of Nazareth in the OT, etc.

Finally, as for my logic being faulty. I am not the one talking about Santa Claus.

There! You see how faulty your logic actually is? Unfortunately, you are so convinced by your own delusions that you fail to see their inconsistency.

Did I mention who the Gospel authors were? Did I say that the traditional authors were truly the authors of the Gospels? No, I did not. More so, you have no idea what my religious beliefs are. So your statement is just ignorant.

Now you're just being defensive. I am the one who volunteered the information to indicate the further unreliability of the authorship of the Gospels, which you seem to put so much stock in.

We know that the Gospels were written in the first century. It doesn't matter who wrote them in this case. They were in a great position to state whether or not Nazareth existed, as they were living at that time. The fact that they stated that Nazareth did exist, gives the existence of Nazareth quite a bit of credibility.

Why? Because the thought fills you with egotistical affirmation of your beliefs? Half a century is an eternity when it comes to rendering factual information. The truth is that we have no OTHER information about Nazareth to support the statements about it being made in the NT. They are being stated in a vacuum. If Nazareth had been an ongoing community, we would have data about it from many other sources, including maps. We have none.

I'm not making anything up. I'm not the one saying that Yeshua and Jesus were not the same person.

To say that they are the same person is to make things up, or to believe in things that are made up. They are completely different personages.

So basically you have no argument against mine, so you ignorantly dismiss it? That is great, now I know that responding to you is a waste of time as you have blinders on. Until you can actually take the time and fight your ignorance on the subject, I will no longer be responding to you.

Now is'nt that convenient! In the meantime, maybe you can take a nice long trip across the flat earth to clear the cobwebs out of your brain.

Bon voyage!

Here ya go, godnotgod: How To Use the Quote Feature

 

[Tellurian]

It's so difficult to stay on track.

Talk about misrepersenting the facts.

James Tabor writes - on your own source -

entry dated 10/10/2010

Quote:
My own position is that Jesus’ biological father remains unknown but is unlikely Joseph, husband of Mary.

And following that statement he went on to write, "I then pose the sensitive question–if not Joseph then whom? Is there anything at all to be said of this matter? Has any alternative tradition regarding Jesus’ father come down to us? And the answer is yes, the name Pantera is found in a number of ancient sources."

"We have two stories preserved in supplements to the Mishnah called the Tosefta (as well as in other parallel rabbinic texts but primarily see Tosefta Chullin 2:22-24) that refer to “Yeshu ben Pantera” (with alternate spelling variations). The first involves the famous Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus who lived in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD. Rabbi Eliezer relates a teaching in the “name of Yeshu ben Pantera” that he heard on the streets of Sepphoris from one Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin. Eliezer himself had been arrested for “heresy” and some have suspected he might have been sympathetic to the Nazarenes. The second story also involves Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin who attempts to heal a certain Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama of a snakebite in the name of “Yeshu ben Pantera.”