No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

I did not mean to confuse you with mere facts. We can take them one at a time, if that will help you to understand.

Find some and we can talk.

 

[godnotgod]

The thing is - you're not relying on the competency other others.

You have to be at least competent enough to (1) read your sources well and (2) choose good sources. You have done neither.

Fortunately, competency can be learned, provided that arrogance and laziness are overcome.

You do make me regret that I have the integrity not to make up crap like this and sell it.

In just sitting back and slinging ****, you prove your own incompetency. What do you have to actually say?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In just sitting back and slinging ****, you prove your own incompetency. What do you have to actually say?

haha

And you measure my incompetency how?

I did respond to your "facts" btw. If you had actually addressed the issue, the conversation would not be so one sided.

I suspect that you didn't read any of the archaeological reports or any of the other original sources. I little bit of gumption is hard to find I guess.

 

[fallingblood]

However, the original claim is made by Christianity: that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time. We find, however, that there are problems associated with this statement, as has been pointed out, problems which are not solely archaeological in nature. The claim is generally accepted, not because it has merit, but because it is being made under the color of Biblical authority. That, too, was the problem with the flat earth idea: it was maintained as dogma by the Church. Who is to question either claim, since the Church and the Bible are its authority?

You need to do a little research. Christianity has maintained the Earth was spherical. By the time Christianity began, the idea of a spherical Earth had been widespread. And Christianity did in fact accept this. It wasn't Christian dogma that the Earth was flat.

More so, much of the Church and Bible have been questioned. If you read any modern critical Biblical scholarship, you would see that much of it does in fact question the Bible and Church tradition. If you read any modern critical Jesus scholarship, you would see that great portions of the story of Jesus are questioned, and some, such as the virgin birth (which is held to be quite important for many Christians), have been dismissed as myth.

Finally, what really shows your argument to be wrong is that it is not just Christians who maintain that Nazareth existed. Atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, etc all accept that Nazareth existed. Even Jesus mythers, such as Richard Carrier, accept that Nazareth existed (even though he will argue that Jesus didn't exist).

But when we look for the physical evidence of a town where the Bible says it should be buried, we find none.

But we do. We have found some archeological evidence from around that time period. Such as shards of pottery, and a house. It may not be much, but there is no reason to expect much, as Nazareth was just a hamlet. More so, history is not just physical evidence. Some times it relies on literary evidence, and we definitely have that.

So no. The burden of proof still lies with Christianity, since it is the authority which made the claim in the first place. All anyone else is doing is to go see if the claim has any validity. It does not. To say: "The claim that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time is unfounded" is not a claim in itself; it is the answer to the original claim, and that answer is based on proof: there is no archaeological evidence that such a town existed.

You simply have no idea what burden of proof means, and you have clearly ignored what I have written before.

You just ignoring the evidence is not evidence that Nazareth didn't exist. More than once now, evidence has been presented, such as archeological finds such as a house from the time of Jesus, as well as pottery shards. Here: Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More so, just the literary evidence points to Nazareth existing during that time.

Finally, the burden of proof is on you. It doesn't matter why the belief was accepted, the fact is that it was generally accepted. Thus, since you are in the minority, and purporting a minority position, you have the burden of proof. It is your burden to show that the minority position is correct, and that we should scrap the majority position. You might also want to just look up burden of proof so I don't have to try to explain it again.

So the question has been answered.

Unless you have other 'proof' you want brought forward. If so, be specific. What, exactly, do you require to prove to you that the Biblical claim of a 1st century Nazareth is unfounded?

Show why Jesus would be placed in Nazareth if the town did not exist. Show why the Gospel writers would write about a place that did not exist (yet clearly existed before hand, and afterwards). Show why the archeological evidence, the pottery shards, the house, etc are not credible. Show why the inscription from Caesarea:Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is not credible.

And then show why there is no reason for Nazareth to have existed.

All you have is the written word, which came a half-century after the fact.

Which is more than good enough, and you would know this if you understood anything about history. More so, it wasn't half a century. It was about 40 years, and actually shortly less than that.

That is good enough as it obviously existed during that time (otherwise they wouldn't have included it), the authors most certainly heard the tradition prior to writing it down (pushing Nazareth even further back), and the authors would have been living for quite some time before writing their accounts (meaning they would have been in a great position to know if Nazareth existed).

So far, the real evidence is:

a> no archaeological evidence

I guess, if you just want to ignore it. Because archaeological evidence has been provided, and I provided it once again in this post.

b> 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.

Big deal. There are many reason why Nazareth wouldn't have been listed. One, it was just a fledgling community that was overlooked (we know from our records, it really was nothing to write about and it was most likely a hamlet). It was founded after the writing of Joshua (which still gives it a lot of time between the book of Joshua and the birth of Jesus). It was just something over looked.

It not being mentioned is not a big deal. Especially if one looks at the history of that area, you will see many different cities/towns/villages having been there before or after that are not mentioned.

 

[fallingblood]

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

So there were only 63 Galilean towns during that time? Wow. You simply haven't done any research.

By the time that Talmud was written, there really is no debate as to whether Nazareth existed. It is very clear, by that time, that Nazareth did in fact exist. One, we have the inscription from Caesarea that talks about priests residing there after the Bar Kochba revolt. So what does that tell us? Nazareth was simply nothing to write home about.

Interestingly enough, no one doubted that Nazareth existed at that time. When we see attacks on Jesus, the fact that he came from Nazareth is not questioned. In fact, that is even used against Jesus.

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

He also doesn't mention most of the life of Jesus, nor even his own life. He doesn't mention many details about anyone really. Paul not mentioning something doesn't mean it didn't exist, as he doesn't mention a lot.

This really is just an argument from ignorance anyway. If one understands the writings of Paul, there is no reason to assume that he would mention Nazareth. Paul not mentioning Nazareth only points to him either not caring enough to mention it, or that no one questioned it.

Paul's letters were addressing questions and problems that had arisen after he left. They are not writings that detail the life of Jesus. They are not meant to be that. More so, we don't even know all that Paul taught. We don't have all of his letters, and we have none of his sermons.

e> No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It shows up on no map of the time. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Please point me to an accurate map from that time period that mentions all of the villages and settlements during that time. I would love to see such. Unless you can produce such, your argument fails.

Also, show either an ancient historian or geographer during that time that mentions all of the villages and settlements during that time. Again, if you can't produce such, then your argument fails.

f> In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time.

Okay, Josephus mentions 45 cities. The Talmud mentions 63. What does that tell you? It should tell you that Josephus definitely was not making a comprehensive list of all of the villages and such around that area. It also shows that when making a list, or mentioning villages in Galilee, it was not seen needed to mention every single one.

Now why would Josephus not mention Nazareth? It didn't play a part in his military campaign. It was a hamlet that was off the beaten path. And really, there were better villages around that area to use.

g> The Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the earliest description of Galilean towns left by a pious tourist (333AD), mentions no town of Nazareth.

So they make a comprehensive list of every other Galilean town? If not, your point fails. More so, the inscription from Caesarea show us that Nazareth was already in existence during that time.

h> In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town.

30 miles is quite a distance in that town. And when we are talking about a city that not many would have visited, such as a hamlet like Nazareth, it can be hard to know exactly where it is.

Even today, that would not be a surprise. I lived in Mandan, ND for quite some time. I didn't know with Lincoln, ND was until I had lived there a number of years, even though it is less than 30 miles away. I never had a reason to go there. It really isn't surprising.

i> No 'synagogue' where Jesus was reported to have preached.

Again with this ignorant statement? Are you purposely not reading what I have to write? There is no reason to expect to find a synagogue, as modernly understood, in Nazareth. In fact, we don't find them in most Galilean settlements. Why? Because most were simply held in a members home. Can you differ between a home and a home used for a synagogue? No.

In fact, we also can't find the churches that Paul supposedly preached at, even though he mentions these house churches quite often. Why? Because they were held in homes. They were not their own separate structures for the most part.

j> No cliff from where Jesus was to be thrown by the townspeople

Actually there is something close enough.

k> Everyone knew Jesus was God in the flesh; and yet, he seems to have led a quiet, unassuming life in Nazareth until suddenly, at age 30, he bursts upon the world. There is but a footnote to his residency in Nazareth from the age of 12 to the age of 30. Something is wrong with this story.[/COLOR]

Ha. Not everyone believed Jesus was God in the flesh. Most rejected such a notion. Even some Christians rejected such a notion. Some also stated that it was not until his ministry that God descended upon him.

What's wrong is your lack of research, and your willfulness to ignore everything everyone else says.

 

[fallingblood]

So let's see - how much of this says anything about your thesis.



The only thing wrong with this story is your inability to interpret it. Almost all of your "evidence" is either fabricated (letter a) or irrelevant to your point. The only thing that actually says anything about Nazareth says precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove.

Care to try again?

Ugghhh, you made it so simple.

 

[godnotgod]

So let's see - how much of this says anything about your thesis.


Originally Posted by godnotgod
a> no archaeological evidence = false CORRECT: WE HAVE ONE HOUSE AND SOME ARTIFACTS WHICH CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE TOWN OF NAZARETH DID IN FACT EXIST. NEXT!

b> 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. = that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant IN FACT, IT WAS INSIGNIFICANT DUE TO THE FACT IT DID NOT EXIST!

c> The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant BUT ALL THOSE OTHER 63 TOWNS WERE SIGNIFICANT, WEREN'T THEY? GEE...I WONDER WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THEM THAT MADE THEM SO, BUT WHEN IT CAME TO NAZARETH, THEY SKIPPED OVER IT. NAZARETH? NEVER HEARD OF IT! NEXT!:biglaugh:

d> St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant HMMMM...LET'S SEE...JESUS....NAZARETH...HMMMM...WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE THE CONNECTION? NAH! TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT! BTW, WHERE DID THIS GUY 'JESUS', WHOM I HAVE MENTIONED 221 TIMES, LIVE, ANYWAY?

e> No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It shows up on no map of the time. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant
LET'S SEE NOW...NAZARETH? THE HOMETOWN OF THE MESSIAH? NEVER HEARD OF IT...TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT...LET'S NOT INCLUDE IT ON OUR MAP OF GALILEAN TOWNS, OK? OK!

f> In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant
IT IS ONLY SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU WANT IT TO BE, ISN'T IT, LIKE WHEN YOU CLAIM IT IS JESUS'S HOMETOWN. OTHERWISE, WE COULD'NT BE BOTHERED, LET ALONE A HISTORIAN WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS TO TAKE NOTE OF SUCH PLACES OF IMPORTANCE.

g> The Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the earliest description of Galilean towns left by a pious tourist (333AD), mentions no town of Nazareth. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that he was uninterested in it HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...FOLKS...WE ARE TALKING 333 AD!!!...THE IMPORTANCE OF NAZARETH WAS ALREADY LONG ESTABLISHED, AT LEAST AS FAR AS IT BEING JESUS'S HOMETOWN. INTEREST? OTHER THAN PERHAPS JERUSALEM AND BETHLEHEM, IT IS NOW ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TOWNS TO VISIT, AND HE HAS NO INTEREST IN IT, INSTEAD CHOOSING TO VISIT SOME 9 OTHER TOWNS THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF. HA HA HA HA HA:biglaugh:

h> In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town. Now this is shocking even in light of your previous blunders. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth -- other than, IF this reference is correct -- that he knew Nazareth existed but not where it was, which is not unusual. SURE...UH HUH...SURE...ORIGEN WAS JUST AN IGNORAMUS.

i> No 'synagogue' where Jesus was reported to have preached. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth. UH...THE 'SYNAGOGUE' IN QUESTION IS IN...UH...'NAZARETH'...UH...ACCORDING TO THE ...UH...BIBLE.

j> No cliff from where Jesus was to be thrown by the townspeople. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth. UH, THAT'S THE 'TOWNSPEOPLE' OF...UH...NAZARETH

k> Everyone knew Jesus was God in the flesh; and yet, he seems to have led a quiet, unassuming life in Nazareth until suddenly, at age 30, he bursts upon the world. There is but a footnote to his residency in Nazareth from the age of 12 to the age of 30. Something is wrong with this story. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth, except for its existence. WELL, DUH![/color]


The only thing wrong with this story is your inability to interpret it. Almost all of your "evidence" is either fabricated (letter a) or irrelevant to your point. The only thing that actually says anything about Nazareth says precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove.

Care to try again?

Nope! I am perfectly satisfied with my ability to interpret what I read, and what I am reading is that the single most important man, who is God in the flesh, the Messiah, is living obscurely for some 30 years with only footnote to his existence, in some obscure hamlet that has no mention anywhere until a half century later, and then only in the Gospels.

I don't buy this story. You can call my decision incompetent, ignorant, and uninformed, but that is the conclusion my common sense comes to. The story smacks of being a complete fantasy, as if it were some sort of play written for the theater, where it is possible to span great lengths of time by simply changing the scenery. There is more information about Jesus during his 18 missing years from the East than from his own Christian sources.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nope! I am perfectly satisfied with my ability to interpret what I read, and what I am reading is that the single most important man, who is God in the flesh, the Messiah, is living obscurely for some 30 years with only footnote to his existence, in some obscure hamlet that has no mention anywhere until a half century later, and then only in the Gospels.

I don't buy this story. You can call my decision incompetent, ignorant, and uninformed, but that is the conclusion my common sense comes to. The story smacks of being a complete fantasy, as if it were some sort of play written for the theater, where it is possible to span great lengths of time by simply changing the scenery. There is more information about Jesus during his 18 missing years from the East than from his own Christian sources.

Like I said, keep trying and maybe something good will come out.

And I mean that as a compliment. While on this thread what you've produced is useless to yourself and everyone else, I do have hope that if you keep going on something good will happen. I can't say that for some other folks.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ugghhh, you made it so simple.

I actually do wish that there was something to debate.

Instead, this thread is about the simple interpretation of the [secondary] source.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

h> In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town.

Obviously you didn't bother to look this up. Origen uses "Nazareth" as a title "Jesus of Nazareth" (3 times) and the "Child of Nazareth."

He doesn't need to draw a map because his readers weren't idiots.

note: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.txt

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

Really?

Name the 63 Galilean towns.

Name all of the early rabbinic literature to which you refer.

[it's far easier to spam from a website than actually prove your case. In this respect, I guess, the website that convinced you by actually proving nothing has let you down. But you should have known]

 

[Shermana]

There were apparently only 63 towns in the Galilee and every one of them was named in the Talmud, they must have all had a population of 20,000 each.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There were apparently only 63 towns in the Galilee and every one of them was named in the Talmud, they must have all had a population of 20,000 each.

hahahahah!!!!

I didn't think of that. Very good.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There were apparently only 63 towns in the Galilee and every one of them was named in the Talmud, they must have all had a population of 20,000 each.

haha I misread you, "There are 63 towns and they are all named Talmud."

You weren't as funny as I thought, haha

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth

I really don't mind doing your work for you. But you really should be more careful what you spam.

From the Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud: Sotah 47

Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi away with both his hands (and not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both his hands).11

11 MSS. and old editions read Jesus the Nazarene. R. T. Herford sees in Gehazi a hidden reference to Paul. Cf. his Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 97ff.

Had you bothered to look any of this up, I trust that you would have rejected your woefully inaccurate source.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It shows up on no map of the time. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant

Name every historian, geographer, and especially each ancient map that you reference.

Give the date and origin of each as well.

It would be helpful if you also gave the topics that they did address. For example, it would be idiotic to criticize Pausanius for not mentioning Nazareth because he was giving his account of Greece.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For some reason I'm disappointed that there's nothing more to refute.

It took me all of three seconds to find Nazareth used in the Talmud.

Everything else is just empty speculation, and even if it were true it has very little or nothing to do with whether or not Nazareth existed. Except to prove that it did, of course.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I really don't mind doing your work for you. But you really should be more careful what you spam.

From the Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud: Sotah 47


Had you bothered to look any of this up, I trust that you would have rejected your woefully inaccurate source.

And there's a lot more:

The Talmud on Jesus of Nazareth.

Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 43a (text and translation based on the Soncino edition; please note that all instances of the words of Nazareth as applied to Jesus in this passage are textually suspect, and many thanks to Joe Wallack for pointing out this deficiency in my presentation of the passage)

Ulla said: And can you think this? Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an inciter, and the merciful says: You shall not spare him, nor shall you conceal him. Rather, Jesus was different because he was close to the government.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Where did you get the idea that Jesus is a myth? It has been commonly accepted by many people, including unbelievers, that Jesus existed for real. I challenge you to read "A Case For A Creator" and "A Case For Christ." You will see the proof from a former atheist that Christianity is true. Jesus bless you.

 

[the-jesusist]

Jesus of Nazareth no. Jesus the Nazarene yes. Translation problems, it's so insignificant.