No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[Shermana]

Mystical Essenes of Mount Carmel

"Yet some... of the old sanctity of whole regions survived... to a late date. Ianblichus, in the last days of heathenism, still speaks of Mount Carmel as 'sacred above all mountains and forbidden of access to the vulgar'.... The Taboos or restrictions applicable within these sacred tracts have already been touched upon. The most universal of them was that men were not allowed to interfere with the natural life of the spot. No blood might be shed and no tree cut down...."
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]Evidently, gardening was permitted as long as it was done in an environmentally sound manner, since Mount Carmel was famous for its vegetable gardens and fruit orchards as well as its lush, natural forest. However, permanent dwellings were not permitted on holy Mount Carmel -- they were considered too obtrusive to the natural environment -- AND SO THE ESSENE NAZARENE RESIDENTS OF THE MOUNTAIN ARE SAID TO HAVE LIVED IN TENTS (the tents were actually a type of yurt which is much sturdier and "home-like" than the typical American "tent", having a wooden frame and often more than one room).
[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]It is precisely because the Essenes of Mount Carmel did not build permanent structures on the holy mountain that no -- or very little -- physical trace of their presence remains for archaeologists to study. In The Armageddon Script, Lemesurier reports:
[/FONT][/FONT]

"To date, while there is certainly some... evidence of the Essenes' sojourn on Carmel, specific archaeological evidence... is lacking.... This is entirely to be expected, however, since one of the conditions... was that the people must live only in temporary shelters or arbours.... Even the Divine Sanctuary was to be no more than a 'Tent of the Presence' within its sacred enclosure."

 

[fallingblood]

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!

Why does it need to be mentioned in the Old Testament? Many things in the New Testament aren't mentioned in the Old Testament.

There is no reason for Nazareth to have been mentioned in the Old Testament. It never played a part there. It has nothing to do with the Old Testament.

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.

But we do have some archeological evidence. The house being one. More so, there is no reason that it should be mentioned in the Old Testament. It has nothing to do with the Old Testament. Your argument here doesn't make sense.

Something is wrong with this story.

Your logic is what is wrong with the story. The need you see for it to be in the Old Testament doesn't make sense.

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.

There is evidence to support that Nazareth existed though. The fact that Jesus is said to been from there is more than enough evidence, as I explained in a previous post.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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"?

The original Greek word polis is defined in Strong's as:

"probably from the same as polemos, or perhaps from polus; a town (properly, with walls, of greater or less size):--city."

 

[outhouse]

But we do have some archeological evidence. The house being one.

you still cannot place the house after or before 70ad

first century is still a stretch

 

[outhouse]

My only take is if it was a small town before 70AD they have not found any real evidence of it as of yet.

Reason could be because the town was so small that it left almost no evidence, second they may not have found evidence thats still there.


We know there was a roman gaurd outpost that mayhave left some evidence but even that is slight.

the bible contradicts nazereth's location so im not sure scripture is reliable enough. We know the town grew after 70ad about the time they were writing about it. the fact they were writing about it is one thing "if" they were correct. but with a contradiction i need more.

 

[godnotgod]

It would have been easier to place Jesus in Bethlehem (as the birth stories do), and make that his home town.

Not really. One's 'hometown' is where one is raised, not born. Remember that Joseph and Mary did not live in Bethehem. They were merely passing through, and Jesus just happened to be born there, after which they continued their travels. According to the Gospels, Jesus was raised in Nazareth. That is where he supposedly practiced carpentry.

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.

Jesus himself made reference to his being disliked in his own hometown, the reason being that his own townspeople held preconceived notions of who and what he should be, in contrast to who he claimed and preached himself to be. It is exactly for this reason that they wished to throw him off a cliff. Sort of like saying to someone: 'Just who do you think you are? We raised you, and we know what you are. Now get back to your carpentry work and stop pretending to be something you are not!'

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.

We are not talking about a common personage. We are talking about the Messiah, about which much was written in scriptural prophecy. Micah prophesies that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, but there is no mention in Old Testament scriptural writings about the town where he was to spend the first 12 years of his life. On top of that, we have Jesus totally missing from the scriptures for a whopping 18 years, only to suddenly burst upon the ancient world as 'The Messiah'. Are you kidding? The most important human being born to man and his whereabouts unaccounted for, especially in light of the fact that he had already established himself in the so-called 'synagogue' as someone quite special. The East has more information as to his [Yeshua's] whereabouts in this time period than does his own. Actually, Christianity is not his own. He was an Essene, and a mystic at that!

*****

 

[godnotgod]

Mystical Essenes of Mount Carmel

Quote:
"Yet some... of the old sanctity of whole regions survived... to a late date. Ianblichus, in the last days of heathenism, still speaks of Mount Carmel as 'sacred above all mountains and forbidden of access to the vulgar'.... The Taboos or restrictions applicable within these sacred tracts have already been touched upon. The most universal of them was that men were not allowed to interfere with the natural life of the spot. No blood might be shed and no tree cut down...."
Evidently, gardening was permitted as long as it was done in an environmentally sound manner, since Mount Carmel was famous for its vegetable gardens and fruit orchards as well as its lush, natural forest. However, permanent dwellings were not permitted on holy Mount Carmel -- they were considered too obtrusive to the natural environment -- AND SO THE ESSENE NAZARENE RESIDENTS OF THE MOUNTAIN ARE SAID TO HAVE LIVED IN TENTS (the tents were actually a type of yurt which is much sturdier and "home-like" than the typical American "tent", having a wooden frame and often more than one room).


It is precisely because the Essenes of Mount Carmel did not build permanent structures on the holy mountain that no -- or very little -- physical trace of their presence remains for archaeologists to study. In The Armageddon Script, Lemesurier reports:


"To date, while there is certainly some... evidence of the Essenes' sojourn on Carmel, specific archaeological evidence... is lacking.... This is entirely to be expected, however, since one of the conditions... was that the people must live only in temporary shelters or arbours.... Even the Divine Sanctuary was to be no more than a 'Tent of the Presence' within its sacred enclosure."

Now you are on a different planet, and are only providing more evidence against a town of Nazareth. Mt. Carmel was where the Nazorean Essenes, a MYSTICAL cult, lived and practiced. It is the place where Yeshu the mystical Essene (as contrasted to the apocalyptic Essenes of Qumran) was born, raised, and taught. Mt. Carmel is not Nazareth! It is some 10 to 15 miles outside of modern day Nazareth.

Yeshua and his Nazorean Essenes of Mt. Carmel did not believe in bodily resurrection, the eating of meat or the drinking of blood, whether actual or symbolic, nor any virgin birth. Those doctrines were overwritten onto those of Yeshua by St. Paul as a device to lure thousands of Mithraic pagans into his new religion by promising them eternal life via bodily resurrection, thus launching what is now modern Christianity.

Sorry, but the archaeological evidence preserved in stone for the Nazorean Essene monastery and 'cave cell' dwellings does indeed exist.

See here:

Ancient Essene Life

A cave cell ruin, one of many, located on the sloping ridges above the main monastery. This would have been the sleeping chamber of an individual Nazorean family.

More cells, or habitation caves on the lower southern slopes of Karmeliya ridge where the married monks and nuns would have performed some of their daily disciplines, spiritual exercises and prayers.

Remains of an ancient sanctuary, built atop a still older Temple structure, consisting of three chambers 20' by 20', with an entrance porch about 16' by 20'. The eastern holy of holies section is raised above the other two, and is toward the east. The flowing wellspring of life was just behind this holy of holies, which fed water channels that surrounded, and purified, the ancient Temple complex. Essenes would not have entered this sanctuary without more purification washings, perhaps even a Tamasha immersion in the flowing mikveh near the entrance. (The Bethlehem "caves" are at the top left of the image.)

Monks and their familes [Mt. Carmel was a family-oriented monastery] lived in caves surrounding the monastery. I do recall reading about the tents, but as I remember, these were peripheral to the permanent monastery building and its cave dwellings, and were utilized by temporary visitors to the holy mountain. I believe it was Pythagorus who spoke about these tents. I shall find more on this later.



As for a synagogue in Nazareth being no more than a 'gathering place':


'Some scholars have argued that any synagogue that might have existed in Nazareth was destroyed and hence no trace can be found. Yet 1st Century synagogues have been found in a number of Galilean cities (e.g., Masada, Gamla, Japha, Capernaum), and there are no records of any mass destructions taking place in Nazareth that would have obliterated a synagogue if it existed.

Some scholars have argued that for 1st Century Jews, a synagogue could simply be the place where 10 men gathered to pray. In this case, a house temporarily becomes a "synagogue" for religious purposes. And this house/ synagogue would not have lasted very long. While this practice did occur, a study of the language used in the gospels shows that the word synagogue, used only 43 times, is used to describe separate buildings in Capernaum (Mark 1:21; Luke 7:5; John 6:69), Jerusalem (John 9:22; 12:42; 18:20), or Gadarenes (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:4). So when the word is applied to the synagogue in Jesus' hometown, we should assume it too was a separate structure. Moreover, the synagogue in Jesus' hometown is referred to as a synagogue without any reference to the "sabbath day". Thus, while a home might become a synagogue on the sabbath day for religious purposes, to otherwise refer to the synagogue (Matthew 13:54) implies a seperate structure. Thus, the linguistic analysis leads us to believe that Jesus' hometown had a synagogue, and as far as we know from the archeological evidence, no such place existed in Nazareth.'

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

So if, by your post, you are attempting to show that Nazareth existed at Mt. Carmel, you are not speaking of any 'Jesus' who lived there, but Yeshua. Are you saying that Jesus was a mystical Essene, whose teachings are heavily influenced by Indian Yogic and Buddhistic practice?

 

[Tellurian]

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?

The Jewish texts wrote that Jesus, aka Yeshu, had a Roman soldier as a father. With the first century Nazareth area being a Roman military camp, perhaps "Jesus of Nazareth" was a reference to Jesus coming from a Roman soldier father.

The report I read indicated that after the war between the Romans and Jews there were a lot of Jews that needed to be resettled, and one of the places chosen for resettlement was the Nazareth area, because the Romans had stopped using it as a military location.

 

[fallingblood]

My only take is if it was a small town before 70AD they have not found any real evidence of it as of yet.

Reason could be because the town was so small that it left almost no evidence, second they may not have found evidence thats still there.


We know there was a roman gaurd outpost that mayhave left some evidence but even that is slight.

the bible contradicts nazereth's location so im not sure scripture is reliable enough. We know the town grew after 70ad about the time they were writing about it. the fact they were writing about it is one thing "if" they were correct. but with a contradiction i need more.

It still stand that there would be no reason to logically put Jesus there unless he really was from there. If Nazareth did not exist, and no one actually knew of it before 70 C.E. there would be no reason why one would assume Jesus was ever attached to it. Really, it would have been easier for all of the Gospel writers to just put Jesus in Bethlehem, the city of David. That would have definitely helped the case of Jesus being the Messiah.

Luke and Matthew even go as far as having Jesus born in Bethlehem, but to get there, they have to jump through hoop over hoop. And then instead of keeping him in a place that would be convenient and even helpful, they have to move him to a little known place. John even states in his Gospel that people said that nothing good could come from Nazareth. Definitely not a place that the son of God, a Messiah, would come from.

That in itself is more than enough evidence to show that Jesus came from Nazareth, and that Nazareth existed.

Deniers simply are relying too much on the idea that we should have so much information about Nazareth. But it, at best estimates, was a hamlet that was off the beaten track. There was no real reason to mention it. The site itself has been a place of veneration for centuries (meaning that it has been contaminated over the years). It has also been occupied for many years. This make it even more difficult to find archeological evidence from the first century since people reuse building materials. The fact that we have found even a house from that time period, as well as a written record (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)) is more than enough support to know that Nazareth existed during that time.

 

[godnotgod]

4th Century Pilgrim Route – and NO NAZARETH!

Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and distances with the occasional comment.

As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser (Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount Gerizim, Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob's well at Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with God, and Jeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.

Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

 

[godnotgod]

It still stand that there would be no reason to logically put Jesus there unless he really was from there. If Nazareth did not exist, and no one actually knew of it before 70 C.E. there would be no reason why one would assume Jesus was ever attached to it. Really, it would have been easier for all of the Gospel writers to just put Jesus in Bethlehem, the city of David. That would have definitely helped the case of Jesus being the Messiah.

Luke and Matthew even go as far as having Jesus born in Bethlehem, but to get there, they have to jump through hoop over hoop. And then instead of keeping him in a place that would be convenient and even helpful, they have to move him to a little known place. John even states in his Gospel that people said that nothing good could come from Nazareth. Definitely not a place that the son of God, a Messiah, would come from.

That in itself is more than enough evidence to show that Jesus came from Nazareth, and that Nazareth existed.

Deniers simply are relying too much on the idea that we should have so much information about Nazareth. But it, at best estimates, was a hamlet that was off the beaten track. There was no real reason to mention it. The site itself has been a place of veneration for centuries (meaning that it has been contaminated over the years). It has also been occupied for many years. This make it even more difficult to find archeological evidence from the first century since people reuse building materials. The fact that we have found even a house from that time period, as well as a written record (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)) is more than enough support to know that Nazareth existed during that time.

What makes far more sense than the Biblical accounts is the idea that Yeshua was born and raised at the Temple of the Nazorean Essenes at Mt. Carmel, just 10-15 miles outside of modern-day Nazareth, and the Biblical reference to his being called a 'Nazarene' refers not to any place, but to the sect to which he belonged, that being the Nazorean Essene sect at Mt. Carmel.

That he was born in Bethlehem may simply be a myth grown to fit the Micah prophecy.

 

[fallingblood]

Not really. One's 'hometown' is where one is raised, not born. Remember that Joseph and Mary did not live in Bethehem. They were merely passing through, and Jesus just happened to be born there, after which they continued their travels. According to the Gospels, Jesus was raised in Nazareth. That is where he supposedly practiced carpentry.

You need to read the Gospels. First, Matthew does place Joseph and Mary as living in Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus. It is only later on that they move for fear Jesus being killed. They flee to Egypt, and then, would move back to Bethlehem, but because of fear again, they move to Nazareth. Matthew does have Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem though.

Luke also does not have Joseph and Mary just traveling through Bethlehem and Jesus just happening to be born there before they continue on their travels. They went there because of a supposed census, that demanded they go to Bethlehem. They then return home. They do not continue on their travels.

And yes, it would have been easier for the Gospel writers to just have made Bethlehem the hometown of Jesus. It would have solved many problems, such as the jumping through hoops Matthew and Luke had to do in order to get Jesus born in Bethlehem.

Jesus himself made reference to his being disliked in his own hometown, the reason being that his own townspeople held preconceived notions of who and what he should be, in contrast to who he claimed and preached himself to be. It is exactly for this reason that they wished to throw him off a cliff. Sort of like saying to someone: 'Just who do you think you are? We raised you, and we know what you are. Now get back to your carpentry work and stop pretending to be something you are not!'

Again, you need to reread the Gospels. Because that is not the problem there. The reason he was going to be thrown off the cliff is because he insulted the people from his hometown. In fact, in the story that you are talking about, the towns people are amazed by what he was preaching and received him well. And then he basically insults them, and that is when he is driven away.

We are not talking about a common personage. We are talking about the Messiah, about which much was written in scriptural prophecy. Micah prophesies that the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem, but there is no mention in Old Testament scriptural writings about the town where he was to spend the first 12 years of his life. On top of that, we have Jesus totally missing from the scriptures for a whopping 18 years, only to suddenly burst upon the ancient world as 'The Messiah'. Are you kidding? The most important human being born to man and his whereabouts unaccounted for, especially in light of the fact that he had already established himself in the so-called 'synagogue' as someone quite special. The East has more information as to his [Yeshua's] whereabouts in this time period than does his own. Actually, Christianity is not his own. He was an Essene, and a mystic at that!

Simply, the OT never mentions Jesus. Jesus failed as the Messiah, as he did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. So of course the OT doesn't speak of where Jesus was living and where his home town was, as Jesus was not the Messiah that the OT was speaking about.

As for Jesus missing for 18 years. All I have to say is, so what? We have no mention of the early life of Abraham, the father of the Hebrews. We have virtually no mention of the early life of Moses, one of the greatest prophets. There is little information about the early lives of David, and Solomon; David being the most beloved King, and Solomon being a great King in his own. If one looks throughout the OT, one sees one thing, very little if any information about the early lives of important individuals. Why would we expect anyone to write about the early life of Jesus then?

That 18 years of his life (actually, everything up until his ministry. Most scholars, and for good reason, reject the birth stories and pretty much everything up to his ministry as inaccurate and mythical) simply were not important. He was not important until he started his ministry. And really, that is what we see with many ancient figures. We have little information about the early lives of many ancient figures. And when we have accounts of their early lives, they are highly mythical. There is no reason to expect any difference with Jesus. We are seeing what one should expect.

As for the East knowing more about Jesus, not at all. They have unsubstantiated stories that are not historically founded, and were only invented many many years after the fact. They show no reason to even believe they are accurate.

As for Jesus being an Essenes, or a mystic. Not at all. We know quite a bit about the Essenes from the writings of individuals such as Josephus as well as their own writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Anyone with any knowledge on the Essenes will tell you right away that Jesus simply does not belong to them. His actions simply show that he was not an Essene.

 

[fallingblood]

The Jewish texts wrote that Jesus, aka Yeshu, had a Roman soldier as a father. With the first century Nazareth area being a Roman military camp, perhaps "Jesus of Nazareth" was a reference to Jesus coming from a Roman soldier father.

The report I read indicated that after the war between the Romans and Jews there were a lot of Jews that needed to be resettled, and one of the places chosen for resettlement was the Nazareth area, because the Romans had stopped using it as a military location.

No no no no. There is possibly one Jewish text, centuries after the fact, that said something sort of what you were saying. However, many scholars would argue against the text even having anything to do with Jesus.

Jesus of Nazareth had nothing to do with Jesus coming from a Roman soldier father. There is no credible evidence to even support such an idea.

 

[fallingblood]

4th Century Pilgrim Route – and NO NAZARETH!




Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and distances with the occasional comment.

As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser (Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount Gerizim, Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob's well at Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with God, and Jeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.

Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

Of course, someone preoccupied with Old Testament stories is not going to mention Nazareth, which is found in the New Testament. This is probably the worst argument you've made yet.

You are trying to argue that since someone interested in Old Testament stories doesn't mention Nazareth, it means anything. It doesn't, as Nazareth isn't mentioned in the OT.

Furthermore, in 333 C.E., Nazareth was already a definite town. There really is no debate to that. So obviously, the pilgrim on that trip simply didn't care about NT stories. Them not going to Nazareth or not mentioning it, only means they didn't care about the area, as is reinforced by the fact that they were preoccupied by OT stories.

 

[fallingblood]

What makes far more sense than the Biblical accounts is the idea that Yeshua was born and raised at the Temple of the Nazorean Essenes at Mt. Carmel, just 10-15 miles outside of modern-day Nazareth, and the Biblical reference to his being called a 'Nazarene' refers not to any place, but to the sect to which he belonged, that being the Nazorean Essene sect at Mt. Carmel.

That he was born in Bethlehem may simply be a myth grown to fit the Micah prophecy.

That makes no sense at all when one has any knowledge on the subject at all. Jesus was not an Essene. That is virtually agreed upon by all scholars. The reason is that Jesus doesn't resemble an Essene at all. Anyone with any knowledge about Essenes would tell you this right away.

So no, he was never part of the Nazorean Essene sect. And the reason he was called a Nazarene, which is explained in the Bible, is because he was known to be from Nazareth.

 

[outhouse]

It still stand that there would be no reason to logically put Jesus there unless he really was from there. If Nazareth did not exist, and no one actually knew of it before 70 C.E. there would be no reason why one would assume Jesus was ever attached to it. Really, it would have been easier for all of the Gospel writers to just put Jesus in Bethlehem, the city of David. That would have definitely helped the case of Jesus being the Messiah.

Luke and Matthew even go as far as having Jesus born in Bethlehem, but to get there, they have to jump through hoop over hoop. And then instead of keeping him in a place that would be convenient and even helpful, they have to move him to a little known place. John even states in his Gospel that people said that nothing good could come from Nazareth. Definitely not a place that the son of God, a Messiah, would come from.

That in itself is more than enough evidence to show that Jesus came from Nazareth, and that Nazareth existed.

Deniers simply are relying too much on the idea that we should have so much information about Nazareth. But it, at best estimates, was a hamlet that was off the beaten track. There was no real reason to mention it. The site itself has been a place of veneration for centuries (meaning that it has been contaminated over the years). It has also been occupied for many years. This make it even more difficult to find archeological evidence from the first century since people reuse building materials. The fact that we have found even a house from that time period, as well as a written record (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)) is more than enough support to know that Nazareth existed during that time.

yet nothing points to pre 70ce

It still stand that there would be no reason to logically put Jesus there unless he really was from there.

well its my understanding they didnt have a clue where he was from and yeshua has zero historicity before he was known to be a traveling teacher. Why did they create the theology and that exact story that surrounds him, who knows.

but many things are attributed to him that just are not correct and or mistaken and theres proof for that in contradicting scripture. So if there was a real story that had historicity but that book didnt make the cut and was lost, we will never know the truth, will we?

Since his story grew after his death, there is no way to know if nazereth grew with the rest of the content.

If Nazareth did not exist, and no one actually knew of it before 70 C.E. there would be no reason why one would assume Jesus was ever attached to it

thast a good point

But

if they didnt know but some joe blow heard thast where he was from, they may have ran with it.

That would have definitely helped the case of Jesus being the Messiah.

i dont think they were interested in to many facts or the different books might not contradict each other so much. That would have been saved for the ascention, walking on water ect ect ect.

 

[godnotgod]

You need to read the Gospels. First, Matthew does place Joseph and Mary as living in Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus. It is only later on that they move for fear Jesus being killed. They flee to Egypt, and then, would move back to Bethlehem, but because of fear again, they move to Nazareth. Matthew does have Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem though.

Luke also does not have Joseph and Mary just traveling through Bethlehem and Jesus just happening to be born there before they continue on their travels. They went there because of a supposed census, that demanded they go to Bethlehem. They then return home. They do not continue on their travels.

And yes, it would have been easier for the Gospel writers to just have made Bethlehem the hometown of Jesus. It would have solved many problems, such as the jumping through hoops Matthew and Luke had to do in order to get Jesus born in Bethlehem.

In spite of what you say above, Jesus himself was never RAISED in Bethlehem. One's hometown is where one is raised, not merely born. Jesus never spent any time there. The Gospels have it that he was raised in Nazareth, his hometown, until he was 12, after which there is an 18 year void in the scriptures as to his whereabouts. The Essene, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu accounts of his travels contain more information than his own Christian sources do.

Again, you need to reread the Gospels. Because that is not the problem there. The reason he was going to be thrown off the cliff is because he insulted the people from his hometown. In fact, in the story that you are talking about, the towns people are amazed by what he was preaching and received him well. And then he basically insults them, and that is when he is driven away.
Simply, the OT never mentions Jesus. Jesus failed as the Messiah, as he did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. So of course the OT doesn't speak of where Jesus was living and where his home town was, as Jesus was not the Messiah that the OT was speaking about.

"]It does not mention Jesus because he is an invention of St. Paul. There was no 'Jesus'. There was, however, a Yeshua, and Yeshua was a mystical Essene of the Nazorean sect at Mt. Carmel:

'Yeshua bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Jesus. No one during Yeshua's life (prior to 30 CE) ever uttered the name, "Jesus." The letter "j" wasn't in the English language until the seventeenth century, so even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until after that time.'
Yeshua before 30 CE

As for Jesus missing for 18 years. All I have to say is, so what? We have no mention of the early life of Abraham, the father of the Hebrews. We have virtually no mention of the early life of Moses, one of the greatest prophets. There is little information about the early lives of David, and Solomon; David being the most beloved King, and Solomon being a great King in his own. If one looks throughout the OT, one sees one thing, very little if any information about the early lives of important individuals. Why would we expect anyone to write about the early life of Jesus then?

Because he was God in the flesh? That might be one good reason, but additionally, he was God come to save mankind by shedding his blood and re-opening the Gates of Paradise which Adam and Eve's Original Sin had closed to all mankind, that's why. None of those you mention were the Messiah. They were prophets, not divine, as Jesus was, so the importance of Jesus is far greater. As for your 'so what?' attitude, bear in mind that we are speaking here about God himself being born to man in the flesh. If that were really true, there would be far more accounts of his life on a daily basis than what we actually have, which is a concocted passion play. The Biblical footnote to his missing 12 years is a joke. As I stated, the East has comparatively far more information on Yeshua (Issa; Yuz Asaf) for those missing years than do Christian sources.

That 18 years of his life (actually, everything up until his ministry. Most scholars, and for good reason, reject the birth stories and pretty much everything up to his ministry as inaccurate and mythical) simply were not important. He was not important until he started his ministry. And really, that is what we see with many ancient figures. We have little information about the early lives of many ancient figures. And when we have accounts of their early lives, they are highly mythical. There is no reason to expect any difference with Jesus. We are seeing what one should expect.

If such a child were born to us today, throngs would follow him 24/7. Christians would not treat such a personage so casually. Remember, Jesus is a divine being; he is God. That he was ignored during his early life, and that an additional 18 years are completely missing is further indication that he is a total myth, along with his mythical 'Nazareth'. If the shoe fits....

As for the East knowing more about Jesus, not at all. They have unsubstantiated stories that are not historically founded, and were only invented many many years after the fact. They show no reason to even believe they are accurate.

We shall have to leave that issue for another thread, but suffice it to say that the stories sprung up all through the East and corroborate each other. The Biblical account is no more 'historically founded' than any other, especially in light of the fact that no record exists of Jesus's life for an entire 18 years. This smacks of fantasy. Or, let me put it this way: why is it that the West has virtually no record of his life, when the East does, and the time frame from the East matches perfectly, from his age of about 12 to that of 30 years of age.

As for Jesus being an Essenes, or a mystic. Not at all. We know quite a bit about the Essenes from the writings of individuals such as Josephus as well as their own writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Anyone with any knowledge on the Essenes will tell you right away that Jesus simply does not belong to them. His actions simply show that he was not an Essene.

You are correct. Jesus was not an Essene. Yeshua was. Once again:

THERE WAS NO JESUS!

The name 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshu' or 'Yashua' mean 'savior'

The name 'Jesus' has no meaning whatsoever

*****

 

[godnotgod]

That 18 years of his life (actually, everything up until his ministry. Most scholars, and for good reason, reject the birth stories and pretty much everything up to his ministry as inaccurate and mythical) simply were not important. He was not important until he started his ministry. And really, that is what we see with many ancient figures. We have little information about the early lives of many ancient figures. And when we have accounts of their early lives, they are highly mythical. There is no reason to expect any difference with Jesus. We are seeing what one should expect.

If that is what you believe, then the mythical aspect of his early life would also include a mythical hometown called Nazareth. Surprise! There is no evidence that such a place did exist.:biglaugh:

 

[godnotgod]

As for Jesus being an Essenes, or a mystic. Not at all. We know quite a bit about the Essenes from the writings of individuals such as Josephus as well as their own writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Anyone with any knowledge on the Essenes will tell you right away that Jesus simply does not belong to them. His actions simply show that he was not an Essene.

Excuse me, but the doctrine of the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood are part of the mysteries, as first expounded in Mithraic mystery rites, and by Jesus in several places in the Gospels. These are mystical in character, not orthodox. Actually, they are pagan. The reason you do not understand this is because, as I said, there was no 'Jesus'. Yeshua. a mystical Essene, did not teach the doctrines of virgin birth, bodily resurrection, or the eating and drinking of flesh and blood, nor the shedding of blood for sin remission. That came from Mithraism, and from Judaic temple practices. All of these pagan doctrines were overwritten over those of Yeshua by St. Paul as a device to lure thousands of Mithraic pagans by promising them eternal life, something Mithra had already promised to them. The Catholic Church did much the same trick in converting millions of indigenous Indios in Mexico by simply 'adopting' their goddess of fertility, Tonantzin, and transforming her into the Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Virgin Mary). The Indios simply followed where their deity went. If you look closely at the robes she is wearing, you will see Indio symbols.

The crux of the matter is that Yeshua and his Essenes practiced Eastern meditation, yoga, and breathing exercises. In the East, the life-force is considered to be the breath, not the blood, as the false story of Jesus has it. That the life force is the blood comes to Christianity from PAGAN sources. What fits the story I am giving to you is that Yeshua and his sect were healers. Where did they learn this? From the Therapeutae of Greece and Egypt, which were Buddhist Theravadist sects sent to the West from India.

The key to the whole story of the Romanized 'Jesus' is St. Paul and his doctrines. His hometown was Tarsus, where pirates from the East spread the Mithraic religion. St. Paul was steeped in the mystery religions. What he did was a stroke of genius. He synthesized three crucial elements to launch modern Christianity: first, he used Jewish history as a backdrop to lend credibility and authenticity. Then he wove in the Gnostic idea of the descending godhead come down from above to teach mankind. Finally, he imported the idea of a dying and resurrected god-man from the mystery religions to complete the picture.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course, someone preoccupied with Old Testament stories is not going to mention Nazareth, which is found in the New Testament. This is probably the worst argument you've made yet.

You are trying to argue that since someone interested in Old Testament stories doesn't mention Nazareth, it means anything. It doesn't, as Nazareth isn't mentioned in the OT.

Furthermore, in 333 C.E., Nazareth was already a definite town. There really is no debate to that. So obviously, the pilgrim on that trip simply didn't care about NT stories. Them not going to Nazareth or not mentioning it, only means they didn't care about the area, as is reinforced by the fact that they were preoccupied by OT stories.

Please re-read the information again. You are not understanding the content of what is being said here.