No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

Sir spamalot.

 

[godnotgod]

Examples of translation problems from Aramaic into Greek:

Mistranslations

Mistranslations are rather self-explainatory. Where the Greek of the New Testament is awkward in places, Aramaic Primacists suggest that it stems from a botched translation from an Aramaic word.

An example from the Epistle to the Romans is Romans 5:7. The Greek translated to English reads: "For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die." It is suggested that, in the Aramaic, the word "wicked" is used instead of the word "righteous" (which are spelt similarly), again bringing symmetry with the following verse. Further, the difference between the words "wicked" and "righteous" in Aramaic is only one almost identically shaped letter, leaving the implication that a translator from Aramaic to Greek could have simply misread the word.


Polysemy ("Split Words")

"Split Words" are a distinctive subsection of mistranslations. Sometimes it appears that a word in Aramaic with two (or more) distinct and different meanings appears to have been translated in the wrong sense, or even translated both ways in different Greek sources.

Perhaps the most well known is the translation from Greek: "camel through the eye of a needle." In Aramaic, the word used for "camel" would be extremely similar to that for a certain type of "rope", suggesting that the correct phrase was "rope through the eye of a needle." making the hyperbole more symmetrical.

Source: http://www.aramaicpe****ta.com/Articles/key_articles/whatisaramaicprimacy_wiki.htm

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Examples of translation problems from Aramaic into Greek:

Mistranslations

Mistranslations are rather self-explainatory. Where the Greek of the New Testament is awkward in places, Aramaic Primacists suggest that it stems from a botched translation from an Aramaic word.

An example from the Epistle to the Romans is Romans 5:7. The Greek translated to English reads: "For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die." It is suggested that, in the Aramaic, the word "wicked" is used instead of the word "righteous" (which are spelt similarly), again bringing symmetry with the following verse. Further, the difference between the words "wicked" and "righteous" in Aramaic is only one almost identically shaped letter, leaving the implication that a translator from Aramaic to Greek could have simply misread the word.


Polysemy ("Split Words")

"Split Words" are a distinctive subsection of mistranslations. Sometimes it appears that a word in Aramaic with two (or more) distinct and different meanings appears to have been translated in the wrong sense, or even translated both ways in different Greek sources.

Perhaps the most well known is the translation from Greek: "camel through the eye of a needle." In Aramaic, the word used for "camel" would be extremely similar to that for a certain type of "rope", suggesting that the correct phrase was "rope through the eye of a needle." making the hyperbole more symmetrical.

From spam to outright plagiarism.

(Even the mis-spellings are the same, LOL)

 

[godnotgod]

....and yet, so much of what you label as 'spam' coming from such distinguished company. Of course, they're all ignoramuses, who can't tell the difference between ****** and Shinola, while you, of course, proudly polish your shoes with the good stuff each and every day.:biglaugh:

 

[godnotgod]

From spam to outright plagiarism.

(Even the mis-spellings are the same, LOL)

I am not claiming that I authored the quote. I deliberately left out the link to the source as it is quite obvious that I am incapable of having come up with the information provided on my own, so it must have come from another credible source . Use your head: what reason would I have to claim authorship? It is obvious by your statement that you found the original on your own, so what exactly are you trying to say?

You make an issue of minutiae that has nothing to do with the issue as a cheap device to discredit me, but you lack the wherewithall to bring it off, you appearing sophomoric at best.

Now, if you have anything of any significance to say about the content of my post, then, by all means, proceed.

You keep labeling my posts as 'spam' as if to say that they are just so much crap, but you don't seem to have the intellect to say anything about the content. I have posted a small example of what you called a 'lie' to show that what I originally posted was, in fact, true. You're just spewing hot air at this point.

I see that you and fallingblood have failed to provide evidence of your claim, that Paul quoted Jesus, and so have bonded together to create a smokescreen of pseudo-scholarship by changing the subject into one whose color of authority you both can hide behind. I'm not impressed! I only hope that others here are not fooled by your pedantic machinations.

 

[godnotgod]

Continuation of Post 341:

The Central Difference

The central difference between Yeshua's teaching and Paul's church was in justification by faith. Paul believed the statement in Ephesians 2:8: "You have been saved by God's love and kindness because you believed. It was not because of anything you did, but it was a gift from God."

Yeshua said repeatedly what was reported in John 3:3: "'I tell you the truth. No person can see God's kingdom if he is not born again.'" And in another form in Luke 17:20-21: "The kingdom of God does not come visibly, nor will people say 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Humankind was to develop its own salvation by changing within. No one would give it to a person as a gift.

Yeshua promised the transformation would require work: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7: 13-14) Spiritual development, Yeshua assured us, was going to be hard. He described the thought and behavior that should be characteristic of a spiritual person, but said it would take work to attain it. He never suggested that all a person had to do was swear allegiance to him and nothing else would be required.

A few passages later in Matthew, Yeshua is reported to have said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." (Matthew 7: 24-27)

Yeshua gave the blueprint, but it would require that those receiving it build the house by putting the lessons "into practice." That means someone might hear the words and have the belief in Yeshua as the Messiah so they build a house on the words, but if the person doesn't grow spiritually, the words are meaningless--they have a foundation of sand, Yeshua said. He made a point of contrasting the two approaches to his teaching: belief is not sufficient, he said; spiritual growth is necessary.

Yeshua asserts elsewhere that simply making a statement of belief is insufficient to achieve what he describes: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-27) Evildoers is an appropriate name for many in the church today who confess belief, but whose actions defy Yeshua's words about living in love; that is especially true of those who sexually abuse children or protect the perpetrators.

Yeshua states explicitly that the person who will live in the kingdom of God that is within, for eternity, is the one who loves God and loves his neighbor:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" [Jesus] replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind"; and, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." (Luke 10:25-37)

Yeshua makes no mention of believing in him as the Messiah as a requirement to inherit eternal life, even when asked directly what one must do!

Because a believer in Paul's church needed only to make a statement of belief to fulfill all the requirements of Paul's Christianity, no expectation of spiritual growth was included in the new church. Not surprisingly, after two millennia of Paul's church, little advancement in spiritual maturity among Christians and in the church as a whole has resulted. Neither the church nor the believers have been able to see the kingdom of God within as Yeshua described it. The societies founded on Paul's teaching bear no resemblance to the kingdom of God in Yeshua's teaching.

http://30ce.com/paulinechristianity.htm

And here, folks, we have the transformation of the MYSTICAL practice of Yeshua and his Essenes, which is a direct contact and immediate LIVING spiritual experience of the 'kingdom within', into the ORTHODOX system of mere belief and doctrine. This is the crux of Yeshua's message to his audience when he said that they were mistaken to think they would find eternal life by searching the scriptures. He knew they had the cart ahead of the horse.

 

[godnotgod]

The REAL Spam:

> Virgin Birth
> Water into wine
> Staffs into snakes
> Parting of Red Sea
> Jonah in belly of whale
> Talking serpents
> Noah's Ark
> Drinking divine blood (actual or symbolic) renders sin redemption
> Raising dead people back to life
> Bodily resurrection and ascension into the sky
> After-death state called 'heaven' for the good people
> After-death state called 'hell' for the bad people
> A blood-thirsty fiend called 'The Devil' is stalking you night and day for the express purpose of capturing your soul and leading you into his torture chambers where you will roast for all eternity.
> and last, but not least: the existence of a 1st century city called 'Nazareth'

These are childish views of reality, and in some cases, delusional. All of them rely on some sort of addictive view to Sensation and Security, either having roots in the dead past as authentic 'historical events', or holding some promise of coming to fruition in some non-existent future, while ignoring the true reality that lies right in front of us in this eternal Present Moment.

It is time to leave those dancing provocative cave wall shadows we think to be reality and ascend upwards into the light of day.

 

[fallingblood]

I find it funny that you are posting quotes of authors you have never read and I doubt even know anything about. Also, the NT was written in Greek. Romans was written in Greek. Aramaic simply doesn't come into play as the works were not written in Aramaic. Your claim of such shows that one, you have never read any actual scholarship on the subject and that two, you are not even thinking for yourself but are rather just coping and pasting drivel.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I find it funny that you are posting quotes of authors you have never read and I doubt even know anything about. Also, the NT was written in Greek. Romans was written in Greek. Aramaic simply doesn't come into play as the works were not written in Aramaic. Your claim of such shows that one, you have never read any actual scholarship on the subject and that two, you are not even thinking for yourself but are rather just coping and pasting drivel.

Yeah, I think that it's hopeless with him now. Someone says something and he responds by posting something he doesn't even attempt to read or understand, and now he's refusing to even put the spam in quotes and provide a source.

F for lack of effort.

What is really shocking to me is the level of gullibility displayed by our friend.

 

[outhouse]

theres always hope for the future lol

it was only a short while ago I was that stubborn

 

[angellous_evangellous]

theres always hope for the future lol

it was only a short while ago I was that stubborn

haha I'm ten times a jerk but at least I'm not mindlessly posting spam.

It's just offensive. Our friend is spamming and/or flagrantly plagiarizing and expecting us to interact intelligently with it. He didn't think about it and he expects us to, and to top it off, I've already read the crap that he's posting!

What an outrage.

 

[outhouse]

I've already read the crap that he's posting!

ya me to


its not helping his case at all

 

[godnotgod]

I find it funny that you are posting quotes of authors you have never read and I doubt even know anything about. Also, the NT was written in Greek. Romans was written in Greek. Aramaic simply doesn't come into play as the works were not written in Aramaic. Your claim of such shows that one, you have never read any actual scholarship on the subject and that two, you are not even thinking for yourself but are rather just coping and pasting drivel.

Well, good, then laugh your arse off, why'ncha?

You're not getting it.

I never said I did not read the author in question; what I implied was that I am not a linguist in Aramaic and Greek. Truth is, i have read much of the author's argument for Aramaic primacy, and have a working understanding of what he is saying. In addition, I have done quite a bit of research on my own re: the various Pe****ta translations and other arguments for Pe****ta primacy. Pe****ta primacy makes far more sense to me than Greek Primacy in just about all areas of research as supported by the evidence to date, while you have not offered one shred of evidence to support Greek Primacy. If you wish to pursue the matter, I suggest you start a new topic, as the issue seems to grate on your nerve endings. As far as I am concerned, it is sort of like the Theory of Evolution: it just works, and I accept it as the more probable scenario than what you claim.

You make the outright claim that the NT was written in Greek, but I have just given just one small example to demonstrate Aramaic primacy, and there is much more. However, this is not the place for this topic. In fact, it has been discussed at length in another topic way back, so I am not going to go there in this thread.

If you think that what I am posting is drivel, fine. At least I qualify my drivel. All you can do is call it names without any real arguments.

So, have you come up with any archaeological evidence of a 1st century Nazareth yet?

And how about those quotes Paul allegedly made of Jesus? Hmmmm?

Did you find any more info on Jesus's 18 missing years yet?

All we have from you and fallingblood to date is pure pedantic Hot Air and Poppycock spewed forth under the color of Biblical authority

At least my 'drivel' and 'spam' has some meat behind it.

What would you like to wash that down with?:beach:

 

[godnotgod]

haha I'm ten times a jerk but at least I'm not mindlessly posting spam.

It's just offensive. Our friend is spamming and/or flagrantly plagiarizing and expecting us to interact intelligently with it. He didn't think about it and he expects us to, and to top it off, I've already read the crap that he's posting!

What an outrage.

You remind me of a painting I once saw, of an old man in a rage over a lost penny. Actually, I suspect that what chaps your hide so much is that the CONTENT of drivel I am posting actually holds water, and you cannot stand for the truth to be told.

Let us remember that YOU are the one who chose to call my idea a 'lie', and now, when I come back with supportive documentation, you go ballistic over it. Just consider the information one more notch in your education and learning experience, though it hurts just a tad....OUCH!

If you had any sense at all, you would look at the moon instead of my pointing finger. Instead, you attack my pointing finger and ignore the subject matter. In other words, dearie, pay attention to what is important. You can avoid all your apoplexy by simply addressing the argument, whether you think it is plagiarized spam or not. If you can demonstrate with one fell swoop that it is indeed pure drivel, then I shall be swept away with my foolish argument, right? So what's your problem? C'mon, you're beginning to appear rather transparent here.

It's quite simple:

So put up, or.......??????

BTW, I see you reported the fact that I did not provide a link to the quote I posted; you know, the one your udders got all in a bunch about? Well, goody, goody for you! :clap 'Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall', as they say. Oooops! Forgot to provide a link to THAT quote, but by now, it is public domain. ha ha ha ha

 

[godnotgod]

ya me to


its not helping his case at all

Show me where the information I have posted is harmful to the premise of my argument.

Then show me where the fact that no archaeological evidence exists to support a 1st century Nazareth is beneficial to that argument.

Then we can compare notes, OkeeDokee?

 

[godnotgod]

He didn't think about it and he expects us to, and to top it off, I've already read the crap that he's posting!

Yes, sweetie, but there are OTHER people here who are hungry for the truth. The information I post is not just for your cave-wall-shadowed brain to get excited over.

Someday it will just all fall into place for you with a nice, big round 'Ahhhhhhh!' Until then, you will just have to keep tossing red flags down.

 

[outhouse]

Show me where the information I have posted is harmful to the premise of my argument.

Then show me where the fact that no archaeological evidence exists to support a 1st century Nazareth is beneficial to that argument.

Then we can compare notes, OkeeDokee?

look bud im not 100% it existed at all during the supposed time of jesus, I understand your side all to well.

both of the gentlemen above can attest to that.


but your pulling work not done properly to base your case.


whats needed now is a valid reason why the gospel authors would place their messiah there. so far none of the arguements hold water good enough for anything to stick one way or another.

 

[godnotgod]

look bud im not 100% it existed at all during the supposed time of jesus, I understand your side all to well.

both of the gentlemen above can attest to that.


but your pulling work not done properly to base your case.


whats needed now is a valid reason why the gospel authors would place their messiah there. so far none of the arguements hold water good enough for anything to stick one way or another.

However, both the information and lack of information we now have both point to there NOT being a 1st century Nazareth. Hard scientific evidence trumps dubious religious claims made centuries ago.

We can never know why Nazareth appears in the NT, and only in the NT, with the information we now have. But we DO know that no evidence actually exists to support their statements.

I am sure you are aware, even in this modern information age, how a simple mistake can be replicated throughout the internet. All that would be required is for one scribe to translate incorrectly and we end up with the word 'Nazareth', replicated several times over. That this name exists only in the NT, is indicative of it having come into being only in that time frame, especially when lists of Galilean towns from at least two other sources do NOT list it. The claim by Greek primacists is that the Bible was translated from the Aramaic ORAL tradition many years after its words were spoken. There are too many factors involved which can contribute to error rendering the NT text essentially unreliable. The lack of hard archaeological evidence makes this textual unreliability even greater. Add to this the issue of the 18 missing years, and any 'Jesus' is virtually non-existent.

What we can do is to surmise, via inference, and when taking all of the facts into consideration as a whole, what that reason might be, and it may very well turn out to be political.

 

[outhouse]

Hard scientific evidence trumps dubious religious claims made centuries ago

but in reality we are pitting a lack of evidence against statement's [plural] and we do know for a fact there were people there up to 70AD

this is a very small window to try and pin down.


Do they need more evidence, i think so. I have never been happy with theology dictating history but scholars can and do created history this way from very sound methods. Not all are biased to theology. As it stands there is no real reason to place jesus there other then if he was.

the fact theology was created around the man makes this difficult but real history has been pulled from far less and no one questions it at all.

I still look at this as a gray area with the needle one side to the possible are at best. there is no solid concrete answer, but those anti nazereth website dont hold much weight in the big picture.

 

[godnotgod]

but in reality we are pitting a lack of evidence against statement's [plural] and we do know for a fact there were people there up to 70AD

this is a very small window to try and pin down.


Do they need more evidence, i think so. I have never been happy with theology dictating history but scholars can and do created history this way from very sound methods. Not all are biased to theology. As it stands there is no real reason to place jesus there other then if he was.

the fact theology was created around the man makes this difficult but real history has been pulled from far less and no one questions it at all.

I still look at this as a gray area with the needle one side to the possible are at best. there is no solid concrete answer, but those anti nazereth website dont hold much weight in the big picture.

But there IS a VERY solid concrete answer: NO TOWN OF ANY KIND EXISTS WHERE ONE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE EXISTED: PERIOD!

All that we have from the Gospels to place Jesus there is the statement of his being a 'Nazarene', and this is still very questionable as to what it refers to.

However, we DO have the monastery at Mt. Carmel, just 10 miles away from modern Nazareth, and we do have ruins, and we do have an MSS which puts Yeshua, James, and Simon at the monastery. We do have the fact that Essenes were Nazarenes.

There is evidence of human habitation in the area in question, as you state, even during the time of Jesus, but habitation does not make a town, nor a village, nor even a hamlet. The hard evidence uncovered so far is but one small house, a wine press, oil lamps, and funerary artifacts. From the evidence so far uncovered, we have a picture of either a small family farm, a burial site, or both, BUT NO TOWN, and that is a FACT which directly contradicts the Biblical claim of any 'town' of Nazareth.