No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[godnotgod]

.... those anti nazereth website dont hold much weight in the big picture.

They are 'anti-Nazareth' not for any ideaological or political reasons, but because there is no Nazareth there! And the FACT that there is no Nazareth there is the key to the Big Picture, because it means no Jesus dwelt there.

You see, this is not a question of 'two sides to every story', because one side has nothing to support its claim. It is like a geologist having a debate with a flat-earther. You know, the idea of 'two sides' to every argument is Greek in origin, but the idea was that one side would demonstrate, via logic, that it was, in fact, the correct side. Once adequately demonstrated, the losing side would acquiesce. What has happened to that process is that the maintenance of 'two sides' has become the goal rather than the condition which leads to resolution.

What we are quibbling about has to do with the establishment of a 'historical' Jesus, but that was not the point with Yeshua, because Yeshua is not a product of history, as he says: 'Before Abraham was, I AM'. The entire point of the authentic spiritual experience is to be here, now, because now is the only true reality. Whatever came afterwards claiming to be 'history' is only icing on the cake. What I am trying to get across to you is that spiritual understanding must come first before you can know what the score it. Otherwise, you are just nibbling around the edges.

When the theologians, began trying to prove the historical Jesus. is when they made their fatal mistake, because the mystical experience is beyond history, beyond logic, beyond reason. They ended up talking ABOUT Jesus, rather than having a true understanding OF Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

And the FACT that there is no Nazareth there

but we have such a town, I know had people, 70AD for sure and possibly earlier.

When the theologians, began trying to prove the historical Jesus.

No one is doubting the theological stroty grew after his death.

but that doesnt mean a mortal traveling teacher of judaism who may have been a decent healer for that time didnt preach a new branch of judaism taught to him by John. Who was later killed by romans for ticking them off and was quickly put on a cross.

Yes we know the theology grew after his death.

We know the unknown authors never knew or met jesus

yes we know that yeshua has very little historicity, but he does have some.

 

[fallingblood]

It really is no use arguing with him. He is lost in his own delusion. When a valid argument is brought up, he closes his eyes and scrolls past it. That really is not the way to go. He really has no idea what he is talking about (which has been shown over and over again, such as his comments on Greek, that the NT was written in Aramaic first than translated to Greek, everything that he has said about the Essenes).

He has chosen to take information that is just horrible (once your sources start quoting psychics as if they are credible, then there is a problem. And when you don't stop and read the authors you are quoting, that is another problem), and spam it on this board. He doubts Nazareth, but then claims that there was a monastery on Mt. Caramel, and that Jesus is tied to it? That there was a sect of Nazoreans Essenes in existence at Mt. Caramel? At least the argument for Nazareth has evidence for it at least in the first century. And it is one that is supported by actual scholars.

As for my quote with Paul on Jesus, both I and A_E (he did a great job breaking it down) have shown you at least one quote. It may be a paraphrase, but really, that is good enough. If you understood the definition of either, which it is clear you don't (the fact that you said Paul can't quote Jesus as Paul never met Jesus shows your ignorance here), you would see that.

As for the missing years, I have explained this quite a few times. They really aren't missing. Nothing of importance happened. In fact, if you look at nearly any figure from around that time, you find the same exact thing, a large chunk of their lives missing.

Finally, Jesus is Yeshua. Yeshua is Jesus. You can't argue that Yeshua existed and say that Jesus was a fictional character. The two are the same. And they came from Nazareth.

 

[godnotgod]

but we have such a town, I know had people, 70AD for sure and possibly earlier.

Yes, of course. I forgot to mention that the issue is about a town of Nazareth that existed during the time of Jesus, the town where he reputedly was raised, that is to say, his hometown, which would have had to come into existence and grown a good time before his birth. No such town exists.




No one is doubting the theological stroty grew after his death.

but that doesnt mean a mortal traveling teacher of judaism who may have been a decent healer for that time didnt preach a new branch of judaism taught to him by John. Who was later killed by romans for ticking them off and was quickly put on a cross.

Yes we know the theology grew after his death.

We know the unknown authors never knew or met jesus

yes we know that yeshua has very little historicity, but he does have some.

However, the 'theological story' to which you refer is a manufactured one, with elements added in which were not part of the original teachings, and which match those of pagan origin. I am not saying that a man did not exist who traveled about and healed people, but to claim such a man was born of a virgin, was crucified and died, was resurrected back to life and ascended into heaven, and who preached the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood (whether actual or symbolic) for the purpose of sin redemption is a total fabrication, and has NOTHING to do with the spiritual world and the enlightened state. These are pagan ideas found in the mystery religions of which Paul was part and parcel. He was, for example, born and raised in Tarsus, a center of Mithraic practice, which DID profess the doctrines I mentioned.

Furthermore, the connection the Essenes had to the Therapeutae and the East, where healing and the life force being found in the BREATH (via Yoga and Meditation) make Yeshua and his teachings far, far more plausible than the concoction we call 'Jesus' with his doctrines of pagan origins. This would mean religious thought is going backwards rather than evolving into the light.

 

[outhouse]

However, the 'theological story' to which you refer is a manufactured one, with elements added in which were not part of the original teachings, and which match those of pagan origin. I am not saying that a man did not exist who traveled about and healed people, but to claim such a man was born of a virgin, was crucified and died, was resurrected back to life and ascended into heaven, and who preached the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood (whether actual or symbolic) for the purpose of sin redemption is a total fabrication, and has NOTHING to do with the spiritual world and the enlightened state. These are pagan ideas found in the mystery religions of which Paul was part and parcel. He was, for example, born and raised in Tarsus, a center of Mithraic practice, which DID profess the doctrines I mentioned.

Furthermore, the connection the Essenes had to the Therapeutae and the East, where healing and the life force being found in the BREATH (via Yoga and Meditation) make Yeshua and his teachings far, far more plausible than the concoction we call 'Jesus' with his doctrines of pagan origins. This would mean religious thought is going backwards rather than evolving into the light.

this is all I know of historical jesus


a mortal traveling teacher of judaism who may have been a decent healer for that time didnt preach a new branch of judaism taught to him by John. Who was later killed by romans for ticking them off and was quickly put on a cross.


No one said the theology didnt grow, we know it did.


why would it not grow?


it was perfect movement for that time for non jews who had little faith in their pagan deities. the ancient hebrews had to compete with other deities of that time so they had to create NOT just to keep up with other deities but have a story greater that reached right in where it counts.


they succeeded

 

[godnotgod]

It really is no use arguing with him. He is lost in his own delusion. When a valid argument is brought up, he closes his eyes and scrolls past it. That really is not the way to go.

You have not produced one single valid argument. All you have come up with is pure fluff.

He really has no idea what he is talking about (which has been shown over and over again, such as his comments on Greek, that the NT was written in Aramaic first than translated to Greek, everything that he has said about the Essenes).

What I said about the Aramaic/Greek has been proven as fact, and is just one small example of Pe****ta primacy. AE challenged it, claiming it was a lie, to which I responded with proof of its validity. As I stated, I do not wish to pursue this issue here. If you wish to contest it, you can start a new thread on the topic.

He has chosen to take information that is just horrible (once your sources start quoting psychics as if they are credible, then there is a problem.

Yes, there is a problem, and it is that you are deaf. Once again: I DID NOT USE THE PSYCHIC ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT MY POSITION! IS THAT CLEAR? Look at the discussion once more to follow the logic and then return here with your rebuttal. Nowhere in my argument did I allude to psychic information.

As for 'horrible information', we find that in the NT where a 'city of Nazareth' is claimed to have existed as Jesus's hometown. NO SUCH PLACE EVER EXISTED, AND THAT IS A FACT!

And when you don't stop and read the authors you are quoting, that is another problem), and spam it on this board.

You are now parrotting AE's assertion that I did not read the author in question, but he is in error, as I pointed out: I DID INDEED READ THE AUTHOR'S POSITION. HAVE YOU?

He doubts Nazareth,

No, I do not doubt Nazareth; I KNOW it did not exist, based on hard evidence. FACT: 1ST CENTURY NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST THEN, AND DOES NOT EXIST NOW.

but then claims that there was a monastery on Mt. Caramel,

There was. I have already shown pix of the ruins. Are you blind as well as deaf?

and that Jesus is tied to it?

Wrong! There was no Jesus, other than the concoction in Paul's head. Yeshua has already been placed at Mt. Carmel along with his two brothers, James and Simon. I showed you the letter.

That there was a sect of Nazoreans Essenes in existence at Mt. Caramel?

...they lived in caves and yurts on Mt. Carmel and dwelt in private homes in the surrounding countryside as well. In fact, the small house recently unearthed in Nazareth may well have been an Essene dwelling.

At least the argument for Nazareth has evidence for it at least in the first century.

Yeah? I have been asking for such evidence from the opening of this topic. Why have you held out? OK. So show us the evidence you refer to.


And it is one that is supported by actual scholars.

OK. and what, pray tell, are they basing THEIR assertions upon?

As for my quote with Paul on Jesus, both I and A_E (he did a great job breaking it down) have shown you at least one quote. It may be a paraphrase, but really, that is good enough.

Alas, it is not. A paraphrase is not a quote, no matter how hard you try to make it so. However, if the original source were available for Paul to paraphrase FROM, why did he not use it, instead of a secondary paraphrase? And what, exactly, is the original quote you are referring to? Show it to us. So here you have THE alleged spokesman for Jesus, and all you can come up with is one paraphrase, a paraphrase referring to moral behavior, rather than to more important primary doctrine? All of Paul's primary doctrine comes from HIM, not from Jesus! Modern Christianity is Paulanity. And if your mentor, AE, has shown me 'at least one quote', then where are the others? Eh?

If you understood the definition of either, which it is clear you don't (the fact that you said Paul can't quote Jesus as Paul never met Jesus shows your ignorance here), you would see that.

OK. So I am waiting. Show me the quotes. Ready, Set,...Go!

As for the missing years, I have explained this quite a few times. They really aren't missing.

No? Could've fooled me! Hmmm? Sorta like those pesky WMD's I suppose. Oh, I know! Jesus was in a state of suspended animation! They took him to DisneyLand for a spell, right?

Nothing of importance happened. In fact, if you look at nearly any figure from around that time, you find the same exact thing, a large chunk of their lives missing.

Right, except for one very important difference:

JESUS WAS GOD IN THE FLESH, THE MESSIAH, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT MAN WHO EVER LIVED! GET IT?

The only Biblical reference to Jesus during those 18 years, which you claim were not 'missing' (30 minus 12 = 18, right? See? They were there all along! Right?) is from Luke:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Now wait a minute! Jesus is God, right? You are either God or you are not. God already knows all things; God does not need to 'increase in wisdom and stature' because God is already all-wise and possesses complete stature. So this could not have been God. However, it could easily have been Yeshua, because Essene mystical practice DOES involve spiritual growth and maturation.

'Favor with God and man'? So as Jesus grew, some of his character was NOT yet as favorable in the eyes of God and his fellow man as it should have been? And his fellow man KNEW of his special qualities, since they favored him, and if they favored him, they regarded him as something above and beyond, correct? Instead here he is anonymous and reviled by his own townspeople.

Not gonna buy it, tenderfoot.

Something is going pooh pooh....again! Well, at least Xtianity is consistently full of pooh pooh.

Finally, Jesus is Yeshua. Yeshua is Jesus. You can't argue that Yeshua existed and say that Jesus was a fictional character. The two are the same. And they came from Nazareth.

Unless, of course, Paul came along and suppressed the real story of Yeshua and added pagan ideas to his doctrine to sell to the pagans, which later became official Church doctrine. Hey, folks! That is exactly what happened! So it turns out that Yeshua is NOT Jesus. In fact, there was no such person as Jesus. I will get more into this issue later, tenderfoot. For now, just hang in there. You're doing par for the course. What else can a poor bloke do, anyways, eh?

 

[godnotgod]

this is all I know of historical jesus

What 'historical' Jesus? There is no such person.


a mortal traveling teacher of judaism who may have been a decent healer for that time didnt preach a new branch of judaism taught to him by John. Who was later killed by romans for ticking them off and was quickly put on a cross.


No one said the theology didnt grow, we know it did.

It did not 'grow'; it became corrupted and distorted from the original. Think about it: spiritual truths are timeless. They do not need to 'grow' as they are already complete and mature upon presentation in their original form. What 'grows' are misconceptions and exaggerations amongst the ignorant which then becomes a standardized belief system.


why would it not grow?

It may spread, but not grow, as I pointed out, due to the nature of spirituality. The nature of the spiritual world does not change with man's history or views. What changes is man's view of the spiritual world, until one day, we arrive at where we are, and such 'growth' is showing itself to be erroneous when compared to the true nature of reality.


it was perfect movement for that time for non jews who had little faith in their pagan deities. the ancient hebrews had to compete with other deities of that time so they had to create NOT just to keep up with other deities but have a story greater that reached right in where it counts.


they succeeded

...in foisting one of the greatest myths upon mankind ever!

You don't mean 'theology'; you mean 'mythology'.

What you mean by 'where it counts' is merely a stopgap measure; a temporary 'fix' for man's ignorance and fears about who and what he is, how he got here, and where he is going. We call such a condition 'metaphysical anxiety'. Religious doctrine and belief assuages such a condition by drugging man into a kind of sleep, a religiously-induced stupor, or even addiction, if you will, just as powerful as any narcotic. Yes, it succeeded, alright, in hypnotizing men en masse. That is what 'grew', at the expense of the truth.

That 'growth' turned out to be cancerous and violent, as it culminated in the horror of the 400 year long Inquisition, hardly a desirable goal for any religion, and which can hardly be called a 'success'.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He doubts Nazareth, but then claims that there was a monastery on Mt. Caramel, and that Jesus is tied to it? That there was a sect of Nazoreans Essenes in existence at Mt. Caramel?

Yeah, every time I think about that it makes me giggle.

His source just wanted to use "Nazorean," "Mt. Caramel," and "Essenses" all in the same sentence. I doubt that the author even thought that someone would be gulliable enough to believe him. :biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But a person can even tire of giggling.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But a person can even tire of giggling.

That depends on what you're looking at. :sad:

 

[godnotgod]

In the course of making a facsimile of the sign Pilate caused to be placed at Yeshua the Anointed’s execution, word variations in bible versions were noted. Of the four gospels about the event, the phrase in John in 19:19-20 is the most informative. It gives the name Yeshua, infers where he was from, gives his scorned title, identifies the three languages in which the phrase was to be written, and the top-down order of those languages. Most bible translations of John 19:19 have: “of Nazareth.” There are variations in the translated spelling and pronunciation of this word (i.e., Natsareth, Nazorean, Notzori, Notsree, etc.). The Interlinear Bible - Hebrew and Greek, by J. Green Sr., Hendirckson Publishers, has the literal Greek: ‘ho nazoraios’ translated into English as ‘the Nazoraen’.


http://www.plaza1.net/Anthony/TheNazareneWay.pdf

The Nazoreans were/are an Essene religious sect. There was/is no place name called 'Nazor' or 'Nazoria'.

 

[Quagmire]

It really is no use arguing with him. He is lost in his own delusion. When a valid argument is brought up, he closes his eyes and scrolls past it. That really is not the way to go.

You have not produced one single valid argument. All you have come up with is pure fluff.

He really has no idea what he is talking about (which has been shown over and over again, such as his comments on Greek, that the NT was written in Aramaic first than translated to Greek, everything that he has said about the Essenes).

What I said about the Aramaic/Greek has been proven as fact, and is just one small example of Pe****ta primacy. AE challenged it, claiming it was a lie, to which I responded with proof of its validity. As I stated, I do not wish to pursue this issue here. If you wish to contest it, you can start a new thread on the topic.

He has chosen to take information that is just horrible (once your sources start quoting psychics as if they are credible, then there is a problem.

Yes, there is a problem, and it is that you are deaf. Once again: I DID NOT USE THE PSYCHIC ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT MY POSITION! IS THAT CLEAR? Look at the discussion once more to follow the logic and then return here with your rebuttal. Nowhere in my argument did I allude to psychic information.

As for 'horrible information', we find that in the NT where a 'city of Nazareth' is claimed to have existed as Jesus's hometown. NO SUCH PLACE EVER EXISTED, AND THAT IS A FACT!

And when you don't stop and read the authors you are quoting, that is another problem), and spam it on this board.

You are now parrotting AE's assertion that I did not read the author in question, but he is in error, as I pointed out: I DID INDEED READ THE AUTHOR'S POSITION. HAVE YOU?

He doubts Nazareth,

No, I do not doubt Nazareth; I KNOW it did not exist, based on hard evidence. FACT: 1ST CENTURY NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST THEN, AND DOES NOT EXIST NOW.

but then claims that there was a monastery on Mt. Caramel,

There was. I have already shown pix of the ruins. Are you blind as well as deaf?

and that Jesus is tied to it?

Wrong! There was no Jesus, other than the concoction in Paul's head. Yeshua has already been placed at Mt. Carmel along with his two brothers, James and Simon. I showed you the letter.

That there was a sect of Nazoreans Essenes in existence at Mt. Caramel?

...they lived in caves and yurts on Mt. Carmel and dwelt in private homes in the surrounding countryside as well. In fact, the small house recently unearthed in Nazareth may well have been an Essene dwelling.

At least the argument for Nazareth has evidence for it at least in the first century.

Yeah? I have been asking for such evidence from the opening of this topic. Why have you held out? OK. So show us the evidence you refer to.


And it is one that is supported by actual scholars.

OK. and what, pray tell, are they basing THEIR assertions upon?

As for my quote with Paul on Jesus, both I and A_E (he did a great job breaking it down) have shown you at least one quote. It may be a paraphrase, but really, that is good enough.

Alas, it is not. A paraphrase is not a quote, no matter how hard you try to make it so. However, if the original source were available for Paul to paraphrase FROM, why did he not use it, instead of a secondary paraphrase? And what, exactly, is the original quote you are referring to? Show it to us. So here you have THE alleged spokesman for Jesus, and all you can come up with is one paraphrase, a paraphrase referring to moral behavior, rather than to more important primary doctrine? All of Paul's primary doctrine comes from HIM, not from Jesus! Modern Christianity is Paulanity. And if your mentor, AE, has shown me 'at least one quote', then where are the others? Eh?

If you understood the definition of either, which it is clear you don't (the fact that you said Paul can't quote Jesus as Paul never met Jesus shows your ignorance here), you would see that.

OK. So I am waiting. Show me the quotes. Ready, Set,...Go!

As for the missing years, I have explained this quite a few times. They really aren't missing.

No? Could've fooled me! Hmmm? Sorta like those pesky WMD's I suppose. Oh, I know! Jesus was in a state of suspended animation! They took him to DisneyLand for a spell, right?

Nothing of importance happened. In fact, if you look at nearly any figure from around that time, you find the same exact thing, a large chunk of their lives missing.

Right, except for one very important difference:

JESUS WAS GOD IN THE FLESH, THE MESSIAH, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT MAN WHO EVER LIVED! GET IT?

The only Biblical reference to Jesus during those 18 years, which you claim were not 'missing' (30 minus 12 = 18, right? See? They were there all along! Right?) is from Luke:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Now wait a minute! Jesus is God, right? You are either God or you are not. God already knows all things; God does not need to 'increase in wisdom and stature' because God is already all-wise and possesses complete stature. So this could not have been God. However, it could easily have been Yeshua, because Essene mystical practice DOES involve spiritual growth and maturation.

'Favor with God and man'? So as Jesus grew, some of his character was NOT yet as favorable in the eyes of God and his fellow man as it should have been? And his fellow man KNEW of his special qualities, since they favored him, and if they favored him, they regarded him as something above and beyond, correct? Instead here he is anonymous and reviled by his own townspeople.

Not gonna buy it, tenderfoot.

Something is going pooh pooh....again! Well, at least Xtianity is consistently full of pooh pooh.

Finally, Jesus is Yeshua. Yeshua is Jesus. You can't argue that Yeshua existed and say that Jesus was a fictional character. The two are the same. And they came from Nazareth.

Unless, of course, Paul came along and suppressed the real story of Yeshua and added pagan ideas to his doctrine to sell to the pagans, which later became official Church doctrine. Hey, folks! That is exactly what happened! So it turns out that Yeshua is NOT Jesus. In fact, there was no such person as Jesus. I will get more into this issue later, tenderfoot. For now, just hang in there. You're doing par for the course. What else can a poor bloke do, anyways, eh?

Here it is again, godnotgod:

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

 

[godnotgod]

THE REALITY

Most people believe Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Speaking of Joseph, the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) says: “he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’” A careful reading of this passage reveals that the writers of Matthew are trying to fulfill the prophecy, not Jesus, and in order to fulfill the prophecy that “He will be called a Nazarean”, Matthew gives his hometown as Nazareth. But in fact, there is no Old Testament prophecy to the effect that a Messiah will come from a place called Nazareth (which is another in the long list of errors that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew made about Old Testament prophecies). The closest we come to any such description is a passage in Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.

Thus, the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth is a result of a mis-translation of the Old Testament by the writers of Matthew.

From another point of view, 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

 

[fallingblood]

You've never read the authors that are being quoted so how do you know your source is valid? I can tell you right now that it isn't as it is misrepresenting what those authors are saying. If you read them you will see that the confirm that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus and that Jesus was from there. Both Reed and Crossan have been included in documentaries that talk about Nazareth and even speak about it in their own books. Maybe if you read the sources you wouldn't be making such an asinine claim.

 

[fallingblood]

Ha, and even reading your last post you are admitting to what we have been saying all along. Nazareth was a hamlet. No one claimed it was a sizable city. It was nothing more than a hamlet of a small population. Your site even states that much. More so, your ignorance is truly shining through. You clearly have no idea what a synagogue constituted in the time of Jesus even though I have explained that to you multiple times.

 

[godnotgod]

You've never read the authors that are being quoted so how do you know your source is valid? I can tell you right now that it isn't as it is misrepresenting what those authors are saying. If you read them you will see that the confirm that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus and that Jesus was from there. Both Reed and Crossan have been included in documentaries that talk about Nazareth and even speak about it in their own books. Maybe if you read the sources you wouldn't be making such an asinine claim.

As far as I can see from their actual writings, they are merely surmising the existence of a village of Nazareth, and what it WOULD have been like had an actual village been there.

I am unable to copy/paste actual text from their book 'Excavating Jesus', but the following clips will do:

We should have artifacts present from their habitation. We should have evidence of permanent dwellings. Instead, as the authors tell us, we have wine presses, olive presses, water cisterns, grain silos and grinding stones, WHICH POINTS TO A FARMING COMMUNITY. We have no dwellings other than one house and caves.

The NT tells us that a 'city' of Nazareth was the case in the 1st Century, and not just once or twice, but several times:

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):


'And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.'
(Luke1.26,27)

'And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:'
(Luke 2.3,4)

'But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.'
(Matthew 2.22,23)

'And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.'
(Luke 2.39,40)

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

 

[godnotgod]

Ha, and even reading your last post you are admitting to what we have been saying all along. Nazareth was a hamlet. No one claimed it was a sizable city. It was nothing more than a hamlet of a small population. Your site even states that much. More so, your ignorance is truly shining through. You clearly have no idea what a synagogue constituted in the time of Jesus even though I have explained that to you multiple times.

The NT calls Nazareth a 'city'. A hamlet is a far cry from a city. You are exaggerating by suggesting that I am speaking of a 'sizable city'. It being sizable is unnecessary, as a city is more than residential homes. Cities have public buildings, and official governments, and other non-residential infrastructure. The Greek word is 'polis' which is actually more than a city; it is an autonomous city-state.

NO 'CITY' CALLED NAZARETH EXISTED DURING THE FIRST CENTURY!

 

[godnotgod]

More so, your ignorance is truly shining through.

Excuse me? What's that you say? My 'what' is shining through? Ignorance shines? Well glory be and hallellujah! That's hilarious!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Spam: The Unstoppable Force

Coming to RF anytime godnotgod logs in.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Greek word is 'polis' which is actually more than a city; it is an autonomous city-state.

One just has to wonder if spam is better than this.