No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[outhouse]

What evidence did you use in your investigation to reach that conclusion?

by the very limited evidence at hand on the subject.

What evidence do you have that the Romans occupied that area after the bar Kokhba revolt?

oh you know, real evidence


Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fr. Bagatti, who acted as the principal archaeologist for the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,[41] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward

 

[godnotgod]

Jimmy,

Nazareth was probably called En Nasira, Nazerat, and was a small city in Galilee...

So you have fresh archaeological evidence showing us that it was a 'small city'? The last info I had was that it was a small family farm, as only a single house, a wine press, and farm implements, etc. have so far been unearthed.

It is comical to me that Gabriel, God's angel did not know of the town since he went there to announce to Mary that she was to have a son, and was to call his name Jesus, Luke 1:26,27, 28-33. Imagine how embarrassed Gabriel was. Later after Jesus was born Joseph took him to Egypt, because of Herod giving the order to kill all male babies under two years old. After returning from Egypt, after Herod's death they went to Nazareth to live. Jesus and his parents lived in Nazareth, Jesus then came to be called The Nazarene. Nathanael must have heard of Nazareth, because he said, Can anything good come out of Nazareth?? John 1:45,46.

Ya, and den dey all went to de North Pole to visit Santee Claws and Santee gave Jeezuz a nice, big lollipop and they all sat around and told tall tales into the wee hours of the night, when, all of a sudden, a big hairy monster tried to get into the igloo, but Jeezuz wrestled him to the ground and vaporized him with his built-in laser death ray. Alas, the monster had already eaten 3 of Santee's favorite reindeer. After a week of carousing and merrymaking, the holy family all headed back to the bustling city of Nazareth, what, with all its bright lights and casinos, they had to sneak around the back side to get into their humble little dwelling where Jeezuz (who was none other than God in the flesh!} eeked out a quiet existence for the next 18 years, working his poor arse off as a humble carpenter, only to end up penniless at the ripe old age of 30. This enraged him, so he overturned the moneychangers tables at the synagogue out of sheer jealousy. That got the Jewish high priests totally apoplectic, so they demanded that this upstart be crucified, just to set an example to any others who dared even think of stirring up trouble, and the rest of the story is also cut from whole cloth.

I bet Pontius Pilate was berated, because he was a Roman, and did not even know there was no Nazareth. Pilate had written on the stake of Jesus, " Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews", John 19:19.

Oh, that was just a fabrication. The real plaque has now been found, and it reads: 'meet me at Domino's Pizza'

In one prophecy Isaiah wrote about a SPROUT that was to come, the Messiah, Isa 11:1. The term Nazareth actually means Sprout Town. A coincidence?? I doubt it.

Now that's just plain silly! They did'nt speak English back then, so no, 'Sprout Town' would not have been in their vocabulary. However, 'nazor', which means a 'shoot', alluding to an offshoot of the rod of Jesse, would have been the root word. So calling Jesus a 'Nazar-ene' would have pertained to the new sect that came about, that of the Nazor-ean Essenes. NO! IT CAN'T BE!

Nazareth was a small city of very little importance at the time of Jesus, so it is not suprising that the name was not written very often.

In fact, it was SOOOO unimportant so as NOT to have existed, as it was never mentioned at all in the OT, nor in the listing of 63 Galilean towns and villages, nor in other accountings of local towns and villages. No Nazareth nor a road leading to it showed up on any map of the period. But since you persist in calling it a 'city', albeit a 'small' city, show us the archaeological digs where it lay.

Luke was a historian without equal, which even historians today agree, and as he said, he traced all things he wrote about with accuracy, Luke 1:1-4. Very few people had the bravery to record the events that Luke recorded, because it was a death penalty tp put the wrong title for many the people Luke wrote about, Luke 3:1,2. Many others. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus did not live most of his young life in Nazareth, along with Joseph and Mary, and his brothers and sisters, Mark 6:3.

Unfortunately, no evidence of any such place has ever been found, so the holy family cannot have lived there. However, they may very well have lived at the family-oriented monastery just 10 miles away known as Mt. Carmel, where the Order of Nazorean Essenes practiced the healing arts for which Jesus was known.

 

[godnotgod]

actually he is

they deal with scripture interpretation NOT historicity of anything

The biblical quotes in Greek and English are scripture. I have used the biblos.com source to show that words in Greek existed for 'hamlet' and 'village', and were used in the Bible in places other than to describe Nazareth. But for some reason, when it came to Nazareth, the words in Greek used to describe it were always either 'town' or 'city'. (polis, polin, poleos, poleis). If Nazareth were nothing more than a backwater hamlet, why did the Biblical authors not use the appropriate words they were already familiar with as shown in other verses?

You cannot separate the mss from their place in history. They must always be looked at in the context of the world from which they sprang.

 

[outhouse]

why did the Biblical authors not use the appropriate words they were already familiar with as shown in other verses?

because when they wrote, it was years later after the city had grown.

they wrote from oral tradition and we know the theology grew with the movement.

 

[godnotgod]

because when they wrote, it was years later after the city had grown.

Ahhhh....that's what I figured as well! They were interpreting the 1st century through the eyes of 70AD. That would explain why no Nazareth was mentioned at all previously as well as account for the use of the words 'town' and 'city'.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

actually he is

they deal with scripture interpretation NOT historicity of anything

It's like we see all the time - someone using a resource like Webster's to prove an unrelated point.

If you have no clue what you're doing, a basic reference is not going to help.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The city-state, or polis, became the dominant governmental structure of Greece.

Yes, in 4th century BCE Greece. :biglaugh:

I don't know if I should bother to go any farther, but had you bothered to read your wiki source, you would have known that the polis basically died with Philip of Macedon and there were almost none in the Greek world during the Roman period.

Here's a Captain Obvious lesson:

The Greek cities were conquered by Rome AND NO LONGER INDEPENDENT. At least you should be able to figure that out on your own, earlier empires controlling Greece notwithstanding.

BHKAG - Basic Historical Knowledge Against Spam

Jeez, education sucks these days.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[youtube]1MnU6p3sGSw[/youtube]
Johnny Lee 1980 Looking For Love - YouTube

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

because when they wrote, it was years later after the city had grown.

they wrote from oral tradition and we know the theology grew with the movement.

Good grief!

Doesn't anyone know how to use the Shift Key these days? Grammar is important: capitalization is the sole difference between helping your Uncle Jack off his horse and helping your uncle jack off his horse.

 

[Tellurian]

by the very limited evidence at hand on the subject.

oh you know, real evidence

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fr. Bagatti, who acted as the principal archaeologist for the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,[41] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward

Your Nazareth link does not say anything about Nazareth being a Roman location after the bar Kokhba revolt. It indicates that it was a Jewish village between the bar Kokhba revolt and 630 CE, "When the Byzantine or Eastern Roman emperor Heraclius ejected the Persians from Palestine in 630 AD, he singled out Nazareth for special punishment and imposed forced exile upon the Jewish families. At this time the town ceased to be Jewish."

As for Bagatti's claims you might want to take a look at the following site that shows the ways Bagatti was wrong in his conclusions:

The Myth of Nazareth

 

[outhouse]

Your Nazareth link does not say anything about Nazareth being a Roman location after the bar Kokhba revolt. It indicates that it was a Jewish village between the bar Kokhba revolt and 630 CE, "When the Byzantine or Eastern Roman emperor Heraclius ejected the Persians from Palestine in 630 AD, he singled out Nazareth for special punishment and imposed forced exile upon the Jewish families. At this time the town ceased to be Jewish."

As for Bagatti's claims you might want to take a look at the following site that shows the ways Bagatti was wrong in his conclusions:

The Myth of Nazareth

sorry that link is spam in a can and has a biased opinion that doesnt follow and ignores the real historicity on the subject

 

[Tellurian]

sorry that link is spam in a can and has a biased opinion that doesnt follow and ignores the real historicity on the subject

So you consider anything that provides evidence to show your "beliefs" to be wrong is supposedly "spam" in your mind.

 

[outhouse]

So you consider anything that provides evidence to show your "beliefs" to be wrong is supposedly "spam" in your mind.

No ive researched and read that site 4 times over.

if you havent noticed I started out in your exact shoes and beliefs.


Difference is i kept studying the subject and I still do.



your guy at that site discounts modern scholarships to come to his conclusions when he feels like it, but then uses scholrships to prove other points. thats why i dont follow his garbage

 

[Tellurian]

No ive researched and read that site 4 times over.

if you havent noticed I started out in your exact shoes and beliefs.

Difference is i kept studying the subject and I still do.

your guy at that site discounts modern scholarships to come to his conclusions when he feels like it, but then uses scholrships to prove other points. thats why i dont follow his garbage

What "modern scholarships" does he discount, and what scholarships is he using to prove his points? Is he using evidence in his scholarships to disprove the other so called modern scholarships? How does one scholarship trump another scholarship? How do you decide which to accept?

 

[fallingblood]

So you consider anything that provides evidence to show your "beliefs" to be wrong is supposedly "spam" in your mind.

Well right off the bat, he uses a quote from over a hundred years ago. Not really credible in any sense.

Then in his first paragraph, he makes an ignorant remark concerning synagogues in the first century (a similar remark that has been repeated on this thread as well; one in which I have dealt with various times). There is no reason why we should even assume that we can find a synagogue in Nazareth. The reason being that in the first century, for the most part (there are some exceptions, but not many that we know of), synagogues were not distinct buildings, but could be housed in any local house. It was just a gathering of individuals, that could take place in a variety of homes. In fact, it is the same reason why we don't find churches that Paul talks about. Because they were in the homes of various members of that church.

So of course we aren't going to find a synagogue, and there is no reason to assume we would, based on what we know about first century synagogues.

So right from the get go, the author shows that he is going to use outdated scholarship, and that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the scholarship anyway. More so, I don't see where he has any credibility, as that is basically shot as soon as he begins writing.


On a side note: when are you going to show that my thread on Jesus and Josephus is so wrong? I'm still waiting for your reply to that. I'm coming to think that you simply can't.

 

[outhouse]

How does one scholarship trump another scholarship? How do you decide which to accept?

there is a gray area in the middle of different scholarships, far right and far left are not volid isea or followed.

your posting far left out of the loop material [not even scholarship material]

 

[Tellurian]

Well right off the bat, he uses a quote from over a hundred years ago. Not really credible in any sense.

I expect he used that quote to show that the existence of a Jewish village at Nazareth was doubted many years ago and is not just a new suspicion. If you doubt that quote, then you probably do not believe any of the alleged quotes from hundreds or thousands of years ago that are found in the bible from characters for whom there is NO evidence they actually existed.

Then in his first paragraph, he makes an ignorant remark concerning synagogues in the first century (a similar remark that has been repeated on this thread as well; one in which I have dealt with various times). There is no reason why we should even assume that we can find a synagogue in Nazareth. The reason being that in the first century, for the most part (there are some exceptions, but not many that we know of), synagogues were not distinct buildings, but could be housed in any local house. It was just a gathering of individuals, that could take place in a variety of homes. In fact, it is the same reason why we don't find churches that Paul talks about. Because they were in the homes of various members of that church.

So of course we aren't going to find a synagogue, and there is no reason to assume we would, based on what we know about first century synagogues.

The "synagogue" he was referring to was the one that supposedly existed according to Luke 4:16 "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read".

So right from the get go, the author shows that he is going to use outdated scholarship, and that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the scholarship anyway. More so, I don't see where he has any credibility, as that is basically shot as soon as he begins writing.

On a side note: when are you going to show that my thread on Jesus and Josephus is so wrong? I'm still waiting for your reply to that. I'm coming to think that you simply can't.

As I have mentioned to you before, I tried reading your long, long, long post, but I kept seeing all kinds of silliness where you would take some facts, combine them together, and then come up with a conclusion that the facts supposedly supported your conclusions, when the conclusions you were supposedly reaching were not supported by the facts. It was obvious that you had already reached your conclusions before you began, and all you were doing was trying to collecting some facts that an ignorant person might believe supposedly supported your conclusions.

 

[Tellurian]

there is a gray area in the middle of different scholarships, far right and far left are not volid isea or followed.

your posting far left out of the loop material [not even scholarship material]

It still sounds like you are choosing to ignore the historical records and archaeological evidence that do not support your "beliefs".

 

[fallingblood]

I expect he used that quote to show that the existence of a Jewish village at Nazareth was doubted many years ago and is not just a new suspicion. If you doubt that quote, then you probably do not believe any of the alleged quotes from hundreds or thousands of years ago that are found in the bible from characters for whom there is NO evidence they actually existed.

Apples and oranges. Either way though, it is foolish to use outdated scholarship in order to try to prove a point. The author of the site you posted does so on a number of places. And his first quote, right at the top of the page, is one that is very outdated.

More so, when speaking about Jesus, we have more than enough evidence. As I have said over and over again, Josephus should be more than enough evidence.

The "synagogue" he was referring to was the one that supposedly existed according to Luke 4:16 "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read".

Please read what I actually said. It would help a lot.

But let's examine that verse. It doesn't say that there was a specific building that was a synagogue. It doesn't say that the synagogue stood as it's own building. No. It simply states that Jesus went to the synagogue. And as I have explained, many times, in the first century, the synagogue was not a specific building, as our modern day synagogues are, but was situated in a regular home. Archeologically, it is pretty much impossible to differentiate a house from a house that is also used as a synagogue.

That is why the author of your site is not credible. He is arguing from ignorance.

As I have mentioned to you before, I tried reading your long, long, long post, but I kept seeing all kinds of silliness where you would take some facts, combine them together, and then come up with a conclusion that the facts supposedly supported your conclusions, when the conclusions you were supposedly reaching were not supported by the facts. It was obvious that you had already reached your conclusions before you began, and all you were doing was trying to collecting some facts that an ignorant person might believe supposedly supported your conclusions.

Come on, that is nothing more than a lame cop out. If my points are silliness, and my conclusions not supported, point it out. You don't have to point them all out. But stop dodging the subject, and making lame little excuses, and put up for once.

As it stands, all that it looks like is that you are making excuse after excuse on why you can't offer even a partial rebuttal to my argument. Why? Because, I think it is obvious, you know you can't.

 

[fallingblood]

It still sounds like you are choosing to ignore the historical records and archaeological evidence that do not support your "beliefs".

Not really. Outhouse is ignoring spam. That is actually very good. Instead of accepting a non-scholarly website, just because it supports one's position, he is deciding to discard it as the trash that it is.

You are only accepting it because it helps your position. However, if one looks at it critically, it is garbage. I have already shown two reasons, and that was just looking at a very small portion of the site.