No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

angellous_evangellous · Sep 27, 2011

Tellurian said:
The place is a "tourist attraction" now because the owner is not getting any financial help to expand his excavations. He hopes that by showing the bath house he may be able to raise additional funding for more exploration of the area. The Roman military bath house in Nazareth is not the only one that has been found. Another Roman military bath house was found in Jerusalem.

Ancient Roman soldiers' bathhouse found in Jerusalem - CNN

If you keep calling it that, maybe it will suddenly change into one.

There are several scholars that I personally know who have both the interest and the money to carry out proper research at the site. However, with the exception of a few, most are interested only in 1stBCE-3rdCE century stuff.

I'll ask and see if anyone has been there and had a lollipop from the souvenir shop.

It seems to me that if there were any interest in this site, that there would be people fighting for it because it is interesting and would sell a lot of books.

But these folks aren't easily fooled by gimmicks.

fallingblood · Sep 27, 2011

godnotgod said:
Again, you are referring to the the use of the word 'city' in the NT, many decades AFTER the time of Jesus. When you say 'city', do you mean the Greek 'polis'?

Don't try to dodge this. The same word that is used to describe Nazarth is used to describe Bethlehem. If you do your research, you will see that Bethlehem was also a village. So, we have clear evidence of Gospel writers labeling a village a city. Thus, the term polis that us being used could also refer to a village. Meaning your argument fails.

fallingblood · Sep 27, 2011

godnotgod said:
Why are you trying to pin the definition on me? I am not the one who held these beliefs to be informed consensus, but those who believed them did. Those who tortured and murdered for the Inquisition did so in the belief that they were doing it for the good of the victim's soul. 'Informed consensus' is not necessarily based on accurate information. Did'nt we learn that from George Bush and his completely faulty sources, upon which crucial decisions were made in the name of 'informed consensus'?

I maintain that those who hold, via of 'informed consensus', that Jesus was a real historical figure, are basing such a notion on faulty information.

Yet you have not been able to demonstrate that it is faulty information. When you come up with a position that goes against the informed consensus, you are stuck with the burden of proof. Meaning you have the responsibility of showing that your position is better than the one currently held.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 27, 2011

Tellurian said:
The place is a "tourist attraction" now because the owner is not getting any financial help to expand his excavations. He hopes that by showing the bath house he may be able to raise additional funding for more exploration of the area. The Roman military bath house in Nazareth is not the only one that has been found. Another Roman military bath house was found in Jerusalem.

Ancient Roman soldiers' bathhouse found in Jerusalem - CNN

This is what happens when you read without thinking.

Your source says that a Roman military bath-house was found in modern Jerusalem.

But the city that it was built in was Aelia Capitolina, the Roman city built on top of Jerusalem after it was in ruins from when Titus conquered it in 70CE.

But it's ok. Because you're so wonderful, and your intellect is so powerful, you can obstinately refuse to even attempt to understand what you read. And then make stuff up as you go along.

But don't bore me.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 27, 2011

fallingblood said:
Don't try to dodge this. The same word that is used to describe Nazarth is used to describe Bethlehem. If you do your research, you will see that Bethlehem was also a village. So, we have clear evidence of Gospel writers labeling a village a city. Thus, the term polis that us being used could also refer to a village. Meaning your argument fails.

He's having a real hard time reasoning out that meanings of words change.

Especially over hundreds of years of changes in politics. :facepalm:

Maybe another thing is this - and I haven't thought of it before - but Greeks were only a minority of people speaking Greek in the ancient world. That had to have effected the landscape of the language.

And besides, in the Roman Empire, it was the Latin terms that denoted the status of the city - and if there were Greek equivalents, they were translated from the Latin- not the other way around.

Sometimes godnotgod is entertaining when he makes stuff up. But most of the time it lacks originality and creativity.

Jayhawker Soule · Sep 27, 2011

<long_overdue> ignore list </long_overdue>

angellous_evangellous · Sep 27, 2011

Jayhawker Soule said:
<long_overdue> ignore list </long_overdue>

hahaha

Tellurian · Sep 27, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
This is what happens when you read without thinking.

Your source says that a Roman military bath-house was found in modern Jerusalem.

But the city that it was built in was Aelia Capitolina, the Roman city built on top of Jerusalem after it was in ruins from when Titus conquered it in 70CE.

But it's ok. Because you're so wonderful, and your intellect is so powerful, you can obstinately refuse to even attempt to understand what you read. And then make stuff up as you go along.

But don't bore me.

The Roman city of Aelia Capitolina wasn't built on top of the ruins of Jerusalem until after 130 CE in the time of Hadrian. The city had not been completely ruined in 70 CE as there were still Jews living in the city when Hadrian decided to rebuild it into a Roman city, and then he banned all Jews from living in Aelia Capitolina because of the bar Kokhba revolt.

I never tried to imply that the Roman military bath house found in Jerusalem was from the first century. The article makes it clear that it was a bath house used by the Roman soldiers involved with rebuilding Jerusalem into a Roman city after the destruction in 135 CE at the end of the bar Kokhba revolt. I just pointed out that discovery to show more evidence that the Roman military did have heated bath houses for their soldiers in Palestine, just like they did at the Roman military camp located at Nazareth in the first century.

fallingblood · Sep 27, 2011

Tellurian said:
The Roman city of Aelia Capitolina wasn't built on top of the ruins of Jerusalem until after 130 CE in the time of Hadrian. The city had not been completely ruined in 70 CE as there were still Jews living in the city when Hadrian decided to rebuild it into a Roman city, and then he banned all Jews from living in Aelia Capitolina because of the bar Kokhba revolt.

I never tried to imply that the Roman military bath house found in Jerusalem was from the first century. The article makes it clear that it was a bath house used by the Roman soldiers involved with rebuilding Jerusalem into a Roman city after the destruction in 135 CE at the end of the bar Kokhba revolt. I just pointed out that discovery to show more evidence that the Roman military did have heated bath houses for their soldiers in Palestine, just like they did at the Roman military camp located at Nazareth in the first century.

You don't see any problem with that logic? Apples and oranges.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 27, 2011

fallingblood said:
You don't see any problem with that logic? Apples and oranges.

I prefer Dr. Pepper and Snickers.

Tellurian · Sep 28, 2011

fallingblood said:
You don't see any problem with that logic? Apples and oranges.

First century Roman military bath house in Nazareth = apple, and second century Roman military bath house in Jerusalem = orange. Roman military in Palestine had bath houses for its soldiers = fruit salad. Got it.

godnotgod · Sep 28, 2011

fallingblood said:
Yet you have not been able to demonstrate that it is faulty information. When you come up with a position that goes against the informed consensus, you are stuck with the burden of proof. Meaning you have the responsibility of showing that your position is better than the one currently held.

Ah, except for the fact that YOUR camp is the one which first came forward with the proposition, which you wish to foist upon the rest, and then claim that they have the responsibility of proof when they question the veracity of your claim!

The consensus that a historical Jesus lived is not an informed one, as it is based upon BELIEF and not factual information.

It was also a 'consensus' that the Sun revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat at one time, but the 'information' upon which that notion was based was proved to be erroneous.

Seen any WMD's lately? Oh, I forgot...the burden of proof is on ME, right? Meanwhile, how many have died for a LIE? And how many have died in wars fought in the name of a dubious 'Jesus'?

godnotgod · Sep 28, 2011

fallingblood said:
Don't try to dodge this. The same word that is used to describe Nazarth is used to describe Bethlehem. If you do your research, you will see that Bethlehem was also a village. So, we have clear evidence of Gospel writers labeling a village a city. Thus, the term polis that us being used could also refer to a village. Meaning your argument fails.

So the Bible writers were in error, since the word 'polis' means 'town' or 'city', but they still proceeded to use the wrong word, in spite of the fact that words existed in Greek for 'village' and 'hamlet'?

No, the word 'polis' cannot be used to accurately describe a village because it is incorrect.

Therefore, there must be some other reason why 'polis' was used.

Unless, of course, such laxity is OK with you when we are dealing with a holy book.

"City, shmitty...what's the big deal?"

And, if that is the case, how much laxity exists throughout the Bible that we should know about, such as, for instance, that the 'town' and 'city' of Nazareth are written about as being an actual place, but when looked for, is simply and plainly not there?

So here's a question for you: Can you show an example of the Hebrew word for 'town' or 'city' being used to describe a village in the OT? And if not, why did the usage change when the NT came into existence?

The research I did on Bethlehem indicates that it was a town and then a city centuries before Jesus was allegedly born there. Remember that the holy family traveled there from Nazareth for the purpose of registering with the census. Therefore, there must have been official government buildings already established there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem

godnotgod · Sep 28, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
He's having a real hard time reasoning out that meanings of words change.

Especially over hundreds of years of changes in politics.

Maybe another thing is this - and I haven't thought of it before - but Greeks were only a minority of people speaking Greek in the ancient world. That had to have effected the landscape of the language.

And besides, in the Roman Empire, it was the Latin terms that denoted the status of the city - and if there were Greek equivalents, they were translated from the Latin- not the other way around.

Sometimes godnotgod is entertaining when he makes stuff up. But most of the time it lacks originality and creativity.

So you are saying that 'polis' originally meant 'village' or 'hamlet'?

Or maybe it meant 'single dwelling' since that is all that has been found.

After all, words do change through time, as you indicated.

So what we have here, folks, is 'polis Nazaret', the house where Jesus lived!

"Oh, look! Here is the bed where he actually slept over here! And the cup he drank from! Look! His sandals and staff! Hey! I think I see....NO!...his personal diary!!!....OH, NO!......JESUS WAS GAY!"

! :facepalm:

The NT was written half a century after Jesus's death. It's authors, in referring to Nazareth as a 'polis', were most likely envisioning the way Nazareth appeared at the time of writing. Since we do not know who the authors of the NT were, we do not know if they even visited Nazareth.

Besides, there is nothing I see to indicate that 'polis' EVER meant 'village' or 'hamlet'. On the contrary, it seems to ALWAYS have meant 'city' and 'city-state'.

But you are correct about the meanings of words changing over time. However, in this case, the change is not in the direction of smaller, but of larger:

'The term polis which in archaic Greece meant city, changed with the development of the governance center in the city to indicate state (which included its surrounding villages), and finally with the emergence of a citizenship notion between the land owners it came to describe the entire body of citizens.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis

I think the key to this is to find writings from the time of Jesus to see what others were using to describe 'city' or 'village'. Then we would have something to compare to within the correct time-frame.

godnotgod · Sep 28, 2011

Jayhawker Soule said:
<long_overdue> ignore list </long_overdue>

i am sorry if you are offended and that you took my comments personally. I assure you, I did not mean them that way, but I can understand why you would see it that way.

The intent was merely to show that large groups of people, though they may be in agreement about some idea or action, may still be misinformed and base wrong actions on erroneous information. I am sure you know this to be the case throughout history.

'Popular delusions and the madness of crowds' sort of thing.

But if you still cannot understand my intent, I will be more than happy to remove the offending post.

Thank you!

godnotgod · Sep 28, 2011

Tellurian said:
First century Roman military bath house in Nazareth = apple, and second century Roman military bath house in Jerusalem = orange. Roman military in Palestine had bath houses for its soldiers = fruit salad. Got it.

:clap

outhouse · Sep 28, 2011

Tellurian said:
First century Roman military bath house in Nazareth = apple, and second century Roman military bath house in Jerusalem = orange. Roman military in Palestine had bath houses for its soldiers = fruit salad. Got it.

no matter how hard you wish a date, it doesnt make it true.

There is no date attributing this to 1rst century other then 1 arcgeologist.

last time i checked you need more then one opinion to verify a valid date.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 28, 2011

Besides, there is nothing I see to indicate that 'polis' EVER meant 'village' or 'hamlet'. On the contrary, it seems to ALWAYS have meant 'city' and 'city-state'.

O man you're killing me! :biglaugh:

Keep it up! Now you're on.

Make up more stuff like this.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 28, 2011

One important reason why you're making an error is YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO LOOK UP THE MEANING OF THE WORD.

Jeebus. Not that I'm expecting this to do much good...

From LSJ -

πόλις , Ep. also πτόλις (found sts. in Trag. etc.,
A. v. πτόλις）, ἡ: Ep. forms, acc. sg. “πόληα” Hes.Sc.105, Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.62; gen. πόλιος or πτόλιος, Il.2.811, 4.514, al., “πόληος” 16.395, al. (also Thgn.757), “πόλεος” Il.21.567; dat. “πόλει” 5.686, al., “πτόλεϊ” 17.152, “πόληϊ” 3.50 (also Tyrt.12.15): pl., nom. “πόλιες” Od.15.412, “πόληες” Il.4.45; gen. “πολίων” 1.125, al.; dat. “πολίεσσι” Od.21.252; acc. “πόλεις” Il.2.648, al., “πόληας” Od.17.486, Call.Fr.9.70 P.(scanned ^ ^ ^_ IG12.826), πόλιας (disyll.) Od.8.560,574, (trisyll.) Il.4.308 (s.v.l., “πόλεας” Aristarch.): Ion. forms, gen. “πόλεως” IG12(8).356（Thasos), GDI5653a13 (Chios), etc., also Xenoph.2.9,22, v.l. in Thgn.1043; written “πόλειως” GDI5532.19 (Zeleia); πόλεος ib.5339.41 (Orop.), IG12(7).103 (Amorgos), Thgn. 776, etc., “πόλιος” Hdt.1.26, al., Herod.2.8, al., “πόληος” Thgn. (v. supr.), cj. in Hippon.47, cf. An.Ox.1.361; dat. mostly πόλει, but “πόλι_” Hdt. 2.60, al., πόληϊ (or -&#8131

SIG169.3 (lasos, iv B.C.): pl., usu. πόλεις, πόλεων, πόλεσι, but in Hdt. “πόλιες” 1.142, al., πολίων ib.6, al., πόλισι ib. 151, al.; acc. “πόλι_ς” 2.177,al., “πόλιας” 1.142, 2.102, al.: Dor. gen. sg. “πόλιος” SIG615.3 (Delph., ii B.C.); dat. sg. “πόλι” IG4.839 (Calaurea, iv B.C.); dat. pl. “πολίεσι” Pi.P.7.8; πολίεσσι Foed.Lac. ap. Th.5.77 (v.l. πολίεσ&#953

, 79, IG42(1).74.4 (Epid., iii B.C.); Cret. “πόλιθι” GDI5019.3: Aeol. gen. “πόλιος” IG12(2).526a8 (πόληος is an Epicism in Alc. Supp.17.6); gen. pl. “πολίων” IG11(4).1064b20; dat. pl. πολίεσσι ib. 12(2).1.6: Trag., gen. πόλεως disyll. (as also in Com., exc. Ar.Eq. 763), thrice “πόλεος” A.Ag.1167 (lyr.), S.Ant.162, E.Or.897:—Att. Inscrr. earlier than 350 B.C. sts. have dat. sg. πόλῃ, IG12.108.35,22.17.10,42.5, 53.7; Att. dual “πόλη” Isoc.8.116, πόλη or “πόλει” Aeschin. Socr.8 (where Choerob. cites both forms, in Theod.1.314, 136 H.); gen. “τοῖν πολέοιν” Isoc.4.73: Elean nom. sg. “πόλερ” Schwyzer425.16; gen. πόλιορ ib.20 (iii/ii B.C.):—city, Hom. ll.cc., Hes.Sc.270, etc.; π. ἄκρη, ἀκροτάτη, = ἀκρόπολις, the citadel, Il.6.88, 20.52; which at Athens also was in early times called simply π., while the rest of the city was called “ἄστυ, καλεῖται . . ἡ ἀκρόπολις μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων π.” Th.2.15; ἐν πόλει in treaties, Id.5.23,47, cf. IG12.372.1, Ar. Lys.245,758; “ἐς πόλιν” IG12.91.4; “πρὸς πόλιν” Ar.Lys.288 (lyr.); “ἐκ πόλεως” Id.Eq.1093; but “ἐν τῇ πόλει” X.An.7.1.27, dub. in Antipho 6.39; so Ἰνάχου π. the citadel of Argos, E.Fr.228.6; of the Cadmea at Thebes, Plu.Pel.18, cf. Str.8.6.8; of Alexandria, Eust.239.13; π. ἡ ἁγία, of Jerusalem, LXX Ne.11.1: with the name of the city added in gen., Ἰλίου π., Ἄργους π., the city of . . , A.Ag.29, Ar.Eq.813; also in appos., “ἡ Μένδη π.” Th.4.130; “ἡ π. οἱ Ταρσοί” X.An.1.2.26.
2. one's city or country, “πόθι τοι π. ἠδὲ τοκῆες;” Od.1.170, etc., cf. πόλιν: τὴν χώραν, Hsch.
3. ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως city governor, OGI113.3,134.2, al.(Cyprus, ii B.C.), Plb.5.39.3: without Art., “ἐπὶ πόλιος” IG7.2809.2 (Hyettus, iii B.C.), etc.; ἐπὶ πόλεως ib.299.1 (Oropus. iii B.C.); “στρατηγὸς πόλεως” OGI743 (Ptol.); “στρατηγὸς τῆς π.” BGU729.1 (ii A.D.); στρατηγὸς κατὰ πόλιν, = Lat. praetor urbanus, IG14.951.2 (Rome, i B.C.).
II. country, as dependent on and called after its city, “ἀνθρώπων οἳ τήνδε π. καὶ γαῖαν ἔχουσιν” Od.6.177, cf. Hes.Sc.380, S.OC 1533. etc.; esp. of islands peopled by men, “Αῆμνον π. Θόαντος” Il.14.230; π. Αἴαντος, = Σαλαμίς, Pi.I.5(4).48, etc.; “περιρρύτας π.” A.Eu.77, cf. E. Ion294, Ar.Pax251 (v. Sch.); also “διώχληκε π. πολλὰς . . , Σικελίαν, Ἰταλίαν, Πελοπόννησον, Θετταλίαν κτλ.” Lys.6.6, cf. Str.8.3.31.
III. community or body of citizens (opp. ἄστυ, their dwellings, Il.17.144, but in “δῆμός τε π. τε” Od.11.14, π. denotes the town), “ὧν π. ἀνάριθμος ὄλλυται” S.OT179(lyr.): hence,
2. state or community, “ξύμπασα π. κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀπηύρα” Hes.Op.240, cf. Pi.P.2.88, S.OT22, E.Ph.947, etc.; “π. ἄνδρα διδάσκει” Simon.67; esp. free state, republic, S.Ant.738 (cf. 734), X.Cyr.8.2.28, Arist.Pol.1276a23; “τὰ τῆς π.” state affairs, government, Pl.Prt.319a; “π. ἡ γενῶν καὶ κωμῶν κοινωνία ζωῆς τελείας καὶ αὐτάρκους” Arist.Pol.1280b40; τὴν π. φεύγειν shun one's public duties, D.45.66; assembly of citizens, Berl.Sitzb.1927.8 (Locr., v B. C.).
3. rights of citizenship, Ar.Ra.718, D.21.106.
IV. πόλιν παίζειν, a game resembling backgammon, Cratin.56, perh. alluded to in Pl.R.422e. (Cf. Skt. pūr, Lith. pilìs 'fortrees'.)

angellous_evangellous · Sep 28, 2011

Here is Middle Liddell

πόλις 1 gen. πόλεως dissyll. in attic Poets ionic and doric πόλιος dissyll. in Il.

I. doric πολίεσι:—acc. πόλεις, πόλιας:— a city, Hom., Hes., etc.; πόλις ἄκρη and ἀκροτάτη, ῀ ἀκρόπολις, the citadel, Il.: this at Athens was often called simply πόλις, while the rest of the city was called ἄστυ, Thuc., etc.:—the name of the city was often added in gen., Ἰλίου π., Ἄργους π. the city of . . , Aesch., etc.; also in appos., ἡ Μένδη π. Thuc.
2. one's city or country, Od., etc.
II. when πόλις and ἄστυ are joined, the former is the body of citizens, the latter their dwellings, Il.; ὧν πόλις ἀνάριθμος ὄλλυται, where πόλις = a number of citizens, Soph.:—hence,
2. the state (πολιτεί&#945

, Hes., Pind., attic: esp. a free state, republic, Soph., Xen., etc.
3. the right of citizenship, like Lat. civitas, Ar., Dem.

No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Agnostic Theist

Agnostic Theist

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

-- untitled --

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Active Member

Agnostic Theist

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Active Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Thou art That

Atheistically

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest