-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
krsnaraja
Active Member
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Very good.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That matters how? I'm not even sure how this follows what I was saying?
godnotgod
Thou art That
Except for the FACT that Christians insist that 'him' came from the 'city of Nazareth'; that his being called a 'Nazarene' refers to the 'city' of Nazareth. Then, in the same breath, they further insist that Nazareth was no 'city' nor even a 'town' at all!...that all we really have is a small hamlet, an insignificant little collection of humble homes where the humble carpenter known as Jesus of Nazareth eked out a subsistence living and ended up penniless. In fact, they insist Nazareth was SO insignificant that Jesus was able to live here for a whopping 18 years without a peep being written about him!..and HE is THE one and ONLY 'SON OF GOD' IN THE FLESH!... Not only was nary a peep written about him, but no peep whatsoever issued forth FROM him himself....in spite of the Biblical statement that he had, at the ripe old age of 12, bowled over the elders in the temple at Jerusalem, and then, after returning to his home in Nazareth:
[51] Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. [52] And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Luke 2:51-52
In fact, he gained so MUCH in favor with men that they eventually wished to hurl him bodily from a non-existent cliff in Nazareth.
So, here we have, on the one hand, a total 18-year silence about a man who had already gained fame at 12 OUTSIDE his hometown, and who additionally gained in favor with men in his own hometown, except that it was not a 'town' at all, but a backwater hamlet, which the writers of the NT somehow managed to refer to as a 'polis', (they did not yet 'know Greek' as our resident pedant, AngusEvilosusus does, since they failed to study their lexicons), but did not really mean a 'polis' but really meant a tiny 'insignificant' hamlet, (as falllenblood likes to put it
), but which turns out to be nothing more than a single home, since that, folks, is all we have in archaeological actuality. So you see, what it really boils down to, is that, if there was no Nazareth, (which, BTW, there was'nt), then there was no Jesus either, since the NT tells us that Nazareth was the place where he dwelt.
Furthermore, since, as the other Xtians here persist in telling us, that Nazareth was totally insignificant and tiny, how is it that the statement in Matthew that 'he shall be called a Nazarene' can refer to Nazareth, since the statement is one of a proclamation of major importance? One does not announce to the world that THE Messiah is associated with a place of little or no significance. 'Nazareth? Never heard of it!...'Jesus of where?...Jesus? Who dat?'
"Uh..oh, yes...uh...you see...THE MESSIAH..you know...THE ONE who has come to ....er...uh...SAVE THE WORLD....has been quietly living out his life right here in the tiny little hamlet of Nazareth for the last 18 years, and no one knows about it, or even cares. We've managed to keep his secret under wraps all this time, so don't blow it now, OkeeDokee? OkeeDokee!..so shush, now, child, and get thee to the nunnery...uh...what's that you say? You think you saw the same guy in...where?...Tibet?...India?...China?....Persia?
...Nah!...he's been here every single day at his workbench sawing his *** off, working for nuttin', honey!'
Unfortunately, you can have all the 'faith' in the world, but no amount of faith can make something that is NOT so, BECOME so. Oh, they're trying! Why, they now have a Nazareth Village Theme Park, so not to worry. It may take some time, but eventually they will manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes so that, in some future, Nazareth Village will become, as if by magic...ta da...Nazareth itself! Why, all one need do is to take a gander at the wonderful job they're doing at the Jesus Theme Park in Orlando, Florida, where daily, a real flesh and blood Jesus is crucified on a real cross! Yum! Who needs Josephus?
krsnaraja
Active Member
Except for the FACT that Christians insist that 'him' came from the 'city of Nazareth'; that his being called a 'Nazarene' refers to the 'city' of Nazareth. Then, in the same breath, they further insist that Nazareth was no 'city' nor even a 'town' at all!...that all we really have is a small hamlet, an insignificant little collection of humble homes where the humble carpenter known as Jesus of Nazareth eked out a subsistence living and ended up penniless. In fact, they insist Nazareth was SO insignificant that Jesus was able to live here for a whopping 18 years without a peep being written about him!..and HE is THE one and ONLY 'SON OF GOD' IN THE FLESH!... Not only was nary a peep written about him, but no peep whatsoever issued forth FROM him himself....in spite of the Biblical statement that he had, at the ripe old age of 12, bowled over the elders in the temple at Jerusalem, and then, after returning to his home in Nazareth:
[51] Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. [52] And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Luke 2:51-52
In fact, he gained so MUCH in favor with men that they eventually wished to hurl him bodily from a non-existent cliff in Nazareth.
So, here we have, on the one hand, a total 18-year silence about a man who had already gained fame at 12 OUTSIDE his hometown, and who additionally gained in favor with men in his own hometown, except that it was not a 'town' at all, but a backwater hamlet, which the writers of the NT somehow managed to refer to as a 'polis', (they did not yet 'know Greek' as our resident pedant, AngusEvilosusus does, since they failed to study their lexicons), but did not really mean a 'polis' but really meant a tiny 'insignificant' hamlet, (as falllenblood likes to put it
So you see, what it really boils down to, is that, if there was no Nazareth, (which, BTW, there was'nt), then there was no Jesus either, since the NT tells us that Nazareth was the place where he dwelt.
Furthermore, since, as the other Xtians here persist in telling us, that Nazareth was totally insignificant and tiny, how is it that the statement in Matthew that 'he shall be called a Nazarene' can refer to Nazareth, since the statement is one of a proclamation of major importance? One does not announce to the world that THE Messiah is associated with a place of little or no significance. 'Nazareth? Never heard of it!...'Jesus of where?...Jesus? Who dat?'
"Uh..oh, yes...uh...you see...THE MESSIAH..you know...THE ONE who has come to ....er...uh...SAVE THE WORLD....has been quietly living out his life right here in the tiny little hamlet of Nazareth for the last 18 years, and no one knows about it, or even cares. We've managed to keep his secret under wraps all this time, so don't blow it now, OkeeDokee? OkeeDokee!..so shush, now, child, and get thee to the nunnery...uh...what's that you say? You think you saw the same guy in...where?...Tibet?...India?...China?....Persia?
...Nah!...he's been here every single day at his workbench sawing his *** off, working for nuttin', honey!'
Unfortunately, you can have all the 'faith' in the world, but no amount of faith can make something that is NOT so, BECOME so. Oh, they're trying! Why, they now have a Nazareth Village Theme Park, so not to worry. It may take some time, but eventually they will manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes so that, in some future, Nazareth Village will become, as if by magic...ta da...Nazareth itself! Why, all one need do is to take a gander at the wonderful job they're doing at the Jesus Theme Park in Orlando, Florida, where daily, a real flesh and blood Jesus is crucified on a real cross! Yum! Who needs Josephus?
The best way to demolish a personality is to discredit the source of who wrote his or her biography. Tell that to all the Paul, Mark, Matthew & Luke all over the globe by inviting them to convene & you are the speaker. Oh how I love to watch a mob chasing one of advocates of discrediting the Nazarene.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Well, as it turns out, krsnaraja, Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not write the NT; we do not know who actually did. And Paul wrote about what he thought was 'jesus' some 50 years after the fact, in language that implies his having hallucinations and visions.
As for discrediting any 'Nazarene': on the contrary. I only discredit those who blindly insist that such a title is due to the place from which he sprang, when such place turns out not to actually exist. The reality of the situation is that 'Nazarene' fits the sect from which Yeshua emerged, and not a place name. Were I to actually address such dignitaries as you mention, they would most likely nod their heads in approval.
I see you are one of those who thinks Jesus is something or someone to take sides with. That is a pity. If you truly understood, you would know beyond the shadow of a doubt that what Yeshua was about has nothing to do with conflict of one 'side' against another. It is about understanding the relationship of opposites.
And as for any 'mob' chasing down an advocate of some unpopular idea, consider Galileo as a prime example of an advocate of an idea whose time had come. Someday soon, the idea of the very real Yeshua will also be one whose time has come, rather than the mythical 'Jesus'. In fact, don't look now, but.....
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I was so excited as you started off pretty good. Yes, we don't know who wrote the Gospels (and really, that shouldn't matter), but then you just went down the tubes. It is almost as if you weren't trying.
Paul was writing in the year 50 C.E., which was about 20 years after the death of Jesus. He could have been writing sooner, but his earliest letter we have is from right around 50 C.E. (that means we don't have all of his letters and it is a possibility that he had some predating what we have today).
As fort he language in his posts, it definitely doesn't imply he was having hallucinations or visions. He admits Jesus appearing to him (which could be a vision), but other than that, no. The information he gives us about Jesus, the Earthly Jesus, does not imply visions or hallucinations. In fact, we are told that Paul spent a considerable amount of time with Peter (a head disciple of Jesus), and also had met with James (the brother of Jesus).
A_E is right though. If you're going to make something up, make it entertaining.
Again, you keep spewing this garbage. The earliest records we have of Jesus state that he is from Nazareth. There is no suggestion that he is a Nazarene.
Now, can you show me one ancient source from the first century (or even second I guess) that supports what you are saying?
I don't think you're really one we should be listening to about what Jesus stood for. Especially since you can't even realize that Jesus and Yeshua are the same person, that Jesus is just a transliteration of Yeshua. That, and you can't provide and ancient sources that support your position.
The thing with Galileo though, he actually provided evidence for his proposal. Also, he wasn't alone in his endeavor.
Tellurian
Active Member
fb
Saul, aka Paul, never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. He never mentioned Nazareth at all. Why did he NEVER mention Nazareth if he had supposedly talked with Shimon, aka Peter, about the alleged Jesus? The epistles of Saul/Paul could have been written about the Gnostic Isu Chrestos instead of the Christian Jesus the Anointed. It was never claimed that the Gnostic Isu Chrestos came from the nonexistent Nazareth.
Saul, aka Paul, never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. He never mentioned Nazareth at all. Why did he NEVER mention Nazareth if he had supposedly talked with Shimon, aka Peter, about the alleged Jesus? The epistles of Saul/Paul could have been written about the Gnostic Isu Chrestos instead of the Christian Jesus the Anointed. It was never claimed that the Gnostic Isu Chrestos came from the nonexistent Nazareth.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
krsnaraja
Active Member
What is your religion?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Does it matter?
godnotgod
Thou art That
For one thing, fallenblood, we have this juicy tidbit, which you cannot deny:
Nazareth, Nazarene, Northern Essene
by Anthony V. Gaudiano
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’
[In fact, fallenblood, we have it in English as well:
John 19:19 Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, “Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews.”
from The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE), described as:
Released on March 9, 2011, the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors. The NABRE includes a newly revised translation of the entire Old Testament (including the Book of Psalms) along with the 1986 edition of the New Testament.
Apparently, The US Conference of Catholic Bishops website found the NABRE the Bible of choice to publish on their site, finding the translation in question to be the more accurate one:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19/ ]
Surprising facts about Nazareth
Little is taught about the place where Yeshua the Anointed was from. The locations where his ministry took place is recorded in the New Testament. But a reader seldom associates the adjacency of the locations within the two geographic regions of Yeshua’s ministry. Thefollowing facts challenge the usual assumptions about Nazareth:
(a) There is no place called Nazareth in the Old Testament. Neither is the term Nazarene or Nazarenes, found there. This can be easily verified by looking in James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Not much definitive information was available in books for the various spellings of Nazareth, Nazarene, etc., so the Internet was searched.
We know that present-day Nazareth is located in the region called Galilee in Northern Israel. Galilee is the biblical land given to the tribe of Zebulun in Johsua 19:10-16. In those passages twelve towns and six villages are mentioned, but not Nazareth. This indicates Nazareth did not exist then as a town or village.
(b) Nazareth is not found among in the sixty-three towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud which was written much later, about AD 200-300. This might be for a variety of reasons. The Old Testament ends with the death of the last prophet Malachi. It was about 400 years later that the birth of Yeshua occurred. The Rabbinic writers of the Talmud may have not included him or where he was from, because they did not accept him as the prophesied Messiah. They caused Yeshua to be killed by the Roman occupiers.
(c) Nazareth (correctly pronounced ‘Nats-a-reth’
appears 29 times in the New Testament but only in the Gospels and in Acts. The word ‘Nazarene’ and ‘Nazarenes’ appear once. But, most scholars think the first book of the New Testament was not available in Greek until after AD 67.(d) The Jewish historian Juda Josephus lived after the death of Yeshua from CE 37 to 100. He traveled widely, visiting forty-five cities in the first century. He mentions Yeshua only once in his Antiquities of the Jews, but does not mention Nazareth.
(e) Ancient Nazareth has not been identified archeologically. Only a suspected site [a single dwelling uneaarthed] has been reported in Bible Archeology Review magazine. All these facts has caused at least one author to conclude that the evidence for a first century city, town, or village called Nazareth, does not exist - not literary, historically, or archeologically.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:LlsaKZmdHFcJ:www.plaza1.net/Anthony/TheNazareneWay.pdf+evidence+for+yeshua+the+essene&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgaIRIUnxb1RCy-f0J8CwB0wvLxavGxfDt7V7GBq1Qu-vadvAfYczU7VBhNyulwUFlZwNcqjffU6yev1TBdUmPGfFkD-qLqFu3Qnhm8w5IwxWaAoAWSOMoqAvXrsGyeLWbWXvaO&sig=AHIEtbT5sHakaJKrhxA4XKNJ0_fRwBKlaA
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
More boring spam from godnotgod.
Boring.
Be entertaining.
Boring.
Be entertaining.
godnotgod
Thou art That
So are those dancing cave wall shadows in your mind.
When will you leave Plato's Cave and come up to see the Sun?
You look a bit pasty and pale.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I prefer to be bored with the simple truth than entertained with your flash in the pan fabrications. Empty calories, you know. Stale and flat in the end. Besides, you need a bigger and bigger fix of the drug called Sensation each and every time to get the same high. Then you crash and life ain't fun anymore. So you've got to seek more extreme sensations to get you back up again. The Resurrection is one of those extreme sensations Xtians get off on, especially since it leads them on by the nose right into the grave.
Suckers!:beach:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
So godnotgod, I am still waiting for your ancient sources to back up your position. As for John, please. If you bothered to read John, you would see that the reason he is called a Nazarene is because he is from Nazareth.
godnotgod
Thou art That
It is clear from your statement here that you lack an understanding of the spiritual world. First off, Jesus did not 'stand' for anything. If you know the score spiritually, you would know the truth when you see it; you do not need to rely on historicity or scripture.
If you still wish to take issue with my statement about Jesus, then tell me:
Is Jesus's teaching about taking sides? You should know better than I, since you are the Christian here. But because I already know that Yeshua came from the East I can tell you that his teachings are non-dual.
So go ahead; tell me all about Jesus and what he meant.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
He was about eating hot dogs and candycorn. That is why he said blessed are the carnival workers.