No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

You know, it is getting a bit tiring to hear you always telling me that I don't understand your doctrine, as if you possess some superior or secret knowledge. Well, it is exactly that kind of 'special knowledge' that I am challenging. On the contrary, it is YOU who do not have an understanding of the spiritual world. Many of your comments demonstrate your ignorance.

You don't understand Christianity. Your lumping together Christianity as if it is one single entity shows that to be true. Furthermore, the fact that you try to define what I believe, shows that you have no idea what my doctrines are.

I am not claiming it is secret knowledge, just that you haven't bothered to actually try to understand. What other Christians believe is not necessarily what I believe, and what I believe, is not necessarily what others believe. We are talking about a very diverse religion.

As for you calling me ignorant, I'm fine with that. If you thought I was a scholar, I probably would be depressed, seeing who you consider scholars.

The fact is Paul does indeed define Christianity. What modern Christians follow today is Paulanity. The real Yeshua did not teach what modern Christians believe. Real scholars are discovering that fact on a daily basis. What is slowly occurring is like what happened to the Sistine Chapel paintings to reveal the teachings in their original form before sensational themes were overlayed onto them.

The fact is, you're wrong. Most modern Christians also don't follow exactly what Paul was teaching. In fact, if you look at the history of Christianity, you would see that it has been evolving for nearly 2,000 years.

Paul does not define Christianity. One does not have to follow Paul, or even consider him at all to be a Christian. More so, a Christian does not have to accept every thing that Paul says. That is not how Christianity is defined. You trying to dictate what Christians must believe simply is ridiculous.

For me, I am more interested in the historical Jesus. I am interested in his teachings, his ideas, and his actions.

I am surprised that you, who claim to be 'scholarly', do not understand Paul and his importance to how modern Christianity has taken shape.

Here is the problem, you simply do not understand what I say. And part of that reason is because of a preconceived bias you have, that you use to shape your understanding of my posts.

I never said that Paul didn't have an importance. I didn't say that he helped shaped modern Christianity (or at least strands of). What I said is that Christianity is not defined by Paul. We can see this clearly by looking at various ancient forms of Christianity that had nothing to do with Paul. Even today, if you look at the history of Christianity, you will see many people helping shape the understanding of Christianity. Augustine comes to mind right away.

From where I stand, it is the Crucifixion that is the central theme of Christianity, but modern Christians have focused on the Resurrection and made it the centerpiece ala Paul. What Paul is saying, is that if Jesus were not raised, then man will also not be raised on the last day. What could be clearer than that? In addition, the Resurrection represents proof that Jesus was who he said he was. Christians love to point out that Jesus's grave was empty because he ascended into heaven, while all other spiritual leaders are in their graves.

There is so much wrong there. First, if the crucifixion was the central theme, well there wouldn't be a Christianity. The crucifixion simply showed that Jesus was a failed Messiah. It ended the movement of Jesus.

It was the resurrection (which we can see from the earliest followers such as Paul), that made Christianity. If it was not for the resurrection, Jesus would not have been justified. It was the resurrection that changed everything, and continued the movement that Jesus had started.

As for the resurrection itself, there is no reason to assume that it was a physical bodily resurrection. There could be various explanations, such as a spiritual resurrection.

As for all other spiritual leaders being in their graves, and that being a claim of Christians. That again shows your ignorance on the subject. Not all Christians believe that. Yes, maybe some do, but they do not define Christianity as a whole. You must realize that there are many different thoughts within Christianity. You lumping it all together simply is foolish.

Unfortunately, what Christians fail to see is that their case would be better served if Jesus WERE in his grave. At least we would have a body to show that he was historical. Instead, we have mumbo jumbo and a puff of smoke, and you best believe, or else. Pure Virgin Poppycock!

What is the likely hood that we would find a body? It would be near zero. Do we have a body of John the Baptist, James the Just, and number of other messianic claimants from the first century? No. We don't even have the bodies of many powerful figures. Why would we expect to find the body of Jesus?

More so, I don't believe in a physical bodily resurrection. I figure the body of Jesus was probably left on the cross for awhile, and then thrown into a shallow grave, where dogs and scavenging birds ended up eating it. I have no problem with such an idea.

And we can show that Jesus is historical. Josephus is more than enough. It doesn't matter if he is not a contemporary or what not. Josephus was a historian, in the right century, and he was living during the time of the brother and disciples of Jesus (and he would have been around Jerusalem, where James also was).

However, if you want to talk about something that is mumbo jumbo, the idea that Yeshua was part of a Nazarene Essene sect at Mt. Caramel is mumbo jumbo. And you have no first, second, or third century documents to support your case. You have 20th century documents. Not really good enough.

 

[fallingblood]

Now you know how non-Christians feel when Christians try to tell them that just because they are NOT Christians, they are going to hell, no matter how good a person they are. Let us remember that it is YOUR members who come forth first, attempting to foist their doctrine and dogma onto the rest, under threat of eternal hellfire. No, not all Christians believe that, as some say it is up to God, but the general consensus (there goes that word) amongst most Christians seems to point to that.

I'm told by some Christians I'm going to hell as well. Big deal. They do not define Christianity.

As for what my members are doing, that's poppycock. I am not defined by other Christians. I should not be lumped together with everyone who holds onto the title, as it is a very diverse religion.

And really, you don't know the general consensus, so don't make things up. Or at least make it better. More Christians are becoming more and more liberal.

But the real question here is: how scholarly can a person be who puts faith in a virtually non-existent personage, and even if Jesus DID exist, the 'love' involved is of the idolatrous kind. So how can a person claim to be 'scholarly' who projects his ego onto an idol?

You don't understand Jesus scholarship, or NT scholarship. Your statement here shows that.

You keep telling me how little I know, but I was raised a Christian, so I think I qualify to comment.

Being raised Christian means nothing. Most Christians have no idea about the vast majority of the religion. I was born a Jew, that doesn't mean I know anything about the culture or religion. And in fact, it wasn't until much later, when I studied the religion and culture myself, that I knew anything about it. And even today, I would not be qualified to speak on many issues.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Glad to help you understand your own religion.

You're doing an absolutely fabulous job.

You've somehow managed to talk about my religion without me even realizing it.

Do really think that by talking about Nazareth that you're talking about my religion?

You're really getting the comedic timing down. :biglaugh:

'Cause that's funny!!!

 

[godnotgod]

You're doing an absolutely fabulous job.

You've somehow managed to talk about my religion without me even realizing it.

Do really think that by talking about Nazareth that you're talking about my religion?

You're really getting the comedic timing down. :biglaugh:

'Cause that's funny!!!

I was'nt talking about Nazareth; I was talking about scholarship and Christianity. However, unless you are a mystic Christian, yes, talking about Nazareth is to talk about Christianity.

 

[godnotgod]

First, if the crucifixion was the central theme, well there wouldn't be a Christianity. The crucifixion simply showed that Jesus was a failed Messiah. It ended the movement of Jesus.

We are talking about two different things here: you are referring to the hiistorical event and its repercussions; I am referring to what Christian doctrine says about the Crucifixion, and that is essentially that the blood of Jesus is shed for the redemption of sin, and that is THE primary core teaching of Christianity, for without redemption, salvation is not possible, and salvation, as anyone knows, is the primary impetus for being a Christian in the first place. According to Christian doctrine, no one is without sin, so all need to pass through repentance, forgiveness and ultimately, salvation via Christ's blood. Now, maybe you believe that sin can be washed away by some other means, but the main teaching is that it is accomplished through the blood of Jesus. If you hold some other belief, then you are just an oddball 'Christian'.

It was the resurrection (which we can see from the earliest followers such as Paul), that made Christianity. If it was not for the resurrection, Jesus would not have been justified. It was the resurrection that changed everything, and continued the movement that Jesus had started.

The movement continued because Paul added bodily resurrection to the teachings of the Essene Yeshua, thereby attracting thousands of pagans into his new religion. Bodily resurrection was not part of early Christianity; it pre-existed as part of Mithraic docrine.

As for the resurrection itself, there is no reason to assume that it was a physical bodily resurrection. There could be various explanations, such as a spiritual resurrection.

Yes, spiritual resurrection, as taught by the Essenes and the Gnostics. Paul took these teachings and superimposed that of bodily resurrection onto them, from the pre-existing doctrine of Mithriaism. In addition, the Essenes did not practice blood sacrifice; Eastern teachings focused on the breath as the life force, not the blood, as Mithraism and other pagan religions did. Blood sacrifice is based on ignorance and superstition; breath meditation leads to the enlightened state. The two practices go against one another.

No truly spiritually enlightened person would be caught dead espousing or practicing blood sacrifice OR resurrection of the body as part of his ritual or doctrine.

While there could be 'various explanations', the mainline orthodox teachings of Christianity are about a bodily resurrection.

You are beginning to sound more and more like a mystical Essene.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was'nt talking about Nazareth; I was talking about scholarship and Christianity. However, unless you are a mystic Christian, yes, talking about Nazareth is to talk about Christianity.

I would think that a mystic Christian could care less about Nazareth, and more about the mystical experience.

Are you confusing mystic with myth?

Interesting that Nazareth doesn't have anything to do with either one.

Next lesson? :biglaugh:

 

[krsnaraja]

I was'nt talking about Nazareth; I was talking about scholarship and Christianity. However, unless you are a mystic Christian, yes, talking about Nazareth is to talk about Christianity.

Don`t waste your time on Dangellous. He`s an atheist. Why not waste your time on me?

 

[fallingblood]

Don`t waste your time on Dangellous. He`s an atheist. Why not waste your time on me?

It all makes sense now. A_E, you must be secretly gaining the trust of Christians so you can later turn them into an army and invade the North Pole. There you can take control of Santas workshop and in turn, control Christmas itself. It's a perfect plan.

 

[krsnaraja]

It all makes sense now. A_E, you must be secretly gaining the trust of Christians so you can later turn them into an army and invade the North Pole. There you can take control of Santas workshop and in turn, control Christmas itself. It's a perfect plan.

This is the lighter side of you, Fallingblood. Thanks, dude. For showing your real self to me. I knew you were a good boy.

 

[godnotgod]

I would think that a mystic Christian could care less about Nazareth, and more about the mystical experience.

To a mystic, EVERYTHING is an ordinary mystical experience!

Are you confusing mystic with myth?

No...are you?

Interesting that Nazareth doesn't have anything to do with either one.

No, but orthodox Christianity does.

Next lesson? :biglaugh:

A monk told Joshu, “I have just entered the monastery. Please teach me.”
Joshu asked, “Have you eaten your rice porridge?
The monk replied, “I have eaten.”
Joshu said, “Then you had better wash your bowl.”

 

[godnotgod]

It all makes sense now. A_E, you must be secretly gaining the trust of Christians so you can later turn them into an army and invade the North Pole. There you can take control of Santas workshop and in turn, control Christmas itself. It's a perfect plan.

This year, AE won't be sending them to the North Pole, as he has dispatched them all to Nazareth to do some serious digging.

 

[krsnaraja]

This year, AE won't be sending them to the North Pole, as he has dispatched them all to Nazareth to do some serious digging.

The diggings wont stop if they don`t believe Jesus of Nazareth has risen.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

godnotgod. .. Is the sun always shining in your fantasy land?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This year, AE won't be sending them to the North Pole, as he has dispatched them all to Nazareth to do some serious digging.

No I sent them to Uranus.

The rectum of Retentive Christianity.

I suspect that in your infinite wisdom that you aready know it well... BEFORE THE DIG

 

[godnotgod]

The diggings wont stop if they don`t believe Jesus of Nazareth has risen.

Of course, they don't, REALLY. They just like to stroke each other, and everyone else, for all it's worth. If they REALLY understood what it is they are believing in, they'd all go stark raving mad.:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh: (This is what the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost look like behind the scenes when they are laughing their arses clean off)

 

[godnotgod]

No I sent them to Uranus.

The rectum of Retentive Christianity.

I suspect that in your infinite wisdom that you aready know it well... BEFORE THE DIG

Tighten up that rectum, Christian. Jayzuzz is coming!...and wipe that smirk off your face.

 

[krsnaraja]

Tighten up that rectum, Christian. Jayzuzz is coming!...and wipe that smirk off your face.

Jayzuz is coming to do a colonoscopy on all of you guys!

 

[godnotgod]

Jayzuz is coming to do a colonoscopy on all of you guys!

He'll be looking for the Kingdom within, where your inner Freudian child is hiding.

'Peek-a-boo!...Here's Johnny!'

 

[krsnaraja]

He'll be looking for the Kingdom within.

'Not so close! I hardly know you! Cheez! Some people!'

Because you mentioned the word rectum. & why do we tighten our rectums if Jayzuz is coming? Because mostly here are afraid to undergo colonoscopy? Jayzuz who has risen is a surgeon.

 

[godnotgod]

Boyz, boyz! Come on now! Stop your horsing around! I'd like to have a little talk with you!...heh...heh...heh...