-
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
godnotgod
Thou art That
Last edited:
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
Much of the gospels stories were written to fulfill prophecy, to make ties to the past. The problem is they were stories.
However, the modern town of En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee has a rocky cliff some 40 feet high located south west of the city which fits the account of Luke 4v29.
The Bible is full of real historical people and real places that tie in with Bible prophecy.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The alleged 'cliff' is purported to be Mt. Precipice, some 2 km south west of Nazareth. That's about 1.25 miles. Scripture states that jesus was driven from the synagogue due to his blasphemous remarks. What occurred from the time he was so driven and the time the angry crowd attempted to throw him from the cliff? An angry mob is more likely to take immediate, spontaneous action right where the incident occurred. Why not just stone him right on the spot ala 'Let's string him up!" In another biblical passage, the crowd wanted to do just that, but Jesus talked them out of it. Their response was immediate.
Also, the scripture in question states:
And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way,..."
The word 'whereon' is equivalent to 'whereupon', so the passage is saying that 'their city' (of Nazareth) was built upon the brow (edge) of the hill. This would make sense in terms of the story's scenario, that Jesus was driven from the synagogue and led out of (ie; to the outskirts of) the city, which would have been right at the edge of the cliff in question, since, according to the scripture, 'whereon' Nazareth was built. But we know that Nazareth is not built upon any such hill. The closest such hill with a cliff is Mt. Precipice, as noted.
'Brow', as it applies to 'hill', is defined as:
the edge of a steep place: She looked down over the brow of the hill.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brow
The anonymous author of Luke obviously never visited Nazareth, or he would have known that it was not built upon any such 'brow of the hill'. Perhaps he had an over-active imagination in conjuring up such a scenario, both of the placement of the imaginary 'town of Nazareth', and the imaginary hill upon which it supposedly sat.
In addition:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49) when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If Nazareth really had been barely a hamlet, lost in the hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked the response 'Jesus of WHERE?'[/FONT] The predictable apologetic of quoting gospel John ("Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" - 1.46) implies that the questioner, Nathanael, had indeed "heard of" the vanishing small hamlet (Nathanael was supposedly a local boy from Cana). But would anyone outside of Galilee have recognized the name?
Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
*****
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
De ja vu
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Best post on the thread.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Christians are like little children. They love fables, myths, fantasies, a nice cup of hot chocolate, being tucked into bed, and a nice bedtime story, all on The Good Ship Lollipop, where angels have wings, Jesus ascended into Heaven, and a real town called 'Nazareth' actually existed. Yawn....think I need a nice cup of hot chocolate myself.
Nite all.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'll respond to this as well. Your arrogance here is remarkable - perhaps it's fed by ignorance.
First, you are far worse off after having read this mythicist garbage, because you're pandering and spamming something stupid.
Second, and even more stupid is your equating those who believe in a historical Nazareth [all historians, scholars, and thinkers who have written on the subject] with people who have a weak faith. You realize that historians and scholars and thinkers use critical methods to study the ancient world, using a wide variety of historical methods [of which both you and your source are completely ignorant - and view with contempt]. CHRISTIANS AREN'T THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO "BELIEVE" THAT AN HISTORICAL NAZARETH EXISTED
There is no reason for you to follow a moron who is lying to you. After seeing the other stuff you've fallen for, namely the Aramaic NT, I hold Salm in higher regard. At least he has read some sources - while he can't interpret them correctly - at least he's criticizing stuff that exists. He's proven utterly incompetent, but at least he's not completely making something out of nothing.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Maybe because the subject matter he is skeptical about is sterile to begin with.
Man, that's good hot chocolate! Iz canz has another cup?
godnotgod
Thou art That
On what basis?
...like that a 1st Century Nazareth existed, and that the Greek NT is primary.
Latest info is that remnants of what appears to be tatters of an Elvis costume have been exhumed under the 1st Century Nazareth house. Radiocarbon dating is pending.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Jeez, man. Read a book.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
There is no question - anywhere - that the oldest and most authoritative NT texts are in Greek. That is plain fact, and anything contrary to that fact is not merely a misinterpretation of the evidence, but a fabrication -- a lie.
There is no dispute on this issue. Scholars aren't debating whether or not any language is older than the Greek. There are reasons for this - the rhetoric, structure, syntax, and vocabulary are all in Greek and follow Greek conventions of speech and style. So no one is debating this. The entire Aramaic primacy thing is a lie from beginning to end. It's not bad scholarship, it's not a misrepresentation of a truth, it's not an innocent mistake. Someone was trying to deceive someone else, and some people are fooled by that.
There's also no dispute about Nazareth, but that's different because there's actually "evidence" to review. Salm can't interpret evidence - documents that everyone can read - he has a poor conclusion, but at least he's not baldly making stuff up out of nothing. No one is debating this, either, because it takes multiple bad historical judgements to get to the point of denying that a city proven to exist never existed. One has to vacate all historical sense to follow Salm's argument to its conclusion -- even if one is a positivist and will not conclude that something existed until it is absolutely certain -- and such a person will not yield to a very broad understanding of history because so little of it is absolute.
There are three basic reasons for historians accepting that Nazareth existed:
1) Nazareth is mentioned in the literature [yes, this includes the New Testament, which is not rejected on a simple bias]
2) Excavations have located Nazareth on no uncertain terms [though anyone can say that it's located somewhere else]
3) Cities do not just fall from the sky. Nazareth did not suddenly appear the first time that it was mentioned in a non-Christian text.
4) Excavations have located early [first to third century] material in Nazareth
Now aside from the archaeological evidence, which is more than adequate in destroying Salm's arguments, # 3 is most convincing for me. You want to reject literary evidence on the sole criterion that it is Christian (i.e., coming from the New Testament or Early Christian Literature), but the mentioning of Nazareth in Christian literature does not destroy it, and a mention of Nazareth in non-Christian literature does not create it. And if the first archaeological evidence is found from the first - third century, it does not mean that there was not an earlier settlement. I don't think that this is what happened in Nazareth, but the argument defeats Salm.
He explains Nazareth as being built by theology, but it really is a place and there really were people living there. So it's not a mythical place built by theology -- people built the place and lived there.
Last edited by a moderator:
godnotgod
Thou art That
There is no hard evidence, save for one small house, for a 1st Century Nazareth. So if many non-Christians 'believe' that one existed, what are they basing their belief on? What are you talking about?
This coming from someone who thinks there is a magical "Aramaic" NT that isn't dependent on the Greek? Since when do you care about evidence, let alone hard evidence?
godnotgod
Thou art That
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
This discussion needs to be continued on your thread re: Aramaic primacy, I think.