No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[outhouse]

well Ive read this entire thread, as well as studied somewhat in depth in university, and im pretty sure you have slice it quite percularly to get your conclusion.

we have hashed this out a few times with different points on the evidence at hand.

in this thread scripture more then anything else is being debated.


there is not any conclusive evidence pre 67ce that archeology has produced. We know evidence after 67ce exist and no one debates this period. And thats exactly what archeology has produced with certainty.




im not stating jesus did not live there, and I wont state he was from there.

im stating we need more evidence, one way or another.

The gospel botches jesus historicity so i dont find it valid enough to say with certainty nazareth existed pre 67ce based on gospel alone.



its reaching to state this case with certainty one way or another.

 

[tarasan]

we have hashed this out a few times with different points on the evidence at hand.

in this thread scripture more then anything else is being debated.


there is not any conclusive evidence pre 67ce that archeology has produced. We know evidence after 67ce exist and no one debates this period. And thats exactly what archeology has produced with certainty.




im not stating jesus did not live there, and I wont state he was from there.

im stating we need more evidence, one way or another.

The gospel botches jesus historicity so i dont find it valid enough to say with certainty nazareth existed pre 67ce based on gospel alone.



its reaching to state this case with certainty one way or another.

im sorry mate we base our views on what evidence we have to date not what evidence we may have in the future, and from the evidence we have now there was probably or more likely than not a place there.

If you weigh up the arguments from both sides, im sorry but yours just do not cut it.

my honest opinion

 

[outhouse]

im sorry mate we base our views on what evidence we have to date not what evidence we may have in the future, and from the evidence we have now there was probably or more likely than not a place there.

If you weigh up the arguments from both sides, im sorry but yours just do not cut it.

my honest opinion

no thats fine.

could you show me any archeological evidence that is before 67ce???

I do have a open mind but so far no one has had enough valid evidence to sway me.

 

[outhouse]

Not too long back, they also found a house that dated to around the time of Jesus, in Nazareth. I haven't seen any work that has claimed this to be false.

The Myth of Nazareth

The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”). Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE. The only other dating divulged in the report is of structural remains from the Mamluk period. The alleged presence of a “small camouflaged grotto” could point to a hiding place at the time of the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE), consistent with other material from Nazareth, not to the time of the First Revolt (c. 70 CE).


I do not follow the myth camp, or the rene at all. but it was the quickest way to the IAA findings

 

[Tellurian]

Do you even realize that you did not even address the question?

You can't mindlessly copy something that's completely unrelated and expect it to magically answer an original question.

If you actually put some effort into it, you might actually learn something.

Or you can continue life as a spammer.

Your question was, "Are there a lot of people who quote Josephus at all before Eusebius?" I gave you a list. Did you not see how the list of people who read the works of Josephus but never mentioned the Testimonium Flavium was connected to your question? If the TF had existed before the 4th century, then why wouldn't Christian theologians have mentioned it? Origen mentioned Josephus' passage about the death of James, and then Origen added that Josephus was referring to the brother of the alleged biblical Jesus and wondered why Josephus had not claimed that the first Jewish revolt and the destruction of the temple had not been caused by the death of Jesus instead of James.

Josephus wrote about James. Origen explained that James was supposedly the brother of the biblical Jesus. Eusebius added Origen's explanation to Josephus' comments about James. Christian theologians before Eusebius did not see that comment in Josephus' works, which is why they did not mention it.

 

[crystalonyx]

So basically your argument is that since no one mentions it outside of the Gospels (an argument from silence) it must not have existed? That simply is a poor argument. We will just look at Paul quickly. He hardly even speaks about the earthly life of Jesus. He is more interested in his death and more so the resurrected Jesus. Nazareth simply does not factor into that. More so, Paul never states that he wasn't aware of Nazareth. His silence only means that either he wasn't questioned about it, or even possibly he didn't care. It does not automatically mean he didn't know of it. To state such simply is false.

So why wouldn't they mention Nazareth? Probably because it was a hamlet, of no real importance. Which begs the question, why place Jesus there at all then? It would have been easier to place Jesus in Bethlehem (as the birth stories do), and make that his home town. It would have worked better for his case of being the Messiah (the Gospel of John even mentions this. One of the accusations against Jesus being the Messiah or the like is that he was not from Bethlehem. More so, Nazareth is even insulted there, by it being implied that nothing good can from there, showing that it did not have a very good reputation). Really, there is no reason to have put Jesus in Nazareth if that wasn't where he was born, and if that isn't where people knew him to have been from.

As for others not mentioning it. That is true with many various small cities, especially in ancient times when writing was not a common practice.

A bit of advice, arguments from the negative never are convincing.

 

[outhouse]

heres a better source so we can keep the "house" out of the conversation.

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the Israel Antiquities Authority, "The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries AD)...

 

[Quagmire]

Your question was, "...

Hey, Tellurian, if you're not up to this, at least have the courtesy to say so:

"Added" doesn't apply to the overall text, since we're talking specifically about the internal integrity of the TF, not it's overall legitimacy as it relates to Antiquities as a whole (that's another topic).

The important point is that there were two authors responsible for the finished product (and in order for me to explain coherently why almost all scholars are certain this is so I'll have to brush up on my reading a bit) . That being the case it disqualifies Eusebious as the author. It doesn't prove that the TF is legitimate (like I said, that's another topic), but for this and other reasons the idea that the TF is a creation of Eusebious, which seems to be the most popular arrow in the forgery theorists quiver these days (online at least), doesn't hold water.

I'd like to continue this discussion but I just realized that we've strayed completely from the topic in this thread (got kind of caught up and didn't notice).

If you're willing, I'd like to move our entire conversation out of this thread and into it's own thread.

Would you mind if I transferred some of your posts into a new thread so we can pick it up there?

 

[Quagmire]

A bit of advice, arguments from the negative never are convincing.

In what way is this an argument from the negative?

 

[Tellurian]

Why should we believe that Origen added the part about Jesus being the brother of James, instead of believing that it was in the original text of Josephus? If we compare what Origen stated, and what we see in Josephus, there is no reason to assume that Origen had to add something that was already present in the work of Josephus.

And Josephus, mentioning Jesus, and even saying that he is the so called Christ, would not in anyway make him accept Jesus as the Messiah. By calling Jesus, the so called Christ, it is actually showing that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ, Messiah, but instead is only referring to what others have called Jesus. In fact, Christ, by that time, was already becoming nearly a second name for Jesus, so it would be a good way for someone to identify Jesus. As we see no one else being called Christ, it would have been suiting for Josephus to state that Jesus was called Christ.

Back to Origen. I am not saying that it is a definite thing that Origen quoted from Josephus about Jesus, as there is no direct quote. However, when comparing the passage in Origen with the passage in Josephus, it certainly looks like a paraphrase by Origen. And the fact that Origen addresses the passage, in the same manner as Josephus did, by stating that James was the brother of Jesus, there is no reason to assume that Origen simply added it to his account.

Really, if we see Josephus stating that James was the brother of Jesus, and then Origen paraphrasing that section, and saying that James was the brother of Jesus, why should we assume that Origen added something to his account, when it was already present in the account he was paraphrasing from? It simply doesn't make sense.

It becomes obvious that Origen added the part about the biblical Jesus supposedly being the brother of James because no other Christian theologian BEFORE EUSEBIUS who read the works of Josephus ever mentioned that being part of what Josephus wrote.

 

[tarasan]

no thats fine.

could you show me any archeological evidence that is before 67ce???

I do have a open mind but so far no one has had enough valid evidence to sway me.

mate considering the amount of rational evidence, and the weakness of your arguments I honestly dont think there is very much more people can do,

I have been convinced If you have not then to me is slightly strange but I cant understand why.

 

[outhouse]

mate considering the amount of rational evidence, and the weakness of your arguments I honestly dont think there is very much more people can do,

I have been convinced If you have not then to me is slightly strange but I cant understand why.

so you dont have any archeological evidence pre 67ce

I thought so.



when it comes to put up or shut up, the threads die.




you have ONLY scripture, jesus has no historicity before the age of 30, and very little after that.

 

[Shermana]

The question should be simple as this:

At what point did the Romans allow the Jews who had been fighting them for almost a century straight back into the Empire to build the City of Nazareth if it wasn't there before 130 AD, and does the name "Nazareth" have absolutely no significance to the "Nazarene" community?

 

[outhouse]

I want to believe jesus lived in nazareth but I need more then scripture that is actually evidence the unknown authors didnt have a clue about jesus life

 

[tarasan]

so you dont have any archeological evidence pre 67ce

I thought so.



when it comes to put up or shut up, the threads die.




you have ONLY scripture, jesus has no historicity before the age of 30, and very little after that.

actually mate if you were to put that peice of information to any historical scholar and tell him that wasnt strong evidence he would laugh at you.

in fact all your arguments fall flat on their face when we measure them up to scholarly standards this is what falling blood and evangelious have been saying to you throughout this talk. you dont know how to use the information you have, so like I said before, no one will ever be able to convince you, because ultimately you dont know what your talking about.

 

[outhouse]

The question should be simple as this:

At what point did the Romans allow the Jews who had been fighting them for almost a century straight back into the Empire to build the City of Nazareth if it wasn't there before 130 AD, and does the name "Nazareth" have absolutely no significance to the "Nazarene" community?

there is no debate that between the revolts it was starting to be occupied.

 

[outhouse]

actually mate if you were to put that peice of information to any historical scholar and tell him that wasnt strong evidence he would laugh at you.

in fact all your arguments fall flat on their face when we measure them up to scholarly standards this is what falling blood and evangelious have been saying to you throughout this talk. you dont know how to use the information you have, so like I said before, no one will ever be able to convince you, because ultimately you dont know what your talking about.

show me then where all scholars agree that there was a town their during the life of jesus.

no reputable scholar will lay his carreer on that.

Facst are, that place has been dug up for hundreds of years with ZERO proof it was occupied during the lifetime of jesus. only shortly after.

scholars also agree that theology was added and his story grew after his death.

 

[Tellurian]

Hey, Tellurian, if you're not up to this, at least have the courtesy to say so:

What do you mean by "this"? Are you referring to my reply to you? Are you referring to the discussion of the TF? Are you asking about dividing the thread? Or are you asking about the discussion of the supposed first century Nazareth?

 

[Quagmire]

Hey, Tellurian, if you're not up to this, at least have the courtesy to say so:

What do you mean by "this"? Are you referring to my reply to you? Are you referring to the discussion of the TF? Are you asking about dividing the thread? Or are you asking about the discussion of the supposed first century Nazareth?

Sorry, I'll come back to this when I have more patience.

 

[tarasan]

show me then where all scholars agree that there was a town their during the life of jesus.

no reputable scholar will lay his carreer on that.

Facst are, that place has been dug up for hundreds of years with ZERO proof it was occupied during the lifetime of jesus. only shortly after.

scholars also agree that theology was added and his story grew after his death.

no repuable scholar would have to lay his career on it mate, considering the information that you yourself have accepted, it would definately be plausible to suggest that people lived there slightly before, especially since there is a book out their which is trying to build Jesus up to be this messiah where he has to be born in another place! even read the text man, they had to bend over backwards to get him there! then when he was there, then sent him back to Nazereth. It makes no sense.

I mean its a none subject mate.