No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

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.

Please, tell me how many Christian theologians before Eusebius quoted the passage in question at all. We know that Origen paraphrased it, and there we see him including that James was the brother of Jesus. Who, before Origen, quote the passage? 0. Your point fails miserably.

 

[Shermana]

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

Perhaps "Starting to be occupied" with permanent dwellings by the Romans, the Nazarenes lived only in tents so what kind of evidence would you expect to find before the Romans desecrated it?

Why would it be called Nazareth? It's not just a random meaningless name.

 

[outhouse]

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.

lets agree on "ONE" thing, all you have is scripture to base your faith on, correct?



I havent really tried to refute the scripture yet, thats easy.

its made up theology, based on history they didnt know.

it is you who cannot produce why they used that place, and archeological evidence points to the fact it may have not existed.


again my point is more a long the lines of what is known, and that is we dont know. the key word here is "MAY" it may have been there, it might not have

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps "Starting to be occupied" with permanent dwellings by the Romans, the Nazarenes lived only in tents so what kind of evidence would you expect to find before the Romans desecrated it?

Why would it be called Nazareth? It's not just a random meaningless name.

possible interpretation errors later thought o have ment something else. that is just a guess though and I dont put to much weight into it.


how do you know it was tent village?

what about how scripture states there was a synagogue, and a cliff

the cliff doesnt exist, and a synagogue hasnt been found.



also the way its worded it paints a picture of more then a small tent camp. There would also be evidence if it was there.

like I said, its been dug up for hundreds of years


lets not forget the graves and why jews would not build on or near graves

 

[tarasan]

lets agree on "ONE" thing, all you have is scripture to base your faith on, correct?



I havent really tried to refute the scripture yet, thats easy.

its made up theology, based on history they didnt know.

it is you who cannot produce why they used that place, and archeological evidence points to the fact it may have not existed.


again my point is more a long the lines of what is known, and that is we dont know. the key word here is "MAY" it may have been there, it might not have

scripture, thiestic argument, reason, experience that kinda malarky yeah.

existence is a very interesting topic when we get down to it most things may or may not exist, however if you include a good historical standard nazerath has a better chance of existing than no.

 

[outhouse]

Please, tell me how many Christian theologians before Eusebius quoted the passage in question at all. We know that Origen paraphrased it, and there we see him including that James was the brother of Jesus. Who, before Origen, quote the passage? 0. Your point fails miserably.

EEEEK!!!!! daddys back :foot:

 

[outhouse]

scripture, thiestic argument, reason, experience that kinda malarky yeah.

existence is a very interesting topic when we get down to it most things may or may not exist, however if you include a good historical standard nazerath has a better chance of existing than no.

so far your all about talk talk talk but no substance

you wont even answer a direct question.



what about jesus birth in bethleham, does that have historicity??? no it does not

that shows they did not know about his birth or childhood for that matter.

no matter how you slice it you have "made up" theology about his youth. no one will debate this.

so why do you personally choose to put weight into something we know by the sheer volume of mistakes made that the authors knew nothing about jesus real life and created much of it.????????

 

[Shermana]

http://www.followtherabbi.com/ttwmk2/images/map_mountcarmel.jpg

It's a fact that "Ebionites" and "Essenes" were basically lump summed as "Nazarenes". The "Northern Essenes" had different views than other Essenes, they were factionized just like how the "Orthodox" were factionized.

When the Pharisees say "What good can come from Nazareth", the idea is that Nazareth is a community that they revile. Why? Is it known for producing invalid weaklings? Do the merchants there cheat their customers? What could the meaning of that verse be, in the original intention of the author to the reader, if the Pharisees said this.

Because the "citizens" (Tent dwellers) of the tent-city of "Nazareth" rejected the Pharisees and Sadduccees' beliefs, who were the main power holders. Thus, Nazareth may be the same place where Pythagoras supposedly visited and got his belief in things like Reincarnation or the other way around.

http://www.osho.com/library/online-library-essenes-pythagoras-secrets-34eb54c8-a83.aspx

Did the Essenes believe in some form of reincarnation?

Sharing the belief of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for virtuous souls there is reserved an abode beyond the ocean, a place which is not oppressed by rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from the ocean; while they relegate base souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon, big with never-ending punishments. (4) In a briefer reference to the Essenes in his Antiquities, Josephus only affirms that they believe in the immortality of the soul. (5) Before associating Josephus' Essenes too closely with Orphic teachings it is important to recognize that Josephus attributes the concept of the body as the prison of the soul also to Eleazar the leader of the Sicarii at Masada (Jewish War 7.344-345) and apparently also to Judas Aristobulus I (Jewish War 1.84; Antiquities 13.317). This Hasmonean King is often considered a member of the Sadducees, a group well known for its denial of any afterlife. Since this belief in the body as a prison of the soul appears in speeches attributed to the last named individuals and since we know that Josephus, as most ancient authors, felt at liberty to compose speeches for the characters in his story, it is evident that we cannot rely on Josephus as a source for the precise formulation of other people's beliefs. Thus also his assertion that the Essenes are "a group which follows a way of life taught to the Greeks by Pythagoras" is taken by scholars as an attempt to render Essene ideas more readily accessible to a Hellenized audience. This becomes clear if we compare Josephus' account of Essene beliefs with that by Hippolytus.

Compare the Locations of Nazareth and Mt. Carmel, they are fairly close, a day's journey away. There is no denying that Mt. Carmel was a holy place used by a widespread "Branch" of the Jews

The confusion lies in the word 'Essene" and "Ebionite", which both were "Nazarenes" but perhaps factions.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps "Starting to be occupied" with permanent dwellings by the Romans, the Nazarenes lived only in tents so what kind of evidence would you expect to find before the Romans desecrated it?

Why would it be called Nazareth? It's not just a random meaningless name.

lets get some facts out here

[fromwiki link already posted]

Origin of name
One theory holds that "Nazareth" is derived from the Hebrew noun ne·tser, נֵ֫צֶר, meaning branch.[14] Ne·tser is not the common Hebrew word for "branch," but one understood as a messianic title based on a passage in the Book of Isaiah.[15] Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·tsar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep."[16] The negative references to Nazareth in the Gospel of John suggest that ancient Jews did not connect the town's name to prophecy.[17]
Another theory holds that the Greek form Nazara, used in Matthew and Luke, may derive from an earlier Aramaic form of the name, or from another Semitic language form.[18] If there were a tsade (&#1510 in the original Semitic form, as in the later Hebrew forms, it would normally have been transcribed in Greek with a sigma instead of a zeta.[4] This has led some scholars to question whether "Nazareth" and its cognates in the New Testament actually refer to the settlement we know traditionally as Nazareth in Lower Galilee.[19] Such linguistic discrepancies may be explained, however, "by a peculiarity of the 'Palestinian' Aramaic dialect wherein a sade (&#7779 between two voiced (sonant) consonants tended to be partially assimilated by taking on a zayin (z) sound."[4]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i know its reaching.

but his birthplace has zero historicity, leeding me to believe where they placed him growing up also has no historicity.


why nazareth? good question.

Nevermind the fact that the two groups (the Gospels // infancy gospels) were written about a hundred years apart in different geographical locations, and by people in completely different social/religious contexts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

there is not any conclusive evidence pre 67ce that archeology has produced.

My left pinkie toenail harbors plenty of such evidence.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, my friends!

Nazareth sprung out of Zeus's thigh fully formed in 67CE!

 

[outhouse]

Nevermind the fact that the two groups (the Gospels // infancy gospels) were written about a hundred years apart in different geographical locations, and by people in completely different social/religious contexts.

good point

 

[tarasan]

so far your all about talk talk talk but no substance

you wont even answer a direct question.



what about jesus birth in bethleham, does that have historicity??? no it does not

that shows they did not know about his birth or childhood for that matter.

no matter how you slice it you have "made up" theology about his youth. no one will debate this.

so why do you personally choose to put weight into something we know by the sheer volume of mistakes made that the authors knew nothing about jesus real life and created much of it.????????

strange I could have said exactly the same thing to you outhouse all talk talk talk but no real engagement with historical citicism like I said in the beginning its all been said in this thread, but if you arnt using the same standard as fallingblood or angelious then there really is no point.

how does it not have historicity? he may very well have been born in bethlehem, do you have any evidence against it? you see this is exactly what I have been talking about all your making is rash cliams, what am i meant to do with any of this?

 

[outhouse]

Yes, my friends!

Nazareth sprung out of Zeus's thigh fully formed in 67CE!

just saying that is when there is little dispute.

we know it wasnt large or well known a hundred years later

 

[outhouse]

strange I could have said exactly the same thing to you outhouse all talk talk talk but no real engagement with historical citicism like I said in the beginning its all been said in this thread, but if you arnt using the same standard as fallingblood or angelious then there really is no point.

how does it not have historicity? he may very well have been born in bethlehem, do you have any evidence against it? you see this is exactly what I have been talking about all your making is rash cliams, what am i meant to do with any of this?

produce evidence pre 67ce

 

[tarasan]

produce evidence pre 67ce

why the fact that we have evidence so close as well as a document saying it existed isnt enough? you see this is the whole point! i would grant that if it had suddenly appeared in 200AD then maybe your point would stand, but mate, no historian would make the cliam your making, and angelious makes a very good point, villages and towns dont just appear mate.

 

[outhouse]

why the fact that we have evidence so close as well as a document saying it existed isnt enough? you see this is the whole point! i would grant that if it had suddenly appeared in 200AD then maybe your point would stand, but mate, no historian would make the cliam your making, and angelious makes a very good point, villages and towns dont just appear mate.

so close but no cigar as they say. nothing points pre 67ce


they do appear, when was nazareth first housed or even named.??


do you call a tent city a town?

would a tent city support a synagogue?


was the name nazereth later misinterpreted ??

 

[fallingblood]

the fact he is using 3rd or 4th or 5th hand material is only relevant if you want to prove the author of J had no clue about the real history of the jesus charactor. J builds no historicity for nazereth.

So every historian then is irrelevant? Or at least the vast majority of them are. Because very few rely only on first hand material.

First and second hand accounts are not necessarily the best accounts. That idea is a myth. Yes, they can be very helpful, but they are not by default the best accounts. Later accounts have the benefit of researching earlier accounts, and putting that information together. I'm not saying that John is by default a better source, but I am saying that it can't just be dismissed so easily. The fact is, we do not know fully where John was getting his information. However, even if they are 3rd, 4th hand accounts, that does not mean they are irrelevant. Especially when you consider that most history books are also that or rely partially on that.

John is important here for two reasons. First, he tells us that opponents of Jesus had a problem with him not being born in Bethlehem, where the Messiah was expected. This is important as we are told that Jesus being from Nazareth was seen as a problem. John's Gospel also states that Nathaniel made the comment: can anything good come from Nazareth. This was an insult about Nazareth. It was seen problem some, and highly unlikely that Jesus could have been the Messiah simply because of where he was from. This is important to consider. It shows that there really is no logical reason to put Jesus in Nazareth, because was not where the Messiah was suppose to come from, and it was not a very respected community.

what gospels we do have take away historicity with contradictions and misinformation that would not place jesus in the current location . I dont think this misinformation takes away from the fact he could have been at nazereth either, but it does show the authors are clueless and are running with zero historicity. If they were running with the truth it would be dead luck.

Contradictions do not take away from historicity per se. It just means one has to examine the text more. The same thing with misinformation. It means one has to examine the text more. This means we have to ask the question why. Why did the writers of the Gospel add miracle stories? What was the reason for that? Did they truly believe that those events happened? Did they believe them to be possible? Those are important questions.

When we examine the miracles, it is most likely that the authors believed that they happened. The miracles supported their beliefs. They confirmed what they knew themselves. Do they take away from the historicity of Jesus? No. Not anymore than they do of any other ancient figure. It doesn't mean the miracle stories are true, but they also don't take away from the historicity.

why not? Theology was created. Events were created, in fact we know this means history was created. We know the jesus story grew after death, no one argues this, but now you want to pick and choose what grew and what did not with no real evidence to back this claim. There is really no archeology that supports pre 67ce to verify the town, allthough the attempts based on biased claims have been flushed out.

I think we can agree that child jesus pre 30 has zero historicity, this includes the place he is said to have lived.

We have to look at the reason as to why those stories were created. We can look at the miracles for example. Did they happen? Most likely not. We can't fully rule them out, but we can say that they are improbable. Did the authors believe they happened or that they were possible? Most likely yes. We know from other sources, the belief in miracles was quite widespread. What was the purpose of the miracles? The miracles confirmed their beliefs. They supported what they already knew.

The stories that were created, that we can be quite sure that were created, added to the beliefs that they already had. They supported their beliefs. They didn't cause problems.

Nazareth does not add anything to the story. It doesn't support their beliefs. It doesn't confirm any beliefs. In fact, it causes many different problems. It doesn't fit into what the Gospel writers wanted. We know this because they had to explain why it was okay that he was from Nazareth. Two of them go as far as to jump through hoops in order to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. There really is no reason to assume that Jesus being from Nazareth was something made up later on. There is every reason to be sure that it was true, that Jesus was from Nazareth.

As for the childhood and pre-30 Jesus, whether or not there is any historicity there, it doesn't matter. Jesus being from Nazareth is not just pre-30 Jesus. Being from Nazareth was something that followed Jesus throughout his life. Our sources all agree that he taught in that area. They all agree that he was from the area and from Nazareth specifically. Jesus being from Nazareth would have been something that people knew. It would be something that followed him.

the fact they used nazareth and why? is a good question, but because they used it doesnt give it the historicity your claiming.

We have no logical reason why Nazareth was said to be the hometown of Jesus besides it actually being his hometown. There is no other reason why Nazareth would be labeled the home of Jesus.

The fact that all of the Gospel users state that Jesus was from Nazareth, even though it caused embarrassment, problems, and simply has no logical reason for being invented, that all gives it historicity. When examining all of the evidence, the logical conclusion is that Jesus was from Nazareth.

fact is we dont really know and educated guesses point that way,,,, but,,, you cant pull this out of the gray area just yet.

We can though. We might not have archeological evidence that points to exactly the time of Jesus, but it is close enough. When we add the Gospel accounts to it (like what I said above), and later inscriptions that speak of it being there around that general time period, we have more than enough evidence to say, beyond a doubt, that Nazareth existed during the first century.

Even you admit that we have evidence of Nazareth existing at least around 67 C.E. It is not a stretch to say that it was already in existence before that time.

 

[fallingblood]

what if it was added to help hide the fact jesus real father could have been a roman guard.

Placing him in a small village would also protect the created theology surrounding his birth place which has no historicity

Placing him in Nazareth wouldn't help that at all. We know if wouldn't help as it didn't. Just look at Celsus. Even though there is no credible evidence that Jesus's real father was a Roman guard, it was still leveled at him. Even the Gospels contain hints that there was some controversy over his birth, or at least people were talking. Saying that he was from Nazareth didn't help a thing. It made problems.

if you create a birthplace you might as well create a place where he grew up. What better then a small village where no previous stories would come from due to its small size that would contradict the created theology

Mark and John never create a birthplace though. They simply state that Jesus was from Nazareth.

And the reason the birth stories were created in Matthew and Luke was to get Jesus to Bethlehem to be born. The problem was that he was known to have been from Nazareth.