The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[Dirty Penguin]

Why would there be anything unusual about a synagogue being located in a town or city primarily populated by Jews??? You are really stretching this to the nth degree. It will be fairly difficult for you to challenge Luke regarding the level of precision in his writing in referencing people, places and things. Not only was he a physician, but also a historian who took his craft very seriously and was extremely cautious in striking a high level of accuracy in his accounts of said events. Below is a link to more detail regarding Dr. Luke.

You give "Luke" way too much credit. But what's worse is that in crafting your supposed cleaver response you were ill equipped, apparently, to answer the question I asked or respond to why archaeologist found no remnants of a synagogue. Look I didn't say it was there...your "Historian"....Luke says it was there.

 

[dogsgod]

Would be nice wouldn't it...?

"Except"....None of their bible translators render it that way......

True, there's only one qualified translator on the planet and that would be Oberon.

 

[Oberon]

I came across this little tidbit:

Finally, scholars have long noted that the first evangelist appears to locate Jesus' home not in Nazareth, but in Capernaum (Mk 2:1) where also his family resides (Mk 6:3) Nazarene (word) wiki

First, you aren't aware of the semantic range of oikos. Jesus had his "home base" so to speak in Capernaum. Second, where are you getting that his family resides in Capernaum from ouch houtos estin ho tekton, ho hyiuos kai Simonos, kai ouk eisin hai adelphai autou hode pros hemas, kai eskandalizonto en auto ?

 

[dogsgod]

First, you aren't aware of the semantic range of oikos. Jesus had his "home base" so to speak in Capernaum. Second, where are you getting that his family resides in Capernaum from ouch houtos estin ho tekton, ho hyiuos kai Simonos, kai ouk eisin hai adelphai autou hode pros hemas, kai eskandalizonto en auto ?

In context Mark 6:4 goes on to state that his family is with him and his home according to Mk 2:1 is in Capernaum, 1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.

Mk6:3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

 

[Oberon]

In context Mark 6:4 goes on to state that his family is with him and his home according to Mk 2:1 is in Capernaum, 1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.

Mk 2:1 only identifies him as having a base there. He was a wondering prophet supported by others. Capernaum was the focal point. It was not his hometown.

Mk6:3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

And the rejection by Jesus of family and town didn't clue you in that he wasn't welcome or at least didn't want to be there?

 

[dogsgod]

[/b]

Mk 2:1 only identifies him as having a base there. He was a wondering prophet supported by others. Capernaum was the focal point. It was not his hometown.

It states that his home is in Capernaum, there is little else to assume. You're getting yourself all twisted up like a pretzel again.

And the rejection by Jesus of family and town didn't clue you in that he wasn't welcome or at least didn't want to be there?

So?

 

[Oberon]

It states that his home is in Capernaum, there is little else to assume. You're getting yourself all twisted up like a pretzel again.

Actually, it doesn't. It says that when he came again into Capernaum, it was heard that he was en oiko. This can mean a variety of things, and it certainly doesn't necessitate him being at his own home, nor does it say that. In fact, Mark 6:1 explicitly DOES use the greek phrase to indicate his place of origin: erchetai eis ten patrida autou. He does not say this in 2:1.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

True, there's only one qualified translator on the planet and that would be Oberon.

I take that back. Sort of....

I did find this rendering in the Weymouth New Testament but the majority of translations I've read do not agree. Additionally when looking at the Greek transliteration along side a lexicon it's clear to see that the Weymouth New Testament translation and any others that agree with it are in error. It means very little considering the gospel writers place Yeshua's home in Nazareth which may not have been the city/town we've been led to believe in light of archeological findings...or the lack of.

 

[Oberon]

It means very little considering the gospel writers place Yeshua's home in Nazareth which may not have been the city/town we've been led to believe in light of archeological findings...or the lack of.

Funny that archaeologists don't share your concerns:

Aside from Sepphoris and Tiberias, perhaps the two bestknown Galilean sites from this time period are Nazareth and Capernaum, famous for their association with the ministry of Jesus. Numerous tombs have been found at Nazareth, demarcating the boundaries of the ancient village. Excavations underneath the Church of the Annunciation and the Church of St. Joseph have revealed chambers, tunnels, cavities, pits, cisterns, oil presses, and granaries, all indicators of the village’s agricultural activity (Bagatti 1969).

Chancey, Mark Alan, and Adam Lowry Porter. “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine.” Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 64, No. 4, December 2001.
Atlanta, GA, USA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001. p 22.

 

[blueman]

You give "Luke" way too much credit. But what's worse is that in crafting your supposed cleaver response you were ill equipped, apparently, to answer the question I asked or respond to why archaeologist found no remnants of a synagogue. Look I didn't say it was there...your "Historian"....Luke says it was there.

As I've stated before, it is plausible to have a Jewish Synagogue in a town or city heavily populated by Jews. That's not exactly "out of the box" thinking. That combined with the time tested analysis from an archeaological standpoint of Luke's accounts of people, places and things would impress the majority of historians, even skeptical ones. It's nothing clever associated with that. It's sound rationale.

 

[blueman]

False teaching?
Man, you really are twisting things about.

Though I suspect you are not doing it intentionally.

Is that all you have to add to the discussion? False teaching? I truly doubt that's the case. Whether you feel the issues raised are out of the scope or not of this thread, counter those arguments with substance rather than accusations and acnedotal statements.

 

[McBell]

As I've stated before, it is plausible to have a Jewish Synagogue in a town or city heavily populated by Jews. That's not exactly "out of the box" thinking. That combined with the time tested analysis from an archeaological standpoint of Luke's accounts of people, places and things would impress the majority of historians, even skeptical ones. It's nothing clever associated with that. It's sound rationale.

and you are still not paying attention..
Or perhaps you are intentionally avoiding the actual question?

Why has there been no evidence found of a synagogue there?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As I've stated before, it is plausible to have a Jewish Synagogue in a town or city heavily populated by Jews.

No it's not, considering that it's been shown that the city/town wasn't that big. It's been estimated 300 to 600 people. So it wasn't a "heavily populated" city. Additionally I've found no archeological data confirming the existence of a synagogue....A well, yes, tombs, yes, some pottery, yes......a synagogue....no......

That combined with the time tested analysis from an archeaological standpoint of Luke's accounts of people, places and things would impress the majority of historians,
even skeptical ones.

No it wouldn't....

 

[McBell]

Is that all you have to add to the discussion? False teaching? I truly doubt that's the case. Whether you feel the issues raised are out of the scope or not of this thread, counter those arguments with substance rather than accusations and acnedotal statements.

wow.
Seeing as you are unable to keep up with our own little tangent, I do not expect much of anything useful from you on the main topic.

You have a nice day now.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin
It means very little considering the gospel writers place Yeshua's home in Nazareth which may not have been the city/town we've been led to believe in light of archeological findings...or the lack of.

Funny that archaeologists don't share your concerns:

Aside from Sepphoris and Tiberias, perhaps the two bestknown Galilean sites from this time period are Nazareth and Capernaum, famous for their association with the ministry of Jesus. Numerous tombs have been found at Nazareth, demarcating the boundaries of the ancient village. Excavations underneath the Church of the Annunciation and the Church of St. Joseph have revealed chambers, tunnels, cavities, pits, cisterns, oil presses, and granaries, all indicators of the village’s agricultural activity (Bagatti 1969).

Chancey, Mark Alan, and Adam Lowry Porter. “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine.” Near Eastern Archaeology, Volume 64, No. 4, December 2001.
Atlanta, GA, USA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2001. p 22.

I don't have any problem with what is said here considering I didn't say (archeologist DIDN'T or HAVE NEVER) found anything there. That would be silly. There was a very small inhabitants but no remnants of a synagogue was found. I'm just saying that before the gospel writers wrote what they wrote and/or copied from each other there was no mentions of Nazareth by anybody else.

 

[Dunemeister]

No it's not, considering that it's been shown that the city/town wasn't that big. It's been estimated 300 to 600 people. So it wasn't a "heavily populated" city. Additionally I've found no archeological data confirming the existence of a synagogue....A well, yes, tombs, yes, some pottery, yes......a synagogue....no......

How big would a town have to be to warrant a synagogue? There are modern towns with less than 100 people that have a church, so I'm not so sure that a large population is necessary.

I don't have a reference for this, but I've heard that the traditional church practice of burying the dead on church grounds has its precursor with the synagogue. So if you find tombs, you've found a site for a synagogue, even if the specific synagogue ruins haven't been found. I wonder if anyone can corroborate this?

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm just saying that before the gospel writers wrote what they wrote and/or copied from each other there was no mentions of Nazareth by anybody else.

Why does this observation have any importance? Should we expect other mentions to have survived the ravages of time? Why?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Should we expect other mentions to have survived the ravages of time? Why?

Yes and No.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How big would a town have to be to warrant a synagogue? There are modern towns with less than 100 people that have a church, so I'm not so sure that a large population is necessary.

Doesn't have to be all that big considering what we know about Nazareth. It wasn't that big. It's just...there's has been no discovery of a synagogue.

I don't have a reference for this, but I've heard that the traditional church practice of burying the dead on church grounds has its precursor with the synagogue. So if you find tombs, you've found a site for a synagogue, even if the specific synagogue ruins haven't been found. I wonder if anyone can corroborate this?

I've been searching as well and what I'm finding out is that Jews don't bury their dead in town or especially where their holy place (synagogue) is. They would have buried them outside the city/town. I was reading something earlier about a great battle at Japha, which is supposed to be about a mile away from Nazareth. This could possibly explain the tombs that are there.

 

[dogsgod]

According to legend, Helena entered the temple with Bishop Macarius, ordered the temple torn down and chose a site to begin excavating, which led to the recovery of three different crosses. Refused to be swayed by anything but solid proof, a woman from Jerusalem, who was already at the point of death from a certain disease, was brought; when the woman touched the first and second crosses, her condition did not change, but when she touched the third and final cross she suddenly recovered and Helena declared the cross with which the woman had been touched to be the True Cross. On the site of discovery, she built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, while she continued building churches on every Holy site.

She also found the nails of the crucifixion. wiki


I once doubted, but now I believe.


.