Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I reckon Nazareth must have been a very small place.
Quote:
When there is lot's of evidence I like to go with Scripture.
I see! So when there is a lot of evidence you would rather reject it and rely on scripture? Having already stated that you think Nazareth was a very small place, you would rather rely on the scripture that tells you that Nazareth was a 'city'?
Quote:
Why do you think the people who wrote the Bible would want to misrepresent the place of Jesus' earthly origins?
Political power, money, status, to persuade others that their beliefs were the correct ones, to fulfil 'prophecy' in the OT...or maybe it was just plain old mistranslation, as in mistranslating 'Nazarene' for 'Nazareth'??
You see dude, the writers of the NT knew all about the 'prophecies' in the OT. They knew that the 'Messiah', according to prophecy, had to be born in a certain place. Once you know things like that...well, the rest is easy.
I see! So when there is a lot of evidence you would rather reject it and rely on scripture? Having already stated that you think Nazareth was a very small place, you would rather rely on the scripture that tells you that Nazareth was a 'city'?
Political power, money, status, to persuade others that their beliefs were the correct ones, to fulfil 'prophecy' in the OT...or maybe it was just plain old mistranslation, as in mistranslating 'Nazarene' for 'Nazareth'??
You see dude, the writers of the NT knew all about the 'prophecies' in the OT. They knew that the 'Messiah', according to prophecy, had to be born in a certain place. Once you know things like that...well, the rest is easy.
But there's evidence for both sides. And if the only evidence for your argument is speculation based on lists which omit the details you are loking for then I don't think that could really be admissible evidence anyway.
From what I can tell it is only Luke who describes Nazareth as a city. Maybe it grew over time.
Didn't the Apostle Paul lose all of his political power, status and money to preach the gospel. Actually, you might know this better than me as you seem to know a fair bit about history and what not, isn't it true that all of the first Disciples were executed or imprisoned for preaching the gospel.
I don't understand how it can be the case that in some parts the Scripture is translated correctly as 'of Nazareth' and then other parts 'the Nazarene'. Maybe the translators knew what they were doing because otherwise they would have covered up, or at least been consistent with their error.
Actually the KJV which I read says that the Prophets said he would be called a Nazarene. It doesn't say that he would be born in Nazareth. So if they were mistranslating, or trying to con everyone, then why wouldn't they have just said Jesus the Nazarene?
Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Actually, you might know this better than me as you seem to know a fair bit about history and what not, isn't it true that all of the first Disciples were executed or imprisoned for preaching the gospel.
It is what the Bible claims. As we well know, the claims in the Bible can't be objectively verified and some of it's claims are just downright preposterous and have proven to be untrue. To claim that the disciples died for their beliefs you would first have to show that they even existed.
Quote:
Actually the KJV which I read says that the Prophets said he would be called a Nazarene. It doesn't say that he would be born in Nazareth. So if they were mistranslating, or trying to con everyone, then why wouldn't they have just said Jesus the Nazarene?
Well, they did say 'Jesus the Nazarene' but not until long after the alleged death of the man-god. The term was used to identify a Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah.
It is what the Bible claims. As we well know, the claims in the Bible can't be objectively verified and some of it's claims are just downright preposterous and have proven to be untrue. To claim that the disciples died for their beliefs you would first have to show that they even existed.
Well, they did say 'Jesus the Nazarene' but not until long after the alleged death of the man-god. The term was used to identify a Jewish Sect that believed Jesus was the Messiah.
Do you not believe that the Apostles Paul and Peter ever existed?
Do you think it was true that Christianity was prohibited within the Roman Empire? I believe that.
Do you believe that the entire Scripture is just a made up story? There seem to be a lot of people coming to that point of view today.
The use of the word "city" varies from place to place. In North Dakota any incorporated settlement is a city so a city can have less, or much less, than 50 inhabitants. So Amidon, Egeland, Grano, Hansboro, Leith, and some others are all deemed cities.
I would need to know what the definition was in first century Palestine and then compare it to estimates for the settlement in Nazareth at the time. Still I might agree "village" was more accurate than "city", going by what we know, but it still doesn't make what you said correct or valid.
"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 truth about Nazareth
It's a con Thomas. Yet another example of the 'Lying for Jesus' tactics of those who desperately want it all to be true when it isn't and those who can see the tourist dollars rolling in.
Pretty much just quoting other activist atheist of various stripes. Get me someone who isn't an activist for religion or irreligion and maybe you'll have something.
Still this theory apparently pleases you and if it works for you that's fine up to a point. However the assertion that other theories, and for that matter outright evidence, is a lie or a con-job is where you kind of cross the line. Christians may disagree with you because they sincerely believe you're actually wrong. And they may sincerely believe that you're wrong because they're educated and just don't find your conclusions compelling. And this is where many people like you just fall down. You see your own conclusions as irrefutable when they're far from it. You also assume bad-faith of those who disagree with you. It makes discussion laborious and irritating. Much of the time when discussing on this forum I even have to deal with atheists talking to some imaginary Fundamentalist, which I'm not, when they're talking to me. It grows tiresome.
Pretty much just quoting other activist atheist of various stripes. Get me someone who isn't an activist for religion or irreligion and maybe you'll have something.
Still this theory apparently pleases you and if it works for you that's fine up to a point. However the assertion that other theories, and for that matter outright evidence, is a lie or a con-job is where you kind of cross the line. Christians may disagree with you because they sincerely believe you're actually wrong. And they may sincerely believe that you're wrong because they're educated and just don't find your conclusions compelling. And this is where many people like you just fall down. You see your own conclusions as irrefutable when they're far from it. You also assume bad-faith of those who disagree with you. It makes discussion laborious and irritating. Much of the time when discussing on this forum I even have to deal with atheists talking to some imaginary Fundamentalist, which I'm not, when they're talking to me. It grows tiresome.
Oh well.
I'll readily admit that this is an over simplification but there are cold hard facts in it. The reason Christians will never have an ounce of validity in their arguments is because the only reference they can give for it is the bible. A book written by a dozen Jews and a convert during primitive times when daily conditions around them were so hard that none of us can even imagine what it was like. People fasting for days on a pretense of hunger giving additional validity to their prayers when in fact they had no food. One smock of clothing and if they were lucky a meal a day. If they had to travel they were subject to dangerous mobs of scavengers who ran rampant in the countryside. Sleeping in caves and around very limited sources of water. Defecating on the ground and wiping on their hands. Spreading all manner of disease through bacteria and virus of which they had no knowledge. The healing by touching was nothing but wishful thinking. Those with money and power drank wine which was essentially purified by it's alcohol content but the other 95% were subject to disease and early death.
The scrolls were written by probably the upper 2% of people who were connected in some way or held positions of authority. Paper wasn't invented till 500 years after Jesus (allegedly) lived. The stories in the new testament weren't even begun until decades after he (allegedly) died. The final stories in the new testament were not completed until about 200 years after he(allegedly) died.
There is one mention of Jesus in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. His name and nothing else. The other seven known historians did not even mention his name. The odds of a man being born under a star by a virgin, roaming the countryside walking on water and raising people from the dead, turning water into wine and feeding multitudes with a handful of food then being bled like a hog and showing up two days later fit as a fiddle and never being mentioned by those writing history would be like Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle never being mentioned by NYC sports writers.
When all they have to give as refererence is a 2000 year old Jewish book they believe for which there is no proof...they have no verification other than speaking and writing by others who also believe it. That's why their arguments are and always will be empty to me.
I'll readily admit that this is an over simplification but there are cold hard facts in it. The reason Christians will never have an ounce of validity in their arguments is because the only reference they can give for it is the bible. A book written by a dozen Jews and a convert during primitive times when daily conditions around them were so hard that none of us can even imagine what it was like. People fasting for days on a pretense of hunger giving additional validity to their prayers when in fact they had no food. One smock of clothing and if they were lucky a meal a day. If they had to travel they were subject to dangerous mobs of scavengers who ran rampant in the countryside. Sleeping in caves and around very limited sources of water. Defecating on the ground and wiping on their hands. Spreading all manner of disease through bacteria and virus of which they had no knowledge. The healing by touching was nothing but wishful thinking. Those with money and power drank wine which was essentially purified by it's alcohol content but the other 95% were subject to disease and early death.
The scrolls were written by probably the upper 2% of people who were connected in some way or held positions of authority. Paper wasn't invented till 500 years after Jesus (allegedly) lived. The stories in the new testament weren't even begun until decades after he (allegedly) died. The final stories in the new testament were not completed until about 200 years after he(allegedly) died.
There is one mention of Jesus in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. His name and nothing else. The other seven known historians did not even mention his name. The odds of a man being born under a star by a virgin, roaming the countryside walking on water and raising people from the dead, turning water into wine and feeding multitudes with a handful of food then being bled like a hog and showing up two days later fit as a fiddle and never being mentioned by those writing history would be like Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle never being mentioned by NYC sports writers.
When all they have to give as refererence is a 2000 year old Jewish book they believe for which there is no proof...they have no verification other than speaking and writing by others who also believe it. That's why their arguments are and always will be empty to me.
Imagiine living like that hey!?! It would be spun out. With food shortages and ultra violence everywhere you go, and only possessing the little bit you can carry easily. You'd definitely neeed something other than yourself if you were going to survive such intense conditions.
I reckon i'd start believing in God pretty quick if everything else dried up.
The use of the word "city" varies from place to place. In North Dakota any incorporated settlement is a city so a city can have less, or much less, than 50 inhabitants. So Amidon, Egeland, Grano, Hansboro, Leith, and some others are all deemed cities.
I would need to know what the definition was in first century Palestine and then compare it to estimates for the settlement in Nazareth at the time. Still I might agree "village" was more accurate than "city", going by what we know, but it still doesn't make what you said correct or valid.
Your argument for Nazareth fails Thomas. You haven't even found a house yet, let alone a city, town, village or hamlet. The link to the 'Jesus house' has been debunked by most archaeologists bar one who is connected to Israeli tourism and a handful that work with a trowel in one hand and a Bible in the other. The link you gave was from 2009. So there has been more than enough time for Alexandre to present her 'findings' to her peers. Where is the peer review confirming Yardenna Alexandre’s...'findings'. I can find none on any serious archaeological site that I've come across. Plenty of claims like "Existence Of Nazareth Proven"... ALL coming from Bible apologist webs but nothing of any substance....just assumption, guesswork, wishful thinking and yes...downright lies.
AGAIN. "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."
Read about the 'Lying for Jesus' tactics involved with 'Nazareth':
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalhome (broken link)
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalthree (broken link)
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalfour (broken link)
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalfive (broken link)
I think you really believe that quoting some activist site, or appealing to an authorities you don't site, proves something to me and if it doesn't it should. Well it doesn't and I don't see why it should. Feel free to pout at me if you want, but everything close to legitimate/non-activist I find indicates there was a settlement there with between 200 and 400 people. And in this case saying there wasn't is clearly you making the claim. You have not proved it to my satisfaction. If that offends you well that's just the way it is I suppose.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 08-08-2010 at 05:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
