Jesus' house discovered

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Not really because its just a story. Show me the evidence that is the house of Jesus..

purp.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Not really because its just a story. Show me the evidence that is the house of Jesus..

purp.

You didn't read anything I actually said, or watch any of the evidence I presented, did you?

Thats ok. Your stars are valuable.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: SlapMonkey
His reputation in that region was established in his lifetime obviously or there wouldn't have been any tradition, also it's only a question of the veracity of the 4th century identification of the house as the church was built upon the site then, not a question as your strawman argument suggests of having to remember a supposed site over 2,000 years.

First, you're using the "strawman-argument" accusation incorrectly, as this is not a strawman argument...unless, of course, you want to identify the strawman. The title of your thread, that you wrote out yourself, claims a "discovery," meaning at some point it was lost to memory or time--so, yes, we're relying on 2,000 years of memory to identify this as Jesus' house.

Secondly, there is no "obviously" concerning this subject, as you claim. Traditions are established for myriad reasons, many of which have been noted in this thread (the need to boost the economy of the area, to create a pilgrimage site, to establish supposed veracity of a story, etc, etc). I would argue that his reputation at the time of his life would not have been overwhelmingly good--the Jewish religion was already well-established at that time, and someone coming in claiming to be the messiah and son of YHWH would not be (and was not) received well by the overwhelming majority of religious people.

Lastly, you're correct, it is all about the veracity of the location upon which the 4th-century church was built; there is no veracity, inscriptions, or archaeological proof that this is Jesus' house. It's just the dating of the site a possibility to the claim.

You guys got it all wrong.

They're talking about Jesus, the landscaper!

He lived there with nanni and poppi, Maria and Juan

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No you're contradicting yourself it's not a case of being reliant on 2,000 years of memories but only on the veracity of the 4th century identification, and even that only dates to that period because that was when political conditions became favourable to petition for permission to construct such under Constantine's reign, there was attested interest in the location earlier as Saint Jerome visited the site early 4th century before the church was seemingly built.

Given that there is mention of surviving relatives of Jesus in the 2nd century namely nephews of Judah, the gap between that and when it was possible to commemorate the site isn't so great.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: UnBreakable

The Transfiguration, one of my favorites,

“Transfigured.The Greek term from metamorphoo we get our word “metamorphasis.”

??? I must misunderstand the Bible. What does the supposed Transfiguration you talk about have to do with his supposed Ascension into heaven which I am referring to? They're two separate events. The supposed transfiguration occurred before the supposed crucifixion (should be crucifiction) which occurs before the supposed ascension. They're two different things.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is too much assumption to corroborate a claim. Why can you not see that making assumptions is a bad way to analyze history? You have no way of knowing if anything you just said is true yet you reason it as fact. This allows you to substantiate the claim in article as true in your head, but it's not.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Irishhaf

I hope they don't find a local latrine or knowing archaeologists they'll be telling us what Jesus had for breakfast...

Jesus was similar to Kim Jong Un where as he didn't poo or pee. I swear its in the scripture.

Jesus had no time for bathroom breaks!

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Kind of hard to maintain Jesus never existed when archaeologists have found his house...unless he was the local Holy ghost.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I've come to expect from Christians these days.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Kind of hard to maintain Jesus never existed when archaeologists have found his house...unless he was the local Holy ghost.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I've come to expect from Christians these days.

Faith = intellectual dishonesty or laziness. When an organized religion can't prove something exists, they tell you to just have faith that it does.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: SlapMonkey
No you're contradicting yourself it's not a case of being reliant on 2,000 years of memories but only on the veracity of the 4th century identification, and even that only dates to that period because that was when political conditions became favourable to petition for permission to construct such under Constantine's reign, there was attested interest in the location earlier as Saint Jerome visited the site early 4th century before the church was seemingly built.

Given that there is mention of surviving relatives of Jesus in the 2nd century namely nephews of Judah, the gap between that and when it was possible to commemorate the site isn't so great.

Okay, you're digging yourself farther and farther away from actually proving anything.

And, if you don't mind, show me how I contradicted myself by repeating my claim that 2,000 years of word-of-mouth and circumstantial evidence is on what you are relying to claim that this is the house in which Jesus grew up. You continue to avoid the fact that tangible proof elludes this claim, yet try to tell me I contradict myself.

This is going nowhere extremely quickly.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Kantzveldt

Kind of hard to maintain Jesus never existed when archaeologists have found his house...unless he was the local Holy ghost.

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I've come to expect from Christians these days.

Starred this just for the irony.

a reply to: TXRabbit

You guys got it all wrong.

They're talking about Jesus, the landscaper!

He lived there with nanni and poppi, Maria and Juan

LMAO!

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Yes!!! I have read that also. Good news indeed. Although it can not be said with 100% accuracy that is the actual house where Jesus lived, but there indications for it. As Dr Dark said :

If ultimately Christ had lived in this house is not yet proven. However, Dr. Dark believes in this version of history. "I can not answer from the archaeological point of view, if indeed this is the house where Jesus grew up," he writes in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review. "But there are several indications."

Original Source in Greek

Goo gle Translate Link

Peace

So some bearded white guy is supposed to represent all of humanity and guide everyone into the after life? Why wasn't God a woman? Lol.....literal Christianity makes no sense. Most religion makes zero sense. The story of the Annanaki or the beliefs of reincarnation make much more sense than any of the Abrahamic religions.

I do believe in religious exercise so to speak. If people want to believe in Jesus and moreover his teachings so be it. Heck if they want to prepare themselves spiritually for death by believing in an afterlife who am I to judge? If believing in Christianity makes someone a good person so be it.

Wow! What will they "find" next? Thor's hammer? Poseidon's trident?

a reply to: windword

I'm only debating this case from the archaeological evidence perspective, it's in no way an article of faith issue despite the polemical posturing many on the thread have adopted, the simple facts are that the building the early church believed to be the house were Jesus grew up has been excavated and proven to be a 1st century courtyard type dwelling, i haven't seen anything to indicate they considered the wrong house and there's simply no case for people not knowing were he'd lived, so by any normal standards there's a high probability the house they commemorated was the correct one, all the rest is just tiresome bigotry and ignorance, that's my honest appraisal.


a reply to: SlapMonkey

Again , the only issue here is whether the house identified and commemorated in the 4th century was the correct one, it's only you going on about it having to be remembered for 2,000 years for some unknown reason.


a reply to: Seed76

It's true enough there are no certainties involved but some can't even get their heads around the possibility...

originally posted by: MiddleClassWhiteBoy
So some bearded white guy is supposed to represent all of humanity and guide everyone into the after life? Why wasn't God a woman? Lol.....literal Christianity makes no sense. Most religion makes zero sense. The story of the Annanaki or the beliefs of reincarnation make much more sense than any of the Abrahamic religions.

I do believe in religious exercise so to speak. If people want to believe in Jesus and moreover his teachings so be it. Heck if they want to prepare themselves spiritually for death by believing in an afterlife who am I to judge? If believing in Christianity makes someone a good person so be it.

Actually the picture of the bearded white Jesus which most Christians have hanging in the foyer is a portrait of Cesar Borgia from the 16th century. Christ probably looked like the 19th 9-11 hijacker and the early Catholic church didn't want their religion with an ethnic looking icon, as he resembled the people they were killing.

White Jesus modeled on Cesare Borgia?
The theory is that people were generally not too enthusiastic about the Catholic Church’s regular massacres of Jews and Muslims, because the people they were killing looked like Jesus. Pope Alexander VI then ordered the destruction of all art depicting a Semitic Jesus and commissioned a number of paintings depicting a Caucasian Jesus. His son, Cardinal Cesare Borgia, was the model for these paintings. Thus, the nastiest of all the Borgias, became the iconic Caucasian Jesus so loved by Christians today.
theholyprepuce.tumblr.com...

a reply to: Kantzveldt

It's true enough there are no certainties involved but some can't even get their heads around the possibility...

Honestly, It does not bother me at all if others are dismissing any evidence or indication concerning Jesus. Everyone it´s free to believe what they want. But..to deny something polemically even though there is enough evidence for the existence of Jesus as an example it´s remarkable.
[offtopic]
Even more remarkable is the fact that those same persons will insult you and your religion and make all kinds of snarky and one line comments, for something that they do not believe in the first place. [/offtopic]

Peace

a reply to: Kantzveldt

i haven't seen anything to indicate they considered the wrong house

This is nothing more that bias confirmation. All this based on this one little sentence:

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.

I hate to be so terse and pragmatic, but your assumptions leave me no choice. There is no evidence that the man in question existed in the first place. Let alone we must be expected to believe the other, previous unproven, claims in the same book/chapter of Matthew like the virgin birth, the magical rogue star, the "Slaughter of the Innocents" by King Herod, The Angel of Lord guiding the holy family to Egypt. And then, we're expected to believe the claims that this house was "his" house in Nazareth!

PFFFFT!

Aristotelian logic:

The Bible says Jesus Christ lived and dwelt in Nazareth
A house was found in Nazareth
That house, is therefore, the house in which Jesus Christ dwelt.