Jesus' house discovered

a reply to: randyvs

If it were myth it would surely act like a myth
[/quot

it doesact like a myth. a popular myth

purp

They've just excavated the place so that must prove it existed!

originally posted by: Gideon70
Here we go again.
More half proofs for the followers of Jesus to distort.

Isnt funny how the followers of this mumbo jumbo Ignore the fact that Jesus wasnt of the royal line of david ?
Joseph was of the royal line , Mary wasn't .
If Jesus was concieved by the holy spirit giving Mary a good seeing to , then there is no royal blood line.
So the so called scriptures have not been fulfilled.

I guess you're truly a biblical scholar and well informed of the traditions of the Hebrew...its not worth explaining to some people.

You are completely wrong, studying is a good first step.

a reply to: purplemer

Um no.
I think it's obvious that the only myth on it's way out the door
around here. Is the one that says Christ never exixted. Anyone
who tries to say that now, is only speading misinfo and lies.
Cause now the evidence says otherwise and we can all look to
a world free of tyranny and mysticism.

a reply to: randyvs

Thats not the way I see things.. But i will give you a star for the way you see things..


kind regards

purple...

a reply to: randyvs

If this house is just the place where an ordinary man
lived as a boy. In which all these myths grew around.

There is NO myth around the "house" other than that the Bible claims that Jesus' family went to live in Nazareth and that Jesus, supposedly, lived in Nazareth as a child. There is NO description of his childhood home. There are no anecdotal stories of his childhood home or anything that actually took place in Nazareth when Jesus was, supposedly, growing up.


a reply to: bronco73

Who's "The Man"?

The man that is the subject of this thread, and the man that you continually are debating about. Please don't claim ignorance when you clearly know exactly who this discussion is about.

We may as well be talking about the historicity of Hercules. or Thor. Take away all the magic from the story and "Who was Hercules, the man" or, "Who was Thor, the real man?"

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: randyvs

If this house is just the place where an ordinary man
lived as a boy. In which all these myths grew around.

There is NO myth around the "house" other than that the Bible claims that Jesus' family went to live in Nazareth and that Jesus, supposedly, lived in Nazareth as a child. There is NO description of his childhood home. There are no anecdotal stories of his childhood home or anything that actually took place in Nazareth when Jesus was, supposedly, growing up.


a reply to: bronco73

Who's "The Man"?

The man that is the subject of this thread, and the man that you continually are debating about. Please don't claim ignorance when you clearly know exactly who this discussion is about.

We may as well be talking about the historicity of Hercules. or Thor. Take away all the magic from the story and "Who was Hercules, the man" or, "Who was Thor, the real man?"

Well we are not talking about Hercules or Thor, so they are irrelevant. We are however talking about a man named Jesus, whom I again assert you know full well as the topic of this discussion. But to ask me who that man was is inane. How can I? You might as well ask me what kind of grapes he preferred to be used for his wine, or what color his underwear was. Regardless, your attempts to dance around the issue are no longer amusing. You are not interested in this discussion, your only purpose is to parade about on here lambasting those of the forum that believe Jesus was the Christ, and to impossibly attempt to show that the man himself did not exist which is an exercise in futility as we both know.

I will leave it to you to make yet another "But who was he really" post that this time will not result in a reply from me.

a reply to: bronco73

Well we are not talking about Hercules or Thor, so they are irrelevant.

No. They're not irrelevant at all. As a matter of fact, early Christian father, Justin Martyr, on behalf of Christians, wrote to a pagan king comparing Jesus with Hercules, and how they both were "Sons of God", the same God. He was pleading for the Christians acceptance in his kingdom, which was granted.

But to ask me who that man was is inane.

I agree. It's impossible to separate the man from the myth. It's impossible to tell where the lies ends and the truth begins.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bronco73

Well we are not talking about Hercules or Thor, so they are irrelevant.

No. They're not irrelevant at all. As a matter of fact, early Christian father, Justin Martyr, on behalf of Christians, wrote to a pagan king comparing Jesus with Hercules, and how they both were "Sons of God", the same God. He was pleading for the Christians acceptance in his kingdom, which was granted.

And?

a reply to: Astyanax

As i replied to you on page two until 1st century dwellings were excavated at Nazareth in recent years it was up in the air in terms of direct archaeological evidence whether it had existed then, but all that's in the past and your google links living in it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Kantzveldt

I see nothing in the Wikipedia page that firmly establishes the existence of a place called Nazareth any time previous to the third century of the Christian era. You'll have to do better than that. Two or three hundred years better.

So your entire argument is based on the notion that Nazareth isn't identified by it's current name until shortly after Christianity was born? You do realize there is archaeological evidence that people lived there long before the time of Christ, right?

en.wikipedia.org...

Extrabiblical references[edit]

Ancient mosaic of Nazareth
The form Nazara is also found in the earliest non-scriptural reference to the town, a citation by Sextus Julius Africanus dated about 221 CE[22] (see "Middle Roman to Byzantine Periods" below). The Church Father Origen (c. 185 to 254 AD) knows the forms Nazará and Nazarét.[23] Later, Eusebius in his Onomasticon (translated by St. Jerome) also refers to the settlement as Nazara.[24] The 'nașirutha' of the scriptures of the Mandeans refers to 'priestly craft' not to Nazareth, which they identified with Qom.[25]

The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.[26] This fragment gives the town's name in Hebrew as "נצרת" (n-ṣ-r-t). The inscription dates to c. AD 300 and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, AD 132-35.[27] (See "Middle Roman to Byzantine Periods" below.) An 8th-century AD Hebrew inscription, which was the earliest known Hebrew reference to Nazareth prior to the discovery of the inscription above, uses the same form.[5]

Also see:

Ancient times[edit]
Archaeological research has revealed that a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3.2 km) from current Nazareth, dates back roughly 9000 years to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B era.[34] The remains of some 65 individuals were found, buried under huge horizontal headstone structures, some of which consisted of up to 3 tons of locally produced white plaster. Decorated human skulls uncovered there have led archaeologists to identify Kfar HaHoresh as a major cult centre in that era.[35]

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approximately 100 m × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. The Franciscan priest Bellarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology", carried out extensive excavation of this "Venerated Area" from 1955 to 1965. Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC) which indicated substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence for Nazareth from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when the Assyrians destroyed many towns in the area.

Please note that as Kantzveldt has pointed out to you already, modern Archaeological studies have actually proven that Nazareth was in fact inhabited in the first century (this was previously disputed, but the evidence has ended that debate). For a small village of 300-400 people, I'm not sure why you would expect any sort of extra biblical evidence for what the town was named during Jesus time, considering it was completely insignificant and the only reason it ended up on the map was because of Jesus. For such a small village, you shouldn't expect some sort of carved stone city limits sign saying "welcome to Nazareth, population 300". Regardless, the archaeological evidence stands on its own.

Reply to: Kantzveldt

until 1st century dwellings were excavated at Nazareth

How on earth do you know that the modern Nazareth is the place referred to in the New Testament?

All you're saying is that some ancient dwellings were found at a place known as Nazareth, though that place only started being called Nazareth long after the time of Christ.

As I said earlier, if you dig almost anywhere in that area you'll find the ruins of something.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Reply to: Kantzveldt

until 1st century dwellings were excavated at Nazareth

How on earth do you know that the modern Nazareth is the place referred to in the New Testament?

All you're saying is that some ancient dwellings were found at a place known as Nazareth, though that place only started being called Nazareth long after the time of Christ.

As I said earlier, if you dig almost anywhere in that area you'll find the ruins of something.

How on earth do you know that the modern Nazareth is the place referred to in the New Testament?

Because it's still a place to live in to this day? And has been associated as such since the 1st century? I'm not sure what part of this is so hard for you to grasp?

All you're saying is that some ancient dwellings were found at a place known as Nazareth, though that place only started being called Nazareth long after the time of Christ.

Ok? All you are saying is what?

As I said earlier, if you dig almost anywhere in that area you'll find the ruins of something.

Yes, like the first century houses of people who lived in Nazareth.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Astyanax
How on earth do you know that the modern Nazareth is the place referred to in the New Testament?

DeadSeraph
Because it's still a place to live in to this day? And has been associated as such since the 1st century? I'm not sure what part of this is so hard for you to grasp?

There is no record of a village or settlement called Nazareth in the Old Testament, which exhaustively lists even the tiniest settlements, en.wikipedia.org.../File:12_Tribes_of_Israel_Map.svg

Even though the book of Matthew claims that there is prophecy that states that "He" dwelled in Nazareth, because there was a prophecy that said "He" would be called "Nazarene", no scholars have found such a text, that would verify a town or village by that name existed, in the Old Testament. The Talmud list 63 villages in Galilee, but doesn't mention one called Nazareth.

Josephus lists a whopping 204 Jewish settlements, 45 in Galilee alone, not one mention of Nazareth.

Now, we know that a place was settled and claimed as "the" Nazareth , sometime in the 3rd - 4th centuries, but we DON'T know that that area actually WAS the acclaimed tiny farm community of Nazareth, or if there even was one. We are left with "The Bible says so" as the only real reference to its 1st century existence. Christians, during the 3rd - 4th, were famously taking over sacred sites and converting them to Christian Shrines, so the rumors of Christian nuns, of "this holy spot", hundreds of years of later, just aren't credible enough to take seriously as historical evidence.

a reply to: windword

Thanks windword. You put it perfectly, so I don't have to.

a reply to: Astyanax

You already said it all. I was just summing up what's already been posted.

Once the address is established, they can go through all the old post office records. I think they said 1313 Mockingbird Lane.

a reply to: windword

Nobody says there was a village called Nazareth during the time the old Testament was written, estimates are it was only settled around 37 BC in it's ongoing from and the only group interested in it were the followers of Jesus, everything indicates that a house at the centre of that village was understood as the childhood home of Jesus and that the village continued to develop and gain prominence and become more widely known, a very straight forward picture, and nobody was settling and claiming anything in the 3rd-4th century as you misleadingly suggest.

With regards to the Nazarene claim, it's certain that Jesus wasn't an actual one as he didn't follow their regulations, more likely that the commonality between the term and his place of origin suggested a mystical connection through providence, and it would obviously have been picked up on.


a reply to: Astyanax

Because the modern Nazareth developed from the old one and Jesus' house is in the historic centre, the place didn't start being called Nazareth long after the time of Jesus as there isn't anything to suggest it's ever been called anything else since when it was founded.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Nobody says there was a village called Nazareth during the time the old Testament was written, estimates are it was only settled around 37 BC in it's ongoing from and the only group interested in it were the followers of Jesus, everything indicates that a house at the centre of that village was understood as the childhood home of Jesus and that the village continued to develop and gain prominence and become more widely known, a very straight forward picture, and nobody was settling and claiming anything in the 3rd-4th century as you misleadingly suggest.

This is the claim that you've continually asserted throughout this thread. You're claiming an oral tradition and biblical reference as historical facts. They aren't. I don't know where the claim of Nazareth first being settled in 37 BC comes from, (seems a convenient date for Christian apologetics), but the town/city, as it's mentioned in the New Testament isn't mentioned by Josephus or in Talmud, either, and they were modern surveys, at the time.

With regards to the Nazarene claim, it's certain that Jesus wasn't an actual one as he didn't follow their regulations, more likely that the commonality between the term and his place of origin suggested a mystical connection through providence, and it would obviously have been picked up on.

Nothing about who Jesus was, or if he was, is certain. However, when we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with what Jesus supposedly taught, he echoes their sentiment. Jesus of Nazareth, in many ways, reflects the description of their Teacher of Righteousness.

a reply to: windword

The attestations of Nazareth in the Gospels are important historical evidence, that they can be seen to correspond to what has been excavated is why this for me is case closed.

The Dead sea scrolls sect were a schismatic sect who were claiming the right to running the Jerusalem Temple and opposed to the group they saw as collaborators, a typical group of Levitical zealots, the historical backgroud of Galilee is far more interesting in terms of providing insight into the religious syncretism of the Gospels

It has been suggested that Jesus, while living in Nazareth, may have worked as a craftsman at Sepphoris,where, during his youth 'the largest restoration project' of his time took place.

Archaeological investigations at the site have led to numerous debates about the influence of this town on Jesus, and shed light on differences within Galilean society.

The inhabitants of Sepphoris did not join the Great Jewish Revolt against Roman rule of 66 CE. The Roman legate in Syria, Cestius Gallus, killed some 2,000 "brigands and rebels" in the area, and sold its inhabitants into slavery. The Jerusalemite Josephus, a son of Jerusalem's priestly elite had been sent north to recruit the Galilee into the rebellion's fold, but was only partially successful. He made two attempts to capture Sepphoris, but failed to conquer it, the first time because of fierce Galilean resistance, the second because a garrison came to assist in the city's defence.

Sepphoris and Jerusalem may be seen to symbolize a cultural divide between those that sought to avoid any contact with the surrounding Roman culture and those who within limits, were prepared to adopt aspects of that culture.

Sepphoris