Jesus' house discovered

a reply to: Kantzveldt

I understand that, for you, the case is closed. You've claimed that this IS the definitive house of Jesus, when you said "Pretty hard to deny Jesus existed when we found his house", earlier in the thread.

The Bible itself isn't historical evidence of anything. There is no historical evidence that Nazareth existed as a named and independent community in the 1st century, and there IS proof that it didn't exist as the "city" that's described in the Bible. That's enough to discredit its existence for me. But Matthew's specific mention that the family settled in "Nazareth" so that prophecy could be fulfilled, is final "mythical" nail for me.

ETA:

I should add that it wouldn't matter to me IF Nazareth WAS a real place, during the 1st century. Egypt was a real place and so was Israel. as were Herod and Pilate. I still stand behind my stance that Jesus Christ, AKA Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical person, and/or a composite figure, not an historical person.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

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.

Inedeed. The 'old Nazareth', as you have shown us, is a figment of interested parties' imagination.

How have you shown us? By failing to provide any evidence for the claim. You are a student of these matters; had there been any, you would have known of it, and doubtless you would have put it up for our inspection. If someone as knowledeable as you can provide nothing better than self-serving references found in an ancient work of fiction that poses as fact, I think we may safely conclude that there is no evidence.

Nazareth was not founded until well into the Christian era. There may have been a house (more than one, even) at the site earlier, but the site was not, as far as we can tell, known as Nazareth.

And that, I think, is that.

a reply to: Astyanax

Sure just throw out a bunch of false statements on your way out why don't you...


'old Nazareth', as you have shown us, is a figment of interested parties' imagination

...False


How have you shown us? By failing to provide any evidence for the claim

...False


self-serving references found in an ancient work of fiction that poses as fact

...False


I think we may safely conclude that there is no evidence.

...False


Nazareth was not founded until well into the Christian era

...False


but the site was not, as far as we can tell, known as Nazareth.

...False

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Astyanax

Sure just throw out a bunch of false statements on your way out why don't you...


'old Nazareth', as you have shown us, is a figment of interested parties' imagination

...False


How have you shown us? By failing to provide any evidence for the claim

...False


self-serving references found in an ancient work of fiction that poses as fact

...False


I think we may safely conclude that there is no evidence.

...False


Nazareth was not founded until well into the Christian era

...False


but the site was not, as far as we can tell, known as Nazareth.

...False

He's right about the nazerith claim (as even the OP article hints). In the OP article it says that MIDDLE AGES Christians believed this was the house of Jesus.


The archeology of the 1st century tells a far different story. In the first century, Nazareth was a VERY small "village" containing only a handful or two of family homesteads. Not even remotely big enough for a church. Nor are there any non biblical references of a church in nazerith at that time. While there are references to the churches (synagogues) in the surrounding cities, that were actually cities.

I'm sure this is what the previous poster was referencing. So I think you saying false is just as egotistical as the certainty that he is using.

Any one being honest would admit we are dealing with probubility not certainty when refering to events 2000 years ago.


For example, the whole 'rejection in his homeland' story requires at a minimum a synagogue in which the godman can 'blaspheme.' Where was the synagogue in this tiny bucolic hamlet? Why was it not obvious to the first pilgrims like Helena (see below) – it would, after all, have been far more pertinent to her hero than a well? In reality, such a small, rustic community could never have afforded its own holy scrolls, let alone a dedicated building to house them. As peasant farmers almost certainly they would have been illiterate to a man.

If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.

Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49) when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?

Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?

If Nazareth really had been barely a hamlet, lost in the hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked the response 'Jesus of WHERE?' The predictable apologetic of quoting gospel John ("Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" - 1.46) implies that the questioner, Nathanael, had indeed "heard of" the vanishing small hamlet (Nathanael was supposedly a local boy from Cana). But would anyone outside of Galilee have recognized the name?

Then again, if Nazareth had really been a tiny hamlet, the nearest convenient 'mountain' from which the god-man could have been thrown – a cliff edge (Luke 4.28-30) – would have been 4 km away, requiring an energetic climb over limestone crags. Would the superman really have been frog-marched so far before 'passing through the midst of them' and making his escape?

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Astyanax

Sure just throw out a bunch of false statements on your way out why don't you...


'old Nazareth', as you have shown us, is a figment of interested parties' imagination

...False


How have you shown us? By failing to provide any evidence for the claim

...False


self-serving references found in an ancient work of fiction that poses as fact

...False


I think we may safely conclude that there is no evidence.

...False


Nazareth was not founded until well into the Christian era

...False


but the site was not, as far as we can tell, known as Nazareth.

...False

He's right about the nazerith claim (as even the OP article hints). In the OP article it says that MIDDLE AGES Christians believed this was the house of Jesus.


The archeology of the 1st century tells a far different story. In the first century, Nazareth was a VERY small "village" containing only a handful or two of family homesteads. Not even remotely big enough for a church. Nor are there any non biblical references of a church in nazerith at that time. While there are references to the churches (synagogues) in the surrounding cities, that were actually cities.

I'm sure this is what the previous poster was referencing. So I think you saying false is just as egotistical as the certainty that he is using.

Any one being honest would admit we are dealing with probubility not certainty when refering to events 2000 years ago.


Random article that came up when I googled it. No time for more getting dressed for work.

For example, the whole 'rejection in his homeland' story requires at a minimum a synagogue in which the godman can 'blaspheme.' Where was the synagogue in this tiny bucolic hamlet? Why was it not obvious to the first pilgrims like Helena (see below) – it would, after all, have been far more pertinent to her hero than a well? In reality, such a small, rustic community could never have afforded its own holy scrolls, let alone a dedicated building to house them. As peasant farmers almost certainly they would have been illiterate to a man.

If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.

Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49) when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?

Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?

If Nazareth really had been barely a hamlet, lost in the hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked the response 'Jesus of WHERE?' The predictable apologetic of quoting gospel John ("Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" - 1.46) implies that the questioner, Nathanael, had indeed "heard of" the vanishing small hamlet (Nathanael was supposedly a local boy from Cana). But would anyone outside of Galilee have recognized the name?

Then again, if Nazareth had really been a tiny hamlet, the nearest convenient 'mountain' from which the god-man could have been thrown – a cliff edge (Luke 4.28-30) – would have been 4 km away, requiring an energetic climb over limestone crags. Would the superman really have been frog-marched so far before 'passing through the midst of them' and making his escape?

edit on 10-3-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Entreri06

Again, thanks to another poster — this time, yourself — for making the facts of my case clear.

However,

I think you saying false is just as egotistical as the certainty that he is using.

I am not pretending to any kind of certainty, except that I am (now) certain that there is no evidence for a first-century Nazareth. I wasn't earlier; I was asking whether there was evidence or not. The failure of Kantzveldt or anyone else to provide any, together with the believers' increasingly anxious bluster, have convinced me of the absence of any evidence.

Whether absence is evidence is evidence of absence in this case is something we can all decide for ourselves.

originally posted by: Gideon70

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Gideon70

Isnt funny how the followers of this mumbo jumbo

I changed my post... Maybe you should try not demeaning/insulting 2 billion people roughly just because you have an axe to grind.

If you don't believe that's fine, question the historical relevance, no problem, start off insulting the belifs of roughly 2 billion people and some folks are going to have an issue with that.

Since your initial insult , I really don't care what your thoughts are .

Since the existance of a single holy deity cannot be even remotely proven, then it stands to reason that anything to do with said subject must also be viewed that way.

I really couldn't care less that my views upset certain individuals especially those with unfounded and occasionally delusional beliefs.

And that is exactly what is wrong with the world today.
We seem to have lost basic common courtesy to our fellow man.
Argue and question points, thats why we are here afterall,but do so in a respectfull manner.
Defend yourself when attacked yes... but know when to be a bigger man/women and just step away.