Jesus' house discovered

originally posted by: Gideon70

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gideon70

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
I detect a lot of hate in posts repudiating they found the house Jesus suckled in as a baby.

According to the story they had to abandon their home and seek refuge in Egypt, the whole killing off every firstborn atrocity to try to eradicate him. Seems today something is still trying to eradicate that he existed.

Nah mate.
Just some of us refuse to believe in fairy stories.

How many people have died in the name of religion ?
How many have killed to protect their beliefs ?
Wars have been fought and millions have died and for what ?

Religion has no place in any decent , logical thinking society.

So you hate religion. Think of how many people were comforted in their last days because of religion, or how many people religion takes in and provides real help in desperate moments. Millions upon millions of undocumented acts of kindness all happened and continue to happen because of religion. It is only the marriage of State and Religion that you are referring to, which is a bastardization of any religion.

You are very wrong . You ASSUME I hate religion when in reality I really don't care for fantasies.
Religion is just a crutch for the weak and the people terrified of their own mortality.

Each religion is intolerant , greedy , bigotted and murderous. This by far outweighs any chartitable deeds.

Again you only describe the marriage of Church and State. This does not exist anywhere today for Christianity. Islam is another story, they didn't come out of the dark ages yet.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Sorry I'm going to take this a tad offtopic, but it has recently come to my attention that saying that Islam hasn't come out of the dark ages yet is a falsehood. When Europe was in the throes of the Middle Ages (Dark Ages is a derogatory term invented during the Renaissance because the people of the time believed they were more enlightened than in the Middle Ages, historians are moving away from this term) and wrapped up in over fundamentalism of the Catholic religion, Islam was keeping the teachings of logic, reason, and science alive. They continued to push the boundaries of human knowledge throughout this entire time making them the America of that time and Europe the Middle East.

Islam fundamentalism is actually a recent invention and not representative of Muslims not evolving socially for the last 1000 years.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Sorry I'm going to take this a tad offtopic, but it has recently come to my attention that saying that Islam hasn't come out of the dark ages yet is a falsehood. When Europe was in the throes of the Middle Ages (Dark Ages is a derogatory term invented during the Renaissance because the people of the time believed they were more enlightened than in the Middle Ages, historians are moving away from this term) and wrapped up in over fundamentalism of the Catholic religion, Islam was keeping the teachings of logic, reason, and science alive. They continued to push the boundaries of human knowledge throughout this entire time making them the America of that time and Europe the Middle East.

Islam fundamentalism is actually a recent invention and not representative of Muslims not evolving socially for the last 1000 years.

Islam teaches to marry their religion to the State. Sharia, the Caliphate and all that jazz.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

That isn't evidence. Again, the site could have been enshrined after the fact to increase economic activity in a poor town. It is just an unverifiable testimonial. After a few generations of keeping this con up, it is likely that the truth of the matter would be forgotten. And surely by the time the Byzantines and other explorers talked to the locals the lie was certainly lost to time.

Do you not know how to determine historical evidence or something? We don't make definitive claims off of singular testimonials. Especially testimonials that occurred 2000 years ago. We need multiple and different sources that all tell the same story. This is just one claim that cannot be verified. It is therefore untrustworthy.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

So, go and stick a blue plaque on the wall outside the cave and then move on with your life.
But dont for one second think that a finding like this vindicates the beliefs of Christianity........ It proves nothing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

That isn't evidence. Again, the site could have been enshrined after the fact to increase economic activity in a poor town. It is just an unverifiable testimonial. After a few generations of keeping this con up, it is likely that the truth of the matter would be forgotten. And surely by the time the Byzantines and other explorers talked to the locals the lie was certainly lost to time.

Do you not know how to determine historical evidence or something? We don't make definitive claims off of singular testimonials. Especially testimonials that occurred 2000 years ago. We need multiple and different sources that all tell the same story. This is just one claim that cannot be verified. It is therefore untrustworthy.

I find it just as trustworthy as a black stone people kiss is something special.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So what's your point? Up until America was founded so did Catholics and Protestants. That doesn't mean their societies were backwards this entire time. Muslim history is just as diverse and changing as European history. To condense it into a soundbite like that they haven't evolved for the last 1000 years does a disservice to their culture and where they came from.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

That isn't evidence. Again, the site could have been enshrined after the fact to increase economic activity in a poor town. It is just an unverifiable testimonial. After a few generations of keeping this con up, it is likely that the truth of the matter would be forgotten. And surely by the time the Byzantines and other explorers talked to the locals the lie was certainly lost to time.

Do you not know how to determine historical evidence or something? We don't make definitive claims off of singular testimonials. Especially testimonials that occurred 2000 years ago. We need multiple and different sources that all tell the same story. This is just one claim that cannot be verified. It is therefore untrustworthy.

I find it just as trustworthy as a black stone people kiss is something special.

You find it trustworthy because you have a confirmation bias speaking. You WANT it to be true because you want Jesus to be true. This allows you to elevate shaky evidence to more firmer grounds in your head. That is why I told you to drop your confirmation bias first THEN analyze the evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

That isn't evidence. Again, the site could have been enshrined after the fact to increase economic activity in a poor town. It is just an unverifiable testimonial. After a few generations of keeping this con up, it is likely that the truth of the matter would be forgotten. And surely by the time the Byzantines and other explorers talked to the locals the lie was certainly lost to time.

Do you not know how to determine historical evidence or something? We don't make definitive claims off of singular testimonials. Especially testimonials that occurred 2000 years ago. We need multiple and different sources that all tell the same story. This is just one claim that cannot be verified. It is therefore untrustworthy.

I find it just as trustworthy as a black stone people kiss is something special.

You find it trustworthy because you have a confirmation bias speaking. You WANT it to be true because you want Jesus to be true. This allows you to elevate shaky evidence to more firmer grounds in your head. That is why I told you to drop your confirmation bias first THEN analyze the evidence.

The evidence provided in the story is enough to set this site apart as extraordinary and the reason is given. You just want to completely ignore it because of your religion hate bias.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That means that the holy family likely only lived there for a year or two max. That really isn't much time to remember who lived in the house 30 some years later when he was supposed to have become famous or 100+ years later when the gospels were supposedly written.

Why? After he had a following those people would have been very interested in anything related to him after he was gone. Think of how easy it is to find the dwelling of any famous person from lets say the Civil War era in the US. Take Abraham Lincoln for example, we can easily find where he lived. Or the house of George Washington.

George Washington lived in a HUGE house and there are public records of him doing so. There are also public records of where Lincoln lived along with private writings. These are all primary and secondary sources that would corroborate local communities' claims that these people lived there. There are literally ZERO records of where Jesus lived. No writings, nothing. Just claims from people who lived hundreds of years after Jesus in allegedly the same town he was born.

I visited a home that George Washington slept in all they had was a story. However they can indeed be passed down generations.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

That isn't evidence. Again, the site could have been enshrined after the fact to increase economic activity in a poor town. It is just an unverifiable testimonial. After a few generations of keeping this con up, it is likely that the truth of the matter would be forgotten. And surely by the time the Byzantines and other explorers talked to the locals the lie was certainly lost to time.

Do you not know how to determine historical evidence or something? We don't make definitive claims off of singular testimonials. Especially testimonials that occurred 2000 years ago. We need multiple and different sources that all tell the same story. This is just one claim that cannot be verified. It is therefore untrustworthy.

I find it just as trustworthy as a black stone people kiss is something special.

You find it trustworthy because you have a confirmation bias speaking. You WANT it to be true because you want Jesus to be true. This allows you to elevate shaky evidence to more firmer grounds in your head. That is why I told you to drop your confirmation bias first THEN analyze the evidence.

The evidence provided in the story is enough to set this site apart as extraordinary and the reason is given. You just want to completely ignore it because of your religion hate bias.

No it isn't. The evidence in the story is enough to make you go, "maybe", but that's it. It may give you something to search further for, but it is NOT evidence alone of the claims being made.

a reply to: dragonridr

How do you know they were telling the truth then and not just telling you a story to jack up the cost of sleeping there or just to tell a cool story?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I detect a lot of hate in posts repudiating they found the house Jesus suckled in as a baby.

According to the story they had to abandon their home and seek refuge in Egypt, the whole killing off every firstborn atrocity to try to eradicate him. Seems today something is still trying to eradicate that he existed.

How could baby Jesus have "suckled" in that house when they took him to Egypt until he was, supposedly, between 4 and 6 years of age, if he even existed in the first place?

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real. Did they find any ancient writings in the house or area?

There is evidence historical Jesus did exist. His deification as the Son of God is another matter, unless of course fairy-tale stories written by man during the Bronze Age are to be believed as credible historical fact. And they did find ancient writings in the house. Carved on a bedpost with a penknife in Aramaic says 'Jesus slept here.'

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Again, there is PLENTY of contemporaneous evidence explaining where Lincoln lived including his own writings. But, if after 2000 years none of this evidence survives then the historians of that era would be just as intellectually dishonest in pointing out Lincoln's house as we would be trying to say that this place is Jesus' house. You cannot inference a fact based on shaky evidence. If the evidence doesn't exist to make a definitive claim then you just leave it ambiguous even if the the claim is in reality true.

Your reasoning is just a bunch of justifications for your confirmation bias. Drop your confirmation bias then look at the evidence and see what it says.

You are purposely ignoring the findings in the story. The evidence they provide is the site being enshrined at various times throughout history and all for the same reason, a house Jesus lived in as a baby.

That isn't evidence. Again, the site could have been enshrined after the fact to increase economic activity in a poor town. It is just an unverifiable testimonial. After a few generations of keeping this con up, it is likely that the truth of the matter would be forgotten. And surely by the time the Byzantines and other explorers talked to the locals the lie was certainly lost to time.

Do you not know how to determine historical evidence or something? We don't make definitive claims off of singular testimonials. Especially testimonials that occurred 2000 years ago. We need multiple and different sources that all tell the same story. This is just one claim that cannot be verified. It is therefore untrustworthy.

I find it just as trustworthy as a black stone people kiss is something special.

You find it trustworthy because you have a confirmation bias speaking. You WANT it to be true because you want Jesus to be true. This allows you to elevate shaky evidence to more firmer grounds in your head. That is why I told you to drop your confirmation bias first THEN analyze the evidence.

The evidence provided in the story is enough to set this site apart as extraordinary and the reason is given. You just want to completely ignore it because of your religion hate bias.

No it isn't. The evidence in the story is enough to make you go, "maybe", but that's it. It may give you something to search further for, but it is NOT evidence alone of the claims being made.

All of the venerated sites Islamic State is destroying today are suffering the same fate as sites such as this Jesus baby house did in the past.
We seen them, we know what they are and when Islamic State fails and gets tossed into the dustbin of history new shrines of the same purpose will be placed where the original ones were. Does this mean the bastards won and eradicated the meaning and identity of the sites? Nope. Thousands of years from now people will wonder what the original sites looked like but they will still find what their purpose was.

a reply to: UnBreakable

There is evidence historical Jesus did exist.

Which Jesus? Jesus who? Josephus mentions no less than 19 men named Jesus, not one them named Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth.

There is no evidence of his birth and the biblical narratives of a census or the "Slaughter of the Innocents", let alone a rogue star in the heavens. There's no record of his death, the earthquakes or the dead walking about Jerusalem on that day. Nobody recorded thousands of people gathered to hear him speak on the mount, and then feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes.

There is no evidence of the biblical character called Jesus Christ ever existed.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I detect a lot of hate in posts repudiating they found the house Jesus suckled in as a baby.

According to the story they had to abandon their home and seek refuge in Egypt, the whole killing off every firstborn atrocity to try to eradicate him. Seems today something is still trying to eradicate that he existed.

How could baby Jesus have "suckled" in that house when they took him to Egypt until he was, supposedly, between 4 and 6 years of age, if he even existed in the first place?

He suckled there until they fled to Egypt. Simple common sense.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Roundabout reasoning and a bandwagon appeal fallacy. Just because all those people believe in those sites doesn't mean that what they claim to have happened there did. You STILL need the corroborating evidence to confirm these things. People believe lies all the time and sometimes for their entire lives.