Jesus' house discovered

Something else has just occurred to me.

If somebody is supposedly the son of a god , would that make him be of total historical importance ? I mean its not everyday the living embodiment of a god walks among us , is it ?

So then why has it taken over 2000 years to discover where this utterly important historical figure lived ?????

originally posted by: Gideon70
Something else has just occurred to me.

If somebody is supposedly the son of a god , would that make him be of total historical importance ? I mean its not everyday the living embodiment of a god walks among us , is it ?

So then why has it taken over 2000 years to discover where this utterly important historical figure lived ?????

Because as the story goes, the Devil tried to eradicate him at birth, corrupt him as a man, killed him on the cross then waged war on his following so naturally any trace of him would be contested in a world under the control of said Devil.

Do you even know the story you take delight in doubting?

originally posted by: windword
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.

If you bothered to read my whole reply, or if you did your comprehension is in question, I said there was evidence of historical Jesus, but the deification of a man named Jesus has not been established outside of the bible. Did you not read my comments of what I really think of the bible?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.

Common sense? LOL

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

[....]\

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

[.........]

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

Jesus NEVER suckled at Nazareth.

a reply to: UnBreakable

If you bothered to read my whole reply, or if you did your comprehension is in question, I said there was evidence of historical Jesus,

I read your reply. What historical Jesus? Who IS the historical Jesus? Where/when was he born? Where when did he die? What evidence of a historic Jesus do we have?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gideon70
Something else has just occurred to me.

If somebody is supposedly the son of a god , would that make him be of total historical importance ? I mean its not everyday the living embodiment of a god walks among us , is it ?

So then why has it taken over 2000 years to discover where this utterly important historical figure lived ?????

Because as the story goes,

As you say, "the story". Any proof outside the bible which is a collection of stories including Jonah who lived in the stomach of a great fish for three days? What makes any more of the "stories" more plausible, like the devil trying to eradicate his birthplace? Tolkein's Lord of the Ring stories are more believable, with a more credible source (Tolkein).
And were people really named Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, John, Thomas, etc. in the ME back then?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UnBreakable

If you bothered to read my whole reply, or if you did your comprehension is in question, I said there was evidence of historical Jesus,

I read your reply. What historical Jesus? Who IS the historical Jesus? Where/when was he born? Where when did he die? What evidence of a historic Jesus do we have?

You actually answered your own question. You say Josephus mentions 19 guys named Jesus. Therefore there were at least 19 men named Jesus who existed back then according to Josephus. Again whether any one of these 19 guys were the Son of God is the question.

"Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” "

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44)."
www.gotquestions.org...

Well the secular community is out crying the blues I see.
As they only see vindications of the life of Jesus Christ
by scholarly historicity and archeaology. Indeed, over and
over we are witness to archeaological finds that vindicate
the history only the Bible has recorded. Sardons palace,
the hitites to name a few. And how many finds have been
made by archeaologists to show the Bible is mistaken?
None, and it will only continue to be so.

And they want to say it's all a fairytale?

a reply to: randyvs

Finding the house he lived in doesn't mean he is the "Son of God". It just means he was a real person who lived in a house.

a reply to: Kryties

That's not information.

SnF for a solid post.

There is a general belief that Nazareth was translated in error as it didn't exist then as such and wasn't mentioned in ancient texts of the time.

It is suggested that Jesus was a NAZARENE rather than from Nazareth.

I have written about it a lot in various ATS threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.thenazareneway.com...

Biblical scholars and clergy alike have always had difficulty accepting the possibility that at the time of Jesus there was no city called “Nazareth.” They have always resisted this possibility and sometimes, quite vigorously.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, and perhaps the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud (the Jewish law code), nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages, and Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD), a widely traveled historian who never missed anything and who voluminously describes the region. The name is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

The first reference to Nazareth is in the New Testament where it can be found 29 different times. However, there is still cause for speculation as to whether or not the city existed at the time of Jesus. It is mentioned only in the Gospels and Acts. These books do refer to Nazareth, but they did not originate at this time, they are later writings. The earlier writings of the NT (Paul etc) mention Jesus 221 times - but never mention Nazareth.

At the time of Jesus, there were three major Jewish Sects. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were relatively similar in their beliefs and traditions, but the Essenes were radically different and openly opposed the theology, doctrines, and the spiritual integrity of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

There are numerous historical, literary and archaeological accounts of the existence of the Essenes, yet the bible is strangely silent about them. We know of their specific geographic locations throughout Egypt and ancient Palestine, we know of their customs and traditions, and we know the details of their deeply rooted spiritual convictions and of their esoteric religious beliefs.

The word Essene is a collective term and is not necessarily a distinctive designation, just as the word Christian encompasses a wide base of institutionalized systems of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices. There are currently over 34,000 separate Christian groups that have been identified throughout the world. Most are independent churches.

At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.

The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.

The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied.

Josephus and other classic writers tell us of the Essenes and their intense appreciation for the inspired Law of God and that they "strove to be like the angels of heaven." They also opposed slavery, the sacrificing of animals and the eating of flesh. Their highest aim was to become fit temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 6:19), to be healers and perform cures, especially spiritual cures, and to be spiritually qualified as forerunners of the Messiah, the latter being the primary spiritual focus of the Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Okay, so by accepting Tacitus, (although there are valid arguments against the Tacitus record) you're accepting someone you believe was called "Christ" existed and was killed at the hand of Pontius Pilate.

Lots of people were called "Christ" and lots of zealots were killed at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Where's the historicity of one Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth?

ETA: "Chrestus" and "Christ" are two entirely different titles.

Isn’t that something…The is the place Jesus did home homework

Did they find any toys?

There is research that suggests Nazarene is correct.

www.thenazareneway.com...

In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:

"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, New Revised Standard Version).

It is clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus.

Many authors have argued that "Nazarene" was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself. The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene" (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22).

Translations of the Bible, from the fifth century Vulgate on, have generally rendered this into a form equivalent to "Jesus of Nazareth." However, it is not the most accurate translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be more accurate, and some critics have argued that it is also more plausible given that the city of Nazareth seems to have not existed at the time of Jesus; it is unmentioned in any contemporary history and it is not possible to prove its early existence other than by reference to the gospels.

The Vulgate does use a form equivalent to "Nazarene" in one verse (Matthew 2:23), where its reading is Nazaroeus (Nazoraios), but here the original Greek has the word Nazarene on its own, without Iesou.

However we translate these verses from the gospels, the evidence from Acts 24 does support the claim that "Nazarene" was an early term for the followers of Jesus. But it does not appear to have been the term most used by those followers: the earliest Christian writings we have, the letters of Paul (which predate the gospels by ten to forty years), use the phrase "followers of The Way."

Derivations of "Nazarene"

Regardless of these issues of translation, it seems clear that the term "Nazarenes" had at least some currency as a description of some followers of Jesus. What, therefore, does the word mean? The word Nazarene might come from at least four different sources:

1) The place-name Nazareth, via the Greek form Iesou Nazarene; this is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity. In support of this interpretation is that Iesou Nazarene is applied to Jesus in the Gospels only by those who are outside the circle of his intimate friends, as would be natural if a place-name was meant. However in Acts it is employed by Peter and Paul, and attributed by Paul to the risen Christ (Acts, 22:8). Matthew 2:23 reads that "coming he dwelt in a city said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene," though no convincing identification of the prophecy concerned has been brought forward, the phrasing again strongly suggests that Matthew meant "Nazarene" to refer to a place name. Matthew, apparently, did not want "Jesus" associated with "a sect" called "Nazarenes" and "The Way," perhaps the earliest attempt to diminish the importance of The Nazarenes.

2) The word netzer meaning "branch" or "off-shoot." This could in turn refer to the claim that Jesus was a "descendant of David," or to the view that Jesus (or rather the teachings he or his followers advocated) were an offshoot from Judaism.

3) The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes".

4) The word nazir which refers to a man who is consecrated and bound by a vow to God, symbolized by avoiding cutting his hair, eating meat or drinking alcohol. Such a man is usually referred to as a Nazirite in English translations, and there are a number of references to Nazirites in the Old Testament.

None of these interpretations is unproblematic. It is therefore, quite possible that "Nazarene" or "Nazorean" were simply a deliberate play on words combining Nazirite with Essene or Nazirite with Pythagorean..

a reply to: UnBreakable

Again whether any one of these 19 guys were the Son of God is the question.

No it's not. Josephus names men named Jesus with their stories with their given family titles, just like Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth was Jesus' supposed given name. Josephus names 19 men named Jesus that AREN'T Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth.

That’s a real dump. Jesus must of have been of welfare

I knew he was a democrat!

originally posted by: Gideon70
I mean its not everyday the living embodiment of a god walks among us , is it ?

You don't know that for sure.

a reply to: windword

So because there were countless people named John
in the sixties, John Lennon most likely never existed?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UnBreakable

Okay, so by accepting Tacitus, (although there are valid arguments against the Tacitus record) you're accepting someone you believe was called "Christ" existed and was killed at the hand of Pontius Pilate.

Lots of people were called "Christ" and lots of zealots were killed at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Where's the historicity of one Jesus the son of Joseph or Jesus of Nazareth?

ETA: "Chrestus" and "Christ" are two entirely different titles.

Yes, in some convoluted way we agree. What I'm saying there were guys named Jesus and/or Christ who lived about 2,000 years ago, as documented by various historians at the time. Whether any of these guys was the Son of God, as supposed to be believed, is open to conjecture as the only agreed upon source of various supernatural attributes of God-like is the bible.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.

Common sense? LOL

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

[....]\

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

[.........]

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,

18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,

20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

Jesus NEVER suckled at Nazareth.

Born in a manger in Bethleham as they were on some pilgrimage. They returned to their house in Nazareth, they didn't live in a manger.