| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Giant Sloth" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2004 12:55:15 AM |
| Object: |
Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
But one detects a certain bias in his website. Is he a crackpot, or
is the information valid? Does he omit or diminish evidence against
his view? Even the Jesus Seminar website doesn't say much about
Nazareth, the non-existence of which would lend considerable
credibility to the idea that Jesus never existed.
.
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
24 Feb 2004 11:06:19 AM |
|
|
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
But one detects a certain bias in his website. Is he a crackpot, or
is the information valid? Does he omit or diminish evidence against
his view? Even the Jesus Seminar website doesn't say much about
Nazareth, the non-existence of which would lend considerable
credibility to the idea that Jesus never existed.
Samson from Nazereth?
Judg 16:17
17 that he told her all his heart, and said to her, "No razor has ever come
upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If I
am shaven, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be
like any other man."
NKJV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
24 Feb 2004 02:10:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:06:19 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
But one detects a certain bias in his website. Is he a crackpot, or
is the information valid? Does he omit or diminish evidence against
his view? Even the Jesus Seminar website doesn't say much about
Nazareth, the non-existence of which would lend considerable
credibility to the idea that Jesus never existed.
Samson from Nazereth?
Judg 16:17
17 that he told her all his heart, and said to her, "No razor has ever come
upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If I
am shaven, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be
like any other man."
NKJV
Sampson was a member of the Nazarene sect. He was from Saraa.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
24 Feb 2004 01:19:31 PM |
|
|
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
But one detects a certain bias in his website. Is he a crackpot, or
is the information valid? Does he omit or diminish evidence against
his view? Even the Jesus Seminar website doesn't say much about
Nazareth, the non-existence of which would lend considerable
credibility to the idea that Jesus never existed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 01:54:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 08:19:17 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:p0lo309g94o3dhbqkvcvrsoj1tp9ukn2qg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
You're going to doubt the entire gospels based on that?
Actually there is archeological evidence of Nazereth.
There was some engraved writings found in Caesarea
mentioning Nazereth.
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
The "problem" lies in trying to uncover evidence that
has been covered up by 2000 years of history.
Including the Romans destruction, the Roman
Christian period, the invasion of Muslims,
the invasion of the Crusaders, the re-taking
by the Muslims, the re-taking by the Jews .
Each time someone built their buildings
and churches and mosques and synagogues on top
former buildings and living places.
That and the natural effects of time and nature.
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 01:46:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:19:17 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:p0lo309g94o3dhbqkvcvrsoj1tp9ukn2qg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
You're going to doubt the entire gospels based on that?
Actually there is archeological evidence of Nazereth.
There was some engraved writings found in Caesarea
mentioning Nazereth.
No one has said that Nazareth has not existed for a long time. There
is no evidence that it existed at the supposed time of Jesus.
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
The "problem" lies in trying to uncover evidence that
has been covered up by 2000 years of history.
Including the Romans destruction, the Roman
Christian period, the invasion of Muslims,
the invasion of the Crusaders, the re-taking
by the Muslims, the re-taking by the Jews .
Each time someone built their buildings
and churches and mosques and synagogues on top
former buildings and living places.
That and the natural effects of time and nature.
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 03:54:00 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:19:17 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:p0lo309g94o3dhbqkvcvrsoj1tp9ukn2qg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
You're going to doubt the entire gospels based on that?
Actually there is archeological evidence of Nazereth.
There was some engraved writings found in Caesarea
mentioning Nazereth.
No one has said that Nazareth has not existed for a long time. There
is no evidence that it existed at the supposed time of Jesus.
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
The "problem" lies in trying to uncover evidence that
has been covered up by 2000 years of history.
Including the Romans destruction, the Roman
Christian period, the invasion of Muslims,
the invasion of the Crusaders, the re-taking
by the Muslims, the re-taking by the Jews .
Each time someone built their buildings
and churches and mosques and synagogues on top
former buildings and living places.
That and the natural effects of time and nature.
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 05:37:00 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:19:17 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:p0lo309g94o3dhbqkvcvrsoj1tp9ukn2qg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
You're going to doubt the entire gospels based on that?
Actually there is archeological evidence of Nazereth.
There was some engraved writings found in Caesarea
mentioning Nazereth.
No one has said that Nazareth has not existed for a long time. There
is no evidence that it existed at the supposed time of Jesus.
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
The "problem" lies in trying to uncover evidence that
has been covered up by 2000 years of history.
Including the Romans destruction, the Roman
Christian period, the invasion of Muslims,
the invasion of the Crusaders, the re-taking
by the Muslims, the re-taking by the Jews .
Each time someone built their buildings
and churches and mosques and synagogues on top
former buildings and living places.
That and the natural effects of time and nature.
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Let's look at this more closely:
Luke 4:28-30
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29
They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill
on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But he
walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
(from New International Version)
Luke 4:29
29 and they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city, and led him unto
the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him
down headlong.
ASV
It says they rose up and cast him OUT OF THE CITY and LED HIM TO
THE BROW of the HILL where their city was built.
It doesn't say the city was built "on the hill".
In other words they took him out of the city to the nearest hill,
or even more succinct to the BROW of the hill to cast him over.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 01:02:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:37:00 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
snip
Let's look at this more closely:
Luke 4:28-30
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29
They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill
on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But he
walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
(from New International Version)
Luke 4:29
29 and they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city, and led him unto
the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him
down headlong.
ASV
It says they rose up and cast him OUT OF THE CITY and LED HIM TO
THE BROW of the HILL where their city was built.
It doesn't say the city was built "on the hill".
In other words they took him out of the city to the nearest hill,
or even more succinct to the BROW of the hill to cast him over.
Read your own quote. it said:
"...and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was
built,...
You altered the quote.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 08:29:41 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:u66r305lt59l3tppabjniselk9uvl203b4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:37:00 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
snip
Let's look at this more closely:
Luke 4:28-30
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29
They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the
hill
on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But
he
walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
(from New International Version)
Luke 4:29
29 and they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city, and led him unto
the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw
him
down headlong.
ASV
It says they rose up and cast him OUT OF THE CITY and LED HIM TO
THE BROW of the HILL where their city was built.
It doesn't say the city was built "on the hill".
In other words they took him out of the city to the nearest hill,
or even more succinct to the BROW of the hill to cast him over.
Read your own quote. it said:
"...and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was
built,...
You altered the quote.
No, read the verse again. It is VERY clear. They took Him FROM OUT of
the city TO THE HILL.
You're building a whole philosphy upon an obscure verse?
That's ridiculous. The author may not have even known Nazareth.
In fact if Luke was the writer he is a Gentile. But regardless,
the verse is clear, they cast him from the city to the hill.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 10:14:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:29:41 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:u66r305lt59l3tppabjniselk9uvl203b4@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:37:00 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
snip
Let's look at this more closely:
Luke 4:28-30
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29
They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the
hill
on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But
he
walked right through the crowd and went on his way.
(from New International Version)
Luke 4:29
29 and they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city, and led him unto
the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw
him
down headlong.
ASV
It says they rose up and cast him OUT OF THE CITY and LED HIM TO
THE BROW of the HILL where their city was built.
It doesn't say the city was built "on the hill".
In other words they took him out of the city to the nearest hill,
or even more succinct to the BROW of the hill to cast him over.
Read your own quote. it said:
"...and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was
built,...
You altered the quote.
No, read the verse again. It is VERY clear. They took Him FROM OUT of
the city TO THE HILL.
You're building a whole philosphy upon an obscure verse?
That's ridiculous. The author may not have even known Nazareth.
In fact if Luke was the writer he is a Gentile. But regardless,
the verse is clear, they cast him from the city to the hill.
Here is the quote:
They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill
on which the town was built,
Please note the words "and took him to the brow of the hill ON WHICH
the town was built". It is clearly and unambiguously saying the town
was built on a hill. I agree with you that the author did not know
Nazareth. If he had known the town, he would not have written what he
did; that is my point.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 08:08:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:29:41 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
No, read the verse again. It is VERY clear. They took Him FROM OUT of
the city TO THE HILL.
You're building a whole philosphy upon an obscure verse?
That's ridiculous. The author may not have even known Nazareth.
In fact if Luke was the writer he is a Gentile. But regardless,
the verse is clear, they cast him from the city to the hill.
Woooooo! Scary! Ever looked at a map of that area?
How high are the hills there?
What did they do afterwards, after rolling him down that "hill"?
Tickle him with feathers? Or stone him with puffs of cotton wool?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
27 Feb 2004 10:58:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:08:58 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:29:41 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
No, read the verse again. It is VERY clear. They took Him FROM OUT of
the city TO THE HILL.
You're building a whole philosphy upon an obscure verse?
That's ridiculous. The author may not have even known Nazareth.
In fact if Luke was the writer he is a Gentile. But regardless,
the verse is clear, they cast him from the city to the hill.
Woooooo! Scary! Ever looked at a map of that area?
How high are the hills there?
What did they do afterwards, after rolling him down that "hill"?
Tickle him with feathers? Or stone him with puffs of cotton wool?
The made him sit in the comfy chair.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 04:01:18 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:19:17 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:p0lo309g94o3dhbqkvcvrsoj1tp9ukn2qg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
You're going to doubt the entire gospels based on that?
Actually there is archeological evidence of Nazereth.
There was some engraved writings found in Caesarea
mentioning Nazereth.
No one has said that Nazareth has not existed for a long time. There
is no evidence that it existed at the supposed time of Jesus.
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
The "problem" lies in trying to uncover evidence that
has been covered up by 2000 years of history.
Including the Romans destruction, the Roman
Christian period, the invasion of Muslims,
the invasion of the Crusaders, the re-taking
by the Muslims, the re-taking by the Jews .
Each time someone built their buildings
and churches and mosques and synagogues on top
former buildings and living places.
That and the natural effects of time and nature.
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Where do find a biblical account saying Nazareth was built on a hill?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 01:02:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:18 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
snip
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Where do find a biblical account saying Nazareth was built on a hill?
How many times do you have to be told? It is in the fourth chapter of
Luke.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 08:30:29 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:b46r3056le96a56dh4ljo9thjmasulrsts@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:18 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
snip
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Where do find a biblical account saying Nazareth was built on a hill?
How many times do you have to be told? It is in the fourth chapter of
Luke.
You didn't tell me anything. And you haven't proven anything.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
26 Feb 2004 10:14:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:30:29 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:b46r3056le96a56dh4ljo9thjmasulrsts@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:01:18 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
snip
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Where do find a biblical account saying Nazareth was built on a hill?
How many times do you have to be told? It is in the fourth chapter of
Luke.
You didn't tell me anything. And you haven't proven anything.
John, you have quoted the passage yourself. What is the point of
denying it now?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? |
25 Feb 2004 05:38:04 PM |
|
|
Check this website:
http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:vmup30dn419hmjmb9p5pf8mmlss1irnv5g@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:19:17 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:p0lo309g94o3dhbqkvcvrsoj1tp9ukn2qg@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
You're going to doubt the entire gospels based on that?
Actually there is archeological evidence of Nazereth.
There was some engraved writings found in Caesarea
mentioning Nazereth.
No one has said that Nazareth has not existed for a long time. There
is no evidence that it existed at the supposed time of Jesus.
http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Nazareth.htm
The "problem" lies in trying to uncover evidence that
has been covered up by 2000 years of history.
Including the Romans destruction, the Roman
Christian period, the invasion of Muslims,
the invasion of the Crusaders, the re-taking
by the Muslims, the re-taking by the Jews .
Each time someone built their buildings
and churches and mosques and synagogues on top
former buildings and living places.
That and the natural effects of time and nature.
Many at one time didn't believe Pilate ever existed.
But archeology uncovered evidence in Caesarea.
This is one example.
One example of what? There is no evidence for a Nazareth that Jesus
could have lived in. As a matter of fact the town is built on top of
a necropolis an extremely unlikely place for Jews to build a town.
Furthermore, as pointed out, the story describes a town built on top
of a hill, and Nazareth is not on top of a hill.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
25 Feb 2004 09:53:34 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
25 Feb 2004 01:46:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
26 Feb 2004 08:35:02 AM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jqup301ddqrurcsb9k7t2itv3etq6crpun@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
"plausible", do you have any historical or biblical data to support that?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
26 Feb 2004 10:14:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:35:02 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jqup301ddqrurcsb9k7t2itv3etq6crpun@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
"plausible", do you have any historical or biblical data to support that?
Here, once again, are a few of the problems:
The fact that there is no evidence of any Nazareth until after the
time of Jesus.
The fact that the description of Nazareth in Luke does not fit the
actual Nazareth.
The fact that Matthew (in opposition to Luke) describes Joseph and
Mary as residents of Bethlehem who did not settle in Nazareth until
years after the birth of Jesus.
The fact that the story of a census requiring Joseph to travel from
Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to be counted is, on its face, silly
and, therefore, looks very much like a clumsy device to get the family
from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth - a device not necessary in
Matthew.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
26 Feb 2004 01:34:05 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:35:02 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jqup301ddqrurcsb9k7t2itv3etq6crpun@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
"plausible", do you have any historical or biblical data to support that?
Here, once again, are a few of the problems:
The fact that there is no evidence of any Nazareth until after the
time of Jesus.
The fact that the description of Nazareth in Luke does not fit the
actual Nazareth.
The fact that Matthew (in opposition to Luke) describes Joseph and
Mary as residents of Bethlehem who did not settle in Nazareth until
years after the birth of Jesus.
The fact that the story of a census requiring Joseph to travel from
Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to be counted is, on its face, silly
and, therefore, looks very much like a clumsy device to get the family
from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth - a device not necessary in
Matthew.
===>Also, the citation by someone who inserted the passage in "Matthew"
says (Matthew 2:23)
and came and lived in a city called Nazareth;
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets:
"He will be called a Nazarene."
Of course there never was such a prophecy,
nor does NAZARENE (actually NAZORAIOS)
mean someone from Nazareth. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
26 Feb 2004 03:15:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:34:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:35:02 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jqup301ddqrurcsb9k7t2itv3etq6crpun@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
"plausible", do you have any historical or biblical data to support that?
Here, once again, are a few of the problems:
The fact that there is no evidence of any Nazareth until after the
time of Jesus.
The fact that the description of Nazareth in Luke does not fit the
actual Nazareth.
The fact that Matthew (in opposition to Luke) describes Joseph and
Mary as residents of Bethlehem who did not settle in Nazareth until
years after the birth of Jesus.
The fact that the story of a census requiring Joseph to travel from
Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to be counted is, on its face, silly
and, therefore, looks very much like a clumsy device to get the family
from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth - a device not necessary in
Matthew.
===>Also, the citation by someone who inserted the passage in "Matthew"
says (Matthew 2:23)
and came and lived in a city called Nazareth;
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets:
"He will be called a Nazarene."
Of course there never was such a prophecy,
nor does NAZARENE (actually NAZORAIOS)
mean someone from Nazareth. -- L.
The only reasonable conclusion is that something is very wrong, but I
doubt John will be able to see any problem.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
26 Feb 2004 04:11:50 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:34:05 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:35:02 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:jqup301ddqrurcsb9k7t2itv3etq6crpun@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
"plausible", do you have any historical or biblical data to support that?
Here, once again, are a few of the problems:
The fact that there is no evidence of any Nazareth until after the
time of Jesus.
The fact that the description of Nazareth in Luke does not fit the
actual Nazareth.
The fact that Matthew (in opposition to Luke) describes Joseph and
Mary as residents of Bethlehem who did not settle in Nazareth until
years after the birth of Jesus.
The fact that the story of a census requiring Joseph to travel from
Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to be counted is, on its face, silly
and, therefore, looks very much like a clumsy device to get the family
from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the birth - a device not necessary in
Matthew.
===>Also, the citation by someone who inserted the passage in "Matthew"
says (Matthew 2:23)
and came and lived in a city called Nazareth;
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets:
"He will be called a Nazarene."
Of course there never was such a prophecy,
nor does NAZARENE (actually NAZORAIOS)
mean someone from Nazareth. -- L.
The only reasonable conclusion is that something is very wrong, but I
doubt John will be able to see any problem.
Thomas P.
===>They never do. Their mind (they call it "Holy Spirit") will not
permit them to do that. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
25 Feb 2004 04:42:08 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
===>Note how the story in MATTHEW says just the opposite:
they live in Bethlehem (based on the misinterpretation of the
passage about the Bethlehem CLAN, not the town), escape
to Egypt (based on the misinterpretation of another passage in Hosea),
and then to Nazareth because they were afraid of Herod (based, as
we said, on changing "Nazorean" to "Nazarethian". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
26 Feb 2004 09:03:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:42:08 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 08:53:34 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
"Thomas P." wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:19:31 -0500, "John" <John@nospam.net> wrote:
"Giant Sloth" <nospammers@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:6b1053df.0402232255.a0c3b79@posting.google.com...
Kenneth Humphreys makes a good case that it didn't:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
This guy has an agenda. There are many small towns across the world
that have disapeared. Even in our own country there are "ghost towns'.
There are many, MANY towns and villages that have never been found
that are mentioned in both the OT and the NT.
Don't be decieved by the haters of Christianity.
Or by the defenders of Christianity. There is no evidence of a town
on that site at the time Jesus is claimed to have lived there. The
description of Nazareth in the Bible does not fit the actual site of
Nazareth. Conclusion: There is a legitimate basis for doubt
concerning the stories of Jesus growing up in Nazareth and,
consequently, a legitimate basis for doubt concerning the gospels
themselves especially considering the other historical problems
raised.
===>He was a NAZOREAN leader, a militant, ZEALOT offshoot of
the Pharisees who were fed up with the foreign rule by the Romans
and relied on prophecy, especially Zechariah, to proclaim the end
of the Roman Empire and the coming of the new Davidic "Kingdom
of God". The Gospels covered this up by making a PLACE NAME
out of "NAZOREAN". -- L.
That is one of the possibilities I thought of. It was a way to avoid
trouble with Rome. It would also explain that ridiculous story of
Joseph having to travel to Bethlehem to be counted. After the
Nazareth story was made up, a reason for being born in Bethlehem would
have to be also made up. Of course it is all speculation, but it at
least seems plausible.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
===>Note how the story in MATTHEW says just the opposite:
they live in Bethlehem (based on the misinterpretation of the
passage about the Bethlehem CLAN, not the town), escape
to Egypt (based on the misinterpretation of another passage in Hosea),
and then to Nazareth because they were afraid of Herod (based, as
we said, on changing "Nazorean" to "Nazarethian". -- L.
They still continue to make alterations today. Now, however, they
merely interpret the old story, so that it means what they want it to
mean; since actually changing the story is not an option anymore (too
many copies lying around).
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
27 Feb 2004 05:29:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:42:08 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
===>Note how the story in MATTHEW says just the opposite:
they live in Bethlehem (based on the misinterpretation of the
passage about the Bethlehem CLAN, not the town), escape
to Egypt (based on the misinterpretation of another passage in Hosea),
and then to Nazareth because they were afraid of Herod (based, as
we said, on changing "Nazorean" to "Nazarethian". -- L.
Gosh, if all this had happened in 2004 on Manhattan Island, modern technology
would have corrected all those major blows to the story.
Do you understand the difficulty of keepind insignificant ideas straight when
wandering around the desert for months on end without so much as an ability to
write one's name.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
27 Feb 2004 01:57:49 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:42:08 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
===>Note how the story in MATTHEW says just the opposite:
they live in Bethlehem (based on the misinterpretation of the
passage about the Bethlehem CLAN, not the town), escape
to Egypt (based on the misinterpretation of another passage in Hosea),
and then to Nazareth because they were afraid of Herod (based, as
we said, on changing "Nazorean" to "Nazarethian". -- L.
Gosh, if all this had happened in 2004 on Manhattan Island, modern technology
would have corrected all those major blows to the story.
Do you understand the difficulty of keepind insignificant ideas straight when
wandering around the desert for months on end without so much as an ability to
write one's name.
===>How is that relevant to the writer(s) of the "MATTHEW" Gospel????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Did Nazareth exist in the 1st Century? - NAZOREAN |
27 Feb 2004 03:20:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:57:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:42:08 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
===>Note how the story in MATTHEW says just the opposite:
they live in Bethlehem (based on the misinterpretation of the
passage about the Bethlehem CLAN, not the town), escape
to Egypt (based on the misinterpretation of another passage in Hosea),
and then to Nazareth because they were afraid of Herod (based, as
we said, on changing "Nazorean" to "Nazarethian". -- L.
Gosh, if all this had happened in 2004 on Manhattan Island, modern technology
would have corrected all those major blows to the story.
Do you understand the difficulty of keepind insignificant ideas straight when
wandering around the desert for months on end without so much as an ability to
write one's name.
===>How is that relevant to the writer(s) of the "MATTHEW" Gospel????
How is anything Duke writes relevant to anything at all?
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
