No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

angellous_evangellous said:

And you're NOT following "generally accepted" ideas.

Perhaps what you say is all over the internet.

Spam is rarely true. You're embarrassing yourself.

EDIT: It doesn't matter if I'm the only one who is throwing a "red flag." The point is, you're too lazy to bother and see if what you believe is true. I've already provided two examples of "Nazareth" from the Talmud. The thing is, with idiots who repeat what they've read on the internet don't check their facts and pass it on to the next idiot who doesn't check, you just have a bunch of idiots repeating what they haven't checked. You get the point.

Also, the Talmud is massive. One or two references to Nazareth are quite easy to miss. Especially if you're too lazy to look.

Click to expand...

Cut the ad hominem attacks, OK? You're embarrassing yourself.

I looked up the two references you supplied. I searched the text of Sotah 47 for 'Nazareth'. Zilch. So I assume that by your previous reference to:

Quote:

Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi away with both his hands (and not like R. Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both his hands).11

11 MSS. and old editions read Jesus the Nazarene. R. T. Herford sees in Gehazi a hidden reference to Paul. Cf. his Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 97ff.

you are saying that the word 'Nazarene' here refers to "Nazareth"?

That means nothing. You're just jumping to conclusions. There is no mention in this work of any 'town of Nazareth'.

In your second reference, other than the title and initial quote, there are 4 references to 'Jesus of Nazareth', but not found in the main body of the text. They appear afterwards as follows:

Abaye said: And he must say: On such-and-such a day, and at such-and-such an time, and in such-and-such a place; perhaps there are those who know, and they come and refute them. And a herald goes out before him, before him, yes; from the outset, no. But surely it was taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus of Nazareth; and the herald went out before him for forty days: Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows an argument in his favor should come and argue on his behalf; but they did not find an argument in his favor, and they hanged him on the eve of Passover.

אמר עולא ותסברא ישו הנוצרי בר הפוכי זכות הוא מסית הוא ורחמהא אמר לא תחמל ולא תכסה עליו אלא שאני ישו דקרוב למלכות הוה׃

Ulla said: And can you think this? Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an inciter, and the merciful says: You shall not spare him, nor shall you conceal him. Rather, Jesus was different because he was close to the government.

תנו רבנן חמשה תלמידים היו לו לישו הנוצרי מתאי נקאי נצר ובוני ותודה׃

Our rabbis taught: Jesus of Nazareth had five disciples: Mattai, Naqai, Netzer, and Buni, and Todah.

However, there is a statement prefacing all of the above which reads as follows:

"please note that all instances of the words of Nazareth as applied to Jesus in this passage are textually suspect, and many thanks to Joe Wallack for pointing out this deficiency in my presentation of the passage."

Neither is there any mention of a 'town of Nazareth' here.

I could not locate the list of 63 Galilean towns in the Talmud. Perhaps someone else might come up with their location. However, the question I have is: why is it that in the same work we have a list of 63 Galilean towns, but no mention of any 'Nazareth', while Nazareth is mentioned later as you quoted, but which quote is highly suspect, as has been duly noted.

In addition, Wikipedia tells us that The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah, written c. 200 CE, and the Gemara, written c. 500 CE. This overlaps the time period when Nazareth was known to have existed. Any mention of Nazareth in the Talmud, assuming it is valid, is still not a reference written in the 1st century.

The fact that no Nazareth is listed in the 63 towns of Galilee is an indication that Nazareth had still not come into existence when the Talmud was written, at least not during its earlier writings.

fallingblood said:

This makes me smile. It makes all of your posts understandable. You just don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

So GeeJuzz ended up a pauper, working his *** off for nothing?

angellous_evangellous said:

Yes, but do you know what he's talking about?

Click to expand...

I think I have started to realize what he is referring to. If he did just a little actual research, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I do have a question about Mt. Caramel. For some reason I associate it with the Samaritans; however, I am not exactly sure that is it.


I do find it funny that godnotgod refers to the Nazarenes, and then quotes Acts to back it up. If he even spent a couple of seconds thinking about it, he would realize that the Nazarenes were the followers of Jesus and that is why Paul is associated with them.

godnotgod said:

So GeeJuzz ended up a pauper, working his *** off for nothing?

Click to expand...

So basically we are coming to the point that you no longer can even make up an argument, and have to resort to childishness? Well, nana nana boo boo. You're wrong and I'm right.

Seriously though, maybe you would want to address a few posts of mine that you have ignored. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2577302-post244.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2577305-post245.html
They are a rebuttal to quite a few points of yours. Maybe instead of just making a fool of yourself, you can continue trying to make a point.

fallingblood said:

I think I have started to realize what he is referring to. If he did just a little actual research, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I do have a question about Mt. Caramel. For some reason I associate it with the Samaritans; however, I am not exactly sure that is it.


I do find it funny that godnotgod refers to the Nazarenes, and then quotes Acts to back it up. If he even spent a couple of seconds thinking about it, he would realize that the Nazarenes were the followers of Jesus and that is why Paul is associated with them.

Click to expand...

You ignored the information I posted which explained that Nazarenes are a sect of the Essenes. Yeshua was an Essene. There were no Christians as yet.

fallingblood said:

So basically we are coming to the point that you no longer can even make up an argument, and have to resort to childishness? Well, nana nana boo boo. You're wrong and I'm right.

Seriously though, maybe you would want to address a few posts of mine that you have ignored. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2577302-post244.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2577305-post245.html
They are a rebuttal to quite a few points of yours. Maybe instead of just making a fool of yourself, you can continue trying to make a point.

Click to expand...

You failed to see the point I was making, which is: if Jesus was a carpenter, what does he have to show for all his labors all those years in Nazareth and surrounding areas? As I understand it, his father was a wealthy merchant of sorts, with purported travels to France and Great Britain? And yet, for Jesus to fit the character the Bible wishes to portray him as, he must be shown to be close to having taken a vow of poverty, his carpentry being no more than pure devotion to the work ethic. In other words, Christianity wishes to portray Jesus as a 'working man', humble and devoted to the basics of everyday life amidst common folk.

Actually, what probably fits better, is that Yeshua, being an Essene community member of the Mt. Carmel monastery, contributed his carpentry skills for the benefit of everyone who lived there, and received no recompense for his labors. That would explain his lack of material wealth.

I find it pitiful that you adopt and pursue an attitude of 'right and wrong', which clearly demonstrates who is the childish one here.

If you bothered to look at post 281, you would see that I am doing some research, but you want to focus on your slanted view in order to paint me in a certain light. Don't worry: I am hip to all the standard Christian trix.

godnotgod said:

You failed to see the point I was making, which is: if Jesus was a carpenter, what does he have to show for all his labors all those years in Nazareth and surrounding areas? As I understand it, his father was a wealthy merchant of sorts, with purported travels to France and Great Britain? And yet, for Jesus to fit the character the Bible wishes to portray him as, he must be shown to be close to having taken a vow of poverty, his carpentry being no more than pure devotion to the work ethic. In other words, Christianity wishes to portray Jesus as a 'working man', humble and devoted to the basics of everyday life amidst common folk.

Actually, what probably fits better, is that Yeshua, being an Essene community member of the Mt. Carmel monastery, contributed his carpentry skills for the benefit of everyone who lived there, and received no recompense for his labors. That would explain his lack of material wealth.

I find it pitiful that you adopt and pursue an attitude of 'right and wrong', which clearly demonstrates who is the childish one here.

If you bothered to look at post 281, you would see that I am doing some research, but you want to focus on your slanted view in order to paint me in a certain light. Don't worry: I am hip to all the standard Christian trix.

Click to expand...

If you're going to make stuff up, please be more imaginative than this.

The biblical stories may be a little bland, but so is this, only your version is a million times more speculative and unrelated to anything that we know about Jesus from any source. Outside of its outlandish, outrageous, and implausible claims === once the dust settles, it's just as boring as the biblical / extrabiblical stories.

So why make it up? It's completely incredulous, and not even entertaining or imaginative.

If you didn't make this up, you're remarkably gullable.

I've got a ski resort in Nevada I'd like to sell you. The tombs of Jesus, Mary, and Farkwad (Yeshua's step-brother) are there, found when they were building the Hoosier dam. To sweeten the deal, I have first edition Don Piper mysteries written by Dan Brown, victor over the KKK.

angellous_evangellous said:

If you're going to make stuff up, please be more imaginative than this.

The biblical stories may be a little bland, but so is this, only your version is a million times more speculative and unrelated to anything that we know about Jesus from any source. Outside of its outlandish, outrageous, and implausible claims === once the dust settles, it's just as boring as the biblical / extrabiblical stories.

So why make it up? It's completely incredulous, and not even entertaining or imaginative.

Click to expand...

The spiritual world is not obligated to be entertaining or to provide sensation for you. If you need a fix of cheap glitter, bright lights, and empty calories, go to Las Vegas. If you truly understood anything about the spiritual world, you would know and understand it to be quite ordinary.

'Made up?' What is obviously made up is the Biblical story of the non-existent Nazareth where the non-existent 'Jesus' allegedly lived for some 30 years, 18 of which are completely unaccounted for, quietly eking out a humble living as a carpenter, the Son of the living God, but who, for reasons unbeknownst to anyone, was able to escape notice and live a completely anonymous life, until one day he suddenly burst upon the world in full, living color. Sure. There are reports he was seen changing into his Superman outfit in a phone booth just prior.

Persia, India, Tibet and China have more of a record of his missing years than does Christianity, but we don't wanna talk about that.

godnotgod said:

The spiritual world is not obligated to be entertaining or to provide sensation for you. If you need a fix of cheap glitter, bright lights, and empty calories, go to Las Vegas. If you truly understood anything about the spiritual world, you would know and understand it to be quite ordinary.

'Made up?' What is obviously made up is the Biblical story of the non-existent Nazareth where the non-existent 'Jesus' allegedly lived for some 30 years, 18 of which are completely unaccounted for, quietly eking out a humble living as a carpenter, the Son of the living God, but who, for reasons unbeknownst to anyone, was able to escape notice and live a completely anonymous life, until one day he suddenly burst upon the world in full, living color. Sure. There are reports he was seen changing into his Superman outfit in a phone booth just prior.

Persia, India, Tibet and China have more of a record of his missing years than does Christianity, but we don't wanna talk about that.

Click to expand...

Do you think that what you're making up is spiritual? If that's the point then I could care less. Whatever floats your boat. I agree, that doesn't have to be entertaining at all.

It gets my attention when you're making stuff up and asserting that it has some kind of historical value. That's what I have issue with. Now actual history doesn't need to be entertaining, but if you're going to ignore everything and just fabricate the historical narrative, then I want it to be fun and entertaining.

History may not be entertaining, but lying about history should be.

fallingblood said:

I do have a question about Mt. Caramel. For some reason I associate it with the Samaritans; however, I am not exactly sure that is it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, associating the Essenes and/or the Nazarenes with Mt. Carmel strikes me as the epitome of ignorance.

From what I recall, we know next to nothing about the Essenes, which is why some scholars don't even think that the Essenes were in Qumran. Now if that's the case, the evidence for Essenes on Mt. Carmel, at least during the time of Christ, would be indirect and far-fetched IMHO.

I wish that I had time to double-check right now, but I'm almost willing to say that if there were Essenes and Nazarenes on Mt. Carmel between 1BCE and 1 CE, I'd burn all my books and become a crack whore.

And I find it absolutely hilarious that our friend demands positive evidence for Nazareth and accepts Essenes on Mt. Carmel without question. :biglaugh:

a e

I wish that I had time to double-check right now, but I'm almost willing to say that if there were Essenes and Nazarenes on Mt. Carmel between 1BCE and 1 CE, I'd burn all my books and become a crack whore.

Click to expand...

You are safe with that statement, because when Dionysus the Scythian monk created our current calendar system the Europeans did not have any zero in their numbers. The use of the zero was taught to the Europeans by the Arabs about 1,000 years later. The Christian church originally banned the use of the zero because they thought it was evil.

Consequently without a zero there was no year zero between 1 BCE and 1 CE, therefore, that time period was not included in the calendar system.

godnotgod said:

You ignored the information I posted which explained that Nazarenes are a sect of the Essenes. Yeshua was an Essene. There were no Christians as yet.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it, I just accept it for what it is; incorrect. Nazarenes are not a sect of Essenes. You will not find any ancient source saying that. In fact, the first time that the Nazarenes are really discussed isn't until the fourth century, and by then, the Essenes were long gone.

Yeshua was not an Essene. He was a Jew, but not of the Essene type. We can know this for sure by comparing the work of the Essenes (the Dead Sea Scrolls), what others said about them (such of Josephus), with what we know of Jesus (as is told in the NT). The two simply do not sync up.

godnotgod said:

You failed to see the point I was making, which is: if Jesus was a carpenter, what does he have to show for all his labors all those years in Nazareth and surrounding areas? As I understand it, his father was a wealthy merchant of sorts, with purported travels to France and Great Britain? And yet, for Jesus to fit the character the Bible wishes to portray him as, he must be shown to be close to having taken a vow of poverty, his carpentry being no more than pure devotion to the work ethic. In other words, Christianity wishes to portray Jesus as a 'working man', humble and devoted to the basics of everyday life amidst common folk.

Actually, what probably fits better, is that Yeshua, being an Essene community member of the Mt. Carmel monastery, contributed his carpentry skills for the benefit of everyone who lived there, and received no recompense for his labors. That would explain his lack of material wealth.

I find it pitiful that you adopt and pursue an attitude of 'right and wrong', which clearly demonstrates who is the childish one here.

If you bothered to look at post 281, you would see that I am doing some research, but you want to focus on your slanted view in order to paint me in a certain light. Don't worry: I am hip to all the standard Christian trix.

Click to expand...

:thud: You do realize that when I said you're wrong and I'm right, I wasn't being serious. I was purposely making a childish remark in order to show how what you said came off. Context is a wonderful tool; learn to use it.

As for the father of Jesus (assuming it is Joseph), we are only told that he was a carpenter or tekton. If we put this in a historical context, there is absolutely no reason to see him as being wealthy. To assume he was wealthy, or a merchant, one has to fabricate imaginary stories. That isn't doing research, that is creating fiction.

angellous_evangellous said:

Yeah, associating the Essenes and/or the Nazarenes with Mt. Carmel strikes me as the epitome of ignorance.

From what I recall, we know next to nothing about the Essenes, which is why some scholars don't even think that the Essenes were in Qumran. Now if that's the case, the evidence for Essenes on Mt. Carmel, at least during the time of Christ, would be indirect and far-fetched IMHO.

I wish that I had time to double-check right now, but I'm almost willing to say that if there were Essenes and Nazarenes on Mt. Carmel between 1BCE and 1 CE, I'd burn all my books and become a crack whore.

Click to expand...

Don't bother: this post sounds exactly like it came from a crack ho that did exactly that..:biglaugh:

fallingblood said:

I didn't ignore it, I just accept it for what it is; incorrect. Nazarenes are not a sect of Essenes. You will not find any ancient source saying that. In fact, the first time that the Nazarenes are really discussed isn't until the fourth century, and by then, the Essenes were long gone.

Yeshua was not an Essene. He was a Jew, but not of the Essene type. We can know this for sure by comparing the work of the Essenes (the Dead Sea Scrolls), what others said about them (such of Josephus), with what we know of Jesus (as is told in the NT). The two simply do not sync up.

Click to expand...

Of course not! The Qumran Essenes were an apocalyptic sect. Yeshu did not belong to this sect; he belonged to the mystical sect of the Nazorean Essenes of Mt. Carmel. Yeshu belonged to a mystical branch of orthodox Judaism. He was a Jewish mystic.

As for the rest of your post, please see my post following this one.

JESUS: A True Nazarene

HISTORY finds the first Christian sects to have been either Nazarenes like John the Baptist; or Ebionites, among whom were many of the relatives of Jesus; or Essenes (Iessaens) the Therapeutæ, healers, of which the Nazaria were a branch. All these sects, which only in the days of Irenæus began to be considered heretical, were more or less kabalistic. They believed in the expulsion of demons by magical incantations, and practiced this method. The Talmud indiscriminately calls all the Christians Nazari. All the Gnostic sects equally believed in magic. Dunlap shows that Jesus was called Nazaraios, in reference to his humble and mean external condition; "for Nazaraios means separation, alienation from other men."....

The oldest Nazarenes, who were the descendants of the Scripture nazars, and whose last prominent leader was John the Baptist, although never very orthodox in the sight of the scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem, were, nevertheless, respected and left unmolested. Even Herod "feared the multitude" because they regarded John as a prophet. But the followers of Jesus evidently adhered to a sect which became a still more exasperating thorn in their side. It appeared as a heresy; for while the nazars of the olden times, the "Sons of the Prophets," were Chaldean kabalists, the adepts of the new dissenting sect showed themselves reformers and innovators from the first. The great similitude traced by some critics between the rites and observances of the earliest Christians and those of the Essenes may be accounted for without the slightest difficulty. The Essenes were the converts of Buddhist missionaries who had overrun Egypt, Greece, and even Judea at one time, since the reign of Asoka the zealous propagandist; and while it is evidently to the Essenes that belongs the honor of having had the Nazarene reformer, Jesus, as a pupil, still the latter is found disagreeing with his early teachers on several questions of formal observance.....

To assure ourselves that Jesus was a true Nazarene -- albeit with ideas of a new reform -- we must not search for the proof in the translated Gospels, but in such original versions as are accessible. Tischendorf, in his translation from the Greek of Luke 4:34, has it, "Iesou Nazarene"; and in the Syriac it reads "Iasous, thou Nazaria." Thus, if we take in account all that is puzzling and incomprehensible in the four Gospels, revised and corrected as they now stand, we shall easily see for ourselves that the true, original Christianity, such as was preached by Jesus, is to be found only in the so-called Syrian heresies. Only from them can we extract any clear notions about what was primitive Christianity. Such was the faith of Paul, when Tertullus the orator accused the apostle before the governor Felix. What he complained of was that they had found "that man a mover of sedition ... a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes"; and, while Paul denies every other accusation, he confesses that "after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers." This confession is a whole revelation. It shows: (1) that Paul admitted belonging to the sect of the Nazarenes; (2) that he worshipped the God of his fathers, not the trinitarian Christian God, of whom he knows nothing, and who was not invented until after his death; and, (3) that this unlucky confession satisfactorily explains why the treatise, Acts of the Apostles, together with John's Revelation, which at one period was utterly rejected, were kept out of the canon of the New Testament for such a length of time.

Our Nazarene sect is known to have existed some 150 years B.C., and to have lived on the banks of the Jordan, and on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, according to Pliny and Josephus. But in King's Gnostics, we find quoted another statement by Josephus from verse 13, which says that the Essenes had been established on the shores of the Dead Sea "for thousands of ages" before Pliny's time. (King thinks it a great exaggeration and is inclined to believe that these Essenes, who were most undoubtedly Buddhist monks, were "merely a continuation of the associations known as Sons of the Prophets.")

According to Munk the term "Galilean" is nearly synonymous with that of "Nazarene"; furthermore, he shows the relations of the former with the Gentiles as very intimate. The populace had probably gradually adopted, in their constant intercourse, certain rites and modes of worship of the Pagans; and the scorn with which the Galileans were regarded by the orthodox Jews is attributed by him to the same cause.

Munk says that the "Nazireate was an institution established before the laws of Musah." This is evident; as we find this sect not only mentioned but minutely described in Numbers (chap. 6). In the commandment given in this chapter to Moses by the "Lord," it is easy to recognize the rites and laws of the Priests of Adonis. The abstinence and purity strictly prescribed in both sects are identical. Both allowed their hair to grow long, as the Hindu cœnobites and fakirs do to this day, while other castes shave their hair and abstain on certain days from wine. The Prophet Elijah, a Nazarene, is described in II Kings and by Josephus as "a hairy man girt with a girdle of leather." And John the Baptist and Jesus are both represented as wearing very long hair.(1) John is "clothed with camel's hair" and wearing a girdle of hide, and Jesus in a long garment "without any seams" ... "and very white, like snow," says Mark; the very dress worn by the Nazarene Priests and the Pythagorean and Buddhist Essenes, as described by Josephus.


JESUS: A True Nazarene

fallingblood said:

As for the father of Jesus (assuming it is Joseph), we are only told that he was a carpenter or tekton. If we put this in a historical context, there is absolutely no reason to see him as being wealthy. To assume he was wealthy, or a merchant, one has to fabricate imaginary stories. That isn't doing research, that is creating fiction.

Click to expand...

Well, he WAS a carpenter by trade, a trade he must have practiced for profit. Say, d'ya suppose he lived and worked out of that one house that was recently unearthed in Nazareth, essentially running a home-based business?

Or maybe he just traveled from town to town like a drifter-Dharma bum, preaching and selling his craft in whatever town he found himself in that week. Perhaps this would account for his 'missing' years. After all, he was known even at an early age, to separate himself from his family without their permission, as when he once stayed behind in Jerusalem.

I still think what makes most sense is that he was a community member of the Mt. Carmel monastery, where his work was simply a contribution to the well-being of the community, and which would also account for at least a portion of his 'missing' years, the rest being his sightings as Yuz Asaf and St. Issa in his journey eastward into Persia, Tibet, China, and India.

This would also account for the missing 'city of Nazareth' not found in intensive archaeological excavations.

It also would account for the fact that there is virtually NO record of his whereabouts, save for a footnote, in the Christian Bible, and for the fact that we have far more written accounts of such a figure having traveled Eastward.

fallingblood said:

:thud: You do realize that when I said you're wrong and I'm right, I wasn't being serious. I was purposely making a childish remark in order to show how what you said came off. Context is a wonderful tool; learn to use it.

As for the father of Jesus (assuming it is Joseph), we are only told that he was a carpenter or tekton. If we put this in a historical context, there is absolutely no reason to see him as being wealthy. To assume he was wealthy, or a merchant, one has to fabricate imaginary stories. That isn't doing research, that is creating fiction.

Click to expand...

That's what we're doing here, mate.

fallingblood said:

Yeshua was not an Essene. He was a Jew, but not of the Essene type. We can know this for sure by comparing the work of the Essenes (the Dead Sea Scrolls), what others said about them (such of Josephus), with what we know of Jesus (as is told in the NT). The two simply do not sync up.

Click to expand...

Obviously our friend has the utmost contempt for anything that remotely resembles a rational interpretation of history.

There's no need to review the evidence if you're just making stuff up. His fantasies can't even be anticipated by someone even partially aquainted with the historical evidences.... we're discovering now, not just with Nazareth, but Essenes, the life and teachings of Jesus, and everything else. Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

It's abundantly obvious that our friend has not examined anything that he's talking about -- he's just been convinced by some idiotic website. No rational person can be wrong about EVERYTHING that they talk about - surely if he's studied anything he'd happen upon at least one reliable source.