No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

angellous_evangellous · Sep 22, 2011

Tellurian said:
I expect he used that quote to show that the existence of a Jewish village at Nazareth was doubted many years ago and is not just a new suspicion.

100 years isn't long enough to make that point, but it also isn't close enough to account for a century of archaeological discovery.

That's why it's useless.

EDIT: Oh, you probably don't know that recent works discuss their findings in light of earlier ones. So if you use a recent source that's good, you'll know about the old ones that are good.

It's not the same for old sources. They don't use the new ones.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 22, 2011

fallingblood said:
Well right off the bat, he uses a quote from over a hundred years ago. Not really credible in any sense.

Then in his first paragraph, he makes an ignorant remark concerning synagogues in the first century (a similar remark that has been repeated on this thread as well; one in which I have dealt with various times). There is no reason why we should even assume that we can find a synagogue in Nazareth. The reason being that in the first century, for the most part (there are some exceptions, but not many that we know of), synagogues were not distinct buildings, but could be housed in any local house. It was just a gathering of individuals, that could take place in a variety of homes. In fact, it is the same reason why we don't find churches that Paul talks about. Because they were in the homes of various members of that church.

So of course we aren't going to find a synagogue, and there is no reason to assume we would, based on what we know about first century synagogues.

So right from the get go, the author shows that he is going to use outdated scholarship, and that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the scholarship anyway. More so, I don't see where he has any credibility, as that is basically shot as soon as he begins writing.

On a side note: when are you going to show that my thread on Jesus and Josephus is so wrong? I'm still waiting for your reply to that. I'm coming to think that you simply can't.

Better evidence for Jews living in an area: no pig bones.

Tellurian · Sep 22, 2011

fallingblood said:
Apples and oranges. Either way though, it is foolish to use outdated scholarship in order to try to prove a point. The author of the site you posted does so on a number of places. And his first quote, right at the top of the page, is one that is very outdated.

More so, when speaking about Jesus, we have more than enough evidence. As I have said over and over again, Josephus should be more than enough evidence.

Josephus NEVER wrote about the biblical Jesus character found in the gospels. If he had then Christians who read his works before Eusebius of Caesarea supposedly "found" the Jesus passages would have mentioned them.

Please read what I actually said. It would help a lot.

But let's examine that verse. It doesn't say that there was a specific building that was a synagogue. It doesn't say that the synagogue stood as it's own building. No. It simply states that Jesus went to the synagogue. And as I have explained, many times, in the first century, the synagogue was not a specific building, as our modern day synagogues are, but was situated in a regular home. Archeologically, it is pretty much impossible to differentiate a house from a house that is also used as a synagogue.

That is why the author of your site is not credible. He is arguing from ignorance.

It does not matter if synagogues were houses or "specific" buildings in the first century, because there is NO evidence of any Jewish buildings from the first century in the location called Nazareth. The foundation that Yardenna Alexandre claimed was a first century home was identified by the IAA as being from the second century.

The Myth of Nazareth

Come on, that is nothing more than a lame cop out. If my points are silliness, and my conclusions not supported, point it out. You don't have to point them all out. But stop dodging the subject, and making lame little excuses, and put up for once.

As it stands, all that it looks like is that you are making excuse after excuse on why you can't offer even a partial rebuttal to my argument. Why? Because, I think it is obvious, you know you can't.

OK, give me what you consider to be your most valid point that supposedly supports your conclusion

Tellurian · Sep 22, 2011

fallingblood said:
Not really. Outhouse is ignoring spam. That is actually very good. Instead of accepting a non-scholarly website, just because it supports one's position, he is deciding to discard it as the trash that it is.

You are only accepting it because it helps your position. However, if one looks at it critically, it is garbage. I have already shown two reasons, and that was just looking at a very small portion of the site.

Apparently someone does not know the definition of "spam". You should look it up some time.

You seem to be saying that a person should just ignore information that is "garbage" instead of trying to refute it. Perhaps I should take your advice and just ignore your long post about Josephus instead of trying to refute it.

Tellurian · Sep 22, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
Better evidence for Jews living in an area: no pig bones.

Better evidence for a Roman military camp in that area: a large, sophisticated, heated, first century, ROMAN bath house.

godnotgod · Sep 22, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
Yes, in 4th century BCE Greece. :biglaugh:

.

Let's just look at facts:

Biblos.com translates, over and over again, NT scripture that alludes to Nazareth as a 'polis' as 'city' and 'town'.

Are you saying this is incorrect?

fallingblood · Sep 22, 2011

Tellurian said:
Josephus NEVER wrote about the biblical Jesus character found in the gospels. If he had then Christians who read his works before Eusebius of Caesarea supposedly "found" the Jesus passages would have mentioned them.

You keep saying that, but you refuse to address my thread, even partially, on the subject. Here it is again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html. The fact that you refuse, and have continually refused to offer a rebuttal, but instead just dodge, repeat yourself, and make lame excuses show that you really are in no position to say anything on the subject. Maybe instead of just trying to say the same thing over and over again, you could put up or shut up.

It does not matter if synagogues were houses or "specific" buildings in the first century, because there is NO evidence of any Jewish buildings from the first century in the location called Nazareth. The foundation that Yardenna Alexandre claimed was a first century home was identified by the IAA as being from the second century.

The Myth of Nazareth

First, I have to wonder why the American scholar quoted on the site had their name withheld? Maybe it's because they aren't a scholar? Maybe because they know nothing about the subject? I mean seriously, if you don't even have the guts to post your name, then you really aren't credible.

More so, the IAA, according to your source, never states that it was from the second century. Your source basically states that it never says when the foundation is from, and that whatever report they had of it is now taken off their website.

Basically, either you are not reading your source, or you are just blatantly making things up. Probably a little bit of both.

And again, how is the author of your source credible? He mentions one scholar who disagrees with the idea, and doesn't even mention them by name. Not credible at all.

On a side note, if one looks at the quote from the supposed archeologist, whose name is withheld, it is clear that the quote does not come from a recognized journal. More so, it is clearly a biased quote, as one can see from the last lines.

OK, give me what you consider to be your most valid point that supposedly supports your conclusion

Don't beat around the bush. I gave you the link to the thread. Pick a point, any point. And show why it is silly, and how it doesn't support my conclusion. It should be easy for you, since you saw so many flaws in the first place.

fallingblood · Sep 22, 2011

Tellurian said:
Apparently someone does not know the definition of "spam". You should look it up some time.

You seem to be saying that a person should just ignore information that is "garbage" instead of trying to refute it. Perhaps I should take your advice and just ignore your long post about Josephus instead of trying to refute it.

I gave enough reason to ignore the information that was presented. I offered to points of refutation in that one post, and I have offered additional points of refutation based on later posts of your. I have shown more than enough reason as to why the information on the site simply is not credible.

Now, you can ignore my post on Josephus, but it only shows that you are not capable of dealing with the information. You have dodged it, tried to discredit it by insulting it, made excuses as to why you can't deal with it, and basically done everything besides addressing it. If you want to ignore it, fine. However, then you must also accept that as it stands, we have every reason to believe that Josephus wrote about Jesus. You haven't shown any reason to doubt that.

fallingblood · Sep 22, 2011

Tellurian said:
Better evidence for a Roman military camp in that area: a large, sophisticated, heated, first century, ROMAN bath house.

Except the source you used to support such an idea did not really support it very much. Especially when the evidence does not really point to a Roman bath house being there in the first century. But as your usual tactic, you have either dodged, ignored, or made excuses as to why you can't address the points brought up. More so, you have even shown that you can't fully read the sources that you provide.

Just to make it easier, here are two posts from me that refute your position here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2606797-post430.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2607106-post441.html

Basically, to sum up, you have shown no reason why we should assume that the bath house is from the first century. You have shown though that you will not actually take the time and read your sources.

fallingblood · Sep 22, 2011

godnotgod said:
Let's just look at facts:

Biblos.com translates, over and over again, NT scripture that alludes to Nazareth as a 'polis' as 'city' and 'town'.

Are you saying this is incorrect?

No, he's saying that you are ignorant, and really have no idea what you're talking about. There is more to just translating a word.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 22, 2011

Tellurian said:
Better evidence for a Roman military camp in that area: a large, sophisticated, heated, first century, ROMAN bath house.

Jeez. If that were the case, you wouldn't need to worry about the absence of pig bones because they'd be there.

THINK

angellous_evangellous · Sep 22, 2011

fallingblood said:
No, he's saying that you are ignorant, and really have no idea what you're talking about. There is more to just translating a word.

And I'm pointing out his attempt at arguing that polis in regards to Nazareth means a free city-state.

Yes, if there were someone who thought that Nazareth was a free city-state like they had in early 4th century Greece (with maybe six exceptions throughout the years), they would be a moron. But it's a strawman because polis didn't even mean that when the Bible was written - and hadn't for 400 years.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 22, 2011

Tellurian said:
Better evidence for a Roman military camp in that area: a large, sophisticated, heated, first century, ROMAN bath house.

Hey fallingblood, have you heard of this before? (and I mean outside whatever sensationalist source Tellurian is using)

I don't care if Nazareth was a Roman camp. It just seems like there would be a lot more remnants of the other permanent buildings. And why on earth would the Roman army have an outpost there considering all their other forts and their huge presence in Jerusalem?

I'm highly skeptical that the bathhouse was there in the first century. From what I can tell, it is a Roman era bathhouse, but that's all that is proven. Considering the complete lack of serious interest in it -- I mean, if scholars were really convinced it was a legitimate find, someone would figure out how to get a proper dig going.

So far it is what it is - a tourist attraction.

angellous_evangellous · Sep 22, 2011

All said, I am truly mystified with how gullible our friends are.

If it goes against what they think the church says AND it's written on the internet, then it MUST be true.

If I were inhumane enough to take advantage of this, I'd be a very wealthy man.

godnotgod · Sep 23, 2011

angellous_evangellous said:
All said, I am truly mystified with how gullible our friends are.

If it goes against what they think the church says AND it's written on the internet, then it MUST be true.

If I were inhumane enough to take advantage of this, I'd be a very wealthy man.

opportunistic snot, or snotty opportunist?

Just answer the question: is the translation from the Greek NT to 'polis' to 'city' correct or incorrect? Biblos.com does not seem to making any kind of fuss over this, as you and FB are. Of course, that's most likely because, like everyone else on your list, they're just ignorant, right?

godnotgod · Sep 23, 2011

Following is a description of the word 'polis' as used in the Bible.

Bible Tools

polis

Greek/Hebrew Definitions

Strong's #4172: polis (pronounced pol'-is)

probably from the same as 4171, or perhaps from 4183; a town (properly, with walls, of greater or less size):--city.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

polis

1) a city

1a) one' s native city, the city in which one lives

1b) the heavenly Jerusalem

1b1) the abode of the blessed in heaven

1b2) of the visible capital in the heavenly kingdom, to come down to earth after the renovation of the world by fire

1c) the inhabitants of a city

Part of Speech: noun feminine

Relation: probably from the same as 4171, or perhaps from G4183

Citing in TDNT: 6:516, 906

Usage:

This word is used 165 times in the Bible; here are the first 50 or so:

Matthew 2:23: "he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled"
Matthew 4:5: "taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him"
Matthew 5:14: "light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot"
Matthew 5:35: "by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King."
Matthew 8:33: "went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and"
Matthew 8:34: "behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus:"
Matthew 9:1: "came into his own city."
Matthew 9:35: "went about all the cities and villages, teaching in"
Matthew 10:5: "of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:"
Matthew 10:11: "And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter,"
Matthew 10:14: "when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust"
Matthew 10:15: "of judgment, than for that city."
Matthew 10:23: "you in this city, flee ye into another: for"
Matthew 10:23: "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the"
Matthew 11:1: "to preach in their cities."
Matthew 11:20: "began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his"
Matthew 12:25: "is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against"
Matthew 14:13: "him on foot out of the cities."
Matthew 21:10: "Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is"
Matthew 21:17: "and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged"
Matthew 21:18: "as he returned into the city, he hungered."
Matthew 22:7: "and burned up their city."
Matthew 23:34: "synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:"
Matthew 23:34: "persecute them from city to city:"
Matthew 26:18: "Go into the city to such a man, and say"
Matthew 27:53: "into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Matthew 28:11: "came into the city, and showed unto the chief priests all"
Mark 1:33: "And all the city was gathered together at the"
Mark 1:45: "openly enter into the city, but was without in"
Mark 5:14: "told it in the city, and in the country."
Mark 6:11: "the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 6:33: "thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and"
Mark 6:56: "he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid"
Mark 11:19: "he went out of the city."
Mark 14:13: "Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man"
Mark 14:16: "came into the city, and found as he had said"
Luke 1:26: "from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,"
Luke 1:39: "with haste, into a city of Judah;"
Luke 2:3: "every one into his own city."
Luke 2:4: "from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto"
Luke 2:4: "into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;"
Luke 2:11: "is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is"
Luke 2:39: "Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."
Luke 4:29: "him out of the city, and led him unto"
Luke 4:29: "hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."
Luke 4:31: "came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught"
Luke 4:43: "kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore"
Luke 5:12: "was in a certain city, behold a man full"
Luke 7:11: "day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many"
Luke 7:12: "to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out,"

Strongs's #4172: polis :: Greek/Hebrew Definitions :: Bible Tools

Tellurian · Sep 23, 2011

fallingblood said:
First, I have to wonder why the American scholar quoted on the site had their name withheld? Maybe it's because they aren't a scholar? Maybe because they know nothing about the subject? I mean seriously, if you don't even have the guts to post your name, then you really aren't credible.

Apparently I was mistaken. I thought you had been reading the links I have been providing. You could have read in the link I provided. "Professor Richard Freund, head of the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford University in Connecticut, decided to redirect his energies at the Nazareth site and away from his existing projects. He brought in the latest technology to settle once and for all the mystery of what was under Cactus.

His conclusions are earth-shattering. Freund believes that Elias has revealed a Roman bathhouse from 2,000 years ago from the time of Jesus in the town in which Jesus was raised.

"I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous."

Basically, either you are not reading your source, or you are just blatantly making things up. Probably a little bit of both.

And again, how is the author of your source credible? He mentions one scholar who disagrees with the idea, and doesn't even mention them by name. Not credible at all.

On a side note, if one looks at the quote from the supposed archeologist, whose name is withheld, it is clear that the quote does not come from a recognized journal. More so, it is clearly a biased quote, as one can see from the last lines.

Have you not been reading the links I have provided, or do you just have a problem remembering what you read?

godnotgod · Sep 23, 2011

Some apologists have also argued that Nazareth was too small a place, but that it nonetheless existed. However, the word used by Matthew and Luke is "city" (polis), a word which is used 870 times in the Bible, and more than two dozen times in Matthew and Luke. The word refers to such places as Jerusalem (Matthew 21:18), Bethlehem (Luke 2:4), Nain (Luke 7:11), Bethsaida (Luke 9:10), Sodom (Luke 10:12) and Capernaum (Luke 4:31). Both Luke and Matthew also use the word "village" or kome (Matthew 21:2, Luke 9:52) and Luke (8:1) even uses the two words together ("...he went throughout every city and village..."). The only villages that have names are Bethany (Luke 10:38) and Emmaus (Luke 24:13). Thus it's clear that according to Matthew and Luke Nazareth is a city, not a village, and therefore should have been noted in the non-Christian texts.

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

godnotgod · Sep 23, 2011

In Mark 6:56 (NIV) we have the mention of 'villages' and 'towns' in the same sentence:

"And wherever he went--into villages, towns or countryside...."

The biblos.com translation makes the distinction between 'villages' (ie; 'kōmas'), and 'towns' (ie: 'poleis'), and yet, 'polis' is used for Nazareth instead of 'kōme' or whatever the Greek word for the much smaller and simpler 'hamlet' is. 'Polis' seems completely inappropriate to describe the backwater hamlet that Christian apologists insist was 1st century Nazareth.
)

angellous_evangellous · Sep 23, 2011

Tellurian said:
Professor Richard Freund, head of the Maurice Greenberg Centre for Judaic Studies at Hartford University in Connecticut

The same feller who claims to have found Atlantis.

(let's see just how gullible you really are)

No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Thou art That

Agnostic Theist

Agnostic Theist

Agnostic Theist

Agnostic Theist

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Thou art That

Thou art That

Active Member

Thou art That

Thou art That

angellous_evangellous

Guest