Nazareth

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:46 am

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm

Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront. Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem'. There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

So, there was no Nazareth after all? Probably no Jesus also...

And Christians still believe?

fire_of_Jesus · Post by **fire_of_Jesus** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:11 pm

well evolutionists have tell us we came from apes and they have been humiliated over and over for there stupid mistakes, so why should we believe someone who is oviously trying to do the same thing? if u believe everying that they tell us you just believeing in what other people believe, so all in all ur just a worm blowing in the wind. going in what ever direction the wind goes. and evoulionist are wrong we did walk with the dinasaurs. can u please inform me how the came up with this so called "fact"?

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:41 pm

well evolutionists have tell us we came from apes and they have been humiliated over and over for there stupid mistakes

Do you have any examples to cite?

if u believe everying that they tell us you just believeing in what other people believe, so all in all ur just a worm blowing in the wind.

I don't believe that evolution is the best explanation we have for how life developed just because someone told me so. I believe because I have read quite a bit on the whole creationism and evolution question, have examined examples of the evidence, and have also weighed the arguements and the credibility of those on both sides. Evolution is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence, including the fossil record, DNA evidence, geological evidence, and radiometric dating to name just a few. Over the years, thousands of scientists have studied this evidence and found over and over again that it is consistent with the explanation given by the theory of evolution. Why do you disbelieve evolution?

evoulionist are wrong we did walk with the dinasaurs

Except for a couple of fraudulent examples, I don't believe you will find ANY examples of dinosaur fossils existing with human fossils where both can be seen to have been formed simultaneously in the same sedimentary layer. What evidence can you cite that dinosaurs co-existed with humans?

I won't go into all the evidence that exists for evolution. One could spend a lot of time reading through the discussions on this forum alone. THis thread is not a bad place to start. You will find very divergent viewpoints expressed, and also some of the evidence and arguements cited.

With respect to Christianity and evolution, obviously the principle objections to evolution are based on Genesis. In the Copernicus and Darwin thread, there is some discussion of how and why we reconcile the Bible with the empirical evidence we have, both in the case of the sun-centered solar system and with respect to evolution.

fire_of_Jesus · Post by **fire_of_Jesus** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:49 pm

i dont have the infomation with me on this but if u can message me privately then another time i can cite my proof. but its getting late and im goign to have to run.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:56 pm

Sounds good. WE are getting a bit off topic for this thread anyway.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:48 pm

It doesn't really make a difference to me where he came from.
Mark might not be all that reliable either in my opinion.
The secret Gospel of Mark being an example. They had a few hundred years to mess with stuff before we got anything to show as copies.
I suspect they did some during the heretic wedding out and thought nothing to change things to what it "should be" to fight heretics.
Albright preferred the Nazareth town scenario but he knew the letters were often misplaced. I just find it intriguing that early Nazarenes(Christians) moved there where a Essenes(Jesseians) community lived.
I still think it is open for debate and study and we may never know. The Idea doesn't discredit an historical Jesus, which we may never be able to find. Unless new discoveries are made. As far as finding where they were wrong in the NT The tax in and Herod is a good example. Even the early Church fathers forgery got the Pilate thing wrong.

We didn't come from apes. We had a common ancestor is how it goes.

fire_of_Jesus · Post by **fire_of_Jesus** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:35 pm

well then can u explane noahs ark being found a few years back? didnt thinks so. can u explane the mark of the beast? didnt think so. the truth is ur facts are based on everyone elses facts. and the reason why i love the lord so much as i do is because i know the truth and frankly u dont. why is the fossil record wrong? why doesnt it show the "missing link"? because there is no missing link!! the fossil speak for them selves now dont they? there is no fossils that show any sign of evolution now is there? this might as well be of the same happening. why cant people accept the fact that God is the only God and there is none else but him? why cant people find something better to then sit around discussing if Gods real or not? if u want to know if God is real or not u can read one book. yeah thats right just one book not 14 million!! and that one book is the nice book... the
B-I-B-L-E!! get it threw u rock skull heads!! God is real why cant u just accept that?

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:41 pm

I have not heard any reliable reports that Noah's ark has been found. Do you have a source for this?

As far as the mark of the beast, you of course are citing the book of Revelation, a prophetic, some refer to it as apocalyptic, book. I have heard a number of widely different interpretations for various parts of the book, and the book as a whole, including the references to the mark of the beast. My personal view, based on history, is that prophecy is a very tricky thing. It rarely comes true in the way that people prior to the occurrence expect, if it comes true at all.

Consider the prophecies of Jesus. We, looking back after the events, can create an interpretation of these prophecies consistent with the events as they occurred. However, I don't think you will find anywhere in the Bible a person of Jesus' time or before who accurately understood what would really happen. The New Testament testifies to the fact that many people expected Jesus to establish an earthly kingdom, I'm sure as they felt was predicted by the prophecies. THey entirely missed what we refer to today as the 'church age.'

What do you think the mark of the beast means? Why?

there is no fossils that show any sign of evolution now is there?

I would disagree. There is very ample evidence for evolution in the fossil record. One should consider that fossilization is a very rare occurrence, and a miniscule number of the organisms that have existed throughout history have been fossilized. However, from the fossils we have, we always find trilobites below dinosaurs below early mammals below present day species, etc. unless there is evidence that the strata have been disturbed (eg. by earthquakes, avalanches, etc.). We never find dinosaurs with humans, we never find mastodons with trilobites, etc.

why cant people find something better to then sit around discussing if Gods real or not? if u want to know if God is real or not u can read one book.

I do believe God is real, and I do read and take seriously the 'one book.' However, as is suggested in the Bible itself (see Psalm 19 "the heavens declare the glory of God") I also read and take seriously the evidence presented by God's creation. This creation overwhelmingly testifies that it is very, very old. It testifies that life has existed on earth for eons upon eons. It testifies that most of the life (species) that exists now did not exist in the past, and that most of the life that existed in the past does not exist now. The evidence seems to me to be as inconsistent with the idea of an earth that is only a few thousand years old as it is with the idea that the earth is the center of the solar system.

get it threw u rock skull heads!!

Obviously you can read some rather sarcastic and insulting remarks on the forum, but in general we try to discourage this sort of thing. It really doesn't do your arguement any good. Consult the forum rules for further guidance. The forum is designed for civil debate, which does not mean it does not get intense, but personal attacks are not appropriate. Nor are they good Christian behavior.

I'm not trying to discourage you from being 'on fire' for the Lord. I am only pointing out that other committed Christians have different views on a whole host of issues, including particular prophecies and the theory of evolution, and many of us have good reasons for our positions.

A website you might find interesing is Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe site. Ross is not a friend of evolution, is an evangelical Christian, and an astronomer. However, he is not a believer in a young earth, nor in a global flood, and makes a reasonable case both scripturally and scientifically that the flood was a local flood, confined to the Mesopotamian valley. See here for one article on the flood.

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:33 pm

I belive that originally they were saying he was a Nazarene and so were his first follower acording to Robert H. Eisenman in his book James the Brother of Jesus : The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"Jesus of Nazareth" is just a bad translation. French historian Charles Guignebert says Jesus the Nazarene does not mean "the man from Nazareth" but "the nazir", the holy man of God. So the existence of Jesus has nothing to do with the existence of Nazareth.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:50 pm

Dilettante wrote:

"Jesus of Nazareth" is just a bad translation. French historian Charles Guignebert says Jesus the Nazarene does not mean "the man from Nazareth" but "the nazir", the holy man of God. So the existence of Jesus has nothing to do with the existence of Nazareth.

That is how I saw it. Sure there is some room for doubt about when and where he was born. I tend to belive he was an historical figure. The Christ is a different matter. The gospels were not meant to be history but
persuasive. They may fail these days at that but perfectly normal at the time of their writing before and afterwards. What I find interesting is that they say they are no contradiction or mistakes. I find that hard to belive that when it comes to anything we do or are involved. As one writer wrote when they go thru all kinds of twisting to get things to fit they are not explaining anything they are creating a new gospel.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:12 am

trencaclosas wrote:
That would be completely inaccurate since the alleged Nazareth of the 4th could not possibly be the hypothetical Nazareth of the 1st century.

Why could it "not possibly be"?

I kinda lost the track of this thread (especially considering the post-vacation syndrome

) but how can the absence of information about an alleged town called Nazareth where the Saviour was born remained lost during more than three centuries, considering that his religion blossomed during that age? No saint, Father Of The Church, pilgrim or witness gives any notice that link one Nazareth to the other.

If the purpose of this thread is to provide evidence for the claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed then I would like to share the opinion of historian Michael Grant on the subject...

"...modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' - or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Jesus - An Historian's Review of the Gospels pg. 200

This is the kind of scholarship that can actually be seriously doubted. This 'serious' guys that want us to take their opinion instead of the evidence (or lack of it) presented. Maybe the Ken Humphries site is not exactly objective scholarship, but I think this article is worthy to be read carefully about the so called "serious scholarship":

INERTIA OF THE SOFT OPINION

Professional historians are not necessarily engaged by any particular interest in the issue of Jesus – and are all too aware of its controversial nature. A scholar who announces that he thinks there was no historical Jesus is likely to face scorn, even ridicule, and will gain little for his candour.

Thus most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably". It is much safer for them to aver the "probability of a man behind the legend" even while arguing that layers of encrusted myth obscure knowing anything about him.

This "safe" and gutless option maintains simultaneously the "obscurity" of a carpenter in an ancient provincial backwater ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") and an academic detachment from "faith issues" which raised that supposed obscure guru to an iconic status.

And the article continues...

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html