Nazareth

[trencacloscas]

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?

[Tilia]

quote="trencacloscas"

Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death

So, there was no Nazareth after all?

Why the question mark?

[AlAyeti]

Mr. T,

Skeptics, Muslim's too, have been arguing this for a long time. There are still a vast majority of scholars that beg to differ with your attack.

You're jumping on the anti-Christian (ubiquitous and redundant though it is) non-Nazarene band wagon a bit late in the hate-the-Christian skeptic game.

Is there a reason that you must attack Christianity? Is there other places and religions that also must fall under the licentious and hedonistic secular attack other than just Christianity?

Is guilt the only thing that drives the anti-Christ to rid the world of the only voice of morality?

[McCulloch]

Mr. T,

Skeptics, Muslim's too, have been arguing this for a long time. There are still a vast majority of scholars that beg to differ with your attack.

You're jumping on the anti-Christian (ubiquitous and redundant though it is) non-Nazarene band wagon a bit late in the hate-the-Christian skeptic game.

Is there a reason that you must attack Christianity? Is there other places and religions that also must fall under the licentious and hedonistic secular attack other than just Christianity?

Is guilt the only thing that drives the anti-Christ to rid the world of the only voice of morality?

Your argument is entirely ad hom. Try to use evidence and logic next time.

[AlAyeti]

You are right.

But T's attack is as well. You can't possibly deny that. There is nothing original in this thread topic. His url reference is to an interesting organization to say the least. Certainly an odd place to find support for his agenda.

Please direct an admonition toward his point of assertion.

The Nazareth existing thing is old hat. It lends itself to just tripping up vulnerable Christians, or what it is, an attempt to just insult Christians. There is no value in it, it's like bringing up the passover plot as something original.

Again, to make something fresh out of something very stale to cause concern to some Christian. I would love to embrace a skeptic and compliment them in what they do for me, and that is they drive me to study the historicity and facts of Christ into a further cementing of reality. I have not let go of skepticism. It is what Christ is all about. He was skeptical of all around Him in Judea.

But most skepticism boils down to a childlike poutiness of not wanting to be told what to do. Very historical.

But, they will think that I am somehow agreeing that their worldview is positive. I will not and cannot do that, anymore. Because it is not.

There are many websites and books writen on the Nazareth subject that predate this thread.

"Battling url's" proves little and will convince almost no one who doesn't want to choose to be altered.

The point of all of this should be that Mr. T is not going to change the mind of any Christian that sees in a skeptic ulterior motives. And his motive is to insult and not engage a conversation. That is obvious.

I can counter any badness in Christians with badness in non-Christians ad infinitum. In fact the scales of justice look very favorable on where Christianity has been IS and is going, if numbers are the sole judge of good and bad.

If the garden-variety skeptic/atheist, didn't live in a delusion that they are somehow discovering a truth long hidden, and instead realize that many of us Christians have skeptically "been there and done that" and have embraced Christ in all fairness, than the jabs would decrease.

I am aware of what the game is. I'm just not willing to turn the other cheek or to have one slapped in the first place without wacking back at the impotent attempt of injury towards Christian beliefs.

But I know I should.

Chack out this url: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html

Another person who likes to insult Christians but what the heck.

[trencacloscas]

Great

37 lines, not one single answer to the topic, just religious contempt and hatred. And this guy asks to "direct an admonition"????????

This is a good example of Christians that feel "insulted" just because an inconvenient issue for them pops up. So, the way for not discussing it, is this kind of reaction.

[ST88]

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

Your contention that there was no Nazareth during the time of Jesus needs more evidence than that website.

Here is another source:

[Dr. James] Strange notes that when Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70, priests were no longer needed in the temple because it had been destroyed, so they were sent out to various other locations, even up into Galilee. Archaelogists have found a list in Aramaic describing the twenty-four 'courses,' or families, of priests who were relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth. That shows that this tiny village must have been there at the time.

In addition, he said there have been archaeological digs that have uncovered first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth, which would establish the village's limits because by Jewish law burials had to take place outside the town proper. Two tombs contained objects such as pottery lamps, glass vessels, and vases from the first, third, or fourth centuries.
-- Jesus' Association with Nazareth

There is also this:

Nazareth is... assumed to be where Jesus grew up from his infancy to manhood. However, some historians have called this into question, suggesting instead that it is based on a mistranslation of Greek sources. Such historians argue that Iesou Nazarene was not "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene."
-- Nazareth (Wikipedia)

Even the article you reference states that Jesus, in fact, existed, but was just from another place. If the above translation error is true, then there is no contention.

ed: formatting

[AlAyeti]

T,

Contempt and hatred? I'm not an evangelist so you going to hell is on you. I just call it as I see it. But still within me is a desire to see another course for you. But your bully tactics are easy to see.

Like you are not pure hatred? I seek the empirical while you believe in nothingness as the foundation of all of your perspectives. Christianity exists in time and space. It is no myth.

Why do you bother challenging anyone else's beliefs? Your mind is set and fused shut. This is typical of the homogenized "freethinkers."

You have only to search the net yourself to see how many opinions there are about Nazareth. Interesting the one you used.

Here's Just one "opinion" from one click.

Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise."

(http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html)

Odd, the New Testament is "from antiquity." Many references to history abound.

We could battle url's forever. But the New Testament is a reliable history source in and of itself. Unless you look only through opposition eyes. I have dwelt on both sides of the issue. And still do. I look with both eyes. I feel that reading anti-Christian websites and books is enlightening. Your opinions of Christians shows a lack of open-mindedness. Visit equip.org sometime.

My point is a matter of fact that your sole purpose of "debating" is to insult Christians rather than to do anything positive. You never see such viscious multi-level attacks of any other religion. Especially the errors of Islam, or the silliness of Hinduism or Budhaism.

But there is some good in dealing with anti-Christians like you and others of your plain tact.

I feel that much of the challenge about Christ has eliminated much trivial stuff and cemeted His Holiness and absolute Deity.

If anyone thinks that Jesus did not believe that He was God should do research into the New Testament passages that you provided.

Every one from the perspective of the Judge of the Universe.

[QED]

I didn't find trencacloscas particularly vitriolic, it seemed like a reasonable invitation to debate an interesting angle on an old theme. The reaction it got prompted me to start a new thread titled Skepticism - healthy or not? Perhaps any further discussion off the topic of the OP could continue there.

[McCulloch]

You are right.

So one ad hom attack deserves another. Hardly a way to get closer to the truth. Better to point out the error in your opponent's thinking and present evidence.