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?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 2:33 pm

It is a big leap from No Nazareth to no Jesus.
I am still interested in the Archaeology.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:19 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:It is a big leap from No Nazareth to no Jesus.
I am still interested in the Archaeology.

Yes, it is. But the more we learn, the more it seems as if the tales of Jesus as recorded decades after his alleged life, are not literally true.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 6:27 pm

McCulloch wrote:

Yes, it is. But the more we learn, the more it seems as if the tales of Jesus as recorded decades after his alleged life, are not literally true.

That seems to be where the evidence is leading.
It is possible that the records are way off. They were created to persuade and meet diffrent needs at diffrent times.
They also didn't mind embelishing and changing things to meet the chalenge.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:55 am

But there is a big difference here. The mainstream opinion is that evolution is the natural process that led us to our present (and there are conclusive proofs that only can be denied through stubbornness). About this "historical Jesus" thing, the mainstream opinion tends to affirm the existence without any consistent proofs, and that is only to avoid contradict tradition.

About the "Inertia Of Soft Opinion" article, I recently meet again with an old friend from the university, and just commented about this discussion. He's a Greek scholar himself and I think his answer is worth being copied here: "If we treat Plato like Bible scholars treat Jesus, everybody should be looking for Atlantis".

[As you may know, the Atlantis myth is based on Plato's writings]

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:07 am

We should also be looking for Plato's existence.

Do we have original writings directly from people that heard Plato or do we have original works penned by the "man?"

Seems we should be looking for validation of Plato's existence first, if he is to be mentioned.

I am just a skeptic looking for historical proof that Plato ever even existed in the first place. Do we have any evidence that is not just hand me down sayings?

It would be odd to use other myths to "disprove" other mythology. Wouldn't it?

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:09 am

Obviously, you didn't understand anything at all, Al. Just follow the thread back to see what we are talking about.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:22 am

I was just seeking some knowledge.

Sorry to invade in your denigartion exercise.

In many ways secular skeptic can uncover much truth to cement a better faith in Christ.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:15 pm

Nobody is calling God or claming that if you don't belive in Plato your going to hell. His influence has been been carried by the Christian . Mythology has it's place. part of the human endeavor is to explain. By the way people are still looking for Atlantis I saw a program the other night the history channel about the possible locations. They are looking on Crete the Americas and even some other place. They are not sure what he said and if the directions are translated correctly. Some think he was talking about the Minoan civilization. He quit writing one history when he realized it. So people are till debating Platos ideas and works. But if we find one thing true about anything he wrote we don't yell there is proof that all his works and ideas are true.
McCulloch wrote:

Cathar1950 wrote:
It is a big leap from No Nazareth to no Jesus.
I am still interested in the Archaeology.
Yes, it is. But the more we learn, the more it seems as if the tales of Jesus as recorded decades after his alleged life, are not literally true.

I think that is my point about Plato. I could agree with you more.
The further we dig the farther we get away from any Christian view except maybe the Ebonites. I think we know more about the times and places then the Gospel writers did. Still despite the doctrine myth and traditions some of his nature sneaks out. At least someones does. It is not a far stretch to say he might have been Judas of Galilee or one of many anti-Roman zealots killed for A Kingdom rules by God alone and not some man-god like the Romans had. The ended up with one anyway. Of all the things they took a man-god myth and warped it in what little they understood the Septuagint.
And ran as far as they could with it from the Jews. paul took Hebrew mythology and combined it with The practices of the mystery religions and symbolism and made it real thru magic for Paul. They became the body of Christ dying and rising with their god and becoming one with him. Thru the sacraments such as the eucharist and baptism.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:10 pm

By the way people are still looking for Atlantis

Exactly, Cathar, that was the core of the observation. But no serious scholar support such thing, for independent proof is required. In the Classic Roman/Greek literature field, scholars just don't cling to the "accepted" opinion. Nothing like "Atlantis existed because Plato said so". It seems the other way around with Bible scholars. They kinda accept the existence of Jesus because the Gospels say so, with no independent evidence presented.

I don't know if I mentioned this before, sorry if I repeat myself. I never heard my Greek professors mention Homer without adding comments like "if there really was a Homer", "or whoever composed the poems", or "the character whom Iliad and Odyssey were attributted". And that's because true scholarship does not rely on unchecked tradition. Homer probably never existed, and the homeric poems are the product of several hands. In fact, we actually know for sure that around one quarter of The Odyssey (The Telemacchia) was not composed by the same author than the rest. If we still say commonly "The Odyssey, by Homer" is for respect of tradition and to avoid long explanations with a short conventionalism. I'm not sure this happens with the Bible, let alone Jesus.

Just an idle comparison. A whole superproduction movie (Mel Gibson's The Passion) was sold pretty recently on the oblique perspective of historic accuracy. Where the trailer goes "a perfect reconstruction of Jesus life" or the paid reviews say "historical recreation of Jesus' times", truth suffered. How many Bible scholars arised the natural objections? I'm sorry, I didn't heard many, though probably there are some that went unnoticed to me.
On the contrary, Troy (based on The Iliad) was duly massacred by scholars, even though it was purely fictional, for the movie pretends some historical accuracies that -ironic enough- in the end don't matter at all, for the spirit of the poem is more important than such considerations.
Apart from that, Mel's film is probably much better than the other one.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:41 pm

Even the German scholars and liberals gave it all to much credit.
One thing that struck me funny is Mel's snuff film was when Mary his mother was called the mother of God. Now I can bet you till the last day that that was never said in Jesus lifetime or to his mom. Just a hunch.
Then when people were saying it was anti-semite. No kidding he took it from Luke when he wasn't borrowing from other sources. He said it was from Luke. I remember Billy Graham's daughter all wide eyed like she was in a trance saying no the Jews didn't kill the "son of God" all of us did. I suppose if my kids were 3 and 4 I should have woke them up and told them the good news. "Hey kids you kill Jesus, God's son". and then fixed then breakfast after prayer. I think I might puke.