here was your comment to my questioning of whether Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus' Birth:

"In 2009 a house dating to the time of Jesus was found in Nazareth. Ehrman discusses this at great length in his book and the discovery of the house was covered at the time.http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-21/world/nazareth.home_1_nazareth-jesus-byzantine-period?_s=PM:WORLD";

I know it pains you to read actual information, rather than mis-worded press releases, but here is a better document:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Residential_building_time_Jesus_Nazareth_21-Dec-2009.htm

Here is the full quote about when this building was dated:

" The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries CE). "

So now, dating a town to the first or second century is "proof" that this existed around the year 0? We already know that this "hamlet" existed around the end of the first century from other sources.

If this find is your grand proof that a town existed, you are grasping at straws.

An archaeological excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority recently conducted has revealed new information about ancient Nazareth from the time of Jesus. Remains of a dwelling that date to the Early Roman period were discovered for the first time in an excavation, which was carried out prior to the construction of the "International Marian Center of Nazareth" by the the Association Mary of Nazareth, next to the Church of the Annunciation.
and the first century C.E. IS the time of Jesus no?

also from same article:
According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus.

where is the problem? the excavation director even calls it "the time of Jesus".

The excavation director has many reasons to call it "the time of Jesus", all of which are green.

The first century is not the same as "the time of Jesus". It was long known that the region was inhabited after 67 ce when Jews were forced to move outside of Jerusalem. That is not the same as saying that it was there 70 years prior. And "early Roman" can span up to the end of the 2nd century.

so the 67C.E. years for sure aint too far off the mark and it IS in the time of the first century...when else was Jesus time...the first century being 1-100 C.E. as per the Julian calendar right? So you may want to believe the archeaologist is lying or has reason to lie or exagerate...but it seems to me there could be merit in their assertions. also you seem to take exception to BD's citing that article from CNN but the two articles seem to pretty well match up to me. Amartin you say the article you cite is better...are you saying you dont agree with said article?

i mean you said here:
"I know it pains you to read actual information, rather than mis-worded press releases, but here is a better document:"

so you post "actual information" and yet you refute it...seems strange...
just sayin!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 01:34PM by bignevermo.

67 years is "way" off the mark. And that's the bare minimum difference. It is known there were tombs in that area around the beginning of the first century. That's it. That's the total sum of what is known. The rest is conjecture.


Here's an important difference in the articles:

From the "hype" article:

"Archaeologists in Israel say they have discovered the remains of a home from the time of Jesus in the heart of Nazareth."

From the more subdued article:

"Remains of a dwelling that date to the Early Roman period were discovered for the first time in an excavation,"

Where early Roman is described as 1st or 2nd century.

that it was during jesus time...i like how you dismiss that and yet cling to the "1st and 2nd century"...JESUS TIME was 1st century...why is it so hard for you to admit that?

yup here is the problem...your unwillingness to admit that the 1st century was Jesus time as evidenced by your retort: "The first century is not the same as "the time of Jesus".

what 33C.E. aint the first century? your bias is showing amartin!

In order for Nazareth to be Jesus' birthplace, it needed to be around before 0 ce, not 33 ce. Saying that between 1st and 2nd century is in Jesus' time, is to try and push an agenda.

So no, I would not say that 67 ce is "in Jesus' time". I'm not saying that Jesus wouldn't have been around in the first century, if he existed. I'm saying that time 0-33 ce, is not equal to 0-200.

And the point is, nothing other than tombs has been dated to before 67 ce, which would be expected if the town didn't exist before then.

They are not practicing good sound science. They are pushing an agenda. That's not to say they "won't" find anything from before then.

There is no way to prove that it didn't exist at the time. You can only say that there is no proof that it did.

I am pushing an agenda? like which one? the gay agenda? the Republican agenda? just which agenda am i pushing? you cite an article and when i quote from it you dismiss the parts you dont like and expound and believe those you do agree with! I dont give a rats ass if there really was a village there or not...i am just pointing out inconsistancies in your arguments... and in doing so you label me as someone who is "pushing an agenda" anghhhh wrong answer...the agenda is...you cant handle the truth!! :)
and again there is/was no 0 year...but more to the point...no 1-33 is not the same as 1-200...but it still is in the time frame indicated!
but i really am wondering about which agenda i am pushing...please do tell...enlighten me as to my motives!! :)

It is not truthful to say that anything in the first or second century is "in Jesus' Time". The archeologists saying this are pushing an agenda because they are paid by the Catholic church to try and prove that Jesus was from Nazareth.

Do you have an agenda? I have no idea. All I know is that you're pushing for an inaccurate term to be used.

If you said, that it "could" have been from Jesus' time, then that would also be accurate.

And don't forget Bignevermo, you also hold that opinion because it makes you money. How much are you getting paid?

Here's what Ehrman says about it:

But there is more. As it turns out, another discovery was made in ancient Nazareth a year after Salm’s book appeared. It is a house that dates to the days of Jesus. The discovery was reported by the Associated Press on December 21, 2009. I have personally written the principal archaeologist, Yardena Alexandre, the excavations director at the Israel Authority, and she has confirmed the report. The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery shards connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (that is, the days of Jesus). There is nothing in the house to suggest that the people inhabiting it over this time had any wealth: there are no glass items or imported products. The vessels are made of clay and chalk.

The AP story concludes that “the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.” No wonder this place is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, Josephus, or the Talmud. It was far too small, poor, and insignificant. Most people had never heard of it, and those who had heard didn’t care. Even though it existed, this is not the place someone would make up as the hometown of the messiah. Jesus really came from there, as attested in multiple sources.

Again I reiterate the main point of my chapter: even if Jesus did not come from Nazareth, so what? The historicity of Jesus does not depend on whether Nazareth existed. In fact, it is not even related to the question. The existence (or rather, nonexistence) of Nazareth is another mythicist irrelevancy.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 3022-3035). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Of course,Ehrman holds this position because it makes him money. He keeps offending a portion of the people who used to support him and buy his books. That must be a real money-maker!

That was actually part of my original point in the other thread which was then hijacked by Bona Dea. His birthplace should not be mentioned as one of the facts that proves whether he existed or not.

I gave you a link. How is that hijacking a thread? GEESH. Believe whatever fits your agenda and don't let actual archaeology get in the way. Those archaeologists are all Christian apologists anyway-even though they are Israelis who tend to be Jewish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 05:43PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I gave you a link. How is that hijacking a thread?
> GEESH. Believe whatever fits your agenda and don't
> let actual archaeology get in the way. Those
> archaeologists are all Christian apologists
> anyway-even though they are Israelis who tend to
> be Jewish.

Thread jacking as in: "Boo-hoo, somebody posted something I didn't like!" OMG, Bona Dea! How very dare you! ;o))

We mustn't confuse him with the facts. Next time he should make clear that only those who agree are allowed to post in his thread.

amartin, you clearly know very little about archaeology. Or are just playing the part of someone who knows very little about archaeology.

In archaeological terms 67 years is very, very close.

Yes it can be considered a short time. But other considerations must be taken into account.
1-It was against Jewish rules to live so close to tombs.
2-During the war around 67 ce, Jewish citizens of Jerusalem were forced outside of Jerusalem. This matches up with this archeological find which mentions that a pit outside of the house was consistent with pits built during this war.
3-outside of Greek versions of the new testament, there is no such mention of Nazareth. Including written records of many surrounding towns. Including many writings from Christians before the 4th cetury.
4-in other parts of the bible there are references to the "Nazarean" Jews.

Now I'm not saying there is no chance that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus' birth, but there are many inconsistencies that would need to be explained.

IIRC, the supposed site of nazareth, is many miles from any type of cliff or precipice (from which enraged people from his home town supposedly threatened to throw jesus, after he proclaimed 'before moses was, I am')

It's one of those "yeah, right" stories for me. I never took it seriously or literally. Well, the Joseph Smith story I'd never heard of until recently, being a non-mo, but it's the same kind of thing.

Evidence possibly indicating the presence of one dwelling does not a town make. So saith Yoda.

or not..but they found something besides bones that shows a settlement was there...during the time of Jesus...:)

serena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's one of those "yeah, right" stories for me. I
> never took it seriously or literally.

I guess it's like most other areas of 'cafeteria christianity' - how much can we discard and how much can we still believe.

in that case, why not discard 'nazareth' along with the rest of it?

That's too bad -- There should have been a year 0.

Imagine the celebration when it was changing from year -1 to year 0.

The issue of Nazareth goes more to the point of the Criterion of Embarrassment as a tool of the Historian.

Generally speaking an admitted embarassing claim is generally more credible compared to admitted flattering claim.

For Christians, two prime embarrassing claims are that Jesus was from Nazareth, contrary to the prophecies for Bethlehem and the related Gospel stories.

And that Jesus was crucified as a criminal, again contrary to the prophesied glorious coming. Much of early Christianity is a rewrite and re-interpretation of prophecy to make Jesus fit.

As a generalization for historians of this period, much of what one can say about a minor player like Jesus is on a scale of probability rather than full assurance. So claims that can be given higher credence for various criteria, such as embarrassment, get more attention.

You forget that Luke somehow includes nazareth as one of the prophesies. Of course he messes up the translation, which should be a bigger embarassment to Christians, but none seem to care.

I think a much more likely story is that, in agreement with the non-greek writings, He was a Nazorean Jew, and in the translation it became "of" Nazareth.

This would make much more sense.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 09:28PM by amartin.

I'm guessin' the part that says its a fairy tale.

Timothy