It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus' house discovered

page: 12
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bronco73

Doesn't matter, Jesus, Joshua or Yeshua, there were 1000s of men with that name. It was common.

Which Jesus are you saying existed? What do you know, I mean really know about this person of whom you speak, and how do you know it?


As to what I know... nothing. I don't know that the man existed, and I don't know that he did not exist (just like you btw, therefore claiming that he did not exist is just as silly)

The great news for me is that I never made the claim that he existed. I claimed that most scholars, religions archaeologist etc. agree that he did exist. Big difference. If you'd like you can feel free to do a search, or scan back through this thread. The claim was never made by me, but it has definitely been made by the smart people, both religious and non-religious, who actually study this kind of stuff for a living.




posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bronco73

Oh okay. Just accept what smart people tell you. Don't ask questions..... Go with the flow...... your eyes are getting heavy...........



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt


They used to consider there wasn't any actual village of Nazareth in the 1st century but that changed in 2009 when another house was excavated at Nazareth and that did date to the 1st century, so no longer any doubts really.

Are the presence of house remains, or even the remains of a settlement, sufficient to date the site as 'Nazareth'? How do we know it was called Nazareth? All we know is that the modern settlement in that location is called Nazareth.

I imagine that digging almost anywhere in the ancient Middle East will uncover ruins of some sort.


the Church was built above the home to protect it

Is that why the Portuguese and Dutch built so many churches over the Buddhist and Hindu shrines they demolished in my country?

Religious monuments are erected for many reasons.

It strikes me, Kantzveldt, that what you have is a hole in the ground filled with conjecture.


edit on 5/3/15 by Astyanax because: of conjecture.



posted on Mar, 5 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bronco73

Oh okay. Just accept what smart people tell you. Don't ask questions..... Go with the flow...... your eyes are getting heavy...........

Actually that is exactly what I don't do. In fact, if that were the case then I would have posted on here exactly what my belief is on the matter (yes/no/undecided), which I did not do. I did not even once claim that I accept the findings of those experts as truth, I merely put forth that they are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am (or I presume you for that matter), and most of them agree that the person existed. Further to that, you are in fact more of a "sheep" than I am because you have already made up your mind on the matter and have expressed it in this thread, which would actually constitute accepting what others have told you without asking questions. Unless of course you have proof that this man did not exist? To paraphrase your earlier post, how do you know, really know, that the man did not exist? You don't. Yet you very matter of factly claim that he did not. Not that I blame you of course, but that is not the issue.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

You can find the answer to those basic questions on the wikipedia Nazareth page, unless you are familiar with the subject how can you cast doubt on the site being located at the biblical Nazareth ?



Epiphanius in his Panarion (c. 375 CE) numbers Nazareth among the cities devoid of a non-Jewish population. Epiphanius, writing of Joseph of Tiberias, a wealthy Roman Jew who converted to Christianity in the time of Constantine, says he claimed to have received an imperial rescript to build Christian churches in Jewish towns and villages where no gentiles or Samaritans dwell, naming Tiberias, Diocaesarea, Sepphoris, Nazareth and Capernaum From this scarce notice, it has been concluded that a small church which encompassed a cave complex might have been located in Nazareth in the early 4th century,"although the town was Jewish until the 7th century CE.

Although mentioned in the New Testament gospels, there are no extant non-biblical references to Nazareth until around 200 CE, when Sextus Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of “Nazara” as a village in "Judea" and locates it near an as-yet unidentified “Cochaba.” In the same passage Africanus writes of desposunoi - relatives of Jesus - who he claims kept the records of their descent with great care.



edit on Kam33164vAmerica/ChicagoFriday0631 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




So basically, your argument is: "LOL NOPE!" Good to know.


Not trying to argue with you. Evidently thats your stance. I simply asked you to supply me with some information to prove Jesus lived there. Now you have replied to me twice and both times could have shared information with me. Both time you have not.

If anyone is arguing here. Its you with yourself..

Take Care and enjoy your self debates..

Purp



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DeadSeraph




So basically, your argument is: "LOL NOPE!" Good to know.


Not trying to argue with you. Evidently thats your stance. I simply asked you to supply me with some information to prove Jesus lived there. Now you have replied to me twice and both times could have shared information with me. Both time you have not.

If anyone is arguing here. Its you with yourself..

Take Care and enjoy your self debates..

Purp


Here is what you actually said:



Scholars have found no historical records that Jesus existed.. Yet they have found his house..?


I demonstrated why that was completely FALSE. Go back and look. You probably didn't bother to watch anything I posted, but it's right there for you, clear as day, why that statement was untrue.

Then, before I even POSTED THE LINKS, I said this:



I'd just like to point out that while there is certainly no way we can know for sure if Jesus actually lived in the house referenced in the OP, it isn't the only one of its kind found in Nazareth


You then "countered" with this:



Not really because its just a story. Show me the evidence that is the house of Jesus..


I then replied with this:



You didn't read anything I actually said, or watch any of the evidence I presented, did you?

Thats ok. Your stars are valuable.



Do you see where this is going? You literally didn't read a damned thing I said, nor did you watch anything I posted.

Yet you closed with this:




I simply asked you to supply me with some information to prove Jesus lived there. Now you have replied to me twice and both times could have shared information with me. Both time you have not.

If anyone is arguing here. Its you with yourself..

Take Care and enjoy your self debates..


Enjoy my self debates indeed. It would seem that is in fact the case, since you are clearly willfully ignorant.
edit on 6-3-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: bronco73




Further to that, you are in fact more of a "sheep" than I am because you have already made up your mind on the matter and have expressed it in this thread, which would actually constitute accepting what others have told you without asking questions.


The info in this thread is old news. My opinion is based on decades of study on the subject.


Unless of course you have proof that this man did not exist?


What man?

A man born of virgin whose father is God almighty? A man who walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine and died for your sins, then rose from the dead? That guy?

Who's "The Man"?


edit on 6-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt

I see nothing in the Wikipedia page that firmly establishes the existence of a place called Nazareth any time previous to the third century of the Christian era. You'll have to do better than that. Two or three hundred years better.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


There are 27 attestations in the New Testament, not bad for a village that at the time had a population of around 450 according to archaeologists, maybe to you that counts as nothing but maybe that's just you...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt

As far as I can recall, the "city" of Nazareth is mentioned first in describing the situation of Jesus's birth, in Matthew, and the story is repeated in Luke. It is again mentioned in the story of Jesus' rejection in his home town in Matthew, and the story is repeated in Mark and Luke. I have a feeling the other references, that you refer to, are associated with the name "Jesus of Nazareth".

Needless to say, the stories in the Bible and biblical narrative, although it may be repeated, doesn't prove Bible stories to be true.

I recall a remark of "“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?", in John as well. There's so much I could say about the "savior" who came to die (for sin), and whose birth heralded the death of thousands of Jewish baby boys, and that he should be brought up in area known for it's very large funerary, SHEOL, the home of the dead.



edit on 6-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I suggest it trying to dialogue with you should use the reply button.. Now i am not saying you did not say those things but you certainly did not say them to me.

I have no intention of reading through twelve pages of text trying to decipher and put together what you may have said..

If you want to think that a fairy tale man lived in a fairy tale house then so be it.. Illusionary thought can create an ill mind.. If you dont believe me look at the likes of ISIS

Kind regards

purp..


edit on 6-3-2015 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tonycodes




I feel that if they found a house that matches a very old description than something important is there. Especially if its buried under a church. I have made it a point in my life to not beleive in coincedences very often.


You can feel what you want it does not make it true.. I am sure there are many houses that fit the description. This topic really should be in the Grey Area at best..

purp..



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




What can we take for granted as fact from this biblical narrative?


You said it yourself Win




born of virgin whose father is God almighty? A man who walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine and died for your sins, then rose from the dead? That guy?


Yes that guy, is the man!

No one else that I can think of qualifies more Win.
Damn boy what more could you even ask for than
scholars saying the resurrection is a historical fact?
So you can cry all you want, stomp your feet hold
your breath. but you aren't going to have it your
way. Not now, not ever! Get over it.


edit on Rpm30615v572015u30 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

If THAT is "The Man", why do you Christians keep saying that secular scholars all agree that "The Man", not the god or demigod, "The Man" existed, when clearly those are attributes to which there can be NO PROOF, and the reality of whom, one must rely totally on faith?

When we take away all the magic from the story, what do we have left? We have some poorly cobbled together sayings, most of which aren't original, stories copied from neighboring myths, and shoehorned claims of prophetic fulfillment.

Randy, I support your right to believe anything you want, but don't try to tell me that there is physical proof for your beliefs. There is not. Belief in your magic man/god relies on faith, not facts. You only look foolish when you try to mix the two.


edit on 6-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I only refute you Win on the grounds that Jesus Christ existed
and was resurrectrd according to SCHOLARS.
I can add to that in any way I chose. And I do that according to my
beliefs about the man. Who was God in the flesh and i see no reason
not to believe that. So what if you don't believe it now, I also believe
that will have to change when you're left without the choice.




Randy, I support your right to believe anything you want,


Not without ridicule.

edit on Rpm30615v392015u27 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs




So what if you don't believe it now, I also believe that will have to change when you're left without the choice.


LOL

Mkay



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Let me ask you this windword.
If this house is just the place where an ordinary man
lived as a boy. In which all these myths grew around.
Or if Jesus of the Bible is just another myth. How is it
the Jesus myth doesn't stay in the pile with all the other
myths? If it were myth it would surely act like a myth.
edit on Rpm30615v51201500000018 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kantzveldt


There are 27 attestations in the New Testament, not bad for a village that at the time had a population of around 450 according to archaeologists, maybe to you that counts as nothing but maybe that's just you...

Or maybe it isn't.

Google search: 'Did Nazareth exist when jesus was born?
480,000 results.

Come on. You make claims — tacit ones, at least — to historical scholarship. Show us your evidence.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bronco73




Further to that, you are in fact more of a "sheep" than I am because you have already made up your mind on the matter and have expressed it in this thread, which would actually constitute accepting what others have told you without asking questions.


The info in this thread is old news. My opinion is based on decades of study on the subject.


Unless of course you have proof that this man did not exist?


What man?

A man born of virgin whose father is God almighty? A man who walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine and died for your sins, then rose from the dead? That guy?

Who's "The Man"?


The man that is the subject of this thread, and the man that you continually are debating about. Please don't claim ignorance when you clearly know exactly who this discussion is about.

There is no need to attribute to him those actions that cannot be proven. I do believe your entire premise on his existence or non-existence is based on an impossibility to prove, therefore to use these also unproveable claims in a futile attempt to draw me into some sort of agreement so you can then refute those same actions is quite dishonest. You know the person in question, I know the person in question, the thread clearly states who the person in question is.. therefore you are free to now provide proof that he did or did not exist.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join