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 - Era House Found In Nazareth For First Time

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I think you don’t want to believe that Nazarene was an actual city and Jesus may have been born there. According to the New testament Joseph took Mary and baby Jesus and fled with them to Egypt. ( I think this was due to Harrods killing of all children under the age of two.) Now When Jesus came back do you think those people in that Hamlet (Nazarene) Would remember him? Some of the stuff he was saying was radical, maybe perhaps this is why they wanted to throw him off the hill?

Modern, Day in and Day out you go after the bible and Christians. (also Israel but that’s a different story) Have you opened your mind to the fact that the Christians may have it right and we are wrong? You try too hard to discredit things when maybe you should look and see.

I for one did not believe in a god, nor the Christian god, but nowadays it’s looking to be true. That could be that things are so tough right now, or it could be I am wrong. All I am saying is Open your mind, you can’t claim to be enlighten but attempt to discredit something where hundreds of Millions believe to be the truth.




posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



BWQAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

Everyone go here to see a picture of the archaelogist
www.huffingtonpost.com...



He who laughs first laughs last.

The picture shown is not of the archeologist - it's of Father Jack Karam of the nearby Basilica of the Annunciation:


"They say if the people do not speak, the stones will speak," said a smiling Father Jack Karam of the nearby Basilica of the Annunciation, the site where Christian tradition says Mary received the angel's word.


Here is what the archeologist said:


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 (1.6 hectares). It was evidently populated by Jews of modest means who kept camouflaged grottos to hide from Roman invaders, said archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, excavations director at the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls.


I'm afraid the question has to be asked, 'Are you prepared to concede that you are getting nowhere with your line of argument?'



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Modern, Day in and Day out you go after the bible and Christians.

Untrue
Firstly not day in and day out, check my history

secondly, not after the bible or christinianity
but rather ALL organized religions
Yes, mostly abrahamic ones however, but still all


Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
Have you opened your mind to the fact that the Christians may have it right and we are wrong? You try too hard to discredit things when maybe you should look and see.

Actually you may only see the negatives in my post but there are also alot of positives

For example I do have interests in the prophecies of Nostradamus and the bible equally. We know Nostradamus existed, however we do not know if Jesus existed or what the apostles say is true or not, or even if it truly was the apostles who wrote the books as it's "ACCORDING to the apostles".

However... if you read certain parts of the bible and many parts of the book of revelations even I have to admit some of the prophecies are fairly realistic.

For example mark of the beast RFIDs in your fore. or in your right hand and if you decide not to have it then you cannot buy or eat since you can't get food.

RFIDs are very much happening and as well as other prophecies that came true as well. So no matter how much I blast the bible, I often come back to the prophecies that have come true or will soon realistically come true.

Also as far as all emperors are concerned I am also somewhat fascinated by Cyrus the great, the most fair emeperor i've ever read about.


Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
you can’t claim to be enlighten but attempt to discredit something where hundreds of Millions believe to be the truth.


Millions once believed the earth was flat
How many believed in Zeus?

Let's talk density, some may have lived in a very densely populated area and believed in the burning of "witches".

Come on man, you say I should have no mind and just follow the masses?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




No I don’t think you should have no mind and follow the masses, I have a hard time with the bible as well I question everything... BUT, (and which you to agreed to) Revelations Prophecies seem to becoming true right before our very eyes. If they are true then shouldn’t Jesus as well?



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


not necessarily no

For me it always goes back to "how come no historians ever spoke of Jesus"

Or of course virgin mary? come on

At the end of the day it's imperative to consider one thing, nobody in this thread ever read the bible.

Even the vatican admits the bible was re-written for decades by church elders before anyone had the chance to read them.

And don't you think the NT is just a shot at better PR than the OT?
in a manner of speaking

And I don't necessarily believe in 3 flying horsemen but that could mean something else.

But most of the book of revelations is coming true to a scary extent yes, but that doesn't mean the entire book is true no.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


You make some very good points.

There's always small towns that are not well know so I think this is a good find.

I remember that I never heard of Oak Grove Kentucky or Hopkinsville until I was stationed at Ft. Campbell.

This is the mistake some make when discussing Jesus.

They act as if all the historians of the day heard about Jesus. They are looking at his popularity today and acting like he was just as popular back then.

I was watching a documentary on Discovery about Pilate and they made the same point. They said Pilate sent so many people to their death, that he might not remeber Jesus if you asked him about it years later.

His followers spread Christianity. So you can't look at the popularity of Jesus today and say why didn't every historian write about him back then.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Even the vatican admits the bible was re-written for decades by church elders before anyone had the chance to read them.

You are free to believe what you wish, though countless academics throughout the world would dismiss such claims as utterly utterly baseless. No wonder so many people take the Scriptures lightly with rumours like that flying around.

The reality is of documents not only meticulously preserved (as outlined in the thread I mentioned earlier) but in some cases actually extant today:


The earliest undisputed manuscript of a New Testament book is the John Rylands papyri (p52), dated back from 117 to 138. This fragment of John's gospel survives from within a generation of composition. Since the book was composed in Asia Minor and this fragment was found in Egypt, some circulation time is demanded, surely placing composition of John within the first century.

Whole books (Bodmer Papyri) are available from 200. Most of the New Testament, including all the gospels, is available in the Chester Beatty Papyri manuscript from 150 yeas after the New Testament was finished (ca. 250). No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.

Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made .lines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) as a piece from the gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50, hardly within the time frame established for New Testament writings. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and palaeography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one gospel, Acts, and few epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early...


Source: The Dating of the New Testament

All I can do is encourage you to reexamine the evidence with an open mind.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join