Jesus' house discovered

a reply to: windword

There is no evidence that the man in question existed in the first place

Where's my ROFL smiley?

Aristotelian logic

HAHAHAHA!!!

You are really going to appeal to aristotle? Hilarious. At least you are good for a laugh.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

You are really going to appeal to aristotle?

No, I'm not. You and the OP are!

Hilarious.

It would be if it wasn't so troubling.

a reply to: windword

The Bible says Jesus Christ lived and dwelt in Nazareth
A house was found in Nazareth
That house, is therefore, the house in which Jesus Christ dwelt.

By this you infer that every house uncovered in Nazereth has
been postulated to be Jesus' house by archeaologists. If that isn't
the use of a strawman and highly intellectually dishonest then
I'm an atheist.

a reply to: DeadSeraph
a reply to: randyvs

The belief that Jesus Christ existed is predicated on whether or not the story of his entry into this world is believable. If we can't believe the story of his birth, how can continue to believe he existed at all from there, let alone where he supposedly lived.

You and the OP are esentially telling us that it's okay NOT to believe some fanciful portions of Matthew's narrative, like the virgin birth. the Magi and the star.....but, (I), we are ignorant haters if we don't believe the part about him dwelling in the "City of Nazareth"(because of the prophets).....!??

Why do atheist make themselves so obvious to attack people and not stay on the subject.The house found is what the subject is about.Obviously it is good evidence that might..NOTICE THE WORD MIGHT,have been where Jesus grew up.Because of the churches surrounding it.

The entire subject is derailed because atheist get butt hurt over archeological evidence that MIGHT show evidence of Jesus.
Turning the thread into religious bickering.

a reply to: Seed76

Yes people just believing whatever they want to believe and trying to marginalize evidence to the contrary, their lookout all said and done, so i don't really care either.

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.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: Seed76

Yes people just believing whatever they want to believe and trying to marginalize evidence to the contrary, their lookout all said and done, so i don't really care either.

Absolutely!!!

Like a large portion of the Christian community are climate change deniers. Where the web site sourced agree with climate change.... At least the science one. Yet a large portion of Christians will buy this article 200% as evidence of Jesus (it's not, even the article says Middle Ages people thought it was Jesus's house. Not that , this was Jesus's house.)


Hell I bet people talking on this very forum on this very thread, while being climate deniers as well!!

What do y'all think?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

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

I am happy for you to interject on my conversation. If you have any evidence you wish to share with me. Please direct it to me. Aloof comments dont help

purp..

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DeadSeraph
a reply to: randyvs

The belief that Jesus Christ existed is predicated on whether or not the story of his entry into this world is believable. If we can't believe the story of his birth, how can continue to believe he existed at all from there, let alone where he supposedly lived.

You and the OP are esentially telling us that it's okay NOT to believe some fanciful portions of Matthew's narrative, like the virgin birth. the Magi and the star.....but, (I), we are ignorant haters if we don't believe the part about him dwelling in the "City of Nazareth"(because of the prophets).....!??

Oh COME ON. I won't speak for the OP, but that is not at all what the issue is about. The case for a historical Jesus is not predicated on the virgin birth, his miracles, or even the notion that he is or was the messiah. That's why there are a large number of SECULAR HISTORIANS that argue the basic fact that the man existed, despite the myths that might surround him.

Stop acting like you know what you are talking about. You might have supporters here, but you'd be a lone voice in the the wilderness in academia, and you know it (or maybe you don't, and you really are that stubborn and/or daft).

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: DeadSeraph

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

I am happy for you to interject on my conversation. If you have any evidence you wish to share with me. Please direct it to me. Aloof comments dont help

purp..

So basically, your argument is: "LOL NOPE!"

Good to know.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

that is not at all what the issue is about. The case for a historical Jesus is not predicated on the virgin birth, his miracles, or even the notion that he is or was the messiah.

Of course it is! Without those things, you don't have Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus "Christ" or the "Messiah" to begin with.

Here's the narrative in the first two chapters of the Book of Matthew. It begins with the story of Mary and the virgin birth, followed by Chapter Two, telling the story of the Star of Bethlehem leading the "Wise Men", the "Slaughter of the Innocents", the "Angel of the Lord" telling Joseph to go to Egypt, and then later in Chapter two, "Calling him out of Egypt", because of prophecy, to return to the Land of Israel. The final ending of Matthew, Chapter Two has the Holy Family ending up in "Nazareth", because of prophecy.

Where are we supposed to draw the line between myth and fact? Where does the truth end and the lie begin?

Without the "miracles", what do we have left, and what do we, supposedly, know about the "man"? What can we take for granted as fact from this biblical narrative?

To all the Christian brothers and sisters here, congratulations on this find. I know it inspires you and gives you comfort and hope.

Earlier I posted jovial words of humor regarding this discovery. We always need humor I believe; but on a serious note I am not a Christian but am a Believer in the mission of the Messiah and am glad for those inspired by this discovery.

Be happy!

The biblical ''Jesus'' is of the template of Mithraism.

In spite of Mithraism being regarded as a late ascetical all male cult, with a priesthood consisting of celibate man and militants only, a much earlier feminal Mithra had been identified with the Persian goddess Anahita. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the ancient Persians worshipped a sky-goddess Mitra, the same as Mylitta, Assyria's Great Mother, and Alitta, known to the Arabians. The Lydians then went about combining Mithra with his archaic Mother/spouse Anahita as an androgynous Mithra-Anahita, as distinguished with Sabazius-Anaitis of the Anatolian mystery cults.

The correlation of the Bull and the Goddess, including the Bull's blood being delivered to the Moon for fructification can also be explained through the coexistence of its procreant objective. When the Bull's head is viewed from a forefront perceptive its cranium and horns exhibit a striking match of the uterine organs of the human female.

Afterwards in the 2nd century Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian made various effects on trying to enforce that Mithraism had copied itself from Christianity. Tertullian wrote of the Devil's "diabolical mimicry" in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:
"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."
It was a known fact that Mithraism had included these rituals a long time before the time of Jesus Christ. In 1989, Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote the book "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries", in which he exhibited its local Anatolian descent in Tarsus, Turkey, the home of the apostle Paul, and dating well back to the representation of the astronomical situation from the Age of Taurus the Cow/Bull (4500-2400 BCE).

Many Scholars now agree that Paul, the founder of Christianity, likewise subsisted as the Pythagorean philosopher "Apollonius of Tyana" (after the Sun god Apollo) who was the former Solar Messiah to the figure of Jesus Christ.

Many Roman writers reference Apollonius as "Pol" and various comparisons have been made between them, such as being located at Tarsus, Ephesus and Rome at exactly the same time of each other. Pol also had a companion called Demas, as Paul does with Damis.
"For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' are you not merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth."
- I Corinthians 3:4-6

Ancient Temples and Catacombs
The Catacombs in Rome offer some of the most vital forms of evidence between paganism and Christianity. The Catacombs eventually ceased after Christians came into jurisdiction and were later only rediscovered in 1578, where they were first thought to be ruins of ancient cities.

The catacombs extended six miles deep underground, and are also considered the single most precious collection of early Pagan and Christian art in the entire world. Believe it or not, Rome has some 600 miles of catacombs altogether, and today can even be found pictures of the baby Horus being held by the Virgin Isis-Meri (Mary) in what scholars have claimed is the original "Madonna and Child".

Hundreds of temples, sculptures, fragments and inscriptions dedicated to Mithras have likewise been found. The Mithraic cave temple on Vatican Hill that was seized and destroyed by literalist Christians in 376 CE, also lies directly underneath the Vatican. Christian bishops of Rome additionally preempted the Mithraic high priest's title off Pater Patrum ("father" Egyptian for "Ptah") who was known as the "Papa." (the Pope) The first Pope of the Catholic Church was Simon (a Gnostic), who was then later ironically enough renamed Peter (or Saint Peter) by the Roman Church.

The Mithraeum in Rome,
located directly under the Church of San Clemente.

In Britain, Mithra shrines have been uncovered under St. Pauls cathedral. Also at Segentium on the Welsh border, and others on Hadrian wall on the Scottish border, and anywhere near old Roman garrison towns. In fact, every Roman garrison town had its Mithra temple and shrine.

Christians adopted Easter
"Roman sources that mention Jesus are all dependent on Christian reports. Jesus' trial did not make headlines in Rome, and the archives there had no record of it. If archives were kept in Jerusalem, they were destroyed when revolt broke out in 66 CE or during the subsequent war. That war also devastated Galilee. Whatever records there may have been did not survive. When he was executed, Jesus was no more important to the outside world than the two brigands or insurgents executed along with him, whose name we also do not know."
- The Historical Figure of Jesus. by E.P. Sanders
The word "Easter" stems from the Anglo-Saxon goddess of fertility "Eastra", or Oestre. In Latin, Ishtar or Astarte. In the Old Testament, Astarte the Phoenician goddess of fertility was called "Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians" and Ashtaroth, for which a great Spring festival was held in her honor.

According to the English theologian and historian Bede in the 8th century, early Germanic Christians acquired her name and ceremonies based on the resurrection of the Sun's ascendance in the "East" at the Vernal Equinox, when day and night were in equal length. The Anglo-Saxons additionally called "April" Oster Monat (Moon), or the conceptive phase of advancing into a new generative season.

After much debate about Easter, the later official liturgical Christian Easter also fell precisely on the same Sunday (Sun's Day) after the first full Moon of the equinox ("equal night") following March 21st, the same period as various ancient resurrecting fertility gods. March 21st to April 19th on the Zodiac being Aries the Ram, or Alpha Arietis being the brightest star in the constellation Aries. It is known as Hamal, an Arabic name meaning "Sheep".

In Egypt, this was known as the popular cult of Aries, or the Sun god Amon "RA"/"RAM", the Lamb of god. Even still as an expression of faith today, Christians say "Amen", which is symbolized by the Ram (Lamb) and is a very important Easter symbol relating not only that to the Sun's death and rebirth, but also to the Lamb sacrificed during the Sun's Passover on the Zodiac.

(above) Mithra springing to birth in the womb, from an egg .
(also note the 12 zodiac signs, the 12 disciples of the Sun)

Correspondingly, the fertility goddess Astarte/Oestre's symbols are those representing rebirth (eggs) and her earthly Easter symbol is that of the prolific March hare, which would lay eggs for good children to eat for Easter celebrations. This custom of exchanging eggs began when the ancients dyed them in Spring colors and gave them to their friends as gifts. They believed that the world egg was actually laid by the Moon goddess and was split open by the heat of a Sun god, hatching the world.

a reply to: Kantzveldt
OK but really does it matter who's house it was? I mean to you people it seems to, but not to me.

I really dont even know why I am in this thread.

I am so not religious that I dont even care enough to be an atheist, even that is a label based on a believe in not believing in religion, but I cant even believe that is of any significance. The majority of history is just made up, and the majority of religion is make believe. Any way you splice it and dice it, believe what you want to believe, it will not stop people from believing what they want to believe.

originally posted by: Gideon70

originally posted by: bronco73

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Kantzveldt

This is great evidence that Jesus is real. Did they find any ancient writings in the house or area?

There are very few religions, scholars, experts, archaeologists etc. that do not believe Jesus existed. That the person lived is not really in much of any doubt whatsoever. The question isn't whether he lived or not, the question is whether he was the Christ or not. That question honestly cannot be answered, it is up to every individual to make that determination.

That has got to be the most non-sensical paragraph I have ever read. Absolute and utter rubbish from the start.

Well since you have no outright proof that the man named Jesus existed or not, then you cannot call any claim to his existence or non-existence as rubbish. Regardless, I couldn't care less whether you think it is rubbish or not, it is still fact. MOST religions, archaeologist, scientists, etc. agree that the MAN named Jesus did in fact exist. Take your issues up with them, not me.

a reply to: bronco73

Thousands of men named Jesus existed. It was a very common name.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bronco73

Thousands of men named Jesus existed. It was a very common name.

Complete non-sequitur. I am quite certain that you know who is being referenced in that post. If you'd like I will edit the name Jesus out and replace it with Yeshua followed by a description stating he was the man who claimed to be and many at the time in turn believed him to be but was never proven to be the messiah?

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?

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?

Wow. Well, if it wasn't clear enough in the last post I will reiterate and further describe for you. I'm talking about the Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. The same one who many at the time actually believed to be the son of God. The one who many others claimed to have witnessed performing miracles. The one that we in today's era debate about whether or not was the true Christ, if there can even be a true Christ for that matter. The man who's birthday many around this world celebrate as being dated on the 25'th of December. The one man named Yeshua whom the Jews claim to be a false messiah. The same man who's name is used at the end of many Christian's prayers just before the word "amen". Have we eliminated all the other guys named Jesus to arrive at the one who has been the subject of this entire 11 page topic yet, or do we need to delve even further?