Jesus' house discovered

a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's not what the Bible says. It says that "as they departed" they were told to go to Egypt. According to scripture, they didn't go back to their "home country" but went to Egypt instead. They didn't go to Israel until AFTER the death of Herod.

Reading comprehension and common sense man!

a reply to: windword

But Windword, isn't Bethleham in Isreal?

a reply to: UnBreakable

What I'm saying there were guys named Jesus and/or Christ who lived about 2,000 years ago, as documented by various historians at the time.

NO. It isn't "Jesus and/or Christ". They are not one and the the same name!

Also, "Chrestus" was a title given to certain people and it meant "good man". "Christ" was a title that referred to someone who had been given authority either through religion or by political authority. All Jewish kings were "Christs", but "Christ" wasn't a title only used by Jews. It was a Hellenistic title that many initiates of various mystery cults used.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: windword

But Windword, isn't Bethleham in Isreal?

20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: SlapMonkey
The earliest of the Gospels were written in the first century when one assumes he still had family living there, so if having testimony written about someone from the village being proclaimed as the Son of God would not have gone unnoticed i'm sure and the house would have acquired notoriety, if that's the right word, in the local area.

There's that pesky word: "Assumes." It gets people in a lot of trouble when trying to have a discussion based upon facts and history. And I was under the impression that the earliest verifyable date of a gospel was from the second century--the date of "first century" is an estimation by scholars, but nothing that old has been found to my knowledge.

Furthermore, since persecution caused early Christianity (or, "Jewish Christianity") to be a relatively underground movement, how fast do you truly think the fame of Jesus spread throughout the region? And I'm talking fame, not just brushed-aside stories of some fabled miracle worker, but true fame? Sure, in certain areas--Nazareth, included, possibly--his fame may have been to a much higher degree, but I just don't accept the floppy logic that the childhood home of Jesus was pinpointed to one house based on his "fame" and that this single location has been accurately remembered for the past 2,000 and survived without any indication or ancient verification that this was his home.

The fact that there was a church built above the location doesn't really mean much...just because there is a sacred dome atop "The Rock" from which Muhammed supposedly ascended to heaven does not create proof about the story and oral tradition of that rock. It's a neat story, and creates a pilgrimage site, but no veracity to the claims.

a reply to: windword

I am not going to give up on you Win.
Even tho Christ coming back and
landing on your head wouldn't convince
you. I am not giving up on you.

Your reply didn't answer my question.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Exactly. The religious need to stop looking for vindication of their stories from oral evidence. This is oral evidence and is pretty shaky at best.

It's pretty hard to believe that a town would remember the birthplace of some poor carpenter's son who went on to be executed by the state for religious dissent.

Besides, the article in question really has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in Jesus or god or Jesus as god.

Regardless if one is an atheist or theist, one has to agree that there really is no objective evidence that this house, the one in the article, was actually occupied by Jesus.

I think that the only thing one can say is that the house is consistent with the time period and social/economic standing of a carpenter of that region. I don't even see evidence that it was a carpenter's house. Did they find carpenter's tools at least?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Agreed. This article has nothing to do with religious belief. It is a story that just falls apart under logical scrutiny regardless if Jesus existed or not. There is no evidence to back up the claim that Jesus lived there. The only ones who believe this story are the ones who WANT to believe it as true. This is also called confirmation bias.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

His reputation in that region was established in his lifetime obviously or there wouldn't have been any tradition, also it's only a question of the veracity of the 4th century identification of the house as the church was built upon the site then, not a question as your strawman argument suggests of having to remember a supposed site over 2,000 years.

During the Byzantine Era there is an increase of information about the Christian history of the village: Epiphanius (4th century) described the concern that Count Joseph showed in asking emperor Constantine for permission to build a few churches in Galilee and even in Nazareth itself. In his biography of Saint Helena, a later author from the 9th century confirmed that Constantine’s mother would have personally searched in Nazareth the house where Mary received the annunciation of the Angel and that would have held a magnificent temple.

Saint Jerome, who saw Nazareth with the disciples Paula and Eustochium, does not record the presence of a place of worship at Mary’s house, perhaps as it was managed by Christian Jews, in contrast with the non-Israelite church from which Jerome came.

In the 6th century, the two Jewish and Christian communities of Nazareth each had their own place of worship: the Jews had the Synagogue and the Christians had the church of Mary’s house, as the diary of any anonymous pilgrim from Piacenza records in (570 ca.)

Let me guess....they found his passport there?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Agreed. This article has nothing to do with religious belief. It is a story that just falls apart under logical scrutiny regardless if Jesus existed or not. There is no evidence to back up the claim that Jesus lived there. The only ones who believe this story are the ones who WANT to believe it as true. This is also called confirmation bias.

I can't say that it falls apart under logical scrutiny...I figure it lacks any sort of corroboration. It is just as ill-advised to call it a lie as it is to call it the truth...barring any evidence to the contrary. If the dating of the site is off, then there's your proof. Meanwhile, it's a nice story, but what pilgrimage site doesn't have one?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Agreed. This article has nothing to do with religious belief. It is a story that just falls apart under logical scrutiny regardless if Jesus existed or not. There is no evidence to back up the claim that Jesus lived there. The only ones who believe this story are the ones who WANT to believe it as true. This is also called confirmation bias.

I've been in historic houses, where the local tradition and the owners were certain that George Washington once slept there, that were built decades after George Washington died. You can't get much from oral tradition, especially ones a hundred years old, much less 400 or more years old.

OTOH, I've visited houses (yes, I'm a history buff and I do seek out and visit historical landmarks wherever I go) where George Washington did sleep and that claim is backed up by evidence, such as framed thank you letters from the first president to the homeowner at the time.

originally posted by: Kantzveldt
a reply to: SlapMonkey

His reputation in that region was established in his lifetime obviously or there wouldn't have been any tradition,

When you use words like obviously to describe a historic event or location, you are making an assumption based on an appeal to common sense in light of evidence. If you want to correctly explain history, you make as little assumptions as possible.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly! This is the kind of evidence that needs to be produced for this house. Creating fake religious artifacts and locations was a HUGE scam in the centuries following Jesus' alleged life. The Shroud of Turin is a well known scam. This house, without the evidence to corroborate it as truly Jesus' home, is likely one too.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Agreed. This article has nothing to do with religious belief. It is a story that just falls apart under logical scrutiny regardless if Jesus existed or not. There is no evidence to back up the claim that Jesus lived there. The only ones who believe this story are the ones who WANT to believe it as true. This is also called confirmation bias.

I can't say that it falls apart under logical scrutiny...I figure it lacks any sort of corroboration. It is just as ill-advised to call it a lie as it is to call it the truth...barring any evidence to the contrary. If the dating of the site is off, then there's your proof. Meanwhile, it's a nice story, but what pilgrimage site doesn't have one?

Here's the thing, religious forgeries were HUGE back in those days. We are talking about a poor town that is alleged to be the birthplace of the lord and savior of the dominating religion of the Roman Empires. Are we to believe that there weren't any unscrupulous people alive in the area that would take advantage of this fact to boost their local economy? PLEASE! If there is one thing that people love to do, it is copy successful things.

PS: I will concede that my theory cannot be proven and is ultimately an appeal to human behavior, but I'd say it is FAR more likely than that it really was Jesus' house.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If he hadn't established a reputation in the region of Galilee we wouldn't be having this conversation as that's were his following came from, so that's the sort of thing i consider obvious, and all objections ridiculous.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

According to your holy scripture, they didn't return to their home until AFTER Herod was dead.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TinfoilTP

That's not what the Bible says. It says that "as they departed" they were told to go to Egypt. According to scripture, they didn't go back to their "home country" but went to Egypt instead. They didn't go to Israel until AFTER the death of Herod.

Reading comprehension and common sense man!

So you are going to use logic and conclude they resided in a manger? They would not have a home they were traveling from when he was born in said manger? They would not return to their home where all of their belongings were? That babies do not suckle every few hours?