Jesus - Era House Found In Nazareth For First Time

Jesus - Era House Found In Nazareth For First Time

www.nytimes.com

Remains of a house from the time of Jesus have been found in Nazareth -- the first discovery of its kind in the place where he grew up, Israel's Antiquities Authority said on Monday.

Archaeologists did not draw any direct link between the Nazareth dwelling and Jesus. His mother Mary's childhood home, many Christian faithful believe, was a cave over which Nazareth's imposing Church of the Annunciation now stands.

"The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first

(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't buy it!
I think it's all a lie

"The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth,"

A house from the jewish village of Nazareth yet the Old Testament never mentions Nazareth?

How is that possible?

How much money shall we put on it that these "archaeologists" are religious ones, perhaps jewish archaeologists or christian ones.
I mean people that are either jewish or christian first and an "archaeologist" second, or maybe even not.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e80ad65d29bb.gif[/atsimg]

See that image above?
It's a map made by a man on a pilgrimage 333AD, as you can see there is no Nazareth!

The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) mentions 12 towns and 6 villages but no mention of Nazareth.

I do not believe this article for even one second!

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-12-2009 by ModernAcademia]

The birth of Christianity started in Turkey.

reply to post by JJay55


Wrong. Turkey is used to celebrate the birth of Christianity.



reply to post by JJay55


So if a town wasn't mentioned in the OT it couldn't have existed? Right...

Originally posted by pause4thought
So if a town wasn't mentioned in the OT it couldn't have existed? Right...

It would only have made sense based how on how they depict Nazareth for it to have been mentioned in the OT.

No historian ever spoke of Nazareth either.
even in the Talmud where they speak of the geography there there is no mention of Nazareth.

Just because the OT never mentioned it doesn't mean anything?
Okay, well just because the NT mentions it that means it DID exist?

No historian ever spoke of this place.

There was even this spaniard who travelled around that area in 350AD or around that time and he also never mentioned nazareth.

It's a fictional place, it never existed

reply to post by ModernAcademia


If I recall This town you say never existed was a very small town, I have traveled in a lot of places and have my own maps where small towns aren’t placed on there or villages, or hamlets. Just because it wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it doesn’t existed. Open your mind. Do you think everyone lived in Rome, Cairo, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, or Beijing? Open your mind, no one ever heard of Abilene until Ike became President. No one heard of any small towns where important people eventually came from.

I should also note the Nazarene was a small town in the city of Galilee in Northren Isreal...

I should also Point out that your own source states that Nazarene is a town today and a town from thousands of years ago...

So what where you saying?

[edit on 21-12-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]

[edit on 21-12-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Why does something tell me you have an agenda? Could it be the way you are bypassing one of the most basic principles of scientific research: that it is impossible to prove a negative?

You seem to be jumping up and down in glee while the irony misses you completely: you have presented us with what may well be yet another example of archeological evidence of the accuracy of the Biblical record as against the protestations of the sceptics.

Yardenna Alexandre, who directed a dig near the church, said it exposed the walls of a first-century house that consisted of two rooms and a courtyard.

"The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth," Alexandre said in a statement issued by the Antiquities Authority.

"The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period," she said.

If you'd wanted to strengthen the case for 'Nazareth wasn't real' you should never have posted this in the first place. As it is it just confirms exactly what the NT says about Nazareth and its inhabitants - they were regarded as insignificant, at best - even despised - (which was part of God's deliberate plan to reveal Christ's identity to those who were able to look beyond the external):

John 1:45-49

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."...

...Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"

Double astonishment: this Jewish man had found the long-promised King of Israel - and He hailed from Nazareth!

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, and perhaps the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

Please visit this link for more information on that
www.scribd.com...

In fact reading that entire document might be quite enlightening.

Actually I am fine in saying I don't know if Nazareth existed or not as long as so are you, however I would say most likely it did not exist.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


OK, that was a fair response.

For my part I am convinced the New Testament Gospels, being first-hand eye-witness accounts, provide compelling evidence that Nazareth was well-known during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. (I've stated my case for this elsewhere: New Testament documents - are they reliable? )

The writings of liberal theologians hold little sway to Bible-believers, and encyclopaedia you referred to appears to come under that umbrella. They are to a greater or lesser degree the Sadducees of our day, having a great interest in questions of religion, but denying its power, i.e. denying the reality of things clearly taught in Scripture, such as the virgin birth and the literal resurrection of Christ. They seek approval from those who have no faith, frequently even betraying the basic principles of the Christian faith.

Frankly I have more time for those who claim no faith in the supernatural, but retain an open mind.

Man, for a "religion debunker" you are really bad at it. You provide an article with archeologists (with probably 3-5 times as much education as yourself) and state that this place never existed?

Listen if you are trying to "prove" Jesus did not exist you are going about it all wrong. This post is like trying to run over a yeti with a UFO.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by DaMod


It helps to read the article and the post you are responding to before responding yourself.

None of my posts in this thread were about refuting the existence of Jesus, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps you posted in the wrong thread

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Well, mostly your posts as a whole seem to follow a single overall goal. Plus you have mentioned previously that you will not attend another star wars convention until you have successfully debunked religion. (yeah I made that one part up, but only cause it's funny)

I've read the article and am well aware of what you are implying. That Nazareth is a fictional place like Atlantis. Both of these very well may exist.

Have you ever heard of Grantfork Illinois? It's not mentioned in any books or writings and you probably can't even find it on a map. Does this mean it doesn't exist?

So you assume that any village in ancient Judea was mentioned in some source? I think it is not enough for bashing professional archeologists.
Area was heavily populated at the time, there were numerous villages and hamlets and Google Earth was not available at the time. So only if someone would find ancient Judean IRS list and it will not mention Nazareth - i will agree with you.
Right now facts are that there are lots of archeological finds dated to certain time in the area that 300 years later was known as Nazareth. So to debunk it based on ethnic or religious background of person whose professional background you do not know - ......
Just want to give a tiny example - there is a settlement of Susiya near ancient synagogue and ruins of relatively large populated area ,but nothing is mentioned in bible or other sources in that area. So if it was not mentioned, you also will call it a lie? For your information - i was there and saw the ruins myself.

Sriously folks what is this discussion about. Religion ?Jesus? map making? religous archeology? IM lost

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And now there is some evidence to prove there was no absence, and you cry lies because there was a lack of evidence before now.



ATS is so ass-backwards sometimes.

[edit on 12/21/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

So for the people saying that perhaps Nazareth was just a small little hamlet, a little tiny place.
Let's say that, imagine you lived in a tiny place like what you infer Nazareth was.

Wouldn't you be friend with everyone and wouldn't many people also be family?

If so then why want to throw jesus off a cliff?
Friends and family wouldn't want to throw Jesus a friend of family off a cliff right?

Also, where is the synagogue?

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
there is a settlement of Susiya near ancient synagogue and ruins of relatively large populated area ,but nothing is mentioned in bible or other sources in that area. So if it was not mentioned, you also will call it a lie? For your information - i was there and saw the ruins myself.

Excellent, now has you or anyone seen any ruins of Nazareth?

You guys are saying that I am doing a bad job at supporting my argument, but I think it's you guys doing the horrible job.

You say just because there was no mention of Nazareth in the OT doesn't mean it didn't exist, but if Nazareth wasn't mentioned in non-christian text then what makes you say that it DID exist?

I mean isn't it a two-way street?

BWQAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH




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



In all honestly, jokes aside, religious archaeology is a very dangerous thing and can do nothing but hurt history with misinformation.

The guy looks like he lives in monastery, he might make associations based on his personal beliefs.

At the very least you guys can agree with that... right?

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Wouldn't you be friend with everyone and wouldn't many people also be family?

No, not everyone would be family. You're thinking of West Virginia. Kidding.

But no, not everyone would have to be family. People can move ya know. You wouldn't have to be friends either, but apparently people knew who Jesus was when he was speaking at the synagogue there.

Also, where is the synagogue?

Obviously the town was eventually abandoned and became somewhat like a ghost town. Thus, when not maintained, the buildings would eventually fall apart due to disuse.

You say just because there was no mention of Nazareth in the OT doesn't mean it didn't exist,

Yeah, the OT wouldn't need to mention it. The New and Old Testaments are separated by hundreds of years. In that time, especially as the Exiles returned, they could've started a new town. If that's the case, it would be impossible for the Old Testament to mention it.

but if Nazareth wasn't mentioned in non-christian text then what makes you say that it DID exist?

Why would it matter if a non-Christian text mentioned it? There are probably hundreds upon hundreds of towns from the ancient world that aren't mentioned in texts that existed. Even today, there are some towns in America that are so insignificant that you don't hear about it outside of it's county. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist though.

For example, there are two "towns" near where I'm from in Florida that are called Everglades City and Goodland. Chances are you've never heard of them and no one really writes about them outside of Collier County, Florida. That doesn't mean that they don't exist though.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
BWQAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

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

Have you ever heard of an ad hominem argument? It is a personal attack used by those who cannot dispute their opponent's evidence.

I expect better from you. :shk:

[edit on 21-12-2009 by Studious]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Correction: You assume "smiling Father Jack Karam " is an archeologist. It is just as correct as to assume that place did not exist because it was not mentioned.
Here is "archaeologist Yardena Alexandre":
antiquities.org.il...
SHE is in the middle of first picture.
See - assumptions are sometimes just,well, an assumptions.
And Nazereth is mentioned in non Christian source. Few centuries later though.
By the way, modern Nazereth is pretty densely populated area. I am sure that you would disagree with tearing down whole streets with people living there to locate ancient ruins.