Exactly offa, Galilea (means unknown) was his subconscious mind and Samaria (Judaism)was his conscious mind. The woman by the well was Eve (driving force in the conscious mind) who was bewildered by the stories Jesus returned to her with, etc.

Is it just me or does anyone else have trouble understanding what offa and Amos are talking about?

Offa, perhaps it's only semantics, but the quotes in my post talked about "tombs" not "caves" (especially in the sense that you used them). I have no idea what you are trying to get at. If you want me to take your post seriously, you need to provide some clarification of the "cave" thing and some specific book/chapter/verses from Josephus for me to look up and address (it's ok, really, I also have William Whiston's translation... ).

As far as the "other" Nazareth, I can't figure out where you get this from.

Your reference to Jesus trip from Judea to Galilee in the 4th chapter of the book of John is incorrect. Jesus did not leave Judea, go to Galilee, turn around and go back to Samaria, then go back to Galilee, as you suggest.

I honestly have not found an English translation that even puts it that way:

John 4:2-3

KJV - "He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. And he must needs go through Samaria."

NIV - "...he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. Now he had to go through Samaria."

NRSV - "he left Judea and started back to Galilee. But he had to go through Samaria."

The underlying Greek says that he left Judea for Galilee, but had to go through (dia in greek) Samaria...

In other words, Offa, Jesus probably left Jerusalem, stayed the night in or around Lebonah (after about a day's journey), left the next day to go through Samaria. A half-day's journey from Lebonah would have placed him at Jacob's Well around midday (and the Bible confirms that - the 6th hour). Jacob's Well sits between Mt. Ebal on the north and Mt. Gerizim on the south near the city of Sychar (from whence the Samaritan woman probably came).

Due to their interaction, the woman brought others from Sychar to see Jesus. They believed in Jesus and asked him to stay with them in Sychar.

After two days, Jesus left them and travelled on to Galilee. He probably had to stop at least one more time to spend the night along the way since he had another day and a half journey ahead of him.

Check it again, Offa, and I think you'll see it.

Hope this is at least interesting to someone else...

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 25, 2001).]

Nomad, there seem to be an awful lot of alter-egos around this website.

Penatis - Rodahi
CuteBaby - Crit. Think. Made EZ - Koy
Amos - Andy (oops... ) - Offa

BTW, Amos, Galilee does not mean "unknown" (unless this is some sort of "pesheristic" interpretation that I don't even pretend to understand).

Galilee in the Greek is a transliteration of a Hebrew word galil which means "ring/circle".

Ish

alter-egos? What about Ish and Nomad?

My handle is offa, I am registered before you, I belonged on the original infidels board but I was forced to change handles.
I post under 1 handle and do not misuse my term pesher. I know that there were multiple Galilees, Egypts, etc in the bible and my conviction is that Jesus was never near to your Galilee. Show me one biblical scholar that can show me in the bible where it says that Jesus' feet were pierced and then I'll admit that you found a scholar.

thanks, offa

Offa, I was just poking a little fun. Don't get yourself in a huff. You and Amos simply seem to be able to understand each other and also seem to have similar thought processes. It really doesn't matter. It's fair of you to go on to suggest that Nomad and I are the same, so I'll just say we're not.

Anyway, Offa, I was hoping you would instead address my post above and provide some substance to back up your claims. Please do so because I would like to at least try to understand where you're coming from.

Also, I've seen you say this on a number of occasions:

First of all, I don't have any idea why this matters so much to you. Why does it matter?

Second of all, just for the challenge, I think that the Bible at least implies that Jesus' feet were pierced during the crucifixion.

When Jesus appears to his disciples after his resurrection, he says to them: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet." (Luke 24:39-40, KJV)

Aside from this internal evidence, there is external evidence. Archaeology in Palestine has uncovered the ankle bone of a crucified man complete with nail. I'm sure there are pictures on the internet of the discovery if you care to look for it.

So, does this make me a scholar?

Anyway, one last thing. I noticed on another thread that you stated that you considered that I had "lost" our "debate" on the word "virgin". You may see it that way if you wish, but I just wanted you to know that I quit responding because I couldn't figure out what you were getting at.

In conclusion, remember, if you want me to take your theories seriously, provide some documentation that I can look up. Otherwise, Offa, I will consider your claims false (as will probably others if you provide no material to substantiate your claims).

Ish

[This message has been edited by Ish (edited April 26, 2001).]

Zindler may not be a scholar, but he has written what I think is a good essay arguing that Nazareth did NOT exist as a community during the days of Jesus. The essay is at

http://atheists.org/church/ozjesus.html

He argues that based on historical and archaeological evidence, and a reasonable religious-elaboration hypothesis that Nazareth did not exist as a community until after 70 A.D., possibly a hundred years later and didn't have the name until maybe the 4th century.

Historical evidence: Neither the Old Testament, the Koran, Josephus, or any geographers of the day mention the place. Origen, an early Christian apologist who lived in the area, seems to think it was a mythical, not a real place. It was not mentioned by geographers until the 4th Century. I don't know who gave it the name Nazareth. Someone here I read suggested Constantine.

Archaeological Evidence: pottery, coins and other items and tombs but no buildings discovered there from the time of and before Jesus suggest it was a necropolis a "city of the dead" prior to being made into a human settlement. It was probably a burial area for a thousand years earlier.

Religious elaboration hypothesis: Zindler suggests that some early Christian writer confused prophesies that the Messiah should be of the "Branch of Jesse" or a nazarite with Him needing to be from a place called Nazareth. Zindler thinks it was someone after Mark, and that the "of Nazareth" was put in Mark after the fact. Zindler considers most of the Gospel "histories of Jesus" as fabrications after the fact loosely based, if at all, on a real person's life.

I'm looking into some evidence that contradicts some of Zindler's conclusions, but until then I consider his piece reliable.

Thanks John Powell. I bookmarked the article after I read it. Zindler made some excellent points especially in showing how theists no no bounds in trying to sell their ware. I think that is why we have so many untrustworthy people in our politics today.

However, like most atheists, he is a bit too fundamental for my taste.

Thanks, offa


[This message has been edited by offa (edited April 26, 2001).]

Ish wrote;

Nomad, there seem to be an awful lot of alter-egos around
this website.
Penatis - Rodahi
Cute Baby - Crit. Think. Made EZ - Koy
Amos - Andy (oops... ) - Offa


Ish replied to my complaint.
[b]
Offa, I was just poking a little fun. Don't get yourself in
a huff. You and Amos simply seem to be able to understand
each other and also seem to have similar thought processes.
It really doesn't matter. It's fair of you to go on to
suggest that Nomad and I are the same, so I'll just say
we're not.
[B]


Offa in reply,


I write my own stuff. I have read Amos and do not have an
interest in what he writes. That may change. It is quite
possible that Amos does not want to be associated with me.

I have noticed that you and Nomad and Bede are keeping in
touch. I have no problem with that. I do not know what
"Galilee" is supposed to mean.

Pesher means "interpretation of dreams" and I have shortened
it to "interpretation". My reason for doing this is because
the "dreams" are actual events. St. Paul and Jesus Christ,
for instance, had a very close relationship. St. Paul needed
Jesus to be a puka so he talked about fantasies when he
relayed Jesus' messages.

Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17-166 Tells about
Matthias the high priest dreaming about having sex with
his wife. This was a breach of a purity? rule and Matthias
chose not to officiate the next day. This story tells a
pesherist two things, Matthias got a little, and he was
pious (superstitious) enough to dare not break the holy
law. I mean, he was not a phony.

I doubt that Amos has any idea about pesher. He's like you.


Ish wrote;

Anyway, Offa, I was hoping you would instead address
my post above and provide some substance to back up your
claims. Please do so because I would like to at least try
to understand where you're coming from. Also, I've seen you
say this on a number of occasions: quote: Offa:Show me one
biblical scholar that can show me in the bible where it says
that Jesus' feet were pierced and then I'll admit that you
found a scholar.First of all, I don't have any idea why this
matters so much to you. Why does it matter?

Offa;
I want to make it a point that there are millions (billions
over the years) of Christians who have a crucifix hanging in
their home and church with Jesus feet pierced. I want to
point out, yes, they are all incorrect.


Ish wrote
Second of all,
just for the challenge, I think that the Bible at least
implies that Jesus' feet were pierced during the crucifixion.
When Jesus appears to his disciples after his resurrection,
he says to them: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he
shewed them his hands and his feet." (Luke 24:39-40, KJV)
Aside from this internal evidence, there is external
evidence. Archaeology in Palestine has uncovered the ankle
bone of a crucified man complete with nail. I'm sure there
are pictures on the internet of the discovery if you care to
look for it.So, does this make me a scholar? Anyway, one
last thing.


Offa,
I don't want this implies stuff. Hell, you sure as hell won't
let me imply.

See, they put nails in my hands and I got stabbed in the side.
Luckily they did not pierce my feet. I am able to walk.


John 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We
have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I
shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put
my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my
hand into his side, I will not believe.


Offa, What about the print of the nails in his feet?

The Lost Gospel Accrding to Peter, verse 6 And they
drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him
upon the earth, and the whole earth quaked, and great fear
arose.

Offa, what about his feet?

Ish wrote;[b]
I noticed on another thread that you stated
that you considered that I had "lost" our "debate" on the
word "virgin". You may see it that way if you wish, but I
just wanted you to know that I quit responding because I
couldn't figure out what you were getting at.
[/I]

Offa, I gave you a thread, did you read it?
www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/3/3sexu93.html
Sexual Conduct Pentateuchal Style It tells about
the Greek word for "cherry" and tells that only Hebrew
girls had them.


Well, Ish, keep up the good work.


thanks, Offa