Arghh... Is it even worth it?

Offa, your argument about Jesus' feet not being nailed to the cross is, frankly, an argument from silence.

My argument is an argument from evidence, both internal and external.

You may see the verse I quoted as refering to Jesus showing his disciples that he could walk, but that doesn't make much sense to me. Why would he specifically show his feet? Why would his feet be mentioned specifically with his nail-pierced hands? Seems obvious to me that his feet were also more than likely nailed to the cross.

Again, I don't see why it really matters. Supposing for a moment that you're right, what difference does that make to Christianity? That the icons of Christianity need to be corrected? Ok... And?

Putting aside this off-topic argument, you still didn't back up your assertions about Nazareth/Galilee or what the "cave" quotes from Josephus have to do with anything.

Ish

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

John Powell, thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I'm curious to see their archaeological evidence and compare it to what I've read in others' works.

Ish

While there is little doubt that there was in Jesus' time SOMETHING THERE at the site of the current Israeli town of Nazareth, THE question is: What in Jesus' time was the NAME of the site/location/place/settlement/town/city now occupied by the present Nazareth?

Since the NAME Nazareth appears many times in the Xn NT, what is of importance is whether the NAME Nazareth was used in Jesus' time for ANY settlement/town/city.

For example, one of the critical NT prophecy fulfillments is Matthew 2:19-23, which contains these words: [Joseph] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He [Jesus] shall be called a Nazarene.

If there was no city by the NAME Nazareth in Jesus' time, then the Xn NT certainly screws up one more time for historical errancy.

Thomas Paine, in THE AGE OF REASON, said: "Here is circumstantial evidence that Matthew dreamed, for there is no such passage [containing such prophecy that J shall be called a Nazarene] in all the Old Testament ..."

Thus, it is the NAME Nazareth that is important to biblical criticism, not whether or not there was a town/city/etc. [possibly by another name] at the site of the current Israeli Nazareth.

Maybe Kathy Bates visited him in the tomb and thought he was James Caan?

sentinel00, now that I can believe.

BobK, I'm afraid your argument is also an argument from silence. Not that I think that is an incredibly bad thing, and you have an interesting point.

However, I can also make an argument from silence. For instance, if what existed at modern day Nazareth was only a necropolis or was a town that later changed its name, then why did the ancients never challenge this?

Why can we not find a work that said, "You know darn well that there was no town named Nazareth in Galilee during Jesus' time." Or, "How can you say there was a town named Nazareth during Jesus' time, you know that it had a different name then?"

I have another book which speaks to the tomb issue that you raise. The book states that the tombs indicate the boundaries of the ancient Nazareth (Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred Hoerth).

I think Nazareth existed as a town, and I believe that Jesus grew up in this town.

Ish

Ish wrote; 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.

Offa,

"Ish I gave you a thread to read, "
<A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/3/3sexu93.html[/b" TARGET=_blank>]www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/3/3sexu93.html
</A>
It tells about the Greek word for "cherry" and tells that
only Hebrew girls had them.

For your ease of mind I copied Dr. Robert Countess message
that I was referring to and it is about bethulah. Now, you
may be an intelligent computer expert and I may be a dumb-ass
construction worker but, I can read and draw my own conclusions.

Here is what Dr. Robert Countess wrote;
I find it interesting, even though it might not be all that significant,
that those spared were not called virgins (bethulah) but
simply "the young girls who have not known man by lying with
him" (v:18). Was the writer implying by this that pagan women
could not be virginal in a high, ethical sense, but that they were only
those with a physical qualification called hymen intactus?


Thanks, Offa


[This message has been edited by offa (edited April 28, 2001).]

Offa, for what it's worth, I don't think you're dumb, but I do think you have misread some of your sources and have a bit of a problem focusing and writing posts that are coherent (at least to me). I'm sure I've had the same problems at times. However, I have a hard time chasing down where you're going in any particular conversation.

Anyway, I don't intend to pursue the "virgin" issue at the moment. It is off-topic, and I'm rather tired of it to tell the truth.

However, feel free to respond to the topic of the thread: the existence of Nazareth during Jesus' time. You said there were two Nazareths, two Galilees, etc. If you believe that, then specifically cite your sources and reasons for believing it.

Thanks,
Ish

Toto

Ish seems to have not picked this up on another thread, so I will repeat it here.

http://spazioweb.inwind.it/bravo/qum...s/naza-eng.htm

This article goes through the geography of present day Nazareth and its description in the Bible, and concludes that modern Nazareth cannot be the Biblical Nazareth. I am not sure what expert credentials the author, David Donnini, has, but he does have a lot of photographs, and has spent time in Israel. He credits Professor Daniel E. Gershenson (Department of Classical Studies at Tel-Aviv University) with linguistic help.

However, the author thinks that the descriptions in the Bible fit another village, Gamla, quite well. Gamla was well known in ancient times as a hotbed of radical messianism, based on Josephus.

So this web page backs up the details of Zindler's American Atheist article. At the same time, it increases the likelihood, in my mind, that there was an actual person behind Jesus. However, it is not clear if any modern Christians would recognize this Jesus, or care to know him.

It's been excavated and those who have done so, one as recently as the 90s, understand it to have been inhabited in the frist century.

http://Click here and look down the ...zerath exist?"

Really?

Sources, please?