forgery in the bible no.1- was no naz...
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#21 May 21, 2008
Beyondhyperbole wrote:
<quoted text>
Love that nebula-very interesting formation. The nebula has an official science name which I cannot locate at the moment. "God's Eye" is a nickname. Now that someone has recognized it-I am going to remove it. God Bless!
Why? I like it. You should keep it for a little while longer.
abcd 2 Beyondhyperbole

Dhaka, Bangladesh

#22 May 21, 2008
Beyondhyperbole wrote:
<quoted text>
Undoubtedly civilization has always lived in or near Nazareth and has for centuries. Also in reference to Josephus works he did state about couple hundred villages in Galilee had populations over 15,000. Apparently there where more villages present than he included by name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Contrar...

Some historians have called the city's traditional association with the life of Jesus into question, suggesting instead that what was originally a title (Nazarene) was corrupted into the name of his hometown (alternately, Nazara or Nazaret or Nazareth). Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of the Christian Religion, argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene." [55]

Alternatively, there is biblical indication that Nazarene was a mistranslation of Nazarite, a person who had taken a vow of holiness and was thus 'separated out' from the masses. Matthew 2:23 says of Iesous (Jesus), "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." There no word translated ‘Nazarene’, as well as no reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures, but reference Bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5 concerning Samson's description as a Nazarite.

Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[56] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[57]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
Zindler's view is historically possible if Nazareth came into existence at the same time that the New Testament gospels were being written and redacted. Most scholars place the writing of the gospels that do mention Nazareth between the two Jewish-Roman wars (70 AD-132 AD).

Since: May 07

Warrensburg, MO

#23 May 21, 2008
abcd 2 Beyondhyperbole wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Contrar...
Some historians have called the city's traditional association with the life of Jesus into question, suggesting instead that what was originally a title (Nazarene) was corrupted into the name of his hometown (alternately, Nazara or Nazaret or Nazareth). Alfred Loisy, for example, in The Birth of the Christian Religion, argues that Iesous Nazarene meant not "from Nazareth", but rather that his title was "Nazarene." [55]
Alternatively, there is biblical indication that Nazarene was a mistranslation of Nazarite, a person who had taken a vow of holiness and was thus 'separated out' from the masses. Matthew 2:23 says of Iesous (Jesus), "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." There no word translated ‘Nazarene’, as well as no reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures, but reference Bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5 concerning Samson's description as a Nazarite.
Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[56] His arguments include the following:
No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[57]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
Zindler's view is historically possible if Nazareth came into existence at the same time that the New Testament gospels were being written and redacted. Most scholars place the writing of the gospels that do mention Nazareth between the two Jewish-Roman wars (70 AD-132 AD).
Sir, it would be beneficial if you would stop copying and pasting large sections and respond directly to what a poster has stated
abcd 2 Beyondhyperbole

Bangladesh

#24 Jun 30, 2008
sure sir y not !!!!!

the link is as below!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Contrar...

there is not a single evidense that describe the presence of nazareth!!!

“TZADDI”

Since: Jun 08

United States

#25 Jun 30, 2008
abcd wrote:
Did Nazareth of Galilee, said in Mark 1:6 to be Jesus’ hometown and the place where he grew up, actually exist at that time or is it just another figment of the writer's imagination? No such place appears on ancient Roman maps of the era. The territory of Zebulun, which included Galilee, is defined in Joshua 19:10-16. Although several towns, including Bethlehem, are cited, no mentioned is made of Nazareth. This is strange indeed considering that Nazareth was destined to play such an important roll in the predicted coming of the long-awaited Jewish messiah.. Flavius Josephus, an important first century Jewish historian, gives the names of 45 towns in Galilee in the first century, yet Nazareth is not among them. The Jewish Talmud gives the names of 63 first century Galilean towns and again no Nazareth is listed. Scanning across 1500 years of Jewish and Roman texts and other sources we see no mention of a Nazareth. In fact, the first reference to such a place appears in Mark 1:9 where we are told that, "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John (the Baptist) in the Jordan river". Mark, the oldest of the New Testament gospels, is recognized by many Bible scholars as pure fiction. So, is Nazareth just another factitious element of the Christian myth with no basis in fact?
Some Christian apologists have tried to claim Nazareth existed citing archaeological digs at one place or another on or near the alleged site, but they fail to understand that going back some 5000 years practically every spot of that land had a settlement on it at one time or another. Another apologetic claim is that Nazareth was too small to be listed. This defies logic in view of the fact that of the 63 towns and settlements listed for that relatively small area by three different accounts they all missed it.
Nazareth did not exist as a part of the Christian story until in the fourth century when the dowager empress, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, journeyed through the Holy Land establishing the various holy Christian sites now visited by millions of awestruck tourists. According to the story, Helena was so dismayed not to find Nazareth that she selected a pile of ruins in the general area and decreed it to be the missing town. In evaluating Helena’s whimsical contributions to Christianity’s holy geography we must consider some of her other remarkable discoveries as well. For example, she dug a hole in the ground, and lo and behold, there she recovered the original three crosses, the ones actually used in the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and the two other law breakers. The one identified as the cross of Jesus was eventually brought back to Rome where it was carried into battle. The presence of this holy icon would, it was firmly believed, render the Roman army invincible. But unfortunately they forgot to tell the enemy because the Roman army was over ran and defeated, and the cross was taken and burned. So, no credibility can be placed in Helena's "discoveries".
It is also apparently of no concern to believers that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed at the last revolt and no structure was left standing much less anything specific to the Jewish religion. In that regard, the Jerusalem streets upon which the faithful now piously trod are claimed by professional tour guides to be the actual paths of Jesus. What the tour guides fail to tell them, however, is that they are now about 30 feet higher than the streets were in the alleged time of Jesus because they sit atop piles of ancient ruins
There are two different towns called Beth-lehem mentioned in the Bible{one in the territory given to Zebulun and one in the territory given to Judah}. The one mentioned in Josh. 19 is in the North not far from Galilee. The Beth-lehem in Judah is not mentioned(just as Nazareth) in Joshua; does that mean that it did not exist?

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#28 Jul 19, 2008
There is a book by Anatoly Fomenko that says that the whole of writen history is a lie. No Jesus at all.
History Fiction or Science.
http://video.google.com/videoplay ...

“TZADDI”

Since: Jun 08

United States

#29 Jul 19, 2008
Jammercolo wrote:
There is a book by Anatoly Fomenko that says that the whole of writen history is a lie. No Jesus at all.
History Fiction or Science.
http://video.google.com/videoplay ...
If Fomenko is a good Russian communist and atheist that would be no surprise.
Nephilim

Altadena, CA

#30 Jul 19, 2008
Jammercolo wrote:
There is a book by Anatoly Fomenko that says that the whole of writen history is a lie. No Jesus at all.
History Fiction or Science.
http://video.google.com/videoplay ...
These lies have been corrected countless times. No Narareth, no Jesus blah blah blah. As many times as these lies have been refuted they keep poping up. Atheist call Christians brain-washed and mindless. Frankly I see it the other way. The more people try to find fault in Christianity and they are coreected they just keep going like the energizer bunny. As many times as they have been proven wrong, they just keep going and going and going .....
TRUE or FALSE

Mission, TX

#31 Jan 27, 2014
forgery in the bible no.1- was no Nazareth of Galilee

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why should God bless America!? (Dec '15) 3 min 2dollarbill 194
What Does God Hate? 2 hr Big Al 136
God has Granted Repentance that Leads to Life -... 11 hr fundeefreaks 4
According to the Bible, is anal sex between a m... (Oct '10) 18 hr religiousnuts 191
The People's Lounge (Mar '09) Mon FSM 4,440
News New figures show debt crises are growing across... May 19 nanoanomaly 1
Dating Morals May 18 arrow 24