Christianity and Christ's Death

We don't even have a discrepancy. You assume that it's a discrepancy. Later on in Matthew's Gospel, he uses the word merely as a contrast to populated areas: "Now when Jesus heard about John, He withdrew from there in a boat to a secluded place by Himself; and when the people heard of this, they followed Him on foot from the cities" (Matthew 14:13). I doubt seriously that Matthew was intending for us to understand that only folks from the "big cities" followed Jesus to this secluded place. His point seems obvious to me. People followed Jesus to a secluded place from populated areas. Nazareth would have been a populated area by anyone's definition.

The meaning of words aren't always iron clad. There's some flexibility. So while the word city was usually reserved for bigger populated areas, there's no rule that says that it absolutely couldn't be used of smaller populated areas.

There's a small town between Midland to Lubbock called Patricia. I'm not even sure it qualifies as a map dot. There are a few buildings and a few houses (mostly the mobile variety). And yet it's the "City of Patricia" -- despite the fact that more people live on my block. As of 1990, there were only 60 people in Patricia. I call it a town, but the fact that it's also called a city does not a discrepancy make.

First of all, Joseph and Mary evidently weren't making a killing. They were poor people, as is indicated by the sacrifice they offered after the birth of Jesus. The Law of Moses made provisions for poor people to offer a different sacrifice than other people. Joseph and Mary offering indicated that they were poor.

There customers wouldn't have been limited, however, to people from Nazareth. The lived in the shadow of Sepphoris, which would have provided them with at least enough work to get by. It was a few miles away, but could be seen from Nazareth. Some people even suggest that this is where Jesus got his idea for the city set on a hill that cannot be hidden. He would have seen the "bright lights" of Sepphoris from Nazareth, and no doubt visited it at least in his younger days.

Isn't it possible that Mark merely decided to focus on the "public ministry" of Jesus? Although Mark doesn't mention much about the life of Jesus prior to his "public ministry," he does make it clear that Jesus came from Nazareth (1:9, 24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6). That's the issue we've been discussing.

 

Make that "Their customers."

 

From http://www.csec.ac.uk/nazareth.html

Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares, Pfann said. The homes later were razed by invaders: What remains are several basement caves, cisterns and silos excavated in the late 1950s during reconstruction of the Church of the Annunciation.

The implication here is that the invaders razed the town, destroying what would have later become the archealogical record. On face value, it appears to be an excuse for the lack of evidence.


The Nazareth Village Farm
http://www.csec.ac.uk/farm.htm

The valley along with its slopes likely comprises the property of a single family¹s farm which produced a variety of crops. The center of the farm should be identified with the watchtowers, the terraces and the water dispersement system. Most of the extent of the original farm is therefore almost entirely preserved. This farm remains the most important, and perhaps the only, witness to the life and livelihoods of the ancient Nazarenes. It remains today as the last vestiges of virgin farmland directly connected with the ancient village of Nazareth.

The archealogists went looking for the village of Nazareth and found a single family farm. Luckily the invaders that destroyed the village spared the farm.


"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources ... Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." (Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42)

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

History and archaeology actually begin to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century the stone bares the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 CE. Such groups would only settle in towns without gentile inhabitants, which ruled out nearby Sepphoris. Apparently, the priests had been divided from ancient times into twenty-four 'courses' that took weekly turns in Temple service. The restored inscription reads:

'The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nazareth.'

I don't know the context of the above inscription. Both quotes above are in agreement that Hapizzez migrated to Nazareth after one of the Jewish Wars. Question is which one. If the anti-bible crowd are correct that it was the Hadrianic war of 135 CE, this does not contradict their theory that Nazareth was not a village in the first century CE.

I would not be surprised if historians lack enough context to pinpoint the Jewish War in question for the above inscription, leaving both sides wiggle room.

My conclusion is the archealogical record for a first century CE Nazareth village is lacking.

 

KB7,

I guess one thing that I am not good at sometimes is showing tact, but I just think you are a little overzealous. It is like TraJ said in an earlier post, he doesn't quote scripture with NW because he has no common ground with him. I don't think you have any common ground with him, either and you probably never will.

You see, Kate, NW is a lot like my father, okay? He is someone who is very intelligent and will question everything. He can't ever bring himself to believe in something by faith alone. That's cool because there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it. It is really going to have to take a life-changing event to happen to him for him to think differently about this subject.

There is no one I love more than my father. There is also no one that I feel is more educated about history and social studies than my father. Unfortunately, many people who are that educated are the hardest ones to convince. You don't know how many times I have tried to get my father to see things my way, but it is never going to happen. Just like NW, it will have to take a life-changing event for him to change his mind about it. It doesn't mean I no longer love him, but it saddens me that I don't know if I will ever see him again when he dies (or if I die first). I also feel that is one of the main reasons why I am not as close to him as I am with my mother (who is a Christian).

Seeing you going back and forth with someone that resistant to change brought up all those times I tried with my dad. I guess I should have just skipped the thread, but just could not.

At any rate, enough about me and my issues, my point is there comes a time where you just have to say, "I tried everything I could to reason with this person to see my side. Now, it is time to move on."

It is admirable to me that you have such great joy in your faith that you want to keep sharing it with a bunch of strangers on the Internet on a basketball message board. I wish I had that same gusto, but there comes a time where you just have to move on, KB7. Do you understand what I am saying? I hope you don't think I am being rude, and if you do, I am sorry but I am just trying to be honest here as this comes from someone who has had WAYYYYYYY more experience than you in trying to convert a non-believer & that non-believer is family to me.

 

"Gospel of Mark as an original composition, written at the dictation of Peter" is the standard line from the church. Does it bother you at all that Mark ends with the empty tomb? It is like Peter's ressurection experiences were not that important. This is the type of discrepancy that screams to me that maybe we are being feeding some bull.

 

And I think you are wasting your time.

I see where you are coming from but I don't know how you can call it a "D/D" when neither side is willing to accept some points from the other. If there is someone out there that would respond more favorably to you than NW than I would say that you have more of a common ground with them than you do with No Worries.

It is too bad that you can't come to TN and try that approach with him. You know what would happen? He would laugh in your face and tell you to go on your merry way. I mean I really don't disagree with your last sentence but you can't tell someone that. It has to happen or at least that is what I believe and it has to happen on their own accord not because KateBeckinsale7 or Manny Ramirez or anyone else told him that stuff.

Once again, that stuff doesn't work, I feel, with someone like my dad or No Worries. They want to see tangible proof. I don't understand why you can't realize that.

To answer your specific questions about my dad: yes, yes, and yes. And I got nowhere with him except an explanation on why he doesn't believe what I believe. And believe me, Kate, quoting scripture verse after scripture verse to him is like chasing after the wind - it is a fruitless endeavor.

Geez, I thought that was obvious with his responses. Did you not see one of the websites he quotes from? It is something like "jesusdidnotexist.com"? And you still have to ask the question "Does No Worries believes that the Christian faith is the truth?" Am I missing something here??

I will tell you KB7 how I would handle someone like NW or my dad or anyone else who is not a Christian.

Let me tell you (real briefly) what happened to me this past Friday:

I had an unfortunate incident with my next door neighbor. My 10 month old Cocker Spaniel got into a fight with their 3 dogs (2 Jack Russell Terriers and a mutt that is a Lab/Great Dane mix). I did something stupid by going in and breaking up the fight myself alone but I did it to protect my dog. Everything was okay except the smallest Jack Russell wouldn't leave us alone. The evil dog bit me in the lower left leg (the first time that I have ever been bitten by a dog). My next door neighbor finally comes out. This man is not a Christian and also not very good at getting his dog away from me and my dog. The dog starts jumping straight in the air at me and my dog, Jake. Finally after kneeing the dog and kicking at it a couple of times, we were able to get close to the door of my house. I finally looked down and saw that I had blood on my left leg. Now, I did a bad thing - I lost my temper. The dog was still hanging around, so I absolutely kicked that dog as hard as I could. That dog went from constantly bothering us to not bothering us at all. Now, my neighbor, for some reason, had no idea that I had been bitten by HIS dog on MY property. Guess what he does to me? He kicks me!! Granted, it didn't hurt, but the principle of him kicking me for something his dog did was not right.

When I tell people this, you know what they say? They all say the same thing, "He kicked you?? Oh, I would have torn into him or there would have been trouble!"

But you know what I did, I did nothing. I looked at him like I wanted to do something but I remembered that violence is not going to solve anything and what better way to show this man what a Christian does in a situation like this - they turn the other cheek.

He eventually came back over with his wife to check on me and I joked about him kicking me. He immediately apologized to me and said that he didn't know what he was thinking; I told him it was okay because as a Christian I forgave him. We shook hands and I forgave him. I talked to my sister tonight and she wanted me to get the police involved and all kinds of other stuff, but I would have no part of it (my sister is what I call a "fallen Christian").

When I told my dad about this, he gave me a genuine and rare compliment. He was proud of my self-restraint, but I told him that it was a good time to really practice what I preach and see if I am really serious about my religion.

You see, Kate, the actions I took with my neighbor, most specifically not responding back with violence towards him, are going to impress someone who is a non-Christian like my dad or my neighbor or anyone else than someone reading scripture from the Bible. It really is a cliched saying, but actions really do speak louder than words. Maybe seeing how I live my life will inspire my neighbor to want to learn more about Christianity and cause him to go to church. That is how we get people to be Christians - not by reading from the Bible scripture, but from our good works and our actions. So, in a nutshell, I disagree with how you are handling No Worries, but you do things the way you want to. I just wanted to come to closure with you on where I am coming from and I will stay out of this thread....promise!

 

Well, I was mulling over whether to even respond or not because I see this will never get anywhere; however, I do have to clarify one thing.

I should have done a better job in stating about scripture and good deeds/works.

What I should have said is that to a non-believer like my dad, No Worries, my neighbor, etc, it is going to make more of an impression on them by something I did aka a good work than me getting the Bible out and reading passages from it. Once you get a non-believer interested, then you can start sharing scripture with them. Now, I am not saying it is impossible to get a non-believer interested in Christianity by reading scripture, but I am fairly confident that you would get more conversions by sharing good works with them instead of scripture. So, scripture is important but IMO, I think it is a little advanced for a non-believer.

Considering all the scripture I have seen in this thread, I know you won't agree with me (and you will probably use scripture to tell me why I am wrong - that is a joke, not a request). But I did want to clarify what I said earlier.

 

and frankly, there's no evidence i can point you to that would change your mind...it's made up. again....i point you to a book called "Excavating Jesus" which takes up the subject...written by actually archaelogists and historians.

but riddle me this....why is nazareth so important that the disciples or early church leaders would need to lie about it? what is so magical about nazareth that without it the whole Christian faith falls apart? i don't see any need for anyone to lie about it.

no worries....there are very few scholars that deny the existence of Jesus Christ. even fewer that deny his death on a cross. the resurrection is a whole other matter. but again...we have him mentioned in 10 ancient sources that ex biblio. Tacitus...Josephus...the Talmud, itself...and on and on.

 

Nazareth should not be critical to the Christian faith.

But some Christians think that since they read about Nazareth in the Bible it must be true. Admitting that Nazareth is not JC's hometown would draw into question other "facts" into the Bible. Taking this inflexible approach to reading the Bible sidetracks people away from what is important in the Christian message.

I think you would probably agree that some factions in Christiandom (especially the fundie inerrancy crowd) do a disservice to the Christianian faith and God.

Back to Nazareth, here is a plausible explanation:

The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios'. More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root of the name is NZR.

The 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Philip offers this explanation:

'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth"...' (Gospel of Philip, 47)

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.'

This understanding of "Nazarene" would draw into question all reference to the "city of Nazareth" in the Gospels as either mistranslations (agreeable to the inerrancy crowd) or harmless fiction (unacceptable to the inerrancy crowd).

 

Which Christian faith? The one described by which church: Catholic Church, Mehtodist, Baptist, Unitarian, etc

Unfortunately through your posting here, you appear to have the corner on the one acceptable truth about Christianity. This does not take into account the variations found in many Christian churches. For example, not all Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, communion, Holy Mary Mother of God, baptism, etc.

In not a few of my reply posts to you, I made this very point. Much of what makes up the Christian faith is believe statements. These believe statements require Christianians to accept them by faith alone. This is not a bad thing. Alll religions have belief statements.

In some of your posts especially to Sane, you have overstated your case, confusing belief statements for historical statements. Poking holes in belief statements posing as historical statements is fairly easy thing to do. More importantly this is not efficacious to your cause.

 

the Bible references him going back to his hometown, Nazareth. i believe john was an eyewitness to those events, and he records them, i think (i can't remember if that's in the Gospel of John or not, right now).

i don't believe that, even if wrong, it would affect the inerrancy of scripture at all. i don't think those details are the types of concerns i have when i speak of inerrancy.

again...there seems to me to be ample evidence that a tiny agrarian village named nazareth existed in Galilee. that it is not written of but on scant occassions should be of no surprise...it was a nothing town..."can anything good come from Nazareth" is a line directly from the New Testament. while we have broad accounts of even the smallest towns and villages in our information age, we do not see that in ancient days....writing was primarily a practice for the rich; the few who were literate. i don't suppose that many found their way to nazareth...and of those that did, i would imagine it would be quite unremarkable.

 

I would not be surprised if most profesional historians who are expert in the time and place of Jesus's life do not publicly go onto the record about what they really belief. I suspect that they do not want the grief they would receive if they departed from "the path of righteousness".

And there is always the Jesus Seminar as a counterpoint. Using techniques used by mainstream historians, they have been able to peel some of the layers added to the Christian faith. BTW JS does not deny that JC walked the earth, though they are in less agreement about the death on the cross.

Some consider the JS as a group of "liberal" Biblical scholars. A better description may be "non-orthodox" Biblical scholars. It appears that the orthodox scholars consider those who stray to be liberal, making it a black and white issue.

In general, I have a big problem with people who only have two crayons , black and white, to color their world.

 

i have a problem with people looking at historical documents and believing they know more about the veracity of the statements made therein than the people who wrote them. particularly when some of those are claiming to be an eyewitness and that is validated through other historical records, ex biblio and otherwise. the jesus seminar purported to be a group seeking historical accuracy...and then ignored the methods and practices of respected historians. that criticism has been thrown at them from the church and from secular historians as well. there is a great article about them written in a history periodical (i'll try to find it for you) by a guy who says, "listen..i'm an atheist...i don't think jesus was who he said he was at all...but this jesus seminar is kidding themselves if they think their methods of attacking these claims comport in any way with what real historians do."

just because jefferson wrote miracles out of the bible, does not mean they did not happen.

 

huh???? where in the world do you get this?? people attack faiths all over the world all the time. particularly christianity.