|
28 Dec 2004, 00:03
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 329
|
jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
OK, I know my source is biased to say the least. But it still raises some very interesting questions. Why is nazareth not mentioned in any source except the bible??
no archeological evidence either.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
I think the question is very interesting, How could there be a jesus of nazareth if there was no nazareth?????
Galilaea was very small and josephus(the famous historian) mentions alot of towns in it but no nazareth whatsoever
WHY????
__________________
"Security is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003
Mankind is ready to enter the solar system
George W. Bush, in his speech about his space program
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 00:06
|
#2
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,635
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Dunno.
"who wrote the bible" was a good programme. Channel 4 Christmas day.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 00:58
|
#3
|
edited for readability
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: for something...
Posts: 1,207
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Maybe its a name or something....
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 11:39
|
#4
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,442
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Some sort of cipher code you are all missing /danbrown
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 12:14
|
#5
|
fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 492
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
That page is rather silly. It's already been established Jesus as a historical person existed during that time, the discussion today is more if the 'miracles' he performed really happened.
__________________
Ascendancy, former [ 1UP] & Ministry.
FOUNDER OF THE OFFICIAL ASCENDANCY LADY GAGA FAN CLUB
ASCENDANCY DEMOLITION MAN
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 13:52
|
#6
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weeks
Dunno.
"who wrote the bible" was a good programme. Channel 4 Christmas day.
|
Did you think so? I thought he took a very interesting subject and presented it very very badly. He was extremely biased which is fine, he obviously feels strongly about the subject, but I always find programmes like that work better if they merely present the facts and allow you to reach your own conclusion. Btw I only watched the first 45 minutes of it so maybe it got better after that?
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 16:04
|
#7
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
No after that he got stuck into Rome's part in editing the bible
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 16:52
|
#8
|
nomen est omen
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 1,095
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perle
OK, I know my source is biased to say the least. But it still raises some very interesting questions. Why is nazareth not mentioned in any source except the bible??
no archeological evidence either.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
I think the question is very interesting, How could there be a jesus of nazareth if there was no nazareth?????
Galilaea was very small and josephus(the famous historian) mentions alot of towns in it but no nazareth whatsoever
WHY????
|
Must be a case of local knowledge here. Hey; post codes change; multimap is n`t always right?
I used to live in North Cornwall years ago. Tourist People would ask me where "Morewenstow" was. It`s a parish; not a village; even if the map says other wise.
__________________
Me=Hans_Blix
Views expressed are those of the author and not of any company or organisation I am associated with. Electronic communication can be forged and the integrity of this message is not guaranteed.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 18:01
|
#9
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
I remember reading an article a while back on how the Bible we are used to in the west is very much a bastardised version of the pure text. They stated that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that in many cases it was badly translated (either intentionally by the church or by mistake) which has changed some of the bibles meaning.
The page you pointed to does suggest that this is perhaps the case.
Also theres probally a good chance that over time the stories have just got changed. Its quite conceivable that the places ahve been changed due to facts getting forgotten or them being made more familar to amke the stories better. I mean put 100 of us in a room to witness an event and your get a differnt account from everyone as people forget some of the facts and as the story gets passed along the errors will get greater. This no doubt happened with the bible stories, infact it could be very much a case of Jesus and the other charachters in the bible being like Robin Hood or King Arthur and while theres an element of truth in the story most of it is actually a collection of events that happened but involving differnt people whom have been lumped together over time.
Or it could just be that Jesus is actually no more real that Frodo, Harry potter or Aslan and the bible is infact just an elabrote collection of fiction whos aim is to just teach its readers some lessons in a way that they would be receptive to
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 18:18
|
#10
|
Chief over all Monkeys
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,771
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
I've read somewhere that some historical evidence points to the fact that Jesus travelled to India and Tibet during his "missing years", where he studied Buddhism and learnt from Yogis. He then repeated his learnings when he came back. People always prefer stories so this was the way he told them (apparently there are starking similarities between buddhism and the parables). However being the morons that they were, they misinterpreted metaphors for reality, and hence what was a philosophy turned into a belief in "god".
His miracles were apparently those that were taught by yogis and because the people he showed had seen nothing like it before, misinterpreted them as miracles, rather than "energy tricks" (so to speak).
So basically Christians are Buddhists who have managed to get the concept of Buddhism completely wrong.
So by this theory and others, Jesus was definately either:
1) A Buddhist
2) A loon
3) A stoner
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 19:47
|
#11
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Aslan isn't real?! :(((
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
28 Dec 2004, 23:01
|
#12
|
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,635
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy
Did you think so? I thought he took a very interesting subject and presented it very very badly. He was extremely biased which is fine, he obviously feels strongly about the subject, but I always find programmes like that work better if they merely present the facts and allow you to reach your own conclusion. Btw I only watched the first 45 minutes of it so maybe it got better after that?
|
Yeah I agree it could of been better presented. But as I was passionate about the subject it didn't matter much.
At one point he went to Palestine/Israel and talked to one israeli, who was in charge of some Synagogues, and he said the old testiment was definitely the word of God and hense why the Israelis belong where they are now. Then he went somewhere else in the west bank and talked to a Palestine Church leader, and the leader refered to the same text and said as the text talked of the right men have against being chuck out of their land so the palestines also belonge there.
And then the presenter talked of who taking the Bible word for word wasn't really that clever, as it can be made to say anything.
He later talked to one church leader who said that yes the bible was made by man which the spirit guided so as not to put lies in the bible/put their current political slant on it etc.
Then the presenter said surely if the spirit guided the original authorers of the bible they will guide you and me when making critical judgements of the bible. Which lets Christians critise the Bible and still be good Christians as far as i'm concerned.
That one point made me like the programme.
Last edited by Weeks; 29 Dec 2004 at 05:53.
|
|
|
29 Dec 2004, 00:25
|
#13
|
I dunno...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,502
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
There have been plenty of people who have argued the opposite.
There is less evidence for the existence of Julius Caeser than for the Crucifixion, according to one book I have read.
__________________
He shall drink naught but brine, for I'll not show him / Where the quick freshes are.
|
|
|
29 Dec 2004, 02:45
|
#14
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zar
I've read somewhere that some historical evidence points to the fact that Jesus travelled to India and Tibet during his "missing years", where he studied Buddhism and learnt from Yogis. He then repeated his learnings when he came back. People always prefer stories so this was the way he told them (apparently there are starking similarities between buddhism and the parables). However being the morons that they were, they misinterpreted metaphors for reality, and hence what was a philosophy turned into a belief in "god".
His miracles were apparently those that were taught by yogis and because the people he showed had seen nothing like it before, misinterpreted them as miracles, rather than "energy tricks" (so to speak).
So basically Christians are Buddhists who have managed to get the concept of Buddhism completely wrong.
So by this theory and others, Jesus was definately either:
1) A Buddhist
2) A loon
3) A stoner
|
I came to the "Jesus studied Budhism" conclusion years and years ago (like when i was <14) without reading a book about it.
"Pld me" etc.
Anyways as such i agree with what Zar said.
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
29 Dec 2004, 02:46
|
#15
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
BTW Zar what was the name of the book?
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
29 Dec 2004, 03:13
|
#16
|
Chief over all Monkeys
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,771
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
didn't read a book. Just read various internet sites out of curiosity
google: st issa buddhism (an example)
BUT there was a book released:
In 1894 Nicolas Notovitch published a book called The Unknown Life of Christ.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm
|
|
|
29 Dec 2004, 03:17
|
#17
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: jesus of nazareth but no nazareth in the first century????
k ta
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:32.
| |