Macedonian Truth Forum   

Go Back   Macedonian Truth Forum > Macedonian Truth Forum > Exposing Lies and Propaganda

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2012, 05:51 PM   #1
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,051
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default Alleged “Hellenistic” evidence (The Myth of Nazareth)

Some may (or may not) find the following an interesting read... You will find how the term "Hellenistic" was loosely and incorrectly applied to ROMAN artefacts for religious propaganda purposes. In reality, it's nothing more than imposture and forgery.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalthree.html

1. It is self-explanatory that if the village of Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, then it had to come into existence before his birth. For the Christian tradition, then, scripture all but requires that Nazareth was already in existence in Hellenistic times, the age that preceded the Roman conquest of 63 BCE. One epoch depends on the other: the existence of a viable village at the turn of the era (one with a synagogue and crowd that could accompany Jesus, Lk 4:16-30) depends on it being in existence already in Hellenistic times.

As early as 1931, however, Catholic archaeologists themselves noted a shocking lack of evidence of a Greco-Roman settlement in the Nazareth basin (see Part Two of The Myth of Nazareth). This placed an enormous burden on the tradition to materially demonstrate the existence of Nazareth in Early Roman times, as demanded by scripture.

2. It should be noted that “Hellenistic” and “Herodian” are highly-charged terms when associated with the archaeology of early Christianity. They are prized by the tradition, for both these terms support the orthodox view that a settlement at Nazareth existed in the time of Christ. “Herodian” is a misnomer. Lamps known by that name (more correctly called bow-spouted lamps) were used in the Galilee between c. 25 CE and c. 150 CE. This is after the time of Herod the Great, and even too late for the time of Jesus. It effectively removes these lamps (which are the earliest datable Roman artefacts at Nazareth) from evidence for a village at the turn of the era.

So it is that the tradition has completely confused Nazareth archaeology by inappropriately using terms like “Hellenistic”and “Herodian” in relation to artefacts which are in fact Middle and Late Roman.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 07:07 PM   #2
Vangelovski
Senior Member
 
Vangelovski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,404
Vangelovski is on a distinguished road
Default

Carlin,

The entire premise of this argument is fallacious. It argues that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus because they could not find Greek or Roman artefacts. But who in their right mind would expect Greek or Roman artefacts in Nazareth? Nazareth was a small insignificant Jewish village with an estimated population of only a few hundred people.

Besides the fact that Nazareth is recorded in contemporary inscriptions, archaeologists have uncovered small, simple houses that one would expect in a small Jewish village dating from Jesus' era.
__________________
If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams
Vangelovski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 07:43 PM   #3
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,051
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vangelovski View Post
Carlin,

The entire premise of this argument is fallacious. It argues that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus because they could not find Greek or Roman artefacts. But who in their right mind would expect Greek or Roman artefacts in Nazareth? Nazareth was a small insignificant Jewish village with an estimated population of only a few hundred people.

Besides the fact that Nazareth is recorded in contemporary inscriptions, archaeologists have uncovered small, simple houses that one would expect in a small Jewish village dating from Jesus' era.
More info here...

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/index.html

The compromised archaeology of Nazareth

The Myth of Nazareth shows that the village came into existence not earlier than 70 CE (the climax of the First Jewish War), and most likely in early II CE—the same era in which the canonical gospels were being edited. Furthermore, this study shows that there was a long hiatus in settlement in the Nazareth basin between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). Finally, it is probable that the extensive remains in the Nazareth basin from the Bronze and Iron Ages are in fact to be identified with biblical Japhia. These conclusions are based on a unanimity of the material evidence from multiple excavations in the Nazareth basin. Whether we are speaking of “Herodian” oil lamps (which constitute the earliest Roman evidence), glass, metal, or stone objects, inscriptions, coins, “kokh” tombs with or without rolling stones, wall foundations, or agricultural installations—all of these point to a Jewish settlement beginning in early II CE and thriving in Late Roman and Byzantine times. Extra-archaeological data confirm this conclusion.

In an explosive revelation, The Myth of Nazareth shows that a number of Roman tombs (not mentioned in any guidebook) exist directly under the Church of the Annunciation, the most venerated site in Nazareth. This locus was part of a cemetery during later Roman times. It could not have been the domicile of the Virgin Mary—a proposition abhorrent in a Jewish context for, according to Torah, tombs were never located within the precincts of a Jewish village, nor near or under habitations. Both the traditional chronology and location are in error, for the cemetery at Nazareth came into existence several generations after the alleged time of the Virgin.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2012, 11:16 PM   #4
Vangelovski
Senior Member
 
Vangelovski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,404
Vangelovski is on a distinguished road
Default

Carlin,

This is a nice little story, but it ignores the archaeological evidence that we actually have (for example, this article reports on a house and tombs that have been found dating to the time of Jesus: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-21/w...od?_s=PM:WORLD). Salm is attempting to say that the area was unoccupied by pretending that there is no archaeological finds from the period. That is make believe. Full stop.

But it also ignores Biblical evidence. The Gospels themselves were written within the lifetime of those that saw Jesus. Why would they claim he was from a non-existent town? That would make absolutely no sense and if Nazareth did not exist, the wider community would have made a mockery of them. But that fact remains that it did exist and it was obviously known to the Jews of the time.

Finally, even if there was no evidence of Nazareth's existence, silence alone is not evidence of anything. Just because something may not yet be discovered, it does not mean that it doesn't or didn't exist.

The hypothesis that Nazareth did not exist during Jesus' time is sopreposterous, that it is even mocked within the Atheist academic community.
__________________
If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams
Vangelovski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 12:13 PM   #5
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,051
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vangelovski View Post
Carlin,

This is a nice little story, but it ignores the archaeological evidence that we actually have (for example, this article reports on a house and tombs that have been found dating to the time of Jesus: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-21/w...od?_s=PM:WORLD). Salm is attempting to say that the area was unoccupied by pretending that there is no archaeological finds from the period. That is make believe. Full stop.

But it also ignores Biblical evidence. The Gospels themselves were written within the lifetime of those that saw Jesus. Why would they claim he was from a non-existent town? That would make absolutely no sense and if Nazareth did not exist, the wider community would have made a mockery of them. But that fact remains that it did exist and it was obviously known to the Jews of the time.

Finally, even if there was no evidence of Nazareth's existence, silence alone is not evidence of anything. Just because something may not yet be discovered, it does not mean that it doesn't or didn't exist.

The hypothesis that Nazareth did not exist during Jesus' time is sopreposterous, that it is even mocked within the Atheist academic community.
No problem, I see your point... Although I find this topic very interesting myself, and have read a few books on the subject, my point for opening this thread was to simply show how some "terms" (i.e. Hellenistic) can be easily used incorrectly for propaganda/ideological purproses whether they are religious or political. One may wonder who came up with the "term" Hellenistic in the first place since the ancient world did not know it, and is clearly a later creation or invention.

As far as Nazareth and the Bible goes, I fully support the 'mythicist' point of view ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory ) and am an atheist as far as the monotheistic and other religions are concerned - although I do recognize and appreciate the fact that by ancestry my culture and tradition are Christian Orthodox. You may find it intriguing that something universally believed to have been a Christian innovation - the labarum comprising the first two letters of the word for Christ (Chi and Rho), was pre-existent to Christianity. It appears on the coins of the Macedonian Ptolemies and even those of King Herod the Great almost forty years B.C.E.! It seems to have been an ancient Macedonian symbol adopted by Constantine, Romans and the Christian religion.

The chi-rho monogram is actually a much older Greco-Roman symbol, first being used during Ptolemaic reigns in Egypt by Ptolemy III Euergetes in the late 230's BCE, the coins being called "chi-rho series of Euergetes" by numismatic scholars.
-Money in Ptolemaic Egypt: From the Macedonian Conquest to the end of the third century BC, Sitta von Reden.


http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/...t-chi-rho.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labarum

Anyway, there are many "established" beliefs and historical "truths" which have been overturned in the last several decades. Many more will come I hope.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 03:53 PM   #6
TrueMacedonian
Senior Member
 
TrueMacedonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,809
TrueMacedonian will become famous soon enough
Default

I have to agree with Vangelovski about this. The Mythicist point of view is largely a myth of its own. Check this out Carlin; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_399107.html

This guy Rene Salm who wrote this book about Nazareth being a myth is not an archaeologist. In fact he's not even a historian. He's a composor - http://www.renesalm.com/
His credibility as a trained professional does not exist.

I don't mind questioning aspects of a religion. Especially Christianity. But to say that Nazareth or Jesus did not exist is hokum.
__________________
Slayer Of The Modern "greek" Myth!!!
TrueMacedonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 04:20 PM   #7
Carlin
Senior Member
 
Carlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,051
Carlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud ofCarlin has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueMacedonian View Post
I have to agree with Vangelovski about this. The Mythicist point of view is largely a myth of its own. Check this out Carlin; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_399107.html

This guy Rene Salm who wrote this book about Nazareth being a myth is not an archaeologist. In fact he's not even a historian. He's a composor - http://www.renesalm.com/
His credibility as a trained professional does not exist.

I don't mind questioning aspects of a religion. Especially Christianity. But to say that Nazareth or Jesus did not exist is hokum.
No problem. People are divided on this subject matter, which should only encourage research and debate.
Carlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump