who knows.
Even MORE evidence for "Jesus died on a Cross"?
by ILoveTTATT 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narcissistic Supply
Frankly, who cares.
-
Mr Fool
What about this!
-
Monsieur
jesus on a cross-
its an incredible and profound 'symbol'.
interestingly, this is the same type of conversation (albeit fun at times) that these 'symbols' tend to generate. they tend to throw the conversation off course into way 'left field' when its exact meaning remains veiled.
there is a reason why there is so very little historical evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. from this FACT, one only needs to dig deeper...
-
Earnest
I suppose that as I have put my oar in I ought to keep on rowing but to say that Paul makes no mention of Nazareth is no argument at all. Paul was a Pharisee from Tarsus whose whole ministry was based on the glorified Christ revealing himself on the road to Damascus, not on any knowledge of Jesus the man.
There is no doubt there is usually an agenda in biblical archaeology but more often than not it supports the existence of people and places recorded in the Bible. In this case the Nazareth Archaeological Project 2009 reported that
...the sequence at the Sisters of Nazareth site begins with a domestic structure dating probably to the early part of the [first century] (Phase 1), followed by two Roman-period Jewish kokhim tombs (Phase 2) – one probably later [first century] in date – and then both Byzantine (Phase 3) and Crusader-period (Phase 4) churches.
Anyone interested in the subject can read the whole report.
They conclude :
Thus, both our work [in 2009] and the 2009 [Israel Antiquities Authority] work in Nazareth offer strong support for the domestic interpretation and dating of Phase 1 first published in 2006 (and reported in [Bulletin of British Byzantine Studies] 33 for that year).
It has to be said that the archaeological evidence for the town of Nazareth at the time of Jesus' birth is sparse. The problem in Israel is that any place that was thought to be significant to the Christian faith had a church built there at the earliest opportunity. And then in time another church was built on that and so on. It's not that easy to determine what was there in the first place.
But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
UBM101
Marking for reading later
-
mP
Earnest
I suppose that as I have put my oar in I ought to keep on rowing but to say that Paul makes no mention of Nazareth is no argument at all. Paul was a Pharisee from Tarsus whose whole ministry was based on the glorified Christ revealing himself on the road to Damascus, not on any knowledge of Jesus the man.
mP:
Actually the truth is Paul never makes any mention of Jesus AT ALL as man. Jesus was a heavenly disconnected god figure for Paul, he most certainly was not a man who visited our world.
Earnest
The problem in Israel is that any place that was thought to be significant to the Christian faith had a church built there at the earliest opportunity
mP:
If you call 400+ years later the earliest opportunity. Add this figure to the story and one has to wonder where were all the xians that supposedly existed ? How come none of them made a shrine of N ?
