Posts by JCanon

147

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

by Alleymom in

nabonidus -- 17 years.

nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

nabonidus -- 17 years

JCanon

JCanon, is this the info you wanted off the 2001 wts cdrom?

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!!!

Canon

29

Israel??

by l3gi0n in

what do you think of israel being reestablished in one day on may 14 ,1948?

do you think it is the fulfillment of .

isaiah 66:7 "before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son.

JCanon

Why did this post sit idle for over an hour and a half, without response, until someone gave an opinion that jcannon disagreed with?

Hi little witch.

You know, I talk about this all the time and the return of the Jews right at the time of the 50th jubilee is a central point for me, for dating the "end of the gentile times." I only casually read your comment and didn't really think you were disagreeing with me. Anyway, I was adressing the original post primarily.

I respect your opinion but I didn't feel I needed to disagree with you.

The opinions of others don't bother me, I know every one and every topic will not have a 100% concensus.

Canon

18

Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete in

especially gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation i found on the net.

some time ago a thread was started that revealed that nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of jesus, so what is the explanation for the gospel story?

at www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered.

JCanon

The question has exercised a number of Christian theologians as to which of the prophets was being referred to, as there exists no such sect or grouping identifiable as "Nazarenes" in any of the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. Marginal references in printed New Testaments often refer to Isaiah 11:1, which states:
'And a rod proceeds from the stump of Jesse, and a branch will bear fruit out of his roots.'

I did finally review the article and see what was being said. I tend to be with others here that this whole argument to imagine this was not really a town AND that somehow several references misunderstood the reference is somewhere I'm not able to go, especially when Joseph is said to have gone to that city in Judah, etc. There is too much context to ignore for an error in spelling. Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

On the other hand, I can see why there is some concern about no evidence for that city being found that would date to earlier times, but interesting a town by that name did show up later. I don't have an explanation for that, but imagine one might show up.

But getting onto the above reference, I'm glad I saw this. It would seem to me that it is the Isaiah reference that is being under assessed. It's possible that the use of "branch" in this case, particularly since it mentions this branch would "bear fruit", that it more specifically is understood in common usage as a reference to a eunuch; that is, an otherwise, fruitless branch. In fact, this is almost clearly the reference since the bearing of fruit seems to be in contrast with just a branch or sprout coming forth.

Still, the fact that Pilate wrote "Jesus the Nazarene" on his sign for the cross is a little more curious. That is, it is more likely this common reference is to his trade, even if connected with his city. For instance, "Mary Magdalene" might have been a reference to to where she came from but synonymously where that town perfected the training of professional mades and housekeepers. If we applied that to Jesus, then "Nazareth", related to "branch", could have in some way become the name of this city if it was a town dedicated to carpentry, raising the question as to whether "Nazarene" could be a term understood as referring to not simply a carpenter but someone who came from a town which perfected carpenters in some way. ???

If there was something to support that this subculture often named towns after their principal activity and a person gained a title from perfecting whatever trade was focussed on, and that was common enough in those days, then it would explain why Jesus was called the "Nazarene" , being a local reference to his place of residence as well as his trade.

I know that's a stretch, but just a notch less of a stretch I think trying to claim Jesus was an Essene I think.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks again though, it is clear that "branch" does more specifically refer to a eunuch and the eunuchoid nature of the Messiah at the second coming is a focus in scripture that has to be fulfilled. Perhaps this is the parallel for the first coming messiah.

Canon

18

Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete in

especially gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation i found on the net.

some time ago a thread was started that revealed that nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of jesus, so what is the explanation for the gospel story?

at www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered.

JCanon

This thread was not about the archeaological evidence per se, it was about how the Gospel of Mark and likely Q used the word. It is entirely plausable and consistent with the known facts that the word meant, not a village, but the Essene Nazarite vows. Later authors or redactors simply misunderstood the term and wrongly assumed it to be a reference to a village that by that time did exist.

Oh I see. I can relate to that as well, and that is an interesting premise.

But one final word on the archaeology. It was brought up and at this point believed that as a metropolis, it was not recognized until the second century. Plus it also pointedly stated that it would seem that some artifacts from earlier would have been found but none have.

Well then I find out that nearby there is evidence of people being there much earlier. Then you say, sorry "a farm" is not a city. So you can't blame me for just shaking my head at this point, since as I noted, there are so many reasonable explanations for the "circumstantial" lack of artifactual evidence of an earlier town called "nazareth" in that primary location, the foremost of which is the fact that some of these little towns started off in some small area and then the main city ended up developing nearby. So I would guess the original little town is somewhere else. In fact, the lackof ancient artifacts in this larger town suggests just that.

Also, some towns had the SAME name but were known to be in different locations. And as far as that one farm goes, that is PROOF that there was a farm there. Can be presume there were not others? And if there were just a few people and they built the city in a new area or excavated to a foundation, etc. THERE WOULD BE NO ARTIFACTS. Why archaeologists think that every city dies and then someone builds on top of the ruins so that there is a nice neat chronology to follow, I have no idea, but it's just not preemptive of other scensarios. It's possible NOTHING was left remaining of the older city if they cleaned up well enough. We just don't know. Anyway, I'm satisfied that the debate goes on...I'll wait to see what else comes up. Now onto the Essenes thing which is slightly more interesting anyway...

I'll rereview the comments. As it is you're saying that Mary and Josephus and all their children grew up in an Essene community and thus Jesus was known as being an "Essene", the term translated commonly as "Nazarene"? Interesting...

I'll get back to you.

Canon

147

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

by Alleymom in

nabonidus -- 17 years.

nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

nabonidus -- 17 years

JCanon

Pharoah Necho of the Saite dynasty ruled from 610 to 595 BCE. This would date the battle of Carchemish to 605 BCE and Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as 568 BCE.

This is an interesting claim, but is this a relative chronology date, or did some eclipse event or some other astronomical event date this event specifically? I would love to see that reference, if that's what you're claiming.

Otherwise, all the relative dates are flexible and will accommodate whatever fixed date you arrive at.

But still, if we've caught the Persians red handed manipulating astronomical texts during the Seleucid Period, and Egypt was under that rule as well, are we going to find similar in the Egyprian records? All that must be looked at, regardless of whether I'll have to agree with you after the fact or not. So please, provide me with your Egyptian chronology references so I can be enlightened. A claim that they exist is not good enough. You must have some specific references in mind, right?

Thanks, so much.

Canon

147

586/587 the K.I.S.S. approach --- no VAT4956, Ptolemy, Josephus needed

by Alleymom in

nabonidus -- 17 years.

nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years.

nabonidus -- 17 years

JCanon

You're not just going against Babylonian chronology here but also against Egyptian chronology. If you pick 511 BC not 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year then you would also have to date the battle of Carchemish as 548 BCE. Countless Egyptian inscriptions and documents have been found containing information about the Egyptian calendar, astronomical events and lengths of the Pharoah's reigns. Researchers also use dendrochronology and C14 dating techniques to date the Egyptian dynasties.

Sorry, but I'll have to challenge you to provide that information. Were the Egyptian astronomical dating so significant we wouldn't be bothered with the VAT4956 which is dated during the Seleucid Period. Thus I'd suspect your information is not substantiated. If it is, would you mind providing that information?

In anticipation of that information, however, my experience is that sometimes most of the references are simply eclipses without much explanation. The Egyptian chronology and astronchronology from earlier periods of Egyptian chronology, around to the time of the Exodus are perfectly consistent with the Bible timeline. It was my impression that there was not much in the way of Egyptian astronomical dating after that that was no dependent upon Neo-Babylonian chronology, thus the focus on that.

On the other hand, the VAT4956 was the key document and astronomical text for dating the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568BCE which now must be redated to 511BCE. So if it turns out that the Egyptian chronology contradicts this, then we'll have to examine Egyptian chronology to see what the story is, it's possible those records were revised as well. One way we can tell is that the late dating cannot have occurred before 358BCE. So documents would have to predate that in order to be beyond the suspicion of revision.

But it's interesting to me that suddenly you have shifted to "Egyptian" astronomy for your dating when no one else has.

If this is to be the last word and basis for our relying upon this chronology then surely there is plenty of references for us to check out. I'd appreciate your giving the references you have in mind that date these events. Thanks so much. I haven't heard of them.

Canon

29

Israel??

by l3gi0n in

what do you think of israel being reestablished in one day on may 14 ,1948?

do you think it is the fulfillment of .

isaiah 66:7 "before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son.

JCanon

I think it makes since, but I would like to know if anyone else feels the same. The Isaiah book says some thing about beeing let out of prison, in 1919, and how the AWAKE! magizne is the fulfillment.

Certainly! 1947 is the 50th jubilee from 455BCE, the actual year the Jews returned to Palestine from Babylon. The jubilee is the first year of each 49 years, which is like a week of weeks. Each 70-week period of 490 years if 10 jubilees. 5 periods would thus be 50 jubilees. 490 x 5 = 2450. 2450 - 455 = 1995 +1 = 1996. Thus 1996 ends the 50th jubilee from 455BCE. The jubilee would be 49 years earlier which is 1947 (1996 - 49 = 1947).

The technical Biblical fulfillment is the "end of the gentile times" and thus the time when the gentiles stopped ruling there which would be November 30, 1947. This allowed for the official State of Israel to be established. Still the Bible did prophecy that the "end" would occur after a "great tribulation" for the Jews, which was the Holocaust, and so true to Bible prophecy, the Jews were restored to their homeland, very significantly on a double-jubilee, the 50th-50th, in 1947-1948!! Defnitely fulfills prophecy.

In fact, this event is so clear-cut that you can date the end of 1290 days in 1947-1948. The symbolic 1290 days marks the "end of the gentile times" and thus it is used to create some significance for 1992 which is the fulfillment of the 1335 days. This is developed by many people. I'll try to find a reference for you. But significant events in Jewish history is thought to be fulfilled here. The Balfour agreement just 30 years earlier in 1917 is thought to fulfill the 1260 days, the return to Palestine in 1947, the 1290 days, and something in 1992 fulfills the 1335 days, though nothing significant on the national scene really happened that year, but people are looking at this event, just as you are.

Thanks for the post!

Canon

18

Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete in

especially gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation i found on the net.

some time ago a thread was started that revealed that nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of jesus, so what is the explanation for the gospel story?

at www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered.

JCanon

Oops! Looks like I'm out of the loop here....

I got my lazy self to look into this further and I found this....

Was Nazareth inhabited?
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor by Josephus, nor Philo, nor in early rabbinic writings. It was a small and obscure Jewish village, not an important center.
But in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered a number of farms at Nazareth, with pottery dating from the second century BC through to the 4 th century AD. You can read the details of their discoveries at
http://www.csec.ac.uk/farm.htm
The Biblical Archaeology Society’s web site says: In past years, excavators in Jesus’ hometown have found a number of agricultural structures, including three watchtowers, a double wine press, quarries and olive crushers.
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbDigBARsites2.html#17

18

Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete in

especially gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation i found on the net.

some time ago a thread was started that revealed that nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of jesus, so what is the explanation for the gospel story?

at www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered.

JCanon

While your hypothesis is amuzing, do you have any examples of the term "branch" having been in use as a metaphor for a suburb or are you simply transferring the 20th century idiom ("branch" office etc.) to make the Bible say something it does not say.

"Branch" is a generic reference, as in the branch of a tree. The "modern" concept of a "branch office" is related to the same generic concept of the branch of a tree. Therefore your premise is dysfunctional.

Even so, I was only suggesting some possible scenarios of why the town didn't show up in the tax records until later or archaologically dated until later, even though I have not checked out those details. Maybe I'll do a web search to see what others say about the evidence on "Nazareth", but I can think of several scenarios to explain the current evidence. For instance, a town missing on the tax records may mean it didn't exist, or it wasn't taxed, or that the taxation was not recorded. Can you confirm either of these absolutely? Neither can I.

When a person is faced with choices of what to believe, evidence should be the determining factor.

Not for Biblicalists. They "believe" based upon the words in the Bible. If some "evidence" comes up to support that then great, if not, they still believe. We don't wait for the "evidence" before believing if it's in the Bible.

While you have charactorized the archeaological evidence as "circumstantial" and the lack of documentary evidence as easily explained away by the conjuring up of an unknown town/suburb at an unknown location in the same district as the real Nazareth, you have not offered any evidence to support the scriptures that refer to the village of Nazareth.

The archaeological evidence IS "circumstantial". If a small town existed in a certain region and it was destroyed by a flood and then the land sold to a farmer who turned it into farmland, is an archaeologist going to be able to dig under the grape vines and discover this information? No. If I went to Egypt and entered a tomb and looked on the wall would I be able to tell which king was ruling? No. Why? Because the archaeologist before me chiseled off the inscription and it's now in some European museum. So the "evidence" moved. Doe the fact that I find a blank wall mean there was never an inscription? No. Archaeologists destroy ancient "evidence" all the time when they excavate. Why is it that we think that if some town didn't quite make it down to our day that it never existed? That's what I mean by "circumstantial".

The hypothesis I posted dovetails well with the facts and may even be tossing believers in an historical Jesus a bone.

Well, thanks, but....who is to say that "Nazareth" is the same as the one the Bible speaks of? That's what I'm saying. The old small town might have died out and we're looking at a new town development which was named after the old town. It might just be a coincidence. But I'll look into it further; it's possible someone has already discovered something that limits my speculation on the matter anyway. Thanks, again, for the information.

Canon

18

Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete in

especially gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation i found on the net.

some time ago a thread was started that revealed that nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of jesus, so what is the explanation for the gospel story?

at www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered.

JCanon

JC...Are you implying that there exist "historical records" that affirm the existance of Nazareth early first century or were you speaking in generalities. As you maybe remember pointed out in gumby's thread that Nazareth was not found in any tax records or lists prior to the third century. So what we have is an agreement between archeaology and textural documentation. Nazareth to all available evidence did not exist in the early first century.

No. Actually this agrees with my position, that "Nazareth" was a nickname for a town and it's official name was something else. I've seen it expressed as "Branch Town" which does have some geographical reference, even suggesting it belonged to a larger city, i.e. a "branch" of a larger city, a small suburb.

As far as tax records go, therefore, Nazareth could have been included in a larger city complex and could have been taxed with them. Calling Jesus a "Nazarene" because he happend to be from the nick-named "Branch Town" would have made sense if he was a known or declared eunuch; thus calling him a "Nazarene" was a tongue-in-cheek reference.

Additionally, if this was a very, very small town not worth mentioning in the 1st century, it may indeed have grown and become distinctly independent or large enough to then appear independently in some tax records; so the tax references are "circumstantial" and wouldn't necessarily preempt or contradict the Biblical reference. The Bible's reference just gives us more information.

Interesting. The reference where the Ethiopian eunuch is reading about the physical characteristics of Christ in Isa 53 at the second coming is a basis for some believing Christ will return in the form of an Ethipoian eunuch at the second coming, appearance/demeanor wise. So I'm wondering if it is a point the Bible wanted to clearly make here as to Christ being a eunuch at both the first and second coming. Could it be the eunuch personality is more compatible with his own angelic personality?

Interesting...thanks for the reference and comments.

Canon