I know you were addressing Gumby but I wonder if you read the link Hooberus kindly provided? The first one posted in his comment has acknowledged the opinions expressed at the site you posted but proceeds to demonstrate problms with interpreting the facts with the Bible narrative. Actually to me it is not surprising that they may continue some dispute about dating of the finds at the Nazareth site. The village apparently did exist and may have more resembled the description in the Gospels by the time of writing and early redaction of the stories in the late first/ early second century. The prophecy claim however is merely poetic license.
Did Jesus REALLY come from Nazareth?
Well, contrary to those of you who don't think that there was a village of Nazareth at the time of Jesus, an Israeli website begs to differ:
The Importance of Nazareth in the Christian Tradition Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47) characterized the site's seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth.
And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) - meaning that the "King of the Jews" is from "nowhere." The early name "Nazarenes" given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) - but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah's hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BCE. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BCE.
Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited. Most of the archeological finds consist of caves, cisterns and grain storage bins. The agricultural character of the site is made obvious with the discoveries of oil mills and mill stones. There were a large number of underground rooms because the soft chalk of Nazareth made it easy to hew caves.
Nazareth is located between the open space of the Jezreel valley and the mountainous regions of the Galilee. The valley and its history were well known to the Jews of Nazareth in the time of Jesus.During the first 20 years of his life that he spent in Nazareth, Jesus had many an opportunity to walk on the mountain ranges, to look over and think about the history of his people. The great battles that had taken place in the valley, together with the great hopes that were dashed with their losses, must have affected and shaped his view on life. The valley of Jezreel, as it is seen from Nazareth, is a natural battlefield. This fact must have influenced the idea of "...all the holders of swords shall fall by the sword," (Matthew 28:52). Another geographical area adjacent to Nazareth was the lower Galilee and the Beti Netofa valley.
In this region there were many small Jewish villages and towns settled by Hellenized Syrians. The largest of these towns was Tzippori, the capital of the Galilee until the year 18 BCE. Even though Tzippori is a 45- minute-walk from Nazareth, the town is not mentioned in the New Testament. The main events in Jesus's life, as described in the New Testament, are the annunciation of his birth (Luke 1:26-38),his childhood and early manhood (Luke 2:39-52, Matthew 2:19-23), and the clash with his fellow citizens (Matthew 13:54-58, Luke 4:17-30). From the very first events relating to the life of Jesus in Nazareth, we learn that the people of his village did not approve of his thinking and behavior. To them he was Jesus, one of the sons of Joseph the carpenter (the other brothers were James, Joseph, Simeon and Judah - Matthew 13:55). Luke describes with great drama how Jesus was rejected by the people of Nazareth. After his sermon in the synagogue aroused their anger, the people took him "and brought him to the precipice of the mountain that their city was built upon" (Luke 4). Some have pointed out that this sentence in Luke is not correct, as Nazareth is built in a valley and not on a mountain. But the valley of Nazareth is on a mountain overlooking the Jezreel valley - and the mountain of the precipice overlooks the valley of Nazaret and the valley of Jezreel.
Nazareth is also holy to Christians because it throws light on the holy family, especially Mary, the mother of Jesus. This is the place where a Christian believer can consider Mary's qualities. Her character as a noble woman, a woman of purity, simplicity, sensitivity and pureness of heart. Mary is portrayed as a mother who devotes herself to the education of her son and remains devoted to him in the most trying of circumstances (she was present at his crucifixation - John 19:25 - and recognized him as the messiah - Acts 2:36). For Catholics, Mary has a special significance - and her special place in the New Testament is hinted at in the verses"Blessed art though of women" (Luke1:41) and "Peace unto thee woman of grace, God be with you" (Luke 1:28).
It has certainly not been proved beyond a doubt that there was no Nazareth dating to the first century. As a matter of fact, archaeology points to the opposite. There were farms, watchtowers, terraces, winepresses, tombs and other artifacts found at or near the site dating to that era. Why are there tombs there if there were no people?
I have read the info that, gumby posted, before, but really felt it was full of holes, while on the surface it seems it is not mentioned in history, it is mentioned in the bible books dating from, at the latest, the second century ( I know this is debatable as to the date of the gospels but notice I said "at the latest") so I really feel that Nazareth had existed during the first century just on logical reasoning ( I know some of you chrisians don't think I have a reasoning brain cell in my head but that's debatale too LOL). From the research on it and the lack of historical mention of it outside the bible, it was perhaps just a one or 2 family settlement at that time. with no more then 1-200 people in it at the most.
I have found, that although I feel the bible is a very inaccurate book on historical events, it does appear to be very accurate on places and the location of them. Which would be true if a group was trying to rewrite history and wanting it to be seen as accurate using the common names of places and locals to address the authenticity of the writings. In such a case you surely would not use a place that didn't exist, so I feel that it most likely did exist during the first century, how much before is another question.
As I said I'm reserving zjudgement on there being a "village" at Nazareth at the opening of the first century but feel that the evidence now in declares a small group of farmers at best was at the site. This does not coinside with the Gospel description of a comunity with market and synagogue. No tradesman would have settled in such an impoverished place. But I am certainly open to the posiibility that some day more information will come to light. Be careful of sites such as offered here that are sponsored by church groups or apologists, their facts may be correct but the impression of certainty they give is often biased. Of course the same caution is merited at sites dedicated to Bible debunking. It is an interesting point that in the story noone anticipated the Savior as being from Nazareth. Very odd if in fact Isaiah's sprout verse was seen as a prophecy by the Jews. But very consistant with the aim of the Gospel writer to "find" OT references to Jesus to add a touch of antiquity and legitamacy and at the same time villify the Jewish leaders as a denegrated school of blind guides ignorant of the scriptures.
I can edit at work but not at home????
First off I would like to apologize for a "hit and run". I posted this thread and didn't return for a while because I couldn't. Thanks to those who looked into this and commented.
Be careful of sites such as offered here that are sponsored by church groups or apologists, their facts may be correct but the impression of certainty they give is often biased. Of course the same caution is merited at sites dedicated to Bible debunking.
Very well said Peacefulpete.
The site I used to post this presents some weak arguments in other areas also I have noticed. I perhaps should have checked out a little more on this subject before posting this as there seems to be some ideas to the contrary.
Hooberous.....you were correct on one of the sites you mentioned I used. This site has some lame arguments, but also has some very solid arguments that are agreed upon by many others in this field.
Yes, some of the arguments were a bit weak I presented,
I have found, that although I feel the bible is a very inaccurate book on historical events, it does appear to be very accurate on places and the location of them. Which would be true if a group was trying to rewrite history and wanting it to be seen as accurate using the common names of places and locals
Double edge...thanks for the article....it had some good points
Earnest........thanks so much for your story of your visit there. Perhaps you should share the whole trip sometime........sounds like it was intresting.
Now that I got a good ass chewin from ya all......... next time a little more proof will be in order
Whether Nazareth was Jesus home or not.....will no doubt be a mystery as is many other things.....until more evidence is found to prove it was or wasn't.
Gumby some of the information that you have used in the past has come from sites such as:
Hooberus, even for you that's audacious. You're not addressing the argument (no surprises there) but in this case you're not even trying to rubbish the source of the argument, just a source that gumby has used in the past. And you don't even do a good job of that.
You found a rebuttal to the argument but you didn't even bother reading it. Just what were you thinking? Is that really the best you can do?
you're not even trying to rubbish the source of the argument, just a source that gumby has used in the past
I think perhaps old "hoobie" may have read the info. on some of these sights and is beggining to have "doubts" himself.
BTW......I always appreciate your objective comebacks that I always seem to miss. Thanks
maybe it was called something else