6 Shocking New Discoveries About Jesus of Nazareth

The Blaze ^ | 22 Dec 2015 | Robert J. Hutchinson

[amorphous]

The entrance to the Mary of Nazareth International Center in central Nazareth doesn't look like much. It's just a simple doorway off narrow Casa Nova Street, a few hundred yards from the Basilica of the Annunciation.

Yet inside this recently built Catholic evangelism center lies an amazing discovery that has sent shockwaves through the world of Biblical archaeology: the remains of a first-century stone house reliably dated to the early Roman period in Palestine.

The Nazareth excavations are the first concrete archaeological proof that Nazareth was settled in the time of Jesus - and, judging from the limestone cups found at the site, almost certainly by observant Jews.

This shoots down one of the central arguments used by those who claim that Jesus never existed and that the Gospels are entirely fiction: that we know Jesus of Nazareth never existed because there never was a village called Nazareth.

Incredibly, the archaeological excavations at Nazareth are merely one among dozens of startling recent discoveries that are forcing many secular, Jewish and agnostic scholars, at top universities all over the world, to re-think old skeptical ideas about who Jesus was and what he was trying to achieve.

Many people in the pews, however, haven't heard about these amazing, very recent discoveries.

[Nea Wood]

It’s clickbait. They want you to think that something was found that contradicts the Bible or is truly shocking or whatever.

[Pollster1]

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Nazareth&qs_version=YLT

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%CE%9D%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B5%CF%84&qs_version=TR1550

“Nazareth” occurs 18 times in Young’s literal translation and 12 times in a 1550 Stephanus Greek version of the Bible, so I find it hard to imagine that the town would not have existed at that time. Considering how many religious letters we have, even outside the Bible, from that time, only a fool could believe no one would have noticed a major factual error, such as central reference to a town that did not exist, in the first two centuries of Christianity.

[amorphous]

...so I find it hard to imagine that the town would not have existed at that time.

---

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up.

There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus' historical existence.

"Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called "Historical Jesus" - and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, "an academic embarrassment." From Crossan's view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman's Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman's apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus' historical existence. But can even that be questioned?"

"The Washington Post"
By Raphael Lataster

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

---

Jesus was an Essene and Nazareth did not Exist.

---

So yes, it is VERY important to disprove claims Nazareth never existed. If not for those who believe, then for those led astray - "The truth shall set [them] free."

[GreyFriar]

Thank you.

[Vermont Lt]

Just wondering...how successful do you think trying to convince an atheist that God exists, let alone his manifestation on earth, Jesus?

I would wish them a Merry Christmas, and move on.

Some folks are just not going to be among the “elect.”

[amorphous]

Thank you.

[GingisK]

Atheists don’t rely on faith. Believers don’t need proof.

Those recently discovered facts are ammo for spreading the Gospel. Don't let Christian snugness deter you from executing the Great Commission.

[Pollster1]

So yes, it is VERY important to disprove claims Nazareth never existed. If not for those who believe, then for those led astray - "The truth shall set [them] free."

In addition to Matthew (possibly 55-70 AD, with surviving sections dated to 50-99 AD), Mark (possibly 55-60 AD, with possible sections found in a mummy's mask from 80-90 AD), Luke (possibly 55-63 AD, with sections dated at 175-225 AD), John (possibly 80-90 AD, with a surviving fragment from 125 to 135 AD), and Acts (possibly 60-70 AD, with fragments from about 350 AD), all naming Nazareth (even in the Greek), Justin Martyr [110-165 AD] wrote in Chapter LXXVIII of his "Dialogue with Trypho" (written in about 155-165 AD, considered "undoubtedly genuine" even by critics) that:

And Joseph, the spouse of Mary . . . went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged . . .

The idea of writing at a time when people could and did visit Nazareth and claiming dishonestly that the town had existed a mere 50 or 150 years earlier, without the lie being discovered, is absurd. Anyone led astray by such absurd claims wants to be deceived - a category that includes an unfortunately large fraction of today's population.

Anyone who thinks Nazareth didn't exist in 4 BC probably reads this quote from Lincoln (taken from his daily blog entry just after the Gettysburg Address) and misses the humor. It's like claiming the My Lai massacre or the Battle of Gettysburg could not have happened because the towns didn't exist in 1968 or in 1863 - we know they existed 50 and 150 years ago. Most people have a good idea what was happening 50 or even 150 years ago, at least in high-profile areas, and Nazareth was high profile once the Gospels were circulated.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

None of these should be “shocking” to anyone who has actually read the Bible. It’s all in there.

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “Just wondering...how successful do you think trying to convince an atheist that God exists, let alone his manifestation on earth, Jesus?”

Jesus said to go into all the world and make disicples of all nations. How successful has that command been in winning the lost to salvation?

As Peter said in 1 Peter 3:15, we are to give to every man an answer, a reason for the hope that lies within us, or is that something you think we are to ignore?

Paul also said that some of us plant the seed, others cultivate and water the seed, but God brings about the growth - which part of that are we to ignore?

Can an atheist be saved? Well, C.S. Lewis was an atheist who was witnessed to by J.R.R. Tolkien, and after many years of conversations and experiences, Lewis finally obeyed the Spirit’s call and was saved. Lew Wallace, author of “Ben Hur” was an atheist, but he came to Christ after examining the evidence and claims of the New Testament.

J. Warner Wallace (no relation to Lew Wallace), was an atheist and a cold case homocide detective for LAPD, yet he seriously considered the claims and evidence of the New Testament and came to Christ. He wrote a book called “Cold Case Christianity.”

My point is that we do not know the heart of any man or woman - only God does. He’s told us to tell, to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have in Christ. Some people don’t need a lot of evidence, others do, but either way we are to obey and witness to the best of our ability - wouldn’t you agree?

I don’t understand the animosity toward clear evidence that supports the Biblical accounts as though knowing about such evidence and presenting such evidence to the lost is somehow wrong, a waste of time, or a “lack of faith.”

I guess you should witness in the way you think God wants you to, and the rest of us will do so as well.