Posted on 10/22/2003 10:18:00 AM PDT by blam
Up until then, they didn't believe that, either.
As for the name "Nazareth," if this find is what they think it is -- I think it's fair to wonder whether the Romans called it something different. Seems to me the Roman name would be the one to look for.
Many of the sites have in fact been confirmed, leading one to believe that John's Gospel is geographically accurate. He also mentions "Jesus of Nazareth" four times (leading one to believe it, too exists).
Adding to the idea of this article, Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." (John 1:46) It would make a lot of sense for "a true Israelite" (1:47) to be suspicious of a Romanized town, and those who came from it. (There is reason to believe that Nathanael is the same person as "Simon the Zealot," which makes this even more likely.)
Not for purposes of this discussion, which is concerned only with the existence (or not) of Nazareth.
As for John's Gospel itself -- well, I have to admit it's my least favorite. It reminds me too much of Thucydides, who created speeches for people based on what they "would have said."
Jesus's speeches just don't read like they would have been spoken. I don't think John actually made anything up -- I think he worked awfully hard to write down Jesus' sayings as he remembered them from a long time earlier, and his personal writing style (and nascent theology, in all probability) got in the way.
He probably never heard JC speak. Few did. The words are largely formulaic, as are the events. All the same, that is my fav Gospel, together with the writings of Paul, especially the genuine ones. That was the seedling of early Christianity in the great time before the Corporation took over.
Have you heard that John is a Gnostic Gospel?The allegation that the fourth gospel is a gnostic text dates as far back as the second century, yet it is part of the first known canon in the West -- the Muratorian fragment or canon, which dates from around the year 180 or 190 (author unknown).
The strongest evidence we have concerning the apostolic authority of the fourth gospel is the word of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 200), student of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John.
I don't believe we will ever know if this is a bathouse used in the time frame of Jesus or not since carbon dating is so flawed. I'm not convinced it will make a difference except to those seeking to profit from relics. Then their will be ill feelings. It's usually all about money ... .
What's more important than relics is to know what His teachings are.
That's just a lame thing to say.
Over and over again, academics have sniffed at the gospels and offered scenarios of their own manufacture only to be proven wrong.
Your attitude may make you feel sophisticated, but for anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the subject it is just ignorant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.