Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on June 30, 2012 at 6:13pm

This bit of stupidity is further compounded by the vagary of whether the kid was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth.  Bethlehem is the popular choice because of old testament prophecy, but Joseph and Mary were supposedly Nazarenes, and if they were going back to their home town to be taxed, ain't that where they'd go?

Shows to go you how far people will push a superstition, I suppose.

Permalink Reply by sk8eycat on June 30, 2012 at 9:06pm

Even Nazareth is wrong.  There was no town/village/settlement there until (possibly) early in the 2nd Century.  The location that is now called Nazareth was, at the time of Augustus, a burial ground (caves), and no Jew would live in close proximity to such a place.

**********************

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.

Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, its inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.

Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!

With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth
***********************************************
The writer of Luke, or Matthew, was trying to match his Jesus up with an OT prophecy about a "Nazarite," not a "Nazarene."

Oh, and when Herod was alive, Judea/Galilee was not yet part of the Roman Empire.  Therefore no census...no taxes.

 

Permalink Reply by Nerdlass on June 30, 2012 at 7:47pm

No big whoop. Just another to add to the list..List of religious sites added to UNESCO's World Heritage Site list The church has no more standing than the temples in Nikko, Japan. However, the cultural worth has been deemed worthy, so be it. I'd probably pop by there if I was in the area, for the sake of curiosity and to look into culture's past. I'd rather go to Machu Picchu or Chichen Itza, though, personally.And yes, I noticed I put list twice in that link. Sorry. Hard to edit on a tablet...

Permalink Reply by sk8eycat on June 30, 2012 at 10:42pm

I would love to see Machu Picchu with my own eyes, but it's physically impossible now. For me, anyway. 

A friend of mine went there about 25 years ago, and said it was the most amazing experience of her life.  The only thing is that the last section of the trip was on foot.  They took the train from Cusco to Aguas Calientes, and hiked the Inca Trail from there.  I think.  There are tour busses for day-trippers.

http://www.viator.com/tours/Cusco/Machu-Picchu-Day-Trip-from-Cusco/...

It's not hideously expensive, but you need to book wayyyyy in advance, and pay attention to the seasons.  And the altitude.  8,000+ ft. is too much for me. I have trouble (headaches) for a day or two when I visit my relatives in Winslow, AZ. ("Standin' on the corner at 4850 ft")

That entire wall is flat.  It's a trompe l'oeil painting by John Pugh ...the "upstairs windows" have a couple of eagles perched on the sills.

http://www.illusion-art.com/default.asp

 

IMNSHO his work qualifies for World Heritage Status more than another raggedy old church in Palestine..