Jesus' childhood home discovered?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Considering that I mentioned this in the post that has you so baffled:



why were you incapable of understanding what it was an update of?

You made a post citing Popular Mechanics on 3 December and I replied on 4 December. After nearly two weeks of "radio silence" you then decided to post a non sequitur [post #24] out of the blue. Why? I have asked you if there was some purpose or point to that post and have, as yet, received no coherent response.

[rogue06]

You made a post citing Popular Mechanics on 3 December and I replied on 4 December. After nearly two weeks of "radio silence" you then decided to post a non sequitur [post #24] out of the blue. Why? I have asked you if there was some purpose or point to that post and have, as yet, received no coherent response.

I posted the update yesterday and you responded "And?" earlier today, but now you don't seem to remember any of this, going back to earlier this month for when it was brought up.

Are you okay?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I posted the update yesterday and you responded "And?" earlier today, but now you don't seem to remember any of this, going back to earlier this month for when it was brought up.

Are you okay?

Your post #24 - my quoted remarks in blue.
Yesterday, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
A little too convenient I suspect. The well built and attested first century dwelling has a tradition of being the home of Jesus [to wit the much later 4th century church] but that is as far as Dr Dark can really take his theory. Everything else he is proffering is pure speculation. It is like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem which is allegedly supposed to be the site of the crucifixion and burial, based again on much later [4th century allegations]. A veritable industry developed from the fourth century producing relics of Jesus, the Holy Family and various saints.

Of course the other possibility is that Dark was having a laugh, given the season that is fast approaching.

Actually the apocryphal Acts of John, written around 180 A.D., assigned significance to a cave on the Mount of Olives, just outside ancient Jerusalem and the historian Eusebius Pamphili (a.k.a., Eusebius of Caesarea), wrote in his Historia ecclesiastica (or "Ecclesiastical History") between 312-324 A.D., that the Roman Emperor Hadrian (ruled from 117 to 138 A.D.) order the construction of a temple over the tomb -- just like he did, and for the same reasons, that he had temples built at or next to the Jewish temple at Jerusalem and the most important Samaritan shrine on Mount Gerizim (where they believe the prophet Joshua built a temple).

AFAICT, that Hadrian ordered that a cave which contained a rock-cut tomb be filled in order to create a foundation for a temple dedicated to Jupiter during the construction of Aelia Capitolina is not really debated. The only disagreement seems to be whether this temple was one dedicated to Venus instead.

Still, that doesn't prove that this was the place was where or Jesus was buried or that they are even the same tombs. But it does show that the tradition stretches back much further than Constantine the Great's mother Helena claiming to have discovered the tomb while in Jerusalem.



I ask again, is there a point to this? And where is the link in that post to Popular Mechanics?

[rogue06]

I hope that with all these quotes within quotes this is readable

---

From yesterday 1:19 PM, post #37

Another piece on Dark's claim of having located Jesus' childhood home -- in Popular Mechanics of all places, which allows you to vote on it. Currently it is 51% for "Sure why not? He was a real guy, after all" and 49% "I doubt it."

Figured I'd take a peek at the results so far. Currently 54% to 46%

Then today 6:51 AM, #42

Figured I'd take a peek at the results so far. Currently 54% to 46%

And?

Note that you saw my post from yesterday and read where I cited my post from earlier this month and then said

Figured I'd take a peek at the results so far. Currently 54% to 46%

I replied, but then a little later at 11:34 AM, post #44

A simple update out of curiosity. Why must there be an "and"?

What update? Were you having a Joycean moment?

Then I responded at 11:52 AM at post #45

Considering that I mentioned this in the post that has you so baffled:

Another piece on Dark's claim of having located Jesus' childhood home -- in Popular Mechanics of all places, which allows you to vote on it. Currently it is 51% for "Sure why not? He was a real guy, after all" and 49% "I doubt it."

why were you incapable of understanding what it was an update of?

To which you answered at 12:10 PM at post #46

You made a post citing Popular Mechanics on 3 December and I replied on 4 December. After nearly two weeks of "radio silence" you then decided to post a non sequitur [post #24] out of the blue. Why? I have asked you if there was some purpose or point to that post and have, as yet, received no coherent response.

But my post #37, which you responded to provided you with the answer -- one which you saw, quoted and responded to with your "And?" -- provided you with the reason:

Figured I'd take a peek at the results so far. Currently 54% to 46%

And you're wondering why I'm asking if you're okay?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I hope that with all these quotes within quotes this is readable

---

From yesterday 1:19 PM, post #37


Then today 6:51 AM, #42


Note that you saw my post from yesterday and read where I cited my post from earlier this month and then said

Figured I'd take a peek at the results so far. Currently 54% to 46%

I replied, but then a little later at 11:34 AM, post #44



Then I responded at 11:52 AM at post #45



To which you answered at 12:10 PM at post #46


But my post #37, which you responded to provided you with the answer -- one which you saw, quoted and responded to with your "And?" -- provided you with the reason:

Figured I'd take a peek at the results so far. Currently 54% to 46%

And you're wondering why I'm asking if you're okay?

You have yet to explain why you made your post #24. Do you have a reason for that post? Or was it a Joycean moment?

[rogue06]

You have yet to explain why you made your post #24. Do you have a reason for that post? Or was it a Joycean moment?

Please check your meds. You're losing it. And continuing to dig your hole even deeper is not the solution.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Please check your meds. You're losing it. And continuing to dig your hole even deeper is not the solution.

Ah the usual descent to ad hominems.

You have still not explained why you made your post #24 and to what purpose.