How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[eider]

If they were there long enough to give the place a name, they would have built permanent structures there. tents were used as temporary structures for nomadic people, not permanent residents.

At or around 2BC, nobody would have been there. The Roman Legions that recaptured Sepphoris/Zipopori from the bandit Judas executed all the men after they had been forced to pull down the entire 'city', sold all the women and children (helped pay for the mission?) and they foraged, pillaged and ransacked everything around.
So it's best to start with a smashed up Nazareth.......... Workers who started to return for the great rebuilding were itinerants.... they lived in tents, and very good homes they were.

[eider]

What does that have to do with Nazareth?

Tents...... quite common in Northern Provinces, you know..

Nazareth isn't atop a hill as you fantasize. It's located within a small basin that's surrounded by hills.

The early Nazareth was chosen for its hilltop and security.

The Archaeology of Nazareth in the Early First Century

Several sites in and very close to modern Nazareth have also produced evidence of quarrying, apparently for building stone, suggesting that quarrying was an important activity in the settlement’s otherwise agricultural Roman-period economy.

[/QUOTE]
Nothing and nobody was there after the Romans left circa 2BC........ take it from there.

[eider]

In other words, you STILL haven't bothered to actually read any of it, but summarily dismissed it because you didn't like an artist's rendering. If this is how you did your HJ "research"....

The picture caused me so much joy....... if that was the quality of the report then I could move on.....

[eider]

Archaeological findings notwithstanding, you know what was and was not in place in the early first century CE. I can see no reason to give credence to your narrative.

That is history.. The death of Herod, the taking of Sepphoris by Judas BarE, the wrath of Varus the legate, the Roman army sent to smash it all up and the pillaging of everything around.

Actually, Celcus wrote that a Roman soldier helped Mary, loved her, but that would probably displease you.

[tabibito]

At or around 2BC, nobody would have been there. The Roman Legions that recaptured Sepphoris/Zipopori from the bandit Judas executed all the men after they had been forced to pull down the entire 'city', sold all the women and children (helped pay for the mission?) and they foraged, pillaged and ransacked everything around.
So it's best to start with a smashed up Nazareth.......... Workers who started to return for the great rebuilding were itinerants.... they lived in tents, and very good homes they were.

Preliminary Check

Sepphoris was taken by Rome in 4BCE, after a rebellion under Judas the Galilean. It was taken again, after another attempt by Judas, in 6CE. To date, I haven't found any mention of military action against Nazareth on either occasion. On both occasions, repairs to the damage inflicted were begun immediately after the cessation of hostilities. Those repairs would have provided a lucrative income for a tekton living about an hour's walk away. Sepphoris was never fully depopulated, though many of the inhabitants were taken as slaves. So - scant if any support for your narrative.

[eider]

Preliminary Check

Sepphoris was taken by Rome in 4BCE, after a rebellion under Judas the Galilean.

Wrong. Herod died in 4BC.
Judas would have taken the city later.
Varus would have responded MUCH later, maybe 2BC.


[QUOTE]It was taken again, after another attempt by Judas, in 6CE. To date,[?QUOTE]

Judas all his followers were killed by Varus's troops circa 2BC.
The Judas who revoled against taxatuion in 6BC is another person.

I haven't found any mention of military action against Nazareth on either occasion.

Sio much for your research abilities.

On both occasions, repairs to the damage inflicted were begun immediately after the cessation of hostilities.

It took time for the new governor of Galilee to do anything, so no 'immediate' and your reference to the 6BC incidents are not connected to Sepphoris.

Those repairs would have provided a lucrative income for a tekton living about an hour's walk away.

Which is why Labourers, Hauliers, Handworkers and other support workers came tio the hilltops around Sepphoris, they were itinerant workers.

Sepphoris was never fully depopulated, though many of the inhabitants were taken as slaves.

Sepphoris was razed to the ground.

So - scant if any support for your narrative.

Your five minute research was not very accurate.

I'll bet that you never heard about any of this before! Just like the question 'What did Jesus do in the Temple on Paklm Sunday'????

[tabibito]

It was taken again, after another attempt by Judas, in 6CE. To date,[?QUOTE]

Judas all his followers were killed by Varus's troops circa 2BC.
The Judas who revoled against taxatuion in 6BC is another person.


So much for your research abilities.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judah-the-galilean
Judah participated in the widespread disturbances in the country. He had put himself at the head of a band of rebels near Sepphoris and had seized control of the armory in Herod's palace in the city. According to Josephus, he had even aspired to the throne (Ant., 17:271–2; Wars, 2:56). Though the rebels were defeated, Judah apparently succeeded in escaping (Jos., Ant., 17:289ff.). Together with *Zadok the Pharisee, he was one of the founders of the "fourth philosophy," i.e., the Sicarii (Ant., 18:23–5). When Sulpicius *Quirinius, the governor of Syria, arrived in Judea in 6 C.E. to take a census, as the first step toward converting the country into a Roman province, Judah and Zadok urged the people to resist...

Sepphoris was razed to the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppho...-Meyers1999-30
After Herod's death in 4 BCE, a rebel named Judas, son of a local bandit, Ezekias, attacked Sepphoris, then the administrative center of the Galilee, and, sacking its treasury and weapons, armed his followers in a revolt against Herodian rule.^[29][30] The Roman governor in Syria, Varus is reported by Josephus - perhaps in an exaggeration, since archaeology has failed to verify traces of the conflagration - to have burnt the city down, and sold its inhabitants into slavery

Your five minute research was not very accurate.

No it wasn't. Not much better than your own.

I'll bet that you never heard about any of this before!

Correct.

Just like the question 'What did Jesus do in the Temple on Paklm Sunday'????

He looked around the temple. What makes that particular question so important that you keep referring to it?

[rogue06]

Tents...... quite common in Northern Provinces, you know..


The early Nazareth was chosen for its hilltop and security.


Nothing and nobody was there after the Romans left circa 2BC........ take it from there.

What do we know about Nazareth in Jesus’ time? An archaeologist explains

There are geographical, environmental explanations for Nazareth being so small, she said. Nazareth was set in a small basin surrounded by hills and wasn’t very accessible. It did have a water supply from what is called today Mary’s Well, and there is evidence of some limited terraced agriculture, as well as pasture fields. But since the town wasn’t located on a roadway, “people didn’t go through Nazareth unless they specifically wanted to go there. And that was really the reason that it remained a small site until the 19th century.”

I'll note there is no archaeological evidence that this isolated village was sacked.

“What we did find in Nazareth is a development of this kind of concept — not only did they dig individual pits for storage, but they dug below the pits, down to a second level, deeper down, and a third level, and often there were underground passages leading from one to another. So really in the times of danger or in times when people wanted to hide things, they would be able to do so,”

Looks like they were well prepared to survive such things. And amazing that people who lived in tents would build such permanent structures, don't you agree?

[eider]

What do we know about Nazareth in Jesus’ time? An archaeologist explains

There are geographical, environmental explanations for Nazareth being so small, she said. Nazareth was set in a small basin surrounded by hills and wasn’t very accessible. It did have a water supply from what is called today Mary’s Well, and there is evidence of some limited terraced agriculture, as well as pasture fields. But since the town wasn’t located on a roadway, “people didn’t go through Nazareth unless they specifically wanted to go there. And that was really the reason that it remained a small site until the 19th century.”

I'll note there is no archaeological evidence that this isolated village was sacked.

“What we did find in Nazareth is a development of this kind of concept — not only did they dig individual pits for storage, but they dug below the pits, down to a second level, deeper down, and a third level, and often there were underground passages leading from one to another. So really in the times of danger or in times when people wanted to hide things, they would be able to do so,”

Looks like they were well prepared to survive such things. And amazing that people who lived in tents would build such permanent structures, don't you agree?

If folks didn't mind living low down (especially in bowls) in lawless and dangerous Galilee then 'good luck' to them.
I would have lived up on the hilltop where Nazareth first existed, and where the meeting place was near.

For instance, take that tower that is claimed to have existed for shepherds to keep watch over:-
Would you build yours low down, or on top of a hill?
Now where do you think that Luke's meeting place (synagogue) was located?
P1020941.JPG

[tabibito]

If folks didn't mind living low down (especially in bowls) in lawless and dangerous Galilee then 'good luck' to them.
I would have lived up on the hilltop where Nazareth first existed, and where the meeting place was near.

And you would get lots of exercise daily just to obtain your water.

For instance, take that tower that is claimed to have existed for shepherds to keep watch over:-
Would you build yours low down, or on top of a hill?

1/ The tower wasn't for the benefit of shepherd or sheep - it was an agricultural tower.
2/ The proper place to build a tower is where it is needed. The towerS in your picture don't seem to be on the top of a hill, and even then, one of those towers is clearly built on lowish ground. The pic is also taken from a vantage point higher than the tower in the fore-ground. Of course, a rather doubtful possibility exists that it could have taken from a drone among other unlikely scenarios.

Now where do you think that Luke's meeting place (synagogue) was located?

Somewhere in Nazareth - not enough detail to locate it precisely, but the population was strongly Judaistic, so assuming that a Synagogue was purpose built, it would likely have been on the highest available ground in the city.




tower.jpg

[rogue06]

If folks didn't mind living low down (especially in bowls) in lawless and dangerous Galilee then 'good luck' to them.
I would have lived up on the hilltop where Nazareth first existed, and where the meeting place was near.

It would suck having to go down into the valley to a well to get water every day. Maybe that's why the village wasn't on top of the hill but down where the water is.

As for temporarily living underground... Beats getting slaughtered, wouldn't you agree?

Do you know that there are entire cities built underground in the western Mediterranean region? There's one in Turkey that could accommodate 20,000 people along with their livestock. There are several others also in present day Turkey such as Özkonak, Kaymakli and several more around the town of Avanos. And they just discovered what may be the largest one known in southern Turkey.

For instance, take that tower that is claimed to have existed for shepherds to keep watch over:-
Would you build yours low down, or on top of a hill?
Now where do you think that Luke's meeting place (synagogue) was located?
P1020941.JPG

That might depend on where the sheep are kept. On top of the hills that surround Nazareth or on the slopes. If the latter the placement in the valley is fine.

But you are still trying to pretend Nazareth was located at the top of a hill in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

As you've been informed, Nazareth is not perched atop a hill as you continue to fantasize. Instead it's located within a small basin that's surrounded by hills.

What do we know about Nazareth in Jesus’ time? An archaeologist explains

There are geographical, environmental explanations for Nazareth being so small, she said. Nazareth was set in a small basin surrounded by hills and wasn’t very accessible. It did have a water supply from what is called today Mary’s Well, and there is evidence of some limited terraced agriculture, as well as pasture fields. But since the town wasn’t located on a roadway, “people didn’t go through Nazareth unless they specifically wanted to go there. And that was really the reason that it remained a small site until the 19th century.”

Nazareth: The Significance in Jesus’ Time

Located in the lower part of Galilee, a district in the north of Israel, 56 km west of the sea of Galilee, set in a small basin, lies the ancient city of Nazareth.

Responding to the Skeptic’s Attack Against Nazareth

He wrote: “The fact that habitations and other domestic evidence have never been uncovered on the hillside confirms the obvious. It is clear that the settlement in all ancient periods was situated on the valley floor” (p. 68).

[...]

From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley.

Holman Bible Dictionary

Nazareth was located in lower Galilee about halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea. It lay in the hill country north of the Plain of Esdraelon. The hills formed a natural basin with three sides, but open toward the south. The city was on the slopes of the basin, facing east and southeast.

McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia

Dr. Porter (Hand-bookfor Syria and Palestine, 2:359) has described Nazareth as lying at the bottom of "the hill on the northside" of the little plain.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Preliminary Check

Sepphoris was taken by Rome in 4BCE, after a rebellion under Judas the Galilean. It was taken again, after another attempt by Judas, in 6CE. To date, I haven't found any mention of military action against Nazareth on either occasion. On both occasions, repairs to the damage inflicted were begun immediately after the cessation of hostilities. Those repairs would have provided a lucrative income for a tekton living about an hour's walk away. Sepphoris was never fully depopulated, though many of the inhabitants were taken as slaves. So - scant if any support for your narrative.

Purely for information: From Horsley and Hanson.

After the Romans subdued the Jewish rebellions that broke out at Herod's death, they divided up Herod's kingdom among his sons. Herod Antipas [4 BCE-39 CE] was set up as tetrarch over the areas of Galilee and Perea.... The areas given to him had been Judaised following their conquest by the Hasmoneans, so that much of the peasantry, especially in Galilee, was Jewish in its orientation and loyalty. But the population was mixed, and Antipas' realm included many Hellenistic towns. Moreover, continuing his father's patronage of Hellenistic culture, at the expense and to the dislike of his Jewish subjects, he rebuilt Sepphoris [which the Romans had destroyed in 4 BCE] as a Hellenistic city, and founded the city of Tiberias on the west shore of the Lake of Galilee. Tiberias had a mixed population, and highly scrupulous Jews refused to join its citizen-body since it had been built on the site of a former Jewish cemetery. Even more than Tiberias, Sepphoris [quite near the village of Nazareth] was a centre of Hellenistic culture.

[Sparko]

There were lots of James and maybe a few Judes and Judas's........ But Jesus showed exactly what he thought of his brothers, whereas he took the James BarZebedee with him up that mountain to that most amazing incident. Can you see which James really meant something to Jesus?

Yes there were many James' and Judas' and two of them were Jesus' brothers. And has been said previously, James most likely didn't become a disciple until after the resurrection. Not much is known about Jude. But the Church has always held that both were the actual brothers of Jesus. And also as people keep telling you, Jesus wasn't dismissing his family when he asked "Who are my brothers and sisters?" He was elevating his friends to the same level as his brothers and sisters.

[Sparko]

..... and somehow this was there in the early 1st century AD?

I don't think that there was ANYBODY or ANYTHING at Nazareth circa 2BC, and there certainly was nothing on the slopes of Nazareth Hill.
The early communities chose Nazareth for security which was on the top of the hill.

Although human habitation has been discovered to date back beyond bronze age I don't think anything was there circa 2BC. When the Roman Legions and a cohort came to the area at that time they expelled the bandit Judas BarEzekias, his followers and all others from Sepphoris, sold all the women and children in to slavery and executed all the men after they had taken the place apart. During this time the Romans needed to feed off the entire surrounding area and any habitations within a day's travel would have been foraged, pillaged, looted ...... ravaged and raped. The Roman Legate was furious about all the trouble that he had to clear up, and the cost, and any hilltop in the district would have been cleared out just as Sepphoris was.

And so when Antipas took power and decided to rebuild that 'city' then the workers would have started to return, and the working peasants of the North would have brought tents..... why build houses?

I know that you want your Nazareth to be a quaint little town with houses but it was a barren place which offered some security for working families.

You are doing it again. You are substituting what YOU THINK for any actual evidence to the contrary. Same as you admitted to regarding the bible. Confirmation bias. Evidence that supports WHAT YOU THINK, you will accept, but evidence that contradicts WHAT YOU THINK, you will reject. That is the opposite of having an open mind or doing actual research.

Wake up eider.

[Cow Poke]

By the way, just a note....

I do not believe that Green Jell-o Salad came from Jesus, or anything He said, did, believed or implied.

Just wanted to make that clear.