Re: Why is Jesus referred to by the title or name Jesus of Nazareth?

[Richard W]

In the New Testament, the city is described as the childhood home of
Jesus, and as such is a center of Christian pilgrimage, with many
shrines commemorating biblical associations.

Ever wonder why they put bibles in night tables at hotels? To help you
sleep.

On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, EvilGod <unindoctrina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks, I'm just trying to find out why Jesus is often called Jesus
> of Nazareth. It must be at least fifteen years since I read the bible
> and I really couldn't stomach reading it again. if anyone could help I
> would appreciate it.
> Thanks in advance.
> EvilGod.

[EvilGod]

To my way of thinking the only people to be able to say that
truthfully would be people alive at the time Jesus lived in Nazareth.
A suitable analogy would be calling someone, I'll make up an imaginary
character, Fred of Fresno. It would be correct while he was there but
if he had been born in San Francisco and died in San Diego and had
only spent a few years in Fresno as a child it is unlikely he would be
referred to as Fred of Fresno after his death. I hope that makes my
question clearer.

[J flores]

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Atheism-vs-Christ...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~-----

They also called him that to keep king herod from finding out Jesus
was still alive

[Dead Kennedy]

On 12 Aug, 21:29, EvilGod <unindoctrina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To my way of thinking the only people to be able to say that
> truthfully would be people alive at the time Jesus lived in Nazareth.
> A suitable analogy would be calling someone, I'll make up an imaginary
> character, Fred of Fresno. It would be correct while he was there but
> if he had been born in San Francisco and died in San Diego and had
> only spent a few years in Fresno as a child it is unlikely he would be
> referred to as Fred of Fresno after his death. I hope that makes my
> question clearer.

Not really ;0)

There is a widely held theory that "nazareth" is actually
"nazerian" (sic) "seeker of truth" ish.

>
> On Aug 13, 6:17 am, Richard W <zhengnanfore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the New Testament, the city is described as the childhood home of
> > Jesus, and as such is a center of Christian pilgrimage, with many
> > shrines commemorating biblical associations.
>
> > Ever wonder why they put bibles in night tables at hotels? To help you
> > sleep.
>
> > On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, EvilGod <unindoctrina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi folks, I'm just trying to find out why Jesus is often called Jesus
> > > of Nazareth. It must be at least fifteen years since I read the bible
> > > and I really couldn't stomach reading it again. if anyone could help I
> > > would appreciate it.
> > > Thanks in advance.

> > > EvilGod.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dead Kennedy]

i really hope this is a joke...but ive been here too long to expect it
is.

On 13 Aug, 03:47, J flores <struggleformysoul...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >  For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

> >  -~----------~----~----~----~-----
>
> They also called him that to keep king herod from finding out Jesus

> was still alive- Hide quoted text -

[EvilGod]

No. No joke. What would make you think it was? I thought it was a
fairly simple question.

[Trance Gemini]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM, EvilGod <unindoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

No. No joke. What would make you think it was? I thought it was a
fairly simple question.

DK was referring J Flores comment not yours.

Your question can lead into interesting directions if a theist would respond. lol
 

--
"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause...." --Eric Hoffer.

[LL]

On Aug 12, 1:17 pm, Richard W <zhengnanfore...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the New Testament, the city is described as the childhood home of
> Jesus, and as such is a center of Christian pilgrimage, with many
> shrines commemorating biblical associations.
>
> Ever wonder why they put bibles in night tables at hotels? To help you
> sleep.

LL: No, that may be an added advantage, but the reason they are put
there is to propagate religion. I think they should be banned. When I
go to a hotel where there is a bible in the night table, I turn it in
to the front desk. I've known some people who go further though. I've
known of gays who tear out Leviticus from every bible they find in
hotels. Before I started turning them in, I used to place Humanist
pamphlets in the bibles and a list of publications intended for
intelligent people.

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

[LL]

On Aug 12, 1:29 pm, EvilGod <unindoctrina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To my way of thinking the only people to be able to say that
> truthfully would be people alive at the time Jesus lived in Nazareth.
> A suitable analogy would be calling someone, I'll make up an imaginary
> character, Fred of Fresno. It would be correct while he was there but
> if he had been born in San Francisco and died in San Diego and had
> only spent a few years in Fresno as a child it is unlikely he would be
> referred to as Fred of Fresno after his death.

LL: There's a good chance he would be if he was being written about by
the kind of people who wrote the bible.

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

[LL]

On Aug 12, 7:47 pm, J flores <struggleformysoul...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They also called him that to keep king herod from finding out Jesus
> was still alive

LL: Are you saying that Herod that easily fooled?

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

> >  For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity?hl=en

[thea]

Somewhere, a long time ago I read that the name Jesus was a popular name, at the time.

 

In order to know who was being spoken about - they would call God's son, Jesus of Nazareth, to point to the prophecy that was being fulfilled.   There is also this scripture in  John 1:45 KJV *Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.*

[Timothy 1:4a]

Let me know when you find a place where Moses or an OT prophet wrote

"Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph".

[Timothy 1:4a]

Unfortunately the names "Ivan Gotta-Secret" and "Alias Undercover"
were already taken.

[LL]

On Aug 14, 7:39 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately the names "Ivan Gotta-Secret" and "Alias Undercover"
> were already taken.

LL: Aha! I knew there was a good reason!

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

[thea]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me know when you find a place where Moses or an OT prophet wrote

"Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph".

 

The only thing I can give you is the following.  I have quoted the sources and page numbers.

 

Deuteronomy 18:15-19

            From *A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testament*

By the Rev. Robert Jamieson, D.D., St. Paul’s, Glasgow, Scotland; Rev. A. R. Fausset, A.M., St. Cuthberts, York, England; And the Rev. David Brown, D.D., Professor of Theology, Aberdeen, Scotland

Vol. I. Old Testament   pg. 133

 

[CHRIST THE PROPHET IS TO BE HEARD.

*The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet--*

The insertion of this promise, in connection with the preceding prohibition, might warrant the application which some make of it, to that order of true prophets whom God commissioned in unbroken succession to instruct, to direct, and warn His people; and in this view the purpose of it is, *There is no need to consult with diviners and soothsayers, as I shall afford you the benefit of divinely-appointed prophets, for judging of whose credentials a sure criterion is given* (vs. 20-22).  But the prophet here promised was pre-eminently the Messiah, so He alone was *like unto Moses (see on Ch. 34.10) in his mediatorial character; in the peculiar excellence of his ministry; in the number, variety, and magnitude of his miracles; in  his close and familiar communion with God; and in his being the author of a new dispensation of religion.*  This prediction was fulfilled 1500 years afterwards, and was expressly applied to Jesus Christ by Peter (Acts. 8.22, 23), and by Stephen (Acts 7.37).]

 

*The Student’s Commentary on The Holy Scriptures* by George Williams

1926

[All that Christ taught, and the very words He used in His teaching, were from God (v. 18).  There was no misgiving in the Divine Mind as to that certitude.  Seven times He asserted that all His words and statements were given to Him by God; and in His last prayer He pleaded that it was God’s word, and God’s words, that He gave to the disciples—He did not speak from Himself as Man, but from God.  See notes on John vii. 16, 17 and xvii.8.  How wicked and daring, therefore, is the teaching of those who say that He was an ignorant Jew of His day; and that He taught what was not in every particular true.]

 

[Timothy 1:4a]

Thanks, thea.

But as you can see yourself, this quote does not mention Jesus or
Nazareth, so it doesn't answer the OP.

On Aug 15, 3:21 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

[thea]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, thea.

But as you can see yourself, this quote does not mention Jesus or
Nazareth, so it doesn't answer the OP.

 

 

According to what I have been able to find in Strong's Concordance - I cannot find a place in the OT where it states this.

However, Matthew 2:23 *And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

According to Scofield pg. 994:  *He shall be called a Nazarene* probably refers to Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is spoken of as *a rod [netzer] out of the stem of Jesse.*

[EvilGod]

Okay. this is going nowhere. Thanks Thea for filling the thread with
the totally irrelevant.

I have read recently that "Jesus of Nazareth" came into common use
because of the INRI on the cross which is almost always written as
''Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'. But apparently it doesn't say
that at all, it says 'Jesus the Nazarene' which has been mistaken for
meaning 'of Nazareth' but in fact means what it says 'the Nazarene'.
Now apparently the word Nazarene is a term for a member of a specific
branch or sect of Judaism, like referring to someone as Bob the
Catholic, in this case Jesus the Nazarene.

It would be nice to know whether this is correct as every thing we
atheists know about Christianity that Christians don't is ammunition
in the war on irrational belief and the harm it does.



On Aug 16, 5:59 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, thea.
>
> > But as you can see yourself, this quote does not mention Jesus or
> > Nazareth, so it doesn't answer the OP.
>
> According to what I have been able to find in Strong's Concordance - I
> cannot find a place in the OT where it states this.
> However, Matthew 2:23 *And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that
> it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
> Nazarene.
> According to Scofield pg. 994:  *He shall be called a Nazarene* probably

> refers to Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is spoken of as *a rod [*netzer*] out

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:06 PM, EvilGod <unindoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay. this is going nowhere. Thanks Thea for filling the thread with
the totally irrelevant.

I have read recently that "Jesus of Nazareth" came into common use
because of the INRI on the cross which is almost always written as
''Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'. But apparently it doesn't say
that at all, it says 'Jesus the Nazarene' which has been mistaken for
meaning 'of Nazareth' but in fact means what it says 'the Nazarene'.
Now apparently the word Nazarene is a term for a member of a specific
branch or sect of Judaism, like referring to someone as Bob the
Catholic, in this case Jesus the Nazarene.

It would be nice to know whether this is correct as every thing we
atheists know about Christianity that Christians don't is ammunition
in the war on irrational belief and the harm it does.

Well said.
 

[Dead Kennedy]

and aabout his name, doesnt Daniel (i think) say he will be called
"emmanuel" not jesus.

On 15 Aug, 20:59, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, thea.
>
> > But as you can see yourself, this quote does not mention Jesus or
> > Nazareth, so it doesn't answer the OP.
>
> According to what I have been able to find in Strong's Concordance - I
> cannot find a place in the OT where it states this.
> However, Matthew 2:23 *And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that
> it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
> Nazarene.
> According to Scofield pg. 994:  *He shall be called a Nazarene* probably

> refers to Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is spoken of as *a rod [*netzer*] out

> > > > > > > >  > > EvilGod.- Hide quoted text -

[thea]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

and aabout his name, doesnt Daniel (i think) say he will be called
"emmanuel" not jesus.

 

 

It's Isaiah 7:14 that I think you are trying to quote from the OT.

Matthew 1:23 says so in the NT.

 

 

 

In looking at this thread - I realize that the only way you can take a verse of scripture out of context - or out of the Bible and say prove it - is if you understand and know the whole of Divine Revelation - which takes books of explanation to understand - and studying for 30 years I still don't have a way to explain some things in 30 words or less.

To understand this - Jesus was of the Kingly lineage of Israel - from David to Jesus!

Jesus will one day be the King of the Jews - during the 1,000 years of time to come.

 

However, there is something else here that is interesting to me.  St. Paul took the Nazarite vow - and I am questioning - because Jesus is said to have never been married -- is this where the Catholic Church gets this idea from?

[Dead Kennedy]

On 16 Aug, 15:41, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and aabout his name, doesnt Daniel (i think) say he will be called
> > "emmanuel" not jesus.
>
> It's Isaiah 7:14 that I think you are trying to quote from the OT.
> Matthew 1:23 says so in the NT.

thanx for cleaing tha up.

>
> In looking at this thread - I realize that the only way you can take a verse
> of scripture out of context - or out of the Bible and say prove it - is if
> you understand and know the whole of Divine Revelation - which takes
> books of explanation to understand - and studying for 30 years I still don't
> have a way to explain some things in 30 words or less.
> To understand this - Jesus was of the Kingly lineage of Israel - from David
> to Jesus!

really. who was his earthly grandfather?

> Jesus will one day be the King of the Jews - during the 1,000 years of time
> to come.
>
> However, there is something else here that is interesting to me.  St. Paul
> took the Nazarite vow - and I am questioning - because Jesus is said to have
> never been married -- is this where the Catholic Church gets this idea from?

timothy.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[thea]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 16 Aug, 15:41, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and aabout his name, doesnt Daniel (i think) say he will be called
> > "emmanuel" not jesus.
>
> It's Isaiah 7:14 that I think you are trying to quote from the OT.
> Matthew 1:23 says so in the NT.

thanx for cleaing tha up.

>
> In looking at this thread - I realize that the only way you can take a verse
> of scripture out of context - or out of the Bible and say prove it - is if
> you understand and know the whole of Divine Revelation - which takes
> books of explanation to understand - and studying for 30 years I still don't
> have a way to explain some things in 30 words or less.
> To understand this - Jesus was of the Kingly lineage of Israel - from David
> to Jesus!

really. who was his earthly grandfather?

 

 

Jesus as the Son of God, begotten before the foundation of the world, has no earthly grandfather -- no such animal exists from his Father's side (God's side).

Now Mary had a Father whose name was Heli -- this is in Luke 3:24.  This is Mary's lineage from David to Jesus.

The genealogy in Matthew 1 is the Kingly lineage through Joseph - to prove that Jesus could sit on the thone of David.

[Dead Kennedy]

On 16 Aug, 16:16, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus as the Son of God, begotten before the foundation of the world, has no
> earthly grandfather -- no such animal exists from his Father's side (God's
> side).
> Now Mary had a Father whose name was Heli -- this is in Luke 3:24.  This is
> Mary's lineage from David to Jesus.

no its not. its the supposed lineage from david to joseph, it says
joseph right there, jesus the son of joseph who was the son of heli!

luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) "the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli,"

mathew 1:16"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary", of whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ.

> The genealogy in Matthew 1 is the Kingly lineage through Joseph - to prove
> that Jesus could sit on the thone of David

i nkow the argument about "marys lineage" but its not is it, it quite
clearly states "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

if it was marys lineage it would say "mary the daughter of heli"

[thea]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.k...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 16 Aug, 16:16, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus as the Son of God, begotten before the foundation of the world, has no
> earthly grandfather -- no such animal exists from his Father's side (God's
> side).
> Now Mary had a Father whose name was Heli -- this is in Luke 3:24.  This is
> Mary's lineage from David to Jesus.

no its not. its the supposed lineage from david to joseph, it says
joseph right there, jesus the son of joseph who was the son of heli!

luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) "the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli,"

mathew 1:16"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary", of whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ.

> The genealogy in Matthew 1 is the Kingly lineage through Joseph - to prove
> that Jesus could sit on the thone of David

i nkow the argument about "marys lineage" but its not is it, it quite
clearly states "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

if it was marys lineage it would say "mary the daughter of heli"

 

 

If you understand the Middle East at all - you know that the woman is not talked about -- it is always the lineage of the man.

It is with rare insight that we get four women listed in the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew.

Women are not listed - and this is interesting since the promise of the Christ Child was given to the women in Genesis 3:15 before she was named Eve.

In other words, mankind (the human male of the species) always usurps with a chip on his shoulder and thinks he did everything himself!!!

Well he did -- Adam put us all in bondage to Satan when he sinned - and we only have one way to get away from this bondage - and that is the accept by faith that *God raised Jesus from the dead.*

[LL]

On Aug 16, 8:16 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

The genealogy in Matthew 1 is the Kingly lineage through Joseph - to
prove
> that Jesus could sit on the thone of David.

LL: What does Joseph have to do with Jesus' lineage?

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


> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com

[LL]

On Aug 16, 8:36 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Aug, 16:16, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jesus as the Son of God, begotten before the foundation of the world, has no
> > earthly grandfather -- no such animal exists from his Father's side (God's
> > side).
> > Now Mary had a Father whose name was Heli -- this is in Luke 3:24.  This is
> > Mary's lineage from David to Jesus.
>
> no its not. its the supposed lineage from david to joseph, it says
> joseph right there, jesus the son of joseph who was the son of heli!
>
> luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
> being (as was supposed) "the son of Joseph, which was the son of
> Heli,"
>
> mathew 1:16"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary", of whom was
> born Jesus, who is called Christ.
>
> > The genealogy in Matthew 1 is the Kingly lineage through Joseph - to prove
> > that Jesus could sit on the thone of David
>
> i nkow the argument about "marys lineage" but its not is it, it quite
> clearly states "the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
>
> if it was marys lineage it would say "mary the daughter of heli"

LL: Maybe Mary and Joseph were brother and sister!

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

[Dead Kennedy]

On 16 Aug, 19:09, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you understand the Middle East at all - you know that the woman is not
> talked about -- it is always the lineage of the man.

see, you say this and then go on to say this:-

> It is with rare insight that we get four women listed in the genealogy of
> Joseph in Matthew.

so there are 4 women in a list but not the last and most important
one?!

have you never noticed that yourself or doesnt it bare thinking about?

You've been told that the genealogy of jesus *appears* to contradict
itself *but* thats because they dont talk about the woman BUT in the
very genealogies that "dont talk about women" , there are 4 women
listed as forebears of jesus.

how does that make any sense?

really?

> Women are not listed

well yes they are, there are 4 listed in mathew.

- and this is interesting since the promise of the
> Christ Child was given to the women in Genesis 3:15 before she was named
> Eve.

see. all these exceptions that prove the rule seem to be showing that
the rule didnt exist.

> In other words, mankind (the human male of the species) always usurps with a
> chip on his shoulder and thinks he did everything himself!!!
> Well he did -- Adam put us all in bondage to Satan when he sinned - and we
> only have one way to get away from this bondage - and that is the accept by
> faith that *God raised Jesus from the dead.*

well, thats all very well but it doesnt expain why one of the gospel
writers didnt know who jesuses grandfather was.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Timothy 1:4a]

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold,
a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name
Immanuel.

So the prophecy is not that Jesus will be called Immanuel. Only his
name will be called Immanuel, and even then only by his mother.

It's like the White Knight said to Alice:

"...The name of the song is called 'Haddocks' Eyes.'"
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel
interested.
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed.
"That's what the name
is called. The name really is 'The Aged, Aged Man.'"
"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called'?" Alice
corrected herself.
"No you oughtn't: that's another thing. The song is called 'Ways and
Means' but that's only
what it's called, you know!"
"Well, what is the song then?" said Alice, who was by this time
completely bewildered.
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is

[EvilGod]

I don't suppose there's any chance we can get back to the original
topic is there?

1: - Does anyone have a guaranteed accurate translation of I.N.R.I.?
2: - Could 'Nazarene' mean that he was a member of a sect of Judaism
called the Nazarene or perhaps the Nazarites?
3: - Why would anyone be referred to as 'of' a place where they spent
part of their youth?

If your response doesn't answer any of these questions you are wasting
my time and ruining the whole point of these discussion groups.

[Dead Kennedy]

saying it twice doesnt make it more urgent mate, and if thats your
attitude to discussion, may i suggests you fuck off and do your own
research.

On 17 Aug, 08:09, EvilGod <iateyour...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't suppose there's any chance we can get back to the original
> topic is there?
>

> Could 'Nazarene' mean that he was a member of a sect of Judaism called

> the Nazarene or perhaps Nazarites?
> Does anyone have a guaranteed accurate translation of INRI?

> Why would anyone be referred to as 'of' a place where they spent part
> of their youth?
>
> If your response doesn't answer any of these questions you are wasting

> my time.

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dead Kennedy]

it would account for them both having the surname "christ".

err..but then so would the fact that they were married.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[EvilGod]

Sorry about the accidental double post and reposting of one question.
It didn't appear to be working properly.
You aren't seriously stating that my asking for this discussion to
stay on topic is too much to ask and that you find that request
somehow offensive are you?

[Dead Kennedy]

EG:"If your response doesn't answer any of these questions you are
wasting
my time"

then maybe we should stop you wasting your time by suggesting you fuck
off?

EG:"and ruining the whole point of these discussion groups."

you've been here for all of 40 hours and you want to tell us how to
run our discussions?

earlier i pointed out that if you want a definative answer to your
question you should do your own research afterall, you are using the
greatest research tool the world has ever seen.

so maybe you should start here...

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=i.n.r.i+definition&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

this is a discussion group, which mean you will find many people
answering your OPs, many of them christian who will give their own
view, and whether you feel their arguments are valid or not, they are
their arguments.

You may not agree with them but it may help if you did the research to
be able to debate, rather than demanding they answer your question
with the answer you want to hear.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[EvilGod]

If you wish to have rambling discussions that never relate to the
original post go ahead. Feel free to stay off my posts and don't waste
my time with it.

Anyone actually interested in discussing the subject I have started a
new post titled "Could someone here provide me with a guaranteed
accurate translation of I.N.R.I.?" I suppose I shouldn't have said
"guaranteed" but at least I'm being specific which will hopefully lead
people to only respond if they have something on topic and helpful.

The internet is as full of misinformation as it is real information,
especially when religion is the subject. I have done my own research
but would like to know if anyone has a better source of information or
more knowledge on the subject.

[Dead Kennedy]

its not your OP mush, its someone called richard w, unless of course
you have been talking to yourself.

oh, and FYI starting a discussion with a question you already know the
answer to isnt "debating", its being a smart-arse!

Being a smart-arse is definately allowed here and often encouraged
but dont go jumping on the pompuos pony about it m'kay.

[LL]

On Aug 17, 5:58 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> it would account for them both having the surname "christ".
>
> err..but then so would the fact that they were married.

LL: I never heard that either of them had the "surname," Christ.
Christ was a descriptive for the Messiah. It was never part of Mary's
nor Joseph's name. In fact, Jesus himself wouldn't have been known by
"Christ" until late in his life.

Most people in that place in that time didn't have surnames. They were
known by their given names and sometimes by "of," meaning the place
they came from, generally used for people who had gained some renown
to distinguish them from other ordinary people with the same given
name.

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

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > Ever wonder why they put bibles in night tables at...
>
> read more »

[Dead Kennedy]

On 17 Aug, 19:24, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 5:58 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > it would account for them both having the surname "christ".
>
> > err..but then so would the fact that they were married.
>
> LL: I never heard that either of them had the "surname," Christ.

well. i havent got my fathers surname either but, thats something that
was only discussed among my close family, usually at christmas and out
of my earshot ;0)

> Christ was a descriptive for the Messiah. It was never part of Mary's
> nor Joseph's name. In fact, Jesus himself wouldn't have been known by
> "Christ" until late in his life.

yes mate :0)

>
> Most people in that place in that time didn't have surnames. They were
> known by their given names and sometimes by "of," meaning the place
> they came from, generally used for people who had gained some renown
> to distinguish them from other ordinary people with the same given
> name.

yes mate ;0)

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Aug 17, 2:24 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 5:58 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > it would account for them both having the surname "christ".
>
> > err..but then so would the fact that they were married.
>
> LL: I never heard that either of them had the "surname," Christ.
> Christ was a descriptive for the Messiah. It was never part of Mary's
> nor Joseph's name. In fact, Jesus himself wouldn't have been known by
> "Christ" until late in his life.
>
> Most people in that place in that time didn't have surnames. They were
> known by their given names and sometimes by "of," meaning the place
> they came from, generally used for people who had gained some renown
> to distinguish them from other ordinary people with the same given
> name.
>
> *************************************

Let's push a birther bill through Congress to find out where he really
came from. If we get a look at the birth certificate, maybe we can
find out what the H. stands for.

(Sorry EvilGod, but on this OP I find the nonsense more interesting
than the research.)

> ...
>
> read more »

[EvilGod]

"it would account for them both having the surname "christ"

Now that is funny. It's nice to see you have a sense of humour.


I can't vouch for its accuracy, as like most people I was taught a lot
of things that I have since found were incorrect, but I was taught
that "christ" was merely a bastardisation of "crossed". There are
thousands of examples of words that changed spelling and pronunciation
over time and as it was very common for Jesus to be referred to as
'Jesus THE christ' and seeing as Yeshua, his real name, was apparently
a very common name. (for the sake of discussion I'll keep using
'Jesus'), In a place with a lot of people named Jesus it makes sense
to refer to the crucified one as 'Jesus the crossed' keeping in mind
that the crucifixion was written about in possibly three of four
languages, centuries after the fact, then translated and/or
transliterated into Olde English then into modern English.
Unfortunately those who actually knew any of this died two thousand
years ago. As I stated previously I have no evidence that this is
correct but it is what I was taught.

The most common way people were identified at the time was mostly in
the form of 'name, son of father's name' In this case 'Jesus, son of
Joseph'. A large percentage of surnames, when they started to become
popular, were still the same thing. How many names are there that, in
English, end in 'son' or 'sen'? i.e. Johnson (John's son), Harrison
(Harry's son), e.t.c. Well there are thousands of names in dozens, if
not hundreds, of languages that follow suit.

And before someone suggests it. No. I'm pretty sure he wasn't known as
'Jesus, son of god' or he would probably still be referred to as
'Jesus Godson'.

@ Dead Kennedy

I don't know who you are referring to with the title or name "mush"
But the Original Post is mine. I don't know who Richard W is.
I started the discussion with a question I already know AN answer to.
I was seeking alternative answers or clarification that I had the
correct answer.

I have done my own research, this question was a continuation of it as
I thought there may be people here who had some idea of what they were
talking about. Obviously I was wrong. I've seen YouTube comment lists
that stay on topic better than this and are more intelligent. In the
hundreds, if not thousands, of hours I have spent on Atheist sites it
is truly rare to see an Atheist behave as poorly as I have come to
expect from the deluded. Well done, you are an exception.

Obviously you didn't read or comprehend my previous post So I'll
repeat myself for you.

"If you wish to have rambling discussions that never relate to the
original post go ahead. Feel free to stay off my posts and don't waste

my time with it." I refuse to lower myself to using profanity. I ask
you to please stay off my other post.

I will not be returning to this post as it has been a waste of time
and if you are an example of those who inhabit Google Groups I shall
abandon it entirely.

[Timothy 1:4a]

Wiki agrees with what I learned growing up Catholic, so I'm pretty
sure it's correct: "Christ" is from the Greek translation of
"Messiah", has same root as the word "chrism", and means "the anointed
one." They used to consecrate kings and other sacred people by
anointing them with oil.

Calling Jesus "the Christ" is like calling Springsteen "the Boss" or
Sinatra "the Chairman of the Board".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

[Dead Kennedy]

to be honest tim, the jumble of hearsay and down right "wrong"
information in the EG post above makes me think that all that time hes
spent on atheist boards was wasted.

> > abandon it entirely.- Hide quoted text -

[etienne]

On 15 août, 21:59, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, thea.
>
> > But as you can see yourself, this quote does not mention Jesus or
> > Nazareth, so it doesn't answer the OP.
>
> According to what I have been able to find in Strong's Concordance - I
> cannot find a place in the OT where it states this.
> However, Matthew 2:23 *And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that
> it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
> Nazarene.
> According to Scofield pg. 994:  *He shall be called a Nazarene* probably
> refers to Isa. 11:1, where the Messiah is spoken of as *a rod [*netzer*] out
> of the stem of Jesse.*
>

"Nazarene" is not an adjective describing a place of origin. It's why
the leaders in Europe in medieval times, who where using religion as a
mean of justification were unable to find it and built Nazareth to
defend themselves.

>
>
> > On Aug 15, 3:21 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >  > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>

> > > > > > > >  if he had been born in San Francisco and died in San Diego and
> > had
> > > > > > > >  only spent a few years in Fresno as a child it is unlikely he
> > > > would be
> > > > > > > >  referred to as Fred of Fresno after his death. I hope that
> > makes
> > > > my
> > > > > > > >  question clearer.
>
> > > > > > > >  On Aug 13, 6:17 am, Richard W <zhengnanfore...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >  > In the New Testament, the city is described as the childhood
> > > > home of
> > > > > > > >  > Jesus, and as such is a center of Christian pilgrimage, with
> > > > many
> > > > > > > >  > shrines commemorating biblical associations.
>

> > > > > > > >  > Ever wonder why they put bibles in night tables at hotels?
> > To
> > > > help
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >  > sleep.
>
> > > > > > > >  > On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, EvilGod <unindoctrina...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >  > > Hi folks, I'm just trying to find out why Jesus is often
> > > > called
> > > > > > Jesus
> > > > > > > >  > > of Nazareth. It must be at least fifteen years since I
> > read
> > > > the
> > > > > > bible
> > > > > > > >  > > and I really couldn't stomach reading it again. if anyone
> > > > could
> > > > > > help I
> > > > > > > >  > > would appreciate it.
> > > > > > > >  > > Thanks in advance.

> > > > > > > >  > > EvilGod.