Pointing out the fact that the myth is a myth would seem redundant, but in actuality it's a cause for discussion. That in itself should say something about religious beliefs and their fragile state.
What believers are doing here is trying to draw an historical figure out of a mythology because they got it backwards. It's not uncommon for myths and legends to develop about an historical figure, but it takes religion to draw an historical figure from myth. It's rather humorous to see the...
Believers are cause for discussion. A fictional character sacrificed for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead turned out to be the most influential character of all. People actually believe this central character, the Son of God Himself, is a basis for a man that actually existed in real...
It is not bigotry to blame Christians for killing Jews, it's simply a matter of observation:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they...
It goes without saying that the Jews were the minority, that the Christians had the upper hand. It can't be over emphasized that Jews, a group of people recognized by their religion, were killed for religious purposes, purely on religious grounds by Christians. The gospel story has a Jewish mob...
An objective morality could be a morality based on principles that are the same for all. An example would be torture, in any functioning society or culture torture is recognized as something that no one should have to endure. A culture or people influenced by those that can justify torturing...
It was belief that caused the holocaust, a belief that Jews (read Christ killers), and homosexuals (another bible driven phobia), were the cause of Germany's woes and so had to be wiped out. The belief in God persists even now.
Let's not forget Mary's well, the site where the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear the Son of God.
Mary's Well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If one could find a source that supports The Bible claim for a 1st century Nazareth, that in itself would be useful because bible based beliefs are otherwise a dime a dozen.
A town may have existed there, the question is whether or not it was known as Nazareth during the first century. Hundreds of years after the gospels were written it became necessary to establish a place called Nazareth so that Christian pilgrims could come and do whatever it is that Christians...
No one can comment on the non existence of such a thing as an ancient town. It's reasonable to remain skeptical of a so called ancient town such as Nazareth existing in the first century considering the source, and that it was previously unheard of.
They don't necessarily lose anything, they just transform into something else. That's why the gospels are not to be viewed as anything other than a story consisting of material gathered from various oral traditions. A lot of stories are written that way.