Did the village of Nazareth exist in the first century?

[fallingblood]

I have all of Meier's volumes, but I can't recall what he said offhand. I don't think we can know much other than it wasn't very big.

I could be wrong. I thought I saw it in the first volume, but I've been reading quite a few books lately so I could have gotten them confused.

 

[Oberon]

I could be wrong. I thought I saw it in the first volume, but I've been reading quite a few books lately so I could have gotten them confused.

No you were right I just checked. See my edit to my last post.

 

[outhouse]

find sensationalist webpages written by amateurs. Which is what you do.

I actually do research there refference material and other authors assocciated in many cases.

I dont take there word for gold

not all amateurs have a view apposing yours. Almost every bit of research ive done which is miniscule compared to you has scholars that appose one another.

 

[outhouse]

You have to understand that the gray area is a must. Even the history of Rome has gray areas. The founding of it is not definite. The reason is because we are dealing with events highly separated from the time that we live in. Definite evidence is seldom available.

Thank you for the responce, point taken

 

[outhouse]

It could be that our latrine friend doesn't have access to such sources or he doesn't know where to look. IMHO, archaeology is one of the more difficult subjects to learn how to research.

Correct on all counts.

If im not mistaken more work is done in knowing what your looking for before one starts.

 

[David M]

im out trying to learn both sides, that is not trolling. your biased so what.

the iaa is also biased, they are funded by christians and guess what happens when you go looking for christian artifacts with christian money?

Unproven libel and a lie. They are funded by the government of Isreal.

And guess what happens when the IAA ran an invenstigation at Mary's Well (another Christian Site)? The conclusion of the same archaeologist who was director of the dig at Nazareth was - there is no evidence of early roman use of Mary's Well.

 

[Oberon]

It could be that our latrine friend doesn't have access to such sources or he doesn't know where to look. IMHO, archaeology is one of the more difficult subjects to learn how to research.

It isn't just archaelogy though. The same types of sources were used with the historical jesus thread. And although I'm sure most people can't readily navigate through JSTOR or have access to various other databases of scholarship, it is one thing to rely on wikipedia and seek out various views of professors (from blogs, websites, or borders) and quite another to only read the sensationalist websites.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It isn't just archaelogy though.

Yes. The same can be said of many other fields that are discussed here.

 

[outhouse]

quite another to only read the sensationalist websites.

and if you followed my post you would find out i quote wiki more then any other.

For the jesus myth I had just started and jumped in with what I could. Price has his opinion its not alltogether mine. rene salm has good points that have merit but i do not hold him in high regards.

excuse me for only having the internet to research from. getting scholars opinions and authors thoughts is not all negitive.

i would say you had merit if i started posting from zitgiest, but from the beginning I never did.

 

[crossfire]

I'm bumping this thread for reference/comparison material for this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/152801-lost-years-jesus.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm bumping this thread for reference/comparison material for this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/152801-lost-years-jesus.html

Great ...