No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[fallingblood]

And following that statement he went on to write, "I then pose the sensitive question–if not Joseph then whom? Is there anything at all to be said of this matter? Has any alternative tradition regarding Jesus’ father come down to us? And the answer is yes, the name Pantera is found in a number of ancient sources."

"We have two stories preserved in supplements to the Mishnah called the Tosefta (as well as in other parallel rabbinic texts but primarily see Tosefta Chullin 2:22-24) that refer to “Yeshu ben Pantera” (with alternate spelling variations). The first involves the famous Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus who lived in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD. Rabbi Eliezer relates a teaching in the “name of Yeshu ben Pantera” that he heard on the streets of Sepphoris from one Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin. Eliezer himself had been arrested for “heresy” and some have suspected he might have been sympathetic to the Nazarenes. The second story also involves Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin who attempts to heal a certain Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama of a snakebite in the name of “Yeshu ben Pantera.”

And none of that suggests that Jesus's real father was Pantera, nor does Tabor state that Pantera is the father, just that Pantera is another suggestion.

 

[Tellurian]

Why not actually argue against what I am saying instead of just dismissing it and posting a link? You may get further. Especially if you had even read your links.

I have read the links I provide for you, but I suspect you do not read them. Did you actually read the analysis of Celsus and Origen I provided for you? The more I see of your posts the more obvious it becomes that you are simply in denial. You just ignore the archaeological evidence of the sophisticated first century heated Roman bath and the lack of any early first century archaeological evidence for a Jewish village at Nazareth in order to keep "believing" WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE about the fictions in the gospel stories. You keep making statements about what is and what is not in the Jewish records even after I provide you with quotes from those records showing you that your statements are wrong. Why should I argue with someone who is simply in denial of the evidence and just wants to proselytize the biblical myths? What I saw in your LONG article was a process where you had a conclusion you had already decided upon, and then you tried to make arguments to support that conclusion instead of using a scientific method of basing your conclusion on what ALL of the evidence supported.

 

[fallingblood]

I have read the links I provide for you, but I suspect you do not read them. Did you actually read the analysis of Celsus and Origen I provided for you? The more I see of your posts the more obvious it becomes that you are simply in denial. You just ignore the archaeological evidence of the sophisticated first century heated Roman bath and the lack of any early first century archaeological evidence for a Jewish village at Nazareth in order to keep "believing" WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE about the fictions in the gospel stories. You keep making statements about what is and what is not in the Jewish records even after I provide you with quotes from those records showing you that your statements are wrong. Why should I argue with someone who is simply in denial of the evidence and just wants to proselytize the biblical myths? What I saw in your LONG article was a process where you had a conclusion you had already decided upon, and then you tried to make arguments to support that conclusion instead of using a scientific method of basing your conclusion on what ALL of the evidence supported.

That is priceless. A clear example of argumentum ad hominem. Really no substance what so ever.

For my long article, please, show me why it is wrong. Enlighten me. You have been given the link multiple times now, so please, show me where I am wrong in it. You keep belittling it, yet you have shown absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be accepted.

Please, instead of just ranting about how my logic if flawed, or about how I am in denial, show why one should be able to dismiss me as you have done. Show why my arguments fail. Deal with my arguments. Don't just continue your tactic of trying to belittle me and think that actually makes you right. Deal with the subject. Really, it is time to either put up or shut up.

 

[fallingblood]

For an interesting critique of Celsus' quotes from Origen and an analysis of the teachings of Celsus and Origen (that you will not find on a Christian website) you might want to take a look at the following site:

Celsus and Origen

Since you've complained about me not supposedly reading the link you've posted, I am offering a rebuttal to it here.

It shows why people of high character and attainments in the second century rejected Christianity.

Not correct. It only shows why some such people rejected Christianity. We also know that some such people also accepted Christianity. Just a misleading statement.

He was the equivalent of a modern scientist, honest and clear-headed, and one who objected to vice and folly. Miracles and such supernatural phenomena were either honest misconceptions of natural events, or were frauds perpetrated on the gullible.

Simply horrible. He was not the equivalent of a modern scientist. To state such is just highly ignorant. If you read what Celsus said, he does not deny that Jesus did miracles. He just instead subscribes them to magical powers instead. What Celsus denied was that Jesus did those miracles or acts by divine power, but by magic occult powers.

The purveyors of Christianity were only one group of charlatans among many. Today they are the main one remaining in the west,

This shows the clear bias of the author. It doesn't mean that the author is not credible, but it does mean one has to look at what he wrote more closely.

Roman intellectuals were impressed by the work and it proved such an obstacle to Christianity spreading among the educated classes that the greatest intellectual in Christianity was required to reply to it. But it took 80 years before a man with the intellectual stature to face up to Celsus was found among the Christian ranks—Origen.

This is kind of funny. If the work of Celsus proved to be such an obstacle, why don't other Christian writers mention it? If the author had done his research, he would see that there were already other intelligent Christians before Origen, that were arguing against other polemics against Christianity. For instance, Irenaeus was alive during the time Celsus wrote. He would have been in a perfect position to refute Celsus, but obviously he either didn't hear of him, or simply didn't think it was really worth the effort. And Irenaeus had commonly been one to defend Christianity against what he thought were threats.

I'm not commenting on much of the other parts, as I feel no need to debate what Celsus thought.

The Talmud agrees with Celsus that Panther was the husband of Mary and therefore the father of Jesus.

This is not true. If he had read the Talmud (I am referring to the author), he would see that "Panther" is never said to be the husband of Mary. More so, this Mary is never directly associated with Jesus. "Panther" is said to be the lover of Mary, not the husband.

The author of your link also agrees that the Jesus Celsus is talking about is the Jesus of Christianity, and the Jesus of the Bible. More so, he obviously accepts that one can read the work of Celsus that is contained in Origen.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The author of your link also agrees that the Jesus Celsus is talking about is the Jesus of Christianity, and the Jesus of the Bible. More so, he obviously accepts that one can read the work of Celsus that is contained in Origen.

I'm afraid that's useless.

We may as well be arguing from the adventures of Donald Duck.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have read the links I provide for you, but I suspect you do not read them. Did you actually read the analysis of Celsus and Origen I provided for you? The more I see of your posts the more obvious it becomes that you are simply in denial. You just ignore the archaeological evidence of the sophisticated first century heated Roman bath and the lack of any early first century archaeological evidence for a Jewish village at Nazareth in order to keep "believing" WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE about the fictions in the gospel stories. You keep making statements about what is and what is not in the Jewish records even after I provide you with quotes from those records showing you that your statements are wrong. Why should I argue with someone who is simply in denial of the evidence and just wants to proselytize the biblical myths? What I saw in your LONG article was a process where you had a conclusion you had already decided upon, and then you tried to make arguments to support that conclusion instead of using a scientific method of basing your conclusion on what ALL of the evidence supported.

ha! Do you consider basing your entire conclusion on the "evidence" presented by a single website and obstinately refusing the insight or opinion presented by any other source a "scientific method?"

Seriously. You have presented a single source - one piece of evidence that you have no clue how to interpret - then combine that with a laundry list of logical fallacies and pretend like you have a substantial conclusion.

Get a grip.

It's tempting, I know, to run hog wild with something that you think challenges a religion - but you happen to have chosen topics that are considerably above your head.

 

[godnotgod]

I just couldn't pass this up. This shows your lack of understanding in general as well as your ignorance. Is the accepted idea today that the Earth is flat? No. If one wants to argue such they have the burden of proof as it is generally accepted that the Earth is round.

You need to think before you post and you actually need to read what is said. Otherwise you just look foolish.

That is my choice. Let me worry about that.

What you fail to understand here is that I was using the flat earth story as an example of an idea that, while it was generally accepted, turned out to be untrue. In other words, I was using it to demonstrate that the premise of your argument, that just because an idea is generally accepted as true, it therefore must be true, but may, in fact, turn out to not be true after all. The criteria for it being true is not that it is generally accepted, but that it has been demonstrated to be true. If it cannot be shown to be true, then it is merely conjecture, opinion, belief, or concept.

The idea that the earth was flat was accepted as true simply because it seemed to be true.

You want us to believe that Nazareth existed because it is generally accepted to be so, which includes the scholarly. Unfortunately, truth has a way of defrocking even the most scholarly amongst us. In the case of the flat earth, it was the authority of the Church which was proven erroneous.

What we should be looking at are the reasons why Nazareth came to be mentioned in the NT several times, while at the same time, it was never mentioned in the OT, and it showed up on no map or list of Galilean towns.

"Most people believe Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Speaking of Joseph, the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) says: “he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’” A careful reading of this passage reveals that the writers of Matthew are trying to fulfill the prophecy, not Jesus, and in order to fulfill the prophecy that “He will be called a Nazarean”, Matthew gives his hometown as Nazareth. But in fact, there is no Old Testament prophecy to the effect that a Messiah will come from a place called Nazareth (which is another in the long list of errors that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew made about Old Testament prophecies). The closest we come to any such description is a passage in Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.

Thus, the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth is a result of a mis-translation of the Old Testament by the writers of Matthew."


Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The idea that the earth was flat was accepted as true simply because it seemed to be true.

IF anyone thought the world was flat, it was out of willfull ignorance.

You might want to re-evaluate this historical blunder.

note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

 

[fallingblood]

That is my choice. Let me worry about that.

What you fail to understand here is that I was using the flat earth story as an example of an idea that, while it was generally accepted, turned out to be untrue. In other words, I was using it to demonstrate that the premise of your argument, that just because an idea is generally accepted as true, it therefore must be true, but may, in fact, turn out to not be true after all. The criteria for it being true is not that it is generally accepted, but that it has been demonstrated to be true. If it cannot be shown to be true, then it is merely conjecture, opinion, belief, or concept.

You didn't quite get what I said. I'm not saying that just because it is generally accepted that that makes it true. Creationism was generally accepted for quite some time, and I hardly believe that is true. Evolutionist had to prove that their theory was better, and over time, as they accomplished the burden of proof, Evolution became the generally accepted idea.

If you want to change what is generally accepted, you have to show that your idea is better than the one already accepted. You are making the extraordinary claim. You are the one who is making a claim that goes against what is generally accepted. Thus, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove what is already generally accepted. And I definitely do not have to prove it in order to show that your idea is wrong, when you haven't spent the time making a good case for your stance.

You came here and made a claim. You have to support your claim, and back it up. You can't just tell the other side to prove you wrong, because there simply is no reason to do such. And again, you have the burden of proof.

 

[fallingblood]

"Most people believe Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Speaking of Joseph, the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) says: “he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’” A careful reading of this passage reveals that the writers of Matthew are trying to fulfill the prophecy, not Jesus, and in order to fulfill the prophecy that “He will be called a Nazarean”, Matthew gives his hometown as Nazareth. But in fact, there is no Old Testament prophecy to the effect that a Messiah will come from a place called Nazareth (which is another in the long list of errors that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew made about Old Testament prophecies). The closest we come to any such description is a passage in Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.

Thus, the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth is a result of a mis-translation of the Old Testament by the writers of Matthew."


Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

I have already covered this before, as have others. Really though, it is a horrible argument and only supports the authors ignorance on the subject.

If we look at Mark, which is the first Gospel, Jesus is still said to be from Nazareth. In Luke and John, Jesus is said to be Nazareth. None of them use this so called prophecy. Only Matthew relies on this prophecy, which tells us quite a bit. Since he is the only one who uses it, and it is not mentioned in our earlier source (Mark), there is no reason to assume that was the real reason why Jesus was in Nazareth. We can rule fairly certain that Matthew is simply making that up himself.

Matthew quite frequently looked through the OT to find verses that he thought fit the life of Jesus. Many of these are never meant to be prophecies for the Messiah, and many were already fulfilled long before. However, his idea was that the entire OT pointed towards the Messiah. Thus, by looking at events in the life of Jesus, and comparing them to scripture, he was able to find verses that roughly fit the life of Jesus that he knew. It was also a tactic in which Matthew was able to justify various aspects of the life of Jesus, such as being born in Nazareth.

Again, since Mark never mentions it (Matthew was partially based off of Mark), and no other Gospel uses it (Luke, also being partially based off of Mark, is a pretty good hint that Matthew simply created the attachment to the prophecy himself), we can rule that this verse was only attached to the life of Jesus later on. That it is not part of the earliest tradition, and that it was not the reason for putting Jesus in Nazareth. In fact, it would have been a foolish reason.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You didn't quite get what I said. I'm not saying that just because it is generally accepted that that makes it true. Creationism was generally accepted for quite some time, and I hardly believe that is true. Evolutionist had to prove that their theory was better, and over time, as they accomplished the burden of proof, Evolution became the generally accepted idea.

If you want to change what is generally accepted, you have to show that your idea is better than the one already accepted. You are making the extraordinary claim. You are the one who is making a claim that goes against what is generally accepted. Thus, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove what is already generally accepted. And I definitely do not have to prove it in order to show that your idea is wrong, when you haven't spent the time making a good case for your stance.

You came here and made a claim. You have to support your claim, and back it up. You can't just tell the other side to prove you wrong, because there simply is no reason to do such. And again, you have the burden of proof.

... and in this case, it would be useful if he had the competence to establish a burden of proof.

What makes the claim extraordinary is not merely the rebellion against the majority, but an obstinate refusal to examine the good reason for the majority consensus. In the misinterpretation of all available evidence and the whole cloth fabrication of other "evidence," the argument becomes a celebration of incompetence.

 

[godnotgod]

You didn't quite get what I said. I'm not saying that just because it is generally accepted that that makes it true. Creationism was generally accepted for quite some time, and I hardly believe that is true. Evolutionist had to prove that their theory was better, and over time, as they accomplished the burden of proof, Evolution became the generally accepted idea.

If you want to change what is generally accepted, you have to show that your idea is better than the one already accepted. You are making the extraordinary claim. You are the one who is making a claim that goes against what is generally accepted. Thus, you have the burden of proof. I don't have to prove what is already generally accepted. And I definitely do not have to prove it in order to show that your idea is wrong, when you haven't spent the time making a good case for your stance.

You came here and made a claim. You have to support your claim, and back it up. You can't just tell the other side to prove you wrong, because there simply is no reason to do such. And again, you have the burden of proof.

However, the original claim is made by Christianity: that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time. We find, however, that there are problems associated with this statement, as has been pointed out, problems which are not solely archaeological in nature. The claim is generally accepted, not because it has merit, but because it is being made under the color of Biblical authority. That, too, was the problem with the flat earth idea: it was maintained as dogma by the Church. Who is to question either claim, since the Church and the Bible are its authority?

But when we look for the physical evidence of a town where the Bible says it should be buried, we find none.

So no. The burden of proof still lies with Christianity, since it is the authority which made the claim in the first place. All anyone else is doing is to go see if the claim has any validity. It does not. To say: "The claim that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time is unfounded" is not a claim in itself; it is the answer to the original claim, and that answer is based on proof: there is no archaeological evidence that such a town existed.

So the question has been answered.

Unless you have other 'proof' you want brought forward. If so, be specific. What, exactly, do you require to prove to you that the Biblical claim of a 1st century Nazareth is unfounded?

All you have is the written word, which came a half-century after the fact.

So far, the real evidence is:

a> no archaeological evidence

b> Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

c> The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

d> St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

e> No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It shows up on no map of the time. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

f> In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time.

g> The Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the earliest description of Galilean towns left by a pious tourist (333AD), mentions no town of Nazareth.

h> In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town.

i> No 'synagogue' where Jesus was reported to have preached.

j> No cliff from where Jesus was to be thrown by the townspeople

k> Everyone knew Jesus was God in the flesh; and yet, he seems to have led a quiet, unassuming life in Nazareth until suddenly, at age 30, he bursts upon the world. There is but a footnote to his residency in Nazareth from the age of 12 to the age of 30. Something is wrong with this story.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

However, the original claim is made by Christianity: that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time. We find, however, that there are problems associated with this statement, as has been pointed out, problems which are not solely archaeological in nature. The claim is generally accepted, not because it has merit, but because it is being made under the color of Biblical authority. That, too, was the problem with the flat earth idea: it was maintained as dogma by the Church. Who is to question either claim, since the Church and the Bible are its authority?

But when we look for the physical evidence of a town where the Bible says it should be buried, we find none.

So no. The burden of proof still lies with Christianity, since it is the authority which made the claim in the first place. All anyone else is doing is to go see if the claim has any validity. It does not. To say: "The claim that Nazareth existed in Jesus's time is unfounded" is not a claim in itself; it is the answer to the original claim, and that answer is based on proof: there is no archaeological evidence that such a town existed.

So the question has been answered.

Unless you have other 'proof' you want brought forward. If so, be specific. What, exactly, do you require to prove to you that the Biblical claim of a 1st century Nazareth is unfounded?

All you have is the written word, which came a half-century after the fact.

So far, the real evidence is:

a> no archaeological evidence

b> Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

c> The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

d> St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

e> No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It shows up on no map of the time. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

f> In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time.

g> The Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the earliest description of Galilean towns left by a pious tourist (333AD), mentions no town of Nazareth.

h> In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town.

i> No 'synagogue' where Jesus was reported to have preached.

j> No cliff from where Jesus was to be thrown by the townspeople

k> Everyone knew Jesus was God in the flesh; and yet, he seems to have led a quiet, unassuming life in Nazareth until suddenly, at age 30, he bursts upon the world. There is but a footnote to his residency in Nazareth from the age of 12 to the age of 30. Something is wrong with this story.

Keep trying. Maybe something good will come of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your lack of research is just dumbfounding.

The ability to think through what little reading he's done would be more impressive than simply reading more.

At this point, more information would simply be more confusing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So let's see - how much of this says anything about your thesis.

a> no archaeological evidence = false

b> Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list. = that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant

c> The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant

d> St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant

e> No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It shows up on no map of the time. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant

f> In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that it is insignificant

g> The Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the earliest description of Galilean towns left by a pious tourist (333AD), mentions no town of Nazareth. that is not evidence that Nazareth does not exist but merely that he was uninterested in it

h> In the 3rd century Church Father Origen knew the gospel story of the city of Nazareth – yet had no clear idea where it was – even though he lived at Caesarea, barely thirty miles from the present town. Now this is shocking even in light of your previous blunders. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth -- other than, IF this reference is correct -- that he knew Nazareth existed but not where it was, which is not unusual.

i> No 'synagogue' where Jesus was reported to have preached. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth.

j> No cliff from where Jesus was to be thrown by the townspeople. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth.

k> Everyone knew Jesus was God in the flesh; and yet, he seems to have led a quiet, unassuming life in Nazareth until suddenly, at age 30, he bursts upon the world. There is but a footnote to his residency in Nazareth from the age of 12 to the age of 30. Something is wrong with this story. This says absolutely nothing about Nazareth, except for its existence.[/COLOR]

The only thing wrong with this story is your inability to interpret it. Almost all of your "evidence" is either fabricated (letter a) or irrelevant to your point. The only thing that actually says anything about Nazareth says precisely the opposite of what you're trying to prove.

Care to try again?

 

[godnotgod]

... and in this case, it would be useful if he had the competence to establish a burden of proof.

What makes the claim extraordinary is not merely the rebellion against the majority, but an obstinate refusal to examine the good reason for the majority consensus. In the misinterpretation of all available evidence and the whole cloth fabrication of other "evidence," the argument becomes a celebration of incompetence.

You are correct. I am completely incompetent, and therefore must rely on the competency of others, unless, of course, you wish to label them as incompetent as well, with you being the only qualified person to speak on the matter.

Therefore, you being so thoroughly competent in the field, it would be useful if you would bother to actually post something competent, such as the 'good reason' for the majority consensus, along with the reason you label the lack of archaeological evidence as being 'whole cloth fabrication'.

As far as an incompetent person such as myself can see, the evidence has not been misrepresented; there is no evidence to misrepresent, and that is the point.

What has been misrepresented is the archaeological evidence which is being presented by Christian sources as 1st century artifacts, along with a single dwelling as evidence of a town. Here is where you will find your 'whole cloth fabrication'; not in the fact that zero archaeological evidence exists for a 1st century town of 'Nazareth'. :foot:

 

[godnotgod]

Keep trying. Maybe something good will come of it.

Not in your case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are correct. I am completely incompetent, and therefore must rely on the competency of others, unless, of course, you wish to label them as incompetent as well, with you being the only qualified person to speak on the matter.

Therefore, you being so thoroughly competent in the field, it would be useful if you would bother to actually post something competent, such as the 'good reason' for the majority consensus, along with the reason you label the lack of archaeological evidence as being 'whole cloth fabrication'.

As far as an incompetent person such as myself can see, the evidence has not been misrepresented; there is no evidence to misrepresent, and that is the point.

What has been misrepresented is the archaeological evidence which is being presented by Christian sources as 1st century artifacts, along with a single dwelling as evidence of a town. Here is where you will find your 'whole cloth fabrication'; not in the fact that zero archaeological evidence exists for a 1st century town of 'Nazareth'. :foot:

The thing is - you're not relying on the competency other others.

You have to be at least competent enough to (1) read your sources well and (2) choose good sources. You have done neither.

Fortunately, competency can be learned, provided that arrogance and laziness are overcome.

You do make me regret that I have the integrity not to make up crap like this and sell it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not in your case.

Perhaps I have more faith in you.

 

[godnotgod]

The ability to think through what little reading he's done would be more impressive than simply reading more.

At this point, more information would simply be more confusing.

I did not mean to confuse you with mere facts. We can take them one at a time, if that will help you to understand.