who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[outhouse]

We have no evidence of a 1st century 'town of Nazareth' having existed.

Yes we do. You just don't know it.

You have peddled this off before, you should get Rene Salm in here so we can belittle his work in person.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes we do. You just don't know it.

Shhhh! I promise to keep it our little secret!

You have peddled this off before, you should get Rene Salm in here so we can belittle his work in person.

Cease and desist your shallow ad hominems and put your money where your mouth is:

Show us the evidence, here, now.

Unless you have compelling evidence of a 1st Century Nazareth TOWN, last I looked, all we actually had were some farm implements, a small cottage (or maybe not!), grape presses, and the like.

As for my 'peddling', the site in question ended with no one able to bring forth convincing evidence.

Of course no one likes Mr. Salm, because he is exposing the manipulative and deceptive techniques used at the dig sites by 'Christian' archaeologists, and the development of Nazareth Village to attract TouristMega Bucks. It's the Near East's version of Orlando Florida's gawdy Jesus Theme Park, where 'Jesus' is crucified for a gawking public daily. Yuk! Religion at it's shallowest.

"Salm’s archaeological outcome does fit quite well with other literary considerations, namely the entire silence of both Josephus and the Mishnah when it comes to Nazareth. More than this, it seems to confirm a long-standing critical theory that “Jesus the Nazorean/Nazarene” first denoted a sectarian label, reflecting the Nazorean sect(s) catalogued by various Jewish, Christian, and Muslim heresiologists, notably including the still-living Mandaean (Nasorean) sect of Iraq. Jesus was considered to be a member, or at least a pious Jew of that type (Nasoreans were itinerant carpenters, among other things). It was only later, once a higher Christology had begun to feel uneasy with notions such as Jesus receiving instruction from John the Baptist or even from village tutors, that some preferred to understand “Nazarene” to mean “of Nazareth.” And by this time, there was a Nazareth, which the gospel writers were only too happy to retcon, or retroject, into the first century BCE.


One fears Rene Salm will prove as welcome amid the conventional “Nazareth” apologists as Jesus was among the Nazarene synagogue congregation in the gospels. But for others, it must now become apparent that we must bracket the gospel stories till we can independently reconstruct an account of Christian origins from the evidence on the ground—or the lack of it. New Testament minimalism: full speed ahead!"

Review - Rene Salm, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus reviewed by Robert M. Price
*****

"And my, there have been developments on the ground since the appearance of my first book… The false claim of Hellenistic coins from Mary’s Well, the bogus “house from the time of Jesus” (it was really a wine and olive oil production site), a rewrite of ambitious Jesus-era claims at the Nazareth Village Farm, the strangely uninformed work of Dr. Ken Dark in Nazareth, the revelation that the Caesarea Inscription (the only non-Christian epigraphic evidence for the settlement before the time of Constantine!) is a rank forgery—all these are treated in NazarethGate… And much more!

Nazareth is witnessing a Christian construction boom. Two megasites for believers have appeared in the last decade, one Protestant, the other Catholic, while the Israeli state reveals itself to be a vigorous partner in promoting Christian tourism to the small and troubled land. But as hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on new hotels and other infrastructure to bring in streams of pilgrims, NazarethGate shows that no historical and archeological basis exists for any of it! Word is now getting around, rumors that under the Church of the Annunciation are Roman-era tombs, that the Gospel of Luke’s portrait of Nazareth does not match reality, and that scholars are beginning to wonder if Jesus even existed…"

The truth about Nazareth

 

[sojourner]

I think Paul is doing his best to convey ideas that don't fit very well into conventional language. Especially not Greek, which is doggedly concrete in its imagery, even when it's trying to be abstract. It's just not easy to talk about what Paul's trying to talk about in the language he's using, or perhaps in any language. See for example the excursus in his letter to the Corinthians in which he talks about there being 3 types of "bodies," only one of which is actually a physical body as we would understand it, and it's explicitly not the one that pertains to resurrection. But one thing Greek does do is metaphor, so the literal meaning of "resurrection" in Greek doesn't at all refute what I'm saying. In fact, it's closer to my idea of what he's talking about, which is not so much a literal resuscitation of corpses, but rather an almost Buddhist-style Awakening from a state that is variously likened to sleep or even death. The way in which early Christian writers use the word "death" is a big clue there, as in many instances it clearly doesn't refer to the cessation of physiological processes; it's more like the unaware state in which the unsaved live their lives.

I should have worded that better. By "physical," I meant "literal" (as opposed to metaphorical or even spiritual). It's obvious to me that, at some point, Paul meant some kind of bodily resurrection. Just what that entailed, we don't know. In fact, the metaphor of sleep for death is found in Hebraic literature -- specifically, both in Daniel and in Job. In 1 Thess., Paul uses the term anastasis, which means "to stand up." (In other places, Paul uses the term egeirein -- "to rise up" [out of bed].) Here, Paul is very much within the "Hebrew mode" of thought. And, as we know, the Hebrews really didn't differentiate between soul and body.

 

[outhouse]

Cease and desist your shallow ad hominems

Send that clown in here so he can get his spanking from me in person.

Did Nazareth Exist? – Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Salm himself is not an archaeologist: he is not trained in the highly technical field of archaeology and gives no indication that he has even ever been on an archaeological dig. He certainly never has worked at the site of Nazareth.

For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus.

There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’ day



(it needs to be remembered, he himself is not an archaeologist but is simply basing his views on what the real archaeologists – all of whom disagree with him — have to say).


But as it turns out, there were among the coins some that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus


As it turns out, another discovery was made in ancient Nazareth, a year after Salm’s book appeared. It is a house that dates to the days of Jesus.


The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery remains connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (i.e., the days of Jesus).

 

[Kenny]

Oddly enough, the one pagan holiday that Christianity did adopt and recontextualize was Saturnalia, a.k.a. Christmas—a.k.a. the only reason Jesus's birth is celebrated in December, since nobody has a clue when he was born—which wasn't mentioned. Otherwise the Christian calendar is pretty much cribbed from the Jewish one.

no arguments here. It is suggested that he was born around August.

The dying-and-resurrected god stuff is a fair cop, but that's something that goes back millennia before Jesus and doesn't belong to any single culture.

It is how He said it would be, if I am to believe the scriptures.

However, it might have influenced later ways of conceptualizing Jesus, as more and more Syrians and Egyptians and Greeks and other folks joined the Christian fold, bringing their ideas with them. And in any case I doubt Jesus would have chosen to be seen that way, if he'd had his druthers. At no point does he use any concept that wasn't already there in the Judaism of his day, although he does use some of them in novel ways.

I support you 100% to have a differing viewpoint.

However, I think it was as Jesus said it would be.

 

[godnotgod]

Send that clown in here so he can get his spanking from me in person.

Did Nazareth Exist? – Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

http://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/

Hmmm? Is Bart Ehrman an archaeologist, something you make a point about Salm not being one? However, we DO know he is a Christian. Could that have anything to do with his views?

Salm himself is not an archaeologist: he is not trained in the highly technical field of archaeology and gives no indication that he has even ever been on an archaeological dig. He certainly never has worked at the site of Nazareth.

Yeah? SO WHAT? Evidence is evidence. Where's yours?

For one thing, archaeologists have excavated a farm connected with the village, and it dates to the time of Jesus.

What 'village'? Farm? Some farm implements, a grape press, a wine and oil production site?

There are numerous compelling pieces of archaeological evidence that in fact Nazareth did exist in Jesus’ day

Like what?

(it needs to be remembered, he himself is not an archaeologist but is simply basing his views on what the real archaeologists – all of whom disagree with him — have to say).

Uh huh. Are those 'archaeologists' Christian, maybe?

But as it turns out, there were among the coins some that date to the Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and early Roman period, that is, the days of Jesus

...or maybe not: The Nazareth coin boondoggle

As it turns out, another discovery was made in ancient Nazareth, a year after Salm’s book appeared. It is a house that dates to the days of Jesus.

A farm house does not a village, let alone a town, make. Now the 'house' is understood as a wine and olive oil production site.

The house is located on the hill slopes. Pottery remains connected to the house range from roughly 100 BCE to 100 CE (i.e., the days of Jesus).

So the town center of 1st century Nazareth must be nearby. Public buildings, a synagogue, other houses, etc. , right?

 

[outhouse]

Evidence is evidence. Where's yours?

House
farm
coins
pottery.


Go get Rene in here, I could care less what his followers think.

Go ask him why he goes against well trained educated people's findings, and logic and reason.

There was a good water well there, and there area after the rebuilding of Sepphoris had an influx of 10,000-20,000 people which would have required satellite villages like this that were known to pop up around big cities.

The fact its not mentioned is also typical for small villages.


YOU have nothing but some amateur clown that has less credentials then I do, that no one listens to, less a bunch of uneducated mythicist that count not.

 

[godnotgod]

House - One house is not a village. There was a FARM in that location!

farm - Farm is not a village. it is a FAMILY FARM!

coins - BOGUS!

They (the archaeologists) bluntly allege that coins found at the northern end of the basin (Mary’s Well) “included a few Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Early Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad and Crusader coins.” But the archaeologist who dug at Mary’s Well (Y. Alexandre) never claimed coins dating before Byzantine times! (I have exchanged emails with the archaeologist on precisely this point.) In other words, in the review of those remote loci several reckless and unsubstantiated claims are made—claims which now support a village at the turn of the era

.

pottery. - BOGUS!

Finally, it should be mentioned that in most of these early dating cases Mr. Rapuano admits uncertainty. In eight of the eleven cases he himself writes “tentatively,” “possibly,” “probably,” or “likely.” He simply is not sure! His own uncertainty shows us that we cannot seriously consider the presence of people at the site of the Nazareth Village Farm at the turn of the era.

The Nazareth Village Farm report

Go get Rene in here, I could care less what his followers think.

Go ask him why he goes against well trained educated people's findings, and logic and reason.

Because they're lying?

There was a good water well there, and there area after the rebuilding of Sepphoris had an influx of 10,000-20,000 people which would have required satellite villages like this that were known to pop up around big cities.

Yeah? So where is the evidence of these 'satellite villages'? One alleged farm house? We have mention of thousands of tent city habitations around Mt. Carmel in the 1st century. Perhaps this was 'Nazareth'.

The fact its not mentioned is also typical for small villages.

So why does the NT call it a town and a city? Because they merely assumed it existed earlier from the POV some 70 years later, when it DID exist as a town/city! Duh!

YOU have nothing but some amateur clown that has less credentials then I do, that no one listens to, less a bunch of uneducated mythicist that count not.

YOU have CREDENTIALS? Haven't seen evidence of any to date, but once again, I will make it a point to keep it our little secret, OK?

 

[outhouse]

Yawn.

 

[godnotgod]

Yawn.

Right. That's about all your so called 'city of Nazareth' amounts to: Pure Fluff and zero evidence.

 

[Vishvavajra]

no arguments here. It is suggested that he was born around August.

I don't know how we would know that. Even his biographers in the Gospels have no idea in what year he was born. Or rather, each one hazards a guess and picks a different one. There is zero primary-source knowledge of Jesus's early life. What we have has been constructed by later generations, often using other Biblical characters as a basis.

I support you 100% to have a differing viewpoint.

However, I think it was as Jesus said it would be.

Well, the same problem comes up there too: we have no direct evidence of what Jesus said. The only time we have direct quotes are in the Gospels, and that's material that has already been heavily influenced by the theological tradition that developed in the first few decades after his death, to the point where it's a reconstruction of his character and teachings rather than a direct window to them, just as the Gospels are an attempt to reconstruct a life story for him from what is often scant evidence.

So if a sect that believes Jesus was X produces literature that contains him as a character saying that he is X, it shouldn't be terribly surprising. Of course, Jesus doesn't actually claim to be a god even in the Gospels, or at least not any more than anyone else is.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Right. That's about all your so called 'city of Nazareth' amounts to: Pure Fluff and zero evidence.

You're fond of taking the word of folks who are basically crackpots, with no credentials, no formal training, and no standing in the disciplines in question. Questioning is good, but these are on the level of conspiracy theories. As in, they actually require you to believe that all of modern scholarship is participating in a vast conspiracy to keep the "truth" from becoming mainstream. That's not how scholarship works.

In any case, we have documentary evidence for Nazareth as a town in Galilee in the form of an inscription that references goings-on there in the early 2nd century CE (and which is itself just one of a number of archaeological finds in the area of the modern site of Nazareth, so the claim that there is no physical evidence is just plain false). Before that we have the author of Luke (c. 80 CE) referring to the town. In short, both historians and archaeologists see no reason to doubt the existence of the town, and we're not talking about people who just take things on tradition here.

The sect of the Nazarenes from Acts refers to those Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus and comes from the name of the town. There is zero evidence of a different sect of Nazarenes. Perhaps somebody saw the first three letters and confused it with the Nazirites, which is something else entirely—not a sect but a vow of renunciation.

 

[godnotgod]

You're fond of taking the word of folks who are basically crackpots, with no credentials, no formal training, and no standing in the disciplines in question. Questioning is good, but these are on the level of conspiracy theories. As in, they actually require you to believe that all of modern scholarship is participating in a vast conspiracy to keep the "truth" from becoming mainstream. That's not how scholarship works.

Regardless of Salm's lack of credentials, have you bothered to look at the evidence being presented to refute what you call 'modern scholarship'? Not saying that modern scholarship is invalid, but when it is distorted by religious beliefs, it most certainly is.

As I recall, the 'modern scholarship' appointed to study the Dead Sea Scrolls in secrecy, refused to disseminate them to the public. Luckily, one of their members had secretly taken microfiche images of them, and released them himself. Had it not been for this one skeptic, the world might never have seen the scrolls.

Sorry, I don't trust the slanted views of sectarian archaeologists who have vested interests. I actually trust Salm more, who does not.

In any case, we have documentary evidence for Nazareth as a town in Galilee in the form of an inscription that references goings-on there in the early 2nd century CE (and which is itself just one of a number of archaeological finds in the area of the modern site of Nazareth, so the claim that there is no physical evidence is just plain false). Before that we have the author of Luke (c. 80 CE) referring to the town. In short, both historians and archaeologists see no reason to doubt the existence of the town, and we're not talking about people who just take things on tradition here.

No physical evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth, although there is scant physical evidence of minimal habitation there in the form of a farm, a building, and some farm implements. That's it!

The second century CE is not the first century! Where is the evidence from the first century? As stated earlier, Josephus, who made an accounting of 204 Galilean towns and villages, and who lived just one mile from present day Nazareth, makes no mention of it. It's not in any OT writings, nor on any map.

• 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.

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

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

In truth, the scanty evidence is consistent with the site being used as a single family farm over many centuries – and a single family farm does not make a village.

Perhaps your '2nd century' inscription refers to the following:

Excavations by Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea in 1962:

Caesarea
History and archaeology actually begin to coincide with the discovery of a fragment of dark gray marble at a synagogue in Caesarea Maritima in August 1962. Dating from the late 3rd or early 4th century the stone bears the first mention of Nazareth in a non-Christian text. It names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the disastrous Hadrianic war of 135 AD. Such groups would only settle in towns without gentile inhabitants, which ruled out nearby Sepphoris. Apparently, the priests had been divided from ancient times into twenty-four 'courses' that took weekly turns in Temple service. The restored inscription reads:

'The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nasareth.'

– J.D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus)

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

The sect of the Nazarenes from Acts refers to those Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus and comes from the name of the town. There is zero evidence of a different sect of Nazarenes. Perhaps somebody saw the first three letters and confused it with the Nazirites, which is something else entirely—not a sect but a vow of renunciation.

If you can produce evidence that the sect's name was indeed derived from a town of Nazareth, then you have a case. Without such evidence, you cannot state with any certainty that the sect's name was so derived, let alone that such a town existed,

Getting a Name

The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios' (see below). More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root of the name is NZR.

The 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Philip offers this explanation:

'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'

– Gospel of Philip, 47.

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' (or 'Nazorean') was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings, although ironically, Paul is himself accused of being a Nazorean in Acts of the Apostles. The reference scarcely means that Paul was a resident of Nazareth (we all know the guy hails from Tarsus!).

'For finding this man a pest, and moving sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a leader of the sect of the Nazaraeans.' – Acts 24.5. (Darby Translation).

The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

'Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.

– Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2).

The Nazarenes may have seen themselves as a 'branch from the stem of Jesse (the legendary King David's father)'. Certainly, they had their own early version of 'Matthew'. This lost text – the Gospel of the Nazarenes – can hardly be regarded as a 'Gospel of the inhabitants of Nazareth'!

It was the later Gospel of Matthew which started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazorene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':

"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."

– Matthew 2.23.

With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet Matthew is misquoting – he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene. What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite. For example:

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

– Judges 13.5.


Matthew slyly substitutes one word for another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for his fictitious hero.

So how did the village get its name?

It seems that, along with the Nozerim, a related Jewish/Christian faction, the Evyonim – ‘the Poor’ (later to be called Ebionites) – emerged about the same time. According to Epiphanius (Bishop of Salamis , Cyprus, circa 370 AD) they arose from within the Nazarenes. They differed doctrinally from the original group in rejecting Paul and were 'Jews who pay honour to Christ as a just man...' They too, it seems, had their own prototype version of Matthew – ‘The Gospel to the Hebrews’. A name these sectaries chose for themselves was 'Keepers of the Covenant', in Hebrew Nozrei haBrit, whence Nosrim or Nazarene!

In other words, when it came to the crunch, the original Nazarenes split into two: those who tried to re-position themselves within the general tenets of Judaism ('Evyonim'-Nosrim); and those who rejected Judaism ('Christian'-Nosrim)

Now, we know that a group of 'priestly' families resettled an area in the Nazareth valley after their defeat in the Bar Kochbar War of 135 AD (see above). It seems highly probable that they were Evyonim-Nosrim and named their village 'Nazareth' or the village of 'The Poor' either because of self-pity or because doctrinally they made a virtue out of their poverty.

"Blessed are the Poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven."

– Matthew 5,3.

The writer of Matthew (re-writer of the proto-Matthew stories)
heard of 'priestly' families moving to a place in Galilee which they had called 'Nazareth' – and decided to use the name of the new town for the hometown of his hero. -

- See more at: Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
*****

When Christ is on the cross in John (19:19), he is designated “Jesus the Nazoraios,” not “Jesus of
Nazareth,” the sign reading:

Ἰησο ῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλε ὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων

Jesus the Nazoraios, King of the Jews

“Nazoraios” or “Nazarene” as referring to a cult and not an ethnic designation is also indicated
when Paul is deemed the “ringleader of the Nazoraioi” in the book of Acts (24:5), specifically said there to be a
sect, not a demonym, appropriate since neither the apostle nor any of his
followers was said to be from Nazareth.

https://evangelicallyatheist.files....re-a-historical-e28098jesus-of-nazareth__.pdf

 

[godnotgod]

 

[godnotgod]

You're fond of taking the word of folks who are basically crackpots, with no credentials, no formal training, and no standing in the disciplines in question.

This is typical. It was true of church 'authorities' who kept the Bible from the common man, and today is true of Quantum physicists who jealously and ferociously protest against mystics who they think are unqualified to make valid statements about Quantum physics, WHEN THESE VERY SCIENTISTS HAVEN'T A CLUE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH!

 

[outhouse]

Your Proselytizing your non academic unsubstantiated opinions.


Go get Rene in here so we can tear his work down in person.

There is no use debating with you. You refuse to refute what we have already posted.


20,000 people move into that EXACT area and you expect a good water well not to be used by anyone. You refuse to acknowledge that it was common for satellite villages to pop up all around these major Hellenistic centers as agrarian needs were places on the farmers around the city.


Every thing you posit as evidence amounts to YEC arguing evolution and the age of the earth. It has no value and shows just how desperate you are.

have you not already been kicked out of Kirby's forums for lack of reasoning?

 

[outhouse]

It was true of church 'authorities' who kept the Bible from the common man

That's is because the modern man did not have the education to understand what was written. Your also talking about barbaric times

today that is non sequitur

is true of Quantum physicists who jealously and ferociously protest against mystics

Could you even make a sentence that is half coherent ????

Do you have any credible sources to go with these conspiracy type of unsubstantiated opinions?

WHEN THESE VERY SCIENTISTS HAVEN'T A CLUE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH!

I HATE SCIENCE AND EDUCATION would save bandwidth.

 

[Vishvavajra]

This is typical. It was true of church 'authorities' who kept the Bible from the common man, and today is true of Quantum physicists who jealously and ferociously protest against mystics who they think are unqualified to make valid statements about Quantum physics, WHEN THESE VERY SCIENTISTS HAVEN'T A CLUE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH!

Physicists have no clue about quantum theory? If that's true (despite the fact that physicists came up with it in the first place), then nobody whatsoever has any business talking about it. But there are a lot of New Agers who like to bring up "quantum physics" to lend credence to various wild claims, regardless of whether what they're saying actually has anything to do with quantum theory or physics in general.

And why would one want to appeal to a scientific theory like quantum mechanics in support of a mystical theory anyway? Especially if one's attitude towards science is so dismissive?

There is no jealousy or ferociousness, just a bunch of people who've done a lot of work on the subject shaking their heads and sighing to themselves as people who've put in zero work come along and think they know everything. It's something every scholar has to deal with. And yes, sometimes they might speak up and say, "No, that's not actually what this is about. Stop actively misleading people." But it's a catch-22, since pointing out that people don't know what they're talking about is just going to get you accusations of being part of a vast conspiracy to monopolize knowledge and cover up the truth.

And no, mainstream archaeology isn't governed by religious beliefs or institutions. It's dominated by public research universities, and the practice of taking literary evidence as the basis for the archaeological record went out of fashion many decades ago. And the archaeologists I know aren't exactly the sort to take even the Bible at face value. Using it in isolation as evidence for much of anything would get one laughed out of a conference.

 

[godnotgod]

Your Proselytizing your non academic unsubstantiated opinions.

Excuse me: I'm not the one advancing the notion of a 1st Century Nazareth; YOU are. All I am asking is for you to show me the hard evidence, but so far, all you have produced is pure fluff colored by ad hominems. So: are you going to show and tell or not? I, OTOH, have presented key arguments against the existence of such a town.

Go get Rene in here so we can tear his work down in person.

Here is all of his material. Go fetch:

The truth about Nazareth

...or are you hell bent for leather to attack HIM, rather than to disprove his material?

There is no use debating with you.

Maybe because you have presented zero evidence to debate.

You refuse to refute what we have already posted.

Why should I refute factual and/or compelling evidence?

20,000 people move into that EXACT area and you expect a good water well not to be used by anyone. You refuse to acknowledge that it was common for satellite villages to pop up all around these major Hellenistic centers as agrarian needs were places on the farmers around the city.

Perhaps 20K DID come into the area and DID use the well, and satellite villages DID pop up all around. None of that means that a town called Nazareth was built, does it?

Every thing you posit as evidence amounts to YEC arguing evolution and the age of the earth. It has no value and shows just how desperate you are.

I have no desperation to show a non-existing Nazareth as I have no doctrine to defend; but Christianity certainly does as much depends on it. Besides, my argument is a negative one based on the facts, which is that no hard evidence exists for a 1st century Nazareth. YEC arguments, OTOH, are not based on facts, but on religious doctrine. So far, I have pretty much exposed the holes in the 1st Century Nazareth arguments. So, where are your facts? Hmmmm?

have you not already been kicked out of Kirby's forums for lack of reasoning?

Don't know anything about any Kirby's forum. What are you talking about?
Maybe you need to go outside and get a little sun; you look a bit pale.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe because you have presented zero evidence to debate.

I have, and you refused it all.

End of discussion. Its exactly like debating evolution with YEC. The methodology is the same here. Historically uneducated people with uneducated sources arguing against all of academia as a conspiracy theory