ApostateAbe

Toto, in my opinion, misinformation is even worse when you present it as an established fact instead of as a guess.

Toto

I presented it as the view of professional archaeologists.

You "guessed" that there must be archaeologist evidence. You guessed wrong.

You confused Nazareth with Bethlehem.

Just admit you made a mistake. We all make mistakes. It's okay.

sotto voce

Do they all agree? Archaeologists don't, usually.

Toto

Bethlehem is not Jerusalem. It is not a crowded city.

Archaeology is all we've got.

semiopen

I think there is general agreement that they haven't found anything to make one think that Bethlehem was inhabited.

Does it make that much of a difference? Dr. J probably wasn't born there, probably many of the other crazy stories are also fictional.

Easy enough to look up.

ApostateAbe

Name them.

sotto voce

It's quite crowded enough, and extensive enough (30,000 people), to more than cover the artefacts of a reputedly small first century town.

But if it isn't enough, we must be silent. Though of course scholarship has relied on documentary evidence, that is normally deemed sufficient.

Chili

Bethlehem not real? I thought Nazareth was not real.

Sounds like trouble to me. Looking or Jesus when Christ was born to a virgin who came from a place that did not exist and now the place where the birth to place did not exist, and hence no room at the Inn. And what else can go wrong with this?

sotto voce

Where is there a sign of this agreement?

Toto

Check the link I posted.

If you have contrary evidence, as opposed to your general unwillingness to accept facts you don't like, please post it.