FathomFFI

Every "city" that exists, or ever existed, began with less than 100 people. They all began with the first person stepping into the area. Nazareth began with the first person, like every other town.

Isn't this just like ... you know ... "common sense?"

Try to remember, a "city" means a "town."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/city

When the bible was translated into English, the word "city" in those days meant a "town of any size." Today, we understand it differently due to cultural and population changes.

By the way, it's unanimous; you're going to be the poster boy for Team FFI's idea of what a Jesus Myther is.

You're doing a stellar job! Keep up the good work! We might even pay you!

Huon

In Matt 2:23, Nazareth is described as Greek "polis", translated in Latin "civitas" in the Vulgate.
The greek word for "village" could be "khorion" (the first o is omega).

"Polis" and "civitas" have a political () meaning, they are a not too small group of citizens.

spamandham

Assuming your statement is true (...and I seriously doubt you can even support it), why would we expect any archealogists to hold the position that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century, even if it didn't?

It's not a matter of brainwashing, it's a matter of simply accepting the Gospel evidence at face value with no further investigation.

Huon

I did not find many names of persons linked to a town (a city, a place) :
Joseph of Arimathea
Judas Iscariot (and there is another possible etymology)
Simon of Cyrene
Mary of Magdala

But what is never mentioned :
Simon Peter of Bethsaïda (settled in Capernahum)
Andrew of Bethsaïda
Philip of Bethsaïda
John of Bethsaïda, or perhaps Capernahum, son of Zebedee and Salome,
James of Bethsaïda, or perhaps Capernahum, son of Zebedee and Salome, AKA James the Greater...

aa5874

So, based on your common sense, a person steps in to an area and he calls the area a CITY.
Another person steps into the same area and calls the area a TOWN.
And someone else, sometime later, steps into the area, and call it a VILLAGE.

Then, someone buries a dead in the area and call the area a CEMETERY
And after that a person grazes some animals in the area and call the area a FARM.

I can't follow your common sense.

There were small and large cities, small and large towns and small and large villages in antiquity.

There must have been some distinguishing features of an area to designate it a city, a town or a village other than a person stepping in or out. Perhaps Infrastructure and economic activitiy.



I am actually an FJer (Fictional Jesus) . I really regard the entire NT as FICTION with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul, until I get credible information to contradict me.

When does my first assigment start?

I like to DISCUSS Jesus with atheist who believe in the NT, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE jESUS WAS REAL.

I don't need to get paid just to recognise that the NT is Fiction.

mens_sana

Oh! my! How am I supposed to support "no archaeologist denies a 1st century Nazareth" without going through the LC cat and listing every single archaeologist? Can you come up with one? Please be my guest. The NT minimalists could benefit mightily with their own professional Finkelstein, no matter how lonely he might be.

"Accepting the Gospel evidence at face value"? Jewish archaeologists now accept the Gospel evidence as determinative of their archaeological interpretation? You've got to be pulling my leg. But go ahead, I've "shrunk" one and a half inches over the past 50 years and could use that lost height.

spamandham

In other words, you were blowing smoke.

I have no idea whether any do or not, and no interest in trying to refute a claim you've already indirectly admitted was baseless.

They're archaeological interpretation of what?

FathomFFI

Sorry fellow, but I have been advised to leave you to your own devices.

But i seriously suggest you learn at least the minimal about history. I am not here to be your historian.

mens_sana

I'm blowing smoke? I said that no archaeologist supports the nonexistence of a 1st century Nazareth. The operative phrase is "no archaologist" — in other words a negative phrased in a positive statement. You are asking me to prove a negative. You have made a baseless accusation. Then, to top it off, you refuse to investigate because of my allegedly baseless statement. Personally, I would have thought you would be interested in the subject, but dismissing it over semantics tells me otherwise.

The explanation of any archaeological artifact is an "interpretation."

mens_sana

"Relied on" is such a slippery phrase. A conservative means the biblical texts are "inspired" in such a manner that they can lead him to salvation, often that the texts serve as a literal guide to the deity's wishes and expectations for the believer. And this is why the enlightened (or disillusioned?) skeptic tells us that they cannot be relied on as God's literal words. (Confusing "word" with "Word" doesn't help either.) I would suggest that Ehrman "lost his religion" because of this faulty literalist hermaneutic. However, this theological a priori is inappropriate in an historical investigation. Ehrman tells us this when he discusses "miracles".

But, please, don't you realize that when you invoked this ski-slope "relied on" argument, you applied a theological interpretation? I call that "stopping in the middle."

The argument from authority fallacy is valid when it is an argument from inappropriate authority. Experienced, certified authority working within its field of expertise is credible authority. Yes, data can change. At one time Belshazzar was a "fiction" because there was no mention of him outside the Book of Daniel. That changed. We now know that elements of Daniel are "reliable" (is the sky falling? ). The professional archaologists are the "men on the ground," I accept their consensus. I will reconsider when more than one "Finkelstein" appears.

The TF gets a lot of grief. There is an argument that it has been edited rather than interpolated. One of the best arguments for this position is found in Emil Schürer's History of the Jewish People. . . , V.1, pp.428-441 (New English Edition, ed. by Geza Vermes et al.). (There is a good run down of the Quirinius census in there also.) I think editing is more likely than wholesale interpolation.