proudliberal

Are they sure the jesus of nazerith was the nesus of nazerith,there were many jesuses.

Roger Pearse

Is there any actual evidence for the claim? Given that the NT takes for granted that it exists, is merely claiming that it did not really good enough?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver

The site has some good arguments against evangelical dogma, but I think its case against Jesus' historicity is badly weakend by a pile of irrelevancies and at least a couple of inaccuracies.

As others have noted, the claim that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' time is, although credible, not quite proven. It should not be treated as if it were beyond reasonable dispute.

The assertion that "The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master" is definitely false. Most of them probably were, but not all 12. The existence of Peter, James, and John, at least, are attested to by Paul. Of course, if Jesus was fictional, then any claim that they were disciples of his is also a fiction, but that doesn't make their own existence a fiction.

Ted Hoffman

The NT also takes for granted that Jesus rose from the dead amongst a host of other BS.

Ted Hoffman

Even nomads carry pottery when they are moving from one point to the other. So do traders who would be following the trade route to Damascus and so on. These pots break and they leave them behind. What we have are signs of human presence. Not evidence of human habitation approaching a settlement. Do you have evidence of paved streets, permanent structures, and so on?
If Nazareth was a necropolis as has been suggested, the wells could be for drawing water for purification after coming in contact with the dead.
Please provide evidence that there was human settlement in Nazareth in early first century CE. Cite archaeological evidence now.

Steven Avery

Hi Roger,

One can make a reasonable assertion that we are not sure of the location of 1st-century Nazareth. (Even whether it was in the Nazareth basin of today or not.)

The claim that "Nazareth did not exist" should be just a comic parody of the skeptic position. However there really are folks who make this their cause célèbre. And in the scholarly circles only a few folks take the time and effort to disassemble such nonsense so a few dedicated-in-confusion skeptics and mythicists have raised this time and again.

It is rather enlightening and entertaining, up to a point, to watch the discussions. Folks tend to major in the minors.

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

I don't know, but of course the history of that region has been very disturbed and the sites of biblical events are often now lost.

I have no difficulty with such claims, tho. How does one evaluate any claim? There is ancient evidence for it, in the shape of the NT, which all of us know. No doubt other evidence exists, and archaeology will exist somewhere. What evidence is there against? If none is forthcoming, one can be suspicious. If the argument is "I assert this, so it is true unless you can prove me wrong" then of course we need listen no further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Malachi151

The only thing we have evidence of is that there was some structure in the place that is currently called Nazareth during the first century. There is no evidence, however, that this place was called Nazareth at this time.

So, the existence of Nazareth is neither proven nor disproven.

Steven Avery

Right. Apparently the evidence against is the non-mention in Josephus and the Talmud. However Josephus omits mentioning a good number of villages and towns (the Talmud is barely relevant unless Nazareth had been a metropolis of sorts). The Lukan usage of polis is brought forth to try to make Nazareth into a metropolis however Josephus used the term in a wide-ranging manner so that means little and the NT gives no indication of Nazareth being a major city.

Afaik that's all folks.

Oh there are a couple of literary/archaeological evidences outside the NT for an early Nazareth, including the Caesarea Maritima inscription, so really the one weak attempt - 'silence other than the NT' - fails historically as well. Of course the NT alone is 'mas q sufficiente' to anybody with a common sense approach.

So I shared that this whole thing could be put in the bin of
"parody of the skeptic position"
.. if it wasn't actually being peddled !

Shalom,
Steven

Overkill

I thought it was a well done site and it was instrumental in my deconversion. The stuff that hit home for me was the writing about Paul, forgeries, and how idiotic the Mary and the disciples obsession is.