sotto voce

Editors talk to authors.

From the fraudulent religious pap, sure.

When they've dug up the residences of 30,000 people, they'll have looked. It's not a sensible claim.

I expect links to be given as confirmation, not as primary source. That's original 'netiquette, that used to be required behaviour on every forum; it's not an idiosyncrasy. One should give people a compelling reason for using a link, unless it is for confirmation of content posted.

The gospels are undoubtedly evidence. They may be inaccurate due to bias, but that applies to every historic source ever penned. Archaeology, no less.

ApostateAbe

Alternatively, I can state all my guesses as facts with neither any hints of uncertainty nor research. For example,

Toto

So a link to an article by a senior archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority doesn't give you a hint of something beyond a mere guess?

I guess that you would only accept my word if I went over to Israel and interviewed every archaeologist, then supervised a new dig in Bethlehem. Even then, you would find some problem with my hiring practices or methodology.

Just google <Bethlehem archaeology>. You will find that the only people who claim that there was a settlement in Bethlehem of Judea are believing Christians who admit that there is no clear archaeological evidence, but just can't believe that Matthew would lie. (Easily found link.) "If Matthew says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, then I believe he was."

:Cheeky:

ApostateAbe

Toto, a link helps you only if it backs up your claim. Again, I say that your source claims nothing of the sort that you claimed. If any professional Biblical archaeologist claimed that Nazareth of Judea was not settled in the time of Jesus, that would be one of the hottest topics of debate about the history of Christianity. But such a debate is seemingly non-existent in both Christian and secular circles.

Toto

Why are you talking about Nazareth? This is about Bethlehem.

??????

Vorkosigan

It's so much fun to watch you totally fail, repeatedly. Really, you're wasting you're time here, AA, you should be a recurring character on Saturday Night Live:

MAN: "But all the evidence suggests that Bigfoot doesn't exist."
AposteAbe: "You're just guessing."
MAN: "But astronomers say all the evidence says that the planets orbit the sun, not the earth."
AposteAbe: "Astronomers? What are their names?"
MAN: "But the mainstream view is that life evolved over many millions of years."
AposteAbe: "'At least I don't treat my guesses as facts."

Let us know when you have that evidence for occupation in the Herodian period.

Vorkosigan

sotto voce

There is never going to be proof that there was no occupation in that period.

ApostateAbe

I meant Bethlehem, sorry.

ApostateAbe

I think your example is accurate in the respect that the person whom AposteAbe is arguing with keeps on deflecting and changing the subject.

Vorkosigan

It doesn't need to be. You want to argue it was occupied and Jesus was born there, you need to supply the evidence. The argument against it is quite straightforward -- (1) Jesus' birth in B-town is an invention based on gospeler's reading of the OT and (2) no evidence shows B-town was occupied at that time.

In other words we have an alternative origin that fits the known practices of the gospelers and which also fits the evidence we do have, and which in both cases is the position held by mainstream scholars.

You're welcome to maintain your ideological position.

Vorkosigan