(August 1, 2015 at 4:28 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:Huh? So, your arguments are something like, "We should expect a town noted for its insignificance to have been reported by X, and X does not report it," coupled with, "Archaeology has only discovered artifacts related to the historical Nazareth which date to a period some decades after Jesus was said to have lived there. Therefore, Jesus did not live there."(July 31, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Nestor Wrote: The name from which we in the English world derive "Jesus" was common in ancient Palestine... well, yeah, no shit.Except the bible doesn't call him Jesus and leave it there, it names him as Jesus of Nazareth. Naming someones town like that in the ancient world was like giving a surname. The issue is we know from records was no town by the name of Nazareth, and the current site was uninhabited then. So no jesus of Nazareth and therefore no historical Jesus.
"An impartial historian... is obliged to extract truth from satire, as well as from panegyric." - Edward Gibbon.
Unfortunately, the author of that site is clearly neither impartial, nor, by extension, reliable; the conclusion he wishes to reach does not logically follow from the historical curiosities he presents (of which, by the way, he forgets to express even the slightest doubt).
Same old amateurish mythicist apologetic as always.
Hmm. Can no one else really detect anything wrong with that?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
