(August 2, 2015 at 6:48 am)Nestor Wrote:(August 1, 2015 at 4:28 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: 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.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."
Hmm. Can no one else really detect anything wrong with that?
That historical period is about 100 years later. Also the romans conducted several surveys to number the towns and people in their new land after they had a Roman govern take over. So if there is no archeological evidence of a town, and no record of a town, why should I think there was a town?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
