Nazareth

[Minimalist]

We choose reality over your fucking "scriptures."

We reject them the same way you reject the koran and other assorted holy horseshit.

[Mister Agenda]

Funny how we're skeptical of just the things that have little evidence. If Nazareth is ever confirmed to be a community that the proposed Jesus of history could have lived in, there are a host of other problems with the story (the slaughter of the innocents being one of the biggest). It's no skin off my nose if Nazareth is real, if archaeology confirms it, I'll happily turn my hat to the 'Nazareth was real then' side. And that's EVEN if you're right about my motive being to deny Jesus. Your claims about other people's motives is one of the main things that makes you an asshat, btw.

 I do not have to claim others motives they make it quite clear on this forum every day, so your assumption about me is entirely wrong. If you are speaking of those male children that were killed by Herod then you need to back up and take a look at that atheist man, He wasn't a believer just a pretender to satisfy Rome, no more no less. That was a atheist decision because He was scared of being dethroned, if He believed in God he would have known it wouldn't matter what he did God's will would prevail, as it did.

 GC

You complaining about other people making assumptions about you is rich.

The massacre likely never happened. In the Gospels, only Matthew thought it was worth mentioning, and he also has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals at once, like a rodeo star. Matthew has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a colt and an ass because he was contriving the fulfillment of a prophecy and misunderstood it. Matthew refers to Zachariah 9:9:"All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." The other gospels had Jesus just on the one donkey. In Zachariah's phrasing, 'and a colt the foal of an ass' was additional information about the donkey, it would be a young one, never ridden. Of the gospels, I wouldn't put Matthew as the most reliable source of information.

Josephus reported on many of Herod's crimes, but missed this one. Herod murdered his sons, Josephus didn't miss those murders. So there's no independent confirmation of the event by the historian who covered Herod's reign (and not kindly) or anyone else outside of Matthew. There's no record of a census that would have required Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. The massacre is something that could have happened without being mentioned, it probably would have been a couple of dozen murdered and that might not be considered news compared to a king murdering his own sons, but even the other gospels don't corroborate it and we know Matthew will make up details based on what the author thinks prophecy expects.

It's no skin off my nose if Nazareth was real or the massacre happened. I already lean (slightly, I admit) towards Jesus having been a real person whose life and sayings are at the root at least part of the basis of Christianity. I just need a little more evidence than you do to accept every little detail. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Herod had some kids there massacred, and then lived in Nazareth and started a new Jewish religious sect involving a triumphant procession into Jerusalem and claimed to be the son of God born of a virgin or possibly to be God himself, and got executed by the Romans with stories that he worked miracles and resurrected after his crucifixion...that doesn't make him a god, demigod, messiah, prophet, or close relative of God, or even a performer of real miracles. We know a lot more about Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, and I don't consider Joe a prophet. Joseph Smith was real and there were supposedly miracles and prophecies and angels and messages from God. Those are the parts that are important to show were real. Otherwise Joe was just some guy that convinced people to believe and follow him. Otherwise, the same goes for Jesus (assuming the existence of Jesus/Yeshua as person who existed historically).

[Abaddon_ire]

All you need is evidence, G-C.  Your wishes count for shit.

The originals were written in the first century AD, the copies come from the second century on.

GC

You are able to pony up said manuscripts right? You can present 1st century version, right? You have read them, right?

Just more lying for jesus.

[Minimalist]

But we have no evidence of any of your horseshit in the first century. 

You're shit out of luck, G-C, because you haven't got a fucking idea what you are talking about.  That's not surprising.  You never do.