RealityRules wrote:

Hermit wrote: Will there be any Kool-Aid provided for the gaslighting, bullshitting fake scholars and cranks?

Good gaslighting dude! So, you're providing the refreshments?

None of your Kool-Aid, though. Thanks.

Stein wrote:https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/archaeology-nazareth-early-first-century

Stein

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/archaeology-nazareth-early-first-century

Stein

Another article by the same dude; There is a "strong case to be made" that a house excavated in Nazareth, Israel, was the childhood home of Jesus, according to an archaeologist.

Professor Ken Dark, from the University of Reading, has spent 14 years studying the remains of the 1st century dwelling beneath a modern-day convent.

He said the ruins were first suggested as Jesus, Mary and Joseph's home in the 19th-century.

However, the idea was dismissed by archaeologists in the 1930s.

The site remained largely forgotten since then until Prof Dark launched a project in 2006 to reinvestigate the site.

He said: "I didn't go to Nazareth to find the house of Jesus, I was actually doing a study of the city's history as a Byzantine Christian pilgrimage centre.

"Nobody could have been more surprised than me."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-55061233

There you go Stein, according to your source the house that Mary and Joseph raised Jesus in has been miraculously discovered.

Stein wrote:
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-century

Stein

Until recently, professional archaeologists had largely neglected 'Nazareth' in Galilee. Most of what was known about the settlement prior to the turn of this millennium consisted of evidence found during the construction of the present-day Church of the Annunciation (the cathedral-sized church in central latter-year] Nazareth) and a series of rock-cut tombs discovered predominantly in the nineteenth century. It is often assumed that the tombs date from the period of the Gospels and indicate the extent of the first-century settlement. However, the majority of the tombs can neither be closely dated, nor can it be taken for granted that plotting their distribution enables the identification of the limits of the occupied area ...

... The earliest [Nazareth tombs] found so far date to the first century but there is no reason to assign any of them to the first half of that century. Consequently, they offer no evidence for the character or extent of the early first-century settlement there.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-century

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote:
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-century

Stein

From that article -

Until recently, professional archaeologists had largely neglected 'Nazareth' in Galilee. Most of what was known about the settlement prior to the turn of this millennium consisted of evidence found during the construction of the present-day Church of the Annunciation (the cathedral-sized church in central latter-year] Nazareth) and a series of rock-cut tombs discovered predominantly in the nineteenth century. It is often assumed that the tombs date from the period of the Gospels and indicate the extent of the first-century settlement. However, the majority of the tombs can neither be closely dated, nor can it be taken for granted that plotting their distribution enables the identification of the limits of the occupied area ...

... The earliest [Nazareth tombs] found so far date to the first century but there is no reason to assign any of them to the first half of that century. Consequently, they offer no evidence for the character or extent of the early first-century settlement there.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-century

Furthermore, there's no evidence what an "early first-century settlement there" was called ...

RealityRules wrote:
From that article -

... Most of what was known about the settlement prior to the turn of this millennium consisted of evidence found during the construction of the present-day Church of the Annunciation (the cathedral-sized church in central [latter-year] Nazareth) and a series of rock-cut tombs discovered predominantly in the nineteenth century. It is often assumed that the tombs date from the period of the Gospels and indicate the extent of the first-century settlement. However, the majority of the tombs can neither be closely dated, nor can it be taken for granted that plotting their distribution enables the identification of the limits of the occupied area ...

... The earliest [Nazareth tombs] found so far date to the first century but there is no reason to assign any of them to the first half of that century. Consequently, they offer no evidence for the character or extent of the early first-century settlement there.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... st-century

Furthermore, there's no evidence what an "early first-century settlement there" was called ...

proudfootz wrote:


... 'Nazareth' might have been established [as the name of the settlement] after the date attributed to Bible Jesus?

dogsgod wrote:Paul read and saw everything Jesus Christ in his ancient scriptures, what Xtians call the Old Testament, he also saw Jesus in visions and now people read an historical Jesus into these religious texts we now call the NT and find him there. People are amazing.

dejuror wrote:

dogsgod wrote:Paul read and saw everything Jesus Christ in his ancient scriptures, what Xtians call the Old Testament, he also saw Jesus in visions and now people read an historical Jesus into these religious texts we now call the NT and find him there. People are amazing.

There is no external or historical evidence whatsoever to support any claim about the character called Jesus Christ by NT Paul. There are no known witnesses of the supposed conversion of Paul. There are no known converts by Paul. It is virtually impossible to corroborate that NT Paul had visions (which are useless as historical evidence) and the only NT writing to mention Paul outside the so-called Pauline Epistles was considered a forgery by the Church itself.

In addition, it cannot shown that stories of Jesus Christ were not in circulation and unknown to the Pauline writers before the Epistles were composed.

In effect, the so-called Pauline Epistles are completely useless for the HJ argument.

Stein wrote:The newest from Bart Ehrman --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw5kOck8MCw

Stein

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:The newest from Bart Ehrman --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw5kOck8MCw

Stein

Thanks for that Stein, absolutely loved the comments on youtube by those that bothered to watch the video so that we don't have to.

Stein wrote:This is from Bart Ehrman --

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-becoming-an- ... onal-life/

Stein