Another strike for the atheists

[BereanTodd]

Atheists and anti-Christians love to say that there was no Nazareth in the time of Jesus (arguing from silence, not from any actual evidence). Well, throw another of their lame arguments out, because archaeologists have now found the settlement from the time of Christ, and say that the hamlet probably had aroudn 50 homes at the time. Here is a link to an AP article.

The Associated Press: First house from Jesus' time found in Nazareth

 

[Epiphoskei]

Yep. The one thing I've learned in all my schooling, is you never say somthing definitly didn't happen because of absent evidence. Wait ten years, and you'll probably find it. When only a small percentage of the ancient world has even been dug, let alone the material analyzed, an argument from silence is just foolish.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

When you add up all the places, events and people in the Bible that the skeptics have proclaimed, "never happened, never existed,etc,etc...." it sure makes for one supersized, extra jumbo crow sandwich that none are willing to swallow, when a Nazareth, Gath, .... (fill in the blank) is discovered, the denial of it's existence is denied, and forgotten, skeptics never investigate their own track record.............I wonder why?.......................

 

[Epiphoskei]

Interesting that you come in asserting "oh, no thinking atheist would ever believe this" and then launch into lecturing me on views you haven't established I hold.

(As an aside, rejecting a theory on the basis of insufficient evidence is not an argument from silence. Both the one who rejected the no-nazareth theory as an argument from silence and the one who doubts theories based on the fossil record are taking the same approach to both matters: doubt. Both the fossil and archaeological records are too spotty to make absolute conclusions.)

 

[depthdeception]

Berean--

I'm not sure I understand the correlation between the discovery of ancient Nazareth and "proof" for the existence of God. One could just as simply argue that this merely indicates that the Scriptures have some measure of historical (taken in a very modernist sense) accuracy.

That this discovery would somehow undermine an atheist's belief system is dependent on a presupposition that the Scriptures are somehow "from" God, a point on which I hardly expect an atheist to agree, nor for which there is any "evidence."

Of course, the kind of "evidence" that would, in fact, prove that the Scriptures are from God would, in actuality, do nothing but concomitantly disprove the same. The reality of God cannot be established on the basis of historicity (scientific, or otherwise)--the moment you use scientific methodology to establish the existence of God, God will pull a Douglas Adams on you--"Poof!"

 

[Jpark]

Atheists and anti-Christians love to say that there was no Nazareth in the time of Jesus (arguing from silence, not from any actual evidence). Well, throw another of their lame arguments out, because archaeologists have now found the settlement from the time of Christ, and say that the hamlet probably had aroudn 50 homes at the time. Here is a link to an AP article.

The Associated Press: First house from Jesus' time found in Nazareth

Here's another link:

BBC News - 'Jesus-era' burial shroud found

 

[BereanTodd]

Berean--

I'm not sure I understand the correlation between the discovery of ancient Nazareth and "proof" for the existence of God. One could just as simply argue that this merely indicates that the Scriptures have some measure of historical (taken in a very modernist sense) accuracy.

I never said that it is proof for the existence of God, but it IS proof of the reliability of the Bible - which they constantly attack, and yet it continues to rebuff them. The Bible is a relable collection of historical doccuments, written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. It records specific events which happened in direct fulfillment of specific prophecy, and claims to be divine rather than human in origin. THAT is my defense of the Bible, and THIS is another proof of it. For that reason it is a vallid and important issue.

 

[laconicstudent]

I've never heard any argument about Nazareth not existing. Strange.

 

[BereanTodd]

I've never heard any argument about Nazareth not existing. Strange.

Google it, it was actually an extremely common criticism of the Bible by atheists and others.

edit - and it wasn't that it didn't exist period, but that it didn't exist in the time of Christ.

 

[pastorronald]

Thanks for the information. I could not get your link to work, but I did find that the LA Times got a hold of this story in December. I found it on google news, but cannot post links here yet. Sorry.

Ron
< Staff Edit >