Jesus existed therefore God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
FarWanderer
Guru
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:47 am
Location: California

Jesus existed therefore God

Post #1

Post by FarWanderer »

Tart wrote:Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.
Bold added by me.

Question for debate: If the statement Jesus existed is true, does that necessarily establish that an all powerful, all knowing God exists?

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jesus existed therefore God

Post #11

Post by Tart »

Elijah John wrote:
FarWanderer wrote:
Tart wrote:Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.
Bold added by me.

Question for debate: If the statement Jesus existed is true, does that necessarily establish that an all powerful, all knowing God exists?
It does not. And conversely, if Jesus did not exist, that does not of necessity establish the non-existence of an omnipotent/omnicient Deity either.

Also, the resurrection if it happened, proves nothing but that something extraordinary happened. It would not prove that "Jesus is God" nor would it prove that Jesus died and rose in order to "pay for" our sins. At best, those conclusions are theological interpretations.
Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by Tart »

FarWanderer wrote:
Tart wrote:
FarWanderer wrote:
Tart wrote:Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.
Bold added by me.

Question for debate: If the statement Jesus existed is true, does that necessarily establish that an all powerful, all knowing God exists?
Sure, so the reason i said that is because Jesus's existence itself is in a fulfillment of prophecy... We have hundred of prophecies, from dozens of prophets, all converging to one man. Jesus... To His existence...

If we allow Jesus to exist, at all, that implies there is some kind of historical merit to Jesus's existing... He had to do something, he lived his life.. What did he do? Well we take the historical aspects of Jesus life (accepted by nearly every Biblical scholar), His Baptism, His Trial, His crucifixion, perhaps some other aspects of His life... These events of Jesus's existence, are a fulfillment of prophecy... Prophecy is converging to the life of Jesus... Hundreds of prophecies, from dozens of prophets, all converging to one man... Yes, so unless we have a valid explanation for this coincident, it is evidence of a divine plan...
The vast majority of these prophecies have nothing to do with his baptism, trial, crucifixion. Dont write to imply like they do.

The vast majority of these prophecies are said fulfilled by a small handful of anonymous authors decades after Jesus died. Painting a target around an arrow already shot is mere stage magic, requiring neither coincidence nor divine plan to explain.

Let us talk about the Old Testament prophecies for events that are widely agreed upon having actually occurred, such as the crucifixion. Those prophecies should be your strongest. Surely you can be specific then, right? It is impossible to address something as vague as hundreds of fulfilled prophecies.
Ya, so let me refer you to this video... Will you watch it and tell me your thoughts? Thanks.

[youtube][/youtube]

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jesus existed therefore God

Post #13

Post by Tart »

Goat wrote:
Tart wrote:
FarWanderer wrote:
Tart wrote:Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.
Bold added by me.

Question for debate: If the statement Jesus existed is true, does that necessarily establish that an all powerful, all knowing God exists?
Sure, so the reason i said that is because Jesus's existence itself is in a fulfillment of prophecy... We have hundred of prophecies, from dozens of prophets, all converging to one man. Jesus... To His existence...

If we allow Jesus to exist, at all, that implies there is some kind of historical merit to Jesus's existing... He had to do something, he lived his life.. What did he do? Well we take the historical aspects of Jesus life (accepted by nearly every Biblical scholar), His Baptism, His Trial, His crucifixion, perhaps some other aspects of His life... These events of Jesus's existence, are a fulfillment of prophecy... Prophecy is converging to the life of Jesus... Hundreds of prophecies, from dozens of prophets, all converging to one man... Yes, so unless we have a valid explanation for this coincident, it is evidence of a divine plan...


How is the existance of Jesus part of propehcy? if you look at the passages that are claimed to be the propehcy for Jesus, it is no such thing. They are mistranslated, out of context, vague, or shoe horned into place and wiriten to. The NT writers took passages, and wrote to them. If you look at the passages in context, using proper translations, not one was about Jesus.
So you dont even believe the prophecy for the Messiah exist? In the Old Testament? It is pretty undeniable that the prophecy exists... SOME might be vague, but others are VERY specific... Would you like to explore the evidence?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Jesus existed therefore God

Post #14

Post by Goat »

Tart wrote:

Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...
Well, part of the problem if you are look at evidence that a person named Jesus existed is that 1) Jesus was a common name, 2) There were many inerrant preachers at the time, and 3) Pilate crucified over 20,000 people. There is undoubtedly at least a few people that matched all three of those criteria..

But, throw in the 'of Nazareth.. if you look at the archeological evidence, there is no evidence that ANY town was called Nazareth in that time period. The current town of Nazareth looks like it was renamed in the 4th century, probably about the time that they started getting Religious tourists into the area from Rome. Out of the extra biblical references to jests, the only one in the first century was Josephus, and it was shown that it has been modified so much that it can not be shown to be anything but a total addition. the ones during the earlier part of the second century can only show that Christians existed.

There is not enough information to show that there was a person behind the stories. Even the bible stories are 3rd or 4th hand.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jesus existed therefore God

Post #15

Post by Tart »

Goat wrote:
Tart wrote:

Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...
Well, part of the problem if you are look at evidence that a person named Jesus existed is that 1) Jesus was a common name, 2) There were many inerrant preachers at the time, and 3) Pilate crucified over 20,000 people. There is undoubtedly at least a few people that matched all three of those criteria..
Ok, so you are claiming multiple people met these requirements... Can you give any evidence of any other Jesus, then the one in the Gospels? Say, being crucified? Or any other Jesus, who preached? Back during similar time periods? Like what you are claiming.
Goat wrote: But, throw in the 'of Nazareth.. if you look at the archeological evidence, there is no evidence that ANY town was called Nazareth in that time period. The current town of Nazareth looks like it was renamed in the 4th century, probably about the time that they started getting Religious tourists into the area from Rome. Out of the extra biblical references to jests, the only one in the first century was Josephus, and it was shown that it has been modified so much that it can not be shown to be anything but a total addition. the ones during the earlier part of the second century can only show that Christians existed.

There is not enough information to show that there was a person behind the stories. Even the bible stories are 3rd or 4th hand.
Surely there is enough information to show Jesus of the Gospels could have existed... If you want i can refer you to the historical evidence i wrote in another thread?

But i think we should only make claims we know are true... So can you answer my questions above? And also give me evidence Nazareth never existed till the 4th century?

Like for example, if we look at Wikipedia, it says:

Nazareth
Founded 2200 BC (Early settlement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Why is that wrong?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Jesus existed therefore God

Post #16

Post by Goat »

Tart wrote:
Goat wrote:
Tart wrote:

Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...
Well, part of the problem if you are look at evidence that a person named Jesus existed is that 1) Jesus was a common name, 2) There were many inerrant preachers at the time, and 3) Pilate crucified over 20,000 people. There is undoubtedly at least a few people that matched all three of those criteria..
Ok, so you are claiming multiple people met these requirements... Can you give any evidence of any other Jesus, then the one in the Gospels? Say, being crucified? Or any other Jesus, who preached? Back during similar time periods? Like what you are claiming.
Goat wrote: But, throw in the 'of Nazareth.. if you look at the archeological evidence, there is no evidence that ANY town was called Nazareth in that time period. The current town of Nazareth looks like it was renamed in the 4th century, probably about the time that they started getting Religious tourists into the area from Rome. Out of the extra biblical references to jests, the only one in the first century was Josephus, and it was shown that it has been modified so much that it can not be shown to be anything but a total addition. the ones during the earlier part of the second century can only show that Christians existed.

There is not enough information to show that there was a person behind the stories. Even the bible stories are 3rd or 4th hand.
Surely there is enough information to show Jesus of the Gospels could have existed... If you want i can refer you to the historical evidence i wrote in another thread?

But i think we should only make claims we know are true... So can you answer my questions above? And also give me evidence Nazareth never existed till the 4th century?

Like for example, if we look at Wikipedia, it says:

Nazareth
Founded 2200 BC (Early settlement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
Why is that wrong?
Well, there was some ruins there.. but apparently, it was not inhabited during the time frame of Jesus except by about 10 houses, and it was not KNOWN as Nazareth.

You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century.



Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

Tart wrote: Ya, so let me refer you to this video... Will you watch it and tell me your thoughts? Thanks.

[youtube][/youtube]
I only needed to watch a very small portion of this video to immediately see the problem here. In this video these people are assuming that every word of the Gospels is the TRUTH.

Right there is an immediate problem.

For example, in the video they claim that it is prophesied that the messiah will become the King of Jerusalem and ride into the city on a donkey.

First off Jesus NEVER became the King of Jerusalem. So the prophesy fails for Jesus right there, but for some reason they totally ignore this obvious failing.

Instead they point to the fact that the Gospel Rumors have Jesus riding into the city on a donkey.

Well, duh?

The authors who wrote the Gospels clearly had these previous prophesies right at their fingertips because they often even proclaim when they felt that prophesy was being fulfilled.

So did the "real historical Jesus" really ride a donkey into the city?

Who would know? All we have are Gospel Rumors that claim he rode a donkey. But for all we know the authors of the Gospel Rumors made that up in an effort to try to make Jesus appear to have fulfilled prophesies.

So you need to be REAL CAREFUL not to be taken in by claims of fulfilled prophesies that cannot even be shown to have actually happened.

Not only that, but Jesus NEVER became the King of Jerusalem. Therefore, even if he rode a donkey into the city this hardly fulfills this prophecy anyway.

The promised Messiah was supposed to become the King of Jerusalem. Jesus never even remotely came close to becoming the King of Jerusalem.

So to claim that Jesus was the promised messiah from the Old Testament is nothing short of utterly ridiculous.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #18

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]
Instead they point to the fact that the Gospel Rumors have Jesus riding into the city on a donkey.

Well, duh?
Does it even need to be pointed out that riding a donkey into a city is an extremely trivial thing to do?
I get a sense of
"Wow! He rode a donkey! Clearly must be divine magic at work! Amen! Praise the Lord!" from a certain someone.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #19

Post by Divine Insight »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 17 by Divine Insight]
Instead they point to the fact that the Gospel Rumors have Jesus riding into the city on a donkey.

Well, duh?
Does it even need to be pointed out that riding a donkey into a city is an extremely trivial thing to do?
I get a sense of
"Wow! He rode a donkey! Clearly must be divine magic at work! Amen! Praise the Lord!" from a certain someone.
The idea here is that this is supposed to be "fulfilled prophecy" even some of the authors of the Gospel rumors make this claim right in their writings:


Matthew 21:
[1] And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
[2] Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
[3] And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
[4] All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
[5] 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.


See, Matthew is claiming that this event fulfills prophecy. And then Luke also repeated this since Luke was copying from Matthew.

However, the problem here is that clearly Matthew, the author of this claim, obviously knew that there was a prophecy that the messiah should ride a donkey into Jerusalem. It's clearly he know this since he claims that this prophecy was being fulfilled.

But we have no way of knowing whether Jesus actually rode a donkey into the Jerusalem. All we have is Matthew's original claim, and Luke repeating that rumor.

So why should we think that any prophesy had been fulfilled? For all we know Matthew made up the part of about the donkey specifically so he could claim that prophesy that he clearly already knew about could be fulfilled.

This is totally unimpressive.

These Christian theists want to start arguing about probabilities like "What's the probability that Jesus would have fulfilled so many of these little prophesy details?

The improbability is ASTRONOMICAL! Therefore Jesus must have been the prophesied messiah.

But this is totally wrong.

The real question is, "What's the probability that the authors of the Gospels made up stuff in an effort to try to have Jesus fulfilling all these prophesies?"

And the answer to that is that it's extremely probable that this is precisely what they did. They were clearly trying to convince their readers that Jesus was the messiah and would say anything they could to try to make a case for their agenda.

So the idea that these would represent astronomical improbabilities is nonsense. The authors simply wrote in little things like having Jesus ride a donkey into the city precisely in an effort to have Jesus fulfilling prophesies.

They pointed out that this fulfills prophesies. That shows that they were fully aware of what the prophesies were as they were writing these Gospel Rumors.

So this idea that so many prophesies had been fulfilled by Jesus that he just had to have been the prophesied messiah is nothing other than an underhanded trick being played by the authors of the Gospels.

We have no way of knowing whether any actual Jesus ever fulfilled all these little details that the authors of the Gospel Rumors claim he fulfilled.

So it's not impressive at all.

Not only this but Jesus NEVER became the King of Jerusalem. So it really wouldn't matter if he had satisfied all these trivial details anyway. If he didn't become KING, then he failed to fulfill the MAIN prophecy.

So it's all nonsense.

The argument that mathematical probabilities demand that Jesus fulfilled these prophesies beyond any possibility of pure chance, is just nonsense. The authors of the Gospels simply made up these claims. That solves the probability problem right there on the spot. It had nothing to do with chance. The authors of the Gospels simply wrote all those details into their stories when they were sitting there with those prophesies IN HAND. No wonder Jesus was fulfilling every detail. That's simply what the authors of the Gospels WROTE IN.

These theists must be pretty naive to fall for that old trick.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Jesus existed therefore God

Post #20

Post by Tart »

Goat wrote:
Tart wrote:
Goat wrote:
Tart wrote:

Ok, so the topic is on the subject of fulfillment of a Messiah... Perhaps your right that Jesus life alone, when taking nothing else in consideration, isnt evidence of anything other then a man named Jesus lived...

But what if this was part of a divine plan? That the life of Jesus was shown to be aligned with a destiny, revealed by God, as a Messiah?

Lets not separate the life of Jesus, from the fulfillment of a Messiah. That is the entire point of the topic...
Well, part of the problem if you are look at evidence that a person named Jesus existed is that 1) Jesus was a common name, 2) There were many inerrant preachers at the time, and 3) Pilate crucified over 20,000 people. There is undoubtedly at least a few people that matched all three of those criteria..
Ok, so you are claiming multiple people met these requirements... Can you give any evidence of any other Jesus, then the one in the Gospels? Say, being crucified? Or any other Jesus, who preached? Back during similar time periods? Like what you are claiming.
Goat wrote: But, throw in the 'of Nazareth.. if you look at the archeological evidence, there is no evidence that ANY town was called Nazareth in that time period. The current town of Nazareth looks like it was renamed in the 4th century, probably about the time that they started getting Religious tourists into the area from Rome. Out of the extra biblical references to jests, the only one in the first century was Josephus, and it was shown that it has been modified so much that it can not be shown to be anything but a total addition. the ones during the earlier part of the second century can only show that Christians existed.

There is not enough information to show that there was a person behind the stories. Even the bible stories are 3rd or 4th hand.
Surely there is enough information to show Jesus of the Gospels could have existed... If you want i can refer you to the historical evidence i wrote in another thread?

But i think we should only make claims we know are true... So can you answer my questions above? And also give me evidence Nazareth never existed till the 4th century?

Like for example, if we look at Wikipedia, it says:

Nazareth
Founded 2200 BC (Early settlement)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
Why is that wrong?
Well, there was some ruins there.. but apparently, it was not inhabited during the time frame of Jesus except by about 10 houses, and it was not KNOWN as Nazareth.

You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century.



Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
Ok, let only say things that are true. You are saying:
"You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century."

How do you know it was renamed in the 4th century? Who named it? What evidence do you have?

Note* the town of Nazareth is in the Gospels, a first century reference... What exactly are you suggesting? Some kind of, untold conspiracy?

(please source your evidence... Thanks)

Post Reply