Reddit reviews The Myth Of Nazareth: The Invented Town Of Jesus
We found 4 Reddit comments about The Myth Of Nazareth: The Invented Town Of Jesus. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> aka by people heavily invested into and having careers built upon Jesus being non-mythical.
As opposed to the other side? aka people who [sell books on amazon] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Of-Nazareth-Invented/dp/1578840031/ref=pd_sim_b_18?ie=UTF8&refRID=0Q25CVBES7RRJ3E90PYP) about their shit? They don't have careers built upon Jesus being mythical?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Of-Nazareth-Invented/dp/1578840031 Goes into great detail of the archaeological at Nazareth and the why is wasn't inhabited until around 70CE. Also has a bibliography.
The range of Jesus's birth would be non-cannon christian writings prior the official cannon in the 4th century when other writings were branded heresy. I believe there are 50 some odd gospels. Oddly, the four gospels they picked can't even agree on the day Jesus was crucified on. John has his crucified when the lambs were being slaughtered for Passover, which eliminates the last supper.
As far as Herod dying in 4BCE, tons of historical sources, including Josephus all agree on this.
Paul's vision of demons crucifying Christ in heaven is in 1st Corinthians I think.
Gotta go do work, but I could write all day about Paul and his vision of Christianity, that doesn't involve a human Christ and is completely unrecognizable to what we think of Jesus today....and he wrote the earliest documents on Christianity we have.
> Carrier, Richard (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. p. ch. 1. ISBN 978-1-61614-560-6. ...attempts to ascertain the 'real' historical Jesus have ended in confusion and failure. The latest attempt to cobble together a method for teasing out the truth involved developing a set of critera. But it has since been demonstrated that all those criteria, as well as the whole method of their employment, are fatally flawed. Every expert who has seriously examined the issue has already come to this conclusion.
This looks like a good read too.
• 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.
• St 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.
I don't think I am being asked that, since (if I remember right) the person I replied to mentioned Nazareth before I did. The onus would be on the original claim (of nonexistence) first. But that it existed at some point in time is easy - it exists now! It's been there since well before I was born, so there's a string of times when it existed. its present existence makes the claim that it never existed flat out false.
What I have seen is mention of the position that Nazareth was
unoccupied at the time Jesus was supposed to be alive, or that it didn't exist until well after he supposedly died.
edit: some references that appear to relate to this --
René Salm, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus, (2008).
See also this link, and this
W. B. Smith, "Meaning of the Epithet Nazorean (Nazarene)" The Monist (1904) 26.
T. Cheyne "Nazareth" Encyclopedia Biblica, (1899).
R. Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus. New York: Penguin Books, (1997) p. 952.
(edits: added a couple of small additional bits of info, and a change of my second sentence to better respond what you actually said, rather than what I originally read it to say)