funkydereksaid: Hooberus, even for you that's audacious. You're not addressing the argument (no surprises there) but in this case you're not even trying to rubbish the source of the argument, just a source that gumby has used in the past. And you don't even do a good job of that.
I think that my example of the way the jesusneverexisted.com site selectively uses Josephus, does a good job of showing the poor accuracy of the site.
You found a rebuttal to the argument but you didn't even bother reading it. Just what were you thinking? Is that really the best you can do?
I read portions of the arcticle, but due to time did not take the time to carefully review every aspect of it. I admitted this. I posted the link because I have found that the author on his other pages is generally thorough. I mainly posted the link for others who were more interested in the subject of the historicity of Nazareth. My disclaimer above the link that I had not "reviewed" it was not mean to say that I didn't read some or all of it, but only that I had not reviewed it for accuracy. Anyway it appears that the argument that Nazareth never existed in the first century has been damaged by other posters here.
gumby said: I think perhaps old "hoobie" may have read the info. on some of these sights and is beggining to have "doubts" himself.
The only "doubts" that I am having is in the accuracy of sites such as jesusneverexisted.com
Actually the discussion of the historicity of Jesus that we have had on some of these threads has led me to much more historical information supporting the existence of Jesus than I had suspected was available.