Let's asssume that you are correct, that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Christ. [Leaving for the moment whether the evidence of its non-existence consists of lack of evidence or not]

This would seem to present as many problems for the skeptic as potential escape hatches. If the writers of the Gospels were trying to build a case for a new religion, then it would seem implausible that they would write a mythical town into the script. How would you answer this?

Also, I am in tacit agreement with the Missionary you encountered, in that the historocity of Jesus is as valid [if not more] as any of His contemporaries. You can not deny the existence of Christ, without in the same breath, denying the existence of Ceasor.

In the past, denying the existence of Christ was in vogue as grounds for skepticism. Increasingly though, the skeptics are finding themselves out on the proverbial limb, having to resort to simply denying the miracles of the Gospel [which is easy scince no one has seen one] or confining their arguments to peripherial issues such as this.

• Nazareth was originally just a mythical town. - johnpowell - April 4, 2001 - 19:16 UTC