Queen Helena found "birth stains" that marked the area of Jesus’ birth. Later on, she would draw a 14-pointed star on the holy spot to encourage pilgrims to venerate the stains of Jesus’ delivery.

She also brought the manger to Rome. The relics of the manger can still be found in the crypt under the main altar of the Basilica of Sta. Maria Maggiore in Rome, built by Pope Liberius I in 360 AD.

Syncretism 

Helios/Christos at the Vatican beneath St.Peters Basillica

Helios

Orpheus Bacchus'

I have seen only strong evidence from archaeological research and historical references, that prove Nazareth did not exist. Especially the historical founding by Helena. The evidence I've seen shows only the existance of some Roman activity, and a farm house in the vacinity. If you have proof of the city of Nazareth, existing around the time of Jesus, please present it to us.

"the Orpheus amulet is known to be too late"

The dates I saw, show this amulet to predate any christian depiction of Jezeus on the cross by hundreds of years. The early similar stories of godmen, say he was hung on a tree.

The lack of mention of this city, by ancient historians speaks volumes of itself. To believe that this city dissappears off the face of the earth without a trace seems rediculous.

It seems more logical that this was a misinterpretation by rewrites, from the O.T name Nazarite.

Including Nazareth, the entire "holy land" seems nothing but a bunch of recycled god sites, turned into a Christian "DisneyLand" by Helena and Constantine and their fake bullshit.

Nazarite/Nazorean/Nazareth

I'm sorry I'll try. Sometimes thoughts flow like water, and the edit function seems to have a time limit.

American Athiest, what is the edit time?

Rook, you guys have developed a kickass site. If you think I'm too aggressive, or overboard in my discussions, and you want me to move on I will.

No you don't.  All the strong evidence from every source that is authoritative on this issue says exactly the opposite as what you are saying.  The Archeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and Archeological Commentary on the Bible all prove that not only did Nazareth exist at the time of Christ but it existed two centuries beforehand as well.  

This is utter bullshit.  Helena never founded Nazareth, there is not one historian who exists who feels this way.  In fact there isn't even a historical source which documents this.  It's a completely false statement. 

Have you even looked at the authorities? The town had a population of 200.  It had several semi-permanent buildings, however those buildings were used later to build the church and current permanent buildings that are there now.  We know this because of the structures of the foundations of these other buildings.  (AEoTH, Negev)

I have already told you.  There is overwhelming evidence.  Read the excerpts of Nazareth from those authorities above. 

FALSE.  Stop reading Gandy and Freke.  They do not have any authority to discuss Mythicism.  In fact I highly despise their books, which I'm sure is where you pulled a lot of this from.  

Bede's Website states quite a large case against the amulet being a 4th century CE forgery!  http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm

And they aren't the only ones.  Guthrie also recanted in his second edition of his book (as all honest people do) and admit that they were wrong about a particular issue:

"To this part of the inquiry belongs a mention of the curious and much discussed seal or amulet in Berlin.  The design on this seal, which is dated to the third or forth century AD, shows a crucified man.  Above the cross are a crescent moon and seven stars, and across and below it is the legend ΟΡΦEΟC BAKKIKOC." (Orpheus and Greek Religion, W.K.C. Guthrie, Pp. 265)

This is not disputed.  Please take back both your claims about the amulet and about the city of Nazareth. 

Are you using inductive history?  Don't answer that, because it is obvious you are not. Had you bothered to read the source information for your self, you'd know that Josephus doesn't mention HALF of the small metropolis' that existed during the first century CE.  Are we to assume ALL of these are non-existent until Helena?  

Don't be incredulous.  A town of 200 people is NOT going to warrant merit from Historians especially if Jesus never existed!  If nothing important happened there it's irrelevant to mention in history!  Use your head!

This argument from silence is TOO weak, and it s the ONLY thing you rest your case on.  This is weak.

Plus, as far as it goes, Origen spent chapters dedicated to trying to prove the existence of several cities and towns mentioned in the Gospels, yet he never mentions Nazareth.  This particular case of silence is actually a case FOR the existence of Nazareth.  He lived only a few miles away from Nazareth, and as far as he was concerned it wasn't necessary for him to prove the town. 

If the towns historicity was in the least bit of dispute you'd thing that surely Trypho in his dialog with Martyr would have brought it up, yet it slips his mind.  Celsus, as well, who argues at length about the dishonesty of Christians and their pseudo-truth conversion tactics, yet not once does he bring up the Nazareth city as being spurious or non-existent.  And if they failed, Prophyry in the third - forth centuries would have certainly mentioned that the town of Jesus' childhood didn't exist.  But they never brought it up.  

This is a strong case AGAINST your ahistoricity claim as these men were seeking to refute Christianity, yet somehow failed to mention that the town of his raisings didn't exist?  This is rather a case for the towns historicity, and that it was well established. Use your head! 

False on all accounts.   My suggestion is to brush up on your Hebrew and Greek – if you have even studied it.  There is no connection between Nazarite and Nazareth.  None.  Nazarene is a mistranslation of Nazarite, and shouldn’t even be brought up.

Does the edit function elude you?!  Use the edit function and put your new thoughts into the old post!!!

Whatever!  I posted saying I liked your thread but had some complaints as per your “facts” and your amount of small posts within a thread.  Learn to clean up your threads, and get some better knowledge of the facts, and I’ll be fine with you.  But this reply was so bad historically, had you presented this anybody else with some knowledge of History they would have laughed at you and not even bothered to reply.  You’re lucky I prefer to spread information rather then ignore them.

Exactly, Todangst! 

Quite honestly, the edit function should be used minimally anyway.  It's hard to find what was updated unless there is a note to that effect.  An edit will bump the thread with an "updated" notation, but it's impossible to know what was updated.

I go through all new posts every night and it drives me nuts. 

Please just put new thoughts and pics into a new post on the same thread.  You can always use the quote function if you feel you absolutely MUST have everything in one post.