Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth

[BainsBane]

136. This is the problem with responses in this thread

1) History is not science, nor does it pretend to be. That is a good thing. 2) the Bible doesn't convey history. It is a religious text. Now, scholars of the historical Jesus likely use editions of the gospels (not subsequent translations in bibles) including those that never made it into the New Testament, among other sources to explore the life of Jesus of Nazareth. This is very far from my own field of training, so I am only speculating as to the sources they might use. Anyone of us, including you, can pick up some of these books, including the one by the Muslim scholar recently attacked on Fox, to see what sources they use. Plenty of scholars who are not Christian recognize that a man called Jesus of Nazareth lived. 3) This religious zeal--and that is precisely what it is--to deny the existence of a man called Jesus of Nazareth is absurd. There is documentary evidence accounting for his life as there is for any number of historical figures, including many thousands no one here knows nor cares about. 3) That does not mean Jesus was divine. Divinity cannot be proved historically, archaeologically, or scientifically. It is a function of faith alone. Rejecting Christianity does not require rejecting the fact the man ever lived.

Now, these archaeologists are obviously making claims that cannot be substantiated. They might be able to show this relic was thought to be the cross upon which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, but they will not be able to claim, based on archaeological evidence alone, that is was. They can carbon date it but they have no way of knowing who died on that cross. Clearly they want to make a bundle off of asserting it is the cross that he died on. Or, more likely, the journalists have exaggerated the archaeologists claims to make a big story out of it.

All this nonsense about Jesus of Nazareth never existing is 1) counter factual, 2) detracts from the point of the article, and 3) a waste of energy. I fail to see why people are so invested in this particular point. Their atheism does not hinge on that fact. At least it shouldn't.

People here are obviously driven by their ideological views about Christianity, which should be something quite separate from the historical and archaeological record.