Is American Beleif in God in Decline? Half Americans don't believe with Certinty and 1/4 are agnostic or atheist?

 



this is dated 1/4/14. that will be important latter when we have 15 articles on Religious A priori:Bogus Atheist Social Sciences dealing with different levels of poll results.


 Here we go with more distortion of the stats on God belief. It is so important to atheists to believe that they really are secretly the majority becuase they do believe in appeal to popularity. How do they cope with the fact that they are unpopular? They pretend they are not. They do everything they can to forge statistics. I've seen them claim all Hindus are atheist. I've seen them claim all other religions are atheists that are not Christian. I've them claim that Christianity is so divided that it's an amalgam of one billion smaller religions and thus atheism outnumbers each one individually. That's right. that's about as lame as you can get. Talk about living in denial.

An article in something called "liberty voice"[1] half of Americans don't believe in God "with certainty," and a quarter are atheist or agnostic.[2] So 2% could be atheist the rest of the quarter agnostic. They could count as agnostic people who believe in God. The article doesn't say "half don't bleieve in God at all" It says "with certainty." So depending upon how certain certain is they  could be calling the Southern Baptist Convention "uncertain," because they haven't gone into the arena to fight lions yet. While this article uses a couple of good sources that are important to observe (Harris poll and NPR) it's primarily catering to an atheist audience to get ratings. That in itself tells us something, that there is a strong enough niche for atheist thinking that it can be used as a market. It also tells us that the article itself is merely propaganda. The general point of the article is that belief in God is declining in Ameirca. Several categories have gone down 5-8% such as certinty about God or belief in Chrsitmas as religious holiday.

The newest poll, released earlier this week, supports previous research, including a study done by PEW which showed that a third of young people were not affiliated with any specific religion. PEW also released a new study this week showing that half of all Americans do not celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday.

In general, belief in the supernatural of all kinds declined significantly over the last eight years. The drop off in such beliefs were as follows: The Devil (four percent drop), resurrection of Jesus (five percent drop), virgin birth (three percent drop), miracles (seven percent drop), survival of soul after death (five percent drop), Jesus being the son of God (four percent drop), creationism (three percent drop), witches (five percent drop) angels (six percent drop) and heaven (seven percent drop). Belief in God overall dropped eight percent since 2005. There were two areas of supernatural belief that rose one percent each: belief in UFOs and belief in ghosts.[3]

Atheists are really making a big thing out of the rise of the 'nones.' The None category means no affiliation  with an established religious institution they are treating it like it's the rise of atheism itself. The Pew study of recent vintage shows that the atheist segment of none is still less than 5%, more like 2 or 3% and has not risen significantly in the last several years.[4] The segments that have risen include believers in God. About of them are believers in God, the rest are don't know (agnostic).[5]


The article uses two serious sources, Harris poll and NPR, and three Joke sources, or what I consider to be jokes but which are put over as serious, Huff post, which has become a shameless wasteland of propaganda for atheism, and The Blaze. I'll deal with the Joke sources, then the serious ones.

Joke sources

The source she sites from Huffington is on the Religion page by

Jaweed Kaleem Become a fan

jaweed.kaleem@huffingtonpost.com

 

The article is mainly about the secular attitude toward Christmas taken by half of Americans who know longer see it as a religious holiday. Their source is Pew study. [6] The pie chart for the report shows 92% do Christmas. Of that 51% find it a religious holiday, 32% cultural, 9% both/other. We have a bit of a math problem here. Not only does that not make 100% but it doesn't come close to half who think Christmas is not a religious holiday. It's also pretty Ambiguous as to how important the changing Mazeways are regarding Christmas. Is the dropping off of Christmas a big religious holiday, if it's even happening, really indicative of loss of faith in God? While the atheist cheer leaders are jumping up and down going "Yes! Yes!" I don't think so. Not to the extent atheist hope. There was a time when Christmas was regarded as less important than the Holiday for various saints.

Granted this, taken with the rise non affiliated young people is important and does definitely single changes it's far from certain what the changes mean. It's a shifting of the Maze ways. Changing of the Mazeways is not necessarily bad even for belief. The theory of the Mazeways was by Anthony Wallace (b 1923--), one of America's major anthropologists at one time. The developed a theory of social change and political and religious change and social revitalization around the concept of maseways. Mazeways are "mental maps that join personalities with cultures and therey illustrate how individuals embrace their culture, conduct everyday life and cope with illness and other forms of sever personal or cultural stress." [7]

The Blaze article is shameless propaganda. They even use the Monty Python image of God form the Holy Grail movie. They sight the Harris poll as saying belief in God is down to 75% from 82% a few years ago.

then they just sight a list of beliefs that are "down."

Belief in miracles, heaven and other religious teachings also declined in the latest poll, as follows:

–72 percent believe in miracles, down from 79 percent in 2005;

–68 percent believe in heaven, down from 75 percent;
–68 percent believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God, down from 72 percent;

–65 percent believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, down from 70 percent;

–64 percent believe in the survival of the soul after death, down from 69 percent;

–58 percent believe in the devil and hell, down from 62 percent;

–57 percent believe in the Virgin birth, down from 60 percent.[8]

 No analysis. all from the Harris poll. These article show us how the material reverberates around the net uncritically with no analysis, used by various entities to gain readership and plays into the hands of atheists for propaganda.

The serious sources


Harris poll. Both of the Joke sources used the Harris poll

New York, N.Y. - December 16, 2013 - A new Harris Poll finds that while a strong majority (74%) of U.S. adults do believe in God, this belief is in decline when compared to previous years as just over four in five (82%) expressed a belief in God in 2005, 2007 and 2009. Also, while majorities also believe in miracles (72%, down from 79% in 2005), heaven (68%, down from 75%), that Jesus is God or the Son of God (68%, down from 72%), the resurrection of Jesus Christ (65%, down from 70%), the survival of the soul after death (64%, down from 69%), the devil, hell (both at 58%, down from 62%) and the Virgin birth (57%, down from 60%), these are all down from previous Harris Polls.
Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution, however, while well below levels recorded for belief in God, miracles and heaven, is up in comparison to 2005 findings (47%, up from 42%).[9]

 Evolution is not a contradiction to belief in God so that does not correlate with a lose in belief. What is the methodology of the Poll?


Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States November 13 and 18, 2013 among 2,250 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

While representation of the poll is scientifically determined, while some times the shift to using computer sources means a more acute poll (shift to cell phones as opposed to  ground lines) but that doesn't mean that a poll done entirely on line is representative. If one atheist knew about it they could probably get an army of atheists to answer it. Harris interactive is a market reserach firm:

1. Harris Interactive, headquartered in Rochester, New York, is a market research firm, known for the Harris Poll. Harris works in a wide range of industries, across countries and territories through North America, Europe, and Asia. ...[10]
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Interactive

you can write our own questions. We don't know who wrote the questions for survey that makes a big difference. how you ask a question on a survey will determine the way people answer. Just being market research makes it suspect. I was in Market research for a number of years. It's not scientific. they do have a from of science but when you intorudce profit motive science goes out the window.

The Harris poll is contradited by Gallup:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- More than 9 in 10 Americans still say 'yes' when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?"; this is down only slightly from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question." 

Despite the many changes that have rippled through American society over the last 6 ½ decades, belief in God as measured in this direct way has remained high and relatively stable. Gallup initially used this question wording in November 1944, when 96% said "yes." That percentage dropped to 94% in 1947, but increased to 98% in several Gallup surveys conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Gallup stopped using this question format in the 1960s, before including it again in Gallup's May 5-8 survey this year.[11]

The chart shows 92% still say "yes" to the question do you believe in God? [12] The poll was done in 2011. It's doubtful that it dropped that much in two years. As the quote tells us it's down from the 40s. That means back in the God fearing 1940s fewer Americans believed in God than they did in the sinful postmodern 90s, or the scary Godless oughts. That means it fluctuates and some changing is not a sign of decline. It could well be that the difference is accounted for in the inaccuracy of representation by doing it form market reserach panels and on line.

The Gallup source states that when alternatives such as expression of doubt, qualification of confidence, or other kinds of belief are compared the belief for God goes down a bit. For example when asked do you believe in God or a universal power or spirit 80% say God 12% say universal spirit. At the same time only 6% say neither. 1% say other 1% say no opinion. That shows how the way the question is ask matters and it makes me think the Harris question was not asked directly in terms of "do you bleieve in God?" It also shows the atheist segment is still down around 6% which is the liberal end of my estimate.[13]

Pew study on the rise of the "nones" (see fn 3-4 below) also disproves it:

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%)[14]

It says atheists are "nearly" 6% but the chart they provide shows they are not up to 5% and may not be be up to 4%. That's a far cry from the exaggerations made by Blaze and Huff post. It's less than Harris polls would predict. I think the differences in questions is a good explanation. When Gallup asked "do you bleieve in God" they got a higher answer for "yes" then they broke up the notion into alternatives such as "God or a higher spirit of some kind." This tell us that there is a segment that is willing to call their transcendental signifier something other than God but it's close enough that they wil accept calling it God if they have no other alternative.

There is a pew study done in conjunction with PBS and religious ethics weekly that finds 68% of the nones believe in God (2/3) 37% classify themselves as "spiritual but not religious."[15] Overwhelming this group says they are not looking for a religion they don't like organized religion. Clearly the mazeways of modern society are changing and producing formations undreamed of by our ancestors. Yet bleief in God is not declining. The notion of "higher power" is getting at the concept of God. See my essay on how atheists have to cover up this fact but it's pretty well proved. When people say "higher power" they mean God. The alternatives people are offered such "some form of spirit" is really another way of saying "God."[16]


One thing we must always be careful with is the media will always pawn off no affiliation with not believing in God. When I Google "what percentage believe in God in U.S." I get the rise of the nones article and other articles taht rae based upon it. They all talk like "none" means none believe in God. It does not.


See Metacrock's blog on Wednesday for analysis of the None's and the changing of the mazeways.



sources

[1] Liberty Voice was formerly a the Las Vegas, Nevada-based Liberty Voice was The Guardian Express.This leads me to conclude that this article is a publicity stunt to get circulation. not affiliated with the famous Guardian in New York.

[2] Rebecca Savastio, "Nearly Half of Americans Do not Believe in God 'With Certianty'--a Quarter Are Atheist or Agnostic.

[3] Ibid

[4] Staff, "Nones on the rise," PewResearch Religion and Public Life Project. Octo 9 (2012). Online reseource: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/  accessed 1/6/14.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Jaweed Kaleem "Chrsitmas, a non religious holiday for half of Americans, Pew Survey finds." Huffington Post, Religoin section. (Jan 5, 2014). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/christmas-non-religious_n_4453828.html?utm_hp_ref=religion accessed 1/5/14.
the Pew study sited in that Dec 8, 2013.

[7] Ilias Sabbir, "Theory of Revitalization Movement by Anthony Wallace." Academia.edu.
on resource http://www.academia.edu/839547/Theory_of_Revitalization_Movement_by_Anthony_F._C._Wallace accessed 1/4/14.


[8] Staff Writer, "Poll American's Belief in God is on the Decline." the Blaze, December 17 (2013).
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/12/17/poll-americans-belief-in-god-is-on-the-decline/  accessed 1/4/14.

[9] Staff, "Americans Belief in God, Miracles, and Heaven, Declines--belief in Darwin's theory of evolution rises." Harris Interactive. Harris Polls (Dec. 16, 2013). On line resource.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx  accessed 1/5/14.

[10] https://www.google.com/#q=what+is+harris+interatcive%3F

[11] Frank Newport "more than 9 out of 10 Americans Continue to believe in God." June 3 (2011).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/americans-continue-believe-god.aspx

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Pew Study "Rise of the Nones" (above fn 4).

[15] Ibid.

[16] Metacrock, "Atheists Try to Deny That 'Higher power' refers to God." Atheistwatch (June 25, 2012). http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/on-carm-more-stupid-atheist-tricks-post.html accessed 1/6/14.

The Nazareth Question Heats up

excavation in 1999

December of 2010 I did a piece updating a controversy from the early days (late 90s) of my apologetical life: the question of Nazareth as inhabited in the time of Christ. Of cousre the mythers say no. The Pfan excavation, which they had been sighting as documentation for their view (it was going around big time, every message board had posts on the mythers using Pfan excavation. I'm the who actually got hold of the guy to find his findings and who read his article to see they were misquoting him. Now a new gang is saying his findings were no good (now that they know he doesn't back them).

my most recent article on this topic, both on the Religious a prori and on Atheist watch is found here. My oldest article is on Doxa.

I recieved a comment to that old post from 2010:

Anne Carly Abad says:

I read this article about Nazareth: http://www.nazarethmyth.info/naz3article.html

And the author debunks the dating of some of Pfann's findings, claiming "It consists of eleven small pieces of pottery—shards to which the NVF scholars assign an early date but which the standard textbook dates as late as the second century CE. In other words, the NVF scholars were choosing arbitrarily early dates for a few objects, and resting their Jesus-case on what amounts to mere preference. Significantly, in my book I show that the rest of the material from the Nazareth basin dates after the time of Jesus. So, an early dating for the NVF objects in question is not consistent with the evidentiary profile for the area."

What is your take on this?

Looking at the sight she documents this is one of the most biased pro-myther sights.

Nazarethmyth Home

The Nazareth QUIZ

Mythicist Papers
Resources for the study of Christian origins

(American Atheist, January 2009. Used with permission.)

an article entitaled "Nazareth, Faith, and the dark option an update:"

By René Salm

American Atheist has always championed the no-nonsense view of religion, and readers may note with a certain pride that this magazine has now emerged as a leading—if not the leading—advocate for the wholesale revision of Christian beginnings. Atheists have never shirked the challenge to take on the goliath of establishment Christianity, and today that challenge must include the controversial archaeology of Nazareth, which Frank Zindler has called “the Achilles’ heel of a popular god.” Readers will recall two articles in previous American Atheist issues on this topic [1], articles which preview and alert readers to my recent book, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus (American Atheist Press, March 2008). The opposition has now responded with the literary equivalent of a scream, and I’d like readers to know that the popular Christian god is in a heap of trouble and may be teetering.

How is that for strident? There's no question these guys are in a war, they fighting an evil enemy, they are the good guys (or course) they have the truth. It's pretty clear from their article that their real arguments revolves around commercial interest who seek to make money off of the "Jesus home town" thing. That has nothing to do with Pfan's excavation. If you look at the history of this site these same guys have been spewing the same propaganda for years. they have produced a mounds of lies about it. Most of the Google picks are from these sites, the same people the same lies. They are all basically filling in the data for the two major atheist authors, Rene Salm, The Myth of Nazareth And Frank Zindler. Zindler is is currently the editor of American Atheist Magazine and Director of American Atheist Press. A member of scientific organizations such as New York Academy of Science. No indication he has any degree in Archeology. I am not able to find any credentials for Salm. The best article I've found defending the idea of habitation in the time of Christ, and arguing specifically against the original work of Zindler and Salm is an article on an apologetic site by a Kyle Butt. I'll come back to him latter in this article.

They always ignore the previous findings, they never reveal that they first used Pfan as their own before they understood him. They pretend the pot shards are the only pro Naz evidence and totally ignore the terraces, the houses, the first two excavations that are just written off because they were done by Franciscans. In the day (1930s--50s) Franciscan archaeologists were authoritative scholars. This was before the new atheist refused to believe anything a religious person says. These are the same guys and the same Orwellian movement that run around going "we don't to know what theolgoians we know they are stupid."


This is hardly scholar stuff. So who is the alleged scholar making the statements about Pfan's findings? You don't just look in a text book to determine the dating pot shards. I no longer have the original stuff I used to use on Nazareth, nor the article on Pfan's work but as I recall there's a lot more to it than just some pottery. There were prior excavations to his that arleady determined Nazareth was inhabited. Some of my research can still be seen on my old site Doxa. From that article:

First of all it's important to realize that Nazareth was only four miles from a major metropolis. It's hard to believe it wasn't inhabited until so late being that close to a major city.

There two mentions in Antiquity:

"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources... (next paragraph) Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians; the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." Paul Barnett[BSNT], Behind the Scenes of the New Testament, IVP:1990, p.42:

Also from my original article:

occupied since 7th century BC

"Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century b.c. " ([MJ]A Marginal Jew--Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (vol 1), p.300-301)...cites Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon:1981. pp.56-57

Galyaah Cornfeld, Archaeology of The Bible Book by Book .(NY: Harper and Row 1976) p. 284 "What concretely about first century Nazereth? In the first two centuries AD it was a modest village built on Rocky soil in a valley far from the main trade routes [this was before Sarapis was discovered]...Two excavations, one led by Fther P. Viaud the other by Bagatti led to the discovery of the traditional site of the annunciation to Mary and the place which Jesus frequented as a growing lad...excavations of inscriptions there bear witness to a Jewish Christian cult of Mary from the very earliest times..." Some of those inscriptions also go back to the middle of the first century and identfy the place as the that of Jesus' boyhood home!

Excavations of Naz
Nazaraeth The Village of Jessu, Mary and Joseph

Franciscan cyerspot

http://christusrex.org/www1/ofm/san/TSnzarc2.html

The church of the Annunciation stands over the extreme southern end of the ancient village. Having examined the site occupied by the church of 1730, the outline of the Crusader church became clearer. In the northern nave the Crusaders had left the rocky elevation of the grotto and between two pilasters had made a stairway to the shrine. The excavations of 1955 unveiled the plan of the Byzantine church. Orientated as that of the Crusaders, it had 3 naves, with a convent to the S and an atrium to the W. It was 40 m. in length. Delving under the Byzantine construction the franciscan archaeologists found plastered stones with signs and inscriptions, which certainly formed part of a preexisting building on the site.

Excavations of the church led the pre Pfan archaeologist to conclude the place was already inhabited since pre Christian times. There's a lot about Pfan's work on that site too. I suggest the reader read the original article.


The mythers have been so anger they have over the years published a huge amount of Bull about this topic. most of what you find on Googling it is their propaganda. For example the site "Nazareth the two that theology built' is nothing but pure hog wash. The arguments on that site are so contradictory that he starts out making arguments from sensible 'the gospels don't tell us much about Nazareth" as though that disproves it's existence. then he also say the Gospels don't mention the major city it's near, Sepphoris, as though that somehow disproves its existence! Not mentioning Nazareth disproves Nazareth and not mentioning a place we know for a fact did exist also disproves Nazareth?

A source so unlikely it can't possibly be confused with Christian apologetic, the left leaning Guardian publishes an article about the discovery of Roman Baths at Nazareth, implying it was a Garrison town.

The American excavators are convinced that what Shama has exposed is an almost perfectly preserved Roman bathhouse from 2,000 years ago - the time of Christ, and in the town where he was raised. In a piece of marketing that is soon likely to be echoing around the world, Shama says he has stumbled across the "bathhouse of Jesus". The effects on Holy Land tourism are likely be profound, with Nazareth becoming a challenger to Jerusalem and Bethlehem as the world's most popular site of Christian pilgrimage.

Professor Richard Freund, an academic behind important Holy Land digs at the ancient city of Bethsaida, near Tiberias, and Qumran in the Jordan Valley, says the significance of the find cannot be overstated. Over the summer he put aside other excavation projects to concentrate on the Nazareth site. "I am sure that what we have here is a bathhouse from the time of Jesus," he says, "and the consequences of that for archaeology, and for our knowledge of the life of Jesus, are enormous."

David Hall, an amateur researcher.

Bellarmino Bagatti reported that during construction of shops along the Tiberias road there were found artifacts from the Iron, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods outside of the central Franciscan area. These finds were unpublished until Bagatti reported them Excavations in Nazareth, Bagatti, 1969, pg. 237. The Tiberias road passed by within about a couple of blocks to the north-east of the the Church of the Annunciation. A Franciscan guidebook indicated the Roman village of Nazareth was between the Church of Joseph and the Church of the Annunciation on a hill bounded by two valleys that are at this time partially filled in. Tombs were located outside of towns during Roman and Talmudic times. Hebrew tombs have been found to the N, S, and W of the ruins. Guide to the Holy Land, E. Hoade, Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1976

Bagatti also reported Herodian lamp fragments from grottos and rock carved silos under the Franciscan churches and subterranean areas of church compounds. All types of pots, jugs, jars, plates, pans, bottles, etc. from the Roman and Byzantine periods were found on church grounds. There were also Hellenistic forms found on church grounds with photos of the Hellenistic- Roman series of lamps provided. Bagatti stated that the area was occupied before and after the first Jewish revolt (66-70 A.D.). Herodian lamps and lamp fragments were distinctive in style and part of the evidence used to date the area. The Jewish Herodian lamps were at the height of their popularity before the Jewish revolt. After the Jewish revolt the Darom type lamp that was not wheel made, but mould made like other Roman lamps instead, was popular.

In 2002 Archaeologist Stanislao Loffreda published drawings of a rare type of lamp unique to first century Galilee. The lamp was found in Nazareth, Capernaum, Magdala, and Karm er-Ras (near Cana). The lamp was found in a datable strata in Capernaum. Capernaum yielded numerous Roman coins to the excavators, thus the strata and context there was more readily understood. This is additional evidence in support of the first century habitation of Nazareth.

Kyle Butt M.A.
(Yes I see it, it's no joke)

The town of Nazareth is “located in the southern end of the hills of Lower Galilee at about 1200 feet above sea level” (McRay, 1991, p. 157). Nazareth is about four miles southwest of Sepphoris. During the time of Christ, Sepphoris was the capital of Galilee, a major center of political and economical activity, and home of Herod Antipas (DeVries, 1997, p. 318). Primary research was done on the city in the mid-1950s by Bellarmino Bagatti. He discovered that the village during the time of Jesus was “an agricultural settlement with numerous winepresses, olive presses, caves for storing grain, and cisterns for water and wine” (1969, p. 25). McRay noted that pottery found in Nazareth dates “from Iron Age II (900-600 B.C.) to the Byzantine period (330-640), including Roman pieces from the time of Christ” (p. 158). Bagatti stated:

The entire village of Nazareth has very many subterranean cavities, some used as

The Church of the Annuciation in Nazareth

stores, some used as tombs. The earliest documentation is indicated both by their form and the ceramics found therein. The latter put us in the presence of tombs already existing in the Middle Bronze Period, and silos already in use in the Iron Period (1969, p. 25).

So it was inhabited before Christ, the people went away, then came back after the time of Christ? For the atheist propaganda to be true that would have to be the case. In fact this is the theory proposed by the atheist propagandist Rene Salm, the Myth of Nazareth. He bases that on his asserton that no artifacts are found between 700bc t0 50 AD. His argument is argument from silence and it's disproved not only by Pfan but all three excavations found evidence of first century habitation. In 2009 achaeolgoical evidence of a house was found at the site.

In December of 2009, Nazareth made worldwide headlines. Archaeologist Yardena Alexandre and her colleagues uncovered a small structure that they dated to the time of Christ (Hadid, 2009). The Israel Antiquities Authority official press release hailed this discovery as the first of its kind in which a residential structure was uncovered. The announcement noted the importance of the discovery, and quoted Yardena:

The discovery is of utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period (as quoted in “Residential Building...,” 2009). (ibid)

Salm's book was in 2006 so he didn't know about the data. Now the problem is this data was done by pottery too but there's no reason to think Yerdena's Pottery dates are wrong.

The dating method used by Yardena and her team, of matching pottery from the site to other pottery in an attempt to properly identify the time frame of the dig, is one of the most frequently used dating methods in archaeology. McRay mentioned this dating method as one of the most effective:

The potters of antiquity were careful imitators but reluctant innovators.... At any rate style did seem to change from period to period, slowly but decisively, and we are now able to observe those changes in style and from them establish a chronology. The methodology is not exact, but within reasonable limitations it does provide a workable typology upon which to construct a fairly reliable chronology (1991, p. 32). (ibid)

Another major dating method is lamps. Salm plays fast and loose with the lamp evidence. He adopts the date range that does his theory the most good and ignores that fact that a lot of evidence exists to date the lamps at the earlier range which would put habitation in Nazareth as late as 37 bc that would destroy his theory that they went away and came back. As Butt points out, even we accept the latter range as does Salm that still implies habitation in the time of Christ.

The incipience of a village is not equivalent to the arrival of the first settlers at the site. No village springs up overnight. It requires a certain amount of time—perhaps a generation or two—to come into existence.... The presence of tombs [in Nazareth] indicates both permanence and population, and it is strongly suggestive of a “village.” Thus, the earliest tomb at Nazareth is a significant clue regarding the existence of a village. Determining its date will be an important goal of these pages. The period of tomb use can be revealed by dating funerary artefacts found in situ (pp. 156-157, italics in orig.).

There are lamps found in the tombs. These are the bow spouted lamps that indexed in dating from their use in Jerusalem.

Thus, according to Salm’s reasoning, tombs show the presence of a village, and settlers in the area could/would have been in the area possibly two generations before that village came into existence. Using Salm’s personally concocted date of A.D. 25 for the earliest date of the lamps, that means that the earliest tomb could possibly date to A.D. 25. And, if settlers were in the area two generations before that (using 40 years as a generation), that would put people in the area in about 55 B.C. Taking that into account, there is absolutely no way that Salm can prove that Nazareth was not inhabited during the time of Christ. The most he can do is suggest that, if his arbitrarily chosen dates are adopted, it seems improbable. Yet even this “improbability” does not accord well with the ranges of dates that are often adopted for such artifacts as the “Herodian” lamps. (Butt article)

I recommend Jesus and His world: the Archaeological Evidence by Carig Evans.

Craig A. Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. The author or editor of more than fifty books and hundreds of articles, Evans is a regular guest on many national media outlets, including Dateline NBC, The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, and BBC. He is an internationally distinguished authority and lecturer on the historical Jesus. For more information, visit craigaevans.com.

Evens is the only real scholar in this article. His book is highly authoritative but written to be accessible tot he layman. The publisher's blurb:

In this provocative work, world-renowned scholar Craig A. Evans presents the most important archaeological discoveries that shed light on the world of Jesus of Nazareth. Evans takes on many sensational claims that have been proposed in recent books and peddled in the media, and uses actual archaeological findings to uncover the truth about several key pieces of Jesus' world. For example, what was the village of Nazareth actually like in the time of Jesus? Did synagogues really exist, as the Gospels say? What does archaeology tell us about the ruling priests who condemned Jesus to death? Has the tomb of Jesus really been found, as has been claimed? Evans's engaging prose enables readers to understand and critique the latest theories--both the sober and the sensational--about who Jesus was and what he lived and died for.

Evans article in Huff Post
Posted: 03/26/2012 7:30 am

The archaeological evidence shows that Jesus grew up in a small village, Nazareth, about four miles from Sepphoris, a prominent city in the early first century C.E. This city had a Greco-Roman look, complete with paved, columned street, but its inhabitants were observant Jews. The evidence further shows that Nazareth was linked to a network of roads that accommodated travel and commerce. The quaint notion that Jesus grew up in rustic isolation has been laid to rest. The youthful Jesus may well have visited Sepphoris, whose theatre may have been the inspiration for his later mockery of religious hypocrites as play-actors.

The evidence for the existence of synagogue buildings in the time of Jesus is now quite strong. Archaeologists have identified at least seven such buildings that date before the year 70. It is in the context of the synagogue that Jesus would have matured in the religious tradition of Israel and heard Scripture read and interpreted. Although some historians think rates of literacy in the first-century Roman Empire were quite low, archaeological finds, such as the tablets found in Vindolanda, England, near Hadrian's Wall, or the thousands of graffiti etched on the scorched walls of Pompeii and Herculaneum, suggest that at least a crude literacy was widespread and reached all levels of society. This evidence, along with the Gospels' portrait of a Jesus who debates scribes and ruling priests, asking them if they had ever read this or that passage of Scripture, suggests that Jesus, founder of a movement that produced and collected literature, was himself literate.