dog-on

Maybe a misunderstanding of something he parsed from the OT?

I suppose, but perhaps it has to do with there not being good enough reasons to be a historicist.

? You said Mark was independent. I simply asked you who he was independent of.

MCalavera

Such as? You'll need to elaborate.

When does it become good enough to say that historical Jesus might be more likely?

Besides, the default should be "I'm not sure which side is closer to the truth" not "Jesus might have been a myth".

I don't understand the point of the question. Independent of the other Gospel writers, yes. Independent of the Epistle writers, seems like it.

But you know that already. So what do you want me to say?

Was he totally independent in his assertion that Jesus was from Nazareth? Depends on what one means by "independent". According to the historicist, Mark didn't make up that Jesus was from Nazareth so it's not completely independent. But he did attest to it in his writing which does not seem to depend on any other written source.

dog-on

Maybe Isaiah 11:1?

I am not sure that there is really a distinction between your two examples.

I am referring to literary independence of the textual evidence.

aa5874

I PRESENT ACTUAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM ANTIQUITY.

You have ZERO sources and ZERO evidence form antiquity for your HJ of Nazareth.

You use CRAP for your HJ of Nazareth.

Your "METHODOLOGY" is C-I-C-O (CRAP IN--CRAP OUT).

I will EXPOSE your baseless Methodology ( C-I-C-O)

You SELECT Ghost stories for your METHODOLOGY.

Your HJ of Nazareth was DERIVED from Ghost stories.

Your METHODOLOGY is CRAP because you have ZERO sources and ZERO evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

ALL you have are QUESTIONS which you yourself cannot answer.

I am yet to see an HJer ANSWER any of the QUESTIONS they have asked.

What does Matthew 1.18-20 EXPLAIN?

In Matthew 1.18-20, Jesus is EXPLAINED as the Child of a Ghost.

What does gLuke 1-26-35 EXPLAIN?

The author of gLuke EXPLAINED that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

What SOURCE, and what Evidence are you going to use for HJ of Nazareth?

You have NO ANSWER.

Both gLuke and gMattthew are EXTREMELY similar indeed.

1. Both claim Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost. See Matt. 1 and Luke 1

2. Both claim Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM. See Matthew 2 and Luke 2

If you FIND "Q" it should say the same thing. "Q" is COMNMON material in gMatthew and gLuke.

Why do you think "Q" will NOT say Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost if you find it?

Your METHODOLOGY MUST BE CRAP because BOTH gLuke and gMatthew are extremely SIMILAR and claim Jesus was a Ghost Child and you still BELIEVE in your HEART that "Q" (if you ever find it) is about NOT about a Ghost/man.

"Q" is EXPECTED to reveal what is COMMON in gLuke and gMatthew that Jesus was FATHERED by a GHOST and born in Bethlehem.


You EXPECT the opposite because Your methodology is CRAP.

Solo

I think the bigger question is what Mark wanted ναζαρετ to symbolize. Was this a necropolis in Galilee, in Mark's time ? (B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, 1969; Rene Salm, Nazareth, 2007). Was it well known ? Was the mention of Nazareth as the place Jesus was coming from, just a way of saying he came to John tο be baptized ηγερθη απο των νεκρων (as one risen from the dead) ?

(Remember, I believe that the gospel of Mark was circular. The conjunction 'gar' in 16:8 was shared and connecting back to 1:1, which originally started , εν αρχη του εθαγγελιου )

Best,
Jiri

dog-on

Yes, Jiri, this is a good question and an interesting take on it.

judge

Yes, its not an answer. One can only assume that dog-on, after years and years of posting on this topic, still doesn't understand the signifigance of the question, or doesn't have an answer, still.

jakejonesiv

Jiri,

An excellent suggestion. Could you expand on that, or point to a link where you have already done so?

Jake

dog-on

The significance of the question is that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. After years and years, somehow I am not surprised that Judge continues to miss the point...

judge

Look, you dodged the question, and lamely claim that it's not relevant. Why not just admit you don't have an answer?