FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Off topic stuff and Abe's methodology split from Reality Check
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 5 of 5 « First 34 5
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-08-2011, 05:39 PM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
all of the evidence can be easily explained by Nazareth being just a small rural town
What you don't seem to get is the distinction between "It is a reasonable explanation" and "It is the only reasonable explanation."
What makes you think that?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 07-08-2011, 07:21 PM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bacht View Post

Maybe, but how is this a better explanation than the epithet Nazarene/Nazirite being re-interpreted later by non-Jews? Surely a few strokes of a pen are much easier than identifying a whole village that wasn't there.
My proposition is that "Nazareth" in the gospels referred to a whole village that was actually there, which is far easier than both of the propositions that you gave.
Well, if you're talking about the village of NCRT, we're stuck with the fact that the Greek simply doesn't reflect the Semitic source and we only find post hoc connections between the Greek named Nazareth and the Hebrew name.

Quote:
We seem to have no good reason to suspect that an epithet of Nazarene/Nazirite was re-interpreted later by non-Jews to attach it to an obscure small town in Galilee if we can instead accept the plausibility that "Nazareth" or "Nazarene" actually referred to that small town and always did.
All the evidence points to just that. Why do you think otherwise based on the earliest evidence?

The earliest gospel evidence suggests that Nazara is earlier than Nazareth in the gospel tradition and Nazara is conveniently derivable from Nazarene, while neither Nazarene nor Nazorean is easily derivable from NCRT.

Quote:
Why would you be inclined to make the model considerably more complicated than it needs to be?
When you ignore evidence you can oversimplify your model such that it doesn't reflect reality, as you have apparently done.
spin is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 08:45 AM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
What you don't seem to get is the distinction between "It is a reasonable explanation" and "It is the only reasonable explanation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
What makes you think that?
The things you say about people who disagree with you.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 10:02 AM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
What you don't seem to get is the distinction between "It is a reasonable explanation" and "It is the only reasonable explanation."
The things you say about people who disagree with you.
Gotcha.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 11:56 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York, U.S.A.
Posts: 715
Default
<edit>

Chaucer
Chaucer is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 12:00 PM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Babble Belt
Posts: 20,748
Default
[STAFFWARN]Thread Temp Locked for Review[/STAFFWARN]
Davka is offline  
 
Page 5 of 5 « First 34 5

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:58 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.