Ferryman to the Dead

Got a better argument? Then put it up. All I see is another fundie throwing up philosophy in order to change the subject.

Juststeve

Ferryman:

First, the prophesy is not about the Messiah, it is about Sampson who did deliver the country from the Philistines if you believe in that sort of thing.

Second, the word Nazarite means one consecrated to the Lord and has nothing to do with the town of Nazareth or the word Nazorean which is unknown in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible except in one passage in Matthew. In that passage Matthew was suggesting Nazorean in the sense of a resident of Nazareth, not Nazarite, a word a good Jewish boy would know.

Read back at what I wrote and you will find that I was exactly right and you are wrong in confusing two very different words.

Steve

Ferryman to the Dead

Yeah, yeah, whatever..................

spin

This is a belief statement.

What we are actually faced with are works of a composite nature -- no gospel was written by a single author. Just think for example that both Matthew and Luke are based on Mark. They show signs of common materials not found in Mark and they have independent materials as well.

I have shown evidence elsewhere in this forum that Nazareth was not part of the earliest tradition, which can be glimpsed in Mark's usage of "Nazarene", a word that was unintelligible to the first compiler of Matthew who left it out of his gospel, ie in the Marcan material used by Matthew all of Mark's "Nazarene" references have been removed. Next, both Matthew and Luke feature a reference to a place called Nazara (Mt 4:13, Lk 4:16). And it was some time later that the name "Nazareth" was included in the gospels. In Luke it's only in the birth narrative.

The writers of Mark never knew of anyone they could reference as "Jesus of Nazareth" (*Ιησους ο απο Ναζαρετ). In fact, the only place in the new testament that uses that phrase is in Acts 10:38, though there is a close in Mt 21:11, "Jesus the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee". All the rest are "Jesus the Nazarene" or "Jesus the Nazorean".


spin

spin

So you remain with the non-argument that it didn't exist because nobody told you it did?

And thanks for the "fundie".


spin

spin

Back in post number #30 I asked you three questions, Juststeve. Would you be kind enough to answer them?

And, while waiting, here's a list you provided:
Which of these actually feature the town name Nazareth (Ναζαρετ)? I'll help you here: there are only two in your list.


spin

Juststeve

Ferryman deploys the yeah yeah whatever argument. No response to that.

Steve

Ferryman to the Dead

You have not responded to anything not spin not aa or anyone else. Yet you respond to a 3 word reply that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. :deadhorse:

aa5874

But such a view is highly illogical. Once the evidence is examined Jesus of the NT could NOT have a human grandfather when his father was a Ghost (a Holy one). See Matthew 1.18, Luke 2.35 and John 1.1 for the written evidence for the father of Jesus.

Now, anything deemed to be non-existing MUST LACK evidence of EXISTING.

Lack of Evidence of Existing is the PRIMARY and FUNDAMENTAL criteria for arguing for non-existence.

I repeat.
Lack of Evidence of Existing is the PRIMARY and FUNDAMENTAL criteria for arguing for non-existence.

Once evidence of existence can be found for any entity then ALL non-existence arguments will FAIL.

It can be REASONABLY argued or theorized that Homer's Achilles did NOT exist due to LACK of EVIDENCE of existence.

It can be REASONABLY argued or theorized that Plutarch's Romulus did NOT exist due to LACK of EVIDENCE of existence.

It can be REASONABLY argued or theorized that the NT Jesus did NOT exist due to LACK of EVIDENCE of existence.

It can be REASONABLY argued or theorized that the NT's CITY of NAZARETH did NOT exist due to LACK of EVIDENCE of existence.

Josephus a 1st century writer who lived in Galilee did NOT mention a CITY called Nazareth although he mentioned villages and CITIES near to where present day Nazareth is located.

This is Josephus in the "Life of Flavius Josephus." 37 Japha should have been within two or three miles of Nazareth yet Josephus did NOT mention any CITY called Nazareth.

It is interesting to NOTE that even a cave is mentioned and NOT the CITY of Nazareth.

The available evidence from Josephus tends to help the theory that there was NO CITY called NAZARETH when Josephus was alive and lived in Galilee.

Kapyong

Gday,

Sure.

There was some religious tradition or belief about a Nazarite or Nazorean or something - a tradition that is not so clear to us now. That tradition became attached to Jesus. A NON historical tradition.

spin has made some excellent posts discussing the Nazareth / Nazorean etc. issue. You ignore it all.

But even if we cannot come up with a 100% certain non-historical reason, that does NOT mean it must have been historical.
Do you think it does?



Kapyong