FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Is HJ not the more likely overall explanation?
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 54 of 101 « First 4445253 54 555664 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-07-2011, 02:51 AM   #531
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
1. Jesus of Nazareth is attested in various ancient texts.

That is the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

The only real questions are whether these attestations can be shown to be independent and what were the intentions of the authors of these various texts.

Are there any more?
So why Nazareth then?

Can any mythicist here come up with an answer that supports mythicism and that is backed up by evidence and that destroys the need to ask such a question for the historical Jesus?
The simple answer is because Mark says so. The question then becomes, independent of Mark, is there any evidence that supports Mark's assertion.
dog-on is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 02:59 AM   #532
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
1. Jesus of Nazareth is attested in various ancient texts.

That is the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.

The only real questions are whether these attestations can be shown to be independent and what were the intentions of the authors of these various texts.

Are there any more?
So why Nazareth then?

Can any mythicist here come up with an answer that supports mythicism and that is backed up by evidence and that destroys the need to ask such a question for the historical Jesus?
Nazareth didn't exist in the supposed time of the supposed "historical Jesus'" advent.

Enough of a clincher for you?
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:15 AM   #533
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post

So why Nazareth then?

Can any mythicist here come up with an answer that supports mythicism and that is backed up by evidence and that destroys the need to ask such a question for the historical Jesus?
The simple answer is because Mark says so. The question then becomes, independent of Mark, is there any evidence that supports Mark's assertion.
That's not an actual answer. Please explain why Mark, who was trying to promote Jesus as the Messiah, would make up the idea that the Messiah was from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem?

Come up with an acceptable mythicist answer (backed up with evidence) and then I'll stop asking this question.

Also, Mark asserts that Jesus was from Nazareth and Matthew, Luke, and John, and Acts agree. So where's your evidence that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?
MCalavera is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:16 AM   #534
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post

So why Nazareth then?

Can any mythicist here come up with an answer that supports mythicism and that is backed up by evidence and that destroys the need to ask such a question for the historical Jesus?
Nazareth didn't exist in the supposed time of the supposed "historical Jesus'" advent.

Enough of a clincher for you?
That's an extraordinary claim. Please back it up with the needed evidence.
MCalavera is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:42 AM   #535
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

The simple answer is because Mark says so. The question then becomes, independent of Mark, is there any evidence that supports Mark's assertion.
That's not an actual answer. Please explain why Mark, who was trying to promote Jesus as the Messiah, would make up the idea that the Messiah was from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem?

Come up with an acceptable mythicist answer (backed up with evidence) and then I'll stop asking this question.

Also, Mark asserts that Jesus was from Nazareth and Matthew, Luke, and John, and Acts agree. So where's your evidence that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?
I think you missed the point. I am looking for independent attestation.
dog-on is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:45 AM   #536
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,305
Default
Make that two, good, strong cups of coffee, Dog-on.
archibald is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:48 AM   #537
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post

That's not an actual answer. Please explain why Mark, who was trying to promote Jesus as the Messiah, would make up the idea that the Messiah was from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem?

Come up with an acceptable mythicist answer (backed up with evidence) and then I'll stop asking this question.

Also, Mark asserts that Jesus was from Nazareth and Matthew, Luke, and John, and Acts agree. So where's your evidence that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?
I think you missed the point. I am looking for independent attestation.
Mark is an independent attestation. That's one. I'll have to see if Q is also another one, but I'll check that later.

For now, we have one. Where's your evidence that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?

And please answer why Mark made his Messiah be from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem.
MCalavera is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:50 AM   #538
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

I think you missed the point. I am looking for independent attestation.
Mark is an independent attestation. That's one. I'll have to see if Q is also another one, but I'll check that later.

For now, we have one. Where's your evidence that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?

And please answer why Mark made his Messiah be from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem.
Where did I ever say that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?

Mark is independent of who, exactly?
dog-on is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:54 AM   #539
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,305
Default
I think mcalvera was asking why Mark described him as being from Nazareth.
archibald is offline  
Old 10-07-2011, 03:58 AM   #540
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 314
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCalavera View Post

Mark is an independent attestation. That's one. I'll have to see if Q is also another one, but I'll check that later.

For now, we have one. Where's your evidence that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?

And please answer why Mark made his Messiah be from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem.
Where did I ever say that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth?
Ok, so please answer the question I asked about why Mark would have his Messiah be from Nazareth.

Don't you need good reasons in order to be a mythicist?

Quote:
Mark is independent of who, exactly?
You tell me. What does Mark depend on for his Jesus from Nazareth attestation?
MCalavera is offline  
 
Page 54 of 101 « First 4445253 54 555664 Last »

« 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 09:20 PM.

Top

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