Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 10-08-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ah, why Nazareth?

You know, it amazes me when I sometimes read arguments along the lines of - if it's fiction why not get the story correct, why write in contradictions etc. The obvious answer is - why not. Why should a story regarding a fictional figure have to be running a straight line? Did such people forget about mystery writing, puzzles, drama etc. It really is, to my mind, simplistic to imagine the gospel writers were going to spell out in the finest detail their JC story. Did not JC, himself, speak in parables? Seek and you will find - is that not the advise - not read word for word literally. Well, something like that - I'm sure you get my point....

No, not quite. The point hee is, Mark is offered not simply as fiction, but as allegory, where the characters OT credentials are important.

OK - I've just used 'fiction' very broadly - as in storytelling. Of course, Mark is more than simple fiction - as is the whole gospel JC story. Chock-a-block full of allegory, symbolism, prophecy, numerology, mythology, theology - all there to tell the JC story.

archibald · 10-08-2011, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Finally, whether or not this city ever existed and whether or not this man was claimed by some to be from it is quite possibly trivial beyond measure. It does nothing to bolster or undermine a historical Jesus core.

I largely agree with you (not sure if him coming from there is not a slight indicator, at least against the idea of Mark as OT allegory, which does get some airplay)...

but...why did you yourself add it to your point, just before:

Quote:

Add to that the very real dearth of evidence that there was a place called "Nazareth" during the time in question.....

Btw, why do you say 'a very real dearth'?

Not that it matters a lot. I think we can agree on that. :]

Actually, some of your other points don't make sense either......

The one about nazareth not getting a mention until much later?

Quote:

You have yet to address the very real possibility that "Nazareth" was the result of inadvertent word play as the legend propagated orally. This is a very likely and parsimonious explanation of the evidence. Being a "Nazarene" had nothing to do with geography. Instead it was accomplished by complying with a particular lifestyle regimen. It would only take one person along the way to be unfamiliar with this detail for the word to become a place of origin for the subject of the legend rather than a descriptive lifestyle choice. This possibility is heavily supported by the very real fact that "Nazareth" as a place is never mentioned in history until these legends have had several decades to gestate orally.

I take the point about the Nazarene sect possibility.....very much so, but on a very trivial level, your last line.......surely Nazareth must have existed, or, how could anyone even make the mistake of confusing the two things (sect and village)? Not sure what your point is there.

maryhelena · 10-08-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

How dare Jesus actually exist!!!

How dare he not exist is the more appropriate premise - there is more at stake for the believers in a HJ than for the minority of MJ believers....:devil3:

Iskander · 10-08-2011, 06:43 AM

See how the mustard seed has grown
My kingdom comes from such as this
See how the mustard seed has grown

Doug Shaver · 10-08-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Your methodology is just crap, aa5874.

That's why most of us who have been here a while usually ignore him.

gurugeorge · 10-08-2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

You've got a couple of rather giant assumptions there. You're assuming that the gospels are meant as:

a) historical testimony; and

b) historical testimony of a human being.

I'm assuming that we can glean out historical truths from it. And I demonstrated this with that post I made. Please give it a good read.:wave:

I have read it, and it depends on those assumptions I outlined. It may be possible to glean historical truths from the bible, but you first need to show that and how it's possible.

For example, do you know who wrote the gospels, when and in what context?

Those are questions you'd need to sort out first, otherwise you are making those two assumptions, which are two too many for Ockham.

OTOH, as speculation, there's nothing wrong with what you wrote. It's one logically possible speculation, amongst many, including several variations of HJ and several variations of MJ

Doug Shaver · 10-08-2011, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The parsimonious answer is that Mark promoted a Jesus from Nazareth because that is really where he came from and lots of folks in Mark's day knew it.

It would be a parsimonious answer if "What town was Jesus from?" were the only unanswered question about Christianity's origins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The answers I have seen thus far would appeal only to those who came from an unshakable preconception that no Jesus ever existed.

And how shakable is your preconception that he did exist?

archibald · 10-08-2011, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

OK - I've just used 'fiction' very broadly - as in storytelling. Of course, Mark is more than simple fiction - as is the whole gospel JC story. Chock-a-block full of allegory, symbolism, prophecy, numerology, mythology, theology - all there to tell the JC story.

yeeeeessss....sooooooo....

would you agree that if he didn't exist, and that a religiously motivated writer had carte blanche (that is to say had not heard a story previously, true or otherwize) to pick somewhere suitable........

All I'm thinking is that given carte blanche, a writer so keen on messianic credentials would've likely picked somewhere else. These guys were hot on Prophecy in scriptures after all. As seen later, when someone else felt it necessary to relocate him.

I'm not by any means thinking of it as any kind of clincher. Even at best, it can hint at no more than that the writer may have heard a story.

archibald · 10-08-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

You've got a couple of rather giant assumptions there. You're assuming that the gospels are meant as:

a) historical testimony; and

b) historical testimony of a human being.

I'm assuming that we can glean out historical truths from it. And I demonstrated this with that post I made. Please give it a good read.:wave:

I have read it, and it depends on those assumptions I outlined. It may be possible to glean historical truths from the bible, but you first need to show that and how it's possible.

For example, do you know who wrote the gospels, when and in what context?

Those are questions you'd need to sort out first, otherwise you are making those two assumptions, which are two too many for Ockham.

OTOH, as speculation, there's nothing wrong with what you wrote. It's one logically possible speculation, amongst many, including several variations of HJ and several variations of MJ

Hi George, sorry for repeatedly butting in, but, I think the thing is that neither 'side' of this multi-faceted debate can anchor ANY of their 'construction' in anything solid. So, since it's equally true of all of us, I'm not sure it's adding much to say that one poster should look for any more axioms than any other. Everbody has to temporarily and provisionally set certain things aside when discussing any one point, so I'm not sure if 'assuming' is correct.

In My opinion, the construction with the fewer 'struts' is HJ. Slightly. Occam mightn't say we're not all using unsupported struts. He might just count them.

As such, I just think there's a bit of pot calling kettle black by those who say the other is making assumptions. Ok, by those who reach a conclusion, I suppose. True agnostics are exempt.

archibald · 10-08-2011, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Your methodology is just crap, aa5874.

That's why most of us who have been here a while usually ignore him.

Hi Doug.

Poor aa5874. And now he has started a very interesting-seeming thread with a good question about how Jesus is seemingly described in Iraeneus as reaching 50 years of age....but it's too late....very few are paying him any serious attention. :]

Actually, he does have one good point, though he overplays it hideously, IMO, and I am just now going to start a thread in which------shock announcement---I am going to agree with him, to some extent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-08-2011, 06:43 AM	#674
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	See how the mustard seed has grown My kingdom comes from such as this See how the mustard seed has grown

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.