Ferryman to the Dead

No, what does seem likely however that no Nazareth existed in the 1st Century. There is absolutely no mention of the city in the OT. Arguments from silence work when there is evidence that no such animal existed as the Christians present. Arguments from silence work when no contemporary of his time ever mentions the city. Odd how a man of this caliber just got completely over looked by history entirely.

No theres not. If you but into the lie that is espouted by the Chrisitian fathers of the time. Lest we forget that the early christians destroyed much of the early manuscripts simply because it would have led to the uncovering of their lie.

aa5874

Repeat what? These facts?


The MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

HJ is EXTREMELY weak and HOPELESSLY flawed based on IMAGINATION.

Any one can repeat the FACTS for an INFINITE amount of time.

Juststeve

Kapyong:

never mind

Kapyong

Gday Steve,

Let's deal with one issue then -

The MJ theories generally claim that the Jesus story was based on previous ideas or themes or books.

e.g Earl Doherty argues that much of the Jesus story was crafted from episodes in the Tanakh, and themes of mid-platonism.

And AcharyaS claims the story is based on astrotheology.

No MJer that I know of claims it was "made up from whole cloth". Perhaps you should avoid this vague phrase and make your claim more specific and clear.


If you actually want to discuss the JM argument, don't you think you should try and learn what the JM thesis says ?

Your whole argument seems to boil down to :

"Either it's made up from whole cloth, or its true history. But it can't possibly be made up from whole cloth, so therefore it's true history".


Kapyong

GakuseiDon

You know, it used to be that people argued that the Old Testament's so-called 'prophecies' about Jesus listed in the Gospels so badly distorted the OT texts, that it was evidence that Jesus didn't fit the OT picture, and that early Christians had to twist the OT texts (unsuccessfully!) to try to show that. The Gospel of Mark's author was a dummy; he wrote bad Greek and didn't really understand the OT passages, which is why the Gospel Jesus is so unlike the passages in the OT.

Now it seems to be that the Gospel Jesus details fit the OT texts so well, that it is evidence that the OT is the actual origin of those details. Mark is a genius! He really knew his Hebrew Scriptures.

There seems to be a principle at work when it comes to ancient people's cognitive abilities, which is what I call the "they were as stupid as necessary" principle, or "convenient stupidity". Whatever the theory, just keep lowering the expectations of ancient people's intelligence, and the theory will eventually work. Gospels were fiction, and no-one picked this up? Check, the early historicist Christians were an uneducated lot. All the letters in the New Testament -- and I do mean ALL letters apparently -- were written by people who didn't believe in a historical Jesus, and this is what proto-orthodoxy selected for what later became canon? Check, they just didn't know better. I mean, they knew enough to fill the canon with First Century writings -- they actually went out and SELECTED them -- but not enough to understand their source. The proto-orthodox wanted to prove apostolic succession, but couldn't get one lousy forged letter into the New Testament? They were obviously incompetent. Or they just didn't care. Maybe they though "Acts" was enough, and they could just pass along the non-historical letters, with only a few interpolations to promote historicity.

Maybe it all works, but it seems unlikely, at least to me. But it makes for interesting reading.

Juststeve

Don:

First, I refuse to take responsibility for what other people used to argue, is that fair?

Second, my statement was that there is no prophesy which says the Messiah would be called a Nazorean in the Hebrew Bible. Do you agree with that statement? If so we must discard the theory that this detail about Jesus came from the Hebrew Bible.

Third I argued that it is unlikely that the author of Matthew would choose the village of Nazareth as the place to which Jesus returned after Egypt to fulfil a nonexistent prophesy. He may however have been forced by history to put Jesus in Nazareth and tried to capitalize on the similarity of the words to make a prophetic point illegitimately. If Matthew was free to make up details as he would he would have had Jesus live in Bethlehem, big apologetics points for that and no possibility of contradiction if there never was a Jesus from Nazareth..

Fourth I suggested that it is not just Matthew that identifies Jesus with Nazareth, it is the other three gospels and the book of acts as well, none of whom suggest a connection to a supposed Nazorean prophesy. Therefore I suggested that Jesus was identified with Nazareth for some reason other than to fulfil a nonexistent prophesy or to make apologetic points. My contender is that there really was a Jesus who came from Nazareth. So far I have seen no other explanation for these facts.

Steve

Juststeve

Kapyong:

I'm happy to deal with a theory but I would prefer to deal with one at a time, preferably yours. What is your theory for how Jesus came to be know as Jesus of Nazareth if there really was no person from Nazareth called Jesus, or the Aramaic equivalent thereof? Set out your theory and we can see how well it accounts for the known facts.

Steve

Toto

Christians like CS Lewis wrote that the gospels were in such rough, bad Greek that they must have been written by unsophisticated fishermen who were too stupid to make stuff up. Later Christians have abandoned this idea.

Scholarship does progress.

I'm not sure you can say that no one picked it up.

As I have argued before, their concerns were not ours. Yes, they selected letters that had been written by gnostics who did not have a historical Jesus in mind. The proto-orthodox added a few key phrases in Paul's letters to be sure that they conformed to the correct theology, and they added Acts.

They weren't trying to prove the historicity of Jesus. They didn't think that way. And it was a big tent movement, so they took a little from here and there.

spin

This is just plain meaningless. An argument from silence that supplies likelihood? Terrific philosophical move there.

The Johnny One-note response being played out.

Still no improvement. You said it all previously. How many times can you repeat the same unsubstantiable claim? Yeah, I know, as many times as it takes to make it sound like you've got an argument... which will be never in this case.

You still haven't got it. The old saw is simple enough for you to understand: the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Do try to think about it. Herod's grandfather is never mentioned anywhere, so he mustn't have existed.

Wow, nice non sequitur. We were talking about Nazareth, not men.

You seem to be assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate the claim that it is a lie. (I'm assuming the lie refers to Nazareth's existence. If not, I don't know what you are talking about here.)

MOTSOS

I have no problem with the notion that the religion we see is the product of early manipulation, texts being reworked, figures being pariahed, . I simply think that attempts to waste time over the existence of Nazareth are misguided at best. It doesn't explain anything, but gives the more gormless atheist the opportunity to cry "Nazareth didn't exist, so it's all bullshit!!!" That's just public autoeroticism.


spin

Ferryman to the Dead

Wrong Judges 13:5 this prophecy does:

Judges 13:5 (King James Version)

5For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

Whic is where Matthew 2:23 wrote from, or should I say copy from.