spin

He received a scholarship.

mountainman

The same mystery surrounds Muhammad and the city of Mecca, neither of which appears to have existed (in the ancient historical sources) until a century after the purported events.

Power of the religious ("binding together") variety. IMO they - like the early Islamicists - were engaged in pious forgery of a centralized state monotheistic figurehead, the subject of a "Holy Writ" in the technological form of a codex, who had no historical existence.

spin

You need to take this up with the writer of Matthew responsible for 2:6 and drawing upon Micah.

The reference in Mt 2:23, which seems to be taken from Jdg 13:5,7. The Alexandrian has "He shall be a naziraios" and there have been various examples of confusion between waw and yod, especially when they are written at times indistinguishably in the DSS.

While the town name and the word for branch in Isa 11:1 share a root, it is important to understand that the gospels never use that root and always misspell the name of the town. In Hebrew נצר the root of both is spelt with a tsade as the second radical. Tsade is almost always rendered as a sigma when transliterated in from the Hebrew bible. However, Nazareth and its variants as well as Nazarene and Nazorean are all spelt with a zeta. The christian tradition doesn't support נצר as the root, but נזר, the root of Nazirite, especially in Mk 1:24 which connects Nazarene with "holy one of god", referencing LXX Jdg 13:7.

Diogenes the Cynic

Like who? Josephus wasn't born until 37. Who else lived in Palestine?

Why would Jesus have been on their radar then anyway? He was a nobody criminal. Why would a contemporary historian have ever even heard of him?

Toto

To create the apostolic succession and allow the proto-orthodox Christians to squash the gnostics. A historical Jesus was required to have transmitted authority to his successors, who transmitted it to the church hierarchy.

Mandelbrot

Considering Judges 13:5-7 is specifically about Samson you have shown no convincing reason that Matthew 2:23 is referring to anything other than a misreading of Isaiah 11:1.

outhouse

why are you here?



all you do is talk down to people with opposing views without a half hearted rebuttle.

You lack the education and knowledge to belittle people you dont have a clue about

Diogenes the Cynic

In Spin's defense on that, the way the Evangelists cut and pasted OT quotes into their Gospels often had no relationship at all the original context (Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 being a classic example).

I'm not taking a position on whether Matt used Judges, but original context does not falsify it since Mt routinely ignored original context.

spin

Beyond the claim, you've shown no connection between Mt 2:23 with Isa 11:1. The only similarity in Isa 11:1 is one word that is radically spelt differently.

[T2]LXX (A) Jdg 13:5
οτι ναζιραιον θεου εσται
Mt 2:23
οτι ναζωραιον κληθησεται[/T2]
(The major difference here is "be" v. "be called", which in itself is a difference seen in the LXX coming from Hebrew--see, eg, Hos 1:10.)

outhouse

cultural anthropology


through education, putting myself in first century Galilee imagining daily life of a traveling teacher/healer.


the main thing is that we dont just have roman authors building a completely mythical man, but a mythical deity. What we have are tell's through embarrassment that it was based on a real charactor. We see dogma after the fact trying to hide and cover up the real charactor. thats something that just doesnt pop out in hellenistic roman mythology based on judaism. And the fact is the person they are hiding fits into early first century to a T, and not just any old T, it fits perfectly with a man from Galilee.


This foundation based on OT judaism completely lacks a sun god foundation and resurrection ideas come straight from the OT not hellenistic sources. This blows carriers little tinfoil and sticks area 51 parable out of the water.



If we look at jewish mythology and the men they mythically created in the past, the mythology is apparant, like Noah, like Moses, like Abraham. But with jesus he doesnt fit any way shape or form into typical jewish mythology, written hundreds of years after the fact any historical core is so faint its close enogh to call 100% mythology. With jesus living so close to paul and the early authors the historical core is close enough to dicipher, allthough scant due to the cross cultural oral tradition.