Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Look, you dodged the question, and lamely claim that it's not relevant. Why not just admit you don't have an answer?

Um, no. The question is irrelevant to whether or not the surviving evidence, that is the texts, can be shown to have derived from independent sources.

Edit:
And since I am feeling gracious. Exactly where does Mark say that Jesus was "born" in Nazareth? All Mark claims is that at some time, Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee. Which could easily mean that this was where he was prior to where he came to meet John...

Sigh.

It does NOT matter if Mark didn't say Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Mark associated Nazareth with the supposed Messiah. So why Nazareth and not Bethlehem?

Does not Micah 5:2 say he should be FROM Bethlehem?

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Judge:

Yours is a question that has been discussed here a lot. 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. As much as he would have liked to be able to say Jesus of Bethlehem he was stuck with a bit of well known biography.

This is very clear when we look at the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Wanting badly to place Jesus in Bethlehem in spite of his association with Nazareth they concoct different and sometimes contradictory accounts for how Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem after all. This is what you would expect were they trying to polish up the resume of a real person from Nazareth, not what you would expect if they were free to place him wherever they wanted.

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

Steve

Exactly my point!

aa5874 · 10-07-2011, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Judge:

Yours is a question that has been discussed here a lot. 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. As much as he would have liked to be able to say Jesus of Bethlehem he was stuck with a bit of well known biography....

You promote propaganda and LOGICAL FALLACIES. It is completely ridiculous to assume Jesus of gMark was born in Nazareth when gMark is Part of the Canon of the Church and it is EXPLAINED in the SAME CANON that Jesus was BORN in BETHLEHEM.

Are you AWARE that in gMark that Pilate was NOT even called a Governor or procurator of Judea?

Are you AWARE that in gMark that Pilate was NOT even called Pontius Pilate?

Are you AWARE that in gMark that there is virtually nothing known of PILATE?

Would it NOT be WHOLLY ABSURD for you to argue that Pilate in gMark was a FISHERMAN and a JEW?

Well, you are equally illogical to argue that Jesus in gMark of the CANON was NOT born in Bethlehem when the Jesus of gMark WALKED on water, Transfigured and was RAISED from the dead just like the Jesus of gMatthew and gLuke that was born in Bethlehem.

It is most unreasonable to expect all of gMark to be identical to all the Gospels.

You IMPOSE ridiculous double standards to support your fallacies about HJ of Nazareth and use Ghost stories for history.

The Jesus of gMark TRANSFIGURED and WALKED on water so I don't even care where you want him to be born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

....This is very clear when we look at the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Wanting badly to place Jesus in Bethlehem in spite of his association with Nazareth they concoct different and sometimes contradictory accounts for how Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem after all. This is what you would expect were they trying to polish up the resume of a real person from Nazareth, not what you would expect if they were free to place him wherever they wanted.....

What a complete illogical statement. Based on your absurdities, Jesus was really BELIEVED to be a Child of a Ghost since Even though, gMark made no claim that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, the author of gMatthew and gLuke were COMPELLED to write CONTRADICTORY BIRTH NARRATIVES of a Ghost Child.

This is what WE would expect if Jesus was really BELIEVED to be the Child of a Ghost.

They were FREE to claim Jesus had a human father but chose a Ghost instead.

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Why do we need a “mythicist” answer for Nazareth in GMark? I think we can examine the question in a way that is neutral with regards to the Christ myth.

Because, assuming mythicism, we deserve to know why the author of Mark would made up Nazareth as his hometown instead of Bethlehem knowing what Micah 5:2 says.

Quote:

At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.” Mark 1:9.

This is the single mention of the town of Ναζαρὲτ in the gospel of Mark. {Some translations put "Nazareth" in Mark 1:24 and 10:7, but these should be "Nazarene" instead}

So if you agree that one verse mentions Nazareth, what's your problem? Is it that you want to believe what you want to believe and not what the texts actually state?

Quote:

I don’t know of a significant textual variation for Mark 1:9 in the extant texts, but the extant texts are too late to help us here. Another way to look at it is, can we name a single citation of Mark 1:9 use of Nazareth in the patristic writings? Again, I don’t know of any.

lol, this is just too funny. So you don't want to accept that verse, do you? What about the other verses? Oh, yeah, you say they state "Nazarene". Ok ...

Quote:

But we do have witnesses to an earlier text of Mark, namely the gospels of Matthew and Luke. When these two both omit something in Mark’s gospel (as with the wild beasts of Mark 1:13 just a few verses later) we are justified in questioning whether the canonical text of mark has been redacted from the earlier versions(s) used by the other synoptic evangelists.

No, you are not justified. Because you need to first provide evidence that there was an earlier version of Mark which Matthew and Luke used.

Ad hoc hypothesis is ad hoc hypothesis.

Quote:

Allowing for Matthew's usual paraphrasing of Mark, Matt 3:13 is entirely equivalent to Mark 1:9, except that Matthew doesn't have "Nazareth;" Jesus merely comes from Galilee!

Doesn't matter. Matthew had already mentioned Nazareth before then in Matthew 2 anyway. Maybe Matthew just didn't like how Jesus was associated with Nazareth.

Quote:

Matthew either dropped "Nazareth" from GMark or it wasn't in his copy. But if Matthew's copy of GMark did mention Nazareth at 1:9, why would Matthew have removed it?

It doesn't matter if he mentions it elsewhere various times, though.

Quote:

To the contrary, Nazareth was not the hometown of Jesus in GMark. Apparently Capernaum was the home of Jesus. "When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home." Mark 2:1.

That's because he lived in Capernaum for a while according to the Synoptic Gospels. Doesn't mean much for your position.

Actually, this brings me another question: why Capernaum anyway?

Quote:

The case for the omission in Luke is not quite so clear. Nazareth is missing from Luke’s baptism scene 3:21-22. But with Luke 4:14, “Jesus returned to Galilee” we find the bookend to Matthews 3:13 “Jesus came from Galilee" to the Jordan. In both Luke and Matthew, Jesus came to the Jordan from Galilee, but not specifically Nazareth.

As said before, Nazareth is mentioned various times elsewhere.

Your selective observation logical fallacy is noted.

Quote:

Thus we are left with the likelihood that Matthew invented Jesus being from the town of "Nazareth" from his bewildering "prophecy" in Matthew 2:23. Whatever Matthew had in mind, it shows his lack of understanding concerning the Jewish scriptures.

Or, rather, he tried to desperately find support in the OT for this historical truth that he hated so much: that Jesus was historically from Nazareth instead of from Bethlehem.

He didn't make up the Nazareth bit because you see it in Mark.

Quote:

The author of Mathew may have had in mind some such passage as the following:

Quote:

"For, 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:" Judges 13:5.

Perhaps Matthew didn't know what Nazarene meant, confused it with Nazarite, and compounded the error by assigning Jesus to the town Nazareth (fictious or not) to explain the whole thing.

Ad hoc again. Matthew was simply using the OT in vain to support the supposed Messiah being historically from Nazareth ... not as an excuse to make him from Nazareth.

My evidence for this is that Nazareth was already mentioned in Mark and that Matthew went out of his way to make the Messiah be from Bethlehem (although he was forced to eventually associate Nazareth with Jesus later on).

So what's your evidence for your argument?

Quote:

I would suggest that "Nazareth" was inserted into the text of Mark 1:9. It was perhaps a marginal gloss that was copied into the text by a careless scribe. And while this isn't in any way a "mythicist" answer, it is consistent with mythicism.

So in other words, you implicitly admit it's just speculations, nothing more.

As expected from the mythicists.

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Edit:
And since I am feeling gracious. Exactly where does Mark say that Jesus was "born" in Nazareth? All Mark claims is that at some time, Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee.

This is what MCalavera said here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mcalavera

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?

But you still don't get it.

Why would Mark associate a messiah with Nazareth?

Mythicists have no answer, and your non-answer dodges the issue.

It's very amusing how they dodge the question with their ad hoc speculating.

Toto · 10-07-2011, 07:51 AM

Mark is not independent of other literary sources if all the other sources that mention Nazareth used Mark as a source.

You can find numerous threads on the Nazareth issue - it's been done to death. It's not decisive for any position and there's no point obsessing over it.

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mark is not independent of other literary sources if all the other sources that mention Nazareth used Mark as a source.

You can find numerous threads on the Nazareth issue - it's been done to death. It's not decisive for any position and there's no point obsessing over it.

Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that, Toto. You just might end up being right.

dog-on · 10-07-2011, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Um, no. The question is irrelevant to whether or not the surviving evidence, that is the texts, can be shown to have derived from independent sources.

Edit:
And since I am feeling gracious. Exactly where does Mark say that Jesus was "born" in Nazareth? All Mark claims is that at some time, Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee. Which could easily mean that this was where he was prior to where he came to meet John...

Sigh.

It does NOT matter if Mark didn't say Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Mark associated Nazareth with the supposed Messiah. So why Nazareth and not Bethlehem?

Does not Micah 5:2 say he should be FROM Bethlehem?

Sigh...

I will type slowly.

Mark Never Claims That Jesus Was Born In Nazareth.

The only "association" being that Nazareth is where Jesus was prior to getting dunked.

In fact, Mark never mentions where Jesus was born, at all. The closest he comes is the reference to Capernuam being Jesus' home.

Stop reading Matthew into Mark.

MCalavera · 10-07-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Sigh.

It does NOT matter if Mark didn't say Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Mark associated Nazareth with the supposed Messiah. So why Nazareth and not Bethlehem?

Does not Micah 5:2 say he should be FROM Bethlehem?

Sigh...

I will type slowly.

Mark Never Claims That Jesus Was Born In Nazareth.

The only "association" being that Nazareth is where Jesus was prior to getting dunked.

In fact, Mark never mentions where Jesus was born, at all. The closest he comes is the reference to Capernuam being Jesus' home.

Stop reading Matthew into Mark.

Wow, you totally just missed the point. I'm saying it doesn't matter if Mark didn't claim he was born there. But he did say he was FROM there.

So why the association?

Do you have counter evidence by the way that he was not born there? Let's see ...

dog-on · 10-07-2011, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Sigh...

I will type slowly.

Mark Never Claims That Jesus Was Born In Nazareth.

The only "association" being that Nazareth is where Jesus was prior to getting dunked.

In fact, Mark never mentions where Jesus was born, at all. The closest he comes is the reference to Capernuam being Jesus' home.

Stop reading Matthew into Mark.

Wow, you totally just missed the point. I'm saying it doesn't matter if Mark didn't claim he was born there. But he did say he was FROM there.

So why the association?

Do you have counter evidence by the way that he was not born there? Let's see ...

Where, exactly does Mark claim that Jesus was from Nazareth?

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

10-07-2011, 07:51 AM	#566
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Mark is not independent of other literary sources if all the other sources that mention Nazareth used Mark as a source. You can find numerous threads on the Nazareth issue - it's been done to death. It's not decisive for any position and there's no point obsessing over it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.