aa5874

The Bethlehem birth as described is fiction. The Bethlehem birth poses no problems at all for the mythicists.

The real question is if Jesus was from Nazareth why fabricated a fictitious event where no-one saw Jesus except for Magis who followed a special star?

The fabricated Bethlehem birth stories only discredit the authors of the NT.

Now this is the problem for the historicists. Jesus was born in Bethlehem witnessed by angels and the Magis and lived in a place that may not have even existed.

If Jesus was from Nazareth why fabricate a Bethlehem story that cannot even be corroborated?

The Magis, the angels and the shepherds that saw Jesus were not written about again.

And the authors who claimed Jesus was born in Bethlehem under a special star also claimed he was conceived of the Holy Ghost. If their statements are found to be fiction, then there are no other stories about Jesus that are credible.

It is certainly not obvious that Jesus was from Nazareth, the same authors who claimed Jesus was from Nazareth claimed the disciples saw Jesus ascend through the clouds, transfigure and resurrect.

If the authors are not credible, then it cannot be assumed that any event about Jesus is true, or likely to be true, without some other external source.

Chili

But Bethlehem means house of bread and so there better be a manger there to symbolize nourishment, which in Matthew there is not.

Star light is an illusion just as the light of common day is an illusion, so now the magi were able to find the stable due West along the same path that Joseph had traveled to reach the end of his world, which was the exact place where this stable was.

One must also ask how gold, frankincense and myrrh translates into wisdom by the receiver who had reached the end of his world to get rid of his power, wealth and beauty to be exchanged for faith, hope and charity that he never knew before.

Do you think angels exist?

spamandham

There is little vagueness in the expression "the prophets". "The prophets" did not refer to some unspecified collection of prophets somewhere in the ether, it referred the Jewish scriptures excluding the first 5 books (which were known as 'the law').

There is really no doubt, that Matthew believed there was a prophecy that Jesus would be from Nazareth in the Jewish scriptures.

However, if the obvious denied, we are still left with the problem that Matthew clearly believed such a prophecy existed, else he could not expect to get away with claiming "the prophets" foretold it. The fact he believed such a prophecy existed leaves him in the quandary of having to reconcile his believed Nazareth prophecy with his believed Bethlehem prophecy.

Note that in Mark, it is never stated that Jesus was from Nazareth, and Mark is generally accepted as the earliest of the canonical gospels. Matthew and Luke came later. It's hard to say why they thought they needed to explain the Nazareth connection, even though Mark didn't.

Roger Pearse

Of course those of us who think laterally then also ask whether and how we know that the "Nazarenes" (Nazoreans, surely?) existed... The evidence for their existence is rather scant, after all.

And why should we play the "didn't exist" game selectively, why should we allow statements from other historical sources, unless we are simply rationalising something we hope is true?

I would take the view that I wouldn't allow this argument unless the person concerned could prove to me that the Nazoreans existed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

No, the form Nazwraios came later in the gospel tradition after Nazarhnos in Mark was removed by the writer of Matthew. The idea of Nazarhnos was received and is assumed by the Marcan tradition: it is not so much a part of it. It was part of an earlier tradition (as JtB seems to be).

There is no need to prove such a thing. It is sufficient to show where place of the notion lies in the development of the tradition.


spin

wordy

Could it be like "Don Juan" the alleged Shaman that was much written about
and later it came out that maybe he never existed.

What existed was three different Shamans living rather far apart and in different times too but the author of "Don Juan" created him by merging these three real historical humans.

Could not Jesus be a "story" or "narrative" created from stories about two or three or four or many many iterating preachers that lived as real historical persons there and then but maybe spread out in time and places.

I am atheist and I fail to see "jesus" as a real historical person but I find it very likely that there existed many such having different names and differing styles of preaching but the authors put their own messages into a merged "ideal" preacher portrayed as "Christ".

Christians doesn't seem to care at all. They believe in the Christ living in their hears and mind not the historical "Jesus".

aa5874

I think there are many Christians who actually believe that Jesus was a figure of history both as a man and the son of a God, during the reign of Tiberius, and it is because of his Divinty why they believe Jesus can also be in their hearts. They believe God created the universe so it is nothing for him to make his Son and call him Jesus with characteristics of human and God simultaneously.

Didymus

Christians who follow the Nicean Creed - and that's the overwhelming majority, by far - care a LOT about the historical Jesus.

Jesus' Incarnation - his becoming a man - is at the heart of the Christian message. Christians think he participated in human history in order to save mankind. Without an historical Jesus, you don't have Jesus' redemptive suffering on the cross. For Christians, that's a very big deal, and without it you don't have the Christian faith as we know it.

Of course, their belief in a god/man requires that Jesus be treated as an historical figure, not just a spirit. So Christian scholars cannot be just theologians; it's incumbent upon them to also function as historians, and that means evidence. Unfortunately for them, evidence for Jesus is scant and unreliable.

wordy

aa5874 and Didymus I apology, yes that is true. They have it in their creed and they detest the "heretics" that think the historical "Jesus" to be only a story or a symbol.

But in the end. Enough of the Christians would still be believers if archeological evidence showed that the bible was made up by Roman hierarchy doing political spin doctoring theology cause it worked for them to keep power.

What I mean is that they are always good at finding ways out of such conflicts with reality. Their felt experience is more important to them than what historical or archeological evidence tell them.

Dinosars doesn't seem to change how the Intelligent Design people look at God?

When I say that christians doesn't care about the historical Jesus and that they acts as if they care about the present Christ in their hearts I mean they don't give up on their relation to the present Jesus they only change interpretation of the relation unless they become atheist or agnostic which a few of them do too.

but most seems to just keep the current views.

I doubt they really relate to the historical Jesus, they relate to the present experience of the living God but refer to the historical Jesus to be the true originator of that present God they believe in.

bacht

If you're saying that humans are good at deluding themselves I can only agree. I wouldn't restrict this to just Christians or even just religionists.

"Give a monkey a brain and he thinks he's the centre of the universe"
[some music group, don't have the cite]