Huon

Those who are interested could have a look at the following thread :
spin on Nazareth split from I Little Help About Krishna Account
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142712

FathomFFI

The Gospel textual evidence indicates clearly that Jesus had his own house in Capernaum.

Watch carefully please ...

In the above, we see Jesus entering Capernaum, and in Mark 2.15 we see him reclining in his house. Many people mistakenly think that Jesus followed Levi to Levi's house, but that is not what the text from Mark says. The text shows that Levi is following Jesus, and not Jesus following Levi to Levi's house.

It is the later Lucian Gospel which makes this house the house of Levi, but in Mark it is clearly Jesus' own house. Mind you, none of this should be anything new to most of you.

There is an argument that Jesus lived at Peter's house in Capernaum.

Antipope Innocent II

And rlogan keeps totally failing to grasp the significance of that key point.

FathomFFI

You know, this entire argument hinges on the assumption that the supposed prophecy in Matthew must be found in the Old Testament in order to be valid.

Has anyone failed to consider the lost books of Hebrew scripture that are not in the Bible? So many of these lost scriptures are mentioned in the bible. Even St Jude is quoting from one:

Jud 1:9 But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, "Let the Lord rebuke you!"

jjramsey

That would be more significant if Matthew had a habit of quoting prophecies from sources other than the OT, and especially the Septuagint, and the Septuagint is definitely not lost.

patcleaver

According to the rules of logic and evidence, the positive proposition has to be proven before it should be believed.

The negative proposition is simply a denial that the positive proposition has been proven, and the denial should be presumed to be true until the positive proposition has been proved.

The negative proposition does not have to provide any evidence, and is simply presumed to be true, until the positive proposition is proven to be true.

There is no god is presumed to be true, until the existence of god is proven.

Jesus is a myth is presumed true, until the existence of a historical Jesus is proven.

The gospels are fiction is presumed to be true until it is proven that the gospels are reliable. There are things in the gospels that are true just like there are things in Moby Dick that are true, but the fact that they are in today's gospels is not evidence that they are true. Even if you proved that the gospels were histories, then you would have to prove that Jesus really said each part that it is written that he said, because in ancient histories dialogs were invented. Even if you proved that the Gospels were histories, every part of the gospels would still be presumed to be an interpolation until you proved that the part was authentic.

There was no town in Galilee called Nazareth in the first century is presumed to be true until it is proven that there was a town called Nazareth in Galilee in the first century. We would not believe that Pontius Pilot or Herod were real people unless we had independent verification that they were real people, and we would be correct to believe that they were myths if we did not have other evidence besides the gospels that they were real.

Do you have any evidence or just bald assertions of mythology?

spamandham

I think you're making the same mistake fathomffi is making, which is that this is a historical inquiry rooted entirely in assessing likelihoods, rather than a debate, court case, or a deductive proof.

There are no 'rules of evidence' per se, other than the theorems of probability - assuming we could numerically bound the probabilities.

judge

Matthew does not always agree with the septuagint though, so he appears to quote from other sources than just it.

rlogan

Not one of the prophecies about "Jesus" are either true nor is he even the subject of them in the Hebrew Bible.

This one is exactly the same. You wish to make an artificial distinction between the numerous ways in which the HB prophecies are mistranslated. I cited other examples of the same thing above. It is not unique.


Gladly concede that when Matthew is so insistant about it being there we well ought to find it. And in this case lifting Isaiah 11:1 turns out to be a pretty interesting play on words/spelling with NAZER. It is in complete comportment with the entire Christian Midrash hijacking of the Hebrew Bible.

Solitary Man

While we may not have direct evidence of the extent Greek, that Matthew clearly quotes from Greek sources can be demonstrated. Matthew may have been going from memory, or he may have altered the text, or he may have been using a revision of the Greek no longer extant (we have several versions ourselves). But there's far too much evidence that he in fact used the Greek.