maryhelena

Indeed, no prophecy re Nazareth - but..................you know what.....that could very well be the point! Because, bottom line in all of this - the gospel JC story is not just about OT prophecy. There is a 'marriage' there - a very unexpected marriage - between prophecy and mythology. (The dying and rising god mythology being ancient). Two primary strands to the gospel JC story - prophecy and Bethlehem. And Nazareth and mythology - the nowhere place (not meaning non-historical but a backwater type of place). The backwater place where lurks dragons.....

Without getting into the ins and outs of the linguistic approach to Nazareth - looks where it ends up in gLuke. The Holy Spirit (OK aa5874 - the Holy Ghost....) and the divine conception. Mythology to it's core.

Iskander

List of people who have been considered deities


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...idered_deities

archibald

Very interesting Iskander. I will peruse that later, for comparison purposes.

Could you peruse it yourself and see if there are any candidates you think could be added to my new thread? You would be just the man to start it off!

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=307325

J-D

I'm talking specifically about the fact that it appears to refer to people discussing an individual who was publicly known as a human. But maybe it's different from what you had in mind. I have no way of knowing unless you choose to explain.Congratulations! Well observed. Clearly your eyesight is working.

Did you want some answers? Which questions would you like answers to?Okay, I've examined them. Does that help?

DCHindley

Don't need to suck up to Spin. He just does his basic homework, as do I. He's not an apologist, although he certainly does like to have his fun with them when they advance arguments based on what he considers ignorance of the facts at hand.

And clever is what clever does, as Forrest Gump might say.

Sorry, but I do not recall any responses by anybody that directly dealt with the parts of 1 Cor 15 cited by Irenaeus. Maybe I missed them, as I did not look too closely at that part of the thread. I have nothing personal against Archibald, and he does not seem to have anything personal against me, so I think you must have read that slight into my post.

If anyone wants to re-open this discussion about Spin's textual evidence for vss 5-11 being missing in one of the versions of 1 Cor used by irenaeus, in the Interpolations in 1 Cor 15 thread, I'd be happy to follow up. And no, I will not even bring up my highly speculative and certainly wrong and woe to the author hypothesis about interpolations (which was posted much earlier in the thread).

DCH

gurugeorge

There's nothing wrong with assumptions, it just seems that MClavera is gaily oblivious to the ones he's making - but, from what I understand of the academic study of history, the questions I asked ("who", "when", "in what context") are the questions that have to be - not necessarily conclusively answered, but at least considered - before you can draw historical conclusions with any degree of confidence.

History isn't just "stuff that happened in the past", it's "stuff you think happened in the past that you think you can support with evidence and argument". That it's often inconclusive is par for the course - even Socrates has been doubted. Buddha has been doubted. Laozi is most certainly doubted nowadays.

But for some reason when it comes to JC, everyone gets their panties in a bunch. Suddenly we have hysterical rationalists who think the idea that he didn't exist is so intrinsically absurd that any rationalist who considers the position is tainting rationalism with their idiocy.

archibald

Won't disagree with any of that, George. Anyone, on any side, who expresses certainty or sureness over such a thing has to be amiss.

aa5874

What a CONTRADICTORY post!!!! You have EXPOSED that you have some kind of problem with your memory or concentration.

I know EVERYBODY read my POST FIRST and CANNOT find a SINGLE fault with my position.

No one at all can CHALLENGE my position. NO-ONE. From DOHERTY to EHRMAN.

HJ of Nazareth is a MYTH derived from Ghost stories of antiquity.

J-D

Some statements in surviving texts refer to a Galilean called Jesus who was crucified on the orders of Pilate.

There are other statements in the same documents which cannot be historically true, but the fact that a document contains statements which are not historically true does not prove that none of the statements it contains are historically true. Ancient texts which you have cited as historical sources contain some statements which cannot be historically true.

MCalavera

Red herrings.