Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 09-15-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

My take on Matthew is this. 1) He was writing about an historical figure about whom certain facts were known. 2) He believed it would advance his argument about the importance of Jesus, particularly among a Jewish Audience, if he could show he some of those facts had been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. 3) In an effort to do just that he mined the Hebrew Scriptures, often twisting them to his purpose, to show that Jesus really does appear in the Hebrew Bible.

The example you give shows this process in action. There is no prophesy in the Hebrew Bible that says the Messiah will be know as a Nazorean. The word Nazorean never appears in the Hebrew Bible. No prophet ever uses the word to describe the Messiah. This is something the author of Matthew made up to make the most he could out of the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth. He most certainly didn’t place Jesus in Nazareth to fulfill a nonexistent prophesy. Why would he?

The point is that Jesus being "from Nazareth" is not part of the earliest traditions. It's not in Paul or Mark (barring the anomoly at 1:9) which precede Matt. Matt is the first person to place Jesus "in Nazareth". It looks more like the synoptic writers subsequent to Mark didn't know what to do with Mark's "Nazarene" and made a bunch of literay gymnastics to place him in Nazareth due to the two words' first two syllables sounding the same.

Why Jesus from Nazareth? Well, why Jesus from Nazara?

Juststeve · 09-15-2010, 09:29 AM

Show no Mercy:

Your point is that Mark doesn't depict Jesus as from Nazareth except when he does, and then its an anomaly. No, that can't be your point.

Steve.

show_no_mercy · 09-15-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Show no Mercy:

Your point is that Mark doesn't depict Jesus as from Nazareth except when he does, and then its an anomaly. No, that can't be your point.

Steve.

No, this can't be your point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Juststeve - you are walking into a trap. This particular issue has been discused here in detail and things are not what they seem.

Mark only says that Jesus "came from Nazareth in Galilee." But the corresponding verse in Matt omits Nazareth. It seems at least possible, if not probable, that the reference to Nazareth in our current version of Mark is a later addition, and Matt used an earlier edition that lacked it. This leaves no reference to Nazareth in the earliest source.

If you are going to start a thread on Nazareth, you might want to search the archives for everything else that has been posted on Nazareth and the possible reasons for its inclusion in the legend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

[*]Can you explain why the earliest gospel records indicate that the town was called Nazara? If you check ordinary scholarly new testament texts they give Mt 4:13 and Lk 4:16, you'll find ναζαρα, which is also the earliest form of Mt 2:23 (being

Papyrus 70).

This means that if you accept that the birth narrative was additive to Luke, "Nazareth" doesn't occur anywhere in the main text, only several times in the birth narrative. At the same time, Matt only has "nazareth" in non-synoptic materials, ie secondary materials. Although it follows more closely its source, Mark, Matt doesn't feature the one exemplar of Nazareth in our current Mark (Mk 1:9), though, had it been in Mark, there would be no logical reason to suppress it in favor of Galilee. (my emphasis)

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Luke and John also use Matt's derived word ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΣ. Mark consistently uses Nazarene (ΝΑΖΑΡΗΝΟΣ) except for the outlier at 1:9 which Toto and spin already addressed.

You seem to only be reading select responses in this thread.

So can you answer the question to your own thread? Why Jesus Of Nazara (Matt 4:13 / Luke 4:16)?

spamandham · 09-15-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Spamandham:

My take on Matthew is this. 1) He was writing about an historical figure about whom certain facts were known. 2) He believed it would advance his argument about the importance of Jesus, particularly among a Jewish Audience, if he could show he some of those facts had been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. 3) In an effort to do just that he mined the Hebrew Scriptures, often twisting them to his purpose, to show that Jesus really does appear in the Hebrew Bible.

But this isn't the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation in regard to fulfilled prophecies is that they are literary creations, and other 'fulfilled prophecies' prove this out. For example, Jesus is born of a virgin in the birth narratives to fulfill prophecy. Jesus is heralded by John the baptist to fulfill prophecy. Jesus rides into town on both a colt and an ass to fulfill prophecy (because the authors couldn't figure out what the scriptures really meant). Jesus is born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy. Jesus grows up in Egypt to fulfill prophecy. None of these things actually happened, they are all literary creations.

Quote:

The example you give shows this process in action. There is no prophesy in the Hebrew Bible that says the Messiah will be know as a Nazorean.

Ancient Jews used other scriptures beside simply the canonical Old Testament we have, for example, the books of Enoch were very popular at the time. I don't think it's reasonable to say that Matthew invented and quoted a prophecy no-one was familiar with and then claimed it had been fulfilled. That's just about the worst counter argument you could make. If Jesus being from Nazareth was simply incidental, the gospels would not have emphasized it so.

Further, there is in fact an OT messianic prophecy that applies, so the idea that the author had to come up with a novel way of meshing all these things together is pretty reasonable:

Isaiah 9:1-2
Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan -- The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.

Quote:

We could have a very long discussion about Matthew’s misuse and abuse of Hebrew Scripture. It was as though he was on a scavenger hunt through the Hebrew Bible for anything that sounded or could be made to sound like Jesus. That would have been unnecessary if his writings about Jesus were on a blank slate.

There are direct references by name to lost noncanonical scriptures within the OT. It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that ancient Jews had a much wider variety of texts they considered "scripture" than what we have today.

FYI, the Hebrew Bible did not exist when Matthew was writing.

aa5874 · 09-15-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The only reason I join this debate is because I’m put off by the dogmatic position taken by the Mythers. Claiming to know with certainty that some guy from Nazareth didn’t exist 2000 years ago gives skeptical thought a bad name.

This is just your strawman.

Of the people on this board who are a-historicist, very few would claim certainty (I think only aa5874 does), and not all are mythicists.

Why do you KEEP on mis-representing my position.

I have CONSISTENTLY and CONSTANTLY demonstrated that the MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

Again, MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

Please, Please, Please. Only repeat what I write.

These are some of the FACTS that have enabled me to PROMOTE the MJ theory.

Quote:

1. Jesus was described as a MYTH in the NT Canon.

2. Jesus was a product of so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

3. No Church writer wrote that he SAW Jesus alive.

4. Paul a supposed contemporary of Jesus did NOT write that he SAW Jesus alive.

5. Paul claimed the REMISSION of Sins was obtained through a NON-historical act, the resurrection of Jesus.

6. No non-apologetic source wrote that they SAW Jesus alive.

7. There are NO external corroborative sources for a Messiah called Jesus.

8. There are NO external corroborative sources for A Messiah called Jesus who was believed to have REMITTED the sins of the Jews before the Fall of the Temple.

9. There are NO external corroborative sources that show that ROMAN citizens worshiped a JEW called Jesus the Messiah before the Fall of the Temple.

10. HJers have FAILED to produce a single credible or external corroborative source for their proposed Jesus.

11. Christians of antiquity claimed and AGREED that Jesus was of a SPIRITUAL nature.

12. Christians of antiquity claimed it was a LIE that Jesus was just a man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What most of the a-historicists here are saying is this:-

The extant evidence is not good enough to be confident about a historical Jesus, and is also compatible with a number of other possible origin scenarios that are worth exploring....

But, this is EXACTLY what I have been saying. The MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

HJers have NO credible sources for their IMAGINED Jesus.

HJers come to the debate EMPTY-handed or full of speculations.

The same sources that claimed Jesus was crucified are the same sources that claimed Jesus WALKED on water, was RAISED from the dead and ASCENDED through the clouds.

The claim that Jesus was just a preacher is the same as the claim that Jesus was a donkey rider. Both claims have no credible or external corroborative sources.

The game is ALL over for HJers. It is NO SECRET that the HJ theory is EXTREMELY weak and HOPELESSLY flawed.

The MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

This is the baseline that many on this board have been working with for years. This, I submit, is a properly sceptical position, and does not "give scepticism a bad name" at all.

There is NO need to attempt to explain the "skeptic position" to an HJer.

HJers themselves are SKEPTICAL of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon.

HJers REJECT the following:

Quote:

1. The Virgin/Holy Ghost birth of Jesus.

2. The temptation of Jesus by the Devil.

3. The healing of incurable diseases by Jesus.

4. The curse of the fig tree.

5. The walking on water.

6. The feeding of thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish

7.The transfiguration.

8. The raising of Lazarus from the dead.

9. The resurrection.

10. The ascension.

HJers just NEED to produce CREDIBLE and CORROBORATIVE sources for the preacher, donkey rider, blasphemer, false prophet and Messiah called Jesus before the Fall of the Temple.

HJers have NOTHING, ZERO, but books that they have ACCEPTED as EMBELLISHED, or full of FICTION.

It is ALL over for HJers. They are DONE.

The MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ.

I will repeat it a MILLION times if I have to.

Juststeve · 09-15-2010, 02:04 PM

And if you repeat it a MILLION times it will become true?

spin · 09-15-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So, when the town name appears in a fragment of a priestly roster found at Caesarea (M. Avi-Yonah, "A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea." Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962):137-139.), it referred to a town that didn't exist? I guess that seems likely to you.

It appears the fragment is dated to the 3rd or 4th century. Is this a smoking gun for a 1st century Nazareth? I don't know. Do you?

I don't know about smoking guns, but it says that the notion of Nazareth being a christian invention is just plain rubbish.

spin

Kapyong · 09-15-2010, 02:16 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

The only reason I join this debate is because I’m put off by the dogmatic position taken by the Mythers. Claiming to know with certainty that some guy from Nazareth didn’t exist 2000 years ago gives skeptical thought a bad name.

See?
There's is your problem revealed again - you have no idea what JMers argue at all. 100% certainty is NOT a JM claim at all - it's actually what BELIEVERS tend to say.

You thought JMers claim Jesus was made up from "whole cloth"n - but they don't say that at all.

Steve - you have no idea what the MJ argument is.

Perhaps you should study it before repeating these false statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Skeptical thought includes thinking carefully about what one can know and can’t know, it is not the automatic gainsaying of any position taken up by a believer. I see a bunch of the later hear about.Steve

What a joke Steve.
Many people carefully answered you with facts and arguments - you IGNORE it all, and keep right on preaching.

Do you think that approach will convince anyone?

K

Juststeve · 09-15-2010, 02:24 PM

Kapyong:

I don't think my approach will convince you but I can live with that.

Steve

Kapyong · 09-15-2010, 02:32 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Doug:
I take it you don't think Jesus was made up out of whole cloth.

You just LOVE that phrase, don't you?

But the thing is - we all agree, and I've pointed that out to you, but you never ever learn anything here.

JMs do NOT claim the Jesus story was "made up of whole cloth" at all.

If only you actually knew what the JM argument was :-(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

On that we can agree. How then do you account for the growth of a belief in a real historical Jesus who lived in Nazareth in the first half of the first century C.E.

People keep telling you. You ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

I would be more than happy to discuss your theory.

We have seen you have no interest in discussing things at all. All you want to do is repeat your beliefs, but you never address the problems with your posts.

Will you EVER grasp that you are wrong about MJers saying the story was "made up of whole cloth" ?

Because the whole POINT of most MJ arguments is that the story was based on earlier themes, ideas, or books.

The exact OPPOSITE of your claim.

Will you ever grasp that point?

Kapyong

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

09-15-2010, 09:29 AM	#52
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Show no Mercy: Your point is that Mark doesn't depict Jesus as from Nazareth except when he does, and then its an anomaly. No, that can't be your point. Steve.

09-15-2010, 02:04 PM	#56
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	And if you repeat it a MILLION times it will become true?

09-15-2010, 02:24 PM	#59
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Kapyong: I don't think my approach will convince you but I can live with that. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.