Minimalist

There isn't much point to telling those people anything, is there? How many of them go on to walk on their knees on streets in "Jerusalem" which only exist because the city was rebuilt by Hadrian as Aelia Capitolina?

elevator

I fail to see where you are going with this? The one sentence you picked out was, of course, a joke. The point of the rest of my post was to address Chili's assertion that the word Nazarite may have nothing to do with where Jesus once lived.

bopot

Have you stopped beating your wife?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Tigers!

The OP was asking me (at least that is the impression I get) where did I think Jesus was from not what the Biblical authors may have expressed.
I also noted that cultures can express these things differently to us which can give strange results at times.

Tigers!

How do you answer if you are not married?

patcleaver

The bible says that Jesus is from Nazareth so Christians believe it.

The bible says that Jesus is from Capernaum so Christians believe it.

Its just contradictory nonsense just like everytning else in the bible.

When a religious person says that they believe in something, that means that its false - that there is no basis for it in reality.

The bible has nothing to do with reality - its just full of false BS things for insane people to believe in.

spamandham

...almost.

Matthew says there was a prophecy that he would be called a Nazarene - a prophecy that has not been located. There IS a prophecy that he would be called a Nazirite (Judges 13:5-7). I've attempted to argue here in the past that Matthew's 'Nazarene' is a transliteration error of this passage.

That argument was not well received, but I don't recall a good refutation of it.

Doug Shaver

OK. Good point. My comment was based on very old memory.

In my view, that's just one more datum proving that even if he was real, we don't know diddly squat about the man.

mountainman

We know two things about his followers - inasmuch as the authors of the gJudas and gThomas (in the Nag Hammadi Codices) are to be considered "his followers". The earliest chronology of christian literature is fourth century according to the two C14 citations. (290 and 348 CE respectively plus or minus 60 years).


Best wishes,

Pete

Doug Shaver

If I had been discussing his followers, I would have been referring to people who had known him personally. People who lived after his time (such as te probable authors of those documents) could have followed his teachings, but could not have been followers of the man himself.

If he never existed, then there could have been no followers.

If he did exist and had followers, then if we knew anything about the followers, we would probably know something about him as well.