Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 09-16-2010, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Why do ALL the Greek myths have Zeus living on Mt Olympus? Surely that's a sign of true history, right?

And Zeus was supposedly 'born' in a cave on Crete. Wasn't there a sacred Christian grotto in Bethlehem from early (pre-3rd C) times? The David/messiah link is clear for this town, but not Nazareth.

spamandham · 09-16-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Second, my statement was that there is no prophesy which says the Messiah would be called a Nazorean in the Hebrew Bible. Do you agree with that statement? If so we must discard the theory that this detail about Jesus came from the Hebrew Bible.

Is it your contention that the writers of the NT used the Hebrew Bible as their source of prophecy?

Steve Weiss · 09-16-2010, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferryman to the Dead

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Ferryman:

Thanks for sharing but you didn't address the subject of this thread.

Steve

Yeah I did....he was a myth, non existant as a real or historical person, secondly the city Nazareth did not exist at the time. The Romans had military campaigns through out that entire area where this city was suppose to have been it wasn't. Josepheus who recorded a lot of these campaigns never makes any mention of this city. Based on the record it did not exist and was made up at later date, then most likely built to cover the myth.

Not only was Jesus a myth, so are his disciples. Anyone wanting to write stories can come up with similar references, especially if the stories were written decades after the fact. It's like designing an experiment so that it comes out with the results that one wanted them too in the first place. No one knows who wrote the gospels, but they qualify as far less than is necessary to validate a claim for an historical Jesus of whatever town he lived in according to a myth.

GakuseiDon · 09-16-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

You know, it used to be that people argued that the Old Testament's so-called 'prophecies' about Jesus listed in the Gospels so badly distorted the OT texts, that it was evidence that Jesus didn't fit the OT picture, and that early Christians had to twist the OT texts (unsuccessfully!) to try to show that. . . .

Now it seems to be that the Gospel Jesus details fit the OT texts so well, that it is evidence that the OT is the actual origin of those details.

No, the argument now is not that he fits the OT texts.

The old argument, which assumed that the gospels were approximately accurate in their history, was that the gospel authors were mistaken in their belief that Jesus' actions fulfilled all those prophecies. The argument supposed that the authors got their history right, more or less, but screwed up their scriptural exegesis.

Well, the old argument was that the details described in the Gospels didn't match what was found in the OT, and that was obvious. As Zindler put it: "Our evangelist either did not know that the Hebrew word nazir was unrelated to the Aramaic-Greek place-name Nazara or Nazareth, or he was dishonestly trying to fool his readers." Ignorant, or dishonest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

The new argument simply drops the assumption that they got their history right by dropping the assumption that they were trying to do any history to begin with. They just created a narrative that would fit their screwed-up exegesis.

The new argument is that the details described in the Gospels DO match what is in the OT. It is simply apologetics, mythicist style.

GakuseiDon · 09-16-2010, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Zindler is a mythicist. He is also an ideological atheist who likes to point out every problem in scripture. Matt had some creative readings of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jewish scholars would not agree with; but this does not mean that Matt did not actually use those creative readings to make up a hometown for Jesus.

Actually, that's the point. If Matt's use of Judges is so obviously wrong, then you wouldn't expect Matt to use Judges to create a hometown for Jesus. OTOH, if it isn't surprising that Matt used Judges, then Zindler is wrong. That's the irony: mythicist adoption of apologetic arguments. That's all I wanted to point out. (Doherty does the same thing with Paul's writings. He has Paul expressing a higher Christology than even the fundamentalists in some cases.)

Juststeve · 09-16-2010, 08:28 AM

Spamandham:

To answer your question it is my contention that the Gospel writers and particularly the author of Matthew expected to find references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible and looked for him there. Matthew in particular was guilty of distorting what was in the Hebrew Bible to make it fit Jesus as best he could. His effort to make his home in Nazareth a fulfillment of prophesy is one of a number of examples.

I don’t know if that’s a yes to your question but it accurately states my contention and the contention of others as well.

Steve

Toto · 09-16-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... If Matt's use of Judges is so obviously wrong, then you wouldn't expect Matt to use Judges to create a hometown for Jesus.

This is where you are mistaken. Matthew could have been wrong but still used Judges to create the hometown.

Quote:

OTOH, if it isn't surprising that Matt used Judges, then Zindler is wrong.

That quote from Zindler is correct in pointing out that Matthew was wrong.

Quote:

That's the irony: mythicist adoption of apologetic arguments. That's all I wanted to point out. (Doherty does the same thing with Paul's writings. He has Paul expressing a higher Christology than even the fundamentalists in some cases.)

Doherty's theory does in fact ascribe a higher Christology to Paul's writings that standard Christianity. This is not because he uses apologetic arguments.

You are so obviously confused on this point it is hard to take you seriously.

show_no_mercy · 09-16-2010, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Second, the word Nazarite means one consecrated to the Lord and has nothing to do with the town of Nazareth or the word Nazorean which is unknown in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible except in one passage in Matthew. In that passage Matthew was suggesting Nazorean in the sense of a resident of Nazareth, not Nazarite, a word a good Jewish boy would know.

But "Nazoraios" has no etymological relationship with the Hebrew town name NT[s]RT (Natsaret[h]). It has no etymological relationship with Mark's Nazarenos. It has no etymological relationship with Nazara. You might as well think that sword, word, world, and sold all mean the same thing just because they are spelled somewhat similarly.

GakuseiDon · 09-16-2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That quote from Zindler is correct in pointing out that Matthew was wrong.

Then, if Zindler is correct that Matt's linkage between the passage in Judges and Jesus being from Nazareth is a stretch, doesn't that weaken the force of the argument that the mythicist Matt used Judges to create Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus?

spamandham · 09-16-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Spamandham:

To answer your question it is my contention that the Gospel writers and particularly the author of Matthew expected to find references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible and looked for him there. Matthew in particular was guilty of distorting what was in the Hebrew Bible to make it fit Jesus as best he could. His effort to make his home in Nazareth a fulfillment of prophesy is one of a number of examples.

I don’t know if that’s a yes to your question but it accurately states my contention and the contention of others as well.

Steve

Ok, can you explain what you mean by "Hebrew Bible" in regard to Matthew?

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

09-16-2010, 08:28 AM	#96
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Spamandham: To answer your question it is my contention that the Gospel writers and particularly the author of Matthew expected to find references to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible and looked for him there. Matthew in particular was guilty of distorting what was in the Hebrew Bible to make it fit Jesus as best he could. His effort to make his home in Nazareth a fulfillment of prophesy is one of a number of examples. I don’t know if that’s a yes to your question but it accurately states my contention and the contention of others as well. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.