archibald

It still doesn't make sense to me yet, DCH. Not a tiny bit. I'm not saying spin isn't 'reading something', I'm saying that to me at this point, what he's reading is as tenuous as a thin slice of tenuousity pie eaten by King Tenuous IV of Tenuousland, to celebrate National Tenuosity Day. And you're having a slice too, it seems. :]

Basically, there is no good reason to think that's what the text means. Simple as dat.



I'm not saying 5-11 aren't interpolations, btw. I hope it's clear that's not my point at all. It's the 'seeing something in a text without any good reason' which I find quite....well, just plain irrational thinking, to be honest. Same goes for seeing something in the word 'scriptures', as here, on the first page of this thread:


What do you think, DCH?

Please feel free to use the phrase 'highly nuanced' again, at your leisure.


You should read that other thread, btw. It's a good 'un. A few pages before that, Solo implies I am a thick Mick and shows me a mooning smilie in response to my request for him to clarify something he sees in Hebrews 6:2.

Kapyong

Gday,

It's right there in G.Matthew -

There was a prophecy he would be called the Nazarene.
(A prophecy we don't have copies of anymore.)

But a clear reason to come up with Nazareth WITHOUT being historical - it was a prophecy about Nazaroios / Nazarite or whatever which was then mistook as Nazareth.


K.

aa5874

You are making yourself look real bad. Do you understand that people now know that are have no intention of resolving the HJ/MJ argument?

You are just wasting time here. You have ZERO idea what a strawman argument is.

It is illogical that the Markan Jesus must be born in Nazareth because the place is mentioned.

It is illogical to ASSUME that the Markan Jesus story is not about the same character in gLuke and gMatthew of the same Canon that was claimed to have been born in Bethlehem.

Unless the author of Canonised gMark claimed his Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem then it is reasonable to assume that the Synoptic Jesus is the story of Jesus that was claimed to be born in Bethlehem.

Once you argue that the Markan Jesus was born in Nazareth then the Gospels are UNRELIABLE and you MUST provide corroboration for every character and event found in gMark.

There is ZERO corroboration for HJ of Nazareth anywhere in ALL EXTANT writings of antiquity.

Juststeve

Kapy:

Your explanation holds no water:

The most important problem with your answer is that in fact there is no prophesy that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Ask anyone who can read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew. Matthew's claim about the prophesy is one he made up to make the man Jesus look like the Messiah.

The second problem is that the town of Nazareth does not appear in the Hebrew scripture.

There are words that are similar to Nazarene if you have no idea what they mean, one means branch and one means a person consecrated to God, but neither carry any implication about the town Nazareth.

It is a fact that the author of Matthew tried valiantly and unsuccessfully to find references to the Man Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. He did that by claiming that there was a prophesy that Jesus the Messiah would be called a Nazarene thereby capitalizing on the mundane fact that Jesus came from Nazareth. Only Christians are fooled by that.

You can of course prove me wrong by showing me where in the Hebrew Bible it says that the Messiah will be a Nazarene.

Steve

Solo

I take it you wish to dispute the finding of kokim tombs at Nazareth attested by the two books I cited. I will be much obliged for any archeological source that you can provide to support your opinion.

Jiri

aa5874

What nonsense you post. Your methodology is CRAP. You use Ghost stories for the history of your HJ of Nazareth.

May I remind you that it was the Child of a Ghost that lived in Nazareth in the Gospels.

If EVERYBODY associated with Jesus in the story knew he was really BORN in Nazareth then it makes absolutely no sense for the authors of gMatthew and gLuke to Blatantly knowingly lie.

Please, tell us what does it benefit the authors to LIE about Jesus when everyone knew they were lying?

You just don't make any sense.

Authors claimed the Child of a Ghost was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth and Juststeve thinks that the story was invented and that he KNOWS the story based on his own imagination.

How illogical!!!!

HJers have fooled themselves into believing that the Ghost stories in the NT CONTAIN the history of a man when the authors made sure their Jesus ACTED like a Ghost and was also described as a Ghost.

Why don't HJers accept that they were fooled?

Kapyong

Gday,

Jesus was NOT simply a "made up Messiah".
Please pay attention
:-)


K.

MCalavera

So what am I supposed to do? Worship him as God?

MCalavera

Tell me, Toto. Why does it bother you that I'm asking you guys for an effective answer?

I checked that thread you linked me to. Basically a rehash of this current one with the exception of spin acting all cool and pro.

It's not slam dunk proof. Proof is a strong word on its own, so to add slam dunk to it makes it even more extreme.

No, I believe the question I'm asking is a good argument for the HJ. The fact that none of you mythicists have come up with a better answer than the historicist's (better as in simpler and more in line with the evidence) means something.

His knowledge of the Greek means nothing if he doesn't apply it properly.

And why aren't you convinced by his position if he's not a mythicist?

MCalavera

Yep, that's what I noticed in that post of his.