Invisible 1

aa5874,

Do you have any books on Amazon you would recommend from scholars that support you findings?

It is very interesting, and like to read more.

Sheshbazzar

'the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins' ....make wine, and remove mountains' ....etc etc ect

....but apparently not enough power to 'cleanse' a place to remove a curse or a case of bad juju.

Guess for that job ya might as well ferget 'bout calling on jeezuz, and call on the mighty Mr Clean!

'cause he can clean your whole house and everything that's in it!' :Cheeky:

aa5874

When I investigate a matter I do not review opinion, I examine the actual written statements from antiquity.

We have HUNDREDS of writings from antiquity that are freely available on the internet.

This is a partial list of writings or authors of antiquity to be examined.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samosata, Cassius Dio, NT manuscripts, the Codices, the NT Canon, Ignatius, Polycarp, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Chrysostom, Julian the Emperor, the Muratorian Canon, the Donation of Constantine and others.

Chili

Yes, taking in context, "out of Egypt I have called my Son" means that he was not a Nazorean but made a pitstop in Nazareth so "he shall be called a Nazorean," but actually was not.

The inference here that a Nazorean is what is needed and thus not Egyptian.

And why not? Because Nazareth refers to the Jewish-ness of Joseph out of which the child must be born, so that there will be a manger for him in the stable where reason itself was not yet (cf Matthew and Luke on this distinction made).

Matthew's Joseph shows desire, that is human, and he was a dreamer to consciously conceive the child within as Son of God, why not? but who was from his mother's womb utimely ripped, and when darkness prevailed Joseph hauled ass to Egypt again to show the void that Nazareth is meant to be as Jew in the cradle of protection, wherein the child is wrapped with swaddling cloth to remain instead (MENO here).

For 10 days even so when the Magi came he would be home to receive and confirm epiphany that way = looked in to see and understand!

But there were no shepherds on the scene in Matthew either as if there was nothing to understand = not beyond theology with no life in disarray to make known God's time for the child to be the 'promised one' to transform the world of Joseph as the undergoer of this transforming episode in life.

So really Egypt is antithesis of renewal wherein Egypt is the stranger in exile called to order now inside eternity, again, and hence back to Galilee this Jesus goes when all is said and done.

And yes, the 'Jesus cult' is typically Egyptian from where Nazareth is nowhere to be seen and hence was never part of it.

Matthew is there only to show the prevailing error that was corrected in Luke where the Cana event replaced the Herodian massacre to make this difference known, wherein so Matthew is cult and Luke is occult, with the difference being the spiritual component of occult that is void in Matthew.

A nice distinction can be made here, wherein the shepherds looked in to understand, but did not enter to say that awakening took place so they will know what Jesus was talking about in his parables that in Matthew and in Mark was not part of the act, and so the Magi (wisdom here) was not his to be in Mark and Matthew.

rlogan

I think aa must be referring to the texts unearthed at Nag Hammadi:



It looks like those were buried as a consequence of the Festal Letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 CE. That was a declaration of which texts were approved canon vs heretical, and put the Gospel of Thomas and the other heretical books found there in jeapordy of destruction.

Consequently they were sealed in a jar and buried. In the figure below, we see a red arrow pointed at Nag Hammadi, and a blue arrow at the actual burial location:




What is important about this location though is that it lies just North of Luxor, previously called Thebes, the ancient capital of Upper Egypt. This is an obvious source city for the texts.

I can't agree that this find secures us an origin of the New Testament writings in Egypt. We of course have to recognize that this region was a powerhouse of Gnostic belief and subject to scorn in the Council of Nicea of 325 CE and afterwards. This region is the Coptic Christian heritage, and I believe there are some fragments that date even earlier than Nag Hammadi - but I don't see what points us to Christianity originating there.

Of course, the tradion is that St. Paul came to Alexandria in the 40's CE and started Churches in Alexandria, but this is rubbish of the first order like everything else we find pertaining to first century goings on.

andrewcriddle

The problem is that if Tiberias was built on an old graveyard then living there (arguably) means that you are continually exposed to fresh uncleanness as long as you stay there. If you mean that Jesus could have visited Tiberias and then purified himself after leaving then I agree. One difficulty is that this would have needed the ashes of a red heifer which would probably have meant a visit to Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I think you mean Mark (or possibly Barnabas). I'm not aware of an early tradition of Paul visiting Alexandria.

(If I'm wrong please correct me. I'm interested in traditions about early Christian Egypt.)

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

The closest we get is the Muratorian canon's Marcionite Letter to the Alexandrians. I think there is another reference in Schneemelcher's compendium. I forget what it is right now. I might be wrong about the other reference.

aa5874

In the NT, Jesus was the son of God. Jesus could NOT be unclean in the NT.

[u]Mark 2

rlogan

Oh, thank you - yes. My error there. I was going off memory and not an actual source. Sorry.

***************

One of the things we see in Christian apologetics is this extreme "just so" fashioning of our arguments, and it is very obvious this tactic is being used with respect to Jesus failing to visit any known city on Galilee while allegedly criss-crossing back and forth upon the Sea doing fantastical things before crowds only the greatest city in that land could produce.

Tiberias is certainly the most important city for a number of reasons, but fashioning an argument that completely ignores Hammat, which is where the baths are - and ignoring the absence of Capernaum too, or the fact that the two places he claimed to have landed are not actually cities... wow, is this reaching for the sky with apologetics, but for the Historical Jesus in this case.

Josephus tells us Tiberias is primarily a Jewish city so this pretense that the Jews can't live there is just bizarre. We can take the historical record of it being a Jewish city... or we can fashion an argument not just against the historical record but also against the very place Jesus is allegedly from: Nazareth.

Do we see Jesus needing to travel every week from Nazareth to Jerusalem to get red heifer ashes in order to purify himself?

What is so strange is not even being able to admit that there is just a tiny little red flag here regarding this amazing set of travels about the Sea of Galilee without actuially alighting in an existing city along its shores. Or perhaps the day that includes feeding five thousand people, a trip up and down a mountain, two crossings of the sea etc. - doesn't this seem like a tad bit too much for one day of God on earth?

Or how about the fact it is attended with these miracles of raising people from the dead, walking on water, calming the sea and etc. Does that not even spark the slightest concern we could be dealing with fiction?

Or how about the nonsensical route north in order to go south, and arriving at the end of the trip before the middle? No eyebrows raised there?