Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 10-08-2011, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

You've got a couple of rather giant assumptions there. You're assuming that the gospels are meant as:

a) historical testimony; and

b) historical testimony of a human being.

maryhelena · 10-08-2011, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

You are mixing up two gospel stories here - adding a birth narrative to an earlier gospel which did not have a birth narrative. Stick with gMark - and gJohn - and you don't have to come up with arguments against a nativity story in Bethlehem. Don't add assumptions - is that not your clarion call here?

Without a birth narrative - without gMatthew and gLuke - it's pure assumption to assert that Jesus was born in either Bethlehem or Nazareth. The earlier Jesus storyline does not say where he was born - that's it folks - no place of birth in gMark and gJohn.

It doesn't seem quite as simple as that to me maryhelena.

The question still has to be asked, why Nazareth, in a fiction about a messiah. Why not Bethlehem?

(I do believe he was only 'supposed' to 'come out of Bethlehem', so the birth thing may be a distraction)

Ah, why Nazareth?

You know, it amazes me when I sometimes read arguments along the lines of - if it's fiction why not get the story correct, why write in contradictions etc. The obvious answer is - why not. Why should a story regarding a fictional figure have to be running a straight line? Did such people forget about mystery writing, puzzles, drama etc. It really is, to my mind, simplistic to imagine the gospel writers were going to spell out in the finest detail their JC story. Did not JC, himself, speak in parables? Seek and you will find - is that not the advise - not read word for word literally. Well, something like that - I'm sure you get my point....

MCalavera · 10-08-2011, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Quote:

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

I read your post carefully. I'm non-committal on the HJ/MJ issue. There are elements of the story I'm convinced are fictitious but I'm not in any way opposed to the possibility there could have been a historical core behind the legend.

However I see two glaring problems with your argument as presented here.

Ok, good. Let's see.

Quote:

1. You have yet to address the very real possibility that "Nazareth" was the result of inadvertent word play as the legend propagated orally. This is a very likely and parsimonious explanation of the evidence. Being a "Nazarene" had nothing to do with geography. Instead it was accomplished by complying with a particular lifestyle regimen. It would only take one person along the way to be unfamiliar with this detail for the word to become a place of origin for the subject of the legend rather than a descriptive lifestyle choice. This possibility is heavily supported by the very real fact that "Nazareth" as a place is never mentioned in history until these legends have had several decades to gestate orally.

How is this a simpler explanation, though. This requires new evidence which we obviously have no access to ... for now.

Quote:

2. This explanation still doesn't address all the evidence. it only addresses the evidence contained in the canonical gospels + acts, all of which are likely to be inbred. There is no argument from either camp that by the end of the first century CE people were talking about "Jesus of Nazareth." There is also no argument that many of these same people were asserting that this individual walked on water, healed blind people, raised the dead and floated off into the sky to disappear in the clouds. In this case we have obvious fabrications alongside possible truisms. The mere fact that there was no "Theological Purpose" in this man being from Nazareth does not obviate the possibility of a neutral claim being appended to the core set of beliefs through the mechanism described above. Add to that the very real dearth of evidence that there was a place called "Nazareth" during the time in question, alongside the silence of any earlier christian writings on the issue and there remains a strong possibility that the legend of Nazareth developed in a parasitic fashion alongside the legend of Jesus. To me this seems the more plausible, parsimonious and overall simplest explanation.

Not really. You selectively ignore certain evidence and then you make new assumptions that demand new evidence.

Quote:

Finally, whether or not this city ever existed and whether or not this man was claimed by some to be from it is quite possibly trivial beyond measure. It does nothing to bolster or undermine a historical Jesus core.

Actually, it does. Evidence in Mark and Q show Jesus believed as the Messiah. The Messiah should've been from Bethlehem not Nazareth.

MCalavera · 10-08-2011, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

You've got a couple of rather giant assumptions there. You're assuming that the gospels are meant as:

a) historical testimony; and

b) historical testimony of a human being.

I'm assuming that we can glean out historical truths from it. And I demonstrated this with that post I made. Please give it a good read.:wave:

dog-on · 10-08-2011, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

You've got a couple of rather giant assumptions there. You're assuming that the gospels are meant as:

a) historical testimony; and

b) historical testimony of a human being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJ born in Nazareth is an argument from silence.

You need to address this to "dog-on". MCalavera wrote of Jesus being from Nazareth. It "dog-on" who changed this to born in Nazareth.

Here is where Mcalavera posted.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....65#post6945165

A few posts later "dog-on" slyly changed this to born rather than from.

I cant find the post as I have dog-on on "ignore", but if you go back you'll find it.

Umm, bullshit...And dishonest.

maryhelena · 10-08-2011, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Matthew and Luke depend on Mark in various passages. They're connected.

That's not a new assumption.

We have Matthew and Luke for the birth narratives which are shown to be fabrications.

Doesn't mean we don't have those birth narratives.

You didn't get it at all, so join the club of those who don't get it.

Your right there - I don't get what on earth it is you are trying to say...

Christianity, early christians, were able to function, for some time, prior to any notion of a birth narrative in Bethlehem. Bethlehem is a later addition. (and Marcion was having nothing of it - and cuts the Bethlehem nativity out of his version of gLuke). So, do a Marcion and cry foul re Bethlehem - fabrication and all that....You are still left with Nazareth and no gospel statement that Jesus was born there.

Why do you think they survived in the beginning without the Bethlehem doctrine?

Why? Because that is what they had - in the beginning...

Quote:

Could it be because Jesus was historically from Nazareth?

Lots of things could be - that's not an argument for historicity of the gospel JC.

archibald · 10-08-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Ah, why Nazareth?

You know, it amazes me when I sometimes read arguments along the lines of - if it's fiction why not get the story correct, why write in contradictions etc. The obvious answer is - why not. Why should a story regarding a fictional figure have to be running a straight line? Did such people forget about mystery writing, puzzles, drama etc. It really is, to my mind, simplistic to imagine the gospel writers were going to spell out in the finest detail their JC story. Did not JC, himself, speak in parables? Seek and you will find - is that not the advise - not read word for word literally. Well, something like that - I'm sure you get my point....

No, not quite. The point here is, Mark is offered not simply as any old fiction, but as allegory, where the characters OT credentials are important.

archibald · 10-08-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I'll end this post here. Please be sure to read this through carefully.

You've got a couple of rather giant assumptions there. You're assuming that the gospels are meant as:

a) historical testimony; and

b) historical testimony of a human being.

Not in my case. I don't assume them as historical documents, and that isn't the core of the question. The core of the question, in fact, is that since they weren't necessarily historical, but mainly allegory, with OT provenance....

Getting it yet?

By the way, the latter point makes no sense. Are you suggesting he wasn't thought of as human (or earthly to be precise) in the gospels?

Otherwize, it ain't two separate 'assumptions', but one, concerning historicity. Which it isn't anyway, for me.

Iskander · 10-08-2011, 06:34 AM

In my experience, it was sufficient for someone to say ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ for a mob of myth-lovers to shout “off with their heads”.

It would appear that the braying gang was getting excited without any justification because Jesus of Nazareth is as acceptable as Alexander of Macedonia.

Jesus of Nazareth

MCalavera · 10-08-2011, 06:38 AM

How dare Jesus actually exist!!!

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

10-08-2011, 06:34 AM	#669
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	In my experience, it was sufficient for someone to say ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ for a mob of myth-lovers to shout “off with their heads”. It would appear that the braying gang was getting excited without any justification because Jesus of Nazareth is as acceptable as Alexander of Macedonia. Jesus of Nazareth

10-08-2011, 06:38 AM	#670
MCalavera Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 314	How dare Jesus actually exist!!!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.