Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mandelbrot · 05-29-2012, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, based on what I have learnt so far there was NO City called Nazareth and in the Synoptics it is claimed Jesus lived in the CITY of Nazareth.

Matthew 2:23 KJV

Quote:

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets , He shall be called a Nazarene...

No CITY of Nazareth has been ever located in the 1st century.

Jesus of the Gospels "LIVED" in a Non-Existing City because he was the product of a Myth Fable.

There neither was a Nazareth nor did the authors of any gospel that mentions Nazareth know any Hebrew. Nazareth was a really bad misreading of Isaiah 11:1 which says

Quote:

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

and the Hebrew used to translate branch was Netzer. The misreading comes when one understands there were no nikkudim (vowel points) used so both words are NTR. Why the gospel writers decided to misread that as a 2nd century town was simply so they could begin to historicize the myth.

aa5874 · 05-29-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

...There neither was a Nazareth nor did the authors of any gospel that mentions Nazareth know any Hebrew. Nazareth was a really bad misreading of Isaiah 11:1 which says

Quote:

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

and the Hebrew used to translate branch was Netzer. The misreading comes when one understands there were no nikkudim (vowel points) used so both words are NTR. Why the gospel writers decided to misread that as a 2nd century town was simply so they could begin to historicize the myth.

How do you know what an UNKNOWN author did??? I can ONLY repeat what the SOURCES contain.

In gLuke, it is claimed the Angel Gabriel was SENT by God to the CITY of Nazareth.

Luke 1

Quote:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth...

There was NO God, No Angel, No prophecy, and No City of Nazareth.

The Jesus of Nazareth story is UTTER Fiction.

Mandelbrot · 05-29-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

...There neither was a Nazareth nor did the authors of any gospel that mentions Nazareth know any Hebrew. Nazareth was a really bad misreading of Isaiah 11:1 which says

and the Hebrew used to translate branch was Netzer. The misreading comes when one understands there were no nikkudim (vowel points) used so both words are NTR. Why the gospel writers decided to misread that as a 2nd century town was simply so they could begin to historicize the myth.

How do you know what an UNKNOWN author did??? I can ONLY repeat what the SOURCES contain.

In gLuke, it is claimed the Angel Gabriel was SENT by God to the CITY of Nazareth.

Luke 1

Quote:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth...

There was NO God, No Angel, No prophecy, and No City of Nazareth.

The Jesus of Nazareth story is UTTER Fiction.

Are you seriously claiming I said anything otherwise? It is fiction and it is easily seen as such especially when you read Isaiah 11:1 in Hebrew.

aa5874 · 05-29-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Are you seriously claiming I said anything otherwise? It is fiction and it is easily seen as such especially when you read Isaiah 11:1 in Hebrew.

I understand that you are claiming the story is fiction but I don't understand how you could claim it was a MIS-READING of Hebrew Scripture when the author would have KNOWN he was writing fiction.

The very same author who claimed there were prophecies about Jesus living in Nazareth is also the writer that claimed Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost based on Isaiah 7.14.

Surely, this does NOT appear to be a case of mis-reading but a deliberate attempt to use known erroneous interpretations.

It is NOT logical or reasonable that the Jesus story was based on mis-interpretations but on deliberate errors known to the authors.

EarlDoherty · 05-29-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Question: In the historical Jesus model, Jesus was actually a Nazarene, but since he was "supposed" to be from Bethlehem, the gospels invented the improbable nativity stories to reconcile an embarrassing fact with an expectation.

What is the mythicist explanation? Why did the gospels invent the whole story about Jesus being from one city, but being born in another?

The earthly Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem because that is what Micah 5:2 prophesied. Nazareth appeared on the scene apparently because Matthew misinterpreted the word "Nazorean" (originally applied to the sect itself rather than an individual Jesus) as meaning 'from Nazareth.' Matthew worked them both into his story, with "Jesus of Nazareth" probably inserted into Mark at a post-Matthew stage.

P.S. Sorry, I responded before I saw Kapyong's answer to the question.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 05-29-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Question: In the historical Jesus model, Jesus was actually a Nazarene, but since he was "supposed" to be from Bethlehem, the gospels invented the improbable nativity stories to reconcile an embarrassing fact with an expectation.

What is the mythicist explanation? Why did the gospels invent the whole story about Jesus being from one city, but being born in another?

The earthly Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem because that is what Micah 5:2 prophesied. Nazareth appeared on the scene apparently because Matthew misinterpreted the word "Nazorean" (originally applied to the sect itself rather than an individual Jesus) as meaning 'from Nazareth.' Matthew worked them both into his story, with "Jesus of Nazareth" probably inserted into Mark at a post-Matthew stage.

P.S. Sorry, I responded before I saw Kapyong's answer to the question.

Earl Doherty

It is most unlikely that the author of gMatthew mis-interpreted Hebrew Scripture when he claimed Mary was with child of a Holy Ghost while using Isaiah 7.14.

gMatthew is Deliberate Fiction. gMatthew's Jesus, the Son of a Holy Ghost, could NOT have existed anywhere on earth.

EarlDoherty · 05-29-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

to Logical and outhouse:

Serendipitously, the audio of Richard Carrier's talk I posted in this thread addressed your concerns about probability and reconstructing a historical Jesus from later evidence. It's worth a listen (35 minutes)

At minute 18:02, Carrier claims that Philo of Alexandria spoke of a pre-Christian religion with a celestial being called "Jesus". I can't find information on this on the Internet. Do you know of any sources? It would be nice to read the actual text by Philo. Do you happen to know what mainstream scholars say about this? I bet Christian literalists probably say this proves that Satan predicted Jesus' coming to Earth.

The name "Jesus" never appears in Philo, though "Joshua" does in an historical context. So I don't think there is a specific text by Philo you can be pointed to. I haven't listened to Carrier's talk, so I'm not sure if you are reproducing him correctly. What he might have meant is that Philo's theology (in many places in his writings) involved a "Logos" figure that was a celestial being, an emanation of God that filled certain roles, and this Logos bore a strong resemblance to Paul's spiritual Christ Jesus (though the latter was more personalized, which is why I avoided the pronoun "who" with Philo's Logos). In fact, it was so similar that later Christians made Philo into a Christian convert and friend of St. Mark, which was alleged to be where he derived his ideas.

Earl Doherty

outhouse · 05-29-2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

you were the one making a false statement not followed by scholarships in place.

I did not make a false statement. I gave you an opportunity to explain why I was wrong. You caved.

Answer what? Speak English.

Quote:

You think all scholarships are bogus but dont have the education level of the historians involved that have a much wider view of first century Galilee, then your microscope.

I don't think all scholarship is bogus. I have enough education to read and evaluate arguments.

If you just want to accept what someone tells you scholarship says, without even reading for yourself to be sure, please just stop posting.

lol

I dont blindly accept mainstream scholarships

but i dont ignore their educated knowledge like mythers do.

outhouse · 05-29-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

The earthly Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem because that is what Micah 5:2 prophesied.

correct

Quote:

Nazareth appeared on the scene apparently because Matthew misinterpreted the word "Nazorean" (originally applied to the sect itself rather than an individual Jesus) as meaning 'from Nazareth.' Matthew worked them both into his story, with "Jesus of Nazareth" probably inserted into Mark at a post-Matthew stage.

false

that is only a minor hypothesis

outhouse · 05-29-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

why are you here? so far from what ive seen its to dodge relevant questions and or to refer to someone elses opinion.

I'm the moderator. I can't put you on ignore.

Quote:

But you fail to answer so many direct statements, as you have no valid replacement mythology for the christianity movement in place.

Please be specific. What question have you asked that I have not answered?

You on the other hand just avoid questions. I asked you for the name of an expert that you relied on, and suddenly there was no expert.

What do you mean by "valid replacement mythology for the christianity movement in place?" Is that written in English? Why would one need it?

I asked if you thought all scholars are biased.

Ehrman, Reed, Crosson, Borg, Meyer's, Vansina, plus most of the ones involved with the first and second quest.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.