MCalavera

We have a better historicist explanation for this. Please demolish it with a much better one than the one you provided.

Better = simpler and more in line with what the evidence states.

Evidence states Nazareth is mentioned in Mark as the place Jesus is from and that Matthew and Luke went out of their way to make Bethlehem (not Nazareth) be the birthplace.

MCalavera

What finding again?

MCalavera

Word games. You're still doing it, Kapyong.:redface:

judge

Kapyong, this doesn't explain how it appears in Mark. Let me repeat that. This doesn't explain how it appears in Mark.
Mark was written before matthew.
Mark knows nothing of this alleged prophecy.

You need to explain how it appears in mark, when Mark doesn't show any signs of knowing of your "lost peophecy"

Toto

It bothers me that you are asking a question that has been asked and answered before, without adding anything to the discussion.

Maybe you didn't read it carefully enough.

How do you decide what is the better explanation? If you think that Jesus really came from Nazareth, why does Paul not mention it? Why is the one mention in Mark of Nazareth a likely interpolation? Why does Matthew mention Nazareth in connection with a prophecy that no one can locate? All of this evidence makes Nazareth a bit shadowy. Add to this that no one knows anything about a "Nazareth" before 70 CE, possibly not until centuries later.

And you fail to account for the fictional nature of the gospels in general. Mark's geography is either confused, or just inaccurate because he had no intention of giving an accurate map of Galilee.

Your explanation that Jesus was from a town called Nazareth is only simple on the surface, but it is not necessarily in accord with the evidence.

What objection do you have to his Greek?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

judge

Toto it's really about time you cut the crap!
You have no good reason to call this a likely interploation. Its just mischievous misinformation.

Time to cut the crap. Really

Toto

Make a case against it being an interpolation. Or do you think that the Christian texts came down to us in pure form from honest scribes?

Really.

judge

For goodness sakes Toto. You just claimed it was a likely interploation.
Now you want me to prove it's not?
This is absurd.

You made the claim, it's up to you to back it up.

MCalavera

Well, it bothers me that not one mythicist has yet to give me a better answer than the historicist one. So we're even.

You're right. I skimmed through it. Not sure why you expect me to read the same old arguments I'm already reading here.

It's simpler and in line with what the evidence states.

Argument from silence fallacy. The key is he never denied it.

Paul never mentioned Nazareth in the Epistles for the same reason he never mentioned Bethlehem and for the same reason he didn't mention the crucifixion as much as we would've wanted him to.

That's because Paul's letters were written for theological/ecclesiastical purposes mainly. The more historical accounts were written by others.

1. There are three mentions of Jesus being of Nazareth (or being a Nazarene).

2. Interpolation is an extraordinary claim. Back it up with the needed evidence.

Unfortunately, he was quite vague and so we're unable to know exactly which prophecy/prophecies he had in mind. Doesn't mean it's a lost prophecy.

Speculating is not evidence.

Argument from silence fallacy again. I thought you were convinced of spin's argument by the way?

That's not a good counter answer. Truths can be hidden behind fiction.

Again, not a good counter answer. Stop wasting my time with red herrings and unnecessary speculations.

The evidence speaks against you.

If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and show me with a simpler explanation backed up with evidence.

His interpretation is too unique.

I think you do.

But if not, if spin makes such good arguments for Nazareth and is not a mythicist, why aren't you convinced by what he says?

aa5874

HJ born in Nazareth is an argument from silence.

The author of gMark never mentioned Jesus was born in Nazareth but he did claim Jesus walked on WATER, transfigured and was RAISED from the dead.

The author of gMark was NOT silent about MYTH JESUS.

ALL the Gospels are SILENT about a man that was born in Nazareth.

And, again once you claim Jesus was born in Nazareth, you have actually DISCREDITED the Synoptics and MUST provide corroboration for any event or character in gMark.

Please provide a CREDIBLE SOURCE to corroborate that Jesus did exist in gMark and was born in Nazareth and NOT Bethlehem.