Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buster Daily · 03-10-2006, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

B is definitely weak. C is too ambiguous; it depends on what you mean by "story telling standpoint," and that may not conflict with A depending on how you mean it.

I could not agree more.

Regarding the "may not conflict", A supercedes C. Think of it as if(A) else if (B) else if (C). Perhaps I should have written C as:

C) A real man from Nazareth was not the basis for the Gospels, but Nazareth is somehow a good choice from a story telling standpoint.

Anyway, C was left ambiguous on purpose. If Jesus wasn't based on a real person from Nazareth why was Nazareth chosen? These are precisely the opinions I seek.

Buster Daily · 03-10-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Just to make it interesting:

D) Nazareth was chosen because that was where the first Apostles lived and where they first claimed to have had the risen Christ appear to them.

E) Nazareth was chosen because that was where Mark's author and his readers lived.

Very nice. I had not thought of either. So you are agreeing that Nazareth would probably never be chosen unless some real person(s) happened to be from there.

Amaleq13 · 03-10-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

Very nice. I had not thought of either. So you are agreeing that Nazareth would probably never be chosen unless some real person(s) happened to be from there.

Yep.

Steven Avery · 03-11-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quite a few scholars (including B. H. Streeter) have argued that John 11:2 ("Mary was the one who annointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair") betrays the knowledge of Luke in John's audience.

Hi, I have a general question. When we were discussing and researching the post-resurrection appearances it seemed pretty clear that from a high view of the text (these things will vary based on one's view of the text in general) Luke 24 strongly implied a knowledge of Matthew (28).

Is there a reasonably readable paper or article that gives the best dozen or so of such verse/section pairings where a good case can be made that one gospel was building on factual knowledge or understandings of another. Like the one Stephen mentions above.

Then of course we could try to sort them out, putting aside the ones that are dependent on a low view of the text

And then see what is left.

Thanks.

Q theories need not apply.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.