Juststeve

This is for those of you who think Jesus was a fictional creation not based to any extent on any real person. In light of the fact that an author writing fiction can give his character any history he wants, please explain an indisputable observation.

All four of the gospels say that Jesus, at least as an adult, came from the town of Nazareth. Why would this be the case if there was no real Jesus from Nazareth? There is no apologetic reason to place Jesus’ adulthood in Nazareth. There is no prophesy in the Hebrew Bible that associates the Messiah with the town of Nazareth. Nazareth is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible yet all four gospels agree that it was Jesus’ home town.

Not only is there no apologetic reason for someone inventing Jesus to place him in Nazareth it is obvious that at least two of the gospel writers considered his association with Nazareth to be problematic. Both Matthew and Luke thought that Nazareth was Jesus’ home town but both are at pains, for obvious apologetic reasons, to explain how this guy from Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem. Their problem is the same, having a guy everyone know was from Nazareth born in the place they expected the Messiah to be born, but their solutions are quite different.

For Matthew Joseph and Mary are residents of Bethlehem before Jesus is born. Jesus is born at home, no manger in Matthew, and the family later moves first to Egypt, then to Nazareth. We are told that they do not return to Bethlehem because Herod’s son is in control of the territory making Bethlehem unsafe for Jesus. Jesus born where the evangelist wants him born and coming to live as an adult in Nazareth. That’s solution one to the problem.

Luke has the same problem but a different and contradictory solution. For Luke Joseph and Mary live in Nazareth before Jesus is born. At the time of the birth they happen to be in Bethlehem to participate in what must have been the most poorly conceived census in the history of the world. Jesus just happens to be born in Bethlehem and then its back to home in Nazareth for Jesus and the family. The problem is we want Jesus to be born in Bethlehem but his followers knew he came from Nazareth. This was solution two to that problem.

My question is, how in the absence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth did the allegedly fictional Jesus come to be associated with the town of Nazareth? Why the evangelical dance to explain how a man from Nazareth was really born in Bethlehem? If the evangelists were writing fiction why not name their hero Jesus of Bethlehem and have him born and live in Bethlehem?

The best answer to me is that Jesus wasn’t wholly fictional. He was a man who was known to come from Nazareth who later authors wished to portray as more than a man. They had him born in Bethlehem but couldn’t escape his associate with Nazareth.

Steve

bacht

The usual answer to this is that the description of Jesus as a Nazarene or Nazarite was misinterpreted to mean a place rather than a behaviour (taking a vow).

Mark has no birth story but Matthew and Luke correct this by adding Bethlehem to emphasize the messianic connection.

There's no point counting the four gospels as separate witnesses, they more or less all copy Mark with slight variations.

Juststeve

bacht:

The Gospel Of John is separate from the synoptics making the total of 2 witnesses among the gospels.

Mark is the basis for the synoptics and makes no mention of Nazarite. He is clearly talking about Nazareth as a place name, the town from which Jesus came. Matthew does in fact try his best to relate the town of Nazareth with the term nazarite but he does so on the assumption that Jesus came to live in the town of Nazareth. Mark, Luke, and John do not relate Nazareth to nazarite, yet they all say Jesus is from Nazareth.

Beginning with Mark, the question is why did he choose Nazareth as the hometown of his allegedly fictional character? Why is it that even Luke and Matthew who claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem concede that his adulthood occurred in Nazareth? Do you have a better explanation for the association with Nazareth than that’s where he was from?

Steve

avi

In my opinion, this question requires a study of the original text.

Can you please furnish the four citations, which mention Nazareth? English or Greek. Either will work.

Thanks,

avi

Juststeve

avi:

Here are some:

Matt. 2:23

Matt. 4:13

Mark 1:9

Luke 4:16-21

John 1:45-46

John 18:5

John 19:19

Acts 2:22

Acts 3:6

Acts 4:10.

There are a lot of others. In fact apart from the two birth stories Jesus is never associated with any town other than Nazareth. At the time these documents were written it was accepted as fact that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Why Nazareth if he never existed at all?

Steve

dizzy

Read them again. You will encounter a certain town called Capernaum.

Ferryman to the Dead

There are many different takes on this figure that Christians rest their eternal salvation on. This man they called Jesus took on many forms healer, prophet and so forth. In Christianity his greatest claim to fame is the crucifixion and resurrection. Contemporary evidence for this figure (Jesus) is scanty at best and a lot of Christian circles rest a lot of their historical claim on various figures throughout history.

One of the most famed sources noted is Flavius Josephus's Antiquities that many Christians quote to prove the historical existance of Jesus. This fails in epic portions to prove an historical figure. Josepheus was a military leader and later came to be a famous historian. There are two passages that refer to a Jesus in this writing. To underscore the obsurd nature of the Christian claims lets look at it.

First and foremost the passage that is referred to in his Antiquities this one to be exact:

Antiquities 18:3:3

Quote: At that time lived Jesus, a holy man,if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders.The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time.


This is no doubt a pious fraud created by a great church father known as Eusebius whom himself admitted that lieing to advance the faith was OK. Another oddity about this passage is the fact that Josepheus wrote volumes on many obscure people during his lifetime and to think that he would dedicate two mediocre passages to a man who was suppose to heal the sick and raise the dead is ludocrisy. Eusebius adovcated fraud in the interest of faith.
Had been known to tamper with Josephus works and many other writers works as well.He uses this passage in Evangelical Demonstration Book (3) page 124:
"Certainly the attestions I have already produced concerning our saviour may be sufficent. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

And there you have it pious fraud 101. Theres little evidence to support an historical figure in the use of contemporary evidence because what evidence there is it amounts to hearsay and second hand reporting.

I guess the most favorite weapon Christians love to use is the Bible. Which they often try to prove with itself which we all know cannot be done right? The Gospels are suppose to be about Jesus life and time on earth right? Well lets look at a few facts:

(1). No trustworthy evidence that any of the Gospels were in existence in their present form earlier than a 100 years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died.

(2). We know nothing of his life from birth until 12 years old. Then he completely disappears from the landscape and reappears at age thirty something to save mankind.

(3).Nothing to show that the Gospels, the only source or authority for Christ existence were not written until some 150 years after the events that they portray.

(4).How can something not written until 150 years after Christ is supposed to have died, and do not rest on any trustworthy testimony have even the slightest value as evidence he ever lived.

Walter R Cassels author of "Supernatural Religion" considered to be one of the greatest works on Christianity ever written had this to say:

Quote:"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the First Century and a half after the death of Christ."


Isn't it odd how none of the Gospels written in the Second Century no longer exist having been destroyed or lost?Jesus was suppose to have been Jewish and his disciples were reportedly Jewish fisherman. Their language would there fore would have been Aramaic. The Gospels are written in Greek all of them. Every leading Christian Scholar since Erasmus 400 years ago has maintained that they were written in Greek. Which proves they were not written by Jesus disciples or by any other of the early Christians. What do we have?

(1). Foreign Gospels
(2). Written by unknown men. Which by the way is ironic because none of these books have the gospel of luke, john or so forth in front of their names.
(3). Written in a completely Foreign tongue.
(4). Generations after the death of those who are supposed to have knew the facts.
(5). thus they rely on such evidence to prove that Jesus lived?

There were a purported 20 Jesus alive at the time of the Christian Saviour none of which carried the MO of this Christian deity. Myth or real? You decide.

A few contradictions:

Birth?
When was he born?

(1). Matthew claims he was born when Herod was king of Judea?
(2). Luke claims he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria?

Could not have been born during the reign of these (2) rulers, why?

(1). Herod died in the year 4 BC,
(2). and Cyrenius, who in Roman history is Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until (10) years later.
(3). These (2) rulers are separated by a whole reign of Archelaus Herods son.

Enclopedia Britanica says that " Christians count (133) contrary opinions of various authorties concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth."

The Encloypedia Biblica states that the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

Toto

Hi Juststeve - you are walking into a trap. This particular issue has been discused here in detail and things are not what they seem.

Mark only says that Jesus "came from Nazareth in Galilee." But the corresponding verse in Matt omits Nazareth. It seems at least possible, if not probable, that the reference to Nazareth in our current version of Mark is a later addition, and Matt used an earlier edition that lacked it. This leaves no reference to Nazareth in the earliest source.

If you are going to start a thread on Nazareth, you might want to search the archives for everything else that has been posted on Nazareth and the possible reasons for its inclusion in the legend.

Juststeve

Dizzt:

He went to Capernaum but he was never called Jesus of Capernaum.

Steve

Kapyong

Gday,

So, because everybody says that Jesus came from Nazareth, that means it must be a true fact ?

This is a common argument, but it is simply wrong - because it wrongly assumes that when many people agree on claim, then it must be true, because there can be other possible reason.

Well, there are many examples of such home-towns that are not true - fictional and mythical characters have home towns too.

Everyone says that Luke Skywalker came from Tatooine - no story about Luke can have him coming from another place.

Everyone says that Zeus lives on Mt Olympus - all stories about Zeus agree.

Everyone says that Sherlock Holmes works at 221B Baker St - all stories about him agree on this 'fact'.

(Multiple authors have written stories about all 3.)


It's a plainly silly argument - there are many many possible reasons for there being a tradition about some figure's origin without it actually being true.

There could simply have been some belief, some tradition, some claim that became attached to Jesus. It most certainly does NOt have to be a fact at all.


Kapyong