Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jjramsey · 02-24-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Well, not just 'My church sez this ...' would be a good start.

Archaelogical digs, mentions in non-christian writings/reports/tax forms of the time.

This page has a little bit of info, but not much:

http://www.virtualreligion.net/iho/nazareth.html

You may be able to find the list of sources in a library.

Toto · 02-24-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

And the appropriate response to this is, "So what?" Show me an explanation for the evidence that we do have that is a cleaner fit than the explanation that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet about whom legends built up.

No coherent picture of this Jesus can be constructed. There is little evidence of his movement for a number of years after his alleged death.

I would say that a better explanation is that after the destruction of the Temple, legends arose about a prophet who was killed, and these legends led people to assume that there was a Jesus.

Quote:

Show me something better than baroque speculation and stretched parallels. Show me that you can explain an erroneous scripture like Matthew 2:23, "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'" Nazareth is not in the OT prophets, and what is there is a stretched fit to Nazareth, which implies that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is trying to stretch Scripture to fit inconvenient facts.

This is a very slim reed upon which to assert that a historical person existed - an unexplained reference to a birthplace tied to an unknown or lost prophecy, written several generations after that person's alleged death.

Chris Weimer · 02-24-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would say that a better explanation is that after the destruction of the Temple, legends arose about a prophet who was killed, and these legends led people to assume that there was a Jesus.

I think Paul would take it back before the destruction of the Temple.

jakejonesiv · 02-24-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

And the appropriate response to this is, "So what?" Show me an explanation for the evidence that we do have that is a cleaner fit than the explanation that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet about whom legends built up. Show me something better than baroque speculation and stretched parallels. Show me that you can explain an erroneous scripture like Matthew 2:23, "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'" Nazareth is not in the OT prophets, and what is there is a stretched fit to Nazareth, which implies that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is trying to stretch Scripture to fit inconvenient facts.

Now that is what I call some real spin!!! A blatant contradiction in the Bible is offered as evidence that it is true! :snooze:

It is nothing more than another blunder au_GMatthew made when concocting his wild tales.

Jake

Toto · 02-24-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I think Paul would take it back before the destruction of the Temple.

Except that there is no way of dating Paul's letters without accepting Acts as history, and I see no reason to accept Acts as history. The dating of Paul's alleged death is Christian mythology. You've got nothing in the way of real evidence.

post tenebras lux · 02-24-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

This page has a little bit of info, but not much:

http://www.virtualreligion.net/iho/nazareth.html

You may be able to find the list of sources in a library.

Thanks - I'll try and check it out, but that does appear to be a 'My church sez, so just trust me' site.

It would be nice to see that inscription discovered in the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima, cos why would the head rabbis flee to a village with only one well?

Julian · 02-24-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Well, not just 'My church sez this ...' would be a good start.

Archaelogical digs, mentions in non-christian writings/reports/tax forms of the time.

Sorry, but we really have nothing contemporary that can be used as evidence for the existence Jesus. Like the Nazareth example, whether or not Nazareth really did exist at that time says nothing about the existence of Jesus. If it did then the existence of the Empire State building would be evidence of King Kong.

Julian

post tenebras lux · 02-24-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Sorry, but we really have nothing contemporary that can be used as evidence for the existence Jesus. Like the Nazareth example, whether or not Nazareth really did exist at that time says nothing about the existence of Jesus. If it did then the existence of the Empire State building would be evidence of King Kong.

Julian

Sure, but if we can show that the Empire State was only built in the 1990's - that would at least cast doubt on the version of the story where King Kong was attacked by bi-planes in 1920's New York. Wouldn't it?

Chris Weimer · 02-24-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Except that there is no way of dating Paul's letters without accepting Acts as history, and I see no reason to accept Acts as history. The dating of Paul's alleged death is Christian mythology. You've got nothing in the way of real evidence.

Even without Acts, Paul's letters make better sense in a pre-Temple period. There's no evidence that Paul is even remotely aware of the destruction of the temple. Furthermore, the closer you get to 100 CE, the harder it is to explain the full emergence of Christian groups, both orthodox and heterodox.

John Kesler · 02-24-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Show me that you can explain an erroneous scripture like Matthew 2:23, "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He will be called a Nazorean.'" Nazareth is not in the OT prophets, and what is there is a stretched fit to Nazareth, which implies that the author of the Gospel of Matthew is trying to stretch Scripture to fit inconvenient facts.

I argued the same thing in this thread in July, 2005 and again in this thread from August, 2005. In the latter thread, I was assured that my "views about Nazareth are simply unreflective of the data."

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.