hjalti

Diogenes, I remember reading some jewish stuff regarding this verse, it claimed that Bethlehe-Ephratha was masculine in this passage (which is correct) but that cities and towns are always feminine in hebrew. What's your response to that argument?

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't know enough about Hebrew to comment intelligently on it, but Luke and Matthew use the same transliteration for Bethlehem (Βηθλεεμ) that's used in the LXX.

mountainman

In the Greek LXX, such as in Vaticanus, O star of David. link

TedM

Yet, he retained the Nazareth upbringing despite being embarrassed? Why would he do that aa? Why not just 're-write' it to say he was born and raised in Bethlehem, to match the expectation for the Messiah, and avoid being embarrassed?

aa5874

The author of gJohn RE-WROTE the Jesus story and claimed that Jesus was FROM the BEGINNING.

John 1:1-4 - The author gJohn wrote that Jesus was in the BEGINNING and that Jesus was God and was BEFORE Nazareth and made the all earth including Nazareth.

Why do you go through the same thing OVER and OVER?

The author of gJohn SIMPLY was EMBARRASSED by the Synoptic Jesus and INVENTED his own VERSION of Jesus.

The author of gJohn DISCARDED the birth narrative of the Synoptics, questioned the baptism, DISCARDED the so-called Failed Prophecies, questioned why Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth, the TRANSFIGURATION is missing, the author discarded many miracles of the Synoptic Jesus, and included other miracles not found in the Synoptics, contradicted the story of the anointing of the dead body of Jesus, did NOT include the ascension of Jesus and most significantly the Jesus of gJohn was a SAVIOR but the Jesus of gMark and gMatthew was NOT a Savior for the Jews.

The author of gJohn appear to be EMBARRASSED by the Synoptic Jesus and claimed Jesus Christ was in the Beginning, was GOD, and made EVERY place including EARTH where Nazareth is located.

TedM

aa,

Your position, if I understand it, is that none of the gospel writers were even attempting to write anything having to do with real history. Therefore, we cannot conclude that anything they wrote reflected real history.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from a discussion with you about the historical basis of the gospels, because you can ALWAYS appeal to them as fiction, and every element within them as fiction. Anything that appears to support real history can be explained as simply the writer showing an awareness that he knows how things would have played out had they been real history, but that does nothing to boost the argument that anything he is writing about was really based on real history.

In other words, a story is a story is a story. No matter how life-like or 'real' it may sound, it--and everything in it--is still just a story.

I think I get it.

I believe that the writers believed they were writing real history, at least mostly. But, I will never be able to argue that successfully with you because you refuse to even consider the possibility. Your mind is made up. So, you'll always have an answer by appealing to fiction. No matter how good my argument is, you'll just come back with 'yes, that's what good fictional writers do'.

IOW nothing will cause you to consider things differently, so it is a waste of time to even discuss it with you.

Ted

aa5874

You are COMPLETELY wrong. I never made such a claim.

In fact, I spent HUNDREDS of hours showing the exact opposite.

Let me REPEAT. The Canon gospels appear to be fundamentally HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS about what people of Antiquity BELIEVED.

The Gospels in the NT are CONFIRMATION that at least in the 4th century that people of antiquity BELIEVED Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Or that in the 4th century, people of antiquity did NOT consider that Jesus was a man at all but God Incarnate.


Again, I spend HUNDREDS of hours doing the exact opposite as you erroneously assert.

I have stated that "Pilate" in gMark is corroborated by EXTERNAL sources like Philo and Josephus.

I have stated that Tiberius Caesar in gLuke is corroborated by External sources like Josephus, and Suetonius.

I have shown that Caiaphas the High priest in gJohn is corroborated by EXTERNAL sources like Josephus.

And I have shown that Herod the King in gMatthew have been EXTERNALLY corroborated by Josephus.

But, I CANNOT find any corroboration for an ordinary man who was born in NAZARETH, baptized by John and crucified by under Pilate.

I cannot corroborate HJ. There is NO source and NO corroboration for HJ.

My theory is that the Four Canonical gospels are Myth fables that people of antiquity believed just like Christians BELIEVED Marcion's Phantom Son of God was a figure of history and worshiped the Phantom as a god even without birth and flesh.

I no longer accept BELIEF. I only want to accept EVIDENCE from a credible historical source.

If you BELIEVE Jesus of the NT was an ordinary man then by now you ought to have SECURED your sources with the history of HJ. So far you have NOTHING but your Belief.

I have SECURED my sources for Myth Jesus.

I can show you Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35. John 1, Mark 6.49. Mark 9.2., Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Acts 2, Galatians 1.1-12, 1 Cor 15, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras.

Or in other words, NOTHING will cause YOU to consider things differently.

You WON'T change your view but become irate when people don't want to accept your view.

Don't you see that you appear to be unreasonable?

You don't have to accept my position but you NEED to show me the CREDIBLE source of antiquity for HJ. That is all. I JUST NEED reliable sources for HJ from you.

neilgodfrey

Diogenes and Mountainman -- the scriptural references you gave are not evidence for what was popularly believed among Jews at the time. Certainly those scriptures have become the focus of later beliefs among whom they are treasured and made a centre of their beliefs about messianic comings, but that's not the same thing.

So we have Jeffrey Staley reviewing Fitzmyer's study on messianic expectations -- a work that makes the same sort of conflation between scriptures and popular views -- and protesting: As for the New Testament as evidence, you will have to cite the passages you mean. The nativity story of Matthew portrays the masses, the general priesthood and the king all ignorant of any idea that a messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. The magi have to go to the top inner circle of advisors to the king to get that information. I know of no reason to think the story is true, or is evidence for real social or even Persian magi beliefs at the time.

TedM

ok, But you do realize it is subjective. A partial TF would be corroboration. A 'called Christ' in Josephus James passage, a Slavonic Josephus would be corroboration, Pliny, Tacitus, all of Paul's references to a flesh and blood crucified Jesus, and on and on..but the real issue is that your bar for credibility is high and you consider the credibility to be too low for the various sources of corroboration. And that's ok. I personally don't think it is reasonable, thus the frustration in communication.

TedM

If I may, I guess it depends on how you define evidence. Certainly Jews were very keen on anything having to do with Messiac expecations, so the location of his birth would have been an issue discussed.

Your quote suggested that the popular people were fairly separate from the elite since they couldn't read or write. It seems to me that the Jewish people were highly interested in religious matters and the large number of Messiah wanna-be's around the time of Jesus is strong evidence of that. In addition, since it seems just about anyone could speak openly in a synagogue, the exchange of ideas was quite high.

If we see a number of references to the Bethlehem town as Messiac, and few, if any, to it as only the clan, then it is most reasonable to conclude tha the popular expectation was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, just as the Talmud stories support.