hjalti

Makes sense. I think Mark 1:24 is a good case for the nazirite origin, since there we have nazarenos and agios theos side by side (at least it seems that way to me), which is a translation of nazir of god in the LXX (don't remember which verse, talking about Samson IIRC).

While not absolutely conclusive, stuff like this always makes me wonder why people think we can be so sure that Jesus was from Nazareth.

spin

Yup, that's the plain Marcan evidence.

Jdg 13:5,7. In one LXX version we even find ναζειραιος rather than ναζιρ.

Matthew has two bites of the Nazirite apple, 1) during the prediction of the birth, when Jesus "will save his people" (1:21), just as Samson would save Israel (Jdg 13:5); and 2) "he will be called a ναζωραιος", as Samson would be a Nazirite to god (again Jdg 13:5). Luke instead goes with Samuel.

Dogma.

Doug Shaver

If that presupposition explained something that was otherwise inexplicable, then that could be problem, yes.

Doug Shaver

I suppose it could. So could a conspiracy theory.

But serious advocates of mythicism claim that in the case of Christian origins, it's the most parsimonious explanation. That's what usually kills conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories also depend on a lot of question-begging. I have yet to see a historicist theory of Christian origins that does not, at some point, flatly presuppose Jesus' existence.

Doug Shaver

I see no reason to assume that the gospels recorded what Christians actually believed at the time they were written. I think that thesis needs to be supported by evidence that is independent of any presuppositions about the reliability of orthodox traditions about Christianity's origins.

Since mythicism disputes the scholarly consensus on this point, it doesn't count as evidence against mythicism.

Fine. Any theory needs to explain the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence for Christian belief in anything the gospels say about Jesus (other than that he was crucified and resurrected) until after the gospels were written, and there is no clear proof that they were written before the second century.

gurugeorge

I've never been entirely convinced of Earl Doherty's position, it does seem to me that "Paul" speaks of a Jesus who has some fleshly aspect. But the main point here is that "Paul" seemingly shows no awareness that any of the people he is talking about (the "Pillars", Cephas, etc) were actually personal disciples of a fleshly Jesus.

That (it seems to me) is the link to something non-fantastic, and to the later Gospel take, that's missing.

Sheshbazzar

While "Paul" might speak of a Jesus who has some fleshly aspect. He also repeatedly makes it clear that he only conversed with a "vision" and never actually met the man Jebus before he was dead, buried, and had (allegedly) ascended into heaven.
So "Paul" is no eye witness to any fact concerning the life of the man called 'Jesus of Nazareth', that man was a total stranger to "Paul".
Now "Paul" mentions some very scant information that might point to a belief by somebody in a real life, flesh and blood man behind the myth.
Problem is "Paul", as he admits, never once met this man while he was on earth, never bothers to mention where or from whom he heard this belief, and never bothers to provide any further claim or evidence that any of his associates or companions had ever personally met the -man- known as 'Jesus of Nazareth' either.

As a witness for the existence of a real-life, flesh and blood man named Jesus, "Paul" simply is not.
"Paul's" own testimony totally disqualifies him as being a witness to the existence of any flesh and blood man named Jesus, and any sane and impartial judge upon hearing a 'witness' give a incoherent and rambling 'testimony' like this;
-Would both dismiss him as being a credible witness, And recommend that he arrange for immediate psychiatric treatment, his major 'infirmity' being apparently his mind.

The I did not add, that's the way the verse copied, and is perhaps its own most appropriate commentary, so I'll leave it alone.




.

spin

Just put a space between the semicolon and the right parenthesis, so that becomes ; ).

ApostateAbe

I don't know if you have debated much with conspiracy theorists. I used to be a conspiracy theorist and I debated my way out of it, same as I did for Christianity and mythicism (all of the times you see me admitting wrong in this forum are part of a life-long pattern). Anyway, as you know, it is very difficult for a typical believer of conspiracy theories to change his or her mind, because, yes, the conspiracy theories really do explain all of the evidence that we can possibly imagine.

A special advantage therefore is that they explain evidence that the rival established explanations can not. Why did George W. Bush stay in the classroom for almost another hour reading My Pet Goat while America was being attacked? I don't know. Well, conspiracy theorists know exactly why--Bush already knew about the coming attacks. Of course, their explanations may not have much in the way of explanatory power (wouldn't Bush be prepared to put on a very good PR act?). But, I don't think they care so much about explanatory power, because their own theory has explanatory scope, covering a heckuva lot of evidence at the same time, and, if by chance it doesn't cover all of the evidence, then they can always bring in ad hoc explanations (i.e. a bunch of civil engineers and demolition experts are hired hacks of the conspiracy). Because their non-detailed explanation has considerable explanatory scope, covering so much of the evidence at the same time, that is what they believe serves as their case.

In the early days of 9/11 conspiracism (before "truther" was a word), there was an enormous list of questions supposedly without good official answers to them. It went viral, and it was great for the conspiracism, because it overwhelmed the critics. Of course the conspiracy theory implicitly provided answers to all of them.

So, when Toto said to me that "explanatory power of a model generally refers to how many facts the model explains," I took special pains to correct that error (creating this thread).

Sheshbazzar

Yeah but it is so much cooler to keep "God knoweth" wink wink.