Kapyong

Gday,

Rubbish.
You argued specifically AGAINST that point for most of this thread.


Which is exactly what I pointed out from the begining - which you rejected :

You argued that being no such prophecy in the OT meant there was NO such prophecy at all.

Now you've changed direction 180 degrees but pretend you always believed it anyway !


Kapyong

Kapyong

Gday,

spin HAS presented information that shows you wrong.

Your answer :
1. it MIGHT be true (what an insult to spin)
2. I dunno what it means (!)

Steve - it IS true, and it shows you are wrong.
Why ask for it, if you will just wave it away?


K.

spin

This basically indicates you are talking about Nazareth and its implications without having enough information to do so meaningfully.

Have a look at my blog here for some information on the subject.


spin

Juststeve

Kapyong:

It's hardly worth bickering about these things but I stand by what I said in what you quoted me saying. There is no prophesy about a Nazorene in the Hebrew Bible. I said that the prophesy was nonexistent and as far as you can demonstrate it is.

Now, is it possible that in some writing no one has seen such a prophesy might exist. I don’t see how anyone could exclude that possibility. I also don’t see how anyone with a functioning brain could base an argument on a prophesy no one can document.

Steve

Juststeve

Spin:

Post a link to your blog and I will give it a look.

Thanks

Steve

Ferryman to the Dead

They were all guilty of distortion. Its real simple really if you look at it. Contemporary evidence for this Nazareth does not exist. Why? Who the hell knows? Same goes for Sky Daddy this save the world fellow existed only in the minds of the mythological writers of the time period. Now, if they wrote this junk to pull the sheeples closer together thats fine.

aa5874

Well, exactly. Apologists today are doing the same as the authors of the gospels.

Since apologists cannot find any historical records for Jesus they must use so-called prophecies as history.

No amount of rhetoric can mask the fact that:

1. There is NO so-called prophecies that a Messiah called Jesus would live in a CITY called Nazareth.

2. There is NO mention of a CITY called Nazareth in Hebrew Scripture.

3. Josephus lived in Galilee and wrote about CITIES and villages and did NOT mention a CITY called Nazareth.

The theory that a City called Nazareth did exist during the time of the governor Pilate is extremely weak since those who wrote that Jesus lived a CITY called Nazareth are KNOWN fiction writers.

Toto

Look at spin's last post, on the left side, where it says "spin" - you will see "blog entries 6". Click on the 6

Ferryman to the Dead

Good luck convincing them of that....

spamandham

I don't there's much point in continuing, so to summarize:

1. We both agree Matthew used Jewish scriptures, to include the Septuagint.

2. I am inclined to accept the scholarly consensus that he also used the book of Enoch, you are reluctant to accept that unless you can see an exact quote

3. We both agree he used a minimum of 1 other written source outside the Septuagint

4. We both agree he used oral tradition

4.5 Though we haven't discussed it, I contend Matthew used many other sources as well, to include probably Josephus and the Didache. I also contend that since Jewish orthodoxy wasn't established at the time Matthew wrote, there isn't any reason to presuppose significance of the Septuagint over noncanonical Jewish writings, many of which are mentioned by name in the Bible but are sadly also lost.

5. We both agree Matthew attributes Nazareth to prophecy, and even directly quotes that prophecy

6. I contend that Nazareth is not mentioned merely in passing in the gospels, but is an important part of the story, mentioned repeatedly by the authors where it could easily have been ignored or at least downplayed if there were no theological significance to it. I'm not sure if you agree with that.

I conclude from this that the simplest position is "He shall be called a Nazorean" really was a commonly accepted prophecy at the time, or at least Matthew thought it was. I don't see how he could have expected to get away with directly quoting a prophecy no-one had ever heard of and which wasn't recorded in any Jewish text (to include the entire corpus of Jewish texts, not just the Septuagint).

You think this is a speculative conclusion.


Is this a fair summary?