MrMacSon

What people think about whether Nazareth existed in the early 1st C AD/CE, or not, is different to whether there is evidence it did.

outhouse

Understood.

There is evidence, a slight few just discount it.

Evidence suggest it was there, and not many with any credibility at all question it. Its more then a simple appeal to authority

Scripture saying it was there is evidence.


You would have to ask yourself. Why would members of the movement place their leader from a dump like Nazareth?

Having a place for Jewish workers not wealthy enough to live in the Hellenistic opulence of Sepphoris, would need a hovel to live in.

The growth in the area that is attested as Sepphoris was rebuilt, and the agrarian villages surrounding it that would keep the city fed, required a local population of farmers and stone workers and hand workers doing odd jobs.



Because buildings were built on the oldest part of the town, and very very little of the town has actually been excavated, is poor evidence to say it did not exist as written.

aa5874

I specifically made reference to Aristides' Apology and I do not see where it is claimed the disciples of Jesus were Jewish.

Please, identify where exactly that Aristides claimed the 12 disciples of Jesus were Jewish.

I can't find such a statement in Aristides' Apology.

You have claimed Josephus wrote that the Temple was destroyed because of the death of James and NO such thing is in the works of Josephus.

Now, you say that Aristides wrote about the 12 disciples of Jesus who were JEWISH.

You don't even realize that the story of Jesus the Son of God is a myth Fable.

Gods and Sons of Gods are Myths.

The Jesus story was fabricated by Gentiles.

God came down from heaven and lived in the daughter of man!!! What Mythology!!

Please, read Aristides Apology.

This is what Jews believed--not the story of Jesus, the Son of God.

Aristides' Apology XIV. It was GENTILES who fabricated the story that Jews worshiped Jesus as God and the Creator.

You appear to have EXPOSED that you have very limited knowledge of Aristides' Apology and the works of Josephus.

DCHindley

out

Why do you insist on using "scholarship" when referring to individual scholars?

It makes it appear that you do not know the difference between the two words.

DCH

TedM

Seriously? You are going to now claim that the original 12 disciples according to Aristides were Gentiles!!?

The Jewishness of the twelve disiples isn't explicitly stated by Aristides, but it is clearly implied. First, it says Jesus was Hebrew and the gospel was preached 'among THEM' for a 'short time'. Who is THEM? The Jews. How could it be referring to the Gentiles when the writer only is mentioning Jewish origins? Second, why would Jesus have twelve NON-JEWISH disciples which are obviously supposed to have corresponded to the twelve tribes of Israel? That would make no sense.

Third, you specifically left out the part of the passage that indicates their gospel was kept in books, which is implied Aristides had read. Do you wish to claim that those gospel books said that Jesus had twelve Gentile disciples?? And of course, its not like Aristides has a monopoly on Christian origins...All the references to disciples that exist clearly represent the disciples as Jewish.

To suggest that Aristides believed the original 12 disciples were Gentiles is ridiculous.


For easy reference, here is the entire passage:


I might point out too that this seems to destroy the idea some have that the gospel didn't exist by 120-130AD in some written form. Since you claim 'fabrication' you've got to go back earlier than 120AD. How far back do you go?

Also, Aristides Apology is fairly early attestation to the idea that there were 12 disciples, who actually spread the gospel far and wide. Aristides of course may have just been passing along what he had read in the gospel(s) he had read, but that's only 80-100 years since the alleged crucifixion date for myths of this to have developed. We can't simply say that the stories of their widespread ministry were tacked on to the end of the gospels late 2nd century or beyond. The tradition existed by 120-130AD at the latest. Note too that the implication (also by saying Christians have become 'famous') is that Christianity was widespread by 120-130AD.


But that's not all of what we are talking about. We are talking about the story of Jesus as a living being on earth, killed by Jews, who was FIRST believed by the Jews to have been something special (thus 12 disciples) and because he was resurrected. This STARTED Christianity, according to your own source. The theological beliefs are varied, but that doesn't negate the Jewish origins as you keep claiming is the case. 'Fabrication' of his divinity is not the issue here. You confuse the issue by introducing it in order to 'explain away' the historical foundation behind the movement.

You gave a source, and now you want to impugne your own source as unreliable. How does that help your position?

Finally, I again point out that Aristides says nothing of the Temple destruction when explaining the origin of Christianity. Here we have a passage that walks us through the chronology of Christian origins in general terms that doesn't even mention the Temple destruction, which YOU say was the whole reason Christianity was created and believed.

Isn't this a glaring omission by Aristides? Doesn't it pretty much destroy your theory of the 'temple destruction' motivation?

outhouse

Thank you, I do see it could look that way. Might even be partially right.

In this case I did mean the work in one area of history, as apposed to one man's work.

Sometimes, there are groups of scholars that follow the same ideas or belief.

outhouse

I have always viewed the 12 as fiction by the Proselyte/Gentile authors.

TedM

Yes, I know you do. I find this passage interesting from Aristides, prob written in 124:

Even it the twelve didn't exist, somehow the message spread to all the known parts of the world, and Christians had become 'enough', resulting in an Apology written to the Emperor Hadrian in 124AD. For aa and others who believe the story was a fabrication, but use Aristides as their source of the historical origins, I would ask this:

Given the degree to which Christianity had spread by 124AD, attested to by Aristides, when did this fabrication start? Surely it would have taken decades to have spread to such an extent.

For aa, given his insistence that the Temple destruction was the motivating factor for the 'Jesus cult' why do we not have Paul's writings ever referencing the destruction, even if as prophecy, if they were actually written after the Temple destruction and Paul was being credited with the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman empire? A good opportunity would have been 1 Cor 3:

outhouse

Quite a bit of the current mythology was created and compiled by 70 CE.

Aristides sole sources probably were the scripture's in circulation where he lived.


I use the ignore function with a high degree of success. If you like beating your head against a brick wall, carry on bud

TedM

Somehow I feel like I'm doing something good by trying to get through to him. It must be a psychosis..