Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2016, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 08:07 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 11:46 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I do have a problem when you (notice, no generalizations, I'm talking about you) act like the bible was not altered, revised, edited, etc.

That straighten everything out for you?

I was speaking exclusively about Nazareth, and the verses regards Nazareth, I made no generalized statements regarding the Bible, or the NT as whole, so keep your strawman to yourself.

I never acted like the various books of the Bible were not altered, revised, edited, etc.. that just your projection.

The question is whether the Nazareth, as hometown of Jesus verses was later altered, revised, edited addition, to the original texts. So stop trying to move the goal post, from a specific passage, to the Bible in it's entirety.

So are you gonna argue that the Nazareth passage was likely a later addition to these text, not part of the original writings? Like Mark Fulton suggests? Or are you gonna erect more strawmen?

"So are you gonna argue that the Nazareth passage was likely a later addition to these text, not part of the original writings? Like Mark Fulton suggests?"

Excuse me! This is exactly what I wrote...

""Mark" was probably first penned in the 70's. It finished being rewritten in the fourth century. Nazareth didn't exist in the 70's."

I don't know at what point(s) in time "Nazareth" was added to the Gospels. I do know it was in John's gospel in the early 3rd century, when Origen mentions it a few times.

Once again, you have not read carefully, but just assumed, what someone else (me) thinks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 08:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 10:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 10:07 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The Narareth angle is trivial. The gospels were not historical texts, they were sales pitches. The OT passages regarding a messiah were revised to fit jesus.

Anytime the moment strikes for atheists to put their thinking caps on, they try and deflect. Since we're talking about Nazareth, than the angle is not trivial.
in fact it can't be that trivial if you want to suggest the Nazareth aspect was added to these text several centuries after their composition dates.

It can't be that trivial if a concentrated effort by later christians was made to insure that Nazareth as Jesus's hometown, is written into all four Gospel accounts. You can't have it both ways my friends. So lets go back to that thinking cap.

So what is it, if you want to go with the suggestion that it was latter addition to the text, what theological, prophetic, political purpose would it serve to have Jesus hometown as Nazareth? Only Matthew even makes the attempts to suggest this was a part of messianic prophecies, the others treat it as a trivial biographical detail.

So once again was the Nazareth portion likely to have been latter added into these Gospels, or did Nazareth exist at the time in which the texts were composed, the earlier be about 70ce.

Quote:Yay. One of the few places they don't contradict each other.

Which tends to indicate that passage is original to the text, and doesn't bode well for those who want to argue these passages were all later christian interpolation, or edits.

"...what theological, prophetic, political purpose would it serve to have Jesus hometown as Nazareth?"

One possible and probable answer is that it deflected questions about Jesus' sectarian affiliations. The Nazarenes were a well-known sect of OF JUDAISM, not Christianity. They were militant and anti-Roman, John the Baptist was one, as was James, the brother of Jesus. They continued to be around for a few hundred years after the death of James. So when the word "Nazarene" was mentioned in general parlance, the simple folk who the gospels were aimed at would assume that it meant "from Nazareth..." not a fundamentally anti-gentile sect from another religion… the Nazarenes.

Digest this possibility and you will appreciate a fundamental irony in the Christianity of today.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 09:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 09:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know when the gospels were invented, or edited, or rewritten.
70 CE doesn't cut it. We're asking if there is evidence to support a claim that Jesus was from there, EARLY 1st Century.

SO someone edited all four Gospels, after the dates in which they were originally penned, to indicate that Jesus was born in Nazareth?

You have any evidence that this portion of the writing was edited later, such as copies of these text, that show different versions of the particular passages?

And what exactly would be the motivation here to edit Nazareth into the text?

"And what exactly would be the motivation here to edit Nazareth into the text?"

See previous post. It's called propaganda.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 09:24 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  The gospels were edited to make them fit prophecies, for theological and political purposes. And just because scribes fucked up.

So the gospels were edited to fit the supposed early prophecies that the messiah would be from a place that didn't exist at the time called Nazareth? Let's see you put your critical thinking cap to good use here.

Quote:You need to read Erhman. No attempts were made to make the various versions agree until the era of the printing press. None of the early manuscripts are exactly the same. Most of the variations are minor, but some are important.

Yet no variations exist regarding the the verses indicating Jesus was from Nazareth, in all four gospel accounts. No support whatsoever that these portions were later edits to the text.

"No support whatsoever that these portions were later edits to the text."

Yes, but you have no evidence that Nazareth was in the first additions of the gospels. You appear to be just assuming it was.

As I said, I don't know whether it was or it wasn't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:14 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you just enjoy making things up Rocketsurgean. Nazareth is mentioned in all four Gospels accounts numerous times each, and is written of similar ways. There's no real difference between Mark, of Matthew, or Luke, or John's treatment in this regard. In fact all four Gospels also refer to Jesus as the Nazarene. So I'm guessing who ever you suggested wanted to change the Nazarene, to "of Nazareth", forgot to edit those passages, lol.

And Mark uses the word Nazarene the same amount of times as John about 3 times, but even less so than Acts. So quit your lying.

So what's your argument, that these original versions of these Gospels didn't have Nazareth as a place, that latter Christians altered these passages to make it into a place. That they were thorough enough to alter all four of the Gospels in this regards, get rid of any copies that indicated alterations, but not thorough enough to edit out all the mentions of the Nazarene in any single Gospel?

Do you guys actually hear your arguments in your head before you start suggesting them? Or do you just have diarrhea of the mouth.

Wow, aren't you just a special kind of asshole? I should ignore you for speaking to me that way, but I'll plug ahead in the hope that you can stop being a dick and start thinking more broadly than you currently do. I'll try holding my breath to see if it helps.

My argument is (as it has been on other similar issues) that in the 20+ years after the death of Jesus, before the time the gospels were written, the intervening decades gave the oral traditions of the cult time to morph, be embellished, and coalesce into a story that would be (slightly) further refined after the first versions were being written, but which would largely be based on that first narrative (Mark). In the case of the use of "the Nazarene" to refer to a place rather than a cult group, I think there was plenty of motive to obfuscate such an origin and make it about an obscure place rather than the cult, within the Romanized-Hellenistic culture that was adopting the new religion based on a semi-nearby region's mythology... thus all the attempts to make Jesus "fit the prophecy", even in clumsy ways like the Isaiah "born of a virgin" mistranslation.

What is your evidence that the site we're calling "Nazareth" was called that in the beginning of the first century, rather than being applied to the town (perhaps named because it was largely settled by displaced Nazarenes, after the destruction of the war against the Romans) that grew up there in the second half of the century? What is your evidence that it was a town at all, prior to the relocation of settlers and a priestly "course" called Hapizzez there at the time of the revolt?

The stories being told by the Christians who wrote Luke claim that Jesus went to the temple there, "as was his custom", to read from a scroll of Isaiah. And yet all we find on the site is a single, small dwelling, rather than a town large enough to support a temple with a library. It is particularly strange that Josephus doesn't mention it in his description of the Galilee, given that kind of size, especially if (an) additional priest(s) were sent there during the rebellion.

Can you really not see that these are stories being told by later Christians to try to legitimize Jesus the Nazarene as "the one of whom the prophets prophesied", and to link him to Old Testament passages by whatever torturous rhetorical means they could?

And also what the fuck does John, a late gospel which is universally recognized as being written nearly a century after the facts it purports to describe, and for the purpose of building the legend of Jesus, have to do with the synchronicity of the Synoptic Gospels you were alleging as evidence of the origin-city of Jesus? You clearly have utterly missed my point about the common legend, written down in Gospel form, as opposed to your "they all agree because it's a Real True Fact™, man!" hypothesis.

(22-07-2016 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We're just talking about Nazareth here, a place that served no real theological, or messianic purpose, and does in fact exist. That somehow the writers of these text in the first century, knew of, before the town even existed, lol.

If the theological purpose was to shift his origin-story in such a way that "the Nazarene" ceased to be a descriptor of his beliefs and became simply the place where he was from, it does... especially given the fact that the people of Nazareth supposedly rejected him (to the point he couldn't even do miracles there!), which is an almost too-obvious dig by those writing the story.

Also, who's claiming the writers knew of the town before it even existed? The town existed--and possibly came into existence--in the time of the rebellion. That's also when the earliest Gospel was written.

(22-07-2016 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm from Philly, I don't know of anyone from Philly who thinks that the Eagles are the greatest team ever, and if they did, it wouldn't be based on their win/loss ratios, lol.

Meh, I started to pick Boston and the Pats, but I didn't think it fit the metaphor quite as well, so I leaped to another nearby town with fans known for being somewhat hardcore about their team. I was simply trying to illustrate the principle that a common legend does not equate to a fact.

(22-07-2016 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A more accurate analogy would be, if we had records of a bunch of people talking about Islamic terrorist flying plains into the world trade center 20 years prior to the events occurring. Or speaking of the years of Obama Presidency decades before Obama was the president.

That would be a prophecy, and not at all what I'm talking about. If you'll allow me to shift your metaphor, it'd be like finding records in 2050, which were written in 2016, that claimed to describe an event at The Ark Encounter (in Kentucky) back in 1993, even though it wasn't built until the year it was written.

(22-07-2016 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Mark Fulton suggests Nazareth didn't exists until the 4th century, yet we have writings of those who acknowledged it's existence in the first century. In fact we have writings of others in the 2nd century, christian and non-christian indicating the same. An inscription in a synagogue dating to the third century, that indicates Nazareth was around during the Bar Kocheba Revolt. I guess they all saw the future.

I can't speak for Mark Fulton... I've been gone a week, and frankly I don't care enough to go back through and read for how you've (I think likely) misrepresented his claim. [Edit to Add: I see he has addressed this, while I was typing.]

As to the evidence, although you have most of the dates right, I think you're intending to refer to the First Jewish-Roman War revolt, from 66-73 C.E., during which time the temple was destroyed and the population shifted around quite a bit. The Bar Kokhba Revolt was fought from 132-136 C.E., and is so named because of Simon bar Kokhba, a different alleged Messiah. The synagogue inscription of the 3rd century, to which you refer, indicates that the Hapizzez course was resettled in Nazareth around the year 70.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-07-2016, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 08:10 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 12:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 12:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Fail again Tomato. They are "sources" of nothing ... except what LATER Christians BELIEVED. In the link I provided there are multiple (real) scholars, (as opposed to you and your fake Fundie ones), who all agree the gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of FAITH. Not history.

So in 70ce the writer of Mark believed that there was a town called Nazareth, that didn't exist at the time, that somehow came into existence later?

You are really, really slow on the uptake.
1. You have no proof " Mark" was written in 70 CE
2. You have no proof "Nazareth" was in any original version of Mark
3. It has just been explained you, a few times, that the gospels are not history, they are faith documents. It was a time when facts were hard to check. It would not have mattered to the authors of Mark whether an actual place called Nazareth did or didn't exist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Mark - Since you're on, I meant to ask. Is there any etymological significance to the fact that Simon bar Kokhba self-described by the title Nazi (meaning "prince"), in an attempt to make himself seem more like The Messiah? It strikes me as awfully close to Nazir ("consecrated"), the root from which we get Nazarene and Nazareth, and by which we get people referring to Jesus by that name.

ETA: Here's the Strong's article on it http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5139.htm

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 12:34 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The other problem is that you're glossing over how poorly the Gospels do actually "agree" on what you're alleging. Mark, the earliest, contains no birth narrative at all, and the only place it mentions where Jesus grew up is the passage about "a prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown". This passage may indicate he grew up there, or it may be an early attempt to shift "the Nazarene" to "of Nazareth", as the Jesus legend grew and changed with second-generation Christians (you'll note that he's most often called the Nazarene in Mark, but less so in other gospels). Matthew and Luke, the only two that do mention his birth, don't agree on many important details.

Do you just enjoy making things up Rocketsurgean. Nazareth is mentioned in all four Gospels accounts numerous times each, and is written of similar ways. There's no real difference between Mark, of Matthew, or Luke, or John's treatment in this regard. In fact all four Gospels also refer to Jesus as the Nazarene. So I'm guessing who ever you suggested wanted to change the Nazarene, to "of Nazareth", forgot to edit those passages, lol.

And Mark uses the word Nazarene the same amount of times as John about 3 times, but even less so than Acts. So quit your lying.

So what's your argument, that these original versions of these Gospels didn't have Nazareth as a place, that latter Christians altered these passages to make it into a place. That they were thorough enough to alter all four of the Gospels in this regards, get rid of any copies that indicated alterations, but not thorough enough to edit out all the mentions of the Nazarene in any single Gospel?

Do you guys actually hear your arguments in your head before you start suggesting them? Or do you just have diarrhea of the mouth.

Quote:By glossing this over to present a unified account of Jesus' origin, and then claiming that we have no evidence that the story might have been made up or cobbled together for some purpose other than accurate historical writing, you are being dangerously loose with facts, if not outright dishonest. It appears to be an after-the-fact attempt to make the "Christ" figure fit the prophecies from the Old Testament, including his Davidic lineages, in an attempt to highlight their cult's claims to legitimacy.

Since we're talking about ways in which the Gospels do and do not agree, can we argue next about whether or not there was a "first" census given during the reign of Herod... or whether it was when Quirinius was governor? (Since they weren't at the same time.) That has always been a favorite of mine.

We're just talking about Nazareth here, a place that served no real theological, or messianic purpose, and does in fact exist. That somehow the writers of these text in the first century, knew of, before the town even existed, lol.

Quote:No it doesn't "tend to indicate" that. What it indicates is that the passage (or rather, concept) is common to the belief structure that spawned those texts. It's a subtle, but important, difference. I can interview almost everyone in the town of Philadelphia to learn that accounts all agree: the Eagles are the greatest team ever, but checking records for win/loss ratios and Super Bowls tells me that they're mediocre at best.

I'm from Philly, I don't know of anyone from Philly who thinks that the Eagles are the greatest team ever, and if they did, it wouldn't be based on their win/loss ratios, lol.

A more accurate analogy would be, if we had records of a bunch of people talking about Islamic terrorist flying plains into the world trade center 20 years prior to the events occurring. Or speaking of the years of Obama Presidency decades before Obama was the president.

Mark Fulton suggests Nazareth didn't exists until the 4th century, yet we have writings of those who acknowledged it's existence in the first century. In fact we have writings of others in the 2nd century, christian and non-christian indicating the same. An inscription in a synagogue dating to the third century, that indicates Nazareth was around during the Bar Kocheba Revolt. I guess they all saw the future.

"Mark Fulton suggests Nazareth didn't exists until the 4th century, yet we have writings of those who acknowledged it's existence in the first century. In fact we have writings of others in the 2nd century, christian and non-christian indicating the same."

Please produce these second century writings and I will be happy to be corrected. If you have any of these writings (other than the gospels) from the first century, I would like to see them too.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2016, 06:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(22-07-2016 06:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Mark - Since you're on, I meant to ask. Is there any etymological significance to the fact that Simon bar Kokhba self-described by the title Nazi (meaning "prince"), in an attempt to make himself seem more like The Messiah? It strikes me as awfully close to Nazir ("consecrated"), the root from which we get Nazarene and Nazareth, and by which we get people referring to Jesus by that name.

ETA: Here's the Strong's article on it http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5139.htm

Mate, sorry, I'm not sure. I can tell you the Nazarenes refused to fight in the bar Kokbha revolt. They thought Simon was a false messiah.

As to me saying that Nazareth was created in the early fourth century, I'm not really sure that it was this late. I can find no really good definitive evidence that the place now called Nazareth existed as a town until then. Yet I'm happy to be corrected (but please, T, not with your "all good historians..."spiel)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
22-07-2016, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2016 08:12 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
I've just spent half an hour or so trying to find out if Justin Martyr (100 to 165,) a key Christian apologist, many of whose writings survive, mentions Nazareth. I don't think he does. He mentions Bethlehem, but not Nazareth. If anyone else can find Justin mentioning Nazareth I would be interested.

If "Nazareth" existed in the gospels in the mid second century, Justin Martyr almost certainly would have mentioned it. He doesn't (as best I can tell.)

PS I was wrong. Justin does mention Nazareth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: