Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2016, 09:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 09:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 09:16 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Your link says nothing about it.

1. Explain why the travels were impossible.

2. Provide reasoning and evidence to support your position that the theology wasn't available in the 1st century.

(The teacher in me is testing you.)

PS: I view Acts the same way I view the gospel records, as an embellishment of the life of Paul as the Gospels embellished the life of Jesus. I acknowledge that not everything is factual, as i understand how religious beliefs tend to distort history to varying degrees.

With that said, however, it has absolutely no relevance to the obvious 1st person narrative in Acts. It exists, with or without the other embellishments.

The Martin course proves the journeys were not possible. Take the course, and learn something.

The course is not required. Besides, it is one man's opinion, and another professional can easily contest it.

Quote:You're not my teacher.

Never said I was.

Quote:So the author wrote in the 1st person. So What. There were hundreds of "Acts" of "this or that" floating around.

Produce 1.

Quote: There are at least 2 "Pauls" evident in Acts. They have very different philosophies. The idea that Peter, a few weeks after the execution of Jesus is talking about him "dying for our sins" is preposterous.

Acts presumes to chronicle the life of Paul from Pharisee to Christian. So of course it will chronicle the transition and present both the Paul who was heavily influenced by Judaism and as time went past, it shows you the Paul influenced by his theology on Jesus and Greek theology/culture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 11:00 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote: Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Acts of Paul
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Peter and the Twelve

Here's 5. Do you ever get anything right?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
25-07-2016, 12:44 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
The first part of your reply required no answer, as it was just you restating your position that has already been well-covered by several parties, and need not be addressed again. I shall reply to the parts that called for actual reply.

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Secondly, you purposely understate the evidence because it's far FAR more than a single dwelling. It's also several 1st century (and older) tombs, 1st century ( and older) pottery, 1st century coins (from 104–76 BCE, 37–4 BCE, and 1 from 54 CE), and literally thousands of 1st century (and older) artifacts, 1st century bath houses, a hewn pit, etc.

I am well-aware of the other pieces of evidence. I am not an expert, but I can read the conclusions of the experts, the ranges of dates they give for the items mentioned, and the various problems with assigning them to earlier dates in that range. I can certainly form my own conclusions on what is most likely from the data and the explanations given by those experts. They are not as clear on this as you are presenting, especially given that the analysis and data on this find are relatively new, as are the arguments being promoted by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, who have every reason to encourage tourist traffic by putting out slanted conclusions before they are ready to be considered the actual academic consensus-- a long way from the absolute consensus of every expert on the subject. That is what I read in the reports. I am sorry that you feel my conclusion is unwarranted, but do not pretend I have not read all I can find online about this, by now.

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Thirdly, since you are using the Gospel records as part of your argument and arguing that they claim Nazareth was big enough for a Synagogue and use this as evidence against, you therefore open the door for anybody else to use them as evidence to support the existence on Nazareth.

You're missing the point. If Nazareth was a real place, a tiny hamlet out of hundreds that sprang up during the mass migrations of displaced war victims, as I think occurred, then it doesn't matter any more than any other of those hamlets except as a footnote. If Nazareth fits the description in Luke, then it means I have to more carefully consider the degree of accuracy of the story about the life of Jesus contained in Luke. If the author is utterly wrong in the details of the story, to the point that they cannot accurately describe the hometown that was visited and where Jesus is shown teaching in authority from the Old Testament (clear opportunity for myth-building), it indicates that the author is not speaking as if taking dictation from a first-generation witness, as claimed to be an authority behind the claims of Christian wannabe-theocrats in the country I care about.

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fourthly, we have Justin Martyr in CE 140 mentioning the existence of Nazareth.

Neato! What does that have to do with pre-diaspora villages where Nazareth would one day be?

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Fifthly, we have an inscription from the Jews (Not Christians) reassigning their priests to Nazareth as early as CE 70 or as late as CE 130, which would be ridiculous if Nazareth was a newly Christian created town.

Still not claiming Christians created this town. Stop it.

And it does make sense if the town was founded and/or massively expanded by migrants who were displaced in the GIANT, GENOCIDAL WAR that took place throughout that region for nearly a decade. Why is it so hard to grasp that this is a highly-likely time to found a new town?

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Sixthly, we have Ireneaus in CE 170 telling us that Marcion possessed and butchered the Gospel of Luke sometime before CE 140 to create his own version of a Gospel, and he tells us enough information about what Marcion cut out for us to know that he cut out the parts concerning Nazareth at the beginning of this Gospel.

Again... what does this have to do with the question of whether or not people outside of Palestine, who were writing this story (since we know it was not the disciples who actually wrote these Gospels) after the R/J war, actually knew enough about the town they were writing about to describe the place? If they didn't know that, how could they know that it existed (or didn't) seventy years prior?

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And you are trying to say it's all about some single house? And you wonder why we piss all over you personally? We do it because what you are doing is called:


It's not "all" about some single house. It's that the evidence does not match the Bible story, and it is the story with which I am primarily concerned. I think what has been found suggests something other than a very old town with a Temple and priests, despite the people who have excitedly stated that this must be Nazareth of the Bible.
If this place was indeed small enough to escape detection and yet be the place-of-origin of Jesus "of Nazareth", then it's still not what would be required to satisfy the significance of the origins story. I think there likely was a Jesus, and that he was a preacher, and he had to come from somewhere. Whether it really was this village or not is not my concern. My concern is that the Bible story is invented by people who did not know the area, and had no way other than legend to know the real story.

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  So, let me get this straight:

You think it is more plausible that early Christians created a town called Nazareth in the 2nd century to harmonize it with the Gospel records and then managed to erase every last bit of any literary evidence that complains about it, and you chose this conspiracy theory over all the available evidence and findings of the historians and archeologists?

How many times do I have to say that this is not what I think? What is wrong with you?

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Do you not see the obvious logic problem with what you are saying above?

You are saying that the early Christians attempted to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to the same name as that town, Nazareth.

But dude, how the fuck could the early Christians attempt to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to Nazareth if Nazareth didn't exist?

Easy. Because you refuse to understand what I am saying. I am saying that Nazareth began to exist before they wrote, and that the writers who put that in were not the people who were actually there, on the ground, to tell the initial tales that grew into the myth of Jesus the Son of God. Those who wanted a more-magical Jesus did not want him to be just a Jewish Nazarene, but something greater, which had appeal in the Hellenized regions to which the Gospels spread. In the pre-70s literature (Paul), there is no mention of Nazareth... but in post-70s literature (Gospels) there exists such a concept. The pattern seems consistent, to me.

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Again, what the fuck are doing? If you are trying to make that claim, then you have no fucking choice but to admit that Nazareth existed in the 1st fucking century!

For the last time... 70 C.E. is in the 1st fucking century. So is 28 C.E.

But there is a world of difference between establishing one and establishing the other. Things that date to a range, which may include the first century B.C.E. but centers on much later dates, does not mean that the items arrived on that site in the time in which they were made originally even if we assign it the earliest possible date. It simply is not evidence that can tie the dating down to a time before 70 C.E., no matter how much you assert that it can. I've read the reports on the pottery and they were pretty clear about the limitations on dating methods. And finally, as even you have pointed out (accidentally, I think), it's possible the fragment that dates Nazareth to 70 C.E. has been argued to have been part of the Bar Kokhba revolt, many years later, so even the evidence for that isn't definitive... I'm just accepting it at 70 on a "why not?" basis.

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Archaeology joke? If so, nice!

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And then you believe that Nazareth was created during the Jewish - Roman war, but provide no fucking evidence to support that.

Other than that's the first time I see record of it appearing in the evidence, and that such an event is well-known to cause towns to disappear and arise quickly, both? In the absence of evidence definitively tying it to an earlier date (even if such is within the range of statistical and/or analyticial possibility), why should I accept that it was there? My reading of the available evidence does not support a conclusion of an earlier date, and the revolt is the most likely hypothesis I can devise on why that would occur. If I am wrong by direct evidence, then I will change my mind and that will be that... but I am not going to accept the presupposition that it must be true because it may be true!

(24-07-2016 08:23 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And finally, Mark's position is that Nazareth was invented by early Christians:

Let the mocking begin!

Drinking Beverage

I must have missed that, in the page reference you made. I see nowhere he makes that claim.

"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
25-07-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 06:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The problem that me, the scholars, and the educated layman have is that the argument against has a common theme:

1. An argument from silence.

Except it's not an argument from silence, as I explained to you. There are good reasons to expect certain things to be there, in the places already examined, which should be obvious if the tale (as told, for instance, in The Gospel According to Luke) was true as told. If the tale is not true as told, then it is just a tale, and we have good reason to doubt the rest of the account's basis in fact.

(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  2. Denial that the available evidence is in fact evidence at all.

Utter misrepresentation of what we're doing. We're questioning the interpretation of the evidence, or its application. For instance, when you say, "We have found Nazareth", we say, "No, you have found a single, small dwelling where a city supposedly large enough to house a temple with a library should be, and we have no evidence whatsoever that the people who lived in that house called that place Nazareth, or that they lived in the community that would (later?) be named Nazareth."

(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  3. Completely implausible and wholly unsupported conspiracy theories.

So you keep saying; I don't think they're implausible or wholly unsupported at all, nor do I consider them conspiracy theories. We're talking about the motives of a religious cult, a cult we know manufactured and edited/censored a great deal of their own literature, and even if we didn't know they did this, I don't see how their example would be any different from the behavior of other religious cults we see in operation today (and throughout history). The implausible thing is to take them at their word on how it all happened.

(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  b) The argument that there is no archeological or historical evidence has been demonstrated as false, and that is not according to my mere opinion, but it's the opinion of all qualified experts who are all well trained in the subject. This is a consensus of professionals, and not merely a couple guys bickering on the internet.

The problem is you're not telling the whole truth, here. The archaeological evidence you have cited is not definitive, nor is it yet accepted as unassailable. There remain unexplained elements, and elements which you are applying incorrectly-- such as the "first century" crap, when as I have explained (and you have ignored) there is a world of difference between 1921 and 1970... yet you would describe them both as "in the twentieth century", as if that covered it. None of the evidence presented indicates, definitively, a turn-of-the-millennium dwelling, and all of the positive evidence points to a post-70-C.E. community.

Likewise, there's a great deal of scholarly debate over whether the assumptions that must be made in order to date things like the Gospels, the writings of Paul (and whether they're really by Paul at all), and which parts of them are and aren't interpolation (such as the final passages in Mark, for instance, or 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). Presenting it as though there is a solid consensus, and further stating that the interpretations used to form that consensus cannot be challenged, is not an honest approach... it certainly is undeserving of the level of derision which you apply here.

(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  c) The very notion that early Christians somehow conspired to create the town of Nazareth sometime after the 1st century in some effort to make it harmonious with the gospel record is not only completely lacking evidence for support, but is so incredibly implausible as to warrant ridicule.

Are you not reading what we're writing? Or are you just being less-than-honest in your assessments of what we're saying? No one is saying that the Christians conspired to create the town of Nazareth. We're saying they attempted to hide Jesus' Nazarene sect beliefs by attributing them to the same name as that town, likely also named after those Nazarenes, or just so named because it's their word for Prince and/or Sanctified... there are, as I'm sure you know, also some "fit the prophecies" motivations, here, similar to the bad translation of Isaiah "alma = virgin" thing, among others.

So you're right... to state that the second-generation Christians made up the town itself would be deserving of ridicule. If anyone comes along who's actually saying that, I'll help you mock them.

(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  d) The idea that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century can be traced as originating from a couple people such as Ken Humphrey's and Rene Salm- both of whom have absolutely no qualifications in any relevant field- and further investigation into their character reveals that they harbor extremist views against the religion of Christianity. This totally demonstrates excessive bias which is unsuitable to warrant credibility.

Um, okay. Have I said Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century? Have I not said repeatedly that I think it was formed during the great upheaval (diaspora) around the time of the Roman-Jewish War? Please try to keep up with my actual arguments-- flailing away at straw men just wears you out and doesn't really help this conversation. I'm a little tired of repeatedly saying "that has never been what I said".

(24-07-2016 04:49 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  The absolute truth may never be known, but the absolute truth about virtually anything may never be known. But what we don't do is deny evidence when it certainly does exist, and contest a consensus of experts when we are not qualified, especially when we don't have a pot to piss in as a means of contesting them.

Anyone who contests a consensus of experts while they have no evidence or solid reasoning to contest them absolutely deserves ridicule. If you are going to claim that Nazareth didn't exist in the 1st century, or even claim that it POSSIBLY didn't exist, then you are required to provide evidence to support that position.

If you cannot provide any, then it is mere unsupported assertion, and nothing more.

Nice rant. Too bad it has nothing to do with anything I'm claiming.

Now can we deal with the real question, which is "Does the evidence fit the claims of the Gospel writers?" and "Do we have any evidence that the town was there pre-70 C.E., when they claim it was, especially in the form they claim it was (with local temple and hills to throw Jesus off, etc.), since that bears heavily on the mythology of the life of Jesus-of-Nazareth?" I have seen nothing presented by any archaeologist which demonstrates those questions, unless given a massive degree of post-hoc presumption.

I admire your patience, your integrity and your knowledge. Thanks!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 03:34 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(24-07-2016 03:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That is quite remarkable if you think about it. Here we have Paul writing volumes and volumes about his Christ, yet only half a line about him meeting Christ's brother. You have to admit there is something very very strange going on here, and therefore the question of interpolation must be admitted.

I see absolutely nothing strange about Jesus having a brother named James. But then again, I see the whole of this from the entirety of all available historical evidence, and not from any preconceived Christian or anti-Christian position.

I mean, what is so strange about a mere man having a brother?

That's how I see it.

Once again, you have completely misunderstood me. This is tedious.
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
25-07-2016, 05:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 10:15 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(23-07-2016 11:19 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oh. I see you are referring to what became the Roman Catholic church...the ones who wrote the history.

Except for the fact that everything I posted occurred between 125 - 200 years before the advent of Catholicism, and has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Instead, we call it "history."

Big Grin

The lights are on, dimly, but there is nobody home. How does it feel to be a suburb behind everyone else in the race?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 05:14 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2016 05:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 09:43 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Acts presumes to chronicle the life of Paul from Pharisee to Christian. So of course it will chronicle the transition and present both the Paul who was heavily influenced by Judaism and as time went past, it shows you the Paul influenced by his theology on Jesus and Greek theology/culture.

It would be better for your low credibility to actually say "I don't know anything about that" when faced with things you know nothing about, instead of pretending to know about things you never heard of.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-07-2016, 05:19 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 10:50 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:Marcion did not believe this. Check your facts.

I have checked my facts. You simply don't understand the facts because you have no clue about Gnosticism. Here:

Hippolytus reported that Marcion's phantasmal (and Docetist) Christ was "revealed as a man, though not a man", and did not really die on the cross.

However, Ernest Evans, in editing this work, observes:

"This may not have been Marcion's own belief. It was certainly that of Hermogenes (cf. Tertullian, Adversus Hermogenem) and probably other gnostics and Marcionites, who held that the intractability of this matter explains the world's many imperfections."

Gnosticism does not deny the physical person of Jesus, they simply understand it completely differently than we do. To them, the "real" Jesus was not human, but only imitated a human body. The "real" Jesus was not crucified, but instead only this imitated body was crucified.

To them, the "real" Jesus was not human at all, but rather was a spirit. This, despite the fact that they all agree that an "imitated" fleshly body was used by the spirit of Jesus to interact with people.

So according to them, the "real" Jesus was not a flesh and bone person, and did not die on the cross. Their position is that it would be impossible and ridiculous for an eternal spirit to have been born and to have died.

Therefore, they split Jesus into 2, flesh and spirit, but have absolutely no regard for the fleshly Jesus at all, as the flesh itself is completely irrelevant to their beliefs. Flesh is meaningless. Where Christians of the day- and even today- worship a man named Jesus, the Gnostics instead worshiped the spirit that existed within the man named Jesus.

And that is the fundamental difference between Christianity and Gnosticism.

The following text may give you a good understanding of what I am talking about:

The Apocalypse of Peter

And pay close attention to the following lines in the text above:

"The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

"And he said to me, "Be strong, for you are the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel in which they dwell, of Elohim, of the cross, which is under the Law. But he who stands near him is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible to suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body. But I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light. He whom you saw coming to me is our intellectual Pleroma, which unites the perfect light with my Holy Spirit."

They separate the flesh from the spirit. That's how Gnosticism works, Mark.

And if you read Paul closely, you will see much of this same theme creeping into his theology. And that is exactly why Marcion chose the Gospel of Luke (after he edited it) and Paul's letters to form his canon. I strongly suspect that because Paul spent so much time away from the influences of Judaism due to him going to the Greeks, Romans, Gentiles etc, that although he was preaching his version of the Gospel he was also subjected to being taught by the Greeks and early Gnostics on how to understand his version of Jesus.

Paul uses the word "spirit" at least 145 times in his letters. But listed below are just a few of the many ones that can be compared to a Gnostic school of thought:

Rom_8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Rom_8:4 so that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Rom_8:5 For they who are according to the flesh mind the things of flesh, but they who are according to the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Rom_8:9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

Rom_8:10 And if Christ is in you, indeed the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Rom_8:13 For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die. But if you through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live.

1Co_3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Col_2:5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in the spirit, rejoicing and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.

His statement compares to the Gnostics quite nicely, and Paul may very well be the father of Christian Gnosticism, and his theology may very well be the source for the Gnosticism of Hermogenem, Cerdo, Marcion, and Valentinus among others.

More on the Gnostic Paul and also Gnosticism in The New Testament.

And finally, one more point about the Gospel of Luke and Marcion. The following is from Irenaeus - a contemporary of Marcion- circa CE 175, 15 years after Marcion's purported death and 30 years earlier than Tertullian.

Note the bold text below:

Quote:Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself.

But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judæa, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator.

Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father.

He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

That is now 2 records that demonstrate that Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke, which is clear-cut evidence that the Gospel of Luke existed long before Marcion butchered it, as we now have a testimony of it all by a contemporary of Marcion.

And that is Gnosticism 101.

Good day.

"Gnosticism does not deny..."

You do not understand gnosticism. Do some reading...come back in a month.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 06:09 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(25-07-2016 05:19 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Gnosticism does not deny..."

You do not understand gnosticism. Do some reading...come back in a month.

What part of Gnosticism do you believe he got wrong? Can you share an alternative perspective of Gnosticism supported by early evidence?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(24-07-2016 02:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Mark Fulton's position is that the early Christians had a severe schism with a supposed Nazarene sect, which Jesus was a part of. And these Christians edited half verses in the Gospels that had "the the Nazarene" in it, so that Jesus's association with that sect could be erased.

And how did they do that? By changing those verses to make it about a town called Nazareth that didn't come to exist till about the forth century, a town founded and inhabited by the same sect these later Christians were trying to dissociate themselves with."[/i]

You have sort of half got what I think. This is what I write in my book...

The Nazarenes
Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene” ( is a Nazarene.htm.) As mentioned, Nazareth the village probably didn’t exist in Yeshua’s time. ( Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations. The bible made it clear the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.

“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.) An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village."

Now, for some reason, you jumped on the idea that I said Nazarene the place was interpolated into the gospels at a later date. While I accept that is a possibility, as we don't have any copies of the original versions of gospels, I have never promoted this idea... it was simply your interpretation of what I wrote. I think the gospels originally had Nazareth in them, and it was there as a ploy to distract from the term the Nazarene.

I hope that clears this up for you once and for all.

As far as Nazareth not existing is concerned, neither you or your mate have provided a single written reference from prior to about 140 CE confirming the existence of Nazareth, nor have you explained why no Christian ever visited Nazareth the place prior to the early fourth century. You can rabbit on for as long as you like about your shitty archaeological evidence and how you think this part of your gospels a true narrative of history, but the fact remains you're basing your ideas on extremely shaky grounds.

Well if Nazareth was referred as a place in the original Gospels, please explain to me how the writers would have know of the town of Nazareth, since as you suggested it didn't come into existence till the fourth century?

Secondly your claim that they used nazareth as a hometown, to downplay Jesus as "The Nazarene", doesn't make any sense, judging that all four Gospels also refer to Jesus as the "The Nazarene", on numerous occasions. Secondly you suggested that the town of Nazareth, derived it's name by being occupied by members of this sect. How does it make any sense for someone trying to dissociate Jesus from "the Nazarene" sect, to then go and associated him with a town occupied by this sect, and named after them?

You seem to believe it's more likely that the town derived it's name from the sect, rather than sect deriving it's name from Jesus's hometown.

I'm not even gonna yet bother to have you lay out the supposed disparity between the views of let's say the writer of Mark, and your supposed Nazarene sect, and require you to site the first century sources in support of what their views were. I'll let you off the hook for that for the time being, and leave it all about your suggestions about Nazareth.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: