Jesus of "Nazareth" - major mythicist clue?
Posted: 17 November 2006 04:08 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

We all know that Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth, meaning that he was from a place called Nazareth.

This comes, seemingly, from a misunderstanding of the term Nazarene. Matthew makes it pretty clear where this comes from.

[quote:f877a131f6]Matthew 2:
21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."[/quote:f877a131f6]

[quote:f877a131f6]Judges 13:5
...you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel…[/quote:f877a131f6]

This was already a part of the Markian story though.

[quote:f877a131f6]
Mark 14
66While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
    "You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.[/quote:f877a131f6]

[quote:f877a131f6]Mark 1:

9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

12At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, 13and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.[/quote:f877a131f6]

Now, we also know that there is no evidence for a place called Nazareth until some time in the 3rd or 4th century, and indeed we have several lists of cities of Galilee that do not contain this town from prior to that time.

So, if Mark made up a fictional place where Jesus came from, isn’t this a dead giveaway of an intentional allegory?

Either Mark was confused and misunderstood the meaning of Nazirite, thinking that a Nazirite was someone from Nazareth, which I don’t think is likely, or he intentionally created the fictional Nazareth using a play on words, as authors often do in allegorical histories.

If this is true, and can be supported with any significant weight, this this alone points to Mark as pseudo-history and his Jesus as fictional.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 November 2006 06:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  48
Joined  2006-07-07

I like the term psuedo-history.  It describes the bible well.  In all honesty, Jesus probably never existed in the capacity the bible claims, not even close.  In fact, when the bible was written, as well as the events it describes, were thought to have happened many years after the dates it claims they happened.  It’s a story, and when possible the authors inserted geographical and biographical information to make it seem more real.  But any book that tells about how the main character comes back from the dead is strictly fiction.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2006 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

Roger Flat is so right! The Josephus main quote has one [Eusebius?]interpolated.It states what no orthodox Jew would state. Doug might adumbrate here.

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2006 09:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

I have since learned that my idea can’t be correct because “Mark” in fact never used the term Nazareth, this is a later change to the text in order to get Mark to agree with Matthew, who was really the first to use the term Nazareth, so as usual, the scriptures are too unreliable to even postulate on in their current form.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2006 02:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2006-11-22

The Gospels of the New Testament

Weren’t the gospels written years after Jesus?

 Signature 

“Truth persists, whether you believe it or not.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2006 02:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: The Gospels of the New Testament

[quote author=“peachey1”]Weren’t the gospels written years after Jesus?

Yes, many years.

And welcome to the forum!

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2006 02:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2006-11-22

Thank you.

Discovered this web site and podcast a couple of weeks ago.  I am really enjoying the information and discussions.

 Signature 

“Truth persists, whether you believe it or not.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2006 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  124
Joined  2006-03-19

I’ve heard some suggesting that the writings of Paul pre-date the gospels. Paul’s lack of references to details is Jesus’ life is attributed to the idea that these details had yet to be invented. As the story spread, new details supposedly were added, perhaps merging different know stories involving different historical figures, and perhaps even some non-historical.

Anyone have any insight into this view?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2006 01:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  241
Joined  2006-07-17

[quote author=“dmoreau”]I’ve heard some suggesting that the writings of Paul pre-date the gospels. Paul’s lack of references to details is Jesus’ life is attributed to the idea that these details had yet to be invented. As the story spread, new details supposedly were added, perhaps merging different know stories involving different historical figures, and perhaps even some non-historical.

Anyone have any insight into this view?

Yes, the writings of Paul predate the gospels.

If you have time, I suggest watching my presentation on this subject:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/origins_of_christianity.htm

If not, try the Jesus Puzzle, though it will probably take longer to read actually:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

I also suggest Robert Prices book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

 Signature 

http://www.rationalrevolution.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2006 04:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  124
Joined  2006-03-19

Actually, I probably should have said most date Paul’s letters before the gospels, though not all give the reason I mentioned for the dating.

I know their are also some who suggest the Jesus Paul teaches is based on someone who lived around 100BC. Then again, with the lack of data, Occom’s razor would probably keep us as the customary birthdate.

Profile