Mythicism

(A thread began on the old topic of whether Nazerath existed at the time of the gospel stories, and a fundy drops in to give his party line, I could not resist. Sadly he ignores me.)

Whether Nazareth existed at the time is irrelevant, the gospel accounts of it are for narrative purposes, only the more common town elements match, well, temple etc, which is what most towns had, what the "real" Nazerath does not have is a cliff, oops. (look it up)
The name Jesus of Nazerath is problematic. For e.g. Mats nativity add-on contradicts that title, as it should reflect place of birth, which clearly Marky and Johny thought was Nazareth. Naughty Maty was trying to hit too many OT bullseyes, having his cake and eating it, like being the Son of God, and David, cleary logic was not Mats thing. Maty’s justification for it was a “prophecy”, “he shall be called a Nazerine” which isn’t actually in the OT. Even for Maty that was sloppy work. Also Paul never mentions such a title, (mainly as his Jesus was not the same one).
The reason Marky first set his little jaunt in Galilee and forced the others to do so, was it was the only part of that area he knew enough about, his descriptions of Judea and Jerusalem are a joke. The rest don’t do that much better, as none of them were even Jewish let alone from Judea, but “of Nazerath” was already established, so they had to stick with it. All except John, who just drops Jesy in Judea instead. (Hey don’t worry, he gives Mr carpenter 2 extra years of ministry as well, hooray!) Luke tries to flesh the story out with detail he steals from Josephus, but Maty’s only trick was OT rip-offs, so he had no choice but to find a word that vaguely resembled Nazareth, and used “Nazerite”. Nice try though. Its depressing to realise the NT writers where as intellectually dishonest as creationists are today. (At least that shows they're true christians!) And speaking of intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

KevinH

Been a while.

Quote:

KH> First, we have evidence of the Slaughter in Matthew.

Like what? Go on, hit me with your best shot! Purge this unbeliever of his sinful doubts with your red-hot Christian facts!

Quote:

Second, because no other account of the event has survived (or was written) does not mean it did not occur.

It does not mean it did either. (god of the gaps) Any way, its a clear rip off of the Pharonic massacure in exodus, if you can’t see the similarities, that suprises me. I understand you may not notice when old Maty rips off obscure passages of the OT but the famous bits should ring some bells in even a thiests mind. No other account surviving is a big problem when you happen to have a historian who was obsessed with Herod’s crimes, (Josephus) and as Maty clearly says babies were slaughtered up and down the coast as well, you can’t do the old “obsure hamlet” dodge with people who’ve actually read the bible, keep that one for the sheep.

We don’t rule it out though lack of references but because it shows every mark of being fictional, marks you ignore. For a start, Maty wanted to get Jesus into Eqypt, as he had the line “out of Egypt I called my Son” from the OT, so he put him in, just to get him out (the reason why he’s only there for one verse). Only Maty as this line from the OT so only Maty has Jesus in Egypt, so only he has Herod kill the babies, pretty big givaway. He knew he could con his readers into thinking the term “Son” was literal (being a simple bunch) It actually referring to the exodus of course, and he knew that, and so he needed a traditional threat, (like those of the baby Moses, Hercules, Perseus, the entire Greek Pantheon etc) and so conjured up a similar massacre to that of exodus, showing that the book was in his mind, due to the true context of the quote he was misusing. The similarities are even closer to the Pharonic massacure, as there was another version of the “event” flouting around that said Pharoh was out to kill the deliverer, not control the population, (Josephus mentions this one) which must have made it even easier for Maty to come up with the threat, (followed by another out of context OT quote). Not one element of the story we cannot account for. Fiction,

Quote:

Third, it sounds like something Herod would do. He was murderous beyond belief , killing members of his own family.

Its called “hiding a tree in a forest” the later Christian revisionists did the same with Nero, then tried with Pliny Jr, and tipped their hand. Smear the baddies not the goodies morons!

Quote:

Fourth, the town was small in a far region of the Roman Empire and there was no mass media. Al Gore had not invented the internet yet. It may well have escaped notice or was ignored by other historians.

Already killed this one, any more apologetics?

Quote:

KH> The Gospels do not contain many of the details of the others - depending on emphases and purpose of the author.

Or they all just ripped of mark, which is the scholarly consensus. Occams Razor.

Quote:

There is no good reason to doubt the Matthean authorship of the Gospel.

He clearly embellishes Marky, misuses the OT, and wrote anonymously. The earliest reference to a Matthew gospel describes a collection of sayings (Q?) not a linear narrative.

Quote:

All the evidence is that he wrote it or superintended it and that he was an eyewitness of Christ.

What evidence? Rhetoric, which only someone who already believes (like you) will fall for, and no one else will?

Quote:

Matthew is not trying to show a fulfilled prophecy here, but merely sees typology in the passage.

Bullshit, Maty 3:17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled...

How do you sleep at night?

Quote:

There are no "magic stars" in Matthew, but a supernatural event from God announcing something profoundly significant.

You say potato.

Quote:

Your anti-supernatural bias found in your naturalistic worldview prevents you from accepting the event, for which we have good historical evidence.

Which you have so far failed to present. Naturalism is based in what we know, supernatualism on ignorance, I know which one I’d rather base my life on.

Quote:

This event probably involved maybe 30 children btw according to some scholarship given population, etc.

UP AND DOWN THE COAST, try to use sources which aren’t as retarded as a Christian’s moral values.

Quote:

1). The New Testament documents are reliable.

As the rest of the Bible.

Quote:

2). This event is in keeping with Herod's known character from corroborative sources.

See previous post.

Quote:

Matthew emphasized this event and noted typological (not literal) fulfillment with the passage of Rachel weeping for her children.

Does Maty use the term typological? Or show any understanding of your Jungian spin? So it’s literal is it gets your opponents in hell, and not if it makes Maty look like an arse. You fundys make me laugh. When you’re not plotting to destroy western civilisation, (again).

Quote:

4). We don't have everything extant from the ancient world, e.g. Livy.

Thanks to the church and their lovely warm bonfires.

Shouldn't this make us more careful in evaluating the NT? No? Just have Faith? Ahh well.

Quote:

5). In a far region of the Roman Empire involving a small amount of children, it's amazing we have this much information.

No Jew would mention it? And if Maty “knew” why not the other evangelists? Is it only a coincidence that only Mat uses OT rip-offs to justify his Massacre, and only he makes other Exodus references, and only he had to conjure up a reason to stick jesus in egypt? Isn’t the simplest explanation that he based it on the OT, and his unique embellishments of Marky where all those that he could “Midrash” from OT quotes? Naturalism isn’t the issue, Occam’s Razor is.

Seriously that was fun, I get such a sense of spiritual and emotional wellbeing from debunking untruths, any more? And don't get too hot under the dog collar, see me as trying to educate you despite yourself.

Mark is the cleverest gospel, what he did was invent the ninja messiah, one who comes and goes in history without anybody noticing
The messiah was supposed to be a objective character, doing stuff no one could fail to notice, unite the 12 tribes, resurrect ALL the dead, re-instate temple sacrifice etc. The Christians had to invent a messiah who's actions took place either in a mythical realm, or time, (depending on your interpretation on the "Pauline" epistles). That way they could account for why this messiah had to historical impact, unlike the original Jewish version. But when some of the Christian sects in the middle of the second century started the great project to re-make Christ as a historical messiah after all, Mark had to make him secretive, and low key, so has to account for the lack of historical reference to him. The reason they didn’t start this epic era of revisionism until the 2nd century was obvious, isn’t it suspicious that the gospels appear just as the last of any possible "eyewitnesses" would have dead? Once Mark had wedged jesus into hisory, the rest could blow him up.