Jesus existed therefore God

[FarWanderer]

Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.

Bold added by me.

Question for debate: If the statement Jesus existed is true, does that necessarily establish that an all powerful, all knowing God exists?

[Goat]

Ya I think the reason some Jews deny Jesus, is similar to the reasons they denied God in the Old Testament, they are falling away...


And im not quite sure what you mean by Paul inventing Jesus is "God"... Becuase, saying Jesus is "God" isnt really accurate, the "Son of God" would be more aligned with what the first disciples believed... Or they also called Jesus Christ "Lord"... And we have references to these titles in every book in the New Testament (that im aware of)... Not just Paul's like you are suggesting.

Well, you have to look at idioms and how they were used at the time. In the Jewish faith, the term 'Son of God' means someone who was especially righteous. Psalm 2 had David becoming the Son of God when he was anointed to be king. it didn't mean he was god, but he was exulted by God.

And, the Jewish people are quite happy not having Christian beliefs imposed on them.

Well Jewish people are Messianic Jews as well as non believers... Lets not group them all one way or the other...

According to Israeli law, Messaniic Jews are not eligible for the Law of Return. That indicats that legally, they are not considered of the Jewish faith.

Oh i didnt know that, that is interesting.. I believe the dynamics of God at work within the destiny of mankind are played out in our present world... Especially in the middle east within the Abraham religions... Prophecy, like that of the coming of the Messiah that Jesus fulfilled, it still in the works (clearly)... This "Law of Return" is certainly a dynamic of prophetic teachings... At this point, the Jewish fundamental community in Israel would reject Peter as a Jew, Paul and John and James they would claim arent Jews, and ultimately Jesus Himself... This kind of spirit in the Jewish community, they also killed saint Stephen at the Temple in Acts... Very concerning, but also prophesied... Just as prophecies now are playing out, today...

Thought this article was interesting
http://www.appleofhiseye.org/learn/jewi ... -of-return

Interesting you should choose that site. It will illustrate one of the points why Israel took that stance. If you look at the board of directors of that Messianic church, it will have a Lutheran minister on it's board of directors. In Chritstian churches, you won't see Rabbi's serving as the board of directors.

[Goose]

You are missing the point.

No, I think you missed the point of my post to RedEye.

There is no record of a city of Nazareth outside of the bible until the late 3rd century..

And thats a problem because...

And you must mean no documentary record because there certainly is an archaeological record supporting the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus.

even though it was described as a city, big enough for a synagogue.

Why is that a problem? Is there something about having a synagogue that demanded mention?

There is no external evidence outside the bible until the 3rd century.

And this argument from silence proves what exactly?

Lets look at the facts.

1. A city in the region of Galilee named Nazareth exists. This is indisputable.

2. Remains of a Jewish settlement from the time of Jesus have been found in Nazareth.

3. There are four ancient biographies (Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, and John) that date to the first century which attest to the existence of Nazareth.

4. Around 175 AD Celsus, an antagonistic source towards Christianity, stated Jesus was the man of Nazareth (as recorded by Origen,Against Celsus 7.18).

5. Around 220 AD Sextus Julius Africanus refers to Nazareth (as recorded by Eusebius, Church History 1.7.14).

6. Three stone fragments found in Caesarea dated to around the third/fourth centuries. One of which attests to the existence of Nazareth.


You are argued earlier in post 16 the following:

Well, there was some ruins there.. but apparently, it was not inhabited during the time frame of Jesus except by about 10 houses, and it was not KNOWN as Nazareth.

But you do concede it was inhabited during the time frame of Jesus. Good, thats a start at least. And where are you getting this number of 10 houses? And if it wasnt known as Nazareth, then what was it known as? Do tell.

You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century.

What direct evidence do have that it was renamed in the fourth century? What was its name prior to being renamed and what evidence is there for that prior name?

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

These arguments from silence arent terribly strong unless you can show every town was mentioned except Nazareth. And its not terribly surprising Nazareth isnt mentioned in the Talmud, a hostile source, if Jesus was thought to have come from there.

Not to mention Nazareth may have had a bad reputation anyway.

Nathanael said to him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? " John 1:46

It's not surprising at all that a small town, with a bad reputation with those that did know of it, would fly under the radar.

Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

Paul doesnt mention Mary or Joseph either so its not surprising he doesnt mention Nazareth. Paul was writing letters to churches dealing with pastoral issues. He wasnt writing a biography of Jesus so theres no reason to expect him to mention Jesus home town while addressing believers who undoubtedly already knew the tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth.

Having said that, its likely Paul does happen to mention Nazareth in his speech recorded in Acts.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Of course this argument from silence ignores the sources I just mentioned. Its not surprising there is no mention of Nazareth outside the sources listed above. It was probably an insignificant town with a poor reputation. No reason for Roman historians to mention it and very little reasons for Jewish historians to mention it.

It wasnt unprecedented for cities to be mentioned by a single source and then go unmentioned by the way.

Pliny speaks of the otherwise unknown towns of Acerr, surnamed Vafri

No mention of these towns aside from Pliny. No archaeological evidence has been found supporting their existence. Apparently they didnt exist either I guess?

By the way just so no one thinks that the historical Nazareth position is only defended by conservative Christian scholars here is a blog post from Bart Ehrman, an atheist and critical scholar, where he argues against the idea Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus.

[Goose]

Pauls speech to Agrippa.

So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. " Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 26:9

That's hearsay. I'm referring to the authentic writings from Paul's own hand. What Acts states about events post-Jesus is often in stark contradiction to the material in the Pauline epistles. Someone (the author of Luke-Acts) was just trying to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization.

The objection [t]hats hearsay isnt a valid historical argument. So much of ancient history comes down to us in the form of hearsay that if we were to dismiss it all for that reason we would be throwing out volumes of ancient history. And thats irrational. Historians dont work like that.

Well set aside for the moment that you have merely asserted Acts is often in stark contradiction to the material in the Pauline epistles. It matters not because its also an invalid historical argument to simply dismiss sources because one may not agree with another on secondary points. Once again, so many sources from antiquity disagree on numerous secondary points that if we applied this type of methodology across the spectrum of antiquity we would be in the absurd position of throwing out volumes of history once again.

Now you argue in regards to Acts 26:9 that Luke was trying to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization. This argument doesnt hold water and appears contradictory to what you stated right before. You argue that Acts is often in stark contradiction to Paul. In the very next sentence you argue the author of Acts has done a bit of post-hoc harmonization. Well, which is it? Was the author of Luke/Acts prone to harmonize or not? Why would the author of Luke/Acts go out of his way to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization and yet leave so many inconsistencies so that someone like yourself might come along and say he is often in stark contradiction? For instance, why would Luke leave discrepancies in the three accounts of Pauls conversion in the same work if he was prone to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization? Surely if harmonization were Lukes tendency he would have, at the very least, ironed out in his own work the conversion accounts of Paul recorded in Acts.

To the evidence in Acts 26:9 itself.

• 1. The historical record attributes Luke/Acts to Luke, the companion of Paul (see this thread).
  
  2. Paul mentions a Luke (Col 4:14, 2Tim 4:11, Phil 1:24).
  
  3. Acts internally claims to be a companion of Paul (Acts 16:8-17, 20:13-16,21:1-18, 27:1-8, 13-29).
  
  4. Acts internally claims to be in the presence of key leaders in the early church (Acts 21:18).
  
  5. Pauls speech to Agrippa meets the criterion of embarrassment. Especially the reference to Jesus of Nazareth at 26:9. It comes with the highly embarrassing confession that he had done many things against Jesus of Nazareth, persecuting and mistreating Christians, etc (Acts 26:9-11).
  
  6. This account of Pauls conversion has some discrepancies with the other accounts in Acts (ch. 9 and 22). Surely if Luke was harmonizing he would have smoothed out this account to be more in line with the other two.
  
  7. The account of Pauls speech has the earmarks of being taken from eyewitness testimony " Then Paul stretched out his hand... (Acts 26:1).
  
  8. Agrippas response is to declare Paul is insane (Acts 26:24). Which also meets the criterion of embarrassment.
  
  9. Agrippa is almost persuaded to become a Christian (Acts 26:28). Surely if Luke were manufacturing this conversation he would have Agrippa convert to Christianity. Not have Agrippa call Paul crazy and almost be persuaded.
  
  10. Pauls declaration that Jesus would be the first to rise from the dead (Acts 26:23) is consistent with Pauls letter to the Corinthians where Jesus is the first to rise from the dead (1 Cor 15:20).

What you need to do is provide some evidence that this speech was not authentic. Dont just say stuff like, That's hearsay. As though that were some kind of argument.

This is patently false.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. " Mark 1:9

That's an obvious interpolation. How do we know? Because Matthew copies large tracts of Mark including the passage containing this verse. See Matthew 3.13 where there is no mention of Nazareth. Someone came along mid-2nd century and tried (crudely) to harmonize Mark with Matthew and Luke by introducing a reference to Nazareth where there had been none before.

Hold the phone.

Firstly, do you have even a shred of manuscript evidence to support this argument of an interpolation at Mark 1:9? Simply arguing for an interpolation, without manuscript evidence to support the argument, when the text says something that falsifies an argument smacks of desperation.

Secondly, so let me see if I have this straight. You are arguing that some interpolator in the 2nd century tried to harmonize Mark 1:9 with Matthew 3:13 by adding the reference to Nazareth in Mark 1:9 even though there is no reference to Nazareth in the parallel verse in Matthew?

Heres a table of what your argument entails:

• [row][col][center]Mark 1:9[/center][col][center]Matthew 3:13[/center] [row][center][i]before[/i] interpolation[/center][col][center]In those days Jesus came from Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.[/center][col][center]Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.[/center][col] [row][i]after[/i] interpolation[col][center]In those days Jesus came from [b][i]Nazareth in[/i][/b] Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.[/center][col][center]Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.[/center]

So the interpolator would have effectively created a discrepancy between Mark and Matthew by adding the reference to Nazareth in Mark 1:9 while attempting to harmonize the accounts. And this strikes you as a good argument?

If the interpolator were seeking to harmonize Mark with Matthew wouldnt he just leave Mark 1:9 alone since there would have already been a near perfect harmony without the reference to Nazareth?

Furthermore, if this 2nd century interpolator was so concerned with harmonizing Mark with Matthew in the subtle use of Nazareth wouldnt we also expect the editor to fix Mark 14:67 where Mark uses the form - (the Nazarene) and Matthew uses (of Nazareth) in the parallel verse (Matthew 26:71)?

Given the above I think we can safely rule out an interpolation at Mark 1:9.

Speaking of Mark 14:67, what about the other verses in Mark? Were they all interpolations too?

What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are"the Holy One of God! " Mark 1:24

When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene " Mark 10:47

she looked at him and *said, You also were with Jesus the Nazarene. " Mark 14:67

[Goat]

You are missing the point.

No, I think you missed the point of my post to RedEye.

There is no record of a city of Nazareth outside of the bible until the late 3rd century..

And thats a problem because...

And you must mean no documentary record because there certainly is an archaeological record supporting the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus.

Yes, it certainly is a problem.. because if you look at the description in the bible, any city the size mentioned in the bible would be listed elsewhere, and, well, it wasn't. The stone that has the word 'Nazareth' on it dates to when tourists from Rome started coming to Judah on religious pilgrimages. When you look for evidence for something, and it is mysteriously missing from where it should be, that should raise red flags. There is a strong possibility that the city was renamed for the religious tourist trade.

even though it was described as a city, big enough for a synagogue.

Why is that a problem? Is there something about having a synagogue that demanded mention?

Because of synagogue would mean the city would be of a certain size, and the size would make it worthy of mention.


Unless you can show that it was mentioned from outside the bible, you don't have any independent confirmation, and you can't show that the claims in the bible are more than just a story.

There is no external evidence outside the bible until the 3rd century.

And this argument from silence proves what exactly?

Lets look at the facts.

1. A city in the region of Galilee named Nazareth exists. This is indisputable.

2. Remains of a Jewish settlement from the time of Jesus have been found in Nazareth.

3. There are four ancient biographies (Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, and John) that date to the first century which attest to the existence of Nazareth.

4. Around 175 AD Celsus, an antagonistic source towards Christianity, stated Jesus was the man of Nazareth (as recorded by Origen,Against Celsus 7.18).

5. Around 220 AD Sextus Julius Africanus refers to Nazareth (as recorded by Eusebius, Church History 1.7.14).

6. Three stone fragments found in Caesarea dated to around the third/fourth centuries. One of which attests to the existence of Nazareth.


You are argued earlier in post 16 the following:

Well, there was some ruins there.. but apparently, it was not inhabited during the time frame of Jesus except by about 10 houses, and it was not KNOWN as Nazareth.

But you do concede it was inhabited during the time frame of Jesus. Good, thats a start at least. And where are you getting this number of 10 houses? And if it wasnt known as Nazareth, then what was it known as? Do tell.

You got a village that was renamed in the 4th century.

What direct evidence do have that it was renamed in the fourth century? What was its name prior to being renamed and what evidence is there for that prior name?

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

These arguments from silence arent terribly strong unless you can show every town was mentioned except Nazareth. And its not terribly surprising Nazareth isnt mentioned in the Talmud, a hostile source, if Jesus was thought to have come from there.

Not to mention Nazareth may have had a bad reputation anyway.

Nathanael said to him, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? " John 1:46

It's not surprising at all that a small town, with a bad reputation with those that did know of it, would fly under the radar.

Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

Paul doesnt mention Mary or Joseph either so its not surprising he doesnt mention Nazareth. Paul was writing letters to churches dealing with pastoral issues. He wasnt writing a biography of Jesus so theres no reason to expect him to mention Jesus home town while addressing believers who undoubtedly already knew the tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth.

Having said that, its likely Paul does happen to mention Nazareth in his speech recorded in Acts.

No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Of course this argument from silence ignores the sources I just mentioned. Its not surprising there is no mention of Nazareth outside the sources listed above. It was probably an insignificant town with a poor reputation. No reason for Roman historians to mention it and very little reasons for Jewish historians to mention it.

It wasnt unprecedented for cities to be mentioned by a single source and then go unmentioned by the way.

Pliny speaks of the otherwise unknown towns of Acerr, surnamed Vafri

No mention of these towns aside from Pliny. No archaeological evidence has been found supporting their existence. Apparently they didnt exist either I guess?

By the way just so no one thinks that the historical Nazareth position is only defended by conservative Christian scholars here is a blog post from Bart Ehrman, an atheist and critical scholar, where he argues against the idea Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus.

Well, the counter claim is 'Nazareth was renamed during the 4th century for the tourist trade. Nothing you provided falsified that.

[Goose]

Yes, it certainly is a problem.. because if you look at the description in the bible, any city the size mentioned in the bible would be listed elsewhere, and, well, it wasn't.

Pure speculation.

When you look for evidence for something, and it is mysteriously missing from where it should be, that should raise red flags.

The irony of course is that the evidence for the claim that the city was renamed for the religious tourist trade is mysteriously missing from every source, not just the ones we might expect to mention this renaming event if it had happened. There simply is no mention of this renaming event in the historical record whatsoever.

Despite this glaring omission in the historical record and your remarks above regarding raising red flags you assert in the very next sentence...

There is a strong possibility that the city was renamed for the religious tourist trade.

So on the one hand there is a strong possibility this renaming event of Nazareth occurred. Despite there not being even a single mention of the event in the historical record at any point. On the other hand when it comes to the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus, well, thats no more than just a story. Despite numerous mentions in the first, second, and third centuries, and archaeological evidence to support as well.

Because of synagogue would mean the city would be of a certain size, and the size would make it worthy of mention.

It might make it worthy of a mention. But having a synagogue in and of itself doesnt demand a mention.

Unless you can show that it was mentioned from outside the bible, you don't have any independent confirmation, and you can't show that the claims in the bible are more than just a story.

So says the guy who argues for the strong possibility that the city was renamed despite not being able to find even a single mention of this renaming event in any source.

And I did show Nazareth was mentioned from outside the bible by at least three different sources. But you conveniently ignored that bit.

Well, the counter claim is 'Nazareth was renamed during the 4th century for the tourist trade. Nothing you provided falsified that.

Yes, Goat, that is the claim which youve made several times. But where is the evidence in the historical record for that claim?

[RedEye]

Pauls speech to Agrippa.

So then, I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. " Paul, as recorded by Luke, Acts 26:9

That's hearsay. I'm referring to the authentic writings from Paul's own hand. What Acts states about events post-Jesus is often in stark contradiction to the material in the Pauline epistles. Someone (the author of Luke-Acts) was just trying to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization.

The objection [t]hats hearsay isnt a valid historical argument.

Sure it is. Nothing obliges us to accept hearsay as evidence for anything. Anyway I was merely clarifying what I meant when I said "Paul never mentioned a Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus (or any Earthly place really)". Paul certainly never does mention a Nazareth in his own writings. That is the significant point I was making. What some anonymous person later claimed Paul said is irrelevant to this point.

So much of ancient history comes down to us in the form of hearsay that if we were to dismiss it all for that reason we would be throwing out volumes of ancient history. And thats irrational. Historians dont work like that.

I beg to differ. How historians work is irrelevant to the issue. Unfortunately you want to pretend that the gospels qualify somehow as historical documents. Um, no. They are gospels and the word "gospel" literally means "to spread the good news". They are religious documents and, whilst they may contain some occasional references to historical figures, no professional historian would dare to suggest that they are historical works. Therefore your whole argument about how historians work is a red herring. Neither the stories in the Old Testament nor the stories in the New Testament are considered history by professional historians. Perhaps you are confusing Biblical scholars with historians?

Now you argue in regards to Acts 26:9 that Luke was trying to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization. This argument doesnt hold water and appears contradictory to what you stated right before. You argue that Acts is often in stark contradiction to Paul. In the very next sentence you argue the author of Acts has done a bit of post-hoc harmonization. Well, which is it? Was the author of Luke/Acts prone to harmonize or not?

It's not contradictory at all. The author could do nothing about the preexisting Pauline epistles which demonstrated deep personal and doctrinal conflict between Paul and the so-called Jerusalem pillars. Paul had open contempt for Peter and the others in his own writings. The author of Acts made an effort to try and paper over the cracks between them but in so doing, introduced the stark contradictions I referred to. However, this is straying off-topic so I don't wish to dwell on the issue further.

Why would the author of Luke/Acts go out of his way to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization and yet leave so many inconsistencies so that someone like yourself might come along and say he is often in stark contradiction? For instance, why would Luke leave discrepancies in the three accounts of Pauls conversion in the same work if he was prone to do a bit of post-hoc harmonization? Surely if harmonization were Lukes tendency he would have, at the very least, ironed out in his own work the conversion accounts of Paul recorded in Acts.

Very good questions (where you seem to agree that "discrepancies" do indeed exist). Perhaps "harmonization" was not the right word in this case. The author of Luke-Acts obviously accepted the material from the gospel of Matthew and decided to have Paul throw in a reference to Jesus of Nazareth since he was bandying the title around himself. Is that better?

This is patently false.

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. " Mark 1:9

That's an obvious interpolation. How do we know? Because Matthew copies large tracts of Mark including the passage containing this verse. See Matthew 3.13 where there is no mention of Nazareth. Someone came along mid-2nd century and tried (crudely) to harmonize Mark with Matthew and Luke by introducing a reference to Nazareth where there had been none before.

Hold the phone.

Firstly, do you have even a shred of manuscript evidence to support this argument of an interpolation at Mark 1:9? Simply arguing for an interpolation, without manuscript evidence to support the argument, when the text says something that falsifies an argument smacks of desperation.

No, it's a perfectly valid argument. Compare the text side by side:

Mark 1
7 And this was his message: After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.

Matthew 3
11 I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
:
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

Clearly the author of Matthew has copied from Mark. You would need a plausible explanation then why he would choose to leave out the reference to Nazareth. Do you have one?

Secondly, so let me see if I have this straight. You are arguing that some interpolator in the 2nd century tried to harmonize Mark 1:9 with Matthew 3:13 by adding the reference to Nazareth in Mark 1:9 even though there is no reference to Nazareth in the parallel verse in Matthew?

No. The interpolator noted that Mark contained no reference to "Jesus of Nazareth" anywhere, saw that there was a problem and felt that the gospel should in order for them to be in better harmony about the Jesus story. So he added the Nazareth reference at a suitable point, either failing to check the corresponding Matthew passage or not being concerned about it since his job as a scribe was presumably only to copy Mark.

So the interpolator would have effectively created a discrepancy between Mark and Matthew by adding the reference to Nazareth in Mark 1:9 while attempting to harmonize the accounts. And this strikes you as a good argument?

See above. We're talking about a time before books and word processors. We're also talking about fallible human beings.

Furthermore, if this 2nd century interpolator was so concerned with harmonizing Mark with Matthew in the subtle use of Nazareth wouldnt we also expect the editor to fix Mark 14:67 in the parallel verse (Matthew 26:71)?

I know you have this image in your mind of some omniscient editor/scholar who has both gMark and gMatthew committed to memory and can magically understand the repercussions of every change he might make to one of the texts, but that is not how it was in practice. In fact the scribe involved may have just been doing the grunt work and had merely been directed by a superior via a quickly scribbled margin note to add a reference to Nazareth at that point.

Given the above I think we can safely rule out an interpolation at Mark 1:9.

Then you would need a good explanation for why "Nazareth" appeared in the corresponding Markian text when it wasn't present in the Matthew text (which was sourced from gMark). I await your explanation.

Speaking of Mark 14:67, what about the other verses in Mark? Were they all interpolations too?

No. See Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Bible. Those references are to Jesus the Nazarene. They are being interpreted as Jesus of Nazareth in popular Bible versions. Unfortunately the term "Nazarene" had nothing to do with any city named "Nazareth". The attempted harmonization of the gospels continues to this very day.

[FarWanderer]

Did you get that from any source? Or did you come up with it on your own accord?

Mostly here.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/chr ... aniel.html

Well thats a huge read, which id need more time to invest then i have right now, but ill tell you, right off the bat this looks really bad... Between claims of fiction, misinterpretations, and forgeries, this seems to be throwing mud in whatever means necessary... Right off the bat it does not look like it gives even close to a coherent explanation of the evidence, just a string of doubts at whatever means necessary.... It looks like a bad source...

It's a historical-critical interpretation. It's not meant for a believer audience. I only linked it because you asked. By the way I haven't completely read it either- just the part about the 70 weeks prophecy.

Also, I don't really care if you like or don't like the source. My arguments are what I wrote in my own words.

The objections you made also seem to be just poor interpretations, based from here.

Whether they came from this source or whatever, is irrelevant. What is important is whether they are accurate, and you haven't provided any clear explanation as to what exactly is wrong with them. What exactly is "poor" about my objections? I think you are obligated to back yourself up when you say something like that.

Based off of 2 different interpretations, and not even on the original Hebrew manuscript.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you are referring to me quoting only the New International Version and the Jewish Publication Society version I was just highlighting the different approaches. Gotta start somewhere.

It seems to me if someone is going to make the claims made about "an" and "the", you would need to make those claims on the original Hebrew, and not some interpretation that translates to those words...

My biggest point is that 9:26 begins with "after the 62 weeks" (which all translations agree on). If the Christian interpretation were correct, then we would expect it to be "after the 69 weeks" or "after the 7 and 62 weeks". In other words, it's this beginning line of 9:26 that shows definitively that the 7 and 62 in 9:25 aren't meant to be referring to a single 69 week time period.

The correct article for the "anointed one" mentioned in 9:26 is rather a side issue to that. The original Hebrew has no definite article (no "the") for the anointed in 9:26. That's a fact even Christian scholars acknowledge. You can see a word-by-word breakdown here. No "the".
https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/9-26.htm

Some Christians argue a "the" in Hebrew translations to English can be justified by context, which may be possible for all I know, but as an argument it would be circular (you can't use a word justified by context to prove what the context itself is).

[Tart]

Did you get that from any source? Or did you come up with it on your own accord?

Mostly here.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/chr ... aniel.html

Well thats a huge read, which id need more time to invest then i have right now, but ill tell you, right off the bat this looks really bad... Between claims of fiction, misinterpretations, and forgeries, this seems to be throwing mud in whatever means necessary... Right off the bat it does not look like it gives even close to a coherent explanation of the evidence, just a string of doubts at whatever means necessary.... It looks like a bad source...

It's a historical-critical interpretation. It's not meant for a believer audience. I only linked it because you asked. By the way I haven't completely read it either- just the part about the 70 weeks prophecy.

Also, I don't really care if you like or don't like the source. My arguments are what I wrote in my own words.

The objections you made also seem to be just poor interpretations, based from here.

Whether they came from this source or whatever, is irrelevant. What is important is whether they are accurate, and you haven't provided any clear explanation as to what exactly is wrong with them. What exactly is "poor" about my objections? I think you are obligated to back yourself up when you say something like that.

Based off of 2 different interpretations, and not even on the original Hebrew manuscript.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you are referring to me quoting only the New International Version and the Jewish Publication Society version I was just highlighting the different approaches. Gotta start somewhere.

It seems to me if someone is going to make the claims made about "an" and "the", you would need to make those claims on the original Hebrew, and not some interpretation that translates to those words...

My biggest point is that 9:26 begins with "after the 62 weeks" (which all translations agree on). If the Christian interpretation were correct, then we would expect it to be "after the 69 weeks" or "after the 7 and 62 weeks". In other words, it's this beginning line of 9:26 that shows definitively that the 7 and 62 in 9:25 aren't meant to be referring to a single 69 week time period.

The correct article for the "anointed one" mentioned in 9:26 is rather a side issue to that. The original Hebrew has no definite article (no "the") for the anointed in 9:26. That's a fact even Christian scholars acknowledge. You can see a word-by-word breakdown here. No "the".
https://biblehub.com/text/daniel/9-26.htm

Some Christians argue a "the" in Hebrew translations to English can be justified by context, which may be possible for all I know, but as an argument it would be circular (you can't use a word justified by context to prove what the context itself is).

Well the original Hewbre here:
even brakes up "sixty" and "2", as well as 7
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/dan9.pdf


Ill just be honest, this isnt convincing. The interpretation of this scripture goes beyond my knowledge, and I dont think you have much of a better interpretation then I...

I mean, we just dont know... You are concluding to know the intentions of the Ancient Hebrews, namely Daniel, based on VERY limited evidence.... Like single words in ancient Hebrew, you make big claims about...

I think the best thing to do would be to withhold judgement on this matter, and NOT conclude things we dont know to be true...

And further, if we take the rest of the scripture, it establishes 1 messiah, NOT 2... No one believes there was or will be 2 Messiahs, iv never even heard of that untill this skewed interpretation (that you should probably be withholding judgement about)... In the context of the rest of the scripture, your interpretation fails...

[Goat]

Yes, it certainly is a problem.. because if you look at the description in the bible, any city the size mentioned in the bible would be listed elsewhere, and, well, it wasn't.

Pure speculation.

ANd, how is it pure speculation. Can you show me any reference from before the 3rd century, anyplace, about a city called Nazareth from outside the bible? I am more than willing to look at the evidence. If you have it, then present it. If you don't, then using the 'argument of the stone' to dismiss my point is a logical fallacy.

When you look for evidence for something, and it is mysteriously missing from where it should be, that should raise red flags.

The irony of course is that the evidence for the claim that the city was renamed for the religious tourist trade is mysteriously missing from every source, not just the ones we might expect to mention this renaming event if it had happened. There simply is no mention of this renaming event in the historical record whatsoever.

Despite this glaring omission in the historical record and your remarks above regarding raising red flags you assert in the very next sentence...

There is a strong possibility that the city was renamed for the religious tourist trade.

So on the one hand there is a strong possibility this renaming event of Nazareth occurred. Despite there not being even a single mention of the event in the historical record at any point. On the other hand when it comes to the existence of Nazareth in the time of Jesus, well, thats no more than just a story. Despite numerous mentions in the first, second, and third centuries, and archaeological evidence to support as well.

Because of synagogue would mean the city would be of a certain size, and the size would make it worthy of mention.

It might make it worthy of a mention. But having a synagogue in and of itself doesnt demand a mention.

Unless you can show that it was mentioned from outside the bible, you don't have any independent confirmation, and you can't show that the claims in the bible are more than just a story.

So says the guy who argues for the strong possibility that the city was renamed despite not being able to find even a single mention of this renaming event in any source.

And I did show Nazareth was mentioned from outside the bible by at least three different sources. But you conveniently ignored that bit.

Well, the counter claim is 'Nazareth was renamed during the 4th century for the tourist trade. Nothing you provided falsified that.

Yes, Goat, that is the claim which youve made several times. But where is the evidence in the historical record for that claim?

Well, could you link to the post you did so? Can you show those references outside the bible are older than the 3rd century?

[Goat]

Well the original Hewbre here:
even brakes up "sixty" and "2", as well as 7
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/dan9.pdf


Ill just be honest, this isnt convincing. The interpretation of this scripture goes beyond my knowledge, and I dont think you have much of a better interpretation then I...

I mean, we just dont know... You are concluding to know the intentions of the Ancient Hebrews, namely Daniel, based on VERY limited evidence.... Like single words in ancient Hebrew, you make big claims about...

I think the best thing to do would be to withhold judgement on this matter, and NOT conclude things we dont know to be true...

And further, if we take the rest of the scripture, it establishes 1 messiah, NOT 2... No one believes there was or will be 2 Messiahs, iv never even heard of that untill this skewed interpretation (that you should probably be withholding judgement about)... In the context of the rest of the scripture, your interpretation fails...

There are several things you should understand about the book of Daniel. First of all, we know when it was written within a several year period, and that is between 160 and 165 BCE. All the prophecy is talking about the oppression of the Jews under Antioch. .. and when it comes to the 69 weeks and one week was the Jews being allowed to move from Babylon back to Judah.. . so that was an 'after the fact' prophecy. And, of course, it used vague enough terminology that it could be adapted to just about anything. .