Yuku free message boards

Greasus - To me it is important to demonstrate that history isn't always as accurate and therefore important to a discusion such as this. Skeptics will sometimes scoff at the Bible while overezaggerating the importance of secular history.

No, I quite agree with you. One could talk about the problems dating the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain, or the differences in dates between the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, the Annales Cambria and the Irish Annals, for example.

But...

The issue here is that the story in Luke is directly connected to the census. And the story in Matthew - the mythological borrowing of the escape of the babe from the murderous tyrant - is inextricably linked to Herod. Yet the census is fixed not only to the date of Quirinius, but the date when the territory (which did not in fact include Galilee!) came under direct Roman rule, after Archaelus was deposed and exiled. Which means a length of time must have elapsed between the death of Herod the great and the census. Whether Herod died in 4BC or 2BC is irrelevant in trying to remove the contradiction. It is simply a deliberate obfuscation of the real point - and you know it.

Only when I was first writing the thing, for about 48 hours.

Josephus and Mark

Hello Druid

I'm sorry I have not posted more on Nazareth/Nazarene, but I am working again and, what with looking after a heavily pregnant wife as well, my time on the net has been a bit more limited lately. Not being able to find the old post(s) I was thinking of, I have not yet written a new one. I did touch on the point though: The term Notzrim was around before Jesus, and the etymology of Nazarene from Nazareth is a derivation that is dubious at best. Nor of course is there any such "And he will be called a Nazarene" piece of scripture for Mt to quote!

Does it matter if Nazareth didn't exist? Yes, of course. Paul doesn't mention Nazareth. If Nazareth didn't exist, but the gospel writers invented the place for him to have come from (and the birth legends and explanations of his association with Nazareth don't match each other or the known history) then they didn't know the truth of the term Nazarene or any real biographical details of the person they are supposedly writing a biography of. If they are not reliable on the basic details, why should we assume they are reliable sources on any of the details?

Jesus would have known everyone and there would have been inbreeding etc. is a stupid point used by the author of the link Rambo gave

It's not. Populations were more static in those days, people didn't have cars, lived closer together and never moved far. A modern American small-town is nothing like a small settlement in ancient history. If Jesus lived in Nazareth for 25 or 30 years (and his relatives are mentioned as living nearby) then it would be a very tight community where everyone is connected either directly or by marriage etc. There are villages nearby myself where almost everyone either has the same surname or is related to them. They'll all go to the same pub, etc. That's more akin to the situation. It's a valid point.

It is assumed by the author of the link Rambo gave that the number of people in a 'city' that didn't exist must have been about 450 or so. Where that number comes from I don't know

I have explained where the number comes from - at least, who it comes from, even if the number itself is pulled out of thin air. See above.

At the same place. A well and a graveyard.

The well is the most compelling evidence that there was a settlement at the time. If the well is first or 2nd century, then the settlement also dates to that time.

The graveyard isn't. The area is associated with funerary rites back to 9,000 BC or so, and continuation of burials at sites simply because of tradition is a feature seen around the world. There is also a sizeable settlement nearby and the laws of burial and "unclean" dead bodies mean that tombs were some distance away from settlement. Japha is only a mile away, and I could point to examples of churches and the associated graveyards with them being a mile or more away from the village that uses them in Scotland, for example. I'd have to do more research on the subject but there's no reason to assume (in fact there is reason not to) a graveyard needs a juxtaposed settlement.

6. Interesting. I'm not really up on the names and etymology of names of towns in the region at the period (British placenames are another matter). If you could find an example or prove the etymology that would be an interesting argument. I rely on the opinion of others in this matter and I don't recall this argument having been advanced in anything I've read. If it comes from one of the links above, my apologies, I must have skipped over it. If not, could you provide a source, please?

Two asides. On the stake which Jesus hung the Latin I.N.R.I. meaning Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum, meaning Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. Another variation is I.N.R.J. meaning Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Judaeorum (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.

Latin inscriptions often use abbreviations to save space and because long latin words take a lot of carving into rock. However, they only use them when people are assumed to understand the meaning.

I assume you have stated what the sign above Jesus' head says is an abbreviation to remove the contradiction of what the sign is supposed to have said:

THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS

Mt.27:37
And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

THE KING OF THE JEWS

Mk.15:26
And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS

Lk.23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS

Jn.19:19
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

But as can be seen, only John mentions Nazareth on the sign. And surely there's no "J" in the Latin alphabet?

On the other hand, references to Jesus by Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and at least one by Flavius Josephus, are generally accepted as proof of the historical existence of Jesus.

Rubbish! Pliny and Tacitus merely confirm that there were Christians in 1st century Rome and her empire (which we already knew). Suetonius mentions a "Chrestus" stirring up trouble in Rome. Well, how can this be Jesus? It is either someone else (possibly a Latinised Greek name) or a confusion or corruption, or simply that Suetonius knows nothing of any real Jesus.

As for Jospehus, the consensus is that the TF is at best a christian edit, at worst (and the most convincing argument) that it is a complete fabrication. As far as the reference to "James, the brother of Jesus" goes, opinion is more divided but it cannot be said to be "generally accepted" - certainly not in the form it is in now.


The main reason to disbelieve in Jesus though is that the story is blatantly mythical!