HJ and Christian origins plausibility

[outhouse]

I happen to think it is likely he was crucified along with others.

Sure.

He was not the only one.


There is also the verse about mingling Galilean blood, but gives little detail.

[Charles Wilson]

The Story of Peter has been dismembered and Transvalued. Stop looking for places that don't exist! Guardtown doesn't exist.

That may be so.
But satellite villages were essential for agrarian needs to feed build and manage Sepphoris and its increase in population by the tens of thousands of Hellenist that placed a terrible burden on Aramaic Jewish villages.

Sounds like a wonderful PhD Thesis to me!

Many of these satellite villages popped up during this period. And a good water well within walking distance of Sepphoris makes Nazareth very plausible.

Yes, agreed. This is taking place during the "Roman Warming". There is famine almost everywhere. Herod builds Caesarea in order to have a Safe Harbor. He hocks everything in the palace to buy grain from Petronius, who is Procurator of Egypt - See Matthew and the Joke on giving a serpent to someone who asks for bread.

***Here's where the difference comes in. Let's all agree that there were Satellite Villages around major population centers. Is there a reason for having a Story centered on one particular small village in "Upper Galilee"? Yes. the Settlement of Jabnit is home to members of the Mishamarot Group "Immer". They believe the Hasmoneans came from their Group. They are fighting the Greeks - the Hellenists - and they rotate into Jerusalem for Mishmarot Service once every 24 weeks. They are on duty for Passover just after the death of Herod. There is a massacre where 3000 die. THAT'S the difference!***

http://books.google.com/books?id=bsxkXa ... er&f=false

We already known the unknown author of Mark did not know the geographic area and compiled pre existing traditions for his gospel. You're not making any kind of a case against Nazareth.

I am providing for the possibility that "Nat'Sar-eth" was an intentional corruption of a known word. It may not rise to the level of Proof but it may rise to level of reasonable analysis, given that there are OTHER word plays that, absent a Transcendent, Metaphysical subject, would lead one to believe that something else was going on - a Satire or a Play, carefully written and rewritten. That's all.

There may have been a "Nazareth", occupied by "Nazarines" but, given "Golgotha", "Gabbatha" and other words of Type, do you reason from the individual Stories and language which can be explained without the Metaphysics or do you invoke the Metaphysics to explain all of the parts of what is clearly a Non-Metaphysical - and obviously rewritten - Story?

CW

[Charles Wilson]

In the URL given just above, please scroll up to p. 415 of the book for the note and more.

CW

[Sheshbazzar]

What a hoot, these 'reconstructions'; Its found within these texts, sooo .....that's how it must have happened! Rightttt
.....because as we all know these are all totally accurate and trustworthy accounts and the gospel writers wouldn't even think of making up any of their religious narratives situations or plot elements, would they???

There is NOTHING to be found within these fictitious gospel religious texts that can be trusted as being actual and accurate history.
The Crucifixion Drama is no more of an historical account than are the plot elements The Annunciation, The Massacre of the Innocents, The Zombie Resurrection, (Matt 27:52-53), or The Teleportation (John 20:19 & 26)

The gospel STORY is pure fabricated religious horse shit. The various plot situations are all alike fabricated religious horse shit.
Take it apart and put it back together however you will, and your result will still be fabricated out of horse shit.

If Jesus didn't DO the things these writers all claim that he did, then they made up the entire STORY, and there is nothing that they wrote on the subject of Jesus can be trusted as being an actual historical report.

Sheshbazzar

[ficino]

Sheshbazzar, do you know what are the earliest Christian material remains discovered, and where they were uncovered?

When I first visited the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome, our guide told us that across from the mithraeum was a Christian house church dating from the time of Nero or before. I can't find any reference to such a house church in sources about San Clemente, though, so I discount this as a guide's tale until/unless it's corroborated.

I don't know of any material remains securely identified as Christian and securely dated to the first hundred years of the supposed history of the movement.

[Peter Kirby]

I recently catalogued the physical remains of the first few centuries on my blog and here. Take your pick as to which is earliest.

[Sheshbazzar]

Sheshbazzar, do you know what are the earliest Christian material remains discovered, and where they were uncovered?

No, such information is unavailable and unknowable to anyone. One cannot as rule, determine the religious beliefs held by an ancient human by any means through examination of the chance cadaver, femur, or cranium.
Given the diversity of humanity, and of the intangible substance of an individual humans inward thoughts, even the location or in situ of the remains is no certain indicator of that persons religious persuasions when alive. There are plenty of closet atheist bones within ostensibly Xian settlements and cemeteries. ....as there are Christian and atheist craniums to be found within Islamic locations.

When I first visited the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome, our guide told us that across from the mithraeum was a Christian house church dating from the time of Nero or before. I can't find any reference to such a house church in sources about San Clemente, though, so I discount this as a guide's tale until/unless it's corroborated.

Well a tourist guide is expected to be able to tell you something of the local lore and tourist sites, as that is his job, and the excursion would certainly be disappointing without such local color. But when it comes to ancient 'saints' remnants and religious 'holy places', one might well take whatever is said about such with a grain of salt and ready sense of humor.

I don't know of any material remains securely identified as Christian and securely dated to the first hundred years of the supposed history of the movement.

There are none.
Member Leucius Charinus has investigated these types of claims at length and maintains a storehouse of information.

[TedM]

What a hoot, these 'reconstructions'; Its found within these texts, sooo .....that's how it must have happened!...

Hi Shesh, my purpose was to present what seems to me to be a plausible HJ hypothesis of Christian origins -- one that is without 'difficulties' as it sounded to me like Peter thinks that is not possible. Even if I succeeded in doing so, that doesn't mean that it happened that way. I wanted to present such a hypothesis by using some of the basic concepts found in some of the earliest writings about the movement/origins, and also using common sense and without need for miraculous violations of natural law.

I think perhaps one reason some people reject the idea of a HJ in favor of the myth hypothesis may be not so much due to a lack of evidence for a HJ but because they think it requires a heavy reliance on improbable or maybe impossible events as described in the gospels.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd like to know your reasons, Peter.

I don't have a whole lot of time lately.

I don't really find it interesting to try to prove to anyone that there is a "difficulty" that they do not see.

It was indeed my point that we, or many of us, are comfortable (with the historicity of Jesus) to the point that we do not see such difficulties and issues. So if you don't see any of it, that's just a part of what my point was.

If I'm going to be invested in this thread, I'd like to ask if you find difficulties in the non-historicity of Jesus. Out of laziness, I'd refer to the Doherty or Carrier presentation of such a hypothesis. Perhaps that would provide some points of comparison for a discussion of how, likewise, there are difficulties and issues in explanations of Christian origins that include the historicity of Jesus.

It would both show me what you mean by difficulty and help advance a discussion of my original point, which was the parallel between the two, explanations involving and not involving the historicity of Jesus.

[outhouse]

I am providing for the possibility that "Nat'Sar-eth" was an intentional corruption of a known word

Of which most is sourced to later times that were based on traditions the gospels started.