I second that.
You really should get this published. Just zayin.
I don't know myself. But I think that "Nazarene" might be an invention of "Mark" meaning: from NazarethMy question is: what does nazoreans mean then ???? I am lost.
In order to assert something, you need to have precise evidence to back you up.I don't remember what video it was, I don't take notes.
That's opinions, not proven facts.So Bart Ehrmann is IMO like a naïve child, or he has some hidden agenda.
I already explained that: read http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.htmlIf you have better information, please tell me and everybody when and where the 4 gospels were talked about and quoted from before.
Actually it is gMatthew alone which claims Jesus was a Nazarene because of prophesy. As usual there is no such prophecy in the OT.
So there is no Nazarene in gMark and no prophecy about a Nazorean or a Nazarene in the books of the prophets. This is evidence that Gospel writers were not composing history.
The NT gospels did not need to have a name in order to be quoted.I looked through your evidence (which is so important to you) and I got scared. I asked for gospels to be talked about, not for sentences. Entire gospels with a name.
Here you go again: speculations, assumptions with no evidence for back up. However you have:1. Papias does not exist. If he existed, the text is from the man who cannot write without lying in every sentence, Irenaeus. Papias is hearsay, Eusebius had to get him from others. So you get Irenaeus says that Papias says. Hearsay. Irenaeus is proving the existence of the apostles, and placing Mark and Mathew back in time.
2. The pastoral letters are not from Paul. I guess 80% of the scholars knows that. I think it has been known for 100 years now. Luke is brought to the foreground in them. Irenaeus wrote them, I mean he left with 10 letters and he comes back with14.
3. The letter Peter2 is from Irenaeus. The other one is from the 4th century.
4. Aristides I looked up myself. From him is one sentence left, from which he seems a friendly gnostic teacher speaking of love.
5. Basilides I looked up myself. In his extensive writing is one sentence which might be from Mathew.
More assumptions again: and these texts do not belong to the catholic church, and I am not a Christian, and I am not defending that church. Actually my findings on the historical Jesus would make me heretical for that church and others.Aso, aso. I don't know where you get your information but it is fake. You are probably following the catholic church. Never do that, because they lie. You say you find evidence so important. But you haven't even checked the information yourself. You just repeat catholic liers and call that evidence with a big mouth, and "proving me wrong with evidence". And all the time you have not even looked for things YOURSELF. Let alone to look for what other people say about it. And that can not be forgiven. That is completely stupid. And now you are cheating people with your "evidence". How can you do that? Because you are too lazy to look things up? Very bad. Or because you are a fundamentalist catholic, who thinks the church is always right? Do you not know who they are? Just repeating catholics I would call a sin. Even defending them makes you totally unreliable. Unreliable with a big mouth. That is my opinion. If I were you I would remove that page with "evidence" and think again.
More speculations. You wrote: "Do I have evidence for that? Yes I do, I found it myself, and the more pieces you find, the more you can put together."About some more or less quotes: do you know Paul? He had a gospel, and he left it to Marcion. This started being spread. Do you know John? John was a friend of Paul and he wrote a gnostic gospel, because the one Paul had was not gnostic at all. But with Paul's message in it. Also this gospel was being spread. Any quotes that look familiar come from these 2 gospels. We are talking about gnostic chrestians now. They are not strange. They are only teaching (spiritual) life after death. In the universe, near god the father. Do I have evidence for that? Yes I do, I found it myself, and the more pieces you find, the more you can put together. I saw you had 2 lines for Marcion. And the people where the story originally came from are also mentioned. And by the way, the good message (eu aggelion) is the soon coming of the kingdom of god. (And NOT the coming of Jesus Christ on earth).
For your first sentence, you are absolutely right.So there is no Nazarene in gMark and no prophecy about a Nazorean or a Nazarene in the books of the prophets.