(September 16, 2013 at 9:57 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Well what's surprising about a hamlet in a very backwards part of the world escaping mention. If the Jesus character is made up and they wanted people to believe, then why wouldn't they say Jesus of Bethlehem, instead of making a place that didn't exist and thus make the lie harder to believe
Good question.
It's important to remember that nobody "just made up Jesus one day." The development of the story can be seen in the Bible itself if you read the NT books in the order in which they were written.
The choice of Nazareth may be a misunderstanding of the OT passage "he shall be a nazirite (pure, consecrated, holy) from birth", a reference to Sampson, who destroyed the Philistines with his strength. The Jews of the time were looking for their messiah who would similarly destroy the Romans. Some of the early ideas of Jesus may have been teased out of OT passages, as Paul himself claims in the much vaunted Creed of 1Cor 15 that he understood that Jesus had risen again, not because of recent history but "according to the scriptures".
OT scripture was mixed in with the "pagan" religions of the surrounding areas. A bit from Persia (Mithras) a bit from Egypt and a bit from Greece. Since Jesus was a strange brew of these different influences, there should be no surprise that odd elements appear in his story, elements that would have been omitted by someone writing a work of fiction.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
