[ALB]

Interesting talk here which touches on the subject of "neuroplasticity":http://www.taraswart.com/tedx-lse-neuroscience-nationalism/

[ALB]

roman wrote:

I would update yourself on the scholarship, many new findings and research have been done in the last 50 years; scholarship from the 19th century and early 20th century is kind of out of date.In Greek, Nazarite, and Nazarene are very difficult to confuse. The Nazarites are mentioned in the mosaic law, and are not a sect of Judaism, but a kind of monastic movement within it.

I fail to see why analysis of the texts has become outdated unless of course there has been some further tampering with them by christian pious fraudsters, that is.Ok, I was wrong about Jesus being supposed to have been born in Nazareth: according to the myth, he was only supposed to have been brought up there.You may not be able to confuse "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" (but I see you introduce a third variant "Nazarean", presumably to avoid this) but those who wrote the "gospels" were and so were some of their translators. According to JM Robertson's ancient work, one uses "Nazarene" (Mark), another "Nazarite" (John), a third both (Luke) (he must be refrring to early, un-redacted versions). I must confess I'm confused too. I think "Nazarite" is supposed to refer to a Jewish sect (or monastic movement), "Nazarene" to someone from Nazareth (your "Nazarean")? Apparently,  references to either of them in the early original  versions have been changed in Latin and Greek to be "Nazarene" and translated as "of Nazareth".With all your vast knowledge of the matter can you confirm this?

[ALB]

I know you are playing the devil's advocate, Alan, but you are coming across more as god's afvocate..

[ALB]

roman wrote:

Where did Josephus( …) even mention the Nazareans?

According to the passage from the book by JM Robertson I've just mentioned, it might be: 4 Ant. iv, 4 and 19 Ant., vi,7.

[ALB]

I wasn't arguing that the hypothesis in Rene Salm's book that the village of Nazareth didn't exist at the time the Jesus was supposed to have been born was valid, but merely that it was further evidence of a controversy on the subject of Jesus and Nazareth.  I agree that the non-existence of Nazareth would not demonstrate the non-existence of Jesus.When I said that this was the subject of controversy over a hundred years ago I was referring to a 7-page long passage in J. M. Roberston's Christianity and Mythology. The first edition was published in 1900. I read some time ago the second, 1910 edition and have just re-read the passage.It's a detailed discussion of the difference, in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic,  between the terms for "Nazarite" and "Nazarene".  His view is that the Jesus was originally regarded as a member of the "Nazarite" Jewish sect and that later christians wanted to dissociate themselves from this (and Judaism) and so turned the "Nazar" references to references to his place of birth instead.  The Nazarites, apparently, derived their name from a passage in Isaiah in the "Old Testament" which prophesised that the Messiah would come from a branch (Hebrew "nazir") of the descendants of King David (which of course the "New Testament" tries to make out that their Jesus was). So, whether or not the village of Nazareth existed at the time, the Jesus would not have been born there (had he been born, that is). Roberston's discussion of the question can be found on pages 311-318 here.Incidentally, Robertson mentions in a footnote that

Quote:

It has been several times been urged that there is no trace outside the gospels and the Acts of such a place as Nazareth in the accepted Jesuine period.

So Salm's hypothesis is not new either.

[ALB]

Marcos wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

During the biblical time that city did not exist, it was a cemetery, there was a religious sect known as the Nazarenes. Wikipedia is written by peoples who support the mythology of Jesus and they are based on The Bible. The city is not mentioned in the Old Testament and the Talmud, and Josephus does not mention it either.  This is the real history of the city of Nazareth, and Jesus was not born in Israel or Palestine, the mythology comes from Egypt, and he never walked on the city and places mentioned in the Greek writings. The city is not mentioned on the Masoretichttp://ateismoparacristianos.blogspot.com/2010/06/la-ciudad-de-nazaret-no-existia-en-el.html. ( insert it on a digital translator ) http://ateismoparacristianos.blogspot.com/2010/07/las-falsas-evidencias-arqueologicas-de.html.   ( insert it in a digital translator, the city was interpolated in the NT )

It's been known for over a 100 years that there was a problem about Jesus "of Nazareth". Recent research would seem to confirm this:From the blurb about this book:

Quote:

The Myth Of Nazareth presents convincing archaeological evidence that the town of Nazareth was not settled until after the First Jewish War, around 70 CE. Exhaustive reconsideration of ALL artifacts from present-day Nazareth shows that the site was not inhabited at the time Jesus of Nazareth and his family are supposed to have been living there. In this book researcher René Salm proves that a core element of the Jesus story was an invention of the evangelists who wrote their gospels towards the end of the first century CE — as it turns out, at the same time the village of Nazareth was coming into being. Requiring eight years of painstaking research, The Myth Of Nazareth surveys the archaeological record of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age until modern times. It guides the reader through a stunning odyssey of discovery — one which exposes not only the true history of the site but also a scandalous history of evidentiary suppression reaching back into Early Christian Times. The here-established fact that Nazareth is a literary invention puts Jesus of Nazareth in the same class as the Wizard of Oz and implies that Jesus too is a literary invention. Coming shortly after the claim of Israeli archaeologist Aviram Oshri that Bethlehem in Judea also was uninhabited at the time Jesus is supposed to have been born there, Salm's research seems to be delivering a one-two knockout punch to the character known as The Historical Jesus.

[ALB]

I hadn't realised that in Hebrew and Arabic the word for 'christian' in 'Nazarene'. Perhaps that's what we should call them too. After all, we don't accept either that Jesus, mythical or not, is the messiah, the "anointed one".

[ALB]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ALBIt 1) corrected item in your ADM report and 2) argued … That capitalist ownership is a hindrance to production. That the small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist. That the big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production. That this supplements your Object So far as we know, I was the first to argue that this supplements your Object. And the argument was right wasn’t it Adam. 

Yes, it's coming back to me now. That fits in with something I remember you saying at a meeting on the Luddites. The Party speaker expressed some sympathy for them, but you argued that socialists should be opposed to them because they were a hindrance to the further development of capitalism and so to the creation of the material basis for socialism. A point of view.

[ALB]

Alan Kerr wrote:

@ LBird,No the alternative is not just democracy as such. The alternative to the market is in Marx’ Capital here.http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.133

As elaborated on in this article "A World Without Commodities" in this month's Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1357-september-2017/world-without-commodities

[ALB]

Also the author of this book we reviewed:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1323-november-2014/book-reviews-notes-end-history-village-against-wHe also appears on our facebook page to "like" things from time to time.Of course it's an interview with him about TA Jackson not him interviewing Jackson.

[ALB]

Alan Kerr wrote:

I was once SPGB and wrote a one page letter to all members. Adam Buick will be unlikely to forget this.  On his advice, I gave to my branch and had hundreds of copies printed for all members of WSM. Branch asked EC to forward copies to companion parties with copies to branches and members of central branch.Please see if you can get copy of that letter and post for anyone to discuss here. It will be relevant to this topic.

I do remember this even if it's going back well over 20 years. There must be a copy somewhere. Was it the one where you argued that labour-time vouchers and labour-time accounting would be needed in socialism?

[ALB]

Here's another, Richard Branson:https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/experimenting-universal-basic-incomeHe's not calling for full UBI, though, only for the poor.Meanwhile, according to today's i paper, he weathered hurricane Irma in luxury:

Quote:

The British billionaire Richard Branson rode out the storm at his home on private Neckar Island in a 'concrete wine cellar'

It's alright for some.

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Why is there such a determination to declare Jesus did not exist? In no way does it affect historical materialism or Marxism or the Socialist Party of Great Britain as would be the position if the existence of God was accepted.

The Party does not take a position either way. This is just a discussion amongst socialists and others about the question. As you say, in the end it doesn't really matter whether or not he existed as a person. If he did, christianity would still be crap. After all, Mohammed existed (as a war lord, merchant and paedophile) but islam is still also a load of crap.Ps. I don't think I need to reply to all 30 or so of your identical postings on this.

[ALB]

I have noticed that neither Origen nor Tertullian (whose name has also been bandied around here) are christian saints. This wasn't because they couldn't work miracles from beyond the grave but because some of their views were denounced as heretical. I don't know if this has any bearing on what we're discussing (I think Tertullian thought that Jesus wasn't a god or part of god — don't ask me to explain the doctrine of the trinity; it's a complete mystery). Perhaps our learned friend Roman can tell us what light his fellow christian "scholars" can cast on this.

[ALB]

That book is very good. In fact 10 more copies have been ordered for resale to Party members. If you want to order one email Head Office. Cost, including postage, will be £10 or so.

[Author]

Posts