Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.
Options
Comments
-
There's no point in repeating your baseless assertions unless you're going to back them up with evidence.
There's no evidence that Nazareth was occupied at all in Jesus' time and the evidence from the New Testament, when combined with archaeological evidence suggests that at best Nazareth was an out of the way obscure little village. A perfect setting for a rags-to-riches story. If you're going to make up a story about Jesus' background you're hardly going to pick a large town where there would be lots of witnesses who would have heard something about this Jesus. Better to pick some obscure unsung hamlet (as Douglas Adams would say).
Or maybe putting him in a backwater was the safe thing to do as a result of Herod killing all the children under 2 so as to kill the new "king".
If word of his escape from. The purge had gotten out he would have been in danger!0 -
Denver Big Peak wrote: »Or maybe putting him in a backwater was the safe thing to do as a result of Herod killing all the children under 2 so as to kill the new "king".
If word of his escape from. The purge had gotten out he would have been in danger!
One problem with that idea. Well, more than one if you take the wider context into account but with regard to the specific idea in Matthew's gospel that Joseph moved the family to Nazareth out of Herod's clutches, it runs directly counter to Luke 2:4. In Luke's gosepl Joseph and Mary are already living in Nazareth before Jesus is even born. So in Luke their reason for being in Nazareth has nothing to do with Herod.0 -
Denver Big Peak wrote: »Or maybe putting him in a backwater was the safe thing to do as a result of Herod killing all the children under 2 so as to kill the new "king".
If word of his escape from. The purge had gotten out he would have been in danger!
No other source mentions the massacre of the innocents; indeed, it is only mentioned in Matthew. This may be because i) the killing of all infants in a given area on the order of a local ruler was so common in antiquity as to be unremarkable, or ii) it didn't actually happen.0 -
... quite a bit of 'not knowing' there, Robin ... I'm not really surprised, that as an avowed Atheist ... you claim to know so little about the Bible.:)Forgot to say last night, that in addition to not knowing who wrote the biblical texts, not knowing what their motivations were, not knowing why they wrote it, nor how they wrote it, nor under what conditions they wrote it, nor when, nor where - the NT writers didn't make it clear how they knew Jesus, nor how they knew what they were writing was accurate and St Paul (only some of whose Letters may have been written by him) never met Jesus at all - we also don't know how the text was stored and transmitted once written, nor do we know what edits were made, intentionally or unintentionally to the texts.
On the other hand, Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, know everything there is to know about Holy Scripture, starting with the fact that it is the inspired Word of God, given to us for our edification, sanctification and eternal happiness.
... but then Paul has said in 1 Corinthians 1:18 New International Version (NIV)
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
... and this is just as true in 2017 as it was in 117 !!0 -
... or perhaps iii) it was pigs that were flying, instead!!!:DNo other source mentions the massacre of the innocents; indeed, it is only mentioned in Matthew. This may be because i) the killing of all infants in a given area on the order of a local ruler was so common in antiquity as to be unremarkable, or ii) it didn't actually happen.
... an equally far-fetched speculation to your two ones!!!:eek:0 -
Advertisement
-
... or perhaps iii) it was pigs that were flying, instead!!!:D
... an equally far-fetched speculation to your two ones!!!:eek:
Isn't the massacre of the innocents your favourite bible story? It sure is mine! God knows what's going to happen, and sends a warning to the parents of just ONE child, and those parents flee with their kid and pass on the warning to exactly NONE of the other boys' parents!
Utterly depraved.0 -
There's a big difference, JC, between thinking you know something and actually knowing something - it's the difference between belief and knowledge, perhaps similar to the difference between "need" and "want" whcih kids have so much trouble with.... quite a bit of 'not knowing' there, Robin ... I'm not really surprised, that as an avowed Atheist ... you claim to know so little about the Bible.:)
On the other hand, Christians, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, know everything there is to know about Holy Scripture, starting with the fact that it is the inspired Word of God, given to us for our edification, sanctification and eternal happiness.
You're no more "indwelt by the holy spirit" than you are a bowl of buttered peas. And the knowledge you claim to hold is as fake as 45's orange tan.0 -
... its not only children who often have trouble separating their 'needs' and their 'wants' ... many adults also have trouble accepting their 'need' for salvation ... because this might have implications for fulfilling some of their more selfish 'wants'.There's a big difference, JC, between thinking you know something and actually knowing something - it's the difference between belief and knowledge, perhaps similar to the difference between "need" and "want" whcih kids have so much trouble with.
You have the right to be wrong about me allright.You're no more "indwelt by the holy spirit" than you are a bowl of buttered peas. And the knowledge you claim to hold is as fake as 45's orange tan.0 -
The depraved one was Herod ... but you seem to prefer to blame the targetted victim (Jesus) ... instead of the perpretrator (Herod).Pherekydes wrote: »Isn't the massacre of the innocents your favourite bible story? It sure is mine! God knows what's going to happen, and sends a warning to the parents of just ONE child, and those parents flee with their kid and pass on the warning to exactly NONE of the other boys' parents!
Utterly depraved.0 -
The depraved one was Herod ... but you seem to prefer to blame the targetted victim (Jesus) ... instead of the perpretrator (Herod).
Don't know how you got that I blamed Jesus out of my post. His parents fecked off without passing on the warning, while god didn't bother warning the other parents at all, but it was all god's plan or some such, so Herod was just doing god's will.0 -
Advertisement
-
... or perhaps iii) it was pigs that were flying, instead!!!:D
... an equally far-fetched speculation to your two ones!!!:eek:
There is neither historical nor archaeological evidence for the massacre, so there is no need to bring flying pigs into it (unless you have evidence for winged porcines? It would be no worse than some of the other nonsense presented on this, and other, threads).
But as Pherekydes points out, it seems that, in this story, God was prepared to do good by allowing infants to be slaughtered. Mysterious ways? Or an poorly thought out dramatic interlude by the author(s) of Matthew?0 -
No other source mentions the massacre of the innocents; indeed, it is only mentioned in Matthew. This may be because i) the killing of all infants in a given area on the order of a local ruler was so common in antiquity as to be unremarkable, or ii) it didn't actually happen.
Well, three facts point toward the second option rather than the first.
1. No other biblical source mentions the slaughter.
2. Josephus who is at pains to point out what a bastard Herod was mentions Herod murdering three of his sons, his mother-in-law and his second wife but makes no mention of this event.
3. The first work to mention this event after Matthew isn't until the Protoevangelium of James in 150CE, almost 70 years later.0 -
There is a comprehensive explanation for why the slaughter of the innocents by Herod isn't recorded by Josephus here:-Well, three facts point toward the second option rather than the first.
1. No other biblical source mentions the slaughter.
2. Josephus who is at pains to point out what a bastard Herod was mentions Herod murdering three of his sons, his mother-in-law and his second wife but makes no mention of this event.
3. The first work to mention this event after Matthew isn't until the Protoevangelium of James in 150CE, almost 70 years later.
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/truth-or-fiction-did-herod-really-slaughter-baby-boys-in-bethlehem
Infanticide was quite common in the ancient world ... and there was also a high infant mortality rate from natural causes ... so Herod slaughtering, a relativley small number of children under two years of age in the tiny village of Bethlehem, population of about 1,000, wouldn't register as important with non-biblical writers, especially when Herod's other evil acts were quite notorious and outrageous.
Infanticide in the Roman World was used routinely to get rid of unwanted children ... so to the people of the day, it was looked on as something equivalent to procured abortion today ... i.e shocking to people of faith ... but really no big deal to much of society.
Quote:-
"The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that "until recently, (infanticide) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective."
Based on archaeological finds, the practice appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire."
https://www.seeker.com/infanticide-common-in-roman-empire-1765237924.html0 -
There is a comprehensive explanation for why the slaughter of the innocents by Herod isn't recorded by Josephus here:-
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/truth-or-fiction-did-herod-really-slaughter-baby-boys-in-bethlehem
Infanticide was quite common in the ancient world ... and there was also a high infant mortality rate from natural causes ... so Herod slaughtering, a relativley small number of children under two years of age in the tiny village of Bethlehem, population of about 1,000, wouldn't register as important with non-biblical writers, especially when Herod's other evil acts were quite notorious and outrageous.
Infanticide in the Roman World was used routinely to get rid of unwanted children ... so to the people of the day, it was looked on as something equivalent to procured abortion today ... i.e shocking to people of faith ... but really no big deal to much of society.
Quote:-
"The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that "until recently, (infanticide) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective."
Based on archaeological finds, the practice appears to have been particularly widespread in the Roman Empire."
https://www.seeker.com/infanticide-common-in-roman-empire-1765237924.html
As usual JC you're wrong.
Firstly, it's a bit dishonest to categorise this as infanticide. Infanticide as people understood the term at the time (and now) was a crude method of family planning where disabled or unwanted children were killed usually through exposure to the elements. Since contraception was unreliable and abortion dangerous, infanticide was the only method available to those people. However, infanticide was something which parents chose to inflict on their children. Having some raging despot send henchmen to your house to murder your child against your will is something different. The idea that such an act would have gone unmentioned is ridiculous. An analogous way to look at it is this. In countries where euthanasia is legal someone undertaking the practice would not be worthy of mention. However, someone being forcibly euthanised against their will would be front page news. It's the same in Matthew. Jewish beliefs of the time had distinct reservations about infanticide and a bunch of Jewish authors would definitely have mentioned it.
Secondly, while Greek and Roman populations would have seen infanticide as normal, the same can't be said for Jewish writers and this completely undermines Maier's argument from silence approach. We can see this in the attitudes of writers of the time to the general topic of infanticide. Contrast for example Seneca's attitude:
"Unnatural progeny we destroy, we drown even children who at birth are weak and abnormal. Yet it is not anger, but reason that separates the harmful from the sound."
De Ira 1, 15, 2
with Jewish writers like Philo of Alexandria:
"Some of them do the deed with their own hands, with monstrous cruelty and barbarity they stifle and throttle the first breath which the infants draw or throw them into a river or into depths of the sea, after attaching some heavy substance to make them sink more quickly under the weight. Others take them to be exposed in some desert place, hoping, they themselves say, that they may be saved, but leaving them in actual truth to suffer the most distressing fate. For all the beasts that feed on human flesh visit the spot and feed unhindered on the infants, a fine banquet."
The Special Laws 3, 114-115
or even Josephus himself:
"The Law forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten or to kill it afterward and if any woman appears to have done so she will be a murderer of her child by killling a living creature and diminishing humankind."
Against Apion 2, 202
Even after Josephus' time this remained a Jewish sentiment as expressed by Pseudo-Phocylides in the 2nd century when warning Hellenistic Jews about assimilating Roman cultural norms:
"Do not let a woman destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and the vultures as prey."
Like I said already the Jews had severe reservations about the Roman practice of infanticide (probably in part because it was a Roman practice) so the idea that a writer like Josephus would not mention forcible infanticide perpetrated by someone whose misdeeds he repeatedly recorded is completely flawed. It is a desperate straw-clutching attempt by Christians to hold on to a story fabricated by Matthew as a plot device in order to fulfill a misquoted and misapplied "prophecy" so that Jesus would have to move from Bethlehem to Nazareth.0 -
As usual, you are 'adding two and two ... and getting six'!!:)As usual JC you're wrong.
You are correct that infanticide was widespread in Roman times ... and was thus 'normalised' within society in those times. You are also correct that it was abhorred by the Jews.
Because of this, it is likely that Herod, would have had the children murdered 'at arms length' from himself, possibly using mercenaries/secret agents, that couldn't be linked back to him ... and therefore not a crime that could be reliably attributed to him by the historians/chroniclers of the time.
We need to remember the context here ... Herod was installed as king of the Jews, not by the Jewish population, but by the pagan Romans. Herod was actually an Edomite, which meant that in the eyes of the Jews he had no right to be their king, in the first place, because God promised David that his descendants would sit on the throne.
Herod was already on a 'sticky wicket' with the Jews that he governed ... and he was therefore deadly afraid that his puppet throne would be usurped by the rightful King of the Jews, Jesus Christ. After all, that was the reason he decided to try and cut off the threat by having all of the young boys of Jesus' age killed. As well as being a psychopath, he was also cunning and secretive. His duplicity and underhand nature was shown by Mt 2:7-8
"Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
... so, because Herod believed that the real king of the Jews was alive ... he was therefore engaged in regicide, in his own mind. He therefore would want to keep his role in the act totally secret ... because of the obvious risk of it 'backfiring' on him, if an already enraged Jewish population found out that he had killed their rightful king.
For Christians who knew what happened with the visit of the Magi, Herod’s role in the Bethlehem murders would have been obvious, but for a later Jewish historian, like Josephus, who wouldn’t have known about this, the slaughter in Bethlehem would have seemed like just another senseless act of brutality that was so common in that era.0 -
As usual, you are 'adding two and two ... and getting six'!!:)
You are correct that infanticide was widespread in Roman times ... and was thus 'normalised' within society in those times. You are also correct that it was abhorred by the Jews.
Because of this, it is likely that Herod, would have had the children murdered 'at arms length' from himself, possibly using mercenaries/secret agents, that couldn't be linked back to him ... and therefore not a crime that could be reliably attributed to him by the historians/chroniclers of the time.
We need to remember the context here ... Herod was installed as king of the Jews, not by the Jewish population, but by the pagan Romans. Herod was actually an Edomite, which meant that in the eyes of the Jews he had no right to be their king, in the first place, because God promised David that his descendants would sit on the throne.
Herod was already on a 'sticky wicket' with the Jews that he governed ... and he was therefore deadly afraid that his puppet throne would be usurped by the rightful King of the Jews, Jesus Christ. After all, that was the reason he decided to try and cut off the threat by having all of the young boys of Jesus' age killed. As well as being a psychopath, he was also cunning and secretive. His duplicity and underhand nature was shown by Mt 2:7-8
"Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
... so, because Herod believed that the real king of the Jews was alive ... he was therefore engaged in regicide, in his own mind. He therefore would want to keep his role in the act totally secret ... because of the obvious risk of it 'backfiring' on him, if an already enraged Jewish population found out that he had killed their rightful king.
For Christians who knew what happened with the visit of the Magi, Herod’s role in the Bethlehem murders would have been obvious, but for a later Jewish historian, like Josephus, who wouldn’t have known about this, the slaughter in Bethlehem would have seemed like just another senseless act of brutality that was so common in that era.
Apologies for the delay in replying to this JC.
Firstly, let me restate for the record. This. Is. Not. Infanticide. Infanticide was a crude method of family planning among Greco-Roman cultures. It was not practised by Jews. Secondly, even if it were practised by Jews, this still wouldn't be infanticide. Infanticide requires the parents to willingly kill their own child. The story in Matthew is not that. It is the murder of these children by mercenaries employed by King Herod. This would have attracted significant attention contrary to your assertion that nobody would have commented on it. Let's work through the sequence of events. You and your spouse have recently had a newborn. Suddenly, one day a bunch of mercenaries break into your house and murder your newborn. You are horrified and aggrieved. Your first response is to go to the authorities. Then you tell your neighbours. Soon, you find out that other neighbours have had similar experiences. It turns out that 20 (well Paul Maier says about 25 children of this age in a town the size of Bethlehem so that's between 15 and 25 families) families have had children murdered in a relatively short space of time. That's a bid odd isn't it. What are the chances? Who could have the resources to hire mercenaries to go and kill 25 children? Well, only one really, the King. The idea that Herod could have sent mercenaries to kill 25 children from 20 different families in the same space of time and kept his involvement secret is pure fantasy. A fantasy concocted purely to explain why no other author before or within 70 years after Matthew mention this act of brutality.
Secondly, the idea that Matthew is recording an event that somehow nobody else noticed or would have had access to is weak at best. You say Josephus wouldn't have had access to the information. Well, what about Philo of Alexandria or Justus Tiberias or any other writer. Also, your position is undermined by the fact that this penchant for making **** up fits exactly within Matthew's MO. Matthew repeatedly distorts, misquotes, misapplies and fabricates prophecies in order to paint Jesus as the Jewish messiah.
For example, Matthew chooses to have Jesus born in Bethlehem in supposed fulfillment of a prophecy in Micah. However, he either misreads Micah or deliberately distorts it because it doesn't support his claim:
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."
Here we can see the problem. The Bethlehem referred to by Micah is a tribe, not a town. It is the tribe of Bethlehem, son of Hur, son of Caleb, through his second wife Ephrathah, hence Bethlehem Ephrathah. One has to assume that Matthew is aware of this since Bethlehem's ancestry is elucidated in 1 Chronicles 2:19 and 1 Chronicles 4:4, the former of which Matthew borrows for his genealogy of Jesus. We also know that this is not a prophecy of Jesus because Micah goes on to say that this ruler will not be the Messiah but a local warlord who will defeat the Assyrians:
"They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword, The land of Nimrod at its entrances; And He will deliver us from the Assyrian When he attacks our land And when he tramples our territory."
Then of course, there's the outright fabricated prophecies like Matthew 2:23 about Jesus being a Nazarene which is found nowhere in the scriptures.
Finally, back to Herod and the massacre. Matthew borrows the overwhelming majority of his text from Mark (>80%) who places Jesus' origin in Nazareth. But he wants Jesus to also come from Bethlehem. So he opens his story with the family living in Bethlehem (as opposed to Luke). But then he needs a way to have the family get out of Bethlehem and up to Nazareth. But what? And who? Herod. So Matthew concocts the Massacre of the Innocents and misquotes two more prophecies on the way. In Matthew 2:15 he says:
"He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
Matthew deliberately truncates a quote from Hosea 11:1 to make it look like a prophecy about Jesus. However, when we look at the quote in it's entirety we see the problem:
"When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son."
This has nothing to do with Jesus or his birth. It is a reference to Israel and the Exodus when God lead the Israelites out of Egypt to the promised land.
Then as if misquoting one prophecy wasn't enough, Matthew does the exact same thing again.
There's Jeremiah 31:15 which Matthew uses to pretend that this massacre was foretold:
"Thus says the Lord, “A voice is heard in Ramah Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”
However, this use of Jeremiah is doubly wrong. Firstly, it doesn't involve death and secondly it refers to the Babylonian captivity, not the time of Jesus' birth. This is made clear in the very next verse:
"Thus says the Lord, “Restrain your voice from weeping And your eyes from tears; For your work will be rewarded,” declares the Lord, “And they will return from the land of the enemy."
Matthew's clear objective in portraying Jesus as the Messiah conflicts with Mark's backwater setting of Nazareth. He needs to concoct a way of making Jesus' birth prophetic and the Massacre of the Innocents is just a literary invention designed to advance Matthew's idea.
0 -
No problem ... it's that time of year ... I was away on holidays myself.Apologies for the delay in replying to this JC.
Infanticide is the intentional killing of infants ... although it normally refers to the killing of infants by their parents and especially their mothers ... it also encompasses the intentional killing of infants by third parties as well.Firstly, let me restate for the record. This. Is. Not. Infanticide. Infanticide was a crude method of family planning among Greco-Roman cultures. It was not practised by Jews. Secondly, even if it were practised by Jews, this still wouldn't be infanticide. Infanticide requires the parents to willingly kill their own child.
The reality is that infanticide was widely practiced in Roman times throughout the Roman Empire and infant mortality from natural causes was also very high ... and therefore reports of dead infants wouldn't cause 'much of a stir' amongst the Roman Authorities of the time.
... and the ultimate 'authority' you would be reporting the crime to would be Herod himself, as king/governor of the region ... who was therefore in a unique position to suppress any complaints and prevent any meaningful follow-up/investigation or publicity of the slaughter.The story in Matthew is not that. It is the murder of these children by mercenaries employed by King Herod. This would have attracted significant attention contrary to your assertion that nobody would have commented on it. Let's work through the sequence of events. You and your spouse have recently had a newborn. Suddenly, one day a bunch of mercenaries break into your house and murder your newborn. You are horrified and aggrieved. Your first response is to go to the authorities.
Any reports would be suppressed - and if somebody got 'pushy' about investigating the crime ... let's just say they could be shown the error of their ways ... very quickly indeed !!! :eek:
Who are just as powerless and frightened as yourself ... and scared that the same fate might befall themselves and their children, as happened you, if they open their mouths !!!Then you tell your neighbours.
We have to remember that these people wouldn't know who did this killing or why they did it ... and therefore would be petrified by fear as a result of it.
... or potentially any number of other murderous thugs ... from God knows where !!!Soon, you find out that other neighbours have had similar experiences. It turns out that 20 (well Paul Maier says about 25 children of this age in a town the size of Bethlehem so that's between 15 and 25 families) families have had children murdered in a relatively short space of time. That's a bid odd isn't it. What are the chances? Who could have the resources to hire mercenaries to go and kill 25 children? Well, only one really, the King.
... and publicly accusing the King without any evidence of his involvement ... wouldn't be a very wise thing to do !!!
... Why is it fantasy? ...The idea that Herod could have sent mercenaries to kill 25 children from 20 different families in the same space of time and kept his involvement secret is pure fantasy.
Herod had publicly said he wanted to adore Jesus Christ ... why would anybody believe that he wanted to kill him? ...
... and even if some 'conspiracy theorists' of the time suggested that he might want to kill him ... they would be risking swift retribution if they went public with their 'theory' !!!
A limited number of local people noticed it ... but in a time before mass media, the news couldn't go much further, if the authorities didn't want any publicity about it ... and it probably wouldn't even be believed by most people not directly caught up in it anyway.Secondly, the idea that Matthew is recording an event that somehow nobody else noticed or would have had access to is weak at best.
If the information was suppressed by the authorities and/or some cover story/denial story was spun by them, the few historians of the time wouldn't be bothered to report it.You say Josephus wouldn't have had access to the information. Well, what about Philo of Alexandria or Justus Tiberias or any other writer.
The town of Bethlehem is cited as the birth-place of Jesus Christ in both Matthew and Luke.Also, your position is undermined by the fact that this penchant for making **** up fits exactly within Matthew's MO. Matthew repeatedly distorts, misquotes, misapplies and fabricates prophecies in order to paint Jesus as the Jewish messiah.
For example, Matthew chooses to have Jesus born in Bethlehem in supposed fulfillment of a prophecy in Micah. However, he either misreads Micah or deliberately distorts it because it doesn't support his claim:
"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."
Here we can see the problem. The Bethlehem referred to by Micah is a tribe, not a town. It is the tribe of Bethlehem, son of Hur, son of Caleb, through his second wife Ephrathah, hence Bethlehem Ephrathah.
Nazareth was pretty much a by-word for the lowest of the low at the time ... and the multiple references in prophecy that Jesus would be despised fits into this narrative of Matthew citing what was said through the prophets (plural), that He would be called a Nazarene.Then of course, there's the outright fabricated prophecies like Matthew 2:23 about Jesus being a Nazarene which is found nowhere in the scriptures.
When Satan refers to Jesus, when he manifests himself, he uses the same little-making narrative of calling Jesus 'the Nazarine'.
Here is a typical statement from a Satanist site referring disparagingly to Jesus Christ as 'The Nazarine'.
Quote:-
"2. The character "Jesus Christ" is fictitious and was stolen from some 18+ Pagan legends of a God hanging from a tree, such as Odin, then being resurrected, and is another description of the alchemical operation of transforming the soul- death and then resurrection.
The Nazarene is and has never been anything more than a tool to remove all true spiritual knowledge and disarm the populace of their spiritual powers."
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/TRADITIONAL.html
The prophets that Matthew is citing are the ones saying that the Messiah would be despised and desparaged ... i.e. a 'Nazarene' (Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1).
Prophecy is often double fulfilled e.g. in this case ... Jesus lived in Nazareth ... and was a Nazarene ... and Jesus was despised and desparaged ... and was/is called a Nazarene, as a term of abuse.0
Advertisement