[Timotheous]

And all the rest, as Dylan said, ‘Don’t criticise what you can’t understand.’

I have heard a lecture on this at www.templehouse-publishing.com

Refute it if you can. Also there is an academic endorsement at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7547540/Jesus-was-son-of-an-architect-book-claims.html

If there was never anything ‘new’, what is Jesus saying in Matthew 13:52?
Not ‘guilty til proved innocent’...

[throwback]

For one thing, it says things new AND old. If the new contradicts the old, which is right? Someone else on the thread had a good argument that the elders marveled at His sayings because he did not have the education that someone of status would have had (one argument against). The question is the new thing of G_d or men? This sounds like men to me. Most of the arguments in favor of this theory are from the point of view of how an ordinary man would have been treated. This is a revisionist lie, and it undermines the deity of Christ.

Isaiah 53:

And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

Doesn't sound like he was human aristocrat to me. I guess if I'm too big a simp to understand it, I'm happy to remain in my ignorance.