401 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

and then, on 07 April 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Fabricated?
2 Timothy 2:8   (Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel)
I don't understand.  Timothy is simply confirming that Jesus was a Jew who rose from the dead.  How is that a fabrication by Paul?

Timothy is confirming nothing. That's a letter from Paul to Timothy and not from Timothy to Paul. This was informing Timothy that Jesus being risen from the dead, and that he was descendant of David, aka, the Messiah, was according to his gospel. It tells me that there was another gospel at the time whose agenda those things about Jesus were not extant. Therefore, a fabrication of Paul's. Things that could not be verified, since Paul was not in tune with the Tanach.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 13 April 2012 - 07:42 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Arbitran, on 07 April 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

A wonderfully-complete analysis. Excellent work, sir.

Thanks Arbitran. You have made my day.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 07 April 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

This is a well-known forgery, Josephus never wrote this text as it stands in its present form.  However, argument exists as to whether it is a complete forgery, or if it might have existed in the text but was added to by a Christian scribe.  I'll post what several scholars think the text might have originally said:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was perhaps [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first, did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold this and thousand other wonderful things concerned him; and the tribes of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities of the Jews, p.576, #3)

As you can see, two sections have been removed, and the word "perhaps" (put in bold) added.  Though the entire sentence "He was perhaps the Christ" could be entirely removed - the sentence is considered possible because of one Arabic version of Josephus' work which actually includes the word "perhaps".  

In any case, regardless of whether this was entirely forged, or if it were edited from Josephus' original, virtually all scholars agree that the text in its present form is wrong.  Nevertheless, Josephus writew about Jesus in another section of his work, and scholars all agree that in this section of text there is no hint of Christian tampering, and therefore most believe this to be the original words of Josephus.  That text reads:

But this younger Ananus, who as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent... He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Messiah-Christ, whose name was James, and some others.  When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned to death
~ (Jewish Antiquities 20.200)

The inclusion of the phrase "so-called Messiah-Christ" lends weight to the earlier suggestion that Jesus was "perhaps" the Christ.  

Just a few thoughts for consideration

~ PA

Hey PA, a good point this of yours above. But I must bring to your attention that in all the Roman provinces throughout the conquered world, the
jurisdiction or power to condemn a local native to death had been removed from the local population to Rome. Therefore, the High Priest Ananus could
not have gathered the Sanhedrin to condemn James to death. And neither could they have done this to Jesus at his time. There must be a contradiction
here somewhere.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Lion6969, on 08 April 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

I agree. Today's Christianity is the doctrine of Paul. If you wrote all the words that Paul said in black ink and the words Jesus said, then the bible would be 98% in black ink. What does that tell you? Who are Christians really following?

Lion, the answer to your question is Paul. And there is no secret about it. It was after a whole year that Paul spent in the synagogue of the
Nazarenes at the invitation of Barnabas in the city of Antioch that the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. It means
that the reason is that Paul spent that year preaching about Jesus as Christ. Read Acts 11:26.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

blind pew, on 08 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Our civilization needs to grow up and stop believing in non existent deities and start relying on each other

I guess you are trying to convey that there is no probability for the existence of a Creator, because this has nothing to do with growing up and stopping being a theist. What's the option, to be an atheist? What can we learn from atheists, that God does not exist? How about the possibility of something positive?
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 13 April 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Jor-el, on 08 April 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Well I would like to ask you, in a straightforward fashion, who do you think then Jesus really was?

We have a number of works that comprise the New testament, even leaving out all the works written by Paul, we are still left with the 4 Gospels themselves, which are as close to eyewitness accounts as we will ever have. They all point to a person who matches for all intents and purposes, the Messiah awaited by the Hebrews from the earliest of times. Even he attests to his own divine status in them in more than one occasion, by actions, attitudes and words.

So I'm wondering why you would say that Paul got it wrong, when others are saying axactly the same thing he was?

Jesus was a loyal Jew, who was born with the mission to revive the spirit of Judaism with regards to the Law as to be observed down to the letter, according to Matthew 5:17-19. Then, he was also a Rabbi, even acknowledged so by Pharisees, as in the case of Nicodemus. (John 3:1,2) But, above all, being a Jew and loyal to his Faith, which was Judaism, he could never be referred to, according to the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son
of a god with an earthly woman.

Now, with regards to those whom you refer to as to give eyewitness accounts of Jesus, you are mistaken. The gospels were written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. None of the writers of the gospels was an eyewitness of anything about Jesus. They were Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote from hear-say and and pre-conceived notions. They had been all former disciples of Paul's.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 13 April 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[Jor-el]

Ben Masada, on 13 April 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

Jesus was a loyal Jew, who was born with the mission to revive the spirit of Judaism with regards to the Law as to be observed down to the letter, according to Matthew 5:17-19. Then, he was also a Rabbi, even acknowledged so by Pharisees, as in the case of Nicodemus. (John 3:1,2) But, above all, being a Jew and loyal to his Faith, which was Judaism, he could never be referred to, according to the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son
of a god with an earthly woman.

Now, with regards to those whom you refer to as to give eyewitness accounts of Jesus, you are mistaken. The gospels were written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. None of the writers of the gospels was an eyewitness of anything about Jesus. They were Hellenistic Gentiles who wrote from hear-say and and pre-conceived notions. They had been all former disciples of Paul's.
Ben

I disagree Ben, and the simple fact is that besides what is written by those Gospels you so reject, there is not enough information on Jesus to fill a Tefillin. Which means you are walking on air, or rather hypothesizing beyond all evidence at hand, just because you think that that is how a Jew must and should have acted or spoken...

Let me remind you, Christianity exists because of judaism, christianity is a word that was invented much later in the 1st century, it is never used in the bible except in 3 places.

The 1st christians had another name, they were called Messianic Jews, the Notzrim or the Nazarenes, among other names, and they were as jewish as Gamaliel ever was. They weren't even Hellenists, they were born and raised Jews of Israel, that followed the Jewish faith. They worshipped and prayed with their brother Jews, who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. For an entire century the fellowshipped together.

This my friend is historical FACT and it demonstrates one thing, that these beliefs were held by Jews long before the church opened itself to gentiles... or hellenists of any stripe and colour.

[Ben Masada]

Jor-el, on 13 April 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

I disagree Ben, and the simple fact is that besides what is written by those Gospels you so reject, there is not enough information on Jesus to fill a Tefillin. Which means you are walking on air, or rather hypothesizing beyond all evidence at hand, just because you think that that is how a Jew must and should have acted or spoken...

Let me remind you, Christianity exists because of judaism, christianity is a word that was invented much later in the 1st century, it is never used in the bible except in 3 places.

The 1st christians had another name, they were called Messianic Jews, the Notzrim or the Nazarenes, among other names, and they were as jewish as Gamaliel ever was. They weren't even Hellenists, they were born and raised Jews of Israel, that followed the Jewish faith. They worshipped and prayed with their brother Jews, who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. For an entire century the fellowshipped together.

This my friend is historical FACT and it demonstrates one thing, that these beliefs were held by Jews long before the church opened itself to gentiles... or hellenists of any stripe and colour.

If there is not enough information about Jesus to fill a tefillin, it means you don't have much to get from where there is not enough to. All we have is the NT. As far I am concerned, only 20% of what we have from the NT is worth our time to absorb. The other 80% is myth.

And let me remind you too that Christianity exists because Paul could not find another reason to base his church on but in the replacement of the Jewish Theology. Hence Replacement Theology.

And for the first Christians, they started as Christians. Read Acts 11:26. That was about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. He had never even dreamed that a Hellenistic Jew would ever found a religion to persecute his fellow Jews. The Nazarenes or Notzrim constituted the most recent sect of Judaism. Hence its acquired name of "New Way." (Acts 9:2) There is nowhere in the NT saying that Gamaliel was a Christian.

Rather this, my friend is historical fact. If your record can be proved as a fact, we have no choice but to be dealing with contradictions. The text says that the disciples of Paul in the synagogue of Antioch which he overturned into a Christian church were the FIRST to be called Christians, after
a whole year that Paul was there teaching that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 11:26)
Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 13 April 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

Hey PA, a good point this of yours above. But I must bring to your attention that in all the Roman provinces throughout the conquered world, the
jurisdiction or power to condemn a local native to death had been removed from the local population to Rome. Therefore, the High Priest Ananus could
not have gathered the Sanhedrin to condemn James to death. And neither could they have done this to Jesus at his time. There must be a contradiction
here somewhere.
Ben

Hi Ben,

What you say is true, the Sanhedrin could not legally condemn James to death, but that does not mean that they could not convene an illegal stoning.  The Jews whom Jesus spoke to are on several occasions said to have tried stoning Jesus, despite its illegality.  The Josephus text does describe Ananus as insolent and with a temper, so it is not beyond reason to think he may let that anger manifest in illegal activity (with Jesus, the Romans had a reason to execute him, but they had no reason to execute James - Ananus' only recourse would be to carry out vigilante justice).  At least, that's how I've always thought of that when reading the text (those historians who dismiss it do so for the exact reasons you state, though).

Just a thought

Edited by Paranoid Android, 16 April 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[Jor-el]

Ben Masada, on 16 April 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

If there is not enough information about Jesus to fill a tefillin, it means you don't have much to get from where there is not enough to. All we have is the NT. As far I am concerned, only 20% of what we have from the NT is worth our time to absorb. The other 80% is myth.

And let me remind you too that Christianity exists because Paul could not find another reason to base his church on but in the replacement of the Jewish Theology. Hence Replacement Theology.

And for the first Christians, they started as Christians. Read Acts 11:26. That was about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. He had never even dreamed that a Hellenistic Jew would ever found a religion to persecute his fellow Jews. The Nazarenes or Notzrim constituted the most recent sect of Judaism. Hence its acquired name of "New Way." (Acts 9:2) There is nowhere in the NT saying that Gamaliel was a Christian.

Rather this, my friend is historical fact. If your record can be proved as a fact, we have no choice but to be dealing with contradictions. The text says that the disciples of Paul in the synagogue of Antioch which he overturned into a Christian church were the FIRST to be called Christians, after
a whole year that Paul was there teaching that Jesus was the Christ. (Acts 11:26)
Ben

Replacement Theology, that is a heresy, and not even a christian belief. It is a movement started by anti-semitists, within the church, but it is not a christian belief. It is not defended by christians and much less by Paul, if that is the best you have, you came to the wrong place.

No, they started as Jews, you personally cannot accept that fact. But it is a fact nonetheless. Gamaliel was never a christian, I wonder where you seem to have gotten that idea? I never stated such a thing, and no-one I know who knows his scripture, could possibly state such a thing. He may have sympathized with the Notzrim, who became known as christians later on. Take Peter, and all the other disciples, with one single exception, they were all Jews, they didn't found a new religion, they were present for the ultimate fullfilment of their own religion, they knew the Messiah.

You are basically inventing things as you are going along, from what I see, tell you what prove your assertions, because I can certainly prove mine.

Edited by Jor-el, 16 April 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Arbitran]

Ben Masada, on 13 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Thanks Arbitran. You have made my day.
Ben

No, thank you. Your post was superbly-done.

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 16 April 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Hi Ben,

What you say is true, the Sanhedrin could not legally condemn James to death, but that does not mean that they could not convene an illegal stoning.  The Jews whom Jesus spoke to are on several occasions said to have tried stoning Jesus, despite its illegality.  The Josephus text does describe Ananus as insolent and with a temper, so it is not beyond reason to think he may let that anger manifest in illegal activity (with Jesus, the Romans had a reason to execute him, but they had no reason to execute James - Ananus' only recourse would be to carry out vigilante justice).  At least, that's how I've always thought of that when reading the text (those historians who dismiss it do so for the exact reasons you state, though).

Just a thought

Ananus was not the Sanhedrin. This was composed of 70 members, and a majority was necessary to pronounce any judgment. If Ananus had carried out vigilante justice, he would have bronken a Roman law and condemned possibly to death for insurrection. Therefore, there is no use to try to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Besides, Jesus had come to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:17-19) How could the Jews ask the enemies, occupiers of our land, to crucify a fellow and loyal Jew? It makes no sense. There was some kind of agenda to try to clear the Romans of the death of Jesus and to transfer it to the Jews. Probably Antisemitism was on the rise.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 18 April 2012 - 07:25 PM.

[Ben Masada]

Jor-el, on 16 April 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Replacement Theology, that is a heresy, and not even a christian belief. It is a movement started by anti-semitists, within the church, but it is not a christian belief. It is not defended by christians and much less by Paul, if that is the best you have, you came to the wrong place.

No, they started as Jews, you personally cannot accept that fact. But it is a fact nonetheless. Gamaliel was never a christian, I wonder where you seem to have gotten that idea? I never stated such a thing, and no-one I know who knows his scripture, could possibly state such a thing. He may have sympathized with the Notzrim, who became known as christians later on. Take Peter, and all the other disciples, with one single exception, they were all Jews, they didn't found a new religion, they were present for the ultimate fullfilment of their own religion, they knew the Messiah.

You are basically inventing things as you are going along, from what I see, tell you what prove your assertions, because I can certainly prove mine.

Yes, you are right. Replacement Theology is a heresy. And I copied it from Paul in Gallatians 4:21-31. Here is the whole text:

                                                REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would
define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On
the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 18 April 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Ananus was not the Sanhedrin. This was composed of 70 members, and a majority was necessary to pronounce any judgment. If Ananus had carried out vigilante justice, he would have bronken a Roman law and condemned possibly to death for insurrection. Therefore, there is no use to try to blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Besides, Jesus had come to confirm the most important thing to a Jew, which is God's Law. (Mat. 5:17-19) How could the Jews ask the enemies, occupiers of our land, to crucify a fellow and loyal Jew? It makes no sense. There was some kind of agenda to try to clear the Romans of the death of Jesus and to transfer it to the Jews. Probably Antisemitism was on the rise.
Ben

1- Yes, if Ananus carried out vigilante justice he would have broken Roman law and possibly be subject to the death sentence himself.  That's part of vigilante justice, going against the law.  That was my point, James had done nothing wrong in Roman law and thus if Ananus wanted James out of the picture his only recourse was to break the law.

2- I wasn't blaming "the Jews", so please don't raise that accusation.  I was blaming those Jews in authority who were afraid of Jesus' influence.

3- You portray Jesus as  "loyal Jew", and while Jesus did come to fulfil the law of the Jews, he often went against the teachings and beliefs of the Pharisees and other Teachers of the Law.  Consider Jesus' comments on ritual handwashing (Mark 7:14-19).  Jesus condemned the practises of the Pharisees (who had a very specific set of rules about hand-washing, and if not adhered to exactly, made one "unclean" for meals - I'll share sources, if you like).  Instead, Jesus said that it was actually what came out of a man's mouth that made him "unclean".

4- To reiterate, I have never claimed the Jews were responsible, so don't throw out claims of anti-Semitism.  The authors were not being anti-Semitic in their statements, and neither was I.  I hope you're not stooping to playing the anti-Semitism card just to shut down those who disagree with your point of view (it truly would be a shame to bring such a Logical Fallacy into the debate)?!?!?!?!

~ Regards, PA

[Jor-el]

Ben Masada, on 18 April 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

Yes, you are right. Replacement Theology is a heresy. And I copied it from Paul in Gallatians 4:21-31. Here is the whole text:

                                                REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would
define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On
the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

Incorrect, and Paul did NOT practice, believe or even encourage such a belief... it is a heresy, it has always been one and it did not come from the bible or the New Testament in any shape or form.

Romans 11:13-32
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this isf my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.


His words clearly demonstrate the falseness of your claim.