Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ben Masada

The Text Josephus Never Wrote

402 posts in this topic

THE TEXT JOSEPHUS NEVER WROTE

"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 [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)

Now, with the above in mind, I am bringing to your attention the reasons why Josephus could have never written this text above:

1 - Josephus was the kind of Historian who could bore any reader with his paronoia with details. Taken Herod, for instance, Josephus would go down to the dot of the letter about even family intrigues and things really of no concern. Do you think that he would miss such a highly important event in the life of Herod as his order to slaughter all the children from two years of age and under with the intent to catch the "king of the Jews" who had just been born? Obviously not. Since Josephus could not have missed that event in the life of Herod, it either did not happen or Josephus never wrote this text. But then again, Luke missed it too. Therefore, it never happened.

2 - "...if it be lawful to call him a man." If not a man, what, a god? Josephus was a Jewish man and he knew that there is no such a thing in Judaism as the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

3 - "...he drew over to him many of the Gentiles." I wonder where Josephus got that from because, even the NT cannot confirm what he said if he ever wrote that text. Why? Because rather the opposite was true. Jesus rather closed the doors to the Gentiles by actually forbidding his disciples to take his gospel to the Gentiles. (Mat. 10:5)

4 - "He was [the] Christ." Josephus knew Greek fluently. As a Jew who never converted to Christianity, he would never state that Jesus was the Messiah.

5 - "At the suggestion of the Jews, Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross." Knowing Pilate as Josephus did, he was well aware that Pilate would never condemn someone to the cross at the suggestion of another, especially Jews of all people. Besides, Jesus was not the only one. Josephus reports a number within the thousands.

6 - "...for he appeared to the disciples alive the third day." Josephus could have never stated this item of Paul's

gospel without at least quoting, "according to his disciples, or according to Paul, as this himself confessed that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel.(2 Tim. 2:8) Any one can see that the forgery was done with the intent to have Josephus preach the resurrection of Jesus. A Jew could never do such a thing.

7 - "...as the divine prophets foretold this and thousand other wonderful things about Jesus." Where, for heaven's

sake is it written? Could it be that, after having written such a detailed history of the Jews, Josephus had forgotten all about the Tanach? Highly improbable. Therefore, Josephus did not write the text above about Jesus. Evidences can't be more shouting that it was forged into Josephus' writings by the Church in the 4th Century.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ben and welcome to UM. So are you just saying that the text is written by someone other than Josephus or that the statements in the text are false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis seems very plausible....however if anyone was accepting Jesus it's was his fellow Jews, as he came to the lost sheep of the house.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Ben and welcome to UM. So are you just saying that the text is written by someone other than Josephus or that the statements in the text are false?

Both, not only was the text written by someone else other than Josephus, but also that the statements in the text are false for the reasons I mentioned following the text in the thread. The point is that, in the 4th Century ACE, there was a time when pious forgery was welcome by the Church whose leaders desperately needed to document the historical Jesus, and there was no other literature besides the NT to witness the fact. Since Josephus' works enjoyed more creditation than the NT, his writings had become the best choice to be interpolated with pious forgeries.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your analysis seems very plausible....however if anyone was accepting Jesus it's was his fellow Jews, as he came to the lost sheep of the house.

:)

You are right. Indeed, many Jews accepted Jesus, hence he had twelve apostles and 70 disciples, let alone crowds of jews who would listen to him. (Mat. 7:28) But they all did not accept Jesus in the Hellenistic fashion that Paul and his disciples did. While to the real Jews Jesus was but a loyal Jew who had come to confirm the Law down to the letter, according to Matthew 5:19, to the disciples of Paul, Jesus was akin to a Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:20) Besides, that Jesus was the Messiah and had resurrected, Paul himself confessed to his disciple Timothy, that it was all according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It means that Paul was the one who had fabricated that idea about Jesus.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Indeed, many Jews accepted Jesus, hence he had twelve apostles and 70 disciples, let alone crowds of jews who would listen to him. (Mat. 7:28) But they all did not accept Jesus in the Hellenistic fashion that Paul and his disciples did. While to the real Jews Jesus was but a loyal Jew who had come to confirm the Law down to the letter, according to Matthew 5:19, to the disciples of Paul, Jesus was akin to a Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:20) Besides, that Jesus was the Messiah and had resurrected, Paul himself confessed to his disciple Timothy, that it was all according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It means that Paul was the one who had fabricated that idea about Jesus.

Ben

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE TEXT JOSEPHUS NEVER WROTE

"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 [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)

Now, with the above in mind, I am bringing to your attention the reasons why Josephus could have never written this text above:

1 - Josephus was the kind of Historian who could bore any reader with his paronoia with details. Taken Herod, for instance, Josephus would go down to the dot of the letter about even family intrigues and things really of no concern. Do you think that he would miss such a highly important event in the life of Herod as his order to slaughter all the children from two years of age and under with the intent to catch the "king of the Jews" who had just been born? Obviously not. Since Josephus could not have missed that event in the life of Herod, it either did not happen or Josephus never wrote this text. But then again, Luke missed it too. Therefore, it never happened.

2 - "...if it be lawful to call him a man." If not a man, what, a god? Josephus was a Jewish man and he knew that there is no such a thing in Judaism as the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

3 - "...he drew over to him many of the Gentiles." I wonder where Josephus got that from because, even the NT cannot confirm what he said if he ever wrote that text. Why? Because rather the opposite was true. Jesus rather closed the doors to the Gentiles by actually forbidding his disciples to take his gospel to the Gentiles. (Mat. 10:5)

4 - "He was [the] Christ." Josephus knew Greek fluently. As a Jew who never converted to Christianity, he would never state that Jesus was the Messiah.

5 - "At the suggestion of the Jews, Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross." Knowing Pilate as Josephus did, he was well aware that Pilate would never condemn someone to the cross at the suggestion of another, especially Jews of all people. Besides, Jesus was not the only one. Josephus reports a number within the thousands.

6 - "...for he appeared to the disciples alive the third day." Josephus could have never stated this item of Paul's

gospel without at least quoting, "according to his disciples, or according to Paul, as this himself confessed that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel.(2 Tim. 2:8) Any one can see that the forgery was done with the intent to have Josephus preach the resurrection of Jesus. A Jew could never do such a thing.

7 - "...as the divine prophets foretold this and thousand other wonderful things about Jesus." Where, for heaven's

sake is it written? Could it be that, after having written such a detailed history of the Jews, Josephus had forgotten all about the Tanach? Highly improbable. Therefore, Josephus did not write the text above about Jesus. Evidences can't be more shouting that it was forged into Josephus' writings by the Church in the 4th Century.

Ben

A wonderfully-complete analysis. Excellent work, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 :tu:

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Oh yes, because a man who lived a century after Jesus, mentioning that he believed Jesus to have resurrected... That's confirmation. Because that's just such solid proof of Jesus' divinity, you see. How could anyone fail to see that?

In case anyone can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Indeed, many Jews accepted Jesus, hence he had twelve apostles and 70 disciples, let alone crowds of jews who would listen to him. (Mat. 7:28) But they all did not accept Jesus in the Hellenistic fashion that Paul and his disciples did. While to the real Jews Jesus was but a loyal Jew who had come to confirm the Law down to the letter, according to Matthew 5:19, to the disciples of Paul, Jesus was akin to a Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:20) Besides, that Jesus was the Messiah and had resurrected, Paul himself confessed to his disciple Timothy, that it was all according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It means that Paul was the one who had fabricated that idea about Jesus.

Ben

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

From where I sit, the doctrine of Paul is the same doctrine Jesus taught. Christians are following Christ. Paul wrote much of the New Testament, but that doesn't mean we are following Paul. As Paul himself says,

What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

~ 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Paul's teachings elaborate and elucidate Christ's teachings. They do not supplant them, nor do they mean that to listen to Paul means to ignore Jesus. That would be my firm opinion on the matter :yes:

~ Regards,

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE TEXT JOSEPHUS NEVER WROTE

"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 [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)

Now, with the above in mind, I am bringing to your attention the reasons why Josephus could have never written this text above:

1 - Josephus was the kind of Historian who could bore any reader with his paronoia with details. Taken Herod, for instance, Josephus would go down to the dot of the letter about even family intrigues and things really of no concern. Do you think that he would miss such a highly important event in the life of Herod as his order to slaughter all the children from two years of age and under with the intent to catch the "king of the Jews" who had just been born? Obviously not. Since Josephus could not have missed that event in the life of Herod, it either did not happen or Josephus never wrote this text. But then again, Luke missed it too. Therefore, it never happened.

2 - "...if it be lawful to call him a man." If not a man, what, a god? Josephus was a Jewish man and he knew that there is no such a thing in Judaism as the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman.

3 - "...he drew over to him many of the Gentiles." I wonder where Josephus got that from because, even the NT cannot confirm what he said if he ever wrote that text. Why? Because rather the opposite was true. Jesus rather closed the doors to the Gentiles by actually forbidding his disciples to take his gospel to the Gentiles. (Mat. 10:5)

4 - "He was [the] Christ." Josephus knew Greek fluently. As a Jew who never converted to Christianity, he would never state that Jesus was the Messiah.

5 - "At the suggestion of the Jews, Pilate condemned Jesus to the cross." Knowing Pilate as Josephus did, he was well aware that Pilate would never condemn someone to the cross at the suggestion of another, especially Jews of all people. Besides, Jesus was not the only one. Josephus reports a number within the thousands.

6 - "...for he appeared to the disciples alive the third day." Josephus could have never stated this item of Paul's

gospel without at least quoting, "according to his disciples, or according to Paul, as this himself confessed that Jesus resurrected according to his gospel.(2 Tim. 2:8) Any one can see that the forgery was done with the intent to have Josephus preach the resurrection of Jesus. A Jew could never do such a thing.

7 - "...as the divine prophets foretold this and thousand other wonderful things about Jesus." Where, for heaven's

sake is it written? Could it be that, after having written such a detailed history of the Jews, Josephus had forgotten all about the Tanach? Highly improbable. Therefore, Josephus did not write the text above about Jesus. Evidences can't be more shouting that it was forged into Josephus' writings by the Church in the 4th Century.

Ben

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. Indeed, many Jews accepted Jesus, hence he had twelve apostles and 70 disciples, let alone crowds of jews who would listen to him. (Mat. 7:28) But they all did not accept Jesus in the Hellenistic fashion that Paul and his disciples did. While to the real Jews Jesus was but a loyal Jew who had come to confirm the Law down to the letter, according to Matthew 5:19, to the disciples of Paul, Jesus was akin to a Greek demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. (Mat. 1:20) Besides, that Jesus was the Messiah and had resurrected, Paul himself confessed to his disciple Timothy, that it was all according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It means that Paul was the one who had fabricated that idea about Jesus.

Ben

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Well said and i support that :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said and i support that :yes:

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wonderfully-complete analysis. Excellent work, sir.

Thanks Arbitran. You have made my day.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

~ 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.