Was Jesus an Essene?
Passwords
Did the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' belong to the Essenes?
"Today the Essene theory is questioned by some, but usually for unsound
reasons" (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin,
1998, p 14 [introduction].)
The conclusions reached by the prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Giza
Vermes, an eminent member of the international team studying the texts,
remains valid today: 'The final verdict must ... be that of the proposed
solutions the Essene theory is relatively the soundest. It is even safe to
say that is possesses a high degree of intrinsic probability." (Vermes, G,
The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London, 1994)
The Dead Sea Scrolls were apparently hidden in nearby cliffs about two
thousand years ago by Essenes from the Qumran community. The Essenes were
the only known people living in this remote region of the Judean wilderness
during the relevant period, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not inconsistent
with the Essene ideology.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of ancient religious texts recovered
from caves on the Western shore of the Dead Sea, about eight miles south of
Jericho. The centre of an ancient religious community called the Essenes was
also located here around the first-century CE, in a settlement called
Khirbet Qumran. For instance, Cave 4, from which over five hundred documents
have been recovered, lies in a cliff situated within a few yards of the
ruins of the most proximal buildings within the Essene settlement at Qumran.
Was Jesus an Essene?
There is no definitive proof that Jesus was involved with the Essenes,
although serious articles have been published in respectable journals by
prominent scholars proposing a central role for Jesus and his foremost
disciples in the Essene community at Qumran.
There is a clear Christian element in the Dead Sea scrolls, alongside their
predominantly Jewish theme, and obvious parallels can be drawn between the
Qumran texts and the type of Christianity described in the New Testament;
indeed G. Vermes claims 'a causal connection' between the Scrolls and the
New Testament (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin,
1998, see introduction).
"Turning to the real relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New
Testament, this can be presented under a threefold heading. (1) We note (a)
fundamental similarities of language (both in the Scrolls and the New
Testament the faithful are called 'Sons of Light'); (b) ideology (both
communities considered themselves to be the true Israel, governed by twelve
leaders...; (c) attitude to the Bible (both considered their own history as
fulfilment of the ... Prophets.) ... (2) More specific features ... would
suggest a direct causal connection. ... (3) In the study of the historical
Jesus, ... aspects of the Scrolls have provided the richest gleanings for
comparison. [Examples are cited of Essene texts depicting events in the life
of prominent Essenes which are comparable to the acts of Jesus.]
Penndragon
I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot instead.
MP
Penn
--
--
The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man
almost nothing.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Passwords" <pass...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0q1q4$jb7$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Rox
> MM Passwords
>
> I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot instead.
The Zealots was the sect, so I understand, that were ready to kill for Isreal
(they were "zealous" for a homeland. I don't see Jesus as a zealot.
I think furthermore the Zealots were in sort of a contradiction to what Rabbi
Hillel taught; lots of Jesus' teaching are based on the Pharasaical School of
Hillel.
--
"Do not be alarmed. Sometimes
our feelings conflict with our
programming."
--Android 16 (Dragonball Z)
Rox______________________________
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/9300
Trotter960
>The Zealots was the sect, so I >understand, that were ready to kill for
>Isreal (they were "zealous" for a >homeland. I don't see Jesus as a zealot.
I'll agree. There is no place in the Bible or in any canonical source where
Jesus is described as a *political* activist of any sort. Nor were early Xians
known in such a way. Horsley, Fredriksen, and others have written about him in
this way, but they base their argument upon what Judea was like in the first
century and how a messianic figure
must have responded to the Pax Romana.
Of course, not everyone need to have re-
sponded in the same way.
Penndragon
"Rox" <roxa...@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
news:3C30F346...@shenhgts.net...
> Penndragon wrote:
>
> > MM Passwords
> >
> > I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
instead.
>
> The Zealots was the sect, so I understand, that were ready to kill for
Isreal
> (they were "zealous" for a homeland. I don't see Jesus as a zealot.
>
I tend to agree, but it makes for some interesting reading. Never read an
author that didn't jump the gun somewhere. In fact we all do in places.
> I think furthermore the Zealots were in sort of a contradiction to what
Rabbi
> Hillel taught; lots of Jesus' teaching are based on the Pharasaical School
of
> Hillel.
>
Agreed. SOme say he was preaching against the Pharasees. The passage in Q
hower is about hypocracy and the Pharasees just happen to be named in the
parable as I see it.
MP
Penn
--
--
There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Shakespere
Kater Moggin
[re Jesus]
> SOme say he was preaching against the Pharasees.
Why not read the Gospels and see for yourself? Here, I'll
quote some relevant verses for you.
Luke 11:42-44:
42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue
and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the
love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave
the other undone.
43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost
seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.
44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over
them are not aware of them.
-- Moggin
Penndragon
Who knows truly? Who can here declare it?
Whence it was born, whence is this emanation.
By the emanation of this the gods
Only later [came to be].
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this emanation hath arisen,
Whether [God] disposed it, or whether he did not, ---
Only he who is its overseer in the highest heavens knows.
[He only knows,] or perhaps he does not know!
Rig Veda
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-A68751....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
Now read before and after rather than just this selected bit and the overal
tone is more like that in Matthew
Matthew 23:13 詐ut woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves,
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'
houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the
greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and
land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more
the child of hell than yourselves.
Once again I'd suggest to read the entire passage to get the full context.
Yes Pharisees are mentioned (and scribes in Matt) in this parable. The
disciples themselves in the bible tell us that Jesus spoke naught but
parables to the multitude and explains only to those closest to him.
Even the feeding of thousands is a parable that holds the mathematical
approximation for the vesica pisces in it. That's what wasn't seen there ;)
MP
Penn
--
--
Then neither Being nor Not-being was,
Nor atmosphere, nor firmament, nor what is beyond.
What did it encompass? Where? In whose protection?
What was water, the deep, unfathomable?....
Kater Moggin
>> [re Jesus]
>>> SOme say he was preaching against the Pharasees.
Kater Moggin" <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> Why not read the Gospels and see for yourself? Here, I'll
>> quote some relevant verses for you.
>> Luke 11:42-44:
>> 42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue
>> and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the
>> love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave
>> the other undone.
>> 43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost
>> seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets.
>> 44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye
>> are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over
>> them are not aware of them.
PD:
> Now read before and after rather than just this selected bit and the
> overal tone is more like that in Matthew
I agree the tone is alot alike. Whichever Gospel you look
at, Jesus is casting woes on the Pharisees. He calls them
hypocrites, children of hell, compares them to graves, etc. So
he's clearly preaching against them.
-- Moggin
Fenris
<pdr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>MM Passwords
>
>I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot instead.
Anthropologist Marvin Harris makes that case in "Cows, Pigs, Wars &
Witches" or "Sacred Cow, Abominable Pig," but there is no room for
spiritual reality in Harris's understanding.
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Ned Latham
>
> I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot instead.
Reading between the lines of the information we have, I think that the
Zealots were just the military arm of the Essene sect. As I see it, the
seige of Masada (the last act of the Jewish Rebellion a generation later)
shows that the Essenes were fanatics.
----snip----
Ned
--
* Democracy means "the people rule". *
* Fight for the power of assent. *
Nes
Isn't the REAL question this? Did that person, commonly known throughout the
World as Jesus Christus, ever actually exist? There is NO direct evidence
supporting the fact that Christ was a historical individual. There's plenty
of historical evidence to prove widespread fabrication about and
falsification of the meagre historical records of the time when Christ was
supposed to have existed, all if it done by the early Christian Church (most
of it done prior to the consequential Synod in Nicea in Lydia, in 325, which
was basically a meeting of Church censors in order to determine, what
Christian belief really was!).
The Essenes in their writings never did mention, at least not as far as I've
been able to keep myself informed, the person Jesus Christ by name [by the
way, the thesis about the Qumran "Convent" with its "scriptorium" is also
extremely suspect, as anyone, who's actually seen those ruins will be able
to testify. That building bears no resemblance to any past or present
convent. Try holiday spa with accomodations for people who were ill and
wanted to bathe in the healing mineral rich water of the Dead Sea, instead!
That leaves open a very important question? Where did all those scrolls
found in some of the many caves around the Dead Sea originate?]. From the
authentic records - such as they are, and that's not saying much - of the
Imperial Roman Protectorate of Palestine of the time around what has become
the year zero of the Gregorian Calender, several religious fundamentalist
and revisionist movements are known to have existed. Not one of them bears
even the sightest resemblance to contents of the Gospels as supposedly told
by the Apostles.
Nes
******************
"Passwords" <pass...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0q1q4$jb7$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> JESUS AND THE SONS OF LIGHT.
>
> Did the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' belong to the Essenes?
>
> "Today the Essene theory is questioned by some, but usually for unsound
> reasons" (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin,
> 1998, p 14 [introduction].)
>
> The conclusions reached by the prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Giza
> Vermes, an eminent member of the international team studying the texts,
> remains valid today: 'The final verdict must ... be that of the proposed
> solutions the Essene theory is relatively the soundest. It is even safe to
> say that is possesses a high degree of intrinsic probability." (Vermes, G,
<SNIP>
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 90,000 Groups! - 17 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Penndragon
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-1A8C8E....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
If you were to take a purely literal accounting, it would appear so. Have a
search through the bible using parable and Mystery or mysteries as keywords
and we find something interesting. Jesus taught his disciples directly
whilst to all else was taught as parable. If we take these Pharisees as the
all else or a part of it (they aint the disciples) then we have a parable
and not a literal accounting. If need be, I can hunt up verses via any of
the bibles on my pc in less time than it would take to scour the paper
version.
MP
Penn
Penndragon
"Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message > <pdr...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
>
> >MM Passwords
> >
> >I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
instead.
>
> Anthropologist Marvin Harris makes that case in "Cows, Pigs, Wars &
> Witches" or "Sacred Cow, Abominable Pig," but there is no room for
> spiritual reality in Harris's understanding.
>
No doubt he does. I'm currently reading "Joshua, the man they called
Christ". He makes his case by going to the Aramaic originals of some of the
Gospels and using the translated meanings of words which he equates with the
zealots for now.
Other books worth a read I think are "The Jesus Papyrus", "The Human
Christ", and "The Jesus Mysteries." I can't say I agree 100% with any of
them however but are worth a read. Trying to get a hold of "Jesus and the
Lost Goddess" for the moment.
MP
Penn
Penndragon
"Ned Latham" <nen...@arthur.net.oz> wrote in message
news:slrna33mju....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> Penndragon wrote in <yI5Y7.55481$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>:
> >
> > I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
instead.
>
> Reading between the lines of the information we have, I think that the
> Zealots were just the military arm of the Essene sect. As I see it, the
> seige of Masada (the last act of the Jewish Rebellion a generation later)
> shows that the Essenes were fanatics.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
> --
I think that was one of the conclusions the author of this book makes as
well.
MP
Penn
Ned Latham
>
> Isn't the REAL question this? Did that person, commonly known throughout
> the World as Jesus Christus, ever actually exist? There is NO direct
> evidence supporting the fact that Christ was a historical individual.
It would be remarkable if there were. The Essenes wouldn't have left a
record of the individuals making up thir organization at any time, and
the Romans weren't in the habit of recording the names of criminals for
posterity.
> There's plenty of historical evidence to prove widespread fabrication
> about and falsification of the meagre historical records of the time
> when Christ was supposed to have existed, all if it done by the early
> Christian Church (most of it done prior to the consequential Synod in
> Nicea in Lydia, in 325, which was basically a meeting of Church censors
> in order to determine, what Christian belief really was!).
>
> The Essenes in their writings never did mention, at least not as far as
> I've been able to keep myself informed, the person Jesus Christ by name
They didn't mention *anyone* by name.
Anubis
"Nes" <nmorph...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:3c31...@post.newsfeed.com...
I would be interested to know what you class as "direct evidence". Plenty of
written sources attest to him. Maybe not as the Christ, but there are
references.
--
Anubis
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Fenris
<pdr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>No doubt he does. I'm currently reading "Joshua, the man they called
>Christ". He makes his case by going to the Aramaic originals of some of the
>Gospels and using the translated meanings of words which he equates with the
>zealots for now.
>
>Other books worth a read I think are "The Jesus Papyrus", "The Human
>Christ", and "The Jesus Mysteries." I can't say I agree 100% with any of
>them however but are worth a read. Trying to get a hold of "Jesus and the
>Lost Goddess" for the moment.
Eeew, that last sounds interesting. : )
Trotter960
>Isn't the REAL question this? Did that >person, commonly known throughout the
>World as Jesus Christus, ever actually >exist?
This newsgroup has debated this in the recent past. Those who opposed the
existence of Jesus had the burdon of
showing that all of the ancient references to Jesus were insufficient and that
better references should be expected.
Among professional scholars there is no debate in regards to the existence of
Jesus. Robert E Van Voorst recently wrote about this matter in a book called
_Jesus Outside the New Testament_. Rather scholars debate what kind of
character
Jesus was. Here you get quite a bit of diver-
sity between Crossan and Sanders and so on.
>There is NO direct evidence supporting >the fact that Christ was a historical
>individual.
I would gather from this that you want to try and claim that Jesus never
existed. If so, the problems that we had last time were that those who argued
that Jesus never existed continually appealed to what amounted to a conspiracy
on the part of
Xianity. This was a circular argument.
The other problem was that those who argued against the existence of Jesus
could not establish the existence of most of the people of Antiquity by the
same methods which they proposed to use to prove that Jesus did not exist.
>There's plenty of historical evidence to >prove widespread fabrication about
and
>falsification of the meagre historical >records of the time when Christ was
>supposed to have existed....
Indeed there was a rapid development of theological thinking about Jesus. There
was some about persons who have impecible
credentials as being historical persons in Antiquity. So the charge of
fabrication does not wash. the real question should be: why
did theological thinking about Jesus develop so rapidly? In less than a century
a Roman writes that followers of Jesus
regard him as a god.
Christopher Forbes
number of counts. For a start, Josephus is very clear that the Essenes are
pacifists, and he does not mention any exceptions to this. For seconds,
NOTHING links the Essenes with the Zealots at all. There is a minor link
between the Essenes and the Sicarii, in that some of both were besieged at
Masada, but Sicarii are not at all the same as Zealots. According to
Josephus (the only detailed source we have on any of this) the Sicarii
originate in the fifties, in and around Jerusalem, as a group of urban
terrorists attacking Jewish collaborators with the Romans. The Zealots, on
the other hand, originate inside Jerusalem while it is under Roman siege, as
a coming together of various rural groups forced inside the city by the
invasion. So in my view the Zealots are far to late to be any kind of wing
of the Essenes at all. The Essenes are heavily into ritual purity; the
Zealots are heavily into rural proletarian revolution. They have very little
in common.
James Hajicek
Was Jesus an Essene?
There is a clear Christian element in the Dead Sea scrolls,
alongside their predominantly Jewish theme, and obvious
parallels can be drawn between the Qumran texts and the type
of Christianity described in the New Testament; ...
"Passwords" also proved some quotations from scholars that answer this
question in the affirmative. Thank you, I appreciate these references
because this is my opinion as well.
During the life of Jesus Christ there were three sects of Jews: the
Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Pharisees and the
Sadducees are frequently mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible,
mostly with respect to Jesus arguing against their doctrines, or with
respect to the plots of the Pharisees to trap Jesus.
Since Jesus is recorded as having nothing to say against the Essenes,
it suggests that he favored their doctrines, or that perhaps he was an
Essene himself.
According to Josephus, there were two different "orders" of Essenes,
with somewhat different beliefs and practices. For example, the
largest order was monastic, and they did not marry, but the smaller
group did:
Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter VIII, Section 13
13. Moreover, there is another order of Essens, who agree
with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and
laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as
thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal
part of human life, which is the prospect of succession;
nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion,
the whole race of mankind would fail. ...
These were probably competing groups. It seems likely to me that
Jesus was associated with the smaller of these groups because Jesus
assisted at weddings, John 2:1-11. This would explain why the
writings of the community at Qumran, a monastic society, did not
mention Jesus.
Jesus was free from sin, and he fulfilled the law and commandments
perfectly. One of the commandments given to mankind is to "be
fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth", Genesis 1:28, 9:1,7. See
also Leviticus 26:9, Psalms 127:3, 128:3-4, Isaiah 45:18. At the time
of Jesus' ministry, it was interpreted by the Jews that men were
required to marry and to have children, and this does seem to be a
correct interpretation of the scripture.
Thus, in order to fulfill all of the law, Jesus must have been married
and must have had children. This could have been early in his life,
say between the ages of 16 and 30, or he could have been married
during his ministry. Mary Magdalene had a special affection for
Jesus, and she may have been his wife, John 20:1,15-17.
The situation of Jesus was even more special, because he was of the
seed of David. David had been promised that his descendants would be
king "forever", 2 Samuel 7:13,16, 1 Chronicles 28:7, Psalms
89:4,29,36-37. The Herods were not of the seed of David, and were
false kings. Jesus was the true king, and so he had to be of the seed
of David. Therefore, Jesus had a special obligation to perpetuate his
lineage.
Therefore Jesus could not have been a member of the monastic order of
Essenes described by Josephus, the one that is presumably the order
that dwelled at Qumran. But he may have been associated with the
other "order" that permitted marriage.
According to Josephus, the Essenes consisted of about 4,000 men,
Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter I, Section 5. A
reasonable estimate would be that the smaller "order" of Essenes
consisted of perhaps 1,000 men and women.
Josephus made no mention of the Christian church, in spite of his
claim to have investigated ALL of the different Jewish sects, Life of
Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter I, Section 2.
Josephus made his investigations of the different Jewish sects about
55 AD. Since this was about 20 years after the crucifixion and the
miraculous resurrection, 1,000 might be a plausible size of the Jewish
Christian church at that time. For example, Paul wrote that 500
members of the church were witnesses to the resurrection, 1
Corinthians 15:6. At the time of the first Pentecost it is said that
3,000 new members were baptized, Acts 2:41.
A more detailed discussion of the Essenes and their possible
relationship to Jesus can be found on my internet page:
The Essenes
http://www.vorsoft.com/faith/calendar/essenes.htm
For example, compare the teachings of Jesus with the following
description of the Essenes:
Wars of the Jews
Book II, Chapter VIII, Section 3-4
3. These men are despisers of riches, and so very
communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there any one
to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is
a law among them, that those who come to them must let what
they have be common to the whole order, - insomuch that
among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess
of riches, but every one's possessions are intermingled with
every other's possessions; and so there is, as it were, one
patrimony among all the brethren. They think that oil is a
defilement; and if any one of them be anointed without his
own approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to
be sweaty is a good thing, as they do also to be clothed in
white garments. They also have stewards appointed to take
care of their common affairs, who every one of them have no
separate business for any, but what is for the uses of them
all.
4. They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell
in every city; and if any of their sect come from other
places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it
were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew
before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with
them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them
when they travel into remote parts, though still they take
their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly,
there is, in every city where they live, one appointed
particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide
garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and
management of their bodies is such as children use who are
in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of
garments, or of shoes, till they be first torn to pieces, or
worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell any thing
to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to
him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of
it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be
no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they
want of whomsoever they please.
The early Christians also had all of their property in common:
Acts 2:44-47
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things
common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to
all men, as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the
temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat
their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And
the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 4:32-35
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one
heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought
of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had
all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon
them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as
many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and
brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and
distribution was made unto every man according as he had
need.
These similarities strongly suggest that Josephus and Acts describe
the same people.
- James
Neville Lindsay
>
> Did the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' belong to the Essenes?
>
> "Today the Essene theory is questioned by some, but usually for unsound
> reasons" (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin,
> 1998, p 14 [introduction].)
>
> The conclusions reached by the prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Giza
> Vermes, an eminent member of the international team studying the texts,
> remains valid today: 'The final verdict must ... be that of the proposed
> solutions the Essene theory is relatively the soundest. It is even safe to
> say that is possesses a high degree of intrinsic probability." (Vermes, G,
> The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London, 1994)
If you want to look at the gospel evidence and Acts, Jesus was a
Nazorean/Nazarene (that doesn't mean an inhabitant of Nazareth, it was one
of the many sects and movements within Judaism). I suppose that claim is at
least as good as speculations that he belonged to another sect.
NL
Kater Moggin
>> ... Whichever Gospel you look
>> at, Jesus is casting woes on the Pharisees. He calls them
>> hypocrites, children of hell, compares them to graves, etc. So
>> he's clearly preaching against them.
Penndragon <pdr...@bigpond.com>:
> If you were to take a purely literal accounting, it would appear so.
Jesus is preaching against the Pharisees without a "purely
literal accounting." "Ye are as graves..." is figurative
speech -- it's also highly critical of the Pharisees. Likewise
"children of the devil" -- a negative comment about the
Pharisees whether or not one takes it to mean they're literally
Satan's kids.
-- Moggin
Neville Lindsay
"Penndragon" <pdr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:YeoY7.58013$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> MM Fenris
> "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message > <pdr...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >MM Passwords
> > >
> > >I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
> instead.
> >
> > Anthropologist Marvin Harris makes that case in "Cows, Pigs, Wars &
> > Witches" or "Sacred Cow, Abominable Pig," but there is no room for
> > spiritual reality in Harris's understanding.
> >
>
> No doubt he does. I'm currently reading "Joshua, the man they called
> Christ". He makes his case by going to the Aramaic originals of some of
the
> Gospels and using the translated meanings of words which he equates with
the
> zealots for now.
[--]
I would be very interseted to know who has these Aramaic originals - all the
source material I know of is Greek, and it is universally accepted the
gospels as we have them were actually written in Greek. This will be a real
news-breaker in the world of biblical scholarship. Let us all in on it.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Trotter960" <trott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011231195434...@mb-ck.aol.com...
But there was - he was executed as pretender King of the Jews. Can't get
more political than that. And it is in all four gospels - one of the few
traditions which is.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Anubis" <nihi...@ANUBISxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:wJsY7.8204$_02.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
The real problem is that the earliest evidence - Paul - seems to know almost
nothing of Jesus as an earthly as opposed to a spiritual being. It is only
when we come to the gospels generation or two later that an earthly Jesus
appears.
NL
Kater Moggin
> Jesus was free from sin, and he fulfilled the law and commandments
> perfectly.
Fulfilled, maybe. But going by the scriptures, Jesus very
often denied the Creator's law.
> One of the commandments given to mankind is to "be
> fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth", Genesis 1:28, 9:1,7. See
> also Leviticus 26:9, Psalms 127:3, 128:3-4, Isaiah 45:18.
Good example. Yahweh repeatedly orders man to be fruitful
and multiply and replenish the earth, but Jesus teaches
against marriage in the Gospels. In Luke 20:34-35 he separates
"the worthy," who neither marry nor give in marriage, from
"the children of this world," who do both. Only the worthy are
going to be resurrected, he says.
In Matt. 19:10-12 he's a bit less strict on the issue. He
approves of the saying "It is good to not marry" and those
"which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's
sake," but he grants not everyone can accept the idea. 1
Corinthians 7:1-9 is much the same. Paul says in so many words
"It is good for a man not to touch a woman," but he allows
marriage as a concession to people who can't abstain, reasoning
it's better to marry than burn.
Note the consequence of these teachings. If everybody did
what Jesus and Paul are said to think best, mankind would
vanish from the earth within a hundred years or so -- precisely
the opposite of what Yahweh commands.
> At the time
> of Jesus' ministry, it was interpreted by the Jews that men were
> required to marry and to have children, and this does seem to be a
> correct interpretation of the scripture. Thus, in order to fulfill
> all of the law, Jesus must have been married and must have had
> children.
No -- only to _obey_ all of the law. And it's not obvious
Jesus gave a damn about that. The scriptures are divided.
Certain verses -- e.g. Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 -- record
him affirming the law in even its smallest details. (Every
dot and iota.) But elswhere he's shown changing, breaking, and
erasing the law. For example, he violates the sabbath (the
4th Commandment), and he defends his disciples when they do the
same. He rejects "an eye for an eye," he teaches against
divorce and remarriage (permitted in Deuteronomy), he abrogates
the dietary laws, and he stops the punishment prescribed by
law from being applied to an adultress. Etc. He even consigns
the law and the prophets to the past, separating them from
his teaching. "The law and the prophets were until John: since
that time the kingdom of God is preached..."
Same in Paul. Some verses (I'm thinking about Romans 7:12
and 1 Timothy 1:8) call the law holy or good -- but many
others speak differently. Ephesians 2:15 says Christ abolished
the law, Col. 2:14 describes him blotting it out, Rom. 10:4
refers to him as "the end of the law," Gal. 2:4 calls the law a
bondage, opposed to "our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus," and Gal. 3:13 states, "Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law."
> This could have been early in his life,
> say between the ages of 16 and 30, or he could have been married
> during his ministry. Mary Magdalene had a special affection for
> Jesus, and she may have been his wife, John 20:1,15-17.
Not impossible, but poorly supported by those verses. You
would be much better off with the Gospel of Philip, which
reports Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth with more than
usual frequency (GPh 63:30ff), and says three women walked
with him, namely his mother, his sister "and the Magdalene, who
is called his companion" (59:6-10).
-- Moggin
Anubis
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:qIwY7.27689$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Clement of Rome attests to numerous of Paul's writings and other works. He
gives some sayings of Jesus, but not in the words of the Gospels. I would
argue for an earlier date for them, with exception of the Gospel of John.
However, that matters little this discussion,. I think. The John Rylands
Papyris, (a fragment of John), gives weight to a date not later than c.125
AD.
Paul himself had numerous contacts with eye-witnesses of Jesus. He jad
contact with Peter, John, and other disciples on at least 2 occassions that
are recorded in the Bible. He also had a falling out with Peter, which
suggests that his contact with Peter was a little more regular. Especially
when he disagreed with Peter to his face, (he wrote about this in the
Bible). Even in the absence of a written Gospel, anything Paul wrote would
be easily varified with disciples still living, some of whom were Jesus'
closest companions. This is a fair weight of at least oral history, (though
I do hold that written history was being circulated at Paul's time).
Also you have the likes of Josephus, (I am not refering to the dubious parts
where he refers to the ressurection), who was alive at the time. Also, he
had no reason to attest Jesus was even around, unless Jesus was around.
Joesphus was a thoroughly Romanised Jew at the time he was writing. (He
changed his ways during the Jewish Revolt that ended in 70AD).
Anyway, I would argue that written sources were available well before Paul's
death in c.64AD. For example, scholars seem to think there was a previous
source that Mark used to write the first of the Gospels, (often called just
"Q"). However, given even just an oral tradition, this was reliable. Paul
would have known it. And if he said something wrong, this would be easily
verified with living apostles who knew.
A date of c.125 AD for all Gospels is not logical, because John was dead
well before 100 AD. So at least one was written before that time. However, I
do not wish to get into arguments of authorship.
What I am saying, is Paul knew of the earthly Jesus, as there was oral and
some written information around. Maybe not the Gospels as they are, but it
was there, (eg. "Q"). Paul was dead c.64 AD, which is about 35 years after
Jesus was hung on a cross. 35 years is not long for an oral tradition to
lose its purity. There are examples of accurate oral histories spanning 800
years, (archeologically verified), in Ancient Egypt.
People such as Josephus and Tacitus also would have had some idea of their
sources. And some written information. They were not the first with ideas of
an earthly Jesus.
Trotter960
>But there was - he was executed as >pretender King of the Jews. Can't get
>more political than that. And it is in all four >gospels - one of the few
>traditions which is.
One of my arguments with Fredriksen is that the only way you can get Jesus to
be a pretender to the throne is put words into the mouths of the writers of the
Gospels.
The Gospels are consistant with the extra-canonical material about Jesus in
that
he is portrayed as a wiseman and as a healer or miracle worker (depending on
whether or not one was a fan of Jesus or not).
Horsley does a sociological study of the area and the times, finds a few
pretenders,
and then throws Jesus into the heap. He does not consider figures who would not
be politically active in his comparison.
EndlsRayne
>But there was - he was executed as pretender King of the Jews. Can't get
>more political than that. And it is in all four gospels - one of the few
>traditions which is.
in Acts, they claim Jesus was slain and then hung from a tree.
Acts:5:30: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a
tree.
Acts:10:39: And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of
the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
I've brought this up with Christians before and got something like "well, they
were talking in a way that illustrates how Jesus fufilled old testament
prophecies" that _sounds_ good at first but a closer examination of the
passages reveals the deciples were talking to gentiles who would have no idea
about OT prophecy.
then ,after a search through the OT,I came up with this :
18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice
of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened
him, will not hearken unto them:
19: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out
unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn
and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so
shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
22: And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to
death, and thou hang him on a tree:
23: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any
wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy
land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Peter Lösch
many years?
look at the map - he was with the Essenians!?
Anubis schrieb:
Anubis
to me. He is still attested well as an historical figure.
--
Anubis
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
"Peter Lösch" <peter....@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:3C3386BB...@bluewin.ch...
tiglath
> > No doubt he does. I'm currently reading "Joshua, the man they called
> > Christ". He makes his case by going to the Aramaic originals of some of
> the
> > Gospels and using the translated meanings of words which he equates with
> the
> > zealots for now.
>
> [--]
>
> I would be very interseted to know who has these Aramaic originals - all
the
> source material I know of is Greek, and it is universally accepted the
> gospels as we have them were actually written in Greek. This will be a
real
> news-breaker in the world of biblical scholarship. Let us all in on it.
>
> NL
Whenever one sees a book based on those Gospel Aramaic originals is time not
to call Amazon.
tiglath
> Paul himself had numerous contacts with eye-witnesses of Jesus. He jad
> contact with Peter, John, and other disciples on at least 2 occassions
that
> are recorded in the Bible. He also had a falling out with Peter, which
> suggests that his contact with Peter was a little more regular. Especially
> when he disagreed with Peter to his face, (he wrote about this in the
> Bible). Even in the absence of a written Gospel, anything Paul wrote would
> be easily varified with disciples still living, some of whom were Jesus'
> closest companions. This is a fair weight of at least oral history,
(though
> I do hold that written history was being circulated at Paul's time).
>
Paul was close
enough to know the least altered facts. Paul was obsessed with the truth,
yet he tells us so little about Jesus the man. He says only that he was a
Jew, born under the law, of Davidic descend (note the later contradicting
genealogies of Jesus in the gospels), was betrayed, crucified, buried and
rose again. His rationalizes his silence, defends his ignorance, or
uncertainty about the true facts by remarking. "With us, therefore, worldly
standards have ceased to exist in our estimate of any man, even if they once
counted in our understanding of Christ, they do so now no longer (2 Cor
5:16).
There is a depressing qualification we must bear constantly in mind: the
sheer ignorance of even those figures quite close in time to Jesus. The
same people who, allegedly, provide the details upon which we base our
interpretations are the same people who were dazzled by the fact of the
Resurrection and thought back of the germinal Jesus, if it existed, they had
known and reconstructed him in their minds. That is the Jesus Paul heard
about.
The Jews were Homo Religious. I don't believe in the Resurrection, but the
apostles did. Either the clever one among them fooled the others, or the
germinal Jesus was some kind of magician who manipulated the utter credulity
and superstitious nature of his contemporaries to control them. What I say
is that each and every detail about Jesus we know is in doubt, and not a
firm base upon which to build, even if we still do.
John Jensen
<snip>
>
> I would be very interseted to know who has these Aramaic
> originals - all the source material I know of is Greek, and it
> is universally accepted the gospels as we have them were
> actually written in Greek. This will be a real news-breaker in
> the world of biblical scholarship. Let us all in on it.
>
> NL
Try George Lamsa's Bible. Lamsa came from a part of Asia Minor
where Aramaic is still spoken, so he was able to translate as
from his native tongue, complete with understanding of the
idioms used. He also wrote some books analysing Scriptures
based his cultural and liguistic background. Very interesting
reading. I have a list (with Amazon links) at:
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/book-scr.htm
--
- John Jensen
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com
Peter Lösch
inconsistencies about Christ´s fate: Gerald Messadie: Ein Mensch Namens
Jessus (A human named Jesus).
Full of interpretations of facts we all knew and never really questioned
(no matter whether you like the thesis).
Peter
Anubis schrieb:
tiglath
news:D81Z7.474$pT4.3...@typhoon.socal.rr.com...
Let us stop giving the impression, consciously or unconsciously, that this
Bible has some sort of direct connection with Jesus and his apostles, or is
preeminent over the Synoptic Gospels.
The Lamsa Bible is a rehash of KJV with translations of the Syriac
Pershitta, a fourth century translation into Aramaic of the Hebrew Old
Testament, and the Greek New Testament. At best it is a translation of a
translation. The idioms there in are not those of Jesus and his disciples
but those of some translator born centuries later, who may have spoken a
different dialect of Aramaic.
For some reason God chose to reveal his word in Greek, and there is no
reason to think that a translation of His words into Aramaic would be more
accurate.
Lamsa smells of quackery, not even the time-honored sort revered in the
Judeo-Christian world.
For more information see
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0032a.html
Anubis
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:a1219u$7a2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
I would be interested to know what translation you are using as it seems
truly hideous! ;-) Here Paul is refering to ways of evaluating people which
are used in this world, naturally by people. In this way, we do not judge
Christ according to the standards of this world. It was not a justification
for his "lack" of knowledge. He is not saying, "Do not judge the earthly
life of Christ because you don't need to know it."
The "contradicting" geneologies is another matter, but both of them which
are presented in the Gospels are Davidic.
>
> There is a depressing qualification we must bear constantly in mind: the
> sheer ignorance of even those figures quite close in time to Jesus. The
> same people who, allegedly, provide the details upon which we base our
> interpretations are the same people who were dazzled by the fact of the
> Resurrection and thought back of the germinal Jesus, if it existed, they
had
> known and reconstructed him in their minds. That is the Jesus Paul heard
> about.
I doubt that Josephus, Tacitus and others, (all non-Christian), were much
dazzled by anything about Jesus.
>
> The Jews were Homo Religious. I don't believe in the Resurrection, but
the
> apostles did. Either the clever one among them fooled the others, or the
> germinal Jesus was some kind of magician who manipulated the utter
credulity
> and superstitious nature of his contemporaries to control them. What I
say
> is that each and every detail about Jesus we know is in doubt, and not a
> firm base upon which to build, even if we still do.
Let me clarify your view, so that I can understand correctly: anything we
know about Jesus Christ was probably made up by those wishing to control
people? Have I basically understood correctly?
Anubis
--
Anubis
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
"Peter Lösch" <peter....@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:3C34B5AB...@bluewin.ch...
tiglath
> > There is a depressing qualification we must bear constantly in mind: the
> > sheer ignorance of even those figures quite close in time to Jesus.
The
> > same people who, allegedly, provide the details upon which we base our
> > interpretations are the same people who were dazzled by the fact of the
> > Resurrection and thought back of the germinal Jesus, if it existed, they
> had
> > known and reconstructed him in their minds. That is the Jesus Paul
heard
> > about.
>
> I doubt that Josephus, Tacitus and others, (all non-Christian), were much
> dazzled by anything about Jesus.
I didn't mean them, but the Apostles. Meaning that The apostles were
not sages, "Apostolic authority" makes as much sense as "military
intelligence."
>
> >
> > The Jews were Homo Religious. I don't believe in the Resurrection, but
> the
> > apostles did. Either the clever one among them fooled the others, or
the
> > germinal Jesus was some kind of magician who manipulated the utter
> credulity
> > and superstitious nature of his contemporaries to control them. What I
> say
> > is that each and every detail about Jesus we know is in doubt, and not a
> > firm base upon which to build, even if we still do.
>
>
> Let me clarify your view, so that I can understand correctly: anything we
> know about Jesus Christ was probably made up by those wishing to control
> people? Have I basically understood correctly?
> --
> Anubis
If we apply the customary scrutiny historians apply to sources, and we do
that in a frame of mind not of awe for the divine but of serious historical
enquiry, AND we maintain our intellectual integrity, that is, to decide
vexing questions according to the evidence and to leave questions undecided
when the evidence is not conclusive, THEN anything we know about Jesus has
to be left undecided. We can, and do, engage in the game of probabilities
because we abhor a vacuum, but let us not mistake speculation for certainty.
We don't even have a convergence of evidence towards a conclusive historical
Jesus, just a few hints that he may have existed. Except for a few
controversial citations in non-Christian sources, all the evidence for Jesus
is partisan, no better than manufacturer's claims. Now, the man closest to
Jesus, Paul, is maddeningly thoughtless and tells us little. There is an
unbridgeable gap of several years between Jesus' death and Paul's first
contact with the Christian circle. This gap is quite adequate to cloud
everything connected with the historical Jesus. Paul got in too late in the
day; the well of truth had already been muddled.
Nes
know about Jesus Christ was probably made up by those wishing to control
people? Have I basically understood correctly?"
Well, your question is to the point. And, "Yes, you have!" It is really hard
to known anything for sure about the historicity of Christ, the man. Whether
you believe religiously in his existence or teachings is not really
interesting. Because faith, especially religious faith, requires no proof,
no evidence, no basis in the material world. It requires only the
willingness of potential believers to suspend their inner critical faculties
and to subordinate their personal worth of self to the "greater" cause of
faith. Since evidence or logic or the plausibility of historical hypotheses
never will serve to shake the religious convictions of any true religious
believer, one might as well not embark on such attempts.
But for those who're able to keep their minds open, even when critically
researching what society traditionally regards a "sacred" history, there is
much understanding and great insight to be gained from the attempt of an
unbiased, objective evaluation of the historical record. Perhaps it is true
that Christ is a historical person. But if so, what can be learned about him
and his time from the record, and how does that impact Christian society
today? Contrarily, if he did not exist, what does that signify, what are the
consequences for history and present day Christianity? These are all
terribly important questions, which CANNOT be left in the hands of those who
want to believe, because their primary interest in the historicity of Christ
actually makes them unreliable investigators, their conclusions
untrustworthy. Mark this as a preliminary conclusion. Only skeptics and
disbelievers ought ever to write authoritatively on any historical subject
of importance!
Now, to the question of whether Christ was a historical person or not I can
only add this. There is no proof, either way. But there is very strong,
though not conclusive, evidence that he is a fabrication, a patchwork of
myths and legends, produced by literate clergy of the early Christian
Church, with the purpose of making it more attractive to potential
converters. The period of creative falsification was at its most intensive
during the century leading up to the turbulent era of Roman Emperor
Constantine the Great (306-37) and the Synod in Nicea (325).
Nes
**********************
"Anubis" <nihi...@ANUBISxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:IW2Z7.8754$_02.9...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Christopher Forbes
>If we apply the customary scrutiny historians apply to sources, and we do
>that in a frame of mind not of awe for the divine but of serious historical
>enquiry, AND we maintain our intellectual integrity, that is, to decide
>vexing questions according to the evidence and to leave questions undecided
>when the evidence is not conclusive, THEN anything we know about Jesus has
>to be left undecided.
An exemplary statement of principle, mixed with a personal judgement. I
absolutely agree with your principle, but surely if it were to be rigidly
applied it would mean we know nothing about anything in the ancient world.
The evidence can be complex (the Gospels certainly are) without being as
impossible as you are suggesting.
> We can, and do, engage in the game of probabilities because we abhor a
>vacuum, but let us not mistake speculation for certainty.
Let us also not mistake reasoned and cumulative debate for speculation. The
"either/or" here is too absolute. As in every other field of historical
study, there are levels of certainty.
>We don't even have a convergence of evidence towards a conclusive historical
>Jesus, just a few hints that he may have existed.
Surely this is too pessemistic! Despite all the differences between them,
modern Historical Jesus scholars have come to quite a number of strong
consensuses (consensi?). To see what some of these are, have a look at say,
Ben Witherington III's "The Jesus Quest".
> Except for a few
>controversial citations in non-Christian sources, all the evidence for Jesus
>is partisan, no better than manufacturer's claims.
All evidence is partisan in one way or another. Cicero's evidence about
Caesar is partisan; yet historians still find ways to use it. Arrian's
evidence about Alexander is partisan and centuries separated from Alexander:
still historians find ways to use it. Again, your "either/or" is too
absolute. Historians in every field have to make use of imperfect evidence:
it's just the nature of the game!
> Now, the man closest to
>Jesus, Paul, is maddeningly thoughtless and tells us little. There is an
>unbridgeable gap of several years between Jesus' death and Paul's first
>contact with the Christian circle. This gap is quite adequate to cloud
>everything connected with the historical Jesus. Paul got in too late in the
>day; the well of truth had already been muddled.
Yes, what Paul tells us is "maddeningly little", though it is a place to
start. But if a gap of "several years" is unbridgeable, heaven help all
historical writing! We're a great deal closer to Jesus, even with the
gospels, than we are to many other historical figures. No, the evidence
isn't perfect, and yes, it's partisan. The well of truth had perhaps been
"muddled", but certainly not yet poisoned!
Neville Lindsay
Very few if any sayings of Jesus - you really have to stretch similarities
to make any matches between them.
Yet you would imagine that he would be so eager to back up his prcepts and
admonitions to the churches that he would swamp them with Jesus directions -
but no, silence in situations where the occasions cry out for him to use
Jesus's authoritative teachings. Instead we get Paul's own views, and
fall-back on the Ot - as he said, he got his gospel from no man, but a
revelation from the Lord or from God.
His silence on Jesus' words is so puzzling as to suggest strongly that he
didn't know any of Jesus' sayings.
> I would
> argue for an earlier date for them, with exception of the Gospel of John.
> However, that matters little this discussion,. I think. The John Rylands
> Papyris, (a fragment of John), gives weight to a date not later than c.125
> AD.
125-150.
General scholarly opinion puts the first gospel - Mark at post 70 CE, with
the others following a decade or two later. As I said, a couple of
generations after the alleged crucifixion.
> Paul himself had numerous contacts with eye-witnesses of Jesus. He jad
> contact with Peter, John, and other disciples on at least 2 occassions
that
> are recorded in the Bible.
Now that is not 'numerous'
> He also had a falling out with Peter, which
> suggests that his contact with Peter was a little more regular. Especially
> when he disagreed with Peter to his face, (he wrote about this in the
> Bible). Even in the absence of a written Gospel, anything Paul wrote would
> be easily varified with disciples still living, some of whom were Jesus'
> closest companions. This is a fair weight of at least oral history,
(though
> I do hold that written history was being circulated at Paul's time).
But the point is that he wrote almost nothing about an earthly Jesus - a
handful of short phrases, totally devoid of detail. Most of his references
to Jesus are to a spiritual figure.
> Also you have the likes of Josephus, (I am not refering to the dubious
parts
> where he refers to the ressurection), who was alive at the time.
A much disputed paragraph, which has all the hallmarks of a later
interpolation.
> Also, he
> had no reason to attest Jesus was even around, unless Jesus was around.
If Jesus made the great impact which the NT claims, Josephus would certainly
given him real coverage, rather than the stilted paragraph, without which
the text reads much better.
> Joesphus was a thoroughly Romanised Jew at the time he was writing. (He
> changed his ways during the Jewish Revolt that ended in 70AD).
>
> Anyway, I would argue that written sources were available well before
Paul's
> death in c.64AD. For example, scholars seem to think there was a previous
> source that Mark used to write the first of the Gospels, (often called
just
> "Q").
Q is the common material to Matthew and Luke which didn't appear in Mark. Q
is essentiall the sayings of Jesus, the absence of which from Mark indicates
that it was written _after_ Mark, that is late 1st Century CE.
>However, given even just an oral tradition, this was reliable. Paul
> would have known it. And if he said something wrong, this would be easily
> verified with living apostles who knew.
Then why didn't Paul use it? No sayings, no miracles, no life stories. Just
a pre-existent spiritual-celestial being, with a few stock phrases about an
earthly presence and crucifixion, without any reference to Pilate/Roman
execution or anything in the gospel accounts. An extraordinary vacuum, and
to be expected from someone who had his informatio from no man, but a
revelation fro the Lord, and quoting OT authority.
> A date of c.125 AD for all Gospels is not logical, because John was dead
> well before 100 AD. So at least one was written before that time. However,
I
> do not wish to get into arguments of authorship.
As I said, a couple of generations after the reputed time of Jesus.
> What I am saying, is Paul knew of the earthly Jesus, as there was oral and
> some written information around. Maybe not the Gospels as they are, but it
> was there, (eg. "Q"). Paul was dead c.64 AD, which is about 35 years after
> Jesus was hung on a cross. 35 years is not long for an oral tradition to
> lose its purity. There are examples of accurate oral histories spanning
800
> years, (archeologically verified), in Ancient Egypt.
Yet Paul didn't know of this oral tradition. He just does not use Jesus'
teachings when his admonitions simply cry out for him to renforce them with
the Master's words.
> People such as Josephus and Tacitus also would have had some idea of
their
> sources. And some written information. They were not the first with ideas
of
> an earthly Jesus.
Both these sources are highly suspect as later interpolations. And if
Tacitus had written the piece ascribed to him (and again his text reads much
better without that paragraph), all he is doing is repeating a late
tradition given to him from Christians in the early 2nd Century CE. So he is
not by any means an original source.
There is no reliable source for a Jesus Messiah outside the NT. And that
collection of documents is replete with later interpolations and forgeries,
including the part of Mark after the crucifixion. Also, general scholarly
opinion acknowledges only seven of Paul's letters as genuine.
NL
Neville Lindsay
A lot has been written for and against the bits of Josephus and Tacitus.
General scholarly opinion is divided between Josephus as an outright
interpolation, or parts of it being interpolation. Few, other than the
committed, accept it as it stands.
Tacitus' paragarph is also suspected of interpolation. Even if it is not, it
was written about 112 CE, and consequently is no more than repeating a
tradition received from Christians in Rome. It is not evidence at all for
the existence of Jesus - it would be what is known in legal circles as
hearsay (and not adnissible in court). Repeating someone else's story does
not confirm that story, and it was post-gospel to boot.
As for these 'others (all non-Christian)' who wrote about Jesus can you tell
us who they were and how their statements attested to his existence?
NL
[--]
Yoshihiro
details. It has been some time since I was in the Christian church and
anywhere near a book on the subject of Jesus' historicity or Christian
religion for that matter.
I hope I can check them again, if you would be so kind.
--
Yoshihiro
EndlsRayne
>These are all
>terribly important questions, which CANNOT be left in the hands of those who
>want to believe, because their primary interest in the historicity of Christ
>actually makes them unreliable
>investigators, their conclusions
>untrustworthy. Mark this as a preliminary conclusion.
while there is some truth to the first part of this post....
>Only skeptics and
>disbelievers ought ever to write
>authoritatively on any historical subject
>of importance!
Months ago when this debate came up, someone who was Christian said that only
Christians should be allowed to write on the subject of Jesus and history.
It was wrong then for someone to suggest that , and it's just as wrong now.
Neville Lindsay
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020102121820...@mb-fb.aol.com...
> "Neville Lindsay" nev...@bigpond.net.au writes:
>
> >But there was - he was executed as pretender King of the Jews. Can't get
> >more political than that. And it is in all four gospels - one of the few
> >traditions which is.
> in Acts, they claim Jesus was slain and then hung from a tree.
>
> Acts:5:30: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged
on a
> tree.
>
> Acts:10:39: And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the
land of
> the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
>
> I've brought this up with Christians before and got something like "well,
they
> were talking in a way that illustrates how Jesus fufilled old testament
> prophecies" that _sounds_ good at first but a closer examination of the
> passages reveals the deciples were talking to gentiles who would have no
idea
> about OT prophecy.
>
> then ,after a search through the OT, I came up with this :
I am missing your point. Crucifixion was 'hanging on a tree - that is where
it came from - a ritual death, lopping the top off a tree, and leaving two
opposed branches to suspend the person by his arms. The fact that time was
saved, and a production line was set up by having a psot and crossbar as a
more efficient way of doing public executions does not either conceal its
origins or invalidate prophecies from hundreds of years before.
And gentiles would only not know about the prophecies if they were not told
about them. As Paul and the gospels use the OT extensively, and the gospels
(writen amongst gentile communities for gentiles) make a point of
demonstrating Jesus' fulfilment of prophecies, the answer is definitely yes,
the gentiles were appraised of the prophecies.
NL
Neville Lindsay
> >From: "Neville Lindsay"
>
> >But there was - he was executed as >pretender King of the Jews. Can't get
> >more political than that. And it is in all four >gospels - one of the few
> >traditions which is.
>
> One of my arguments with Fredriksen is that the only way you can get Jesus
to
> be a pretender to the throne is put words into the mouths of the writers
of the
> Gospels.
You have not read the part in each of the four gospels which makes it plain
that he was executed as pretender King of the Jews? - each repeats this,
there is no putting words in their mouths, it is one of the few matters on
which all four gospels are unanimous and consistent. Read the words - they
are absolutely unambiguous.
NL
Rox
> Penndragon wrote in <yI5Y7.55481$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>:
> >
> > I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot instead.
>
> Reading between the lines of the information we have, I think that the
> Zealots were just the military arm of the Essene sect. As I see it, the
> seige of Masada (the last act of the Jewish Rebellion a generation later)
> shows that the Essenes were fanatics.
According to the Sanhedrin, the Essenes were a splinter group and not biblically
accurate, whereas the Pharisees were the most "middle ground" sect of Judaism
during the Second Temple period.
I've read there were at least 20-something different Jewish sects by this time.
--
"Do not be alarmed. Sometimes
our feelings conflict with our
programming."
--Android 16 (Dragonball Z)
Rox______________________________
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/9300
tiglath
"Christopher Forbes" <cfo...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:a13k0n$r...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au...
> The following was recently posted: I have interpolated my own comments
>
> >If we apply the customary scrutiny historians apply to sources, and we do
> >that in a frame of mind not of awe for the divine but of serious
historical
> >enquiry, AND we maintain our intellectual integrity, that is, to decide
> >vexing questions according to the evidence and to leave questions
undecided
> >when the evidence is not conclusive, THEN anything we know about Jesus
has
> >to be left undecided.
>
> An exemplary statement of principle, mixed with a personal judgement. I
> absolutely agree with your principle, but surely if it were to be rigidly
> applied it would mean we know nothing about anything in the ancient world.
The reliability of ancient accounts is what drives our perception of whether
knowledge is more or less certain. When you have independent sources
agreeing and consistent with archaelogical information then confidence
sky-rockets. Therefore we can be pretty certain that a certain Gaius
Octavius was Princeps of Rome and provided for some forty years of Pax
Romana, etc. The evidence for Socrates is less strong but still far better
than for Lycurgus, who is slightly ahead of Jesus.
As a historical source, because of their interdependence, The Gospels can be
considered a sole source and as it is partisan in the extreme, trying to
promote Jesus as divine, its bias reaches levels where anything goes. As a
historical document its value is marginal. And as non-Christian sources
are meager at best, the sum total of the evidence for a historical Jesus
inspires little confidence. I believe a self-respecting historian has to
leave the question undecided.
One of the most important confidence and reliability builder is independent
corroboration by various sources. Based on the principle that liars seldom
agree. A principle used by police everyday when they isolate partners in
crime and interrogate them separately. Much in ancient history is
corroborated independently, or in other cases we find evidence that when
taken as a whole converges towards a clear conclusion. Jesus's case fits
neither category.
> The evidence can be complex (the Gospels certainly are) without being as
> impossible as you are suggesting.
Credibility not complexity is key. Credibility is irreparably damaged by
the nature of the works. They are akin to manufacturer's claims.
>
> > We can, and do, engage in the game of probabilities because we abhor a
> >vacuum, but let us not mistake speculation for certainty.
>
> Let us also not mistake reasoned and cumulative debate for speculation.
The
> "either/or" here is too absolute. As in every other field of historical
> study, there are levels of certainty.
I really did not say that the choice is "existed/did not exist" althought
logically it is. Historically, we can afford to indulge in degrees of
certainty, but again only as warranted by the evidence and intellectual
integrity, and here is where we disagree. It is impossible to prove that
Jesus didn't exist, and the evidence for his existence is weak; therefore,
we cannot decide, despite what our belief engine and what we learned on our
mother's knee compels us to think.
>
>
> >We don't even have a convergence of evidence towards a conclusive
historical
> >Jesus, just a few hints that he may have existed.
>
> Surely this is too pessemistic! Despite all the differences between them,
> modern Historical Jesus scholars have come to quite a number of strong
> consensuses (consensi?). To see what some of these are, have a look at
say,
> Ben Witherington III's "The Jesus Quest".
I have not read this, but the dearth of new evidence makes most new works an
exercise on gilding the lily. At different times, different scholars
decide to emphasize some old evidence, sometimes quite arbitrarily, other
times on the strength of a new theory. It is never conclusive, or
compelling -- so far.
>
> > Except for a few
> >controversial citations in non-Christian sources, all the evidence for
Jesus
> >is partisan, no better than manufacturer's claims.
>
> All evidence is partisan in one way or another. Cicero's evidence about
> Caesar is partisan; yet historians still find ways to use it. Arrian's
> evidence about Alexander is partisan and centuries separated from
Alexander:
> still historians find ways to use it.
There are levels of partisanship. One can work with partisan accounts of
say, a battle in which nationalistic fervor makes it bloodier and the
victory more glorious, but these are details, which don't put into question
that the battle took place. Cicero's evidence puts a slant on Caesar's
character, but not on his existence. The level of bias in the Gospels goes
beyond that, BECAUSE the accounts are quite EXTRAORDINARY. Ressurrected
bodies and such lore, and as you know extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. The bar is raise quite above Cicero's and
Arrian's -- and it should.
> > Now, the man closest to
> >Jesus, Paul, is maddeningly thoughtless and tells us little. There is an
> >unbridgeable gap of several years between Jesus' death and Paul's first
> >contact with the Christian circle. This gap is quite adequate to cloud
> >everything connected with the historical Jesus. Paul got in too late in
the
> >day; the well of truth had already been muddled.
>
> Yes, what Paul tells us is "maddeningly little", though it is a place to
> start. But if a gap of "several years" is unbridgeable, heaven help all
> historical writing!
It is unbridgeable because no solid bridge is built elsewhere or at other
time, contrary to what happens in ancient history at other times and places.
Penndragon
Yes he sayys that there, and yes it's figurative. But still within the
confines of a parable rather than a literal attack on Pharisees as I see it.
MP
Penn
--
--
I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, campassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in action and in thoughts, you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies, you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate towards yourself, you reconcile all beings in the world.
-Lao Tzu
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-FEC712....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> Kater Moggin" <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>
> >> ... Whichever Gospel you look
> >> at, Jesus is casting woes on the Pharisees. He calls them
> >> hypocrites, children of hell, compares them to graves, etc. So
> >> he's clearly preaching against them.
>
> Penndragon <pdr...@bigpond.com>:
>
> > If you were to take a purely literal accounting, it would appear so.
>
> Jesus is preaching against the Pharisees without a "purely
> literal accounting." "Ye are as graves..." is figurative
> speech -- it's also highly critical of the Pharisees. Likewise
> "children of the devil" -- a negative comment about the
> Pharisees whether or not one takes it to mean they're literally
> Satan's kids.
>
> -- Moggin
Rox
> "Passwords" asked:
>
> Was Jesus an Essene?
>
> There is a clear Christian element in the Dead Sea scrolls,
> alongside their predominantly Jewish theme, and obvious
> parallels can be drawn between the Qumran texts and the type
> of Christianity described in the New Testament; ...
>
> "Passwords" also proved some quotations from scholars that answer this
> question in the affirmative. Thank you, I appreciate these references
> because this is my opinion as well.
>
> During the life of Jesus Christ there were three sects of Jews: the
> Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.
According to some historical accounts of ancient Isreal, there were at
LEAST 24 separate groups.
Some more groups include: Samaritans, Zealots, Hellenistic Jews, and the
Sanhedrin. The Pharisees themselves were divided into two groups: the
School of Shammai, and the School of Hillel. Jesus used versions of
Hillel's teachings.
> The Pharisees and the
> Sadducees are frequently mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible,
> mostly with respect to Jesus arguing against their doctrines, or with
> respect to the plots of the Pharisees to trap Jesus.
>
> Since Jesus is recorded as having nothing to say against the Essenes,
> it suggests that he favored their doctrines, or that perhaps he was an
> Essene himself.
>
There is definitely strong evidence the Jesus was highly influenced by
Essene thought.
Rox
> "Passwords" <pass...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a0q1q4$jb7$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > JESUS AND THE SONS OF LIGHT.
> >
> > Did the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' belong to the Essenes?
> >
> > "Today the Essene theory is questioned by some, but usually for unsound
> > reasons" (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin,
> > 1998, p 14 [introduction].)
> >
> > The conclusions reached by the prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Giza
> > Vermes, an eminent member of the international team studying the texts,
> > remains valid today: 'The final verdict must ... be that of the proposed
> > solutions the Essene theory is relatively the soundest. It is even safe to
> > say that is possesses a high degree of intrinsic probability." (Vermes, G,
> > The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London, 1994)
>
> If you want to look at the gospel evidence and Acts, Jesus was a
> Nazorean/Nazarene (that doesn't mean an inhabitant of Nazareth, it was one
> of the many sects and movements within Judaism). I suppose that claim is at
> least as good as speculations that he belonged to another sect.
>
> NL
You mean a NAZERITE.
No, he couldn't have been a Nazirite, because Nazirites abstained from alcohol.
Penndragon
It's not universally accepted that the Gospels were orginally written in
Greek at all. Many scholars acknowledge that the Greek in many cases is a
translation of earlier texts.
if you go to http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew.html you find mention of the
original Aramiac for Matthew in this case.
http://www.abwoon.com/hgbook.html
http://www.linkline.com/personal/dcpyle/geninfo.html
SAys:
If Our Lord Spoke Aramaic, Why Do We Have His Words in Greek?
The Gospels as Tradition and Translation Literature
D. Charles Pyle probes into this very question and finds that a substantial
portion of the Greek text of the New Testament displays signs of being
translation literature. Although a number of the textual variants within the
Gospels do seem to have resulted from differing traditions, a large number
of the variants seem rather to be the result of differing approaches to
translating what may have been a more ancient Aramaic original, no longer
extant, for Greek speaking individuals at an early date. A new twist on the
so-called "Q Hypothesis" is postulated. Several questions and new problems
to be dealt with also arise, especially for those who either are attempting
to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament or believe that it
already exists in its current form. Further, the research strikingly
suggests that not only have the scholars on all sides of the fence been
looking in the wrong places, there is no possibility that an original text
of our Lord's words and teachings will ever be found in any Greek text--no
matter how old.
Further searching will turn up much more and I encourage you to search.
MP
Penn
--
--
The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it
will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly, its
fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into
nut trees, and God seed into God.
-Meister Eckhart
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:D6wY7.27592$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Penndragon" <pdr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:YeoY7.58013$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > MM Fenris
> > "Fenris" <nos...@emptymind.com> wrote in message > <pdr...@bigpond.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >MM Passwords
> > > >
> > > >I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
> > instead.
> > >
> > > Anthropologist Marvin Harris makes that case in "Cows, Pigs, Wars &
> > > Witches" or "Sacred Cow, Abominable Pig," but there is no room for
> > > spiritual reality in Harris's understanding.
> > >
> >
> > No doubt he does. I'm currently reading "Joshua, the man they called
> > Christ". He makes his case by going to the Aramaic originals of some of
> the
> > Gospels and using the translated meanings of words which he equates with
> the
> > zealots for now.
>
> [--]
>
> I would be very interseted to know who has these Aramaic originals - all
the
> source material I know of is Greek, and it is universally accepted the
> gospels as we have them were actually written in Greek. This will be a
real
> news-breaker in the world of biblical scholarship. Let us all in on it.
>
> NL
>
> >
> > MP
> > Penn
> >
> > > --
> > > To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
> > > and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
> >
> >
>
>
Penndragon
Slight correction. The author sees the Zealots as a militant offshoot of the
Pharisees.
MP
Penn
--
--
The Self is all-knowing, it is all-understanding, and to it belongs all
glory. It is pure Consciousness, dwelling in the hearts of all.
Mindaha Upanishad
"Penndragon" <pdr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:vgoY7.58015$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> MM Ned
>
>
> "Ned Latham" <nen...@arthur.net.oz> wrote in message
> news:slrna33mju....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
> > Penndragon wrote in <yI5Y7.55481$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>:
> > >
> > > I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
> instead.
> >
> > Reading between the lines of the information we have, I think that the
> > Zealots were just the military arm of the Essene sect. As I see it, the
> > seige of Masada (the last act of the Jewish Rebellion a generation
later)
> > shows that the Essenes were fanatics.
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > Ned
> > --
>
> I think that was one of the conclusions the author of this book makes as
> well.
>
> MP
> Penn
>
>
>
Ned Latham
> "Penndragon" wrote:
> > Ned Lathamwrote:
> > > Penndragon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a Zealot
> > > > instead.
> > >
> > > Reading between the lines of the information we have, I think that
> > > the Zealots were just the military arm of the Essene sect. As I see
> > > it, the seige of Masada (the last act of the Jewish Rebellion a
> > > generation later) shows that the Essenes were fanatics.
> >
> > as well.
>
> of the Pharisees.
That doesn/t make sense. The Pharisees were collaborationists, weren't
they?
The fundamentalism and militancy of the Essenes, however, is obvious, in
the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Ned
--
* Democracy means "the people rule". *
* Fight for the power of assent. *
Trotter960
>You have not read the part in each of the >four gospels which makes it plain
>that he was executed as pretender King of >the Jews? - each repeats this,
>there is no putting words in their mouths, >it is one of the few matters on
>which all four gospels are unanimous and >consistent. Read the words - they
>are absolutely unambiguous.
Once before you offered a list of passages in which you had contended that
Jesus was a pretender. At that time I checked these passages and found that you
had taken them out of context. The Gospels do indeed deal with the issue of
whether Jesus was a pretender and the answer is that he is not. Others thought
of him as a pretender and others offered to follow him if he was, but he/the
Gospels make it clear that he is not.
Neville Lindsay
> MM Neville
>
> It's not universally accepted that the Gospels were orginally written in
> Greek at all. Many scholars acknowledge that the Greek in many cases is a
> translation of earlier texts.
Perhaps you can tell us who these 'many scholars' are. Because, if you want
to get into that sort of statement, most scholars, and I mean scholars, not
apologists and fundamentalist obsessives, consider that the gospels as we
have them were writtenin Greek.
> if you go to http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew.html you find mention of the
> original Aramiac for Matthew in this case.
Now can you tell me where this 'original Aramaic' document is held? Surely
you are not talking about the 4th Century ones which were translated into
Aramaic from the early Greek texts?
In repeating this chicanery, are you aware of it and simply trying to con
us, or have you been conned?
> http://www.abwoon.com/hgbook.html
> http://www.linkline.com/personal/dcpyle/geninfo.html
>
> SAys:
>
> If Our Lord Spoke Aramaic, Why Do We Have His Words in Greek?
> The Gospels as Tradition and Translation Literature
> D. Charles Pyle probes into this very question and finds that a
substantial
> portion of the Greek text of the New Testament displays signs of being
> translation literature. Although a number of the textual variants within
the
> Gospels do seem to have resulted from differing traditions, a large number
> of the variants seem rather to be the result of differing approaches to
> translating what may have been a more ancient Aramaic original, no longer
> extant, for Greek speaking individuals at an early date. A new twist on
the
> so-called "Q Hypothesis" is postulated. Several questions and new problems
> to be dealt with also arise, especially for those who either are
attempting
> to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament or believe that it
> already exists in its current form. Further, the research strikingly
> suggests that not only have the scholars on all sides of the fence been
> looking in the wrong places, there is no possibility that an original text
> of our Lord's words and teachings will ever be found in any Greek text--no
> matter how old.
Here you are quoting from religious nuts and obsessives as if that held any
weight. I am afraid that people who believe the Book of Mormon will believe
anything. Pyle says everyone is looking in the wrong place. Wow, the world
is sitting up and taking notice.
Well, not quite. How about quoting from some reputable scholars
>
> Further searching will turn up much more and I encourage you to search.
>
> MP
> Penn
I notice you have sedulously avoided saying where your claimed Aramaic
originals are held in this response to my last post. I suggest you try your
own recipe of further searching.- I encourage you to search.
Just to encourage you further, although thousands of Greek gospel fragments
and texts exist, and can be found in various libraries etc of the world,
there seem to be no early Aramaic ones whatsoever. You have here the
opportunity to amaze the biblical scholarly community - reveal unto us where
these documents are. In the Ark in that famous church in Abysinnia perhaps?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Rox" <roxa...@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
news:3C3644D3...@shenhgts.net...
Did you mean NAZARITE or perhaps its alternative spelling NAZIRITE?
> No, he couldn't have been a Nazirite, because Nazirites abstained from
alcohol.
No, I didn't mean Nazirite, an individual devoted under an oath to
asceticism like Samuel, Samson and John Baptist. I meant what I said -
Nazorean Sect or Nazarene Sect, depending on how you like to anglicise it.
I always enjoy it when people tell me what I meant - usually they are simply
exposing their own lack of knowledge as well as inability to discuss things
fairly politely.
Try these for size (New American Standard Bible) - read the last one first:
Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry
out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!''
Mark 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said,
"You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.''
Mark 16:6 And he said to them, ""Do not be amazed; you are looking for
Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here;
behold, here is the place where they laid Him.
Luke 24:19 And He said to them, ""What things?'' And they said to Him,
""The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and
word in the sight of God and all the people,
John 18:5 They answered Him, ""Jesus the Nazarene.'' He said to them, ""I
am He.'' And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them.
John 18:7 Therefore He again asked them, ""Whom do you seek?'' And they
said, ""Jesus the Nazarene.''
John 19:19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was
written, ""JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.''
Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man
attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves
Acts 3:6 But Peter said, ""I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do
have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene walk!''
Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel,
that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God
raised from the dead by this name this man stands here before you in good
health.
Acts 6:14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy
this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.''
Acts 22:8 And I answered, "Who are You, Lord?' And He said to me, "I am
Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.'
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up
dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the
sect of the Nazarenes.
You might like to notice that there is an American Church of the Nazarene
today - they are not Nazirites, but believe themselves as trying to carry on
the original sect which Jesus belonged to.
NL
Neville Lindsay
Why are you diving off at a tangent pretending to have won some long ago
battle (which you didn't). Let us stick with the facts. The facts are that
the gospels each have Pilate executing Jesus as 'Jesus the Nazorean, King of
the Jews'. They do not in any way question this proposition, they report it
as fact. One even says that the Jews asked Pilate to change the death
proscription to 'he said he was King of the Jews' and Pilate refused. It is
abundantly clear in the gospels that they accepted that Jesus was executed
for the crime of revolution by their reporting without comment the INRI
notice - which is still used in iconography to this day..
NL
Penndragon
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:4VuZ7.34636$wD1.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Penndragon" <pdr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1wrZ7.60340$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > MM Neville
> >
> > It's not universally accepted that the Gospels were orginally written in
> > Greek at all. Many scholars acknowledge that the Greek in many cases is
a
> > translation of earlier texts.
>
> Perhaps you can tell us who these 'many scholars' are. Because, if you
want
> to get into that sort of statement, most scholars, and I mean scholars,
not
> apologists and fundamentalist obsessives, consider that the gospels as we
> have them were writtenin Greek.
>
People from all walks that I've seen would agree that some of the Gospels
were 1st written in Aramaic, some in other languages. If I were out to prove
the point I may go to find a list of scholars. But proof is something even
the scholars don't have yet. Evidence which suggests this or that, yes. But
proof, no. We're trying to reconstruct a history from minute fragments.
> > if you go to http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew.html you find mention of
the
> > original Aramiac for Matthew in this case.
>
> Now can you tell me where this 'original Aramaic' document is held? Surely
> you are not talking about the 4th Century ones which were translated into
> Aramaic from the early Greek texts?
> In repeating this chicanery, are you aware of it and simply trying to con
> us, or have you been conned?
>
I'm aware of translations going both ways from another list I'm on. As said,
my understanding is that a number of languages were used in the original NT
gospels ranging from Aramaic, Coptic, Hebrew, Greek and I think Syrian. As
to were, I could ask the same of the Greek.
It's merely one pov among many held. That was my point which you miss
entirely. You appear to denounce that which doesn't fit your understanding
here in much the same was as the fundamentalists often do. You said it was
universally accepted, my only aim was to show that's not the case. You then
preceed to call those arguing a certain side religious nuts and obsessives.
Sounds like you obsess over that one pov to the point you think only it
carries weight.
> I am afraid that people who believe the Book of Mormon will believe
> anything.
Not necessarilly ;) Depends on what you mean by believe. Believe it in the
literal sense, or as symbolism? Two ways listed to believe already. Some
JW's once asked me "do you believe the bible?" I said yes, but not the way
you do. To me it's symbolic from cover to cover and so carries symbolic
truths". The above argument from you falls apart on that level .
>Pyle says everyone is looking in the wrong place. Wow, the world
> is sitting up and taking notice.
>
And maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. As of yet, it's simply not known.
> Well, not quite. How about quoting from some reputable scholars
>
By whose standards? It would appear that to be reputable, they must mirror
what you believe?
> >
> > Further searching will turn up much more and I encourage you to search.
> >
> > MP
> > Penn
>
> I notice you have sedulously avoided saying where your claimed Aramaic
> originals are held in this response to my last post.
Avoided? I didn't really avoid, but you can beleive that. I encouraged you
to look for yourself and continue to do so. No-one knows where the actual
originals are in many cases to my knowledge.
> I suggest you try your
> own recipe of further searching.- I encourage you to search.
> Just to encourage you further, although thousands of Greek gospel
fragments
> and texts exist, and can be found in various libraries etc of the world,
> there seem to be no early Aramaic ones whatsoever. You have here the
> opportunity to amaze the biblical scholarly community - reveal unto us
where
> these documents are. In the Ark in that famous church in Abysinnia
perhaps?
>
> NL
I do tend to do that. That doesn't mean I'm going to come to the same
conclusions as you will. Two peole can look at the same evidence and come to
two different views.
As my sole point was to show that the pov is not universal, I need go no
furthere. Make of that what you will, it matters not to me.
MP
Penn
--
--
Then neither Being nor Not-being was,
Nor atmosphere, nor firmament, nor what is beyond.
What did it encompass? Where? In whose protection?
What was water, the deep, unfathomable?....
Who knows truly? Who can here declare it?
Whence it was born, whence is this emanation.
By the emanation of this the gods
Only later [came to be].
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this emanation hath arisen,
Whether [God] disposed it, or whether he did not, ---
Only he who is its overseer in the highest heavens knows.
[He only knows,] or perhaps he does not know!
Rig Veda
Penndragon
And Christianity is a religion that preaches love, etc. Yet there are
Christians who spread hatred instead. The view doesn't surprise me actually.
Any group can develope fanatics. Can you say the Pharisees never had any
among them? And I did say I don't totally agree with the author. But it does
make some interesting reading.
MP
Penn
--
--
"Truth lies within ourselves: it takes no rise from outward things, whatever
you may believe. There is an inmost center in us all, where truth abides in
fullness and to Know rather consists in opening out a way whence the
imprisoned splendor may escape than in effecting entry for light supposed to
be without."
(Robert Browning)
"Ned Latham" <nen...@arthur.net.oz> wrote in message
news:slrna3clvt....@arthur.valhalla.net.oz...
Kater Moggin
>>>> ... Whichever Gospel you look
>>>> at, Jesus is casting woes on the Pharisees. He calls them
>>>> hypocrites, children of hell, compares them to graves, etc. So
>>>> he's clearly preaching against them.
Penndragon <pdr...@bigpond.com>:
>>> If you were to take a purely literal accounting, it would appear so.
Moggin:
>> Jesus is preaching against the Pharisees without a "purely
>> literal accounting." "Ye are as graves..." is figurative
>> speech -- it's also highly critical of the Pharisees. Likewise
>> "children of the devil" -- a negative comment about the
>> Pharisees whether or not one takes it to mean they're literally
>> Satan's kids.
PD:
> Yes he sayys that there, and yes it's figurative.
And it's an out-and-out attack on the Pharisees. Jesus is
calling them hypocrites, graves, etc.
-- Moggin
Peter Lösch
original anymore) it´s titel was "l´homme qui devient dieu" the man who
became God.
just go to Amazon and look under the authors name - should work. Well I
can´t imagine that the book was translated into German and not into
English.
Anubis schrieb:
Rox
> > You mean a NAZERITE.
>
> Did you mean NAZARITE or perhaps its alternative spelling NAZIRITE?
I was REALLY tired when I wrote it. I'll look up the correct spelling when I
get back from work tonight ;) Besides, it's not too often I screw up the
spelling of a word, so I'm sure all the posts I've written are clear proof I can
communicate well with words, unlike a lot of B1FF-lookalikes ;)
> > No, he couldn't have been a Nazirite, because Nazirites abstained from
> alcohol.
>
> No, I didn't mean Nazirite, an individual devoted under an oath to
> asceticism like Samuel, Samson and John Baptist. I meant what I said -
> Nazorean Sect or Nazarene Sect, depending on how you like to anglicise it.
Nazarene= he was FROM Nazareth. Not any specific sect. It's like saying an
American is from America.
> I always enjoy it when people tell me what I meant - usually they are simply
> exposing their own lack of knowledge as well as inability to discuss things
> fairly politely.
> Try these for size (New American Standard Bible) - read the last one first:
>
> Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry
> out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!''
> Mark 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said,
> "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.''
SO? You quote again from the suspect New Testament to prove your point. But
the truth IS, being called a Nazerite and a Nazarene are two VERY different
things. "Nazerite" is mentioned in the OT, "Nazarene" is NOT.
Yoshihiro
where he had contact with Peter and John. It was in references to his
contacts with eye-witnesses in general. Please do not misunderstand me. I
know "2" is not numerous.
> > He also had a falling out with Peter, which
> > suggests that his contact with Peter was a little more regular.
Especially
> > when he disagreed with Peter to his face, (he wrote about this in the
> > Bible). Even in the absence of a written Gospel, anything Paul wrote
would
> > be easily varified with disciples still living, some of whom were Jesus'
> > closest companions. This is a fair weight of at least oral history,
> (though
> > I do hold that written history was being circulated at Paul's time).
>
> But the point is that he wrote almost nothing about an earthly Jesus - a
> handful of short phrases, totally devoid of detail. Most of his references
> to Jesus are to a spiritual figure.
I think this is logical for Paul. Why would he mention details? Firstly,
that was not in the sphere of his purpose for any of the letters he wrote.
He was writing for different purposes than recording the earthly life of
Christ.
Isn't it just possible, that another reason he left out the details is that
there were already written sources around? Why re-invent the wheel if it is
not your purpose? Something to think about.
>
> > Also you have the likes of Josephus, (I am not refering to the dubious
> parts
> > where he refers to the ressurection), who was alive at the time.
>
> A much disputed paragraph, which has all the hallmarks of a later
> interpolation.
>
> > Also, he
> > had no reason to attest Jesus was even around, unless Jesus was around.
>
> If Jesus made the great impact which the NT claims, Josephus would
certainly
> given him real coverage, rather than the stilted paragraph, without which
> the text reads much better.
Why would he? The NT claims Jesus is the Messiah. So, of course, the NT will
claim Jesus had HUGE impact on the gloabl scene. Josephus was a Romanised
Jew. He did not think of Jesus as anything but an upstart preacher from some
backward region of Judea, (Nazareth: "Nothing good ever comes out of
Nazareth" is what the Jewish people often said). So why give such coverage
to someone who is not important in your worldview?
The NT's whole point is Jesus...so of course Josephus and the NT will not
agree. To expect they would is unreasonable, unless you want to hold that
Josephus was a Christian? Which of course is totally stupid. So expecting
they will agree in the way they view Jesus' impact is not logical, and
doesn't take into account the nature of the authors or their reasons for
writing. It is a flawed expectation.
>
> > Joesphus was a thoroughly Romanised Jew at the time he was writing. (He
> > changed his ways during the Jewish Revolt that ended in 70AD).
> >
> > Anyway, I would argue that written sources were available well before
> Paul's
> > death in c.64AD. For example, scholars seem to think there was a
previous
> > source that Mark used to write the first of the Gospels, (often called
> just
> > "Q").
>
> Q is the common material to Matthew and Luke which didn't appear in Mark.
Q
> is essentiall the sayings of Jesus, the absence of which from Mark
indicates
> that it was written _after_ Mark, that is late 1st Century CE.
>
This would then get us into arguments about the date of Mark. I personally
think an earlier is reasonable, but not absolute. There are points to both
understandings of the date.
> >However, given even just an oral tradition, this was reliable. Paul
> > would have known it. And if he said something wrong, this would be
easily
> > verified with living apostles who knew.
>
> Then why didn't Paul use it? No sayings, no miracles, no life stories.
Just
> a pre-existent spiritual-celestial being, with a few stock phrases about
an
> earthly presence and crucifixion, without any reference to Pilate/Roman
> execution or anything in the gospel accounts. An extraordinary vacuum, and
> to be expected from someone who had his informatio from no man, but a
> revelation fro the Lord, and quoting OT authority.
Again, to rehash what I said above. Firstly, it was not Paul's purpose to
give details about Jesus' earthly life. In short, he decided that it was not
important for the reason he wrote to he churches. Secondly, I do not think
it is unreasonable to think that there were written records around in Paul's
life time. Hence, why would he include details that had no relevance to his
purposes? Sure, some details would be nice for us, but in Paul's mind, he
obviously differed. Good on him.
>
> > A date of c.125 AD for all Gospels is not logical, because John was dead
> > well before 100 AD. So at least one was written before that time.
However,
> I
> > do not wish to get into arguments of authorship.
>
> As I said, a couple of generations after the reputed time of Jesus.
A couple of generations is not enough to effect any major details of oral
history, let alone written sources. There have been examples in Egypt,
(archeologically verified), where the oral history has recorded accurately
details from 800 years before.
>
> > What I am saying, is Paul knew of the earthly Jesus, as there was oral
and
> > some written information around. Maybe not the Gospels as they are, but
it
> > was there, (eg. "Q"). Paul was dead c.64 AD, which is about 35 years
after
> > Jesus was hung on a cross. 35 years is not long for an oral tradition to
> > lose its purity. There are examples of accurate oral histories spanning
> 800
> > years, (archeologically verified), in Ancient Egypt.
>
> Yet Paul didn't know of this oral tradition. He just does not use Jesus'
> teachings when his admonitions simply cry out for him to renforce them
with
> the Master's words.
Again there are other reasonable explanations, that do not need for there to
be a total lack in Paul's knowledge, or that Jesus was simply a made-up
image of a church.
Paul had contact with John and Peter, and other disciples. This is recorded
2 times in the Bible, (which is a particle of what the total is). It is
reasonable to expect that he had contact with others who saw Jesus, and
maybe even discussed Jesus with them. This is not too much of a wold guess,
I think. He also had a debate and argument with Peter, which also suggests
that there were other times of meeting apart from those recorded in Acts.
Hence, Paul knew, in my opinion, what Jesus' earthly life is like. I don't
know why he didn't mention it, but can you give me examples from Paul's
letters that "cry out"? I am interested to know what you think cries out for
"the Masters's words".
Anything Paul wrote would be easily verified against a written account of
Jesus's words and actions, (Which I still think is a reasonable
possibility), or the oral traditions, (which I have been given no reason
whatsoever to doubt through the mere 2 generations that passed).
>
> > People such as Josephus and Tacitus also would have had some idea of
> their
> > sources. And some written information. They were not the first with
ideas
> of
> > an earthly Jesus.
>
> Both these sources are highly suspect as later interpolations. And if
> Tacitus had written the piece ascribed to him (and again his text reads
much
> better without that paragraph), all he is doing is repeating a late
> tradition given to him from Christians in the early 2nd Century CE. So he
is
> not by any means an original source.
Never said he was an original source. Just reliable. That is my
opinion....yes, there is room to argue. I agree with you there.
>
> There is no reliable source for a Jesus Messiah outside the NT. And that
> collection of documents is replete with later interpolations and
forgeries,
> including the part of Mark after the crucifixion. Also, general scholarly
> opinion acknowledges only seven of Paul's letters as genuine.
>
I would like to see references of the general scholarly opinion. If you have
examples of authors, that would be great, thank you.
I have seen what evidence there is and I am personally satisified with it. I
see no reason to doubt what is said about Jesus Christ. I think the
conclusions I have reached are reasonable to be expected.
I have not been given any reason to revise that opinion.
--
Yoshihiro
Neville Lindsay
Hey, you said 'many scholars' - now it is 'people from all walks of life' -
in other words, people who have no knowledge on the subject.
I asked you where these Aramaic sources are held. Well do they exist? Do you
know, or are you just passing on lies?
> > > if you go to http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew.html you find mention of
the
> > > original Aramiac for Matthew in this case.
> > Now can you tell me where this 'original Aramaic' document is held?
Surely
> > you are not talking about the 4th Century ones which were translated
into
> > Aramaic from the early Greek texts?
> > In repeating this chicanery, are you aware of it and simply trying to
con
> > us, or have you been conned?
> I'm aware of translations going both ways from another list I'm on. As
said,
> my understanding is that a number of languages were used in the original
NT
> gospels ranging from Aramaic, Coptic, Hebrew, Greek and I think Syrian. As
> to were, I could ask the same of the Greek.
We have the actual early documents held in libraries and other collections.
As an example, here is the earliest known fragment of a gospel (in Greek,
note):
http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm
There are thousands of fragments and complete texts physically held - eg
Codex Vaticanus held in the Vatican Library - a complete gospel set in
Greek.
Now where is the Aramaic material which you claim exists?
Waiting for you to give some real information, rather than trying to evade
the question - who are the scholars who think there is Aramaic text, and
where are these texts phyiscally other than in your imagination.
> > I am afraid that people who believe the Book of Mormon will believe
anything.
>
> Not necessarilly ;) Depends on what you mean by believe. Believe it in the
> literal sense, or as symbolism? Two ways listed to believe already. Some
> JW's once asked me "do you believe the bible?" I said yes, but not the way
> you do. To me it's symbolic from cover to cover and so carries symbolic
> truths". The above argument from you falls apart on that level .
We are talking about the real world - you claimed original Aramaic texts
exist - are you now saying they only exist symbolically? Can we start talkin
in the factual world rather than is some dreamworld which you like to slip
into whan asked to support your statements with facts.
> >Pyle says everyone is looking in the wrong place. Wow, the world
> > is sitting up and taking notice.
> And maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. As of yet, it's simply not known.
So you cannot make positive statements about it. Aliens may exist too, but
no claims can be made about them until some real information appears. So
with Pyle claiming we are all wrong. Let him and you come up with some real
argument and fact, rather than making silly claims devoid of any factual
backing.
> > Well, not quite. How about quoting from some reputable scholars
> By whose standards? It would appear that to be reputable, they must mirror
> what you believe?
No, just name some - you seem so determined to avoid naming any that the
suspicion looms large that you have non to name.
> > > Further searching will turn up much more and I encourage you to
search.
> > >
> > > MP
> > > Penn
> > I notice you have sedulously avoided saying where your claimed Aramaic
> > originals are held in this response to my last post.
> Avoided? I didn't really avoid, but you can beleive that. I encouraged you
> to look for yourself and continue to do so. No-one knows where the actual
> originals are in many cases to my knowledge.
If no one knows of any originals (what is this 'many cases' - can you tell
us about the rest then?) , how can you then tell us that someone has
translated them? This is hardly a sane statement.
> > I suggest you try your
> > own recipe of further searching.- I encourage you to search.
> > Just to encourage you further, although thousands of Greek gospel
fragments
> > and texts exist, and can be found in various libraries etc of the world,
> > there seem to be no early Aramaic ones whatsoever. You have here the
> > opportunity to amaze the biblical scholarly community - reveal unto us
where
> > these documents are. In the Ark in that famous church in Abyssinia
perhaps?
> >
> > NL
> I do tend to do that. That doesn't mean I'm going to come to the same
> conclusions as you will. Two peole can look at the same evidence and come
to
> two different views.
Then share this evidence with us so we can see what you have to support your
claims, rather than expecting to take a pig in a poke, particularly when
your proposition is so much at variance to what is presently known.
> As my sole point was to show that the pov is not universal, I need go no
> furthere. Make of that what you will, it matters not to me.
>
> MP
> Penn
Well, if someone tells me that Aliens built the pyramids, I accept it as
another point of view, but rate it as a loony one if they can't provide
persuasive evidence to support it.
If someone tells me that there is a bible translation which is taken from
original Aramaic sources, and then tells me that no one knows where those
sources are, I similarly accept it as another point of view, and again asign
it to the same category as the aliens story.
NL
Ned Latham
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Penndragon wrote:
> > > "Penndragon" wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > Penndragon wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm reading an interesting book that seems to think he was a
> > > > > > Zealot instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reading between the lines of the information we have, I think that
> > > > > the Zealots were just the military arm of the Essene sect. As I see
> > > > > it, the seige of Masada (the last act of the Jewish Rebellion a
> > > > > generation later) shows that the Essenes were fanatics.
> > > >
> > > > I think that was one of the conclusions the author of this book makes
> > > > as well.
> > >
> > > Slight correction. The author sees the Zealots as a militant offshoot
> > > of the Pharisees.
> >
> > That doesn/t make sense. The Pharisees were collaborationists, weren't
> > they?
> >
> > The fundamentalism and militancy of the Essenes, however, is obvious, in
> > the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>
Except where it preaches hate.
> Yet there are
> Christians who spread hatred instead.
Yes. One of the most famous was that good Catholic boy Adolf Hitler.
> The view doesn't surprise me actually.
> Any group can develope fanatics. Can you say the Pharisees never had any
> among them?
Of course not. But I have difficulty with the idea that a collaborationist
regime would have a fanatical militant arm which directed its activities
against the invaders and its own spiritual arm.
> And I did say I don't totally agree with the author.
Ok.
----snip----
Trotter960
troll no. 69
"Passwords" <pass...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0q1q4$jb7$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> JESUS AND THE SONS OF LIGHT.
>
> Did the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' belong to the Essenes?
>
> "Today the Essene theory is questioned by some, but usually for unsound
> reasons" (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin,
> 1998, p 14 [introduction].)
>
> The conclusions reached by the prominent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Giza
> Vermes, an eminent member of the international team studying the texts,
> remains valid today: 'The final verdict must ... be that of the proposed
> solutions the Essene theory is relatively the soundest. It is even safe to
> say that is possesses a high degree of intrinsic probability." (Vermes, G,
> The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London, 1994)
>
> The Dead Sea Scrolls were apparently hidden in nearby cliffs about two
> thousand years ago by Essenes from the Qumran community. The Essenes were
> the only known people living in this remote region of the Judean
wilderness
> during the relevant period, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not inconsistent
> with the Essene ideology.
>
> The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of ancient religious texts recovered
> from caves on the Western shore of the Dead Sea, about eight miles south
of
> Jericho. The centre of an ancient religious community called the Essenes
was
> also located here around the first-century CE, in a settlement called
> Khirbet Qumran. For instance, Cave 4, from which over five hundred
documents
> have been recovered, lies in a cliff situated within a few yards of the
> ruins of the most proximal buildings within the Essene settlement at
Qumran.
>
> Was Jesus an Essene?
>
> There is no definitive proof that Jesus was involved with the Essenes,
> although serious articles have been published in respectable journals by
> prominent scholars proposing a central role for Jesus and his foremost
> disciples in the Essene community at Qumran.
>
> There is a clear Christian element in the Dead Sea scrolls, alongside
their
> predominantly Jewish theme, and obvious parallels can be drawn between the
> Qumran texts and the type of Christianity described in the New Testament;
> indeed G. Vermes claims 'a causal connection' between the Scrolls and the
> New Testament (Vermes, G, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English.
Penguin,
> 1998, see introduction).
>
> "Turning to the real relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New
> Testament, this can be presented under a threefold heading. (1) We note
(a)
> fundamental similarities of language (both in the Scrolls and the New
> Testament the faithful are called 'Sons of Light'); (b) ideology (both
> communities considered themselves to be the true Israel, governed by
twelve
> leaders...; (c) attitude to the Bible (both considered their own history
as
> fulfilment of the ... Prophets.) ... (2) More specific features ... would
> suggest a direct causal connection. ... (3) In the study of the historical
> Jesus, ... aspects of the Scrolls have provided the richest gleanings for
> comparison. [Examples are cited of Essene texts depicting events in the
life
> of prominent Essenes which are comparable to the acts of Jesus.]
>
>
Trotter960
<<Why are you diving off at a tangent pretending to have won some long ago
battle (which you didn't). Let us stick with the facts. The facts are that the
gospels each have Pilate executing Jesus as 'Jesus the Nazorean, King of
the Jews'. They do not in any way question this proposition, they report it
as fact. One even says that the Jews asked Pilate to change the death
proscription to 'he said he was King of the Jews' and Pilate refused. It is
abundantly clear in the gospels that they accepted that Jesus was executed
for the crime of revolution by their reporting without comment the INRI
notice - which is still used in iconography to this day... >>
As I read the Gospels I don't see this to be the case at all. The episode about
the sign placed over the head of Jesus as he was crucified may be found in Mt
27.37,
Mk 15.26, Lk 23.38, and Jn 19.19. Only GJohn goes on to say that the chief
priests
asked Pilate to alter the sign to read that Jesus claimed to be king of the
Jews. As
you know, Pilate refused.
Does this show that Pilate considered Jesus a pretender to the throne? In Mt
27.11, Mk15.2, Lk 23.3 and Jn 18.34 Jesus is asked if he is king of the Jews.
In Mt 27.14 and Mk 15.5, Jesus's reply makes Pilate wonder. In Lk 23.4 and Jn
18.38
(note bene), Pilate tells the chief priests or the Jews, respectively, that he
finds no crime in Jesus.
During the Barabbas episode, Pilate perceives "envy" (Greek PHTHONON) on the
part of the priests (Mt 27.18 and Mk 15.10). Pilate then gives in to avoid a
riot (Mt 27.24) or to satisfy the crowd (Mk 15.15a).
So where do you find these passages which you find abundantly clear that say
that Jesus was a pretender?
Neville Lindsay
All you have done is talk around the point and the evidence. The fact that
all four gospels agree that Jesus the Nazarene was executed as King of the
Jews says point blank that he was executed as claiming that position in
opposition to Caesar's settlement of Herod's kingdom, which did not allow
for a King of the Jews - he appointed two tetrarchs and a procurator to
govern parts of the divided kingdom. It was, on the gospel, execution for
revolution.
Crucifixion was the punishment meted out to slaves. It was also used for
revolutionaries and highway robbers as it was considered that these
warranted a slave's death. Now why do you believe Jesus was given the
crucifixion death - was he a slave, a highway robber or a revolutionary? All
four gospels opt for revolutionary - pretender King of the Jews according to
Pilate's sentence.
NL
NL
Neville Lindsay
> Neville Lindsay wrote:
>
> > > You mean a NAZERITE.
> >
> > Did you mean NAZARITE or perhaps its alternative spelling NAZIRITE?
>
> I was REALLY tired when I wrote it. I'll look up the correct spelling
when I
> get back from work tonight ;) Besides, it's not too often I screw up the
> spelling of a word, so I'm sure all the posts I've written are clear proof
I can
> communicate well with words, unlike a lot of B1FF-lookalikes ;)
> > > No, he couldn't have been a Nazirite, because Nazirites abstained from
alcohol.
> > No, I didn't mean Nazirite, an individual devoted under an oath to
> > asceticism like Samuel, Samson and John Baptist. I meant what I said -
> > Nazorean Sect or Nazarene Sect, depending on how you like to anglicise
it.
> Nazarene= he was FROM Nazareth.
You can give me the Greek for that?
>Not any specific sect. It's like saying an
> American is from America.
I suggested you read the last quote I gave first to make the point that this
was
not so:
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up
dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the
sect of the Nazarenes.
> > I always enjoy it when people tell me what I meant - usually they are
simply
> > exposing their own lack of knowledge as well as inability to discuss
things
> > fairly politely.
> > Try these for size (New American Standard Bible) - read the last one
first:
> >
> > Mark 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to
cry
> > out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!''
> > Mark 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and
said,
> > "You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.''
> SO? You quote again from the suspect New Testament to prove your point.
But
> the truth IS, being called a Nazerite and a Nazarene are two VERY
different
> things. "Nazerite" is mentioned in the OT, "Nazarene" is NOT.
They are indeed two different things as I pointed out above in my previous
post - a Nazirite is an individual dedicated to God, a Nazarene is a member
of the Nazarene Sect of Judaism. The 'from Nazareth' thing is camouflage,
and honest biblical translators treat it as a sect, rather than trying to
hitch it to the village of Nazareth.
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Yoshihiro" <nihi...@NOCRAPxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:J8LZ7.9339$_02.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:7%eZ7.33208$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > > > > I would be interested to know what you class as "direct evidence".
Plenty of
> > > > > written sources attest to him. Maybe not as the Christ, but there
are
> > > > > references.
--
> > > > > Anubis
> > > > The real problem is that the earliest evidence - Paul - seems to
know almost
> > > > nothing of Jesus as an earthly as opposed to a spiritual being. It
is only
> > > > when we come to the gospels generation or two later that an earthly
Jesus
> > > > appears.
> > > >
> > > > NL
> > > This could easily take us into arguments about when to date the
Gospels.
> > > Clement of Rome attests to numerous of Paul's writings and other
works. He
> > > gives some sayings of Jesus, but not in the words of the Gospels.
> > Very few if any sayings of Jesus - you really have to stretch
similarities
> > to make any matches between them.
> > Yet you would imagine that he would be so eager to back up his precepts
and
> > admonitions to the churches that he would swamp them with Jesus
directions -
> > but no, silence in situations where the occasions cry out for him to use
> > Jesus' authoritative teachings. Instead we get Paul's own views, and
Well, we have no evidence of numerous contacts with any eye-witnesses. In
fact Paul says severl times he got his information 'from no man' but from a
revelation from either the Lord or God.
> > > He also had a falling out with Peter, which
> > > suggests that his contact with Peter was a little more regular
One meeting or one letter is enough for a falling out. No evidence at all of
'more regular'.
> Especially
> > > when he disagreed with Peter to his face, (he wrote about this in the
> > > Bible). Even in the absence of a written Gospel, anything Paul wrote
would
> > > be easily varified with disciples still living, some of whom were
Jesus'
> > > closest companions. This is a fair weight of at least oral history,
(though
> > > I do hold that written history was being circulated at Paul's time).
Then neither it nor mention of it has survived - remarkable is it not -
surely the Church Fathers would have commented.
> > But the point is that he wrote almost nothing about an earthly Jesus - a
> > handful of short phrases, totally devoid of detail. Most of his
references
> > to Jesus are to a spiritual figure.
> I think this is logical for Paul. Why would he mention details? Firstly,
> that was not in the sphere of his purpose for any of the letters he wrote.
> He was writing for different purposes than recording the earthly life of
Christ.
> Isn't it just possible, that another reason he left out the details is
that
> there were already written sources around? Why re-invent the wheel if it
is
> not your purpose? Something to think about.
If he is laying out the gospel and laying down precepts of behaviour to the
churches, it is incredible that he did not say what Jesus had said to
reinforce his points. The only conclusion we can come to is that he didn't
know what Jesus had said.
> > > Also you have the likes of Josephus, (I am not refering to the dubious
parts
> > > where he refers to the ressurection), who was alive at the time.
> > A much disputed paragraph, which has all the hallmarks of a later
interpolation.
> > > Also, he had no reason to attest Jesus was even around, unless Jesus
was
> > > around.
> > If Jesus made the great impact which the NT claims, Josephus would
certainly
> > given him real coverage, rather than the stilted paragraph, without
which
> > the text reads much better.
> Why would he? The NT claims Jesus is the Messiah. So, of course, the NT
will
> claim Jesus had HUGE impact on the gloabl scene. Josephus was a Romanised
> Jew. He did not think of Jesus as anything but an upstart preacher from
some
> backward region of Judea, (Nazareth: "Nothing good ever comes out of
> Nazareth" is what the Jewish people often said). So why give such coverage
> to someone who is not important in your worldview?
Precisely. Which is why his paragraph on Jesus is such an obvious fraud.
> The NT's whole point is Jesus...so of course Josephus and the NT will not
> agree. To expect they would is unreasonable, unless you want to hold that
> Josephus was a Christian? Which of course is totally stupid. So expecting
> they will agree in the way they view Jesus' impact is not logical, and
> doesn't take into account the nature of the authors or their reasons for
> writing. It is a flawed expectation.
I don't expect them to agree - this is a figment of yours.
> > > Joesphus was a thoroughly Romanised Jew at the time he was writing.
(He
> > > changed his ways during the Jewish Revolt that ended in 70AD).
> > >
> > > Anyway, I would argue that written sources were available well before
Paul's
> > > death in c.64AD. For example, scholars seem to think there was a
previous
> > > source that Mark used to write the first of the Gospels, (often called
just
> > > "Q").
> > Q is the common material to Matthew and Luke which didn't appear in
Mark.
> > Q is essentially the sayings of Jesus, the absence of which from Mark
indicates
> > that it was written _after_ Mark, that is late 1st Century CE.
> This would then get us into arguments about the date of Mark. I personally
> think an earlier is reasonable, but not absolute. There are points to both
> understandings of the date.
Most knowledgeable people go for post 70 CE for good reason, not desire to
have it earlier.
> > >However, given even just an oral tradition, this was reliable. Paul
> > > would have known it. And if he said something wrong, this would be
easily
> > > verified with living apostles who knew.
> > Then why didn't Paul use it? No sayings, no miracles, no life stories.
Just
> > a pre-existent spiritual-celestial being, with a few stock phrases about
an
> > earthly presence and crucifixion, without any reference to Pilate/Roman
> > execution or anything in the gospel accounts. An extraordinary vacuum,
and
> > to be expected from someone who had his information from no man, but a
> > revelation fro the Lord, and quoting OT authority.
> Again, to rehash what I said above. Firstly, it was not Paul's purpose to
> give details about Jesus' earthly life. In short, he decided that it was
not
> important for the reason he wrote to he churches.
What, you don't think it important to pass on the teachings of Jesus? You
are
stretching credibility.
> Secondly, I do not think
> it is unreasonable to think that there were written records around in
Paul's
> life time. Hence, why would he include details that had no relevance to
his
> purposes? Sure, some details would be nice for us, but in Paul's mind, he
> obviously differed. Good on him.
Well, why is it that we have neither these written records nor even mention
of them?
Can it be that you are indulging in wishful thinking, or do you have some
evidence of these records?
> > > A date of c.125 AD for all Gospels is not logical, because John was
dead
> > > well before 100 AD. So at least one was written before that time.
However,
> > > I do not wish to get into arguments of authorship.
> > As I said, a couple of generations after the reputed time of Jesus.
> A couple of generations is not enough to effect any major details of oral
> history, let alone written sources. There have been examples in Egypt,
> (archeologically verified), where the oral history has recorded accurately
> details from 800 years before.
On the contrary, by the third generation, oral stories are so distorted that
it is difficult to sift out the facts from the static.
> > > What I am saying, is Paul knew of the earthly Jesus, as there was oral
and
> > > some written information around. Maybe not the Gospels as they are,
but it
> > > was there, (eg. "Q"). Paul was dead c.64 AD, which is about 35 years
after
> > > Jesus was hung on a cross. 35 years is not long for an oral tradition
to
> > > lose its purity. There are examples of accurate oral histories
spanning 800
> > > years, (archeologically verified), in Ancient Egypt.
> > Yet Paul didn't know of this oral tradition. He just does not use Jesus'
> > teachings when his admonitions simply cry out for him to renforce them
with
> > the Master's words.
> Again there are other reasonable explanations, that do not need for there
to
> be a total lack in Paul's knowledge, or that Jesus was simply a made-up
> image of a church.
What explanation whatsoever can there be for Paul not passing on the
teachings of Jesus? I mean a _reasonable_ explanation. All sects and
religions pass on the sayings of their founder, including Christianity, as
witnessed by Matthew and Luke after they got their hands on the Q sayings.
> Paul had contact with John and Peter, and other disciples. This is
recorded
> 2 times in the Bible, (which is a particle of what the total is). It is
> reasonable to expect that he had contact with others who saw Jesus, and
> maybe even discussed Jesus with them. This is not too much of a wold
guess,
> I think.
It is a very bad guess when you read Paul as saying he got it from no man
but a revelation from God.
>He also had a debate and argument with Peter, which also suggests
> that there were other times of meeting apart from those recorded in Acts.
> Hence, Paul knew, in my opinion, what Jesus' earthly life is like. I don't
> know why he didn't mention it, but can you give me examples from Paul's
> letters that "cry out"? I am interested to know what you think cries out
for
> "the Masters's words".
He was telling the churches in his letters what the religion was all about.
It cried out for him to say what Jesus had said - to pass on his teachings
on the
specific subjects being covered..
> Anything Paul wrote would be easily verified against a written account of
> Jesus's words and actions, (Which I still think is a reasonable
> possibility), or the oral traditions, (which I have been given no reason
> whatsoever to doubt through the mere 2 generations that passed).
You are just repeating the same stuff here - a make up, that there were
written and oral evidence available to Paul, when he specifically said he
got it by revelation. Why continue to repeat the same thing in direct
contradiction of what Paul actually said?
> > > People such as Josephus and Tacitus also would have had some idea of
> > their sources. And some written information. They were not the first
with
> > > ideas of an earthly Jesus.
What I said before below - both were writing generations later. And both
sources are highly suspect of having had the relevant paragraph inserted
into them.
> > Both these sources are highly suspect as later interpolations. And if
> > Tacitus had written the piece ascribed to him (and again his text reads
much
> > better without that paragraph), all he is doing is repeating a late
> > tradition given to him from Christians in the early 2nd Century CE. So
he is
> > not by any means an original source.
> Never said he was an original source. Just reliable. That is my
> opinion....yes, there is room to argue. I agree with you there.
But reliable for what - being around centuries later to stop people
tampering with his work?
> > There is no reliable source for a Jesus Messiah outside the NT. And that
> > collection of documents is replete with later interpolations and
forgeries,
> > including the part of Mark after the crucifixion. Also, general
scholarly
> > opinion acknowledges only seven of Paul's letters as genuine.
> I would like to see references of the general scholarly opinion. If you
have
> examples of authors, that would be great, thank you.
Try www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Doughty.html
> I have seen what evidence there is and I am personally satisified with it.
I
> see no reason to doubt what is said about Jesus Christ. I think the
> conclusions I have reached are reasonable to be expected.
> I have not been given any reason to revise that opinion.
Well, if you will not take on board any argument which is being made, you
will no doubt never have any reason to revise your opinion. Revising
opinions can come only to an open mind. I shall leave you to enjoy your
closed one.
> Yoshihiro
> "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who
> have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Very true. Have you thought it might just apply to you.
NL
Trotter960
>All you have done is talk around the point >and the evidence. The fact that
>all four gospels agree that Jesus the >Nazarene was executed as King of the
>Jews says point blank that he was >executed as claiming that position in
>opposition to Caesar's settlement of >Herod's kingdom, which did not allow
>for a King of the Jews - he appointed two >tetrarchs and a procurator to
govern parts >of the divided kingdom. It >was, on the >gospel, execution for
revolution.
>Crucifixion was the punishment meted out >to slaves. It was also used for
>revolutionaries and highway robbers as it >was considered that these
>warranted a slave's death. Now why do >you believe Jesus was given the
>crucifixion death - was he a slave, a >highway robber or a revolutionary? All
>four gospels opt for revolutionary - >pretender King of the Jews according to
>Pilate's sentence.
There is no way to get around the evidence that the Gospels support the idea
that Jesus was a pretender. They deal with the issue by denying it and offering
another
explanation.
Fredriksen uses the idea of the crucifixion as her starting point towward her
argument.
If one is going to read motive into a historical text, one need go no further
than posit that Jesus was crucified because Pilate was going to execute others.
The problem with F's theory and your own is that it forces a re-writing of the
available evidence and fails to explain how a pretender could make the move
toward
deity. Pretenders who fail do not fare well
at the hands of subsequent writers.
Since it does not match the other evidence,
starting with the idea that since Jesus was crucified he must have been a
pretender is
awful weak.
Roger Pearse
majority of the argument appears to be a rather 19th-century attempt
to manufacture and then argue from silence, so I won't say more about
that.
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<M7h_7.2806$9u6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > People such as Josephus and Tacitus also would have had some idea of
> > > > their sources. And some written information. They were not the first
> > > > with ideas of an earthly Jesus.
>
> What I said before below - both were writing generations later. And both
> sources are highly suspect of having had the relevant paragraph inserted
> into them.
>
> > > Both these sources are highly suspect as later interpolations. And if
> > > Tacitus had written the piece ascribed to him (and again his text reads
> > > much better without that paragraph), all he is doing is repeating a late
> > > tradition given to him from Christians in the early 2nd Century CE. So
> > > he is not by any means an original source.
>
> > Never said he was an original source. Just reliable. That is my
> > opinion....yes, there is room to argue. I agree with you there.
>
> But reliable for what - being around centuries later to stop people
> tampering with his work?
It is interesting to consider the claim that Tacitus account of the
events under Nero was written 'generations' later. Tacitus and Pliny
the younger were contemporaries, and those who have read the latter's
letters will frown rather at this suggestion. One recalls Pliny
dining with Nero's Rhine army commander, Vergineus Rufus, who put down
the revolt under Vindex. One recalls Pliny writing to Tacitus about
the eruption in 79AD. One recalls the visitor to Rome who asked Pliny
who he was, and being told he knew him from his reading asking "Are
you Tacitus or Pliny, then?" The events of the 60's AD may perhaps
seem a long time ago in 102AD. But I suggest you propose to your
parents the idea that they have no idea what happened in the 1960's,
and see what sort of response you get. <smile>
The idea that Tacitus account of the Christians is interpolated
derives from no manuscript evidence, and as far as I know was invented
in the late 19th century as part of the effort to remove the Jewish
roots of Christianity by redating it to 170AD. No doubt anti-semitism
played no part in this attempt (unlike the debunking of Lucian of
Samosata in the same era), although I have seen no study examining the
issue. To do this all the early data had to be rubbished on one
pretext or another. This consensus was destroyed, as you know, by
archaeological discovery, and with it the pressing need to debunk
Tacitus, just as the fall of Napoleon had destroyed his need to debunk
the idol of the republicans. It is not useful to allege interpolation
without some form of objective method. The allegation is routinely
made for passages which the unscholarly find inconvenient - or even
the scholarly. Don't do it. Interpolation should only be alleged
when there is external evidence of it. It's just too easy for the
lazy.
It is also, incidentally, unscholarly to allege later corruption in
the absence of evidence. The allegation is also too easy to be
scholarly. Any document *could* be corrupted. The dog *could* have
eaten your term paper.
Likewise the references in Josephus also had to be rubbished. But
modern scholarship has moved away from that, and even the most
controversial passage, the Testimonium Flavianum, is today regarded as
substantially authentic, although proven to be demonstrably corrupt in
the textus receptus. You see, no-one feels this pressing urge to
debunk Jesus of Nazareth unless they have a religious motive. Who
cares?
I was interested that you said that Tacitus acquired his information
from Christians in the second century. Should I presume you have some
newly discovered document to present to us, since I know of no ancient
document to this effect? <g> It is usually unwise to present a
convenient speculation as fact - and this is no more. Tacitus sources
are not certainly known, although there is probably some literature
somewhere. That he had excellent information if he chose to use it
can hardly be in dispute. There is no reason why lists of persons
executed for maiestas (there would be property consequences for this,
remember) in the reign of Tiberius would not still exist. Consider
the detailed letters of Pliny to Trajan, and reference to imperial
rescripts in circulation in Bithynia with property implications. But
of course we have no evidence that in fact they *did* exist. Possible
is not good enough. We must not make statements either way in absence
of evidence. What seems probable to us is not relevant. After all,
can we doubt that 5 minutes personal conversation with Tacitus would
alter our ideas of 'probable' out of all recognition?
Incidentally, while you may feel that Tacitus is not a good source for
events in the reign of Tiberius, I would suggest you might wish to
reconsider. If I remember A.N. Sherwin-White correctly, Tacitus is
the main historical source for events and people of the reign, even
though he hated Tiberius like poison for his introduction of delation.
(Fortunately we have Velleius Paterculus as a partial corrective). I
really don't see any rational reason to ignore his testimony. I know
that some silly people suggest that the use of the later title for
Pilate is evidential, but since I've read a few of the papers of
proconsular titulature in the early empire, I can tell you that
scholars don't even consider it important (not least because Pilate
falls into the period when many officials in Claudius' reign,
including even the Prefect of Egypt, may have held both titles).
Scholarship consists of marshalling the facts and seeing what they
say, not in finding reasons to disregard those pieces of data which
offend our prejudices and then proclaiming that, since there is no
longer any data to the contrary, our pet theory must be correct. This
is particularly so when there is an obvious political or religious
motive to debunk. Any old nonsense can be established this way - and
usually is.
I am interested to see people blowing away, trying to re-inflate the
aged flying-pig hot-air balloon of Tubingen, but the only effect is
that they will get is red-faced with the effort. That balloon has
long been exploded, and its methodology discredited.
The Victorians could believe that a world-changing movement could be
created by a committee - and isn't it a characteristically Victorian
idea! In our day we know committees better. If we knew nothing of
Christian origins before 200AD from any source, regardless of religion
we should still presume a charismatic individual as founder, who
gathered followers, left accounts behind him, often regrouped under a
second organiser, encountered political opposition, and gradually
advanced in numbers and influence. Is that not, after all, how most
religious and political movements come into being (I was thinking of
Marxist-Leninism)? Regardless of whether Christianity is true, there
seems no convincing reason to doubt that it came into being in the way
suggested!
But don't let me lecture you. One could by all means keep puffing at
the balloon if that seems more attractive! <smile>
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
Neville Lindsay
Unless someone like Paul has a revelation and reinvents him not as a martyr
but a pre-existent godling.
> Since it does not match the other evidence,
> starting with the idea that since Jesus was crucified he must have been a
> pretender is awful weak.
It was the gospel writers who started with the id
NL
Neville Lindsay
"Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.02010...@posting.google.com...
> I came across this thread while looking for posts about Tacitus. The
> majority of the argument appears to be a rather 19th-century attempt
> to manufacture and then argue from silence, so I won't say more about
> that.
[snip windy and derogatory waffle]
> But don't let me lecture you. One could by all means keep puffing at
> the balloon if that seems more attractive! <smile>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roger Pearse
I see you have learnt something from our last encounter, and avoided your
characteristic self-revealing bluster and empty threats of demolition which
failed then. I just checked back on my archives and had a quick smile over
it. But now you have tried- what you may think as subtle patronisation, but
it stands out as a concerted and conceited attempt to argue by inference and
denigration.
Contrary to your statements about 19th Century viewpoints, there is a strong
_current_ scholarly disinclination to take the Tacitus and Josephus
paragraphs at face value, and plenty who dismiss them as straight
interpolations. And Pliny is simply talking about current problems with
Christianity, and so is no witness to anything events before that - just
another straw to be added to a shaky list which apologists try to wave
around like a police badge too quickly to be examined properly.
In view of your previously demonstrated inability to acknowledge any points
which do not accord with your own, and your propensity to resort to abuse
when others do not agree with you, I shall leave you to try to suck in
someone other else to try to demonstrate you self-acclaimed superiority on.
NL
Yoshihiro
>
> "Yoshihiro" <nihi...@NOCRAPxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:J8LZ7.9339$_02.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> >
> > "Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:7%eZ7.33208$wD1.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
>
> > I would like to see references of the general scholarly opinion. If you
> have
> > examples of authors, that would be great, thank you.
>
> Try www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Doughty.html
>
Thank you for the link.
> > I have seen what evidence there is and I am personally satisified with
it.
> I
> > see no reason to doubt what is said about Jesus Christ. I think the
> > conclusions I have reached are reasonable to be expected.
> > I have not been given any reason to revise that opinion.
>
> Well, if you will not take on board any argument which is being made, you
> will no doubt never have any reason to revise your opinion. Revising
> opinions can come only to an open mind. I shall leave you to enjoy your
> closed one.
If I disagree with you, does that mean I have a closed mind? Seems that
there are an awful lot of closed minds about. There is no need to insult
people just because their opinion differs from you.
I was rather enjoying what you had to say. It was stimulating and enjoyable.
Until the insults started to roll. Thank you for enduring my closed mind for
so long, Neville. I hope it was not too much of a burden for you.
>
> > Yoshihiro
> > "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
> who
> > have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
>
> Very true. Have you thought it might just apply to you.
>
Once again, I was enjoying our argument/discussion. You made me think more
deeply, and I liked that. Thank you while it lasted. The moment you started
the insults, it ceased to be enjoyable or profitable to either of us.
Think about it. Insults never changed anyone's mind. It is a dead-end
proposition.
You have a wealth of information in your head/books. How about sharing it
with people, and not insulting them because your conclusions are by no means
guarranteed results? At least I never insulted you.
--
Yoshihiro
--
Yoshihiro
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
"Peter Lösch" <peter....@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:3C36E2B2...@bluewin.ch...
Neville Lindsay
Look back over you posts - I did not see any glimmer that you had taken any
of the points I had made aboard, rather you kept repeating your already
decided position - just look at the Paul's absence of use of Jesus
teachings bit, where you repeatedly denied that it could be expected that
he would have used the founders teaching, as any acolyte invariably does.
If you wish to have a stimulating exchange, it is appropriate to acknowledge
points which have been clearly made so that the discussion can proceed,
rather than simply repeating denials because it does not support your
position. Exchanges are two-way.
It is most frustrating to run into such brick walls, which is why I decided
to exit the conversation, a little acidly I acknowledge
NL
Roger Pearse
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3a88eeea.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > I came across this thread while looking for posts about Tacitus. The
> > majority of the argument appears to be a rather 19th-century attempt
> > to manufacture and then argue from silence, so I won't say more about
> > that.
>
> [snip windy and derogatory waffle]
>
> > But don't let me lecture you. One could by all means keep puffing at
> > the balloon if that seems more attractive! <smile>
> >
> characteristic self-revealing bluster and empty threats of demolition which
> failed then. I just checked back on my archives and had a quick smile over
> it. But now you have tried- what you may think as subtle patronisation, but
> it stands out as a concerted and conceited attempt to argue by inference and
> denigration.
I see that you have yet to learn manners.
> Contrary to your statements about 19th Century viewpoints, there is a strong
> _current_ scholarly disinclination to take the Tacitus and Josephus
> paragraphs at face value, and plenty who dismiss them as straight
> interpolations.
Your unfamiliarity with current work is not very impressive. Try
doing some reading. You make no contribution to the net at present,
and sharing your ignorance and your prejudices does nothing to change
that.
> And Pliny is simply talking about current problems with
> Christianity, and so is no witness to anything events before that - just
> another straw to be added to a shaky list which apologists try to wave
> around like a police badge too quickly to be examined properly.
rant rant <yawn>
> In view of your previously demonstrated inability to acknowledge any points
> which do not accord with your own, and your propensity to resort to abuse
> when others do not agree with you, I shall leave you to try to suck in
> someone other else to try to demonstrate you self-acclaimed superiority on.
How very convenient for you. The dishonest atheist is always ready
with accusation, and always up in arms at real or fancied 'abuse'. I
too remember your sleazy little posts when you were attempting to
bully someone with assertuons you didn't know to be true. Should you
ever feel like an honest discussion, you can apologise for your
attempts to bully others, and your laughable attempt to patronise me,
and we can start again.
Keep on blowing, Neville!
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> > > I would like to see references of the general scholarly opinion. If you
> > > have examples of authors, that would be great, thank you.
> >
> > Try www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Doughty.html
>
> Thank you for the link.
May I suggest you treat this with caution? I don't believe the
'Journal of Higher Criticism' is an academic journal. I don't pay any
real attention to what passes for New Testament Studies in the
anglophone world, so I can't say for sure. A look at L'Annee
Philologique would confirm this. Approach with caution. Read things
like the Journal of Theological Studies instead.
> > > I have seen what evidence there is and I am personally satisified with
> > > it. I
> > > see no reason to doubt what is said about Jesus Christ. I think the
> > > conclusions I have reached are reasonable to be expected.
> > > I have not been given any reason to revise that opinion.
> >
> > Well, if you will not take on board any argument which is being made, you
> > will no doubt never have any reason to revise your opinion. Revising
> > opinions can come only to an open mind. I shall leave you to enjoy your
> > closed one.
>
> If I disagree with you, does that mean I have a closed mind? Seems that
> there are an awful lot of closed minds about. There is no need to insult
> people just because their opinion differs from you.
>
> I was rather enjoying what you had to say. It was stimulating and enjoyable.
> Until the insults started to roll. Thank you for enduring my closed mind for
> so long, Neville. I hope it was not too much of a burden for you.
I think perhaps you have just learnt something about Neville Lindsay.
I too took him for an honest man until I caught him trying to bully
someone with a pretense at scholarship which he knew himself was
bogus. Naturally I told him what I thought of this - and he promptly
started whining about 'abuse' (which as you've seen he's very ready
with himself). I suspect that is his ploy to avoid open discussion
with people who he can't intimidate and who know the facts better than
he does. You notice that he made no attempt to respond rationally to
my own post in this thread. I'm afraid he isn't sincere - not even
sincerely wrong. So I suggest you check anything he said or inferred.
> You have a wealth of information in your head/books. How about sharing it
> with people, and not insulting them because your conclusions are by no means
> guarranteed results? At least I never insulted you.
You've put your finger on the key issue. If he were sincere, how is
it he doesn't want to share any actual information? Real enthusiasts
do - bigots trying to bully others with factoids don't. What sort of
enthusiast for the ancient world only contributes attempts to abuse
other people's religion?
Glad you managed to get something out of talking to him. But check
the data for yourself, and see what it says.
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
http://www.tertullian.org
Mike
Lindsay at nev...@bigpond.net.au wrote on 1/6/02 2:06 AM:
> If someone tells me that there is a bible translation which is taken from
> original Aramaic sources,
perhaps the Peshitta is being referred to in such a statement? some folks
consider it to precede the Greek versions.. tho the hard evidence is
admittedly scant iirc.. the eye of the needle passage mentions passing a
ROPE through the eye of a needle, which makes a bit more sense than a camel
anyhow, and is a similar word phonetically to greek word for camel.. small
things like this convince some that the aramaic came before the greek for
those passages. not conclusive tho.
regards
mike
Not the original Russ
The eye of a needle was a small gate into many cities. All beasts of
burden would have to be unloaded before passing through the eye, thus
preventing things from being smuggled into a city (like weapons). The
camel, being the largest beast of burden used in the middle east, had
an especially hard time going through the eye. After being unloaded,
the camel would have to suffle through on its knees.
Thus, a rich man entering the kingdom of Heaven had to do so humbly,
on his knees. Jesus knew that it was extremely hard for wealthy people
to humble themselves, thus used the analogy.
Regards,
Russ
Matthew 10:16
Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves.
Be as wary as snakes and harmless as doves.
I do not belong to an organized religion.
I follow Christ.
Mike
nos...@nomail.com wrote on 1/8/02 3:48 PM:
> The eye of a needle was a small gate into many cities. All beasts of
> burden would have to be unloaded before passing through the eye, thus
> preventing things from being smuggled into a city (like weapons). The
> camel, being the largest beast of burden used in the middle east, had
> an especially hard time going through the eye. After being unloaded,
> the camel would have to suffle through on its knees.
yes, i think we have all suffered through this rather inane explanation in
sunday school. i dont quite buy it.
regards
mike
Trotter960
>Unless someone like Paul has a >revelation and reinvents him not as a >martyr
but a pre-existent godling.
Really. Okay, show that this is the case and explain the subsequent theology
that evolved around Jesus.
>> Since it does not match the other >>evidence,
>> starting with the idea that since Jesus >>was crucified he must have been a
>> pretender is awful weak.
>
>It was the gospel writers who started with >the id
So what are you saying? That the idea of Jesus being crucifed never appears in
the writings of Paul? I don't get this.
Trotter960
>People from all walks that I've seen would >agree that some of the Gospels
>were 1st written in Aramaic, some in other >languages.
What you are saying above would suggest that there is a broadspread agreement
among diverse scholars. Actually there is not. What you find is George Lamsa,
Jim
Trimm, and Yuri Kuchinsky.
One would do far better to have a look at the part on Syriac versions in Bruce
Metzger's _Early Versions of the New Testament_.
>If I were out to prove
>the point I may go to find a list of >scholars. But proof is something even
>the scholars don't have yet.
I find ths to be a peculiar remark. "Proof" is never conclusive and always
subject to the input of new evidence.
>Evidence which suggests this or that, >yes. But
>proof, no. We're trying to reconstruct a >history from minute fragments.
Perhaps you have a point, but then the question becomes one of making sense of
the evidence that is available.
I would say that based upon the available evidence, none of the four canonical
gospels was written in Syriac/Aramaic first.
Trotter960
> Few, other than the
>committed, accept it as it stands.
You are right.There are few who accept Josephus "as it stands." But this belies
the
fact that many scholars accept the historical value of a modified Josephus
text.
>Tacitus' paragarph is also suspected of >interpolation. Even if it is not, it
>was written about 112 CE, and >consequently is no more than repeating a
>tradition received from Christians in Rome.
So you say. Except that Tacitus uses some terms found in another Roman writer.
>It is not evidence at all for
>the existence of Jesus - it would be what >is known in legal circles as
hearsay ...
Are you an attorney? I doubt it.
Now that we are past that problem we can address the relative value of the
evidence for the existence of Jesus. I would say that
if you can set up critieria which would show that Jesus never existed, most
figures of antiquity ( such as found in books like Pen-
guin's _Dict of Ancient Hist_ ) would also perish.
> Repeating someone else's story does
>not confirm that story,....
What a peculiar idea. If you were an attorney you would know that repitition of
someone else's story is an affirmation. It is for that reason that defense
attorneys ask the question of whether potential jurors are willing to accept
the premise of innocent until proven guilty. (Here in the US. I don't know
about Oz.) Attorneys recognize the value of the mere accusation. People tend to
believe that the people they are listening to are telling them the truth as
best they understand it.
>As for these 'others (all non-Christian)' >who wrote about Jesus can you tell
>us who they were and how their >statements attested to his existence?
Have you not written against the historical value of Josephus and whoever
before?
Don't bait the guy.
Yoshihiro
>
> Look back over you posts - I did not see any glimmer that you had taken
any
> of the points I had made aboard, rather you kept repeating your already
> decided position - just look at the Paul's absence of use of Jesus
> teachings bit, where you repeatedly denied that it could be expected that
> he would have used the founders teaching, as any acolyte invariably does.
>
> If you wish to have a stimulating exchange, it is appropriate to
acknowledge
> points which have been clearly made so that the discussion can proceed,
> rather than simply repeating denials because it does not support your
> position. Exchanges are two-way.
> It is most frustrating to run into such brick walls, which is why I
decided
> to exit the conversation, a little acidly I acknowledge
>
> NL
>
>
>
If you mean by "taking any points you had made aboard" that I should
mindlessly fall down and bow to your logic when you present arguments that
are by no means absolutely proven.....then no, I don't. Points that are
doubtful one way or the other.
Oral history's corruptability is not proven. I present you with some
information on the king lists of the early 1st Century BC Egypt. A point you
either ignored out of hand, or just didn't bother to follow up. Your
information re: interpolation of Josephus and Tacitus is true....though not
100%. Opinion is divided, and your alleged scholarly opinion is by no means
justified or proven by one link to one author. You present speculations and
opinions, (Even so-called scholarly), that are by no means 100% solid, and
you expect me to change my opinions in no more than 10 posts? Get real.
Your acidity is neither warranted nor profitable. If your knowledge is not
secure enough to stay out of the insults, then that is your problem. Deal
with it and get over it. It is not my issue. Your insults reveal more about
you than they do about my posts. Bully someone else.
Yoshihiro
Thanks for the information, Roger. I noticed in another thread, that Neville
cried "abuse" when someone abused him. Struck me as ironic that someone who
had just posted such garbage to me, would then criticise another for doing
the same. Ah well, such is the human species, in some cases.
Thanks for he information about the link. I will certainly try the Journal
you suggested. I think I read it once ot twice, when I was studying. It was
a long time ago, and my memory is not so great about book names.
I like the name of your site.....Tertullian is a funny guy to read, I think.
It is a good series of writings, and I really like his style. I will see
what your site is like soon. I am very curious.
Thanks again for the post, and for information.
Yoshihiro
>
> "Roger Pearse" <roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3a88eeea.02010...@posting.google.com...
>
> Contrary to your statements about 19th Century viewpoints, there is a
strong
> _current_ scholarly disinclination to take the Tacitus and Josephus
> paragraphs at face value, and plenty who dismiss them as straight
> interpolations.
Then show us some references, if there is "strong current scholarly
disinclination. Should be no problem, shouldn't it?
--
Yoshihiro
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
>
> NL
>
>
Kater Moggin
[the Peshitta]
> some folks
> consider it to precede the Greek versions.. tho the hard evidence is
> admittedly scant iirc.. the eye of the needle passage mentions passing a
> ROPE through the eye of a needle, which makes a bit more sense than a
> camel anyhow
But Jesus is talking about something that in his view does
_not_ make sense: a rich man entering God's kingdom. So
substituting "rope" for "camel" doesn't improve his logic. All
it does it make him boring.
Besides, "rope" and "camel" are the same in Aramaic, Lamsa
say. So even if you assume that Aramaic was the original
language, "camel" might _still_ be right. A similar rabbinical
saying has "elephant."
-- Moggin
Yoshihiro
"Mike" <ro...@onr.com> wrote in message news:B860DD90.181C3%ro...@onr.com...
The only place I have heard that explanation is from Christian preachers.
Yet, I find no reference to such a gate in Jerusalem, or any other ancient
city for that matter. In my own opinion, it is just a story that was "made
up" to justify obscene wealth in the church, and making money a legitimate
goal of Christian spirituality.
A camel or rope are both pretty hard to stuff through the eye of a needle.
It would have had some impact on hearers. The disciples are recorded as
asking something like, "Who the hell can enter heaven?????" (My own words of
course) This would not be so if we accept the "small gate" crap. It would be
a really unlikely reaction, in my opinion.
If anyone knows of any reference to such a gate in the contemporary sources,
or of any archeological finds, please let me know. I have never seen it
drawn on maps of Jerusalem anywhere. I have never heard any references in
contemporary sources. Such a gate never existed, as far as I know.
Neville Lindsay
> >From: "Neville Lindsay"
> > Few, other than the
> >committed, accept it as it stands.
> You are right.There are few who accept Josephus "as it stands." But this
belies
> the
> fact that many scholars accept the historical value of a modified Josephus
> text.
Here we go, 'many' - a lovely cop out, an appeal to unspecified numbers -
how many is many - five, six, eitht? And of course who are they? All that
matters with experts is quality and minimisation of confessional bias.
Scouring around for people who support your point of view does not equate to
getting the best opinions.
> >Tacitus' paragarph is also suspected of >interpolation. Even if it is
not, it
> >was written about 112 CE, and >consequently is no more than repeating a
> >tradition received from Christians in Rome.
> So you say. Except that Tacitus uses some terms found in another Roman
writer.
What has this to do with it other than to try to divert attention from the
proposition that Tacitus was in so sense contemporary to events, and wrote
nearly three generations later.
> >It is not evidence at all for
> >the existence of Jesus - it would be what is known in legal circles as
> hearsay ...
> Are you an attorney? I doubt it.
What relevance is that? Hearsy is hearsay. If you don't have a sensible
comment to make, why make any at all, other than, of course, to try to
divert attention from the fact that you have no answer to the proposition
that repeating what others tell you that someone else said is hearsay, and
does not add one whit to confirmation wat was said.
> Now that we are past that problem we can address the relative value of the
> evidence for the existence of Jesus. I would say that
> if you can set up critieria which would show that Jesus never existed,
most
> figures of antiquity ( such as found in books like Pen-
> guin's _Dict of Ancient Hist_ ) would also perish.
Ah, you are back to your old apologetic chestnut. I don't care one whit that
other ancient characters may also be suspect - each has to be judged on
their own merits, and as we are talking about one individual, that person
has to be able to stand up to normal historical enquiry. Can we stick to the
point and forget the evasivenes.
> > Repeating someone else's story does
> >not confirm that story,....
> What a peculiar idea. If you were an attorney you would know that
repitition of
> someone else's story is an affirmation. It is for that reason that defense
> attorneys ask the question of whether potential jurors are willing to
accept
> the premise of innocent until proven guilty. (Here in the US. I don't know
> about Oz.) Attorneys recognize the value of the mere accusation. People
tend to
> believe that the people they are listening to are telling them the truth
as
> best they understand it.
One does not have to be an attorney to know that quoting what someone else
said does not add any reliability to what that someone said. It is hearsay
and inadmissible as evidence. Applies world wide.
> >As for these 'others (all non-Christian)' >who wrote about Jesus can you
tell
> >us who they were and how their >statements attested to his existence?
> Have you not written against the historical value of Josephus and whoever
> before?
>
> Don't bait the guy.
The statement was about others - Tacitus, Josephus and 'others'. Who were
they - it is common for apologists to add this 'others' and they are very
shy, as you are, about nominating them. Put up, or withdraw the statement.
NL
Yoshihiro
for the insulting way in which you "exited" this discussion. I rephrased
some comments, did not comment on one or two of yours, (and you missed some
of mine, I would like to add), and attempted to summarise what I was saying,
(albeit not so well, since summarising is not my strong point). {Please feel
free to throw in some inane comments about that if you like}
One post of disagreement does not constitute a "brickwall", unless you feel
some sensitivity about people disagreeing with you. Get over it. It happens.
Accept it and be civil about it.
Grow up.
Roger Pearse
> >
> > Contrary to your statements about 19th Century viewpoints, there is a
> strong
> > _current_ scholarly disinclination to take the Tacitus and Josephus
> > paragraphs at face value, and plenty who dismiss them as straight
> > interpolations.
>
> Then show us some references, if there is "strong current scholarly
> disinclination. Should be no problem, shouldn't it?
I don't spend much time on Josephus, but you can get a completely up
to date view from a Byzantinist (delivered to the SBL 2000 conference)
at josephus.yorku.ca/links-articles.htm. Look for the paper by Alice
Whealey for an overview of how scholarship has developed, and a nice
demonstration of a corruption (on purely external grounds) in the
Testimonium Flavianum. Corrupt but substantially correct seems to be
the modern consensus, although I don't think anyone is wedded to the
idea (including my humble self).
As for Tacitus, the idea of interpolation isn't even mentioned in
Syme's classic study, nor in the summary of the text tradition in
Reynolds "Texts and Transmission", nor in any of the papers on the
titulature of procurators/prefects in the early empire that I've been
reading lately. I get the impression that classicists may not have
bought into the idea, even in its heyday. But I've never engaged in
the morose task of tracking down the history of that error. Who
wants to read accounts of why people get daft ideas? Let's hear about
enthusiasms, not hatreds. (Which is why I don't pay too much
attention to the highly politicised subjects).
I realise Neville will probably try to jump on this to try to get some
sort of debating advantage, and from a tactical point of view one
would simply have kept quiet and watched him stew. But I don't post
to try to get the better of people, but to talk about interesting
subjects to friendly people; and I don't really worry about what those
who post from malice have to say! After all, they tell us they only
have one life, so if they want to waste minutes and hours of their
lives when they could be out wenching or drinking or saving the whale
or something, then one can only feel sorry for them. I do try to
encourage him to take up some subject of interest, rather than a
subject of hate, but he doesn't seem to want to do so.
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> Thanks for the information, Roger. I noticed in another thread, that Neville
> cried "abuse" when someone abused him. Struck me as ironic that someone who
> had just posted such garbage to me, would then criticise another for doing
> the same. Ah well, such is the human species, in some cases.
Probably he's just a boy behaving badly. One mustn't take it to
heart. It was a pity he felt too intimidated by my post to respond
properly. I was quite pleased with one or two things that struck me
while I wrote it - particularly the analogy between 60-102AD and
1960-2002AD.
> Thanks for he information about the link. I will certainly try the Journal
> you suggested. I think I read it once ot twice, when I was studying. It was
> a long time ago, and my memory is not so great about book names.
I know the feeling! Can I offer the thought that you may find
francophone scholarship more balanced. I may be biased here - in
Tertullian studies the anglophone stuffis mostly a bit superficial,
and the french stuff excellent - but it's worth considering.
> I like the name of your site.....Tertullian is a funny guy to read, I think.
Very much so. Glad you saw that. All his stuff is written with an
eye to making people laugh. There's a great skit on the gnostic
'christ' at the end of de praescriptione.
> It is a good series of writings, and I really like his style. I will see
> what your site is like soon. I am very curious.
>
> Thanks again for the post, and for information.
You're welcome!
Cheers,
Roger Pearse
Mike
nihi...@NOCRAPxtra.co.nz wrote on 1/10/02 12:00 AM:
> If anyone knows of any reference to such a gate in the contemporary sources,
> or of any archeological finds, please let me know. I have never seen it
> drawn on maps of Jerusalem anywhere. I have never heard any references in
> contemporary sources. Such a gate never existed, as far as I know.
right.. especially considering the importance of trade in the old days.. and
the military.. if you see the reconstructions or ruins of old city gates,
they are large... after all the army has to be able to get in an out with
horses etc!
mike
tiglath
> The only place I have heard that explanation is from Christian preachers.
It pushes the limits of exegesis into what we call rationalization.
It's an attempt to take the impossibility of the literal meaning into
something that it is difficult but not impossible. Standard fare, many
references to slaves in the bible are not translated as "servants" to cloak
the outright condoning of slavery found in scripture.
tiglath
[...]
Exhibit A
> Scholarship consists of marshalling the facts and seeing what they
> say, not in finding reasons to disregard those pieces of data which
> offend our prejudices and then proclaiming that, since there is no
> longer any data to the contrary, our pet theory must be correct. This
> is particularly so when there is an obvious political or religious
> motive to debunk. Any old nonsense can be established this way - and
> usually is.
[...]
Exhibit B
> If we knew nothing of
> Christian origins before 200AD from any source, regardless of religion
> we should still presume a charismatic individual as founder, who
> gathered followers, left accounts behind him, often regrouped under a
> second organiser, encountered political opposition, and gradually
> advanced in numbers and influence. Is that not, after all, how most
> religious and political movements come into being (I was thinking of
> Marxist-Leninism)? Regardless of whether Christianity is true, there
> seems no convincing reason to doubt that it came into being in the way
> suggested!
[...]
Do I see in Exhibit B a pet theory of the sort Exhibit A warns against?