Jesus vs the New Testament

[sooda]

Well you will have to argue that the Pharisee turned Roman Historian
Josephus Flavius. He witnessed the invasion of Israel and destruction
of Jerusalem and its temple.
Up against him is a small armada of 20th and 21st Century skeptics
who have an issue with the bible.

Israel had a thriving diaspora in Jesus' day. Made no difference to the
population of Israel though.
There has long been a mystery as to the Jewish s population. Some
figures cite 5 million. China had about 20 million if I recall but today
China has 1500 million. The mystery - why aren't there more Jews
around today? The bible said the Jews would be "small in number"
so what happened? Conversion, conquest, exile, assimilation was
the answer. Despite Jewish DNA being everywhere (inc msyelf)
there are only a few million Jews today - they remain a symbol of
the Jew. We do know of one tribe, the Levites still present in the
DNA, going back to Aaron, Moses' brother.

Josephus was 33 and employed as a historian by the Flavian emperors Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.

 

[sooda]

The Palestinians are Muslim Arabs who settled in the Levant
or who were converted (perhaps by force) to Islam. Imagine,
forced conversion - sounds like an oxymoron.
I am sure lots of other nations reached the Euphrates. That's
not the point. On the scale of things, that Solomon map above
does seem rather tame. And it wasn't through real conquest,
rather an opportunity to occupy land that wasn't under imperial
control by anyone at the time.
It's the denial of this which annoys me.

Arabs have been in Palestine since the time of Abraham.. Remember his Arab wife Keturah ?
Keturah - Sons

1. • Midian, son of Abraham
   • Zimran
   • Medan, son of Abraham
2. • Jokshan
   • Shuah
   • Ishbak

 

[PruePhillip]

Arabs have been in Palestine since the time of Abraham.. Remember his Arab wife Keturah ?
Keturah - Sons

1. • Midian, son of Abraham
   • Zimran
   • Medan, son of Abraham
2. • Jokshan
   • Shuah
   • Ishbak

That's true. The Levant is known as a melting pot due to
its proximity to many empires and nations. It was also
a major trading route. Jesus was despised because he
hailed from Nazareth - a specific trading location.
So there's many people in Israel and Canaan - Moabites,
Edomites, Amonites, Amelakites, Phillistines etc..
And there's some Arabs there too. In fact Abraham's son
Ishmael is considered the founder of Arab nations. But
that's different to there being an Arab nation. For this I
think you have to look to Saudi Arabia.

 

[sooda]

That's true. The Levant is known as a melting pot due to
its proximity to many empires and nations. It was also
a major trading route. Jesus was despised because he
hailed from Nazareth - a specific trading location.
So there's many people in Israel and Canaan - Moabites,
Edomites, Amonites, Amelakites, Phillistines etc..
And there's some Arabs there too. In fact Abraham's son
Ishmael is considered the founder of Arab nations. But
that's different to there being an Arab nation. For this I
think you have to look to Saudi Arabia.

There was NO Arab state in Saudi Arabia until Ibn Saud united the tribes... and as for Israel .. it was vassal state for most of its history. Remember that Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria in 716 BCE.
Israel was a small backwater.. When they were in exile in Babylon they were exposed to splendid architecture, mythology and wealth. There is no other way to account for their exaggerations and tall tales .

 

[blü 2]

The Palestinians are Muslim Arabs who settled in the Levant
or who were converted (perhaps by force) to Islam. Imagine,
forced conversion - sounds like an oxymoron.

The history of Christianity is loaded high with forced conversions, from the use of Constantine's declaration against the pagan world right through to Charlemagne's campaigns against his neighbors in northern and western Europe. It was a routine feature of the European colonization of both Americas and Africa, and with African slaves brought to the US, Caribbean and elsewhere.

It's strange that people deny there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth.

Not at all strange once you acquaint yourself with the problems of the NT documents from an historical rather than a believer's point of view.

On the sole basis of impact he's the most important historical figure in Western history.

There's no need for Jesus to have existed in history to have influence as a religious idea. Gautama Buddha was likely a real person, though which of the suttas attributed to him are his is an ongoing debate. It seems more likely than not that Muhammad existed in history, but none of the sayings attributed to him in the Qur'an can be shown to be his and very likely are not. But it doesn't matter ─ the religions led by Brahma, Osiris, Zeus, the Great Spirit, the Rainbow Serpent and so on have all been very influential in their cultural spheres at their relevant times.

When you ask "what is the evidence" I have to say "I haven't looked into it." because I don't base faith upon evidence, or more correctly, biblical evidence.

Then why do you think humans have to be 'redeemed' at all? Redeemed from what, exactly? Redeemed by what process, exactly? I find the concept singularly empty as a statement about reality.

Yes, Paul didn't meet him. Neither did Luke. Just learned this - Mark didn't know Jesus either.

None of them did. Mark devises the only purported biography of Jesus by stitching bits of the Tanakh together which the author takes to be messianic prophecy, the author of Matthew copies it but rewrites the parts he doesn't like and adds some 'fulfillment of prophecy' tales of his own, the author of Luke copies Mark, corrects them both and adds some tales, and the author of John presents a fifth version of Jesus.

If there's any sign of a real human in any of that, it may be that an historical Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, fought with his family and never had a kind word for his mother; and had some physical defect which would lead to his 'physician, heal thyself' line. His message may have been, Get ready, the Kingdom is at hand. Paul says his name wasn't Jesus until after he'd been crucified. Or maybe there was a real Jesus but none of that is correct. Or maybe there was no real Jesus.

But Peter, John and Matthew were in his Ministry. The names on the Gospels are not important, but they were associated with these figures for a reason.

As I said, none of the gospel authors claims to be an eyewitness, and the texts confirm this. And John wasn't written till some 70 years after the traditional death of Jesus.

 

[sooda]

The history of Christianity is loaded high with forced conversions, from the use of Constantine's declaration against the pagan world right through to Charlemagne's campaigns against his neighbors in northern and western Europe. It was a routine feature of the European colonization of both Americas and Africa, and with African slaves brought to the US, Caribbean and elsewhere.
Not at all strange once you acquaint yourself with the problems of the NT documents from an historical rather than a believer's point of view.
There's no need for Jesus to have existed in history to have influence as a religious idea. Gautama Buddha was likely a real person, though which of the suttas attributed to him are his is an ongoing debate. It seems more likely than not that Muhammad existed in history, but none of the sayings attributed to him in the Qur'an can be shown to be his and very likely are not. But it doesn't matter ─ the religions led by Brahma, Osiris, Zeus, the Great Spirit, the Rainbow Serpent and so on have all been very influential in their cultural spheres at their relevant times.
Then why do you think humans have to be 'redeemed' at all? Redeemed from what, exactly? Redeemed by what process, exactly? I find the concept singularly empty as a statement about reality.
None of them did. Mark devises the only purported biography of Jesus by stitching bits of the Tanakh together which the author takes to be messianic prophecy, the author of Matthew copies it but rewrites the parts he doesn't like and adds some 'fulfillment of prophecy' tales of his own, the author of Luke copies Mark, corrects them both and adds some tales, and the author of John presents a fifth version of Jesus.

If there's any sign of a real human in any of that, it may be that an historical Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, fought with his family and never had a kind word for his mother; and had some physical defect which would lead to his 'physician, heal thyself' line. His message may have been, Get ready, the Kingdom is at hand. Paul says his name wasn't Jesus until after he'd been crucified. Or maybe there was a real Jesus but none of that is correct. Or maybe there was no real Jesus.
As I said, none of the gospel authors claims to be an eyewitness, and the texts confirm this. And John wasn't written till some 70 years after the traditional death of Jesus.

I'm told the gospel of John is written in impeccable Greek .. so different from John of Patmos. Were they both
"Christians"?

 

[PruePhillip]

There was NO Arab state in Saudi Arabia until Ibn Saud united the tribes... and as for Israel .. it was vassal state for most of its history. Remember that Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria in 716 BCE.
Israel was a small backwater.. When they were in exile in Babylon they were exposed to splendid architecture, mythology and wealth. There is no other way to account for their exaggerations and tall tales

This must all be a part of the Babylonian Bible Myth?
I don't buy it, you shouldn't either.
A lot of the Old Testament was written in text not known to Babylonians.
Same too for the history of the kings, locations and culture of Bronze
Age Israel which would not have been known to Babylonian age scribes
unless it was copied from older manuscripts.
Some book of the bible had to explain to later Jewish readers what
things meant in that time period. You see that in Ruth - the customs
then were different, but they reflected Bronze Age life.
And the House of David would have been as far back to Babylonian
time as Columbus would be to Americans today - yet we know it
existed. Without some manuscript Babylonians wouldn't have heard
of King David and King Solomon.
That manuscript, to put it simply, was the bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm told the gospel of John is written in impeccable Greek .. so different from John of Patmos. Were they both
"Christians"?

People seem to think Jews were dumb. They couldn't build great nations,
or have great kings or even (incredibly) couldn't write or have their own
language. Yet we know many nations hired Jews for their business
acumen. So why couldn't John learn Greek as he was preaching to the
Greek/Latin world? We know Matthew was a tax official - he used a
form of shorthand only officials were taught. Interesting, isn't it? When
you read of the bible you are told it was invented after Babylon or by
Catholics in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD.

 

[PruePhillip]

The history of Christianity is loaded high with forced conversions, from the use of Constantine's declaration against the pagan world right through to Charlemagne's campaigns against his neighbors in northern and western Europe.

That was Catholic practice. It wasn't Christian.
The bible makes it clear you have no right to force views upon
another. You cannot force another person to love God - trying to
shows you don't love God enough to understand that yourself.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not at all strange once you acquaint yourself with the problems of the NT documents from an historical rather than a believer's point of view.

What? Seven authors not enough?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Didn't practice what is known as Judaism, so vague.

This answer is just vague in general.

Actually he DID practice second Temple Judaism.

 

[sooda]

People seem to think Jews were dumb. They couldn't build great nations,
or have great kings or even (incredibly) couldn't write or have their own
language. Yet we know many nations hired Jews for their business
acumen. So why couldn't John learn Greek as he was preaching to the
Greek/Latin world? We know Matthew was a tax official - he used a
form of shorthand only officials were taught. Interesting, isn't it? When
you read of the bible you are told it was invented after Babylon or by
Catholics in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD.

No one has said Jews were dumb.. They were a small tribe living in an arid, stony backwater.

They created their history and identity to maintain their separateness .. Their laws and rituals set them apart. The Jews taken into exile in Babylon were the "good figs".. or the cream of the crop. They borrowed from the older cultures around them.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City - Biblical Archaeology Society



The next period Geva considers is the period of the United Monarchy, the time of King David and King Solomon and a couple centuries thereafter (1000 B.C.E. down to about the eighth century B.C.E.). In David’s time, the borders of the city did not change from the previous period.

However, King Solomon expanded the confines of the city northward to include the Temple Mount. This increased the size of the city to about 40 acres, but the increase in population was not proportionate since much of this expansion was taken up with the Temple and royal buildings. “It is likely that Jerusalem attracted new inhabitants of different social classes,” Geva tells us. “Some of these people came to reside in the city as a consequence of their official and religious capacities, while others came to seek a livelihood in its developing economy.”

Geva estimates the population of the city at this time at about 2,000. (Previously, other scholars had estimated the number of people living in the city at this time as 2,000, 2,500 or 4,500–5,000.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That was Catholic practice. It wasn't Christian.

for the first 1054 years, "Catholic" was the only kind of Christian there was. And from 1054 to the Reformation, Catholicism was the only version of Christianity in the west. So yes, the forced conversions of the Catholic Church CAN be said to be the forced conversions of the Christian Church.

 

[sooda]

That was Catholic practice. It wasn't Christian.
The bible makes it clear you have no right to force views upon
another. You cannot force another person to love God - trying to
shows you don't love God enough to understand that yourself.

Of course it was Christian.. The Reformation wasn't until the 16th century.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

People seem to think Jews were dumb. They couldn't build great nations,
or have great kings or even (incredibly) couldn't write or have their own
language. Yet we know many nations hired Jews for their business
acumen. So why couldn't John learn Greek as he was preaching to the
Greek/Latin world? We know Matthew was a tax official - he used a
form of shorthand only officials were taught. Interesting, isn't it? When
you read of the bible you are told it was invented after Babylon or by
Catholics in the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD.

Anti-Semites have levied many absurd charges against Jews, but I don't think we've ever been accused of being dumb. Actually, we get accused of the reverse: being devilishly clever.

What do you mean we couldn't write? What do you mean we didn't have our own language? (In addition to Hebrew, there was Yiddish in northern and eastern Europe, and Ladino in the Spanish region).

Jews have excelled in Scholarship. This is because, beginning with the Torah schools set up by the Pharisees to see to it that all Jewish boys knew Torah, Jewish culture has always revolved around reading the sacred texts and rationally arguing about them. This has given us skills that transferred easily to other vocations.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He was called Rabbi.. Nothing about him being a priest in the Temple.

Revelation 22:16 will have the final say. “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

You know, if Joseph wasn't really Jesus' dad, then he didn't have a patrilineal line to David, meaning he wasn't of the tribe of Judah. You can't have it both ways.

 

[sooda]

Anti-Semites have levied many absurd charges against Jews, but I don't think we've ever been accused of being dumb. Actually, we get accused of the reverse: being devilishly clever.

What do you mean we couldn't write? What do you mean we didn't have our own language? (In addition to Hebrew, there was Yiddish in northern and eastern Europe, and Ladino in the Spanish region).

Jews have excelled in Scholarship. This is because, beginning with the Torah schools set up by the Pharisees to see to it that all Jewish boys knew Torah, Jewish culture has always revolved around reading the sacred texts and rationally arguing about them. This has given us skills that transferred easily to other vocations.

Right.. and there's a commitment to maintaining their culture and identity over a period of nearly 3,000 years. Dumb? I don't think so.

 

[sooda]

You know, if Joseph wasn't really Jesus' dad, then he didn't have a patrilineal line to David, meaning he wasn't of the tribe of Judah. You can't have it both ways.

You got me there. I don't know much about the genealogy of Mary's father Heli aka Joachim.

According to tradition, Saint Anne was born in Bethlehem, and married Joachim of Nazareth. Both of them were descendants of David..

Or, it may be that the Gospel writers were working overtime to make Jesus fit the Jewish expectation of messiah.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actually he DID practice second Temple Judaism.

I usually call the 'the religion of Jesus', the religion He referred to, in other words. Since it's different from what people know of as Judaism.

We know what Jesus taught, where it differs from Judaism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You got me there. I don't know much about the genealogy of Mary's father Heli aka Joachim.

According to tradition, Saint Anne was born in Bethlehem, and married Joachim of Nazareth. Both of them were descendants of David..

Or, it may be that the Gospel writers were working overtime to make Jesus fit the Jewish expectation of messiah.

The thing is, tribal lineage goes through the male line only.