1. Agree entirely.
2. The letters firmly attributed to Paul are among the earliest Christian writings to have been preserved in their entirety, dating within 15-25 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
# 65? Q document, a hypothetical Greek text thought by many critical scholars to have been used in writing of Matthew and Luke
# 66-73 Great Jewish Revolt: destruction of Herod's Temple, Qumran community destroyed, site of Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947
# 68-107? Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, fed to the lions in the Roman Colosseum, advocated the Bishop (Eph 6:1, Mag 2:1,6:1,7:1,13:2, Tr 3:1, Smy 8:1,9:1), rejected Jewish Sabbath on Saturday in favor of The Lord's Day (Sunday). (Mag 9.1), rejected Judaizing (Mag 10.3), first use of term Christianity (Mag 10).
# 70(+/-10)? Gospel of Mark, written in Rome, by Peter's interpreter (1 Peter 5:13), original ending apparently lost, endings added c.400, see Mark 16
# 70? Signs Gospel written, hypothetical Greek text used in Gospel of John to prove Jesus is the Messiah
# 70-100? additional Pauline Epistles
# 70-200? Didache; Other Gospels: Unknown Berlin Gospel, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Oxyrhynchus Gospels, Egerton Gospel, Fayyum Fragment, Dialogue of the Saviour; Jewish Christian Gospels: Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes
# 80(+/-20)? Gospel of Matthew, based on Mark and Q, most popular in Early Christianity
# 80(+/-20)? Gospel of Luke, based on Mark and Q, also Acts of the Apostles by same author
# 88-101? Clement, fourth Bishop of Rome, wrote Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians (Apostolic Fathers)
# 90? Council of Jamnia of Judaism (disputed)
# 90(+/-10)? 1 Peter
# 94 Testimonium Flavianum, disputed section of Jewish Antiquities by Josephus in Aramaic, translated to Koine Greek
# 95(+/-30)? Gospel of John and Epistles of John
# 95(+/-10)? Book of Revelation written, by John (son of Zebedee) and/or a disciple of his
# 100(+/-30)? Epistle of Barnabas (Apostolic Fathers)
# 100(+/-25)? Epistle of James
# 100(+/-10)? Epistle of Jude written, probably by doubting relative of Jesus (Mark 6,3), rejected by some early Christians due to its reference to apocryphal Book of Enoch (v14), Epistle to the Hebrews written
# 100-150? Apocryphon of James, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Secret Gospel of Mark (Complete Gospels, published by Jesus Seminar)
And please define the specifics of "firmly attributed". Is that "firmly" like the attributions of the four canonised Gospels?
3. Please explain how you arrive at your identification of "Jesus, called the Christ" and "Jesus, son of Damneus." It would also be helpful if you could produce a quotation in which Josephus refers to James as "son of Damneus."
The heart of the debate is over whether the "Jesus" in question is the same person as the main character of the Christian Bible or, as the passage states at the end, merely "the son of Damneus" (which would make the James whom Ananus had executed the son of Damneus, as well.)
If one makes such an assumption, additional problems with the text as it stands are resolved. First, it would have been quite unusual, bordering upon unheard-of, to identify a man as somebody's brother rather than as his father's son. On the other hand, introducing men as brothers and identifying their father at the same time would have been pro forma. Dating is also a problem. Festus died in approximately 62 AD, making this passage a reference to an event roughly 30 years after Jesus is said to have died.
Chapter LXIII.-It is Proved that This God Was Incarnate.
And Trypho said, "This point has been proved to me forcibly, and by many arguments, my friend. It remains, then, to prove that He submitted to become man by the Virgin, according to the will of His Father; and to be crucified, and to die. Prove also clearly, that after this He rose again and ascended to heaven."
I answered, "This, too, has been already demonstrated by me in the previously quoted words of the prophecies, my friends; which, by recalling and expounding for your sakes, I shall endeavour to lead you to agree with me also about this matter. The passage, then, which Isaiah records, `Who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken away from the earth, '-does it not appear to you to refer to One who, not having descent from men, was said to be delivered over to death by God for the transgressions of the people?
Perhaps language has changed over the years, but apparently that was clear as water 1900 years ago!
Christ is a title and derived from the Greek word christos, meaning the "Anointed One" (the messiah). The word christos is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiach to Greek.
Ah, but the important part of the word Meshiach (in those days - which is lost on modern Jews too) is (which is not conveyed in the word Christ) is that it used to mean, at that time, a FULLFILLER OF A PROPHESY.
That's why it was a time of false prophets, because everyone was prophesying the end of the world and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophets and other extant prophesies.
The prophesy Yeshua (if he existed, etc) may have been fullfilling would have been the one that talks about someone from the line of David marrying someone from the line of Sarah and bringing about a revolution to overthrow the Kingdom of Israel from its oppressors. Good times for all thereafter.
Of course if God was the father that f*cks up that prophesy so the clever leaders of early Christos Iesous went back to the Old Testament and found another prophesy to pretend had been fullfilled (except it already had been, but who cares - no one's going to spot that f*ck-up for 1000's of years!).
For the record the leader of the SanHedrin was annointed by the head priest (line from Moses's decent), from a formula only known to the priests. The idea that Jesus was annointed was a bit rich, since ONLY the leader of the Sanhedrin would have been so exalted. To even talk of such would have offended a nation. Its the equivalent of Joan Rivers swearing allegiance. Well, sort of.
Brother, I bow down to you. Your flagrant disregard for one man's amazing construct simply because the content of it argues clearly and beautifully against your preferred position, is quite impressive. You dont care that the facts are proven, but that the author may have an unacceptable attitude!
You don't want to read "facts" because...well, what are they against a 1600 year old heritage of curruption, lies and hatred? There's no argument is there? So, I take my hat off to you, thank you for enterring this discussion and take my leave from debate with you.
There's is no value in it, you are deaf, dumb, blind, ignorant and utterly unmovable.
Enjoy the rapture brother.
Spend a while reading from this website and you'll see where I'm coming from
I charge, and purpose to prove, from unimpeachable texts and historical records, and by authoritative clerical confessions, beyond the possibility of denial, evasion, or refutation:
1. That the Bible, in its every Book, and in the strictest legal and moral sense, is a huge forgery.
2. That every Book of the New Testament is a forgery of the Christian Church; and every significant passage in those Books, on which the fabric of the Church and its principal Dogmas are founded, is a further and conscious later forgery, wrought with definite fraudulent intent.
3. Especially, and specifically, that the “famous Petrine text”—“Upon this Rock I will build my church”—the cornerstone of the gigantic fabric of imposture,—and the other, “Go, teach all nations,”—were never uttered by the Jew Jesus, but are palpable and easily proven late Church forgeries.
4. That the Christian Church, from its inception in the first little Jewish-Christian religious societies until it reached the apex of its temporal glory and moral degradation, was a vast and tireless Forgery-mill.
5. That the Church was founded upon, and through the Dark Ages of Faith has battened on—(yet languishes decadently upon)—monumental and petty forgeries and pious frauds, possible only because of its own shameless mendacity and through the crass ignorance and superstition of the sodden masses of its deluded votaries, purposely kept in that base condition for purposes of ecclesiastical graft and aggrandizement through conscious and most unconscionable imposture.
6. That every conceivable form of religious lie, fraud and imposture has ever been the work of Priests; and through all the history of the Christian Church, as through all human history, has been—and, so far as they have not been shamed out of it by skeptical ridicule and exposure, yet is, the age-long stock in trade and sole means of existence of the priests and ministers of all the religions.
7. That the clerical mind, which “reasons in chains,” is, from its vicious and vacuous “education,” and the special selfish interests of the priestly class, incapable either of the perception or the utterance of truth, in matters where the interests of priestcraft are concerned.
So zebedeo, when you write this:
When Scripture does not support your argument, you insinuate that it was somehow illegitimately "added," even though you have no evidence whatsoever that it was.
I'll stick with the words of the Lord, and you can believe what you want
I say IT WAS ILLEGITIMATELY "ADDED" WITH EVIDENCE - TONS OF IT. So you can stick to the faked words of the Lord if you wish, and I will believe what I want.
And although "Christians" are spoken of in the Talmud, Jesus in definitely NOT.
And Jews do not accept he existed. I can't speak for Muslims.
You should find this site quite eye-opening:
To the person that startyed this - KEEP RELIGION OUT OF THE BODY POLITIC. It is not good for anybody to mix it. It is personal to people and you are inviting comments that do not belong here.
Joe, either here (for the benefit of other newbies) or as a Personal Message (which I've never used so that might be cool) could you please tell me why a religious question is political? Or why I shouldn't ask a religious question on a Religion/Theology forum (admittedly of a political website).
I knew my original post was contentious (even flame-bait) but your argument it shouldn't be HERE seems odd, which I put down to my ignorance.
Please enlighten me.
Ok, I've been reading a lot here from people who either have a friend they want to convert, of beliefs that are so fixed that there's no room for maneouvre, or people that are so open to anything that they try everything, and end up with nothing. (plus many other options, yada yada yada, kiss the atheists)
So, what I want to know is (given that you are what you are, for whatever reasons you got there), what is the best method for enlightening you in another path?
What are the most convincing points, questions, ideals, actions, anything you blooming well like, to convince someone to become a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Atheist, or to convince someone who IS one of those to not be?
Come on, convert me, you know you want to!
(OK, I know that this line of questioning probably isn't in the best ethos of the website, but even so, I'm sure people must have SOME convincing reason/s for BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING in some of our God-options, that are worth sharing and aren't based on emotions)
People and other instituations can do what they like - should do what they like - but the Government of the United States was founded to be non-demoninational and non-god orientated. Take a deeper look at the link in the original post I made, or watch the "So help me God" video clip (centre link) here:
Or go to youtube and do a search for Mike Newdow. There's a series of about 10 episodes in which he gives a talk (I think in Las Vegas) which was wonderful to watch and he's got me converted to his cause on this issue.
The US Government MUST NOT, CAN NOT, SHOULD NOT and ARE ILLEGAL in still doing so, by making legal requirements involving God, allegiance to God, swearing on a bible, restricitions of office and marking coins and notes with words including God.
Dont get me wrong, I'm religious, but the Government must not be.
So help me God....
My eldest is right next to me and I'm going to ask her if she would rather have Xmas or Chanukkah...
"Chanukah" she says, "coz it lasts longer"
I ask if she misses a Xmas tree and she says
"I've never had one so I don't know how to miss it, but I like the lights when I drive past".
When they see presents on TV they just say that's what they want for Chanukah.
They do (I have 3) go to a Jewish school though, so they don't get the normal British bias thrown at them.
Without wishing to offend any delightful DUers of a Christian persuasion who have faith that the New Testament is based on the words, sayings and actions of a Jewish Leader of repute in the year dot, I take no account or reference from it.
As a Jew (and I can speak on this subject on behalf of my religion) "we" do not put ANY authority into the books gathered together as the New Testament. They are a fine body of work, but not religious, not holy, and not important to us religiously.
So when someone says they read about X, Y or Z in "The Bible" I think they mean the Old Testament, because that is all that The Bible is to me (and my fellow Jews) whereas they might be meaning the New Testament or the old, I can't be sure.
The phrase "The Bible" should only refer to the OT in my humble opinion.
I'm fed up with people calling the New Testament "The Bible". To me that title should be restricted to the Old Testament, and the NT can be referred to as The Gospels and other stories, or the Early Christian Texts or something, anything in fact, except "The Bible".
Can I chuck this one in to the pot:
A religion vs B religion are methods of THINKING about "the divine whateverness", and often comes with lots of important "words" and "actions", absolutely none of which are particularly mystical, magical or meaningful in reality. What is important is the THINKING bit.
So any religion (if you "believe" or want to believe or want to think about believing or....) is just the thinking process in some active form - either alone, or in a group, but ultimately (if done honestly) is ONLY DONE IN YOUR MIND.
So, to stop be boring myself, if you are of the might, do and ardently do group, then WHICH religion should be (almost) irrelevent, and if you are of the dont, wont, cant, or dont understand the question group, then it makes no difference what name you give to the NOT group.
In my opinion.
But when I joined DU I certainly wasn't expecting a discussion board like I found. I was looking for a place to discuss ancient history, early christianity and similar period Judaism. Google got it wrong, to my luck.
Therefore I had no expectation of participating in, and having to consider and reconsider my position; and more importantly others position wrt to beliefs. I don't know any outwardly obvious atheists (of the type we find here!) - hell, I don't really know any Christians apart from my brother-in-law and some of the guys down the snooker hall. I certainly don't discuss my deeper thoughts and their deeper thoughts on religion. It is refreshing though I feel the knowledge base of many is surprisingly shy of my expectations for people who have braved posting more than 1000 times!
I enjoy the opportunity to discuss intellectually, and enjoy more than that the chance to get f angry with the bull5hit I have to read and am forced (beyond my ability to control) to reply to!
You said a whole load of tosh about the problem in TRANSLATING the old testament word/s for God in to ENGLISH, but JEWS don't TRANSLATE IT - we understand it IN HEBREW?
When you read the word "ALLAH" in Arabic does your brain say "God" or "Goddess" or "Lord" or "Almighty", it must be a real problem for you to have to translate the word in to English with so many mis-translations confusing the gender and status of your divine leader.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
FL GOP tries to close state pension system to new workers, yet take THEIR pension at 2X accrual rate
FL GOP denies $51 billion federal Medicaid to poor, yet order cheap health care for themselves
Happy Mother's Day
I love DU2!
Florida Senate President Don Gaetz (R) ran company now accused of Medicaid fraud (Rick Scott redux)
Mediterranean diet cuts risk of heart dis-ease
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.