Written by God?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Antigone
Student
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:22 am
Location: western NY

Written by God?

Post #1

Post by Antigone »

Many times I hear Christians say the bible was "written by God." But not all Christians believe this, they believe one of two things instead: it was 'inspired' by God, or it was written by human hands and God had nothing to do with it. I often wonder how such a wide range of views about a religion's sacred text can be held. Its almost as if some people are compromizing so they can continue to be Christian.

Since there is such a wide range of views there must be a reason for it, maybe the Christian's stronge belief that God wrote the bible isn't in the bible; threrfor there is no bases for why they believe this??

This is a two part qeustion:
What is the basis of the belief that God wrote the bible (or inspired it and the very 'fact' he inspired it still means it is all true and NOT wronge in ay respect)? And what would be the 'proof' that God didn't write the bible? (For example, IF you believe the bible is inerrant because God wrote or inspired the bible, what would need to happen or what would you need to see in order to not believe that anymore?)

I look forward to the discussion and debate! 8-[
Mortui non dolent

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #41

Post by Metacrock »

goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:[

I will note there is no quote from the original essay. I will also not that the reputation of the author of the news article is .. high suspect at the very least.

So, using an article by him as your primary source of information I would have to say qualifes as "appeal to authority".. (or maybe, considering Neal Altmans claims and theories, perhaps appeal to quackery).

Altman did not make up the claim about the parody. I will have to get the book. But your arguments are silly. you are just knit picking. So this Almtan guy has a crack pot idea abu that doesnt' mean te Rabbis ideas are wrong.
hey man, you are the one that quoted him for the source.
He didn't even get the details of the book correct. And since you didn't bother to use the correct authors for that book , or the fact that it was just an essay that was contributed, you haven't read that book either.
you no evdience of that


Your posturing is certainly not giving you much credility. If you read the original essay, you would be able to quote from it, rather than rely on a newspaper article written by a quack. Thus far, you haven't shown that the essay said what you claimed it said, and that the essay narrowed down the writing of Rabbi Gamieil to
72 c.e. (That was a comment from an evangalistic person quoted in the newpaper article without support).

If you can show a quote from the essay IN CONTEXT that narrows it down to 72 c.e... I will look further. However, I see nothing but ego saving from you at this point.

the evidence is from the Rabbi not Altman. I will have to get the book. I should have done that.

You still have two other examples to answer. the crack about in conext if not called for because you have no evidence that I took anytyin gout of conext.

you are a liar. the Rabbis says that you no eivdencde he does not.




Christian Evidence, Richard Riss
Ph.D. Drew University
Last modified on December 3, 1996

http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Ris ... 2date.html


The Jews and the Palestinian church were scattered, causing conditions totally different from what one would expect during the time of the writing of these documents.
Because of these considerations and others, in the second half of the twentieth century there was a trend toward an earlier dating of the New Testament. For example, in a 1963 interview with Christianity Today magazine, William F. Albright (1891-1971) stated:


In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)10

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #42

Post by Goat »

Metacrock wrote:
goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:[

I will note there is no quote from the original essay. I will also not that the reputation of the author of the news article is .. high suspect at the very least.

So, using an article by him as your primary source of information I would have to say qualifes as "appeal to authority".. (or maybe, considering Neal Altmans claims and theories, perhaps appeal to quackery).

Altman did not make up the claim about the parody. I will have to get the book. But your arguments are silly. you are just knit picking. So this Almtan guy has a crack pot idea abu that doesnt' mean te Rabbis ideas are wrong.
hey man, you are the one that quoted him for the source.
He didn't even get the details of the book correct. And since you didn't bother to use the correct authors for that book , or the fact that it was just an essay that was contributed, you haven't read that book either.
you no evdience of that


Your posturing is certainly not giving you much credility. If you read the original essay, you would be able to quote from it, rather than rely on a newspaper article written by a quack. Thus far, you haven't shown that the essay said what you claimed it said, and that the essay narrowed down the writing of Rabbi Gamieil to
72 c.e. (That was a comment from an evangalistic person quoted in the newpaper article without support).

If you can show a quote from the essay IN CONTEXT that narrows it down to 72 c.e... I will look further. However, I see nothing but ego saving from you at this point.

the evidence is from the Rabbi not Altman. I will have to get the book. I should have done that.

You still have two other examples to answer. the crack about in conext if not called for because you have no evidence that I took anytyin gout of conext.

you are a liar. the Rabbis says that you no eivdencde he does not.




Christian Evidence, Richard Riss
Ph.D. Drew University
Last modified on December 3, 1996

http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Ris ... 2date.html


The Jews and the Palestinian church were scattered, causing conditions totally different from what one would expect during the time of the writing of these documents.
Because of these considerations and others, in the second half of the twentieth century there was a trend toward an earlier dating of the New Testament. For example, in a 1963 interview with Christianity Today magazine, William F. Albright (1891-1971) stated:


In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)10
OK.. you admit, you do not have the book. Hint: It was not written by that rabbi, he contributed ONE essay to it. (That is mistake number one.. , and yes, YOU have provided the evidence in your cut/paste job). Since you didn't even provide the proper author to the book and 'have to get it', the demosntrates you did not read it.

Yes, altman did not make the information up about the parody. But it sure sounds like he misrepresents it.

Let me repeat myself. He did not quote from the essay. He quoted two 'one liners' about the parody from very conservative scholars. This is 'new' support, according to the newspaper article you provided, but you didn't bother to look up that one of those two conservative scholars died in 1950, and therefore could not have been commenting on an essay that was written for a book published in 1999.

None of your information has done the following (and again, this is a repeat, and two points you are avoiding like that plague.
1) The Talmud was compiled in 400 to 600 c.e. We have no confirmation that Rabbi Gamaliel actually wrote the parody that is attributed to him.
2) Assuming that the attribution is correct, Rabbi Gamaliel ii lived well past 72 c.e.,
(as a matter of fact , moving to Rome in 95 c.e.). There is no reason that Gamaliel could have wrote the parody later than 72 c.e. Therefore the assertion that it had to be written by 72 c.e. if Gamaliel wrote the parody is unsupported.

Now, you can make an opinion all you want.. you have yet to back up any opinion with facts. All you have done is quote a newspaper article that was written by a quack and a flake. Yes, the essay about the parody exists, but using that particular newspaper article as your source about what the implications of that essay, and that parody is frankly is ludacris in the extreme.

You have a tendancy to take single facts , misrepresent them,and then make wild conclusions about them. You ignore other facts that are uncomfortable about your
thesis, and wildly expand upon a little tiny bit of information. I don't consider that very good scholarship at all.

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #43

Post by Metacrock »

goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:[

I will note there is no quote from the original essay. I will also not that the reputation of the author of the news article is .. high suspect at the very least.

So, using an article by him as your primary source of information I would have to say qualifes as "appeal to authority".. (or maybe, considering Neal Altmans claims and theories, perhaps appeal to quackery).

Altman did not make up the claim about the parody. I will have to get the book. But your arguments are silly. you are just knit picking. So this Almtan guy has a crack pot idea abu that doesnt' mean te Rabbis ideas are wrong.
hey man, you are the one that quoted him for the source.
He didn't even get the details of the book correct. And since you didn't bother to use the correct authors for that book , or the fact that it was just an essay that was contributed, you haven't read that book either.
you no evdience of that


Your posturing is certainly not giving you much credility. If you read the original essay, you would be able to quote from it, rather than rely on a newspaper article written by a quack. Thus far, you haven't shown that the essay said what you claimed it said, and that the essay narrowed down the writing of Rabbi Gamieil to
72 c.e. (That was a comment from an evangalistic person quoted in the newpaper article without support).

If you can show a quote from the essay IN CONTEXT that narrows it down to 72 c.e... I will look further. However, I see nothing but ego saving from you at this point.

the evidence is from the Rabbi not Altman. I will have to get the book. I should have done that.

You still have two other examples to answer. the crack about in conext if not called for because you have no evidence that I took anytyin gout of conext.

you are a liar. the Rabbis says that you no eivdencde he does not.




Christian Evidence, Richard Riss
Ph.D. Drew University
Last modified on December 3, 1996

http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Ris ... 2date.html


The Jews and the Palestinian church were scattered, causing conditions totally different from what one would expect during the time of the writing of these documents.
Because of these considerations and others, in the second half of the twentieth century there was a trend toward an earlier dating of the New Testament. For example, in a 1963 interview with Christianity Today magazine, William F. Albright (1891-1971) stated:


In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)10
OK.. you admit, you do not have the book.


I said up front from the begining I dont' have the book stop posturing.

the blog source you quoted said this was a good article and that it is possible that it si from 72. although ti suggested latter dating is possible it did not say definate.


Hint: It was not written by that rabbi, he contributed ONE essay to it. (That is mistake number one.. , and yes, YOU have provided the evidence in your cut/paste job). Since you didn't even provide the proper author to the book and 'have to get it', the demosntrates you did not read it.
you have provided no evidence at all. you assert it. I can't find the book on Amazon so you prve it!

Yes, altman did not make the information up about the parody. But it sure sounds like he misrepresents it.
no it does not you have no way of knowing it and the blog source backed him


Let me repeat myself. He did not quote from the essay. He quoted two 'one liners' about the parody from very conservative scholars. This is 'new' support, according to the newspaper article you provided, but you didn't bother to look up that one of those two conservative scholars died in 1950, and therefore could not have been commenting on an essay that was written for a book published in 1999
.


Just because he didn't quote form it doesn't mean he paraphrase dit wrongly. IF i had the Rabbis words here you would still be carping. If I had the original author you would be carping.
None of your information has done the following (and again, this is a repeat, and two points you are avoiding like that plague.
1) The Talmud was compiled in 400 to 600 c.e. We have no confirmation that Rabbi Gamaliel actually wrote the parody that is attributed to him.
2) Assuming that the attribution is correct, Rabbi Gamaliel ii lived well past 72 c.e.,
(as a matter of fact , moving to Rome in 95 c.e.). There is no reason that Gamaliel could have wrote the parody later than 72 c.e. Therefore the assertion that it had to be written by 72 c.e. if Gamaliel wrote the parody is unsupported.
again you are just lying. everyone knows the Talmud is written from eaeir sources easier sources, soemtimes first century. common knoweldge!



you have nothing. you are blowing gas. you have no other answers. I have other exapmles you have not touched.

there is a ternd to ealry dating of the Gsopels, they are all written much ealier than you want them to be and you carp all you wont on this one source that doesn't impeach it.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #44

Post by Goat »

Metacrock wrote:
goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:[

I will note there is no quote from the original essay. I will also not that the reputation of the author of the news article is .. high suspect at the very least.

So, using an article by him as your primary source of information I would have to say qualifes as "appeal to authority".. (or maybe, considering Neal Altmans claims and theories, perhaps appeal to quackery).

Altman did not make up the claim about the parody. I will have to get the book. But your arguments are silly. you are just knit picking. So this Almtan guy has a crack pot idea abu that doesnt' mean te Rabbis ideas are wrong.
hey man, you are the one that quoted him for the source.
He didn't even get the details of the book correct. And since you didn't bother to use the correct authors for that book , or the fact that it was just an essay that was contributed, you haven't read that book either.
you no evdience of that


Your posturing is certainly not giving you much credility. If you read the original essay, you would be able to quote from it, rather than rely on a newspaper article written by a quack. Thus far, you haven't shown that the essay said what you claimed it said, and that the essay narrowed down the writing of Rabbi Gamieil to
72 c.e. (That was a comment from an evangalistic person quoted in the newpaper article without support).

If you can show a quote from the essay IN CONTEXT that narrows it down to 72 c.e... I will look further. However, I see nothing but ego saving from you at this point.

the evidence is from the Rabbi not Altman. I will have to get the book. I should have done that.

You still have two other examples to answer. the crack about in conext if not called for because you have no evidence that I took anytyin gout of conext.

you are a liar. the Rabbis says that you no eivdencde he does not.




Christian Evidence, Richard Riss
Ph.D. Drew University
Last modified on December 3, 1996

http://www.grmi.org/renewal/Richard_Ris ... 2date.html


The Jews and the Palestinian church were scattered, causing conditions totally different from what one would expect during the time of the writing of these documents.
Because of these considerations and others, in the second half of the twentieth century there was a trend toward an earlier dating of the New Testament. For example, in a 1963 interview with Christianity Today magazine, William F. Albright (1891-1971) stated:


In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)10
OK.. you admit, you do not have the book.


I said up front from the begining I dont' have the book stop posturing.

the blog source you quoted said this was a good article and that it is possible that it si from 72. although ti suggested latter dating is possible it did not say definate.


Hint: It was not written by that rabbi, he contributed ONE essay to it. (That is mistake number one.. , and yes, YOU have provided the evidence in your cut/paste job). Since you didn't even provide the proper author to the book and 'have to get it', the demosntrates you did not read it.
you have provided no evidence at all. you assert it. I can't find the book on Amazon so you prve it!

Yes, altman did not make the information up about the parody. But it sure sounds like he misrepresents it.
no it does not you have no way of knowing it and the blog source backed him


Let me repeat myself. He did not quote from the essay. He quoted two 'one liners' about the parody from very conservative scholars. This is 'new' support, according to the newspaper article you provided, but you didn't bother to look up that one of those two conservative scholars died in 1950, and therefore could not have been commenting on an essay that was written for a book published in 1999
.


Just because he didn't quote form it doesn't mean he paraphrase dit wrongly. IF i had the Rabbis words here you would still be carping. If I had the original author you would be carping.
None of your information has done the following (and again, this is a repeat, and two points you are avoiding like that plague.
1) The Talmud was compiled in 400 to 600 c.e. We have no confirmation that Rabbi Gamaliel actually wrote the parody that is attributed to him.
2) Assuming that the attribution is correct, Rabbi Gamaliel ii lived well past 72 c.e.,
(as a matter of fact , moving to Rome in 95 c.e.). There is no reason that Gamaliel could have wrote the parody later than 72 c.e. Therefore the assertion that it had to be written by 72 c.e. if Gamaliel wrote the parody is unsupported.
again you are just lying. everyone knows the Talmud is written from eaeir sources easier sources, soemtimes first century. common knoweldge!



you have nothing. you are blowing gas. you have no other answers. I have other exapmles you have not touched.

there is a ternd to ealry dating of the Gsopels, they are all written much ealier than you want them to be and you carp all you wont on this one source that doesn't impeach it.
Why should I 'touch' on nonsense. And, you have not demonstrated 'there is a trend to early dating of the gospels'. I know you quote from conservative evangalsitic theologians, but from what I see, their assumptions are more hope than valid.

As for it not being on 'amazon', I found it quite easily. I don't know why you can't find a simple book.



I guess it goes to the ability to actually do research.

stuart shepherd
Apprentice
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:41 pm

Post #45

Post by stuart shepherd »

Southcoast today,com
standard times

Jewish Talmud confirms an early Gospel of Matthew By Neil Altman and David Crowder



An ancient Jewish parody that quotes the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew may refute a major argument by biblical scholars who challenge the credibility of the Bible.

For more than a century, liberal scholars have contended that the Christian gospels are unreliable, secondhand accounts of Jesus' ministry that weren't put on paper until 70 to 135 AD or later -- generations after those who witnessed the events of Jesus' ministry were dead.

Today's more liberal scholars say the Gospel of Matthew may have been aimed at Jews, but it was written in Greek, not Hebrew. They also believe that the Book of Mark, written in Greek, was the original gospel, despite the traditional order of the gospels in the Bible, putting Matthew first.

But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 AD or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew. In his 1999 book, "Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times," Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University states that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 AD, is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew." The Talmud, a text not often touched by New Testament scholars, also contains a number of obvious references to Jesus and his family.

Jesus is called a Nazarene as one of the names given him. Another dubs him Yeshua Ben Pandira, which means Jesus born-of-a-virgin in a combination of Hebrew and Greek. His father was a carpenter, his mother was a hairdresser and Jesus, the Talmud says, was a magician who "led astray Israel." And, it says, he was "hung" on the eve of Passover.

Gamaliel's tale, which happens to portray a Christian judge as corrupt, may be less valuable for its instruction than for casting doubt on the long-held theory that Matthew's gospel, though longer than Mark's, was written years later by someone after the apostle Matthew had died.

When Matthew's gospel to the Hebrews was written is important to biblical conservatives because an early Matthew would strengthen its credibility by making it possible, if not probable, that the tax collector whom Jesus recruited was the first to write and distribute his account of Jesus' birth, ministry and death. Most liberal scholars would say Matthew's gospel didn't come along until 90 AD or later and was in Greek, separating the apostle from the Jews as well as book that bears his name.

But if Gamaliel quoted the Gospel of Matthew, then Matthew "had to be before 70 AD," said Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary.

In Rabbi Gamaliel's story, a daughter whose father had died offers a golden lamp as a bribe to a Christian judge known for his honesty, seeking a decision that would allow her to share her father's estate with her brother. When the judge suggests that dividing the estate would be proper on the basis of a new law that had superseded the ancient Law of Moses, Gamaliel argues that the judge is wrong and loosely quotes a statement attributed to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew.

"Look further in the book, and it is written in it, 'I have not come to take away from the Law of Moses nor add to the Law of Moses ... .' " Gamaliel replies, and wins the case on the basis of that argument or the bribe he gave the judge -- a "Libyan ass."

The Libyan ass itself is a reference to Jesus and the mount he rode into Jerusalem.
The late English scholar, R. Travers Herford, called Gamaliel's story a "brutal parody of Christian belief." In his book, "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash," he points to a second reference to Matthew, in the reaction of the woman who lost the case, despite the golden lamp she gave as a bribe. "Let your light shine as a lamp!" she says, throwing a sarcastic barb at the judge. At Matthew 5:16, just before Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he tells his followers that the lamp of their belief should not be hidden but "let your light shine before men."

Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. He has done graduate work at Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Conwell School of Theology, and Temple University. He has a master's degree in Old Testament from Wheaton Graduate School in Wheaton, Ill., and was an American Studies Fellow at Eastern College. David Crowder is an investigative reporter for the El Paso Times in Texas.

Jewish Sources"Insisting that Jesus, though believed by the Christians to be the Son of God, had taught only a short while before his own time (a short while that is, in comparison with the span of human history I.26), Celsus presented the things he thought a Jew of Jesus' time might have said to him, putting them in the mouth of an imaginary Jewish interlocutor (I.28). This procedure suggest he was drawing on what he believed to be early Jewish tradition; the content of 'the Jew's' remarks proves the suggestion correct. He accused Jesus of having made up the story of his birth from a virgin, whereas actually he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who lived by her spinning. She was thrown out as an adulteress by her husband, a carpenter. Wandering about in disgrace, she secretly gave birth to Jesus, whom she had conceived from a soldier named Panthera. After growing up in Galilee, Jesus went as a hired laborer to Egypt. There he learned some of those magical rites on which the Egyptians pride themselves. He came back [to Palestine] hoping for great things from his powers and because of them proclaimed himself a god (I.28, 38)"
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) pp. 76-77

Ben Pandera
"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

Biblical scholar Morton Smith disagrees that Pandera was based on a pun.

The word parthenos "depends on a Greek translation of Isaiah 7.14; it cannot be derived from the Hebrew with which the rabbis were more familiar. Jesus is never referred to as 'the son of the virgin' in the Christian material preserved from the first century of the Church (30-130), nor in the second -century apologists. To suppose the name Pantera appeared as a caricature of a title not yet in use is less plausible than to suppose it [was] handed down by polemic tradition."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 61

The name Pandera, Pantera or Panthera "is an unusual one, and was thought to be an invention until [a] first century tombstone came to light in Bingerbrück, Germany. The inscription reads: 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera of Sidon, aged 62, a soldier of 40 years' service, of the 1st cohort of archers, lies here'."
- Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

"...Panthera was a common name in the first two centuries of the Christian era, notably as a surname of Roman soldiers....There is no proof that Jesus was referred to by the title bo buios tes parthenous ['son of the virgin'] this early on. It is possible, though, that the accidental similarity of the Infancy Narratives' parthenos to 'Panthera' ...caused 'Panthera' to be picked as the name of the adulterer, once the theme of an adulterous soldier arose in the tradition."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

"Eusebius, about 300, tried to explain 'their' [the Jews] Panthera story as a misunderstanding of scripture, and Epiphanius, a century later, actually gave Panther a legitimate place in the Holy Family - he became the Savior's 'paternal' grandfather! Later Christian writers found other places for him in the same genealogy."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 80

Ben Stada, Born of an Adulteress?

"Jesus said, 'Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore.'"
- Gospel of Thomas 105

"I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress."
- R. Shimeon ben Azzai (ca. 100 C.E.)

"Current editions of the Mishnah [the 'oral' traditions of the rabbis in the Talmud] add: 'To support the words of R. Yehoshua' (who in the same Mishnah, says: What is a bastard? Everyone whose parents are liable to death by the Beth Din).' That Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond doubt..."
- Joseph Klausner, "Jesus of Nazareth"

"Gustav Dalman objects that the whole context is simply a debate over the correct definition of 'bastard', with various opinions appealing to various passages in the OT."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

"'But is it not [the case that] Ben Stada brought magic spells from Egypt in the scratches on his flesh?' They said to him, 'He was a madman and you cannot base laws on [that action of ] madmen.' Was he then the son of Stada? Surely he was the son of Pandira? Rabbi Hisda [a third-century Babylonian] said, 'The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira.' [But was not] the husband Pappos ben Judah? His mother was Stada. [But was not] his mother Miriam (Mary) the hairdresser? [Yes, but she was nicknamed Stada] - as we say in Pumbeditha, 's'tat da (i.e., this one has turned away] from her husband'."
- Rabbi Eliezer

"The original Ben Stada seems to have been a Jew who advocated some cult involving the worship of deities other than Yahweh. He was entrapped by Jews in Lydda, condemned by a rabbinic court, and stoned. Since Jesus also was accused of introducing the worship of other gods - notably himself - he was nicknamed Ben Stada."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) p. 62

"The Tosefta mentions a famous case of a woman named Miriam bat Bilgah marrying a Roman soldier. The idea that Yeishu had been born to a Jewish woman who had had an affair with a Roman soldier probably resulted in Yeishu's mother being confused with this Miriam. The name 'Miriam' is of course the original form of the name 'Mary.' It is in fact known from the Gemara that some of the people who confused Yeishu with ben Stada believed that Yeishu's mother was 'Miriam the women's hairdresser'."
- Hayyim ben Yehoshua, "Refuting Missionaries, Part 1: The Myth of the Historical Jesus"

Hanged as a Sorceror

"...Rabbi Joshua was reciting the Shema when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He [Jesus] thing that it was to repel him, when, put up a brick and worshipped it. 'Repent', said Rabbi Joshua to Jesus.
Jesus replied, 'I have learned this from you: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance'.
And a Rabbi has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray.'"
- Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b

The Talmudhas "accounts of Jesus ben Pandira, who was tricked into trial, then executed as a sorcerer and blasphemer during the days of Roman occupation of Jerusalem (Sanhedrin 67 a.and Shabbath 104 b.)..."
- Discussion about Hyam Maccoby's Revolution in Judea (NETCOM)

"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defence and hanged him on the eve of Passover."
- Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a. Yeb. IV 3; 49a:

(Note that "hanged" here means "hanged on a cross " - crucified.)

This account "agrees with the whole tendency of ancient Jewish sources, which do not deny the existence and execution of Jesus. Indeed, not even the miracles of Jesus are denied, but are rather interpreted as acts of sorcery. The reference to the herald seeking out defense witnesses for forty days may be an apologetic thrust against the canonical Gospels' depiction of arrest, trial, and execution, all in one twenty-four-hour period."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

Of Dubious Historical Value
The Toldot Yeshu or Genealogy of Jesus, "told of a virgin named Miriam, espoused to a man named Yohannan, who was virtually raped by a carpenter, one Yowself ben Pandera, who entered her bed after dark in the guise of her husband. Miriam's bastard child, Yeshu ha-notsriy (Jesus the Nazirite), became a pupil of the greatest rabbi of his day, but while in Egypt misused his learning and became a sorcerer. Current Jewish thinking on the taboo on pronouncing the name Yahweh was evidenced in Yeshu ha-notsriy's learning the ineffable name and pronouncing it to work his evil. Yeshu was hunted by the agent of all that is good, Yahuwdah (Judas), captured through Yahuwdah's efforts (Yahuwdah had also been taught the unspeakable name, and pronounced it against Yeshu), and hanged on a tree. He was buried in a cabbage patch, thereby freeing the world from his evil."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

According to Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the JewishTradition "the Toldot Yeshu or Genealogy of Jesus is a medieval Jewish production for the frequent disputations with Christians that the Jews were forced to have in those times."
- Dennis Stallings (private communication)

"One distinguished rabbi, Eliezer, of the generation that flourished from about A.D. 70-100, is said to have been arrested as an old man on the charge of being a Christian. Reportedly, he submitted his cause to the Roman governor's discretion, was therefore pardoned, and later explained his arrest by the admission that once in Sepphoris, a city of Galilee, a Galilean had told him some heretical teaching 'in the name of Jesus the son of Panteri' to which he had assented. The story goes on to make him confess his quilt in transgressing the rabbinic ordinance prohibiting intercourse with heretics. This is suspicious; the ordinance may be later than the confession. Subsequent versions of the story cite that saying attributed to Jesus: 'From filth they came and to filth they shall return,' and a legal conclusion is drawn from it: the wages of a prostitute, if given to the Temple, may be used for building privies. The saying may be early - it resembles many of the Q sayings in being antithetical, vague, and pompous - the legal conclusion was probably drawn by some second-century rabbi."
- Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God? (1978) pp. 60-61

"He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper market (Tosefta reads 'street') of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads 'Sakkanin') was his name. He said to me, It is written in your Law, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc.' What was to be done with it - a latrine for the High Priest? But I answered nothing. He said to me, so [Jesus of Nazareth] taught me (Tosefta reads, 'Yeshu ben Pantere'): 'For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return'; from the place of filth they come, and until the place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I transgressed against what is written in the Law; 'Keep thy way far from here' - that is Minuth; 'and come not nigh the door of her house' - that is the civil government".
- An early Baraita (in which R. Eliezer is the central figure)
(in the Babylonian Talmud's tractate 'Aboda Zara 16b-17a; cf. Tosefta Hullin 2.24)

"There can be no doubt that the words, 'one of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth,' and 'thus Jesus of Nazareth taught me,' are, in the present passage both early in date and fundamental in their bearing on the story; and their primitive character cannot be disputed on the grounds of the slight variations in the parallel passages; their variants ('Yeshu ben Pantere' or 'Yeshu ben Pandera,' instead of 'Yeshu of Nazareth') are merely due to the fact that, from an early date, the name 'Pantere,' or 'Pandera,' become widely current among the Jews as the name of the reputed father of Jesus."
- Joseph Klausner, "Jesus of Nazareth"

"...The great Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner who wrote earlier in this century [said that] the very few references to Jesus in the Talmudare of little historical worth 'since they partake rather of the nature of vituperation and polemic against the founder of a hated party, than of objective accounts of historical value."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.

Jewish polemic puts the words of Jesus into Balaam's mouth:

"If a man says, 'I am God,' he is a liar, if he says I am the Son of Man,' his end will be such that he will rue it; if he says, 'I shall ascend to heaven,' will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to perform it?'"
- Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea (ca 270)

"... In the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore...when we do finally find such references in later rabbinic literature, they are most probably reactions to Christian claims, oral or written."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1.


Thought this might help.

Stuart Shepherd

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #46

Post by Metacrock »

the problem with this kind of arguent is it is disproven by Celsus. Celsus proves taht the :Talmud does talk about Jesus because he says 'the jews told me it does" and the info that he gave on Jesus alledged history matches what the talmud says abou tall the suppossed Jesus figures.

the thing is the Jews designed into the Talmud a plausable deniablity. that way, through self censorship, they can talka bout Jesus and not be persecuted becaue they an say "this is isn't JEsus' but they all know it is.

how do we know? because a rabbinical synod in the 1600's in Poland commanded the censor and it sai to take out all the refernce sot Jesus of Nazerath and replace them with litlte 0's. so we know what is about Jesus and what is not.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #47

Post by Goat »

Metacrock wrote:the problem with this kind of arguent is it is disproven by Celsus. Celsus proves taht the :Talmud does talk about Jesus because he says 'the jews told me it does" and the info that he gave on Jesus alledged history matches what the talmud says abou tall the suppossed Jesus figures.

the thing is the Jews designed into the Talmud a plausable deniablity. that way, through self censorship, they can talka bout Jesus and not be persecuted becaue they an say "this is isn't JEsus' but they all know it is.

how do we know? because a rabbinical synod in the 1600's in Poland commanded the censor and it sai to take out all the refernce sot Jesus of Nazerath and replace them with litlte 0's. so we know what is about Jesus and what is not.
Let's see your source on this .. It is as good as your article by Neil Altman?

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #48

Post by Metacrock »

goat wrote:
Metacrock wrote:the problem with this kind of arguent is it is disproven by Celsus. Celsus proves taht the :Talmud does talk about Jesus because he says 'the jews told me it does" and the info that he gave on Jesus alledged history matches what the talmud says abou tall the suppossed Jesus figures.

the thing is the Jews designed into the Talmud a plausable deniablity. that way, through self censorship, they can talka bout Jesus and not be persecuted becaue they an say "this is isn't JEsus' but they all know it is.

how do we know? because a rabbinical synod in the 1600's in Poland commanded the censor and it sai to take out all the refernce sot Jesus of Nazerath and replace them with litlte 0's. so we know what is about Jesus and what is not.
Let's see your source on this .. It is as good as your article by Neil Altman?

Maybe its' just my Texas stuborness, but I still think there is more to be gotten out of the Talmud than just an argument form silence, although the Jesus Myther's have no room to complain about that. Still, we can see the Talmud is Plainly talking about Jesus of Nazerath. First, Rabbis have never deneid it. Rabbis have using the talmudis stories of Jesus for centuries to illustraet the problems with Christianity. Secondly, they were confident enough that this was Jesus that they actually took the mentions of name out at one point to avoid attacks by anti-semetic Christians.


Sam Shamoun

"Jesus in Rabbinic Traditions"


"It is not surprising to find the Talmud referring to Jesus, his mother and his disciples. In fact, some of the material coincides with the NT depiction of Jesus and the Jewish ruling council's assessment of his person and mission. The following statements are taken from the Soncino edition of the Babylon Talmud as cited in Robert A. Morey's pamphlet Jesus in the Mishnah and Talmud. We will also be using Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson's He Walked Among Us unless noted otherwise."

"Before proceeding, we must point out that at one time the following Talmudic references were believed to have been lost. This is due to the fact that in the seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:"

"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates: Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’"

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.

As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)



It seems pretty obvious that the Talmud is discussing Jesus, at least in some enstances. A summary of what the most liley passages say about theone I take to be Jesus of Nazerath makes this clear:

a Summary of what is said about the charactors who seem go by these names:



*He was born under unusual circumstances, leading some rabbis to address him as ben Pandira and " a bastard of an adulteress."
*mother Mary was Heli's daughter.
*was crucified on the eve of Passover.
* made himself alive by the name of God.
* was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)
* claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
* ascended and claimed that he would return again.
* was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
* had at least five disciples.
* performed miracles, i.e. practiced "sorcery".
* name has healing power.
* teaching impressed one rabbi.
The Talmud essentially affirms the New Testament teaching on the life and person of Jesus Christ, God's unique Son and Savior of the world.



Before going into that we need to understand what we are looking for. The Talmudic writters don't say "O Jesus of Nazerath is who we are talking about." The counch things in langaue form their world is very different to anything modern Christian would expect to find. they have many nicknames for Jesus, both as derogatory and as part of the self censering. soem of these can be translated as "may his name be blotted out" Others are of doubtful origin, but it is asserted strongly by Rabbis over the centuries that they are Talking about Jesus.Some of htese names include:

*Such-an-one
*Pantera
*Ben Stada
*Yeshu
*Ben Pantira








II. Celsus


Celsus demonstrates a connection to the material of the Talmud, indicating that that material about Jesus was around in a leaast the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been reidaly avaible to Celsus it seems reasonable to assume that this information had been floating around for some time, and easier to obtain. Therefore, we can at least went back to the early second, late frist century.


Origin quoting Celsus: Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."


So we estabilsh:

(1) Mary was poor and worked with her hands

(2) husband was a carpenter

(3)Mary committed adultary with Roman soldier named Panthera. (where have we heard this before?)

(4) Jesus as bastard

(5) driven to Egypt where Jesus leanred magic.


All of these points are made in the Talmudic passages. This can be seen both above and on the next page. The use of the name Panthera is a dead give away. Clearly Celsus got this info from the Talmud. Christians never used the name Panthera. He could only hae gotten it form the Talmud and these are very charges the Talmudists made.

Here is a mishna passage, which makes most of the points. Being from the Mishna it would draw upon first century material:


MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.] (Shabbath 104b)



In fact Origin himself almost hints at spcial knowledge of Jesus "ture" origns, what would that knowldge be? Christian knolwege would be posative and not contian many of the poitns, such as Mary being a spinner or hair dresser. No Christians ever said that. It was suspect for a woman to work. That's an insutl to her.

The following quotes are taken from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987:

Celsus:


"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?" (57).


why a Jew? or Philospher? Celsus was obviously reading the jewish sources. This is one of the charges made in the Talmud.

Here he claims to have secret knowledge that Christians don't have:


"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)." (62).


where is that from? It has to be the Talmud, or sources commonly drawn upon by the Talmud.


But how does this prove it was Jesus? Celsus sure thought it was. Apparently his Jeiwsh contracts told him this is the staright scoup on Jesus' life. We see that everyhwere in the Talmud Jesus is talked about as a living person,and connections are made to his family and geneology.

Celsus pushes the knoledge back to late second century, but due to the aviability or Rabbinical writtings it must have been around for some time before that. The Jews were very consicous of geneologies and family connections. why wouldthey not pick up on the fact that Jesus had none and no one had ever seen him personaly, if indeed that was the case?

stuart shepherd
Apprentice
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:41 pm

Post #49

Post by stuart shepherd »

Let me give you my opinion.
I think that Jesus existed. Although he was just a man preaching to his countrymen.
The issue of his birth was well known at the time Jesus was alive. He was known to be a bastard.
Look at the following Scripture.
John 8:41 (New American Standard Bible)
41"You are doing the deeds of your father " They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
The Jews are saying that they are of legitimate birth but in a back-handed way they are saying that Jesus is a bastard.

Look at the following.
Mark 6:3 (New American Standard Bible)
3"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him
Mark which was the first Gospel, refers to Jesus as the "carpenter."
He is referred to as the son of Mary. This was how a bastard was identified. A son of legitimate birth was a son of his father.

But look how Matthew deals with this verse.
Matthew 13:55 (New American Standard Bible)
55"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Matthew edits the verse to "clean up" the stigma of Jesus being a bastard.

I believe that it was well known that Jesus was a bastard at the time when he was alive.

Stuart Shepherd

User avatar
Metacrock
Guru
Posts: 1144
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: Dallas

Post #50

Post by Metacrock »

stuart shepherd wrote:Let me give you my opinion.
I think that Jesus existed. Although he was just a man preaching to his countrymen.
The issue of his birth was well known at the time Jesus was alive. He was known to be a bastard.
Look at the following Scripture.
John 8:41 (New American Standard Bible)
41"You are doing the deeds of your father " They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."
The Jews are saying that they are of legitimate birth but in a back-handed way they are saying that Jesus is a bastard.

that doesn't prove he was a bastard of course they would think he was. You would have to either that or believe he was sent by God. The rumor started becasue people in Mary's youth knew she was preggers without being married and that Jo was going to put her away, but then suddenly didn't. So they would think He's just beign a nice guy. who would think "O she must be made with child by the Holy spirit of course!"
Look at the following.
Mark 6:3 (New American Standard Bible)
3"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him
Mark which was the first Gospel, refers to Jesus as the "carpenter."
He is referred to as the son of Mary. This was how a bastard was identified. A son of legitimate birth was a son of his father.

what they would have assumed is not necessarily the case.

But look how Matthew deals with this verse.
Matthew 13:55 (New American Standard Bible)
55"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Matthew edits the verse to "clean up" the stigma of Jesus being a bastard.

I believe that it was well known that Jesus was a bastard at the time when he was alive.

Stuart Shepherd
of cosure the author of Matthew would have heard the answer to the rumor by the time he wrote his gospel.

Post Reply