PDA

View Full Version : Oldest bible goes online.




jbrace
07-07-2009, 01:32 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html

Found it pretty interesting. What do you guys think?

erowe1
07-07-2009, 05:11 AM
That's a great resource.

Unfortunately the article is sensationalistic, really overplaying the differences between this particular Greek codex and the Bibles Christians today can buy in a bookstore. Before the printing press all books were copied by hand and no two were ever exactly alike, including no 2 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But at points in the article I thought the author tried to imply that Codex Sinaiticus had vastly different readings that hadn't been taken into account in the publication of modern Bibles, which is totally false. In fact, modern Bibles are based on critical Greek editions of the text that are made by scholars who hold Codex Sinaiticus in extremely high regard and who give each difference it has with other manuscripts close consideration. Plus, if this codex by itself were translated into English, and you handed it to any given Christian today, even Christians who know the Bible well, they would be hard pressed to find any difference with the Bible they know, and there's no major Christian doctrine, including the resurrection of Jesus, which the writer mentioned, that they wouldn't find in Codex Sinaiticus.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 05:56 AM
Luke 1:26"Nazareth" is called "a city of Judea"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus



Luke 1:26-38 (King James Version)

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.




The Wikipedia quotes below summarize reading that I have done over the years. Note that they reflect a later view of "Nazarenes", not one contemporary with Yeshua. I have repeatedly stated that I believe that the biographical details of the synoptics were added in order to enhance Roman deification of Yeshua.

The term Nazorean was associated with Yeshua in the oral tradition. The Romans had to explain it in some way, so they put him in "Nazareth", a town that did not exist at the time of his birth.

The snip concerning the Essenes is from a religious group whose beliefs concerning the Bible and the person of Yeshua are similar to mine. These beliefs make much more sense (logically, internally when studying the Bible, and in context of other known history) than recounting a miracle that took place in a town that did not exist. Why was is so important for the Biblical redactors to explain away the term "Nazarene"? I believe it was important becuase it points directly to the gnostic traditions in the teachings of Yeshua and the True Gospel as contained in his teachings. The second, false gospel of pagan Rome (compare to Mithraism) is then clearly identifiable as "anti-Christ" or against the Mossiach Yeshua and his teachings.



The Essenes, The Nazarenes


At the time of Jesus, there were three major Jewish Sects. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were relatively similar in their beliefs and traditions, but the Essenes were radically different and openly opposed the theology, doctrines, and the spiritual integrity of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

There are numerous historical, literary and archaeological accounts of the existence of the Essenes, yet the bible is strangely silent about them. We know of their specific geographic locations throughout Egypt and ancient Palestine, we know of their customs and traditions, and we know the details of their deeply rooted spiritual convictions and of their esoteric religious beliefs.

The word Essene is a collective term and is not necessarily a distinctive designation, just as the word Christian encompasses a wide base of institutionalized systems of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices. There are currently over 34,000 separate Christian groups that have been identified throughout the world. Most are independent churches.

At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.

The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.

The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied.

Josephus and other classic writers tell us of the Essenes and their intense appreciation for the inspired Law of God and that they "strove to be like the angels of heaven." They also opposed slavery, the sacrificing of animals and the eating of flesh. Their highest aim was to become fit temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 6:19), to be healers and perform cures, especially spiritual cures, and to be spiritually qualified as forerunners of the Messiah, the latter being the primary spiritual focus of the Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.


http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm


The Nazarene sect (Ναζωραίων from Hebrew נזרים) used in the Book of Acts, clearly referred to both Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus' Apostles. A related term, ΝΑΖΩΡΑΙΟΙ, were an early Jewish Christian sect similar to the Ebionites, in that they maintained their adherence to the Torah, but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth of Jesus. [1][2].

The writings below explain the sect of Nazarenes from a mindset of Greek origins which is the most prevalent opinion upon most scholars today. There exists, however, a small remnant of scholars and students that favor a Hebraic Roots type of thinking which allows for the thinking that all inspired scripture was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic (see Aramaic primacy). This being the case, their "New Testament" texts are all based from Aramaic sources[citation needed]. This movement rejects the traditional "Jesus" of Christianity viewpoint, and most practices associated with it. To begin with, they much prefer to use the original Hebrew name of Jesus, Yeshua, or Yahushua, which means "Yah is Salvation".




History
The Nazarenes were originally Jewish converts of the Apostles[5] who fled Jerusalem because of Jesus' warning of its coming seige. They fled to Pella, Peraea (which is northeast of Jerusalem), and eventually spread outwards to Beroea and Bashanitis, where they permanently settled.[6]

There, they and the other disciples took the name "Jessaeans" and began distinguishing themselves from them. They took this name either because of Jesse, the father of David, to fulfill Psalm 132:11[7], or from the name of Jesus himself[8].

Once the term Christian was applied to the followers of Jesus at Antioch, the Nazoreans dropped the name Jessaean and Christian, and retook the name Nazarene[9].

Even though they had distinguished themselves from the Christians, and had kept their Jewish practices[10], they were persecuted by the Jews because of their belief in Jesus. Epiphanius of Salamis writes: “Yet these are very much the Jews’ enemies. Not only do Jewish people have a hatred of them; they even stand up at dawn, at midday, and toward evening, three times a day when they recite their prayers in the synagogues, and curse and anathematize them. Three times a day they say, 'God curse the Nazoraeans.' For they harbor an extra grudge against them, if you please, because despite their Jewishness, they preach that Jesus is the Christ – the opposite of those who are still Jews, for they have not accepted Jesus.”[11]

Jerome and Epiphanius both wrote how the Nazarene sect existed in their day[12][13], the late fouth century. However, little is known how their sect dissapeared.

Used Hebrew and Aramaic NT source texts
They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

– Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.9.4

And he [Heggesippus the Nazarene] quotes some passages from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and from the Syriac [the Aramaic], and some particulars from the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the oral tradition of the Jews.

– Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 4.22




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)




[edit] The skeptical position
Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[39] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[40]
Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.
Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).
Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
Zindler's view is historically possible if Nazareth came into existence at about the same time—or at least not long before—the New Testament gospels were being written and redacted. For those gospel writers who do mention Nazareth, most scholars place their work between the two Jewish-Roman wars (70 AD-132 AD), which is also the earliest possible dating for the Roman (kokh-type) tombs in the Nazareth basin (see "Earliest history & archaeological evidence" above).

Some historians have called into question the traditional association of Nazareth with the life of the historical Jesus. Instead, they suggest that what was known of Jesus in his own time as a title, that is, (Nazarene, or even, perhaps, 'Nazarite'), was, in later times, corrupted into a cognomen of place; thereby, in effect—and apparently by design—assigning Nazareth to him as his hometown. For discussion of the cognate, see Nazarene.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth


In the New American Standard Bible translation, Jesus is called the Nazarene in Matthew 2:23; Mark 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Luke 24:19; John 18:5; 18:7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8. According to Acts 24:1-9, Paul of Tarsus was apprehended and accused by the attorney of the Jerusalem High Priest Ananias and Pharisaic Jews of being "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". In all, the following derivations have been suggested:

The place-name Nazara (which later became Nazareth), as in the Greek form Iesous Nazarenos. This is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. Matthew 2:23 reads that "and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene"" (NIV) (Greek is Ναζωραῖος/Nazoraios).
The word nazur means separate in Aramaic. The word is related to Nazir. There are a number of references to Nazirites/Nazarites in the Old Testament and New Testament. A Nazarite (נְזִיר) was a Jew who had taken special vows of dedication to the Lord whereby he abstained for a specified period of time from using alcohol and grape products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water[citation needed]. Thus the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-15) by his relative John the Baptist could have been done "to fulfil all righteousness" at the ending of a nazirite vow. However, following his baptism, the gospels give no reason to suppose Jesus took another Nazirite vow until The Last Supper, (see Mark 14:25). Luke 1:15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazarite from birth. James the Just was described as a Nazarite in Epiphanius of Salamis' Panarion 29.4.1. In Acts 21:23-26 Paul of Tarsus is advised to accompany four men having "a vow on them" (a Nazarite vow) to Herod's Temple and to purify himself in order that it might appear that "that you yourself also walk orderly". This event was the reason why in Acts 24:5-18 Paul was accused of being a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (and further verifies that the term Nazarene was connected to the term Nazarite). However, Epiphanius specifically rejects the connection between the terms Nazarene and Nazarite[4].
The word nazara, "truth", another gnostic concept popularized through the Gospel of Philip: "The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarenos' is "The One of the Truth" ..." (Gospel of Philip, 47)
Alongside the three traditional explanations above, two more recent explanations have been suggested:

The word nosri which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes" the same name used by spiritual leaders (see for example Yeshu Ha-Notzri) of a pre-Christian gnostic sect which evolved into the Mandaean religion (as in Jeremiah 31:5-6 נֹצְרִים). This explanation had become popular among Protestants towards the end of the 20th century. However, the Greek letter ζ (zeta) is always used in Koine transliterations of ז (zayin) but never צ (tsade) which is always represented by a σ (sigma) instead.
The Greek transliteration Ναζαρηνος (Nazareinos, from which the English "Nazarene" derived) of Neitzër (נצר), which is the Hebrew term meaning "offshoot(s)", especially from the branches of an olive tree (instead referring to a wicker in Modern Hebrew). which appears in Isaiah chapters 11.1 and 60.21. This derivation is popular among some of the late 20th century's Messianic Jewish groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

T

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 06:06 AM
The beliefs of the orthodox Christians (those who accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the deification of Yeshua that were decreed by Rome) depend on traditions and manuscripts in the custody of the Vatican. Still, variants exist and through the study of those variants scholars try to reconstruct the original documents as they existed before redaction by Rome.

The Christian Nazarenes disappeared and so did their Hebrew and Aramaic texts. One must ask why do we not have the words of Yeshua in his native language? Would not these manuscripts be precious to a religion supposedly based on his teachings?

Why does the apostle Paul seem to be totally ignorant of the miracles in the synoptic gospels?

Could it be because he had never heard of them?

erowe1
07-07-2009, 06:14 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus




The Wikipedia quotes below summarize reading that I have done over the years. Note that they reflect a later view of "Nazarenes", not one contemporary with Yeshua. I have repeatedly stated that I believe that the biographical details of the synoptics were added in order to enhance Roman deification of Yeshua.

The term Nazorean was associated with Yeshua in the oral tradition. The Romans had to explain it in some way, so they put him in "Nazareth", a town that did not exist at the time of his birth.

The snip concerning the Essenes is from a religious group whose beliefs concerning the Bible and the person of Yeshua are similar to mine. These beliefs make much more sense (logically, internally when studying the Bible, and in context of other known history) than recounting a miracle that took place in a town that did not exist. Why was is so important for the Biblical redactors to explain away the term "Nazarene"? I believe it was important becuase it points directly to the gnostic traditions in the teachings of Yeshua and the True Gospel as contained in his teachings. The second, false gospel of pagan Rome (compare to Mithraism) is then clearly identifiable as "anti-Christ" or against the Mossiach Yeshua and his teachings.




http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)

T

I don't know why you don't think the town of Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus, but the archeologists who work there say it did:
http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research/content/site-archaeology
The only sources I can find that say otherwise are utterly disreputable unscientific conspiracy rags that say things like "Jesus never existed," and that give no evidence that they know anything about archeology or dating artifacts.

Like I said, no 2 handmade copies are alike. Codex Sinaiticus contains errors. The reading about Nazareth being a town in Judea may be one. On the other hand, it could be the original reading, which would mean that Luke used Judea in the broad sense to include Galilee (which clearly was the also territory of the Judeans). At any rate, if you're still pushing this idea of some Roman church changing the Bible, then you should totally throw out Codex Sinaiticus. Because this codex, perhaps more than any other, save for Codex Vaticanus, deserves to be considered a likely candidate for one of the Bibles Constantine ordered made. So appealing to unique readings in it as though they are better than the readings found in the KJV or any other version, is the opposite of what you would want to do.

erowe1
07-07-2009, 06:31 AM
The beliefs of the orthodox Christians (those who accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the deification of Yeshua that were decreed by Rome) depend on traditions and manuscripts in the custody of the Vatican. Still, variants exist and through the study of those variants scholars try to reconstruct the original documents as they existed before redaction by Rome.

The Christian Nazarenes disappeared and so did their Hebrew and Aramaic texts. One must ask why do we not have the words of Yeshua in his native language? Would not these manuscripts be precious to a religion supposedly based on his teachings?

Why does the apostle Paul seem to be totally ignorant of the miracles in the synoptic gospels?

Could it be because he had never heard of them?

I have to ask when this Roman deification of Jesus happened? And how did this little church in Rome have the authority to affect what Christians elsewhere believed? After all, the belief in the divinity of Jesus is clearly found in the very earliest Christian books we have, the epistles of Paul, as well as in the Gospels, and in passages that are not matters of any textual dispute, and that are found in manuscripts that date to well before the time of Constantine, and before any church in Rome ever had the authority to change what the various copies of these books all throughout the world (including places outside the Roman empire altogether) had. The divinity of Jesus is also found in plenty of other Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (including in writings that are older than the Gospel of Thomas), such as the Book of Revelation, the epistles of Ignatius, 1 Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Melito of Sardis.

As for the miracles of Jesus, which again we find in the oldest manuscripts, including many that are much older than Constantine, Paul doesn't say much about what Jesus did in his earthly life. He has a few passages that refer to things Jesus said, and he says a great deal about his death and resurrection. I don't know why you wouldn't count Jesus' resurrection as a miracle. But as for his other miracles, there is no occasion Paul would have to talk about them in his epistles. There's nothing remarkable about that fact. He does talk about the apostles performing miracles. And the idea that Jesus was a miracle worker is clearly one that goes back to the historical Jesus, not only from the historical evidence we can gather from the Gospels, but even from what Josephus, a nonchristian Jewish historian writing around 90 AD, says about what the Christians of his day believed.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 06:36 AM
I don't know why you don't think the town of Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus, but the archeologists who work there say it did:
http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research/content/site-archaeology
The only sources I can find that say otherwise are utterly disreputable unscientific conspiracy rags that say things like "Jesus never existed," and that give no evidence that they know anything about archeology or dating artifacts.

Like I said, no 2 handmade copies are alike. Codex Sinaiticus contains errors. The reading about Nazareth being a town in Judea may be one. On the other hand, it could be the original reading, which would mean that Luke used Judea in the broad sense to include Galilee (which clearly was the also territory of the Judeans). At any rate, if you're still pushing this idea of some Roman church changing the Bible, then you should totally throw out Codex Sinaiticus. Because this codex, perhaps more than any other, save for Codex Vaticanus, deserves to be considered a likely candidate for one of the Bibles Constantine ordered made. So appealing to unique readings in it as though they are better than the readings found in the KJV or any other version, is the opposite of what you would want to do.

But history supports the fact that it is not an error and the later additions of "Nazareth" as his birthplace are intentional errors.

The site you quoted in support is a tourist promo for modern day Nazereth. Not what I'd call credible.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 06:40 AM
Joseph Wallack Says:
2009/06/07 at 2:53 am | Reply

rey:
“Wikipedia makes a claim that Origen doesn’t mention Nazareth, although he does when quoting the gospel of Matthew in his commentary. Were you confused about this claim,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

“The 3rd century Christian apologist Origen, who lived in Caesarea – less than 30 miles away – mentions Nazareth several times but gives no indication of knowing where it is.[63]”

JW:
A question (”Were you confused about this claim”) you would be better off asking yourself.

The evidence that Origen did not know where the Biblical Nazareth was:

1) Origen’s “evidence” in general is writings and not oral evidence. There is no known extant writing Origen could have used to know the location of the Biblical Nazareth.

2) Origen, by the standards of the time, would have been within walking distance of Nazareth yet he shows no evidence of knowing exactly where it was.

3) Origen usually spells it “Nazara”.

4) The Fathers before and after Origen, especially Eusebius, likewise in Caesarea, also show no evidence of knowing exactly where it was.

5) Helen, contemporary to Eusebius, specifically looks for supposed historical Jesus locations and the Fathers were not able to help her.

Have I proven that Origen did not know where Nazareth was? No. But I have indicated that the evidence he did not is better than the evidence he did. So I have demonstrated it likely that Origen did not have a clue where exactly Nazareth was.

Joseph


http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/reviewing-a-scholarly-review-of-rene-salms-the-myth-of-nazareth/

The link is for an article

Reviewing a Scholarly Review of Rene Salm’s The Myth of Nazareth
By neilgodfrey

The snip is from the discussion. Those who believe the Bible is largely a work of Roman fiction comprise a very large and very learned academic community.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 06:47 AM
I have to ask when this Roman deification of Jesus happened? And how did this little church in Rome have the authority to affect what Christians elsewhere believed? After all, the belief in the divinity of Jesus is clearly found in the very earliest Christian books we have, the epistles of Paul, as well as in the Gospels, and in passages that are not matters of any textual dispute, and that are found in manuscripts that date to well before the time of Constantine, and before any church in Rome ever had the authority to change what the various copies of these books all throughout the world (including places outside the Roman empire altogether) had. The divinity of Jesus is also found in plenty of other Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (including in writings that are older than the Gospel of Thomas), such as the Book of Revelation, the epistles of Ignatius, 1 Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Melito of Sardis.

As for the miracles of Jesus, which again we find in the oldest manuscripts, including many that are much older than Constantine, Paul doesn't say much about what Jesus did in his earthly life. He has a few passages that refer to things Jesus said, and he says a great deal about his death and resurrection. I don't know why you wouldn't count Jesus' resurrection as a miracle. But as for his other miracles, there is no occasion Paul would have to talk about them in his epistles. There's nothing remarkable about that fact. He does talk about the apostles performing miracles. And the idea that Jesus was a miracle worker is clearly one that goes back to the historical Jesus, not only from the historical evidence we can gather from the Gospels, but even from what Josephus, a nonchristian Jewish historian writing around 90 AD, says about what the Christians of his day believed.

The writings the Roman Church has preserved are those that support its Christology. The writings that the Roman Church has destroyed or redacted to fit are those which would discredit Roman Christology. Bible students who approach the Bible from a perspective of blind religious belief will find what they are looking for in the preserved Roman tradition. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Why don't I accept the crucifixion and resurrection myth? Primarily on logical grounds. A capricious god who changes the rules and requires blood sacrifice for "salvation" is a pagan god and inconsistent with the loving Father and the Good News of Yeshua's teachings.

Josephus - Roman Church controlled custody, redaction is obvious to everyone except those who refuse to look for it.

erowe1
07-07-2009, 06:49 AM
But history supports the fact that it is not an error and the later additions of "Nazareth" as his birthplace are intentional errors.

The site you quoted in support is a tourist promo for modern day Nazereth. Not what I'd call credible.

It is the most credible place we could go. Modern day Nazareth is on the site of ancient Nazareth, where the ancient village of Nazareth has been and still is being excavated and studied by top archeologists, whose names are listed on that site here:
http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research/content/archaeology
In the other link I gave you they talk about the dating of the habitation of the village as being from 2nd c. BC - 1st c. AD.
http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research/content/site-archaeology
You can check any reputable work on the archeology of Nazareth that you want. You won't find any that say it was unoccupied when Jesus lived.

The fact that the link I gave you appeals to tourists to visit this site is beside the point. Visiting archeological sites, particularly those that relate to the life of Jesus is one of the main thing tourists in Israel do.

The bulk of the historical evidence (and make no mistake, the canonical Gospels are by far the most valuable sources we have for this particular historical question), is that Jesus was called a Nazarene because he lived in Nazareth. This claim is not based on a single reading of a single verse in Luke. It is abundantly supported by many passages all through all 4 gospels, including other passages in Luke. It is positively impossible that the idea of Jesus living in a village called Nazareth is completely the result of later additions to the gospels. And no scholar of the gospels disagrees on this point. Whether he was actually born there is a separate question (Luke doesn't actually claim he was, btw). The early Christian sect was called the Nazarenes, possibly for another reason, but most likely after the name of their founder, Jesus the Nazarene (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth).

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 06:53 AM
The bulk of the historical evidence (and make no mistake, the canonical Gospels are by far the most valuable sources we have for this particular historical question), is that Jesus was called a Nazarene because he lived in Nazareth. This claim is not based on a single reading of a single verse in Luke. It is abundantly supported by many passages all through all 4 gospels, including other passages in Luke. It is positively impossible that the idea of Jesus living in a village called Nazareth is completely the result of later additions to the gospels. And no scholar of the gospels disagrees on this point. Whether he was actually born there is a separate question (Luke doesn't actually claim he was, btw). The early Christian sect was called the Nazarenes, possibly for another reason, but most likely after the name of their founder, Jesus the Nazarene (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth).

Then your sole argument is "The Bible is true and historically accurate because the Bible says it is true and it contains some old history".

erowe1
07-07-2009, 07:01 AM
The writings the Roman Church has preserved are those that support its Christology. The writings that the Roman Church has destroyed or redacted to fit are those which would discredit Roman Christology. Bible students who approach the Bible from a perspective of blind religious belief will find what they are looking for in the preserved Roman tradition. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Why don't I accept the crucifixion and resurrection myth? Primarily on logical grounds. A capricious god who changes the rules and requires blood sacrifice for "salvation" is a pagan god and inconsistent with the loving Father and the Good News of Yeshua's teachings.

Josephus - Roman Church controlled custody, redaction is obvious to everyone except those who refuse to look for it.

First of all, you're inconsistent in your claims. Is the role of the Roman church just one of selectively preserving certain sources that teach the divinity of Jesus? Or did the Roman church actually invent the doctrine whole cloth and then insert it into the earlier sources? The latter is what you argued before, and now in the light of the evidence I presented proving that the doctrine clearly existed prior to the Roman church being able to do that you have fallen back on the former. I don't deny that doctrinal concerns have something to do with which books have been preserved. But evidence is still evidence. And you can't take the evidence we actually have and try to put it below the non-existent evidence that you believe was destroyed because of a conspiracy theory you have but can't prove about something one church in one city did to somehow change the books in all the other churches.

The passage I refer to in Josephus is also one that's been subjected to a great deal of study. It's not just a matter of whether it underwent some redaction at some points. It's also a matter of identifying what those points are. Where he talks about Jesus there may be some additions made, but there is also something that clearly was original. Scholars who have studied this in recent years have come to a consensus that the bit about Christians of that day believing Jesus performed miracles is original. They have powerful arguments in favor of that view. If you're open-minded enough to read them you'll see. If you prefer to restrict yourself to disreputable conspiracy sites, then it really doesn't matter what the evidence is anyway.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:03 AM
http://www.allgodspeople.com/madison/ancient-synagogues-in-the-land-of-israel.html

Interesting comments about the mingling of pagan tradition in Jewish synagogues, attributed to Christian influence. It also supports my belief that the Nazareth "synagogue" is irrelevant to Biblical history and a tourist attraction.


Synagogues that were clearly built for religious purposes don't appear in the archaeological record until the fourth century, Magness stated. "What happened in the fourth century to change this?" she asked. Christianity was declared the official religion of the Roman Empire and a competition for the allegiance of Jewish residents of Palestine intensified between Judaism and Christianity.

She attributes the mosaic depictions of a circular zodiac centered around an image of Helios, the sun or the sun god, found in the ruins of several synagogues of this period, to this competition. Domed churches were being built with depictions of Christ Pantokrater (Jesus the Almighty) in the center. She believes the zodiac was "an attempt to depict in two dimensions, a three dimensional concept," and when Jewish worshipers saw the mosaic zodiac centered on Helios, they would see it representing the sun in the midst of heaven.

No synagogue at Capernaum at the time of Jesus either it seems.


Magness also said that the most well-known ancient synagogue in Israel, the half-reconstructed synagogue in Capernaum, is not quite as old as is generally believed. Most archaeologists date it to the second or third century A.D., based on its design. However, recent archaeology done by the Franciscan overseers of the site has uncovered literally tens of thousands of coins under the flagstone flooring, coins that date to the fifth century.

"What they found has come as a shock to everybody," she said. "It has created an uproar. Many of my Jewish colleagues have refused to accept the evidence."

Modern visitors to the ruins of Capernaum are told that the ruins of the synagogue from Jesus time are underneath the synagogue that is seen today. There are remains of first century buildings underneath. But Magness claims "nothing in the archaeological record would show the ruins as a synagogue."

erowe1
07-07-2009, 07:04 AM
Then your sole argument is "The Bible is true and historically accurate because the Bible says it is true and it contains some old history".

The criteria for historicity of various aspects of Jesus life are also the subject of massive amounts of scholarly writing. Dealing with the gospels as historical sources that can be sifted by these criteria does not presuppose that they are always historically accurate. But on some points they more clearly are than on others. And the point of Jesus being from a town called Nazareth is beyond dispute.

erowe1
07-07-2009, 07:06 AM
http://www.allgodspeople.com/madison/ancient-synagogues-in-the-land-of-israel.html

Interesting comments about the mingling of pagan tradition in Jewish synagogues, attributed to Christian influence. It also supports my belief that the Nazareth "synagogue" is irrelevant to Biblical history and a tourist attraction.



No synagogue at Capernaum at the time of Jesus either it seems.

Magness is in the minority of scholarship on that point. We have synagogues from the Herodium and Masada that clearly were from before 70 AD, because they were destroyed in the Roman invasion. Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with Nazareth or Codex Sinaiticus. If you're just going to use these threads to dump links to every time you find someone talking about a problem in the Bible, you're wasting both of our time.

Krugerrand
07-07-2009, 07:11 AM
The beliefs of the orthodox Christians (those who accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the deification of Yeshua that were decreed by Rome) depend on traditions and manuscripts in the custody of the Vatican. Still, variants exist and through the study of those variants scholars try to reconstruct the original documents as they existed before redaction by Rome.

The Christian Nazarenes disappeared and so did their Hebrew and Aramaic texts. One must ask why do we not have the words of Yeshua in his native language? Would not these manuscripts be precious to a religion supposedly based on his teachings?

Why does the apostle Paul seem to be totally ignorant of the miracles in the synoptic gospels?

Could it be because he had never heard of them?

Your use of "orthodox" has an interesting irony to it. We generally refer to capital "O" Orthodox churches as those Eastern Christian churches that had nothing to do with the Vatican. They developed quite separately, yet use the same texts and (mostly to perhaps completely) identical theologies.

LittleLightShining
07-07-2009, 07:12 AM
I'm not saying whether I believe this or not, but I couldn't help thinking of this when I read the thread title and the conversation which ensued:



The first step concerns the breakdown of all archeological knowledge. It deals with the set-up of earthquakes at certain precise locations of the planet where supposedly new discoveries will suddenly explain - for them - the wrong meaning of all major religions' basic doctrines. This classification used to make the population believe that all religious doctrines have been misunderstood and misinterpreted have already started with the field of psychological preparation for populations for the first step has been prepared through films like 2001 a Space Odessy; the series, Star Trek; Star Wars which deals with space invasion and space protection; and the last film, Jurassic Park, dealing with the theory of evolution.

Now, which is important to understand in that first step is that those earthquakes will hit at different parts of the world where scientists and archeological teachings have been taught in the past where supposedly there were some hidden secrets. By those kinds of earthquakes it will be possible for them to rediscover again - supposedly, okay? - rediscover again those kinds of secrets and those secrets are meant to discredit all the religions' basic doctrines.

This is the first preparation for the plan for humanity, because what they want to do is to throw down, to shake up the beliefs of all Christians on the planet. And to do that they need some false proof, supposedly from the past, and from the far past that will "prove" to men and women that their religions are false.

Project BlueBeam (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/bluebeam.htm) There are some interesting articles about religious manipulation elsewhere on that site.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:16 AM
First of all, you're inconsistent in your claims. Is the role of the Roman church just one of selectively preserving certain sources that teach the divinity of Jesus? Or did the Roman church actually invent the doctrine whole cloth and then insert it into the earlier sources? The latter is what you argued before, and now in the light of the evidence I presented proving that the doctrine clearly existed prior to the Roman church being able to do that you have fallen back on the former.

NO, they did both. Wouldn't you if you were trying to perpetrate such a fraud and create a religion that would revive the Roman Empire?


I don't deny that doctrinal concerns have something to do with which books have been preserved. But evidence is still evidence. And you can't take the evidence we actually have and try to put it below the non-existent evidence that you believe was destroyed because of a conspiracy theory you have but can't prove about something one church in one city did to somehow change the books in all the other churches.

It is only evidence of Roman Doctrine - it not historical evidence. The internal conflicts blow it out of the water when you try to make it history. The Nazareth problem is just one of many.




The passage I refer to in Josephus is also one that's been subjected to a great deal of study. It's not just a matter of whether it underwent some redaction at some points. It's also a matter of identifying what those points are. Where he talks about Jesus there may be some additions made, but there is also something that clearly was original. Scholars who have studied this in recent years have come to a consensus that the bit about Christians of that day believing Jesus performed miracles is original. They have powerful arguments in favor of that view. If you're open-minded enough to read them you'll see. If you prefer to restrict yourself to disreputable conspiracy sites, then it really doesn't matter what the evidence is anyway.



I find the arguments against that view to be more compelling. What are the "disreputable conspiracy sites" you keep mentioning? Every thing I have posted is backed up by legitimate scholarship. I do admit the scholarship is done by scholars who are not in the control of the church, so maybe that is the reason they come up with different answers.


BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

If you take out those itsy bitsy passages, this is Josephus' over view of Judaism:



Josephus knows nothing of Christians

It was the around the year 53 AD that Josephus decided to investigate the sects among the Jews. According to the gospel fable this was the period of explosive growth for the Christian faith: " the churches ... throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria ... were edified... and ... were multiplied." – Acts 9:31.

This is also the time of the so-called "Council of Jerusalem" when supposedly Paul regaled the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (Acts 15.12).

And yet Josephus knows nothing of all this:

"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups." – Life, 2.

Josephus elsewhere does record a "fourth sect of Jewish philosophy" and reports that it was a "mad distemper" agitating the entire country. But it has nothing to do with Christianity and its superstar:

"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord.

They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man Lord ...

And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy." – Antiquities 18.23.

Nothing could better illustrate the bogus nature of the Testimonium than the remaining corpus of Josephus's work.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

LittleLightShining
07-07-2009, 07:19 AM
If you read what I quoted above it sure looks like Paula's been convinced and/or is doing her best to convince others.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:23 AM
I'm not saying whether I believe this or not, but I couldn't help thinking of this when I read the thread title and the conversation which ensued:




Project BlueBeam (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/bluebeam.htm) There are some interesting articles about religious manipulation elsewhere on that site.

Anyone who believes in the I AM of the Jews and God the Father of Yeshua believes in an infinite, unknowable, unnameable One. The O.T. culture adds stories about a powerful tribal God to the basic montheistic concept. The N.T. adds pagan mythology to the basic teachings of Yeshua.

If you study religions as a whole and fellowship with people of Spirit you begin to focus on the commonalities, not the differences. From that appears an image of the One that is not dependent on religion.

Yeshua teaches of the Kingdom, a Spiritual state wherein we begin to appreciate the true nature of the One. He does not teach religion.

Anyone who understands the teachings of the Kingdom or come to know the One has already given up on religion as a source of Truth.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:26 AM
The criteria for historicity of various aspects of Jesus life are also the subject of massive amounts of scholarly writing. Dealing with the gospels as historical sources that can be sifted by these criteria does not presuppose that they are always historically accurate. But on some points they more clearly are than on others. And the point of Jesus being from a town called Nazareth is beyond dispute.

Only in the ranks of those whose education is Biblio-centric.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:28 AM
Magness is in the minority of scholarship on that point. We have synagogues from the Herodium and Masada that clearly were from before 70 AD, because they were destroyed in the Roman invasion. Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with Nazareth or Codex Sinaiticus. If you're just going to use these threads to dump links to every time you find someone talking about a problem in the Bible, you're wasting both of our time.

Comment on Masada


Magness contends that some of the oldest identified synagogues, such as those excavated at Masada and Gamla, dating to the first century, were meeting halls and not built explicitly for religious purposes. After the second Jewish revolt in the early second century, when it became clear the temple would not be rebuilt anytime soon, the synagogue gradually began to take on more importance in Jewish life and worship.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:33 AM
“…I have studied your work relating to the archaeology of Nazareth and find your position very interesting. Concerning the [post-50 CE] dating of the known tombs, you are certainly correct… I concur with your remarks regarding Hachlili [specialist in Judean funerary customs]. She is a splendid scholar who, nevertheless, has another area of investigation and different scientific goals.”—Prof. Hans-Peter Kuhnen, the world’s leading expert on Roman tombs in the Galilee.

“I have been looking over your ‘Nazareth’ volume which you sent me and it is, of course, very thorough in your usual manner. But as I told you early on, you don’t have to convince me. I am a believer. I know there was no ‘Nazareth’… at least not where they were talking about it, from the first days I read Josephus who virtually catalogued all the important locations in Galilee and of course, no Nazareth!”—Prof. Robert Eisenman, PhD. Author, James the Brother of Jesus, etc.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

Nazareth is not mentioned in any writings independent of the Bible or Christianity prior to the 4th century. We don't have the originals of the Biblical writings that are dated prior to that time either.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:37 AM
Your use of "orthodox" has an interesting irony to it. We generally refer to capital "O" Orthodox churches as those Eastern Christian churches that had nothing to do with the Vatican. They developed quite separately, yet use the same texts and (mostly to perhaps completely) identical theologies.

It is grammatically correct. I use orthodox to refer to a theological orthodoxy that evolved independent of the teachings of Yeshua. I do not use it as a proper noun because that is not what I am referring to. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the much later Protestant movement are all branches of the same orthodox theological tradition that merges Roman paganism with the teachings of a Jewish rabbi.

The separation of the two branches from the original tree was strictly political.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 07:42 AM
If you read what I quoted above it sure looks like Paula's been convinced and/or is doing her best to convince others.

When I started studying church history I was absolutely shocked when the BIG LIE came into focus.

It is the orthodox lie that replaces the Good News of Yeshua "God is Love" and turns Christians into what people on this site refer to as "sheeple".

What some see as a passion for destroying the Christian Church is actually a passion for the original Gospel taught by the Rabbi Yeshua. I came to know it through the reading of that which is called the "Bible". The Truth is still contained within it because a truly eternal message can not be obscured, even though the Roman Church and its descendants have been trying to do just that for almost 2000 years.

Krugerrand
07-07-2009, 08:00 AM
It is grammatically correct. I use orthodox to refer to a theological orthodoxy that evolved independent of the teachings of Yeshua. I do not use it as a proper noun because that is not what I am referring to. Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the much later Protestant movement are all branches of the same orthodox theological tradition that merges Roman paganism with the teachings of a Jewish rabbi.

The separation of the two branches from the original tree was strictly political.

While political separation undoubtedly occurred, the Roman church and the Eastern churches were growing separately well before this so-called Roman influence. That they would have grown separately prior to this influence and in the same direction does not support the theory of the influence.

erowe1
07-07-2009, 08:04 AM
What are the "disreputable conspiracy sites" you keep mentioning? Every thing I have posted is backed up by legitimate scholarship.

The only source you've quoted that actually is a reputable scholar is Jodi Magness, and it turns out that all she actually said was that synagogues in the time of Jesus were meeting places that were not inherently religious--big whoop. Everything else you've given has been snippets from wikipedia, quotes form quacks like Robert Eisenman, somebody's blog, and a site called www.jesusneverexisted.org.

You claim to prefer the arguments of the people who hold the extreme view of removing the Jesus passages completely from Josephus to those in the majority who accept that part or all of them had to be there originally, when you clearly haven't studied this issue fairly and even given mainstream scholarship (which is hardly under the control of any church) a chance. You don't even know what the arguments are. You copy and paste the standard lines from your jesusneverexisted site, which are very small and relatively unimportant parts of the issues involved in the textual criticism of Josephus, in comparison to other matters, such as study of the grammar, vocabulary, and style of Josephus' writings and the interconnectedness of different passages in his works, such as how the Jesus passage connects to its immediate context, and how in a later undisputed passage about John the Baptist, Josephus says that he had already mentioned him, and the only place where he had already mentioned him is in the passage in question about Jesus. Be honest, you haven't studied any of these issues on their own right. You go looking for websites that say what you want to conclude and then get predictably impressed with the arguments they make in favor of it. You have elaborate theories that aren't backed up by any evidence, and the things that you claim are evidence actually have nothing to do with what you say they prove. Meanwhile, you shove aside any actual counter-evidence as though it doesn't exist and try to turn the tables in such a way as to make the counter-evidence into something that supports you, "See! Here are all these 1st-2nd century Christians who believed Jesus was God! Therefore, that's proof that Constantine tampered with the evidence to make it look like early sources supported the belief that Jesus was God!" You wouldn't allow anything to change your mind, no matter what you actually found in any honest research, and you will set the bar however low it has to be to get the evidence that might support it to work.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 08:15 AM
While political separation undoubtedly occurred, the Roman church and the Eastern churches were growing separately well before this so-called Roman influence. That they would have grown separately prior to this influence and in the same direction does not support the theory of the influence.

The Roman Influence started at the time of Paul. Many scholars even believe the proto-orthodox faction accepted forgeries of Paul's letters because they solidified their position. You said "They developed quite separately, yet use the same texts and (mostly to perhaps completely) identical theologies." That is my point. Both paganized the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. This was done by the proto-orthodox Roman Church.

erowe1
07-07-2009, 08:15 AM
Nazareth is not mentioned in any writings independent of the Bible or Christianity prior to the 4th century. We don't have the originals of the Biblical writings that are dated prior to that time either.

Nazareth is mentioned in a source independent of Christianity prior to the 4th century in an inscription from the 3rd century that refers to a priestly family that had lived there at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. Also, as the archeology of the village of Nazareth shows, it was a small village inhabited from the 2nd c. BC - the 1st c. AD (i.e. the time of Jesus). Josephus would have had no reason to mention a town so insignificant. This is even more the case for writers later than Josephus. By Origen's day, Nazarath was long gone and wouldn't be reinhabited again until the 6th century AD. So the only place we would expect Nazareth to be mentioned is in sources that write about what went on there in the period in which it was occupied. The only sources that do that are the Gospels. And when we look to the Gospels for information about Nazareth, lo and behold we find it, and we find it in numerous undisputed passages that no serious scholars think were the result of later tampering. As a matter of fact, I can virtually guarantee that I can find examples of gospel manuscripts that date to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, and thus could not have resulted from later Roman church tampering, that include passages that mention the town of Nazareth.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 08:23 AM
The only source you've quoted that actually is a reputable scholar is Jodi Magness, and it turns out that all she actually said was that synagogues in the time of Jesus were meeting places that were not inherently religious--big whoop. Everything else you've given has been snippets from wikipedia, quotes form quacks like Robert Eisenman, somebody's blog, and a site called www.jesusneverexisted.org.




You also said Elaine Pagels was a quack or something to that effect.


Elaine Pagels
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Born February 13, 1943 (1943-02-13) (age 66)
Palo Alto, California
Residence United States
Fields History of religion
Institutions Princeton University
Barnard College
Alma mater Harvard University
Stanford University
Known for Nag Hammadi manuscripts
Early Christianity
Notable awards MacArthur Fellowship (1981)
National Book Critics Circle Award (1979)
Guggenheim Fellowship (1979)
Rockefeller Fellowship (1978)

Elaine Pagels, née Hiesey, (born February 13, 1943), is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. The recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, she is best known for her studies and writing on the Gnostic Gospels. Her popular books include, The Gnostic Gospels (1979), Adam, Eve and the Serpent (1988), The Origin of Satan (1995), Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), and Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity (2007).

The fact is you simply dismiss any scholarship that disagrees with your own beliefs, no matter what the source.

On the other hand, I started out believing in the Bible just as much as you did, but like Thomas Jefferson, I started having those "Whoa there, this doesn't make sense" sort of moments with all of that stuff that was added onto the teachings of Yeshua.

Jefferson did a cut and paste and physically removed all of that stuff from his study Bible, I just ignored it.

Ignoring the added material allowed me to focus on the Truth of the Gospel, the teachings of Yeshua.

I learned about the historical support for my beliefs after they had already been formed. My principal reasons for believing as I do are Bible study, prayer, the witness of the Holy Spirit, and common sense.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 08:30 AM
As a matter of fact, I can virtually guarantee that I can find examples of gospel manuscripts that date to the 2nd-3rd centuries AD, and thus could not have resulted from later Roman church tampering, that include passages that mention the town of Nazareth.

I just said the tampering started around the time of Paul ( I should have said just after that time actually) when the Roman Church became powerful. I said the later church did not allow anything that supported rival Christologies to survive, at least without "correcting" it.

Peace&Freedom
07-07-2009, 08:31 AM
The only source you've quoted that actually is a reputable scholar is Jodi Magness, and it turns out that all she actually said was that synagogues in the time of Jesus were meeting places that were not inherently religious--big whoop. Everything else you've given has been snippets from wikipedia, quotes form quacks like Robert Eisenman, somebody's blog, and a site called www.jesusneverexisted.org.

You claim to prefer the arguments of the people who hold the extreme view of removing the Jesus passages completely from Josephus to those in the majority who accept that part or all of them had to be there originally, when you clearly haven't studied this issue fairly and even given mainstream scholarship (which is hardly under the control of any church) a chance. You don't even know what the arguments are. You copy and paste the standard lines from your jesusneverexisted site, which are very small and relatively unimportant parts of the issues involved in the textual criticism of Josephus, in comparison to other matters, such as study of the grammar, vocabulary, and style of Josephus' writings and the interconnectedness of different passages in his works, such as how the Jesus passage connects to its immediate context, and how in a later undisputed passage about John the Baptist, Josephus says that he had already mentioned him, and the only place where he had already mentioned him is in the passage in question about Jesus. Be honest, you haven't studied any of these issues on their own right. You go looking for websites that say what you want to conclude and then get predictably impressed with the arguments they make in favor of it. You have elaborate theories that aren't backed up by any evidence, and the things that you claim are evidence actually have nothing to do with what you say they prove. Meanwhile, you shove aside any actual counter-evidence as though it doesn't exist and try to turn the tables in such a way as to make the counter-evidence into something that supports you, "See! Here are all these 1st-2nd century Christians who believed Jesus was God! Therefore, that's proof that Constantine tampered with the evidence to make it look like early sources supported the belief that Jesus was God!" You wouldn't allow anything to change your mind, no matter what you actually found in any honest research, and you will set the bar however low it has to be to get the evidence that might support it to work.

QFT. PaulaGem's approach reminds me of the innumerable History Channel or Discovery Channel, or National Geographic TV presentations where only the interpretations of the data by skeptical or secular persons are presented, while informed responses by traditional scholars are never EVER heard from. The basic canon of NT scripture was identified by the 170's, less than 80 years past the death of the last apostle, yet the notion is being fostered that everything was manipulated by the Romans, who didn't enter the picture (to influence the Church) until after the 310's? How could the Romans' execution of Paul and other leading Christian apostles be consistent with promoting any version of the Christian faith?

Real scholarship would involve critically comparing two or more lines of thought in addressing the data, and not letting deductive presumptions (in this case, 'the Romans fixed everything' presupposition) massage all conclusions. And how can the internal biblical statements be both spurned by PaulaGem as not proving anything, then used to say they refute something, as when the poster asserts they do regarding Nazareth? Which is it---or is it just all about hit-and-run undermining the authority of the Bible, through whichever direction?

erowe1
07-07-2009, 08:33 AM
You also said Elaine Pagels was a quack or something to that effect.



The fact is you simply dismiss any scholarship that disagrees with your own beliefs, no matter what the source.

On the other hand, I started out believing in the Bible just as much as you did, but like Thomas Jefferson, I started having those "Whoa there, this doesn't make sense" sort of moments with all of that stuff that was added onto the teachings of Yeshua.

Jefferson did a cut and paste and physically removed all of that stuff from his study Bible, I just ignored it.

Ignoring the added material allowed me to focus on the Truth of the Gospel, the teachings of Yeshua.

I learned about the historical support for my beliefs after they had already been formed. My principal reasons for believing as I do are Bible study, prayer, the witness of the Holy Spirit, and common sense.

I never called Pagels a quack or anything to that effect. But she's clearly out there. While she has scholarly credentials, her views are not at all in line with mainstream scholarship. Much of her writings are directed at people like you, since the whole "Who changed my Bible" conspiracy idea is a sure way to sell books, much more than any less sensational more sober approach to scholarship. My views aren't based on which scholars said what. My views are based on the evidence itself. And in looking for that it's important to avail myself of the work of scholars who are actively working within the guild in interaction with one another and subjecting their theories to the criticism of one another, rather than writing things that no other scholars accept and putting them out there in popular level works just to make a buck.

Oh, and I did some poking. The town of Nazareth is mentioned in John 1:45-46, which is included in two very old manuscripts of the Gospels called P66 and P75, both of which were copied around 200 AD, and both of which include the name of the town Nazareth at that point. These are apparently manuscripts from Egypt, since they're papyrus and have been in a climate amenable to their surviving until today. Are we really supposed to believe that there was a church in Rome in the 2nd century AD that had the authority to change the text of the gospel manuscripts then being copied in Egypt? And if so, why would they have them insert the name of the town Nazareth, which they supposedly knew nothing about and which was no longer occupied? No, the reason these gospels manuscripts include the name Nazareth (and actually, if you look at the passage in John 1:45-46, you can't very well remove that name without destroying the whole sense of it), was because that was the reading they found in their exemplars (i.e. the older manuscripts they were copying from). The name had to have been used in the original untampered Gospel of John, written at a time back when the town of Nazareth was still inhabited, and when the earliest disciples who were still living were well aware that the reason Jesus was called "the Nazarene" was because he was from Nazareth.

erowe1
07-07-2009, 08:38 AM
I just said the tampering started around the time of Paul ( I should have said just after that time actually) when the Roman Church became powerful. I said the later church did not allow anything that supported rival Christologies to survive, at least without "correcting" it.

The Roman church had no special power over other churches in the 1st-2nd centuries.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 08:41 AM
'Never heard of the place' – Josephus

In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).

A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.

Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it's inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan's troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.

Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!

With Japha's complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.

At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Please know that I really don't expect to convert you, I just want it to be public knowledge, especially on a board concerned with "Liberty", that we are enslaved by an ancient lie just as we are enslaved by the lies we get from our leaders today.

He that hath ears, let him hear.

The time has come and now is when those that worship God will worship him in Spirit and in Truth.

And ye shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.

Understanding what the True Gospel was and its perversion by the political Roman Church is the key to the liberation of millions of Christian souls. Yeshua said we had to be willing to give up everything to follow him.

Everything includes religion, but most modern day Christians aren't able to handle that one.

PaulaGem
07-07-2009, 08:45 AM
In conclusion - it is now time to shake the dust off my feet and leave this place.

If anyone else has a sincere inquiry I will check back from time to time.

Love & Light