Why would Jesus open and shut the understanding of people? (bible, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Christian Bible would not want to refer to Jesus of Nazareth as a Pharisee because that would confuse the issue of Pharisaical infighting.
There is no such thing as " The Christian Bible"; the bible was written as a book for all of humanity, and no religion can lay personal claim to it. And it does not matter how much Pharisees fight with Christians or themselves, neither of them are of any importance in scripture.
There is no such thing as " The Christian Bible" ...
There is the Bible, or, if you prefer, the Jewish Bible and there is the Christian Bible.
Additionally, there are the many differences between the Christian version of the Jewish Bible and the Jewish version of the Jewish Bible:
According to Rabbi Marc Gellman of G-d Squad fame, "One of the most important things to understand when quoting the Bible (the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Testament) is that it was not written in English. This means you're not only reading a translation from Hebrew or Greek, but you're also often reading an interpretation masquerading as a translation."
As an example of this "interpretation masquerading as a translation", further quoting Rabbi Gellman, "The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (and the text used by Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin in the 4th century), famously translates the Hebrew verse 'and behold a young woman shall give birth' as, 'and behold a virgin shall give birth.' The Hebrew word for virgin is betula, but the word used in Isaiah 7 is alma, which just means a young woman. Obviously, if there was a verse in the Hebrew Bible predicting that a virgin would give birth, this would indeed be a stunning prediction and proof text of Jesus' virgin birth. Unfortunately, for Christians who want this to be the verse, it is not the verse."
Ignatius was the 3rd bishop Antioch and a student of John.
Phlegon was the bishop of Marathon in Thrace, and is even mentioned in the bible in Romans 16:14, a stunning proof of reference.
Eusebius was the bishop of Caesarea.
Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna and the first recorded martyr in post new testement history. The Romans killed him when he was 86 years old.
Mara Bar Serapion refered to Jesus in a letter to his son.
But I can go through each one if you like.
No need to go through their history. Just explain how they independently attest to Jesus as a historical figure without reference to the Bible. That'll do.
Let's look at Bar serapion, though.
The letter is preserved in a 6th or 7th century manuscript (BL Add. 14658) held by the British Library, and was composed sometime between 73 AD and the 3rd century.[Wiki]
Setting aside the argumets that this may not be Jesus as he isn't named (though it is hard to think of another Jewish king killed by his people) that's a gap of over two centuries. That is plenty of time for bar serapion (1) to have heard the Bible claims about Jesus and to report them as a fact, which he may nt have known from his own experience.Of curse IF he lived at the lower end, and he was a contemporary of Paul and James, then one could argue that he was speaking from personal experience.
Writing from prison to encourage his son to pursue wisdom, the author explains that when the wise are oppressed, not only does their wisdom triumph in the end, but God also punishes their oppressors:
What else can we say, when the wise are forcibly dragged off by tyrants, their wisdom is captured by insults, and their minds are oppressed and without defense? What advantage did the Athenians gain from murdering Socrates? Famine and plague came upon them as a punishment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the "new law" he laid down[Wiki]
The killing by the Jews, the 'New Law' and the punishment of the jewish war shortly after that looks like jesus and you can perhaps be forgiven for thinking that it is good extra Biblical support.
But the problem is that a contemporary would have known that Pilate rather than the Jews killed Jesus (as Tacitus recounted it), that the 'New law' refers to the spread of Pauline Christianity as there was no New Law apart from Paul, and that the idea that the Jewish war was a punishment of the Jews was a later and rather Christian viewpoint. That not only argues for a later rather than earlier date, but that Bar serapion was referring to the Christian view of the events rather than reporting independent history.
(1) The name, Bar serapion, suggests a Jew ('Serapion' may indicate Alexandrian). "For we have shown our truth-that truth which in our now ruined kingdom we possessed not.31 But, if the Romans shall permit us to go back to our own country, as called upon by justice and righteousness to do, they will be acting like humane men, and will earn the name of good and righteous, and at the same time will have a peaceful country in which to dwell:" certainly sounds like a diaspora Jew. So we are not looking at early Christian writings.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2012 at 04:05 AM..
Sextus Julius Africanus was the first historian known to produce a universal chronology of his research. He was a regional ambassador to Rome and he wrote on the genealogies of Christ. Born 180 A.D.
Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) was a Christian traveller and historian of the late 2nd and early 3rd century AD. He is important chiefly because of his influence on Eusebius, on all the later writers of Church history among the Fathers, and on the whole Greek school of chroniclers.[Wiki]
Like Eusebius, and the bulk of these validations, he meely recounted what he had heard. What he had heard was what the Gospels said and what Christianity believed. It is not independent historical attestation of anything about Jesus.
Quote:
Suetonius was a Roman author, born A.D. 69. Once the controller of the Roman libraries, he wrote about disturbances caused by Christ that got him and others expelled from Rome, mentioned in Acts 18:2.
At best, this only refers to disturbances cause by Christians. Nobody doubts they existed. It does not say anything about Jesus and it's not certain that it does refer to Christian or Jesus anyway:
"Roman historian and contemporary of Tacitus, Suetonius. Here is the first of the two relevant quotes:
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Emperor Claudius)expelled them from Rome.
A second quote does not mention Jesus, but refers to Christians being persecuted under Nero.
Does this passage really refer to Jesus? This is the key objection to using this passage. "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Benko, for example, has suggested that "Chrestus" was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus." [see Benk.EC49, 410-3] . Some may find support for this in that Suetonius' sentence literally refers to "the instigator," not actually "the instigation." [VanV.JONT, 31, 33; who counters, though, that the name "Chrestus" is otherwise unattested among the Jews. (Tekton)
While (if it is accepted that these were Jews agitating on behalf of Jesus), it attests to Jewish followers of Jesus causing trouble in Rome, which is not surprising as the the whole reason for Jesus' execution, Paul's persecution and the Jewish war was Jewish opposition to Rome domination of Judea.
So at best it tends to support the view that Jesus was a Jewish messianic agitator rather than a pro -gentile semi -divine preacher of peace. As I say, I think Jesus was real, but Christ is a myth.
Suetonius doubtfully supports Jesus but doesn't support a Biblical Jesus very well at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
Tertullian was the first Christian writer to write in Latin, he became a Christian because he was appalled at seeing them killed all the time.
Origen was a scholar and a theologoian.
Pliny the Younger was a Roman Senator who wrote about the persecution of Christians.
All these men were historians who existed in our history who wrote about Christ and the experience of the group of believers who came to be known as Christians, as labeled by the Romans.
Pliny says nothing to verify Jesus as a historical person much less support the Biblical Jesus. he merely asks advice about how to deal with Christians. He is no support at all for your case.
Tertulluan (c.160-c.230)
Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all the accusers of the Christians.
This is really not convincing. Tertullian was born long after the events and nobody mentions proofs of Jesus' divinity being presented to Tiberius (dies AD 37) with the implication that he was convinced and was overruled by the senate. That just does not fit in with what we know of Tiberius or the senate. Tertullian may have had in mind the representation of Jews and samaritans to Rome about Pilate's rough methods (Josephus), but of course, there is o mention that they were making a case for Jesus.
I suppose that these claims originated with Josh Mc Dowell, and they have been repeated again and again. But really, really, there is nothing that is reliably historical attestation of Jesus (especially Gospel - Christ -Jesus) from the hearsay and later repetitions of Christian claims and speculations of these people.
Eusebius, especially is not to be relied upon. The supposed links of Ignatius, Polycarp and the rest with this John the disciple is a bit confusing. There is no real identification with the author of the fourth gospel and indeed, the sheer dubiousness of the gospel of John is enough to doubt that this 'history' of what Irenaeus heard Polycarp say about what John told him in Ephesus does not add up to what we would call an independent extra biblical attestation of Jesus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2012 at 04:54 AM..
There is the Bible, or, if you prefer, the Jewish Bible and there is the Christian Bible.
quote]
There is no such thing as a Jewish bible or a Christian bible, and I challange you to produce one of any. Neither the Jews or the Christians own the rights to the bible. And the bible itself does not limit itself to any particular people , no does it ever claim that its message is only for one people or culture- never!
There is no such thing as a Jewish bible or a Christian bible ...
Traditional Judaism does not accept that the Bible, or if you prefer, the Jewish Bible, has been replaced or superseded by the Christian Bible.
According to Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, otherwise known by the acronym Rambam, 1135-1204 C.E.), "The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses and there will be no other Torah. (Source: Rambam's thirteen principles of faith)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
Neither the Jews or the Christians own the rights to the bible.
The Bible, or, if you preder, the Jewish Bible, was not given to everyone. The Bible was solely given to those at Sinai, their descendents and those who voluntarily convert.
The Bible, or, if you preder, the Jewish Bible, was not given to everyone. The Bible was solely given to those at Sinai, their descendents and those who voluntarily convert.
Let me show you something Walter, and let the bible speak for itself. John 3:16; For God so loved " The World", that he gave Jesus,( the living word of God). God gave Jesus for " The World", not a group of Jews only. John 9:39: For Judgement I came into this " World." Jesus came on a " World mission." Not soley for those at Sinai and their descendants. The bible is for the World.
Again in 1John 4:14;" And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the " Savior of the World." Why would the bible be only for certain people if Jesus is on a " World mission?" Now you may speak your opinion on this matter, but the bible speaks for itself; its obviously a " World Book." In John 12:46 Jesus said he came as a " Light to the World", no religion can condense that unto itself.
The effort to give a race to the bible is not biblical, its something people try to do.
Let me show you something Walter, and let the bible speak for itself. John 3:16; For God so loved " The World", that he gave Jesus,( the living word of God). God gave Jesus for " The World", not a group of Jews only. John 9:39: For Judgement I came into this " World." Jesus came on a " World mission." Not soley for those at Sinai and their descendants. The bible is for the World.
Again in 1John 4:14;" And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the " Savior of the World." Why would the bible be only for certain people if Jesus is on a " World mission?" Now you may speak your opinion on this matter, but the bible speaks for itself; its obviously a " World Book." In John 12:46 Jesus said he came as a " Light to the World", no religion can condense that unto itself.
The effort to give a race to the bible is not biblical, its something people try to do.
The Qur'an says essentially the same thing about the Qur'an. May I offer that as proof that the Qur'an is God(swt) final message for mankind? I believe it to be, does that mean it should also be obvious to you?
The Qur'an says essentially the same thing about the Qur'an. May I offer that as proof that the Qur'an is God(swt) final message for mankind? I believe it to be, does that mean it should also be obvious to you?
I have never stated that the bible is Gods final message to humanity, but I believe it is a message to humanity. Its obvious to me that God cannot be limited, he speaks how and where he does, through whatever vechicle he chooses. I am not interested in playing God and choosing what vechicle people need to understand truth, the bible has satisfied me; its something I can get to, and need to get into more because thats my path; whats your path is for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
