FORGED (!?!?) ORIGINS of the NEW TESTAMENT (!?!?)

by Terry 91 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry

    The things you find!

    This is rather interesting:

    The evidence of the Rabbis

    The Jewish records of the Rabbis are of extreme importance in determining Gospel origins and the value of the church presentation of the virgin birth story of Jesus Christ. A common appellation for Jesus in the Talmud was Yeshu'a ben Panthera, an allusion to the widespread Jewish belief during the earliest centuries of the Christian era that Jesus was the result of an illegitimate union between his mother and a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.

    The Talmud enshrines within its pages Jewish oral law. It is divided into two parts, the Mishna and the Gemara. The first discusses such subjects as festivals and sacred things. The Gemara, is basically a commentary on these subjects.When the Talmud was written is not known. Some authorities suggest a date of 150-160, around the same time the Christian Gospels began to emerge, while others say 450.

    The Talmud writers mentioned Jesus' name twenty times and quite specifically documented that he was born an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panthera, nicknamed the 'Panther'. Panthera's existence was confirmed by the discovery of a mysterious tombstone at Bingerbruck in Germany. The engraving etched in the headstone read:

    Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9AD was transferred to service in Rhineland (Germany))

    This inscription added fuel to the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier Panthera. Classical scholar Professor Morton Smith of the Columbia University, USA, described the tombstone as possibly 'our only genuine relic of the holy family.'2 In many Jewish references, Jesus was often referred to as 'ben Panthera',`ben' meaning, `son of'. However cautious one ought to be in accepting anything about Jesus from Jewish sources, in the matter of Jesus 'ben Panthera', the writers seem more consistent than the men we now call the church fathers.

    Scholars, for centuries, have discussed at length why Jesus was so regularly called ben Panthera. Adamantius Origen, an early Christian historian and church father (185-251), recorded the following verses about Mary from the research records of a highly regarded Second Century historian and author named Celsus (c. 17:

    Mary was turned out by her husband, a carpenter by profession, after she had been convicted of unfaithfulness. Cut off by her spouse, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard; that Jesus, on account of his poverty was hired out to go to Egypt; that while there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing.'

    Later, in passage 1:32, Origen supported the Jewish records and confirmed that the paramour of the mother of Jesus was a Roman soldier called Panthera, a name he repeated in verse 1:69. Sometime during the 17th Century, those sentences were erased from the oldest Vatican manuscripts and other codices under church control.4

    The traditional church writings of St Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis (315-403) again confirmed the ben Panthera story and his information was of a startling nature. This champion of Christian orthodoxy and saint of Roman Catholicism frankly stated:

    Jesus was the son of a certain Julius whose surname was Panthera.5
    This was an extraordinary declaration simply recorded in ancient records as accepted church history. The ben Panthera legend was so widespread that two early stalwarts of the Christian church inserted the name in the genealogies of Jesus and Mary as a matter of fact.

    Enlarging on that statement, this passage from the Talmud:

    Rabbi Shiemon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written that Such-an-one (Jesus) is the bastard son of an adulteress.6

    `Such-an-one' was one of the well-known substitutes for Jesus in the Talmud, as has been proved and admitted on either side. Shiemon ben Azzai flourished at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Century. He was one of four famous Rabbis, who according to Talmudic tradition 'entered Paradise'. He was a Chassid (the pious Jews of Palestine), most probably an Essene and remained a celibate and rigid ascetic until his death.

    The story of Mary's pregnancy by a Roman soldier also appeared in the sacred book of the Moslems, the Koran. It stated that 'a full-grown man' forced his attentions on Mary, and in her fear of the disgrace that would follow she left the area and bore Jesus in secret. This story was supported in the Gospel of Luke, with the description of the departure of Joseph and Mary from their home prior to the birth. Rape was a common event in Palestine during the Roman occupation and soldiers were notorious for their treatment of young women. It would be unthinkable for Mary to admit such an event had occurred for, under the Law of Moses, a betrothed virgin who had \bsexo?\b with any man during the period of her betrothal, was to be stoned to death by the men of the city (Deut. 22:21). Simply put, Mary faced the death penalty unless she could prove her innocence.'

  • Terry
    Terry

    Concerning Tony Bushby, I'm sure he is as dotty as the next. I don't care if he puts beans in his nose, frankly.

    What I'm interested in are the facts.

    I'd like to see a case by case refutation of the evidence (if it is evidence) he presents in the article I posted at the top.

    Martin Luther was a horrible and unsavory character. Should we dismiss Protestantism as a result?

    That is the problem with ad hominem attacks.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    LOL. You've just got to love a rationalist's gullibility.

    Just an example of what Bushby's scholarly sources for the "missing links" (e.g. the "Book of Eskra") are: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/oah/index.htm

    Not to mention that the huge pre-Nicene Christian library (which Bushby candidly quotes from, e.g. Origen) should not be there at all if Christianity is a 4th-century creation...

  • Hoping4Change
    Hoping4Change

    So.... I'm eating chinese food for lunch while reading this article (quite interesting, though not real sure what to make of it) and when I finish eating (and still reading) I open my fortune cookie...it says: "God will give you everything that you want."

  • Terry
    Terry

    Just an example of what Bushby's scholarly sources for the "missing links" (e.g. the "Book of Eskra") are: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/oah/index.htm

    Not to mention that the huge pre-Nicene Christian library (which Bushby candidly quotes from, e.g. Origen) should not be there at all if Christianity is a 4th-century creation...

    Well, I've stated I know Bushby is a fringe kind of guy.

    I'm really only interested in what is false about the article I posted.

    Whatever other nonsense he is into I'll save for a laugh later.

    If he says he meets Elvis for coffee and donuts it doesn't affect the facts about the bible. (What "facts" does he have dead wrong and why? That is what interests me.

  • JamesThomas
    JamesThomas

    Terry, thanks for posting that riveting read. It makes so much sense that the modern day confusion of Christianity have its roots in such a chaotic mess.

    Try again Terry.

    Perhaps if we actually had a sense of the staggering infinite nature of existence, we would not attribute such grandeur to tiny deities, and we would not require that Terry "try again". It's up to us to remove our cataracts.

    This, 30 min. video adds a little tinsel to this thread....not that it needs it.

    j

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother
    "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"

    Compare the links?. Different Scholars, different information

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52

    and

    "From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards. However these were not put into effect; and Arianism made an almost immediate comeback. Even Arius was recalled by Constantine."

    http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html.

  • smellsgood
    smellsgood

    smellsgood: *sigh* another piece of speculation and smudging the facts. I've read alot of these things and at the end of the day it just doesn't hold water to historical inquiry. The test of the reliability of the NT, not the inspiration mind you, should be tested in the bibliographical way, as any other book of antiquity is. This means, since one doesn't have the original documents, as the writing materials were usually very fragile and expensive (papyrus) how reliable are the copies surviving in regard to the number of manuscripts and the intervening time between the original and extant copy? The NT is UNPARALLELED in history. There is no comparison. The interval mentioned here:::

    <<the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" ( Catholic Encyclopedia , op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history.>>>>


    smellsgood: Fact is, that interval is the smallest of any historical book. It's just a fact. For example, I love Greek and Roman History, and some of what is commonly learned about Rome is from the historian Herodotus (ever read it? You should) To put the NT in perspective, the History of Herodotus (B.C. 488-428) MSS earliest copies we have are around 1,600 YEARS from the time they were written. Wow. Same is true of hundreds of other ancient works. Yet there isn't the same incitement of shock when it comes to judging these books authenticity as is with the books of the NT. Not to mention there are hundreds fewer MSS, hundreds more years apart. That's just unscholarly to not look at these books in light of other ancient manuscripts, it smacks of an agenda.


    <<<<Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.>>>>


    smellsgood: WOW. I think the biggest myth is this article seeking as is fairly redundant as it's been hashed over so many times, to twist, empty theorize, and rewrite history.

    It's not about saying whether the gospels are truth or not, it's about having a bit of historical integrity in that investigation. These people do not. Nor are they very creative.

  • sinis
    sinis
    smellsgood: Fact is, that interval is the smallest of any historical book. It's just a fact. For example, I love Greek and Roman History, and some of what is commonly learned about Rome is from the historian Herodotus (ever read it? You should) To put the NT in perspective, the History of Herodotus (B.C. 488-428) MSS earliest copies we have are around 1,600 YEARS from the time they were written. Wow. Same is true of hundreds of other ancient works. Yet there isn't the same incitement of shock when it comes to judging these books authenticity as is with the books of the NT. Not to mention there are hundreds fewer MSS, hundreds more years apart. That's just unscholarly to not look at these books in light of other ancient manuscripts, it smacks of an agenda.

    Its because no one has an agenda, hidden or otherwise, in other ancient "factoid" books. Historians write, religion persuades at any cost necessary. If the NT is so accurate please give me a legitimate outside source that speaks of Jesus, the rabble rouser, that drew such large crowds to Jerusalem and was a thorn in Romes side?

    Or how about this refute:

    P52 'Rylands fragment' – 5 complete & 9 part-words on one side, 6 complete & 7 partial words on the other.

    If we imagine 79 missing words we can derive a passage found in chapter 18
    (verses 31-33 and 37-8) of John's Gospel (or the Gospel of Nicodemus for that matter – see link).
    This scrap (about 9x6 cm) is used to support a huge weight of traditional New Testament dating.
    By taking the earliest possible date for P52 – 125 AD rather than the equally valid 150 AD – and then supposing that John was the last of the 4 gospels to be written, the other 3 gospels are pushed back into the 1st century. Convinced? No, nor am I.

    And the Gospel of Nicodemus?

    It seems that propagandists for the anti-Christian emperor Maximinus Daia (305-313) and his Christian opponents both concocted fraudulent "Acts of Pilate" (aka "Gospel of Nicodemus").
    Clearly, even in the 4th century, the struggle for "gospel truth" was in full spate.
  • The wanderer
    The wanderer

    Dear Terry:

    The story article may or may not have foundation.
    However, consider the source very carefully before
    drawing any conclusions.

    Respectfully,

    The Wanderer

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit