by XJW4EVR 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
Rob:
My point is that to call Jesus a Rabbi is misleading; technically correct maybe but misleading.
If we take the sayings of Jesus at face value, they are at odds with nearly all of the traditional relighous ideas of his day, including praying for enemies, disregard for the letter of the law and associating with outcasts.
A Jewish man I use to call on as a return vist called Jesus an Intinerant Rabbi. Jesus, as a Maggid or wandering preacher, is very possible. Jesus thinking of himself as the Messiah is also very possible since dozens of others made the same claim in his era. Hearing an inner voice is common and seems to attrack religiously devout people.
The struggle in christianity is to see Jesus as Jewish, just look at the artwork in the Watchtower and most churches.
I have enjoyed Bart Ehrman's books in the past, but I'm not sure if can fully agree with him on this point. (I should point out that I haven't read his latest book yet.)
There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that Jesus may have existed or may have even probably existed, but to make a firm statement that he definitely existed is a little extreme in my opinion.
I don't think we know nearly enough about various first century sects and their writings to make definite conclusions about their motivations for telling and retelling the Jesus stories. There likely was a lot of dishonesty, exaggeration, and possibly telling stories with moral lessons that weren't meant to be taken literally. Many, if not most, of these writings may be lost forever. We also might not have any surviving information from some of the groups that contributed to these stories.
What if more than one person or some combination of real and fictitious characters contributed to the Jesus stories? I don't think we can rule this out. In this case, would it be fair to call Jesus a historical person? Would it be fair to call Paul Bunyun a historical person? Some of his stories may have also been inspired by one or more real people.
Would it be fair to say that Big Foot is real? The total amount of evidence for Big Foot far outweighs the amount of evidence for Jesus. The problem is that none of it is particularly reliable and most of it can be interpreted in more than one way. I think the same problems exist for the evidence for Jesus.
I think the perception of Jesus as being at odds with the religious ideas of his day is misleading. He is very much within the tradition of the rabbis. There was certainly consideerable disagreement between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The latter did not believe in a coming messiah, resurrection, or a return of the gift of prophecy. The Pharisees did believe in those things. The conflict stories in the gospels reflect the same disagreements that were prevalent between Pharisees and Sadducees and also the debates amongst the Pharisees and Rabbis. And several of the parables which are attributed to Jesus in the gospels are echoed in parables attributed to other Rabbis.
A couple of books by Jewish scholars which I would recomment are: Jacob Neusner: Judaism in the beginning of Christianity, and Hyam Maccoby: Jesus the Pharisee.
(And perhaps I should add that the Pharisees are not to be regarded solely as the baddies. Folk who read Neusner and Maccoby can expect to see a very different picture to that which is usually painted!)
Rob Crompton http://snigsfoot.blogspot.com
Sometimes i wonder from reading and hearing Barts speeches if he doesnt want to sound to extreme in saying jesus didnt exist. hes happy to repeat how many thousands of differences are between the same version of the same book and contradictions within the gospel stories. He also likes to say the books in the NT are all mostly greek because of puns and language that only works if it was greek.
Nuts!!!
The NT manuscript evidence undebatedly supports 1st century authorship. Start with the John Rylands papyrus and compare that to anything from antiquity, then consider the additional thousands of pieces of MS evidence coming from commentaries quoting the NT from the 2nd - 5th centuries. Arguing against it is as narrowminded as a JW denying the prophecies of CTR. Reread the Gospels. It's in your face. Everywhere you can find the names, places and events supporting the messiahship of Jesus. You can't heal people that do not exist. That Paul's point in Acts in his trial with Agrippa (26:26).
You can decide not to be grateful to God but you cannot deny that God has left enough physical evidence to reasonably put your faith in his Son.
You people's problem is that you are so used to someone lying to you, you cannot tell when someone is telling the truth. And the False Prophet wins.
Yes, Jesus Christ existed and was a woman!
ROB
Nuts!!!
The NT manuscript evidence undebatedly supports 1st century authorship. Start with the John Rylands papyrus and compare that to anything from antiquity, then consider the additional thousands of pieces of MS evidence coming from commentaries quoting the NT from the 2nd - 5th centuries. Arguing against it is as narrowminded as a JW denying the prophecies of CTR. Reread the Gospels. It's in your face. Everywhere you can find the names, places and events supporting the messiahship of Jesus. You can't heal people that do not exist. That Paul's point in Acts in his trial with Agrippa (26:26).
You can decide not to be grateful to God but you cannot deny that God has left enough physical evidence to reasonably put your faith in his Son.
You people's problem is that you are so used to someone lying to you, you cannot tell when someone is telling the truth. And the False Prophet wins.
Your Rylands papyrus is the size of a coin and has barely a few words on it. Thats hardly proof of the entire contents of the NT.
Take a look at the papyrus, is that really proof that the bible has not been altered ? The dead sea scrolls and nag hamrabbi scrolls have many interesting stories that are dated before jesus and they tell many similarities. Xians never mentions these texts because they are uncannily similar to the gospel stories or have very different messages which they want to hide.
The John Rylands papyrus is the start of evidence. It is dated by scholars to the first quarter of the second century, 125 AD. It is an incredible find. You have to understand the weight this gives to first century authorship of the NT. Consider Ceasar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico, the oldest copy of this work is from the 10th century.
The Rylands papyrus not only gives unparralled weight to 1st century authorship, it also clearly shows how unmolested our copies are today. When the Rylands papyrus was found did anyone say, Oh we have to go back and change the book of John? No because this is what was found:
Gospel of John 18:31-33
ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ
OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ-
ΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ-
ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ-
ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠIΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-
ΔAΙΩN the Jews, "For us it is not permitted to kill
anyone," so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he sp-
oke signifying what kind of death he was going to
die. Entered therefore again into the Praeto-
rium Pilate and summoned Jesus
and said to him, "Thou art king of the
Jews?"
Gospel of John 18:37-38
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TOΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ
ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤY-ΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ EΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕI-
ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ
Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΚAΙ ΤΟΥΤO
ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΟΥ-
ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔEΜΙΑΝ
ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ
a King I am. For this I have been born
fault in him."
and (for this) I have come into the world so that I would
testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth
hears of me my voice." Said to him
Pilate, "What is truth?" and this
having said, again he went out unto the Jews
and said to them, "I find not one
You can listen to morons endlessly try to discredit the Bible, but for a moment, consider the text on this fragment and look at the words in a modern copy of the Bible. Marvel at the transmission of these words for 2000 years. It makes people shut up.
If you would suggest the Bible has been altered, on what grounds should I consider the Nag Hammurabi or Dead Sea scrolls?
