|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 19, 2007 19:21:45 GMT -4
Notes on Josephus: In the Antiquities Josephus mentions Jesus in two, places. The first one: Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
There is debate on whether this passage has been interpolated, but it may be genuine. given that it does say 'the so-called Christ'. A Christian interpolater probably would have said 'the Christ' instead. The longer passage:
Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
This definitely has been messed with. Josephus was an orthodox Jew, he would never say 'He was the Christ' or 'if ot be lawful to call him a man'.
Although no original Josephus documents are available earlier than the eleventh century, there are much earlier manuscripts (as early as the third century) by other writers that do quote the passages above. There is a late medieval Slavonic version of Josephus' Antiquities with much more about Jesus and Christians but it it generally view by almost all scholars as being heavy interpolated by Christian writers.
But this is getting off track a bit, because I'm not looking for evidence that Jesus existed, but evidence linking Jesus to all the other myths.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 20, 2007 5:20:47 GMT -4
Anyone see "The Muslim Jesus" on UK TV last night? Basically it was a run through of how Jesus is described in the Koran. What caught my attention was the take on the crucifixion - Jesus was taken straight to heaven to await his second coming, while God changed Judas to take on Jesus' appearance. As a result it was Judas who was crucified.
So there you have it: the Koran contains a conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 21, 2007 3:01:54 GMT -4
The whole "virgin birth" thing is an intentional reference to an Old Testament passage. However, it's not merely a mistranslation, the original refers to a specific event that is not a prophecy of the Messiah. The passage, if I remember my Old Testament, is in Isaiah, and properly translated, it refers to a young woman, not a virgin at all, giving birth; she is the wife of the then-king. Who, if I recall my Biblical studies, was already pregnant, so it wasn't exactly the most daring of prophecies in the first place.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2007 11:57:23 GMT -4
The word used for virgin in Isaiah can merely mean a young woman, but the new testament specifically states that Christ's birth fulfilled this prophecy. Matthew 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." So if it's a mistranslation and mis-applied prophecy then the mistake dates back to the earliest Christians in the first century.
EDIT: Since Gillian made a stink about it, I have corrected the spelling of "Matthew".
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 21, 2007 15:56:20 GMT -4
Yes. It absolutely does; that's my point. Matthew was writing for Jews, and so he put in as many "in fulfillment of the scriptures" as he could, including in this instance when it wasn't actually appropriate.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2007 16:07:19 GMT -4
My point being that many 1st century jews apparently were convinced it was an appropriate use, and a 1st century jew was probably in a better position than we are to judge the correct meaning of the prophecy, being at a much larger cultural and temporal remove than a 1st century jew would be from Isaiah.
Also, anyone who accepts the New Testament as inspired could make a case that Matthew was inspired when he cited the Isaiah prophecy, and therefore that God's intent was to fulfill it in Jesus. It may be worth noting that in LDS theology many of Isaiah's prophecies could be said to have a double meaning - referring both to events of his own time and the distant future, using the contemporary events as a type or symbol of events to come.
EDIT: Since Gillian made a stink about it, I have corrected the spelling of "Matthew".
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 21, 2007 16:46:52 GMT -4
I'd actually point out the the first prophecy of the Christ being born of an unusual manner not involving a man was given right back in Genesis and even if we ignore the setting, that still places it with the first people of the Biblical setting at the earliest, or Moses at the latest, though it would be logical to assume that much of what Moses penned for Genesis was passed down orally before that.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 21, 2007 18:34:45 GMT -4
I think the greek word in Matthew 1:22 is parthenos, but could mean woman or virgin . What I thought was interesting though is that Matthew 1:24 and 25 says: "When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne him a son".
The Greek says "and he did not know her until she bore a son".
Which begs the question (off topic): Why do Catholics believe that she remained a virgin her whole life? My wife says that maybe it was because 'some guys didn't want their daughters to have sex'. She may be closer to the truth than at first reading!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2007 19:04:06 GMT -4
Not being Catholic I can't be certain, but I think it has to do with the sexual act being viewed as unclean or sinful (the same reason their clergy take an oath of celibacy).
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 21, 2007 19:31:46 GMT -4
Well I used to be Catholic - and an alter boy to boot, and as far as I can tell Catholics don't actually read the bible - they listen to priests. At least that's the way it was when I was growing up. I don't think there was a Catholic English translation of the Bible until the sixteenth century, the Douay-Rheims version. We weren't encouraged to read it. We didn't have Sunday school after church, everyone just went home.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 21, 2007 22:25:46 GMT -4
Well I used to be Catholic - and an alter boy to boot, and as far as I can tell Catholics don't actually read the bible - they listen to priests.This seems to be my understanding as well based on my speaking with Catholics. Doctrine is placed at a higher level that the Bible. I'd suggest that one reason for the latin mass is to keep people ignorant as well. I do know of Catholics who when they have found themselves on the back foot in hot religious dicussions claim that Protestants are being unfair by using the Bible against them. As to the why.... Under Catholisim Mary is virtually raised to the state of Deity (even having bodily ascended into heaven : and so she has to be seen as pure and untouched (some Catholics even go as far as claiming that SHE was imaculately conceived as well so that Christ would not have a sin line through her either (how they reconcile that for this to be true her mother, and her grandmother and her great grandmother and her.... would all have had to have been so concieved as well, escapes me.) As such they keep her a virgin and claim that Jesus' brothers were in fact only brothers by Joseph and that he remarried, something that has zero basis in the Gospel and early church understanding. (BTW two of the letters, James and Jude, were written by Jesus' brothers.) On the celibacy of priests, this was introduced in the 300's, but in the early church there was no such prohibition. Peter was married and it is believed that the author of the Gospel of Mark was his son, and was writting based on the stories that his father told him, much as Luke write his gospels based on both Paul's preaching and his research and gathering of information from others who were there at the time. Paul also appears to have been married at the time of his conversion to Christianity, but subsequently divorsed (likely because his wife refused to follow his parth) and remained single, still he set rules for the Church Eldership that they not only be married, but have raised children in a manner becoming to God. (exact details are in the letters to Timothy.) Biblically there is no prohibition of marriage or sex to those called to paster to the Church, and in fact one of the OT books (Song of Solomon) is all about sex, though in the confines of a marriage and written is very poetic language.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 21, 2007 23:29:44 GMT -4
It's not just the Catholics who tend to listen to their preists rather than read the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 22, 2007 0:51:54 GMT -4
Very true. For example, some people persistently spell the name of one of the books wrong.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 22, 2007 0:55:17 GMT -4
Well see, that's were us Pentecostals are ahead of the game... we don't have Priests so we have to read our Bibles.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 22, 2007 0:59:38 GMT -4
Very true. For example, some people persistently spell the name of one of the books wrong. That wouldn't be "Revelations" would it, since the correct title is The Revelation to John, or even better The Revelation of Jesus Christ, made known to his discple, John
|
|