[_ Old Earth _] Archeological Evidence Confirming Bible

[Gary]

Faulty reasoning

rez: Again absolutely no historicity of Jesus exists. You have cited no first hand evidence pertaining to his existance when he supposedly lived outside of the bible.

Gary: Wrong. You have built a strawman. The Gospels exist. You want evidence apart from the evidence. That is absurd. Matthew, Mark Luke and John lived at the same time as Jesus. You cannot disprove that.

 

[Gary]

Tacitus

Tacitus turns out to be an extremely rich source of data that confirms important aspects of Christian history:

• (1) He regards "Christus" as the founder of the movement. This mitigates against ideas that Paul or some other person was the ideological head of Christianity. (This has been one of your own claim before Quath)
  
  (2) He confirms the execution of Jesus under Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius. That is clear evidence that Jesus existed
  
  (3) He indicates that Jesus' death "checked" Christianity for a time. This would hint at the probability that Christianity was recognized to have had some status as a movement (albeit not under the name "Christianity") prior to the death of Jesus.
  
  (4) He identifies Judaea as the "source" of the movement. This mitigates against ideas that Christianity was designed piecemeal from pagan religious ideas. So again, also migates your own previous assumptions, Quath, about the origins of Christianity.
  
  (5) He indicates that Christians in Rome in the mid-60s A.D. were dying for their faith. If they were dying for their faith, what was that faith based upon? A myth? Hardly!

Read more here: Tacitus

There you will find many scholarly references.

 

[Gary]

Josephus

Josephus ends up being a rich source for confirmation of the Gospel record:

• (1) Jesus had a brother named James, who was an important member of the church;
  
  (2) Jesus was a wise and virtuous man;
  
  (3) Jesus had disciples, both among the Jews and Gentiles.
  
  (4) Jesus was called "Christ" by some.
  
  (5) Jesus was a worker of surprising deeds - an allusion perhaps to miracle-working power.
  
  (6) Jesus was executed by Pilate by means of crucifixion.
  
  (7) His execution was prompted in part by the leaders among the Jews.
  
  (8) Christians were "named" from Him - which confirms Tacitus' own usage of the terminology.

References and more information on Josephus: Josephus

 

[Gary]

Thallus (c. 50-75ad)

"A third-century Christian historian, Julius Africanus, composed a History of the World down to around ad. 220 in five volumes. In one of the surviving fragments, Julius discussed the three-hour darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus and makes this comment:
In the third book of his history, Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun--wrongly in my opinion. (5.50)

"In order to assess the strength of this evidence, I will look at a several issues:

• What do we know about this Thallus?
  What was the historical context of this remark?
  What was the background of Julius Africanus?
  Do we have any reasons to believe that Julius was QUALIFIED as a historian, esp. in his use of Thallus' statement?
  What conclusions might we draw from this?

.
snip...... read the rest of the article here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html

.
.
.

"What conclusions might we draw from this?

"Well, frankly, I personally am quite surprised at where I ended up on this issue.

"I originally thought that I would end up saying that the Thallus' evidence for the death of Jesus was positive, but shaky at best, but my study has led me to a much stronger position. It seems clear to me now, in the context of the historiographical stature of both Thallus and Julius Africanus, that this early piece of scholarly evidence has EQUAL or GREATER credibility to even the official history of Tacitus or the official correspondence of Pliny (to be examined later).

"The reference to the miraculous darkness around the Crucifixion of my Lord--even documented as to the hours by Phlegon!--is powerful evidence not only for the 'existence of Jesus', but for the reliability of those portions of the gospel accounts that describe that phenomena. In the public records of the day, a "most fearful darkness" followed our rejection of the Light of the World. Remind you of today?

Glenn Miller

For the full article (worth a read!)
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html

 

[Gary]

Pliny

What do we learn about Jesus and/or Christianity from this historian/writer?

• (1) We learn that Jesus was worshipped, and that believers died for belief in Him, in the early second century.
  (2) We learn of several aspects of worship that correspond with the NT: Worshipping on a fixed day, practice of the Eucharist, and the ethical grounding of Jesus' teachings.

References and more information on Pliny: Pliny

 

[Gary]

Lucian

What do we learn about Jesus and/or Christianity from this historian/writer?

• (1) Jesus is clearly regarded as the founder of Christianity.
  
  (2) Lucian also confirms the method and place of Jesus' execution.
  
  (3) We learn a great deal about the attitudes and practices of Christians in Lucian's time, and about the corresponding attitude of pagans like Lucian towards Jesus and the Christians.
  
  (4) Jesus is recognized as a sage and a teacher of some worth; yet Christian belief is generally regarded as absurd.

References and more information on Lucian: Lucian

 

[reznwerks]

gary

Faulty reasoning

rez: Again absolutely no historicity of Jesus exists. You have cited no first hand evidence pertaining to his existance when he supposedly lived outside of the bible.

Gary: Wrong. You have built a strawman. The Gospels exist. You want evidence apart from the evidence. That is absurd. Matthew, Mark Luke and John lived at the same time as Jesus. You cannot disprove that.

What are you, Johnnny come lately? As I said in my previous post to Serapha he has not provided any real evidence of the historicity of Jesus and unless he can do so their is no point in continuing the debate. You have just made a claim as to the relevance of the Gospel. No one debates the Gospels existance. What is debateable is WHO wrote them. You can't show any evidence as to who Matthew Mark Luke and John were outside of the bible. It could be one person or several writing under the same name. As you should also be aware that none of the gospels attributes what is written to be that of the author. They all state the gospel according to so and so. Obviously someone else did the writing. The earliest estimates of when they were written 50 ad and later leads to the probability of error as if as you claim these were the oriniginal writers they were well ahead in age. Combine this fact with the fact I just pointed out that the gospels are according to so and so and not written by the author then what I am saying makes whole lot more sense, Well how accurate it is we don't know. Another problem is the gospels contradict themselves in many important areas, and much of some gospels show copying word for word.
"The bible is not-and was never intended to be - a historical document.A work of theology,law, ethics and literature, it does contain historical nformation, but if we want to evalualte this information we should consider when how and why the bible was compiled." Daniel Gavron "King David and Jeruselem- Myth and Reality"

As I pointed out early in this thread the authentication of the ossuary that was found some two years ago would be the FIRST evidence of the historicity of Jesus. They are not my words but the words of biblical scholars. You claim you are a well read person then go to the links and dispute the experts.

 

[reznwerks]

first hand

Gary
First hand. Do you understand what it means? If not it means evidence that is available from the time that Jesus lived. I am looking for evidence outside of the bible at the time Jesus supposedly lived. All your sources you just gave me lived later and/or their writing is considered bias and could have been just repeating legend. Don't give me the excuse that Jesus was not well known or that historians did not have time to write about an insignificant person. The bible plainly states that Jesus was very well known and if Jesus did what was attributable to him then certainly people would have written it down.

 

[cubedbee]

Re: gary

As I pointed out early in this thread the authentication of the ossuary that was found some two years ago would be the FIRST evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

The ossuary is a confirmed fraud.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

 

[Gary]

Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

You can't show any evidence as to who Matthew Mark Luke and John were outside of the bible....

Gary: Wrong. The evidence of who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were is in the Gospels, in the epistles and in the letters and quotes OUTSIDE of the Bible as well.

Matthew

The canonicity and Matthean authorship of this gospel were unchallenged in the early church. Eusebius (ca. a.d. 265–339) quotes Origen (ca. a.d. 185–254):

• Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25).

It is clear that this gospel was written at a relatively early dateâ€â€prior to the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70.

Mark

The early church fathers, unanimously affirm that Mark wrote this second gospel. Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, writing about a.d. 140, noted:

• And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord (6)]

Justin Martyr, writing about a.d. 150, referred to the Gospel of Mark as “the memoirs of Peter,†and suggested that Mark committed his gospel to writing while in Italy. This agrees with the uniform voice of early tradition, which regarded this gospel as having been written in Rome, for the benefit of Roman Christians. Irenaeus, writing about a.d. 185, called Mark “the disciple and interpreter of Peter,†and recorded that the second gospel consisted of what Peter preached about Christ.

Luke

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts clearly were written by the same individual (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1). Although he never identified himself by name, it is clear from his use of “we†in many sections of Acts that he was a close companion of the Apostle Paul (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Luke is the only person, among the colleagues Paul mentions in his own epistles (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24), who fits the profile of the author of these books. That accords perfectly with the earliest tradition of the church which unanimously attributed this gospel to Luke.

Luke and Acts appear to have been written at about the same timeâ€â€Luke first, then Acts. Combined, they make a 2-volume work addressed to “Theophilusâ€Â.

John

Although the author’s name does not appear in the gospel, early church tradition strongly and consistently identified him as the Apostle John. The early church father Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 130–200) was a disciple of Polycarp (ca. a.d. 70–160), who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he testified on Polycarp’s authority that John wrote the gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia Minor when he was advanced in age (Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.1.1).

Subsequent to Irenaeus, all the church fathers assumed John to be the gospel’s author. Clement of Alexandria (ca. a.d. 150–215) wrote that John, aware of the facts set forth in the other gospes and being moved by the Holy Spirit, composed a “spiritual gospel†(see Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 6.14.7).

Source: The MacArthur Study Bible

 

[Gary]

rez: The bible plainly states that Jesus was very well known and if Jesus did what was attributable to him then certainly people would have written it down.

Gary: Yes they did. They are called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

If you want to find out more about the reference to
the person that may have started the myth of Jesus you can start here.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... urces.html

Hi there!


I think I need for you to be more specific, I don't see the specific information that you said would be there.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

You have provided no evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

Hi there!


Please correct your statement to read that I have not provided any evidence that you will accept because what I have provided thus far is accepted by people who understand the meaning of archaeological evidences and historical evidences.

have used the analogy of Hercules who was worshiped for thousands of years. Using your basis for determining authenticity one would have to conclude Hercules was real as well.

Fine... show me an ossuary box that has the sign of Hercules on it ... and while you are at it... show me any churches that have disciples of Hercules buried under their altar.

I have shown in my post above using those who study the bible and archeology (not skeptics and atheists) those that know and have a vested interest in proving the bible true admit that no evidence exists to confirm a real Jesus.

Actually, all the references you posted are skeptics, and I am certain some are athiests. I'm at the library right now, but I intend to address some of those people you identify as "not skeptics and athiests" later.

I also pointed out that when they thought the ossuary that was found was that of Jesus brother (2 years ago?]

That ossuary was found probably 25 years ago... it just surfaced on the market (again) a couple of years ago. I have never referenced the James ossuary, but you have tried to use it again and again as an evidence against Christianity... as though, if one ossuary inscription were falsifed, then every other ossuary inscription must be falsified. You have refused EVERY inscription offered thus far, and then you "scream" that there's no evidence. There IS evidence... you just reject it.

the article said up front that it would be the FIRST evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

And the email response from the site said differently, didn't it?

You have used the "sign of the cross" as "proof" of Jesus and I have pointed out that the cross was used by pagans first and not used by Christians for several hundred years and have cited the sources.

You know, that "crossed lines" were used by pagans really doesn't have a bearing on the "cross" evidences concerning Jesus. You see, many of the first-century Christians were as the disciples, practicing Jews and converts to Christianity. Here's what I told a pagan one time...


God created this world and everything in it... He created it and He owns it and everything here is just on loan for our use....

and in history, the pagans grabbed the symbolism of the cross from the public domain, but when Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, victorious over sin, death, satan, and the grave... he reclaimed the copyrights to using the symbol of the cross.

And, as already posted in this thread, as more and more evidences are found, the idea concering the "late-arriving" symbolism of the cross have been, and continue to be proven wrong, that the cross is a very early symbolism.

Unless you can provide evidence for the historicity of Jesus that most scholars accept then I see no point in continuing this debate.

What, the discussion is over? You said epigraphy was a science. Epigraphy involves the historical evidences of Jesus. You have rejected every evidence thus far...

Exactly what "proof" would you find acceptable? a birth certificate? Births were registered, and assuredly Jesus's birth was registered as it was required, but the records in Rome concerning that type of registration were destroyed many centuries ago.

a death certificate? But, Jesus isn't dead.

a tomb? sorry, it's empty.

baptismal record? They didn't keep any

census? yeah, they did that, but the manuscript records deteriorated to dust millennia go.

Tell me, since, "I am not doubting the spread of Christianity. I am doubting the reason."....

What do you think caused the spread of Christianity to become the #1 religion in Israel? How do you convert hundreds of thousands of people to a mythological messiah when the Old Testament Scriptures are so specific in identifying the true Messiah? Don't you think that people who were raised as Jews and in the Jewish teachings would question the validity and credibility of the Messiah known as Jesus Christ, Don't you think they would reject Jesus as the Christ if there were even an inkling of doubt? Being a Christian wasn't exactly a popularity contest, you know.


Again, I stress the validity and credibility of Peter and Paul, both proven to have lived during the time of Christ and Peter as an eyewitness, Paul as a conversion to Christianity. What they say has bearing on the Christ of Calvary as they gave up their lives to remain Christians to the death.

You cannot discredit "the Christian Scriptures" which certainly were in circulation in the first century. You cannot discredit the Gospels... I've read you accusations against the authorship of the Gospels, but I haven't seen you post that the Gospels simply aren't true.

I have to go... as I said, I am at the library...

~later~

 

[ThinkerMan]

What do you think caused the spread of Christianity to become the #1 religion in Israel? How do you convert hundreds of thousands of people to a mythological messiah when the Old Testament Scriptures are so specific in identifying the true Messiah? Don't you think that people who were raised as Jews and in the Jewish teachings would question the validity and credibility of the Messiah known as Jesus Christ, Don't you think they would reject Jesus as the Christ if there were even an inkling of doubt? Being a Christian wasn't exactly a popularity contest, you know.

Just a quick point I wanted to make.

You claim that the spread of Christianity, as well as the martyrs of those times, testify to the veracity of the claims of the bible. As well, obviously, of the testimony of the apostles (I won't bring up whether or not any of the actual 12 Apostles ever actually wrote any of the NT.)

Your argument from popularity does not stand up to analogy, however.

Let's take Mormonism, which I would assume both of us think is a false belief.

Today, there are approximately 10 million Mormons worldwide, one of the fastest growing demoninations in the world.

These 10 million have converted to Mormonism in the last 160 years, roughly how long it took for the four gospels to be actually named and selected (Irenaeus in 180 CE). I am not completely sure how many Christian existed 150 years after Jesus' death, but I beleive I read somewhere in the order of 1-2 million somewhere.

During the Mormons formative years, they were assaulted, murdered, purged from their lands, etc. Many of the same experiences that early Christians are said to have suffered. It wasn't first prize in a popularity contest to be a Mormon in 1850 either.

It also appears that they spread their beliefs faster than the Christians did. They also had witnesses who attested to the claims of Joseph Smith.

In short, their experiences closely mirror the experiences of early Christianity that you claim prove, in part, the validity of the NT and its spiritual claims.

Yet you and I fully agree that that religion is false, regardless of the speed of its growth or the martyrdoom of its adherents.

The argument from popularity you use is poor proof of validity.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: gary

As I pointed out early in this thread the authentication of the ossuary that was found some two years ago would be the FIRST evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

The ossuary is a confirmed fraud.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ub=SciTech

You see Gary this proves my point. Of course I know the ossuarry is a fraud. You read but don't understand what you are reading.Let me try to condense this for you. Serapha tried to point out that evidence found in 1945 was "proof" of the historicity of Jesus. I pointed out that IF the ossuary that was found two years ago was real IT would be the FIRST EVIDENCE OF JESUS as a real person. That was quoted in the reference link I provided. In case you missed it here it is again.
"This past week, the popular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review published an article in which a leading French archaeologist, Andre Lemaire, claims that an ancient coffin from Palestine had held the body of James, the brother of Jesus. If it could be verified, this coffin, more correctly called a bone box or an ossuary, would form a direct archaeological link to Jesus Christ. Such archaeological evidence for Jesus and his historical existence has never before been found and would have important ramifications for Christianity." This was written by By Paul Flesher, Director
Religious Studies Program
University of Wyoming
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

If you want to find out more about the reference to the person that may have started the myth of Jesus you can start here.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflec ... urces.html

Hi there!


I think I need for you to be more specific, I don't see the specific information that you said would be there.

Serapha you need to do some leg work if you want the truth.

[EDITED

Rule 2 - No Flaming:

You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

Thanks,

Robert

If I were you I would be on fire right now trying to find out if I had been misled. At one time I was and now I know the truth. So I will help you out and reference info that you should be able to confirm if you want to.

~serapha~

Ben Pandera
"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vR ... en&start=1
To be more specific this is the teacher of rightioiusness in the Dead Sea Srolls.

"Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming. One individual who fits the scanty evidence is a Jesus or Jesua or Joshua ben Pantera, Pentera or Pandera, who apparently had some influence with his movement, but may have been much more than that; we simply don't know. Apparently he had enough influence that he became a political threat; sufficient that he was declared a heretic by a temple court and was stoned to death and his body hanged from a tree on the eve of Passover in 88 B.C.E."
"If he was the Teacher of Righteousness referred to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as some have suggested, his impact on the movement towards Jewish reform was considerable. And if he was the Teacher of Righteousness, it would answer a lot of interesting questions, such as the scattered first century Christian and Talmudic references to a miracle worker named Jesus ben Pantera. Among them are a quote from Origen, saying that his arch-rival Celsus had heard from a Jew in Jerusalem that Jesus Ben Pantera was born of Mary as the result of a rape by a Roman soldier named Pantera, and had borne the baby in secret. "
" But if they really do refer to the Jesus of whom the Christians speak, they add evidence to the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is really Jesus ben Pantera, possibly the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, who died in 88 B.C.E. "
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UG ... en&start=6
Now first of all I am not saying that what is quoted above is fact. However these references are in the Talmud and Sea Scrolls. You are looking at possible reasons for the myth of Jesus those are some possibilities.

 

[reznwerks]

josephus

Josephus

Josephus ends up being a rich source for confirmation of the Gospel record:
[)

"He raised a bank on that called the Broad Place, and dedicated that golden pillar which is in Jupiter's temple; he also went and cut down timber from the mountain called Libanus, and got timber Of cedar for the roofs of the temples. He also pulled down the old temples, and built new ones; besides this, he consecrated the temples of Hercules and of Astarte. He first built Hercules's temple in the month Peritus, and that of Astarte when he made his expedition against the Tityans, who would not pay him their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself, he returned home"
Josephus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:6t ... en&start=1
So here we have Josephus including Hercules written as fact from his own perspective. This is proof that Hercules was real. I hope , finally we can put this idea to rest about evidence from Josephus as being authentic of Jesus. As for the rest of your continued referencing to Tacitus Pliny etc they lived much much later to be considered FIRST HAND evidence of Jesus. They simply were repeating what they heard at best.

 

[Gary]

Evidence

I have given you first hand evidence. You reject it.

Millions don't.

Secondly, the first-hand evidence of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
is confirmed by the early church and by external evidence of
Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Pliny and Lucian.

YOU can reject that evidence. I don't worry. Your posts show little
scholarship and even less reasoning. I am not here to convince you...
that is impossible. We have all seen your ridiculous posts.

I am here to show other Christians that there is logic and reason for
our belief. You are unlikely to ever understand that.

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

]
Ben Pandera
"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vR ... en&start=1
To be more specific this is the teacher of rightioiusness in the Dead Sea Srolls.

"Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming. One individual who fits the scanty evidence is a Jesus or Jesua or Joshua ben Pantera, Pentera or Pandera, who apparently had some influence with his movement, but may have been much more than that; we simply don't know. Apparently he had enough influence that he became a political threat; sufficient that he was declared a heretic by a temple court and was stoned to death and his body hanged from a tree on the eve of Passover in 88 B.C.E."
"If he was the Teacher of Righteousness referred to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as some have suggested, his impact on the movement towards Jewish reform was considerable. And if he was the Teacher of Righteousness, it would answer a lot of interesting questions, such as the scattered first century Christian and Talmudic references to a miracle worker named Jesus ben Pantera. Among them are a quote from Origen, saying that his arch-rival Celsus had heard from a Jew in Jerusalem that Jesus Ben Pantera was born of Mary as the result of a rape by a Roman soldier named Pantera, and had borne the baby in secret. "
" But if they really do refer to the Jesus of whom the Christians speak, they add evidence to the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is really Jesus ben Pantera, possibly the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, who died in 88 B.C.E. "
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UG ... en&start=6
Now first of all I am not saying that what is quoted above is fact. However these references are in the Talmud and Sea Scrolls. You are looking at possible reasons for the myth of Jesus those are some possibilities.

Hi there!


With my very minimal knowledge of history in the Levant, may I post a refutal to your great wealth of knowledge?

"The Talmud refers to Jesus several places, typically as 'Ben Pandera', where Pandera is sometimes taken to be the name of a Roman soldier who was Jesus' illegitimate father. It may also be a play on words, since the Greek word for virgin is 'parthenos'."
- McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict

The strongest evidences for the place where Mary grew up is that she was in Nazareth. There isn't any evidence of any Roman soldiers having ever been garrisoned in Nazareth because it was such a small community.


In speaking of that community, they followed Hasidim teachings which were a close first-cousin to the Essenes, those in Nazareth were a very closed society, believing that the Messiah would eventuall rise out of their clan and show the world that "theirs" was the true teachings from God.

"The story of Mary's seduction by Pandera was in circulation around 150 C.E., when it was cited by Celasus [Origen (ca. AD 185-254), Contra Celsum]; and the Toldot Yeshu was quoted by Tertullian in 198 C.E. Almost certainly its author did not intend his work to be taken seriously, but was rather riduculing Matthew by writing a parody. Nothing else could explain his making Jesus huios pantherou (son of a panther), a transparent pun on huios parthenou (son of a virgin)."
- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vR ... en&start=1

So, you are telling me that young woman who lived in a closed community, was seduced by an outsider, a Roman soldier, who was garrisoned at best, many miles away, and who took such an interest in the young girl, that he was able to seduce her away from her family, the teachings that she had lived with all of her life, and her faith in God just to have sex with him?

"Founded in the second century B.C.E., the Essenes were either founded by or greatly influenced by a "Teacher of Righteousness," to which the Dead Sea Scrolls make constant reference without ever naming.

The Christ of Calvary was not the "Teacher of Righteousness" and there are as many works available on the internet as there are supporting documents.

Now first of all I am not saying that what is quoted above is fact. However these references are in the Talmud and Sea Scrolls. You are looking at possible reasons for the myth of Jesus those are some possibilities.

I appreciate that you don't say it is fact. I'll say, "it is a stretch of anyone's imagination to grasp that straw man"


Jesus was living for a while in "Bethany beyond Jordan"... and that is where he was baptized by John the Baptist. If Jesus were the "Teacher of Righteousness" he would not have been in "bethany beyond Jordan" as it would have defiled him by Essene standards which required that they be separate... as say in the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem.


The apostle Peter was in "Bethany beyond Jordon" also, and that is where he first met Jesus. Don't you think that Peter would have recognized the "Teacher of Righteousness" for what he was?


~serapha~

 

[bibleberean]

Could whoever stretched this thread go back and edit their post to correct the problem?

Thanks,

Robert