the bible

this is a real letter that some one wrote in responce to attacks on homeosexuals made on an american chrisian radio show. i have slyly robed this off someone elce from another chat room but you should take a look at it.......

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:


When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.


Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?


I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?


A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?


Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?


Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?


I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)


I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.


Your devoted fan,
Jim
_________________

What does this have to do with the Flat Earth Society???  I would have posted this in the "Everything Else" section.

this is a real letter that some one wrote in responce to attacks on homeosexuals made on an american chrisian radio show. ...

Dear Dr. Laura ...

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the woman this letter was intended for and host of an advice show, is Jewish, not Christian, and every passage referred to in that letter is from what Christians would call the "Old Testament," the older, Jewish section of the Bible. I am not particularly knowledgeable on the content of the Torah, but I believe it has, more or less, the same content as the Old Testament.


--Chal

Technically, the "jewish Old Testament" contains the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.  The Torah corresponds with the Five Books of Moses.  The Prophets obviously corresponds with the Propjets of the Christian Bible, and the Witings are everything else.  The "writings of the jews exclude some writings which most protestants exclude as well such as maccabees and other books which the protestasnts and jews call apocryphal (i.e. false), but which Orthodox Christians call Deuterocanonical (i.e. outside the cnon of the jews.  As to these books, the faithful jews actually did believe in them, and there was no "dry spell" as protestants call it of no Scripture between the Testaments.  The pharisees in Jerusalem for the most part igmored these books.  This iis contrary to what their faithful brethren did by accepting them.  This is the origin of rabbinical judaism's rejection of their own Scripture and it is connected to their rejection of Jesus Christ as their true Messiah.  The King James Bible was based on the jewish massoretic old testament with judaic prejudices in its Hebrew rendition as it was maintained by the very jewish scribes whom Jesus Christ warned to be wary of.  As far as the jews themselves, many rabbis (their spiritual leaders) follow the talmud as their supreme book in practice over the Bible.

  As to the jewish bible or torah in use being derived from the original Hebrew text, this is a fallacy.  The texts they use are not transcriptions of the original.  Their "bible" in use in synagogues was retranslated back into Hebrew from the greek Septuagint long ago and much corrupted afterwards and ever since.

  I would not take for granted every verse the guy quoted without looking it up as well as checking the context.  Still there remains the possibilty of a jewish or protestant mistranslation.

And Dr. Laura is indeed jewish as the inquirer appears to have been as well.

- Dionysios

Actually the Torah has been transmitted for the past 3,500 years unaltered.  Only learned scribes know how to write a Torah, as not only do the letters have to be written correctly, but all the accentuated marks above the letters, the spaces between the letters, the right amount of lines on each page, etc. etc.  The claim that the Torah was "retranslated" from the Septugaint is a farce and, in fact, the "Old Testament" is often mistranslated to fit the agenda of the "New Testament" narrative and the "Jesus was the Messiah" claim.

I had wanted to add that the majority of faithful jews at the time of Christ (referring to the jews who accepted the Deuterocanonical Books) were primarily in the diaspora (lands outside of Palestine).

  As to mbczion's claims, I should add that it was seventy Hebrew scribes who translated the Bible into Greek from Hebrew.  I do not doubt the existence of an original Hebrew text as some do, but the ones in use by the jews is not at all a  replica of that text.  

  Just as many white scholars today ignore the records of Greek historians when confronted with statements by the same as to their deriving their sciences or learning from such places as Egypt, jewish scholars will also deny their own historians who are witnesses to the truth.

  For example, Matthias be Josef, better known to the Roman and Gentile world as Flavius Josephus was a reknown Jewish historian of the first century AD who is very useful to students of the bible.  Josephus was a lmowledgeable pharisee and a historian learned in greek and Hebrew.

  I have read the works of Flavius Josephus, particularly his lengthy 'Antiquities of the Jews' in which he states that Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesied of by all the Jewish prophets.  He also wrote that Jesus Christ performed many mirackes and was crucified and resurrected on the third day.  This is a first century testimony by a jewish pharisee historian to the fact that Jesus Christ was the long awaited Jewish Messiah foretold by the prophets.  

  However, many Jews claim that the works of Josephus were corrupted by scribes because of this assertion that he made.  They falsify history, but manuscripts of Josephus show otherwise, as has historical testimony as to this sttatement of Josephus throughout many centuries.  They have actually succeeded in convincing some protestant scholars that Josephus  did not write this.  Yet the jewish leaders claim their own bible is the uncorrupted original from God while they claim Josephus is corrupted.  They make claims only to support their view, not because it is the truth.  They own prejudice and not the evidence or objective investigation determines their position on these things.

- Dionysios

mbczion,

  Controversy aside, are you familiar with the 'Jewish Encyclopedia' as published almost a hundred years ago by Funk and Wagnalls?  (It was superceeded by 'Encyclopedia Judaica,' which is still in print.  I was able to aquire an old set of the Jewish Encyclopedia a few years back for several hundred dollars so I jumped at the chance.  If you can ever get a hold of a copy, I would recommend it as it is quite an authoritative source concerning Jewish history.  Side from the time period elapsed between now and then, I would say it was hands down superior to Encyclopedia Judaica, which is more common nowadays.  Much information on older subjects that appeared in the older encyclopedia is just simply absent from the modern one.

- Dionysios

Actually I have more faith in the Great Sages of each generation for the lasts 3,500 years who have hovered over the candles studying from dawn to dusk when it comes to keeping the Jewish Law (both the Oral and Written) in tack.  Certainly I have more faith in the devout, G-d fearing scribes that have copied the Torah scrolls in tact (from generation to generation) for the last 3,500 years as well than any encyclopedia.

At any rate, there are plenty of sites for those who want to take a peak at what the undistorted version of Judaism is:

www.askmoses.com
www.chabad.org
www.ou.org
www.jewsforjudaism.org
www.messiahtruth.org
www.myjewishlearning.com

And I'm sure there are a lot more that are just not on the tip of my tongue at the moment.

I was not comparing the encyclopedia to scriptures.  It is a publication composed by jewish scholars.  It is merely a superb reference.  That is all.

  As to jewish websites, to be fair I will even supply one which agrees with your arguments as to the bible which should have been on the tip of your tongue:

http://www.nkusa.org/

- Dionysios

I was giving sites that DONT distort Torah Judaism, NOT ones that DO....

BTW, the "arguments" in your post (several posts up) are hardly new to me.  Jesus supposedly was born in the year 0 CE (give or take a few years) and was crucified at age 33.  The second Temple was destroyed in 70AD.  The first one was destroyed in 586 BCE, with the Jews being exiled to Babylon for 70 years and then returning to Palestine.  So, your timing is off regarding the  loyal Jews being in Babylon during Jesus's lifetime.

First of all, the partisans of the website I gave do agree with the arguments you presented above, a fact you may like to ignore.  They also certainly seem to myself and many other observers to be strikingly traditional and dedicated jews.

  As to the websites you gave supporting Torah judaism, any jews that support zionism do not follow traditional judaism in at least that aspect.  
Do you not agree that before just a hundred years ago, zionism was a minority view within judaism and had been for many centuries?  History is very much against you as assimilationism "IS" and has been for many centuries a staple of the dogma of traditional judaism.  If you adhere to zionism, then you are not a traditional jew, and I will not be convinced otherwise.  Any "jew" adhering to zionism follows a new and novel brand of judaism that became widely accepted only within the last hundred years.  Take all this talk of yourself as a traditional jew who goes for zionism and sell it to someone else as I do not buy into that garbage.

  The biggest single difference I see between the websites we posted is the issue of zionism versus assimilationaism.  Having a majority does not mean you have preserved a tradition correctly (including a tradition such as judaism).  You indicate a jewish minority (who is a minority nowadays, but whose view was at one time the majority) claiming to preserve the same tradition distorts it merely because they are the minority.  No.  I will look into your sites, but any of them advocating zionism are the ones who have distorted judaism as far as that goes at a minimum if in nothing alse.  I am not advocating traditional judaism, only truth as to the history.

  Does it not strike you as odd that the zionist movement originated among reform jews not interested in religion such as Theodore Herzl whose parents were reform jews.  More "traditional" jews became a part of the zionist movement later as persons such as rabbi Kook and other zionists gained power within traditional jewish organizations such as the Agudah and made them follow purposes contrary to that for which they were founded.  Also new organizations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Jewish Agency were founded with purposes contrary to traditional judaical assimilationism.  The zionists changed world jewry very much during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with the result that many aspects of traditional judaism became lost to the majority of world jewry.

  One of the most differences is that between traditional jewish assimilationism versus modern jewish zionism:  It was and is the creed of traditional judaism that the Diaspora was created because it was the will of God that the jews be dispersed from Palestine and that only the jewish messiah and not a manmade movement would bring the jews to Palestine and end the Diaspora.  Zionists do not believe this.  The more traditional elements of judaism have been anti-zionist.  Allegedly "traditional" jewish zionism is a new kid on the block.  It is not traditional at all.  

- Dionysios

Not that I ever said that faithful jews were concentrated specifically in Babylon (your adding stuff to what I said and then claiming to refute me), but even so your post on the chronology was infinitely less intelligent than the one with the web links.  The fact is there continued to be a jewish community in Babylon after the sixth century BC uninterruptedly for centuries and well into the AD period when the exact same city was even the capitol of the Diaspora.  Even zionist historians believe this.  See, for example, the three volume history of the the jews by Rabbi Berel Wein:

http://www.rabbiwein.com/

(I know this website is full of CD's as I had bought the book set several years ago when the Hebrew Union (located in NY) had published it.)

- Dionysios

I had wanted to add that the majority of faithful jews at the time of Christ (referring to the jews who accepted the Deuterocanonical Books) were primarily in the diaspora (lands outside of Palestine)...

  ...For example, Matthias be Josef, better known to the Roman and Gentile world as Flavius Josephus was a reknown Jewish historian of the first century AD who is very useful to students of the bible.  Josephus was a lmowledgeable pharisee and a historian learned in greek and Hebrew.

  I have read the works of Flavius Josephus, particularly his lengthy 'Antiquities of the Jews' in which he states that Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesied of by all the Jewish prophets.  He also wrote that Jesus Christ performed many mirackes and was crucified and resurrected on the third day.  This is a first century testimony by a jewish pharisee historian to the fact that Jesus Christ was the long awaited Jewish Messiah foretold by the prophets.  

  However, many Jews claim that the works of Josephus were corrupted by scribes because of this assertion that he made.  They falsify history, but manuscripts of Josephus show otherwise, as has historical testimony as to this sttatement of Josephus throughout many centuries.  They have actually succeeded in convincing some protestant scholars that Josephus  did not write this.  Yet the jewish leaders claim their own bible is the uncorrupted original from God while they claim Josephus is corrupted.  They make claims only to support their view, not because it is the truth.  They own prejudice and not the evidence or objective investigation determines their position on these things.

- Dionysios

Dion, the Testimonium Flavium you are referring to has had it's authenticity questioned since the 15th century. Now almost all secular and even religious historians consider it an interpolation, not a translation. If you really read it, you notice it's put in an odd place, it's completely out of the style of the rest of the text, and breaks context. Josephus is talking about jewish uprisings and then all of a sudden breaks into a few lines about "Jesus the messiah" and then back to jewish uprisings? I actually was translating a 1307 copy of this a few weeks ago for my thesis and found it much the same as Feldman's translation, which is as follows:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.  For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.  He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.  And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

There are many many things wrong with this. One glaring error is it's placement among Jewish uprisings. It just doesn't fit. Another is the way Josephus talks about Jesus. Josephus, being a Jew of rather quite a bit of wealth and a member of the pharasese would NEVER, EVER, referr to Jesus as the Messiah. To do so would of ruined his reputation and status. It's almost as if it was written by a Christian... Also if you read other parts of Antiquitates Judaicae you will see there are no parallels in the way he talks about other prophets and Jesus. He belittles other jewish prophets and talks about them in rather unflattering ways, unlike this passage. Also there are 19 other Jesuses talked about in Antiquitates, none are talked about like this. The fact that is was not jewish but Christian scribes that copied and translated and preserved this text makes it very likely that it was tampered with and cetainly has become corruptted as you say.

There are 2 posibilities with this passage. One is that Josephus never mentioned the character in the bible known as Jesus in his Antiquitates and it was added in there at a later time. Probably to further push the myth that such a man existed. The other is that Josephus did infact mention the Jesus in the bible, but he did so in his usual degrading fashion, which he held true for most other religious prophets. And scribes completely changed it to a more satisfactory passage. Bishop Eusebius of Palestine, Constantine's right-hand man in bringing christianity from caves and catacombs to the ruling class, is the most likely culprit of this. Even more compelling evidence is that we cannot find a copy of Jewish Antiquities dating back past the 300's. It just doesn't add up.

The time that the interpolation was most likely added (early 300s) the church was still in debate with itself about the issue of a historical jesus even existing. Many thought he didn't. It would aid the case for those who believed (or wanted to believe) in a historical jesus if there were evidence of it in a some kind of impartial historical document. So Eusebius, who was not a man beyond lying and decieving to get what he wanted, probably added it in there in a translation he was making.

("We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." - Eusebius)

This was the one post I posted in this entire thread without substantial information, but as such manner of posts for some reason seem to be the kind to which Cinlef is most attracted (go figure), I have deleted its content.  At any rate I did make a reply concerning Josephus which shows troubador's theories about him (reguardless of his use of big words which I am sure are intended to impress upon us the idea that he is so knowledgeable about what he is talking about) are groundless based on material contained in the works of Joseohus themselves (which I have read).

- Dionysios

You can lie and accuse all you want but none of that will ever change the fact that Josephus wrote that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead on the third day as well as the other things he wrote about Him such as the fact that He was the Messiah the prophets of the Old testament foretold of.  

  Who the hell are you to say Josephus could not possibly have written what he did when it is there in the manuscript?  The answer is whatever contradicts your view you simply chalk it up to curruption by Christian scholars, and claim he never wrote it.

  I say again this is falsification of history.  No Godly person would ever have any confidence or trust in the statements of a person with irreverent beliefs like you.

- Dionysios

BTW, another thing that Dio convenienly leaves out about the seventy scribes translating the Septugaint from Greek back to Hebrew is that each of the scribes was forced to be in a separate room and despite that all of the 70 scribes' translations back to Hebrew was 100% compatible with one another.  This was the result of either a) a miracle or b) the fact that the scribes, like the all the Great Sages from every generation since the revelation at Sinai had/have an Oral Law as well as the Written Law as to how to read the Torah.

Another web-site to look at is www.aish.com

And regarding the Gospel, consider the following:

1) Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:

"A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."

2) There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words -- with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.

3) Christian apologist Richard Sisson states:

"In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared.... Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563."

Everything you say is worthless rot.

  Your exclusive aim is to falsify historical evidence.  You have therefore made up stupid reasons out of your mind to explain away what Josephus wrote.  Josephus wrote what he wrote, and you are a liar.  You are not a historian but a professional falsifier.  I believe Jesus Christ was also referring to scribes and unreliable translators precisely like you when He said to beware of scribes.

  All the lies you make up are your biased opinion with the transparent objective of falsifying and explaining away historical evidence that goes against your opinion.  That is the entire content of the post you just made.  You are therefore not one who bases his view on evidence, but smear and think of reasons to discredit evidence that exposes the falsity of your preconceived views.

  I had said earlier that your degree certificates were actually worth toilet paper.  Now I rather think all you write is only fit to burn.  

  Question:  are you also stupid as to really expect to convince me of your impious and transparently prejudiced ideas or are you trying to convert observers to this anti-Christian garbage?

  And the fact that you find agreeable colleagues in such devious matters as attacking testimonies of Jesus Christ among jewish scholars is to be expected as they are the creators of that wicked art which you practice.  You could surely learn much from such as reguards falsification of history.

- Dionysios

OK, so besides just claiming that everything I said was wrong, you achieved nothing. You have still yet to counter my arguement in an intelligent manner. All you have done is claimed I am a lier, yet I am basing my arguement mostly on the work and interpratations of others who are much more versed in the field then I am. Go do a search on google and see how many intellectuals and historians actually believe that Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavium. The very fact you can't even agree that it seems out of place is evidence that you haven't even bothered to read it, or at least the part with the Testomonium. You CANNOT argue with this Dion because it is not even really a matter of opinion anymore. Almost every historian of this period will agree that Josephus DID NOT and COULD NOT of written it as it is. It was interpolated in at a later time by a christian scribe. IT had to of been a christian scribe because they are the ones that saved Antiquites of the Jews(while destroying many other of Josephus' works). For almost two thousand years the only people who copied and passed on this work were CHRISTIANS, not Jews. Not because they cared about Jewish history, but because it held one of their "proofs" of the existance of the historical Jesus from a 3rd party. A proof they inserted into it, not Josephus.
One cannot simply ignore it because they are christian and the nature of the finding is counter to their beliefs. Truth hurts sometimes.


Seriously why do you bother posting on this board. You make claims and when they are refuted, all you do is make personal attacks and then move on to something else. Try making a post without attacking the other person's character once. Verbal diherrea is not a replacement for a valid and coherant arguement Dion.

Thanks for making me look good by making an ass of yourself.

BTW, another thing that Dio convenienly leaves out about the seventy scribes translating the Septugaint from Greek back to Hebrew is that each of the scribes was forced to be in a separate room and despite that all of the 70 scribes' translations back to Hebrew was 100% compatible with one another.  This was the result of either a) a miracle or b) the fact that the scribes, like the all the Great Sages from every generation since the revelation at Sinai had/have an Oral Law as well as the Written Law as to how to read the Torah.

Another web-site to look at is www.aish.com

And regarding the Gospel, consider the following:

1) Christian scholar Rt. Rev. George Arthur Butterick, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written by to prove the validity of the New Testament, states:

"A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."

2) There are 304,805 letters (approximately 79,000 words) in the Torah. In the over 3,000 years since Moses received the original Scripture from Mt. Sinai and wrote the 13 copies (twelve of which were distributed among the Tribes), spelling variants have emerged on a total of nine words -- with absolutely no effect on their meaning. The Christian Bible, in comparison, has over 200,000 variants and in 400 instances, the variants change the meaning of the text; 50 of these are of great significance.

3) Christian apologist Richard Sisson states:

"In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared.... Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563."

It's probably because all early christians really did was throw together a new religion based off of the Jewish Religion and incorporating pagan, egyptian, and greek mythology all in one big mystery cult. Thank god for Constantine and his making it the official religion in a vain attempt to gain stability in the rural regions of the Roman Empire, otherwise it might of died out like the rest of them.

 I believe Jesus Christ was also referring to scribes and unreliable translators precisely like you when He said to beware of scribes.

Jesus never wrote anything.

The christians that created him did.

Dionysios, please wipe the foam away from your mouth and take some deep breaths.

Your entire post could much more easily describe itself than troubador's claims.  In particular:

You are therefore not one who bases his view on evidence, but smear and think of reasons to discredit evidence that exposes the falsity of your preconceived views.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing with your "refutation"?  Except that you haven't tried to discredit his evidence; instead you called it lies (without justification) and said that you would just burn it if you had it.  I am somewhat familiar with the practice of book-burning: is it not the last recourse of those who wish the books to be untrue?

-Erasmus

Quote from: "Dionysios"

 I believe Jesus Christ was also referring to scribes and unreliable translators precisely like you when He said to beware of scribes.

Jesus never wrote anything.

The christians that created him did.

Err while Christ never personally wrote anything saying that people who wrote about Him created Him is a bit of a strech. Socrates didn't write anythjing either only his pupils recorded his teaching (Plato Xenephon etc). No one would say they created Socrates, and while Plato (in his later works expecially) uses Socrates as a mouthpiece to expound his own philosopihcal views (on form theory for example), most scholars abelieve that Socrates beleiefs aare portrayed accuratly enought in many of their works.
Even someone who isn't Christian should acknowledge the existent of Jesus (confirmed by many historical sources including Tacticus) and you allow that the GOspels are a fairly accurate representation of his teachings.
Whether or not you agree with those teaching and his colaim to be the Messiah should be irrelevant to those two points.
Also as to Dionysios the fun thing about doble standard logic is it allows you to dissmiss anything you wish by calling it a lie and ad hominem attacking the poster (sans presenting justification) but refusing even the most exhaustive refutations of anything you believe and being angered by accusations of lying and ad hominem attacks. Pity such double standards are sickeningly hypocritical or I'd give it a shot
An enraged
Cinlef

Quote from: "troubadour"

Quote from: "Dionysios"

 I believe Jesus Christ was also referring to scribes and unreliable translators precisely like you when He said to beware of scribes.

Jesus never wrote anything.

The christians that created him did.

Err while Christ never personally wrote anything saying that people who wrote about Him created Him is a bit of a strech. Socrates didn't write anythjing either only his pupils recorded his teaching (Plato Xenephon etc). No one would say they created Socrates, and while Plato (in his later works expecially) uses Socrates as a mouthpiece to expound his own philosopihcal views (on form theory for example), most scholars abelieve that Socrates beleiefs aare portrayed accuratly enought in many of their works.
Even someone who isn't Christian should acknowledge the existent of Jesus (confirmed by many historical sources including Tacticus) and you allow that the GOspels are a fairly accurate representation of his teachings.
Whether or not you agree with those teaching and his colaim to be the Messiah should be irrelevant to those two points.
Also as to Dionysios the fun thing about doble standard logic is it allows you to dissmiss anything you wish by calling it a lie and ad hominem attacking the poster (sans presenting justification) but refusing even the most exhaustive refutations of anything you believe and being angered by accusations of lying and ad hominem attacks. Pity such double standards are sickeningly hypocritical or I'd give it a shot
An enraged
Cinlef

This is incorrect Cinlef. I too thought there must be some decent amount of evidence to the existance of a Jesus Christ when I first started doing my research. I was also still a catholic at this point. Then it turns out it all boils down to 3 sources. The bible and gospels, Josephus, and Tacticus. You cannot deny the existance of Socrates because he is recorded of having existed by many different people, Jesus Christ however, or evidence of his historical existance, is only found in these 3 sources. Josephus I have already approached and found that it is infact not a valid source as almost all scholars believe now that the Testimonium Flavium was added in at a later time and not by Josephus. But Tacticus I have not gotten to yet.

The passage that people use in reference to prove Jesus the Christ existed is as follows:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

But at the time of this writing, around 117 AD, Romans were not referring to christians as christians. They were lumping them together with the Jews. Jewish or Christian, they were still all just jews to the romans at this point still. So why would Tactitus talk about christians, if at this point the Romans did not even know who or what a christian was and their difference between a jew?
We also have no record of any christian or catholic writer or apologetic mentioning this passage in Tactitus until after the 500s... When it mysteriously appeared, word for word, in Sulpicius Severus' copy of Tactitus' works. Odd... It's also peculiar that all of the stories of Nero and how he was a horrible emperor do not date back any farther then when Severus wrote of them in the 500s.

It's quite possible and probable that the passage is not legitimate.

This leaves the only real evidence of a historical Jesus Christ, to the gospels. Take into account the gnostic gospels and their tellings of the life of this Jesus, and how altogether they do not match up with the ones that are accepted, and it's rather possible that Jesus Christ never existed historically and was always just a spiritual figure. Keep in mind about half of the early christians did not even believe in a historical Jesus and there was much debate between the 2 factions.

It just doesn't add up very well for the existance of a historical Jesus Christ. Sorry Jesus, but it seems to me that you were more a creation of fanatical religious zealots then an earth-walking godman.

Hmmmm care to cite some sources that question the authenticity of hat passage of Tacticus?
The exp,lanation you gave of the contreversy (of which I shall admit to being woefully ignorant) was somewhat one sided (as is natural in a disscussion of this nature but still). I was under the impression the scholarly cummunity had a widespread consensus the Jesus of Nazareth was in fact a real person who was in fact cruxified.
Curious
What about later Roman sources that refer to records and texts available to those writers (Romans) but no longer extant. I was under the impression there were several of those.
Also Gnostic Gospels definatly deserve their own thread if anyone wants to get into it
An enraged
Cinlef

Erasmus,

  You stated my posts here were mere declarations with no content.  by a stretch this could apply only to my answer to troubador's last statement about Josephus's mention of The Lord Jesus Christ.  Were you not basing your comment on this sole entry as opposed to the entire thread?  Examine the whole and tell me if you think all I have stated is only wind.  

And as to Josephus:  

troubador:

  You theorized that Josephus would not have been able to write what he did because as a pharisee his compatriots would have prevented it.  Well, aside from the fact that his book 'Antiquities of the Jews' specifically states that Jesus was the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and that He was resurrected from the dead on the third day, Flavius Josephus (or Matthias ben Joseph using his original jewish name):

1)  was in favor with Rome at the time he wrote the Antiquities which were completed about AD 93 as the Romans had provided him with his own estate in Judea after the fall of Jerusalem from which place he wrote history.  He was with Titus's army when Titus detroyed Jerusalem in AD 70.  Obviously, he was not fighting against the jews, but he was compelling them not to resist the Romans because he had become convinced that it was the will of God that Jerusalem be taken.  He says this in his own autobiography entitled 'Life.'  The Romans appreciated the support of such a distinguished Jewish elder and rewarded him, so he did have status with the power of the time.

2)  was respected among the jews as well not only because he was a learned pharisee (the four books extant:  Antiquities of the Jews/Wars of the Jews/Life/Against Apion are not the only ones he wrote as he mentioned other writings of his in these books) but also because he was a jewish war hero.  As a military general, Josephus was the leader of the Israelite army against the Romans in the battle for Galilee and northern Palestine in AD 66 until he was captured by the Romans.  This information is also in 'Life' and 'Wars of the Jews.'  Troubador, did you not read the works of Josephus?

3)  was not the only pharisee who believed this about Jesus Christ.  The Gospels mention Nicodemus as well.  Yet another pharisee by the name of Gamaliel stated to the Sanhedrin that they should not persecute the new Christian movement because he said if it were not from God, then it would fail of its own, and he was not censured for saying this.  Gamaliel was no different than Josphus was later in the century.  They were both pharisees who did indeed make statements which reflected positively on the Church and who had nothing to gain from making the statements and no motive other than stating the truth for what it was.  It seems the fact they had nothing to gain from saying these things leads troubador to theorize that they did not say them at all, but Christian fasifiers of much later date put these words into their mouths.  WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT ASSERTION?

4)  was confirmed that he did indeed write that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and was resurrected from the dead by many ancient historians across many centuries.  William Whiston's masterful translation does have a very convenient set of appendices in one of which he quotes multiple historians from the early fourth to at least the thirteenth century (if I remember the cut off date correctly) who all confirmed that Josephus did write these things.  If what you said about being a translator of Josephus for your degree is true, then I suspect you knew this but omitted mention of it because it hurts your argument.  And in case you did not know it and yet want a post graduate degree based on this thesis, then shame on you.

  This leads to a question for troubador, did you ever read josephus works (in english or greek)?  I would think someone translating part of it for a degree would have done so.  I do not have a college degree or a peice of paper saying that I am learned, but I have read all of 'Antiquities of the Jews', 'Life', and 'Agianst Apion.'  I have read most of 'Wars of the Jews' but never finished that one as so much of it was covering the same time period as the latter parts of 'Antiquities...'  It seems that someone need have only read his 25 page autobiography 'Life' and they would never have come up with the theories you did to explain away Josephus's confirmation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, unless that someone was not really thinking about the facts of Josephus's life before exclaiming theories about the same.

  I have seen several books over the years that say the same things about Josephus you are saying now, and it's the same recycled garbage.  Besides being wrong, your thesis is just simply not original.  There are a lot of scholars who are better at being wrong than you are.  This old attack on Josephus's authenticity is mere repitition which I guess could eventually have results anyway (by persuading the uncritical students of history) as it applies Hitler's claim that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.  

  I have a suggestion.

  Josephus claimed that he personally rescued THE ORIGINAL scrolls of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (the Old Tesatament) from the Temple in AD 70 before it was destroyed by the Romans.  With an interest in Josephus, don't you reckon investigation into this would prove much more interesting and original than trying to make him say something other than what he did.

mbczion,

  By the way, the seventy (LXX) Hebrew scribes who translated the Septuagint in Egypt sometime in the early third century BC under the sponsorship of Ptolemy Philadelphus (aka Ptolemy II, the son of Ptolemy I (Soter) Alexander the Great's right hand man) were translating the Bible from Hebrew to Greek, not the reverse.  The earliest books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, as I am sure you would agree.  These 70 scribes translated it from Hebrew to Greek.  Do you not acknowledge this?  I would be surprised if you do not.  You were definitely correct about their being separated into 70 different rooms which only proves the Divine blessing that the undertaking had because all of them translated the entirety of it and none of their translations had an iota of difference between them (pun intended).

  When I had mentioned earlier that the Bible had been translated back into Hebrew from Greek, I was referring to Jewish scribes of a later time period.  I was saying that the later Hebrew Massoretic text is derived from this Septuagint.  And it is a corruption of it as they are not identical.

  As far as "christian" scholars you quote, I do not count any of them as Christian.  All heretics are (knowingly or not) puppets of the jews, so it is natural that the heretics you quote would support your arguments.  As to inconsistencies in the New Testament, the heretics also more often than not use false bibles.  It is to be expected that the bibles of heretics contradict one another.  Satan's house is divided against itself.  

  You should understand that I never claimed to be one with papists or protestants or muslims or even new calendar "orthodox" (who are not orthodox at all just as neither they nor protestants nor "catholics" are even Christians at all).  

  The New Testament is the authorized version of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Old Testament is the Septuagint of which we have spoken.


Cinlef,

  I do not know what you mean about all this hate filled talk about double standard nor do I desire to ghive thought to such rubbish aas back and forth accusation accomplishes nothing and is pointless.  I do desire to commend the point you made about Tacitus.

  There are certainly many other indications of Jesus Christ as he has been mentioned by millions upon millions of historians and not just three.  As far as writing from that time, the epistles of Saint Ignatius refer to Jesus Christ.  This is true with respect to Clement of Rome as well.  The Epistles of individual Apostles.  There are many, many writings from the first century AD that verify the existence of Jesus Christ God.  Take for example the writings of my own namesake, the first century Saint Dionysios the Areopagite, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.  Jesus Christ is the focus of his mysterious works such as the 'Celestial Hierarchy' and 'The Mystical Theology.'  There are other indications as well.  Ikons painted of the Virgin Mary by Saint Luke while she was still alive that are in existence today.  I have seen some of them.

  If the "majority" of who troubador calls "scholars" came to the decision that Socrates did not exist, then by his reasoning troubador would concede that he did not exist either.  What would troubador do if the majority of scholars decided that New Orleans was located in Japan?  By troubador's argument, there is no stopping what the majority of scholars say, so let's head to Japan for mardi gras.  The great wonder is that someone could believe such obvious garbage about history.  

To end:

Erasmus,

  There was that better?  But I wonder if such things as disputing the exitence of God is even worth our time and dignity.  

- Dionysios

Dionysos wrote:

mbczion,

By the way, the seventy (LXX) Hebrew scribes who translated the Septuagint in Egypt sometime in the early third century BC under the sponsorship of Ptolemy Philadelphus (aka Ptolemy II, the son of Ptolemy I (Soter) Alexander the Great's right hand man) were translating the Bible from Hebrew to Greek, not the reverse. The earliest books of the Bible were written in Hebrew, as I am sure you would agree. These 70 scribes translated it from Hebrew to Greek. Do you not acknowledge this? I would be surprised if you do not. You were definitely correct about their being separated into 70 different rooms which only proves the Divine blessing that the undertaking had because all of them translated the entirety of it and none of their translations had an iota of difference between them (pun intended).

When I had mentioned earlier that the Bible had been translated back into Hebrew from Greek, I was referring to Jewish scribes of a later time period. I was saying that the later Hebrew Massoretic text is derived from this Septuagint. And it is a corruption of it as they are not identical.

As far as "christian" scholars you quote, I do not count any of them as Christian. All heretics are (knowingly or not) puppets of the jews, so it is natural that the heretics you quote would support your arguments. As to inconsistencies in the New Testament, the heretics also more often than not use false bibles. It is to be expected that the bibles of heretics contradict one another. Satan's house is divided against itself.

You should understand that I never claimed to be one with papists or protestants or muslims or even new calendar "orthodox" (who are not orthodox at all just as neither they nor protestants nor "catholics" are even Christians at all).

The New Testament is the authorized version of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Old Testament is the Septuagint of which we have spoken.

The scribes were forced by the Greeks to translate the Torah from Hebrew to Greek, but then there were seventy scribes who translated the Torah back from Greek to Hebrew, while being forced to be in separate rooms, and still managed to translate identically to each other to the letter.
This is why there is an Oral Law, so that the Jews would always know how to read the Torah and, ironically, to avoid the kind of corruption that you are accusing the Jews of.

Dio, if you can produce YOUR "original, uncorrupted" version of the Pentateuch, then we will talk, just like if the Muslims can produce their "original, uncorrupted" version of the Pentateuch that is supposedly locked up somewhere in Mecca, then I will be glad to talk with them as well.  Until then, however, I have a bit more faith in the Great Sages of each generation of the last 3,500 years, who have transmitted the Torah (both the written and the oral laws) from one generation to the next in an impeccable manner, over a troll who just comes into this forum and spouts his venom.

I also find it funny that you eliminate virtually every Christian sect out there as being "true Christianity".  Does this mean that the ONLY "true" Christian out there is Dionysos himself?  Wow, how righteous you must be :lol:

mbczion,

Technically, I am not actually a Christian at all as I have not been baptized yet because my priest had decided that it was better to wait until I had finished the military since the Orthodox Church and the US military in particular do not mix so well and I had truthfully indicated that I did not want to make a career of the military.  I do intend to become a Christian soon as I correspondingly plan to get baptized in the near future as I am recently out of the military.  

  I do believe members of the Orthodox Church are Christians and no one else.  This does not mean I am saying non-Christians (including jews) are going to hell, as it is not for me to judge but God alone.  I am sure I do not keep to this standard in my conduct but this is my faith, what I believe.  It does mean I definitely do not consider myself one with other churches and religions.  What happens to them is between them and God as far as I am concerned because God says that vengeance belongs to Him.  My principle concern is for my own soul.  I should try to help others as well, but not by force.  This is what I believe.  As far as my belief in separation from other faiths, I acknowledge that this is quite a narrow view, especially with reguards to modern thinking as manifested in such things as the modern ecumenical movement, which I detest.

  If you follow your way, then it is between you and God.  I have nothing against you, although we obviously have profoundly different faiths.  

  In my belief, the narrow path is the only path to follow - not the popular one.  And I intend to follow this narrow path until I breathe my last breath.

- Dionysios

This does not mean I am saying non-Christians (including jews) are going to hell, as it is not for me to judge but God alone.

If you follow your way, then it is between you and God. I have nothing against you, although we obviously have profoundly different faiths.

Well, if this is how you REALLY see it, dio, then I can certainly live with that.  And I would like to believe that, but this just does NOT seem to be the sentiment coming out of your posts.  For sure, you seem to have an axe to grind with Jews, so I still remain somewhat suspicious of your sincerity in your above statements....

Dionysios I' have to agree with mbczion that you seem to just plain distrust Jewish people. Seriously search your own posts for the words Jew. THey all seem fairly negative.
Also as to my accusation fo double standard being hate filled well I suppose they were somewhat angry. But valid. I fully admit I do not know much about
 Josephus. However your initial response to troubadours statment that his work was tampered with seemed to contain all the mistakes you accuse troubadour of making. YOu resorted to angry personal attacks (which doesn't really upset me provided its within reason) and NOT JUSTIFY YOUR POINT. (Which does upset me)
Your above post was much better argued.In that it presented real arguments.
DO you really disagree?
An enraged
Cinlef

Cinlef has a knack for both exclaiming the obvious which everyone can already see as well as being elluded by interior turths which are far more important.  I honestly mean no offense, but even if mbczion is wrong, I can still enjoy a possibly productive and infirmed conversation as long as a weed does not grow up and choke the communication.

  I believe everything I wrote including the somwewhat conciliatory post made above, and I do not see them as mutually exclusive.  I honestly believe that jewish conspiracy described in the Protocols of Zion is real as welll as all the other posts I made on similar subjects,  These things are historical fact.  This does not alter the fact that jews are human beings like all of us.  I will post something under an appropriate category on why some of my beliefs part ways in some respects with Hitler's less theological and more racial philosophy concerning jews.  

  I believe the jews were the annointed people of God at one time, but as the prophet Habakkuk's prophecy at the time of the Babylonian exile that the Lord sayeth that "You are not My people, and I AM not your god," the jews ae since that time not the people of God.  They fell from the highest position to the lowest.  In this respect they followed in the way of Satan.  Satan was the highest of the angels.  As the cherubs are the highest and ninth rank of angels, Satan was the annointed cherub.  He was the tenth rank of angels, but due to pride he fell from this highest position to the lowest.  Satan is now the fount of eveything evil and against God, and he will gnash his teeth when Saint John the Baptist takes his former postion as the tenth rank of angels.  Thus it is with the jews.  Their ways  have become the fount of evil in this world, and they have been superceed as the people of God by the Christians.

  I believe the Devil has long sought complete control of the world through the leaders of world jewry.  It has been said truly that judaism is an earthly religion. In this respect I have no quarrel with them as the Chistian religion is not of this world.  They seek control of the world, and they are going to eventually get it.

  I do want to say that there is a conspiracy for world control that is older than the jewish conspiracy and of which the age old and vast jewish conpiracy is only a part (albeit a major aspect of it).  This more ancient plot (which is older than the age of the world) is the demonic conspiracy of Satan and the fallen angels which are loyal to him and (just like jewish and occult leaders) do his bidding even as he is currently chained in the underworld (in this respect comparable to a powerful but imprisoned mafia overlord) awaiting his release.

- Dionysios