Vanderzyden

This is pure invention on your part, Baidarka.

Is there a point to this exercise?

Vanderzyden

Baidarka

Vanderzyden

My point is that if Jesus wrote anything the book burning church would have burned his writings so that the Greco/Roman Pauline Church could invent its own doctrine.

Do you think that there is no anti-Semitic invective in the NT?

Vanderzyden

The "book-burning church" didn't supress hundreds of very early manuscripts, so I don't agree with your main point.

Secondly, yes, I realize that some people twist scripture into "anti-Semitic invective" , but strong refutations have been made in reply. You must realize that references to the "Jews" are easily interpreted as an identifiers to the established Jewish religious leaders (e.g. "teachers of the law"). This is readily corroborated by nearby references to Pharisees, etc.

Vanderzyden

Baidarka

“The "book-burning church" didn't suppress hundreds of very early manuscripts, so I don't agree with your main point.” Vanderzyden

Yes Christians preserved many books that served their interests, but they also burned or altered anything contrary to their perverse version of history and theology.
Who killed Hypatia of Alexandria?
Who burned the library of Alexandria?
Why was the Nag Hammadi Library buried?
Who added or elaborated on a Christ reference in Josephus?
What does heresy mean?
Re read 1984.

“Secondly, yes, I realize that some people twist scripture into "anti-Semitic invective" , but strong refutations have been made in reply. You must realize that references to the "Jews" are easily interpreted as an identifiers to the established Jewish religious leaders (e.g. "teachers of the law"). This is readily corroborated by nearby references to Pharisees, etc.” Vanderzyden
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

This absurd blood libel is unambiguous in its anti-Semitism.
Any attack on the Pharisees is an attack on Judaism and also probably an attack on the Historical Jesus.

If the Early Church had any writings by the historic Jesus they would have burned them!

Vanderzyden

Tell me, Baidarka, are you Jewish, or an ethnic sympathizer? You seem highly defensive.

Apparently, you do not realize who is speaking. "Us" means the Jewish people. The Jewish mob yells in response to Pilate. Why then, do you claim defamation towards the Jews?

So, are you saying that Jesus, who was a Jew, is being anti-Semitic toward the Jewish leaders? Please explain this paradox.

Also, I don't understand how you are twisting this scripture into a "probable" anti-Semitic attack on Jesus. This, too, is most confusing.

Ultimately, the anti-Semitic insinuations wither away upon realization of the fact that Jesus considered himself a Jew.

Vanderzyden

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Amos

Baidarka, it may be wise for you to distinguish between "Jesus the man" with whom Pilate saw no fault and "Jesus the Jew" with whom only the Jews saw fault because Jesus stood to be convicted by Jewish Law only. Three times Jesus said "look at the man, I see no fault with him."

Baidarka

Vanderzyden - “The "book-burning church" didn't supress hundreds of very early manuscripts, so I don't agree with your main point.”
Baidarka - You seem to be saying that since the church didn’t suppress some manuscripts that they didn’t suppress others. That was only one of my points and certainly not my main point.
V - “Secondly, yes, I realize that some people twist scripture into "anti-Semitic invective" , but strong refutations have been made in reply. You must realize that references to the "Jews" are easily interpreted as an identifiers to the established Jewish religious leaders (e.g. "teachers of the law"). This is readily corroborated by nearby references to Pharisees, etc.”
B- No need to twist. The NT is clearly accuses the whole Jewish people of Deicide. I gave one clear example of unambiguous scriptural anti-Semitism. Here are some more.
John 5:16

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
John 5:18 *
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
John 7:1
1. After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

John 8:51 - 53*
51. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
John 18:35 *
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
John 19:4 - 8*
4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate] saith unto them, Behold the man!
6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify [him], crucify [him]. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him.
7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
John 19:12
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
John 19:14 - 16
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away.
John 19:19*
19. And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
1 Thessalonians 2:14 - 15*
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they [have] of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Acts 13:50
50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Acts 4:10
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Acts 5:30
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
(Jews killed Jesus and according to 1 Thessalonians 2:14 are contrary to all men)

V - “Tell me, Baidarka, are you Jewish, or an ethnic sympathizer?”
B - I’m an atheist. What the hell is an ethnic sympathizer?
V - “You seem highly defensive.”
B - You have it backwards. I am on the offence. You are on the defense.
V - “Apparently, you do not realize who is speaking. "Us" means the Jewish people. The Jewish mob yells in response to Pilate. Why then, do you claim defamation towards the Jews?”
B - I puzzled over this one for a while. I couldn’t understand what you were trying to say, but than I realized that you think that the scriptures are inerrant. You actually think that a Jewish mob said those words like some sort of demented Greek chorus. I submit to you that the testimony is an anti-Jewish blood libel.
V - So, are you saying that Jesus, who was a Jew, is being anti-Semitic toward the Jewish leaders? Please explain this paradox.
B - I did not anything of the sort. We know very little about the Jesus of history. We only know about the Jesus of the NT myth. It is as if we lost all records of the real Davy Crocket and only had the Davy Crocket (the guy who grinned a bear to death Davy but not the Congressman David Crocket) of tall tales. We do know that some quotes attested to Jesus are either anachronistic (I most vehemently do not believe in prophesy)and therefore are not his words, or are of Greco/ Roman origin and could not have been pronounced by a 1st century Jewish rabbi.
Mathew
The Parable of the Tenants

33"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
38"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
41"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
42Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[8] ;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'[9] ?
43"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."[10]
45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

V - Also, I don't understand how you are twisting this scripture into a "probable" anti-Semitic attack on Jesus. This, too, is most confusing. Ultimately, the anti-Semitic insinuations wither away upon realization of the fact that Jesus considered himself a Jew.
B - Since the final redaction of scripture is blatantly anti-Semitic, and since Jesus was a first century Jewish rabbi whose words and life has been twisted into an ugly anti-Jewish libel, the NT is both an attack against Jews and Jesus.

Amos - Baidarka, it may be wise for you to distinguish between "Jesus the man" with whom Pilate saw no fault and "Jesus the Jew" with whom only the Jews saw fault because Jesus stood to be convicted by Jewish Law only. Three times Jesus said "look at the man, I see no fault with him."
B – Amos we live in 2 different paradigms. There is no way to harmonize the vicious murderous Pilate attested to by Josephus and Philo with the meek and just Pilate of the NT. I am more willing to trust the aforementioned historians than the NTs dubious and contradictory testimony.
If Jesus claimed to be the Moshiach (King) he was breaking Roman law not Jewish law.


To restate my main point, if the historical human Jesus wrote anything the Church would have burned it because they were not interested in the thoughts of the 1st century Rabbi Jesus. They were only interested in creating a God /Man, in the Greco/Roman style, that they could use as an authority to build their Church upon.

Skeptical

Not exactly. What I am saying is that for your "not part of his mission" argument to hold, we would have to know that the NT is a complete picture of what his mission was. I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that this is the case for a variety of reasons. The basic argument is that second-hand info cannot even in principle give a complete picture of someone, so since we don't have any documents from Jesus we by definition don't have a complete picture.

Opinions vary. If his mission was so important and the information regarding it so critical and said information had to survive the vagaries of 2,000 years of fallible transmission, it seems clear to me that at the very least we would expect the information to come from the source.

I asked before and you didn't respond: If you had vital information to give to someone, would you trust someone else with it, or would you prefer to tell them yourself?

By this definition, the sum total of morality could be covered by the statement "don't be bad". Granted, Jesus' sayings are a little more specific than this, but by the criteria you are positing what would we do about wars? Should the US have "loved their enemies" during WWII? What about jail? Should we never put someone ine jail for any crime? The problem is that the more general a statement is, the greater the room for interpretation. Also, you can say the witch burners were not "Christian" all you want, but if the entire Christian world of the time endorsed it, your denunciation is nothing but anachronism.

I have no doubt that you will come up with an apologetic response to whatever I post, so feel free to feel you have addressed my inquiry.

I have now posted a detailed response in the other thread. I have been away for several days, so I assure you I have not been ignoring your response.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>