Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Jesus Types Boost DaVinci Code Release!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Jesus Types Boost DaVinci Code Release!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:58 am Post subject:

I'm not marginalizing the messenger. I think it's interesting that you bring the angle you do to this. But I still don't agree.

Quote:

The Essenes date back to 200+BCE.

But Hermes, that's at least two centuries after Christ. How much credibility would I have if I wrote a first-hand account of George Washington? And how would my writings in any way have as much credibility as a contemporary or near-contemporary account?

Quote:

You misunderstand. I use Biblical texts to support that postulate. Again, the Codex Sinaiticus and none of the earliest Christian writings mention any crucifixion. None. Nada. Zilch. It was a much, much later interpolation and probably originated with Eusebius' drafting of the NT at Constantine's order.

I don't really put much confidence in any orthodox writings, simply because the Church has been caught doctoring texts repeatedly. And they've even admitted it. Celsus challenged them in court. And won. Imagine how much worse they got through centuries of corruption.

But you make two mistakes. One is that you don't provide any evidence that the church doctored or significantly altered scripture. Saying "they must have because the church was corrupt...etc." is circular reasoning. Minor emendations or translations are a part of any writing or publishing process, and I always have believed that people dedicated to the faith, and who have perhaps suffered persecution or torture for it, are the last people who are going to make flippant or devious changes to scripture that they believe is inspired by God. Eusebius was a very devout and prolific man; why would he agree to a fraud such as this if he had fought for his faith most of his life?

If the four gospels hadn't originally described the crucifixion because it didn't happen, then how could Paul and other NT writers reference an event that didn't happen-- unless all of the NT books were re-written to comply? And if so, how could a large number of churches in various countries with their own copies of letters and books and with thousands of literate followers not notice this?

It's erroneous to believe that scriptures are simply translated and then those translations are re-translated or edited, and then further translations are made in serial through 20 centuries. Translators don't work like that. They try to find the oldest and most authentic version they can, from the Vulgate to earlier copies if possible.

Secondly, you make a double standard. Non-biblical texts can be doctored and altered the same as biblical texts. How do we know that extant Essenic texts aren't also forgeries or doctored? If there's no clear proof of Christ--well, then, what clear proof is there of Mary Magdelene? Or of the Essenes? Or that Rome itself even existed?

Ken:>

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 3:51 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

The Essenes date back to 200+BCE.

But Hermes, that's at least two centuries after Christ.

200+BCE = 200 years (or more) Before the Common Era,
or 200 years (or more) Before Christ

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:40 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

But you make two mistakes. One is that you don't provide any evidence that the church doctored or significantly altered scripture.

Yes, he did.

hermes.trismegistus wrote:

Ah, good old Josephus. Always fun to see people trying to pawn him off as a reputable source.

The Church admitted that passages about Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum were 'interpolations by Christians' (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Cross, p. 549). Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity (d. 1760), said the passages 'should be forever discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity.' (Life of Lardner, Dr. Kippis, p. 23). Theologians believe it was Eusebius who forged the passages when he re-wrote a copy of Josephus' works immediately after the Council of Nicea. (On the Canon of the New Testament, Dr. B. Westcott). The passages cannot be found in any edition prior to the era of Eusebius - who argued that falsehood might be used as medicine for the benefit of the church. (Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, vol. I). Origen himself admitted to editing the Jewish historian's work. (Contra Celsus, Origen). He also affirmed that Josephus 'did not acknowledge Jesus'. (Contra Celsus, Origen, ch. xxxv, bk. 1; see also Lardner, vol. vi, ch. iii.).

So yeah, use Josephus to illustrate your point.

I use the Codex Sinaiticus for forming essential comparisons. I've found 14,800 liturgical (distinct from semantic) differences thus far. It includes NO MENTION OF THE CRUCIFIXION. To repeat, the oldest known bible in the world doesn't say anything at all about the crucifixion.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:49 am Post subject:

Quote:

200+BCE = 200 years (or more) Before the Common Era,
or 200 years (or more) Before Christ

That was very stupid of me. I did not read that carefully. Embarassed

I do think it's important, though, to remember that this was not a mainstream group of people. Were they the Moonies of their day?

Quote:

The Church admitted that passages about Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum were 'interpolations by Christians'

But that's an irrelevant point-- the TF is not scripture, and was not written by a Christian, but by a Jewish historian who would hardly be expected to be neutral. And even if doctored or changed or a complete fraud, it is not proof of any church revision of scripture.

The statement about the codex sinaiticus is interesting, and now I have to read up. However, the websites I've looked at on this codex do certainly have Christ's resurrection and appearance after death to disciples and others, and the sites I've seen make no mention of the omission of his crucifixion, which would certainly be an important distinction. As well, the codex sinaiticus is not listed as the oldest or only manuscript of scripture (sinai vaticanus), and there could certainly be earlier and better texts of which the sinaiticus is a corruption.

The fact that there are erroneous or differing texts doesn't prove deliberate or malicious editing any more than the differing manuscripts of Hamlet. The first folio is accepted to be in places much more accurate than some earlier Shakespeare manuscripts that it postdates, and perhaps there's something similar here. One wishes Eusebius had left better documentation of sources.

Bedtime...

Ken:>

Xian

Joined: 08 Jan 2006

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:47 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

200+BCE = 200 years (or more) Before the Common Era,
or 200 years (or more) Before Christ

That was very stupid of me. I did not read that carefully. Embarassed

I do think it's important, though, to remember that this was not a mainstream group of people. Were they the Moonies of their day?Ken:>

The Essenes were a zealous group of Jews. Even more so than the Pharisees and Saducees. They lived seperate from the mainstrean in a communal type lifestyle. Many scholars believe we have them to thank for the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered at Qumran in 1947. There is info on them online, but historical writings that contain some mention or information about them are Josephus, Philo, Hippolytus, Pliny and Epiphanius (some suggestions for anyone naming their children to be).

There is no way Jesus was an Essene as someone mentioned earlier.They seperated themselves in attempts not to be defiled by those they saw as 'unclean' or 'sinners'. They didn't want any corruption from what they saw in the lifestyle of 200ish BC - 70AD and lived an ascetic type lifestyle in a monastic type setting. Jesus was opposite in many ways. In fact, one of the reasons the Jewish priests (who were much less radical than the Essenes) had a problem with Jesus was because He was always mixing with people whom they branded as sinners and unclean, even touching them (like those with Leprosy, prostitutes and tax collecters). He ate with them, he welcomed them, he touched them. With some understanding of the first century culture, especially that of the religous aspects of Israel, that was radical and very much against the ways of the Jewish priests.
If Jesus were an Essene it is unlikely He would have been seen regularly in populated places and wouldn't have been a well know person. But then He might have lived longer. Not much opposition when you are hiding out in caves all the time.

Quote:

Hermes,

With the many things you are saying, you are coming close to exhibiting a universalism world view. But, it is not uncommon I guess for many belief systems today to be a mixing pot of ideals, symbols and concepts from different religions.
I can't say so much because I am not aware enough regarding some of what you are saying Smile

but, I am sure at a party you probably drive some people nuts and fascinate many other people, kind of like myself Very Happy

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:06 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Okay, you seem to be having difficulty with this. The Essenes date back to at least 200 years PRIOR to the time attributed to the life of Jesus. See Wiki if you have a doubt.

Quote:

[Yo]u don't provide any evidence that the church doctored or significantly altered scripture. ... Eusebius was a very devout and prolific man; why would he agree to a fraud such as this if he had fought for his faith most of his life?

Okay, all this comes out of complete ignorance.

Let's go to Origen, the eunuch sanctioned by the Church to slander Celsus:

Quote:

The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten as they please; all of the manuscripts of this day have become corrupt. (Contra Celsus)

Here Origen described gospels which, 70 years after his death, were used in the compilation of the NT.

The three presbyters the church generally accredits with founding the Christian religion are Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

Quote:

The three presbyters of whom we are speaking had neither the ability nor inclination to examine the genesis of the documents ... No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted ... The ends which they had in view, the polemic motives, their uncritical and inconsistent assertions, their want of sure data, detract from their testimony ... The very arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception. (The Canon of the Bible (156), Professor Samuel Davidson, D.D LL.D, contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica)

Quote:

Those men were Heathen opportunists, applying to themselves the names of ancient gods to impress the rabble, with Dionysius being the most popular, followed by Januarius (Janus), Apollinarius (Appolo), and Belarius (Bel). Other appellations they adopted were 'Celestine', 'Honour', and 'Pious', later to become 'Pius', and used by a large number of popse into modern times. They accepted money, food, wine, corn, shelter and sex in return for their soapbox performance and were merely attached to the trade of oration through the motives of gain. (Contra Celsus; Bk. 1; chps. ix and x, Maguire's Trans.)

Lying was an established Church tradition.

Quote:

It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the Church might be promoted. (Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, Vol. 1, p. 381-2)

To such an extent had the 'frauds of the theologians been thus early systematized and raised to the dignity of a regular doctrine' (The Sincere Christian Instructed, Edmond Gibbon, Bishop of London 1738), that Bishop Eusebius, in one of the most elaborate works that antiquity has left us, the thirty-second chapter of the twelfth book of his Evangelical Preparation, bore for its title this proposition: 'How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived'. (Vindication, p. 76, quoting the Greek title; Edward Gibbon).

Socrates Scholasticus (380-450), a famous historian from whom the term 'scholar' derived, charged Eusebius with purposely perverting presbyter's writings to please Emporer Constantine. (Church History, Socrates Scholasticus, Professor Jenning's Trans., 1911). Manetho (d. c. 392), one of the most competent critics of the time, felt compelled to leave a 'public record' revealing that 'Eusebius had undertaken in a very unscrupulous and arbitrary spirit, to mutilate history.'

Eusebius was notorious by nature and became probably the most influential bishop of the fourth century church. He was a 'military priest', enthroned by Roman combatant leaders, as were many early Christian bishops including Martin, Bishop of Tours (d. c. 397) and Philiaster of Brescia (d. c. 397). Gregory of Nazinanus (c. 390) recorded that it was Roman practice in the fourth century for bishops to be selected 'from the army or the navy'. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Edinburgh Ed. 1797; also Church History, Socrates Scholasticus, Vol. ii, Jenning's Trans., 1911).

Eusebius personally wrote that he related whatever might redound to the glory of the Church and suppressed all that would disgrace it.

Quote:

Like all the rest of the churchmen of his time, Eusebius was utterly unethical in his estimates of evidence, and where he, as it were, translated the language of others into his own, not using their words but his own assumption of their meaning, he is almost invariably wrong. Every statement, which he makes himself, is unreliable. (The History of Christian Literature, Dr. Donaldson).

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

If the four gospels hadn't originally described the crucifixion because it didn't happen, then how could Paul and other NT writers reference an event that didn't happen-- unless all of the NT books were re-written to comply? And if so, how could a large number of churches in various countries with their own copies of letters and books and with thousands of literate followers not notice this?

Yes, they were all re-written, several times. The Church banned personal ownership of bibles several times. They went so far as to mandate public burnings. I could drag up a list, should you so desire, but really I think this argument also shows an unfamiliarity with the literature.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

It's erroneous to believe that scriptures are simply translated and then those translations are re-translated or edited, and then further translations are made in serial through 20 centuries. Translators don't work like that. They try to find the oldest and most authentic version they can, from the Vulgate to earlier copies if possible.

Sounds reasonable. I've got my Vulgate handy. I've also got my scans of the Codex Sinaiticus. Want to compare notes?

You don't seem to understand the level of corruption involved and greatly over-estimate the ethics of these men.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Secondly, you make a double standard. Non-biblical texts can be doctored and altered the same as biblical texts. How do we know that extant Essenic texts aren't also forgeries or doctored? If there's no clear proof of Christ--well, then, what clear proof is there of Mary Magdelene? Or of the Essenes? Or that Rome itself even existed?

Don't mistake uncertainty for incredulity. We can tell texts have been seriously doctored because we have a historical record of that process. Have you looked to verify that historical record? Because if you had, I'm sure you'd recognize some of the sources I've quoted.

The Essenes are much easier to verify than Jesus. Mary has some tangental historical evidence, but I certainly wouldn't put a terrible amount of confidence in the legend.

Namaste.

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:37 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

As well, the codex sinaiticus is not listed as the oldest or only manuscript of scripture (sinai vaticanus), and there could certainly be earlier and better texts of which the sinaiticus is a corruption.

Most certainly. We have many, many earlier manuscripts.

However, we've been discussing - on this particular tangent - bibles, not gospels. The Sinai Bible is the oldest known bible. Although, around 1890 a record was made of a bible found in the basement of the Seraglio library in Constantinople. It was described as being 'about two and a half by four feet square, and two feet thick. It is well bound, with a gold plate, twelve by sixteen inches'. The first page contained an original letter written in 'large Latin characters' by Emperor Constantine giving his personal approval for the use of a 'public carriage' to convey the huge book to public showings. I'd love to get my mitts on that.

The Sinai Bible is by no means a reliable guide in either OT or NT research as it contains super-abundant errors and serious re-editing by at least nine different scribes. Those problems were exposed in a series of infrared light tests carried out at the British Museum during the mid-1930s and the results were published in a book called Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus.

The Codex was so different from what the Church had in use that the priesthood used every rhetorical device at their disposal to attack its wording, saying that it was 'scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God.' (London Quarterly Review, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, 1883).

The discovery of the Sinaiticus provided Professor Tischendorf (He was possibly the most eminent of modern textual critics of the NT. He spent his entire life researching libraries and monasteries throughout Europe and examining manuscripts old and new. He produced more critical editions of the Greek Bible than any other single scholar and between 1841 and 1872, prepared eight editions of the Greek New Testament as well as 22 volumes of biblical manuscripts.) and other serious biblical researchers with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern NTs. After a lifetime of dedicated Christian research, Dr. Tischendorf found it difficult to understand...

Quote:

...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes, which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one. (Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr. Constantine Tischendorf)

Despite a multitude of long, drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of resurrection appearances in oldest Church accounts. In today's bibles, a resurrection description now appears, but those verses (Mark 16: 9-20) are not found in the Sinai Bible, the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and the ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named 'K' by analysts. They are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the NT and a number of fifth century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version.

The resurrection verses in today's bibles are universally acknowledged as forgeries, added to the story at a later time. The Church shares that opinion, commenting that those verse 'differ so radically from the rest of the Gospel that it hardly seems possible Mark himself composed it'. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, p. 240). Some modern bibles previously carrying the false verses quietly dropped them in reprints, or made a special footnote in relation to their late entry into the gospel.

There are actually three forged resurrection descriptions, not just one, and each version provides a different and conflicting story, confirmed by the evidence of a comparison of older bibles with modern-day versions. In Church terminology they conclusions are called the Intermediate Ending (first appearing sometime in the seventh century), the Long Ending (not recorded before the fourth century), and the Long-Ending Expanded, which inclides an additional 125 words (early fifth century).

Documentation supporting resurrection emanated from a theologically motivated scribal addition that was added to Christian texts at the end of the fourth century. The evidence is overwhelming, and established religious sources agree, that falsified resurrection verses in the Gospel of Mark were expanded into the later publication of the other canonical Gospels. The Church itself has admitted as much, saying the passages were written with a 'deliberate alteration of details for theological perposes or else as an invention'. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, pg. 1080).

The church also admitted, 'None of the endings commands itself as original ... the end of Mark is not authentic' (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ix, Oct. 1, 1910. pp. 674-682; also, Vol. xii, Oct. 1, 1911. p. 792; also, 1908 Ed. 'Resurrection'.).

Namaste.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:42 am Post subject:

hermes.trismegistus wrote:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

That reminds me, remember how the Gospel of Judas, "recently discovered," actually spent some 20-30 years being handed around from buyer to buyer and just hanging around in a box as well when nobody would buy it? After you finish your time in Korea could you go and change the laws so that sort of thing can't happen anymore? I don't want to wait until 2040 for something discovered today to finally be brought to light.

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:47 am Post subject:

Xian wrote:

The Essenes were a zealous group of Jews.

...

There is no way Jesus was an Essene as someone mentioned earlier.

There was more than one sect of Essenes. The key elements uniting them all included communal living and a mystic, gnostic relationship with the divine. There were zealots and militants among them, and many of the sects favored a strong eschatological bent. At one time they were probably led by Judas Thomas, the probable twin of Jesus, in his effort at claiming his rightful status as Emperor. Caligula, of course, reacted rather harshly, and in the ensuing scuffle Judas was condemned.

Xian wrote:

I am sure at a party you probably drive some people nuts and fascinate many other people[.]

Yup.

Unfortunately, this year my lecture schedule has gotten rather grueling, so my ability to publish and keep up with my research has fallen. I'm counting the months to get back in the game.

Namaste.

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 8:51 am Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

That was a publicity stunt from start to finish. Researchers have had copies for years. Granted, there has certainly been a great deal of refinement, but it certainly wasn't a surprise release to those of us who spend time in the stacks researching biblical history.

The real treasure trove lies beneath the Vatican. It contains well over 560,000 un-translated ancient volumes containing some extraordinary ancient documents associated with Christianity's earliest days.

I've got one photo of it [the "Archive of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs"] that fills me with awe.

Namaste.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Okay, you seem to be having difficulty with this. The Essenes date back to at least 200 years PRIOR to the time attributed to the life of Jesus. See Wiki if you have a doubt.

Okay, all this comes out of complete ignorance.

I have already admitted my carelessness. There is no need for this sort of meanness.

Quote:

The three presbyters the church generally accredits with founding the Christian religion are Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

What are you defining as the church? Wasn't the founder of the Christian religion Jesus... was he just forgotten for the century or so between his resurrection and these three men? Didn't Paul do more to spread the gospel than any of these academics?

Quote:

Lying was an established Church tradition.

But again, you believe the writers who say they lied, who also had their own agendas. Then weren't the people who claim they were liars also possibly liars? There seems to be some picking and choosing of evidence; Gibbon was hostile to Christianity and his histories, as voluminous as they were, lack objectivity.

Quote:

Yet no human effort, no princely largess nor offerings to the gods could make that infamous rumor disappear that Nero had somehow ordered the fire. Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.

Here Tacitus mentions Christ's execution in his histories. Is this then also a fabrication?

Quote:

I admit to being less informed than you in this, but it shouldn't stop me from asking innocent questions. I would like to see a list. Up until Constantine's time there was no official "Church" to ban anything. If scripture was substantially re-written, wouldn't somebody, somewhere with better motives fight this? Again--you know more about this than me--but how does a small group of corrupt theologians hush up a copy of one of Paul's letters in a congregation somewhere in Bath?

I'm simply not convinced of the motive or the ability for such a massive fraud. A church fighting for its survival under persecutions does not have the organization to tell its congregations or literate members, "Do as we say and burn your old copies." The believers are too worried about being burned themselves. I lack information as you do, but I'm asking out of what makes concrete sense to me-- how did the church survive through three centuries of intermittent persecution if the essential doctrines of Christianity--his crucifixion and resurrection--weren't there and were just thrown in later? What were these lay people risking their lives for if, until Eusebius, Christ was a nice guy who had two kids and a station wagon?

Quote:

The real treasure trove lies beneath the Vatican. It contains well over 560,000 un-translated ancient volumes containing some extraordinary ancient documents associated with Christianity's earliest days.

True. They're not all lambs in the Vatican either. It would help settle the question if the Vatican let academics read these documents instead of hiding them away and making people more suspicious. And even if much of that literature was worthless, it would make interesting research.

Ken:>

Last edited by Moldy Rutabaga on Fri May 19, 2006 7:22 pm; edited 2 times in total

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

I have already admitted my carelessness. There is no need for this sort of talk.

That was moreso relating to:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

I think this shows an unfamiliarity with the founding presbyters. A simple over-sight of dates matters not. Smile

Namaste.

JLarter

Joined: 17 Apr 2006

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 1:49 am Post subject:

Saw it last night. 7/10 Was ok but dragged on a bit and Tom Hanks shouldn't be in the role. All I could think of was 'Houston, we have problem'

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 7:52 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Assuming that Jesus lived, his teachings did not match the organization or the principles set-up in his name. By "Church", I mean the orthodox Church, separate from the Eastern Orthodox Church, implying a literal context.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

I don't have to take their word for it. I can compare notes and see where they lied. You can too. Start digging, check for primary sources, and you'll see exactly what these academics were criticizing.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Here Tacitus mentions Christ's execution in his histories. Is this then also a fabrication?

There were many Krysts. MANY. It was a common appellation. Tacitus didn't mention anything about a crucifixion, and even if he did, it wouldn't categorically imply Jesus ben Panthera. His twin, Judas Thomas (a name which literally means "the twin"), was condemned for rising against Caligula. He was sentenced to execution, but due to his royal heritage, one of the Simon's took his place. After losing his heritage, he was sold into bondage. A widespread tradition in both the East and West maintained that Judas Khrestus died of old age at Meliapore in India. Evidence can be found in the writings of Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinius, St. Jerome, and later in the writings of Gregory of Tours and others. Gregory of Nazianzus held that Judas the Twin (Khrestus) went to India (which was also mentioned in Acts of Thomas.

Origen, Epiphanius and Julian the Emperor all clearly recorded that John the Baptist, Judas and Jesus' cousin, was a 'Krist' figure, but made no reference to Jesus himself attaining that status.

In The Arguments of the Emperor Julian, he wrote:

Quote:

At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Mark dared to say that Jesus is God, but only the Krist John, the adventured to assert this.

The word 'Krist' had its origin in ancient Egypt and was the name of a highly regarded early god - Horus. This ancient name was found extensively inscribed into the Palermo Stone, the largest and best preserved of six basalt stones, originally uncovered in Egypt.

'Krist', according to St. Epiphanius, was the spiritual self in each and every living person. This explained why Epiphanius was baffled when he said he could find no writings to confirm his own later orthodox views concerning Jesus as an actual living person. Epiphanius recorded that Alexander was also a 'Krist'.

The Essenes also mention 'Krist' in the Book of Enoch, written somewhere between 150-120BCE. Krist was also established in the doctrine of the Gnostics who held 'Kristo' to be the personal and immortal spirit of man. The son of Poseidon and Meduse was called Khryst and the priests of Apollo were known as Khyrstes. The word Kristo and its derivations, Krst, Krist, Kristo, Khyst and Krish-na appeared in every ancient religious system and showed that the original Kristo concept was believed to be the personal and invisible mediator and guide between God and everything spiritual in man. The Krist concept has been an ancient religious tradition continually suppressed by the Catholic church through the centuries.

In a document called 'Dialogue with Trypho', written by St. Justin Martyr sometime around 160CE, Trypho claimed that the church 'invented a Kristo'. Written around 130 years after the canonical date of the death of Jesus, Trypho's comments clearly showed the Jesus Christ promoted today was actually unknown among the general populace but the Krist concept from the Book of Enoch and Kristo, the Hindu name of the Sun, were.

In the same work, Trypho said that the word 'Krist' was really a substitute for a very ancient divine name, and its power was known to the 'Elect' alone of the fully initiated Rabbis.

Jesus may well have been executed - but not under the pretences popularly assumed, and almost certainly not in the manner described in the modern bible.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

I admit to being less informed than you in this, but it shouldn't stop me from asking innocent questions. I would like to see a list.

I have no problem with questions, but I would rather see you ask for a handful of references to do your own digging.

Pope Damasus frankly admitted that Gospel manuscripts of his day were "full of errors and dubious passages". (The Library of the Fathers, Damasus, Oxford, 1833-45). To prevent the fabricated writings being seen by the wrong eyes, Pope Damasus banned the bible.

The basic NT canon was no sooner set (between 381 and 397 generally) than the laity was strictly "forbidden to read the word of God, or to exercise their judgement in order to understand it." (Ibid) Damasus recorded that "bad use of difficult passages by the simple and poor gives rise to hearsay" and the general populace was denied access to the compilations. The word 'hear-say' developed into 'heresy' and people who opposed church opinions were subsequently called 'heretics'. It was with a resolution of the First Council of Constantinople of 381-3 (convened by Roman Emperor Theodosius) that the ban was officially established, but some members of the priesthood had trouble understanding the new terminology. The unreliability of their explanations of heretics and heresies is illustrated in the case of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis who mistook the Pythagorean Sacred Tetrad (the number 4), for a heretic leader.

After he suppressed the church texts, Pope Damasus created an array of formidable penances and additional anathemas "designed to keep the curious at bay". (Early Theological Writings, G.W.F. Hegal) Today 'anathema' means a curse or denunciation pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority. Its original purpose was to 'frighten the rabble'. (Ibid) During the next 1500 years anathemas were strictly enforced at bizarre public ceremonies where the 'evil' were punished or 'burnt for doubting' what the church said about the bible. (Pastoral Theology, Professor J. Beck, 1910) The chief tendency of the priesthood was to keep the bible away from people and substitute Church authority as the rule of life and belief.

The Church endorsed the suppression of all bibles for 1230 years, right up until after the time of the printing of the King James Bible in 1611.

One year after banning public ownership of the bible, Damasus ordered a complete restructuring of every book in both the Old and New Testaments. St. Jerome, the transvestite, was asked to draft this version, called Versio Vulgar, or 'verses for the vulgar'. (Genesis of Christianity, Pummer; Edinburgh 1876; also, History of the Vulgate; S. Berger, 1893).

Gregory of Naziarzen, now known as St. Gregory, wrote to St. Jerome and advised him:

Quote:

Nothing can impose better on the rabble than verbiage; the less they understand the more they admire. The fathers and theraputes have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity forced them to say. (Biblitheca sanctorum, Rome 1965, V1, 1132).

Jerome was ordered to supplement the new bible with a collection of narratives he called 'peculiar additions', given to him by Pope Damasus, including the virgin birth story. (Adversus Helvidium (PL 23:201)). St. Jeromes bible was "purposely wrote in Latin, so that it might serve for the instruction of the clergy only, and not come to the knowledge of the laity." (De Statu Mortuorum, Dr. Burnet, 1840).

According to the personal records of Jerome, the Vulgate was written for "public readings to the mass of vulgar rabble" and expressed "in a crude language which most of them appreciated." (Letter 53, 10, Jerome). Jerome called them "Asses with two legs" (Letter 27.1, Jerome) and reading the 'verses to the vulgar' to the masses provided the origin of 'mass' into Christianity.

The priesthood rigorously enforced the ecclesiastical bible ban and by the fifth century, possession of the prohibited book or of any individual manuscripts of the bible garnered punishment by indignities, confiscation of property or in some cases, whipping.

In the sixth century the Church recognised the earlier authors of its gospels were 'idiots' and again altered and revised its texts.

The Council of Toledo, in 632, declared, "This is the Holy Bible ... believe it or be damned ... believe it to be the word of God or burn forever in a lake of fire." (26th Decree of Toledo: 632).

In 860, Pope Nicholas I pronounced against all people who expressed interest in reading the bible and reaffirmed its banned public use (Papal Decree). In 1073, Pope Gregory supported and confirmed the ban and in 1198 Pope Innocent III declared that anyone caught reading the bible would be stoned to death by 'soldiers of the church military.' In 1229 the Council of Toulouse passed yet another decree that "strictly prohibits laics from having in their possession either the Old or New Testaments; or from translating them into the vulgar tongue." (Ecclesiastical History, Du Pin, vol ii, pg. 456). By the 14th century, possession of a bible by the laity was a criminal offence and was punishable by whipping, confiscation of real and personal property, and then burning at the stake.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Up until Constantine's time there was no official "Church" to ban anything. If scripture was substantially re-written, wouldn't somebody, somewhere with better motives fight this? Again--you know more about this than me--but how does a small group of corrupt theologians hush up a copy of one of Paul's letters in a congregation somewhere in Bath?

They did. They were silenced quite effectively.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

[H]ow did the church survive through three centuries of intermittent persecution if the essential doctrines of Christianity--his crucifixion and resurrection--weren't there and were just thrown in later? What were these lay people risking their lives for if, until Eusebius, Christ was a nice guy who had two kids and a station wagon?

Prestige. The presbyters were anything but learned blokes. They were charlatans. Rapists. Thiefs.

When you tell a lie often enough, you come to believe it yourself.

"Those who believe the Bible are those who know the least about it." - Thomas Paine

Namaste.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:25 am Post subject:

Well, this is interesting. Since I'm making yogurt right now and too busy to write anything of length I'll just paste something that a friend of mine sent back to me when I sent him the following links to peruse. Curious to see what anyone thinks of his response.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=60257
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1551896

Quote:

The contents of the two links are fairly staple fare for one familiar with historical-critical scholarship of the Bible and early Church history. I actually found him reasonably balanced in his appraisal in the radio interview. The heretical texts he referenced were excluded with good reason, reasons which he mentioned but did not develop. The historical-critical method untempered by belief tends to emphasize the diversity of belief and suggests that the apostolic community did not sow common seeds. Omitted is the high degree of continuity among communities across regions, and the connection between apostolic origin (mentioned by Ehrman in the radio interview) and Orthodox belief. The heretics were much more isolated, regionally and doctrinally. Also, although the texts were not gathered together until the fourth C., the canon was referenced from the 1st C. on as authoritative. The 'proto' orthodox and Orthodox alike would continue to trust the authority of certain extra canonical works, like the Shepard of Hermas, although the authority was lesser than and conditioned by those regarded as 'Scripture'. These texts continue to be regarded as authoritative in traditions that maintained Tradition, like the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Ehrman's religious apostasy is, as he said, related to his background, which did not properly appreciate the bible as it relates to Tradition, and God's revelation through men. He was reading the bible how most Muslims read the Koran. The Catholic Church does not face this problem.

A good book on the topic of biblical scholarship is written by Philip Jenkins. A paraphrase can be read here:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/hiddengospel.htm

His webpage is here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/

Also, this is a review by a priest I enjoy on one of Ehrman's earlier works:

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. By Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford University Press. 274 pp. $25.

Historical criticism of the Bible often resembles Winston Churchill's famous description of democracy: the worst form of government ever invented�except for all the others. When one compares historical criticism to the more exotic reveries of the Church Fathers, for example, one cannot help but welcome more sober methods that try to give us, to the extent possible, what the biblical author might actually have had in mind. But a steady diet of the dreary fact�mongering that often passes for historical�critical method can make one suddenly long for a romanticized Antiquity or Middle Ages, much like industrial Victorians who developed a taste for Gothic architecture and the novels of Sir Walter Scott. In any event, Bart Ehrman has written what might be called in that regard the worst life of Jesus ever written�except for all the others. All of the virtues of the historical method applied to Jesus Christ are here abundantly displayed: sober dissection of the evidence available, a firm rejection of the loonier theories of historical critics (such as the thesis that Jesus was a Galilean Cynic philoso pher), and a vivid sense for the historical context in which the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth would alone make sense. But the vices of the method are there as well: sometimes the author's engaging style becomes too flippant, especially given the sacredness of his topic; and he too easily jumps to the same conclusion as did Albert Schweitzer. Certainly Ehrman has rightly argued that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet whose ethics would make no sense except in terms of an imminent eschaton; but as Hans Urs von Balthasar has shown, Jesus was not, pace Schweitzer and Ehrman, mistaken about the nearness of the end. Rather, his God�consciousness was so all�absorbing and total, and the entrance of the eternal God into time was so singular, that Jesus' death was for him necessarily the end of this world and the beginning of the new world of God's Kingdom. But for a rhetorically effective antidote to the nonsense so often purveyed by historians of the historical Jesus, this is the book to read.

� Edward T. Oakes, S.J.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe