Answering Richard Carrier "why the Gospels are myth"

Image result for archeology of nazareth
excavation first century Nazareth



Richard Carrier wants us to think the matters written about in the four Gospels are fictional and therefore did not happen.  What he is really saying is this: The Gospel writers do not write like modern historians, nor do they write like ancient elite patricians. Since those are the only two groups blessed as academic historians what the gospel writers write is not history, if it is not history then it is a lie. There's another obvious possibility that he's merely pretending doesn't exist but obviously it does. That is partially literate people who were not historians but who nevertheless wrote about true events. He wants us to forget that possibility and to think it is not possible.I will present a few off-the-cuff realizations that occurred to me while listening to his lecture, "Why the Gospels are Myth[1]  

The first thing to note is his use of language. It is designed to divert and conceal. When he uses the term"myth" he means fiction, He's not using the term in the sense I am when I say  "the OT uses mythology to  push the narrative along," For me mythology  is what Joseph  Campbell is talking about, the manipulation of  symbol to evoke psychological truth. For Carrier "myth" means:
"lie." Myth  = lie. The real important move here is that "not  historical" = myth = lie, He trades on the Campbell sense of myth to make that maneuver, but his final assumption is the crude version of myth which is the old antiquated version. So the fact that these authors are not writing like historians means they are not writing  history so they write myth, (lie). All of this is based upon ignoring the obvious, they they were not well educated  but were truth tellers.[2]


Carrier defines myth as fiction designed to teach us something. That's a very inadequate definition, It is totally ignorant. It ignores the  psychological aspects of myth, Of course he doesn't care he's using the term as a pejorative.   The gospels are unique, They are not history per se, They are not written as historical accounts, they are distillation of the teachings in the early Christian communities, the oral tradition. That is not  to say they don't depict historical events, but they depict them in such a way as to be analogous to a histrionically based docudrama.


I am guessing here his response to me would probably be that the Gospel authors write like fiction writers of the day. They seem like skilled fiction writers so they weren't just less literate they were highly skilled. One example which he really gives of them writing this way is their filling in gaps in knowledge about dialogue and time. They do this by writing as though everything took place as in  a  little documentary,[3] Again he's just predicating that upon the assumption that  non historian means fiction. Clearly they filled in gaps with poetic licence because they did not have access to transcripts. That does not invalidate the outline as non historical.


Carrier points out that the Gospel writers do not name their sources. This marks them as not historical. It marks them as not historians although even historians of the  ancient world did not always name their sources, They did not footnote them. Carrier argues that they don't discuss who the sources were why they trust them, as do historians even in that day. Again all this really means is they are not historians. But not being historians does not equal not being historically true. They don't mark  their sources the way conventional historians do because they are distilling the teachings of the communities in whch the testimony was taught. All the Gospel sources go back to the Apostles and whatever witnesses were in  that community. There is no point in continually pointing this out when the  community knew its sources. That does not mark it as fictional writing.

Another point he makes is that the Gospels are improbable. He lists several earmarks of improbability:

*apostles  abandon jobs follow stranger immediately
*Jews need  Judas to identify Jesus
*illegal trail execution on high holy day
*Of he off hands supernatural stuff, always important for stoking doubt.

my answers:
*apostles  abandon jobs follow stranger immediately
The authors weren't there when Jesus' first disciples joined him. The descriptions they gave of those events probably made it sound like they followed him immediately. It probably wasn't considered an important point. They probably considered it literary licence.

*Jews need  Judas to identify Jesus
The Jews may have needed someone to be sure they had the actual man, With no mass media, no photographs they only had eye witnesses to be sure. Had they only seen him from a distance with a lot people around him they might not have really been certain it was him. I think the real issue is they needed an insider to tell them where he would be at a given time. Otherwise the people have protected him in public.

He says Gospels don't express any incredulity at amazing things like historians do when they tell amazing things. Could that be because the Gospels are merely the writing down of the testimony given the communities, Thus they assumed up front it would be amazing, it was assumed up front it was the testimony of the Apostles.

 Carrier lists "Markers of myth"
*meaningful emulation of prior myths
*historical improbabilities are frequent
*no external corroboration[4]

At this point he's describing the Gospels and using that as myth-like writing  so it's rather circular in reasoning.   He might as well say the first criterion for spotting myth is that it is a Gospel. No external history corroborates the myth. No external sources to corroborate gospels other than his death, No source on any other events.[5] The point that no external sources corroborate the events other than his death is really a misleading argument.

First,he wants to treat the four Gospels as though they all came out together published by Zondervon, in 99AD.  There were written Gospels before the four canonical. They go back to around AD 50 (?). The four canonicals are corroborating each other. Three latter corroborate Mark,and Mark and Matt corroborate an earlier group of writings we no longer  have.[6]

There are Talmudic references that are connected to Jesus' death but Carrier wanted to  exempt that because apart from the death noting is corroborated. The problem they do corroborate things other then the death but in connection with the death because that's what drew attention to Jesus beyond his own continuities. Skeptic Peter Kirby (a talented armature): "This is the Jewish tradition regarding the trial of Jesus, found in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Sanh. 43a. While this text was finalized sometime in the fifth or sixth century, by its nature it incorporates many traditions that are very old, as it collects and quotes traditional commentary of the rabbis."[7]

We see more of this:

Origen quoting Celsus:
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." [8]

This quote is propaganda. Yet when we find  overlap with the gospels we can see there is a historical corroboration:

village in Judea
Father was carpenter
Allusion to V birth
Jesus went to Egypt
Identified himself with God
\
further computational  from my own Taplmudic studies;
It seems pretty obvious that the Talmud is discussing Jesus, at least in some instances. That in itself should be enough given the preponderance of evidence to put to rest Jesus mythism. A summary of what the most likely passages say about the one I take to be Jesus of Nazareth makes this clear:

*He was born under unusual circumstances, leading some rabbis to address him as ben Pandira and " a bastard of an adulteress
*mother Mary was Heli's daughter.
*was crucified on the eve of Passover.
* made himself alive by the name of God.
* was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)
* claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
* ascended and claimed that he would return again.
* was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
* had at least five disciples.
* performed miracles, i.e. practiced "sorcery".
* name has healing power.
*teaching impressed one rabbi


There are lots of sources of Talmudic corroboration, be sure and check out my pages on the mater. [9] Even more impressive are the  non canonical Gospels.
scholars now have copies of 19 gospels (either complete, in fragments or in quotations), written in the first and second centuries A.D— nine of which were discovered in the 20th century. Two more are preserved, in part, in other  writings, and we know the names of several others, but do not have copies of them. Clearly, Luke was not exaggerating when he wrote in his opening verse: "Many undertook to compile narratives [about Jesus]" (Luke 1:1). Every one of these gospels was deemed true and sacred by at least some early Christians.,,Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports.[10]
 Carrier ignores the fact of this corroboration, no doubt on the premise that being Christian it is just more of the same, repetition of the same myth, it follows an independent tradition from the Markan redaction, thus making it independent corroboration, The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 was discovered in Egypt in 1935 exiting in two different manuscripts. The original editors found that the handwriting was that of a type from the late first early second century. In 1946 Goro Mayeda published a dissertation which argues for the independence of the readings from the canonical tradition. This has been debated since then and continues to be debated. Recently John B. Daniels in his Clairmont Dissertation argued for the independence of the readings from canonical sources.[11] Daniels states "Egerton's Account of Jesus healing the leaper Plausibly represents a separate tradition which did not undergo Markan redaction...Compositional choices suggest that...[the author] did not make use of the Gospel of John in canonical form." (Daniels, abstract).[12]  

These are corroborating versions because they  show different traditions not connected to the canonicals nevertheless with the same material thus supporting the canonical events.


Notes



[1]Richard Carrier, "Why the Gospels are Myth" video YouTube  (Nov 27, 2017))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc

[2]Ibid.530

[3] Ibid, frame 620

[4] Ibid, frames 640-748

[5]Ibid frame 813

[6] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992, 215-218

[7] Hinman,:"Peter Kirby's Straw man "Best Case for Jesus:" Talmudic Evidence." religious  a priori website
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/04/peter-kirbys-straw-man-best-case-for.html



[8]Origen quoting Celsus, On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987, 59

[9] Hinman, "Talmud Connection to Jesus (part 1)" The Religious a priori website (2012)

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2016/06/talmud-connection-to-jesus-part-1.html


[10] Charles W. Hendrick, quoted in Bible Review, (June 2002), 20-31; 46-47


[11] John B. Daniels, The Egerton Gospel: It's place in Early Christianity, Dissertation Clairmont, CA 1990. Cited in  Helmutt Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity,second Edition, New York, Berlin: Walter D. Gruyter, 186.

This is from a dissertation cited by major scholar Helmutt KIoester., so apparently Daniels did good work as a graduate student, Koester is New Testamemt Studies at Harvard.

[12] Ibid.





Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: What he is really saying is this: The Gospel writers do not write like modern historians, nor do they write like ancient elite patricians. Since those are the only two groups blessed as academic historians what the gospel writers write is not history, if it is not history then it is a lie.

There is far more to his argument than just the fact that the gospels were not written like ancient elite patricians.

Joe: The first thing to note is his use of language. It is designed to divert and conceal.

Actually, he uses "myth" in a very standard way. That you define it differently does not supports your accusation of deceit.

Joe: *apostles abandon jobs follow stranger immediately

I too disagree with Carrier on this one. It can be viewed as a miracle, so cannot be ruled out.

Joe: *Jews need Judas to identify Jesus

Carrier points out that over-turning tables in the temple was a capital offence and there were a lot of soldiers there. What is unbelievable is that Jesus was not arrested or killed there and then.

Joe: *illegal trail execution on high holy day

Carrier is spot on here; I see you have failed to counter his argument.

Joe: The point that no external sources corroborate the events other than his death is really a misleading argument.

No it is not. It is a big problem for Christianity. Things like the sun darkening and dead saints walking around Jerusalem would be big events that we would expect to be noted somewhere. Why did Josephus not mention the dead walking around for example?

There was supposedly a man who had been crucified walking around Jerusalem performing miracles and all sorts; this was the most important event in the history of the world if Christianity is to be believed, but the Christians kept it secret and no pagan writer took any notice!

Joe: There are Talmudic references that are connected to Jesus' death but Carrier wanted to exempt that because apart from the death noting is corroborated.

But what are the sources for the Talmudic references? If it is the gospels, then this does not help your case at all. This is also the issue with Celsus, who was writing around AD 170-180. It is almost certain that his source was the gospels. Where else do you think he could learn who Jesus' mother was?

I note you have not addressed how much of the gospels parallel Moses, Elijah and Elisha, or that the Sermon on the Mount was a latter invention, both of which are significant.
Actually, he uses "myth" in a very standard way. That you define it differently does not supports your accusation of deceit.

Standard misconceptions: most people don't know jack shit about myth; they use word wrong. That dose not excuse one who claims to be the the cutting edge of scholarship
The Pixie said…
"Carrier defines myth as fiction designed to teach us something."

"For me mythology is what Joseph Campbell is talking about, the manipulation of symbol to evoke psychological truth."

Some dictionary definitions:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/myth
an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts
a commonly believed but false idea

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone
especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
an unfounded or false notion
a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
the whole body of myths

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/myth
A myth is a well-known story which was made up in the past to explain natural events or to justify religious beliefs or social customs.
If you describe a belief or explanation as a myth, you mean that many people believe it but it is actually untrue.

Looks to me like Carrier's usage is more in line with the dictionary definition than yours.
I too disagree with Carrier on this one. It can be viewed as a miracle, so cannot be ruled out.

thumbs up

Joe: *Jews need Judas to identify Jesus

Carrier points out that over-turning tables in the temple was a capital offence and there were a lot of soldiers there. What is unbelievable is that Jesus was not arrested or killed there and then.

He doesn't offer any documentation the tables where there illegally,I challenge his knowledge on that.


Joe: *illegal trail execution on high holy day

Carrier is spot on here; I see you have failed to counter his argument.


right I had a point to make there and forgot to make it. that's why they took him to Pilot. They got the Romans to do it for them. Why he was crucified, The Jews couldn't crucify,they could have had him stoned without bringing Romans into it but they wanted Romans to take the heat from public anger.


Joe: The point that no external sources corroborate the events other than his death is really a misleading argument.

No it is not. It is a big problem for Christianity. Things like the sun darkening and dead saints walking around Jerusalem would be big events that we would expect to be noted somewhere. Why did Josephus not mention the dead walking around for example?


those are totally different issues, not the point here. I would expect skeptics to be critical of miracles the issue is historical corroboration, what you may not know is Carrier is a famous Jesus myther. So Jesus' very existence is at issue in sub text.

There was supposedly a man who had been crucified walking around Jerusalem performing miracles and all sorts; this was the most important event in the history of the world if Christianity is to be believed, but the Christians kept it secret and no pagan writer took any notice!

Jesus did not walk around doing miracles after the res. That is not the issue. the issue Carrier is quite clear the issue is corroborator for the overall existence and life of Jesus. My answer is he is just refusing to count four docents that attest to his existnece because they are in the bible.

The events in Palestine were of no interest to Romans. There were other healers running around working wonders. Jesus would have been of no interest to Romans



Joe: There are Talmudic references that are connected to Jesus' death but Carrier wanted to exempt that because apart from the death noting is corroborated.

But what are the sources for the Talmudic references? If it is the gospels, then this does not help your case at all.

No it's the Gospels it;s the Jews's own memories of dealing with Jesus. It says that up front in Talmudic commentary by Rabbis.


This is also the issue with Celsus, who was writing around AD 170-180. It is almost certain that his source was the gospels. Where else do you think he could learn who Jesus' mother was?

Obvious not since the Gospels never said Mary was a hairdresser, Celsus himself said his source was the Jews. The propaganda he spouts mirrors what the Talmud says

I note you have not addressed how much of the gospels parallel Moses, Elijah and Elisha, or that the Sermon on the Mount was a latter invention, both of which are significant.
1/20/2020 02:13:00 AM

the sermon on the mount is in a plane in G, Luke so it's a hypothetical scene probably based upon many many teaching sessions with Jesus,the teachings are authentically Jesus!

That Gospel authors parallel Moses and other OT guys in their presentation is not a disprorp of of Jesus' historicity,that's the kind of thing Jews loved. It's how it's told.
The Pixie said...
"Carrier defines myth as fiction designed to teach us something."

"For me mythology is what Joseph Campbell is talking about, the manipulation of symbol to evoke psychological truth."

Some dictionary definitions:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/myth
an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts
a commonly believed but false idea

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone
especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society
an unfounded or false notion
a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
the whole body of myths


both of those say myth is more than a lie, that beats Carrier,

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/myth
A myth is a well-known story which was made up in the past to explain natural events or to justify religious beliefs or social customs.
If you describe a belief or explanation as a myth, you mean that many people believe it but it is actually untrue.

you are merely skirting past the experts with the sophisticated answer to call upon baby talk to support your view.

Looks to me like Carrier's usage is more in line with the dictionary definition than yours.

none of those said "myth = lie' your second def is in line with my view, but its actually two definitions the first part is valid the send is just catering to popular prejudice,
def 2:

A: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone
especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society

B:
an unfounded or false notion
a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
the whole body of myths

A - ok B - catering to prejudice


the two definitions actually contradict
https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln101/myth.htm

Mircea Eliade:

"Myths narrate a sacred history. They relate events that took place in a primordial time, the fabled time of the beginnings."
"Myth is always an account of creation, ... a dramatic breakthrough of the sacred."
"Every myth shows how a reality came into existence, whether it be the total reality, the cosmos, or only a fragment -- an island, a species of plant, a human institution. To tell how things came into existence is to explain them and at the same time indirectly to answer another question: Why did they come into existence? The why is always implied in the how -- for the simple reason that to tell how a thing was born is to reveal an irruption of the sacred into the world, and the sacred is the ultimate cause of all real existence." (Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane).


Carl Jung:

The conclusion that the myth-makers thought in much the same ways as we still think in dreams is almost self-evident... But one must certainly put a large question-mark after the assertion that myths spring from the "infantile" psychic life of the race. They are on the contrary the most mature product of that young humanity." (Jung, Symbols of Transformation)

Károly (Carl, Karl) Kerényi (Hungarian: Kerényi Károly, pronounced [ˈkɛreːɲi ˈkaːroj]; 19 January 1897 – 14 April 1973) was a Hungarian scholar in classical philology and one of the founders of modern studies of Greek mythology.

Károly Kerényi’s scientific interpretation of the figures of Greek mythology as archetypes of the human soul was in line with the approach of the Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung. Together with Jung he endeavored to establish mythology as a science in its own right.[14] Jung described Kerényi as having "supplied such a wealth of connections [of psychology] with Greek mythology that the cross-fertilization of the two branches of science can no longer be doubted.16"

ft note

14: Graf F., in Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Philologe, Mythologe, Humanist – Vor hundert Jahren wurde Karl Kerényi geboren, 18/19 January 1997
Jung, C.G. (2015). Collected Works of C.G. Jung: The First Complete English Edition of the Works of C.G. Jung. Routledge. p. 8321. ISBN 978-1-317-53016-9.


16 Jung, C.G. (2015). Collected Works of C.G. Jung: The First Complete English Edition of the Works of C.G. Jung. Routledge. p. 8321. ISBN 978-1-317-53016-9.
the definition after Károly Kerényi’s
' 'scientific interpretation of the figures of Greek mythology as archetypes of the human soul was in line with the approach of the Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung. Together with Jung he endeavored to establish mythology as a science in its own right.[14] Jung described Kerényi as having "supplied such a wealth of connections [of psychology] with Greek mythology that the cross-fertilization of the two branches of science can no longer be doubted.16"

is quoting this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1roly_Ker%C3%A9nyi#Psychological_expansion_of_mythology

The Pixie said…
Joe: He doesn't offer any documentation the tables where there illegally,I challenge his knowledge on that.

And he never claims that. What he says is that causing a disturbance was illegal, a capital offence, and there were soldier there to deal with it.

Joe: right I had a point to make there and forgot to make it. that's why they took him to Pilot. They got the Romans to do it for them. Why he was crucified, The Jews couldn't crucify,they could have had him stoned without bringing Romans into it but they wanted Romans to take the heat from public anger.

So in your view the Sanhedrin could not hold a trial at night, so therefore they held a trial at night to determine Jesus should be handed over to Pilate?

Far more likely the trial before the Sanhedrin was a invention, inserted into the narrative that already had a packed timeline.

Joe: those are totally different issues, not the point here. I would expect skeptics to be critical of miracles the issue is historical corroboration, what you may not know is Carrier is a famous Jesus myther. So Jesus' very existence is at issue in sub text.

Is the moon darkening mythology or real? Was the dead saints walking around mythology or real? This is exactly what we are talking about.

Joe: Jesus did not walk around doing miracles after the res. ...

You know that and I now that, but the Bible claims otherwise.

John 20:30 Therefore many other [g]signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

Acts 1:3 To [c]these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Joe: The events in Palestine were of no interest to Romans. There were other healers running around working wonders. Jesus would have been of no interest to Romans

They were very much of interest to Josephus, but still no mention of a sun darkening during a passover (an event that NEVER happens without a miracle as passover is at full moon, when the moon in on the wrong side of the planet) or of dead saints walking around. The dead saints would be characters from the OT, people Josephus was discussing in his works. If that happened there is no way Josephus would omit it.
The Pixie said…
Joe: No it's the Gospels it;s the Jews's own memories of dealing with Jesus. It says that up front in Talmudic commentary by Rabbis.

You seem very certain of that, and yet modern scholarship cannot even decide if the various passages are about Jesus or instead about another Joshu/Joshua.

The Talmud claims Jesus was the son of Panthera. This is almost certainly something that was made up to counter claims of a virgin birth, and given the virgin birth was made up between Mark and Matthew, it seems almost certain Penthera was a response to either Matthew or Luke. Thus, the Talmud is derived from the gospels.

If you think otherwise, you have to consider that the claim about Jesus' father is legitimate - that that is what the Jews of the time remember.

Joe: Obvious not since the Gospels never said Mary was a hairdresser, Celsus himself said his source was the Jews. The propaganda he spouts mirrors what the Talmud says

Where does Celsus say Jesus' mother was a hairdresser? As far as I can tell, that was in the Talmud, and is a euphemism for slut. Where does Celsus say he got his information from the Jews? The text is here, to help you look.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus3.html

Celsus was writing a polemic against Christianity. Why would he ask the Jews about Christianity? It would make far more sense to ask the Christians themselves.

Joe: the sermon on the mount is in a plane in G, Luke so it's a hypothetical scene probably based upon many many teaching sessions with Jesus,the teachings are authentically Jesus!

So why is it not in Mark? Not important enough to make the cut? Really?

Joe: That Gospel authors parallel Moses and other OT guys in their presentation is not a disprorp of of Jesus' historicity,that's the kind of thing Jews loved. It's how it's told.

It does not disprove it, but it does support it. We have to wonder how much did the author take liberties with the story to make it fit the pattern he wanted, what was invented simply to parallel events in the OT. The flight to Egypt looks, to my mind, to be exactly that; something the author of Matthew made up specically so he could make a parallel to Moses.

Joe: none of those said "myth = lie' your second def is in line with my view, but its actually two definitions the first part is valid the send is just catering to popular prejudice,

When does Carrier say "myth = lie"? If he does not, then you are engaging in your own deceit.

Joe: He doesn't offer any documentation the tables where there illegally,I challenge his knowledge on that.

And he never claims that. What he says is that causing a disturbance was illegal, a capital offence, and there were soldier there to deal with it.


He doesn't document that ether


Joe: right I had a point to make there and forgot to make it. that's why they took him to Pilot. They got the Romans to do it for them. Why he was crucified, The Jews couldn't crucify,they could have had him stoned without bringing Romans into it but they wanted Romans to take the heat from public anger.

So in your view the Sanhedrin could not hold a trial at night, so therefore they held a trial at night to determine Jesus should be handed over to Pilate?

I said they didn't crucify. They got the Romans to take him down for them that's the point.


Far more likely the trial before the Sanhedrin was a invention, inserted into the narrative that already had a packed timeline.

why?


Joe: those are totally different issues, not the point here. I would expect skeptics to be critical of miracles the issue is historical corroboration, what you may not know is Carrier is a famous Jesus myther. So Jesus' very existence is at issue in sub text.

Is the moon darkening mythology or real? Was the dead saints walking around mythology or real? This is exactly what we are talking about.


those are negligible


Joe: Jesus did not walk around doing miracles after the res. ...

You know that and I now that, but the Bible claims otherwise.


No it doesnt. show me any claim it makes to that effect.I don;t don;t think you;ve read it.


John 20:30 Therefore many other [g]signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;


speaking of his general ministry not the point after the resurrection, The naturalist fear of miracles is just an excise not to believe. God works moralizes. i;ve seen them.



Acts 1:3 To [c]these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

why would his previous miracles be any better? fear of miracles is a device to prevent control

Joe: The events in Palestine were of no interest to Romans. There were other healers running around working wonders. Jesus would have been of no interest to Romans

They were very much of interest to Josephus, but still no mention of a sun darkening during a passover (an event that NEVER happens without a miracle as passover is at full moon, when the moon in on the wrong side of the planet) or of dead saints walking around. The dead saints would be characters from the OT, people Josephus was discussing in his works. If that happened there is no way Josephus would omit it.
1/21/2020 12:13:00 AM

there are sources that document those just because Josephus doesn't does not disprove them. he was jew btw.He was not a roman
The Pixie said...
Joe: No it's the Gospels it;s the Jews's own memories of dealing with Jesus. It says that up front in Talmudic commentary by Rabbis.

You seem very certain of that, and yet modern scholarship cannot even decide if the various passages are about Jesus or instead about another Joshu/Joshua.

Rabbis have admitted it for years I quoted some.

The Talmud claims Jesus was the son of Panthera. This is almost certainly something that was made up to counter claims of a virgin birth, and given the virgin birth was made up between Mark and Matthew, it seems almost certain Penthera was a response to either Matthew or Luke. Thus, the Talmud is derived from the gospels.


that was his Grandfather not his father. no doubt he was made up they add a lot of things to make Jesus look bad, mother was a hair dresser that would be a dubious job back then,


If you think otherwise, you have to consider that the claim about Jesus' father is legitimate - that that is what the Jews of the time remember.

Panthera was grandfather saying his fahter was Roman solderer was ultimate insult.

Joe: Obvious not since the Gospels never said Mary was a hairdresser, Celsus himself said his source was the Jews. The propaganda he spouts mirrors what the Talmud says

Where does Celsus say Jesus' mother was a hairdresser? As far as I can tell, that was in the Talmud, and is a euphemism for slut. Where does Celsus say he got his information from the Jews? The text is here, to help you look.

Origin quoting Celsus, On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987, 59


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus3.html

Celsus was writing a polemic against Christianity. Why would he ask the Jews about Christianity? It would make far more sense to ask the Christians themselves.

Obviously because Jesus was a Jew. That was still close enough in time to think of Christianity as Jewish

Joe: the sermon on the mount is in a plane in G, Luke so it's a hypothetical scene probably based upon many many teaching sessions with Jesus,the teachings are authentically Jesus!

So why is it not in Mark? Not important enough to make the cut? Really?

why is Mark not in John? Mark is not the super test

Joe: That Gospel authors parallel Moses and other OT guys in their presentation is not a disproof of of Jesus' historicity,that's the kind of thing Jews loved. It's how it's told.

It does not disprove it, but it does support it. We have to wonder how much did the author take liberties with the story to make it fit the pattern he wanted, what was invented simply to parallel events in the OT. The flight to Egypt looks, to my mind, to be exactly that; something the author of Matthew made up specically so he could make a parallel to Moses.

since it was used against him they must have known the family had been in Egypt.


Joe: none of those said "myth = lie' your second def is in line with my view, but its actually two definitions the first part is valid the send is just catering to popular prejudice,

When does Carrier say "myth = lie"? If he does not, then you are engaging in your own deceit.

did yo read it? you deny the obis. I;' sure he thinks being a myth is a special honor, he;s really a Christian after all.
"you deny the obvious" what it should say
The Pixie said…
Joe: He doesn't document that ether

It is a talk, so there are no references, but I do not know his source on that one.

Joe: I said they didn't crucify. They got the Romans to take him down for them that's the point.

The issue is whether the trial before the Sanhedrin was fact or fiction. Given their rule not to meet at night, seems almost certain to be fiction - part of the effort to shift blame from Rome.

Joe: those are negligible

They are further examples of claims in the gospel that are far more likely to be fiction than fact.

Joe: No it doesnt. show me any claim it makes to that effect.I don;t don;t think you;ve read it.

The verses I quoted last time.

Joe: speaking of his general ministry not the point after the resurrection, The naturalist fear of miracles is just an excise not to believe. God works moralizes. i;ve seen them.

Joe: why would his previous miracles be any better? fear of miracles is a device to prevent control

The verse in Acts 1 is clear that this was after the resurrection.

What do you think Jesus did for 40 days between the supposed resurrection and supposed ascension? Was he cowering in a basement in fear of the authorities?

Joe: there are sources that document those just because Josephus doesn't does not disprove them. he was jew btw.He was not a roman

There is no source documenting either the walking saints or a darkening of the moon at passover (I am aware of Aficanus use of Thallus, but that is a Christian apologist finding mention of a solar eclipse, and arbitrarily connecting it to the resurrection).

Josephus was a Jew, but he was also a Roman citizen.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Rabbis have admitted it for years I quoted some.

Where are the quotes? Do they make it clear that these are based on the testimony of non-Christians of the time, rather than as a reaction to the gospels?

Joe: that was his Grandfather not his father. no doubt he was made up they add a lot of things to make Jesus look bad, mother was a hair dresser that would be a dubious job back then,

Joe: Panthera was grandfather saying his fahter was Roman solderer was ultimate insult.

Are you claiming Panthera was Jesus' grandfather or that that is what others say? I have never heard that before.

Back in the real world, the claim is that Panthera (Pantera) was Jesus' father, not grandfather.
https://jamestabor.com/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/

And yes, of course it was meant as an insult, but it was also obviously in response to the virgin birth claims, which appeared after the Gospel of Mark.

Joe: Obviously because Jesus was a Jew. That was still close enough in time to think of Christianity as Jewish

Wrong. By the time Celsus was writing, Christianity had severed ties with Judaism. It was very much a gentile religion by then, and Judaism was generally considered a heresy. If Celsus considered Christianity to be significant enough to be worth writing about, he must have encountered it for himself. It is far more likely that his primary source was Christianity - even if he did look to the Jews for counters to Christianity.

Joe: why is Mark not in John? Mark is not the super test

The apostle or the gospel? The apostle is absent because he was not around during the time period John covers. Whether the gospel was used by the author of John is debatable.

The fact is that Mark was written much earlier than John. Although it appeared perhaps 40 years after the events, for most of that time there were witnesses around to keep the story more or less straight. The later we get, the fewer the witnesses and so the fewer controls on the story - and that drops dramatically at the Jewish Revolt. The upshot is that what is in Mark is far more likely to be true than anything absent from Mark.

Joe: since it was used against him they must have known the family had been in Egypt.

What do you mean by "it was used against him"?
The Pixie said...
Joe: He doesn't document that ether

It is a talk, so there are no references, but I do not know his source on that one.

Joe: I said they didn't crucify. They got the Romans to take him down for them that's the point.

The issue is whether the trial before the Sanhedrin was fact or fiction. Given their rule not to meet at night, seems almost certain to be fiction - part of the effort to shift blame from Rome.

Joe: those are negligible

They are further examples of claims in the gospel that are far more likely to be fiction than fact.

they are suppositions that can't be proven,

Joe: No it doesnt. show me any claim it makes to that effect.I don;t don;t think you;ve read it.

The verses I quoted last time.

????????

Joe: speaking of his general ministry not the point after the resurrection, The naturalist fear of miracles is just an excise not to believe. God works miracles. i;ve seen them.

Joe: why would his previous miracles be any better? fear of miracles is a device to prevent control

The verse in Acts 1 is clear that this was after the resurrection.


what miracle does Jesus do in Acts 1?

What do you think Jesus did for 40 days between the supposed resurrection and supposed ascension? Was he cowering in a basement in fear of the authorities?

He could have been visiting with friends and family



Joe: there are sources that document those just because Josephus doesn't does not disprove them. he was jew btw.He was not a roman

There is no source documenting either the walking saints or a darkening of the moon at passover (I am aware of Aficanus use of Thallus, but that is a Christian apologist finding mention of a solar eclipse, and arbitrarily connecting it to the resurrection).

that's a ridiculous argument.there is some corroboration but it;s buy Cristina so it must be ignored. so give me some evidence I'll show you why i reject it.

Josephus was a Jew, but he was also a Roman citizen.

so was Paul
Joe: Rabbis have admitted it for years I quoted some.

Where are the quotes? Do they make it clear that these are based on the testimony of non-Christians of the time, rather than as a reaction to the gospels?

Beginning with the Basle edition of the Talmud (1578–80), those passages in which Jesus was mentioned, as well as other statements alluding to Christianity, were deleted from most editions of the Babylonian Talmud by the Christian censors or even by internal Jewish censorship. These deletions were later collected in special compilations and in manuscripts (cf. R.N.N. Rabbinowicz, Ma'amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud (1952), 28n.26). From the stories about Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, it is evident that he was regarded as a rabbinical student who had strayed into evil ways: "May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself like Jesus the Nazarene" (Ber. 17b; Sanh. 103a; cf. Dik. Sof. ad loc.). The rabbis were not certain of his time or his activities. Thus he is described as a pupil of *Joshua b. Peraḥyah (Sanh. 107b; see Dik. Sof. ad loc.).

Encyclopaedia Hebraica] in , "Jesus" Jewish Virtual Library,
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2012, On line Resoirce URL
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html
accessed 6/14/16


I am saying Rabbis have admitted that Jesus is spoken of in the Talmud, That;s what I refereed to,if a rabi says that its no good asking where his info comes from, he;s not getting it from Billy Graham.

Joe: that was his Grandfather not his father. no doubt he was made up they add a lot of things to make Jesus look bad, mother was a hair dresser that would be a dubious job back then,

Joe: Panthera was grandfather saying his fahter was Roman solderer was ultimate insult.

Are you claiming Panthera was Jesus' grandfather or that that is what others say? I have never heard that before.

The Talmudists said it, it;s not in the Bile.I don't know if it is true it so what if it is? they claimed to have his geneiology.

I may e wrong about the grand fahter

Back in the real world, the claim is that Panthera (Pantera) was Jesus' father, not grandfather.
https://jamestabor.com/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/

I have seen sources that say grand father I;ll have to look it up.That is not a Roman name


And yes, of course it was meant as an insult, but it was also obviously in response to the virgin birth claims, which appeared after the Gospel of Mark.


that's wrong. unproven assertion.they did not invent anything, they were not original writers,they were distilling the community teachings,

Joe: Obviously because Jesus was a Jew. That was still close enough in time to think of Christianity as Jewish

Wrong. By the time Celsus was writing, Christianity had severed ties with Judaism. It was very much a gentile religion by then, and Judaism was generally considered a heresy. If Celsus considered Christianity to be significant enough to be worth writing about, he must have encountered it for himself. It is far more likely that his primary source was Christianity - even if he did look to the Jews for counters to Christianity.


that's wrong Jewish Christianity remained a force until the 400s

Joe: why is Mark not in John? Mark is not the super test

The apostle or the gospel?

yes I was making a funny replacing the man with the gospel.


The apostle is absent because he was not around during the time period John covers. Whether the gospel was used by the author of John is debatable.

more likley he wasn't connected with the John community. So his involvement it his own community cut him off from the John group so he wasn't important to them so they didn;t talk about him



The fact is that Mark was written much earlier than John. Although it appeared perhaps 40 years after the events, for most of that time there were witnesses around to keep the story more or less straight. The later we get, the fewer the witnesses and so the fewer controls on the story - and that drops dramatically at the Jewish Revolt. The upshot is that what is in Mark is far more likely to be true than anything absent from Mark.


the UR Mark is dated to the 30s. The Johanine community was in Ephesus and Mark community in Syria. the basic story was written in stone by the Time of John's Gospel

Joe: since it was used against him they must have known the family had been in Egypt.

What do you mean by "it was used against him"?

Jewish sources said he went Egypt and leaned black arts there, that;s how he did miracles supposedly. The Gospels tell us they were in Egypt when he was a baby

1/21/2020 11:44:00 PM
Mark was just a kid. Some thin he's the young man who flees naked in the garden before Jesus' arrest. Naked bemuse he had been wearing single piece robe and it came off as he ran I so Mark was a kid when Jesus was around, So he was not a major member of the community not well known to be remembered by the John guys. He was known to Paul and through Paul's circle.
The Pixie said…
Joe: they are suppositions that can't be proven,

So like the resurrection.

Joe: what miracle does Jesus do in Acts 1?

I guess the author did not have the imagination to invent anything specific, so just says "many convincing proofs".

Joe: He could have been visiting with friends and family

Supposedly his last words to his mouth were said before he died (John 19:26-27). May be if he has got off his backside, more Romans would have been convinced and the Christians would have been persecuted rather less. It is bizarre that Jesus was so insistent his disciples spread the word, when here he was in his new heavenly body, the living proof of his message, and all he does is sit in his mate's basement!

Joe: that's a ridiculous argument.there is some corroboration but it;s buy Cristina so it must be ignored. so give me some evidence I'll show you why i reject it.

It is rejected because it looks highly suspect.

Joe: so was Paul

So? That does not magically make your claim about Josephus true: "was not a Roman"

Joe: Beginning with the Basle edition of the Talmud (1578–80), ...

So in fact nothing to support the claim that the Talmud is based of non-Christian Jewish witnesses rather than derived from or responding to the gospels.

Joe: I am saying Rabbis have admitted that Jesus is spoken of in the Talmud, That;s what I refereed to,if a rabi says that its no good asking where his info comes from, he;s not getting it from Billy Graham.

And I am saying that the Rabbinic position comes from what was written in the gospels, not Jewish witnesses.

Joe: The Talmudists said it, it;s not in the Bile.I don't know if it is true it so what if it is? they claimed to have his geneiology.

I may e wrong about the grand fahter


You are indeed wrong about the grandfather - you have entirely missed the point. They were saying Mary was a slut - hence the hairdresser comment - that she slept with a Roman soldier. This was in response to the claims that Mary was a virgin. Why would they say Panthera was Jesus grandfather?

Joe: I have seen sources that say grand father I;ll have to look it up.That is not a Roman name

It does look like Latin, but I do not know. I have also seen it spelt Pantera. It may be mocking "parthenos", the Greek for virgin.

Joe: that's wrong. unproven assertion.they did not invent anything, they were not original writers,they were distilling the community teachings,

Obviously you think the virgin birth is true, so pre-dates Mark. The fact that Mark omits it makes it likely, however, that it was made up. The geneologies, both tracing Jesus to David via Joseph, make it further unlikely; that descent was vital to the claims of messiahship for the Jews.

Joe: that's wrong Jewish Christianity remained a force until the 400s

Gentile Christians were very much distancing themselves right from the Jewish revolt in AD 67. Certainly it was a long process, but it was well underway when Celsus was writing.

Joe: the UR Mark is dated to the 30s.

50s perhaps.

Joe: The Johanine community was in Ephesus and Mark community in Syria. the basic story was written in stone by the Time of John's Gospel

Basic story? What exactly is that? We only ned to look at chapter 21 to see that John was added to after it was written. The idea that it was set in stone is very suspect.

Joe: Jewish sources said he went Egypt and leaned black arts there, that;s how he did miracles supposedly. The Gospels tell us they were in Egypt when he was a baby

One gospel says that.

What are the Jewish sources? Where there Jews who say him learn black arts in Egypt? Or was this made up decades later, based on the claims in Matthew?
The Pixie said…
Joe: Mark was just a kid. Some thin he's the young man who flees naked in the garden before Jesus' arrest. Naked bemuse he had been wearing single piece robe and it came off as he ran I so Mark was a kid when Jesus was around, So he was not a major member of the community not well known to be remembered by the John guys. He was known to Paul and through Paul's circle.

There is no reason why the Gospel of John should include the apostle Mark.

There is a theory that the man who flees naked is also the man at the tomb (same word, neaniskos, used for both, but is rarely used elsewhere; also, the man was wearing a burial cloth), and this is a metaphor for the idealised Christian, shedding his old body (his clothing), to put on the new (the shining white garments).
The Pixie said...
Joe: they are suppositions that can't be proven,

So like the resurrection.

LOL ;-) we can;t prove the rebut the historical circumstances suggest it.

Joe: what miracle does Jesus do in Acts 1?

I guess the author did not have the imagination to invent anything specific, so just says "many convincing proofs".

I think he is making a general reference to Jesus prior ministry



Joe: He could have been visiting with friends and family

Supposedly his last words to his mouth were said before he died (John 19:26-27). May be if he has got off his backside, more Romans would have been convinced and the Christians would have been persecuted rather less. It is bizarre that Jesus was so insistent his disciples spread the word, when here he was in his new heavenly body, the living proof of his message, and all he does is sit in his mate's basement!

that kind of reasoning could start slippery slope all the way back to why create anything?


Joe: that's a ridiculous argument.there is some corroboration but it;s buy Cristina so it must be ignored. so give me some evidence I'll show you why i reject it.

It is rejected because it looks highly suspect.


because a christian said it, it's not suspect at all.

Joe: so was Paul

So? That does not magically make your claim about Josephus true: "was not a Roman"

Joe: Beginning with the Basle edition of the Talmud (1578–80), ...

So in fact nothing to support the claim that the Talmud is based of non-Christian Jewish witnesses rather than derived from or responding to the gospels.


what are you talking about? Everyone knows the Talmud is not Christian, it;s Jewish It has some references to Jesus.

Joe: I am saying Rabbis have admitted that Jesus is spoken of in the Talmud, That;s what I refereed to,if a rabi says that its no good asking where his info comes from, he;s not getting it from Billy Graham.

And I am saying that the Rabbinic position comes from what was written in the gospels, not Jewish witnesses.

No it doesn't. the Talmudic references are not based upon New Testament they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

Joe: The Talmudists said it, it;s not in the Bile.I don't know if it is true it so what if it is? they claimed to have his genealogy.

I may e wrong about the grand fahter

You are indeed wrong about the grandfather - you have entirely missed the point. They were saying Mary was a slut - hence the hairdresser comment - that she slept with a Roman soldier. This was in response to the claims that Mary was a virgin. Why would they say Panthera was Jesus grandfather?


that name was not a Roman name, it means panther not Roman, there are Talmudic references it it being his grandfather.


Joe: I have seen sources that say grand father I;ll have to look it up.That is not a Roman name

It does look like Latin, but I do not know. I have also seen it spelt Pantera. It may be mocking "parthenos", the Greek for virgin.

good point I;ve seen reference to it meaning panther


Joe: that's wrong. unproven assertion.they did not invent anything, they were not original writers,they were distilling the community teachings,

Obviously you think the virgin birth is true, so pre-dates Mark. The fact that Mark omits it makes it likely, however, that it was made up. The geneologies, both tracing Jesus to David via Joseph, make it further unlikely; that descent was vital to the claims of messiahship for the Jews.

for you Mark is a bottomless font and the origin of all knowledge of Jesus, but that is garbage.

Joe: that's wrong Jewish Christianity remained a force until the 400s

Gentile Christians were very much distancing themselves right from the Jewish revolt in AD 67. Certainly it was a long process, but it was well underway when Celsus was writing.


yes but that is just one step along the way.There were till Jewish Christians in Celsus' time. Bit He got his info form Jews not Jewish Christians,



Joe: the UR Mark is dated to the 30s.

50s perhaps.

that is where some scholars date it



Joe: The Johanine community was in Ephesus and Mark community in Syria. the basic story was written in stone by the Time of John's Gospel

Basic story? What exactly is that? We only ned to look at chapter 21 to see that John was added to after it was written. The idea that it was set in stone is very suspect.

the basic story can be seen in Mark and in readings that are pre Mark redaction, Basic story: who Jesus was,what he wanted how he died how he rose.


Joe: Jewish sources said he went Egypt and leaned black arts there, that;s how he did miracles supposedly. The Gospels tell us they were in Egypt when he was a baby

One gospel says that.

What are the Jewish sources? Where there Jews who say him learn black arts in Egypt? Or was this made up decades later, based on the claims in Matthew?

Of course it was but it reoflects the idea of him going to Egypt. which is in at least one Gospel.

1/22/2020 07:50:00 AM
I have documented many times Koester says The Pre Mark redaction was 50 if you want to date Ur Mark at 50s fine, because that was not the first writing of the Gospel.

The Babylonian Talmud

translated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON
Book 10 (Vols. I and II)
[1918]
The History of the Talmud

from Vol I chapter II


"Thus the study of the Talmud flourished after the destruction of the Temple, although beset with great difficulties and desperate struggles. All his days, R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to dispute with Sadducees and Bathueians and, no doubt, with the Messiahists also; for although these last were Pharisees, they differed in many points from the teaching of the Talmud after their master, Jesus, had broken with the Pharisees"


As reported in the Kansas City Star

Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003 to KansasCity.com


Among the challenges to Christianity was the charge that Jews had rejected Jesus and that no Jewish leaders or scholars ever accepted Jesus as the Messiah. But even one of the most revered Jewish texts, the Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings from 100 B.C. to A.D. 500, suggests otherwise.

In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, of many references to Christianity and those who adhered to it. But not everything was edited out.

In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: "There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching...the Messianists...(were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two centuries."

Those words from the Mishnah appear to correspond to New Testament accounts that many Jews, including Pharisees and "a great company of priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).

The Talmud mentions that the Romans hanged Jesus from a tree, while in another text section the Talmud does something done nowhere else but the New Testament -- mentions Jesus' birth.

English scholar R. Travers Herford, in his book Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, wrote that rabbinical writings mention that Jesus' mother, Mary, was "descended from princes and rulers."

Despite the noble lineage, Herford noted, the Talmudic text referred to Jesus as "Ben Pandira," roughly translated as "son of a virgin," which was considered an epithet.

"While the Jesus Seminar was making radical pronouncements (among them that Jesus was not the Son of God) and courting the media," Blomberg said, "what is less well-known to the public is the study in which scholars have been growing in their appreciation of Jesus' Jewish roots."

He said, "These things have never been presented in any popular forms of consumption to the American public."


--- .


Neil Altman is a writer who lives in Pennsylvania and specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. His others works have appeared The Times of London, the Toronto Star and The Washington Post.

David Crowder, an investigative reporter with the El Paso Times, and Bill Norton, of The Star, contributed to this story


As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)
Pandira

Morey quotes from the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud:
Footnote in Soncino: "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus." (Ibid., p. 7) Some scholars also see an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ in the term, "son of Pandira." This is due to the fact that "Pandira" seems to be a play on the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, the very term used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when recording Jesus' virgin birth. McDowell & Wilson report:

"... Scholars have debated at length how Jesus came to have this name (i.e., ben Pandira) attached to his. Strauss thought it was from the Greek word pentheros, meaning 'son-in-law.' Klausner and Bruce accept the position that panthera is a corruption of the Greek parthenos meaning 'virgin.' Klausner says, 'The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name "Son of the Virgin"... and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., "son of the leopard."'... The theory most sensational but least accepted by serious scholars was dramatized by the discovery of a first century tombstone at Bingerbruck, Germany. The inscription read, 'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 c.e. was transferred to service in Germany.'... This discovery fueled the fire of the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier, Panthera. Even Origen writes that his opponent, Celsus, in circa A.D. 178, said that he heard from a Jew that 'Miriam' had become pregnant by 'Pantheras,' a Roman soldier; was divorced by her husband, and bore Jesus in secret.

"If 'Pantheras' were a unique name, the theory of Mary's pregnancy by the Roman soldier might be more attractive to scholars. But Adolf Deissman, the early twentieth-century German New Testament scholar, verified, by first century inscriptions, 'with absolute certainty that Panthera was not an invention of Jewish scoffers, but a widespread name among the ancients.'... Rabbi and Professor Morris Goldstein comments that it was as common as the names Wolf or Fox today. He comments further:

Pandira - Jesus' Grandfather

Dr. Robert Morey
(Dr. Robert A. Morey,Jesus in the Mishnah and the Talmud,California Institute of Apologetic PO Box 7447 Orange, CA 92863 1-800-41-TRUTH or (714) 630-6307--looks like private printing)

It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...


"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmud permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (McDowell & Wilson, pp. 66-67)

One gospel says that.

"What are the Jewish sources? Where there Jews who say him learn black arts in Egypt? Or was this made up decades later, based on the claims in Matthew?"

Obviously the made it up after, did they he was going to Eypt as a baby? were they agaisnt him as a baby?
Anonymous said…
Joe: LOL ;-) we can;t prove the rebut the historical circumstances suggest it.

Ah, the old prove/suggest thing. Yet again you demand I prove, while you only have to suggest.

Fact is the historical circumstances suggest the walking dead and sun darkening were made up.

Joe: I think he is making a general reference to Jesus prior ministry

It says "After his suffering" so means subsequent to the crucifixion.

Joe: that kind of reasoning could start slippery slope all the way back to why create anything?

I have no idea what your point is. If Jesus was in Jerusalem for 40 days after being crucified, what possible reason is there for him doing anything but telling everyone about it.

Joe: because a christian said it, it's not suspect at all.

The Christian in question connected a random comment about a solar eclipse on a random day to a made up claim in Matthew. It is desperation.

Joe: what are you talking about? Everyone knows the Talmud is not Christian, it;s Jewish It has some references to Jesus.

So why assume the references to Jesus are from Jewish witnesses, rather than Jewish responses to gospel claims?

Oh, right. Wishful thinking.

Joe: No it doesn't. the Talmudic references are not based upon New Testament they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

And you know because of... Wishful thinking.

Joe: that name was not a Roman name, it means panther not Roman, there are Talmudic references it it being his grandfather.

From what you say later, it looks like the grandfather thing was invented by Origen, possibly as a reaction to the Jews saying he was Jesus father. The Talmud says Panthera was Jesus' father.

Joe: good point I;ve seen reference to it meaning panther

It does mean panther, but it was likely a slur because of the resemblance to parthenos.

Joe: for you Mark is a bottomless font and the origin of all knowledge of Jesus, but that is garbage.

Mark is the best guide we have to Jesus. It is not perfect, not by a long way, but you are deluding yourself if you think the later gospels are more reliable or even comparable.

Joe: yes but that is just one step along the way.There were till Jewish Christians in Celsus' time. Bit He got his info form Jews not Jewish Christians,

And they were already many steps along the way by Celsus' time.

Joe: that is where some scholars date it

Evangelical scholars, I am guessing.

Joe: the basic story can be seen in Mark and in readings that are pre Mark redaction, Basic story: who Jesus was,what he wanted how he died how he rose.

Yes, the basic story is in Mark. The rest is fabricated.

Joe: Of course it was but it reoflects the idea of him going to Egypt. which is in at least one Gospel.

Which comes from that one gospel. The author of Matthew made it up, and any other references are based solely on that.

Joe: I have documented many times Koester says The Pre Mark redaction was 50 if you want to date Ur Mark at 50s fine, because that was not the first writing of the Gospel.

But now you are claiming 30s, which is just nonsense.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: LOL ;-) we can;t prove the rebut the historical circumstances suggest it.

Ah, the old prove/suggest thing. Yet again you demand I prove, while you only have to suggest.

Fact is the historical circumstances suggest the walking dead and sun darkening were made up.


suppose they were? That's not the real point.



Joe: I think he is making a general reference to Jesus prior ministry

It says "After his suffering" so means subsequent to the crucifixion.

Joe: that kind of reasoning could start slippery slope all the way back to why create anything?

I have no idea what your point is. If Jesus was in Jerusalem for 40 days after being crucified, what possible reason is there for him doing anything but telling everyone about it.


he was a real human and had real relationships to deal with

Joe: because a christian said it, it's not suspect at all.

The Christian in question connected a random comment about a solar eclipse on a random day to a made up claim in Matthew. It is desperation.

your supposition your unbelief wont allow you to accept the evidence.

Joe: what are you talking about? Everyone knows the Talmud is not Christian, it;s Jewish It has some references to Jesus.

So why assume the references to Jesus are from Jewish witnesses, rather than Jewish responses to gospel claims?


Jesus was a real historical guy and thus real historical Jews reacted to him.


Oh, right. Wishful thinking.

Joe: No it doesn't. the Talmudic references are not based upon New Testament they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

And you know because of... Wishful thinking.

because they said it.

Joe: that name was not a Roman name, it means panther not Roman, there are Talmudic references it it being his grandfather.

From what you say later, it looks like the grandfather thing was invented by Origen, possibly as a reaction to the Jews saying he was Jesus father. The Talmud says Panthera was Jesus' father.

anti christian palaver a christian said it so he made it up.That's not historical reasoning it's just anti Christian bull shit. Origen is a respected historical source.


But now you are claiming 30s, which is just nonsense.
Joe: good point I;ve seen reference to it meaning panther

It does mean panther, but it was likely a slur because of the resemblance to parthenos.

,doesn't change anything.

Joe: for you Mark is a bottomless font and the origin of all knowledge of Jesus, but that is garbage.

Mark is the best guide we have to Jesus. It is not perfect, not by a long way, but you are deluding yourself if you think the later gospels are more reliable or even comparable.

that's ideological BS. you want to imply that Mark made it all up. there are other sources that are as important."Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars."Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

Joe: yes but that is just one step along the way.There were till Jewish Christians in Celsus' time. He got his info form Jews not Jewish Christians,

And they were already many steps along the way by Celsus' time.

Joe: that is where some scholars date it

Evangelical scholars, I am guessing.

snide

Joe: the basic story can be seen in Mark and in readings that are pre Mark redaction, Basic story: who Jesus was,what he wanted how he died how he rose.

Yes, the basic story is in Mark. The rest is fabricated.

that is really irrational to assume Mark is true the others false when we know Mark was not the first Gospel. Besides Marks attests to Jesus being the son of God.p,

Joe: Of course it was but it reoflects the idea of him going to Egypt. which is in at least one Gospel.

Which comes from that one gospel. The author of Matthew made it up, and any other references are based solely on that.

made it up because he;s notin Mark? obviously its historical since the Jews thought he went there,


Joe: I have documented many times Koester says The Pre Mark redaction was 50 if you want to date Ur Mark at 50s fine, because that was not the first writing of the Gospel.


But now you are claiming 30s, which is just nonsense.

John AT Robinson said that he was a respected scholar. He's a liberal, the UrMark not mark itself

Jesse said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Pixie said…
Joe: suppose they were? That's not the real point.

This is about whether the gospel accounts are fact or fiction. Whether the sun darkening and dead walking is fact or fiction is exactly on point.

Joe: he was a real human and had real relationships to deal with

So you think he spent those 40 days sorting out his estate, making sure his will was up to date, saying goodbye to his friends?

What about the "real relationship" he has with everyone else. If God loves everyone, he has a "real relationship" with everyone, and so would be expected to want to use those 40 days to talk to everyone - and not skulking around in basements.

Joe: your supposition your unbelief wont allow you to accept the evidence.

Present the evidence and I will consider it. So far you have done no more than make vague assertions.

Joe: Jesus was a real historical guy and thus real historical Jews reacted to him.

Sure. But that does not imply that what is in the Talmud about Jesus came from those Jews, not by a long way.

Jesus was hailed as the messiah. That is what the Jews of the day believed. And that belief is only possible if Jesus was a direct descent of David via the male line, so there is no way the Jews of his day believed in either the virgin birth OR his father was a Roman soldier.

Jesus' father was a Jew. He had to be otherwise Jesus would not be considered a messiah. The most likely scenario is Jesus was born in wedlock, like his brothers and sisters, to Joseph. Everything else was invented decades later.

Joe: the Talmudic references are not based upon New Testament they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

Pix: And you know because of... Wishful thinking.

Joe: because they said it.

Then quote the bit of the Tulmud that says they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

We both know you cannot. We both know all you have is bluster and wishful thinking. The Talmud makes no claim that it is totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews. That is something you have just made up.

Joe: anti christian palaver a christian said it so he made it up.That's not historical reasoning it's just anti Christian bull shit. Origen is a respected historical source.

So then find the bit in the Talmud that says Panthera was Jesus grandfather.

For contrast, here is a Wiki page on Jesus as the son of Panthera in the Talmud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Son_of_Pantera_/_Pandera_in_a_healing_context
The Pixie said…
Joe: that's ideological BS. you want to imply that Mark made it all up. there are other sources that are as important."Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars."Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

You have missed the point entirely. I am saying anything NOT in Mark is likely made up.

Joe: snide

So prove me wrong. Find a scholar who dates the passion narrative to the 30s who is not an evangelical.

The wider point here is that you made these wild assertions, then back them up with vague reference to unnamed scholars. So why the surprise at a snide response?

Joe: that is really irrational to assume Mark is true the others false when we know Mark was not the first Gospel. Besides Marks attests to Jesus being the son of God.p,

Wow, you have flipped from saying "you want to imply that Mark made it all up" to now saying I "assume Mark is true".

I said the basic story is in Mark, not that everything in Mark is true, and not that it is all made up.

Mark attests that Jesus is the Son of God in the manner of all the Jewish Kings; i.e., Jesus was adopted as such at his baptism.

Joe: made it up because he;s notin Mark?

Exactly. The early Christians believed Jesus was adopted as God's son, not born that way (though Paul believed that happened at the resurrection). His childhood was relatively normal, born to two Jewish parents, the oldest of four brothers and some sisters too.

If the massacre of the innocents was true, Josephus would have mentioned it, just as he did Herod's real atrocities. It never happened; it was made up. The subsequent flight to Egypt was similarly made up.

Joe: obviously its historical since the Jews thought he went there,

And what was the source of that belief? The Gospel of Matthew.
The Pixie said…
Tabor tells us about where Pantera as the grandfather came from:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CKFUFtnnffgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=panthera+grandfather&source=bl&ots=URy2Q3jukr&sig=ACfU3U1bj98LZnyzsn9rOQxmnI3JpG4uiw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvuvzP1ZnnAhWSlFwKHSp0DjMQ6AEwC3oECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q=panthera%20grandfather&f=false
The Pixie said...
Joe: suppose they were? That's not the real point.

This is about whether the gospel accounts are fact or fiction. Whether the sun darkening and dead walking is fact or fiction is exactly on point.


those are not major points. Even if they happened pitting them in is just embellishment, you can;t base the truth of the narrative on that,


Joe: he was a real human and had real relationships to deal with

So you think he spent those 40 days sorting out his estate, making sure his will was up to date, saying goodbye to his friends?

hugging his mommy sort of thing, what if the number of days is wrong?

What about the "real relationship" he has with everyone else. If God loves everyone, he has a "real relationship" with everyone, and so would be expected to want to use those 40 days to talk to everyone - and not skulking around in basements.

He didn't talk to me during those 40 days, you could still think about it while you live.

Joe: your supposition your unbelief wont allow you to accept the evidence.

Present the evidence and I will consider it. So far you have done no more than make vague assertions.

this discussion is about what the evidence contains,

Joe: Jesus was a real historical guy and thus real historical Jews reacted to him.

Sure. But that does not imply that what is in the Talmud about Jesus came from those Jews, not by a long way.

Ut has to come from Jews because they wrote the Talmud. why should we not assume that they gave Celsus what they thought was the low down on Jesus based upon thither own guys? all you are saying "I din;t like the evidence so I reuse to accept it as evidence. even when it comes from someone else I will assert they got it from Christians,



Jesus was hailed as the messiah. That is what the Jews of the day believed. And that belief is only possible if Jesus was a direct descent of David via the male line, so there is no way the Jews of his day believed in either the virgin birth OR his father was a Roman soldier.

There is no evidence his father was Roman there is no historian that does not see that as mere slander., Historians just dogmatically ignore that as slander. you said it, it invalidates his claim how convent

are we to assume then that in UK justice system accusation = guilt?


Jesus' father was a Jew. He had to be otherwise Jesus would not be considered a messiah. The most likely scenario is Jesus was born in wedlock, like his brothers and sisters, to Joseph. Everything else was invented decades later.


why even make a claim of virgin birth when it;s going to be disheveled? It's connected to prophesy,


Joe: the Talmudic references are not based upon New Testament they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

Pix: And you know because of... Wishful thinking.


I just quoted a Rabbi who said that, It's there in the Talmud.

Joe: because they said it.

Then quote the bit of the Tulmud that says they are totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews.

I think you know that's dumb. you expect the Talmud to say:this is the Talmud."



We both know you cannot. We both know all you have is bluster and wishful thinking. The Talmud makes no claim that it is totally authentic Talmudic knowledge from Jesus the man in history as he was known to his people the Jews. That is something you have just made up.

Obviously it doesn't say "this is Jesus who because the founder of Christianity" but Rabbi admit it;a talking about him, How to claim they got it from the NT that doesn;t account for stuff not in the NT like mother was hair dresser.

I table this for now so I can do a full post on it on Monday




Joe: anti christian palaver a christian said it so he made it up.That's not historical reasoning it's just anti Christian bull shit. Origen is a respected historical source.

So then find the bit in the Talmud that says Panthera was Jesus grandfather.


didn;t I just quote it? here is the grand father thing


"It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...

"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmud permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (McDowell & Wilson, pp. 66-67)


1/23/2020 12:29:00 AM Delete
Joe: that's ideological BS. you want to imply that Mark made it all up. there are other sources that are as important."Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine stated that "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" and that all portraits of Jesus are subject to criticism by some group of scholars."Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). Amy-Jill Levine; et al. (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.

You have missed the point entirely. I am saying anything NOT in Mark is likely made up.

Joe: snide

So prove me wrong. Find a scholar who dates the passion narrative to the 30s who is not an evangelical.

a;ready quoted him ohn A. T. Robinson.

The wider point here is that you made these wild assertions, then back them up with vague reference to unnamed scholars. So why the surprise at a snide response?

all of my arguments are well orchestrated, You don;t know the literature



Joe: that is really irrational to assume Mark is true the others false when we know Mark was not the first Gospel. Besides Marks attests to Jesus being the son of God.p,

Wow, you have flipped from saying "you want to imply that Mark made it all up" to now saying I "assume Mark is true".

No I am sure you want to think Mark made it all up but you could as well think he got it all from Peter,

I said the basic story is in Mark, not that everything in Mark is true, and not that it is all made up.

Mark attests that Jesus is the Son of God in the manner of all the Jewish Kings; i.e., Jesus was adopted as such at his baptism.

Joe: made it up because he;s notin Mark?

Exactly. The early Christians believed Jesus was adopted as God's son, not born that way (though Paul believed that happened at the resurrection). His childhood was relatively normal, born to two Jewish parents, the oldest of four brothers and some sisters too.

No that is BS. Adoption hearsay modern scholars pushing unbelief. There is no basis fr that in Mark, Mark is not adopotionist,


If the massacre of the innocents was true, Josephus would have mentioned it, just as he did Herod's real atrocities. It never happened; it was made up. The subsequent flight to Egypt was similarly made up.

fallacious reasoning, No true history outside of Josephus, any historian wold laugh you out of the room, that's absurdly silly. all history is found in Mark and Josephus, no historian would pass you.You need to get your Ph,D in history you've got history down to a science just read Josephus and Mark.

Joe: obviously its historical since the Jews thought he went there,

And what was the source of that belief? The Gospel of Matthew.

you think when the Talmud says he learned black arts in Egypt that means he phoned it in?


1/23/2020 12:31:00 AM
Anonymous said…
Joe: hugging his mommy sort of thing, what if the number of days is wrong?

Joe: He didn't talk to me during those 40 days, you could still think about it while you live.

Exactly! It was just a myth. The number of days... it is like wondering how long Harry Potter was at school, and what he did after he left.

Joe: this discussion is about what the evidence contains,

So therefore you are refusing to present any?

Joe: Ut has to come from Jews because they wrote the Talmud.

That is delightfully simplistic. If only the real world was as black and white as Christians think!

Joe: why should we not assume that they gave Celsus ...

Celsus was a pagan. Therefore what he wrote had to come from the pagans, right? Or do you only invoke that nonsense when it suits your argument?

Joe: why should we not assume that they gave Celsus what they thought was the low down on Jesus based upon thither own guys? all you are saying "I din;t like the evidence so I reuse to accept it as evidence. even when it comes from someone else I will assert they got it from Christians,

Because it does not make as much sense.

Jesus was hailed as the messiah, so they must have believed he was descended from David at that time. It is as simple as that.

Joe: There is no evidence his father was Roman there is no historian that does not see that as mere slander., Historians just dogmatically ignore that as slander. you said it, it invalidates his claim how convent

Right. Jesus had a normal father, presumably Joseph. All the nonsense about his birth was invented after Mark - both the virgin and the Pantera stuff.

Joe: are we to assume then that in UK justice system accusation = guilt?

No idea what that is about.

Joe: why even make a claim of virgin birth when it;s going to be disheveled? It's connected to prophesy,

It was part of the mythologising process; making Jesus greater and greater. In this case, they borrowed from pagan myths.

The prophecy is about the kingdoms of Israel and Assyria falling within a couple of years - until Matthew hijacked it. It makes no sense within Jewish messianic prophecies - the messiah had to be a descendant of David by the male line.

Joe: I just quoted a Rabbi who said that, It's there in the Talmud.

No, you quoted a Rabbi saying Pantera was Jesus father. You have presented nothing at all to suggest that came from Jewish witnesses rather than the gospels.

Joe: I think you know that's dumb. you expect the Talmud to say:this is the Talmud."

I am asking you to support your claim that what is written in the Talmud was from Jewish witnesses rather than the gospels.

Looks like we both agree that it is not in the Talmud. It is just your wishful thinking.

Joe: Obviously it doesn't say "this is Jesus who because the founder of Christianity" but Rabbi admit it;a talking about him, How to claim they got it from the NT that doesn;t account for stuff not in the NT like mother was hair dresser.

Obviously it does not support your claim.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: didn;t I just quote it? here is the grand father thing

No. You quoted the Talmud saying father, and Origen saying grandfather. Once more all you have is wishful thinking.

Joe: a;ready quoted him ohn A. T. Robinson.

Do you not know what "quote" means? Look it up.

You have not quoted Robinson.

And I guess you mean John AT Robinson? He dates the gospels to AD 40 or later; not aware of anything where he gives an earlier date.

Joe: all of my arguments are well orchestrated, You don;t know the literature

And you seem unable to present it. Makes me wonder if it is all in your head.

Joe: No that is BS. Adoption hearsay modern scholars pushing unbelief. There is no basis fr that in Mark, Mark is not adopotionist,

That was the belief of all Jews at that time about the coming messiah.

Joe: fallacious reasoning, No true history outside of Josephus, any historian wold laugh you out of the room, that's absurdly silly. all history is found in Mark and Josephus, no historian would pass you.You need to get your Ph,D in history you've got history down to a science just read Josephus and Mark.


Really? According to Wiki, "Most modern biographers of Herod dismiss the story as an invention". Can you find a history book that says it happened, it is actual history?
https://www.livescience.com/64962-king-herod.html

Joe: you think when the Talmud says he learned black arts in Egypt that means he phoned it in?

I think the author of Matthew made up the trip to Egypt, and the author of the text in the Talmud subsequently made up the black arts part. Jesus never went there.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: hugging his mommy sort of thing, what if the number of days is wrong?

Joe: He didn't talk to me during those 40 days, you could still think about it while you live.

Exactly! It was just a myth. The number of days... it is like wondering how long Harry Potter was at school, and what he did after he left.

Dogmatically gainsaying the evidence only gets you one thing,loss of respect,


Joe: this discussion is about what the evidence contains,

So therefore you are refusing to present any?

when will you start to refute some of what I already gave?



Joe: It has to come from Jews because they wrote the Talmud.

That is delightfully simplistic. If only the real world was as black and white as Christians think!

they give us material not in the Gospels so it must have come from them,

Joe: why should we not assume that they gave Celsus ...

Celsus was a pagan. Therefore what he wrote had to come from the pagans, right? Or do you only invoke that nonsense when it suits your argument?

Celsus tells us that he got his info on Jesus from the Jews



Joe: why should we not assume that they gave Celsus what they thought was the low down on Jesus based upon thither own guys? all you are saying "I din;t like the evidence so I reuse to accept it as evidence. even when it comes from someone else I will assert they got it from Christians,

Because it does not make as much sense.


the man himself says that's where he got it. It sure as hell does make sense because both Jews and pagans hated Christianity by that time. Jesus was a Jew they remembered him



Jesus was hailed as the messiah, so they must have believed he was descended from David at that time. It is as simple as that.

Joe: There is no evidence his father was Roman there is no historian that does not see that as mere slander., Historians just dogmatically ignore that as slander. you said it, it invalidates his claim how convent

Right. Jesus had a normal father, presumably Joseph. All the nonsense about his birth was invented after Mark - both the virgin and the Pantera stuff.


Paul was teaching deity of Christ by about 55 or before,


Joe: are we to assume then that in UK justice system accusation = guilt?

No idea what that is about.

you keep asserting whatever is claimed must be true,


The prophecy is about the kingdoms of Israel and Assyria falling within a couple of years - until Matthew hijacked it. It makes no sense within Jewish messianic prophecies - the messiah had to be a descendant of David by the male line.

willful misreading because you can;t accept miracles. prophesy is miracle,


Joe: I just quoted a Rabbi who said that, It's there in the Talmud.

No, you quoted a Rabbi saying Pantera was Jesus father. You have presented nothing at all to suggest that came from Jewish witnesses rather than the gospels.


I also quoited one saying grandfather,they said both,

Dr. Robert Morey
(Dr. Robert A. Morey,Jesus in the Mishnah and the Talmud,California Institute of Apologetic PO Box 7447 Orange, CA 92863 1-800-41-TRUTH or (714) 630-6307--looks like private printing)

It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...


"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the Talmud permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (McDowell & Wilson, pp. 66-67)




Joe: I think you know that's dumb. you expect the Talmud to say:this is the Talmud."

I am asking you to support your claim that what is written in the Talmud was from Jewish witnesses rather than the gospels.

(1) they would not use their enemies history they would use their own because it it is their narrative , (2)they have new material in the Gospels such as mother was hair dresser




Anonymous said…
Joe: didn;t I just quote it? here is the grand father thing

No. You quoted the Talmud saying father, and Origen saying grandfather. Once more all you have is wishful thinking.

in the post just before this one I quoted the grandfahter stuff again,



Joe: a;ready quoted him ohn A. T. Robinson.

Do you not know what "quote" means? Look it up.

You have not quoted Robinson.

yes I quoted him and referenced him


And I guess you mean John AT Robinson? He dates the gospels to AD 40 or later; not aware of anything where he gives an earlier date.

He puts uR marl in the 30s, what the ur Mark"look it up


Joe: all of my arguments are well researched, You don;t know the literature

And you seem unable to present it. Makes me wonder if it is all in your head.

why don;t you open your eyes and read the stuff post? U don;t see you doing any footnoting young Sheldon



Joe: No that is BS. Adoption hearsay modern scholars pushing unbelief. There is no basis fr that in Mark, Mark is not adopotionist,

That was the belief of all Jews at that time about the coming messiah.

Joe: fallacious reasoning, No true history outside of Josephus, any historian wold laugh you out of the room, that's absurdly silly. all history is found in Mark and Josephus, no historian would pass you.You need to get your Ph,D in history you've got history down to a science just read Josephus and Mark.


Really? According to Wiki, "Most modern biographers of Herod dismiss the story as an invention". Can you find a history book that says it happened, it is actual history?
https://www.livescience.com/64962-king-herod.html

hat are you actuary taking about?

Joe: you think when the Talmud says he learned black arts in Egypt that means he phoned it in?

I think the author of Matthew made up the trip to Egypt, and the author of the text in the Talmud subsequently made up the black arts part. Jesus never went there.

Very interesting,idea Sheldon. The thing is Matt was written about 80 or so and the kind of thing this is like Jesus' personal background would have been staked in the first ciuopd of decades,thing they woulod have gotten settaked
Let me tell you again scholars such as Crosson (him in particular)_ say that all four canonicals and Peter use the Pre Masrk redaction, so you can;t assume everything outside Mark is crap you don;t know the basics if the field,
The Pixie said…
Joe: Dogmatically gainsaying the evidence only gets you one thing,loss of respect,

As does dogmatically believing everything written in the gospels.

I assume you have no better response.

Joe: when will you start to refute some of what I already gave?

Because you have a habit of presenting evidence for points we are not debating. A great example would be Pantera being Jesus' grandfather in the Talmud. Your evidence shows Origen claimed that, your evidence shows the Talmud says father. But no evidence that the Talmud says grandfather.

Joe: they give us material not in the Gospels so it must have come from them,

Really? That seems very dubious logic. But not unexpected, I guess.

Explain why it could not have been made up by Jews who were responding to the gospel. You do say "it must have come from them", so I assume you have proof to make such a strong statement.

Joe: Celsus tells us that he got his info on Jesus from the Jews

So we know a person of one religion can get a claim from people of another religion. And yet you just asserted that the Jews must have got the story of Panthera from other Jews. Curious how inconsistent you are.

Joe: the man himself says that's where he got it. It sure as hell does make sense because both Jews and pagans hated Christianity by that time.

Interesting to compare this to what you said earlier in the week:

Joe previously: Obviously because Jesus was a Jew. That was still close enough in time to think of Christianity as Jewish

We had quite an exchange where I was saying "Gentile Christians were very much distancing themselves right from the Jewish revolt in AD 67. Certainly it was a long process, but it was well underway when Celsus was writing.", and you were insisting back then that that was not true, and yet here you are a few days later saying the Jews hated the Christians. I find it fascinating how quickly Christians change their tune when it suits them.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Paul was teaching deity of Christ by about 55 or before,

Or at least, that is what modern Christianity pretends, and naturally Christians unthinkingly just believe it.

Paul called Jesus Lord because he understood Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, that is the man appointed by God to be king of the Jews. As Paul's king, it was right for Paul to call him Lord.

Paul says Jesus was declared the sin of God:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Paul saw Jesus as the first, the prototype, of what would happen to all the righteous:

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

And the adoption by God would also apply to everyone else; all the righteous could expect to also become the sons of God:

Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
The Pixie said…
Joe: willful misreading because you can;t accept miracles. prophesy is miracle,

The "wilful misreading" was the author of Matthew - and every Christian since.

Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey [n]at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

The prophecy is that "the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken". The lands in question were Israel and Assyria, both of which threatened King Ahaz and Judah. The prophecy is there to reassure Ahaz that the two kingdoms that threaten him will fall within a few years.

The word translated as "virgin" actually means young woman. From the context, it seems almost certain that the woman was already pregnant when the prophecy was given. This gives a relatively tight time frame. It could be re-phrased:

Look, you see that young woman over there, pregnant with child? She will call him Immanuel and I promise to you that before her child knows right and wrong, the two kingdoms that threaten you will have fallen.
The Pixie said…
Joe: I also quoted one saying grandfather,they said both,

You quoted Origen saying grandfather. It is right there in the text you quoted: "It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus".

Why do you not just quote the Talmud? Of right. Because it does not say grandfather.

That was a later Christian re-working of the story to make Mary honourable again. What possible motive is there for the Jews to say grandfather? The whole point of inventing Panthera was to make Mary a slut and Jresus a bastard.

Joe: (1) they would not use their enemies history they would use their own because it it is their narrative ,

So you think Celsus only used pagan history? Of course not! You are perfectly happy with a pagan using Jewish claims when it suits you, but insist a Jew would never use Christian claims.

Joe: (2)they have new material in the Gospels such as mother was hair dresser

And a slut. Do not forget that new material.

Oh wait. You are cherry-picking the new material you want to be true.

Joe: in the post just before this one I quoted the grandfahter stuff again,

And again failed to quote the Talmud.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ben-stada
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323368575_Jesus_in_Talmud
The Pixie said…
Joe: yes I quoted him and referenced him

Again, I have to suggest you look up the word "quote". You most assuredly have NOT quoted him.

If you had it would be trivial for you to copy-and-paste the text in your response...

Joe: hat are you actuary taking about?

Whether the massacre of the innocents actually happened. I (and most biographers of Herod the Great) say it did not, which makes the subsequent trip to Egypt very unlikely too.

Joe: Very interesting,idea Sheldon. The thing is Matt was written about 80 or so and the kind of thing this is like Jesus' personal background would have been staked in the first ciuopd of decades,thing they woulod have gotten settaked

This is why the historicity of the massacre of the innocents is so important. If that was made up be the author of Matthew, then that destroys your claim here - and most historians agree it never happened.

If the massacre of the innocents was made up, how much easier was it to make up the trip to Egypt? Only Mary, Joseph and Jesus knew about that, and by AD 35 only Mary was still alive. By AD 80 she would be about 100, so we can be pretty sure she too was dead.

Compare to the massacre of innocents - that would have affected a huge number of people. To be sure, they might all be dead by now, but such an atrocity would live on in the community memory.

Joe: Let me tell you again scholars such as Crosson (him in particular)_ say that all four canonicals and Peter use the Pre Masrk redaction, so you can;t assume everything outside Mark is crap you don;t know the basics if the field,

I am not saying it is all crap. Firstly, the saying of Jesus may well have been more carefully preserved, and where Luke and Matthew agree, i.e., the Q source, that may be reliable. It is not something I have looked at.

With regards to the narrative, I am not saying that any incident that is not in Mark was made up, I am saying it was probably made up.
Joe: Dogmatically gainsaying the evidence only gets you one thing,loss of respect,

As does dogmatically believing everything written in the gospels.

I've abandoned the OT and belief in hell, you don';t think that's a lot? I also accepted that some aspects of the text are embellishment such as the opening graves.

I assume you have no better response.

nuts to you! you like that?

Joe: when will you start to refute some of what I already gave?

Because you have a habit of presenting evidence for points we are not debating. A great example would be Pantera being Jesus' grandfather in the Talmud. Your evidence shows Origen claimed that, your evidence shows the Talmud says father. But no evidence that the Talmud says grandfather.

I had not looked at that stuff in 20 years I forgot who said it wshis randfahterIddi wekk to reenerthatmuch.



Joe: they give us material not in the Gospels so it must have come from them,

Really? That seems very dubious logic. But not unexpected, I guess.


as dubious as gain saying the evidence because it disproves your point?



Explain why it could not have been made up by Jews who were responding to the gospel. You do say "it must have come from them", so I assume you have proof to make such a strong statement.

Obviously much of what they said was propaganda such as Mary being a whore and so on. That only means the established fact against which they argued was the fact of his life. I assume you are not a myther but for those who are, if he was made up they had no memory of him they would said they claimed to know him



Joe: Celsus tells us that he got his info on Jesus from the Jews

So we know a person of one religion can get a claim from people of another religion. And yet you just asserted that the Jews must have got the story of Panthera from other Jews. Curious how inconsistent you are.

Jesus was of their faith,he was never a christian. If his Gran was named Pathera both sides would know it, I you are going to slander his origins a name that might be a Roman solderer's name is convenient,


Joe: the man himself says that's where he got it. It sure as hell does make sense because both Jews and pagans hated Christianity by that time.

Interesting to compare this to what you said earlier in the week:

Joe previously: Obviously because Jesus was a Jew. That was still close enough in time to think of Christianity as Jewish

you are having trouble with a simple concept. Christians began as a Jewish sect,they were separating but they still had a large population of Jewish Christians and still had incoming new Jewish Christians, gentile Christians who wanted to be Jews, they ties to Judaism but where regard as the bad boys and connections were troubled.the split was well underway.


We had quite an exchange where I was saying "Gentile Christians were very much distancing themselves right from the Jewish revolt in AD 67. Certainly it was a long process, but it was well underway when Celsus was writing.", and you were insisting back then that that was not true,

No I never denied that,It is true but I must have expressed myself badly. You must have misunderstood


and yet here you are a few days later saying the Jews hated the Christians. I find it fascinating how quickly Christians change their tune when it suits them.

Judaism was very diverse in Jesus'day and they all hated each other. Stop trying to make out like every mistake I make is a Christian syndrome. That's really bigoted and creepy it;s what atheists do. ;-)

1/24/2020 01:07:00 AM
Joe: Paul was teaching deity of Christ by about 55 or before,

Or at least, that is what modern Christianity pretends, and naturally Christians unthinkingly just believe it.

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;"


Paul called Jesus Lord because he understood Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, that is the man appointed by God to be king of the Jews. As Paul's king, it was right for Paul to call him Lord.

that is not my argument,I just quoted a passage that said he is equal to God


Paul says Jesus was declared the son of God:

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a [b]descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Paul saw Jesus as the first, the prototype, of what would happen to all the righteous:

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

And the adoption by God would also apply to everyone else; all the righteous could expect to also become the sons of God:

Romans 8:23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.


that we recitative adoption does not mean Christ was adopted

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

ditto. The thing about adoption I will admit two things that support your view. There are a lot of verses that seem to support it and it wasn't worked out when Paul was writing,Paul was doing the pioneering theology that cleared the way for Sanitarian thinking. But those passages ca be understood in ways that are compatible with Trinitarian thinking, the Philippians passage cannot be squared with administration, I do think it's important to blieve in the deity of Christ, I don't vilify isolationism,
Joe: willful misreading because you can;t accept miracles. prophesy is miracle,

The "wilful misreading" was the author of Matthew - and every Christian since.

the early church used the LXX as their bible, so those passages make sense that way in the LXX.For example virgin is virgin not merely young woman in LXX.

Matthew's connection to Isaiah 9 was Midrash,



Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey [n]at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.

what atheist website bible contradiction page did you get this from?

The prophecy is that "the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken". The lands in question were Israel and Assyria, both of which threatened King Ahaz and Judah. The prophecy is there to reassure Ahaz that the two kingdoms that threaten him will fall within a few years.

The word translated as "virgin" actually means young woman. From the context, it seems almost certain that the woman was already pregnant when the prophecy was given.

the LXX reading is older, The Hebrew parent docs of the LXX are older than those used by the Masoretoc

This gives a relatively tight time frame. It could be re-phrased:

Look, you see that young woman over there, pregnant with child? She will call him Immanuel and I promise to you that before her child knows right and wrong, the two kingdoms that threaten you will have fallen.


the connection between Jesus' birth and that passage is midshipman not prophetic, it;s not a prediction that Messiah will be born of a virgin but Matt's midrash in explanation of the miracle.
Joe: I also quoted one saying grandfather,they said both,

You quoted Origen saying grandfather. It is right there in the text you quoted: "It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus".

Why do you not just quote the Talmud? Of right. Because it does not say grandfather.

I put that page up a long long time ago,Its been many years since I;ve looked at it,what i remembered was some say father some say grandfahter,I just forgot who it was that said it, I don;t thin it matters, It's obvious the charge of illegitimacy was propaganda,

That was a later Christian re-working of the story to make Mary honourable again. What possible motive is there for the Jews to say grandfather? The whole point of inventing Panthera was to make Mary a slut and Jresus a bastard.

it could really be that his grand father was named panthera that would matter for his link to the throne. I doubt that anyone ever took serious the the charges, The Christians had no need to rehabilitate Mary. The Jews probably said that about all the leaders of sects to which they did not belong.


Joe: (1) they would not use their enemies history they would use their own because it it is their narrative ,

So you think Celsus only used pagan history? Of course not! You are perfectly happy with a pagan using Jewish claims when it suits you, but insist a Jew would never use Christian claims.

is it really so difficult for you to follow a simple competence? Celsus did not know any thug about Jesus (except
that he was Jewish),so he goes to the Jews they say Yes we know him here's the scroup.

wow really hard, need that again?


Joe: (2)they have new material in the Gospels such as mother was hair dresser

And a slut. Do not forget that new material.

It's not all gravy

Oh wait. You are cherry-picking the new material you want to be true.

dismissing obvious propaganda is not cherry picking,it;s historicity

Joe: in the post just before this one I quoted the grandfahter stuff again,

And again failed to quote the Talmud.

who cares?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ben-stada
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323368575_Jesus_in_Talmud


"While the Babylonian tradition clearly seems to identify Ben Sṭada with Ben Pantira (Jesus), it is highly unlikely that this reflects any historical tradition deriving from the tannaitic period."

He is talking about a specific page not all, Stada passages, It is obvious the charge of morality in his origin is propagate it is equally obvious he did exist they would know something about him,







1/24/2020 01:08:00 AM
Anonymous said…
You lost the debate, Sleepy Joe. You admitting to some of Paul's writings supporting the adoptionist views is great. We actually agree on something.

Isaiah 7:14 does not help your stupid virgin birth belief which goes against known biology. The LXX does not help you.

Pix
Anonymous said...
You lost the debate, Sleepy Joe.

That's a Trumpism. That does not bode well for you.you can;t give me three reasons why i would have lost;.


You admitting to some of Paul's writings supporting the adoptionist views is great. We actually agree on something.

You being unable to comprehend the history of theology is very telling.

Isaiah 7:14 does not help your stupid virgin birth belief which goes against known biology. The LXX does not help you.

Pix

Miracles go against known biology,can't have a miracle without violating the known,that is a very stupid argument because it's just saying that miracle is not normal"
what? is that guy God or something? Who do these Christians think Jesus is?
Anonymous said…
https://ehrmanblog.org/christians-who-thought-jesus-was-adopted-by-god-a-blast-from-the-past/
His link is Ehrman saying: "it can be argued – in fact, I would indeed argue – that some such view was the very earliest understanding of Jesus in evidence in the New Testament writings, and even more than that, that this was the original Christology, held by Jesus’ own followers immediately upon their “realization” that he had been raised from the dead. For the original disciples of Jesus, it was at the resurrection that Jesus became the Son of God."


That is going to be a pretty common position in the liberal ranks. they equate naturalistic with scientific and that with smart, they equate spiritual with stupid and old fashioned they are embarrassed to admit they really believe.

notice he did not present any real evidence, there is no evidence either way, it's all assumed. That's not the worst thing they could think,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger