The Fame Of Jesus

[SkepticOfBible]

Brad has done it again. I was impressed by his latest two articles. I thought we could have discussion about that.

 

The Fame Of Jesus

 

It's not uncommon for Christian evangelical preachers to claim that history provides overwhelming evidence for the existence of the Bible character called "Jesus".

They emphatically assert that Jesus was the most important person in history, whose existence is affirmed by many works outside of the New Testament Bible.

Many skeptics and believers spend a great deal of time debating this issue, quoting various scholars and citing texts.

However, it seems that the issue ultimately comes down to identifying and defining what a person considers "overwhelming" evidence to be.

The New Testament is the only source for detailed information about the character called "Jesus of Nazareth".

In the view of fundamentalist Christianity, the New Testament is the sanctioned, official source of information because they contend its writing was authored by God himself.

 

The four Gospels represent the core of this information and were selected by councils of male clerics at various meetings that took place long after Jesus was supposed to have lived.

In other words, the New Testament is the Word of God because certain Church clerics said it was.

Other works by various Cult of Jesus followers that mentioned Jesus were deemed to be unreliable information by the clerics, so the Church has already weeded out the liars for Jesus from the honest followers of Jesus.

Much of the New Testament is made up of letters attributed to a Greek influenced(Hellenized) Jewish apostate called "Paul", a man that never met Jesus and whose writings are often said to be dated around 50-60 C.E., which is about 20-30 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.

Paul was also supposed to have come from Tarsus, a city that was on a main trade route that ran through what is now southern coastal Turkey. Tarsus had a significant Greek influence incorporated into its history.

The Bible is supposed to represent absolute historical fact, compiled after the clerics had evaluated and determined what was fact and what was fiction. Apparently there were many false teachings circulating about Jesus.

The Apostle Paul, who never met Jesus except in a vision, warned that false teachers were on the prowl.

2 Cor 11:13

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

 

Paul even accused the Apostle Peter, who was the Rock of the Church(Matt 16:18), and who was supposed to have been personally instructed by Jesus, of not properly following the gospel.

Gal 2:11,14

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

Paul considered himself to be a fountain of truth, and if anyone preached something other than the gospel he preached, that person was to be accursed.

Gal 1:6-8

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

Paul indicated that the gospel was widespread had been preached all over the world.

Col 1:23

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

 

Ironically, the Gospel of Matthew makes claims about a human virgin called Mary mating with God(Matt 1:20,23), but Paul didn't seem to have a clue about this event happening. Nor did Paul seem to know anything about the many dead people that were resurrected(Matt 27:52-53) prior to Jesus being raised from the dead.

The Gospel of Matthew also claims that when Jesus' family moved to Nazareth, it provided fulfillment of a prophecy that doesn't exist in the Bible(Matt 2:23).

In his epistles, Paul never even mentioned Nazareth or "Jesus of Nazareth".

Perhaps the material in Matthew was a false gospel that made its way into the Bible by mistake.

There's really no way to know, and for that reason, the Bible itself can't be considered a final authority on history.

 

Some examples of ancient extra-biblical writing that mention the word "Jesus" or some form of the word "Christ" appear in the works of Josephus(37 A.D-100 A.D.), Tacitus(55 C.E.-117 C.E), and Suetonius(69 C.E.-140 C.E?).

[The key passage cited by Christians from Josephus, is disputed and thought by some to be a forgery.]

 

According to Christians, Jesus of Nazareth died at some point between 28 C.E. and 36 C.E.

The writers commonly cited by Christians all lived after the time Jesus was supposed to have existed.

These men weren't witnesses to Jesus of Nazareth and so they could only have reported what they had heard or read from other sources. In the case of their writings about Jesus, they didn't hear very much.

They do not specifically mention Jesus of Nazareth nor do they mention anything about the town.

Nazareth cannot be established as an existing town as described in the New Testament, during the life of Jesus.

The words "Jesus" and "Christ" by themselves don't establish Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure.

The mention of these words is not overwhelming evidence except for those that want it to be.

The word "Christ" means anointed and the phrase Jesus (the) Christ is much like saying Patrick (the) Plumber.

The word "Jesus" is not unique because it's a generic variant of the common Hebrew name Joshua.

It doesn't automatically imply that someone called "Jesus" was the person Jesus of Nazareth.

In the New Testament, Paul refers to one of his Jewish companions as Jesus, also called Justus.

Col 4:11

And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

 

The Book of Acts notes a Jewish false prophet whose name was ironically Bar-Jesus, or son of Jesus.

Acts 13:6

and having gone through the island unto Paphos, they found a certain magian, a false prophet, a Jew,

whose name is Bar-Jesus;

 

Some other examples follow:

There are claims outside of the Bible about a Jesus or Jehoshua ben-Pandira, a Jew who was supposed to have worked some miracles in the 1st century B.C.E.

There are also claims by Josephus about a Jesus ben Anianas, a character who lived in the 1st century C. E..

A couple of other "Jesus" names are Jesus ben Gamala and Jesus ben Sapht, who were supposed to have been leaders of resistance movements in the region during the 1st century C.E..

Another resistance leader called Judas of Galilee, who fought the Romans around 6 C.E., is mentioned by Josephus and is also named in the Bible(Acts 5:37). Josephus mentions John the Baptist as well, but no Jesus of Nazareth.

 

A point to be made when considering the Christian claim about "overwhelming" evidence for a historical Jesus, is that finding the words "Jesus" or "Christ" outside of the Bible isn't terribly meaningful.

The version of Jesus that was supposed to have existed is specifically called "Jesus of Nazareth".

The existence of Christians or of those that believed in a particular Christ is not in dispute.

The issue is if an actual person called Jesus of Nazareth existed.

A writer mentioning the existence of Christians is not proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

 

[Embellished characters and history can occupy the same space in the form of written stories.

In the novel "Gone With The Wind"(1936), which was set in the turbulent time period of the American Civil War(1861-1865), a main character named Rhett Butler was supposed to have served in an artillery unit of the Confederate army at the famous Battle of Franklin, in the state of Tennessee.(GWTW chapter 52)

While the Confederate States of America existed, and the C.S.A. Army of Tennessee existed, and the Battle of Franklin happened in 1864, Rhett Butler is a created character in a work of historical fiction.

 

The exploits of a Rhett Butler type character could be created by starting with a person that actually existed.

Then by adding attributes and events to this basic profile, an enhanced character is produced.

This happened in the case of a female soldier who served in the Second Gulf War with Iraq, and also happened with another soldier serving in Afghanistan.

The people were real but the exploits and reported events about them were embellishments and fabrications.]

 

The savior of the world is specifically identified in the New Testament.

When the triumphant donkey ride occurred, the rider was identified as being Jesus of Nazareth.

Matt 21:10-11

And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

The sign on the cross did not simply say "Jesus, King of the Jews". It specifically said "Jesus of Nazareth".

John 19:19

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross.

And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

 

And again, the specific title is used:

Acts 2:22

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

 

Even demons referred to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth".

Luke 4:33-34

And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,

Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

 

How famous was Jesus of Nazareth supposed to be?

What does the New Testament say about his fame and to what degree was it known?

According to the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth garnered a great deal of fame and praise during his ministry.

Jesus was supposed to be so famous that he drew great crowds.

Some examples of the fame of Jesus follow:

Matt 4:23-25

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

 

Matt 9:26,31

And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.

But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.

 

Matt 14:1

At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,

 

Mark 1:28

And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

 

Luke 4:14-15,37

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.

 

Luke 5:15

But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

 

It certainly seems like Jesus of Nazareth was renowned in a fairly wide circle.

 

The Gospel of John states that Jesus did so many things that it would fill many books.

John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

Yet, all of these things that Jesus was supposed to have done didn't fill the books of anyone outside of the Christian cult writers.

 

As noted earlier, Paul claimed that the gospel had been proclaimed all over the world.

If Paul was writing between the years 50-60 C.E. and if, as Paul says, the good news about Jesus had been preached to a majority of the world by that time, then there seems to be very little of it noticed by non-Christian writers that were living at that time.

 

Some non-Christian writers that were contemporaries to Jesus of Nazareth were Philo of Alexandria(~20 B.C.E.-~50 C.E.), Pliny the Elder(23 C.E-79 C.E.), and Seneca(4 B.C.E.-65 C.E. ).

 

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenized(Greek influenced) Jewish philosopher that lived right in the "sweet spot" of history, the prime time and location to have been alive to witness evidence for the existence and fame of Jesus.

(The Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, or Septuagint, is supposed to have originated in Alexandria, Egypt and was performed between 300-100 B.C.E..)

The Hebrew and Greek cultures had mingled prior to Philo being born and during his life he encountered various religious concepts.

Philo made a trip to Jerusalem(Philo-On Providence(64)) during his life and had connections with Jewish and Roman authorities, and he wrote about a trip to Rome around 39-40 C.E. when he led a delegation of Jewish representatives to see the Emperor Gaius(Caligula).

Philo had an interest in reconciling elements of Hebrew teachings and thought with Greek philosophy, forming a type of religious philosophy.

The writings of Philo are very extensive and cover many facets of Old Testament teachings melded with Greek philosophical concepts, which results in a synthesis that creates a new expression of metaphysical thought.

Philo, acting as a bridge between Hebrew teaching and Greek philosophy, may have been quite influential in the formation of some key New Testament concepts.

Philo may have supplied the lubricant that greased the way for Jesus of Nazareth to become a god-man.

Rather than asserting that the New Testament was directed inspired by God, Christians would be more credible if they said that Philo might have inspired many of the concepts found in the New Testament.

However, appealing to the authority of Philo, who was only a man, would ruin the allegedly divine and absolute nature of their holy book.

It sounds so much more convincing, unique, and authoritative to say that "God" inspired the New Testament.

From a Christian standpoint, it would be advantageous if Philo the Jew could be portrayed as supporting or even "borrowing" concepts from Christianity.

Not surprisingly, the Church historian Eusebius(260 C.E.-341 C.E.) in his History of the Church, vouches for a story, from an unidentified source, which claimed that Philo met with the Apostle Peter in Rome during the reign of the Emperor Claudius(41 C.E.-54 C.E.) Eusebius also claimed that Philo had not only encountered the Gospels and writings of Paul in his travels, but that he clearly knew Apostolic figures of that time and endorsed their teachings and doctrines.

If this is true, then it's certainly curious that Philo would have incorporated key elements of his writing from Christians yet failed to mention the most important element of all them, which is Jesus of Nazareth, the long awaited King Messiah!

The fact remains that Philo never once mentioned Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth, nor does he say anything about other travels to Rome or meetings with a Apostolic leader that promoted a sacrificed "Christ" for the sins of the world.

The musings and claims made by Eusebius centuries later, about Philo endorsing Christianity and implying that he might have borrowed some of his concepts from Christians, should raise red flags that could indicate the employment of doctrine promoting propaganda on the part of Eusebius.

 

Philo wrote of the Logos or Word.

 

Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made.

De Specialibus Legibus I;

The Special Laws I(82)

 

The "Old "Testament" expressed something similar:

Psa 33:6(JPS 1917 Tanach)

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

 

Note that the scripture states that the word of God creates. It does not say that the Word was God.

The word is a product of God.

 

The New Testament takes the motif further by declaring that the Word was God.

 

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word(Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

In particular, Philo and the New Testament share the theme of an intermediary celestial power, or Logos, that mediates between God and the elements of the world.

Philo wrote a description of the Logos, the celestial being, or force that is heir to the creation of the father:

And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race.

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit; (205)

WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS section XLII

Translation by Charles Duke Yonge

 

Text courtesy of Early Christian Writings, The Works of Philo Judaeus

 

Note how closely the New Testament claims about Jesus follow the description that Philo gave for a celestial mediator between God and men.

1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

Hebrews 1:1-3

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

The mediator between God and the Hebrews was Moses, who was a man, not a celestial being.

The mediator between God and man then evolves into a powerful celestial being, a form of god-man called Jesus who not only mediates but cleanses as well.

Later on, the Church elevated "Jesus" to an even higher level and defined him being completely equal to God himself, a process that involves God sprouting three heads that become the three "persons" of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Christianity is to a large degree a blending of Hebrew religious elements and Greek metaphysical concepts.

Philo laid out the template for this belief system and key parts of his work can be seen in the New Testament.

However, as noted earlier, Philo made no mention at all of Jesus, Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Pliny the Elder was a Roman scholar, naturalist, served in the military, and also in administrative functions.

He compiled information and wrote a large work known as the "Natural History".

The work is comprised of 37 books that include topics such as geography of the known world, earth phenomena, medicine and healing, botany, and zoology.

Pliny gleaned information from dozens of earlier writers and lists them in Book 1 of the Natural History.

He mentions the religious sect known as Essenes in Book 5 and also mentions Zarathustra the Persian religious figure and prophet in his work.

Pliny the Elder makes no mention of Nazareth, or of Jesus, or of the amazing things that happened at the time of his death. Considering the magnitude of the healing powers that Jesus of Nazareth possessed, the size of the crowds he attracted, and the fairly widespread fame he generated, it seems rather odd that Pliny the Elder doesn't mention anything about it.

 

Seneca, the Roman philosopher, playwright, and statesman, also lived in the prime period for encountering contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Seneca produced a large number of writings, dealing in areas of philosophy, drama, epistles on morality, and natural phenomena.

There is no mention of Jesus, Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth in any of his writing.

 

Summary: These three contemporary sources, Philo, Pliny, and Seneca make no mention of Jesus at all.

The complete absence of Jesus in their writings does not establish that Jesus never existed, it simply indicates that there is no support for a historical Jesus to be found from these sources.

 

Jesus of Nazareth is supposed to be the most famous god-man, but very little is written about him outside of cult circles.

Christians are left with the position that Jesus was famous, but in a very limited or isolated way.

Now, holding that position is fine, but it doesn't support the propaganda made by preachers that claim history provides overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus.

The evidence is not at all overwhelming unless a large measure of wishful thinking is employed.

 

While it's certainly possible that a cult leader called "Jesus of Nazareth" could have existed, such a claim is far from being an established fact.

The New Testament version of Jesus could be an embellished character that was based on an actual person, or it could be based a compilation of various individuals that existed. There's simply no way to know for sure.

Christians that insist on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth are claiming that God once showed himself as "Jesus" and performed many miracles, but this same God, that supposedly wants all humans to be saved(1 Tim 2:4), then exits off of the world stage, leaving the task of providing evidence for his appearance to cult members and the male clerics that authorized their works.

 

For those wedded to idea that the Bible is from "God", the existence of Jesus, while interesting, doesn't address the question of his validity, given the parameters set down in the so-called Word of God.

If Jesus of Nazareth actually existed and was the expected King Messiah, as the New Testament claims, he would have performed the duties assigned to him in God's alleged word called the "Old Testament".

Unfortunately for Christianity, the New Testament character "Jesus of Nazareth" never did that.

Jesus of Nazareth never sat on the throne of David, nor did he usher in a golden era of peace and enlightenment.

The failure of Jesus to fulfill his assigned role is then rationalized away by Christians, claiming that he will need a second coming to complete his task.

However, there is no scripture in the Old Testament that says an expected King Messiah would need two trips, separated by thousands of years to complete his task, nor is there any scripture in the Old Testament that says a Messiah would rise from the dead after 3 days.

Did the New Testament character Jesus of Nazareth really exist?

Well, he did if a person wants or needs him to exist. Otherwise, it doesn't matter

 

 

I have heard that on National Geographic Channel they have a program which begins with the following Promo

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.co.in/watch/...id_program=5795

 

He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and raised the dead. He performed miracles and his followers said he was the Son of God. Three days after his death, he rose again to proclaim salvation to the world. His name…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apollonius of Tyana.

 

 

Anybody has seen that show or has any other references which talk on the same lines. either on Philo or Apollonius

[freeday]

2 Cor 11:13

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

 

Paul even accused the Apostle Peter, who was the Rock of the Church(Matt 16:18), and who was supposed to have been personally instructed by Jesus, of not properly following the gospel.

Gal 2:11,14

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

Paul considered himself to be a fountain of truth, and if anyone preached something other than the gospel he preached, that person was to be accursed.

Gal 1:6-8

 

1. Jesus was not saying that peter was the rock of the church. he was implying that peters confession in the previous verses was the rock. that Christ is the Son of the living God is the rock of the church, eph. 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus, the chief conerstone.

 

remember, he was talking to Jews. if we trace the figurative use of the word rock though hebrew scrptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God. it is not upon Peter that the church is built. it is upon God himself (Christ, the son of the living God) i will build my chruch.

 

2. Paul was answering to the attacks on his apostleship, he was refuting the notion that peter was the infalible leader of the church. Peter was guilty of refusing to eat with uncercumcised men (gentiles). thus implying that the Mosaic rites imparted a higher sanctity than the righteousness of faith. This is not what Jesus taught. there was no salvation in the law. the law condemned to death those who failed to obey it perfedctly. the Savior is here, presented as the only true object of faith. paul was reminding peter that salvation is by faith in Christ and not by law-keeping. the law was given to reveal sin, not to be a savior.

 

and that is my sunday morning service. hope everyone has a great day. i will be sleeping. goodnight.

[Checkmate]

...blah, blah, blah..."This has been your standard, retarded Xian recording. At the sound of the beep, please leave your brain at the door. *beep!*"

 

Really. Why do we even bother with these deluded nitwits? No amount of common sense will ever penetrate the miasma of stupidity that clouds their brains. What they really need is a rubber room and a daily dose of thorazine.

[Golden Meadows]

2 Cor 11:13

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

 

Paul even accused the Apostle Peter, who was the Rock of the Church(Matt 16:18), and who was supposed to have been personally instructed by Jesus, of not properly following the gospel.

Gal 2:11,14

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

Paul considered himself to be a fountain of truth, and if anyone preached something other than the gospel he preached, that person was to be accursed.

Gal 1:6-8

 

1. Jesus was not saying that peter was the rock of the church. he was implying that peters confession in the previous verses was the rock. that Christ is the Son of the living God is the rock of the church, eph. 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus, the chief conerstone.

remember, he was talking to Jews. if we trace the figurative use of the word rock though hebrew scrptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God.

Not so it was applied by God to Abraham: "remember the Rock you were hewn from" in Isaiah. Jesus seems to suggesting that its simon who will become the Abrahmic figure of the new covenant.

it is not upon Peter that the church is built. it is upon God himself (Christ, the son of the living God) i will build my chruch.

Even today we have the idea that sharing a name is a form of communion between two people, e.g marraige. The authority that Jesus proceeds to give to Peter- "the keys to the kingdom of heaven", "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" - could not be excercised unless Peter was guided by God intimately on matters of faith. If Peter was not then it meant people would would be wrongly kept out of the kingdom..etc. Jesus gives him a name that guarantees Peters teaching authority.

 

2. Paul was answering to the attacks on his apostleship, he was refuting the notion that peter was the infalible leader of the church.

This is further evidence that xtian revelation is not directly from God. How could a church that is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit of God be split the way it was right there at the very begining?

 

Peter was guilty of refusing to eat with uncercumcised men (gentiles). thus implying that the Mosaic rites imparted a higher sanctity than the righteousness of faith. This is not what Jesus taught. there was no salvation in the law. the law condemned to death those who failed to obey it perfedctly. the Savior is here, presented as the only true object of faith. paul was reminding peter that salvation is by faith in Christ and not by law-keeping. the law was given to reveal sin, not to be a savior.

The only problem with the analysis is that it clearly contradicts the promises that Jesus gives to Peter at Caeseri-Philipi, on the shoreline of Lake Galilee when he confirms him in the role of shepherd of the flock ("feed my sheep", i.e leaders and "feed my lambs" initiates), and also the promise he gave to Peter that only his faith would hold up under persecution, not the others. That Paul comes along, full of pride, and has to correct Peter tells you something is very wrong with this whole set up.

 

and that is my sunday morning service. hope everyone has a great day. i will be sleeping. goodnight.

Wake up! and examine everything xtianity has spun down through the ages.

[Ouroboros]

A little addition to this section:

The word "Christ" means anointed and the phrase Jesus (the) Christ is much like saying Patrick (the) Plumber.

The word "Jesus" is not unique because it's a generic variant of the common Hebrew name Joshua.

Joshua (Jesus) means "savior", so Jesus Christ literally means The Anointed Savior.

 

Who would give someone that name? It isn't a name, but an epithet, just like a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person, such as The Great Emancipator for Abraham Lincoln. (dictionary.com)

 

On the other hand Joshua was a common and popular name, because the people was hoping for the Messiah to come and save them from the Romans, so they would give their babies the name Joshua. (Probably because they believed, like many do even today, that a name makes the person. So by giving him a name of Savior, they hoped that their son would grow up and become the Savior.)

 

--edit--

 

Interesting footnote: Jesus came from Nazareth, according to the prophets means basically Jesus came from a non existing village, according to a non existing prophecy. Yay!

 

--edit--

 

It's a well summarized article.

[Ouroboros]

1. Jesus was not saying that peter was the rock of the church. he was implying that peters confession in the previous verses was the rock. that Christ is the Son of the living God is the rock of the church, eph. 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus, the chief conerstone.

The RCC completely missed that part I guess. They claim St Peter is the rock that RCC is built upon. Almost 2000 years of misunderstanding that you suddenly, in a whim, fixed...

 

Jesus gave Peter the name Rock, his name was first Simon ("Cephas" and "Peter" both mean rock), and Paul is referencing Cephas in one or two letters. It it obvious, and commonly accepted, that the interpretation is that Peter was to build the Church.

 

Catholich Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

 

 

remember, he was talking to Jews. if we trace the figurative use of the word rock though hebrew scrptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God. it is not upon Peter that the church is built. it is upon God himself (Christ, the son of the living God) i will build my chruch.

It's a modern re-interpretation, to excuse why the Protestant Church is not under the control of the Catholic Church anymore.

 

In a couple of hundred years, there will be a new version of what "the rock" really meant. I think Jesus was making a prophetic statement that Rock'n'Roll is going to be the foundation for the true Church.

 

2. Paul was answering to the attacks on his apostleship, he was refuting the notion that peter was the infalible leader of the church. Peter was guilty of refusing to eat with uncercumcised men (gentiles). thus implying that the Mosaic rites imparted a higher sanctity than the righteousness of faith. This is not what Jesus taught. there was no salvation in the law. the law condemned to death those who failed to obey it perfedctly. the Savior is here, presented as the only true object of faith. paul was reminding peter that salvation is by faith in Christ and not by law-keeping. the law was given to reveal sin, not to be a savior.

If Jesus taught it, why didn't Peter know it? How come Paul knew this from never meeting Jesus, but only having visions and dreams, and never learned from the Apostles? Somehow that story doesn't add up. Peter would be, and should be, more knowledgable what Jesus taught than Paul. If Paul had gotten any information about Jesus, it must have been from the disciples, even though he claimed he never talked to them to learn anything!

 

What you see is the difference of Theology. Paul created a new kind of Christianity, and the conflict was more than just this. Paul created the gentile version of the Proto Christian Gospel, to attract the non-jews.

 

Peter was the leader of the Church, and Paul manipulated his way to take over. A political move. The reason why the Paulinian Christianity won over the Jewish Christianity was that Paul had Churches all over the empire, while the Jewish Christians were more localized. So in a sense, Paul was smart, he established a common religion, outside the Jewish cult.

[Lycorth]

1. Jesus was not saying that peter was the rock of the church. he was implying that peters confession in the previous verses was the rock. that Christ is the Son of the living God is the rock of the church, eph. 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus, the chief conerstone.

The RCC completely missed that part I guess. They claim St Peter is the rock that RCC is built upon. Almost 2000 years of misunderstanding that you suddenly, in a whim, fixed...

 

Jesus gave Peter the name Rock, his name was first Simon ("Cephas" and "Peter" both mean rock), and Paul is referencing Cephas in one or two letters. It it obvious, and commonly accepted, that the interpretation is that Peter was to build the Church.

 

 

And in all my years as a Xian, both fundy Catholick and fundy Protestant, I never EVER heard of that one. Every sect and variation on a sect all teach that Jeezus™ established Peter as the head of his church in some form or fashion. Every sect goes on and on about Peter meaing "rock" and so forth.

 

Nothing frustrates me more than watching Xian Gymnastics, ie, the lengths to which they will go to reinterpret anything in the Babble™, just to be contrary to a Babble™ critic

 

For cryin' out fucking LOUD, already.

[freeday]

1. Jesus was not saying that peter was the rock of the church. he was implying that peters confession in the previous verses was the rock. that Christ is the Son of the living God is the rock of the church, eph. 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus, the chief conerstone.

The RCC completely missed that part I guess. They claim St Peter is the rock that RCC is built upon. Almost 2000 years of misunderstanding that you suddenly, in a whim, fixed...

 

Jesus gave Peter the name Rock, his name was first Simon ("Cephas" and "Peter" both mean rock), and Paul is referencing Cephas in one or two letters. It it obvious, and commonly accepted, that the interpretation is that Peter was to build the Church.

 

 

And in all my years as a Xian, both fundy Catholick and fundy Protestant, I never EVER heard of that one. Every sect and variation on a sect all teach that Jeezus established Peter as the head of his church in some form or fashion. Every sect goes on and on about Peter meaing "rock" and so forth.

 

Nothing frustrates me more than watching Xian Gymnastics, ie, the lengths to which they will go to reinterpret anything in the Babble, just to be contrary to a Babble critic

 

For cryin' out fucking LOUD, already.

 

i think in the context given, it makes perfect sense. then you add in the the problem with greek translation, Jesus may have said you are petros (stone), upon which i will biuld my kingdom. what peter just confessed was the stone of the church. the foundation, the most important principle. Faith that Jesus was the Christ.

 

 

A little addition to this section:

The word "Christ" means anointed and the phrase Jesus (the) Christ is much like saying Patrick (the) Plumber.

The word "Jesus" is not unique because it's a generic variant of the common Hebrew name Joshua.

Joshua (Jesus) means "savior", so Jesus Christ literally means The Anointed Savior.

 

Who would give someone that name? It isn't a name, but an epithet, just like a descriptive substitute for the name or title of a person, such as The Great Emancipator for Abraham Lincoln. (dictionary.com)

 

 

 

if you had the beleif i do, then you would know why he is called Jesus Christ. to me it seems very fitting.

[mwc]

[i think in the context given, it makes perfect sense. then you add in the the problem with greek translation, Jesus may have said you are petros (stone), upon which i will biuld my kingdom. what peter just confessed was the stone of the church. the foundation, the most important principle. Faith that Jesus was the Christ.

Actually, this is kind of funny. You're using Paul to counter the argument that Paul challenged Peter's authority given to him by jesus. Then you use Paul's doctrine to back it. Does something seem a bit fishy to you?

 

Why don't you try going to the gospels, where jesus actually does the talking, and show me where jesus assigns himself to be the foundation of the church instead of Peter? Can't do it? Peter is "the rock?" The foundation that everything is to be built upon? Thought so.

 

No matter how you cut it, the personal instruction and experience of the 11 should always trump the fleeting visions of Paul. It just didn't quite turn out that way though since Paul dominates the NT by far.

 

if you had the beleif i do, then you would know why he is called Jesus Christ. to me it seems very fitting.

Ummm...what?

 

How about lots of supposed god-men had that title around that time. I'll have to track down my bookmark on this for you. At one of the councils Constantine didn't care for this and wanted it changed to Apollo. Since the more generic "jesus christ" kept everyone happy he left it as-is (it's like the generic "god" title. Which god is meant when it is said? You assume yours but it could be any old god...many xians of antiquity used this to their advantage by the way. So don't assume the title "jesus christ" meant the literal name of *your* jesus christ as it does now).

 

mwc

[Lycorth]

i think in the context given, it makes perfect sense. then you add in the the problem with greek translation, Jesus may have said you are petros (stone), upon which i will biuld my kingdom. what peter just confessed was the stone of the church. the foundation, the most important principle. Faith that Jesus was the Christ.

 

I disagree completely; nowhere in any of the text does it imply that Jeezus™ was being allegorical about his calling Peter "the rock" upon which he will build his cult. He charged Peter with the responsibility of carrying the religion forward, basically making him the head honcho.

 

Certainly there was great emphasis on "faith" in the NT, but it seems clear to me this was not a statement about faith. Jeezus™ would have indicated that he meant Peter's words were the "rock", that "what you have said is the rock upon which I will build my church, etc".

 

Of course, it's neither here nor there, as neither interpretation takes away the ugly things Jeezus™ said otherwise, but I can't agree to anything but the clear, literal interpretation of the text in question.

 

if you had the beleif i do, then you would know why he is called Jesus Christ. to me it seems very fitting.

 

If you had the belief I do, then you would know why Jeezus™ is called "evil" by myself. Believe me, we've all had "the faith" before and saw it from your point of view already. You're really not offering us anything new.

[SkepticOfBible]

1. Jesus was not saying that peter was the rock of the church. he was implying that peters confession in the previous verses was the rock. that Christ is the Son of the living God is the rock of the church, eph. 2:20 teaches that the church is built on Jesus, the chief conerstone.

Perhaps you should sort this issue out with your catholic bretherns who constitute the majority of Christiandom.

 

I see you did not rebut the core point of the essay.

 

2. Paul was answering to the attacks on his apostleship, he was refuting the notion that peter was the infalible leader of the church.

 

The book of Act shows that James was a leader of the Jeausalum church

 

Peter was guilty of refusing to eat with uncercumcised men (gentiles). thus implying that the Mosaic rites imparted a higher sanctity than the righteousness of faith. This is not what Jesus taught. there was no salvation in the law.

 

I don't think Paul or Jesus read the Old Testament careful. The law was the only that one can achieve salvation and righteousness.

 

Psa 119:174

I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight.

 

Psa 119:41,44

Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever.

 

Psa 119:144-146

The righteousness of thy testimonies(laws) is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live(have salvation).

 

Deut 4:8

And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I(God) set before you this day?

 

Deut 6:25

And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

 

Psa 119:144-146

I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes.

I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies(laws).

 

The law was never meant to be dimished

 

Deut 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

the law condemned to death those who failed to obey it perfedctly.

 

Not all transgession of the Torah attracted the death penalty

 

the Savior is here, presented as the only true object of faith. paul was reminding peter that salvation is by faith in Christ and not by law-keeping.

 

The prophet Isaiah had to this to say to those who tried to dismiss the law.

 

Isa 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

 

the law was given to reveal sin, not to be a savior.

Prove this from the Old Testament, otherwise the NT is guilty of engaging in deceptive revisionism

[Mythra]

Really. Why do we even bother with these deluded nitwits? No amount of common sense will ever penetrate the miasma of stupidity that clouds their brains. What they really need is a rubber room and a daily dose of thorazine.

 

No shit, grinchy. Makes ya wonder how they do it.

 

An article like that - that legitimately questions whether the entire gospel scenario ever even happened, and we get a christian who discusses whether Peter was the rock or it was Peter's proclamation that was the rock.

 

 

I believe you're right, grinch. It's quite useless. Once the mind is infected by the meme, there's very little room for anything else to enter.

 

Great article, skepticofBible. I don't mean to sound stupid - but who's Brad?

[Mythra]

This thread is so revealing into the way the christian mind works. I know - because that's the way my mind used to work.

 

Why did freeday immediately go to a discussion about interpretation of scripture and ignore the rest? Cause that's the way his mind works. That's what christians do. Assume the bible is the word of God, and then discuss the proper interpretation of it in order to properly understand what God meant.

 

I guarantee that he skimmed the entire remainder of that original post, and, with a wave of the hand - dismissed it as anti-christian ranting. Satanically inspired nonsense designed to fool those who are perishing.

 

Never once did he consider that anything posted there was the actual truth, and it could be a problem for his neat little world of faith.

 

GOD I'm glad that I'm out of that mindset.

[Ouroboros]

if you had the beleif i do, then you would know why he is called Jesus Christ. to me it seems very fitting.

Of course, and Dave's real name isn't Dave, but Webmaster.

 

And my real name is CTO/CIO. The label is the name, and the name is no more.

 

I think Jesus Christ real name was Bob.

 

How about lots of supposed god-men had that title around that time. I'll have to track down my bookmark on this for you. At one of the councils Constantine didn't care for this and wanted it changed to Apollo. Since the more generic "jesus christ" kept everyone happy he left it as-is (it's like the generic "god" title.

Really, that's so funny! And it doesn't surprise me a bit.

 

Just listened to history about the Byzantine empire.

 

Man, Constantine killed his own kids and his wife! While he was pushing for the Christian reform in his empire. Oh, this is funny too. He got baptized on his death bed, as many knows here. But did you know it was a heretic that did the procedure? One conflict during Constantine's time was the faction of Christians that claimed that Jesus was only God, and not human. (Don't remember the factions name, have to look it up later). And Constantine tried to get rid of them. Well, it was one of theirs that baptized him. So I guess he didn't get his sins forgiven, and he went to Hell, like we all will anyway.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

Great article, skepticofBible. I don't mean to sound stupid - but who's Brad?

 

He is author of the Website. I had presumed most people had heard about the Agnostic Review of Christianity,

 

Considering he is a economist, he website does a great job at kicking the ass of most christian assertions, by using their own bible against them.

 

Check out his other articles.

 

then you would know why he is called Jesus Christ

 

As far as I am concerned, you can call him whatever you want, but he was not the Jewish Messiah. Jesus wasn't the first to claim the same and isn't the last.