Jump to content

The Bible Fraud


Recommended Posts

Was interested in knowing if anyone here has heard of or read "The Bible Fraud" by Tony Bushby.

 

To briefly summarize Bushby claims that Jesus was the result of an illegitimate union between his mother

and a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera. There was supposedly a twin brother of Jesus

named Judas Khrestus. These two persons were often confused for one another and that many of the

sayings attributed to Jesus were actually of Judas Khrestus.

 

Then ventures off more into Dan Brown-like territory by claiming Christ and his twin brother joined

a secret society called the Essenes, Christ making a trip to India, the marriage of Jesus and his children,

a settlement of Jesus and family in Britain, the supposed Royal Bloodline of Christ, and then the execution

of his brother Judas Khrestus in place of Jesus by the Romans, while Jesus dies peacefully in India.

 

This was just a thumbnail sketch, lot more that cannot be gone into now, but although the above seems

far-fetched, he does give some solid information about the Dead Sea scrolls and how parts of the Bible

were compiled. Pretty good read for anyone into this kind of stuff, but I would really hesitate to recommend

it to anyone that has started questioning the faith, unless they have a solid background in biblical criticism.

I found the book to be pretty entertaining, although some of the claims made in it are dubious in all likelihood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 237
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not to be rude, but it sounds like a bunch of garbage put together to sell a book. I doubt that there is very much scholarship in the book (or at least anything original). That is my unlearned opinion about it. While I love any good, solid book that debunks Christianity, this one sounds like trash to me. It just sends up to many signals to my conspiracy theory radar and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be rude, but it sounds like a bunch of garbage put together to sell a book. I doubt that there is very much scholarship in the book (or at least anything original). That is my unlearned opinion about it. While I love any good, solid book that debunks Christianity, this one sounds like trash to me. It just sends up to many signals to my conspiracy theory radar and the like.

 

Well, I definitely think some the scholarship of the author is "off", just from a layman's perspective

but, He does hit the nail on the hit about how the Bible was put together and how Christianity was

sold to the masses. Also it does have some great quotes in it like , Celsus said of the original Christian evangelists-

"....you utter fables, as if in a drunken state, producing self-induced visions, and you do not even possess

the art of making them likely.You have altered three,four times and oftener,the texts of your manuscripts in order

to deny objections made to you."

 

And this also from Celsus about the early presbyters-

"...weavers,tailors, fullers and the most illiterate and rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes.

They openly declared that none but the ignorant were fit to hear their discourses and that one

of their rules was 'let no man that is learned come among us'. They never appeared in the circles

of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and

uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets."

 

I'm sure there are better books that refute the foundations of Christianity without some of the

wilder assertions, but at least it is better than Dan Brown's works( I know his are in the form

of novels) and I enjoyed it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the historical reality of Jesus cannot be verified, how the hell is this guy going to find out about an illegitimate relationship between Mary and a soldier to the point of even finding the soldier's name? Bah! Waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like he ripped his premise off from Monty Python's Life of Brian, the Gospel of Judas and Holy Blood, Holy Grail just like Dan Brown did.

 

I predict a circular argument tentatively linked to a few one-off verses in the Bible, suspicious church traditions and an active imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Jesus was a bastard son, and his father was the Roman soldier Panthera was first presented by Celsus, 2nd century. It's an old, very old, idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the historical reality of Jesus cannot be verified, how the hell is this guy going to find out about an illegitimate relationship between Mary and a soldier to the point of even finding the soldier's name? Bah! Waste of time.

 

You have a point. The lack of historical evidence of Jesus opens up all kinds of various interpretations of

who the Bible version of Jesus was, what he said etc. That is why there are so many theories to fill the void.

The author's take on this from what I gather is that the character in the Bible named Jesus is based on

a Jewish teacher that actually lived, but it got the details of his life all mixed up with pagan myths and

early Christian propagandists trying to sell another dying god figure.

 

But there are many stories in the ancient world about men leading extraordinary lives, performing miracles,

dying, and undying etc. that have no meaning to our daily lives, the Christ character included. Guess I am

just a sucker for unsubstantiated myths, sometimes. Maybe I should start reading some of Bart Erhman's works

instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author's take on this from what I gather is that the character in the Bible named Jesus is based on

a Jewish teacher that actually lived, but it got the details of his life all mixed up with pagan myths and

early Christian propagandists trying to sell another dying god figure.

 

And this is nothing new. It has been repeated ad ad nauseum. There is nothing wrong with dealing with this subject, but the book in question seems to be taking these old concepts and meshing them together to make a book to sell (sensationalism) disguised as scholarly work. I think you would do better, if you are interested in these subjects, to find a different book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of historical evidence of Jesus opens up all kinds of various interpretations of

who the Bible version of Jesus was, what he said etc.

What lack of historical evidence? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me some,please. And not from the Bible, either. Or from Josephus.

I asked first. However, your comment shows the problem is not in the evidence, or lack of it. It's in your attitude. That's the the myth of lack of historical evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me some,please. And not from the Bible, either. Or from Josephus.

I asked first. However, your comment shows the problem is not in the evidence, or lack of it. It's in your attitude. That's the the myth of lack of historical evidence.

 

huh boy...here we go again.

 

28439051573abe047f44.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently you don't understand how proof works. There is no "I asked first" when it comes to evidence. It cannot be stressed how utterly irrelevant it is to be the first one to ask questions when it comes to the burden of proof. What matters is what can be proven and can be reasoned with. You don't "prove" that there is no evidence. The idea behind that it ridiculous.There is no evidence by default until it is shown, otherwise we would have to assert the existence of anything without evidence. Same concept with invisible pink elephants. You don't find evidence to prove that there is no evidence of an invisible pink elephant. You must to work with what you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It cannot be stressed how utterly irrelevant it is to be the first one to ask questions when it comes to the burden of proof.

And the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. Of course anyone who make such claims as "lack of historical evidence" of historial Jesus should know that this claim represent opinion of the small minority of scholars, who scarcely have adequate education to make such judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course anyone who make such claims as "lack of historical evidence" of historial Jesus should know that this claim represent opinion of the small minority of scholars, who scarcely have adequate education to make such judgment.

 

Question: Who is the historical Jesus?

 

By historical Jesus, do you mean the Jesus of the Bible ... the one that turned water into wine, walked on water and raised from the dead on the third day? Is this what you mean by the historical Jesus?

 

Or are you talking about the likely hood that a man named Jesus existed about 2000 years ago and most likely had a following, but may not have done any miracles (or might have)?

 

Or do you mean some other Jesus from history?

 

I am not trying to be smart with these questions. I am just trying to clarify a point. For, you see, if you think that the Jesus of the Bible (the one that cast out demons, raised Lazarus from the dead, etc) is the historical Jesus, then there may be problems. He may well have existed in a manner similar to what we read about in the Gospels. He could have been a teacher of disciples, had followers (even 12 key disciples), taught wise sayings to those that would listen, etc. But it seems difficult to see the man for the myth that is presented in the Bible.

 

So, what do you mean by history? Do you consider the miracle accounts in the Gospels and Acts to be historical? Do you consider Jesus and Peter walking on water to be historical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good question. I'm not talking about the Jesus who did supernatural miracles and walked on water, although it is generally accepted that historical Jesus, known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a healer and miracle worker. The question of how much we can know exactly about this historical figure is debated. That does not mean, however, we can't know anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it.

 

The question of how much we can know exactly about this historical figure is debated. That does not mean, however, we can't know anything.

 

Do you acknowledge that some legitimate scholars debate that the historical Jesus even exists (even if they are the minority among historians)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty
It cannot be stressed how utterly irrelevant it is to be the first one to ask questions when it comes to the burden of proof.

And the burden of proof is not on my shoulders. Of course anyone who make such claims as "lack of historical evidence" of historial Jesus should know that this claim represent opinion of the small minority of scholars, who scarcely have adequate education to make such judgment.

 

How can we show a lack of something? The fact is there is NO historical evidence of jesus at all. Tell me how I can show you NO evidence for something and I will.

 

OTOH, your seem to think there is evidence of jesus' existence. Why don't you put us in our place and show us how well jesus' existence is documented in history? It's the internet, it's really easy to find some links and post them.

 

BTW, this is not an opinion of a minority of scholars. There is no evidence of jesus. Look for it yourself, don't believe us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty
...although it is generally accepted that historical Jesus, known as Jesus of Nazareth, ...

 

You are aware that the town of Nazareth did not exist untill the middle of the 2nd century? Since jesus' birth is what started the first century, how do you explain this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we show a lack of something? The fact is there is NO historical evidence of jesus at all. Tell me how I can show you NO evidence for something and I will.

Anyone who is insisting there is no evidence whatsoever must bear the burden of proof and explain why they chose to differ from the opinion of the vast majority of NT scholars and historians. If they believe they have such good reason, they should reveal it.

 

You are aware that the town of Nazareth did not exist untill the middle of the 2nd century? Since jesus' birth is what started the first century, how do you explain this?

Easily. Such claims are simply nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you acknowledge that some legitimate scholars debate that the historical Jesus even exists (even if they are the minority among historians)?

I'm not sure can they be reaged as legitimate scholars, but sure there are some who maintain this position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easily. Such claims are simply nonsense.

Your answer is simply nonsense too.

 

I'm not sure can they be reaged as legitimate scholars, but sure there are some who maintain this position.

Define legitimate scholar.

 

Take someone like Doctor Hector Avalos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector_Avalos. My understanding is that he has expressed doubts about the existence of Jesus in some interviews. But damn, he's not a Christian anymore, he's one of those friggin Ex-Christians... so he can't be a "real" scholar then.

 

What about Doctor Robert Price. Yeah, only a doctors degree and part of the Jesus seminary for years, also questioning the existence of Jesus. *sigh* He's not a Christian anymore either, so we have to throw out the "legitimate scholar" label for him too.

 

I can only assume though that anyone who supports the idea of the historical Jesus, is legitimate scholar, with or without practice, experience, or degree. How simple it is to become one...

 

With that being said, I do think there is a possibility for some kind of a historical figure from where the legend/myth grew. And I'm saying, a possibility. But just as a doubt that Hercules was a real person, I doubt that Jesus did all those things the Bible claims he did. But I suspect he was a leader for a cult who wanted to overthrow the religious establishment rather than the Roman empire, and doing so by declaring that religious leadership was unnecessary, and that God is within us all, and salvation is through realizing this and understand that we are God, and God is us, and heaven is here and now, and it's made by us. So live up to the true Gospel, and become Christ by acting as one. Paul, the politicizer, cashed in on the franchise and made the anti-religion movement into a religious movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty
Anyone who is insisting there is no evidence whatsoever must bear the burden of proof and explain why they chose to differ from the opinion of the vast majority of NT scholars and historians. If they believe they have such good reason, they should reveal it.

 

It is my understanding that most scholars agree there is little to no evidence of jesus, otherwise why haven't I been able to find any at all? I studied for years looking for even the tinyest shred of evidence that jesus actually existed. What I found were things written decades to centuries after his death, and spoke only of "cults of xtians" or "followers or chrestus" and the like. No mention of jesus himself, no mention of miracles witnessed by thousands, hell, the slaughter of the innocents isn't even mentioned in any historical record, even though this says nothing about whether or not a man named jesus existed.

 

Now, if you are talking about the majority of xtian NT scholars then I'll agree with you, they probally do have what they would call "evidence".

 

What I, and most historians, would consider evidence is something more like a contemporary historian discussing some of the wonders and miracles that were witnessed by so many people done by jesus. Or maybe something jesus wrote. Actually, I'd be happy with a contemporary historian just mentioning jesus. But none do. For the messiah to come, and work wonders during a time when even the most mundane records of everyday life have survived and no one mentions him at all, professionally or in passing, seems really odd, doesn't it?

 

You are aware that the town of Nazareth did not exist untill the middle of the 2nd century? Since jesus' birth is what started the first century, how do you explain this?
Easily. Such claims are simply nonsense.

 

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your answer is simply nonsense too.

How come?

 

Define legitimate scholar.

You should address this question to L4A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Marty
Your answer is simply nonsense too.

How come?

 

 

Well, for starters,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Did_Nazareth_exist.3F

James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[15] Strange - supposing the existence of a settlement - originally guessed Nazareth’s population at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[16] Some have argued that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[17]

[edit]Archaeological evidence

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke repeatedly describe Nazareth as a city, but the paucity of archaeological remains has lead several scholars to question the accuracy of these statements[18][19][20][21]....

 

Bellarmino Bagatti, a Roman Catholic priest, lead excavations in the Nebi Sa'in area during the later half of the 20th century, finding that this location was clearly used for tombs and agricultural work in the Bronze and Iron Ages, as well as in Middle and Late Roman times[24]. Noteworthy is that all the post-Iron Age tombs in the Nazareth basin (approximately two dozen) are of the kokh (plural:kokhim) or later types; this type probably first appeared in Galilee in the middle of the first century AD.[25] Kokh tombs in the Nazareth area have been excavated by B. Bagatti, N. Feig, Z. Yavor, and noted by Z. Gal.[26]

Excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area revealed "no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement" there,[27] and according to studies written between 1955 and 1990, no demonstrable archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times have been found.[28][29]. Bagatti, who acted as the principal archaeologist for the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts[30], attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. However, Bagatti also admitted that there was little evidence for first century habitation, at best the village being a small agricultural venture settled by about 20 families[31]; John Dominic Crossan, a major figure in biblical archaeology and New Testament studies, remarked that Bagatti's archaeological drawings indicate that just how small the village actually was, suggesting that it was little more than an insignificant hamlet[32].

 

EDIT TO ADD:

Besides the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Hebrew Bible and also in the later Talmud, there is also a noticeable absence from the works of the Christian apologist Origen, who lived in Caesarea - less than 30 miles away from Nazareth. Of similar significance is the lack of Nazareth in the writings of Flavius Josephus, who lived in first century Japha, a village just one mile from the location of Nazareth, and which he writes about[36]. Non-biblical textual references to Nazareth do not occur until around 200 AD, when Sextus Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of “Nazara” as a village in "Judea" and locates it near an as-yet unidentified “Cochaba.”[37] This curious description does not fit the traditional location of Nazareth in Lower Galilee.[38] In the same passage Africanus writes of desposunoi - relatives of Jesus - who he claims kept the records of their descent with great care.

The early 4th century Pilgrim of Bordeaux (c. 333 AD) never mentions visiting Nazareth, despite describing his visit to locations that would be in its vicinity. Later texts referring to Nazareth include one from the tenth century that writes of a certain martyr named Conon who died in Pamphylia under Decius (249-251), and declared at his trial: "I belong to the city of Nazareth in Galilee, and am a relative of Christ whom I serve, as my forefathers have done."[39] This Conon has been claimed by Joan Taylor to be "legendary".[40]

Frank Zindler, editor of American Atheist Magazine, has asserted that Nazareth did not exist in the first century.[41] His arguments include the following:

No "ancient historians or geographers mention [Nazareth] before the beginning of the fourth century [AD]."[42]

 

Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulun (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages

Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD).

Nazareth is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

 

Zindler's view is historically possible if Nazareth came into existence at about the same time --or at least not long before-- the New Testament gospels were being written and redacted. For those gospel writers who do mention Nazareth, most scholars place their work between the two Jewish-Roman wars (70 AD-132 AD), which is also the earliest possible dating for the Roman (kokh-type) tombs in the Nazareth basin (see "Earliest history & archaeological evidence" above). American archaeologist Dr. James Strange, points out that when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD that the priests whose temple service was no longer required were dispersed. A list has been discovered which lists the places where the 24 families or courses of priests went to. This list, written in Aramaic, records that one family went to Nazareth, which, though small, certainly pre-existed their arrival. Thus the evidence suggests that the Nazereth location written about in later centuries was a community that grew out of the smaller but pre-existing community ignored by sources other than the New Testament sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your answer is simply nonsense too.

How come?

You said his question was nonsense, but your answer is nonsense.

 

Here's an extract from MacMillan's Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899, (Vol III, 3360):

 

nazareth.jpg

 

It's a huge encyclopedia. Thousands, and thousands of pages, and hundreds of thousands of man-hours, and made by scholars, philosophers, historians, archeologists... And the argument is there. The "nonsense" idea that Nazareth maybe didn't exist.

 

Bah!... they're just talking nonsense, because they're not True Legitimate Scholars by the Badger Dictionary.

 

Define legitimate scholar.

You should address this question to L4A.

You made the statement, not him. Why should I ask someone else for your definition? You don't know your own opinions or definitions? Then you have a more serious problem than I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.