I am not an expert Bible scholar or historian but there is plenty written to rebut many of these claims. A lot of the Bible criticism methodology is very shaky and speculative. Look up Bruce Metzger or NT Wright.

Ah, yes...Ignatius.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ignatius.html

Quote:"There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is circulated under the name of Ignatius."

– John Calvin, Institutes of the Reformer of Geneva.

---

(March 5, 2013 at 6:33 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I am not an expert Bible scholar or historian but there is plenty written to rebut many of these claims. A lot of the Bible criticism methodology is very shaky and speculative. Look up Bruce Metzger or NT Wright.

Apologetic horseshit. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

(March 5, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Confused Ape Wrote:

(March 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm)EGross Wrote: There are other conjectures as well. But if you look up Rabbi Eliezer on Wikipedia, you see that the lack ofscholarship causes Christians to believe that Rabbi Eliezer was a secret Christian, while ignoring that he openly disputed and denounced them in other places.

Is this Eliezer ben Hurcanos? The only mention of Christianity I could find is in the section about him being charged for heresy.

Quote:At last he remembered that once, while at Sepphoris, he had met a Christian who communicated to him a singular halakhah in the name of Ben Pandera, (Jesus) that he had approved of the halakhah and had really enjoyed hearing it, and, he added, "Thereby I transgressed the injunction,[33] 'Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house,' which the Rabbis apply to sectarianism as well as to heresy".[34][35]

Yes, that is the right Rabbi Eliezer.

And he was not charged with Herasy, but it was a Roman judge who was charging him with teaching Torah in public, which was a state crime. (the aramaic word for Judge used only applies to Roman prefects, and the person who posted this obviously didn't read the original). And when trying to figure out why he had been charged in the first place (his theology of the time believed that any suffering was caused by a sin) caused him to look many years in the past to see why God was punishing him. (In a few decades later, that theology would change).

It is obvious that that entry was posted by someone who did not have the text hand as I do. There is no "Ben Pandera", in the pre or post censored versions (that was a name in a much later "Toldot Yeshu" story that would come centuries later), but either "min" or "Talmid Yeshu". The use of the incorrect name would indicate a merging of sources by the author(s).

It was also not a "halachah" (a legalistic ruling) in the story, but the person in question was making a comment about how the Saducean priesthood were deserving to be reduced because of their ways, which Rabbi Eliezer says that he found amusing. And the quote at the end was based on a previous story on the same page that refers to a Jew who would serve a creation as a harlot, and that one should avoid being even near her doorway.

So it was a nice segway.

As far as Rabbi Eliezer and his excommunication (cherem) he received that for trying to influence the Jews to go to war with Rome after repeated being warned to shut up about it. He refused and he was silenced. After his death, cherem was removed, and he was honored.

Stupid Wikipedia!

---

(March 5, 2013 at 6:33 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I am not an expert Bible scholar or historian but there is plenty written to rebut many of these claims. A lot of the Bible criticism methodology is very shaky and speculative. Look up Bruce Metzger or NT Wright.

There are spologists who work full time on coming up with interesting stories. I have read a great number of them over my lifetime, but the arguments they bring up are rarely new (there are some new ones, such as the Jewish Sripture that exists is not the original one, and so all of the misquotes are based on the real one that only the Christians knew about, and therefore Christian Scripture is true, while that which they once had to rely on is a sham).

The core problem is that nobody wrote about the guy, and the false ones who actually existed at the time, we have their names and other details because the historians of that time, who recorded everything they could, noted their existance.

As I said before, don't you think that an army of zombies walking around in Jerusalem would have merited a sentence in the book of history? One answer "Well, they thought it was too weird to write down." Or that Jews would never have menioned that thousands of their baby boys were massacred when they write of other disasters with dirges from that same period?

Or that the Church finally wised up and gave up looking for evidence, saying that an empty tomb (they cannot agree where that is) proves he rose up and it is a matter of faith. In other words, they gave up looking for proof, because there is none. For the same reason that God has kept his mouth shut for the past 2000 years, because he doesn't want to force you to believe, but you should anyhow.

Josephus quote? Discovered to be a fake when an earlier verion popped up. The Talmud? Nope, just a bit of polemic there. His birth place? Well, not really 100% certain.

Just one piece of certainty that doesn't crumble when held up to the light is all that we are asking. Something other than "well you cannot disprove that it didn't happen". I cannot disprove that the universe is not in a soap bubble held by a giant child who may pop it at any second. And the lack of evidence is not proof. Evidence is proof. And that is what is being mocked here.

One item that is true is being requested, something that can be proven. Even a Bar Mitzvah invitation by Mary an Joseph. Something! (By the way, bar Mitzvah's began a long time later, so if you find one, it's a fake!) Even the SHROUD that was tested by a Catholic who wanted to believe it turned out to be a painting.

One bit of proof, and not another "you cannot disprove", which is what the majority of apologists fall back on.

(March 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Ah, yes...Ignatius.

If you're going to disregard the idea that Ignatius quoted Paul's epistles that just leaves the First Epistle Of Clement from the right time period because only fragments of Melito's writings survived.

(March 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: IF Paul was an actual person who lived a century before Justin and wrote these critical epistles it simply boggles the mind that Justin never heard of him and used the name.

As I said before, Justin must have heard of Paul if he knew about the Marcion heresy. You're convinced that Justin should have used Paul's name, so go through all his writings and find some where Paul and his adventures ought to have been mentioned but weren't. Explain why you think Justin should have included them.

(March 5, 2013 at 12:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: If Paul was this towering figure in the first century bringing this semi-jewish shit loaf to gentiles then the Gentiles should have known all about him and revered him, shouldn't they?

Did you find any more writings from the right time period where Paul ought to have been mentioned and revered? We need sources dating from when Marcion was a child or before to find out when the tradition about Paul might have got started.

(March 6, 2013 at 3:29 am)EGross Wrote: It is obvious that that entry was posted by someone who did not have the text hand as I do. There is no "Ben Pandera", in the pre or post censored versions (that was a name in a much later "Toldot Yeshu" story that would come centuries later), but either "min" or "Talmid Yeshu". The use of the incorrect name would indicate a merging of sources by the author(s).

Stupid Wikipedia!

That's why it's best to check the wikipedia sources and dig them up if they're available online. I'll have another look to see if there's a complete version of Epiphanius's Panarion 30 because I've only found a lot of quotes from it so far.

Try here for the complete version of Epiphanius's Panarion.

(March 6, 2013 at 7:04 am)EGross Wrote: Try here for the complete version of Epiphanius's Panarion.

Thank you for finding it. I've just found the passage and am quoting all of it.

Quote:16,8 Nor are they ashamed to accuse Paul38 here with certain fabrications of their false apostles’ villainy and imposture. They say that he was Tarsean—which he admits himself and does not deny. And they suppose that he was of Greek parentage, taking the occasion for this from the (same) passage because of his frank statement, “I am a man of Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city.”39 (9) They then claim that he was Greek and the son of a Greek mother and Greek father, but that he had gone up to Jerusalem, stayed there for a while, desired to marry a daughter of the high priest, and had therefore became a proselyte and been circumcised. But since he still could not marry that sort of girl he became angry and wrote against circumcision, and against the Sabbath and the legislation.

I've been double checking how old the original text is. According to the wikipedia article -

Quote:It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued about 3 years later,[2]

Reference 2 is -

Quote:^ a b c d e f Williams, Frank; translator. "Introduction". The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I (Sects 1-46). 1987. (E.J. Brill, Leiden) ISBN 90-04-07926-2.

There's also an external link to the original text in Greek but as I can't read Koine Greek I'll have to take their word for it.

What I find fascinating about it all is that you said it's a Jewish tradition and the Ebionites were supposed to have been an early sect of Jewish Christians.

Well, Jews probably heard it sometime along the way, chuckled and passed it on. I have checks some of my texts, and I don't see some of the early commentators mentioning it, but I do recall are more than one Yeshivah where it was mentioned with a chuckle. If I can find a Rabbinical source that repeats it, I'll post it. I did a scan for פול (a Hebrew form pronounced "pole"), unfortunately, that is also the word for a kind of a bean, so all I got were cooking references for holidays!

Although there are also a king of that same name of Ashur (assyria) mentioned a lot as well. No Notzri, though.

(March 6, 2013 at 9:34 am)EGross Wrote: If I can find a Rabbinical source that repeats it, I'll post it. I did a scan for פול (a Hebrew form pronounced "pole"), unfortunately, that is also the word for a kind of a bean, so all I got were cooking references for holidays!

I hope you manage to find something because I'll be very interested in reading it.

Quote:If you're going to disregard the idea that Ignatius quoted Paul's epistles that just leaves the First Epistle Of Clement from the right time period because only fragments of Melito's writings survived.

Ah...Clement of Rome!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/beginni...lementrome

Quote:"Clement of Rome"

"We must bid farewell to all slandering, lewd and unclean coupling, drinking and rioting, vile lusting, odious fornication,and the pride which is an abomination."

– 1 Clement, 30.


Nothing is known of the life or death of "Saint" Clement (often grandly, if anachronistically, styled either first, second, third or fourth 'pope'!).

5th century fantasy invented a colourful martyrdom for the guy, involving drowning in the Black Sea with an anchor round his neck and a sub-marine shrine built by angels. The fable probably owed much to a confusion with his namesake, Titus Flavius Clemens, a consul executed by Emperor Domitian. The confusion is further compounded by the common assumption that Clement's reference to the "recent misfortunes" of the Roman Church relates to a supposed persecution instigated by Domitian. But this "persecution" is bogus and Clement actually makes no mention of martyrdom even when it refers to the deaths of Peter and Paul.

Whoever he really was, Clement is credited with the most important Christian text outside the New Testament – his First Epistle, a document which is primarily concerned with remonstrating with the brethren in Corinth who had deposed their presbyters. (Perhaps too readily they had seen through the priestly fraud!)

Examined closely, the epistle is clearly less of a genuine letter and more a tract on maintaining communal discipline and priestly authority. It attributes to the Apostles themselves foreknowledge of career rivalry among Christians – who consequently institute "Apostolic succession" to maintain the peace of the Church (Clement 44). This alone suggests a 2nd century date.

The epistle, important as it is in the gathering up of papal authority, says nothing of an historical Jesus. Its fancies include reference to the "500-year-old phoenix bird".

"Clement" (or, rather, the coterie of pseudonymous fraudsters) authored further nonsense throughout the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, notably the Clementine Recognitions.

Quote:As I said before, Justin must have heard of Paul if he knew about the Marcion heresy.

Recall the timing though. Marcion allegedly is writing c 144. Justin is writing a mere 16 years (more or less) later.

The xtian bullshit story is that there was some grand council in fucking Rome itself who smacked Marcion down but really, how likely is that?
All of this seems to date from a much later dispute between the Roman and Eastern xtian centers over supremacy...much like all of this heroic horseshit about "peter" and "paul" going off to by martyred in Rome.

No, Justin's knowledge of Marcion may have been of another perhaps even rival group. If so, if that was his only knowledge of "Paul" then I can see why he does not get too much into it as he would have regarded Marcionism as "suspect." Or...more likely... he had but an imperfect understanding of Marcionism as Marcion was from Sinope in modern Turkey and all of this "let's go to Rome" horseshit most likely dates from the time when the Roman branch was trying to exert control.

In either case, Ape, you must contrast it with the OFFICIAL STORY. That Paul was this virtual founding figure in the first century AD who single-handedly brought xtianity to the gentiles.... except no one seems to know about him until much later.

Well, if hundreds of walking dead doesn't make any sense (zombie alert!), the rest of it isn't going to be any more. Paul, if that was his real name, was a con man, that produced con men.

By the way, my 17-year old step-son wanted to check out an ATV in safed yesterday, so we drove up there (I talked him out of it!). We stopped at the kinerret, aka "Sea of Galilee". When most people read of Jesus in a boat in a storm, they may not realize that the "sea" is smaller than most USA lakes. It's about 8 miles wide at it's widest point, and half of that for most of it's length. Secondly, the widest area, in the north, is surrounded by high hills. (See video below where the guy was photographing from one side and you can see the other and the surrounding hills..

Even in a storm, the waves, because of the surrounding hills doesn't really get that bad. Some waves, but nothing huge. Granted, the MDA (the Jewish Red Star (versus "cross")) has to rescue about a dozen tourists a year who either can't swim, don't swim well, or get hurt skiing, but you'd think some tough sailors 2000 years ago could have been able to get his boat inland a mile or two, or just swim the thing if it tipped. Not panic with "OH MY GOD! THERE'S A WAVE! [splish]".

Maybe they ate a lot and were afraid of cramps.

In the year 2000, the tourist bureau installed a plexiglass walkway just under the water so you could get photos of yourself doing the "Jesus walk". My guess is that he was close to shore already, stood on a nearby rock and said "Hey crybabies, get out of the damn boat!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIvwhn5CWuQ