• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

I for one do not accept the New Testament as a historical document, mostly because of it being written decades after the events described, (and was oral tradition between the events and it being written) and then being changed through translations and purposefully alteration by the early Catholic Church. But I can see in it some distinct trends that show it was originally an attempt to tell about the life of a man, which was then changed into something else.

I wish I could like only specific parts of your post, because what? Where is the evidence of this?
 
I wish I could like only specific parts of your post, because what? Where is the evidence of this?

Nothing specific, but consider this first...

Changes to the Bible through the ages are being studied by New Orleans scholars | NOLA.com

Remember, even though many of the oldest books in the New Testament are contemporary to the time, they were passed from church to church, and changes crept in along the way, either accidental or on purpose.

It always struck me when reading the New Testament is that it shows strongly that it is indeed a Hebrew cultural book, that then had a layer of "Roman-ness" laid over the top of it. And specifically the obvious attempt to shift the blame of the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews.

In the oldest extant copies, the "Betrayer" is simply called "the Betrayer", or "the son of Simon". But as the Gospels moved from Judea and into the Roman world, things started to change. the Betrayer picked up a first name (Judas), as well as a place name (Iscariot, meaning "man of Kerioth - also the name of a zealot band who considered themselves the return of the Maccabees). And yes, these names did come in much later.

Then you had another Judas who was named, who's name in Mark and Matthew changed for some reason to Thaddeus.

Also remember that the newly formed Roman Catholic Church placed heavy emphasis upon the virgin birth. Even going to the extent of trying to erase his brothers.

The New Testament (when looked through Jewish eyes) is fairly typical of other Jewish writings of the era (compare it to Maccabees I and II, circa 100 BCE) and there are many similarities. Especially in the symbolism.

Like the murderer who was released instead of Jesus. Matthew calls him a "notorious prisoner", Mark and Luke listed him as a person who started a riot, John called him the "bandit". And if you noticed earlier I addressed Jesus as "Joshua bar Joseph", which is the name he would have actually gone by. Joshua was his actual first name, bar means "son of", Joseph was his father's name. "Joshua son of Joseph".

Barabbas is called in the earlier texts "Joshua bar Abbas", which means "Joshua son of the Father", translated into Greek as "Jesus Barabbas". Then since there is only one Jesus, simply Barabbas.

I can continue on for pages, but this is about 1900+ year old documents, and ultimately it is a faith issue. A lot of things in the New Testament contradict themselves, and mean one thing in one book, something else in another one. And if you doubt this, just ask yourself how Judas died. Did he throw the coins back at the Priests and hang himself? Did he buy a field then have his guts burst upon the field? Non-canonical books of the era also have him being stoned by the other Apostles or even crushed by a chariot.

Other things not in the oldest scriptures is the thirty pieces of silver, nor is this known to part of Jewish culture. Nor is the Roman Governor releasing a prisoner on Passover.
 
It always struck me when reading the New Testament is that it shows strongly that it is indeed a Hebrew cultural book, that then had a layer of "Roman-ness" laid over the top of it. And specifically the obvious attempt to shift the blame of the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews.

This is speculative.

In the oldest extant copies, the "Betrayer" is simply called "the Betrayer", or "the son of Simon". But as the Gospels moved from Judea and into the Roman world, things started to change. the Betrayer picked up a first name (Judas), as well as a place name (Iscariot, meaning "man of Kerioth - also the name of a zealot band who considered themselves the return of the Maccabees). And yes, these names did come in much later.

Proof?

Then you had another Judas who was named, who's name in Mark and Matthew changed for some reason to Thaddeus.

1. To differentiate him from Judas Iscariot.
2. Having multiple names was common for the time.

Also remember that the newly formed Roman Catholic Church placed heavy emphasis upon the virgin birth. Even going to the extent of trying to erase his brothers.

No, brother throughout the Bible did not necessarily mean brother as we use the word.

Catholic Answers said:
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

"Brethren of the Lord" | Catholic Answers

The New Testament (when looked through Jewish eyes) is fairly typical of other Jewish writings of the era (compare it to Maccabees I and II, circa 100 BCE) and there are many similarities. Especially in the symbolism.

Like the murderer who was released instead of Jesus. Matthew calls him a "notorious prisoner", Mark and Luke listed him as a person who started a riot, John called him the "bandit". And if you noticed earlier I addressed Jesus as "Joshua bar Joseph", which is the name he would have actually gone by. Joshua was his actual first name, bar means "son of", Joseph was his father's name. "Joshua son of Joseph".

Barabbas is called in the earlier texts "Joshua bar Abbas", which means "Joshua son of the Father", translated into Greek as "Jesus Barabbas". Then since there is only one Jesus, simply Barabbas.

Sure, used to differentiate him from Jesus. Barabbas was more of a political leader to differentiate his mission from that of Jesus. Most of the Jews expected a political leader.

I can continue on for pages, but this is about 1900+ year old documents, and ultimately it is a faith issue. A lot of things in the New Testament contradict themselves, and mean one thing in one book, something else in another one. And if you doubt this, just ask yourself how Judas died. Did he throw the coins back at the Priests and hang himself? Did he buy a field then have his guts burst upon the field? Non-canonical books of the era also have him being stoned by the other Apostles or even crushed by a chariot.

The bold are non-contradictory and why do I care about non-canonical books?

Other things not in the oldest scriptures is the thirty pieces of silver, nor is this known to part of Jewish culture. Nor is the Roman Governor releasing a prisoner on Passover.

Again, evidence?
 
The bold are non-contradictory and why do I care about non-canonical books?

Really? This is the first I have heard that Matthew and Acts are non-canonical.

3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[
Matthew 27:3-10

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
Acts 1:18

But I can see where this is going, so there is no reason to continue this any further. If you can't even recognize 2 of the most famous passages in the New Testament and declare that they are "non-canonical", I can see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And if they are non-contradictory, then who bought the field? One clearly states (just as I said) that he threw the silver back at the priests then hung himself (then the Priests bought the land). The other clearly states that he bought the field and his guts burst out.

I also stated quite clearly that it is ultimately a matter of faith, and it is not my goal to question the faith of any. I myself am a Christian, but that does not mean I am blind to the mistakes of men who assembled the books.

And you ask me for proof in several areas, wrong answer. The "30 pieces of silver" is not part of the Jewish tradition, and it is impossible to prove a negative. If you want to refute me, you have to provide proof that it is part of their tradition. Good luck there. The only mention I am aware of is in Leviticus, and it is not 30 pieces of silver but 50, and that was for making vows to God. Not for statements, and it certainly did not continue in practice (no more then in the Jewish tradition people who drank from cupped hands as opposed to lapping from the water like dogs were God's chosen warriors).
 
Really? This is the first I have heard that Matthew and Acts are non-canonical.

I didn't say that they were; I said that the description in non-canonical books is irrelevant. The canon, in the example that you provided, did not contradict itself.

Matthew 27:3-10


Acts 1:18

But I can see where this is going, so there is no reason to continue this any further. If you can't even recognize 2 of the most famous passages in the New Testament and declare that they are "non-canonical", I can see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And if they are non-contradictory, then who bought the field? One clearly states (just as I said) that he threw the silver back at the priests then hung himself (then the Priests bought the land). The other clearly states that he bought the field and his guts burst out.

Again, you misinterpreted me. I didn't claim that Matthew and Acts were non-canonical, just that the non-canonical books that you referenced were irrelevant.

I also stated quite clearly that it is ultimately a matter of faith, and it is not my goal to question the faith of any. I myself am a Christian, but that does not mean I am blind to the mistakes of men who assembled the books.

And you ask me for proof in several areas, wrong answer. The "30 pieces of silver" is not part of the Jewish tradition, and it is impossible to prove a negative. If you want to refute me, you have to provide proof that it is part of their tradition. Good luck there. The only mention I am aware of is in Leviticus, and it is not 30 pieces of silver but 50, and that was for making vows to God. Not for statements, and it certainly did not continue in practice (no more then in the Jewish tradition people who drank from cupped hands as opposed to lapping from the water like dogs were God's chosen warriors).

Catholic Encyclopedia said:
Some modern critics lay great stress on the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St. Matthew. For St. Peter's words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself bought the field with the price of his iniquity, and that it was called "field of blood" because of his death. … But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter's words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the "reward of iniquity" as well as the violent death of the traitor.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judas Iscariot

And ultimately, is this really all that big of a deal. Whether Judas bought the field or not matters very little to the goal of the Gospels.
 
Back
Top Bottom