There is some historical evidence that Jesus existed as a man...
Real life, but don't the Jews believe that Jesus was not the one they were waiting for and that they are still waiting for their Saviour to come? But my question is to save the Jews from whom or from what? I am really puzzled.
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome...
In fact, no non-christian historian writes about Jesus at all, except to comment that there are christians. Even those examples to which christians refer are often problematic. Claiming that Tacitus and Josephus speak of "the Christ" or of christians at a time when christians did not use the term "Christ" or christians is more than a little suspect. It is one strong reason why passages in Tacitus and Josephus are considered to be ham-handed interpolation by later christians. The famous passage in Tacitus (which is almost certainly a later and clumsy interpolation by a christian writer) does not actually state that any such individual existed, only that there was such a cult. But both in the case of Tacitus and of Josephus, references to "Christians" are anachronistic, because christians didn't call themselves christians at the time that either man lived. In the case of Josephus, there is also the problem that he was a devout Jew, and claiming that there had been a messiah, when his own view of Judaism denied that, is an absurdity. For that reason alone, the passage alleged by christians is suspect.
The christians were so far below the radar of the Romans that they are uniformly referred to in official documents as Jews (Tacitus as an imperial official leaned heavily on government records, both the "Acts of the Senate," and the "Acts of the Roman People").
The references made to Pliny and others in the second century and later are no more reliable as evidence that there had ever been a putative Jesus--they only provide evidence that there was such a cult. Specifically, in the case of Pliny, the only references are to a Judaic cult which fomented discontent (often translated as "christian" when rendered in other languages, the term does not appear in the Latin). In his famous letter to the emperor Trajan (as far as the internal evidence available, it appears that all or almost all of Pliny's correspondence as an imperial official has survived), and Trajan's response, the Emperor commends him on restraint, states that he (Trajan) is contemptuous of people who denounce their neighbors, and also states that he (Pliny) is not to tolerate public contempt of the forms of the state religion. Basically, Trajan's policy toward recalcitrant Jews was "don't ask, don't tell." If the Jews did not publicly flout the practice of the official state religion, they would not be molested. The empire tolerated any religion, so long as everyone in the empire at least paid lip-service to the official state religion. It is not even clear that Pliny is always writing about christians, as other Jews (remember that Romans made no distinction in their own writings between christians, Jews and confessional Jews) often refused to make public sacrifices at the temples--it would be impossible in many cases of ancient Roman writers to know if they are writing about chrisitians or not. This doesn't stop christians from leaping on passages in imperial documents and correspondence to claim they have evidence both that the putative Jesus existed, and that christians were officially persecuted in the empire at a time when the empire was sublimely indifferent to the existence of their cult.
Where Did the Apostle Paul Get His Authority?
3:59 AM, February 21, 2007
Several readers of this site who do not like my book The Jesus Dynasty (to put things mildly), have written that I have ignored the strong historical link between what Paul writes in his letters, shortly after Jesus' death, and the teachings of Jesus and the early followers in Jerusalem. It is true that Paul uses a number of times in his letters a technical term in Greek, "to receive," which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally "handed on").
For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has "received" and then "passed on" (paradidomai) the teaching of that "Christ" (notice he does not say "Jesus") died for sins, was buried, and was raised the "third day," and then was seen by various ones-Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus' brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul "received" this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul's claims to have "received" this "gospel."
However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have "received" this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his "gospel," which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.
So if Paul claims that his "gospel," of the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?
This is a very crucial point since many conservative Christians believers base everything on 1 Corinthians 15. It has become for these folk the absolute bedrock of the faith. Most who are trained in a bit of scholarship admit that the four Gospels came later, forty to sixty years after Jesus death, but there seems to be a special triumphant delight in pointing out that Paul writes that he received these things, and that he must mean he got them from the Jerusalem "pillars" (James, Peter, John), so they must go back to very soon after Jesus death.
The problem with this is that when Paul uses this special verb "receive," which does normally mean something handed on from teacher to student, from hand to hand, from mouth to mouth, he does not mean it on any ordinary human level. What he clearly says he means is that he gets these things directly from Christ!
Now, these are not just general "impressions" or inspirational ideas. Paul actually claims to get sustained narrative accounts and specific information directly from Jesus. Notice his language in 1 Corinthians 11:23 when he says how he "received" (same Greek verb paralambano) his account of the Last Supper where Jesus told his disciples to drink his blood and eat his body through symbols of wine and bread! Where did he get such a shocking and totally non-Jewish idea? Eating human flesh and drinking human blood-even as a symbol? It is totally unknown in Jewish culture but well known in Greek magical rites. Notice, in his own words, he tells us. It was not from James, or Peter, or John, or from any of the Twelve where were there at the Last Supper-but he says very plainly: I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to youÂ…
As I see it these are the most telling twelve words in the history of Western ideas.
Think of it. Paul's essential vision of things was taken up by Augustine and others and literally became Christianity, which then, combined with Plato, became the foundation of Western civilization.
But where did Paul, who never knew Jesus, get what he says he got? He tells us here-"from the Lord." But since Jesus is long dead, he must be getting this from clairvoyant voices and visions and revelations, of which he says he has had many! (2 Corinthians 12). That he would even claim to get this kind of narrative material from "the Lord," that is a detailed account of what happened at the Last Supper, should give anyone pause. He is not here passing on what he got from those who were there, but he is saying he got it from "the Lord," in heaven by supernatural revelation.
Given that language, this must also be what he means in 1 Corinthians 15 when he reports these "resurrection" sightings. Notice carefully, he uses the same precise language when he tells his followers at Thessalonica how the events at the appearance of Christ (2nd coming) will unfold. What he says is, "This I tell you by the word of the Lord..." (1 Thess 4:15). He then gives details of just how things will unfold, far beyond what anyone could ascertain from texts of the Hebrew Prophets. So how would he know such things? He tells you plainly-the Lord told him!
What people need to realize is that if one bases faith on what Paul taught, which all Christians do, then that basis is not coming from those who were with Jesus (whom Paul sarcastically calls the "so-called pillars of the church"), but upon voices and visions and revelations that Paul is "hearing" and "seeing." For some that is a strong foundation. For many, including I think most historians, it is really something that one must question in terms of accurate and reliable historical information. Can Paul really know what went on at the Last Supper when he was not there? Can he really know how the events of the end will unfold?
I explore these things of course in The Jesus Dynasty and I am currently working on a sequel book about Paul. This central problem, long ago noted by Paul's opponents, later labeled as "Ebionites," is central to my thesis. I am continually amazed at how much is build upon Paul and how little on Jesus. Paul perfers the words Lord and Christ. The name "Jesus" suggests to him something too close to what he calls negatively "Christ after the flesh." Paul is all for "Christ," but cares little for Jesus as he was on earth as a human being who lived and died. He minimizes those who knew Jesus and those whom Jesus personally chose to represent him. All now comes from "the Lord," but he means by this a heavenly glorified being who in his fantasy sits above all powers and realities of the entire universe but speaks directly to Paul, his special chosen one, with direct voice contact and information. If Paul is right, then so be it. But if he is wrong, then what a left turn was taken away from the historical Jesus. I say reader beware.
talk72000 wrote:Jesus was definitely mentioned in the Old Testament but by a different name:Lucifer.
Lucifer is mention in Isaiah 14:12 and Jesus is identified as Lucifer in Revelation 22:16
Jesus is Lucifer/Helel/Morning Star.
Neither the word Lucifer, nor helel is in Revelation 22:16
The 'identification' that you propose is a figment of your imagination.
Jesus is Lucifer/Helel/Morning Star.
The Bible teaches us that back somewhere around the beginning of time, the devil was once named Lucifer. Lucifer was created by God, and was once a perfect and beautiful cherub or angel (Ezekiel 28:14-15). He was created to serve and worship God, but he was created with the ability to have freedom of choice. Lucifer chose to serve himself instead of God. His heart became filled with pride because of his beauty, (Ezekiel 28:17) and he became rebellious (disobedient) against God. He believed he could be like God the most High (Isaiah 14:13-15). God then cast Lucifer out of heaven because of his sin (Isaiah 14:12; Ezekiel 28:15-19).
We must understand that God did not create the devil as the deceiver of mankind. The devil chose his own path of destruction.
Important Point: No one can be God.
The word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 presents a minor problem to mainstream Christianity. It becomes a much larger problem to Bible literalists, and becomes a huge obstacle for the claims of Mormonism. John J. Robinson in A Pilgrim's Path, pp. 47-48 explains:
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
The first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?
The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."
Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").
The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.
So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say 'Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God'...."
Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say,
"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...
How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.
How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."
Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".
So why is this a problem to Christians? Christians now generally believe that Satan (or the Devil or Lucifer who they equate with Satan) is a being who has always existed (or who was created at or near the "beginning"). Therefore, they also think that the 'prophets' of the Old Testament believed in this creature. The Isaiah scripture is used as proof (and has been used as such for hundreds of years now). As Elaine Pagels explains though, the concept of Satan has evolved over the years and the early Bible writers didn't believe in or teach such a doctrine.
The irony for those who believe that "Lucifer" refers to Satan is that the same title ('morning star' or 'light-bearer') is used to refer to Jesus, in 2 Peter 1:19, where the Greek text has exactly the same term: 'phos-phoros' 'light-bearer.' This is also the term used for Jesus in Revelation 22:16.
So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.
A Mormon apologist responds.
Jews believe in The Satan, and not in the devil.
There is a difference between The Satan and the devil.
IN SHORT... For Jews, anything that even remotely conflicts with the idea that God is One and Indivisible will be rejected because it precludes true, pure, monotheism. The idea that there is a God in heaven above who fights against a god of the underworld, or hell, is not monotheism, however, it is the same duality found in other pagan faiths. The Bible speaks of a character known as The Satan, who acts like a prosecuting attorney, or a district attorney, in God's court. However, The Satan has no power or authority in and of himself, rather he must get permission from the Judge, God, to do anything.
A FULL EXPLANATION... For Jews, anything that even remotely conflicts with the idea that God is One and Indivisible will be rejected because it precludes true, pure, monotheism. The idea that there is a God in heaven above who fights against a god of the underworld, or hell, is not monotheism. Other faiths had this same duality:
Greek: Zeus/Hades
Roman: Jupiter/Pluto
Christian: God/Devil
Now, of course, Judaism and the Bible tell of a character called, "The Satan." Every time the term is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, it reads, "HaSaTaN," which means "THE Satan." However, the concept of The Satan is radically different from the idea of the Devil. For Christians, the devil has power and authority in and of himself. However, in the Bible, The Satan only has power granted by God, and has no authority in and of himself. For the devil, or satan, to have power and authority is to have more than one god, as we saw above concerning the Greeks and the Romans.
The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he is an angel who works FOR God, not against God, and must get permission from God for everything that he does. Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned. In each instance, the job description of The Satan is to act like what we now call a Prosecuting Attorney, or District Attorney, and accuse and show evidence against the defendant. Furthermore, like a D.A., The Satan must obtain permission from God, The Judge, to begin a sting operation.
In the following quotation from the Biblical Book of Job, please take note of who is doing the talking, as The Satan asks God for permission to conduct a sting operation against Job:
Quote:[Job 2:3-6]And the Eternal said unto <the>Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou <The> movedst me <God> against him, to destroy him without cause. And Satan answered the Eternal, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand <God's hand> now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the Eternal said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
In the above verses, The Satan must get permission from God to perform this "sting operation" on Job. The Satan has no power or authority of his own, like a District Attorney who must also obtain permission from The Judge for anything he does.
Furthermore, the Biblical text paints this same picture of the Satan, when it uses the character of The Satan in what appears to be the end of a court scene. In the following two quotations, The Satan is standing near the accused like the D.A. stands at the end of a court drama on television.
Quote:[Zechariah 3:1-2]And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Eternal, and <the>Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Eternal said unto Satan, "The Eternal rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Eternal that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?"
Quote:[Psalm 109:6-7]Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin.
In the Bible there is also verses which show that it is God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole universe, who is responsible for both the Good and the Bad, and not a devil or god of the underworld:
Quote:[Isaiah 45:5-7]I am the Eternal, and there is none else, there is no god beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Eternal, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Eternal do all these things.
For God, the Bible, and for Judaism, to have an entity that competes with God, that has power and authority of his own in opposition to God, is to violate the basic idea of monotheism.
In Christianity there is a clear dichotomy between G-d and Satan, or "the devil." What most Christians don't realize is that there is no support for a devil character in the Torah. Furthermore, their version of Satan is a distorted view of what the Torah actually teaches. Lets examine...
To begin, Satan isn't a name! It's a title given to any angel that is sent by G-d to do a specific task. In Hebrew, it is haSatan. This translates to "the adversary." G-d sends haSatans to work for Him, as all angels do, as we shall see below.
The first time Satan occurs in Scripture is in Numbers 22:22. Lets take a look at two common translations of this verse:
But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. (NIV)
And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. (KJV)
Have you seen Satan yet in either of these? No? Lets check the Hebrew then:
Elokim aph charah malak haShem yatsab derek satan rakab athown shanayim na'ar.
Read it carefully. Do you see it now? These Christian translations have rendered Satan as "an advesary" or "opposition." This would be fine, except in other places in scripture they leave it as Satan. The reason they fail to do this here is because this verse clearly refutes virtually all Christian doctrines about Satan. It states that G-d sent haSatan to strike down Balaam. It also states that Satan is a Malek haShem, an Angel of the L-rd.
If Christian translations rendered every instance of Satan as "an advesary" or "opposition" they would be justified in doing it here. But translating Satan to "advesary" where convienent and turning it into a personal noun in other places is dishonest. However, they are forced to do it, because a verse calling Satan an angel of G-d would clearly expose their devil myth.
This isn't the only instance of a Christian word fraud in the Jewish scriptures. The early Church Fathers developed this devil mythology as well, inserting names and words that do not even occur in the text. An example of this is Lucifer - originally a Latin word, this was turned into a personal noun by St. Jerome and inserted into the Vulgate. It occurs nowhere in the Hebrew text.
Think I'm making it up? The great patron of the Church Fathers, the Catholic Church, even admits this fraud. They do it quite eloquently in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote:"The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.
The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4)." (Maas 1)
I hope everyone caught the part where Jesus is called Lucifer twice in the Latin Vulgate. Satan:Lucifer:Jesus?
Bibliography:
Maas, A.J., Trans. Tomas Hancil, "Lucifer." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol 9. 2003. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. 20 Nov 2005.
Pay your brother whatever it is you bet. You loose.
