[JerryLove]

It does, I believe, provide evidence that there was a person named Yeshua who had such an impact on Jewish culture that the Talmudists included him in their commentary.

You seem to be picking and choosing your fact and fiction. You believe that the story is false, but that the false story establishes there was a person named Yeshua to whom the story refers. On what basis do you assert part to be false and part true? On what basis do you choose which parts?

[JerryLove]

BTW Here is the standard dictionary definition for self serving.

I don't know why I'm bothering with you but:

1. Serving one's own interests

The gospel serves the authors interest in sperading the beliefs contained therein.
Paul's testemony serves Paul's interest in getting others to do what he told them to do in his writings (by giving him a source of acuthority though his assignment by God).

It's *really*, *really* obvious; and even the most ardent, fundamentalist Christian should be able to see that it is self-serving. The fact that you even pretend to dispute this is rather annoying, would you like to now dispute the sky bieng blue?

[shakeybill]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You seem to be picking and choosing your fact and fiction. You believe that the story is false, but that the false story establishes there was a person named Yeshua to whom the story refers. On what basis do you assert part to be false and part true? On what basis do you choose which parts?

Fair point...

I recognize and admit that as a Christian that I am starting with a bias towards the supernatural based on a foundational belief in the existance of the God of the Bible. I think it is likewise fair to state that atheists start with a foundational assumption of materialism but both sides interpret evidence with a bias to back thier respective foundational assumptions.

My point is that based on my theistic bias I look at the Talmudic Yeshua account as a "negative spin" on what really happened in the Biblical account. I take the fact that the Talmudic authors mentioned a Yeshua as evidence that something happened that stirred them up enough to write about this Yeshua in a negative way. Based on my theistic bias I interpret this as an attempt to smear the real Jesus Christ by His enemies.

You may not agree but I hope you admit I'm being honest...

In Christ, Bill

[JerryLove]

My point is that based on my theistic bias I look at the Talmudic Yeshua account as a "negative spin" on what really happened in the Biblical account. I take the fact that the Talmudic authors mentioned a Yeshua as evidence that something happened that stirred them up enough to write about this Yeshua in a negative way. Based on my theistic bias I interpret this as an attempt to smear the real Jesus Christ by His enemies.

Unfortunately, this requires that you presume the conclusion in question. If we first accept that there was an historic Yeshua, and that the Bible describes him accurately, then the conclusion that the Talmudic story is a misrepresentation of the same person is valid.

However, the existance of Yeshua (and subsiquent accuracy of the gospel) is, in fact, in question in this thread. Becuase of that, an argument cannot reasonably be based on the conclusion that it is true. If we attempt to use the Talmudic information to judge the Gospels, we find them wanting. If we presuppose that the Talmudic data cannot be trusted, then it is not useful; and in all cases, we leave many other equally plausable scenerios.

What we really need to validate the existance of Yeshua is a trusted source of information, and one which confirms, rather than denies, the claims made by the Gospels (unless we wish to prove a Yehsua different from the one of the Gospels.. in which case we need to start defining who that is.

[nolidad]

I don't know why I'm bothering with you but:

1. Serving one's own interests

Well Jerry you misqoute me so why am I surprised that you would even misqoute a dictionary in trying to establish a case.

You seem to forget that the rest of the definition also includes without concern for others. Either it has been a long long time since you have read the New Testament or you have chosen to forget that it is written with the highest goals of serving God, others and then self.

he gospel serves the authors interest in sperading the beliefs contained therein.
Paul's testemony serves Paul's interest in getting others to do what he told them to do in his writings (by giving him a source of acuthority though his assignment by God).

Okay here is your charge against Paul. Now the burden of proof you have is to show why Paul would convert to a religion He espoused to dsestroy. He had far morew authority and respect when He was a probable member of the Sanhedrin and was carrying a charge to arrest and murder Christians. If Paul was interested in building a name for himself why would he leave something that had given him great fame to something that caused him to be betrayed, whipped beaten and stoned and be driven from most towns he went to preach in??? Where is the self serving interest in that?

If Jesus was a myth--Paul lived as a contemporary- He would have known of the mythical nature of Jesus--why would he convert???

[nolidad]

However, the existance of Yeshua (and subsiquent accuracy of the gospel) is, in fact, in question in this thread. Becuase of that, an argument cannot reasonably be based on the conclusion that it is true. If we attempt to use the Talmudic information to judge the Gospels, we find them wanting. If we presuppose that the Talmudic data cannot be trusted, then it is not useful; and in all cases, we leave many other equally plausable scenerios.

Well seeing as you are the individual calling into question the existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the gospel accounts you need to support your accusati0on with evidenceof the unreliability of scripture as a historical record. You need to supply evidence as to why Jesus could be mythical.

Just subjective assertions are not evidence they are subjective opinions.

If these writers are all self serving then why aren't your writings just as self serving? What objective standard do you use to decide who is writing in a self serving masnner and who is being a non self serving writer???

[shakeybill]

[QUOTE=JerryLove]
However, the existance of Yeshua (and subsiquent accuracy of the gospel) is, in fact, in question in this thread. Becuase of that, an argument cannot reasonably be based on the conclusion that it is true. QUOTE]


OK Jerry... I'll try this instead...

I have a copy of Eusebius' 'History of the Church'. There are a number of extra-biblical references to Jesus in it that I'll throw out here. Eusebius wrote his history about 325 AD and it covers mainly the later persecutions of the church but does have some interesting early stuff.

1. He references a letter written by Jesus to Agbar Uchama, prince of Edessa which he claims to have read in the records office in Edessa ('History' Ch1 section 13). In this account Agbar sends Jesus a message asking Him to come and heal him of an illness saying that he has heard of Jesus' power. Jesus replies and says He will send one of His disciples to him within a short time to present the gospel to him and his court and to heal him.

2. Eusebius quotes the famous passage from Josephus concerning Jesus (Antiquities 18:2). The quotation by Eusebius is identical to the translation known today. I am aware that there is controversy regarding the correct translation of Josephus on this point, however it appears that in the early 4th century the passage was as we know it today.

I know item number one hasn't come up in this thread yet so I thought I'd put it out. I appreciate your input to these forums. You make us think about and defend the things we believe as Christians. I think that's a good thing...

In Christ, Bill

[JerryLove]

You seem to forget that the rest of the definition also includes without concern for others.

No, but you ignore the modifier "especially" genius.

Talking with you is like sex with a cheese grater

[JerryLove]

On to a real poster:

I have a copy of Eusebius' 'History of the Church'. There are a number of extra-biblical references to Jesus in it that I'll throw out here. Eusebius wrote his history about 325 AD and it covers mainly the later persecutions of the church but does have some interesting early stuff.

I lack a copy of that. I'll see if it's reprinted on the internet.

1. He references a letter written by Jesus to Agbar Uchama, prince of Edessa which he claims to have read in the records office in Edessa ('History' Ch1 section 13). In this account Agbar sends Jesus a message asking Him to come and heal him of an illness saying that he has heard of Jesus' power. Jesus replies and says He will send one of His disciples to him within a short time to present the gospel to him and his court and to heal him.

This is along the line of what I am looking for; though I'm going to try to read the actual passage before forming an opinion on it.

2. Eusebius quotes the famous passage from Josephus concerning Jesus (Antiquities 18:2). The quotation by Eusebius is identical to the translation known today. I am aware that there is controversy regarding the correct translation of Josephus on this point, however it appears that in the early 4th century the passage was as we know it today.

It is, at best, a cirucmstantial case for a periphral issue. Even as asserted, Josephus's writing does not validate the authinticity of its premise. He only cites "Christian belief" as the source material for the passage.

....

OK. I looked Eusebius, and while Bishop Eusebius is hardly secular... but let's see what we can find anyway.

First, I did a search on "Agbar", but it does noe appear in the text
Book 1, Chapter 5, sections 3-6 do cite Josephus, but really shed no new light

In fact, Eusebius, as far as I can tell, relies almost entirely on a combination of the Bible and Josephus. The Bible, we all understand the problem with (for this conversation), and if Josephus had any real data to provide, it should have been cited directly by now without requireing a reference to Eusebius; but Josephus himself offers no useful bibliography or reference to his source.

Found the letter regerence... my site says the ruler's name is Abgarus.

Ahhh. This is what I'm looking for:
You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner. - Chapter 13, section 5.

So I did a little digging on the letters in question. Thomas Didymus was, in fact, Martyred in Edessa; though by what accounts I can find, contemporary scholars dismiss the letters as legend (I am certainly aware that they never seem to come up in Jesus bibliographies). Later versions of the texts add a promise to the end, "that where this letter is, no enemy shall prevail", and so we find the letter copied and worn as an amulet for protection.

There's also a basic temporal problem with the letters in that Jesus is alleged to say in the letter:
"For it is written concerning me, that those who have seen me would not believe on me, but that they who have not seen might believe and live."

This was indeed written as an account of what Jesus said to Thomas after the crucifiction. While it is not entirely inconcieveable that someone whote the exact same thing, but no one metioned it and all records were lost... it's a bit of a stretch.

This is certainly the type of account I'm looking for; but the registers in question, were used by the church in their place of origin to legetimize its own existance (non-secular and self-serving again ), are suspicious in their content, are not referenced until 325, and do not appear to be generally accepted as legetimate.

[nolidad]

No, but you ignore the modifier "especially" genius.

Talking with you is like sex with a cheese grater

Sorry I have been away, dealing with a sick wife, son and brother.

Jerry, do you have a problem with the English language? Yes the word especially is a modifier, it makes the one serving his own interests even crueler and more self cenntered thasn just one who casulaay iognores others. This word connotes willful ignorance of others needs to meet their own.

So are you now trying to imply that the original apostles and disciples were cruelly selfish in writing the New Testament to so meet their own sense of ego???

You almost accpet the last posters evidence (operative word is almost) but yet still refuse to offer any objective support as to how the writers conspired for personal gain, especially promoting a Messiah to Jewish people who at worst was a "myth" and thus easily debunked by the firs half first century Jew, or at best just some deluded carpenters son/itinerant preacher who was no Messiah just soem kind of whatever?

If you have the evidence (more than just "it is so obvious") please present it to us on this thread and spare us from walking in this hyped up -phony religion.

[nolidad]

especially - particularly, peculiarly, specially, specially
Detailed description:-
2 Dictionary Entries found
---------------------------
1) r :to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common
Example: an especially (or specially) cautious approach to the danger
---------------------------
2) r :in a special manner

Thought I would post the definition of especially so that all can see that the term you use to define the apostles (self serving) makes it very clear that you think they were especially cruel in promoting Christianity to other people.

[JerryLove]

Jerry, do you have a problem with the English language?

ONly with your inabaility to use it...

Me: "I like apples, especially red ones"
You: "then you don't like green ones"

Definition of "Self-serving": Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others.
You interpretation: it must not have concern for others to be self-serving.

You are unable to grasp basic English text; a fact unfortunately in line with the remainder of you "scholarly" skills. This is why there's no point arguing with you; you can't understand it.

[nolidad]

Definition of "Self-serving": Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others.
You interpretation: it must not have concern for others to be self-serving

And your point is??? In order to be self serving--one does ignore the needs of others to satisfy ones own needs--thats why iot is called self serving.

With the modifier "especially" it makes it even more of a selfish escapade on the part of the individsual or group to a greater disregasrd for others. Now that English 101 is concluded

What evidence do you wish to present to show that the writers of the New Testament in their writings were self serving?????

Once again what evidence can you poresent ot eh jury that the apostles got together , conspired to deceiv ethe Jewish nation with a "possible" mythical character all for selfish gain?

Seeing as yiou accused them of being self serving--what self interest were they trying to obtain? If you make the accusation you must have some idea as to what selfish motive they had!

[nolidad]

The gospel serves the authors interest in sperading the beliefs contained therein.

So they would write material to teach people to hate them? To give their lives to Jeus (not to themselves) to push a hoax that would have easily been debunked by the populace? Or if you finally accpet Jesus bar Jospeh was a historical figure but reject the biblical claims--then you must beleive their was a conspiracy amongst the gospel writewrs to concoct and get the gospels to agree on so many facts.

[JerryLove]

And your point is??? In order to be self serving--one does ignore the needs of others to satisfy ones own needs--thats why iot is called self serving.

My point was spelled out.

Me: I like apples, especially red ones.

According to you, in order for me to like an apple, it must be red... but that's not what the sentace means at all.

Webster's definition of self-serving: Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for others.

According to you in order for it to be self-serving, it must lack a concern for others... but that's not what the definition means at all.

The problem is that you cannot read and comprehend an English sentance.