The Bible Is A Forgery

As you can read this thread is about THE Bible and Forgery

What is Forgery ???

To me what this means that once upon a time there were a tribal familys and great Dynastys who did keep records very well. The Egyptians also did a very good job in Funeral process of the Pharaohs.. they mummified them..

So to Me Forgery would mean I take historical information and rewrite it or try to duplicate it the best I could. Theres much more to this ,,I'm breaking it down to make it simple ..

I wish people could understand how much of this Biible contains bogus stufff. There were a group of men who all sat down to decide just what they wanted in this book leaving other chapters out ,,


Yahoo Answers Link-
answers.yahoo.com...

There are 5...known as the Apocrophya.... Tobias... Judith..The Wisdom of Solomon.. Baruch.. & Maccabees 1-2

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

Most all the gospels and epistles of Paul and Peter are claimed to be written by the authors in the text of the books. No, I wasn't there when they were penned, but likewise, neither were you. We can only go by what the text says.

There are many texts in the history of mankind. I am not as accepting of this one as you are and that is the deal here. That's the way this back and forth typically ends, I know this is not your first Bible studies rodeo.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I interpret this passage as "You are simpletons that can't read. You marvel like toddlers when an adult reads or preaches to you. Oh, the fantastic stories I can tell and promises I can make so that you will follow me. Never realizing that if a god wanted to speak to you it would do so directly and not through the intervention of another human."

But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

And again be like children, believe don't think.

I think many times there were good intentions behind the scriptures that were gathered into the NT. These were peoples looking for a sense of community and respect within a larger community where they were not in control. And so hope for the hopeless. If we can't win in this life, we'll win in the next. Something to that effect. The scriptures were rallying cries, we still see this today. Thus we have "Hope and Change" once again. Very much the themes in the NT. It was a good story then, why reinvent the wheel?

God speaking to people 2000 years ago equates to prophesies. God speaking to people now equates to lunacies and agendas. I would like to think that if a stranger on the street walked up to you and showed you a message on his Kindle and told you that "God inspired this and told me to deliver it unto you" you would quickly walk away. Being a good Christian you might show the stranger some kindness first I have no doubt. That said, I suspect that you also believe old Moishe, the stone cutter, that came back to the clan after a good time alone with God and the messages on his Kindles version 1.0. I am always fascinated that God took so long before telling his "Chosen" that "killing.... not so good" et al when these thoughts were already part of the mores of much of mankind. But that's a story for another day. In a nutshell, I think that the motivations/inspirations of men have not changed so much in 2000 years. Some are good, some are bad and all are on their own.

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." - former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. - Numbers 16:28

There are books that have already been written regarding Bush. What council will select his "good news" in the future? I can imagine that hundreds of years from now that people reviewing evil acts carried out in the name of God will doubt such a man as Bush existed. I couldn't fathom ordering the horrific acts that these two did. I doubt even they slept well after blaming "God" for their atrocities but who truly knows how these people function? It's just too bad HE didn't tell these two to jump off a bridge and there lies the rub. I think there never was a "HE" in the same sense that you do. I'm afraid this a case where we will have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by Hemisphere

There are many texts in the history of mankind. I am not as accepting of this one as you are and that is the deal here. That's the way this back and forth typically ends, I know this is not your first Bible studies rodeo.

And I can't "make" you have faith, so I suppose there isn't much left to discuss. You're either a believer or you're not. Christ said most would not believe, that's true.

one would have to wonder about this possibility:

1. the NT versions began to show up at the same time of Roman Emperors.

2. Roman Emperors had "devine" ancestries all by self proclamation.

3. perhaps the Roman scolars wrote the NT versions with population control in mind.

4. the first NT was written in Greek.

5. most "people" could not read and write at the time.

6. commerce was the main interest of known world governments at the time, and had been for many centuries prior.

There are no known surviving Roman records of the First Century that refer to, nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius. In fact, other writings by Josephus Flavius have many conflicting styles which may indicate that Josephus Flavius may himself be a mythical character created by group scholars over long periods of time.
Ancestral and life accounts of Josephus Flavius including His bloodlines and family name were authored by Himself, offering no proof or verified sources. The alleged writings by “Josephus Flavius” and other scholars contributed heavily to the modern day Christian/Judea beliefs (early Roman versions of Old and New Testaments). The only existing “evidence” may be in the secret possessions of The Vatican.

reply to post by xuenchen

There are no known surviving Roman records of the First Century that refer to, nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius.

Two actually, the Babylonian Talmud records references to Jesus, and even does not deny His miracles, yet attributes them to Him being a "magician/sorcerer" and not the Son of God operating through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There are no known surviving [color=ffff000]Roman records of the First Century that refer to, nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius.

Two actually, the Babylonian Talmud records references to Jesus, and even does not deny His miracles, yet attributes them to Him being a "magician/sorcerer" and not the Son of God operating through the power of the Holy Spirit.

true, but that was later ????

i was referring to "Roman records of the First Century"

en.wikipedia.org...

The Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד talmūd "instruction, learning", from a root lmd "teach, study") is a central text of mainstream Judaism, in the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history.

The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh.

why later ??

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There are no known surviving Roman records of the First Century that refer to, nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius.

Two actually, the Babylonian Talmud records references to Jesus, and even does not deny His miracles, yet attributes them to Him being a "magician/sorcerer" and not the Son of God operating through the power of the Holy Spirit.

When was the Babylonian Talmud written? Was it written during the lifetime of Jesus as a historical record of his existence? It sounds from your description that the sections written on Jesus were written to discredit him. That would not necessarily be direct testimony to the existence of a living Jesus. It could also be an attack on a mythical figure and his cult followers that were by the time the Talmud was written, competing with Judaism. One would think it would be a popular cult, after all even the goyim could play on that team. The Jews could not deny that miracles are real, they recorded miracles in the OT prior to the life of Jesus. Only Jesus' miracles were not real, just some magic tricks. I think we can agree that the history of the Jewish scriptures attacking competing religious figures is lengthy and well documented.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

There's one example. The thing that fascinates me with this commandment is that the God of the OT is attesting to the existence of other gods. And so did they exist? If we believe this commandment is the Word of God then we must believe they did and perhaps still do. I don't recall HIM saying anything further on "them". In truth, this sounds much more like something a man would say in order to keep the people he was shepherding in a desert from getting out of line and perhaps thinking things such as "You know, at least I can see the Golden Calf, that burning bush thingee he's been touting well...... he keeps that to himself." These were uneducated people and easily convinced. But that's a story for another day. How about the dating on that Babylonian Talmud?

reply to post by Hemisphere


You know everything...

Talmud

reply to post by xuenchen

nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius.

You also said: "nor are there any Jewish records... except for one book"




That's not accurate. The Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus as well.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius.

You also said: "nor are there any Jewish records... except for one book"

That's not accurate. The Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus as well.

i am sorry you missed the point completely .....

the Talmuds were "written" centuries LATER than the Josephus "writings" ...

perhaps that suggests that the New Testaments and the The Talmuds were all written by the same merchant cartels and later "assumed" by the Vatican ??

especially if Josephus Flavius was in fact a fictional character.

please read this again.....en.wikipedia.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

first century a.d. .......

i wonder what calendar they used back then ?


please take time to think about the timelines !!!

reply to post by xuenchen

the Talmuds were "written" centuries LATER than the Josephus "writings" ...

You're not correct yet again. The Babylonian Talmuds were completed "centuries later". They are a compilation from numerous rabbis teachings/notes over several centuries.

Irregardless, it's quite significant that a hostile source to Christ would not only confirm His existence, but would also not deny His miracles, even if they attributed them to "sorcery/magic".

some scholars subscribe to this theory:

"Jesus" was a fictional character designed to act as a buffer and "anti-Torah" figure.

probably to fuel the new trends toward "Christianity" and much later "Islam".

the Hebrew "Judaism" was deflected in favor of more popular beliefs created for merchant/commerce objectives.

the merchant class elites may have been the only ones using "language" in written forms.

the ancient "scholars" were the only ones that could read and write, hence we see different languages used.

Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.

the average populations got the "word" through "teachers".

lots of room for different interpretations.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

the Talmuds were "written" centuries LATER than the Josephus "writings" ...

You're not correct yet again. The Babylonian Talmuds were completed "centuries later". They are a compilation from numerous rabbis teachings/notes over several centuries.

Irregardless, it's quite significant that a hostile source to Christ would not only confirm His existence, but would also not deny His miracles, even if they attributed them to "sorcery/magic".

dates ?

credible sources ?

reply to post by xuenchen

credible sources ?

Read past the first 2 paragraphs of the link you gave is a good start Sir.

The one I linked is also a good one.

The Talmud began to be compiled after the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD, or a few years after the gospels were written.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

credible sources ?

Read past the first 2 paragraphs of the link you gave is a good start Sir.

The one I linked is also a good one.

The Talmud began to be compiled after the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD, or a few years after the gospels were written.

great references!

but when did they "complete" the written references to Jesus ?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by xuenchen

 

There are no known surviving Roman records of the First Century that refer to, nor are there any Jewish records that support the accounts in the Christian gospels except for one book allegedly written by one Jewish scholar – Josephus Flavius.

Two actually, the Babylonian Talmud records references to Jesus, and even does not deny His miracles, yet attributes them to Him being a "magician/sorcerer" and not the Son of God operating through the power of the Holy Spirit.

OOOOkkkkk,

what IS the Talmud's point exactly of

Jesus being a "magician/sorcerer" and not the Son of God ??

and some more opinions ..... too many ?

en.wikipedia.org...

The Talmud contains stories that some scholars have concluded are references to Jesus, regarded as the messiah of Christianity.

During the disputations in the Middle Ages, advocates for the Christian church alleged that the Talmud contained insulting references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations denied that the references were to Jesus, and claimed they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

In the modern era, Travers Herford, a Christian scholar, concluded that the references did not provide evidence of Jesus as a historical individual, but instead were non-historical oral traditions which circulated among Jews.[1] Additional scholarship - such as that by Johann Maier - also concluded that there was no evidence of Jesus as a historical individual, and Maier concluded that the references were examples of anti-Christian polemics that were added late in the Talmudic period.[2] Scholar Peter Schafer concluded that they are references to Jesus as the Messiah (that were incorporated in the Talmud during the 3rd and 4th centuries) and that the references were parodies of parallel stories in the New Testament that illustrate the inter-sect rivalry between Judaism and nascent Christianity.[3]

Some editions of the Talmud are missing some of the references, which were removed by Christian censors starting in the 13th century, or by Jews themselves due to fear of antisemitic reprisals, or some were possibly lost by negligence or accident. However, most modern editions published since the early 20th century have restored most of the references.

edits, additions, amendments, changes, Christian censors etc ...

which "editions" were first ?

its enough to drive anybody crazy ...

Who should I believe ?

reply to post by xuenchen

OOOOkkkkk,

what IS the Talmud's point exactly of

Jesus being a "magician/sorcerer" and not the Son of God ??

Likely the same effort to deny Jesus and His anointing that began in Jerusalem in 30ish AD from the Jewish authorities.

I dunno what their point is, I'm not in their camp that denied His claims from the start of His public ministry.

reply to post by xuenchen

Who should I believe ?

I'd believe the book that displays a heptadic structure that would be a challenge even for a super computer to replicate in millions of years of trial and error.

Heptadic Structure Pt. 1

Heptadic Structure - Pt 2

Divine design in Scripture

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

You know everything...

Talmud

No, you know everything! But thanks for the compliment.

The problem with your reference on the Talmud is at least two-fold.

Firstly:

The Talmuds were Rabbinic commentaries on the Jewish scriptures, that is, the Old Testament. The Babylonian Talmud was probably completed around the 6th century. The Talmuds are long and complicated, and it is difficult to make sense of some of what they say. Of course, the Jews were not overly sympathetic to the heretical new religion that Jesus founded.

And so these commentaries were written long after 'Yeshu the Nazarene' is reported to have lived. Thus not a direct record of his life and times. I suspected that. Also the article describes the Talmud as "long, complicated and difficult to make sense of" and that to me would be an apt description of the NT. The writer of the article should consider more carefully what sources he uses to back his beliefs. But he has little to choose from as Jesus is not recognized outside of the NT as the Messiah. In my opinion, Jesus just wasn't a big deal and thus no press coverage at the time of his death in front of what we are lead to believe were throngs of people. I actually can imagine that many people lined the Via Dolorosa and witnessed his journey to the cross. I'm sure it was a regular spectacle much like the later Coliseum spectacles. The Romans wanted a good turn-out. They wanted people to stop their chores and come and witness what happens to those that get out of line. This was common. This was crowd control.

Secondly from your linked article:

The Babylonian Talmud says:

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu* [= Jesus]. And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days, saying: 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.

Here it describes him as a convicted sorcerer, whereas the parts parallel to the Gospels being he lived and was hanged or crucified. We know Jesus was no sorcerer, no such thing. He was a snake-oil salesman selling another brand. Coke had established the territory and so "Pepsi sucks!". Me? I'm a Dr Pepper guy as I stated earlier. So to speak.

The linked article was obviously written from a pro-Christian perspective and so even though they approve that the Talmud mentions Jesus, they discredit the rest of the Talmudic report on Jesus because it doesn't fit their interpretation. One has to wonder if this author(s) also questions the slant of earlier Jewish writings i.e. the Old Testament. I for one do not wonder, I think this author accepts the OT because it fits his agenda. It was written first and so the Jews could not balk at the selection of the fictional Messiah by the non-Jews and of course the NT was then written to fulfill the OT prophesies. Thus the rabble eventually hijacked the "Chosen" legacy. Again, just my opinion.

I also have a problem with "Biblical scholars". They always find for the Christian myth despite any evidence to the contrary. If they were to find differently, they would be out of a job. Thus self-perpetuating employment. What happens when a "Biblical scholar" finds evidence against the Christ story? They state as in this article that: "the documentary evidence for the Gospel account may be much stronger." No kidding! Why is that? Is it that the NT myth was just piled high and deep? There was much at stake there. They, whoever the authors were, even went as far as writing the same story four times to address different audiences with different story telling traditions. (You and I know there are vast differences in the four stories with what seem to be vital details omitted in some.) Whereas this Talmud you introduced...... it seemingly, if I am to believe the article, cuts to the quick. Essentially saying Yeshu was a phoney and was hanged. End of story.

This Talmudic interpretation seems to fit with this. Jesus was a living Jewish Messianic "contender" living during the early 1st century CE/AD. (There were numerous contenders around that time or so it has been reported.) The Jews were looking for a more militant/military leader, Simon bar Kokhba better fit that description and was considered the Messiah by some. But the Biblical Jesus was a philosopher not a general. I think that if he actually lived, he simply wasn't the man the Jews were looking for in a Messiah. That was the key here, he was just a man. He likely preached, the parables are likely what he preached, the miracles, bells and whistles were added on later by the Gospel authors for emphasis. We can imagine a group of fishermen being able to feed a small crowd with of all things..... fish! Not such a miracle. More like a picnic. The size of the crowd for instance might have grown a couple of decades hence as the authors were not there and so poetic license. Imagine that!

Now the life of Jesus moves along and he has his run in with TPTB. The cops ask the Jewish priests "Do you know this guy?" "You mean the cutesy PIA that has been screwing with our sweet operation on and off for a few years? NO!" And so the Romans take Jesus and do what they do best, they oppress upstarts. They crucify Jesus and he likely says: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Why would he say this? Because Jesus and his merry band expected an act of God to stop the show. Much like we are lead to believe happened when Abraham started to sacrifice Isaac. (Again were there witnesses to that? I don't think so. Just old Abe and Ike out for a hike.) The problem was that this time Romans were involved. Actual Romans always trump mythical gods. The Romans killed Jesus, there was nobody home when he called. There was no answer. There was no forsaking. There was nobody to intervene.

Now after this happens what is left? A motley crew, the very first NT scholars, Jesus' fishing buddies. Now they've all lost their jobs, the boss is dead. What do they do? They perpetuate the myth. They make lemonade out of a crucifixion. They take the story to the next level, God didn't save the boss physically, HE saved him spiritually. He ascended! Who can argue that if we hide the body? I think the disciples then went off and carried the Jesus myth with them far and wide. Why? Because to give up their beliefs at this point would have been too devastating. Imagine Harold Camping's followers! "What do I do now Harry? I sold the ranch, quit my job and we're all still here!" The Apostles were not youngsters, they did not want to go back to community college and acquire new job skills. They were Jesus' disciples by gum and they were gonna play the hands they were dealt. They went and spread the word and they became PIAs to cops in exotic lands and towns and they too eventually got to "phone home".

Their legacy was a bunch of loosely related oral traditions/stories. The stories were told and retold, they grew and were embellished. By the time the Romans compiled the NT there was a lot to select from. I think they selected the rather tame tales. I've heard some of the lost "Gospels" were real trippy. Was it an easy fit to blend these new tales with the OT prophesies? Perhaps not but if you had for instance a learned Jewish writer such as Titus Flavius Josephus on hand it became far easier in my estimation. Is this exactly how or who perpetuated the myth? I don't know for certain but it is as plausible as any explanation in my opinion.

To each his own. Please pardon my flippant style in writing this, no disrespect intended. It's just how I write.