Questioning the origins of Christianity

[Kinslaughterer]

This will be a several post topic but I'm just going to offer interesting points that raise some important questions about Christianity, its foundations, and its fundamental beliefs. I intend to be on my best behavior with these post but I'd like for others reading these to consider them carefully.


In Judaism, Jehovah is a merging of earlier gods El and He while Asherah and Anath became the Shekinah mentioned in the OT. The four together represent the four aspects of Yahweh or YHWH.

The various individual tribes of Israel were cemented by the new all-encompassing Jehovah who represented the national purpose of his "chosen people" and effectively bound them together as a group.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was stated to be a virgin..."Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:13-14)
The Semitic word translated as virgin is "almah, which actually means "young women". The word bethulah means virgin but its not used.

Is Mary also a "forever virgin" ? In Matthew 13:55, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth as the town didn't exist until the 3rd century A.D. Archaeological work in the area confirms the earliest habitation is much to late to be the home of Jesus.

Jesus said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34) That sounds pretty harsh for someone thought to be so peaceful...
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"(Luke22:36)

Simon Zelotes--He was known as Simon the Zealot or Simon Kananites meaning Simon the Fanatic. The Zealots were refered to as bandits and querillas and considered to be extremely violent by even other Israelites.

Judas--Also known as Judas Sicarius or "the Dagger", he was a well-known commander in the Zealots.

These are just a few questions to address at this point. I'll post others later.

[Plissken]

There are many more questions along these lines - I'll be posting on this a lot more, but for now:

-Why do many of Jesus' best known quotes come from Pharisee writings precede his life? Included in these quotes are most of the Sermon on the Mount, his answer to the Sadducees about harvesting grain on the Sabbath, and many of his quotes about the role of the Messiah.

-Why was Paul called back to Jeruselem twice to answer for his heretical views on diet and judaism? It could be important, as he was called back by Jesus' brother James and the Rock of the Church, Peter. (Before you ask, Caiphus is Greek for "Rock".)

- Why is Peter portrayed as the gatekeeper of some heavenly kingdom, when the job description given him by Jesus has clear precedent in Jewish history as the senechal, or second in command, of earthy Jewish theocracies?

- Why don't the Gospels record any mention of Jesus celibacy? He taught and lived in jewish communitees so traditional that his followers were accused of breaking the Sabbath for walking too far and for harvesting a handful of grain to ewat along the way. Doesn't it follow that a 30 year old unmarried Jewish guy, running around interpreting Torah, might have attracted some comment?

[Edge]

In Judaism, Jehovah is a merging of earlier gods El and He while Asherah and Anath became the Shekinah mentioned in the OT. The four together represent the four aspects of Yahweh or YHWH.

No, He isn't.

The various individual tribes of Israel were cemented by the new all-encompassing Jehovah who represented the national purpose of his "chosen people" and effectively bound them together as a group.

Nope.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was stated to be a virgin..."Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:13-14)
The Semitic word translated as virgin is "almah, which actually means "young women". The word bethulah means virgin but its not used.

Is Mary also a "forever virgin" ? In Matthew 13:55, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So, Mary was a 'young woman'. What's your point?

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth as the town didn't exist until the 3rd century A.D. Archaeological work in the area confirms the earliest habitation is much to late to be the home of Jesus.

Gee, more scientific 'facts'? Sorry... nope.

Jesus said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34) That sounds pretty harsh for someone thought to be so peaceful...
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"(Luke22:36)

Simon Zelotes--He was known as Simon the Zealot or Simon Kananites meaning Simon the Fanatic. The Zealots were refered to as bandits and querillas and considered to be extremely violent by even other Israelites.

Judas--Also known as Judas Sicarius or "the Dagger", he was a well-known commander in the Zealots.

These are just a few questions to address at this point. I'll post others later.

So, Jesus' followers came from various political factions.

That's relevant because..... ?

Really... on what grounds do you expect us to accept these didactic statements of faith? Just because 'you said so'? Sorry, I don't care what you've been indoctrinated with in the name of 'science'. I don't have to accept something is true, just because you claim it's so.

[Kinslaughterer]

No, you certainly don't but I'd like to actually have a reasonable debate. In other words show me how I am wrong in those statements.

[Lord Mhoram]

Kins,

I'm open to text and historical criticism, but right now you are yet again blatantly attacking Christianity.

I find this tiresome and somewhat offensive.

[Kinslaughterer]

Questioning the origins of Christianity is the topic. I wanted to start a debate so I did. You don't have to read it or post if you don't like.

[I'm Murrin]

edit.

Bah. I can't be bothered any more. You just keep on saying 'nope', Edge. I'm sure that'll make them see your side.

[Sheriff Lytton]

No.

[Plissken]

No, He isn't.

Nope.

So, Mary was a 'young woman'. What's your point?

Gee, more scientific 'facts'? Sorry... nope.

So, Jesus' followers came from various political factions.

That's relevant because..... ?

Really... on what grounds do you expect us to accept these didactic statements of faith? Just because 'you said so'? Sorry, I don't care what you've been indoctrinated with in the name of 'science'. I don't have to accept something is true, just because you claim it's so.

This is about the best summation of modern fundamentalist debating skill I've seen. Folks that debate like this usually also tend to think that Yahweh changed his name to "God," because that's what they were raised to call him.

For the record, the non-existence of Nazereth in Jesus' lifetime isn't scientific fact, it's historical. The Nazereth site simply didn't exist at that time. That fact may, however, tie into the question of Jesus and his follower's political affiliation - one subset of the Pharisees who believed in an eminent Yahweh powered, Messiah led overthrow of the Romans in Jesus time was the Nazorites.

As to why Mary might've been simply a "young woman," as opposed to a virgin is relevant, well... It's entirely possible that it's only important to folks that think that sex is dirty, and don't want to imagine it having anything to do with their spiritual leader, but you didn't hear that from me.

[Edge]

When confronted with didactic statements, I feel quite comfortable and justified in replying in kind.

If someone says, with no backing argument, eg, 'god doesn't exist' - why should I waste my time with more than a contradictory 'yes He does'?

[dennisrwood]

I'm going to have to go with Edge here.
Kin: do you have anything to back up your statements?

[[Syl]]

This is ridiculous. Even if you think a statement is "didactic," (the usage here is eluding me) there is no reason to reply to a slew of them with simple refutals. Either ask for references, supply opposing references, or take it as a debating point. You might as well be sticking your tongue out at him.

And I have to say "Questioning the Origins of Christianity" is a pretty straight-forward subject. It's not like Kins tricked everybody into coming here with a title like "Why I love Jesus." It's not disrespectful... unless, of course, you think Christianity can't stand up to the scrutiny? Heck, I speak Hebrew, the logic seemed sound to me, and even after two minutes of googling, I've found some things that would disagree with Kins point on almah.

If I was calling this debate (and I consider myself fairly neutral), so far all the points are with the questioning team.

[Dromond]

ugh...
Let me try to read this again tomorrow.

Then I'll respond.

But hey!
I'm with Kislaughterer here!

Nothing wrong with a topic YOU may find tiresome! ( Insert name here)

Christianity is far older than your version of 'Christ'

Want proof?


Heh?

[Plissken]

If you're looking for "backup", may I suggest you start with "Mythmaker - Paul and the Invention of Christianity," by Hyam Maccoby. It's a quick read, written by a Talmudic scholar, he sites his sources very well.

Any number of archeological refrences are available on the beginning date for Nazareth (approx. 150 AD), many of them by scientists who actually worked at the site.

In the meantime, why don't try actually responding to the questions that don't require research to ask, beyond a critical reading of the NT?

You can start with the question of Jesus' marital state. I should warn you however, that if you start quoting dogma, I'll start quoting Apocrypha.

[Edge]

In Judaism, Jehovah is a merging of earlier gods El and He while Asherah and Anath became the Shekinah mentioned in the OT. The four together represent the four aspects of Yahweh or YHWH.

You cannot possibly present this as an undisputed fact. It's simply a theory of some historians regarding events thousands of years ago, and I'm not going to accept it on face value.

The various individual tribes of Israel were cemented by the new all-encompassing Jehovah who represented the national purpose of his "chosen people" and effectively bound them together as a group.

Take out the word 'new', and I'll agree 100%.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was stated to be a virgin..."Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:13-14)
The Semitic word translated as virgin is "almah, which actually means "young women". The word bethulah means virgin but its not used.

Is Mary also a "forever virgin" ? In Matthew 13:55, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

I hardly see the relevance of what Semitic word is used. It's not as if that's the only thing that belief in the immaculate conception hinges on. Jesus was conceived after Mary had a visitation by the Holy Spirit.

As for being a "forever virgin", no. I'm aware some people believe that, but I have no idea why. As evidenced by the passage you quoted, Mary had other children subsequently.

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth as the town didn't exist until the 3rd century A.D. Archaeological work in the area confirms the earliest habitation is much to late to be the home of Jesus.

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus.
While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BC, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages.
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Joseph's, and It's name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47) characterized the site's seeming insignificance.

Archaeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BC. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BC. Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited.

Simon Zelotes--He was known as Simon the Zealot or Simon Kananites meaning Simon the Fanatic. The Zealots were refered to as bandits and querillas and considered to be extremely violent by even other Israelites.

Judas--Also known as Judas Sicarius or "the Dagger", he was a well-known commander in the Zealots.

His disciples also included former fishermen and a tax-collector. And they all "left what they were doing and followed Jesus."

As to my previous point: I don't expect anyone to believe something just because they're told it's true, whether by a minister, teacher or politician.

And I will not unquestioningly believe anything I'm told by a scientist or historian, without indisputable evidence. I'm not completely dismissive of either - I just don't place blind faith in them.

[dennisrwood]

Plissken: www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

[Plissken]

dennis: Yes, that's the Apocrypha. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is particularly interesting on the subject.

Was there something I'm missing?

EDIT: It is an interesting site, which seems to hold several books in question, at least in part, because they were written in Greek and well after the life of Jesus.

Would that they held the works of Paul to the same standard.

[Fist and Faith]

In Judaism, Jehovah is a merging of earlier gods El and He while Asherah and Anath became the Shekinah mentioned in the OT. The four together represent the four aspects of Yahweh or YHWH.

You cannot possibly present this as an undisputed fact. It's simply a theory of some historians regarding events thousands of years ago, and I'm not going to accept it on face value.

I gotta go with Edge on this one. People on either side of the debate will come up with theories that support their beliefs, but I can't imagine how anyone could prove anything this many millennia later.

Mary, mother of Jesus, was stated to be a virgin..."Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:13-14)
The Semitic word translated as virgin is "almah, which actually means "young women". The word bethulah means virgin but its not used.

Is Mary also a "forever virgin" ? In Matthew 13:55, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

I hardly see the relevance of what Semitic word is used. It's not as if that's the only thing that belief in the immaculate conception hinges on. Jesus was conceived after Mary had a visitation by the Holy Spirit.

I assume Kins is saying that a bad translation is the reason Mary is said to have been a virgin while she was pregnant with Jesus. If she wasn't a virgin - or, since it's the best we can do 2k years later, if we don't have any reason to think she was a virgin - then the pregnancy wasn't particularly miraculous.

Jesus couldn't have come from Nazareth as the town didn't exist until the 3rd century A.D. Archaeological work in the area confirms the earliest habitation is much to late to be the home of Jesus.

Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus.
While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BC, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages.
Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Joseph's, and It's name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.
It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47) characterized the site's seeming insignificance.

Archaeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BC. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BC. Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited.

NOW we're rolling! What's Kins going to say?! Is the mysterious "Archaeological work" he mentioned more trustworthy than Bagati? Is Bagati a hack? Stay tuned, faithful and faithless!

[Plissken]

A collection of farms wouldnt've held the name of the town, possibly.

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the rest of my questions.

[Kinslaughterer]

1955-1960 Excavations conducted by Father Bellarmino Bagatti (Professor, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum at Flagellation, Jerusalem). Beneath his own church and adjoining land, Bagatti discovered numerous caves and hollows. Some of these caves have obviously had a great deal of use, over many centuries. Most are tombs, many from the Bronze Age. Others have been adapted for use as water cisterns, as vats for oil or as 'silos' for grain. Apparently, there were indications that Nazareth had been 'refounded' in Hasmonean times after a long period when the area had been deserted. Yet overwhelmingly, archaeological evidence from before the second century is funerary. Obliged to admit a dearth of suitable evidence of habitation, none the less, Bagatti was able conclude that 1st century AD Nazareth had been 'a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.'

With a great leap of faith the partisan diggers declared what they had found was 'the village of Jesus, Mary & Joseph' – though they had not found a village at all, and certainly no evidence of particular individuals. The finds were consistent, in fact, with isolated horticultural activity, close to a necropolis of long-usage.

Rather conveniently for the Catholic Church, questionable graffiti also indicated that the shrine was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, no less!

Yet one point is inescapable: the Jewish disposition towards the 'uncleanliness' of the dead. The Jews, according to their customs, would not build a village in the immediate vicinity of tombs and vice versa.

and

Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and distances with the occasional comment.
As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser (Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount Gerizim, Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob's well at Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with God, and Jeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.
Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'

Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (Phoenix Grant, 1987)
Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)
Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)
Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988
Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999))
Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)