Message 7 of 8 (840053)
09-22-2018 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
08-18-2018 8:23 PM
The Oldest Bible is the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Gospel of Nazarenes or Ebionites)
I will show a very likely Aramaic (called "Hebrew" during the time of Jesus and after) quote of Matthew 5.
It gets deeper than this. Take jar and Biblical Christians, for instance. jar adamantly claims to actually read just what the Bible says...and from this has developed an entire belief system which he would claim quite rightly came from the Bible. His position is influenced by other beliefs than Christianity, however. For starters, his beliefs are rooted in logic, reason, and reality first. The Biblical Christians, whom jar accuses of being largely dishonest, base their conclusions on what is interpreted collectively from Western translations. You, on the other hand, favor non-western translations.
I am o.k with Greek texts if they are genuinely in the language of the "original autographs" of their claimed authors. (Romans is written in Greek and it is indeed authentically written by Paul IN MY ESTIMATION)
I am not 100% against Western language "Biblical texts".
So some questions:
Do you base your conclusions on the tradition of what was written? Or...do you base your criteria for honesty on logic, reason, and reality as jar does?
I feel like I place the weight on what was written.
There is not much else to go on.
But I go back as far as possible (the first century IF POSSIBLE) to find the relevant texts (so I can know the relevant issues to FIRST century Jews and Christians)
jar would claim that Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew. He thus wiould say that much of what Paul and the authors of the Gospel of John wrote were efforts to start a new religion. If so, do you agree? And what is it in the older texts that you favor is different?
I do see Jesus as a Jew, and having nothing at all to do with today's "Christianity" which is a European religion (with all blacks and Africans 100% following the latter btw).
Jesus and his Jewish followers seem to have been called Nazarenes (though even the European Christians are called "Nazarenes" by Arabs and Hebrew-speaking Israelis today and perhaps always were THOUGH I DOUBT EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS WERE PROPERLY CALLED NAZARENES IN THE EARLY CENTURIES) back in the first century, and European Christians continued to call the Semitic Christians "Nazarenes" or "Nasoreans" from the 1st century-5th (and even beyond).
I don't know if I see Paul as quite so far off from the Jewish Nazarene Christianity as many seem to feel he was. (I don't think Paul wanted the Nazarenes and Ebionites extinguished, and I almost can say I KNOW HE DIDN'T WANT THE HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW TO VANISH)
Now, what about the "older texts"?
Here is a clue (actually has an outright quote of Matthew) from what is today the Talmud.
(The Gemara was the specific part I am looking at, and the Gemara is human commentary on the Mishnah, or the ORAL LAW, which was said to have been handed down at Sinai. Both were collected and put into the Talmud. The "Law of Moses" is the written law said to have been handed down at Sinai. Josephus and Jesus used the same Greek word for the ORAL LAW: (in English translation) Traditions
We have a quotation that is in today's Gospel of Matthew plus a very probable mention of Nazarenes. And an Aramaic play on the Greek word for Gospel (Greek word spelled the same in 2 Aramaic words but with dual meanings).
The date of this Rabbinical quote, as well as the actual Rabbinical commentary itself, will be a debatable issue.
"Minim" are heretics.
The issue is texts of heretics.
Be Nizrefe probably is the Nazarene house of worship.
It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them,17 and burn the rest.
R. Joseph b. Hanin asked R. Abbahu: As for the Books of Be Abedan,23 may we save them from a fire or not? — Yes and No, and he was uncertain about the matter.24 Rab would not enter a Be Abedan, and certainly not a Be Nizrefe;25 Samuel would not enter a Be Nizrefe, yet he would enter a Be Abedan. Raba was asked: Why did you not attend at the Be Abedan? A certain palm-tree stands in the way, replied he, and it is difficult for me [to pass it].26 Then we will remove it? — Its spot will present difficulties to me.27 Mar b. Joseph said: I am one of them28 and do not fear them. On one occasion he went there, [and] they wanted to harm him.29
Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamaliel's sister. Now, a certain philosopher30 lived in his vicinity,and he bore a reputation that he did not accept bribes.1 They wished to expose him,2 so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him, 'I desire that a share be given me in my [deceased] father's estate.' 'Divide,' ordered he. Said he [R. Gamaliel] to him, 'It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.' [He replied], 'Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded3 and another book4 given, wherein it is written, 'A son and a daughter inherit equally.'5 The next day, he [R. Gamaliel] brought him a Lybian ass. Said he to them, 'Look6 at the end of the book, wherein it is written, I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor7 to add to the Law of Moses,8 and it is written therein, A daughter does not inherit where there is a son. Said she to him, 'Let thy light shine forth like a lamp.'9 Said R. Gamaliel to him, 'An ass came and knocked the lamp over!'10
Matthew was quoted.
Here is the Christian "Philosopher" mentioning the HEBREW GOSPEL
"Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded and another book given"
"Look at the end of the book, wherein it is written, 'I came not to diminish the Law of Moses nor add to the law of Moses...' "
Now understand the words.
"another book" (or sinful pages) is Aramaic 'awen gilyon which is unmistakably the same sound of Greek euangelion or "Gospel"
(the Aramaic letter W is a V in modern Hebrew and the Greek U looks like a V and frankly the Greek word is fairly pronounced Evangelion. Aramaic Y is I in Greek and W is V or U.
Aramaic can be a 100% transliteration of Greek Gospel
There is also the Sifre Minim mentioned or "scrolls of the heretics"
Here is scholarship on Shabbat 116 from:
The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition
By James R. Edwards
(same scholar's work also in "Non-canonical" Religious Texts in Early Judaism and Early Christianity
edited by Lee Martin McDonald, James H. Charlesworth, pp. 130-140 roughly)
William Horbury sees Sabbat 116a-b as evidence - evidently the lone evidence - of a collection of Jesus-sayings in early Christianity. The quotation appears in a satirical story from the Talmud involving Imma Shalom, wife of Rabbi Eliezer and sister of Rabban Gamaliel II - the grandson of the Gamaliel mentioned in Acts 5:34, under whom the apostle Paul claims to study in Acts 22:3. A certain "philosopher" of high moral standing lives in their neighborhood. Shalom and Gamaliel hatch a plot to bribe him with a golden lamp to secure a favorable verdict from him and thus tarnish his reputation.
Then the quote that I quoted above.
Rabbi Eliezer was one of the most famous rabbis of his day. According to the Talmud, he was charged before a Roman governor with Christian leanings. In order to counteract Eliezer's Christian sympathies, his wife and brother-in-law conspire to bribe the "philosopher" in the story. The story is a clevel anti-Christian parody, beginning with the reference to the gospel as 'wn glywn. The phrase technically means "sin pages," but its vocalization, awen gilyon, is an unmistakable homophone for the Greek euaggelion, "gospel." Sabbat 116 does not mention the name of Jesus Christ, but substitutes instead the "gospel" as a personification of Jesus. Both Jewish and Christian interpreters are correct in taking the "philosopher" to be a Christian (spokesman), since he renders a decision based on the gospel. The lampoon ends with the light (= gospel) overturned by a donkey and placed under a bushel, which appears to be a reference to and mockery of the motif of the lamp/light in Matt 5:14-16. The image of a donkey overturning a lamp became a later rabbinic proverb. The point of the satire is to provide a legitimate Jewish response to the claims of Christians, as if to say: Whatever Jesus did, he neither added to nor subtracted from the Torah.
We have a Gospel here by Hebrew Christians.
Should that "gospel" be understood as a collection of sayings? It would appear not, for immediately before the Imma Shalom satire, Sabbat 116 addresses the problem of the books read by the Minim, which is usually an allusion to Christian literature. Sabbat 116 appears to give clues to the identification of this Christian literature, for the references to "the Books of be Abedan" and "Be Nizrefe" seem to reference the Ebionites and Nazarenes respectively. If so, then the "gospel" referenced in the subsequent Imma Shalom story would appear to be the Hebrew Gospel. No other gospel is introduced, and the context leads one to conclude that the gospel of the "Abedan" and "Nizrefe," mentioned immediately before, is the gospel referred to in Sabbat 116, and the source of the citation from it. These clues suggest that Sabbat 116 is not generic anti-Christian polemic, but directed rather to two Jewish-Christian sects, the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and to the Sifre Minim, the Hebrew Gospel they read.
The date seems to predate 82 A.D., which makes a lot of sense when one understands the dates of the curses against the heretics (not mentioned here).
see birkat ha minim
We cannot be certain of the dating of the satire in Sabbat 116. K. G. Kuhn assigns the composition to the third century. The actual logion on which the satire is built appears to be much earlier, however. R. T. Herford argues for the historicity of the Talmudic story, at least in substance, by placing it in the early 70s. If this date is correct - and the dates of Rabbis Eliezer and Gamaliel II and the reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. all corroborate it - then the saying, "I came not to diminish the Law of Moses," could date to the first century. Whether or not it pre-dates canonical Matthew is not clear, but if it does, then the "Gospel" referred to would doubtlessly be the Hebrew Gospel - the same Hebrew Gospel mentioned just prior to the satirical story. If this is the case, then the quotation in Sabbat 116 is not only another independent witness to the Hebrew Gospel, but by far the earliest reference to it.
It is an extant reference to an undisputed historical person.
E.B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 147, offers further evidence of its essential historicity on the grounds that 1 ) from 82 C.E. until his death in 123, Rabban Gamaliel was president of the synagogue, and it seems unlikely that he would compromise the dignity of that office by the unseemly behavior reported in the satire, and 2 ) he did not succeed his father until the latter's death in 70 ; Nicholson thus concludes that 3 0 the event most plausibly falls between 70 and 82 C.E., immediately following the fall of Jerusalem.
It is a quotation of what is now in the Greek Matthew, but this quote is in Aramaic!
And pre 82 A.D. makes the most sense by far.
The Birkat haMinim (Hebrew ářëú äîéđéí "Blessing on the heretics") is a Jewish curse on heretics (minim). Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion.
Birkat haMinim - Wikipedia
Finally...what conclusions represent honesty? In your belief, who Was (and Is) Jesus?
Is the Westernized agenda of religion...driven largely by Martin Luther and John Calvin...a lie?
And where does the Roman Catholic Church fit into all of this?
Also the Eastern Orthodox?
They came after 82 A.D. and are all the followers of "salvation by faith".
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox invented the Gospel of John and its tribal European faith religion.
The Interpreters Bible 12 volume commentary said the Epistle of James was written by Ebionites, and same from the same group that followed Matthew 5:17-18.
Now the modern day b.s. attempts to turn everything upside down.
Modern 21st century (as well as 16th century) commentary attempts to present a modern day European debate as the Epistle of James being a Roman Catholic document verses the Gospel of John being a Protestant-ish document.
That is a complete disregarding of any sort of relevant context surrounding the 1st century debates: the debates that actually involved the earliest Christians.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 6 by Phat, posted 08-18-2018 8:23 PM|| ||Phat has acknowledged this reply|