Off the hook, so get off our backs! :)
JOEJOEJOE
Posts: 10,619
Pope exonerates Jews for Jesus' death in new book
EmailPrint..By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Nicole Winfield, Associated Press – 1 hr 11 mins ago
VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.
In "Jesus of Nazareth-Part II" excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.
EmailPrint..By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Nicole Winfield, Associated Press – 1 hr 11 mins ago
VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI has made a sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ, tackling one of the most controversial issues in Christianity in a new book.
In "Jesus of Nazareth-Part II" excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict explains biblically and theologically why there is no basis in Scripture for the argument that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus' death.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Only took a few centuries more than it took to exonerate Galileo. :roll:
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
i like a good story.
I take it that you never saw his High School year book picture or seen his vaccination record? They clearly will show you his DOB and that his immunizations were given after birth by his ped, But this was pre MMR, phew! Imagine an autistic Messiah.
Question, what do the early beliefs as you mention say? and What proof would satisfy you that Jesus did exist at one point?
Keeping a distance (for now) between did he exist, and if he did was he divine.
Always nice to get a fun-loving response from you!
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144037&hilit=jesus+mysteries
Some mention of him in any of the dozens of contemporary histories of the period of his supposed existence would do for starters.
Glad to be of service :P
Ah yes, I'm familiar with that work...quick side note, if you find me arguing one side or the
other, it may just be because sometimes it helps get deeper into the issues at hand. Perhaps not quite Advocatus Diaboli nor quite Advocatus Dei.
Rather like a more centered path to see what's what. Dare I say promotor iustitiae! I'm sure you are getting a kick out of me using that in reference to the context of this debate and the subject matter of your initial post in this thread...
What would be nice is if Christians on the board would jump in and join. Unless it already went down in your thread that you linked up, which I only read the first few posts of. I'll get back to it when I get an opportunity. As I love this type of discussion.
But a quick start, Byrnzie....What are your thoughts on Moses? The jewish prophet, did he exist? What are your thoughts on him and some of the things he did or what many people say that he did...?
My personal opinion of Moses is that he was actually the Pharoah Akhenaten, the husband of Queen Nefertiti, and father of Tutankhamun.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/672/profile.htm
Ahmed Osman:
Akhenaten as Moses, and Jesus, Tutankhamun. A case of double identities
Gamal Nkrumah
Try as they might most people -- be they laymen and professional Egyptologists -- do not share Ahmed Osman's view that the biblical Joseph was a high-ranking ancient Egyptian official known as Yuya. Nor that the mercurial and mysterious Akhenaten was really Moses.
Osman vehemently defends his claims, explaining the logic of what appear to be preposterous notions -- including the suggestion that the boy-king Tutankhamun was in fact Jesus Christ.
Osman stresses that he does not contest the core historicity of biblical and Qur'anic descriptions and teachings. "I confirm, not deny, the historicity of the Bible and Qur'an," Osman says. His theories, however, call for a complete revision of many modern assumptions about the composition of the Bible -- both Old and New Testaments.
"The origins of the biblical word Messiah or Saviour is the Hebrew Meshih," Osman concedes. But the original root of the term can be traced back even further, to ancient Egypt. "The English name Christ derives from Christos, meaning the Anointed One, or King, used in the Greek translation of the Bible in the third century AD." Osman explains that the tradition of anointing kings was an ancient Egyptian custom. "The king was anointed not with oil but with the fat of the holy crocodile. Here we find the original source of the word Messiah."
Osman is getting into his stride. "You see, MeSeH was the word for crocodile in ancient Egypt, and the image of two crocodiles was used in the title of the sovereign, bestowed on the king at the time of his coronation."
Osman insists that until today some families in Nubia anoint the male reproductive organ with crocodile fat in the belief that it will ensure strong progeny. It is, he says, an ancient practice that harks back to the days of the Pharaohs.
Though Osman denies he is dabbling in theology there is widespread discomfort with the notion that biblical characters are in reality based on ancient Egyptian originals. His ideas are thought by many to be absurd. Most Egyptologists do not believe Osman's theories are even worth refuting, though he says that many open-minded biblical scholars have welcomed his interpretations or at least accepted some part of his argument without reservation.
"I am talking about history, and not religion."
Osman's intriguing suppositions are founded on a simple and fairly straightforward proposition -- that the roots of monotheism, indeed of Judeo- Christianity and of the entire Western religious belief system, lie in Egypt rather than Israel. Biblical personalities, he posits, are fictitious variations of historical Egyptian monarchs. A revision of early Christian history, he suggests, is long-overdue.
"Jesus was an Egyptian, and not a Jew," Osman insists. "Out of Egypt I called my son," said the Old Testament prophet Hosea. According to Jewish tradition the Saviour, Messiah or Jesus, was to come out of Egypt, not Israel.
"Until the end of the fourth century AD Christian pilgrims came to Egypt and the Christian cross was the Key of Life, the ankh. Christianity was the last phase of the Osirian Cult. Resurrection is originally an Egyptian concept. Indeed, resurrection was the central focus of Egyptian religion."
The springs and levers of this complicated plot have ensured that Ahmed Osman is not a celebrity in the land of his birth. He has, though, lectured extensively in the US, Britain and France and his books have long been a fixture of North American bestseller lists.
That mainstream Egyptologists, both Egyptian and Western, decline to lend his ideas much credence is simply, he argues, because "they have established their careers on their interpretations."
Religious authorities, both Coptic Christian and Muslim, have shied away from giving his theories official sanction, though neither have they been entirely ruled out. A former sheikh of Al-Azhar, Egypt's most venerable and authoritative Muslim institution, Sheikh Abdallah Shehata, told Osman that Muslim scholars had no objection from a religious perspective. "If it can be shown beyond doubt that Yuya was the historical Youssef [Joseph], then we cannot leave his mummy in the Egyptian Museum. We'll have a special mausoleum built in which to house his mortal remains," the late Azharite sheikh had assured Osman.
Another notable Muslim scholar and cleric, Sheikh Mohamed Hassan El-Baquoury, welcomed Osman's findings, again stressing that there is no fundamental contradiction between the Qur'anic depiction of Youssef and the claim that Yuya and Youssef were one and the same person.
Egypt's Coptic Patriarch Shenouda III has also expressed interest in his theories, though "the Roman Catholic Church," Osman says, "holds grave reservations".
Osman is an unassuming, down-to-earth man. He is not a dreamer, he insists. Nor is he a mischief maker. But just as Martin Bernal's Black Athena generated controversy, Osman's writings have elicited heated debate.
Osman's task could well be more ambitious than Bernal's since he aims to revise current understandings of the Bible by suggesting its origins lie in Egypt and not the "Holy Land". According to Osman's scheme of things Egypt was the Holy Land -- there was no other, certainly not Egypt's historically insignificant immediate northeastern neighbour, a mere passageway to the bastions of ancient Near Eastern civilisations in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.
So how did Osman's original ideas develop?
"One cold winter's evening," Osman recounts, "I couldn't go to sleep. My wife and daughter were fast asleep," he remembers. "I went to the kitchen and made myself a pot of tea, sat by the fireplace and opened the Bible, and read from the Book of Genesis as I often did."
He re-read the story of Joseph. "The claim by Joseph the Patriarch in the Book of Genesis that he had been made a father to pharaoh stood out. The words seemed to leap off the page."
The penny dropped. After studying the Bible and Egyptian history for a quarter of a century it dawned on him that he had established a plausible link between a major biblical personality and a historically verifiable Egyptian figure. Yuya was Iyt (Father) Neter (God, or Holy) n (of) Neb (Lord) Tawi (Two Lands). Yuya is the only person we know of in Egyptian history to claim the title, it ntr n nb tawi, the Holy Father of the Lord of the Two Lands. "I realised that it was a very rare Egyptian title. And it is a claim nobody else in the Bible makes."
Osman notes that this unique appellation occurs once on one of Yuya's ushabti (royal funerary statuette) and more than 20 times on his funerary papyrus.
There were other striking similarities between the two figures. Yuya had two sons, as did Joseph. Both Yuya and Joseph were foreigners who attained high office in Egypt. Both were close to the royal family, their fortune intricately intertwined with that of the royals. Osman came to the conclusion that Joseph the Patriarch and Yuya were one and the same.
Yuya cannot have been an Egyptian because his name was written differently by different scribes.
"Eleven different versions of Yuya's name are to be found on his sarcophagus, the three coffins and other funerary furniture -- Ya-a, Ya, Yi-Ya, Yu-Ya, Ya-Yi, Yu, Yu-Yu, Ya-Ya, Yi-Ay, Yi-a, Yu-y."
Yu is the shortened form of the Hebrew Yahweh, or Yhwh, God of the Israelites.
"Egyptian names usually indicate the name of the god under whose protection the person was placed. Joseph remained aloof from Egyptian religious practice. It seems a reasonable assumption that by the time Joseph died Egyptians had realised that he would not accept the protection of any of the Egyptian gods, only that of his own God. What they were trying to write, following Egyptian tradition, was the name of his God."
Osman adds that Youssef is a compound name. The Bible records that Joseph was given an Egyptian title, Sef, from which came the Biblical and Qur'anic name Youssef. Manetho, the Egyptian historian who chronicled the country's annals at the time of the Ptolemies states that Pharaoh Amenhotep III had a minister called Sef.
Equally intriguing is Yuya's insignia of office, which again closely matches the description of Joseph's ceremonial appurtenances in the Bible.
"And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it on Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck."
Osman's discoveries emboldened him in his search for the historical originals of Old Testament prophets. Solomon, David, Moses and Joshua or Jesus were all, he now argues, based on characters represented in the annals of ancient Egyptian history. Joseph led to Moses, and Moses to Jesus and the two Marys. Osman believes that the fact that the Coptic Monastery of St Macarius at Wadi Al- Natron in Egypt's Western Desert houses a depiction of Jesus being embalmed according to ancient Egyptian custom -- a practice verified in the gospels which stress that Jesus's body was anointed with spices and ointments -- further underlines his thesis. The apostle John says that Nicodemus "brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes" and describes Jesus's body as being bound in "linen clothes with the spices".
The manner in which Osman pronounces ancient Egyptian names and expressions is fascinating. His rendition of ancient Egyptian words flows smoothly and the seeming naturalness of the sounds is astonishing. He speaks precisely, sharply enunciating each consonant and vowel.
Osman emphasises the semantic correlations between Arabic, biblical Hebrew and ancient Egyptian. He noted how abrek, kneel, is the same in modern colloquial Egyptian, ancient Egyptian and the Hebrew of the Book of Genesis. Samir, friend in both ancient Egyptian and Arabic, was rendered Shamir in Hebrew.
Whatever the exact sound of the ancient Egyptian language, what is certain, according to Osman, is that it profoundly influenced the Semitic languages, including Arabic and Hebrew. But Osman is not a philologist and the main theme of his work is that the Qur'anic and Biblical stories of Joseph, Moses and Jesus have deep Egyptian roots.
To this end he has published three books: Stranger in the Valley of the Kings (1987), Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt (1990) and The House of the Messiah (1992) -- published in the US as Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs.
Osman's unorthodox views are not without precedent. Sigmund Freud argued in Moses and Monotheism that the Hebrew law-giver was an Egyptian.
...Osman maintains that Moses and Akhenaten were one and the same man. Akhenaten was forced to abdicate the throne and escape to Sinai with a handful of followers -- both Egyptian and Syro-Canaanite.
Osman makes ample use of recent archaeological discoveries and historical documents to advance his unconventional theories. He contends that the Ten Commandments bear an uncanny resemblance to Spell 125 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
"Akhenaten was able to abolish the complex pantheon of the ancient Egyptian religion and replace it with a single god, the Aten, who had no image or form," Osman explains.
But the Aten was depicted as a sun disc, I ventured. He replied with an emphatic "no, Aten had no physical image."
Osman continues elucidating his startling discoveries by stressing that "all those who spoke of Jesus in the early history of the Church recognised in this name only one person." That person, according to Osman, bore the name "of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write" -- a quotation from the Gospel according to John.
"Tut (image), ankh (the Egyptian cross, the symbol of life) and Aten (the Egyptian equivalent of Adonai, the Lord in Hebrew) mean that it is to be translated as 'the living image of the Lord'. Thus he was looked upon as the Son of God from the time of his birth."
But Tutankhamun ruled Egypt between 1361 and 1352 BC? "The Book of Joshua is pure fiction, a work of propaganda," Osman insists. "Joshua, or Jesus, was the historical successor of Moses," he adds. Caught in the crossfire of religious rivalry he tried to mediate between the old religion and the new monotheistic creed of his father.
"Two women named Mary are placed in close relationship with Jesus in the New Testament -- his mother and Mary Magdalene. The Greek version of the name is Maria, the Hebrew Miriam, but its origins lie in ancient Egypt where the word mery means 'the beloved'."
The Talmud, Osman believes, offers more clues about the real identity of Jesus than the New Testament.
"Only two of the four gospel authors, Matthew and Luke, refer to the birth of Jesus, but their accounts do not agree," he points out. Matthew's account of the conventional Christmas story in Bethlehem places it "in the days of Herod the king", as the King James version puts it.
"This means that Jesus was born before 4 BC, the date of Herod's death," Osman stresses. Luke's version contradicts both Matthew's and Luke's own earlier account of Jesus' birth because it states a census for taxation purposes. "The purpose of the census in 6AD, attested from other non-biblical sources, was to assess the amount of tribute which the new province of Judaea would have to pay."
Here Osman relies on Roman records. "We know from Roman sources that this event could not have taken place before 6AD, the year in which Quirinius, the biblical Cyrenius, was appointed governor of Syria and Judaea became a Roman province."
In 1996 Osman visited Professor John Strugnell, the former editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project who was delighted with Osman's deductions. Emanuel Tov replaced Strugnell in 1990 and soon after the Israeli Department of Antiquities announced that it would only grant access to official photos of the scrolls to scholars who would agree not to publish their findings.
"On the basis of known historical fact all we can be certain about concerning the figure presented to us in the gospels as Jesus is that he lived and died between 27AD, when the Roman Senate appointed Octavian as Emperor Augustus, and 37AD, the year of the death of Augustus's successor, Tiberius." Osman wonders, then, why the name of Jesus does not appear in the writings of three distinguished contemporary Roman authors -- Philo Judaeus, Justus of Tiberias and Flavius Josephus.
To cut a long story short, Osman does not entirely dismiss the biblical story of Jesus. Rather he reconciles the Biblical and Qur'anic versions of Jesus with his theory that the historical Messiah was Tutankhamun by differentiating between what he describes as the "Glory of Christ" and the ancient Egyptian king.
"Although the Glory of Christ appeared to his disciples in the early part of the first century AD, the historical Jesus had lived and died 14 centuries earlier," he explains.
He also points out that there was a historical confusion with regards to the names Joshua and Jesus.
"Up to the 16th century, when the Old Testament books were translated from the Mesoretic Hebrew text into modern European languages, Jesus was the name of the prophet who succeeded Moses as leader of the Israelites in Egypt. Since the 16th century we started to have two names, Jesus and Joshua, which confused people into the belief that they were two different characters."
Funny how things happen sometimes,
But you don't believe in fate or Coincidence do you? Or what is it, things just happen! Windows sucks and if I was on a Mac we would b just fine,
I'll re type everything soon,
I think the term you're after is 'shit happens!'
I try to save as much as I can if I'm typing a lot of words just in case that happens. Usually after every couple of paragraphs I try and remember to save the thing.
yeah the similarities between the contemporary religions of the time are surprising to most people... but hardly any scholars think that Jesus was a myth. Literally almost 100% view him as a historical figure. Now... son of God? I think what he was saying was that we ALL are the sons and daughters of God. And if he wasn't... then I ain't worshipping a selfish bastard like him!!!
100%? I doubt that very much.
Anyway, it depends what you mean by 'scholars'. The fact is that there is zero historical evidence of his existence, and none of the histories of the period written at the time make any mention of him. Biblical scholars are obviously biased and will ignore this fact, relying on the gospels to support their claims, despite the fact they were written 50-200 years after the alleged event.
Basically, how can any so-called 'scholar' view Jesus as an historical figure when there is zero evidence to support this claim?
well, here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The Greco-Roman Pagan sources probably provide the most valid information about whether or not he existed. The thing is... hardly anyone was literate in those days so finding historical information is very difficult.
From your source:
'There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – ], Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details. There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (c. AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[66][67] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."
Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived."[68][69]
Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[70]
Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the 1st century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"[71]
Tacitus
Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[72]
There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.[73] For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".[74]
There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[75] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." [76]
Tacitus may have used official sources from a Roman archive. Tacitus drew on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals. The description of the suppression of Christianity, calling it a superstition for instance, is not based on any statements Christians may have made to Tacitus. However if Tacitus was copying from an official source some would expect him to not incorrectly label Pilate a procurator, as he was a prefect.[77]
Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[78]
R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.
Except that's not true, as, for example, Flavius Josephus' twenty volume historiographical work on the period proves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
Antiquities of the Jews (Antiquitates Judaicae in Latin) is a twenty volume historiographical work composed by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in the thirteenth year of the reign of Roman emperor Flavius Domitian which was around 93 or 94 AD.[1] Antiquities of the Jews contains an account of history of the Jewish people, written in Greek for Josephus' gentile patrons. In the first ten volumes, Josephus follows the events of the historical books of the Hebrew Bible beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve. The second ten volumes continue the history of the Jewish people beyond the biblical text and up to the Jewish War.
This work, along with Josephus's other major work, The Jewish Wars (Bellum Judaicarum), provides valuable background material to historians wishing to understand 1st-century AD Judaism and the early Christian period
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
As far as my claim that most people were illiterate... I'm confused about your point. You cite ONE person who wrote a bunch of books. How does that prove that most people were not illiterate?
Believe it or not, the Catholic people aren't as narrow-minded as many people think. I feel that EVERYONE on this planet has known for centuries what went down. The "Jewish" people that crucified him back then could easily have been a collective mass of any denomination based people today. I think the Catholic whole has realized that for centuries, along with the rest of the world. Maybe his "exoneration" or public statement is trying to re-confirm to the Jewish people and the world that there is no ill-will there and never really was--not within my lifetime anyway.
I was raised Catholic and never once remember this religion preaching to me that the "Jews" were responsible. Never have I ever witnessed in my 32 yrs., any of my Catholic friends and family expressing Jewish hate. Catholics as a whole are very peaceful, fun-loving people. Yes, there are your extreme, uptight ones--just like any religion. American-Catholics, however, seem to me to be more laid back and open-minded than what many people may think.
Maybe the Jesus myth is a bit like the Arthur myth. All kinds of events that may or may not have happened, and if they have, have been seriously embellished - but not accomplished by one person but a number of them. All put under the banner of a person who probably did exist and was named Jesus (common name just change the language), just like Arthur. I like the legends of Arthur.
+1 and the Jesus myth not so much...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
why? Jesus was a cool dude. As someone once said, "it's not Christ that pisses me off, it is CHRISTIANS." I tend to agree with most of his teachings... the Old Testament on the other hand....
Anyone that can turn water into wine is cool.
The whole myth and the magnitude of it is what gets me. Arthur is OK - still trying to figure out where camelot is(though I have been to Tintangel a few times...), loving the stories behind this (and some of the facts), but one can easily disassociate myth from reality and no major 'following' (eg religion) has been based on myth. The Jesus myth is taken as facts - blind faith.
I mean, while he's in such a forgiving mood and all.
(the pope is a fucking Nazi - literally.)
Hey, let's don't get carried away now.....one step at a time.