The Mystery of Jesus Christ. (Page 6)

ghostgeek: Here's a different take on the birth and early life of Jesus taken from "The True Word", a treatise attacking Christianity by the 2nd century AD. philosopher Celsus:

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." [ Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28 ]

Whether this account has any basis in fact is unknown but it does show that rumours of Jesus' illegitimacy were circulating at an early date.

ghostgeek: Now about the town of Nazareth, it would seem to have been a little on the small side at the time of Jesus if this video is to be believed:

Zanjan: If Jesus were a person who takes a religious vow (Nazerene), the text would have said so, as it did for Samson.

What they called cities in those days were just forts - a rock-walled village. China, the Indus Valley and Greece had cities states, barely the size of a pasture. As a step up from a walled village, these were all carved stone blocks; they held a temple and a palace with a king to rule it since they were so densely populated, like sardines in a can. Jerusalem was the only place in Israel that fit that description.

Jersusalem, in King David's day, covered only 12 acres and was inhabited by 2000 people. (very dense) During Jesus' day the city had grown to occupy about 425 acres (0.7 square miles) and the estimated population was about 60,000 people.

Everyone else was loosely scattered, being farmers and fishermen; so, these places, such as Nazareth, were small, open areas with only a few houses, mostly tents. One can't expect something constructed of wood and plaster to last for thousands of years.

The13th: Congratulation all. After so many pages we finally have something quite refreshing: someone actually talk about Jesus at considerable length outside the Bible! A good milestone. Finally the downhill slide is stopped by a tree trunk and I have time to catch a breather. Hopefully from this point onward thing turn for the better and we can finally reconstruct Jesus.

Zanjan: Right, an opinionated foreign philosopher, who lived 200 years later is not an historical account. Rather, this is just an acknowledgement Christians existed.

ghostgeek: It wasn't just a grumpy philosopher who had doubts about Jesus' parentage. Some of the old Jewish Rabbis voiced their misgivings as well. It's claimed the Talmud writers mention Jesus' name twenty times and quite specifically document that he was born an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panthera, nicknamed the "Panther". That a Panthera existed was confirmed by the discovery of a tombstone at Bingerbrück in Germany in 1859. The engraving etched in the headstone reads:

"Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9AD was transferred to service in Rhineland."

In many Jewish references, Jesus is often referred to as "ben Panthera," "ben" meaning "son of." St Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis [ 315-403 ] also seems to take the designation "Jesus son of Panthera" seriously, in that he argues the name is actually a nickname for Jacob, the father of Joseph, husband of Mary. So rather than denying it is part of the family tradition he tries to explain it within that context. Adolf Deissmann in his famous 1906 study on "Der Name Panthera" stated that the Greek name "Pantera" was used by real individuals in the 1st century AD, being particularly favoured by Roman soldiers. Another passage from the Talmud has this to say:

"Rabbi Shiemon ben Azzai has said: 'I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written that Such-an-one [ Jesus ] is the bastard son of an adulteress.'"

"Such-an-one" was one of the well-known substitutes for Jesus in the Talmud, as has been proved and admitted on either side. Shiemon ben Azzai flourished at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Century. Another, lesser-known name of Jesus during those early years was 'Yeshu'a ben Stada' [ Son of Stada ]. In the Gemara there are a number of lines that concern "ben Pantera," "Yeshu ben Pantera," or "ben Stada." In general, the names turn up in texts that are about a person who is trying to lead the Jews away from their religion. The passage most often quoted is this:

"Ben Stada was Ben Pandera, Rabbi Chisda said; The husband was Stada, the lover Pandera. Another said; the husband was Paphos ben Jehuda; Stada was his mother ... and she was unfaithful to her husband."

None of this may prove that Jesus was fathered by a soldier but it does at least suggest a widespread tradition to this effect did exist early on.

Zanjan: The Talmud as an historical document? One part was written 200 years before Christ, the other part was written 500 years after Christ. They weren't writing about Christianity, and they didn't know Jesus's parents.

Whomever they're talking about, it might as well have been Bob. Either way, those who write down gossip have no credibility. That's why the Talmud isn't a Holy Book. Later on, Christians wrote and published a lot of rubbish too.

In any Christian bookstore, in the 1960's - 80's, there were shelves of garbage books containing false in formation and seething condemnation about every other religion in existence. They'd say those weren't religions, that Christianity was the only religion of God. Now, you'd have to take my word on that as I've never owned such a book - hopefully, they all ended up in the trash can of hell. Jesus would have been embarrassed.

The13th: Not so fast Zan. I am just saying we have some pieces of zigsaw puzzle. But I am not sure this will lead to the popular Jesus that we come to know through .,......... Bible?

Zanjan: Jesus was a young man, about 33 years old when He was crucified; how many stories of adventure can there be in such a short life?

Only two were documented before His ministry, 1. The return to Israel, and 2. The visit to the temple. Pretty lame content, unless you understand those events were necessary requirements of the Day of the Messiah. Nothing else in His personal life mattered. He had no time for distraction; His ministry lasted only 3 years and that's where all the action was - maybe why His Revelation fits into just a few pages.

ghostgeek: Sorry Zanjan but I'm not quite ready the leave Jesus' birth behind. OK, the Talmud may not be a grade A historical tract but there could still be a grain of truth about Jesus in it somewhere. Celsus, the philosopher I mentioned earlier, claimed to have got his information about Jesus' birth from a Jew. There's no reason to doubt him on this, suggesting that rumours of an illegitimate birth were well established by the second century AD. Of course, if we discount such rumours, we are left with the virgin birth as told in the Gospels. That leaves us with a problem. I have seen it stated that most modern theologians reject the virgin birth. They regard it as a religious myth that was added to Christian belief in the late first century A.D. and was triggered by a Greek mistranslation of the book of Isaiah from the original Hebrew. Whether this is true I cannot say but it is clear that myths of virgin births were part of many, if not all, of the surrounding pagan religions. This fact alone should make us wary of accepting the Biblical account as history. Here are some examples:

Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and was placed in a manger. He was a travelling teacher who performed miracles, rode in a triumphal procession on an ass, was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification and rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. Called "King of Kings" and "God of Gods," he was considered the "Only Begotten Son," " Saviour,” "Redeemer,” " "Sin Bearer," "Anointed One," and the "Alpha and Omega." His sacrificial title of "Young Man of the Tree" suggests he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the saviour who was slain for the salvation of mankind and his body, as bread, was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He first descended into the underworld and then, after three days, was resurrected.

Mithraism also contained a virgin birth, a visit by wise men bringing Frankincense, gold and myhrr, a birth in either a stable or a cave, twelve disciples, a "Last Supper," death on a cross and resurrection.

Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason" and baptised in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom, was tempted in the wilderness by the devil and began his ministry at the age of thirty. Zoroaster baptised with water, fire and "holy wind," cast out demons, restored the sight to a blind man and was slain.

Now, if it's possible that the Gospel account of Jesus' birth owes more to Pagan myth than historical reality, can we say anything about His life before John the Baptist is introduced to us? For all practical purposes, it seems to me, the Biblical account of Jesus' life begins with John and not before.

Zanjan: Ghost, why would you go to someone's avowed enemy to ask for the truth about them? Donch'a know that hatred is UNREASONABLE fear and an UNREPENTANT liar? If you're looking for dirt, by all means go to the sewage pools but don't expect to find anything other than slime.

It's no secret how bad the Jews were in the first century; had they kept the Covenant, they wouldn't have lost any battles, nor would they have been overcome by foreign occupation. That's God's own promise - check it out for yourself, both scriptural text and historically. The Holy Land is God's land; when its people refuse to listen to Him, He kicks them out and gives it to those He can trust. . Do you think they'd go down without a fight?

The Jews were kicked out. Then Christians ruled but eventually did the same thing as the Jews so they were kicked out too, then replaced by Muslims. Wash, rinse, repeat. Now the Muslims are being kicked out - what does it take to get the MESSAGE?

That's the only theme you should think about because that's where the evidence is.

Since you're so strung out on the birth issue and pagan myth, you'll end up hanging there. Only those inside a religion can know it well - everyone else is either ignorant or misinformed. Nobody makes it their business to learn the ins and outs of a religion they don't believe in.

Zanjan: By the way, some still forget that "Conception" and "Birth" are NOT the same thing.

ghostgeek: Zanjan, I was taught to consider as many sides as possible to an argument before coming to a conclusion. Give everybody a chance to say their piece and only then decide who's right. Easier said than done, I'll admit, but at least I'm trying.

Now, as to your point that the Jews wouldn't have lost any battles if they'd kept the Covenant, I consider that plain wrong. The Jews lost because they faced opponents who outclassed them. Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Muslims, in their prime they were unstoppable. God had nothing to do with it. And as for the present day, the Jews of Israel are in the ascendant due to their superior military machine. If they ever lose that edge, and the odds are they will one day, then Israel is a lost cause.

As for your last point, the Immaculate Conception led to the Virgin Birth. At least, that's what the story says.

The13th: U know, if jesus of Nazareth never existed, then the credibility of Quran who claim Jesus is a prophet is also in doubt.
I think we have to look at the social and historical context of that place at that time to know why Jesus "happened".
How bad is that place? How bad is the people? What kind of people would cause the prophet to lay down the 15 ccommandments. What cause the winter of human soul? What weapon should I bring to protect myself if I time travel there? No worries, we now know there will certainly be some Jesus(s) that get crucified. He probably get made into Messiah. We non religion type won't insist that specific Jesus must existed. Ya. Alien is not an altogether foreign concept. Where else can he develop amazing grace? What light has he shone? What would be the world without him. A world full of me is not that bad really.

Zanjan: Ghost, what if the person who's right hasn't made a contribution because they're not present? How do you choose from the best of the wrongs?

Sooner or later, you'll have to think on your feet and come to an understanding on your own without anyone's input.

The difference between the Jews and the nationalities you mentioned is the Jews sought spiritual supremacy, desiring to be the conquerers of hearts; the others were after booty or vengeance. At one time, they were all unstoppable as a civilization. The moment they believed they were invincible, they were stopped and never regained power.

Israel will never be a lost cause because that land belongs to the Cause of God and always will. God decides who will rule, when and for how long. That's pre-ordained. If God had nothing to do with it, prophecies about it wouldn't have existed and been fulfilled, and atheists would be running the country.

Israel has a superior military machine, yes but that's not what gives it the edge - it has a number of BIG allies behind it. If you're not a good neighbor, not even WMD's will save you.

The Bible doesn't use those terms you mentioned -> immaculate conception & virgin birth.

The words "conceive" or "conception" are used a number of times in the OT, beginning with Eve; it's use shouldn't have surprised Jews, who were supposed to believe angels occasionally visited their women to give them the impossible news - there's Sarah, Rebecca, Ruth, Elizabeth....... They seemed to be ok with that before.

Then we have this OT passage: Hosea 9:11

"As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception."

Zanjan: Boyz: "A world full of me is not that bad really. "

Do you think that's why Thomas Gray wrote "ignorance is bliss"?

The13th: Not sure. But you guys ought to tell me how bad is that place at that time. Then perhaps I can start judging how "bad" would that place be if its full of guys like me. Ok let me guess, few of us high school mates sat by the river passing time, John the Baptist walk past and talk about something called Messiah, we all laughed. Jesus came around a few days later, we all tease him "hey show us how you walk on the water". No one get crucified, he lived until his old age, we thought he is a weird old man talking about things we dont really understand. But we dont really bother. No Roman, No Egyptian. There are place like that you know, and I have lived it. So how bad can the world be with people like me?

ghostgeek: There are other things about Jesus' birth that are interesting and potentially verifiable. First and foremost is the Star of Bethlehem. "If you read Matthew it states the Magi, wise men or astronomers, saw a star when they were in their own country, probably Babylon, and travelled to Jerusalem. Here they asked people where the baby born to be king of the Jews was, something that didn't go down well with Herod. According to the story Herod had a private word with the Magi, who told him of the sign they had seen and when they left Jerusalem they saw it again, it leading them to Bethlehem. A number of explanations have been put forward to account for this "star", including a comet and a nova. Chinese astronomers recorded a new star in the constellation Capricorn in 5 B.C. and Comet Halley made an appearance in 12 B.C., well outside the probable timeframe for the birth of Jesus. The best explanation though for this series of events is something known as a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn, where the two planets come close together in the sky three times over a short period This happens when you get an alignment between the Sun, the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, something that occurs about every 900 years. It appears such a conjunction took place in the constellation Pisces in 7 B.C., which fits with the end of Herod's reign. It would appear therefore that talk of a star heralding Jesus' birth could be correct.

ghostgeek: In Matthew 2:16 we are told:

"Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi."

This raises the obvious question, did this event happen? The simple answer is, nobody knows. There appears to be no mention of it at all in historical accounts outside of the Bible. The Jewish historian Josephus has nothing to say about it, nor do other historians. Does this mean it never happened? Not necessarily. It has been argued that Bethlehem was a very small town, located about five miles south of Jerusalem, with a population numbering no more than 500 to 600 people. At most, it would have had twenty to thirty children under the age of two. Also, Herod was known for committing horrendous crimes so it's not impossible that events in an insignificant village would be ignored.

Zanjan: Boyz, you're right on one thing - the missing element in your tale is beer. I understand alcoholism wasn't a problem in those days, despite all the wine. I guess it's because you can drink a lot more beer than wine before throwing up. Had they been doing shrooms, they'd have instantly said "I love you , Man!" It breaks down inhibitions.

Zanjan: Ghost, the Chinese were excellent astronomers too, very familiar with all celestial bodies – what they recorded was an unusual temporary “star” - not a new star. That, in itself, wouldn't have pointed to any particular city unless it hit ground – there's always a sign in the physical heavens at such times.

The star was to the west; was it moving or were the Magi following clues?

In those times, astronomy was blended with astrology, and also religious prophecies. Many would have been waiting for the conjunction of Promised One. You might recall that some Jews stayed behind in Babylon during the previous exile. If they didn’t remain Jewish, they’d have become Zoroastrians, knowing prophecies from both religions.

The magi were able to receive visions from God so, God was guiding them – meaning, they were Holy Men, following a spiritual light.

Certainly, a triple conjunction could be a viable sign of something if it’s a rare, specific type. But was that the star? See, there are many inferior and superior conjunctions; one would be looking at a superior type with specific planets involved, plus the period of time during which the superior conjunctions are seen. Not all conjunctions happen with the same planet. From Wikipedia:

“Triple conjunctions between Jupiter and Saturn -- so-called Greatest Conjunctions -- last took place in 1682-1683, 1821 (only in right ascension), 1940-1941 and 1981. It will not occur again until 2238-2239.”

The problem with that is this wouldn’t have looked like a star – that is, so close together they appear as one. From Wikepedia:

“At the greatest conjunction in 7 BC, which is said to be the "Star of Bethlehem",[1] the minimum distance between Jupiter and Saturn was around 1 degree, this is twice the Moon's diameter.

Nevertheless, some will correlate these dates with other historic events, IF that history is widespread knowledge. It could signal a birth or beginning.

The last rarest event (all with same planet) was this rapid succession of triple conjunctions:

1843 Jupiter-Neptune April 9 September 15 November 5
1845 Mars-Neptune June 18 September 2 October 3
1846 Saturn-Neptune March 31 September 14 December 3

Zanjan: As for the slaying of the children; that wasn't Roman business. As a King, Herod had his own soldiers, spies, and ruthless authority. After all, he killed his own sons.

He knew he was doing wrong so you can bet he had a gag order out. The Jews were helpless under his tyranny (except to feather their own nest). Although the clergy grumbled about Herod, to protest was to sign the death warrant for the rest of your family. The Romans didn't like the Jews so no sugar from them either.

Only the Christians had the guts to write the atrocity of the innocents down; only they loved enough to still remember these babes. A nation doesn't care to record it's weaknesses and failures.

ghostgeek: Matthew has the wise men saying they saw a star when it came up in the east. It must have then disappeared because after talking to Herod they set off for Bethlehem, and on the way they saw it again. Comets and nova don't do this sort of thing but a triple conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn would have. It would have looked most striking, two very bright objects coming close together in the night sky and would certainly have got peoples' attention. It would appear that Jupiter was considered the star of royalty and luck and Saturn the star of the Mesopotamian deity who protected Israel. Thus the "wise men from the East" might have interpreted their conjunction as a sigh that a great king was to be born in Israel. Considering we will never "know" the truth, this seems as good an explanation as any.

ghostgeek: Agreed, Herod was his own man within the lands he ruled as long as he kept things peaceful. So yes, it's always possible that knowledge of him having certain children killed was suppressed. If that was the case though, how come Matthew knew about it but nobody else?

Zanjan: The Magi just said they saw His star in the east - not that it came up, like a burp or something. There's no mention if it blinking either.

By the way, the sun is in Sagittarius during winter solstice; before 130 B.C, it was in Capricorn.

If the wise men, who lived east of Israel, saw a physical star in the east and set out to follow it, surely they'd have arrived in China. Yet they began their journey by going west, as all young men do to seek their fortune. It must be clear that the star was a sign but the direction they traveled came from some other clue. A well-known Prophecy.

They didn’t know where, in Israel, to start looking for Him – the king had all the contacts, who best to approach? Herod consulted with clergy who knew everything about that prophecy; they told Herod the Christ would be born in Bethlehem, and Herod told the Magi.

Not sure why people have thought they still needed a star to look at - just ask for directions, nobody says 'no' to that.

How would *you* know nobody knew about the slayings, other than Mathew? Kinda far -fetched, don't you think?