The Forbidden Gospel

[Ben Masada]

Ben, excuse my ad hominem in this case, but, after this long, multi-threaded, ongoing match at Wimbledon, I still think you are fantastic (and amusing). By the way, did you notice that the demon Simon ben Yoḥai is said to have driven out of the daughter of the Roman emperor was named Ben Temalion? I wonder who named him or if he, in the process of exorcism, identified himself by name. Anyway, the point is, at the time of Jesus, it apparently wasn't just Greeks who believed in demons as the cause, especially, of physical illness, so please let your character "Thomas" take note and alter his dialog in your Forbidden Gospel before you publish.

Always looking out for you,


Serv

Do you know something Serv, I consider the exorcist part in the Ministry of Jesus as part of the 80% of the NT which I take as anti-Jewish interpolations influenced by the Christian mind of the writers. We consider evil spirits as emanations, and emanations cannot be exorcized as if they were animated beings. Since Jesus was a Jewish man and never had anything to do with Christianity the idea must have crawled in by Hellenistic influence.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Do you know something Serv, I consider the exorcist part in the Ministry of Jesus as part of the 80% of the NT which I take as anti-Jewish interpolations influenced by the Christian mind of the writers. We consider evil spirits as emanations, and emanations cannot be exorcized as if they were animated beings. Since Jesus was a Jewish man and never had anything to do with Christianity the idea must have crawled in by Hellenistic influence.

Not that Isaiah has anything to do with this, despite his popping into my mind, for some reason, but, as the recorded voice in the London tube station always reminds the passengers to "mind the gap," so, too, might I suggest that you, dear Ben, stop stumbling over the stone, the rock of offense and, for once, quit becoming ensnared in (and by) the New Testament. Leave it aside. Consider it at least momentarily irrelevant.

Now kindly explain how it is that, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia article cited above, a Roman empress (or the "daughter of a Roman emperor") happened to be possessed by a demon -neither an emanation nor a metaphor, mind you, but a demon- with an apparently Jewish or Hebrew name? This story is fascinating! The demon with the Jewish name, "Ben Temalion," seems to have crept, crawled and slithered not only into Greco/Roman culture in general but also into a Roman empress in particular and had to be, by another Ben, Simon ben Yoḥai, exorcised therefrom! It sounds to me as though, in this case, the Hebrews were influencing the Hellenes; the Jews were affecting the Greeks-Romans, rather than the reverse, and all of this without a New Testament author in the vicinity. At any rate, there is no record of a New Testament author being anywhere near.


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Not that Isaiah has anything to do with this, despite his popping into my mind, for some reason, but, as the recorded voice in the London tube station always reminds the passengers to "mind the gap," so, too, might I suggest that you, dear Ben, stop stumbling over the stone, the rock of offense and, for once, quit becoming ensnared in (and by) the New Testament. Leave it aside. Consider it at least momentarily irrelevant.

Now kindly explain how it is that, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia article cited above, a Roman empress (or the "daughter of a Roman emperor") happened to be possessed by a demon -neither an emanation nor a metaphor, mind you, but a demon- with an apparently Jewish or Hebrew name? This story is fascinating! The demon with the Jewish name, "Ben Temalion," seems to have crept, crawled and slithered not only into Greco/Roman culture in general but also into a Roman empress in particular and had to be, by another Ben, Simon ben Yoḥai, exorcised therefrom! It sounds to me as though, in this case, the Hebrews were influencing the Hellenes; the Jews were affecting the Greeks-Romans, rather than the reverse, and all of this without a New Testament author in the vicinity. At any rate, there is no record of a New Testament author being anywhere near.

Serv

How could I leave the NT aside and consider it irrelevant when its main theme is to preach the replacement of Judaism by Christianity? We have lost many Jews to this Pauline policy already. If a Jew is forbidden to proselytize, at least, to work against that wave from outside, it should be a must to the Jew.

With regards to exorcism in the Jewish Encyclopedia, it must be in terms of reporting the idea according to third parties. According to Judaism, demons or evil spirits are parts of the concept which illustrates the evil inclination in men who misuse their free will to promote evil.
Ben

 

[showme]

Ben wrote:
How could I leave the NT aside and consider it irrelevant when its main theme is to preach the replacement of Judaism by Christianity? We have lost many Jews to this Pauline policy already. If a Jew is forbidden to proselytize, at least, to work against that wave from outside, it should be a must to the Jew.

Showme wrote:
Personally, I don't see much difference between the man made traditions of the Pauline "Christians" and the man made traditions of the jewish community. They are both man made. If any of the jewish community have found a hollowness in their congregation and teachings, and leave for the Pauline "Christianity", then I am sure they will eventually find the same hollowness and hypocricy in the Pauline "Christianity". The difference being that along with the tares of Paul and his disciples, the seekers will find the good seed from the son of man. The difference will be evident by what fruit is born. (Mt 13:18-23)

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben wrote:
How could I leave the NT aside and consider it irrelevant when its main theme is to preach the replacement of Judaism by Christianity? We have lost many Jews to this Pauline policy already. If a Jew is forbidden to proselytize, at least, to work against that wave from outside, it should be a must to the Jew.

Showme wrote:
Personally, I don't see much difference between the man made traditions of the Pauline "Christians" and the man made traditions of the jewish community. They are both man made. If any of the jewish community have found a hollowness in their congregation and teachings, and leave for the Pauline "Christianity", then I am sure they will eventually find the same hollowness and hypocricy in the Pauline "Christianity". The difference being that along with the tares of Paul and his disciples, the seekers will find the good seed from the son of man. The difference will be evident by what fruit is born. (Mt 13:18-23)

Fruits must be born according to the Law and the Prophets, as we have in Isaiah 8:20. If the fruits are not produced according to that method, it is because there is no truth in them.
Ben

 

[showme]

Fruits must be born according to the Law and the Prophets, as we have in Isaiah 8:20. If the fruits are not produced according to that method, it is because there is no truth in them.
Ben

Isaiah 8:20 is not about fruits. It is about the standard to determine who is speaking truth or a lie. Is 8:20," To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

 

[Servetus]

How could I leave the NT aside and consider it irrelevant ...

Please read my statement again and note the adverb. I suggested that you consider the New Testament momentarily irrelevant so that you could then explain how it is that a demon, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, got a Jewish name if Jews do not believe in demons.

... We have lost many Jews to this Pauline policy already ...

Cheer up, Ben. Think of it this way: if it weren't for such occasional defections (in this case by way of intermarriage) from Judaism as, for example, Joel Rosenberg, the poor, pitiful Fundamentalist and Far-Right Christians might have no one to lead them in their daily Two Minutes Hate against Muslims and, correspondingly, their obligatory Two Minutes Love toward the State of Israel. What a terrible mess that could be.

With regards to exorcism in the Jewish Encyclopedia, it must be in terms of reporting the idea according to third parties. According to Judaism, demons or evil spirits are parts of the concept which illustrates the evil inclination in men who misuse their free will to promote evil.

With that in mind, it's time to update the dialog in your Forbidden Gospel.

Colloquially, the conversation went thus:

Jesus: Beloved, the time has come to send you on a mission with the gospel about the Kingdom of God. I am giving you authority to expell evil spirits, and to cure sickness, and disease of every kind. (Mat. 10:1)

Thomas: Wow! That will be cool! We will actually be able to cure people of their diseases as well as to exorcize evil spirits? That will be the day!

Jesus: Don't be too excited Thomas, there is a catch to it. You cannot take this gospel to the Gentiles, and I forbid you even to enter a Samaritan town; to the Jews only, if you understand what I mean. (Mat. 10:5)

Thomas: I knew it! No wonder I was smelling the rat here somewhere. How can we do this among people who don't even believe in demons?

Then Simon bar Judas, Jesus' part-time and poorly paid scribe, answered (because Jesus himself, having more serious things to do, had gone off to Mary and Martha's house for lunch) by saying:

"Hey, "Thomas," I'd like to introduce you to my two friends, just in from a fortnight holiday in Rome, Alexandria and the Hellespont. This is R. Akiba and, behind him, Simon ben Yoḥai. And, by the way, that demon tied to Simon ben Yohai's leash is named Ben Temalion, but I wouldn't exactly call him my friend."


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Isaiah 8:20 is not about fruits. It is about the standard to determine who is speaking truth or a lie. Is 8:20," To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

What are the fruits of the spirit if not the truth and how one delivers it? I just showed the Biblical method on how to go about it.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Cheer up, Ben. Think of it this way: if it weren't for such occasional defections (in this case by way of intermarriage) from Judaism as, for example, Joel Rosenberg, the poor, pitiful Fundamentalist and Far-Right Christians might have no one to lead them in their daily Two Minutes Hate against Muslims and, correspondingly, their obligatory Two Minutes Love toward the State of Israel. What a terrible mess that could be.

Serv

Now, you have thrown some honey on my mood. I find very interesting this rationalization of yours. Somehow, I find no difficulty agreeing with you. Thanks.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Now, you have thrown some honey on my mood. I find very interesting this rationalization of yours. Somehow, I find no difficulty agreeing with you. Thanks.

I'm feeling very adolescent today: OMG!

You are welcome.

Serv

 

[showme]

What are the fruits of the spirit if not the truth and how one delivers it? I just showed the Biblical method on how to go about it.
Ben

The "seed" from which the good fruit springs is the "truth".

You have good seed, which is the truth, and can produce good fruit, and you have the seed of tares, which produces bad fruit. You can determine whether the seed is good or bad by the fruit it produces. The fruit and the seed are related, but they are not the same.

You just showed one way to determine whether the seed is good (true) or bad (false). The quality of the fruit is also representative of the quality of the seed.

The House of Judah professes to keep the Law and the prophets, yet their fruit has often proved bad and unacceptable to God. (Mal 2:11) After a refining of Levi by the fire of God, then the first fruits of Judah will be acceptable. (Mal 3:4) This because they have a tendency to mix the Word of God with the Word of man, just like Pauline "Christianity" does.

It is those with the bad fruit of adultery, oppression, turning aside widows and orpans, etc., who will be judged. (Mal 3:5) You can determine which fruit is good and bad by the Law and the prophets, but the fruit is a separate entity to the the seed that bore it, which can be of God, or of man, disguised as being of God.

 

[Ben Masada]

The "seed" from which the good fruit springs is the "truth".

You have good seed, which is the truth, and can produce good fruit, and you have the seed of tares, which produces bad fruit. You can determine whether the seed is good or bad by the fruit it produces. The fruit and the seed are related, but they are not the same.

You just showed one way to determine whether the seed is good (true) or bad (false). The quality of the fruit is also representative of the quality of the seed.

The House of Judah professes to keep the Law and the prophets, yet their fruit has often proved bad and unacceptable to God. (Mal 2:11) After a refining of Levi by the fire of God, then the first fruits of Judah will be acceptable. (Mal 3:4) This because they have a tendency to mix the Word of God with the Word of man, just like Pauline "Christianity" does.

It is those with the bad fruit of adultery, oppression, turning aside widows and orpans, etc., who will be judged. (Mal 3:5) You can determine which fruit is good and bad by the Law and the prophets, but the fruit is a separate entity to the the seed that bore it, which can be of God, or of man, disguised as being of God.

Sorry Showme, but this time you have juggled with mere words that could mean a lot and ended up meaning nothing. Try again next time. You might have something to say somewhere somehow.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm feeling very adolescent today: OMG!

You are welcome.

Serv

I can't believe we have agreed on something. I wonder how long will that feeling last.

Ben

 

[Servetus]

I can't believe we have agreed on something. I wonder how long will that feeling last.

Maybe we should take this moment in our ongoing a) tennis; or b) kickboxing match to enjoy a nice, ice-cold Gatorade. If the truth be told, I usually only oppose your opinion because I sense in you a strong desire to be opposed. That, for the most part, I can usually do.


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Maybe we should take this moment in our ongoing a) tennis; or b) kickboxing match to enjoy a nice, ice-cold Gatorade. If the truth be told, I usually only oppose your opinion because I sense in you a strong desire to be opposed. That, for the most part, I can usually do.


Serv

Well, as a matter of fact, there is no learning in the chit-chatting of common beliefs but in controversy. Hence Judaism is so rich as a result of the controversy between Hillel and Shamai. Keep the good work.

Ben

 

[Passerby]

Nice Ben.

Jesus was a big hit before Paul's "conversion". Paul had to go abroad to continue the persecution. The Jews were driven out of Rome because of the followers of a Crestus, not telling if that's Jesus, but it was definitely Jesus type Christians Nero blamed the burning of Rome on in 64CE.

The question we need to ask, is why this most hated sect, is virtually never mentioned by Josephus. He was talking about where they came from, to the Romans.

Lots of censorship from everyone, starting with Paul.

 

[radarmark]

Another not bad one. However, there is some mention of John, Jesus, and James in Josephus. Not much, however. But the bit on Nero was way off, Tacitus wrote that some Christians confessed under torture and that Nero "fastened the guilt" as a cover-up. Nero's words are never recorded, we only have third-hand accounts, and the two most reliable (and earlier to the fire) do not mention Christians at all.

 

[Passerby]

I donno' a lot of historians act like it's accepted fact that Nero blamed it on the Christians. Everything I've ever read. Not likely they did it.

Josephus hated two kinds of people, those that tried to rise above their station, and those that made trouble for Rome. Of the troublemakers Josephus hated the most, was Messiah wannabes. He spits venom at them. After all, he told Vespasian that he was Christ, when he turned traitor to the Jews.

He wrote his Roman propaganda in the Emperor's palace. In Antiquities, the later work, not as much propaganda, being removed by time from the Jewish War, he mentions Jesus, James, John the Baptist and the Fourth Way, which he blames for the Jewish War. But in The Jewish War, written right after it, and pure propaganda, he never mentions any of them, including the Fourth Way, which he later says caused it.

Josephus censored out just about everything about Jesus, and what remained, the Catholics censored out. Early church writers claim Josephus blamed the Jewish War on James, but no existing copy has it. All copies of Josephus come from the Catholic Church and the oldest Greek is 1100CE. We have scraps about Jesus in abundance, by 200CE, some of which never passed through the hands of Christians. Which is history?

Another not bad one. However, there is some mention of John, Jesus, and James in Josephus. Not much, however. But the bit on Nero was way off, Tacitus wrote that some Christians confessed under torture and that Nero "fastened the guilt" as a cover-up. Nero's words are never recorded, we only have third-hand accounts, and the two most reliable (and earlier to the fire) do not mention Christians at all.

 

[radarmark]

Look at the evidence. It is possible Christians just did not come up in "Wars" because they were pretty much irrelevant. Likewise, "History" only touches on them (at the most 3 places, though it is possible all were later additions) because they just did not seem relevant to J.

So it is possible (I think very likely) J did not censor out everything about Jesus, but just dismissed Christianity as some weird Essene-like group. Yes, we do not have early versions, but the early Church Fathers do mention J mentioning Jesus.

As for Nero... historians can be wrong. Look up Tacitus. He is the only near contemporary source. So it really does not matter what this or that historian writes. There is only one source: mysteriously, the other contemporaries to Nero never mention it.

 

[Passerby]

According to Tacitus, the fire spread quickly and burned for six days.[2]:XV.40 Only four of the fourteen districts of Rome escaped the fire; three districts were completely destroyed and the other seven suffered serious damage.[2]:XV.40 The only other contemporaneous historian to mention the fire was Pliny the Elder, who wrote about it in passing.[3] Other historians who lived through the period (including Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch and Epictetus) make no mention of it.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-forbidden-gospel-15408-6.html

So, who talks about the fire and doesn't mention Christians?