wordy

Quoting me and then addressing the OP more than anything I wrote makes me wonder if you just happen to click on the wrong button? How are my text related to what your addressed?

I mean that Jesus is a symbolic made up person that refers to a new way of relating to the old text. An interpretation of the old text. A kind of "midrash"

Wikipedia on midrash So maybe the word Pardes is more accurate. Four different ways of interpretation for different versions but in West almost all only refer to it as midrash.

You take the old testament and make up wholly new ways to relate to it. Jesus then is what God promised to do. And those that preach Jesus Christ give different stories as evidence that they have revelation or other reasons to find their conclusions true.

As I get it all these texts in the New Testaments are supposed to be read out aloud in front of a group of believers and they act or enact or relate to the text as if it is true there and then tó them.

By participating in that enactment they live their faith and experience "the spirit" as there with them. Christ becomes alive to them.

I fail to see it as philosophy, it is more like an ancient form of "Live Role Play" but the difference is that believers really believe it to be true. Okay some of them may doubt but they are not supposed to air those doubts other than in a prayer to get help get rid of them.

It is more like a kind of acts of joint agreed upon indoctrination into a way to live.

storytime

Which Jewish trials, if any, are recorded in any Roman archives?

wordy

Maybe this one is used as an example? Could have been more later one that are used too.

The Teacher that lived 100 year earlier than alleged Jesus? Damascus scroll tells about him. http://www.thescrollsandthesect.com/...usdocument.htm

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba

Sheshbazzar

NOTICE to IamJoseph

In addition to that information provided in post #55 of this thread,

from the LXX Greek text _ as translated into Greek by the JEWISH scribes of the JEWISH religion;

Μωυσῆς τὸν Αυση υἱὸν Ναυη Ἰησοῦν

εἶπεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπίλεξον σεαυτῷ ἄνδρας δυνατοὺς καὶ ἐξελθὼν παράταξαι τῷ Αμαληκ

καὶ ἐποίησεν Ἰησοῦς καθάπερ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Μωυσῆς καὶ ἐξελθὼν παρετάξατο τῷ Αμαληκ καὶ Μωυσῆς καὶ Ααρων καὶ Ωρ ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὴν κορυφὴν τοῦ βουνοῦ

hundreds of more examples of this can be provided.

How do you suppose these JEWISH translators pronounced that name appearing in red?

From the Book of Matthew;
τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν

Mark;
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

Luke;
καὶ ἰδού, συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

And Hebrews 4:8
εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς κατέπαυσεν οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας


And from the Jewish historian Josephus (Yosef Ben Matityahu);

Τοιαῦτα μὲν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγε· τῶν δὲ Ἰδουμαίων οὔτε τὸ πλῆθος προσεῖχεν, ἀλλὰ τεθύμωτο μὴ τυχὸν ἑτοίμης τῆς εἰσόδου

Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς σοφὸς ἀνήρ,

Josephus actually names several other Jewish "Jesus's" within his works, even if the -'questionable' ones are discounted.

How do you think Josephus pronounced in Greek, that name which he wrote in Greek?

Perhaps as it had been pronounced by his fellow Greek speaking Jews for well over three hundred years?

Questions have been asked Joseph.
Do you still hold that;
"At this time, the Jews never used names such as Jude, Mary, Jesus or James. "
and
"The names Judas & Jesus in Judea is fiction." ?

We already recognize the Anglicanization of the English "J" replacing the Greek 'iota'-Hebrew 'yodth',
So the real consideration here is only whether Greek speaking Jews in 'Judea' would have been named by, and familiar with a name such as "Iasous" (Iēsous)
My evidence clearly indicates that they were.

(for anyone who might wonder, I do not provide text numbers for a variety of reasons, they were not originally employed in any of these manuscripts, also texts from different sources are numbered differently because length and verse variations extant within the exemplars-
And I admit, that I -try- to get people to search, and to study, for their -own- benefit.
But then again IAJ not only provides no verse numbers, he avoids providing any text at all in support of his assertions)

J-D

I have read Genesis more than once, and I don't recall any such statement, but even if it did say this in Genesis, there is no independent corroboration of it and hence no sufficient grounds to accept it.I know that that is the Scriptural story, but again that is insufficient grounds to accept it as historically accurate. Even historians who consider that there must be some underlying historical basis for the Scriptural narrative do not accept it at face value as an accurate historical record.There are whole areas of modern legal systems which are completely untouched on in the Torah. Off the top of my head, for example, the Torah has nothing to say about intellectual property (patent and copyright) law, nothing to say about corporate law, and nothing to say about drug law.Where do you find that in the Tanakh?The oldest known system of writing is the Sumerian. Naturally, many of those innovations which are dependent on writing or can be known only from written records are known of first among the Sumerians. In some cases innovations subsequently diffused from the Sumerians to other peoples, while in other cases they were independently reinvented. Writing itself, for example, was independently reinvented by the Chinese, among others, and also diffused from the Chinese to other peoples.

The Hebrews did not begin using writing (which they did not invent independently) until long after the Sumerians and some other peoples, but they were using writing long before it was in use in most parts of the world, so naturally they are among the first on record (although not in most cases the very first) with many developments.

On the other hand, there are many developments which are independent of the use of writing and which can leave evidence in the archaeological record independently of writing. Many of these developments were also independently invented more than once, and many of them also diffused from the peoples and areas of their invention to other peoples and areas. Some of these may be first attested among the Hebrews, but others not. The Hebrews did not develop agriculture independently, for example, or pottery, or metalworking.

IamJoseph

Wrong on both counts.

There were 8 non-hebrew tribal groups [aka 'kingdoms'] in Canaan - the Hebrew canaanite group returned under Joshua [total 9]. Two of the eight non-Hebrew tribes sided with Joshua, who battled with the six.

Re Proof. This must be measured relative to the criteria of its space times. There is no evidence of canaanites per se - almost nothing. There is evidence [as opposed total proof] of the Hebrews in Egypt and Canaan, and of their wonderings in the deserts via historical descriptions which are authentically contemporary. There is evidence the Hebrews remained in Canaan on an exclusive sovereign basis till 70 CE [allowing only for a 70 year break when Babylon invaded] . There are archeological discoveries which pop up almost monthly, of the first and second temple period, backed by a 1000 years of books which are some 150 years apart - which coroborate all the relics unearthed. If you have evidence of other nation's histories equating with this - please put up.

Copyright laws come from the Torah, based on the law of precedence. Embellishments were of course made, such as torts and extensions of application, to the fundamental premises from the Hebrew.

All judiciary laws are contained only the Hebrew. Corporations, being a modern faculty, are based on those laws' utilities. Future space laws will also come frm the Hebrew.

To paraphrase: One cannot perform sacred duties [thus even non-religious sacred work] when strong drink [drugs; intoxifications] is consumed. The basis of this is that control is better than abstinance - thus the premise of wine [a spirit] in minute amounts as a celebration or blessing, even for children - this reduces the premise of obsession and addiction. The total forbiddence of all frms of drugs as never wrked and is an abnormal demand upon humanity. Control is the merit.


While the Hebrew is listed among the first three alphabetical writings, sometimes as derivitive of the Phoenecian, Canaanite or Sumerian, and while there is no question those nations are older than the Hebrew, I do have a problem with these conclusions. The notion that the Hebrews used writings long before it was used in most parts - is unacceptable. Those nations were mightier and older, did not possess the traits seen in the Hebrew [e.g. 'V'], do not have a continuous thread of advanced alphebtcial books - even though they prevailed for upto 800 years after the Hebrew emerged, and unlike the Hebrews, suffered no substantial dislodgements and exiles from their lands. Thus I ask for hard copy proof, and cannot accept the evidences provided by most European & Arab historicans' links, who have a manifest agenda of negating the Hebrew history. However, when better proof is unearthed - I will gladly concede this factor.

Agreed, and this cannot be contested, nor is it claimed.

IamJoseph

Yes I know these names COME from the Hebrew - everyone knows this. My point was, these names were not phonetically used by the Jews in Judea that way. My point was, if you could have called out to Jesus in Judea in his time, you would most probably get a response: "HUH! WHAT'S WITH THE LATIN NAME!?'

My point in mentioning this was to show that Jews never wrote scriptures in Latin, and that the Latin Gospels do not mention the original Hebrew names - when it should - as does the Hebrew of non-Hebrew names. For example, a Chinese report of the Hebrew history may use culture modified names, because they may not possess the same alphabets to emulate the same sounds - but it would also make post scripts to identify this, and this should be the case with all historical writings as a mark of veracity. The other point is that the Gospels's latin signify they were written by Romans, at a much later period.

IamJoseph

Josephus wrote in Hebrew first, then translated his writings into Greek. This agrees that many of the intellectual Jews knew both languages, as they also did Aramaic - for reasons of interacting with other nations. Also, in Josephus' time, the Hebrew was banned. However, Jisephus would not have used the name Jesus, and even in the greek/latin this was not seen - these names came much later in history.

Yes, this is my understanding. These names are not even used today by orthodox Jews. The Jews did not speak Latin.

Of course Judas is a fictional name and report. The greatest absurdity is to accept a Judas notion, based on the Gospel view of what constitutes a conspiracy, with not a shred of evidence it even occured, compounded by the omission of millions slaughtered by the same source making such claims. Its just as desperate as Deicide, the blood libels and the protocols of zion - and no christians taking up the cause of truth and proof requirements, and accepting everthing dished out to them.

No contest. However, the Gospels is obligated to also list the original names - by the premise of historical authenticity and truthful reporting. A scripture, which is purporting truth, but which omits vital data - has no validity.

A lie by omission is a lie. This is specially applicable with a scripture.

J-D

You have presented no evidence for any of these assertions. Not one tittle. Not only have you failed to produce any evidence from outside the Scriptures to corroborate them, you haven't even backed up any of your assertions about what it says in the Scriptural text with specific citations. Not a single one of them.

J-D

I thought you were making some sort of claim about the Hebrews having been responsible for more cultural innovations (or something like that) than any other people. If that's not what you were claiming, what were you claiming?

If that is what you are claiming, then I wonder why you think it matters. I can't see that it does. But for what it's worth, for the sake of accuracy, to the list of things which the Hebrews did not invent originally or independently we can add alphabetic writing and the writing of books.

No doubt there are some things which the Hebrews did invent originally and independently--some individual letters of the alphabet, perhaps, as well as some other things. But so what?