Toto

An attempt to make sense of this:

We don't have any clear evidence of the rabbis discussing Jesus in the first century. After that, they are really discussing the Christian story of Jesus, not Jesus himself. There are no elements in the rabbinic discussion that are not derived in some way from the Gospels.

Would that have done any good?

We look forward to a decent translation of your work into English.

IamJoseph

The Rabbi/Rabbinic institution is post-70, namely after the Temple destruction. You have not presented any sources here either.

Agreed. However, this is not my goal. I fully respect contemporary christian belief as genuine, sincere and Gdly inclined. But this does not render what they believe in as true or historical.


While the Hebrew writings can be regarded the most authentic of any writings [it retains all negative factors against their own; its stats are vindicated more than any other], the particular alledged entry in the Talmud is not specifically definable or pointing of any space-time. Also, the Talmud was banned by the church, and edited editions came forth later. No other reasons applies.

IamJoseph

While it is correct crucifixion was forbidden in Judaism, this was a Roman tradition, and to be fair, the Gospels does not charge Jews with this death.

[/quote]

It is highly doubttful anyone reading the text would conclude it was Jesus of the Gospels. The issue becomes compounded by the fact there were no christians; the term christ and christian appearing in after 174 AD/CE. The Jewish cults Nazerim and Ebonim did not follow a Gospel described figure, and never believed or fostered the man-god premise nor the ressurection - these were limited to the premise of a savior/messiah of the Jewish litergy only.

IamJoseph

Too late to be of any value. Specially so coming from Europe. There are loads of clearly false reportings from Roman and Greek sources which have become an embarrassment. E.g. that the Romans found statues in the Temple's Holy of Holies, and found Greek people who were killed by jews and their blood consumed [now you know where the blood libels came from!].

What exactly would the jews have said to impress Rome here?

Do you not find it strange that nothing is said of the Roman heresy decree relating to all Jews, and that the Gospels says nothing about Jesus confronting Rome - the real bad guys?

IamJoseph

On earth and while alive - only earthly laws apply. We do not know hat applies after life. Best we can do is be truthful here.

'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE'

IamJoseph

All provable [historical] entries have been proven and/or evidenced. Miracles are outside this realm. There is no writings anywhere, including modern times, which have more provable content than the Hebrew bible. This includes genesis and Samson.

E.g.


The Flood. Everything around this story is evidenced today, including aerial mapping Geography of the first recording of Mt Ararat and its location in the region, the nations and peoples, the authenticity of the names [90% of archeology uses 'names' as proof]; cross-nation reporting of a great regional flood. Here, there is a big mis-comprehension of the Hebrew texts: this was a 'regional' flood [relating to the then known world only - Tasmania did not exist yet!], and the reported animals were domestic [the opening verse in the story - namely 'all of Noah's possessions' only]. Thus there are no wild animals [tigers, snakes, etc] included in the listing.

Samson. Equally here, all historical stats are evidential [Dagon - the deity of the Philistines, cited as embedded in tunnels located in Gaza today; etc].

Genesis is a very scientific document, and one should not be fooled by its deceptively simple biblespeak language - this is written for all generations ['dust' = sub-atomic particles]. In fact, science comes from Genesis:

V1. The first record the universe is finite [it had a Beginning]
V2. Entropy [formless to form]
V3. Light was a primodial trigger factor.
The critical anticipatory factors for life - seperation of the elements [light from dark; water from land; day from night; etc].
Evolution: the first record of graduated life forms, referred to as 'kinds' [species], namely veg; water-based; airborne, mammals; animals; speech endowed humans.
Origins: that all life emerged as dual-gendered ['MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'], and equally so for all other components of the universe [male/female; positive/negative]. Technically, there is no 'ONE' in the universe.
Time/Calendar. The introduction of 'day' and 'week', and the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence.
Speech [as opposed communication]. That this faculty is some 6000 years old only. This is vindicated today: no one cam produce a NAME of any human pre-6000.
Alphabetical Books. The first of its kind, for almost a 1000 years after its emergence.
Grammar.
Oldest family geneology listings, with names, locations, dod & dob's.
The first King [Nimrod]
The first authentic, compemporary record of ancient Egypt, its kings, cultures, cities [Pithom & Ramasey]; diets; religious beliefs; etc.

Genesis is the world's most mysterious document, and has millions of provable stats in its words, verses and passages. It is different in kind than degree from anything else.

Littlejohn

"Cheap revisionism" by Littlejohn...


"..1) The Jesus story describes someone who was crucified. In the Talmud the Jesus figure is only stoned."

Jesus was never crucified, nor even died at the time of Pilate. There are enough signs to prove it. Almost certainly Jesus participated in the defense of Jerusalem, during the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70. There are "crossed" indications, either from patristic source that by Josephus, that he, in the last 5 years of his life, initially became a chief-robber and then a chief-rebel, when he was convinced by the same Josephus to join the front of the rebellion, prior that the latter being captured by the romans. Before the city of Jerusalem fell into the hands of Titus, he managed to flee. About a couple of years after the end of the war (70), he was captured, probably in the city of Tiberias, and led to Lydda, where he was tried by the Sanhedrin. Sentenced to death (because ex chief-rebel) he was executed by stoning. When this happened, Jesus had attained the age of 66 years, being born in 6 AD

".. Jesus was a fairly common name. Just like Mary and Joseph, the name Jesus is found more than once within the NT account: "Jesus Barabbas".

Not "Jesus" was a common name among Jews, but Yehoshu'ah, sometimes abbreviated with Ye'shuah. This name of the Old Testament, was translated into Latin (see Vulgate of Jerome) with Iosuè and NOT with Iesus. The latter name actually derives from the greek Iasous/Iesous, equivalent to Iasoun/Iesoun, whose meaning is "healer". In practice, it was the masculine form of the name IASO, known since the time of Homer as the goddess of healing. Asclepius was the "Iasoun" par excellence. It is not unlikely that the very word "iessen" (hence "essene") derives from the word "iasoun", through subsequent phonetic corruptions. (iesoun /ieson -> iesen -> iessen)

Contemporaries Jews detested Jesus, because they believed him a magician and a deceiver. To disregard they called him "Yeschu" (which phonetic was very similar to that of the greek word Iesous/Iasous), but it was not a real name but a humiliating acronym, meanimg "May his name be erased." It is clear that no Jewish parent would ever put such a name to own child.

For the record, the true name of Jesus was almost certainly Yeshay (or Y'shay), which was translated by Jesse. Surely it is from Y'shay which derives the Arabic "ISA", the name by which Muslims indicate Jesus of Nazareth. (into syriac aramaic it became ISU, attested in Ephraim the Syrian, who called Jesus "Isu Christos").

"Jesun Barabban" and Jesus of Nazareth were the same, identic person. Thanks to the slavonic version of the works of Josephus, today we know that Jesus was made release by Pontius Pilate (perhaps due to the intervention of Herod Antipas), just as happened with "Barabbas!" All this fully justifies the fact that the figure of Pilate was almost as revered as a saint by several churches of the early centuries. And also the same canonical Gospels, after all, have Pilate in a decidedly positive form (which is absurd if he had actually made scourge and then crucify Jesus!)

"..Is there any reason to think that the Jesus figure in the Talmud has any relation to the Jesus figure in the NT?"

Of reasons there are many, starting with the fact that the Jews of the diaspora were fiercely persecuted by the Catholic inquisitors, for what was reported in the Talmud concerning the figure of Yeschu "ben Pander", or Yeschu ben Stada , or Yeschu ha-notzri, or Yeschu "the prostitute's son". If this talmudic character had not been Jesus of Nazareth, why Catholics would have persecuted the rabbis and the rest of the Jews? .. This does not make sense.

Even some part of the catholic apologetic today recognizes that the Yeschu of the Talmud and the Jesus of the Gospels were the same, identic person.

Littlejohn

.

Roger Pearse

I am a little surprised that none of the regulars have clarified one or two points about this.

The first question, obviously, is whether the poster is familiar with ancient history in general, and what kinds of evidence are available for ancient figures. I suspect not, since the man in the street generally isn't.

As far as I know there are no ancient historians who would contemplate the non-existence of these people for a moment, regardless of their religious beliefs. This should give anyone advancing it pause for thought, I would have thought.

I don't know about "scripture." But these are first century texts. On what grounds -- other than religious prejudice -- do we disregard them? We might not agree with the religious views contained therein, but as evidence on the subject of how the religion got founded, however we interpret that, they qualify.

Most people are a little hazy on the distinction between data and interference. It is crucially important to remember that any first or second century text which mentions a first century event (or indeed in some cases third or fourth century text) is data. We may decide, on reviewing all the data, that the balance of probablility is that this data is one-sided or mistaken. But data is data.

Most people know that there are two passages in Josephus. The short passage is disputed by no-one, and even a century ago only Emil Schurer raised the question. The long passage is probably corrupt, but suggesting that it is an interpolation is no longer the view of most scholars. Perhaps someone could point the poster to one of our discussions on this.

No-one questions the authenticity of the Tacitus reference.

The idea that ancient data can be discarded unless we possess the autograph is very unfortunate. We possess the autograph for no ancient literary text. Such a principle would dispose of all our information on antiquity.

Not sure how this comes into it. If we have second and third century expositions of this kind, this would be evidence that Christians of that period thought their founder was fulfilling this... but... again, not sure how this is relevant.

Not relevant, I agree.

Educated people do not agree with this.

To which extant texts is this making an appeal?

A contemporary contradiction? <hint>

This appears to suggest that no statement by any European is evidence. If so, I suggest you burn your internet terminal now, smash your lightbulbs and sit in the dark. And... how did you get to Australia, I wonder? <hint>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

fatpie42

That.... was not... expected... at all!

Ok, this is all very new to me, so let's start simple. How on earth do you connect all this with the figure in the NT?

I am not dismissing what you've said. (After all, I don't yet understand how you reached these conclusions.) But you have to recognise that, as someone who has never seen Jesus posed as a 'chief-robber' or 'chief-rebel' before, I am having a hard time working out how to reconcile it with the figure we are supposed to be discussing.

rhutchin

Yes. Many claims are made as to what happens after death. It remains to be seen which of those claims are true. Given that many different claims are made about death, then death will determine which of them is true.

For the living is left the task of figuring out what to believe. Believe a lie and reap the rewards of the lie. Believe the truth and reap the rewards of the truth.