outhouse

I understand the traditions behind the attribution.


it has no credibility and thus far doesnt apply any more then imagination.



Do you think it was a god-fearer who authored the work, or a jewish roman.?

TedM

I read the complete opposite a few years ago...study showed very strong preservation of the Jewish line (ie DNA was different from neighbors).. I have no link to provide though..

Not following your logic here. Such a response does not prove your conclusion. If they believed he was human, how else should they have responded? IF they believed he was not human, how else should they have responded? Perhaps an example would clarify why a claim that he was a human who was not god-like says nothing about a belief in his humanness.

James The Least

"The world of scholarship" actually is pretty sure the gospels were written by Gentiles, Acts was written by a Gentile, the Pastorals were forged by a Gentile, and if Paul was Jewish, he is singularly remarkable among ancient Jews for his hatred of Jewish customs, traditions, and scriptures that don't support his asinine "Christ crucified" theology. And this is to say nothing for all of the other books present in some early NT collections, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, and so on, which were almost exclusively Gentile and anti-Jewish.

Christ and the New Testament are anti-Jewish literature. Scholarship can't see the forest from the trees.

stephan huller

My family has been calling eastern European Jewry khazarim since before they were sent off to concentration camps. its well established among German Jewry as an oral tradition

stephan huller

My mom didnt even know what it meant. She'd just see a hasid and mutter "khazarim"

aa5874

What is so difficult to understand??? Origen claimed Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and Celsus claimed Jesus was the Son of Panthera--NOT Joseph--PANTHERA.

Origen wrote that it was expected that people would LIE about the conception of Jesus because they did NOT believe his Miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost.

It was the Christian Origen who argued that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and implied Celsus was a LIAR

Against Celsus 1.32
How many times must we go through the same thing???

HJers REFUSE to accept the fact that Christians of antiquity were the Ones who claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Steve Weiss

Depends upon how loosely one defines "evidence." Got a birth certificate, a photo, writings written contemporaneously by and/or about the person in question? Got a grave, heirs, property owned by the person or anything of substance that establishes existence of a Jesus bloke? There is nothing but a ridiculous story asserting miraculous actions by a man/god.

Other "historical characters" did not claim to work miracles, may have had coinage with their faces on it, were recorded contemportaneously by observers, etc. Much of what passes for history is, in fact, very questionable, so citing other semi-historical figures does not bolster the case for the existence of a Jesus guy one bit. Perhaps you can specify what you consider to be "evidence."

Sheshbazzar

Gots da Holey Ghost? Dat done be de "everdence"!
'cause dem whats gots da Holey Ghost, why dey done knows everything, and doan needs no man ever be a'tellin 'em noththin. Nosiree.
Dat 'ol Holey Ghost he done do talk raht inna their head, an tell 'ems whats to say.

aa5874

It is a FACT that the earliest Canonised Jesus story state it was a Resurrected DEAD that Commissioned the disciplesto PREACH the Jesus story.

What is a Resurrected Dead??? A resurrected Dead is considered some kind of Ghost.

It was NOT an historical Jesus that AUTHORIZED the preaching of the Jesus story. It was some kind of Ghost.

Interpolated Mark 16 A human Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the PREACHING of the Jesus story. It was the Resurrected Ghost.

sotto voce

That the Children of Israel could recognise their Messiah was one of the most important purposes of their existence. By lineage, by physical association, by conceptual association, was the Messiah to be recognised. It was the competence of Israelites to recognise and demonstrate their Messiah that became the compelling factor in the conversion of millions of non-Israelites to the view that one of their number was in fact the Messiah, not just for the Jews, but for them also. The significance of this recognition is even more compelling to modern minds because it was so evidently a reluctant recognition, resulting in extraordinary hypocrisy that twists the narrative of many today into grotesque shapes.

What other purposes did the existence of this small nation serve? One was to demonstrate to contemporaries the value of commitment to its deity, whose moral values were to act as example to those contemporaries. To this end, prophets reminded this nation of its provenance and unique role. Another purpose was to pre-figure the Messiah in its own ritual, based on first a peripatetic Tabernacle, then a fixed Temple, serviced by priests under a single High Priest, whose role was central and indispensable. There was also, optionally (though not ideally), a kingship, whose role was to act in loco dei in matters that had previously (and ideally) been decided democratically.

So what of this nation today? What is its purpose, if it has one? By the standards set by its own holy scripture, it is more than a possibility that there are now no Israelites, no Jews in the religious, not ethnic sense, left in the world today. Unless Jesus was the Messiah, and true Jews are Christians, as the New Testament claims.

By the standards of the Tanakh, there have been no Jews, unless Jews are Christians, since the total destruction of Judea in 136. For about forty years after the supposed resurrection of that alleged Messiah, it could, by a sympathetic commentator, be said of Jews who had not accepted him as the Messiah that theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises and the patriarchs (Ro 9:4-5).

Now adoption here does not refer to spiritual adoption, and cannot, because the Tanakh itself several times reminds Israel that ethnicity of itself is no guarantee of divine acceptance; in effect it merely provides an advantageous cultural framework which can be rejected, and frequently was before the destruction of Temple and Promised Land. This framework is specified as 'the divine glory', 'the covenants', etc. How much of this cultural heritage exists today?

'The divine glory' referred to the inner part of the Temple, the Holy of Holies, that all Jews regarded with the greatest awe and respect. That no longer exists. The priesthood that gave it significance no longer exists. There is no High Priest. 'The covenants' refers to the promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (the patriarchs) and their descendants. Modern Jews have little consciousness of the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, even if they are named after them. In a very real sense, 'Jews' are those who have rejected their own provenance, even before the question of a Messiah is raised.

The Israelites received the Law of 612 commandments, but even their most enthusiastic followers admit that fewer than one third of them are even capable of being followed. Modern 'Judaism' is now mostly a matter of following non-Scripture, which is as sensible as following the man-made idols of the Canaanites, even if it is non-sociopathic.

So 'Jews' have nothing to show that they are chosen people: no Holy of Holies, no Temple, no High Priest, no successor to David, no prophets, no coherent tradition of Moses, Judah, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac or Abraham. What they have has no support in their Scripture. Rabbis are their own invention, as are synagogues, bar mitzvahs, kippot and almost the whole 'Judaism' they have built out of their own ideas.

Moreover, the very means of identification of the Messiah is no longer available, because the Romans destroyed the essential family records that dated back to the twelve tribes. Their only record is now found only in the records of those who believed that the Messiah had come, records that those who disagreed that their Messiah had come evidently could not counter. So, if the Messiah has not come, there is no realistic prospect of a Messiah ever coming. This now seems to be the majority view of Western Jews, whose proportion of theists has recently reduced to under 50%. Yes, Jews in a way tell us who they think Jesus was.

So yes, those who wrote the books that became the New Testament, all of them Jews but one, that one relying heavily on the testimony of Jews, knew best who Jesus was.