gstafleu

Hi Masorah613,

I must admit that at times I have some difficulty in following what you are saying. For example:
Clearly the context of the times should be taken into account. Are you somehow saying that Jewish historical research has the inside track here?

Again, are you referring to specifically Jewish knowledge? If so, why can that knowledge not become part of the general science of history, via the usual channels of journals, conventions and what have you?

Going by what Toto said (and he knows much more about this than I do) the picture is not all that unambiguous.

Well, if he lived, yes. But hat is the question under contention, you cannot assume its answer.

Gerard Stafleu

wordy

Gerard, doesn't that show that the Ideatheism that Apostate Abe suggests is the real Jesus. Jesus exists in the "virtual" heart that the believers have in their brain. A kind of mental idea virus.

gstafleu

I'm not sure if it "shows it." But MJ and ApostateAbe's definition of Ideatheism ("An ideatheist is someone who believes that the gods exist mainly as ideas.") are certainly compatible.

Gerard Stafleu

Masorah613

That is exactly what I am suggesting, though their research and opinion may be in the minority. Mainly because, for one, most of the Jewish people have a great distaste for Jesus; and two, most of the non-Jewish world cannot fathom a Rabbincal or Pharisaic Jesus because of the way they understand the NT- especially in regards to the so-called 'anti-semetism' and so-called 'anti-rabbinical/pharisaic' statements that are in it. However, as expressed by some of these Jewish historians, the language of the NT is exactly the same as that of their own Pharisaic writing. One pharisees speaks badly of another, another pharisees speaks badly of a whole group of pharisees.
In fact, one of the things that is stated in the Talmud, Pharisaic-Rabbinical writing from 200 BCE-300 CE is "those who follow the rulings of shammai regarding such and such laws are sinners"
in another place it quotes King Yannai, who hated all the pharisees, but says:
"The 'colorful ones' (hypocrites) of them make the pharisees a stench and make them much worse than they[the pharisees] are."
Even more, it goes into describing 7 different kinds of pharisees, and only 1 of them is deserving of heaven.
The Pharisees were very hard on themselves and they dealt with each other every day...this is one of the reasons that these historians use to support the idea that Jesus was one of them. A good support that whoever wrote the NT, and Jesus- if he existed, belonged to the pharisaic group. Something the western mind, even more a xtian, is not ready to handle or accept without knowledge of the ins and outs of rabbinical Judaism.
And I know of no expert historians, outside of Judaism, on Rabbinical Judaism save for Sir Isaac Newton- and he wasn't that much of a historian at all.

It could, only if people catch on to it. I mean this research is available for the public. But upon coming to these forums and reading everything that there is here, I found it as substantial evidence that people don't know about the Jewish side of the arguments. And if they do 'know' it may only be preconceived notions but nothing that any one here, nor the historians quoted here, has actually taken the time to study.
But it could become part of the norm... only if people are ready to learn the ins and outs of Judaism which mainly belong to Yeshivah boys and Rabbi's.
In my impression of the subject, this portion that I have stated is agreed upon. There are other issues on the matter that I haven't went into because of the trouble in understanding it as unanimous by most.

Well, in this case, since neither the Talmud or Midrash or Zohar mention Jesus except for Rabbis that existed long afterward (roughly 1,000 years after), we can't really say with 100% surety that he existed. However, because we have mentioned both Peter and James, and because we have mentioned John the Baptist, and many of the historical figures in the NT, such as Nikodemus (Nakidmon ben Gurion) and Rabban Gamliel and Judas the Galilean who was mentioned in Acts 5:37; also because the Jewish people revere all the above save for Judas the Galilean; we say that it is reasonable to say that Jesus was most definitely a historical person because

Though the Jewish people as a whole hate Jesus:
1) Nakidmon ben Gurion (Micodemus) respects Jesus and calls him rabbi
2) Peter was Jesus' disciple, yet we honor Peter as a Pharisee and leader of the Jewish people (contrary to Catholic claims).
3) James was a well respected and revered man amongst the Jewish people, who was known as the brother of Jesus.
4) Rabban Gamliel, who was the leader of all the Pharisees and the Jewish people is said to have defended the Nazarenes, and is said to have been the teacher of Paul after Paul gave up his life as a zealot.

Of course, this is only corroborating what the Talmud and Jewish history has with the New testament, and Judaism does agree that all these people lived during the times that Jesus was to have supposedly lived.

It is also suspected that a Rabbi of the Talmud, known as Rabbi Yose the Galilean, was the younger brother of Jesus, Joses (Mat 13:15). In the talmud however, he is an old man as he introduced as a Rabbi in the days of Rabbi Akiva. And he also died before Rabbi Akiva.

All of these bring us to think that jesus was real.

Chris Weimer

Masoreh, have you read the most recent book on the Pharisees?

Toto

Masorah612 - welcome to the forum. Since you have stated that your ideas are rather unconventional, it would help us all if you add some citations and explain more about where you get your ideas, or if they are yours alone.

For instance - who honors Peter as a Pharisee?

Do you really think that Paul studied under Gamaliel? Did Paul study under him before or after his conversion? When was he a Zealot?

What are your sources on the desponyni (desponynoi)?

Masorah613

Hi Chris Weirmer,

There are many books on the pharisee's, of which book do you speak of?
But I myself am one since I am Jew that follows the Rabbi's, and am also trained in the Talmud and Jewish history.

Hi Toto,

In fact, Jews honor Peter as a Pharisee. We say that he was the one that composed one of the prayers that we recite on Sabbath called the 'Nishmat'. This prayer is known as a cry against idolaters and the declaration of the sole oneness of G-d. There are also many Rabbis today that will attest to just that. Of course, some Jews, knowing the connotations that accepting Peter as one of our own will say that it was a sage by the name of Shimon ben Shetach who composed the prayer of 'Nishmat'. However, with good reason, those of us that do espouse that Peter (shimon) composed this prayer, say that he did so because it was in the first century and on-ward that Jews began to compose prayers for liturgy other than the normal blessings that we had brought down from Ezra and Shimon the Just, and from some portions of Scripture.

And seeing how Paul's words are rich in pharisaism once compared to the Talmud, I would have to agree with the position that, Yes, Paul studied under R. Gamliel. Again, on Paul's Pharisaism, we have seen that just about every single thing he said is compared to Talmudic thought as Jewish. This of course is not shared by all of us either.
And Paul was first a zealot. After his so-called conversion to becoming a Hillelite, because of Jesus who was a hillelite, he went to study under the school of Gamliel. Not necessarily that he studied directly under Gamliel himself, but it is known and reasonable to Jews that a Jew can have learned under one main rabbi, but say that he studied under such-and-such because that was the school he learned under.

So far my sources on Desposyni, they are small and its from Eusebius. I have a book that mentions a historian known as Euchytus but I haven't found corpus that focuses solely on his writings.

Chris Weimer

Good. You should be familiar then with Jacob Neusner's work, right? Including the most recent In Quest of the Historical Pharisees (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

Masorah613

Yes, I am extremely familiar with his work. but I have not heard of that book. I'll take a look at it. Thank you for informing me, too

Chili

But "more mythical" is a contradiction since it denies the reality behind myth, kind of like being 'a little bit pregnant'. In myth the man is real forever while in history the person was an illusion even if he talked the talk and walked the walk; here again because he presented the reality of the myth while he was just the messenger of the same.

This would be the reason why the historical Jesus is not important to the Church, and never was.