Vorkosigan

Great to see you around, hairetikos.

Metacrock

Well I am very very impressed with your throughly scholarly knowledge in this area. Thank you for telling me this.And you know for certain that the Mishna can't refur to Jesus at all, because legal mateial just couldn't do that?

did you see where I said it would be in both Talmud's? Did you see where it listed Sandherin 42 and other sources within the Talmud where these passages are found?


Which still doesn't mean it can't refur to Jesus. Just because it doesn't tell a story doesn't mean it can't talk about him.

Again I am so impressed that you know what the Misha is. If I mispoke on that I'm sorry.Here are some of the sources listed in my evidence.



Talmudic References

(These are written after 300, they are Talmudic sources, but they draw upon the Mishna, which goes draws upon sources from the first century).

A Unique collection of ancient and modern Messianich Library Messianica

Gustav Dalman was probably the greatest Aramaic scholar of his day. His Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, and the Zohar" was first published in 1894.



Extract: "Jesus is commonly referred to in the Talmud and in Talmudic literature by the expressions "Son of Stada (Satda)", and "Son of Pandera" These are so accepted that they appear constantly in the Babylonian Talmud (cp. the Targum Sheni on Esther VII 9) even without the name Jesus. It might seem to be a question as to who it is that is to be understood by these. But in the Jerusalem Talmud (Avodah Zarah II. 40d), the full name is given as Yeshu ben Pandera (for which Shabbath XIV 14d has more briefly, Yeshu Pandera); and in the Tosephta on Hullin II, the full name is given as Yeshu ben Pantera and Yeshu ben Pantere. So then Ben Pandera or ben Pantere also bears the name Yeshu. Further, the Jesus the Nazarene who is "hanged on the evening before Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a) is on the other hand (Sanhedrin 67a) also called the "son of Stada (Satda)". It is evident that in both these places the same person is spoken of. Here these two passages may be considered conclusive, since they repeat each other using the similar language, and in a section of the text which is chiefly concerned about Jesus; and so we see that Jesus was also referred to as Ben Stada".


While these sources are written much latter than the first century (Sanhedrin from second century to fourth) it is generally understood that they draw upon material that is much older, some of it perhaps form the first century, some even contemporary with Jesus.



"The Historicity of Jesus Christ"
by Wayne Jackson
The Christian Courier December, 7 1998



"Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud ..took note of the Lord's existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus' existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: "The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera" (1965, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus' miracles as "magic," and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus."


While these Talmudic source have no real historical validity in documenting the life of Jesus, they do at least demonstrate that no mention is made of the idea that he was merely ficticious. Had there been no Jesus of Nazareth, surely his Jewish opponents would have made much of this fact. They were not stupid. They did have living memory. For the Chrsitians to begin talking about this woder worker who lived almost 100 years earlier, when no one had ever heard of him before, certainly would have brought a reaction to that effect from the Jewish opponents. Instead, they assert with boldness that they know all about him; they also assume he existed!

Peter Kirby

There is only one passage in the Mishnah that has been claimed as a reference to Jesus.

M. Yebamoth 4.13. Simeon ben Azzai has said: I found in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written: That so and so (peloni) is a bastard son of a married woman. (Mead's translation)

Here it is in Jacob Neusner's translation, with surrounding material:

4:13 A. What is the definition of a mamzer?
B. “[The offspring of] any [marriage of] near of kin which is forbidden under the rubric, He shall not come into the congregation of the Lord� (Dt. 23:3), the words of R. Aqiba.
C. Simeon of Teman says, “[The offspring of] any [marriage] for which the participants are liable to extirpation by Heaven.�
D. And the law follows his opinion.
E. R. Joshua says, “[The offspring of] any [marriage] for which the participants are liable to be put to death by a court.�
F. Said R. Simeon b. Azzai, “I discovered a family register in Jerusalem, in which was written: ‘Mr. So-and-so is a mamzer, [having been born of an illicit union] of a married woman [and someone other than her husband]’�—
G. so supporting the opinion of R. Joshua.
H. (1) His wife who died—
I. he is permitted to marry her sister.
J. (2) [If] he divorced her and afterward she died,
K. he is permitted to marry her sister.
L. (3) [If] she was married to someone else and died,
M. he is permitted to marry her sister.
N. (4) His deceased childless brother’s widow who died—
O. he is permitted to marry her sister.
P. (5) [If] he performed the rite of halisah with her and she died,
Q. he is permitted to marry her sister.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

sorry, you got it backwards. There's no idication otherwise. You guys have such a funny way of palying this game. You seem to think that whatever assumption strikes your fancy get's to be the major assumptino until disproven, even if it flys in the face of 2000 years of scholarship and the plain sense of the text.

(1)There is no record of anyone calling it fictional
(2) They speak of it as though they really believed it
(3) No other versions of the story.

Those are overwhealming reasons to assume that they did accept it as historical. You wont find any major scholar who thinks otherwise, now or in the past.



Bruce says Mishna. I've documented that several times. There are several sources mentioned thorughout both Talmuds. i'm not going to mess with that knitt picky crap again. You somehow seem to think that you are going to impress someone by showing that you know what the mishna is. I've known about the Mishna since 1975. So I'm not impressed. I listed the sources, deal with them.





Wrong. I believe Josephus does. Perhaps the phrase "J of N" wasn't used, but the knowledge that he came from there was certainly around in first century since it's in two Gospels.





That's false. I documented that every expidition in the 20th century showed habitation in the first century. They are reconsturcting first century life in the Nazerath village project. I quote Phraim, the archaeologist who excavated in the 90s, saying it was inhabited, and I quote two sources from first century that mention it outside the Bible. So that assertion is quite daft and was started by unethical skeptis who don't know how to research.


http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html



gee why would I be angry? It's only because 12 people gang up on me, tell me I'm stupid, find little tinty knitt picky points I might be wrong about (in their opinions) and claim that my work is full of "errors" because I'm wrong about something, they think. They wont listen to reason, insist that every basic assumtion has to be loaded to privilage their view point against mine, act like they have presumption in the debate even when they are defending ideas that all major historians laugh at, and then act like they've really told me something big when they point out real obvious facts that everyone knows, and because I don't point them out they point them out in a real condesending way like "I don't think you understand what the Mishna is." They look for every little word they can find that's any kind of mistake, gloss, counter opinion or something they've never heard, and then go "see, you don't know anything. You don't know anything at all."

I know it's because you have not read nearly as much I have. You don't have a ph.D. I do.I've been to seminary, I studied Greek for five years, I've been reading Bible scholarship since I was in highschool but I can't possibly know jack shit becasue I might be wrong, in your opinion about whatever little picky point you can find.

and when you have nothing else to say you can always harp on spelling. But those who suppport me can read my posts. People are always telling me that they do read my posts and they can tell what I'm saying. Ive been through the dyslexia thing so many times I'm not going to deal with it. why don't you just not respond? If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

I

up yours

Vorkosigan

Meta, please tell me that your "source" is not a fundamentalist Church of Christ preacher who happens to be the editor of the Christian Courier, which is the Church of Christ magazine.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

O you guys. You are ruined a fine hobby. You make any kind of discussion impossble. In your ignorance of real academic discussion, I'm you've never been in a graduate seminar class, obvious because you don't know how to treat people who disagree with you, you have destroyed any ability to discuss the ideas invovled because you somehow have gotten the impression that schoalrship is about being knitt picky.

It's not.Schoalrship is as much abou the ideas as it is getting your foot notes right. To sit around all the time going "you have to document that to my speicifications>" is just dumb. Why don't you show me some docs that say it's wrong.

I sited Eeersheim who taught at Oxford and Cambride and F.F Bruce who is the most respected conservative end of things, and that's all I need do on that point. IN addition to that I have this secondary evidence on the point by this C of C guy. Being C of C doesn't make him wrong. So just can the false erudition and stop trying to knitt pick every little aspect of everything I say. That's not scholarship and I'm not impressed with you.

Vorkosigan

<sigh> Reed, Arch. and the Gal. Jesus: ..the later Christian constructions have obliterated any evidence of homes other than the subterranean cisterns, storage bins, and caves. The fact that so little has been found leads to the conclusion that the houses themselves were rather poorly made of fieldstones and mud.....(p132)

There's no evidence of houses in this "village," Meta. Reed, a Christian, published his book in 2000. The Nazareth Village project is run by a Christian university with a vested interest in promoting the village as a cash cow and as a prop for their beliefs.

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

I'm begining to see why the Christ mythers appeal to you. Because you somehow seem to think that good scholarhsip is limited entirely to finding some little snag in someone's words and if they have a snag then everything they say is wrong. I said it wasn't limited to the mishna. I said there other passages I showed what the passages are. instead of taking the argument seriously you just go "no you wrong wrong wrong wrong wrogn on this one little point! You mispoke, you said mishna and you really mean Sanhedra 64 (0r whatever) and so you are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!" that is your idea of scholarhsip? That's what you think scholars do?

You have a fine website, and lots of good mateial, and an excellent grasp of a vast range of issues. But you seem to have no idea of what's it's all about.


but you can calim vicory, the might sec web juggernaught cannot be stopped, because no one has the time to be so knitt picky every word they say. But what is that going to get you over all? Atheism has decoined from 14% to 10% and it's going to keep declining becasue people need and and sense the divine. You can laod yourself with hatred and deny the obvious for the rest of your life and pat yourself on the back because you get all the little footnotes right but you don't have the slightest idea what scholars do or what any of this is about.


why can't you let the use of the term Mishna slide hm? I said it was mispoken I said there are more sources, I showed you what they are. Why is it so important to show that this one little thing is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!!! Because that undermines and determines everything else.

and that's why the myther thing appeals to you and why you are able to take it seriously, because you can always slant anyting to your bias and demand that the other side endlessly prove everyword until the y make a mistake and then they are totally undone because you can't have any mistakes and that's your idea of dealing with the truth.

If I didn't have to have a career, if I dind' have to face life and all I had to do was reserach this stuff then I could get all the little facts rihgt. Why is this mishan thing not something we can let slide? does my argument rest on just that one word? I dont' think so. I think I have broader argument that just that.

You have no examples of anyone thinking the Gosepels were fiction. you have no example of other other versions of the story and you still haven't answered the saying source argument. Those are the general outlines of the issues. that's what improtant. NOt if i got a word wrong here or there, or if my spelling is bad. Until you address that you havne't done anything.


I have no respct for any of you. You are all ignorant children trying to make yourselves feel important. That goes for you Pete. You have no clue as to what any of this is about. The major guys don't treat each other this way. you wil never be a major scholar. Becasue anyone can get TAs and grad asses to fix the foot notes. but if you can't discuss the major outline of the thoughts then you have no grasp.