20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOf course, at least the Synoptic Gospels certainly are.
... to be regarded as a source of genuine Jewish history writing ?
The answer is "yes".
Check out this site that deals with the parallels between the New Testament and the works of Flavius Josephus.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm
All three authors make use of decidedly Hebraic techniques --
St Luke is more of a rhetorician, St Matthew the hellanized
Jew using Midrash with his sources. They are as Jewish as
the later Dead Sea Scroll stuff, or the latest books of the Bible
like 1/2 Maccabees.
St John, being later, has more pagan and Gnostic elements,
so the case is a little less clear for him.
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioI must say, it is interesting to note that the Jewish Talmud, their most holy book, says Jesus received his powers from the devil. What is interesting is that the Jews (Orthodox) would have had the most reason to deny He had powers in the first place. It also corroborates that a historical Jesus existed.
Of course, at least the Synoptic Gospels certainly are.
All three authors make use of decidedly Hebraic techniques --
St Luke is more of a rhetorician, St Matthew the hellanized
Jew using Midrash with his sources. They are as Jewish as
the later Dead Sea Scroll stuff, or the latest books of the Bible
like 1/2 Maccabees.
St John, being later, has more pagan and Gnostic elements,
so the case is a little less clear for him.
Nemesio
It is dubious as to why atheists discount the Talmud. Perhaps the Jews (Orthodox) both hated and secretly wanted to propogate Jesus at once?
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThey discount the Talmud, as I do, because the 'references' to Jesus
I must say, it is interesting to note that the Jewish Talmud, their most holy book, says Jesus received his powers from the devil. What is interesting is that the Jews (Orthodox) would have had the most reason to deny He had powers in the first place. It also corroborates that a historical Jesus existed.
It is dubious as to why atheists discount the Talmud. Perhaps the Jews (Orthodox) both hated and secretly wanted to propogate Jesus at once?
are spurious. Consider this for a detailed study of all the supposed
passages refering to 'Jesus:'
http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusi.html
Here is a summary:
While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe there is a connection. The main inconsistency between the Talmudic and Christian story is that during the time that Jesus was killed, the Romans ruled and the Sanhedrin did not have the power to impose the death penalty. Thus, some Jews believe that today's popular Christian ideas about Jesus are based on a melding of the Talmudic story of Yeshu and the historian Josephus' writing about Jesus, which included his execution by the Romans.
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioOf course the Sanhedrin didn't have the power to impose the death penalty, which is exactly why the Gospels give the account of the Jews taking Jesus to both Pilate and Herod for permission.
They discount the Talmud, as I do, because the 'references' to Jesus
are spurious. Consider this for a detailed study of all the supposed
passages refering to 'Jesus:'
http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusi.html
Here is a summary:
While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe ...[text shortened]... hich included his execution by the Romans.
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
Of course the Talmud would not admit to that, so they would say they killed the upstart on their own authority.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Nemesio
They discount the Talmud, as I do, because the 'references' to Jesus
are spurious. Consider this for a detailed study of all the supposed
passages refering to 'Jesus:'
http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusi.html
Here is a summary:
While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe ...[text shortened]... hich included his execution by the Romans.
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
What I find interesting and amusing at the same time is how many unproven assumptions, hypothesises and theories there are to dismiss all the references, evidence if you wish, to the existence of Jesus Christ. It must have been, and in the mind of some, still is, one hell of a conspiracy, the best hoax of all times.
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusYou are very quick to recognize that a source might
Of course the Sanhedrin didn't have the power to impose the death penalty, which is exactly why the Gospels give the account of the Jews taking Jesus to both Pilate and Herod for permission.
Of course the Talmud would not admit to that, so they would say they killed the upstart on their own authority.
alter facts. Why can't you apply this reason to the
Gospels?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNow wait a second. The claim that the Talmud contains lots of
What I find interesting and amusing at the same time is how many unproven assumptions, hypothesises and theories there are to dismiss all the references, evidence if you wish, to the existence of Jesus Christ.
references to Jesus is an unproven hypothesis. The websites I
posted above show exactly how sketchy the claims are.
Let's pretend for a second that the N.T. didn't exist, just a second.
We can place the credible references to Jesus in a thimble.
Josephus is demonstrably dubious, the Talmud is shakier yet.
What's left?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioTacitus
Now wait a second. The claim that the Talmud contains lots of
references to Jesus is an unproven hypothesis. The websites I
posted above show exactly how sketchy the claims are.
Let's pretend for a second that the N.T. didn't exist, just a second.
We can place the credible references to Jesus in a thimble.
Josephus is demonstrably dubious, the Talmud is shakier yet.
What's left?
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSurely you are kidding, right?
Tacitus
Tacitus was born in 55 CE, his Annals were written in 112 CE.
No source of it exists before the 11th century and Eusebius,
who made a compilation of all pagan references to Jesus in his
test 'The History of the Church' in the early 4th century doesn't
mention this passage.
This doesn't qualify as evidence, sorry.
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by Nemesiohttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/syn_avodazara.html
You are very quick to recognize that a source might
alter facts. Why can't you apply this reason to the
Gospels?
Nemesio
That's a site run by Jews, and they admit that Jesus is mentioned. Scroll down to Chapter II, "...Jacob come to heal him with the name of Jesus..."
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSure, someone was healing in the name of Jesus. I am not
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/syn_avodazara.html
That's a site run by Jews, and they admit that Jesus is mentioned. Scroll down to Chapter II, "...Jacob come to heal him with the name of Jesus..."
denying that the name 'Jesus' is mentioned. If I did a healing
in the name of 'aksdjfhasdjfh' does that mean that he exists?
No. This passage of the Talmud is simply observing that Jacob
was coming to heal in the name of Jesus. It reports nothing
about the history of Jesus, but the history of Jacob.
Nemesio
20 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioI'm merely noting that anyone who says Jesus is not mentioned in the Talmud is lying.
Sure, someone was healing in the name of Jesus. I am not
denying that the name 'Jesus' is mentioned. If I did a healing
in the name of 'aksdjfhasdjfh' does that mean that he exists?
No. This passage of the Talmud is simply observing that Jacob
was coming to heal in the name of Jesus. It reports nothing
about the history of Jesus, but the history of Jacob.
Nemesio