Originally posted by NemesioThat's opinion. It's a fact that Jesus' name is in the Talmud.
Or in error.
However, anyone who makes the claim that Talmudic references
to Jesus constitute a viable extra-Biblical claim are also lying or
in error.
Nemesio
It's an opinion (one based on some very strong evidence) that Jesus' life is talked about in the Talmud. It hasn't been proven true or false.
Originally posted by DarfiusDid you read the website I gave you? There is no 'very strong
That's opinion. It's a fact that Jesus' name is in the Talmud.
It's an opinion (one based on some very strong evidence) that Jesus' life is talked about in the Talmud. It hasn't been proven true or false.
evidence.' None.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI read the website and saw an opinion. I have my own, and so do most scholars. Tell me, in your research, did you not see websites saying the Talmud DID mention Jesus' life? Besides, some of the explanations on that site were downright stretching it. Paradom of evil? Give me a break.
Did you read the website I gave you? There is no 'very strong
evidence.' None.
Nemesio
They mention his mother. She had sex with a carpenter. He died at 33. He had sorcery. He rose from the dead.
And it's not Jesus? Just the embodiment of evil? Give me a break.
Originally posted by NemesioSo because Eusebius didn't find it, it doesn't count? I don't care what your opinion is, many scholars agree Tacitus is a valid reference.
Surely you are kidding, right?
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
Quit spreading your propoganda as fact.
Originally posted by DarfiusIf you want to believe that a lost source believed to be written
So because Eusebius didn't find it, it doesn't count? I don't care what your opinion is, many scholars agree Tacitus is a valid reference.
Quit spreading your propoganda as fact.
in the second century for which no extant copy exists until the
11th century is 'valid,' you are welcome to it. You are welcome
to your ill-informed opinions.
You would not make a good scholar though.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAnd if you want to believe it never existed without giving a valid reason why someone would lie, that's up to you.
If you want to believe that a lost source believed to be written
in the second century for which no extant copy exists until the
11th century is 'valid,' you are welcome to it. You are welcome
to your ill-informed opinions.
You would not make a good scholar though.
Nemesio
Faith, not reason.
Originally posted by DarfiusValid reason: Tacitus was edited by Christians between
And if you want to believe it never existed without giving a valid reason why someone would lie, that's up to you.
Faith, not reason.
112 CE and the 11th century to show that Jesus existed
when no other source (outside of the Bible) does so.
Tacitus is unreliable from a scholarly standpoint. It proves
nothing for the existence of the historical Jesus.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOpinion.
Valid reason: Tacitus was edited by Christians between
112 CE and the 11th century to show that Jesus existed
when no other source (outside of the Bible) does so.
Tacitus is unreliable from a scholarly standpoint. It proves
nothing for the existence of the historical Jesus.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Darfius1) The Talmud is not a book. There are two Talmuds (Babylonian--the Bavli, and Jerusalem--Yerushalmi). They are in several volumes (called tractates) each. They are a record of the rabbinical oral tradition (Mishnah) and commentary on that tradition (Gemara). Since they contain long, running arguments and discussions, they are difficult to quote out of context.
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?
2) The Talmud is not the Jews' "most holy book." The most holy writings are the five books of Moses (the Torah).
3) Yeshu, or Yeshua, is an aramaic shortening of Yehoshua (Joshua) and was a fairly common Jewish name. A simple mention of the name in the Talmud, taken out of context, is no evidence that they were speaking of Jesus of Nazareth. (Remember, it was Barabbas' first name too; one would not conflate Jesus Barabbas with Jesus of Nazareth.)
4) Most talmudic scholars seem to conclude that the Talmuds do not discuss Jesus of Nazareth.
Originally posted by NemesioGod. You have the most obnoxious avatar of all times. Arms flailin' about with no inherent message. Lose it. Please.
Informed scholarly opinion.
Any votes? Isn't this the stupidest avatar ever?
Maybe it's just me. I hate rich white guys in mexican garb pretending to be in distress.