By Ted Belman
I recently drew to the attention of a fellow journalist my 25 page essay on The Historical Jesus.
She circulated it and sent me some of the responses she received.
From an American Christian writer and editor:
This comports with what I decided – after doing extensive study on my own over 40 years ago………….and considering that it took nearly twice as long as the USA has been in existence, for the early leaders of the new Christian religion to compile the New Testament……….added to the fact that throughout that entire period, there was a myriad of competing Christian sects – e.g. the Gnostics – it is irrefutable that 90% of the NT is fabrication.
Ted Belman does a fine job with his analysis.
I would only add that the theme of the ‘immaculate conception’ and nearly all of the ‘healings’ and miraculous ‘raising from the dead’ plus the stories and parables attributed to the ‘rabbi’ Jesus had been commonly known for centuries before Jesus’ historical era, due to the 2,000+ years of travel and commerce over the famous Silk Road through all of Mesopotamia and into the Far East – the same routes that Marco Polo would take 1200 years laterSo, the sect of the new Christianity that won the race at the Council of Nicea was the one most palatable to Rome AND to what was quickly evolving into the eastern church at Constantinople………..etc..………….and the NT has so many contradictions that they also contribute to the dubious nature of the NT’s factual basis. One example has bothered me the most: Followers claimed Jesus to be ‘The Prince Of Peace.’………Well, Jesus himself is quoted in the NT as having declared, “I come not with Peace, but with THE SWORD.” – Which is it? – I think that much more information will eventually be forthcoming as archeological techniques and strong motivation among biblical scholars continue their search for truth.
From an American Christian writer and activist:
I read the entire essay, and even checked some of the points made by Ted Belman. Much of what he wrote is true, but it does not defeat the Christian theology. Rather than argue with Belman line by line, let me make just three points:
1. Paul and James were ultimately in agreement over accepting Gentiles into the Christian faith. See Acts 15. There were not two rival factions, according to Acts.
2. While Belman suggests that the Christians made up the Messiah story by inserting fragments from Isaiah into the narrative, Christians believe that Jesus was actually the fulfillment of the prophesies found in Exodus, Isaiah (and numerous other writings of the Old Testament prophets).
3. While Muslims believe that Muhammad is a prophet, Christians do not believe Jesus was a prophet. Christians agree with the Jews that the Hebrew Bible was the end of all prophesy – but they go on to believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophesy. So the question remains for the Jews, if a messianic leader for the Jews was prophesied to be of the lineage of David and to be born in Bethlehem, would the Jews even recognize him and rally around him if he appeared? Would they even be able to confirm that he met the prophetic requirements?From an American Christian writer:
Nonsense by Christian haters. The Jesus Seminar is dominated by secularists and disillusioned religionists. Christianity is not a Nationalist Religion … it is not a religion at all. Why try to destroy that which you have chosen not to understand? Salvation is open to all who choose to accept its promise: Jews, Gentile, slave, free, men and women.
Fantastic eye-opening article.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/hitler%E2%80%99s-gospel
Lt.Col Hpward-
Apologies but only now have I read every post on the subject and yours was the first (The last on the page)
Allow me to make a minor but important correction to your translation of Isaiah 7.14.
Know that Isaiah was a close relative (uncle or first cousin) of the king, and his chief advisor (PM). He dwelt at the court.
The CORRECT translation is ……”that/the” young woman is pregnant and will give soon birth to a son” ( a lucky guess as to sex).
In other words he was referring to a specific, very pregnant young woman present, and he likely pointed to her.
As the Chapter proceeds it is seen that the “prophesy” is a very minor lead-in to the real prophesy, which concerns 2 belligerent kings who threaten the Jewish State, and is basically a “prop” to set the real scene.
TED-
Thank You.
SEB-
Maybe he could play ‘ymns on his musical saw- or his ukulele (as his ship went down)
TED-
My comment on your Jesus essay has not appeared. Maybe to long as I see now length restrictions, but I don’t think so.
Re; YAMIT
He is absolutely correct in all his statements. i have made a many year study of the issue, and I can see, although erudite to a certain degree, his critics, are asking questions, the answers of which NOBODY knows.
You all must take into consideration that Ancient(Biblical) Hebrew is to a large degree a different language, not clear even before the Temple destruction and not to be understood by most of todays readers even some scholars. Parts are in verse, much in metaphor, even acrostics, with more quirks likely to come.
My former Chaider teacher the very famous Menahem Mansoor, was a specialist in Biblical Hebrew, and later the famous dean in Wisconsin University, was very specific about this.
That much of the earlier Torah is myth, is easily shown to be copied from stories of vastly ancient Civilizations. This can even be seen, where contradictory accounts on the same item are found..
They just provided some established account of the beginning of all things. It also showed that a variety of writers were involved.
Then, many of the utterances of the Prophets were delivered under narcotic influence, or mental disturbances, classed as “prophetic”, in that ignorant magic/miracle believing society. Many never occurred, and many were made “retroactively”. Some, at time of event, like the mistranslated Isaiah 7.14.
You should know, that he was the Court advisor, residing in the palace, and not a wild eyed, foaming at the mouth fanatic or drug taker.
The meanings, if they were ever known , were long lost before the Temples were destroyed. The return from the Babylonian exile, brought broadened beliefs, not found in the earlier part of the Torah.
As for the “Moshiach”. This concept evolved from the constant disasters which befell Israel from it’s whole history. Periods of actual peace were very few, Much of the written records were destroyed over and over, even the faulty remembrances of scribes who cobbled together a kind of continuity. (like the 3 differing lists of the Zadokite High Priests)
Because of the many disasters the Sages pored over every word ,trying to find why G-D was punishing Israel so heavily against HIS Promises.
They dredged up a variety of obscure phrases and words of which the meanings were long lost, and crafted together the concept of a future Military Leader, who would be “Moshiach” (anointed) and vanquish Israel’s enemies.
They bestowed their concept of qualities on him, which he needed to meet to be genuine.
Many moshiachim emerged, but all failed , so they were not the genuine thing,
Bar Cocheba was so successful that R. Akiva ,that super Great Sage, endorsed him.
To this day he remains as mysterious as ever, just another piece of wishful thinking who hasn’t walked down the yellow bricked road.
Jesus. “everybody’s friend in need” the guy who cursed the fig tree, and supposedly made many other strange, unfulfilled utterances, was just another myth concocted from Mithra, Sol Invictus, Ra, and other fantastic curiosities.
His supposed foretold arrival is derived simply from a mistranslation of the Greek Septuagint. There was NO virgin birth prophesied, easily proven, No cousin Elizabeth, No same aged John, No census needing return to Bethlehem,
No baptism by John, who when he emerged in the year 6, was already verging on old age. (Josephus)
And his baptism was not a religious rite but merely a cleansing wash of the body. (Josephus)
The original Christians were Jews, who existed well into the 4th cent. The first 9 “Popes” so-called retroactively, were all Jews.
And Uncle Tom Cobbly and all>….
“Oh, I’m interested in that musical side of Jesus. I’ve never heard about that. I always thought that carpentry was his main line of business, you know.”
https://youtu.be/lL8_cfi-bCw?si=V5wHfIWjZ9ZCy9S-
yamit82 Said:
Yamit, since you think the Jewish Messiah is a myth, it would be interesting to hear how you came to that belief. You seem to know a lot about the Bible. In Gen 3:15 the Messiah was promised by God to come and crush Satan’s head when Adam and Eve were the only humans on earth. Very likely your hopes are going to be dashed of just Who and when the Messiah has come. But in God’s love He is still reaching out to you to be a member of His family through the Messiah. I can actually imagine God using you in magnificent ways for His glory in the future.
Has there ever been a way for you to know which Jewish tribe you are a descendant of?
I watch the videos you send. I don’t believe they are accurate.
@ alanmos@yahoo.com:
@ yamit82:
A title — that salvation was to be restored to humanity THRU humanity.
There is no gospel record of Yeshua flatly characterizing himself as ‘God’
— and quite a bit in those narratives wherein he indicates clearly to the contrary .
Alan isn’t the only one around here who reads that way.
So do YOU — big time.
‘Never’? — sorry, but that is strictly an assumption. You don’t know it for fact.
And even if it were true, it would be irrelevant
— because to conceive something is not necessarily to get it right.
Moshiach was promised long BEFORE there were such things as “Jews” — long before Abraham.
Long before there were such things as Kings.
And long before there were such things as warriors.
So he HAD to have first been conceived to be a spiritual savior. The warrior king imagery is actually more — not less — recent than the spiritual savior imagery.
But AFTER all those things came along, some Jews came to believe they could walk with just a right leg, and no left.
While some Jews came to believe they could walk with just a left leg, and no right.
But then, most Jews — like most self-professed christians — are cripples.
What you MEAN is that this is what you HOPE with every ounce of your being.
alanmos@yahoo.com Said:
Yes I think I told you in a prior discussion but you don’t read for comprehension only for reinforcement. You reject Jewish explanations even some scholarly christian ones in favor of your nutty pagan lies. Watch the video above not produced by Jews but by ex christian believers who have intellectual integrity unlike you.
The Jewish messiah was never conceived by Jews to be a spiritual savior of Jews and or mankind but a warrior King.
I think he is a myth and what I believe is of no consequence but Judaism is not now or eve has been predicated on any messiah in any context or genre. This I do know with every ounce of my being if there will be a Messiah he won’t be the one you are hoping for. Watch the damn videos I supplied and compare notes if you don’t leave skid marks the fault is yours.
Veritas vos liberabit
yamit82 Said:
The name of my God is, ‘I AM,’ ‘Jehovah-Jirah, ‘Immanuel, ‘The Mighty God,’ ‘Prince of Peace’ and ‘Yeshua’ to name a few titles ascribed to Him.
Yamit, do you have any idea who Micah was referring to in the verses I posted?
@ alanmos@yahoo.com:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx5EKaY1B8g&list=PL70E597EDE01D6552
@ alanmos@yahoo.com:
For You Alan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjZ_IlP9c5A
alanmos@yahoo.com Said:
Alan: I don’t know your personal belief system yet note your use of a term that’s associated with those who follow the Yeshu mythos. In places like the U.S., I think people should be free to practice their belief system without interference. But, here in Israel, we shouldn’t be so tolerant. It’s caused us a lot of trouble.
There are many who delight in engaging in ‘Disputation’ with followers of Yeshu. I’m not one of those people. But neither am I one of those who believes that my being Jewish automatically makes me somehow superior to non-Jews.
It’s true that in the future Temple people from all over the world will come and bring their offerings, as was the case in the past. But today we’re struggling to maintain the ‘Jewish’ nature of our country. We’ve never been an actual Jewish State… only a State of people who (for the most part) are Jewish by basic Jewish Law but who don’t really agree on what ‘being Jewish’ means.
‘Messiah’ is a Hellenistic invention. The Prophets aren’t writing a script that must be followed exactly (another error of Hellenistic thinking that forms the basis of the Yeshu mythos).
All the Prophets are speaking of one thing (one ‘prophecy’) … the restored Malchut. Exactly how and when this will happen isn’t determined… and those who claim to have this specific knowledge are almost certainly frauds.
It will happen only when enough of us turn our attention away from all the Hellenistic, Roman, Mithraic, Egyptian, Muslim, New Age, SDA, etc. hogwash.
RaMBaM writes about Mashiach and the Malchut, and you might find some answers in what he has to say http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html
You might consider taking time to listen to R’ Tovia Singer’s ‘Let’s Get Biblical’ series… now available for everyone to access http://outreachjudaism.org/lets-get-biblical-audio-series/
@ WB:
Is Micah referring to the Messiah when he says;
But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.” Micah 5:2
And He will arise and shepherd His flock
In the strength of the LORD,
In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God.
And they will remain,
Because at that time He will be great
To the ends of the earth. Micah 5:4
Micah uses terms regarding this person that ‘His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity’ and ‘He will be great to the ends of the earth.’ Who is Micah referring to if it isn’t the Messiah?
@ alanmos@yahoo.com:
alanmos@yahoo.com Said:
None whats so ever! I have said we will know and recognize
the King Messiah only after he has completed what was prophesied that he will accomplish. Anybody even you or I can claim whatever we choose. There have been hundreds even thousands who have claimed to be the Messiah in the past all failed to live up to their claim and some brought disaterous consequences to the Jewish people. Shabbtai Zvi being one of those.
G-d enjoined upon the Jewish people one Commandment which, in its simplicity, serves as the foundation stone for all of the others. After reminding our people that “I am HaShem, your God, Who has taken you out of the Land of Egypt, from the House of Slavery” (Exodus 20:2; and Deuteronomy 5:6), G-d immediately thunders:
“You shall not recognize the gods of others in My Presence.” (Exodus 20:3; and Deuteronomy 5:7).
By agreeing that the G-d of Israel, and the Father who sired Jesus, and Allah are one and the same Creator, we Jews transgress this Commandment and thereby cause a great Chillul HaShem (desecration of G-d’s Name).
Yhe Tanach doesn’t say where he or she is to be born only from…. Birth had nothing to do with Prophesy.
In any event your dead god was not from the house of David. His daddy disqualified him. End debate case closed.
“she will name him [literally, ‘she will call his name’] Immanu’él”!!! Isiah 7:14
What did you say your god’s name was???? 😀
The only qualification is a male from the line of David (Yehuda). In the past, we know (or should know) that individuals such as Rashi and Rambam were from this line.
Today, there are many who have legitimate proof of being in this line. The one with the strongest proof was born in Mexico, his family having fled from Aleppo Syria. Currently, he lives in Psagot and is usually ridiculed and dismissed by people who posture as the guardians of Halachic ‘purity’ but who are actually performing a ‘dog in the barn’ routine. Yosi Dayan takes all this in stride, maintains a sens of humor and humility, and continues working for the restoration of the entire system constituting the Malchut… and this, in fact, is the only thing that will change our currently dismal situation. For those who don’t think so, perhaps you should stop praying the Shemona Esrei since you don’t really believe the things that are said there. (Or maybe you have a view of Mashiach that is really more like the Xian view of Messiah… a supernatural miracle worker).
Another known descendant of King David, Susan Roth, has spent a lot of time and money working to bring awareness of the Davidic line to everyone’s attention. And of course she, too, has been scoffed at, ridiculed, and her book publicly burned in that most holy of places in the world, Bayit V’Gan. Such is the state of our general confusion. Nevertheless, thanks to Mrs. Roth, a museum devoted to the Davidic Family is now located near the entrance to Mamilla and is worth visiting.
@ yamit82:
Do you think the birth of the Messiah provides any qualification to His authenticity? What town/city is the Messiah prophesied to be born?
@ Ted Belman:
Thanks very much for the response.
Many of us were similarly unaware of what we were saying in the past. I’m puzzled by the number of putative ‘Nationalist’ folks who continue using this term. Same problem with references to ‘the Gaza Border’ that does not exist in law, but is repeated even in the most ‘right-wing’ sources.
Some have told me they use these terms because ‘it’s what people understand.’ My response is that allowing our enemies to frame the discussion amounts to capitulation.
While it seems the old saying ‘past is prologue’ is true, there’s no reason it must be this way. You’re one of the few who’ve made serious efforts to shift the discussion back to reality and demonstrable facts. Hope you’re able to keep this up and that a structural change in our political system will take place, allowing us to regain control of our destiny.
Thanks again for demonstrating your intellectual honesty. A rare quality in any age and time, but especially so today.
@ WB:
I amended the artilce to replace “Palestine” with Judea and Samaria. When I wrote it 15 years ago I was as politically aware as I am now and think that many of my sources used Palestine.
Ted: In another thread I asked why you use the term ‘Palestine’ when referring to times and events when this was not how the region was described.
The essay is interesting and useful… worth expanding.
Thank you,
alanmos@yahoo.com Said:
Of course we would but you would have a heart attack when it turns out not to be your man-god.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/#1
‘So the question remains for the Jews, if a messianic leader for the Jews was prophesied to be of the lineage of David and to be born in Bethlehem, would the Jews even recognize him and rally around him if he appeared? Would they even be able to confirm that he met the prophetic requirements?’
According to the paragraph above it questions whether the Jews would be able to recognize the prophesied Jewish Messiah. This is a subject every Jew should have an answer for. If they don’t are they not serious that their Messiah will come? Are you looking for the prophesied Jewish Messiah and if so, how would you know He fulfilled/met all the credentials to be that unique individual?
Was the girl “Mary” portrayed in the “gospel” stories a virgin or wasn’t she?
by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha’ivrit, Y’rushalayim
The Mattai-writer states explicitly that the girl “Mary” in his story was already (mnesteutheises) to “Joseph” when she was “found to be pregnant” (1:18), and the author of Lukos uses the same Greek word twice (1:27 & 2:5) to describe her marital status. The Mattai-writer also says that this happened ???? (prin e sunelthein autous), or “before they came together”.
Now what exactly does the Greek term (mnesteutheises) mean? “King James’s Per-Version” translates it as espoused, an archaic and long-obsolete word in English (later christian Per-Versions use the more modern betrothed) and, when the majority of christians are told that this is the same as saying she was “engaged” to him, they are perfectly content to accept this as the truth. And yet “Mary” and “Joseph” are supposed to have been Hebrews living in 1st century Galilee, and the modern Western concept of “engagement” is unknown in Hebrew culture—so this pathetic, transparent “explanation” simply doesn’t work.
A Hebrew wedding is celebrated in two parts. In ancient times, there was an interval of several weeks, or even longer, between the two ceremonies of the few ancient communities that still survive in eretz yisrael (although nowadays the majority of Hebrews in eretz yisrael, and all Hebrews living in hutz la’aretz—that is to say, outside of eretz yisrael—combine the two ceremonies and perform one immediately after the other).
The first wedding ceremony is called in Hebrew eirusin (and in Rabbinic writing often kiddushin). These words are usually translated as “betrothal”, but only because that is the closest word that exists in English; the word “betrothal”, however, is only a very approximate equivalent of the Hebrew words and must always be understood in the sense of the original Hebrew terms. It is clear from chapter 22 of D’varim (which deals with the law of rape), for example, that a girl who is described as m’orasah l’ish (“betrothed” to a husband) in D’varim 22:23 already has the status of a legally married woman (the text only refers to her as ?????? “a virgin girl”, to include the exceptional case in which sexual intercourse has to be delayed, such as if there are medical reasons why first intercourse must be deferred, or if the bride is (i.e. if she is menstruating). The eirusin (or kiddushin) ceremony has three elements which are required by Hebrew law for the “betrothal” to be legally valid; they are detailed in the opening paragraph of the Mishnah treatise Kiddushin and one of the three mandatory elements is that sexual intercourse must take place.
It is therefore a logical absurdity to describe a Hebrew girl as (mnesteutheises), or “betrothed”, and then to go on to say that she is still a virgin: if she is “betrothed” she cannot still be a virgin, and if she is still a virgin, she cannot be said to be “betrothed”. Aha, christians gleefully retort, but Mattai says this was before (sunelthein autous), which literally means “before they came together”—and that (they are told) means before they first had sexual intercourse! But it doesn’t mean that.
The reference in Mattai to “Mary” and her husband “coming together” does not refer to sexual intercourse (although the gentile author of that book may well have thought that it does, and very likely intended it to mean that). Unless there are exceptional reasons why this is impossible (as mentioned above), a newly-married Hebrew couple normally consummate their union immediately after their eirusin (“betrothal”) ceremony to “complete” the ceremony and make it legally valid and binding; there is a parallel to this in modern (Western) law, under which a marriage that has not been consummated can be annulled, or declared to have been null and void from outset—i.e. it was never a legal marriage in the first place (“annulment” is a very different thing to divorce, the dissolving of a marriage that was originally legally valid).
I mentioned earlier that the celebration of a Hebrew wedding takes place in two parts, and I mentioned the first of the two ceremonies; but so far I have not mentioned the second ceremony. What actually happens is this. There is no period of “engagement” in Hebrew culture: we consider an extended interval during which a couple have made their commitment to each other public, but are not actually married yet and are therefore restricted by cultural mores from indulging in physical intimacy (or even from being alone together), to be an unacceptable temptation for them, because the instinctive biological urge to engage in sexual activity with someone you love is so strong that few people can resist it for very long (if at all). Instead, once a couple have agreed to marry, the wedding is arranged at the earliest possible opportunity and, if possible, immediately. But they do not start to live together right away.
Instead the wife, although legally married to her new husband, remains in her parents’ home (or in her own home if she is an adult), while her husband sets about building or buying a house (or apartment) for them to share, and furnishing and decorating it in readiness for the day his new wife will come to live with him. He can visit her in her parents’ home whenever he wants to, and even sleep with her (providing she agrees to it!)—it is therefore not unusual in any way for the wife to fall pregnant during this interval and, indeed, she very often does. When the new home is ready and the furnishings and decorations are to the wife’s liking, a second celebration is held: there is a colourful, festive procession and the wife is brought by her whole family and all her friends to the new marital home, where the joyful “Seven Benedictions” (or sheva b’rachot) of nissu’in are sung for her as she enters to take up her position as “queen” of the house.
In practice, though, it is recognised that some people are wealthier than others, and sadly some are very poor indeed. A bride should not be humiliated on her wedding day—in fact, the Rabbis taught that no-one should ever be humiliated in public: the Hebrew term used in Rabbinic writing for publicly humiliating someone is mal’bin p’nei haveiro barabbim, or “whitening” his face in public, and this is considered as equivalent to “shedding blood” in a very real sense (because the blood drains from a person’s face when he is humiliated and his face turns white). For this reason, at a very early stage in Hebrew history (certainly in Scriptural times), the “home-bringing” procession would bring the bride to a ceremonial “canopy” which was usually erected in the town’s market-square, symbolically representing the marital home, rather than to the actual home (so that poor people should not be embarrassed and humiliated by the modest nature of their house or apartment). The bridal “canopy” was called in Hebrew huppah, and to this very day the Hebrew marriage ceremony is performed under a huppah. Several Scriptural references, such as those to “a bride coming from her huppah” (Yo’él 2:16) and to “a bride-groom coming from his huppah” (T’hillim 19:6), testify to how ancient this practice is.
There can be no doubt that the term (sunelthein autous) or “coming together”, used in Mattai 1:18, is in fact a reference to the huppah ceremony and does not refer to sexual intercourse at all.
@ LtCol Howard:
Yes. I believe I pointed that out in my essay.
An academic friend of mine pointed out to me the dangers of multiple translations from language to language with all of the nuances of use. He said that at that time there was a very separate word for Virgin. He said that an accurate translation of the prophecy is that a young woman will give birth.