By Ted Belman
From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.
Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.
Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.
The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.
Everyone will be happier.
@ dweller:
The Jews have it right about Jesus – at best a talented magician, at worst a fraud and demagogue, and most likely a figment of Roman imperial folklore.
@ yamit82:
Where did I ever say (or even suggest) that???
Of COURSE he’s human. Only a human could have successfully accomplished his mission. (I explained part of the reason for that just above.)
Repeat: No ‘god’ or semi’god’ or demi’god,’ etc, could have pulled that off. Had to be a man; absolutely no way around it.
When did you do that? All I see is somebody else’s drosh that you have claimed for your own. That’s not ‘debunking’ anything.
— That’s punting because you can’t carry the ball by yourself.
The name, “Original Sin,” may WELL be 5th century — but that doesn’t make the concept 5th century.
QTC, it’s as old as B’reishit 3:17 — “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.”
LOLROF. Actually it was not merely PART of the 1st century beliefs of the followers of Jesus, but it antedates them (by several thousand years).
Have you never wondered why it was decided to use Psalm 51 for the the vidui, the confessional? Careful how you answer, because there’s more involved than just the Batsheva-Uriah matter that prompted the writing of the psalm in the first place:
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” [v.7]
Hoo-hah! — where’d that come from?
If the iniquity — even in the womb — referred purely to David’s Canaanite & Moabite ancestry, why would the rabbis use it as the confessional? Surely they could’ve found something else that didn’t contain that little tweaker; yes?
@ yamit82:
Confusing only for some Jews. Not for this one, however.
Some of us Jews are just naturally inquisitive — unlike yourself apparently, since I pointed out the difference for you on multiple occasions in the past. “All and everything lies in jest; still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest…”
You betcha.
No, not ‘must’ have. That doesn’t follow.
Moreover, it was precisely BECAUSE Mary was not free from sin that haNitzri, conceived by ruach elohim, was capable of DYING.
Jesus wasn’t/isn’t ‘God.’ If he were ‘God,’ he couldn’t die.
The Almighty can do all sortsa things; but He cannot die. Think about it.
Jim Myers (from whom you lifted verbatim that little riff, just above) is simply confused — about a few things, not just one. But I’m not discussing the matter with him; I’m discussing it with you . When you’re prepared to argue the case in your own words, I’ll be more than happy to take you on.
@ bernard ross:
Once again, you’re going to have to define “christian” as you use the word here.
Since there weren’t any self-styled “christians” till the 3rd or 4th century, perhaps you can explain just who the individuals you characterize as “those who followed JC” during the 1st century WERE. . . .
The second clause does not follow, as a matter of course, from the first.
If JC does not ‘exist’ in Jewish writings of the era, that could well be because the knowledge of his existence was systematically suppressed from Jewish writing of the era.
That would make JC not a ‘fabrication,’ but a secret; a reality viewed as embarrassing or dangerous, or otherwise inconvenient — and thus, hushed up. We know it had happened before. No reason it couldn’t happen again; right?
But in any case, suppose you SHOW us what Jewish writings of that era look like, smartass. Go ahead and produce some Jewish writings of the era — ANY Jewish writings of any kind — from the era. (This should be good.)
ANOTHER LIE. I was led to Jesus Christ thru the most Jewish of. . . . Sources:
— ruach elohim.
“No man can come to me except the Father draw him.”
Dead wrong, once again (you’re so reliable, such a comfort).
I don’t ‘worship’ haNitzri.
He would never approve of that.
As a man, he’d be embarrassed by it.
As a Jew, he’d be scandalized by it.
@ bernard ross:
Already told you, the first 15 bishops of Yerushalayim were Jews.
The 16th one (& each subsequent one) would have been a Jew also if the Emperor hadn’t placed the municipality & district of Yerushalayim off-limits to “all circumcised persons” in AD 136.
“Hadrian decreed that no circumcised person should be allowed into Jerusalem and its territory under pain of death; even the ‘Christian’ community was forced to change its bishop of Jewish origin for a gentile.” Encyclopedia Judaica; may also be found at Jewish Virtual Library.
It would appear that the “evidence” was between their legs. (And in those days that was indeed SUFFICIENT evidence.)
I think it’s time you defined your term, “christian sources.” You’ve been permitted until now to skate on that one. Spell out your meaning.
Nor evidence of the existence of Moshe, Eliyahu, Shmuel, Daniel, Yishayahu, or any of the patriarchs — not to be mentioning Noach & Hanoch, et al. — BFD.
Are they all fairy tales too?
THAT IS A STINKING LIE.
For one thing, the one you call “JC” never left the geographical boundaries of Eretz Yisrael during his whole lifetime (apart from a brief sojourn in Egypt during his infancy, as a refugee from a state-ordered hit squad)
— and had very few gentile followers during his earthly ministry. All the others were Judean & Galilean Jews.
For another thing, NOBODY who genuinely understood and believed the narrative & remarks of the central character in the Gospel could possibly behave in such a way as to persecute ANYBODY — let alone, those said to be the very flesh & blood of that central figure. (But then, you wouldn’t know that because you’re too much the coward to have read the Gospel for yourself.)
It’s patently clear — strikingly obvious — from even the most cursory reading of the narrative & teachings, that the perpetrators of that conduct were acting NOT ‘pursuant’ to the Gospel but very much in SPITE of it — and, if anything, exploiting its goodness as cover for their malevolence & criminality.
Any soi-disant “Christian” who hates Jews (of all people)
— hates Christ.
It’s just that simple.
“Inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me.”
@ yamit82:
Who gives a rip?
There is nowhere in any of the gospels a reference to Jesus’ ever asking anybody to comemmorate his birth.
Only his death. “Do this in remembrance of me.”
End of discussion.
@ yamit82:
Nazarene is the English-language form.
You think “Nazarene” is a concoction too?
Think what you like (you will anyway) — the title is handy, but it isn’t the only one I use for him.
Would you prefer haMelech haMoshiach? (THAT works for me too, but I just thought that, for the sake of shalom bayit, there was no need to be incendiary.)
I really don’t care what name you give him. You can call him Frosty the Snowman, Babe the Blue Ox, or Little Orphan Annie, for all I care.
What matters isn’t the shape or color of the handle. What matters is that a handle makes it possible to identify the ITEM and pick it up to examine & discuss.
Move on; these questions are dumber than dumb.
dweller Said:
Hmmm ha Nitzri???? There you go again with another made up fictional character… Imagination seems to be working on steroids again. Do you make it up as you go??? 🙂
dweller Said:
You appear to be employing that troll technique of role reversing(Jews the new nazis,Israel apartheid, Israel child killer, etc). It was the christians who slaughtered the jews with the Inquisition and you have reversed it here to the jew being the Inquisitor to the christian… nice try.
dweller Said:
so you endorse the virgin birth, resurrection of your nitzri AND claim to be a jew?
Let me see, are you saying that:
The G_D worshiped by the jewish people fathered a child with a woman and resurrected him as the messiah?
I wonder why He didnt let on to the Jews about it and why we only know this from “christians”?
Did he send his messiah for a trial run and will do the real performance later?
Did he replace the jews with the christians as his chosen people, is that why he didnt tell us?
I am sure you will be ready with the answers but I wonder where those answers come from?
where did you get this idea from, I never read of this suggestion from any Jews?
Why would our omnipotent G_D need to father a child with a woman, surely He who created the universe, all species of life and all races of man and women would not need to engage in some form of “copulation”…. He can just make it happen, just like Adam.
your ideas sound oddly christian to me, although you potest that a christian must believe in the deity of Jesus I find the walk like, looks like and quacks like analogy to be more appropriate here. Darwinians believe in Darwin and christians believe in Jesus. Since there appear to be no Jewish sources which attest to the existence of Jesus I must conclude that your christian sources led you there. There is no jesus except according to the christian narratives …..and we know how credible those sources are wrt Jews and Judaism. Perhaps you prefer to believe the fabrications of those that swindled, libeled, tortured and slaughtered the Jews for 2000 years and still running. What sort of “Jew” would believe the narratives of the members of the nazi party or the KKK wrt Jews or Judaism? Christianity did it much longer. Why would a Jew believe those followers of that org who committed such despicable acts against our people? I can understand the brainwashed but……..
“by their fruits you shall know them”?
what are the fruits of Christianity for the Jews? 🙁
dweller Said:
Sorry for that I meant virgin birth sort of confusing for we Jews. Only some christians like you seem to vaguely understand the differences so I looked it up and bingo now I know.
You believe both in “Original Sin” and the “Virgin Birth” and that your jesszuz character was sinless?
Since you therefore believe his mama was with sin it must of carried over to her progeny like little baby jeeezus aka know has yeshu for we Jews. Oh I forgot you don’t think he was really human?
As for your belief in original sin??? Oh well Here I have debunked your claim as a late add on to christian theology and no basis in your professed assertions that it was part of the original 1st century beliefs of the followers of yeshu. Since you claim for all of your christian theological beliefs were taken from Jewish sources i challenge you here and now to put up or admit you are full of it…. A great fabricator.
@ y-a-m-i-t-8-2:
Nope. There was no “Roman Catholic Church” till there was a Protestant Reformation. Till then, there was just a Church, which subsequently split — and part of which took the name, in a formalistic sense, of what until then had been a purely descriptive, small-“c” designation (“catholic”) intended to indicate universality.
Not all of the above. When did I endorse the “immaculate conception”??? Show me the post.
Wrong on every score but one. Immaculate Conception (referring to Mary’s conception) was never maintained by Jews. The others were; ALL the others.
Oh? — and WHAT’s “antithetical to Jewish beliefs & trad thought” ABOUT them? (Can’t wait to hear.)
Sorry, mi Senor Gran Inquisidor, they were held by JEWS in re haNitzri BEFORE they were held by anybody else.
@ honeybee:
True dat 🙁
@ yamit82:
Immolation, it’s a Viking thing. Jewish women get a lawyer and GOOD forensic accountant. L’chaim !!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
Was his brother also a dolt?
Pity she was a hot viking who got really hot in her end. 😉
@ yamit82:
Brunhilde, Bless her lit’ol heart, had terrible taste in men. Siegfried was a dolt.
honeybee Said:
Yeah 🙁
@ yamit82:
I am glad Mr. Yamit82 to see you are full of the Holiday Sprit.
honeybee Said:
Ragnarok was to undo their gods because they had stumbled from their higher standards.
Will the earth and all that inhabit it be destroyed again by flood? Or has this mythological prediction already occurred?
If the sun melts all of the snow then we certainly will be in the era of the twilight of the gods all of them.
In a future Armageddon I can see such a scenario as plausible.
Then we will begin again with one man and one woman.
Death and renewal on any scale …..
@ yamit82:
A better question is : WILL THE SUN MELT AND THE RAGNAROCK COMENCE.
@ bernard ross:
When was Jesus born?
The Real Story of Christmas and New Year
@ bernard ross:
Your friend (sic) has stated he believes in Satan ( devil , Lucifer) Heaven and Hell as per the Catholic Church creed: resurrection, virgin birth immaculate conception, messiah as a non diety savior messiah.
All canonized in Nicaea. Not a single item in his previous stated beliefs are of Jewish origin and all antithetical to Jewish beliefs and traditional thought for at least 3300 years. All are based on non Jewish pagan beliefs.
@ dweller:
Show me the origin and or source for the name or term nitzri
I think it’s a concoction, fabrication of your own and has no historical or biblical source.
Bernard Ross Said:
Your reading and information on JC must have come through christian sources as I have found no Jewish sources which validate the existence of JC and his disciples except for the musings of the yeshu pandera variations.
Dont you also believe in the virgin conception and resurrection of JC?
dweller Said:
I know that they have NOT been swindling, libeling, torturing, slaughtering Jews for 2000 years trying to defame, delgitimize and destroy Judaism and jews…..DUH??????????
Its insecurity with the serial jew killers and plain COMMON SENSE! You do not have to worry about such insecurity as you are quite at home with the narratives of those who created them.
dweller Said:
It would be impossible for me to assign a shred of factual credibility to serial, chronic, Jew killers, swindlers, libelers, torturers and slaughterers. Therefore, the reading of the asserted narratives and myths would be synonymous with reading mein kampf, snow white, etc. There may be a literary or informational value such as trying to figure out the MO of those trying to kill me but as for accepting any of their assertions as facts I could not as their MO proves a conflict of Interest wrt Jews and their narratives.. they have a need to defame and discredit jews and judaism in order to preserve the “credibility” of their narrative. For Jews, a tainted source but I can understand your affinity with the source.
dweller Said:
this is irrelevant, the existence of literary tracts,nor their literary quality, DOES NOT prove the existence of your nitzri
dweller Said:
I told you before that there is no credible source outside the tainted sources of christianity that Jesus and his disciples ever existed never mind whether any words ascribed to them came from them. When you control info you can reinvent reality in your own image which is what christianity has been doing for 2000 years. It’s not just their hatred of jews for killing their god but their need to destroy the witnesses, the Jewish narratives, the Jewish interpretations concerning their own Jewish bible
After all your “bloviating” I have yet to see one shred of evidence or support for the existence of your nitzri, santa clause, or snow white and the seven dwarfs.
I find it astounding that you try to assert in a jewish forum an equality of credibility between Jewish rabbanim and the christianity which has been responsible for libeling, swindling, torturing, burning, slaughtering Jews for 2000 years.
dweller Said:
When serial and chronic jew killers, swindlers and libelers tell me their myths I do not take them equally with jews….. their history appears NOT to stain their credibility for YOU!
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
We know there is revision and tampering, we know that christianity has demonstrated a vested interest in destroying and obfuscating Jewish wiritngs in order to preserve their hegemony and control ove the information arising from the Jews.
For you it is a matter of whether they did it for one year 100 years, a thousand years, or two thousand years…for me they are a tainted source with a tainted agenda based on a need to discredit and defame the jewish people, their writings, their culture and their ties to their land in order to “authenticate” their own myths. They are not a credible source or a credible witness for jews but I can understand that one who subscribes to the myths would have a need to prove their credibility. gosh, its not rocket science… if you have been libeling, swindling, torturing, slaughtering Jews for 2000 years the behaviors speak for themselves: not a credible source.
dweller Said:
an honest researcher must take into account the character of the source, the behavior of the source, the handling of documents by the source, the forgery and revisionism committed by the source, etc.
The testimony of a witness in a trial who has murdered, swindled, libeled, lied, revised, forged, burned, etc ad infinitum would be laughed out of any court but for a Jew to accept the info from a serial jew killer is beyond comprehension.
dweller Said:
In other words your jewish source “recommends as reliable” at least 4 out of the six quoted sources which are christian new testament sources…… which simply proves my point that it is filtered through christian sources.
Furthermore, as I told you before the author states the following
the whole encyclopedia has a need to appease christianity like many Jewish endeavors of the past 2000 years. The author died in 1946, there was hardly a time before that where jews did not need to watch their step regarding any reference to the NT or christianity. I am surprised you cannot find a Jewish source much earlier but instead need to rely on a “jewish source” 2000 years later who recommends christian sources.
But its all moot, the encyclopedia in no way attests to the factual nature of Jesus and his disciples, in fact it reads like a book reviewers review of a novel. It mainly describes what the christian sources say about themselves.
it remains that the myths of the NT are filtered through christianity.
Those who lied, libeled, swindled, tortured and slaughter Jews for 2000 years and are still doing it today cannot be considered BY ME to be a reliable source of fact especially in regard to Jews. An org who has been burning Jews and their writings for 2000 years provoke a bit of suspicion in me concerning their motives. I can understand that you find an affinity with such sources and consider them equal to Jewish sources but I find their 2000 year MO to be suspect and would not consider them as a source of factual info on anything but especially regarding jews where they have a conflict of interest between fact and preserving their hegemony and control over the Jewish bible which they hijacked to use as their foundation stone.
I was right: You ARE scared to read NT for yourself. Your willingness to go to such lengths as to make this kind of comparison gives you away. It only CONFIRMS what suspicion, until now, merely intimated.
Why would you want to what? — to read NT???
Well, for one thing, it’s as close to being an ‘original source’ for Xty as you’ll find in print — and an intellectually disciplined approach to making sense of this stuff would presume examining these things for YOURSELF, and as they are , exploring them on their own terms, before making judgments.
Hell, even Capt Huff’n’puff is up for READING it.
(He does it w/ his mind already made up before he even starts — so his ‘findings’ are not very trustworthy — but at least he isn’t terrified of scorching his fingers by picking up the book!)
If that’s what it takes to get a handle on how they see themselves, why not? (Wear rubber gloves & a face mask, if it’ll help you to keep from fainting under the strain of realizing what you’re doing. “The horror! the horror!“)
Incorrect. We DON’T ‘all’ know that NT is composed of ‘myths.’ SOME of ‘us’ make the assumption that they are ‘myths’; that’s all.
Nor do we ‘know’ that they spent ‘thousands of years’ trying to ‘prove’ ANYTHING. This — again — is sheer assumption on your part.
The reality is that there may have been some TAMPERING w/ those particular writings which wound up going into the NT canon at the time of compilation in the 4th century. But even THAT isn’t certain. An honest researcher maintains the discipline of an open mind until certainty beyond all doubt is established.
That point is nowhere yet even on the horizon.
Fine. Now all you have to do is show that NT is nothing but a fairy tale or novel. But to do that, you’ll have to start by READING the thing, if only to find out what’s actually IN there. And again, at this point, the reasonable response of one who remains as yet unconvinced is an open-minded, “wait-&-see” attitude.
— Though that prospect clearly frightens you the way some people are frightened by snakes or spiders.
None so far adduced; none that haven’t been suppressed. Most respectable, present-day Jewish authorities, in any case, however, seem to have no problem acknowledging the Jewish provenance of NT.
And if the rabbis could suppress the history of the Hashmona’im and the Jewish Civil War following the Maccabean-Syro/Gk struggle, then you KNOW that they could suppress other matters as well. Human nature is what it IS, wherever it is.
There’s your nasty habit — yet again — of putting words in my mouth. When did I claim they were “famous” Jews of the era? Show me the post please.
Dunno what you mean by a “historical” source. If you mean a contemporaneous, original source from the period, then say so. But NO encyclopedia is EVER an original source. Every encyclopedia is, by its very nature, a secondary or tertiary source. EVERY encyclopedia ‘parrots’ the info it provides after rigorously verifying it. You seem to be saying you distrust, a priori, ALL excyclopedic sources; if so, that’s bizarre.
As a compendium of facts that have been checked & rechecked, an encyclopedia is accorded a measure of reliability that other sources (sometimes even more primary ones) are justly denied. If you can’t handle that, I can’t help it; however, I did give you a number of different Jewish sources.
You don’t know that what you call “Christian sources” consist exclusively of christian churches . Some are simply independent scholars who specialize in matters relating to Christianity. It does not follow that they are necessarily connected with some church, or even have some prior intellectual interest in the outcome of their researches.
“Pretty STORY”? — I said nothing [above] of the NARRATIVE. I clearly referenced the SAYINGS specifically, the remarks, the Sermon on the Mount, etc — the internal unity & coherence of them, the fact that they couldn’t have been concocted & assembled “by committee.” One needn’t be a literary expert to realize this
— only an interested seeker with an open mind.
Hardly. I’ve NEVER said (nor suggested) that any belief of mine in haNitzri had anything to do with anything I heard (I used to drive preachers & other proselytizers CRAZY), nor did that belief arrive directly in me from anything I read in the Gospels.
— I began to refer to NT only after I came to believe, not before. Until then, it was just some interesting reading for me, which was occasionally insightful, but incapable of generating faith.
In fact, the archival record will unambiguously confirm, again & again, my stating that my belief developed quite independently of any preaching or reading I encountered; indeed, very much in SPITE of such.
So what? It’s uncorroborated externally, just like the gospels. How do you know the Jewish sources are any more reliable than the purportedly ‘Christian’ ones that you say you distrust? What you’re REALLY saying is that you’re less of a believer than a PARTISAN.
You’re not exploring for the truth; YOU’RE CHEERING FOR A “SIDE.”
— That’s one of the earmarks of the Jewish insecurity I referred to.
Playing fast-&-loose w/ the facts again, I see.
I did not take ANY quote from ANY website, as I didn’t need to. I had the book ITSELF. (What’s more, I had also already TOLD you the primary cosmological shortcoming I see in JFJ & similar outfits, so why would I go to THEM anyway??? The idea is nutty.)
Nor was I referring to any ‘quote’ when I said the chances were “99 to 1.” In stating those odds, I was referring quite explicitly to your question of what the chances were that the form of the CITE which I had offered you would be found elsewhere. Here was your actual verbatim question:
And here was [the reason for the sarcasm in] my reply:
Check that out for yourself.
Of course I didn’t. The statement was immaterial to the issue. Interfaith orientation means nothing, one way or another. In and of itself, it does not presume ANYTHING except to a mentality primed to hold it suspect.
This is strictly an assumption on your part. You don’t know there was any such agenda. You know only what you are INCLINED to believe from the get-go. That’s where we get the word prejudice — it’s PRE-judging.
QTC, “things” are nowhere near where they were when you made your first assertion. I have given you several Jewish sources which all acknowledge the Jewish authorship of the NT, notwithstanding the strenuousness of your protestations.
The only thing that truly IS “exactly as it started” when you made your assertion is the mindset with which you approach the matter. I offered you Jewish sources, and you claim that they’re not really Jewish or they’re not original enough or old enough — as if authenticity & originality were truly essential for you.
Yet when it comes to reading the NT for yourself, you shrink from that original source as if you were a vampire confronted by (dare I venture an image?) a cross.
Yet you offer NO purportedly Jewish sources from the era.
Not at all. As a matter of intellectual discipline. I begin by taking EVERY source at face value, and leave personal preferences, inclinations, and assumptions behind. From that point onward, it depends on where the search leads. If it leads to discrepancies, they will have to be examined.
Right (none that hasn’t been suppressed anyway). What of it? You could say the same of Eliyahu. Does that make him a ‘myth’ too? You could say the same for any NUMBER of Tanach characters whose existences are nowhere else noted in archeology or recorded history. Big deal.
But the ‘Jewish’ writings of which you speak are NOT from that era either.
It’s clear that you don’t care whether the writings are or aren’t Jewish. You simply ‘prefer’ the ones which say what you want to hear; I get it (as does ANY unprejudiced observer).
Before Hadrian made Jerusalem off-limits to all “circumcised persons” after the Bar Kokhba Revolt [AD 131-136], the so-called ‘Christian sources’ to which you refer were all JEWISH (and were Jewish even for quite some time AFTER that) — because the new movement was part of the Jewish community, and was not even called “Christian.” It was simply known as “The Way.”
I told you before, during his lifetime haNitzri himself never called anybody a ‘Christian.’ Those who loved him he called simply his friends. Nothing more, nothing less. The designation ‘Christian’ did not come into vogue till the movement was (by default) taken over by gentiles.
The first 15 bishops of Jerusalem were all. . . . circumcised. . . because they were all Jews.
WHAT “statement” after WHICH paragraphs I quoted? — the ones from Universal Jewish Encycl? It offers NO such ‘statement,’ only a reference designated “Lit.”
Such a reference does not mean those are ‘Christian sources’ for any specific facts laid out by the writer of those paragraphs [Rabbi Ernst I. Jacob] or by the editors. What it means is that for a reader seeking more detail (perhaps from a different angle), that those are recommended and regarded as reliable. Among them are also Claude G. Montefiore’s work and the Jewish Encyclopedia (not to be confused w/ the Universal Jewish Encycl, pub. later). Also the Encyclopedia Britannica .
Even you cannot make the claim that it spent all that time revising history. You simply do not know that. All you KNOW is that there has been some apparent revision, but how much and when it occurred or for how long is in no way clear. What’s more, after the year 1500, RCC had to contend with the Protestant Reformation, which would’ve left it w/ a far less free hand to do any further revising.
yamit82 Said:
True dat
@ honeybee:
Chicken coops too!
yamit82 Said:
Stay out of a dust storm
honeybee Said:
That’s a surprisingly sticky response.
yamit82 Said:
A hopeless task
honeybee Said:
There are a few holes in my education and life experiece that still need to be filled. I guess Molasses is one of them. Just one of the areas of my deficient education you can fill for me 😉
@ yamit82:
You just don’t know your molasses.
dweller Said:
I haven’t read much nazi or KKK literature either, why would I want to, do you think I should read it?
dweller Said:
we all know that the NT myths are based on the Jewish bible which is why they spent thousands of years trying to prove their authenticity as being its continuation. Even if Jewish writers participated in some of the NT stories it would just show that Jews can write novels and fairy tales.
However, it remains that the existence of the NT myths as fact is wholly reliant on christian assertions and sources. there are no Jewish sources which attest to the factual nature of jesus and his proteges, whom you claim are famous Jews of the era.
dweller Said:
your jewish source was not a source that was not filtered by christian sources..this was clear from their “mission statements” and from their footnotes immediately following the paragraphs you quoted. I am surprised that you could not find a jewish source closer than 2000 years that was unfiltered by christian sources.
@ honeybee:
Hmmm appears I chose in error or did I????
@ bernard ross:
Pls read this carefully for your next response to your friend.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm
yamit82 Said:
Bitter taste. thick and black in appearance. Laxative properties.
@ honeybee:
Multiple choice?
Trick choices?
Black strap!!!!!!!!!!!!
What did I win?
dweller Said:
So why did you quote a Jewish “source” who died in 1946, 1400 years later. Immediately under the paragraphs you quoted is the statement that Christian sources were used also. In other words even that source admits it is filtered through christian sources which was my original statement: that the NT fable of the existence of Jesus and his disciples according to their stories is filtered through christian sources. Furthermore, the RC church spent its 1400 years revising history so why would it not revise and manufacture the history from before its time to its “link” with Judaism. We already know that the RC church and other christian churches have a history of swindling libeling torturing and slaughtering the Jewish people during its existence of the 1400 years plus. Why would I remotely accept information about Jews from those with a history of Jew hatred AND a history of manufacturing lies in order to preserve their narrative. Killing the Jews and burning the jewish versions attests to the same. You might find those sources credible and so would stockholm syndrome Jews. You never dealt with my citation posted at the outset of this conversation whereby your “encyclopedia” made it clear that they were interfaith oriented,I made 2 quotes to that effect which you never addressed. There was an agenda to please the christians, which should not surprise us considering when it was written. any Jew should be reticent with such sources.
things are exactly as it started when I made my first assertion and all the posts have not debunked that statement. I have more confidence in Jewish sources than christian whereas you obviously are more at home with christian sources
dweller Said:
there appears to be no historical, archaeological or Jewish authentication of the existence of Jesus and his disciples. Your Jewish source is not an historical source but merely a parroting of other sources including christian. i don’t trust the christian churches on this subject but you are quite satisfied.
dweller Said:
a pretty story is your support for the existence of someone?
the source of your belief in his existence derives and is filtered through the same sources who claim he was the result of a union between a god and a virgin woman, etc. Why not believe in those also?
dweller Said:
Eliyahu comes through Jewish sources whereas your jesus comes through christian sources, the same sources who swindled, libeled, tortured and slaughtered Jews for 2000 years…. I can understand a non Jew being unable to fathom the difference but I find it absurd that a Jew would hold christian sources to be equal to jewish sources with regards to Jewish issues. Those guilty of the crimes I enumerated cannot make good witnesses especially in any thing related to jews.
I still fully believe that you took your original quote almost verbatim from the Jews for Jesus site, even you said the chance of the “coincidence” was 99 to one
yamit82 Said:
Sweet, sulphur , or black strap.
honeybee Said:
Molasses.
yamit82 Said:
I win the Big Blue Ribbon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sugar