Torah: A Commentary of Love (a response to Christians)

[Menachem]

I assumed that the jewish position was that Jesus was not who he said he was. Not that Jesus was a myth... wow.

Some say the former while others say the latter...this isnt a hard concept to grasp.

[Glenn P]

Some say the former while others say the latter...this isnt a hard concept to grasp.

The concept presented by Goose was something like that latter. And while it's not a hard concept to grasp (nobody said it was, you are the first to mention that), it is definitely a hard claim to take seriously - that there is literally no good evidence that the man we call Jesus Christ ever existed. One must search with his eyes closed to conclude that.

By the way, what good evidence is there that Moses existed? Just curious.

[Darth Executor]

who says he doesnt know what he is talking about.

Sorry but I have difficulty taking people who consider the Christ myth a realistic possibility seriously.

[Goose]

By the way, what good evidence is there that Moses existed? Just curious.

More evidence then J-sus, which would be uncommon since Moshe is much earlier. For instance, there are some scholars who believe this image is of the Princess Nefure and the baby Moshe and this to be an image of Moshe himself.

Belief in Moshe is important, but not central to Judaism. However, belief in Jes-s is absolutely vital to Christianity.

[Pythagoras]

Hi,

Sorry but I have difficulty taking people who consider the Christ myth a realistic possibility seriously.

Actually the "Christ" Catholics(and Trinitarians) acknowledge is very much the "Christ of Myth" and not the Christ of history.



It matters little if Catholics(and Trinitarians) prefer to call their mythic Christ Jesus( a historical figure), rather than Krishna, Tammuz or Mithras.

best wishes,

[Glenn P]

More evidence then J-sus, which would be uncommon since Moshe is much earlier. For instance, there are some scholars who believe this image is of the Princess Nefure and the baby Moshe and this to be an image of Moshe himself.

Belief in Moshe is important, but not central to Judaism. However, belief in Jes-s is absolutely vital to Christianity.

Let's get this straight - you say that there are "some scholars" who think that there is an image of Moses and the princess, and some scholars who think there is an image of Moses, and that this counts as "more evidence than Jesus"? What planet are you on? Can't you at least see why it's hard to take that perspective seriously?

I have also encountered the kind of radically liberal Judais that you refer to. For example, I have a Jewish friend who says that the Exodus never occured. But once you start Jetisonning things like belief that Moses existed, and then you turn on Christians and say that there's more evidence for your purported history than for ours, it's just because you've discarded the kinds of important claims that used to be Jewish history.

[Menachem]

The concept presented by Goose was something like that latter. And while it's not a hard concept to grasp (nobody said it was, you are the first to mention that), it is definitely a hard claim to take seriously - that there is literally no good evidence that the man we call Jesus Christ ever existed. One must search with his eyes closed to conclude that.

By the way, what good evidence is there that Moses existed? Just curious.

My eyes have been open most of my life except when I go to sleep at night. I have never "found him" to be real I only accept a premise that he may have existed as a person but the events surrounding him are untrue.

As for Moshe...If he did not exist I would not be here today? However as Goose said believing in Moshe is not at all central to Judaism, we do not believe that any man is "divine", the events surrounding Sinai are. We know that something actually Happened at Sinai, that there was a Temple built by Solomon and that the ark of the covenant did actually exist and reside in the Temple. Plus the things Goose provided. Where beyond the gospels is there any independent written record of this jesus character doing anything at all? Josephus' forged passages do not count. And the record must be from the time of jesus or they are suspect.

[Darth Executor]

Plus the things Goose provided.

Goose provided a couple of statues that could be anybody.

Where beyond the gospels is there any independent written record of this jesus character doing anything at all? Josephus' forged passages do not count.

Only one is partially forged.

And the record must be from the time of jesus or they are suspect.

Why, because you said so? Why is there any need for independent sources anyway? Why don't we have records of your precious synagogue exposing the lie that is Jesus? Why don't we have records of ANYBODY of that time denying that Jesus existed as one would expect? You have absolutely no idea how history works.

[Goose]

Let's get this straight - you say that there are "some scholars" who think that there is an image of Moses and the princess, and some scholars who think there is an image of Moses, and that this counts as "more evidence than Jesus"? What planet are you on? Can't you at least see why it's hard to take that perspective seriously?

People can take me seriously because there is potentially hard archaeological evidence that Moshe existed, contrasted to the zero evidence that your Messiah existed. I'm not trying to sound cruel, that's just the way it is.

[Pythagoras]

People can take me seriously because there is potentially hard archaeological evidence that Moshe existed, contrasted to the zero evidence that your Messiah existed. I'm not trying to sound cruel, that's just the way it is.

What exactly does "potentially hard archeological evidence" mean?--

In anycase, there is little doubt that the Gospel of John is an authentic document of Jewish origin. Why? Because we have on hand hard archeological evidence. For example in the John Ryland's University library, Deansgate, Manchester a small fragment of John's Gospel which has confidently been dated Ad120(!) is stored, barely 80 years after the death of Jesus, the earliest NT fragment discovered so far . It contains on the one part precious verses 31-33, on the other verses 37-38 of chapter XViii. This small fragment speaks volumes;it mentions Pilate and Jesus, refers to "the Jews" , calls Jesus "a king", records Pilate as asking Jesus the question, "what is truth" . This early fragment exactly copies what is found in the relevent verses of the modern Gospel of John. It was originally found in Egypt(and may have come from the famous site of oxyrhynchus(Behnesa). The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it has confidently been dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language. It provides us with invaluable evidence of the spread of Christianity in areas distant from the land of its origin by 120AD!!; it is particularly interesting to know that among the books read by the early Christians, in Upper Egypt was John's Gospel, and ironically regarded as one of the latest of the books of the New Testament.

So we can safely say that at least verses 31-33, verses 37 -38 chapter 18 of the Gospel of John are not inventions/fabrications of Catholic concils but eye-witness productions of Jewish, probably apostolic origin. And if we take these John Ryland verses as a random sample, then odds are good that the Four Gospels in their entirety present faithful transmittion of the good news through the ages . OurJohn Ryland Random Sample proves this!To get a feel for the soup, for example, one need sip but a tea-spoon and not drink the whole cauldron, and what we know so far is good news, that the gospel accounts are trustworthy.

best wishes to all,

[shunyadragon]

What exactly does "potentially hard archeological evidence" mean?--

In anycase, there is little doubt that the Gospel of John is an authentic document of Jewish origin. Why? Because we have on hand hard archeological evidence. For example in the John Ryland's University library, Deansgate, Manchester a small fragment of John's Gospel which has confidently been dated Ad120(!) is stored, barely 80 years after the death of Jesus, the earliest NT fragment discovered so far . It contains on the one part precious verses 31-33, on the other verses 37-38 of chapter XViii. This small fragment speaks volumes;it mentions Pilate and Jesus, refers to "the Jews" , calls Jesus "a king", records Pilate as asking Jesus the question, "what is truth" . This early fragment exactly copies what is found in the relevent verses of the modern Gospel of John. It was originally found in Egypt(and may have come from the famous site of oxyrhynchus(Behnesa). The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it has confidently been dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language. It provides us with invaluable evidence of the spread of Christianity in areas distant from the land of its origin by 120AD!!; it is particularly interesting to know that among the books read by the early Christians, in Upper Egypt was John's Gospel, and ironically regarded as one of the latest of the books of the New Testament.

So we can safely say that at least verses 31-33, verses 37 -38 chapter 18 of the Gospel of John are not inventions/fabrications of Catholic concils but eye-witness productions of Jewish, probably apostolic origin. And if we take these John Ryland verses as a random sample, then odds are good that the Four Gospels in their entirety present faithful transmittion of the good news through the ages . OurJohn Ryland Random Sample proves this!To get a feel for the soup, for example, one need sip but a tea-spoon and not drink the whole cauldron, and what we know so far is good news, that the gospel accounts are trustworthy.

best wishes to all,

120 AD cannot be equated with apostolic origins at the time of Jesus, and the fact that there is absolutely nothing before that that makes it weak. All that can be said is that there were Christians who wrote and believed at that time. We do not know what the entire Gospel of John looked like at the time from one fragment. This does not make the gospels trustworthy records dating from the time of the life of the apostles.

[Pythagoras]

Greetings shunydragon,

It seems to me we can make certain deductions:

120 AD cannot be equated with apostolic origins at the time of Jesus, and the fact that there is absolutely nothing before that that makes it weak.

If the gospel was already in Egypt by 120AD,then it must have been written earlier than that date and distributed to Egypt, unless you think it originated in Egypt (?). This brings us to the time of the apostles.

The fact that we have papayrus fragments of the Gospel of John barely 80 years after the death of Jesus in Egypt is incredible!

All that can be said is that there were Christians who wrote and believed at that time.

That's astounding! We have Christians who wrote , believed and were widely distributing their literature by 120AD . That means this sect was already well established by 120AD and well familiar with the gospel of John by that time, and it was already fiated by them...

We do not know what the entire Gospel of John looked like at the time from one fragment.

True. But what little we have found so far in papayrus fragments(JohnRylands ) is a very faithful representation of the Gospel of John account, very "normal", with no variation . The odds that another random sample, if discovered, will also be "normal" are therefore very high.

Don't you understand simple statistical analysis?

This does not make the gospels trustworthy records dating from the time of the life of the apostles

It does.



best wishes,

[Menachem]

Goose provided a couple of statues that could be anybody.

Could be.

Only one is partially forged.

Are you sure about that somehow I doubt it is only partially forged but rather its entire mention of a certain somebody is a complete forgery.

Why, because you said so? Why is there any need for independent sources anyway? Why don't we have records of your precious synagogue exposing the lie that is Jesus? Why don't we have records of ANYBODY of that time denying that Jesus existed as one would expect? You have absolutely no idea how history works.

Basically yes because I said so. If you mean to prove anything please prove it with stuff from that Time period Anything else is subject to christain influence and would be adjusted to fit the christian picture. The DSS are close if not from that time period do they mention anything Christological... I dont think so!

We do have something that exposes the lie of jesus from the Synagogue it is called the Tanakh(Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) it says he isnt what he claims to be so there you go.

We do have records that would seem to say that jesus did not exist. He is never mentioned in any Rabbinical writings that come from that period of time nor any writing from the DSS so they must have never heard of this jesus guy ever living or if you want to take the flip side and say he existed and since no mention of him is ever recorded in any Jewish writings of the time he must not have been important enough to talk about so there is that side.

Darth we can go around and around all day with this I dont mind. As for your last statement you are completely incorrect and your accusation is therefore false.

[Darth Executor]

Are you sure about that somehow I doubt it is only partially forged but rather its entire mention of a certain somebody is a complete forgery.

Most scholars agree that one of them is a partial interpolation meant to advertise Jesus as messiah, not his existance.

Basically yes because I said so. If you mean to prove anything please prove it with stuff from that Time period Anything else is subject to christain influence and would be adjusted to fit the christian picture.

Christianity never had the chance to achieve such a feat. Not that it matters because all you've put forth is an idiotic conspiracy theory for which you have no evidence.

The DSS are close if not from that time period do they mention anything Christological... I dont think so!

Why would the DSS mention Jesus? They're manuscripts containing the OT, not newspapers.

We do have something that exposes the lie of jesus from the Synagogue it is called the Tanakh(Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) it says he isnt what he claims to be so there you go.

Thank you captain obvious, I'm glad you brought up your little piece of jewish propaganda. Now tell me, if Jesus didn't exist, why does your precious Tanakh mention Him? Did the Tanakh lie? Because that is what your post is implying.

We do have records that would seem to say that jesus did not exist.

So the Tanakh DID lie.

[quote] He is never mentioned in any Rabbinical writings that come from that period of time nor any writing from the DSS so they must have never heard of this jesus guy ever living or if you want to take the flip side and say he existed and since no mention of him is ever recorded in any Jewish writings of the time he must not have been important enough to talk about so there is that side.[/quote[

Why would they mention some obscure preacher who wandered the countryside? In fact, what does it matter if the jews mention him at all? He only became important when Christianity was deemed a threat by the Romans.

Darth we can go around and around all day with this I dont mind. As for your last statement you are completely incorrect and your accusation is therefore false.

No, it is not false because if you knew anything about historical standards you'd know that unless you provide some counter evidence to Jesus existing (the NT is enough) like him being exposed as non-existant by sources during or within a couple of centuries after he lived, then you're wrong, plain and simple. No serious scholar doubts his existance but it's obvious that your blind hatred of Christianity would lead you to call your own holy book a lie, or in Goose's case, compromise on Moses's possible existance. Kind of makes me wonder, are you jewish, or are you antichristian?

[Menachem]

Most scholars agree that one of them is a partial interpolation meant to advertise Jesus as messiah, not his existance.

I think that is a big stretch on the word "most." I would agree with the word "some" but with "most" you are pushing it here.

Christianity never had the chance to achieve such a feat. Not that it matters because all you've put forth is an idiotic conspiracy theory for which you have no evidence.

Oh really isnt that what yours was from the start. or are you trying to switch it around here.

Why would the DSS mention Jesus? They're manuscripts containing the OT, not newspapers.

Gee no christological interpolations or influence...it must not have been that important at the time if the Jews were to be expecting this man/god to be the messiah...one can only wonder..

Thank you captain obvious, I'm glad you brought up your little piece of jewish propaganda. Now tell me, if Jesus didn't exist, why does your precious Tanakh mention Him? Did the Tanakh lie? Because that is what your post is implying.

The problem is the Tanakh doesnt mention jesus...You presume to think it does but it really doesnt so the tanakh didnt lie the GNT lied. If you wish to try and prove it does speak of Jesus I say go ahead and give it a whirl, start another thread and we will hash it out with you getting no closer to pointing th jesus in the Tanakh than you were five mintutes ago. Plus, it will give me something to be amused with.

So the Tanakh DID lie.

Nope the Tanakh told the truth. See above.

Why would they mention some obscure preacher who wandered the countryside? In fact, what does it matter if the jews mention him at all? He only became important when Christianity was deemed a threat by the Romans.

gee such person who is both man and G-d would surely be mentioned if he were the Messiah. This is exactly my point If he existed he was not worth mentioning as he did nothing to be worthy of it, Or on the flip side he did not exist straight and simple.

No, it is not false because if you knew anything about historical standards you'd know that unless you provide some counter evidence to Jesus existing (the NT is enough) like him being exposed as non-existant by sources during or within a couple of centuries after he lived, then you're wrong, plain and simple. No serious scholar doubts his existance but it's obvious that your blind hatred of Christianity would lead you to call your own holy book a lie, or in Goose's case, compromise on Moses's possible existance. Kind of makes me wonder, are you jewish, or are you antichristian?

In order to propose any counter evidence for his existance there first must be historical evidence beyond the typical devotional books of his existance by you(Big emphasis on historical evidence). So far you have not provided any. The GNT is a devotional book about a person named jesus thus cannot be counted as anything other than devotional rather than Historical. So you have not provided anything beyond your belief and or your devotional books to his existance so evidence against him can not be offered until you do so.

Yes your accusation is false.

AS for your last statement that is just a plain insult: "No serious scholar doubts his existance but it's obvious that your blind hatred of Christianity would lead you to call your own holy book a lie, or in Goose's case, compromise on Moses's possible existance. Kind of makes me wonder, are you jewish, or are you antichristian?"

if you cannot work past these insults then we have nothing further to discuss.

I never compromised on anything nor on Moshe's existance that is what you are assuming by simply misunderstanding what I wrote and I never in any point called what was in the Torah A lie, I did call what was in the GNT "the greatest lie ever told" just in another forum.