Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Jewish records for Jesus

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 12:54:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A simple question; does anyone have any knowledge of any ancient Jewish writings which would show that the Jews had any knowledge of Jesus?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 1:47:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 12:54:01 AM, Beastt wrote:
A simple question; does anyone have any knowledge of any ancient Jewish writings which would show that the Jews had any knowledge of Jesus?

Yeah, they're called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 2:19:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 1:47:10 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/23/2014 12:54:01 AM, Beastt wrote:
A simple question; does anyone have any knowledge of any ancient Jewish writings which would show that the Jews had any knowledge of Jesus?

Yeah, they're called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Well, that's a nice (but very poor) try.

Those are all anonymous works which were held by (some) Christian tradition to have been written by the names provided to them. However...

"Mark" was not written in Hebrew (as we would expect), but in Greek - a rather crude form of Koine Greek. Rather than demonstrating the knowledge easily expected of any former Jew, it demonstrates a rather devout ignorance of Jewish beliefs and practices. It misquotes the 10 Commandments and attributes words Jews were always careful to credit to God, instead to Moses. And while most of "Matthew" is copied from "Mark", the author of "Matthew" at least took the time to correct these rather horrendous and embarrassing blunders.

Matthew was a former Jew and is also said to have been an eye-witness to the stories in the gospels. However, with only 678-verses in (the latter versions of) "Mark", about 600-verses in Matthew are parallels - taken, practically in order from the pages of "Mark", which completely undermines any suggestion that the work is actually from Matthew. With the growing evidence from modern textual criticism, this has become so completely evident that even modern Study Bibles are pointing out the falling away from the claim of Matthian authorship.

NIV STUDY BIBLE
- "Although the first gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies, in particular, those that stress Matthews alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his gospel have caused some biblical scholars to abandon Matthian authorship. 'Why,' they ask, 'would Matthew, a witness to the events of the Lord's life depend so heavily on Mark's account?'"

As for "Luke", not only does the text itself make it clear that it is not an eye-witness account (and therefore could not have come from Luke) in the very beginning of the gospel (Luke 1:1-4), where it clearly states that it is not an eye-witness account but taken from others; it also displays an unmistakeable level of copying from "Mark", constituting about 300-verses of "Luke". It even shows that the author was using a damaged copy of "Mark" as can be seen in Luke 9:18 where we find Jesus alone praying, and with his disciples.

(Luke 9:18) "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?"

The mystery is resolved through a horizontal reading of "Mark" and "Luke". We find that the two track together with rather amazing consistency (again, indicating copying), until we reach Mark 6:46, which reads;

(Mark 6:46) "And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray."

This is where Jesus is alone praying in the first half of Luke 9:18. But at this point, the two gospels lose synchronicity. Mark goes on for 74.5 verses talking about various events and miracles which appear nowhere in the "Gospel of Luke". But then at Mark 8:27, the two sync up again with this verse...

(Mark 8:27) "And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?"

The author of Luke was copying along until he came to a portion of his copy of "Mark" which he could no longer read (it may have been missing entirely). So he simply wrote out what he could of that verse (Mark 6:46), and then picked up again when he found more legible text (at Mark 8:27), resulting in merging Mark 6:46 and Mark 8:27 into a single verse. The verse starts with Jesus being alone, as is found in Mark 6:46, and ends with him asking who the people believe him to be, as in Mark 8:27.
Luke also contains about 100 verses believed to have been taken from the "Q", as well as information and details taken from "Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War", both written by Flavius Josephus, and completed in 93CE.

The "Gospel of John" contains less copying from "The Gospel of Mark" than either "Matthew" or "Luke", but still presents far too many parallel verses to demonstrate anything but an obvious case of copying. Because there was less copying, it is the only non-synoptic gospel. John also contains the same information taken from the writings of Flavius Josephus, which are present in "The Gospel of Luke".

Remember; these were anonymous writings. No one knew who wrote them, though there were traditional beliefs that they may be the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But this was so uncertain that the members of the Council of Nicaea had a vote to determine who wrote each of these gospels, and they selected them for their cohesive qualities, which came not from eye-witness observation, but from the fact that the latter three were all copied (to various degrees), from the oldest - "Mark".

And the authors are not Jewish, but thought to be Roman. "Mark" was almost certainly written by an unknown Roman convert to Christianity, and since the other three all borrowed from "Mark" even if they had any Jewish background, this shows that they did not have any first-hand knowledge of Jesus.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:00:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 12:54:01 AM, Beastt wrote:
A simple question; does anyone have any knowledge of any ancient Jewish writings which would show that the Jews had any knowledge of Jesus?

What do all those books you have ostensibly read say about it?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

http://evidencetobelieve.net...

Well, that took all of 30 seconds to find with google.

Now please, give us any old silly excuse to declare all the evidence for Jesus as unsatisfactory to YOU, using no actual academic standards (again), and then fail again to explain why the record is compelling enough to convince atheist and agnostic PERIOD scholars with Ph.D's ... but not you?

Remember that video you linked about confirmation biases and its effects on beliefs? Eat your heart our Beasty.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:52:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The historicity of Jesus is proved by the very nature of the records in the New Testament, especially the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." This is the "scholarship" of "experts" in agreement that I copied from the link given above.

Here is a link to real Jewish records for the historical "Jesus", Yeishu ben Pantera.

http://biomystic.org...

This link also gives the most accurate analysis of the Gospels in regard to actual Jewish religious and cultural conditions supposedly facing Jesus of "Nazareth". Note too the origin of the Mary Magdalene in Gentile unfamiliarity with Hebrew language. The whole Pauline Christian tradition just shows us what having the world's most powerful state behind you can do for establishing "legitimacy" in a religion created by stealth and hoodwinking believers right and left in the "Name of God". Something that seems to happen each and every time priesthoods get their mitts on Jewish revelation, both priests of Judah doing the creative retelling or Gentile churchmen, all of them only wanting to establish reasons for their living and social status, all "for God" of course.

We're lucky to have a God that is far smarter than the human pack animals carrying the spiritual goods in their panniers and packs and not having a clue God has embedded the right spiritual information in code within the tall tales to be decoded when the time is right: i.e, after science of history has established the false belief systems created by priesthoods upon authentic religious revelation. The spiritually decoded Bible and New Testament can be found here in the link to Celestial Torah Christianity: http://biomystic.org...