Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Hemisphere
You know everything...
know everything! But thanks for the compliment.
The problem with your reference on the Talmud is at least two-fold.
The Talmuds were Rabbinic commentaries on the Jewish scriptures, that is, the Old Testament. The Babylonian Talmud was probably completed
around the 6th century. The Talmuds are long and complicated, and it is difficult to make sense of some of what they say. Of course, the Jews were not
overly sympathetic to the heretical new religion that Jesus founded.
And so these commentaries were written long after 'Yeshu the Nazarene' is reported to have lived. Thus not a direct record of his life and times. I
suspected that. Also the article describes the Talmud as "long, complicated and difficult to make sense of" and that to me would be an apt
description of the NT. The writer of the article should consider more carefully what sources he uses to back his beliefs. But he has little to choose
from as Jesus is not recognized outside of the NT as the Messiah. In my opinion, Jesus just wasn't a big deal and thus no press coverage at the time
of his death in front of what we are lead to believe were throngs of people. I actually can imagine that many people lined the Via Dolorosa and
witnessed his journey to the cross. I'm sure it was a regular spectacle much like the later Coliseum spectacles. The Romans wanted a good turn-out.
They wanted people to stop their chores and come and witness what happens to those that get out of line. This was common. This was crowd control.
Secondly from your linked article:
The Babylonian Talmud says:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu* [= Jesus]. And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days, saying: 'He is going to be stoned,
because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But
not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover.
Here it describes him as a convicted sorcerer, whereas the parts parallel to the Gospels being he lived and was hanged or crucified. We know Jesus was
no sorcerer, no such thing. He was a snake-oil salesman selling another brand. Coke had established the territory and so "Pepsi sucks!". Me? I'm a
Dr Pepper guy as I stated earlier. So to speak.
The linked article was obviously written from a pro-Christian perspective and so even though they approve that the Talmud mentions Jesus, they
discredit the rest of the Talmudic report on Jesus because it doesn't fit their
interpretation. One has to wonder if this author(s) also
questions the slant of earlier Jewish writings i.e. the Old Testament. I for one do not wonder, I think this author accepts the OT because it fits his
agenda. It was written first and so the Jews could not balk at the selection of the fictional Messiah by the non-Jews and of course the NT was then
written to fulfill the OT prophesies. Thus the rabble eventually hijacked the "Chosen" legacy. Again, just my opinion.
I also have a problem with "Biblical scholars". They always find for the Christian myth despite any evidence to the contrary. If they were to find
differently, they would be out of a job. Thus self-perpetuating employment. What happens when a "Biblical scholar" finds evidence against the Christ
story? They state as in this article that: "the documentary evidence for the Gospel account may be much stronger." No kidding! Why is that? Is it
that the NT myth was just piled high and deep? There was much at stake there. They, whoever the authors were, even went as far as writing the same
story four times to address different audiences with different story telling traditions. (You and I know there are vast differences in the four
stories with what seem to be vital details omitted in some.) Whereas this Talmud you introduced...... it seemingly, if I am to believe the article,
cuts to the quick. Essentially saying Yeshu was a phoney and was hanged. End of story.
This Talmudic interpretation seems to fit with this. Jesus was a living Jewish Messianic "contender" living during the early 1st century CE/AD.
(There were numerous contenders around that time or so it has been reported.) The Jews were looking for a more militant/military leader, Simon bar
Kokhba better fit that description and was considered the Messiah by some. But the Biblical Jesus was a philosopher not a general. I think that if he
actually lived, he simply wasn't the man the Jews were looking for in a Messiah. That was the key here, he was just a man. He likely preached, the
parables are likely what he preached, the miracles, bells and whistles were added on later by the Gospel authors for emphasis. We can imagine a group
of fishermen being able to feed a small crowd with of all things..... fish! Not such a miracle. More like a picnic. The size of the crowd for instance
might have grown a couple of decades hence as the authors were not there and so poetic license. Imagine that!
Now the life of Jesus moves along and he has his run in with TPTB. The cops ask the Jewish priests "Do you know this guy?" "You mean the cutesy PIA
that has been screwing with our sweet operation on and off for a few years? NO!" And so the Romans take Jesus and do what they do best, they oppress
upstarts. They crucify Jesus and he likely says: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Why would he say this? Because Jesus and his merry band
expected an act of God to stop the show. Much like we are lead to believe happened when Abraham started to sacrifice Isaac. (Again were there
witnesses to that? I don't think so. Just old Abe and Ike out for a hike.) The problem was that this time Romans were involved. Actual Romans always
trump mythical gods. The Romans killed Jesus, there was nobody home when he called. There was no answer. There was no forsaking. There was nobody to
Now after this happens what is left? A motley crew, the very first NT scholars, Jesus' fishing buddies. Now they've all lost their jobs, the boss is
dead. What do they do? They perpetuate the myth. They make lemonade out of a crucifixion. They take the story to the next level, God didn't save the
boss physically, HE saved him spiritually. He ascended! Who can argue that if we hide the body? I think the disciples then went off and carried the
Jesus myth with them far and wide. Why? Because to give up their beliefs at this point would have been too devastating. Imagine Harold Camping's
followers! "What do I do now Harry? I sold the ranch, quit my job and we're all still here!" The Apostles were not youngsters, they did not want to
go back to community college and acquire new job skills. They were Jesus' disciples by gum and they were gonna play the hands they were dealt. They
went and spread the word and they became PIAs to cops in exotic lands and towns and they too eventually got to "phone home".
Their legacy was a bunch of loosely related oral traditions/stories. The stories were told and retold, they grew and were embellished. By the time the
Romans compiled the NT there was a lot to select from. I think they selected the rather tame tales. I've heard some of the lost "Gospels" were real
trippy. Was it an easy fit to blend these new tales with the OT prophesies? Perhaps not but if you had for instance a learned Jewish writer such as
Titus Flavius Josephus on hand it became far easier in my estimation. Is this exactly how or who perpetuated the myth? I don't know for certain but
it is as plausible as any explanation in my opinion.
To each his own. Please pardon my flippant style in writing this, no disrespect intended. It's just how I write.