• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fake Jesus is bad for your education.

Elvira said:
Holds more weight than your opinion...
Click to expand...

Prove it. Use sometime other than a cut/paste from a dictionary, your jw website, or anything else. use your own words, and be coherent, to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about.
 
RAMOSS said:
Prove it. Use sometime other than a cut/paste from a dictionary, your jw website, or anything else. use your own words, and be coherent, to demonstrate that you actually know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Read it...:roll:
 
Elvira said:
Read it...:roll:
Click to expand...

I did. I criticized it. You did not respond in a manner that showed you either understood my response, or for that matter, the original cut/paste. You very rarely , if ever, discuss things in your own words.
 
RAMOSS said:
I did. I criticized it. You did not respond in a manner that showed you either understood my response, or for that matter, the original cut/paste. You very rarely , if ever, discuss things in your own words.
Click to expand...

lol...I discuss with those open to discussion...you never are...
 
Elvira said:
lol...I discuss with those open to discussion...you never are...
Click to expand...

My opinion is that you only "discuss" items with those who agree with you. When your errors and/or reliance upon certain websites is called into question, your answers become meaningless.
 
Somerville said:
My opinion is that you only "discuss" items with those who agree with you. When your errors and/or reliance upon certain websites is called into question, your answers become meaningless.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should review my posting history because you are wrong...I do not discuss with close minded people...there are plenty here I disagree with at times, yet we are capable of having discussions...those who's only goal is to criticize/disagree just to be obstinate/argue, I don't waste my time with...I have better things to do with my time...
 
Elvira said:
Then perhaps you should review my posting history because you are wrong...I do not discuss with close minded people...there are plenty here I disagree with at times, yet we are capable of having discussions...those who's only goal is to criticize/disagree just to be obstinate/argue, I don't waste my time with...I have better things to do with my time...
Click to expand...

What do you think close minded means? Is your mind open to other religious beliefs?
 
Somerville said:
You shouldn't use the Talmud as support for your Jesus. Yes, two Talmuds of the early period were written starting in the 3rd century with additions up to the 6th century.

The problem lies in the fact that the Jesus in the Talmuds was born almost one hundred years earlier than the birth time of your Jesus. He was the bastard son of a legionaire named Pandera or Panther. So we have stories about Yeshua ben Pandera. Here's a link to an academic paper from Tyndale House at Cambridge University - JESUS OF NAZARETH’S TRIAL IN THE
UNCENSORED TALMUD
Click to expand...

The dates jump around a bit (some references are to a century or so BC, some to a century or so AD), ancient rabbis were not sticklers for them - nor are the multiple references to a Jesus in the Talmud all linked to a ben Pandera (though several of the references have commonalities). I certainly wouldn't attempt to hinge an entire case solely on the testimony of a Talmud that records that Jesus was killed on the Eve of Passover after performing powerful acts (what they label sorcery) and leading many in Israel into apostasy, as (as you point out), there are indeed inconsistencies within the discussion. It is, however, an entirely worthy piece of a cumulative argument - that the heavy weight of evidence is in favor of a historical Jesus whose life and activities fairly well mirror the New Testament accounts; that, on top of the internal evidences of truth and the archaeological validation of its details, we have textual references as well.

Thank you, however, for the link - I started skimming at about page 13, I'll admit, but that was interesting. I'm not entirely positive it says what you need it to:

...10. Conclusions The traditions about the trials of Jesus and his disciples which were censored from b.San.43a were brought into the Talmudic discussions early in the Third Century and removed in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. External evidence gives independent witness that the earliest core in this tradition was: ‘On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel [to idolatry].’ The rest of the tradition was added later as explanatory glosses to help the reader with problems which became particularly acute in the Second Century: the date of the trial; the method of execution; and the charge of ‘sorcery’. These explanations had already been added by the end of the Second Century, because part of them is debated as an authoritative text by rabbis in the early Third Century.

The earliest development of this tradition cannot be traced with any certainty. The third charge was not present in about AD 150 when Justin Martyr cited two charges, though only the first was pertinent to his argument. He cited them as something which his Jewish opponent would be familiar with. The consistent order of the charges, which is opposite to that in Torah and rabbinic halakha, suggests they came from another authoritative source. The wording of the rest of the earliest core of this tradition is not what would have invented to help the case that Jesus was tried and executed according to Jewish law.

The least difficult explanation is that the earliest core of the censored tradition of Jesus’ trial came from the time of Jesus. [cpwill notes - specifically, the paper suggests it came from the Sadducees, and was kept by the Rabbis] Succeed-ing generations felt they could not change it, despite difficulties presented by the wording. Instead, later editors added explanatory phrases during the latter half of the Second Century to help readers understand the correct meaning of this tradition, as they saw it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom