DomKen -> RE: The Covert Messiah (10/10/2013 5:20:28 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen So like I said. Why do you always think you can go find some beginners explanation for something and it is the end all of something? The above says, nothing in the Gospels is accurate, and we know most of it is patently untrue. Jews do not acknowledge Jesus as anything. There are no Jewish scripture with him (this despite the fact the Books of Maccabee were written within a century of the period in question). But you will base your entire bizarre argument on a throwaway beginners explanation. Let's see what a rabbi has to say: http://ohr.edu/ask/ask00j.htm Now I'll await your pathetic flailing trying to prop up the existence of Jesus despite absolutely no evidence what so ever existing anywhere at all. See? With no snarky commentary, I simply quote a respectable Jewish source that disagrees with your alleged "knowledge of Jewish scholarship," and you turn around and throw a bag of shit at me. When early Popes ordered that the Talmud be burned, there was dispute (and there remains dispute today) about whether or not the offending passages actually referred to Jesus. And since you have now expanded your claim beyond "Jewish scholarship," allow me to point out that arguments against the historicity of Jesus based on the inventions and prevarications of the early Church lose much of their shine when confronted by the conspicuously non-canonical scrolls found at Nag Hammadi. K. The Talmud entries you claim establish a historical Jesus were not written any where near the first century CE, the section you're talking about was written around 500CE. So they are of absolutely no use and can be ignored. Nag Hammadi is from the 2nd century AD. It is no more relevant to establishing the historicity of Jesus than any of the other claims. Why did you think stuff wriiten at least 100 years after the time in question would convince anyone? The Gospels are roughly the same age and they convince no scholars. You would have been better off trotting out the Josephus quotes. One of them may be original and was written within the lifetime of people who may have been present, of course the parts that might be relevant are almost certainly added by Christians later so that would of course have been problematic. The fact is there is not one shred of evidence supporting a historical Jesus. And Jewish scholars do not view Jesus as, if they consider him at all, important. Certainly he was not important enough for anyone to write down a single thing about him at the time.
|
|
|
|