• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also ancient Jewish people would not use the phrase, King of The Jews" they would use the designation "King of Israel".

It would appear that the region was called Judea [Judaea] in the 1st century.

Philo in "On Embassy to Gaius" referred to Judea.

On Embasyy to Gaius
Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea....

Josephus in "Antiquities of the Jews" mentioned Judea as the nation of the Jews.

Antiquities of the Jews18.3
1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem..

Suetonius in "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" mention the war in Judaea.

Life of Vespasian
The war in Judaea, which had been commenced under the former reign, was continued in that of Vespasian; but he left the siege of Jerusalem to be conducted by his son Titus...
 
But those references to CC didn't just stop after 1960! Sure people may have stopped calling him that to his face (who wouldn't!), but multiple sources continuously have been talking about the name changes. Not so for JoN. For a thousand years after his supposed death, there's not a single source. Not just from Jewish historians and theologians, but from ANYONE! IOW, a historical person's name change doesn't silence the old name from history.

Actually Jesus (supposedly) did have another name which goes back to at least the 4th century CE and perhaps earlier in the Talmud: Jesus ben Perachiah. But there are problems...huge problems.

From Evidence...:

erhaps surprisingly, some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, a collection of Jewish civil and religious law, including commentaries on the Torah, as evidence for the existence of Jesus. They claim that a man called "Yeshu" in the Talmud refers to Jesus.

However, as documented by Gerald Massey, Christians themselves have claimed that this is actually a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia who lived at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. Epiphanius, in his 4th century Panarion 29, expressly states "For the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock."[93][94] Abraham ben Daud of the 12th century writes "The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years."[95]

And regardless of how one interprets the name "Yeshu", the Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th century CE, and the Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 6th century CE, at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. In other words, even if it does refer to Jesus, it is even more recent than the gospels and even less useful as an eyewitness reference as is true of Epiphanius or the Toledot Yeshu and the second century gospel that Price cites as a third source that also put Jesus in this time frame is only slightly more useful.

A handful of people point to the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls as the source for the Talmud Jesus but there is not much on the Teacher of Righteousness available to the non scholar to confirm such a connection. Furthermore Richard A. Freund writes "The difference of opinion over the positioning of the Teacher of Righteousness leads me to conclude that perhaps all of these researchers are correct. A Teacher of Righteousness did lead the group in the second century BCE when it was established. Another Teacher of Righteousness led the sect in the first century BCE and finally another Teacher emerged in the first century CE."[96]
 
Your claim appears to be utterly false or mistaken.

The Greek words for "anointed" (Christus) (χριστόν) and "good " (Chrestos)(χρηστός) are found multiple times in the Septuagint ( the Greek version of Hebrew Scripture) written hundreds of years before the fables called the NT were composed.

The problem here is linguist drift. From Josephus on Rationalwiki:

"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]

[24] The Anointed One, Or The Ointment? - Here, χριστος doesn't mean "anointed", it means the substance that does the anointing! Or something that is rubbed on. In other words, χριστος means something like "ointment", not "anointed one". :boggled:
 
The problem here is linguist drift. From Josephus on Rationalwiki:

"Christ": The term "Christ" only appears in the Testimonium Flavianum and in a later passage regarding James “brother of Jesus” (see below). But the purpose of the work was to promote Vespasian as the Jewish Messiah (i.e., 'Christ'), so why would Josephus, a messianic Jew, use the term only here? Moreover, the Greek word used here is the same as in the Old Testament, but to Josephus' Roman audience it would mean 'the ointment' rather than 'anointed one', resulting in many a Roman scratching their head in befuddlement.[24]

[24] The Anointed One, Or The Ointment? - Here, χριστος doesn't mean "anointed", it means the substance that does the anointing! Or something that is rubbed on. In other words, χριστος means something like "ointment", not "anointed one". :boggled:

What you posted doesn't make sense. It is completely unsubstantiated.

It is already documented that χριστόν is transliterated as "anointed" and χρηστός as "good" in virtually all existing manuscripts and Codices in multiple passages of the OT.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom