Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 05:03 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 11:45 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Hi Ralph,

This is all very interesting!

I take your point about Paul. It is quite unusual that he never made it into the annals of
history. I've always had difficulty trying to understand how the
writings of Paul were introduced to the world. As best I can tell no one
really knows how that happened.The closest I came to coming to a
conclusion about this was that Marcion introduced them to Rome in the
140s. My understanding is that the church fathers appear to allude to
many of the ideas that are contained in Paul's writings, yet they never
directly refer to him. If your theory about Paul being Josephus is
correct, what evidence do you have for the use of Paul's writings prior to the 140's?

Do you believe that the book of Acts is a truly historical work? I.e. a
true record of history? If so you would be contradicting the opinion of
the vast majority of biblical scholars. The book of Acts isthe only attempt in the bible to document a diary of the first Christians. Theauthor bent over backwards to build the untrue impression that Christianity wasderived from Yeshua and his disciples. He failed, at least at the intellectuallevel, because most biblical scholars regard Acts as unforgivably imaginative (http://xcntrik.wordpress.com/lukeacts-as-historical-fiction/).

Personally, I find Acts to be an embarrassingly amateurish attempt to marry
Judaism with Paul's Christianity. For example, the road to Demascus
story in which Paul encounters Jesus' ghost is obviously fictional, as
Paul mentions nothing about it in his letters. The story about Peter
receiving a vision telling him to eat non Kosher food is just plain
pathetic. This story about a Jewish man (Apollos) who gets instruction
about Paul's Christ and then starts badmouthing the Jews is amateurish
writing at its worst. I doubt Josephus wrote such drivel. However I
guess it's possible that the more silly parts of Acts are
interpolations, and Josephus may have written the guts of the story.

You say that Josephus claimed that Jesus of Gamala was the Messiah. You
also admit that Josephus said Vespasian was the messiah. How many
messiahs did Josephus think there there?

Do you have any evidence that Jesus was the first elected high priest of Jerusalem? Or can you
point me in the direction where I can discover that evidence for myself?
In all my years of reading about Jesus I have never heard that before,
so perhaps you can understand why it sounds unlikely. I am intrigued by
this idea, particularly as there is some evidence that James, Jesus'
brother, was considered a high priest. I always imagined that he was a
sort of defacto high priest ie a guy that people would have liked to
be the high priest if the Romans hadn't installed someone else.

I've spent some time searching on the Internet trying to find some evidence
that the Romans had lost control over the appointment of the high priest
in the 60s. I can't find that evidence, although knowing what we do
about the times, I accept that it may be possible. Can you provide some
evidence that the high priest was chosen by the people, not by the Romans?

I agree with you that the Nazarene's were against
sacrifices. If Jesus was in fact the high priest, surely he would have
been in charge of everything that happened in the temple? I can't
imagine that he was just walking around, noticed soon money changing
going on, and all the animals, so threw a hissy fit.

Going back a little bit, you admit that John the Baptist did his thing in the early
30s and is therefore, according to your theory, of the generation before
Jesus. Are you aware that most biblical scholars claimed that there are
only three things that we can be sure of about Jesus (assuming he
existed)...

1.That he was baptised by John the Baptist and
2. that he overturned the tables in the temple.
3. that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate?

Phil Harland, in his excellent series of podcasts on the historical Jesus, goes into the reasons why these scholars think this.

Your theory means that he wasn't baptised by John the Baptist and he wasn't
executed under Pontius Pilate. I'd appreciate your comments on why you
appear to disagree with the majority of scholars.

Moving on...re Josephus...are you saying he never genuinely fought for the Jews? ie
that he always was a Roman spy? That would make sense if you are. After
all, why would Vespasian become best mates with a dude he was fighting against?

I'm going to start a post on the real origin of the gospels, and particularly Atwill's theories. I hope you join in.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 06:05 PM
Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
I'm curious: has it ever been suggested that Jesus was more a title or hero figure and could have been said to have been many different people such as (please, forgive the comparison) The Dread Pirate Roberts? Sorry, I'm not a historian, so I can't think of a better example of a persona that lived through multiple generations.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2013, 02:24 AM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2013 02:51 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
.
>>Do you have any evidence that Jesus was the first elected high priest of Jerusalem?
>>Or can you point me in the direction where I can discover that evidence for myself?


Sure, Hebrews 7:17-22

Quote:
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.


The problem was that Jesus was not a Levite, so how could he be high priest. The answer was in the example of Melchisedec, who was also not a Levite. So Jesus became a priest by making an oath, and " made a surety of a better testament " ie, a better high priest. This equates nicely with the Talmud, which says that Jesus of Gamala became high priest, only after Mary Magdalene paid 75 kilos of silver to the Temple.

This was the rich and powerful, trying to climb the greasy pole of power and influence. And nearly succeeding too.


.


>>Your theory means that he wasn't baptised by John the Baptist and he wasn't
>>executed under Pontius Pilate. I'd appreciate your comments on why you
>>appear to disagree with the majority of scholars.

The majority of scholars are Christian, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Or if they are not Christian, they are so influenced by Christian propaganda that they cannot see out of the box.

Placing the gospel events in the AD 60s may seem radical, but all you need to do to achieve this is to replace Pontius Pilate with Queen Helena. Not sure if you are aware, but the Toledoth Yeshu says that Jesus was brought to trial before Queen Helena, and not Pontius Pilate. (And this goes without comment, by the translator.)

But the gospels could not admit it was Queen Helena who was the judge of Jesus, and for many reasons:

a. She was a woman, in patriarchal Judaea.
b. It implies that Queen Helena was the highest authority in Jerusalem.
c. It implies that Queen Helena was Queen of Judaea (she had the largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem),
d. It equates Jesus too closely with Queen Helena. (Judaism wants to forget about Queen Helena)
e. They were afraid that we might suddenly realise that Queen Helena was Jesus' mother.
... ... (the name 'Mary' is merely Syriac Aramaic for 'priestess')
f. They were doubly afraid that we might equate Jesus with Edessa (Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.)
g. Queen Helena could only be judging Jesus in the AD 50s.
h. Jesus must have been alive in the AD 50s.
i. Thus the AD 30s story was just that - a manufactured story.


The problem Saul-Josephus had, was that he could not allow his pauper prince of peace to be mixed up with and a leader of the Jewish Revolt. How could the prince of peace be seen to be waging war on Rome? The easiest way out of this muddle, was to take his history back by a generation, by replacing Queen Helena with Pontius Pilate.

However, since Jesus would have been around 20 or 30 when John the Baptist was executed (depending on his birth date), he could easily have met with and been initiated into Nazarene Judaism by John the Baptist. Actually, this is likely. John is closely associated with Qumran, and yet Qumran appears to have been primarily a yeshivah (a boarding school).



>>Do you believe that the book of Acts is a truly historical work? I.e. a
>>true record of history? If so you would be contradicting the opinion of
>>the vast majority of biblical scholars.

Both myself and Atwil have drawn many, many parallels between Acts and the works of Josephus. If you believe 'Jewish War' is a historical text, then Acts has to be too.

Then there is that Swedish lady, who made the comparison in graphical form, which was very interesting. Still cannot find her paper. It is worth looking for.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(09-03-2013 02:24 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  .
>>Do you have any evidence that Jesus was the first elected high priest of Jerusalem?
>>Or can you point me in the direction where I can discover that evidence for myself?


Sure, Hebrews 7:17-22

Quote:
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.


The problem was that Jesus was not a Levite, so how could he be high priest. The answer was in the example of Melchisedec, who was also not a Levite. So Jesus became a priest by making an oath, and " made a surety of a better testament " ie, a better high priest. This equates nicely with the Talmud, which says that Jesus of Gamala became high priest, only after Mary Magdalene paid 75 kilos of silver to the Temple.

This was the rich and powerful, trying to climb the greasy pole of power and influence. And nearly succeeding too.


.


>>Your theory means that he wasn't baptised by John the Baptist and he wasn't
>>executed under Pontius Pilate. I'd appreciate your comments on why you
>>appear to disagree with the majority of scholars.

The majority of scholars are Christian, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Or if they are not Christian, they are so influenced by Christian propaganda that they cannot see out of the box.

Placing the gospel events in the AD 60s may seem radical, but all you need to do to achieve this is to replace Pontius Pilate with Queen Helena. Not sure if you are aware, but the Toledoth Yeshu says that Jesus was brought to trial before Queen Helena, and not Pontius Pilate. (And this goes without comment, by the translator.)

But the gospels could not admit it was Queen Helena who was the judge of Jesus, and for many reasons:

a. She was a woman, in patriarchal Judaea.
b. It implies that Queen Helena was the highest authority in Jerusalem.
c. It implies that Queen Helena was Queen of Judaea (she had the largest palace and tomb in Jerusalem),
d. It equates Jesus too closely with Queen Helena. (Judaism wants to forget about Queen Helena)
e. They were afraid that we might suddenly realise that Queen Helena was Jesus' mother.
... ... (the name 'Mary' is merely Syriac Aramaic for 'priestess')
f. They were doubly afraid that we might equate Jesus with Edessa (Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.)
g. Queen Helena could only be judging Jesus in the AD 50s.
h. Jesus must have been alive in the AD 50s.
i. Thus the AD 30s story was just that - a manufactured story.


The problem Saul-Josephus had, was that he could not allow his pauper prince of peace to be mixed up with and a leader of the Jewish Revolt. How could the prince of peace be seen to be waging war on Rome? The easiest way out of this muddle, was to take his history back by a generation, by replacing Queen Helena with Pontius Pilate.

However, since Jesus would have been around 20 or 30 when John the Baptist was executed (depending on his birth date), he could easily have met with and been initiated into Nazarene Judaism by John the Baptist. Actually, this is likely. John is closely associated with Qumran, and yet Qumran appears to have been primarily a yeshivah (a boarding school).



>>Do you believe that the book of Acts is a truly historical work? I.e. a
>>true record of history? If so you would be contradicting the opinion of
>>the vast majority of biblical scholars.

Both myself and Atwil have drawn many, many parallels between Acts and the works of Josephus. If you believe 'Jewish War' is a historical text, then Acts has to be too.

Then there is that Swedish lady, who made the comparison in graphical form, which was very interesting. Still cannot find her paper. It is worth looking for.




.
Hi Ralph,

here is the bit from Hebrews (KJV)...

"Jesus Like Melchizedek

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people(L) established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come,(M) one in the order of Melchizedek,(N) not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe,(O) and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.(P) 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah,(Q) and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]®
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless(S) 19 (for the law made nothing perfect),(T) and a better hope(U) is introduced, by which we draw near to God.(V)

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mindSadW)
‘You are a priest forever.’”[b](X)
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.(Y)

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.(Z) 25 Therefore he is able to save(AA) completely[c] those who come to God(AB) through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.(AC)

26 Such a high priest(AD) truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,(AE) exalted above the heavens.(AF) 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices(AG) day after day, first for his own sins,(AH) and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all(AI) when he offered himself.(AJ) 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness;(AK) but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son,(AL) who has been made perfect(AM) forever."

Mmmmmmm.

No one knows who wrote this. Right? It wasn't Paul. Right? It was obviously written by someone pushing Paul's bullshit, and that someone wasn't a Jew, right?

I think all this is saying is that Jesus the god/man is a good substitute for what used to be the high priest (because the position didn't exist any more after the destruction of the temple).

I think you're drawing a very long bow by claiming that this is a record of a flesh and blood Jesus who was very human high priest in Jerusalem.




Here's a list from the Jewish encyclopaedia, (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...igh-priest ) of the last 10 high priests of Jerusalem...

72. Mattathias, son of Ananus (xix. 6, § 4)
73. Elioneus, son of Cantheras (xix. 8, § 1; Parah iii. 5)
(Under Herod of Chalcis.)
74. Joseph, son of Cainus (xx. 1, § 3)
[Perhaps Ishmael (iii. 15, § 13) should be placed here.]
75. Ananias, son of Nebedeus (xx. 5, § 2; Derenbourg, "Hist." p. 233)
(Jonathan restored; xx. 8, § 5)
(Under Agrippa II.)
76. Ishmael, son of Fabi (xx. 8, §§ 8, 11; Parah iii. 5; Sotah ix. 5; Derenbourg, "Hist." pp. 232-235)
77. Joseph Cabi, son of Simon (xx. 8, § 11)
78. Ananus, son of Ananus (xx. 9, § 1)
79. Jesus, son of Damneus (xx. 9, § 1; "B. J." vi. 2, § 2)
80. Jesus, son of Gamaliel (xx. 9, §§ 4, 7; Yeb. vi. 4; an instance in which a priest betrothed to a widow before his elevation was permitted to marry her afterward; Derenbourg, "Hist." p. 248)
81. Mattathias, son of Theophilus (xx. 9, § 7; "B. J." vi. 2, § 2; Grätz, in "Monatsschrift," 1881, pp. 62-64; idem, "Gesch." 4th ed., iii. 750 et seq.)
82. Phinehas, son of Samuel, appointed by the people during the war (xx. 10, § 1; "B. J." iv. 3, § 8; see Derenbourg, "Hist." p. 269)
[A man altogether unworthy.]

Which one is your Jesus of Gamala?
Shame there's no dates.
What are your dates for his role as high priest? Ah...just found that in your writing elsewhere...63 CE. Mmmmmm....your evidence? I think you're saying Jesus was (almost) executed in 70 CE (is that right?). So.....he was high priest from 63-70?

No record I can see of that.


Re the Talmud claims Jesus of Gamala was the high priest...could you quote that please.

And....humor me by explaining the evidence that Jesus of Gamala was Jesus Christ.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-03-2013, 11:43 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Confusingly....this is what the Jewish encyclopedia comes up with about your "Jesus of Gamala"



"JOSHUA (Jesus) BEN GAMLA:

A high priest who officiated about 64 C.E. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Agrippa II. (not Jannai, as Talmudic sources say) secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, § 4). Although Joshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement, hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9).

Joshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, § 7). Together with the former high priest Anan and other men of rank, he opposed, but without success, the election of Phinehas b. Samuel (68) as high priest ("B. J." iv. 3, § 9). He attempted peaceably to prevent the fanatic and pugnacious Idumeans from entering Jerusalem, then torn by internal dissensions. After they had come into possession of the city, these fanatics took bloody vengeance on him, by executing him, as well as Anan, as traitors to their country (68) ("B. J." iv. 5, § 2)."


Is this your dude?

I think there's too many Jesuses around here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2013, 12:11 AM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
This is a blurb on Queen Helena...

"Queen Helena
By Nissan Mindel
Published and copyrighted by Kehot Publication Society


Share
Print
E-mail Discuss (0)
« Previous
Mariamne
Next »
Onkelos
Here is a most unusual but fascinating story about a strange chapter in the history of our Jewish people which took place almost two thousand years ago.

It is not often that a queen decides to become a Jewess, but such was the case with Queen Helena of Adiabene, the capital of a rich country which extended over a part of the former Assyrian empire.

This remarkable event took place about half a century before the Beth Hamikdosh was destroyed by the Romans.

Queen Helena lived happily with her husband Monibaz in Adiabene. Occasionally Jewish merchants used to visit Adiabene on business. Through them Helena became acquainted with and interested in, the Jewish religion. As time went on she became so deeply attracted by the high moral standard of Judaism, that she engaged a teacher for herself, to learn all she could about it.

Meanwhile her husband died, and Izates, their younger son, was placed on the throne, it being the king's dying wish. Izates was as eager as his mother to learn all about the Jewish religion, and so they employed as their teacher a Jewish, merchant by the name of Ananias. Both mother and son were so impressed by all they learnt about Judaism, that they decided to give up their pagan faith of their land and adopt the Jewish religion as their own.

It happened that a Jewish scholar named Rabbi Eleazar of Galilee called at the court of Adiabene. Eagerly, King Izates invited him to become his teacher, to which the rabbi agreed. Monibaz II, the king's elder brother, also showed an interest and wanted to take part in the lessons, and the king readily agreed. (Obviously there was no ill-feeling on the part of Monibaz II that his younger brother had been made king on the death of their father).

One day, when Rabbi Eleazar was teaching them the portion concerning the importance of circumcision, the Divine commandment which was the sign of G-d's covenant with the Jewish people, the two brothers decided there and then that they would take this step in order to become real Jews. Although there might have been a great risk that this step would have caused their pagan people to rise in rebellion against the royal family, the two brothers (with the encouragement of their mother, Queen Helena) arranged to become circumcised, and the event passed off quite peacefully. Queen Helena and King Izates were very much loved by their people, and the fact that the royal house had embraced the Jewish religion did not affect the people's loyalty to their king and queen.

After a very peaceful reign of twenty four years, Izates died. His older brother Monibaz took over the throne of Adiabene.

A very close and friendly relationship developed between the Jewish people and the foreign state ruled by Helena and Monibaz. Not only were they personally very pious and observant followers of the Torah and its commands, but they influenced many of their own people to follow their example and embrace Judaism.

The royal house of Adiabene helped the Jewish state in many ways. Many a time they sent large sums of money to Jerusalem either to provide for the needs of the Beth Hamikdosh, or to help the poor. Once, a very serious famine ravished the Jewish land, and soon there was no money left to buy food from other countries. Queen Helena and her son used a large portion of their own state treasury to buy grain in Alexandria and dried fruits in Cyprus, and have all this life-saving food shipped to Jerusalem.

When Monibaz was criticized by some of his advisers for squandering his money on the poor, both in his own country and in the Jewish state, he replied:

"My ancestors amassed treasures in this world, while I gather treasures for the world to come. My ancestors placed their treasures in chambers, and had to guard them against thieves; my treasures are far from the reach of any greedy hand, arid will be safe for ever. My ancestors' treasures did not produce any fruits, but mine continue to bring more and more fruit."

Such was the piety and charitableness of Queen Helena and her sons.

In the Mishnah we are told of many gifts which Queen Helena and her son gave to the Beth Hamikdosh, for which they are remembered for all time. For instance, she had a golden candelabra placed above the entrance to the Beth Hamikdosh, which, not only had its own light, but early in the morning it reflected the sun's first rays. Thus, when the priests wanted to know whether it was already time to say the "Sh'ma" of the morning, they had only to look at Queen Helena's candelabra.

Another gift of Queen Helena was a tablet of gold on which she had a certain portion of the Torah inscribed, which was of special interest to women. In addition, King Monibaz and his mother donated golden handles to be attached to all vessels used in the Beth Hamikdosh on Yom Kippur.

Once, on a visit to Jerusalem, Queen Helena built a beautiful mausoleum where she and her sons were to be buried after their death. Its door had such an ingenious mechanism, that it opened once a year at a certain hour and closed itself again, to stay closed for another twelve months. Even now, parts of this beautiful tomb are still left, called the Tombs of the Kings.

Before her death, Queen Helena traveled to Jerusalem to spend there the last years of her life, in prayer and good deeds. According to tradition, she lived as a "Nazirah" for fourteen years, to keep a vow she had made for her son and for herself.

Even after the death of Queen Helena and King Monibaz II, the royal house and the people of Adiabene maintained their friendship to the Jewish people for many years."


So.....according to Ralph, this bitch is Jesus' MUM.

I think, but am not sure, Ralph claims Jesus' other name is KING IZATES

According to the author above...."After a very peaceful reign of twenty four years, Izates died." I can't see any mention of Izates ever going to Jerusalem or becoming a high priest.

It is interesting though that his brother took over (just as I know James did after Jesus died) BUT in Adiabene, NOT Jerusalem.

Ralph.....can you appreciate that this is such a mess no one can get their head around it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2013, 12:24 AM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Ps....in this article, Helen is said to have moved to Jerusalem,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene

? did she bring her son (Ralph's Jesus) with her?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2013, 12:29 AM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Just in case anyone else out there had never heard of this...

Toledot Yeshu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Life of Jesus" redirects here. For the film, see La Vie de Jésus.
Sefer Toledot Yeshu or Toledoth Jeschu (ספר תולדות ישו, The Book of the History of Jesus, or Generations of Jesus, or Life of Jesus) is a medieval “anti-gospel” or parody of the Christian gospel. It exists in a number of different versions, none of which are considered either canonical or normative within rabbinic literature,[1] but which appear to have been widely circulated in Europe and the Middle East in the medieval period[2][3] (though some scholars disagree with this claim).[4]
The stories claim that Jesus was an illegitimate child, and that he practiced magic and heresy, seduced women, and died a shameful death.[5]
But they also show a paradoxical respect for Jesus. As Joseph Dan notes in the Encyclopedia Judaica, "The narrative in all versions treats Jesus as an exceptional person who from his youth demonstrated unusual wit and wisdom, but disrespect toward his elders and the sages of his age." [6]
Robert Van Voorst perhaps puts it best when he calls the Toledot a record of popular polemic "run wild".[2] Nonetheless, the Toledot’s sacrilegious portrayal of the Christian divinity has provided material for anti-Semitic polemics.[7]
Due probably to its offensive nature, both Jewish and Christian scholars in modern times have paid little attention to the Toledot.[8] The opinion of Father Edward H. Flannery is representative:
This scurrilous fable of the life of Jesus is a medieval work, probably written down in the tenth century. .... Though its contents enjoyed a certain currency in the oral traditions of the Jewish masses, it was almost totally ignored by official or scholarly Judaism. Anti-Semites have not failed to employ it as an illustration of the blasphemous character of the Synagogue."[9]
But this disregard is now lifting as the text becomes discussed as a possible window into the early history of polemic between Christians and Jews.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2013, 01:16 AM
Re: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/03/...-mr-ellis/

Hmm?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ironwall's post
10-03-2013, 01:23 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2013 01:37 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
>>I think you're drawing a very long bow by claiming that this is a record of a flesh and blood
>>Jesus who was very human high priest in Jerusalem.


But this is not the only record. The Talmud says that Jesus of Gamala became high priest in AD 63, and for so many reasons, JoG was the biblical Jesus. (Although I have a hunch that this was more like AD 66 than AD 63).

In your list, JoG is called Jesus ben Gamaliel (son of Gamaliel). The Gamala was not a place name. In fact, it was derived from the Edessan title Kama (as in King Abgarus au Kama-Gamala). The title refers to Egypt, hence Jesus was also called the Egyptian False Prophet.

But this is interesting, because Gamaliel was the priest and sanhedrinite who defended the disciples from charges of heresy, and also the tutor of Saul-Josephus.



>>"JOSHUA (Jesus) BEN GAMALA

That's him. But Josephus calls him by the Greek 'Jesus' (Ieusos). It is said that he died in the siege of Jerusalem, but in the giuse of Izas (the 'other' leader of the Revolt), he was still alive when the siege ended.

Martha (Mary) ben Boethus is the same as Mary and Martha of Bethany, according to Prof Eisenman. Thus Mary Boethus was Mary Magdalene, and she was the wife of Jesus of Gamala. The Talmudic confusion between Mary and Martha is explained by the rule that the High Priest had to have two wives - so Jesus was married to both Mary and Martha.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: