The book of Acts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2015, 09:54 PM
RE: The book of Acts
(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It could be said that the story starts to sound a little ridiculous and manufactured from here on.

Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The confident Stephen, a Christian, openly slandered Jews by saying they had always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that the Jews had now made another mistake by betraying and killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to Stephen’s argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to the Jews’ god, Yahweh, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo.

What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned, and without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:01 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(24-05-2015 09:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It could be said that the story starts to sound a little ridiculous and manufactured from here on.

Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The confident Stephen, a Christian, openly slandered Jews by saying they had always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that the Jews had now made another mistake by betraying and killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to Stephen’s argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to the Jews’ god, Yahweh, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo.

What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned, and without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something."

Yes. I just reread it. You're right. Maybe the author of Acts had never read the gospels?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:03 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(24-05-2015 09:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It could be said that the story starts to sound a little ridiculous and manufactured from here on.

Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The confident Stephen, a Christian, openly slandered Jews by saying they had always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that the Jews had now made another mistake by betraying and killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to Stephen’s argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to the Jews’ god, Yahweh, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo.

What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned, and without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned."

Can you give me a link about that please?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:05 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(24-05-2015 09:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It could be said that the story starts to sound a little ridiculous and manufactured from here on.

Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The confident Stephen, a Christian, openly slandered Jews by saying they had always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that the Jews had now made another mistake by betraying and killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to Stephen’s argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to the Jews’ god, Yahweh, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo.

What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned, and without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary."

Yeah... I don't think anyone knows what's going on there. It really looks like very careless cut-and-pasting, but from where we don't know.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2015 02:50 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The book of Acts
(24-05-2015 09:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It could be said that the story starts to sound a little ridiculous and manufactured from here on.

Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The confident Stephen, a Christian, openly slandered Jews by saying they had always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that the Jews had now made another mistake by betraying and killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to Stephen’s argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to the Jews’ god, Yahweh, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo.

What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned, and without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area."

I think the important point to appreciate is that Paul was a Roman citizen. As such he had a right to appeal to Caesar. If you weren't a Roman citizen then the local authorities could deal with you any way they please.

Consider Paul's so called arrest. He was spirited away with a guard of 500 soldiers, to the Palace at Caesaria where he was kept for two years. This was the Romans looking after one of their own, a spy who had blown his cover. He needed to be protected from angry Jews.

Contrast the above to the treatment allegedly metered out to Jeebus. Jesus was arrested by 500 soldiers, scourged and executed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:19 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(24-05-2015 09:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  It could be said that the story starts to sound a little ridiculous and manufactured from here on.

Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The confident Stephen, a Christian, openly slandered Jews by saying they had always, throughout history, got things wrong, and that the Jews had now made another mistake by betraying and killing Jesus. To add some color and weight to Stephen’s argument, Jesus then appeared in the clouds next to the Jews’ god, Yahweh, but the belligerent Jews never noticed the dynamic duo.

What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.

(23-05-2015 01:43 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  If “the Jews” had wanted Yeshua dead, why wasn’t he stoned, and without a Roman trial, just like Stephen? One or both of the stories are fabricated.

But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur."

YEP.

Also... and I have been rabbiting on about his at some length over the years... Paul's Christ was not the Jeebus of the gospels. Paul had no way of knowing that his Christ would be merged into the gospel stories ( which, as you say, hadn't been written yet.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 02:38 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(24-05-2015 03:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 08:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ...
I understand the hypothesis regarding fabricating an alternative to Judaism but the Romans elsewhere (e.g. England) went for Merger rather than Acquisition.
...
...
Could you explain what you mean? You've lost me

OK. If you look at the Roman occupation of Britain, for example, the approach was to amalgamate/merge existing local gods with the Roman equivalent (Eostre/Easter and Christmas/Saturnalia and others).

So would they not, in order to merge Jewish culture with Roman culture gone for merging Yahweh with Jupiter?

Whether this is deliberate policy or just memetic drift, I'm not sure. I'm inclined to think the latter as there is precedent for this as described by Karen Armstrong in A History Of God when she talks about the early creation of polytheism in the region.

So creating a new character based on an obscure sect's leader (a brand acquisition) and developing it into a Jew-smashing (rather than Jew taming) weapon seems to be out of character for the Romans.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
25-05-2015, 03:23 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(25-05-2015 02:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-05-2015 03:04 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ...
Could you explain what you mean? You've lost me

OK. If you look at the Roman occupation of Britain, for example, the approach was to amalgamate/merge existing local gods with the Roman equivalent (Eostre/Easter and Christmas/Saturnalia and others).

So would they not, in order to merge Jewish culture with Roman culture gone for merging Yahweh with Jupiter?

Whether this is deliberate policy or just memetic drift, I'm not sure. I'm inclined to think the latter as there is precedent for this as described by Karen Armstrong in A History Of God when she talks about the early creation of polytheism in the region.

So creating a new character based on an obscure sect's leader (a brand acquisition) and developing it into a Jew-smashing (rather than Jew taming) weapon seems to be out of character for the Romans.

"OK. If you look at the Roman occupation of Britain, for example, the approach was to amalgamate/merge existing local gods with the Roman equivalent (Eostre/Easter and Christmas/Saturnalia and others)."

Got that, thanks...I'm learning....

Whether this is deliberate policy or just memetic drift, I'm not sure.

Me neither.

"So creating a new character based on an obscure sect's leader (a brand acquisition) and developing it into a Jew-smashing (rather than Jew taming) weapon seems to be out of character for the Romans."

Well I can add my $.02 worth here.

I suspect that originally, when Paul was preaching his prattle, and then when the gospels were first written, the idea was not to smash the Jews but to tame them. Most common Jews were still dreaming about a political leader, the Messiah. Paul pretended his Christ was the Messiah, and the gospels made out that Jeebus was the Messiah. Either way, the Jewish Messiah had already been and gone, and was no political leader, but a spiritual one.

Christianity still acknowledged the existence of the Jewish god. Yet it tried to reinvent this God's agenda. The "old covenant" was replaced with the "new covenant." God's "chosen people" became not Jews, but anyone who bought into the bullshit. The Roman government was trying to weaken Judaism by diluting its teachings, and by diluting the number of its adherents with gentiles.

After the second Jewish War of 132 to 135 the Christians became more overtly anti-Jewish. Perhaps this happened too because it became clear that Jews were not buying into the bullshit.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
26-05-2015, 07:13 AM
RE: The book of Acts
(25-05-2015 02:03 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-05-2015 09:54 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Shit, Mark. It took you until ACTS to think these stories were ridiculous and manufactured? Big Grin


What I find even more interesting is that Stephen never once mentions Jesus, Christos, nothing during his defense speech. This little tidbit seems to escape most people I read and have discussed with. If he is proclaiming the Jesus myth, he does a really lousy job and never really mentioned him, his miracles (which some of the Sanhedrin may have been around when it "occurred") or his message. That tells you something.


But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned.

A couple of other things about Acts I noticed and am interested in your take on them:

-It goes from third person to first person at chapter 27 with absolutely no explanation. It clearly isn't Paul so who is it? It then changed back to third person at Acts 28:17 (literally mid chapter) and we never know who was giving the commentary.

-When Paul appeals to Cesar, was that an allowable thing for any Roman citizen to do? Also, if that were the case, does that mean that any asshat who appeals to Cesar gets a free ride, under guard, to the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. That totally defeats the purpose of a subordinate in charge of an area.

-Paul also never references any teachings of Jesus, miracles, or anything in Acts 26 when he is on trial. He never mentions the resurrection to Agrippa directly, he just assumes that he knew of the "controversy" of his Christos. Certainly, if he wished to make a case that he was not crazy after Festus says he is insane (Acts 26:24) he could have brought up the obvious things that any person plugged into Jerusalem lore would have known of had they happened. Things like the temple curtain being torn in two at the death of Jesus, the three hour eclipse, the raising of the dead in Jerusalem for a few days, etc. The obvious answer to this, I think, is that Paul had no idea about these things because the gospels weren't written yet and the events, themselves, did not occur.

"But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned."

Can you give me a link about that please?

Sorry about it taking so long Mark, I was busy the last couple of days and couldn't do much tracking. I had heard this in a talk once but I couldn't remember where. I was digging and I found several sources on this although most of them were apologist spin doctors. I found one that discusses it in small detail.

Quote: (Sanhedrin 43a) On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (The Munich manuscript adds the Nasarean) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.... Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.


I wish I had a link to that lecture I was recalling where this was discussed much further, but I can't remember where it is. I don't read Hebrew so unfortunately, I can't do better than what others have done. I was mistaken that it was Yeshu and not Yeshua who was stated as the one who was hanged so it certainly could be a different person.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: The book of Acts
(26-05-2015 07:13 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(25-05-2015 02:03 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "But according to the Talmud, he WAS stoned."

Can you give me a link about that please?

Sorry about it taking so long Mark, I was busy the last couple of days and couldn't do much tracking. I had heard this in a talk once but I couldn't remember where. I was digging and I found several sources on this although most of them were apologist spin doctors. I found one that discusses it in small detail.

Quote: (Sanhedrin 43a) On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (The Munich manuscript adds the Nasarean) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.... Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.


I wish I had a link to that lecture I was recalling where this was discussed much further, but I can't remember where it is. I don't read Hebrew so unfortunately, I can't do better than what others have done. I was mistaken that it was Yeshu and not Yeshua who was stated as the one who was hanged so it certainly could be a different person.

Thanks for going to the effort.

I had always thought the Talmud never mentioned Yeshua.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: