You got me a bit motivated to dust off my old MS-Word document on the Yeshu Talmudic references and analysis. If I do get around to it (it's been a few years and I want to re-check my modern references as still being relevant, or rework them), I'll make it into a PDF post it...prehaps!

(February 25, 2013 at 2:20 pm)EGross Wrote: You got me a bit motivated to dust off my old MS-Word document on the Yeshu Talmudic references and analysis. If I do get around to it (it's been a few years and I want to re-check my modern references as still being relevant, or rework them), I'll make it into a PDF post it...prehaps!

That would be great. I'd love to have it as a reference.

I convinced a friend of mine to let me use his underused server to store a few things. I put a 17-page PDF there that gives the talmudic quotes, tranlates them,, and explains why Rav Chisda and Ulla of the 4th century, during the time of Constantine, were not speaking of a Jesus they knew, but were bashing the idea of Christianity while the Counsil of Nicea was getting put together.

Click here if you are interested. Any feedback is appreciated.

(February 27, 2013 at 8:31 am)EGross Wrote: I convinced a friend of mine to let me use his underused server to store a few things. I put a 17-page PDF there that gives the talmudic quotes, tranlates them,, and explains why Rav Chisda and Ulla of the 4th century, during the time of Constantine, were not speaking of a Jesus they knew, but were bashing the idea of Christianity while the Counsil of Nicea was getting put together.

Click here if you are interested. Any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you. I've bookmarked it and saved the document which I'll put on a file storing site so I don't lose the information.

The following makes a lot of sense as an explanation for the name Yeshu.

Quote:So how did the word “Yeshu” come about as a name? More than likely, here was what most likely happened. If you take the name Yeshua, and you really want to mock it, you would want to take away the root meaning, which is “salvation”, to make it meaningless

Now if you also make sure that the letters have a numerical makeup of something demeaning (וריק or “v’riq” which means “and empty” you end up with a name that is an insult every time you say it.

Thanks also for the information about prayers etc.

Quote:Why is the idea that there might have been a man who was obscured by myths and legends special pleading?

How much evidence is there that Hercules existed? Or Osiris? Or Thor? Or Marduk? Etc., etc. No one claims these were "historical" figures but when it comes to fucking jesus we get a pile of holy horseshit thrown up with no more evidence to back it up than there is for any of them.

People believe in lots of stupid shit. That does not make it real.

Xtianity, as we know it today, is the result of a long series of events. They have done a fairly good job of masking their early history and pretending that the shit they wrote down in the 4th century was the way it was. They got away with that because they could kill anyone who questioned.

You mentioned Nag Hamadi, Ape. They are most commonly disparaged by claiming that they are 4th century works ( many scholars date them to the 2d century, though) in Coptic and thus too late to be of value. This of course ignores the fact that most xtian texts of the so-called gospels and other shit are also 4th century and later and we have only fragmentary examples which pre-date xtianity's rise. What is generally ignored about Nag Hamadi is that scholars also agree that these were translations from Greek into Coptic which gets us back to the fact that we can't know how many times the originals were translated before someone bothered to translate them to Coptic.

The proto-orthodox line of xtian thought seems to emerge in the mid 2d century. It was one of many and there is no way of telling at this point how widespread the various gnostic forms may have been. But for someone to get a whole pile of gnostic texts ( remember that what we have from Nag Hamadi are merely the fortunate examples that survived the stupidity of the local yokels who found them) and translate them all into Coptic suggests that they were quite widespread and, even more importantly, that there was no central authority dictating what was or was not "doctrine" at the time the compilation/translation was made, and that someone in authority thought it worthwhile to do.

Interesting that you bring up the 4th century, because the "proof" texts that they use from the Talmud quote 4th century rabbis insulting him. Must have been an interesting season. Maybe the Council of Nicea made more waves than we thought?

Of course there was a Hercules!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PrLVgR6J84

(February 27, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: How much evidence is there that Hercules existed? Or Osiris? Or Thor? Or Marduk? Etc., etc. No one claims these were "historical" figures but when it comes to fucking jesus we get a pile of holy horseshit thrown up with no more evidence to back it up than there is for any of them.

What to they have to do with the possibility that there might have been an ordinary human male who wandered around Galilee preaching to people? Insisting that there wasn't a Jesus in any shape or form is an optional point of view where atheists are concerned. You say nobody at all existed, Richard Dawkins said he probably existed and I take the view that he might have existed. As I said in another post, I can't see Richard Dawkins saying 'probably' because he didn't want to upset Christians by insisting there wasn't anyone at all.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: , as we know it today, is the result of a long series of events. They have done a fairly good job of masking their early history and pretending that the shit they wrote down in the 4th century was the way it was. They got away with that because they could kill anyone who questioned.

This would be where all the myths and legends came from. Myths and legends can get attached to people. Sir Francis Drake definitely existed but he had legends attached to him.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic because people are supposed to be suggesting how Christianity got started by going on the assumption that there wasn't a Jesus.

PS:

(February 27, 2013 at 12:38 pm)EGross Wrote: Of course there was a Hercules!

This is the real Hercules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmHR5axa5yQ

Ok, I am obviously a lot older than you!

(February 27, 2013 at 1:21 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: [quote='Minimalist' pid='407009' dateline='1361982215']
How much evidence is there that Hercules existed? Or Osiris? Or Thor? Or Marduk? Etc., etc. No one claims these were "historical" figures but when it comes to fucking jesus we get a pile of holy horseshit thrown up with no more evidence to back it up than there is for any of them.

What to they have to do with the possibility that there might have been an ordinary human male who wandered around Galilee preaching to people? Insisting that there wasn't a Jesus in any shape or form is an optional point of view where atheists are concerned. You say nobody at all existed, Richard Dawkins said he probably existed and I take the view that he might have existed. As I said in another post, I can't see Richard Dawkins saying 'probably' because he didn't want to upset Christians by insisting there wasn't anyone at all.

(February 27, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: , as we know it today, is the result of a long series of events. They have done a fairly good job of masking their early history and pretending that the shit they wrote down in the 4th century was the way it was. They got away with that because they could kill anyone who questioned.

This would be where all the myths and legends came from. Myths and legends can get attached to people. Sir Francis Drake definitely existed but he had legends attached to him.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic because people are supposed to be suggesting how Christianity got started by going on the assumption that there wasn't a Jesus.

=========


Now - lets see - how did xtianity get started without a real "jesus"
That is supposed to mean something - there had to be a jesus because xtianity mentions him.

Analyze that statement -

How did Hinduism get started if there is not a real Shiva?

How did Islam get started without a real Allah?

How did the Greek religion get started without a real Zeus?

Sorry - but the claim that the religion proves the god is something YOU do not agree with - so why should we? According to YOU - most religions were started without real gods - why should we believe that yours was NOT? Especially when it is easy to prove that the god of your religion - as defined by ALL the claims of the religion - cannot actually be true.

Allah Akbar! ("Allah is a mouse!")