Why did the Jews lie about Jesus?

[fredd bear]

You might find the link below interesting: The page title is "Judaism 101"

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

That's very helpful, and it's refreshing to find that some of the rethinking I've had to do in recent years to see the essential Jewishness of Xianity seems to have a fairly accurate basis in Judaism as seen from a Jewish perspective.

As to the meat of the issue. As I see it, when the astonishing, life-changing Easter events were over, the disciples went back to the OT to fit it all together; they were later joined by the fanatical Jewish/Pharisee Paul. They would have approached things from an orthodox C1 Jewish perspective, and didn't find a problem in saying the prophets had got it spot on. In fact, the NT is stuffed with OT quotes, and Paul devotes a lot of his writing to this question.

They realised that the prophecies were not just about the military conquest of a bit of semi-fertile land, but that “all nations on earth will be blessed” was the victory, and that the promised Messianic Age was split into parts (e.g. the resurrection was Jesus as part 1, along with the inauguration of the Kingdom, other resurrections etc to be part 2). And many other new understandings.

Having looked at the link, where a lot of the references don't say what the author says they do, and others just need to have ranges of meaning carefully examined, I can't see any problem with saying Jesus was the Jewish mashiach.


Back in a couple of days to pick this up.

---

Yeah, let's hear what 1 Cor. 15 has to say: "5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

I mean from the start you can see that Paul is lying because there were only eleven, Judas having died.

The Twelve was a technical name, widely used in the Early Church, for the inner circle of Jesus' followers. There is more than a nod to the 12 tribes of Israel. Judas was fairly quickly replaced. 

Hence the capital letter, and the appropriate continued use even when there were temporarily 11 of them.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

@Vicki Q


 My fault; I didn't realise you were a  Christian apologist. I simply would not have bothered had I realised.

It's clear we have very different positions about Jesus as messiah. I except the Jewish position, which I think is unambiguous.

I don't believe for a second that Jesus was the Mashiach. I'm kinda stunned that you were unaware of the basic information I provided.  You come across as quite erudite.

I'm an atheist, and don't believe in prophecy .My interest is academic only.  I give credence  to the whole area of Messiah only for the sake of argument.

 My actual position: I have been satisfied for a very long time that most of the Gospels are myth .They have very little to do with a wondering rabbi, called something like Yeshua Bar Yusuf, who managed to get himself crucified for sedition. That includes what I see as the rather desperate, cherry picked claims of Jesus as Messiah.

Christians have had he chutzpah, over centuries,  to take Jewish prophecy, and to insist the Jews don't understand. My position is that the Jews understand their own prophecy very well indeed.

Jesus left a small Jewish millennial sect going by what is written in the Gospels.  Jesus' disciples expected him to return within their lifetimes. Oh, new members HAD TO BE practising  jews, gentiles  were not admitted. That all changed with Saul of Tarsus. 

Disregarding Jesus' claims about not changing the law, Saul immediately abolished  the mitzvah concerned with ritual . He admitted gentiles .In doing so, he invented the religion which became officially known as "Christianity' in the fourth century.(emperor Theodosius)

No wonder so many scholars refer to Christianity as "Paulism"

There is no doubt in my mind that either us will change our basic position.

I have nothing further to say to you on this matter.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I only have one reference at the, moment, you might find it interesting. "Paul: The Mind Of The Apostle" A N Wilson. 

Review:


": It begins on the road to Damascus, in a moment graven on the consciousness of Western civilization. "Saul, Saul," asks the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, "why persecutest thou me?"

From this experience, and from the response of the Jewish merchant later known as Paul, springs the Christian Church as we know it today. For as A. N. Wilson makes clear in this astonishing and gripping narrative, Christianity without Paul is quite literally nothing. Jesus, with the layers of scholarship and ceremony stripped away, is a fastidious and fervent Jew who will lead his followers into a stricter, purer observance of Judaism; it is Paul who will claim divinity for him, who will transform him into the Messiah, center of an entirely new religion.

In Wilson's astute narrative, we see Paul negotiating the dangerous political currents of the Roman Empire, making converts, and writing the great epistles that define our understanding of Christ and of the sublime paradoxes of his teaching. What drove Paul? What would he think of what his church has become? The answers lie in Wilson's extraordinary biography, which lays bare the psychological journey of Christianity's true inventor.

"Wilson . . . does a tremendous job here of not only examining all that is known about Paul's life but also putting it into context with what was happening throughout the Roman Empire. As always, Wilson's insights fascinate and provoke."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/652947.Paul

 A N Wilson is one of my three favourite historians. The other Two are Marina Warner and Peter Ackroyd