Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 254845 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165506 Feb 28, 2013
Sam Shamoun

"Jesus in Rabbinic Traditions"

"It is not surprising to find the Talmud referring to Jesus, his mother and his disciples. In fact, some of the material coincides with the NT depiction of Jesus and the Jewish ruling council's assessment of his person and mission. The following statements are taken from the Soncino edition of the Babylon Talmud as cited in Robert A. Morey's pamphlet Jesus in the Mishnah and Talmud. We will also be using Josh McDowell & Bill Wilson's He Walked Among Us unless noted otherwise."

"Before proceeding, we must point out that at one time the following Talmudic references were believed to have been lost. This is due to the fact that in the seventeenth century, Jewish rabbis took steps to expunge all references to Jesus. This act was motivated primarily by the Church's persecution of the Jews. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson explain:"

"... in light of the persecutions, the Jewish communities imposed censorship on themselves to remove references to Jesus in their writings so that they might no longer be a target of attack. Morris Goldstein, former Professor of Old and New Testament Literature at the Pacific School of Religion, relates: Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared:‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’"

At first, deleted portions of words in printed Talmuds were indicated by small circles or blank spaces but, in time, these too were forbidden by the censors.

We know that passages pertianing to Jesus were removed, so they once existed:


Special to The Star

As reported in the Kansas City Star

Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003 to KansasCity.com

Among the challenges to Christianity was the charge that Jews had rejected Jesus and that no Jewish leaders or scholars ever accepted Jesus as the Messiah. But even one of the most revered Jewish texts, the Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings from 100 B.C. to A.D. 500, suggests otherwise.

In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, of many references to Christianity and those who adhered to it. But not everything was edited out.

In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: "There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching...the Messianists...(were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two centuries."

Those words from the Mishnah appear to correspond to New Testament accounts that many Jews, including Pharisees and "a great company of priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).

The Talmud mentions that the Romans hanged Jesus from a tree, while in another text section the Talmud does something done nowhere else but the New Testament -- mentions Jesus' birth.

English scholar R. Travers Herford, in his book Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, wrote that rabbinical writings mention that Jesus' mother, Mary, was "descended from princes and rulers."

Despite the noble lineage, Herford noted, the Talmudic text referred to Jesus as "Ben Pandira," roughly translated as "son of a virgin," which was considered an epithet.

"While the Jesus Seminar was making radical pronouncements (among them that Jesus was not the Son of God) and courting the media," Blomberg said, "what is less well-known to the public is the study in which scholars have been growing in their appreciation of Jesus' Jewish roots."

He said, "These things have never been presented in any popular forms of consumption to the American public."

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165507 Feb 28, 2013
Talmudic Refereences

Jews self censored the Talmud to remove mentions of Jesus, thus modern Jews deny that it is talking about him, while ancient rabbis used examples supposedly speaking of him for centuries. But what cannot be denied is that the Talmud gives evidence of Christians believing in Jesus as a flesh and blood rabbi from the late first century, which contradicts the Jesus myth theory.

There is a history of the Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud

translated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON
Book 10 (Vols. I and II)
The History of the Talmud

from Vol I chapter II

Thus the study of the Talmud flourished after the destruction of the Temple, although beset with great difficulties and desperate struggles. All his days, R. Johanan b. Zakkai was obliged to dispute with Sadducees and Bathueians and, no doubt, with the Messiahists also; for although these last were Pharisees, they differed in many points from the teaching of the Talmud after their master, Jesus, had broken with the Pharisees

This clearly indicates that Jesus was followed by Christians who understood him as a Rabbi in the late first century, but the Jesus myth theory says that it was only in the second century that began to put a concrete history to Jesus. Note this history indicates taht they had a history about him as they said he had been a pharisee.

The index indicates that this statment is from the time covering the late first century.
Index to the work

The Talmud is Rabbinical commentaries that begin about the second century but they draw upon even older material. Soem parts of the Jerusalem Talmud go back to the frist century and even before:

Michael L Rodkinson

"History of Talmud"

"The Talmud is a combination of Mishna and Gemara, the latter is a collection of Mishnayoth, Tosephtas, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre and Boraithas, all of these, interpreted and discussed by the Amoraim, Saboraim, and also Gaonim at a later period. "The Mishna is the authorized codification of the oral or unwritten law, which on the basis of the written law contained in Pentateuch, developed during the second Temple, and down to the end of the second century of the common era." The author of which was R. Jehuda, the prince named "Rabbi" (flourishing toward the end of the second century), taking the unfinished work of R. Akiba and R. Meir as basis."


Christian apologists have long used the references in the Talmud to certian figures, some named "Yeshua" and others called by deogatory nick names, to prove the Jews wrote about Jesus. But modern Jewish scholars have given up that pasttime and now deny that any of these references pertian to Jesus.

Rabbis have never deneid it. Rabbis have been using the talmudis stories of Jesus for centuries to illustraet the problems with Christianity. Secondly, they were confident enough that this was Jesus that they actually took the mentions of name out at one point to avoid attacks by anti-semetic Christians.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165509 Feb 28, 2013
Neil Altman is a writer who lives in Pennsylvania and specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. His others works have appeared The Times of London, the Toronto Star and The Washington Post.

David Crowder, an investigative reporter with the El Paso Times, and Bill Norton, of The Star, contributed to this story

As a result of the twofold censorship the usual volumes of Rabbinic literature contain only a distorted remnant of supposed allusions to Jesus ..." (Ibid, pp. 58-59)

It seems pretty obvious that the Talmud is discussing Jesus, at least in some enstances. A summary of what the most liley passages say about theone I take to be Jesus of Nazerath makes this clear:

a Summary of what is said about the charactors who seem go by these names:
*He was born under unusual circumstances, leading some rabbis to address him as ben Pandira and " a bastard of an adulteress."
*mother Mary was Heli's daughter.
*was crucified on the eve of Passover.
* made himself alive by the name of God.
* was a son of a woman.(cf. Galatians 4:4)
* claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.
* ascended and claimed that he would return again.
* was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.
* had at least five disciples.
* performed miracles, i.e. practiced "sorcery".
* name has healing power.
* teaching impressed one rabbi.
The Talmud essentially affirms the New Testament teaching on the life and person of Jesus Christ, God's unique Son and Savior of the world.

Before going into that we need to understand what we are looking for. The Talmudic writters don't say "O Jesus of Nazerath is who we are talking about." The counch things in langaue form their world is very different to anything modern Christian would expect to find. they have many nicknames for Jesus, both as derogatory and as part of the self censering. soem of these can be translated as "may his name be blotted out" Others are of doubtful origin, but it is asserted strongly by Rabbis over the centuries that they are Talking about Jesus.Some of htese names include:
*Ben Stada
*Ben Pantira

Origin of Pantera
Morey quotes from the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud:

Footnote in Soncino: "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus." (Ibid., p. 7) Some scholars also see an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ in the term, "son of Pandira." This is due to the fact that "Pandira" seems to be a play on the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, the very term used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke when recording Jesus' virgin birth. McDowell & Wilson report:

"... Scholars have debated at length how Jesus came to have this name (i.e., ben Pandira) attached to his. Strauss thought it was from the Greek word pentheros, meaning 'son-in-law.' Klausner and Bruce accept the position that panthera is a corruption of the Greek parthenos meaning 'virgin.' Klausner says,'The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the majority of whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus by the name "Son of the Virgin"... and so, in mockery, they called him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., "son of the leopard."'... The theory most sensational but least accepted by serious scholars was dramatized by the discovery of a first century tombstone at Bingerbruck, Germany. The inscription read,'Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 c.e. was transferred to service in Germany.'... This discovery fueled the fire of the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier, Panthera. Even Origen writes that his opponent, Celsus, in circa A.D. 178, said that he heard from a Jew that 'Miriam' had become pregnant by 'Pantheras,' a Roman soldier; was divorced by her husband, and bore Jesus in secret.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165511 Feb 28, 2013
R. Papa said: When the Mishnah states a MESITH IS A HEDYOT, it is only in respect of hiding witnesses. For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done?- A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him, but he cannot see them. Then the person he wishes to seduce says to him, "Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me"; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; "But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols?" If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: "It is our duty and seemly for us," the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to Beth din, and have him stoned.["And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah?- His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair?- As they say in Pumpbaditha, This woman has turned away (satath da) from her husband,(i.e. committed adultery).](Morey, p. 6)

These are passages from the Mishna that pertian to Jesus. Of course the information is distorted, and he is doubed "Panther." How he got this name and what it means is undecided, I'll deal with that at leangth by quoting a huge footnote by Shomoun, but latter for that. There are more passages pertaining to Jesus crucifiction and Resurrection:

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#165512 Feb 28, 2013
Shamma wrote:
Jesus in the Jewish Talmud.
You spend a lot of energy trying to prove the wrong point. All of that is old news.

Noone (at least not me) here doubted the historical Jesus.

What you said was that there were "hundreds" of references. I believe there are fewer than a half a dozen.

I was calling you on your huge inflation. We are an educated bunch here. We pay attention to these things.
Alex123 aka WM

London, UK

#165513 Feb 28, 2013
Shamma wrote:
The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ
By Wayne Jackson
In one of his epistles, Paul, lifting a text from the book of Job (5:13, LXX) to emphasize the folly of human wisdom in contrast to that which is divine, observed that God “catches the wise in their own craftiness”(1 Corinthians 3:19). A fisherman “caught in his own net” is a pathetic sight. Or, as Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407) of Constantinople once expressed it, the soldier “is worsted with his own weapons.”
An evil contingent within the Jewish nation influenced the Romans to put Christ to death. No serious student of history can deny this reality. This is not to discount the culpability of all sinners in the death of God’s Son; it merely acknowledges the historical events that occurred in the spring of A.D. 30 in the city of Jerusalem.
For nearly two millennia Jewish writers have been attempting to revise history in an effort to rationalize their role in the death of Jesus of Nazareth. In each attempt, they pitifully ensnare themselves. Better it would have been had they treated the awful history factually and simply moved on.
In this brief article we take note of a passage in the Jewish Talmud that speaks of the death of Jesus. It sought to explain the execution of Christ against the background of Hebrew law, with the contention that the Lord’s death was implemented legally. The result, however, is a remarkable confirmation of the details of the biblical narratives.
The Jewish Text
The Babylonian Talmud is a commentary on Jewish laws composed between A.D. 500-600 (Neusner/Green, 69) Therein is a text about Jesus’ death. The Tractate Sanhedrin (43a) contains this passage:
Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried,“He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve.
An analysis of this paragraph is extremely rewarding. First, one must observe that the document is written from the Jewish viewpoint; thus, as expected, is hostile to Jesus, and is defensive of Jewish jurisprudence. This makes it all the more valuable as a document for the support of Christianity.
The problem for you is this:

ISLAM through HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMED gives the Jews a get out of Jail free card!!

ISLAM says they did NOT kill Jesus.

This means ISLAM exhonerates the Jews.

Are you annoyed?

For details, watch this space I guess..

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165514 Feb 28, 2013
II. Jesus' Crucifixion

"And it is tradition: On the eve of Passover they hung Jeshu [the Nazarene]. And the crier went forth before him forty days (saying),[Jeshu the Nazarene] goeth forth to be stoned, because he hath practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray. Anyone who knoweth aught in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him. And they found naught in his favor. And they hung him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla said,'Would it be supposed that [Jeshu the Nazarene] a revolutionary, had aught in his favor?' He was a deceiver and the Merciful (i.e. God) hath said (Deut. xiii 8),‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.’ But it was different with [Jeshu the Nazarene] for he was near the kingdom.'" (Sanhedrin 43a) Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: "You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him." It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship.(McDowell & Wilson, p. 65)

Notice it say he was "hung." But Raymond Brown in Death of the Messiah establishes the fact that "hung" was a euphemism for crucifiction. So what they really saying is that he was crucified.

III. Jesus' Resurrection

"And he took up his parable and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Woe unto him who maketh himself alive by the name of God.[a covert allusion to Jesus.]" (Sanhedrin 106a)

IV. Jesus' Deity
Christian Author Michael Green quotes a rabbi named Eliezar, writing about AD 160, who writes:

"God saw that a man, son of a woman, was to come forward in the future, who would attempt to make himself God and lead the whole world astray. And if he says he is God he is a liar. And he will lead men astray, and say that he will depart and will return at the end of days." (Green, Who is this Jesus?[Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992], p. 60- cited in We Believe Series - Basics of Christianity, Jesus Knowing Our Savior, author Max Anders [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995], p. 136)
How obvious can you get?

"Rabbi Eliezer ha-Kappar said: God gave strength to his (Balaam's) voice so that it went from one end of the world to the other, because he looked forth and beheld the nations that bow down to the sun and moon and stars, and to wood and stone, and he looked forth and saw that there was a man, born of a woman, who should rise up and seek to make himself God, and to cause the whole world to go astray. Therefore God gave power to the voice of Balaam that all the peoples of the world might hear, and thus he spake: Give heed that ye go not astray after that man, for is written,'God is not a man that he should lie.' And if he says that he is God, he is a liar; and he will deceive and say that he departed and cometh again at the end. He saith and he shall not perform. See what is written: And he took up his parable and said,'Alas, when God doeth this.' Balaam said, Alas, who shall live - of what nation which heareth that man who hath made himself God." (Yalkut Shimeon,[Salonica] sec. 725 on wayissa mishalo [Num. 23. 7], according to Midrash Y'lamm'denue)

Another rabbi, writing a hundred years after Eliezer, states:

"Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says 'I am God,' he lies; if he says,'I am the Son of man' he shall rue it; 'I will go up to heaven,'(to this applies Num. xxiii 19) he saith, but shall not perform it." (Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165515 Feb 28, 2013
Well all of that tells us that the Jews were of Christiantiy and barrowed from Christian stories to refute and debunck it, and that they did this as early as AD160. But none of that really indicates that that they have anything orignally form the Jewish community that historically verifies Jesus, accept that they do seem to affirm that he existed. They are clealry talking about him and they never argue that he didn't exist. But there's more, there's a more posative argument, but we must wade through a lot of stuff to get to it.

The Proof
I. Geneology

The geneology of Jesus was known to the Jews, is mentioned in the Talmud and shows up in the use of the name "panteria." This is duscussed above where it is said that the use of that name is the jewish preference for a geneological connection. Another quotion above:

R. Shimeaon ben 'Azzai said: I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress." McDowell and Wilson state, on the authority of Joseph Klausner, that the phrase such-an-one "is used for Jesus in the Ammoraic period (i.e., fifth century period)." (McDowell & Wilson, p. 69)

So geneological connections tie the figure of Pantera to Jesus of Nazerath. Of course mythological figures would not have geneological connections. Jesus Mother, brother, and family are mentioned throughout many sources.

II. Celsus

Celsus demonstrates a connection to the material of the Talmud, indicating that that material about Jesus was around in a leaast the second century. Since Jewish sources would not have been reidaly avaible to Celsus it seems reasonable to assume that this information had been floating around for some time, and easier to obtain. Therefore, we can at least went back to the early second, late frist century.

Origin quoting Celsus: Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165516 Feb 28, 2013
So we estabilsh:

(1) Mary was poor and worked with her hands

(2) husband was a carpenter

(3)Mary committed adultary with Roman soldier named Panthera.(where have we heard this before?)

(4) Jesus as bastard

(5) driven to Egypt where Jesus leanred magic.

All of these points are made in the Talmudic passages. This can be seen both above and on the next page. The use of the name Panthera is a dead give away. Clearly Celsus got this info from the Talmud. Christians never used the name Panthera. He could only hae gotten it form the Talmud and these are very charges the Talmudists made.

Here is a mishna passage, which makes most of the points. Being from the Mishna it would draw upon first century material:

MISHNAH.[104b] If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh,[etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh? He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools.[Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira?- Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah?- his mother was Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser?- It is as we said in Pumbeditha: This is one has been unfaithful to (lit.,'turned away from'- satath da) her husband.](Shabbath 104b)

In fact Origin himself almost hints at spcial knowledge of Jesus "ture" origns, what would that knowldge be? Christian knolwege would be posative and not contian many of the poitns, such as Mary being a spinner or hair dresser. No Christians ever said that. It was suspect for a woman to work. That's an insutl to her.

The following quotes are taken from Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987:


"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus:'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumourss about the true and insavoury circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?" (57).

why a Jew? or Philospher? Celsus was obviously reading the jewish sources. This is one of the charges made in the Talmud.

Here he claims to have secret knowledge that Christians don't have:

"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories...[for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)." (62).

where is that from? It has to be the Talmud, or sources commonly drawn upon by the Talmud.

But how does this prove it was Jesus? Celsus sure thought it was. Apparently his Jeiwsh contracts told him this is the staright scoup on Jesus' life. We see that everyhwere in the Talmud Jesus is talked about as a living person,and connections are made to his family and geneology.

Celsus pushes the knoledge back to late second century, but due to the aviability or Rabbinical writtings it must have been around for some time before that. The Jews were very consicous of geneologies and family connections. why wouldthey not pick up on the fact that Jesus had none and no one had ever seen him personaly, if indeed that was the case?

Page 2: more passages

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165517 Feb 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
You spend a lot of energy trying to prove the wrong point. All of that is old news.
Noone (at least not me) here doubted the historical Jesus.
What you said was that there were "hundreds" of references. I believe there are fewer than a half a dozen.
I was calling you on your huge inflation. We are an educated bunch here. We pay attention to these things.
This link gives more.
Jesus in the Jewish Talmud.

I am not done posting from the Talmud yet.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165518 Feb 28, 2013
I will now examine several Talmudic passages in slightely greater depth:

these are found on the westie of Gil Student. Student argues that the evidence is too veg to say that Jesus is spoken of in even one passage in the whole of the Talmud. But let's see.

Gil Student

"The Jesus narrative in the Talmud"

Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a>

"It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool."

Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.

R. Chisda said: "The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira.

[No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada.

[No,] the mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband."


"What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic. His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada. His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah. Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born."


"Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure."

Here's where Student argues against the passage being about Jesus, as he does with all the passages:


1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser.

Of course the hair dresser bit is new information that would be part of the unique Jewish soruces and kept out fo the Gosepsl, or if we look at it in another way, added as propaganda value since a working woman was supect. We see from Celsus' comments tha they also said she spun for living. Association wiht Mary Magdelon is based upon the assumption of a pun. Maybe they weren't making a pun. Maybe they were just running two figures from the Gospels together as if to say they all common women.

2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.

Who knows what that means. It looks offhand like its dervied from the Roman Pappa, meaning father, ben = son, Yehudah might mean something derogatory.

3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father.

that leads me to suspect that his use here is polemical.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165519 Feb 28, 2013
Passage #3: Trial
Talmud Sanhedrin 67a

"It is taught: For all others liable for the death penalty [except for the enticer to idolatry] we do not hide witnesses. How do they deal with [the enticer]? They light a lamp for him in the inner chamber and place witnesses in the outer chamber so that they can see and hear him while he cannot see or hear them. One says to him "Tell me again what you said to me in private" and he tells him. He says "How can we forsake our G-d in heaven and worship idolatry?" If he repents, good. If he says "This is our obligation and what we must do" the witnesses who hear him from outside bring him to the court and stone him. And so they did to Ben Stada in Lud and hung him on the eve of Passover."


"This passage discusses how an enticer to idolatry, one of the worst religious criminals (see Deuteronomy 13:7-12), was caught. The Talmud then continues and says that this was the method used to catch the notorious Ben Stada."


"Again we see Ben Stada. Above we were told that he performed witchcraft and we are now told that he was an idolater as well. The connection to Jesus is that Ben Stada is connected to Jesus in the passage above and that he was executed on the eve of Passover. The Gospel of John (19:14) has Jesus being executed on the eve of Passover."


1. The same problems above connecting Ben Stada to Jesus apply here as well, including his living almost a century after Jesus.

Now wiat a minute, if he's basing that upon the passage above that talks abou the grandpa, Pappos Ben Yehuda, then he's just assuming that Ben STada also lives latter than the time in which the grandpa is palced in the other passage. That in no ways means that they are writting of this figure with historical accruacy. They are barrowign him and placing him into the Stada narrative for polemical reasons, but it doenst' say when Ben Stadda lived. Thus Student is pulling a fast one. There is no proof that Ben Stadda lived after the time of Jesus!

2. Ben Stada was stoned by a Jewish court and not crucified by the Roman government like Jesus.

O but wait! in the passage is says he was stoned then hung! that curcial because we know that "hung" is eunphemism for crucifiction (Ray Brown, Death of the Messiah).

3. The Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus was executed on Passover itself (Matthew 26:18-20; Mark 14:16-18; Luke 22:13-15) and not the eve of Passover. Yea but he just got through saying that John places it on the eve. Ray Brown talks abuot the problem of the exact time frame of the crucifiction and the three days in the tomb. One solution is that Jesus nd co were followers of the Qumran Calender which would put them a day ahdead. Thus for the early chruch he ws crucified on passavoer and for the phrisees the day before. Talmudists are decendents of the Phrisees.

4. Jesus was not crucified in Lud.

I don't know where Lud is. They could be wrong aobut the place for any number of reasons.

Ibid (Student)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165520 Feb 28, 2013

"Here we have the story of the execution of Yeshu. Like Ben Stada, he was also executed on the eve of Passover. Before executing him, the court searched for any witnesses who could clear his name, as was normally done before any execution. Ulla, however, questioned this practice. An enticer, due to the biblical mandate not to be merciful, should not be afforded this normal consideration. The Talmud answers that Yeshu was different. Because of his government connections, the court tried to search for any reason not to execute him and upset the government."

sounds to me like tounge in cheek way of saying he "king of the Jews," the tag put on him by Pilate.

"Again we see Yeshu. All of the proofs from above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here as well. Additionally, the execution on the eve of Passover is another connection to Jesus as above with Ben Stada."


1. As mentioned above with Ben Stada, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus being executed on Passover itself and not the eve of Passover.

Problematic, see above.

2. As above, Yeshu lived a century before Jesus.

based upon what? How do we know that? the other such claim was a false hood

3. Yeshu was executed by a Jewish court and not by the Romans. During Yeshu's time, the reign of Alexander Janneus, the Jewish courts had the power to execute but had to be careful because the courts were ruled by the Pharisees while the king was a Sadducee. It seems clear why the courts would not want to unneccesarily upset the monarch by executing a friend of his. During the Roman occupation of Jesus' time, there is no indication that the Jewish courts had the right to execute criminals.

That's a good indication that the account is written much after the time of Chrsit,when the eidtor/author didnt' know the situation of Chrit's time. It might also be just embellishment.

3. There is no indication from the New Testament that Jesus had friends in the government.

But it would be insulting to him to say that he was freinds with th profane Janneus.

Passage #5: Disciples
Talmud Sanhedrin 43a

It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d."

They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish."

They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay." They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]."

They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots." They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]."

They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel." They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn."

They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]." They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me."

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165521 Feb 28, 2013

"Five of Yeshu's disciples were brought before a court, tried for the crime against G-d and society of idolatry, and executed according to biblical law. This passages presents each disciple cleverly bringing a biblical verse in an attempt to exonerate himself and the court responding likewise."


The name Yeshu is used as above. The additional proof this passage provides is that Matai is the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, one of Jesus' disciples.


1. The same problems above connecting Yeshu to Jesus apply here.
2. Of the five disciples, only one is recognized. What of the other four?
3. The name Matai seems like a nickname or Aramaic equivalent of Matityahu, which was a known Jewish name in that time period. It was probably a common name, considering the high esteem in which the patriarch of the Hasmonean dynasty, Matityahu, was held by the common people. Some manuscripts have the name of R. Yehoshua Ben Perachiah's famous colleague as Matai from Arbel [cf. R. Shimon Ben Tzemach Duran, Magen Avot, ed. Zeini (Jerusalem:2000) p. 31].

This passage is probably pretty worthless for establishing Jesus in the Talmud. Any of these above could be references to Jesus. The fact is we probably dont' have any references that are of any value now, they were expunged in the self censor, or mixed and mingaled over the years with other stories so that they are of little Vaule. What is clear is that Celsus had easy access to the Talmudic Mishna materials of his day, and he clearly understood them to be speaking of Jesus the leader of the Christians. WE may nhot have hte original material,so know about Jesus what the Talmudists knew. But it's clear they had some historical data of him and that they always regarded him as a felsh and blood man in history.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#165522 Feb 28, 2013
Alex123 aka WM wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem for you is this:
ISLAM through HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMED gives the Jews a get out of Jail free card!!
ISLAM says they did NOT kill Jesus.
This means ISLAM exhonerates the Jews.
Are you annoyed?
For details, watch this space I guess..
Alex, you are ignorant of Scripture.
Jesus Forgave the Jews on the Cross.
Luke 23:34

New International Version (©1984)
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Romeoville, IL

#165523 Feb 28, 2013
Yada Yada Yada

No mention of the resurrection.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#165524 Feb 28, 2013
Eric wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that BS before I posted. No where does that article post FACTS from the sources given that support the resurrection of Jesus. It is surmise from your scriptures only. There are no quotations from the historical works by the non-Christian historians.
By the way, you already posted the article in full.
Now, please post the facts quoted by the non-Christian historians that support the resurrection of Jesus.
rabbee: sorry but if it were no truth to it, then i should not be here in this second coming. and so - good luck with that finding, only an athiest historian writting about it. even if chances are, it is all happened or happening, nothing like any of you expect.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#165525 Feb 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
You spend a lot of energy trying to prove the wrong point. All of that is old news.
Noone (at least not me) here doubted the historical Jesus.
What you said was that there were "hundreds" of references. I believe there are fewer than a half a dozen.
I was calling you on your huge inflation. We are an educated bunch here. We pay attention to these things.
rabbee: here is the story, they all do not know what or who their talking about:
"(and G-D said, "let US make Adam in OUR IMAGE, after OUR LIKENESS, they shall rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole
earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. so G-D created Adam in HIS IMAGE, in The Image of G-D HE created HIM; male and female HE created them.G-D blessed them, and G
-D said to them, "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it: and rule over the fish in the sea, the bird of the sky, and every living thing that moves on the earth. ")"

and the story of Adam, does include the accounting or the resurrection. even if it is not what you all expected again, from TheG-D of Only TheTorah.

Since: Mar 08


#165527 Feb 28, 2013
@ Shaman

There were hundreds of Jesuses and Marys back then. Can you stop spamming and littering the precious bandwidth, please?

We believe that Jesus existed and his mother was a holy, noble and a pure
woman, whom no man knew and she was a virgin, when she conceived Jesus.

No problem there.

We are not discussing through Talmud. The problem is that the gospels clearly show that the alleged crucifixion was a drama, a well-managed stage show, which was a joint production by Pilate and the San Hedrin. It allowed him to escape.

And Jesus went into hiding.

That Jesus did not come out in the open, clearly shows that he was never dead.

If you killed me and if I were resurrected, I would definitely go and present myself to you. I would not be running away from you then.

After the alleged resurrection, Jesus would have gone to Jerusalem to show himself up to his killers, instead of going to Galilee.

That he did not make a Triumphal Re-Entry into Jerusalem, already shows that the man was never dead.

It would have been better if he had remained dead and only then it could have been considered a great sacrifice.

Since: Mar 08


#165528 Feb 28, 2013
Shamma wrote:
<quoted text>
I am laughing very hard at your attempt to justify your ignorance.

You have not yet answered the following question:

How many times does the word FATHER appear in the Jewish Tanakh?

Please do not give me the number from your Christian Bible.


Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pagan/Wiccan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Curtis Brown column: Trick-or-Treat not to ever... (Oct '10) Sep 19 T Marie 10
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sep 14 Pariah 4,886
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) Sep 14 Bob of Quantum-Faith 843
News Remembering a Christian and a Jew who traced an... Sep 13 Philbert 23
Anyone still at this forum Aug '16 Sarah Good 1
When do you know if you are truly Wiccan? (Nov '07) Aug '16 Tekmoses 137
Convert me from Agnostic to Atheist Jul '16 ATHEOI 2
More from around the web