From: avi@seal.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:32:23 GMT
Reply-To: avi@seal.imagen.com
Organization: none

>
>Where is claimed that the Jews were involved except in the New Testament ?

>In the Talmud. In other  portions of the Rabbinical literature, such
>as the "Toldoth Jeschut." The Talmud states that Jesus was stoned to
>death, then hanged on a tree afterward. It is my understanding that
>an orthodox Jew would have to accept this teaching.

I have 3 things to say about it:

1. "The Talmud states that Jesus was stoned to death, then hanged on a
   tree afterward". 

   Well, that's debateable. First, the name "Yeshua" (Jesus' hebrew name) is
   not as rare as you might think. There were several Yeshuas along the
   Talmud's time, and some scholars disagree who is the "Jesus" among them.
   My point is that "Yeshua" that was stoned is not neccesarily the one you 
   refer to as Jesus.

2. The Talmud states "miracles" (referred to as witchcraft, the kind strongly  
   forbidden by the Bible and prevalant at the ancient times in the middle east,
   such as with King Pharo's (sp?) magicians, etc.) They clearly state that
   this Yeshua was "flying in the air" or "levitating". ("Metzahuhu LeYeshua 
   sheHaya Poreach BaAvir" from the Talmud) 

   Now - if this is the same man you call Jesus, I would think, that flying 
   in the air is a pretty significant miracle, at least as equally impressive
   and probably more than "healing the sick" or "walking on water" - so how come
   the New Testament does not mention it even in one word ?

   My conclusion is that it is NOT the same Jesus (i.e. Yeshua) but another man
   with the same name. And so, it is ALSO not the same Yeshua who was stoned !
   And so at least we have NO evidence the Jesus from the New Testament was stoned
   or even killed in any way related to the Jews.

3. Even if it is the same Yeshua, according to the Talmud, as you mentioned,
   he was clearly NOT crucified but stoned and hanged. Now the cross being such
   a powerful and significant symbol in Christianity, and the crucifixion act    
   itself, even more so - must then be a LATTER INSERTION by somebody to the
   New Testament. If this is the case - then you agree that AT LEAST in one
   instance (and a VERY important one) the New Testament was revised !!!

   As far as I'm concerned, it is thus NOT CREDIBLE anymore as an Historical
   document, because - how can you tell what was revised and what was not.

   Just for comparison sake, the Jewish Bible, even though written MANY centuries
   before, and going through many hardships was NEVER revised. The proof is
   (Gerry Roston, are you listening ?) in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
   A document discovered about 30+ years ago, in the Dead Sea, Judea desert
   in Southern Israel. These scrolls were written AT LEAST 2,000 years ago, and
   that's acceptable BY ALL archeologists and historians who worked with it.
   And yet, when compared WORD FOR WORD with the same documents Modern Jews have
   today (for example the scroll of the Book of Issiah which is the best
   preserved and thus easier to read and decipher) it checks out a 100% match
   in every word !!!  Now that's an UN-revisable, One version Only, as it was
   written, authentic document !!! 

   Now for comparison:

>>only one (out of the 4 gospels authors) who actually LIVED in his time. All the
>>3 other gospels authors did NOT know Jesus personally and lived years afterwards
>>(some as late as 120-150 years later!) and are thus NOT acceptable witnesses !!
>
>ALL of the four Canonical gospels were composed by the year 100, or very
>soon thereafter.

 So, 4 gosples written or composed years after Jesus' death, at least 3 out of 4 
 by authors (and possibly 4 out of 4) who NEVER personally met Jesus, and thus 
 could NOT possibly be eyewitnesses, and they all contradict each other, and we
 know that at least the story of the crucifixion is completely inaccuarte.
 Should I say more ?  its completely uncredible. 

>No, your contention that the anti-Jewish passages in the gospels were
> added later, when the church came to power, simply isn't correct.
>The Church became "official" in 315. As I said before, the gospels were
>"fixed" in their present form by the very early second century, at the
>latest. 
 
1. If the passages about the crufixion were edited in - how can you be SURE that 
   the anti-Jewish passages were not ?

2. Even if you think they were not, because they found documents that prove that
   it already showed up in the year 315 (I'm not aware of that so let me know)
   But we do know that the same theologists/priests who were doing LATER 
   editions and REVISIONS -  many times had the ONLY written manuscript, and
   could have (and indeed have) reversed things in hindsight !!! (i.e. to earlier
   documents, by simply copying in a revised document and disposing of the
   original, and this would be confirmed by the many contradictions in the gospels
   and the MANY (and different) versions that the New Testament have !!! 
   (Again, in comparison, the Jewish bible have one version only, exactly
   matching the original one, as evident by the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned above).
From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:02:20 GMT
Subject: Re: A Gender neutral pronoun
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.