• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Toledot Yeshu: The Fifth Gospel.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Toledot Yeshu[a] (The Life Story of Jesus) is almost certainly one of the most mysterious and controversial, yet exceedingly popular, books in the history of Hebrew literature. The book lays out for the reader the New Testament stories about the life of Jesus of Nazareth . . . replaced [from a Jewish point of view] . . . by a newly shaped narrative, what the late historian Amos Funkenstein termed "counterhistory," that crudely derides the deepest principles of the Christian faith.​

Eli Yassif.
In a recent essay I derided the concept of a closed-canon. I poo pooed the closing of the Christian canon claiming it's a farce, that it closes out voices the canonizers consider dangerous or heretical, but that in truth, it weakens the spirit of a true and living tradition. In that essay, I noted Toledot Yeshu as the crowing proof of my argument. Toledot Yeshu, though it would be seen as one of the dangerous and heretical streams of thought adversarial to the other four Gospels, can, through the right prism, be seen as, hard though it might be to believe, the most revealing of all five Gospels so far as a universal appreciation of Yeshua is concerned. In many ways the fifth Gospel is first and foremost where a universal revelation of Yeshua is concerned.



John

ד׳

חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Toledot Yeshu[a] (The Life Story of Jesus) is almost certainly one of the most mysterious and controversial, yet exceedingly popular, books in the history of Hebrew literature. The book lays out for the reader the New Testament stories about the life of Jesus of Nazareth . . . replaced [from a Jewish point of view] . . . by a newly shaped narrative, what the late historian Amos Funkenstein termed "counterhistory," that crudely derides the deepest principles of the Christian faith.​

Eli Yassif.
In a recent essay I derided the concept of a closed-canon. I poo pooed the closing of the Christian canon claiming it's a farce, that it closes out voices the canonizers consider dangerous or heretical, but that in truth, it weakens the spirit of a true and living tradition. In that essay, I noted Toledot Yeshu as the crowing proof of my argument. Toledot Yeshu, though it would be seen as one of the dangerous and heretical streams of thought adversarial to the other four Gospels, can, through the right prism, be seen as, hard though it might be to believe, the most revealing of all five Gospels so far as a universal appreciation of Yeshua is concerned. In many ways the fifth Gospel is first and foremost where a universal revelation of Yeshua is concerned.



John

ד׳

חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​


The idea of a closed cannon is tiresome. The last sentence in the Book of Revelation was meant only for THAT composition. The Bible, as a book did not exist at the time, so the statement can not apply to it. The Mormons benefit from that, saying that their Book of Mormon, and other documents are scripture, along with every thing their Prophet says is scripture. Too bad their own actions defy their own scripture. I think that the way a composition becomes scripture has been lost.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The idea of a closed cannon is tiresome. The last sentence in the Book of Revelation was meant only for THAT composition. The Bible, as a book did not exist at the time, so the statement can not apply to it. The Mormons benefit from that, saying that their Book of Mormon, and other documents are scripture, along with every thing their Prophet says is scripture. Too bad their own actions defy their own scripture. I think that the way a composition becomes scripture has been lost.

. . . We see that even a closed-canon doesn't stop people from interpreting it any way they see fit. Therefore closing it doesn't affect freewheeling interpretations (and many of the best interpretations could be called freewheeling).

Closing a canon does precisely what it's intended to stop. It weakens the canon and implies that the canonizers are the only ones who know what is scripture.

Imo, true scripture is always oral. It can only live in a heart, can only be expressed live, through breath, fed by the blood, pumped through the heart.

The ear-gate is the gate into the New Jerusalem. The eye-gate can't ameliorate the ink-stain come (so to say) from what the pen-is in relationship to the biological adjunct that produced the stain that is the Fall in the Garden. Canonizing the NT is the canonizer's original sin. . . It's allowed Cain and his descendants a free run on pointing the text, and thereby pointing out what they don't agree with; point being they control the text which they imply is the whole of the revelation.

Unfortunately there's a hole in the text. It ain't whole, or holy. It's the white around the read letters that are the source of the red letters in the Gospels. No one reads that white holy text. So no one reads the red text properly. So no one reads Toledot Yeshu; though it's first and foremost in the sense that most of the meaning of the other four Gospels resides there.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
In a recent essay I derided the concept of a closed-canon. I poo pooed the closing of the Christian canon claiming it's a farce, that it closes out voices the canonizers consider dangerous or heretical, but that in truth, it weakens the spirit of a true and living tradition. In that essay, I noted Toledot Yeshu as the crowing proof of my argument. Toledot Yeshu, though it would be seen as one of the dangerous and heretical streams of thought adversarial to the other four Gospels, can, through the right prism, be seen as, hard though it might be to believe, the most revealing of all five Gospels so far as a universal appreciation of Yeshua is concerned. In many ways the fifth Gospel is first and foremost where a universal revelation of Yeshua is concerned.


Where the New Testament saw the source of Jesus' power in his divine essence, the adversaries defined his power as black magic deriving from the forces of evil. "Jesus as sorcerer" was a prevalent and accepted motif amongst pagans and Jews at the inception of Christianity.

Toledot Yeshu, on the other hand, chooses a different path of surprising originality. It relates that the Foundation Stone upon which the world was established, which is hidden under the foundations of the Temple, is inscribed with the Ineffable Name. This Name is the most closely guarded secret of Judaism, an extremely powerful means by which someone can work miracles and harness the forces of nature. The Rabbis worried that the Ineffable Name might be stolen and become a devastating force in the wrong hands. Therefore, they devised a way to erase the memory of anyone seeking to memorize this secret of divine holiness, and to spirit it away to some location outside the holy precincts.

Jesus, upon being banished from Jewish society, decided to avenge himself. He entered the holy precincts, inscribed the Ineffable Name on parchment, made an incision in his thigh, stuck the parchment into the cut, closed the wound, and left, with no one the wiser. This way, even though he forgot the name that he had tried to memorize, upon returning home he removed the parchment from his flesh and thereby deceived the Sages of Israel. Now, with the Ineffable Name in hand he could use it to work the miracles that would be described in the New Testament, the ones that won him the admiration of the masses and inspired their belief that he was the messiah and Son of God.

Eli Yassif, The Jewish Jesus Story.​

This foundational motif of Toledot Yeshu, when placed in the proper context of the Tanakh and the other four Gospels, reveals an aspect of Yeshua's identity hidden so deeply beneath the parabolic nature of the Tanakh that even Yeshua's own parables require this fifth Gospel in order to be properly unraveled.

Both traditions (the Tankah and synoptic Gospels) are the cipher that require Toledot Yeshu as the key unlocking their greatest secret.

Consequently, a number of structural concepts that span the chasm between Judaism and Christianity are needed to unlock Toledot Yeshua. The very key to the Christian Gospels, found in Jewish writings (Toledot Yeshu), require an exegete versed in both tradition in order that the very key to both traditions (Toledot Yeshu) be deciphered using the two keys locked away in the vaults of two opposing orthodox interpretation. Both keys are needed. And one key is locked up in the Christian canon, while the other is locked up in the Jewish canon.

Before the fifth Gospel reveals its precious contents, someone must be willing to set aside their own orthodox biases long enough to absorb the truths of their archetypal other, a Jew, Christian motifs, or a Christian, Jewish motifs. Only then can the two-lock-box holding the meaning of Toledot Yeshu, and thus the meaning of the entire Bible, be opened up at God's good time.



John

ד׳

חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
. . . We see that even a closed-canon doesn't stop people from interpreting it any way they see fit. Therefore closing it doesn't affect freewheeling interpretations (and many of the best interpretations could be called freewheeling).

Closing a canon does precisely what it's intended to stop. It weakens the canon and implies that the canonizers are the only ones who know what is scripture.

Imo, true scripture is always oral. It can only live in a heart, can only be expressed live, through breath, fed by the blood, pumped through the heart.

The ear-gate is the gate into the New Jerusalem. The eye-gate can't ameliorate the ink-stain come (so to say) from what the pen-is in relationship to the biological adjunct that produced the stain that is the Fall in the Garden. Canonizing the NT is the canonizer's original sin. . . It's allowed Cain and his descendants a free run on pointing the text, and thereby pointing out what they don't agree with; point being they control the text which they imply is the whole of the revelation.

Unfortunately there's a hole in the text. It ain't whole, or holy. It's the white around the read letters that are the source of the red letters in the Gospels. No one reads that white holy text. So no one reads the red text properly. So no one reads Toledot Yeshu; though it's first and foremost in the sense that most of the meaning of the other four Gospels resides there.



John



AND, the same scripture can be interpreted many different ways. A case in point is 1 Corinthians 11:6. What does that even mean? Some Christian churches use it to keep their women covered, others just while praying, and others simply ignore it. At this point, I question the value of scripture.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
AND, the same scripture can be interpreted many different ways. A case in point is 1 Corinthians 11:6. What does that even mean? Some Christian churches use it to keep their women covered, others just while praying, and others simply ignore it. At this point, I question the value of scripture.

. . . It needs to constantly be interpreted new ways. That's the brilliance of the Talmud. The sages keep interpreting the Torah in new and more brilliant ways. Closing the canon assumes the Spirit of the scripture has been nailed down once and for all. But that's the basis for the spirit of the Gospels, and by golly Golgotha.

1 Corinthians 11:6 is like any other scripture. Take a stab at it. And I'll take a stab at your stab. And with all our stabbing we'll get some blood out of it (John 6:53).



Johnb
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The Mormons benefit from that, saying that their Book of Mormon, and other documents are scripture, along with every thing their Prophet says is scripture.
You're an extremely slow learner, aren't you Ellen? For your information (once again), here is an official statement from the LDS Church leadership on what constitutes Mormon doctrine:

  • Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Newsroom -- the official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public.
Not that it will make the slightest difference to you. You've never cared much for accuracy when it comes to discussing Mormonism. But for the benefit of anyone here who might actually think you know what you're talking about, I will continue to counter your lies ever time you tell one.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Where the New Testament saw the source of Jesus' power in his divine essence, the adversaries defined his power as black magic deriving from the forces of evil. "Jesus as sorcerer" was a prevalent and accepted motif amongst pagans and Jews at the inception of Christianity.

Toledot Yeshu, on the other hand, chooses a different path of surprising originality. It relates that the Foundation Stone upon which the world was established, which is hidden under the foundations of the Temple, is inscribed with the Ineffable Name. This Name is the most closely guarded secret of Judaism, an extremely powerful means by which someone can work miracles and harness the forces of nature. The Rabbis worried that the Ineffable Name might be stolen and become a devastating force in the wrong hands. Therefore, they devised a way to erase the memory of anyone seeking to memorize this secret of divine holiness, and to spirit it away to some location outside the holy precincts.

Jesus, upon being banished from Jewish society, decided to avenge himself. He entered the holy precincts, inscribed the Ineffable Name on parchment, made an incision in his thigh, stuck the parchment into the cut, closed the wound, and left, with no one the wiser. This way, even though he forgot the name that he had tried to memorize, upon returning home he removed the parchment from his flesh and thereby deceived the Sages of Israel. Now, with the Ineffable Name in hand he could use it to work the miracles that would be described in the New Testament, the ones that won him the admiration of the masses and inspired their belief that he was the messiah and Son of God.

Eli Yassif, The Jewish Jesus Story.​

This foundational motif of Toledot Yeshu, when placed in the proper context of the Tanakh and the other four Gospels, reveals an aspect of Yeshua's identity hidden so deeply beneath the parabolic nature of the Tanakh that even Yeshua's own parables require this fifth Gospel in order to be properly unraveled.

The fifth Gospel is uniquely important so far as understanding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity; it's quite literally the connecting link such that fear had begun to set in that this second stab at revealing the spirit of the fifth Gospel (Toledo Yeshu) was slipping away before it has revealed itself.

On time, and on target, someone linked to an article about "negative information" that was the missing link so far as freeing the information that needs to be freed about Toledot Yeshu. In the link, the scientists came to realize that by looking too closely into a phenomenon you can actually generate "negative knowledge." And to that same point I've quoted Professor Susan Handelman saying something nearly identical in regards to Jewish exegesis.

She said Jews purposefully practice a "weak exegesis" that unlike Christianity, purposely forbids looking too deeply into the the interconnections of scriptural verses and concepts since any attempt to peer too deep into the revelation in the written word can inadvertently interject too much of ones own theories thereby allowing eisegetical forcefulness to create negative knowledge of the holy writ.

This eisegetical forcefulness is precisely the "erasure" noted in Toledot Yeshu that makes uncovering the ineffable Name impossible. The generation of "negative information" [link] makes peering deeply enough into the truth of creation, to spy the ineffable Name, impossible. The harder you try, the further you get from the truth of the matter since the very attempt to look deeper erases the memory of the ineffable Name the exegete is looking to find.

The whole concept of the ancient "decrees" (chukkim), i.e., commands that must be obeyed without worrying about what they mean (why the decree to remove that particular flesh?) is an exemplification of what the scientists came to realize. If Jews look too deeply into the meaning of the prophesies in the Tanakh they could actually change the dynamics of the messianic arrival in a negative manner that holds the possibility of destroying the world:

This Name is the most closely guarded secret of Judaism, an extremely powerful means by which someone can work miracles and harness the forces of nature. The Rabbis worried that the Ineffable Name might be stolen and become a devastating force in the wrong hands.​

Nevertheless, once Messiah has arrived, on time, and as God designed it, now his arrival must be used to retroactively go where no Jew had gone before, i.e., into the meaning of the chukkim, the decrees.

But they don't do that. And for a strange reason. They're being true to the dictates of their marching orders not to delve too deeply into the things of Messiah thereby erasing the truths necessary for the eventual revelation of the ineffable Name, which will be spelled out by Messiah, and Messiah alone. Such that his arrival itself will answer what they're forbidden to look into.

Judaism is still practicing the pre-messianic marching orders (designed to make his arrival possible) after he has in fact arrived. They're so concerned, with scientific reason and rationale, that seeking the Name will hide it further from view, that they've not even realized that their obedience, their mitzvot, their blind faith, has faithfully given birth to the Seed of the Woman, who is the Shetiya Stone, that's the Rosetta Stone, through which every iota of the Tanakh can now be uncovered.

The manner in which Toledot Yeshu lays these things out is so brilliant that it's proof-positive concerning its fitting place in the canon as the fifth Gospel.




John

ד׳

חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​
 
Last edited:

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
AND, the same scripture can be interpreted many different ways. A case in point is 1 Corinthians 11:6. What does that even mean? Some Christian churches use it to keep their women covered, others just while praying, and others simply ignore it. At this point, I question the value of scripture.

Hi Ellen,
If you don't mind, I will make an attempt to explain what I think it means. You have to look at the whole chapter to see the meaning.

The issue involved is regarding length of the hair, and the relative positions between God, and man, and woman, and the angels. If you will notice verse 15 lets us know that her hair is given to her for a covering. So the covering being discussed is not a hat, or anything like that, it is the hair. Verses 14,15 let you know if a man has long hair it is a shame, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. God doesn't want men being effeminate, and he doesn't want women being masculine. The length of the hair is one of the signs of position (or authority), he intended to be used to distinguish between a man and a woman . Also, angels in the scriptures always look like men, and hence would have shorter hair, which is why they are mentioned in verse 10.

So, as regards verse 6. If a woman's hair is not long enough that her head is covered, she might as well be shorn or shaven. But since it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. (i.e. let her have long enough hair that her head is covered)

And verse 7 lets us know a man shouldn't have his hair so long that his head is covered, or he would be dishonoring God.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
. . . We see that even a closed-canon doesn't stop people from interpreting it any way they see fit. Therefore closing it doesn't affect freewheeling interpretations (and many of the best interpretations could be called freewheeling).

Closing a canon does precisely what it's intended to stop. It weakens the canon and implies that the canonizers are the only ones who know what is scripture.

Imo, true scripture is always oral. It can only live in a heart, can only be expressed live, through breath, fed by the blood, pumped through the heart.

Jesus told His Disciples, who walked with Him and were taught by Him... to teach those who would believe in Him through His Word... ONLY what He had taught to them. Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit would bring to our minds what He had taught, and teach us what He means. Not many seem to remember these things, today.

These days, the Holy Spirit has been given a bad name by sundry people who don't believe the Gospels according to the Disciples... who had actually learned the commandments of God, by the authority of His Son.

Men heap up to themselves the sort of teachers they want, completely disregarding what the Creator knows that we (His created) need. Mankind wants the sort of whirling-dervish that came from the east and brought a plague of hornets with it. When God whistles for the fly to give the final warning to His created, most people won't even know it... they'll already be living the dream... and by dreaming, perish.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Hi Ellen,
If you don't mind, I will make an attempt to explain what I think it means. You have to look at the whole chapter to see the meaning.

The issue involved is regarding length of the hair, and the relative positions between God, and man, and woman, and the angels. If you will notice verse 15 lets us know that her hair is given to her for a covering. So the covering being discussed is not a hat, or anything like that, it is the hair. Verses 14,15 let you know if a man has long hair it is a shame, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. God doesn't want men being effeminate, and he doesn't want women being masculine. The length of the hair is one of the signs of position (or authority), he intended to be used to distinguish between a man and a woman . Also, angels in the scriptures always look like men, and hence would have shorter hair, which is why they are mentioned in verse 10.

So, as regards verse 6. If a woman's hair is not long enough that her head is covered, she might as well be shorn or shaven. But since it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. (i.e. let her have long enough hair that her head is covered)

And verse 7 lets us know a man shouldn't have his hair so long that his head is covered, or he would be dishonoring God.

Hope this helps.


Thank you. Also, of interest to me is that in certain sects of Jews, the women cover their natural hair with a wig, or sometimes a cloth snood. Then there is the way most Muslims do it with a Hijab. And, I think that Muslims are merely copying the Jews in many respects. Given the choice, I would still wear Hijab, but in Trump's America this feels very unsafe. And, I've been of the opinion that Christian women should cover.

Your opinion is interesting. I shall have to think on that. Amish, and related groups wear a sort of covering, and I think that Huterites do also.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Jesus told His Disciples, who walked with Him and were taught by Him... to teach those who would believe in Him through His Word... ONLY what He had taught to them. Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit would bring to our minds what He had taught, and teach us what He means. Not many seem to remember these things, today.

These days, the Holy Spirit has been given a bad name by sundry people who don't believe the Gospels according to the Disciples... who had actually learned the commandments of God, by the authority of His Son.

Men heap up to themselves the sort of teachers they want, completely disregarding what the Creator knows that we (His created) need. Mankind wants the sort of whirling-dervish that came from the east and brought a plague of hornets with it. When God whistles for the fly to give the final warning to His created, most people won't even know it... they'll already be living the dream... and by dreaming, perish.



My apologies. I finally sat down and read about Toledot Yeshu, and I am surprised, having previously no idea at all that the Jews wrote anything about Jesus. Perhaps the existence of such a work proves that Jesus greatly disturbed the status quo in his time? I once took a disabled Jewish woman to her Synagogue on Shabat, and, in English, at the end, they recited a little speech stating a whole disclaimer about him. Interesting.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Muslims are copying the jews? Up until pretty recently, many christian women covered their heads, and , of course some still do, varying on church.
In other words, muslims full face cover thingy is cultural, then became religious, the other covering is copied from christianity, not judaism.


I think the Niqab, (Full Face thingy) originated in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula and Africa. In some areas, the sands blow so fiercely that both men and women cover everything but a tiny slit for their eyes. The Tuareg still do it at need. I tried wearing Niqab once, but it is severely hindering, so I gave it up.

Jews originated first around 1500 BC, then Christians, and the Muslims did not come round until the 7th Century. Though no Muslim that I know, would admit it, I think that they imitated the Jews.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
Jews originated first around 1500 BC, then Christians, and the Muslims did not come round until the 7th Century. Though no Muslim that I know, would admit it, I think that they imitated the Jews.

The Jews tell you it's a mistake to call them Hebrews... the reverse is also true. Jews is actually Judaean, in Greek. The Edomites were made "no other than Jews" by being forced to get out or get circumcised and keep the law of Moses... according to Josephus. And the Christians are also a misnomer, since they aren't actually being like little christs, but only little pauls.
 

OtherSheep

<--@ Titangel
My apologies. I finally sat down and read about Toledot Yeshu, and I am surprised, having previously no idea at all that the Jews wrote anything about Jesus.

Then you haven't read the Talmud, or the pages of the Jewish Encyclopedia which decode the words that stand-in for Jesus and His believers, in that book from Babylon.

Dilling: III. The Talmud and Bible Believers

Of course, the nay-sayers will tell you that they didn't mean THAT Yeshu... nor did they mean to say those things about Mary... apparently they'd like us to think that the Jewish Encyclopedia was wrong.

Keep in mind that "Esau is no other than Jews", since the Maccabees. (Whenever I say Jews, I mean the fakes who are partially Esau and partially Khazars... the Judahites are a different category entirely.) I feel nothing but pity for the wheat which is given the reputation of tares, everywhere that happens today.

Beware the leaven of the Pharisees. Shaul came talking about a Jesus that isn't at all about Jesus according to His real followers... there's a warning which doesn't get much airtime.
 
Last edited:
Top