Jesus isn't in the Talmud

[Desert Snake]

It's a mystery.

Rabbi Tovia Singer has a commentary on Jesus in the Talmud, (or not in the Talmud.

It seems to me, that he references a possible discrepancy between the dating in the book of Luke, (the first part, in other words, and the book of Matthew.

Now, when one reads the book of Luke, in contrast to the book of Matthew, one notes, the books are different. The beginning part, is quite obviously different. This could be, another Yeshuah, in other words.

However generally, I note differences in the wording, and such, even in one gospel.
[[All the gospels, if I were theorizing here, contain references to two different Jesus's, although personally tend to focus on the book of Matthew, and book of Mark.

The book of Matthew, and book of Mark, as I read them , I figure they have the most content pertaining to the 'real Jesus'.

Note that although this could be said to be 'entirely subjective', I really don't believe it is entirely subjective, because we can compare the Jesus traditional 'absolutes', to the verses. Obviously many would disagree, here.

So,
• more than one jesus in all the gospels
• real jesus in book of Mark, book of Matthew, and book of John
• fake jes-s featured prominently in the gospels
• fake jes-s has different ideas, even theology

\
So, that would be a estimation, that could correlate generally to this subject.

 

[dybmh]

Rabbi Tovia Singer has a commentary on Jesus in the Talmud, (or not in the Talmud.

It seems to me, that he references a possible discrepancy between the dating in the book of Luke, (the first part, in other words, and the book of Matthew.

Now, when one reads the book of Luke, in contrast to the book of Matthew, one notes, the books are different. The beginning part, is quite obviously different. This could be, another Yeshuah, in other words.

However generally, I note differences in the wording, and such, even in one gospel.
[[All the gospels, if I were theorizing here, contain references to two different Jesus's, although personally tend to focus on the book of Matthew, and book of Mark.

The book of Matthew, and book of Mark, as I read them , I figure they have the most content pertaining to the 'real Jesus'.

Note that although this could be said to be 'entirely subjective', I really don't believe it is entirely subjective, because we can compare the Jesus traditional 'absolutes', to the verses. Obviously many would disagree, here.

So,
• more than one jesus in all the gospels
• real jesus in book of Mark, book of Matthew, and book of John
• fake jes-s featured prominently in the gospels
• fake jes-s has different ideas, even theology

\
So, that would be a estimation, that could correlate generally to this subject.

That's a very interesting theory. Thank u for sharing it.

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus isn't in the Talmud

Did you look behind the couch?

 

[Desert Snake]

That's a very interesting theory. Thank u for sharing it.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about, from another discussion:

Yohanan, John, in
John 1:1-10
John is saying that Jehovah is God, and God manifested as Jesus.

Elsewhere in Scripture, there is a Yeshua who says, 'my g-d', and 'my g-d and your g-d'.

Now , at first read, this might seem like Jesus is just talking about the other aspect of God, the ABBA.

However, there is a problem.

Because of Johns usage of Hebrew description, in
John 1:1-10, John is thusly using the word 'God', as we would presume, 'elohim', [since John is saying that Jesus is the manifestation of Jehovah, the 'Lord' aspect of God.

Now, as 'Lord' aspect of God, Jesus would not be saying 'my g-d and your g-d', He would say, the ABBA, or such. Describing His position in the Divinity, if He is the Lord.

We then have Jesus at John 17, affirming His position in the Deific configuration, making Him elohim, in other words.

•
So, Jesus , calling Himself, Deific, John 17,
And, Jesus saying 'my g-d and your g-d', doesn't make sense.

Aside from belief, religious belief, John is using Hebrew wording when He calls Jesus the manifestation of God, and Yohanan is clearly calling 'Jehovah', his God.

So why would John, write what is a confusing mix up of wording, ie the use of 'g-d', as separate from Jesus,
When John literally calls Jesus, the manifestation of Jehovah,
He was in the world, and the world knew Him not.

●
There are thusly either two different yeshuas, and John writes about both, or, something else is entirely wrong, here.
The theology is literally different, by the different usage of 'g-d'-, as a word.

John wouldn't present both, because they don't have the same meaning.

[Two yeshuas, [how did the other yeshua get quoted
[John would not contradict his own Hebrew wording, thus creating a contradiction of meaning.

So, there are variables. What we do know is that there can't be this contradiction, in order to read Scripture in a straightforward manner.

●

\
Note that this, does not require personal belief, about whether Jesus is God, so forth, rather it illustrates something within the text itself, referring to the theology.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So, first off, there is an obscurity concerning the dates, and someone or someones, named Yeshua, in the Talmud. Now, since some, aside from this, still think Jesus is in the Talmud, I'm sure, He isn't, and here is actually, why, that is.

Because, the Jews say 'Yehoshua', for 'Jesus', Yeshu, Yeshua,

Except that Jesus's name isn't Yehoshua.

To put it another way, they would not have written, or say, 'Yehoshua', 'Yeshua', or probably even 'Yeshu', for Jesus's name.

•••
In other words, it's very unlikely that Jesus, is in the Talmud, unless there is something very specific, and even then , how would they use a different name, it doesn't correlate.


•••

Jesus is in fact in the Talmud. He isn't depicted in a flattering way, but they mention a troublemaker basically.

Jesus is in fact not called Jesus Christ outside of English. It's a title. His Jewish name would have been been similar to Joshua. However, remember I said the Jews in the Talmud don't have a flattering view of Jesus? Well, YESHU is actually like an acronym in Hebrew meaning similar to "that his name be forgotten."

There are a few pro-Christian Jews. There have been however, many Jewish priests who hated even the idea of Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus is in fact in the Talmud. He isn't depicted in a flattering way, but they mention a troublemaker basically.

Jesus is in fact not called Jesus Christ outside of English. It's a title. His Jewish name would have been been similar to Joshua. However, remember I said the Jews in the Talmud don't have a flattering view of Jesus? Well, YESHU is actually like an acronym in Hebrew meaning similar to "that his name be forgotten."

There are a few pro-Christian Jews. There have been however, many Jewish priests who hated even the idea of Jesus.

• yehoshua/joshua name for J-sus theory, is really based on the name Yeshu.


So, how are you even deriving that 'Yehoshua' or Joshua, is the name of J-sus, when that inference, the theory, would be from the greek bible? And basically from the name Yeshu?

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus is in fact not called Jesus Christ outside of English. It's a title. His Jewish name would have been been similar to Joshua.

You don't know that. It's a theory, and not a very good theory, at that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus is in fact in the Talmud. He isn't depicted in a flattering way, but they mention a troublemaker basically.

Jesus is in fact not called Jesus Christ outside of English. It's a title. His Jewish name would have been been similar to Joshua. However, remember I said the Jews in the Talmud don't have a flattering view of Jesus? Well, YESHU is actually like an acronym in Hebrew meaning similar to "that his name be forgotten."

There are a few pro-Christian Jews. There have been however, many Jewish priests who hated even the idea of Jesus.

I'm not the one calling Jesus, Yehoshua, Yoshuah, or even Yeshu. I do sometimes for affect,(writing, use different names like the Aramaic, uses, Yeshua.

However strictly speaking , Jesus's name is Jesus, [and variants.

Not Yehoshua and variants.

 

[Desert Snake]

These are acceptable variants of Jesus's name:
Jesus
Iesous
Yesu
Esu
Yeshua[Aramaic Bible

& a few others.
None of these are variants of Yehoshua

 

[dybmh]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about, from another discussion:

Yohanan, John, in
John 1:1-10
John is saying that Jehovah is God, and God manifested as Jesus.

Elsewhere in Scripture, there is a Yeshua who says, 'my g-d', and 'my g-d and your g-d'.

Now , at first read, this might seem like Jesus is just talking about the other aspect of God, the ABBA.

However, there is a problem.

Because of Johns usage of Hebrew description, in
John 1:1-10, John is thusly using the word 'God', as we would presume, 'elohim', [since John is saying that Jesus is the manifestation of Jehovah, the 'Lord' aspect of God.

Now, as 'Lord' aspect of God, Jesus would not be saying 'my g-d and your g-d', He would say, the ABBA, or such. Describing His position in the Divinity, if He is the Lord.

We then have Jesus at John 17, affirming His position in the Deific configuration, making Him elohim, in other words.

•
So, Jesus , calling Himself, Deific, John 17,
And, Jesus saying 'my g-d and your g-d', doesn't make sense.

Aside from belief, religious belief, John is using Hebrew wording when He calls Jesus the manifestation of God, and Yohanan is clearly calling 'Jehovah', his God.

So why would John, write what is a confusing mix up of wording, ie the use of 'g-d', as separate from Jesus,
When John literally calls Jesus, the manifestation of Jehovah,
He was in the world, and the world knew Him not.

●
There are thusly either two different yeshuas, and John writes about both, or, something else is entirely wrong, here.
The theology is literally different, by the different usage of 'g-d'-, as a word.

John wouldn't present both, because they don't have the same meaning.

[Two yeshuas, [how did the other yeshua get quoted
[John would not contradict his own Hebrew wording, thus creating a contradiction of meaning.

So, there are variables. What we do know is that there can't be this contradiction, in order to read Scripture in a straightforward manner.

●

\
Note that this, does not require personal belief, about whether Jesus is God, so forth, rather it illustrates something within the text itself, referring to the theology.

I have to admit, I know virtually nothing in the NT. Reading it is something I should do, just so that I can speak intelligently about it, I know..

It seems like the issue hinges on the nuances of the different names for God in Hebrew. I have some knowledge of the different Hebrew names of God, but as soon as the topic shifts to the NT, I'm quite clueless.

That said:

I suppose, as an outsider, my first question is: How much do you know about the author of the Book of John? Is it likely that they would have intimate knowledge of the nuances of the different names of God?

Edit: However, I will point out that I cannot remember ever hearing or seeing God referred to as abba ( Father ) in any OT scripture or commentary. Lord, God, Almighy, etc... all of those and their Hebrew equivalents... but never Abba...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Am I the only one who finds this thread to be somewhat inane?

 

[dybmh]

Am I the only one who finds this thread to be somewhat inane?

Obviously, I **was** enjoying the conversation.

Why so negative?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Obviously, I **was** enjoying the conversation.

Why so negative?

FWIW, I don't feel "so negative" about these my-baseless-speculation-is-qualitatively-better-than-your-baseless-speculation debates. I simply have a mild preference for fact-based discussion.

If I've robbed you of your enjoyment, my apologies,

 

[dybmh]

FWIW, I don't feel "so negative" about these my-baseless-speculation-is-qualitatively-better-than-your-baseless-speculation debates. I simply have a mild preference for fact-based discussion.

If I've robbed you of your enjoyment, my apologies,

Well, from my perspective, I had never researched whether or not JC was actually in the Talmud. I just took it for granted that he was in there.

So it was nice for me in that regard. Plus, I enjoy topics like this. I'm not sure why.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, from my perspective, I had never researched whether or not JC was actually in the Talmud. I just took it for granted that he was in there.

So it was nice for me in that regard. Plus, I enjoy topics like this. I'm not sure why.

Garnering facts from reading religious texts as if we can know the facts, if indeed there are any, from the theology is a fools errand, but yes, it does make for an interesting topic.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have to admit, I know virtually nothing in the NT. Reading it is something I should do, just so that I can speak intelligently about it, I know..

It seems like the issue hinges on the nuances of the different names for God in Hebrew. I have some knowledge of the different Hebrew names of God, but as soon as the topic shifts to the NT, I'm quite clueless.

That said:

I suppose, as an outsider, my first question is: How much do you know about the author of the Book of John? Is it likely that they would have intimate knowledge of the nuances of the different names of God?

Edit: However, I will point out that I cannot remember ever hearing or seeing God referred to as abba ( Father ) in any OT scripture or commentary. Lord, God, Almighy, etc... all of those and their Hebrew equivalents... but never Abba...

I'm not sure if everything in the book of John, is from the same author.

It should be noted, or rather I note this, and it does pertain to the name ABBA,
John 10

[[Jesus here says He resurrects Himself,
John 10:13-18

However, later, in the Bible, it says that God resurrects Jesus. Now, if Jesus says He does this Himself, no one else does this, and He has the power to do so, it clearly correlates to a 'one God', ie Jesus is God, resurrects Himself, it all correlates.

However, in common christianity, or in some branches in christianity, they read these verses as if it's a separate entity, being referred to, in other words not the same being, with different aspects. Contextually to 'fath-r' references in Christianity, then they read this reference to the pater, as meaning, not J-sus, though, in the greek, to me, it seems J-sus is referring to Himself, in these verses. Thusly J-sus is the pater, here. Pater, f-ther, is often in a third person inference, as it reads in the greek, which again correlates to one God, more than one form.

Thusly, 'ABBA', as I read it, actually means the over-self, [same God.

Of course many read these references as meaning actually a separate person, however Scripturally, religiously, the persons cannot really be considered separate.

 

[Harel13]

Again.

The Jesus I believe in, isn't named Yehoshua. It doesn't matter 'where' a Yehoshua is referenced, Talmud, extra writings, the NT, since there isn't an inference, to a mix up of names, any 'Yehoshua', isn't the Jesus, I believe in.

Since the name 'Jesus' as it is isn't a Hebraic or Aramaic name, and Jesus came from a family with really Jewish names (Yosef, Miriam = Joseph, Mary), and, according to Christianity, he was supposed to be a savior to the Jews, would it not stand to make sense that he was born with a more Jewish version of Jesus? Hence Yeshu/Yeshua.

Also, the Talmud doesn't have a letter for 'J'.

 

[roberto]

Jesus was created by Constantine and his christian religion ....> Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

 

[HeatherAnn]

So, first off, there is an obscurity concerning the dates, and someone or someones, named Yeshua, in the Talmud. Now, since some, aside from this, still think Jesus is in the Talmud, I'm sure, He isn't, and here is actually, why, that is.

Because, the Jews say 'Yehoshua', for 'Jesus', Yeshu, Yeshua,

Except that Jesus's name isn't Yehoshua.

To put it another way, they would not have written, or say, 'Yehoshua', 'Yeshua', or probably even 'Yeshu', for Jesus's name.

•••
In other words, it's very unlikely that Jesus, is in the Talmud, unless there is something very specific, and even then , how would they use a different name, it doesn't correlate.


•••

“‘Yashu’ (derogatory for ‘Jesus’) is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)

[’Yashu’ is an acronym for the Jewish curse, ‘May his (Jesus) name be wiped out forevermore.’]

* Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)

* “Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)

 

[rosends]

“‘Yashu’ (derogatory for ‘Jesus’) is in Hell being boiled in hot excrement.” (Gittin 57a)

[’Yashu’ is an acronym for the Jewish curse, ‘May his (Jesus) name be wiped out forevermore.’]

* Yashu (Jesus) was sexually immoral and worshipped a brick.” (Sanhedrin 107b)

* “Yashu (Jesus) was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent.” (Sotah 47a)

Parroting these claims without reading either the actual text or the various websites which debunk the snippets you copy and paste does nothing to advance understanding. The Hebrew acronym YeShU does exist and is used by some to apply to Jesus. It is also a name used in the Talmud to refer to someone, but not Jesus.

I would suggest reading at least this website (and this complementary page) to get an understanding.