The historical Jesus didn't create a new religion.

[andersbranderud]

This post we about the historical Jesus . who was he? Did he or his followers create a new religion?
According to historical scholarship [sources: see at the bottom of this post] he practised what corresponds to today’s Orthodox Judaism all his life. His followers were called Netzarim – that is Hebrew [it means offshoot (of a olive tree)] and is a name in the Jewish Bible that is used for Messiah.

During the first century those who practised Judaism were very devoted their religion. Just like King David and all other Jews throughout history they practised Torah (Instruction) – the Instructions of the Creator – with joy! The most prominent university professors in this field Prof. Elisha Qimron , author of the most authoritative treatise on 4Q MMT, demonstrates that all three of the major sects of first century Judaism followed both written and oral Torah.

Louis Feldman (”The Omnipresence of the G*od-Fearers,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 1986.09-10, p. 45, 58ff) observes: “the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts”

Year 7 B.C.E Ribi Yehoshua were born in Bethlehem. His father name was Yoseif and his mothers name was Miriam. His parents were practising Jews.

According to world-recognized authorities in this area Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT practised both written and oral Torah). As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (authentic Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students.

He took care of sick and made it popular to pray in what corresponds to today’s Orthodox synagogues. The genealogically non-priest, Hellenist “Wicked Priest” Temple-Sadducees felt that their power was threaten by Ribi Yehoshua. They decided to get him crucified by the Romans. The Romans convicted and crucified Ribi Yehoshua year 30 C.E.

Ribi Yehoshua’s followers Netzarim were expelled from Jerusalem 135 C.E: together with all other Jews. The first Christian bishop Markos replaced the fifteenth leader of Netzarim. This Christian bishop didn’t have permission to do this. What the Paul the apostate and later the founder of Christianity did was to take some concepts that Ribi Yehoshua had taught; they distorted the concepts and included them in the religion which they practiced – Hellenism – the religion of the Greeks. (Sources: See Ecclesiastical History (EH IV.v.1-4; EH V.xii.1) )

Anyone educated in this field knows that the only sect of Judaism that had rabbis was the Pharisee and even the Christian NT described him as a rabbi. Parkes, Bagatti, Wilson, Charlesworth; all world-recognized authorities in this area leave no doubt that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee, of the school of Hileil - who was also Pharisee. There is no serious dispute about that among scholars in the field - only among ignorami who have no clue about the historians' findings. Ribi Yehoshua taught in "synagogues"; which were a strictly Pharisee institution.

Following the teachings of the Judaic Mâshiakh (Messiah) Ribi Yehoshua – that is doing one’s utmost to practice the 613 commandments of Torah - also brings the inner joy, purpose and happiness of working intimately with him to bring about, and participate in, the Messianic era, enjoying a higher level of communion with ha-Sheim - the Creator - as party to Yirmeyâhu's (Jeremiah’s) New Covenant.

If you want to learn about the Historical Ribi Yehoshua, whom Orthodox Jews can live with (witness the Netzarim Jews in Raanana, Israel, members in good standing in an Orthodox synagogue), you must start with books like How Jesus Became Christian by Prof. Barrie Wilson (most bookstores) and Who Are The Netzarim? (Schueller House) by Israeli Orthodox Jew, Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David.

From Anders Branderud
Disciple of the only authentic Netzarim; who are in Ra'anana in Israel (led by Paqid Yirmeyahu ha-Tzadiq) and are followers of Ribi Yehoshua - Messiah - in Orthodox Judaism.

 

[Dunemeister]

Jesus didn't come to create a new religion. But the logic of his gospel forced a break with Judaism, especially when Gentiles were permitted entry without Jewish rites such as circumcision. The distinctiveness of Christianity is symbolized by the fact that the biblical authors were Jewish but none of the Church Fathers that we know of were. As a result, a new religion developed.

 

[andersbranderud]

Dunemeister,

I notice that you rely on NT in the rows that you write.

The most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledge that many readings in NT were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. The logical conclusion is that NT is NOT a reliable source for information about Ribi Yehoshua.

If you don’t find any errors in the research of the world-recognized authorities – than their research stands. To find errors you need to read their research.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the person that states something that isn’t known. You state things which scholars [that NT is reliable] don’t agree with – hence the burden of proof is on you!

· The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius further documented (EH III.xxvii.4-6) that the original N?tzarim accepted only the Jewish Tana"kh as Bible and only The Netzarim ("their own") Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) as an authentic account of the life and teachings of Ribi Y?hoshua, never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT.

The most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:
“A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text….” (”Text, NT,” 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).

“”It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons”

Quotes included from our website.

From Anders Branderud
Disciple of the only authentic Netzarim –that is in Ra'anana in Israel who is followers of Ribi Yehoshua - Messiah - in Ortodox Judaism

 

[tomspug]

Jesus claimed to embody the end of many Jewish traditions and the beginning of new ones.

The "Last Supper" was considered the last Passover, because his death signify salvation from the final passing of death. He also claimed to be the Messiah, which signifies, in Jewish tradition, a new world order.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

According to historical scholarship [sources: see at the bottom of this post] ...

Rubbish. And where is this purported scholarship?

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister,

I notice that you rely on NT in the rows that you write.

Rows? Do you mean diatribes? Didn't realize I'd been doing that.

The most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledge that many readings in NT were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. The logical conclusion is that NT is NOT a reliable source for information about Ribi Yehoshua.

Not at all. All interesting biographies have a point of view, even an axe to grind. It doesn't mean that those biographies are completely unreliable, only that we have to read them critically. And I certainly recommend a critical use of the NT to reconstruct the history of Jesus.

If you don’t find any errors in the research of the world-recognized authorities – than their research stands. To find errors you need to read their research.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on the person that states something that isn’t known. You state things which scholars [that NT is reliable] don’t agree with – hence the burden of proof is on you!

Well, there are lots of scholars that are skeptical, others that are uncritically sycophantic, and still others somewhere in between. There's a range of opinion, obviously. The NT has withstood criticism for the last couple thousand years pretty well, I'd say, so I don't think I'm the only one who shares the burden of proof.

· The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius further documented (EH III.xxvii.4-6) that the original N?tzarim accepted only the Jewish Tana"kh as Bible and only The Netzarim ("their own") Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) as an authentic account of the life and teachings of Ribi Y?hoshua, never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT.

So you're arguing that I uncritically accept Eusebius, but not the NT?

The most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:
“A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text….” (”Text, NT,” 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).

How can the Interpreter's Dictionary, almost 50 years old, be considered the most authoritative of Christian scholarship? Scholarship has advanced quite a bit from their day, and of course, those scholars had biases and axes to grind, just as much as the NT writers. So I guess we'll just have to discount them just as we do the NT.

“”It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons”

This is simply untrue. The Greek MSS show about 99.5% similarity, and the places where there are serious disagreements don't affect dogma. So NYAH.

 

[logician]

There's really no historical evidence whatsoever that a historical Jesus resembling the biblical one ever existed.

 

[Charity]

There's really no historical evidence whatsoever that a historical Jesus resembling the biblical one ever existed.

Show us your proof that Jesus never existed?

 

[Charity]

Jesus said He came not to change the law, but that it might be fulfilled.
Same God, sent His Son, Son chose 12 disciples, the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.....Same religion, not a new one........

Same as a someone working on an electrical appliance....Thus came the title electrician. Just gave the person that was working on an appliance a title but didn't change the fact that it was still someone working on an appliance. A name doesn't change, or make the initial act any different, just gives it a name....

Jesus didn't create a new religion He was just doing the business of His Father and with a man created title........

 

[logician]

Show us your proof that Jesus never existed?

I have many times.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Greek MSS show about 99.5% similarity, and the places where there are serious disagreements don't affect dogma. So NYAH.

I don't understand where this myth comes from... I've seen it before, and I'm not sure of its source.

There are thousands of MSS and no two of them match. If there is 99.5% similarity, its completely meaningless given that only the brightest and most determined scholars can actually review the thousands of MSS and theorize as to the correct readings, making notes that other scholars rely on...

 

[Mister Emu]

It comes from Geisler and Nix's "General Introduction to the Bible"...

The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure.

 

[sojourner]

The most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledge that many readings in NT were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. The logical conclusion is that NT is NOT a reliable source for information about Ribi Yehoshua.

so...the "logical conclusion" is that we should rely on the Hebrew Testament, which mentions Jesus not one single time??? BTW, the Interpreter's dictionary is not the "most authoroitative" source of scholarship. Personally, I find the Anchor Bible Commentary to be just as authoritative, without the conservative agenda of the Interpreter's.

never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT.

Most scholars place the writing of the NT canonical gospels at between 70-110 c.e., rather ahead of "2nd-4th century." In fact, they place I Thess. just after the year 50 c.e. It is interesting to note that Thomas and Q share common material. For Thomas to have been written when it is purported to have been written, the communities that produced the documents must have separated rather early -- maybe prior to the year 40 c.e. Kind of blows your "2nd-4th century" theory...

he [Jesus] practised what corresponds to today’s Orthodox Judaism all his life.

Actually, in Jesus' day, Judaism was temple Judaism. Only after the temple was destroyed in 70 c.e., and Judaism routed, did "Orthodoxy" appear, as a remnant of Pharisaical Judaism. Jesus went to the temple and practiced temple Judaism -- not modern Orthodox Judaism.
Your statements are heavily colored by your agenda.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, in Jesus' day, Judaism was temple Judaism. ... Your statements are heavily colored by your agenda.

While I agree with your conclusion, it is a gross simplification to speak of some idealized and monolithic "Temple Judaism."

 

[sojourner]

While I agree with your conclusion, it is a gross simplification to speak of some idealized and monolithic "Temple Judaism."

You are a better source of information here than I. Is it not true that there is a fundamental difference between temple Judaism and the post-Pharisaical Judaism of our own day? If I'm correct, the temple was where the annual sacrifice on behalf of the people was made. No temple -- no sacrifice. Doesn't that change the way in which Jews approach God in a pretty fundamental way?