Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Tillman on Yeshu vs. Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
    Mr. Tillman, You wrote: It
    Message 1 of 55 , Aug 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Tillman,

      You wrote:

      << I mean that the mother of Jesus was (being generous) raped at
      best, or either a harlot or otherwise of easy virtue at worst. >>

      It is, frankly, absurd to endorse any such theory about the mother
      of Jesus while denying that Jesus lived in the first century AD.
      Every source that would tell us anything about Jesus' mother accepts
      as fact that Jesus lived in the first century AD. This goes for the
      Gospels of Matthew and Luke, for anti-Christian writings by Jews and
      Gentiles--it doesn't matter what ancient source you might cite on
      this issue, any source written within three hundred years of the
      first century AD agrees that Jesus lived during that century.

      If you are aware of any source that affirms that Jesus was born out
      of wedlock (which seems to be your point) but that denies he lived
      in the first century AD, please let us know what it is.

      You had written:

      << I also believe he lived approximately a century before Pontius
      Pilate started having people nailed to boards for Rome. >>

      I replied:

      "This puts your view not only outside Christianity (as you of course
      recognize) but outside the pale of serious historical scholarship."

      You wrote in reply:

      << How so? No historian has ever been able to prove Jesus of
      Nazareth ever lived. There are some CLAIMS to passages that may or
      may not refer to Jesus, but they're either too late to be from eye-
      witnesses, and/or spurious or inconclusive. >>

      According to whom?

      The fact is that historians are not compelled to prove absolutely
      everything about the past. I could claim with equal justification,
      or lack thereof, that no historian has ever been able to prove that
      Moses existed. Indeed, we have far more evidence, far closer to the
      source, for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, than we do for
      Moses. Yet you accept the existence of Moses and deny the existence
      of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, lack of proof is not the real issue.

      You wrote:

      << OTOH, the story of the life and death of Yeshu HaNotzrei comes
      from those a very reliable source: his fellow countryment. >>

      First of all, the written sources regarding the first-century BC
      Yeshu date from centuries later than the New Testament and simply
      cannot displace them as reliable sources about Jesus.

      Second, that Yeshu simply is not the same person whom Christians
      call Jesus Christ. There is no connection between the two. Yeshu (or
      Yeshua) was an extremely common name among Jews during those

      Third, most if not all of the New Testament books were also written
      by his countrymen, since most or all of them were Jews (despite your
      denial of this fact with regard to Paul).

      Here is a good web page on the subject that exposes the weakness of
      the position you are taking:


      I had written:

      "Atheists, Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians -- scholars from
      virtually every religious and nonreligious perspective agree that
      Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the order of Pontius Pilate."

      You replied:

      << The Jews are (usually) only doing it to keep from angering the
      Christians, who have demonstrated their willingness to burn Jews at
      the stake (or otherwise murdering them) for angering the Christians.

      This is ridiculous. There are millions of Jews living in America. No
      one has been burning anyone at the stake in America for centuries.
      There are Jews who claim that Jesus never existed, and no one tries
      to kill them for expressing that opinion.

      You wrote:

      << The Muslims are only taking the word of the Christians, who have
      a vested interest in promoting the idea that there was a Jesus of
      Nazaerth. >>

      Everyone seems to have a vested interest in this deception . . .
      except those who agree with you. How convenient.

      By the way, I misspoke. Muslims agree that Jesus lived during the
      time of Pontius Pilate, but they don't think he died at all.

      You wrote:

      << Can YOU prove Jesus lived? I mean WITHOUT using the NT, which I
      have shown, and am willing to do again, does not accurately record
      history. >>

      Yes, but you will just reach into your bag of _ad hoc_ arguments and
      claim that every non-Christian source that mentions Jesus is
      textually suspect or too late (even though you're quite willing to
      quote much later writings, including textually suspect ones, if they
      support your agenda).

      And I don't have to prove that Jesus lived. There is nothing
      remarkable about accepting the judgment of historians across the
      spectrum that Jesus was a real person. The burden of proof is on
      those who claim that Jesus was not a real person.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman
    • gblezone
      Anti semitism has its roots and seed in anti God.The emnity with the womans seed and the serpents seed. If as it clearly shown that the seed of the woman is
      Message 55 of 55 , Oct 9 3:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Anti semitism has its roots and seed in anti God.The emnity with the
        womans seed and the serpents seed.
        If as it clearly shown that the seed of the woman is The only
        begotten Son of God "The WORD made flesh" Then biblical logic shows
        that the seed of the serpent is the word of lucifer the deciever and
        the father of lies.
        It folows then from that that even as the seed of the woman had a
        body so then must the seed of the serpent and allbeit the "spirit OF
        ANTICHIRST" has gone abroad there will be to A antichrist that is
        the full embodimnent of that spirit.
        That there is evidence in the scripture that it will be a jew who
        left or deserted the religion of his fathers does NOT meen that to
        so state is antisemitic.It is a simple statement of the truth
        without prejudice.
        A truth taken out of context even if it si scripture can and does
        become a lie!Thus the truth that the jews(in general(but not all)
        were guilty of crucyfying Christ is self evidently true.But that the
        gentiles can justyfythemselves by a narrowness of thier vision as to
        the truth is wrong.For the scriptures clearly state that "ALL have
        sinned "both jew and gentile then.Moreover the lamb that was
        sacraficed on the day of atonement was first examined by the high
        preist and hands layed upon it for the sins of the people.But seeign
        that the jews had no authoiryt or power to put him to death but
        seekgin to do so albeit haveing proved nothign as to any guilt let
        alone worhty of death.Handed him over to the GENTILE pilate who also
        layed handsupon him,Seeign that he too found no guilt in him nor
        anything worhty of death sought to release him and sent him to herod
        a mixture of both jew and gentile who therefore handled him also.
        Thus each of all the human race in Gods economy was represented by
        them.The jew the gentile and the mixture of them both,And as he
        fullfilled all the law hands were layed upon him for the sins of
        The question of guilt then rests upon ALL! and if the jew thineth
        himself guiltless he by the scriptures is proved other wise. and if
        by the law the gentile may claim some rightousness he too by the law
        is convicted of his sin. as to the mixture of them both.The Lord
        said not a word to herod yet Herod sent him to his death so there
        is no justyfication there either.
        Who then can stand in the presencE of God? AND WHAT CAN WE OFFER
        other than what Ciane offered?
        There is nothing of ourselves or in ourselves that is aceptable to
        God wether jew gentile or otherwise for in romans it is 'proved' all
        are guilty!
        Thus if the antichrist is to be a jew are all jews condemned by it?
        and the gentile justyfied?Farfrom it.
        For the scripturs also reveal that the time of the gentiles is at
        hand and there will be a great falling away from THE faith(NOT
        RELIGION THEN) and men will turn away from the truth and unto the
        doctrins of devils.Thus will be ready to recieve him who "cometh in
        his own name"While it si the jews who will suffer at his hand .
        Who then is innocent!? or can justyfythemsleves?
        In truth the just shall live by faith both the jew and the gentile.
        and all that is NOT of faith is sin!
        Why then does a jew seek to justyfyhimself by declaring another
        mans innocence?
        For even if he was that does not justyfy him.But Christ is it who
        But if the antichrist is a jew that does not make all jews godless
        or antichrist.
        And a sit has been said that gives no gentile any ground for self
        justyfication for he who justyfies a jew is also he who justyfies a
        gentile and the ground is ONLY upon the blood of the lamb"as one
        slain from before the foundations of the world"
        It folows then that the debatre and argument is more "vain debate"
        and a fruitless argument in that it genders not to faith but to its
        and leads not TO God but away .
        Thus the idea or 'wisper' of a thought in either is not from God .
        "For it pleased God to bruise Him"
        For if we seek to justyfy oursleves we seek to establish our own
        rightousness and if that be the case we seek not Gods glory but our
        own and not Gods!
        Wrong then on all counts.
        If the scripture says therefore the antichrist will be a jew.
        Then so he will turn out to be.
        But we are neither condemned or justyfied by it.
        THAT comes from our acceptance of Him "who God has sent."

        Yours in Christ

        gerald uk.

        Surely an evnagelical must acknowledge his root not so much from the
        reformation but from the apostolic church? By that I do NOT mean
        rome but by that church whih was founded upon the eternal ROCK the
        Lord Jesus Christ.That church that was born of that incorruptable
        seed which is the Word of God and by that power of God which is the
        HOLY SPIRIT by the will of God the FATHER.
        The reformation was but the manifestation of that seed which had so
        long been buried under the traditions of men the doctrins of devils.
        And which progresively has grown with each succeding revalation or
        understanding of the truths as they are found in the scriptures.
        Till that which was sown will bring forth the fruit after its own
        "Till we all come tothe unity of THE faith unto............"

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "wglmp" <mtillman@...>
        > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Bowman,
        > <faithhasitsreasons@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mr. Tillman,
        > > [you wrote]:
        > >> But I think claiming the anti-christ is a Jew IS an attempt as
        > anti-Semitism, since it seeks to vilify Jews by associating them
        > an imaginary boogie-man, in the shape of a mythical anti-christ.
        > anti-christ is made out to be completely reprehensible AND
        > and therefore is the perfect boogie-man.>>
        > >
        > > Frankly, this is ridiculous. The same Christians who speculate
        > the anti-Christ will be a Jew also believe (correctly) that Jesus
        > Christ, whom they worship as their Lord and Savior, was also a
        > If describing someone as a Jew is meant from their point of view
        > make him out as a boogie-man, why would they admit that Jesus was
        > Jewish?<
        > That's not at ALL what I was saying, and yes, I agree what you
        > decried was "ridiculous." I was saying that claiming the anti-
        > is or will be a Jew would tend to make those foolish Christians
        > don't think critically (lamentably, all too often an occurrence,
        > with (almost) all other groups), will simply suspect ALL Jews as
        > potential anti-christs. That kind of suspicion coupled with
        > fervor, can go nowhere good quick, fast, and in a hurry.
        > > The issue is not whether you should believe Pat Robertson, but
        > whether you can legitimately make a case that he is anti-Semitic
        > a statement he makes about many Jews being spiritually deaf and
        > blind. You can't, unless you're willing to make the same
        > against Isaiah.<
        > I believe I can. Robertson is vilifying the Jews simply because
        > know Jesus was not the messiah and refuse to follow him as if a
        > god, whereas Isaiah was trying to correct the Jews who had fallen
        > away from the True God to follow false gods. Isaiah had Israel's
        > in mind, whereas Robertson was just pointing out how "wrong" the
        > are.
        > << I'll look up some for you, without a vow to do so. How would
        > define "Evangelical", so I don't look for quotes from Mother
        > or Pol Pot? >>
        > > A Protestant Evangelical is a member of a Protestant
        > (i.e., one that historically traces its roots to the Reformation)
        > adheres to the beliefs of evangelicalism, as defined in such
        > statements of faith as the following:>
        > > http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/wea/statement.htm
        > So, basically, that would include every last American Christian
        > exceptÂ… who, exactly?
        > Mother Theresa may fit the description, I really don't know.
        > http://www.evangelicalcatholic.org/
        > Pol Pot, maybe not so much.
        > Rev M Tillman
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.