Tillman on Yeshu vs. Jesus
- Mr. Tillman,
<< 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. >>
"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.
<< 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."
<< 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.
<< 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
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.
<< 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
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,
- 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
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
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
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
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "wglmp" <mtillman@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "Robert M. Bowman,
> <faithhasitsreasons@> wrote:with
> > 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.The
> anti-christ is made out to be completely reprehensible ANDpowerful,
> and therefore is the perfect boogie-man.>>that
> > Frankly, this is ridiculous. The same Christians who speculate
> the anti-Christ will be a Jew also believe (correctly) that JesusJew.
> Christ, whom they worship as their Lord and Savior, was also a
> If describing someone as a Jew is meant from their point of viewto
> make him out as a boogie-man, why would they admit that Jesus waschrist
> 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 Christianswho
> don't think critically (lamentably, all too often an occurrence,as
> with (almost) all other groups), will simply suspect ALL Jews asreligious
> potential anti-christs. That kind of suspicion coupled with
> fervor, can go nowhere good quick, fast, and in a hurry.from
> > 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 andaccusation
> blind. You can't, unless you're willing to make the same
> against Isaiah.<they
> I believe I can. Robertson is vilifying the Jews simply because
> know Jesus was not the messiah and refuse to follow him as if afalse
> god, whereas Isaiah was trying to correct the Jews who had fallengood
> away from the True God to follow false gods. Isaiah had Israel's
> in mind, whereas Robertson was just pointing out how "wrong" theJews
> << 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 MotherTheresa
> or Pol Pot? >>denomination
> > A Protestant Evangelical is a member of a Protestant
> (i.e., one that historically traces its roots to the Reformation)who
> 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
> except who, exactly?
> Mother Theresa may fit the description, I really don't know.
> Pol Pot, maybe not so much.
> Rev M Tillman