Topic: Conspiracy Theorist Ralph Ellis says Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus ben Gamala

[rakovsky]

Some facts::

Jesus ben Gamala was a Galilean opposition leader who led fishermen from Galilee. They had about 600 followers armed with swords. Since Jesus ben Gamala was from Judah, he could not be a high priest by lineage, only a Levite could, theoretically. But Jesus ben Gamala was made a high priest by his wife Miriam/Mary, the daughter of the very rich person Boethus. The 3 "Boethai" were the three richest people in Jerusalem. One of them was Nicodemus who buried Jesus with tons of spices. Mary became one of the richest people in Jerusalem. Around the time of the siege of Jerusalem, the Zealots killed Jesus Gamala with Annas.

The Talmud describes Nicodemus' daughter as citing a "proverb from Jerusalem" that matches Jesus' in the New Testament about losing wealth. The Talmud also describes Nicodemus' daughter as a widow.

There seems to be alot of similarities to the gospel stories, and you would think that if Jesus commanded such a presence as in the gospels, that Josephus would have mentioned him.

The disciples were fishers from Galilee, and one sign of Christianity was the fish. On the Mount of Olives, Jesus does say to get swords to be counted among thieves. John's gospel says that Nicodemus was also from Galilee. Jesus had alot of friends who were tax collectors and rich people. John 5 explains that Nicodemus was a very rich ruler. Mary anointed Jesus with oil in the way of a priest, and the letter to the Hebrews explains a way that one could become a priest in the order of Melchisedek.

The idea that Jesus ben Gamala and Jesus of Nazareth are the same person is put forward by the conspiracy theoriest Ralph Ellis (http://freespace.virgin.net/kena.edfu). Alot of the rest of his stuff is just goofy, claiming that Jesus is King Arthur, etc.

But this idea that Jesus of Nazareth from 33 AD is Jesus ben Gamala from 70 AD is repeated by some other random people on the internet.

Of course, there are alot of problems with this theory. There were alot of people called Jesus living in the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus ben Gamala could just have tried to match the earlier movement. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, unlike ben Gamala.

Nicodemus' daughter Mary might have liked Jesus, but that doesn't mean that she might not have fallen in love with someone else named Jesus later, made him a priest, and simply remembered the earlier Jesus' proverb.

But the biggest reason is that we have it from the early Christians, St Paul, and other early leaders of the church that Jesus was a real person as described in the gospels.

[Fr. George]

What a load of bunk.  Conspiracy theories like that should be chucked in the garbage. 

[rakovsky]

1. The obvious garbage.

What a load of bunk.  Conspiracy theories like that should be chucked in the garbage.  

Alot of Ellis' stuff is conspiracy bunk. One of his ideas was that Jesus lived until at least 98 AD. He bases this idea on Ireneus words that "he" (John) lived until Trajan's time.

Also, the Romans deported Jesus to England, where he became King Arthur with the 12 apostle-knights of the round table.


2. The less obvious garbage.

Another claim could be that the gospels are just a Midrash. But that's not what the gospels say.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.  This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7).


3. Jewelry in garbage cans?

It seems possible if not likely that a rebel counterpart to Jesus existed.

Jesus' name was Jesus Bar Joseph.

"Bar ______ " is a name ending like "-ovich."

Bar abbas means "son of the father."

What was Barrabas' first name?

Other copies of the gospels give Barrabas' first name as Jesus.

Further, the gospels describe Barrabas as a violent rebel.

Mark 15:7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.

Luke 23:19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)

It seems likely that Barabbas refers to a violent rebel named Jesus, and he could have surfaced in Josephus' writings.

The tradition in the OT was to take two birds, kill one, dip the other in its blood and free it. And to take two goats, kill one and let the other run wild.

Pilate's question to the crowds sounds like this, so the gospels seem to suggest that there was "another Jesus", Jesus Bar-abbas, who was the goat let free by Jesus Christ's death.

Daniel 9 prophecies the coming of a "Messiah - Prince." It says that the "Messiah" would be killed, then the people of the coming "Prince" would destroy the temple. Then his end would come as with a flood.

It seems to say that a Messiah Prince would come and then describe him as two different people.

Jesus bar Gamala was allied with the Romans somewhat and was killed by a crowd.

It seems possible that the Bible counterposes Jesus of Nazareth against a rebel Jesus bar abbas.

[john_morcos]

Other copies of the gospels give Barrabas' first name as Jesus.
...

so the gospels seem to suggest that there was "another Jesus", Jesus Bar-abbas, who was the goat let free by Jesus Christ's death.

I like the symmetry and symbolism of the two birds and the two goats, but I really want to know where you got the two points I singled out up in the quote from...

[rakovsky]

Other copies of the gospels give Barrabas' first name as Jesus.
...

so the gospels seem to suggest that there was "another Jesus", Jesus Bar-abbas, who was the goat let free by Jesus Christ's death.

I like the symmetry and symbolism of the two birds and the two goats, but I really want to know where you got the two points I singled out up in the quote from...

www.asminor.info/nephilimnot/jesus_barabbas.html

[john_morcos]

Though I still agree that there is a lot of meaning in killing Jesus instead of Barabbas, and with the remark that Jesus was captured with the same accusations as Barabbas, which is "causing disturbances" (I hope my weak English is adequate).

Bar is truly aramaic for "son", or a suffix like serbian "-ovic", slavic "-ski" or scandinavian "-sson"

Still, linking "Abbas" in Barabbas to Aramaic "Abba" (a word to call a father), is very weak in my eyes.
I am a native Arabic speaker, and I guess Western languages miss the gluttoral pronounciation 'Abbas, which I believe it originally is.

ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly.

Greek does not include such a letter, so it is transliterated barabbas, just as Yeshua' is translated to Iesus (and hence, Jesus).


Plus, I wish to know any original translation of the bible that calls Barabbas "Jesus"


I'm not 100% sure of my info, but I'm posing questions for all of us to benefit.

God bless you all

[rakovsky]

Though I still agree that there is a lot of meaning in killing Jesus instead of Barabbas, and with the remark that Jesus was captured with the same accusations as Barabbas, which is "causing disturbances" (I hope my weak English is adequate).

Bar is truly aramaic for "son", or a suffix like serbian "-ovic", slavic "-ski" or scandinavian "-sson"

Still, linking "Abbas" in Barabbas to Aramaic "Abba" (a word to call a father), is very weak in my eyes.
I am a native Arabic speaker, and I guess Western languages miss the gluttoral pronounciation 'Abbas, which I believe it originally is.

ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly.

Greek does not include such a letter, so it is transliterated barabbas,

Apparently English doesn't include such a letter either! What is the letter you mean called ' and why do you think it exists in the original?

Plus, I wish to know any original translation of the bible that calls Barabbas "Jesus"

The claim is that the early translators had several copies of the gospels to translate from, that other copies say "Jesus Bar-abbas" for the killing rebel, and that the translators just chose the copy missing the first name to make things simpler, or for any other reason. It's also claimed that the name "Jesus Bar-abbas" shows up elsewhere for the rebel.


There were several rebels named Jesus at the time, Bar-abbas seems like a last name like you said, (Like Jesus was Jesus bar-Joseph), the other documents have "Jesus Barabbas", and the image of sacrificng one animal and releasing the other is so central, that I think the other person was probably Jesus Bar-abbas.

[john_morcos]

The link I included is the sound I meant by '.

Here it is again:
ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly

Actually, I think it was present because I read it from a high-statured modern-day father, (died in 1979).
He is Fr Bishoy Kamel. He served in Alexandria (Egypt) and then USA.

Anyway, I have no idea of references, but my claim has to be studied well, either to accept it or refute it.

[rakovsky]

The link I included is the sound I meant by '.

Here it is again:
ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly

Actually, I think it was present because I read it from a high-statured modern-day father, (died in 1979).
He is Fr Bishoy Kamel. He served in Alexandria (Egypt) and then USA.

Anyway, I have no idea of references, but my claim has to be studied well, either to accept it or refute it.

John, you may be on to something, especially if you said you read it in a church father.

What this would mean is that the name of bar-abbas was really bar-ʕabbas. Unfortunately, since bar-____ is a patronymic name, as in "Jesus bar Joseph", it doesn't completely solve what was the rebel's first name.

Regards.

[john_morcos]

The link I included is the sound I meant by '.

Here it is again:
ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly

Actually, I think it was present because I read it from a high-statured modern-day father, (died in 1979).
He is Fr Bishoy Kamel. He served in Alexandria (Egypt) and then USA.

Anyway, I have no idea of references, but my claim has to be studied well, either to accept it or refute it.

John, you may be on to something, especially if you said you read it in a church father.

What this would mean is that the name of bar-abbas was really bar-ʕabbas. Unfortunately, since bar-____ is a patronymic name, as in "Jesus bar Joseph", it doesn't completely solve what was the rebel's first name.

Regards.

Sure...This does not relate in anyway to his first name, but it sure relates with attaching him to the word "father" or "Abba", just to find another similarity with Jesus, son of the Father.

And yes, I meant it is bar-ʕabbas.

[john_morcos]

By the way, this pharingeal consonant is represented in hebrew by the 16th letter, 'ayin.

[PeterTheAleut]

The tangent on whether Jesus is a Roman invention has been moved to Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=33144.0

[rakovsky]

John Morcos,

Your English is good.

You wrote:

I like the symmetry and symbolism of the two birds and the two goats, but I really want to know where you got the two points I singled out up in the quote from...

Yes, the symmetry of the two birds and two goats, wherein one of the paired animals is released and the other slaughtered, is a big part of what leads me to think that there was some symmetry between Jesus of Nazareth and Barabbas, one of whom was freed and the other marked for slaughter at the same time.

I didn't even think of the symmetry in "that Jesus was captured with the same accusations as Barabbas, which is "causing disturbances"" , as you pointed out, which suggests even more the apparent symmetry between them, which could include a first name.

Plus, as you pointed out, "Bar is truly aramaic for "son", or a suffix like serbian "-ovic", slavic "-ski" or scandinavian "-sson""

So here, the possibility of symmetry is seen in a situation of names where:

Jesus Bar Joseph   is Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified
____ BarAbbas     is the person who the people cried for to be released.

I disagree that "linking "Abbas" in Barabbas to Aramaic "Abba" (a word to call a father), is very weak", because the only differences are that
(1) Barabbas is joined together as one word, and this could be a simplification or confusion that turned Bar abbas into Barabbas
(2) Barabbas ends in "S", but the New Testament was written in Greek, which adds S to the end of some Israelite names, like turning Moisey into Moses.

Also, I'd like to add that Barabbas doesn't sound like a normal common first name to me, since I don't remember hearing anyone else by that name in the Bible or tradition, but I'm not sure either.

You wrote:

I am a native Arabic speaker, and I guess Western languages miss the gluttoral pronounciation 'Abbas, which I believe it originally is.
ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly.

However, while you appear to assert that the word for father has a gluttoral letter at the beginning of the word ('Abbas), I highly doubt that it would make a difference in solving the problem, because as you said:
"Greek does not include such a letter, so it is transliterated barabbas".

So thanks for mentioning:

The link I included is the sound I meant by '.
Here it is again:
ʕ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%95, even the sound there does not say it correctly
Anyway, I have no idea of references, but my claim has to be studied well, either to accept it or refute it.

But unfortunately it doesn't seem to solve the problem, because the New Testament was written in Greek, and if the Greeks wrote his first name as "Barabbas", they wouldn't include the gluttoral letter. And if they decided that they were instead going to write "Bar 'Abbas" as a last name, then they still wouldn't include the letter anyway, because as you said, Greek lacks such a letter.

Likewise, since Greek lacks the letter, and the four gospels were written in Greek and certainly not Hebrew, it also wouldn't matter that
"this pharingeal consonant is represented in hebrew by the 16th letter, 'ayin.", except that there was at least one noncanonical gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic. I'm not sure if that gospel has been lost, but if it were found, then the way barabbas is written there would show the true way the name was spelled in Aramaic, that is:
as bar'abbas (meaning of the father) or barabbas.

Either way, it would still leave the door open to whether barabbas here was a last name or first name.

However, you raise a possibly strong point when you said:
"Actually, I think it was present because I read it from a high-statured modern-day father, (died in 1979). He is Fr Bishoy Kamel. He served in Alexandria (Egypt) and then USA."

It sounds like you mean that the gluttoral stop was included in the word "'Abbas" in Jesus' time. But like I said I think it wouldn't matter because the gospels were written in Greek.

If on the other hand you're saying that the New Testament actually said Bar'abbas, then it means that the scholars have some way to guess that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and said this, but I doubt it unless they actually have the Aramaic copy, because otherwise the Aramaic copy would still be transmitted to us through Greek or Latin, which lack the letter you mentioned. Or another possibility would be that there's a church tradition that says that it was written 'Abbas.

Still, even if you could find that the person's name was bar'abbas, it could still just as easily leave open the possibility that the name of barabbas- or as you could be proposing, bar'abbas- was really bar-ʕabbas, which is a last name. And in such a circumstance, we still wouldn't be closer to figuring out the first name.

However, if you mean that the second part of barabbas' name was really bar'abbas, and the word 'abbas didn't mean father, then you would be saying that the poetic, or even mythical, meaning of "son of the father" wouldn't be there anymore.

In my mind, the name's having a mythical meaning, as in "son of the father," would suggest against the event being a real factual event. But still, "son of the father" could be a criminal's alias or some other non-mythical last name.

As you explained here:

Sure...This does not relate in anyway to his first name, but it sure relates with attaching him to the word "father" or "Abba", just to find another similarity with Jesus, son of the Father.

But I'm sorry, I still didn't understand when you wrote:

And yes, I meant it is bar-ʕabbas

whether you meant that add the gluttoral stop is part of the word for father, but it sounds like that's what you mean, and that you also mean that you read that the name in the gospels "barabbas" had such a gluttoral stop.

Thank you for writing and sharing your views.

God Bless and Keep you

[ilyazhito]

What? Jesus ben Gamala lived much later!
Ellis, get your facts right!

[tweety234]

1. The obvious garbage.

What a load of bunk.  Conspiracy theories like that should be chucked in the garbage.  

Alot of Ellis' stuff is conspiracy bunk. One of his ideas was that Jesus lived until at least 98 AD. He bases this idea on Ireneus words that "he" (John) lived until Trajan's time.

Also, the Romans deported Jesus to England, where he became King Arthur with the 12 apostle-knights of the round table.


2. The less obvious garbage.

Another claim could be that the gospels are just a Midrash. But that's not what the gospels say.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.  This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7).


3. Jewelry in garbage cans?

It seems possible if not likely that a rebel counterpart to Jesus existed.

Jesus' name was Jesus Bar Joseph.

"Bar ______ " is a name ending like "-ovich."

Bar abbas means "son of the father."

What was Barrabas' first name?

Other copies of the gospels give Barrabas' first name as Jesus.

Further, the gospels describe Barrabas as a violent rebel.

Mark 15:7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.

Luke 23:19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)

It seems likely that Barabbas refers to a violent rebel named Jesus, and he could have surfaced in Josephus' writings.

The tradition in the OT was to take two birds, kill one, dip the other in its blood and free it. And to take two goats, kill one and let the other run wild.

Pilate's question to the crowds sounds like this, so the gospels seem to suggest that there was "another Jesus", Jesus Bar-abbas, who was the goat let free by Jesus Christ's death.

Daniel 9 prophecies the coming of a "Messiah - Prince." It says that the "Messiah" would be killed, then the people of the coming "Prince" would destroy the temple. Then his end would come as with a flood.

It seems to say that a Messiah Prince would come and then describe him as two different people.

Jesus bar Gamala was allied with the Romans somewhat and was killed by a crowd.

It seems possible that the Bible counterposes Jesus of Nazareth against a rebel Jesus bar abbas.

Jesus-king arthur.

voitheia xristianoi. Voitheiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

[ralfellis]

What? Jesus ben Gamala lived much later!
Ellis, get your facts right!

Yes, we know that.

That is the whole point if these books - that the ministry of Jesus was in the AD 60s and not the AD 30s.  And there are many reasons for thinking so - including Jesus' description of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and Jesus' lament for Zacharias Barachias who died in the Temple in the late AD 60s.

So if we embrace this late date for the gospel stories, then many things match up.

The life of Jesus matches that of Jesus of Gamala, who lived in Galilee was a leader of a new sect of Judaism. And do remember that Jesus of Gamala married Mary/Martha Boethus, who Prof Eisenman strongly equates with the Bethany sisters (ie, Mary Magdalene).

In fact, if you embrace the AD 60s ministry concept, everything in the New Testament can be found in the historical record.  In short, the gospels come to life, like never before.

Ralph

[xOrthodox4Christx]

What? Jesus ben Gamala lived much later!
Ellis, get your facts right!

Yes, we know that.

That is the whole point if these books - that the ministry of Jesus was in the AD 60s and not the AD 30s.  And there are many reasons for thinking so - including Jesus' description of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and Jesus' lament for Zacharias Barachias who died in the Temple in the late AD 60s.

So if we embrace this late date for the gospel stories, then many things match up.

The life of Jesus matches that of Jesus of Gamala, who lived in Galilee was a leader of a new sect of Judaism. And do remember that Jesus of Gamala married Mary/Martha Boethus, who Prof Eisenman strongly equates with the Bethany sisters (ie, Mary Magdalene).

In fact, if you embrace the AD 60s ministry concept, everything in the New Testament can be found in the historical record.  In short, the gospels come to life, like never before.

Ralph

The assumption made here is that the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the life of Christ. They were not. The writers of the Gospels wrote after those events supposedly took place, and they themselves witnessed the temple's destruction, which likely influenced their writings.

The consensus of global New Testament scholarship is that the Gospels were written after Christ, not contemporaneously, and as such, if Christ's ministry was in the 60s that would influence the dating of the Gospels, and push them back farther than what modern scholarship concedes.

Furthermore, people who make these theories seem to forget that St. Paul wrote his Epistles before any of the Gospels, he's likely the most authoritative view on who Jesus really was. Of course, St. Paul wrote in the 40s, so a conspiracy theorist would have to consider the possibility that Christ's ministry didn't take place in the 60s for such a consideration to take place.

Or, they'd have to develop another conspiracy theory, alongside the lines of "Paul created the Gospels in order to destroy Judaism" or some such.

[primuspilus]

I'll file this in the moron file. Along with this basement dweller:



PP

[ralfellis]

Yes, we know that.

That is the whole point if these books - that the ministry of Jesus was in the AD 60s and not the AD 30s.  And there are many reasons for thinking so.

a.   The assumption made here is that the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the life of Christ. They were not. The writers of the Gospels wrote after those events supposedly took place, and they themselves witnessed the temple's destruction, which likely influenced their writings.

b.   The consensus of global New Testament scholarship is that the Gospels were written after Christ, not contemporaneously, and as such, if Christ's ministry was in the 60s that would influence the dating of the Gospels, and push them back farther than what modern scholarship concedes.

c.   Furthermore, people who make these theories seem to forget that St. Paul wrote his Epistles before any of the Gospels, he's likely the most authoritative view on who Jesus really was. Of course, St. Paul wrote in the 40s, so a conspiracy theorist would have to consider the possibility that Christ's ministry didn't take place in the 60s for such a consideration to take place.

d.  Or, they'd have to develop another conspiracy theory, alongside the lines of "Paul created the Gospels in order to destroy Judaism" or some such.

Points a & b.

They only say that the gospels were written later, because Jesus describes the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.  For this to be in the gospels, they must have been written after AD70.  But there is no reason to believe that the gospels have to be written a generation after Jesus. They could easily have been written contemporaneously -  just like Josephus Flavius was writing near contemporaneously (in the 70s and 80s).  And do bear in mind that the author of Luke and Acts uses exactly the same material as does Josephus, which suggests that this is when these texts were written.

Point c.

Yes, the epistles were written in the 50s and 60s.  But they do not mention the crucifixion narrative. Yes, there are some very out-of-place mentions that Jesus was crucified, but no mention of the great dramatic events of the crucifixion. There is no arrest, trial, scourging, crucifixion, taking down, tomb and empty tomb narrative.  

Why was this? Did Saul not know of these events? Did he think they were not worthy of inclusion in his letters?  Did the 'Christian' communities Saul was writing to not need to know about this trivia?  

No.  The reason for this lacuna, is the crucifixion had not yet happened. The crucifixion happened in AD 70, when the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt were crucified in the Kidron Valley.  And the leader of the Revolt was called King Izas (Em)Manu(el) of Edessa, who wore a ceremonial Crown of Thorns (as did all the Edessan kings).  And as Josephus Flavius relates in his book 'Life' -  King Izas Manu(el) was taken down from the cross early by Josephus (of Arimathaea?) and survived, but the other two died.

Does this sound familliar?  It should do, because this was the basis of the gospel story. And it was a real event, but it happened in AD70, after the Epistles had been written (which is why Saul does not mention this dramatic event).


Point d.

Actually, that is probably so. after the Jewish Revolt, the Romans were fed-up with the more fundamentalist Jews causing rebellion in the east of the Empire. What Rome wanted was a Rome- friendly form of Judaism that would:

Accept Romans as members (Judaism did not).
Eat and pray with Romans (see Saul's condemnation of Peter for not eating with Gentiles).
Not need to be circumcised (see Saul's condemnation of circumcision).
Be peaceful (turn the other cheek).
Pay Roman taxes (render unto Caesar).

Saul's new Simple Judaism (Judaism Lite) achieved all of that.

Ralph

[LBK]

Yes, the epistles were written in the 50s and 60s.  But they do not mention the crucifixion narrative. yes, there are some very out-of-place mentions that Jesus was crucified, but no mention of the great dramatic events of the crucifixion. No arrest, trial, scourging, crucifixion, taking down, tomb and empty tomb narrative.

Why was this? Did Saul not know of these events? Did he think they were not worthy of inclusion in his letters?  Did the 'Christian' communities not ned to know about this trivia? 

The early Christians very much knew of these events which are at the very heart of Christian belief and knowledge. Their occurrence would have been more than common knowledge among them, either because they were eyewitnesses to them, or were told these things through word of mouth. There was no need for Paul to narrate these events to those who were already well-versed in them.

Concocting elaborate scenarios to fit fanciful hypotheses is not necessary when a simple, plausible and verifiable explanation exists.

[Ansgar]

Yes, we know that.

That is the whole point if these books - that the ministry of Jesus was in the AD 60s and not the AD 30s.  And there are many reasons for thinking so.

a.   The assumption made here is that the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the life of Christ. They were not. The writers of the Gospels wrote after those events supposedly took place, and they themselves witnessed the temple's destruction, which likely influenced their writings.

b.   The consensus of global New Testament scholarship is that the Gospels were written after Christ, not contemporaneously, and as such, if Christ's ministry was in the 60s that would influence the dating of the Gospels, and push them back farther than what modern scholarship concedes.

c.   Furthermore, people who make these theories seem to forget that St. Paul wrote his Epistles before any of the Gospels, he's likely the most authoritative view on who Jesus really was. Of course, St. Paul wrote in the 40s, so a conspiracy theorist would have to consider the possibility that Christ's ministry didn't take place in the 60s for such a consideration to take place.

d.  Or, they'd have to develop another conspiracy theory, alongside the lines of "Paul created the Gospels in order to destroy Judaism" or some such.

Points a & b.

They only say that the gospels were written later, because Jesus describes the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.  For this to be in the gospels, they must have been written after AD70.  But there is no reason to believe that the gospels have to be written a generation after Jesus. They could easily have been written contemporaneously -  just like Josephus Flavius was writing near contemporaneously (in the 70s and 80s).  And do bear in mind that the author of Luke and Acts uses exactly the same material as does Josephus, which suggests that this is when these texts were written.

Point c.

Yes, the epistles were written in the 50s and 60s.  But they do not mention the crucifixion narrative. Yes, there are some very out-of-place mentions that Jesus was crucified, but no mention of the great dramatic events of the crucifixion. There is no arrest, trial, scourging, crucifixion, taking down, tomb and empty tomb narrative.  

Why was this? Did Saul not know of these events? Did he think they were not worthy of inclusion in his letters?  Did the 'Christian' communities Saul was writing to not need to know about this trivia?  

No.  The reason for this lacuna, is the crucifixion had not yet happened. The crucifixion happened in AD 70, when the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt were crucified in the Kidron Valley.  And the leader of the Revolt was called King Izas (Em)Manu(el) of Edessa, who wore a ceremonial Crown of Thorns (as did all the Edessan kings).  And as Josephus Flavius relates in his book 'Life' -  King Izas Manu(el) was taken down from the cross early by Josephus (of Arimathaea?) and survived, but the other two died.

Does this sound familliar?  It should do, because this was the basis of the gospel story. And it was a real event, but it happened in AD70, after the Epistles had been written (which is why Saul does not mention this dramatic event).


Point d.

Actually, that is probably so. after the Jewish Revolt, the Romans were fed-up with the more fundamentalist Jews causing rebellion in the east of the Empire. What Rome wanted was a Rome- friendly form of Judaism that would:

Accept Romans as members (Judaism did not).
Eat and pray with Romans (see Saul's condemnation of Peter for not eating with Gentiles).
Not need to be circumcised (see Saul's condemnation of circumcision).
Be peaceful (turn the other cheek).
Pay Roman taxes (render unto Caesar).

Saul's new Simple Judaism (Judaism Lite) achieved all of that.

Ralph

There are also things that don't add up. If Jesus died in the 60's, it creates a significant problem, as Pontius Pilate would most likely have been dead at this point, as would Herod Antipas. There is also a problem in regard to the census of Quirinius, which took place in the year 6-7. This would have made Christ well over 50 years when he was crucified.

[john_mo]

Yes, we know that.

That is the whole point if these books - that the ministry of Jesus was in the AD 60s and not the AD 30s.  And there are many reasons for thinking so.

a.   The assumption made here is that the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the life of Christ. They were not. The writers of the Gospels wrote after those events supposedly took place, and they themselves witnessed the temple's destruction, which likely influenced their writings.

b.   The consensus of global New Testament scholarship is that the Gospels were written after Christ, not contemporaneously, and as such, if Christ's ministry was in the 60s that would influence the dating of the Gospels, and push them back farther than what modern scholarship concedes.

c.   Furthermore, people who make these theories seem to forget that St. Paul wrote his Epistles before any of the Gospels, he's likely the most authoritative view on who Jesus really was. Of course, St. Paul wrote in the 40s, so a conspiracy theorist would have to consider the possibility that Christ's ministry didn't take place in the 60s for such a consideration to take place.

d.  Or, they'd have to develop another conspiracy theory, alongside the lines of "Paul created the Gospels in order to destroy Judaism" or some such.

Points a & b.

They only say that the gospels were written later, because Jesus describes the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.  For this to be in the gospels, they must have been written after AD70.  But there is no reason to believe that the gospels have to be written a generation after Jesus. They could easily have been written contemporaneously -  just like Josephus Flavius was writing near contemporaneously (in the 70s and 80s).  And do bear in mind that the author of Luke and Acts uses exactly the same material as does Josephus, which suggests that this is when these texts were written.

Point c.

Yes, the epistles were written in the 50s and 60s.  But they do not mention the crucifixion narrative. Yes, there are some very out-of-place mentions that Jesus was crucified, but no mention of the great dramatic events of the crucifixion. There is no arrest, trial, scourging, crucifixion, taking down, tomb and empty tomb narrative.  

Why was this? Did Saul not know of these events? Did he think they were not worthy of inclusion in his letters?  Did the 'Christian' communities Saul was writing to not need to know about this trivia?  

No.  The reason for this lacuna, is the crucifixion had not yet happened. The crucifixion happened in AD 70, when the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt were crucified in the Kidron Valley.  And the leader of the Revolt was called King Izas (Em)Manu(el) of Edessa, who wore a ceremonial Crown of Thorns (as did all the Edessan kings).  And as Josephus Flavius relates in his book 'Life' -  King Izas Manu(el) was taken down from the cross early by Josephus (of Arimathaea?) and survived, but the other two died.

Does this sound familliar?  It should do, because this was the basis of the gospel story. And it was a real event, but it happened in AD70, after the Epistles had been written (which is why Saul does not mention this dramatic event).


Point d.

Actually, that is probably so. after the Jewish Revolt, the Romans were fed-up with the more fundamentalist Jews causing rebellion in the east of the Empire. What Rome wanted was a Rome- friendly form of Judaism that would:

Accept Romans as members (Judaism did not).
Eat and pray with Romans (see Saul's condemnation of Peter for not eating with Gentiles).
Not need to be circumcised (see Saul's condemnation of circumcision).
Be peaceful (turn the other cheek).
Pay Roman taxes (render unto Caesar).

Saul's new Simple Judaism (Judaism Lite) achieved all of that.

Ralph

No, Paul didn't invent a "new Judaism".  And even if he did, how did he get so many Jews to follow it?  As it was said, they followed their law very strictly, so it would seem strange that they would take up Christianity simply because some Jew (Paul) said so.  The point is, there would have needed to be a pretty spectacular reason why so many Jews (and gentiles) would choose to adopt this radically different belief system.  See The Impossible Faith by JP Holding for more such reasons http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.php

Also, the Romans didn't like Christianity, or the apostles.  Who killed Paul again?  Now in order for your half-baked theory to work, you would need a reason why the Romans persecuted the early Christians for 300 years when they wanted Christianity to spread.  

[xOrthodox4Christx]

The c claim is a complete assumption on your part.

The claims of the crucifixion were indeed not worthy. Paul was writing pastorally to Orthodox Churches, not writing a Gospel. The point of his message was to encourage defense of the Gospel, not explicate it.

The oral traditions of Christ's crucifixion were clearly circulating at the time of St. Paul. That's what you are missing here. Oral traditions not a euro-centric idea of everything historical has to be written down, or else it didn't happen.

These were oral traditions that at the time required no written explanation.

It's as if those Churches didn't know what had happened to Christ, and they found out later in the Gospels. When in fact, those Churches already knew what happened to Christ through oral tradition, they just didn't write it down yet.

[Nephi]

The c claim is a complete assumption on your part.

The claims of the crucifixion were indeed not worthy. Paul was writing pastorally to Orthodox Churches, not writing a Gospel. The point of his message was to encourage defense of the Gospel, not explicate it.

The oral traditions of Christ's crucifixion were clearly circulating at the time of St. Paul. That's what you are missing here. Oral traditions not a euro-centric idea of everything historical has to be written down, or else it didn't happen.

These were oral traditions that at the time required no written explanation.

It's as if those Churches didn't know what had happened to Christ, and they found out later in the Gospels. When in fact, those Churches already knew what happened to Christ through oral tradition, they just didn't write it down yet.

Not to mention that folks like Richard Bauckham argue rather convincingly that the Gospels are not merely the product of an anonymous community's oral traditions, but the directly related to eyewitness accounts (see his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony).

[ralfellis]

There are also things that don't add up. If Jesus died in the 60's, it creates a significant problem, as Pontius Pilate would most likely have been dead at this point, as would Herod Antipas. There is also a problem in regard to the census of Quirinius, which took place in the year 6-7. This would have made Christ well over 50 years when he was crucified.

Pontius Pilate is the only bit in the gospels that conforms to an AD 30s date, and so this must be an interpolation.  Everything else in the gospels points to an AD 60s date, including Jesus describing the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Conversely, the Toledoth Yeshu (version 1) says Jesus was tried before Queen Helena in the AD 50s or AD 60s. 
In version 2 of Toledoth Yeshu, this has this been changed back to Pontius Pilate.

.

.

So what if Jesus was over 50 years old?  Is that so impossible?
Have you not read Bishop Irenaeus?  He said:

They ... maintain that Jesus preached for one year only, and then suffered
in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own
disadvantage, destroying Jesus’ whole work, and robbing him of that age
which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher he excelled all others.
How could he have had disciples, if he did not teach? And how could he
have taught, unless he had reached the age of a Master? For when he came to
be baptized, he had not yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to
be about thirty years of age.
Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this
extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our
Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a Teacher.
Against Heresies, Irenaeus, Bk II ch 22:5.

Clearly it was well-known in the 2nd century that Jesus became at least 50 years old, and was still teaching at that time. So why do you doubt the word of a 2nd century bishop?  Likewise, the gospel of John says:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, You are not yet fifty years old, and you have
seen Abraham? John 8:56-57.


Now that is a peculiar thing to say about someone who was only 30 or 33 years of age….
I think it is clear that Jesus was at least 50 years old or more, and that would place him into the AD 60s, and more in a position to be able to describe the siege of Jerusalem.


Cheers,
Ralph

[ralfellis]

No, Paul didn't invent a "new Judaism".  And even if he did, how did he get so many Jews to follow it?  As it was said, they followed their law very strictly, so it would seem strange that they would take up Christianity simply because some Jew (Paul) said so.  

Eh?  Do you not know the origins of Christianity?   Saul did not convert Jews, he evangelized to the Gentiles:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:  Ro 11:13

Saul did not convert Jews. In fact, he could not convert Jews, because he preached non-circumcision and did not keep kosher. 
The new rules of Simple Judaism  -  as given by James to Saul, were:

We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:26-29
 
There we have it. Saul's Simple Judaism was not kosher and did not conform to Mosaic Law.  How could a Jew join? 
Clearly, this was a new Simple Judaism for Gentile converts.

IT WAS A COMPLETELY NEW JUDAISM.

Also, the Romans didn't like Christianity, or the apostles.  Who killed Paul again?  Now in order for your half-baked theory to work, you would need a reason why the Romans persecuted the early Christians for 300 years when they wanted Christianity to spread.  

Eh?  Show me any Roman or gospel text that says the Romans killed Saul.  What you are doing, is standard Christianity - you are relating what you think is known, rather than what is really known.

The reality is very different.  There is NO evidence for the death of Saul in Rome in the AD 60s.

What really happened, is that Saul came back to Judaea just before the demise of Nero, and became the army commander in charge of Galilee. And we have an account of that.   How else do you think Saul was persecuting the Nazarene followers of Jesus and James in and around Galilee?  Under what authority did Saul do this?  However, as the army commander in charge of Galilee, we know exactly how he could do this.  And we have an account of this.


 
Ralph Ellis

[LBK]

And why should Christians pay any mind to the Toledoth Yeshu (of whatever version)?

[ralfellis]

The c claim is a complete assumption on your part.

The claims of the crucifixion were indeed not worthy. Paul was writing pastorally to Orthodox Churches, not writing a Gospel. The point of his message was to encourage defense of the Gospel, not explicate it.

Come, come now.

Saul was desperately and not always successfully trying to convert Gentiles to his new Simple Judaism.  Do you not think that a heart-rending story about those horrible barbaric people in Judaea whipping and crucifying a god-incarnate would not have brought in more believers? Do you think that a dramatic retelling of the tomb scene would not have made more converts?  

Saul:  -  "They came to the tomb early in the morning and this great stone had been rolled back all on its own, and when they looked in they found that his tomb was empty.  It was a miracle, I tell you, it was a miracle, the tomb was empty .…."

Do you really think Saul would not have used such rhetoric in his Epistles, if it had been available?  
But he could not, because the crucifixion had not yet happened.
It happened in AD 70, as Josephus clearly relates.


Cheers,
Ralph Ellis

[LBK]

The c claim is a complete assumption on your part.

The claims of the crucifixion were indeed not worthy. Paul was writing pastorally to Orthodox Churches, not writing a Gospel. The point of his message was to encourage defense of the Gospel, not explicate it.

Come, come now.

Saul was desperately and not always successfully trying to convert Gentiles to his new Simple Judaism.  Do you not think that a heart-rending story about those horrible barbaric people in Judaea whipping and crucifying a god-incarnate would not have brought in more believers? Do you think that a dramatic retelling of the tomb scene would not have made more converts?  

Saul:  -  "They came to the tomb early in the morning and this great stone had been rolled back all on its own, and when they looked in they found that his tomb was empty.  It was a miracle, I tell you, it was a miracle, the tomb was empty .…."

Do you really think Saul would not have used such rhetoric in his Epistles, if it had been available?  
But he could not, because the crucifixion had not yet happened.
It happened in AD 70, as Josephus clearly relates.


Cheers,
Ralph Ellis

Rarely have I encountered such a flimsy premise on which to base a hypothesis.

Paul's epistles are directed to churches (communities of believers) in the various cities where Christianity had taken root, and to individuals such as Timothy, himself an apostle, chosen by Christ Himself to go out and spread the Gospel. In other words, the audience for his letters were already Christian.

[ralfellis]

And why should Christians pay any mind to the Toledoth Yeshu (of whatever version)?

Why should Christians pay any heed to Acts of the Apostles? Especially if it was written long after the events, as you maintain.

The Toledoth Yeshu is said to be Jewish propaganda. Yet the original TY says that Queen Helena was the de facto queen of Judaea in the AD 50s. That does not sound like Jewish propaganda to me  -  Judaea ruled by a woman?  Heavens above. What would the rabbis have said about that?

And do remember that Queen Helena was a Nazarene Jewess, the same Jewish sect as Jesus and James, and the same sect as Saul (Acts 24:5).

And do remember that Saul was a sukkah maker (skenopoios  See Acts 18:3). And yet it was Queen Helena who had the largest sukkah in Judaea, according to the Talmud.   So both Queen Helena and Saul were Nazarenes, and both were overtly connected to the sukkah and the festival of Sukhot in the AD 50s.

Queen Helena is more central to this story than you think.


Ralph

[LBK]

Why should Christians pay any heed to Acts of the Apostles?

Because the Church, through divine guidance, has accepted them as canonical scripture. The Jews do not accept the Toledoth Yeshu as canonical scripture.

[ralfellis]

Rarely have I encountered such a flimsy premise on which to base a hypothesis.

Paul's epistles are directed to churches (communities of believers) in the various cities where Christianity had taken root, and to individuals such as Timothy, himself an apostle, chosen by Christ Himself to go out and spread the Gospel. In other words, the audience for his letters were already Christian.

Come, come now.

Do you not think Saul's letters were not read out to the congregation?  These letters cost a worker's lifetime salary to send across the Mediterranean, and you don't think they were used in 'church' as the centerpiece of the service?  You don't think Saul would make every appeal possible in these letters, for more members and more donations?

Put it this way...

If the current Pope wrote to a Catholic priest in the UK, do you think he would tuck the letter away in a drawer, and not mention it?  I think you are creating arguments to reinforce your worldview, instead of looking at realities.

In reality, Saul could not mention the crucifixion, because it had not yet happened.


Ralph

[ralfellis]

Why should Christians pay any heed to Acts of the Apostles?

Because the Church, through divine guidance, has accepted them as canonical scripture. The Jews do not accept the Toledoth Yeshu as canonical scripture.

You mean because Emperor Constantine decided to include Acts of Apostles at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325.  And he rejected the majority of alternate texts, including the Toledoth Yeshu. 

And as I said before, the Toledoth Yeshu is not a Jewish text.  If anything, it is a Nazarene Ebionite text.


Ralph

[LBK]

These are taken from Ralph Ellis' website http://www.edfu-books.com/books.html , from summaries of publications (titles are in bold) he has penned:

King Jesus, from Kam (Egypt) to Camelot

King Jesus and Queen Mary Magdalene were the richest couple in Syrio-Judaea. The Romans wanted to impose taxes on Jesus and Mary, an imposition that provoked the Jewish Rebellion. King Jesus fought and lost that war, and so he was crucified, reprieved and sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Atur-tii (the Egyptian) or 'King Arthur and the twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table'.

Cleopatra to Christ:

Jesus Was the Great Grandson of Cleopatra VII.

Let readers make what they will of these claims.

[LBK]

Why should Christians pay any heed to Acts of the Apostles?

Because the Church, through divine guidance, has accepted them as canonical scripture. The Jews do not accept the Toledoth Yeshu as canonical scripture.

You mean because Emperor Constantine decided to include Acts of Apostles at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325.  And he rejected the majority of alternate texts, including the Toledoth Yeshu.  

And as I said before, the Toledoth Yeshu is not a Jewish text.  If anything, it is a Nazarene Ebionite text.


Ralph

Ah, the Great Apostasy of the Constantinian period. You won't convince too many here of that tired old shibboleth, I'm afraid. As for what writings found their way into the canon of scripture, this was a gradual process which took centuries. Meanwhile, Christians worshipped and glorified God, and prayed, and the apostles and their successors preached, taught and evangelized.

Oh, and BTW, Ralph: Saul did not remain Saul after he was baptized into the Christian faith. He became Paul.

[Ansgar]

There are also things that don't add up. If Jesus died in the 60's, it creates a significant problem, as Pontius Pilate would most likely have been dead at this point, as would Herod Antipas. There is also a problem in regard to the census of Quirinius, which took place in the year 6-7. This would have made Christ well over 50 years when he was crucified.

Pontius Pilate is the only bit in the gospels that conforms to an AD 30s date, and so this must be an interpolation.  Everything else in the gospels points to an AD 60s date, including Jesus describing the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Proove it. And what about Herod Antipas?

Conversely, the Toledoth Yeshu (version 1) says Jesus was tried before Queen Helena in the AD 50s or AD 60s.  
In version 2 of Toledoth Yeshu, this has this been changed back to Pontius Pilate.

Even stretched as far back as possible, the Toledoth Yeshu cannot be from before the fourth century, and it is most likely much younger than that. Besides that, it is an anti-christian text. It cannot be considerd an authoritative source regarding the life of Jesus.
.

.

So what if Jesus was over 50 years old?  Is that so impossible?
Have you not read Bishop Irenaeus?  He said:

They ... maintain that Jesus preached for one year only, and then suffered
in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own
disadvantage, destroying Jesus’ whole work, and robbing him of that age
which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher he excelled all others.
How could he have had disciples, if he did not teach? And how could he
have taught, unless he had reached the age of a Master? For when he came to
be baptized, he had not yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to
be about thirty years of age.
Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this
extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the
fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our
Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a Teacher.
Against Heresies, Irenaeus, Bk II ch 22:5.

Even saints can be wrong on some points. The scriptures tells us that the ministry of St John the Baptist began in the fifteenth of the reign of Tiberius, this being either the year 26 or 29 AD. The ministry of Jesus followed shortly after.
In the Gospel of John we hear this during a discussion between Christ and the Jews:

The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?

John 2:20
From the writings of Josephus, it can be determined that the construction of the Temple began around the 18th year of Herod's reign. Therefore most scholars have concluded that Jesus visited the temple somewhere between 27 and 29 AD.

Clearly it was well-known in the 2nd century that Jesus became at least 50 years old, and was still teaching at that time. So why do you doubt the word of a 2nd century bishop?  Likewise, the gospel of John says:



Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, You are not yet fifty years old, and you have
seen Abraham? John 8:56-57.


Now that is a peculiar thing to say about someone who was only 30 or 33 years of age….
I think it is clear that Jesus was at least 50 years old or more, and that would place him into the AD 60s, and more in a position to be able to describe the siege of Jerusalem.



Cheers,
Ralph

Why should Jesus be over 50 years old, when he is told that he is not yet fifty? That makes no sense.


[/quote]

[Nephi]

Pontius Pilate is the only bit in the gospels that conforms to an AD 30s date, and so this must be an interpolation.  Everything else in the gospels points to an AD 60s date, including Jesus describing the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70.=

At the same time, though, the reconstruction of this [historical] Jesus (who could only be discovered by going behind the traditions and sources used by the Evangelists) became mroe and more incompatible with one another: at one end of the spectrum, Jesus was the anti-Roman revolutionary working - though finally failing - to overthrow the ruling powers; at the other end, he was the meek moral teacher who approves everything and unaccountably comes to grief. If you read a number of these reconstructions one after the other, you see at once that far from uncovering an icon that has become obscured over time, they are much more like photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold.

-Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, page XII

I believe he elsewhere, perhaps in another work, criticizes those that project their assumptions onto the text itself (i.e. "I do not believe that someone could have foretold the future, therefore the text must not be an example of a prophecy but rather something else."). I believe Jacob Neusner makes similar criticisms, as well as Matthew Levering.

Also, do read Larry Hurtado's compelling arguments, in How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? among others, that the Philippian Hymn clearly shows the worship and devotion of Christ immediately (or almost immediately) after his death before any possible "development" (or "perversion," given one's possible presuppositions) period. Likewise, as I commented elsewhere, the Gospel accounts are compellingly argued to be eyewitness testimony by Richard Bauckham.

But I'll leave off with this lovely quote from the philosopher Thomas Reid:

"So the appropriate response to the philosopher is the same appropriate response to any sane person who professes to doubt fundamental elements of our world picture: not argument but ridicule. 'Ach Unsinn!'"

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Rarely have I encountered such a flimsy premise on which to base a hypothesis.

Paul's epistles are directed to churches (communities of believers) in the various cities where Christianity had taken root, and to individuals such as Timothy, himself an apostle, chosen by Christ Himself to go out and spread the Gospel. In other words, the audience for his letters were already Christian.

Come, come now.

Do you not think Saul's letters were not read out to the congregation?  These letters cost a worker's lifetime salary to send across the Mediterranean, and you don't think they were used in 'church' as the centerpiece of the service?  You don't think Saul would make every appeal possible in these letters, for more members and more donations?

Put it this way...

If the current Pope wrote to a Catholic priest in the UK, do you think he would tuck the letter away in a drawer, and not mention it?  I think you are creating arguments to reinforce your worldview, instead of looking at realities.

In reality, Saul could not mention the crucifixion, because it had not yet happened.


Ralph

No, he wouldn't. As I already said. St. Paul's writings were addressed to Churches that were already in existence. And the assumption here is that St. Paul didn't know or that the Churches themselves (Orthodox Churches BTW) didn't know that Christ was crucified already. He didn't need to mention something that they already knew. The fact that they converted already affirms that they believed in Christ's crucifixion.

Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia:

Galatians 1: Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers and sisters[a] with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,

To God’s holy people in Ephesus,[a] the faithful in Christ Jesus:

1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons

You get the idea. How do you get, "St. Paul wrote letters to various Churches and read them aloud" to "Christ wasn't crucified yet"?

Here's the problem. The assumption here, is that the Churches didn't yet know about the crucifixion, and that they just found out. That is not true. The Churches knew about the crucifixion so they needn't bother to mention it to those 'in the loop'.

The Catholic argument is not a good analogy. Because the crucifixion of Christ wasn't in a letter form, it was oral. Furthermore, why would the Pope need to talk to a Catholic priest about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Wouldn't he already know about that? Because, after all, he was catechized and went to seminary.

[Incognito777]

Josephus did mention Jesus. Here are several articles.

http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/historicaljesus.html

You might also read, "The Historical Jesus," by Habermas.

[rakovsky]

Orthodox 4 Christ made a good point about how Paul wrote in the 40's AD, long before Ben Gamala's time. Paul's letters mention "Jesus" by name 206 times. This means Jesus' ministry would not have begun after the 40's AD.

Ralph Ellis makes an interesting remark:

So what if Jesus was over 50 years old?  Is that so impossible?
Have you not read Bishop Irenaeus?  He said:
from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a Teacher.

Unfortunately, Ellis does not finish the quotation. Irenaeus continued: "as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, (affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the time of Trajan."
The theory that Jesus was Ben Gamala does not match the theory that Jesus lived up to Trajan's time (beginning 98 AD).
Yes it's confusing that Ireneus writes this, but one reason is that it would be odd to think that Jesus was crucified in 98 AD! Perhaps Ireneus meant that Jesus was still around after His resurrection, as the Gospel says that He will still be with people.

[rakovsky]

Ellis wrote that the Romans were fed up with nationalist Jewish revolts, and that:

What Rome wanted was a Rome- friendly form of Judaism that would:
Accept Romans as members (Judaism did not).
Eat and pray with Romans (see Saul's condemnation of Peter for not eating with Gentiles).
Not need to be circumcised (see Saul's condemnation of circumcision).
Be peaceful (turn the other cheek).
Pay Roman taxes (render unto Caesar).
Saul's new Simple Judaism (Judaism Lite) achieved all of that.

Presumably then, this Simple Judaism would be aimed at Jews then in order to make them be peaceful and pay taxes, right?

But for Ellis, that is not the case:

Eh?  Do you not know the origins of Christianity?   Saul did not convert Jews, he evangelized to the Gentiles:
In fact, he could not convert Jews, because he preached non-circumcision and did not keep kosher. Saul's Simple Judaism was not kosher and did not conform to Mosaic Law. 
Clearly, this was a new Simple Judaism for Gentile converts.

OK, why would it be important for Rome to convert Roman pagans to "Simple Judaism" in order to make Jews in rebellion peaceful and pay taxes to a Roman pagan emperor who did not follow Simple Judaism?

[rakovsky]

In reality, Saul could not mention the crucifixion, because it had not yet happened.

• Romans 5:6
  For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
  Romans 5:8
  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
  Romans 6:10
  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
  Romans 7:9
  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
  Romans 8:34
  Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
  Romans 8:36
  As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
  Romans 11:3
  Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
  Romans 14:9
  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
  Romans 14:15
  But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
  1 Corinthians 8:11
  And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
  1 Corinthians 15:3
  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
  2 Corinthians 5:14
  For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
  2 Corinthians 5:15
  And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
  1 Thessalonians 2:15
  Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
  1 Thessalonians 4:14
  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
  1 Thessalonians 5:10
  Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

[rakovsky]

And as I said before, the Toledoth Yeshu is not a Jewish text. If anything, it is a Nazarene Ebionite text.
Ralph

Toldot Yeshu
This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE.

LINE 1: In the year 3671 in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph

http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html

[john_mo]

No, Paul didn't invent a "new Judaism".  And even if he did, how did he get so many Jews to follow it?  As it was said, they followed their law very strictly, so it would seem strange that they would take up Christianity simply because some Jew (Paul) said so.  

Eh?  Do you not know the origins of Christianity?   Saul did not convert Jews, he evangelized to the Gentiles:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:  Ro 11:13

Saul did not convert Jews. In fact, he could not convert Jews, because he preached non-circumcision and did not keep kosher. 
The new rules of Simple Judaism  -  as given by James to Saul, were:

We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:26-29
 
There we have it. Saul's Simple Judaism was not kosher and did not conform to Mosaic Law.  How could a Jew join? 
Clearly, this was a new Simple Judaism for Gentile converts.

IT WAS A COMPLETELY NEW JUDAISM.

Also, the Romans didn't like Christianity, or the apostles.  Who killed Paul again?  Now in order for your half-baked theory to work, you would need a reason why the Romans persecuted the early Christians for 300 years when they wanted Christianity to spread.  

Eh?  Show me any Roman or gospel text that says the Romans killed Saul.  What you are doing, is standard Christianity - you are relating what you think is known, rather than what is really known.

The reality is very different.  There is NO evidence for the death of Saul in Rome in the AD 60s.

What really happened, is that Saul came back to Judaea just before the demise of Nero, and became the army commander in charge of Galilee. And we have an account of that.   How else do you think Saul was persecuting the Nazarene followers of Jesus and James in and around Galilee?  Under what authority did Saul do this?  However, as the army commander in charge of Galilee, we know exactly how he could do this.  And we have an account of this.


 
Ralph Ellis

You seem to be in the habit of making unheard of claims and adding "we have accounts of this" and then not providing said accounts.  Also, what do you mean by "accounts"? 

You are still sidestepping what I asked you, why were Christians persecuted for 300 years if the Romans wanted it to spread?

[john_mo]

These are taken from Ralph Ellis' website http://www.edfu-books.com/books.html , from summaries of publications (titles are in bold) he has penned:

King Jesus, from Kam (Egypt) to Camelot

King Jesus and Queen Mary Magdalene were the richest couple in Syrio-Judaea. The Romans wanted to impose taxes on Jesus and Mary, an imposition that provoked the Jewish Rebellion. King Jesus fought and lost that war, and so he was crucified, reprieved and sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Atur-tii (the Egyptian) or 'King Arthur and the twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table'.

Cleopatra to Christ:

Jesus Was the Great Grandson of Cleopatra VII.

Let readers make what they will of these claims.

How did we, and academia miss this?!  Its just so obvious!

This is not even high-grade conspiracy theory.  Aren't there better ones we could be talking about?