We don’t even have to propose that. A historical Jesus could very well have renamed himself Yeshua to evoke exactly that belief. Or his followers could have assigned him that name (in the same way Cephas is clearly an assigned name and not a birth name). And they could have done that before he died; or after!

Any and all of these are possible. Possible just doesn’t get us to probable. In my definition of minimal historicity, I enclose all such theories within it, by allowing his name may have been assigned and not natural.

Actually, you have established yourself as a liar. You don’t know what’s in my book, what I argue in it, or who I cite and rely on in it as scholarly authorities. You’ve demonstrated ignorance on all points. Yet claimed repeatedly to have read my book. That’s called lying.

There is no ideology in my book. It’s a consistent piece of logically organized argument to a conclusion from established and well-cited facts backed by peer reviewed journal articles and books by noted experts in their fields. But since you don’t even know what’s in my book, you can’t even know what “ideology” you are accusing it of containing. Which sounds like you are the one with an ideology.

That I cite and rely on the best peer reviewed scholarship on the Talmud and its discussion of the manuscripts and their content regarding Jesus?

So…responsible and correct scholarship, you despise. Strange standard.

But thank you for confirming you lied about reading my book. You’d have known who I cite and how I use their work and what I said about it on this subject if you had.

Having post grad degrees in theology and linguistics, I sort of consider myself a “peer”… you are pushing ideology and masking it as scholarship.

I was almost on board… you lmost had me then you went “peer review” and reliable manuscripts… thank you for helping me proving a point.

Yes, Andrew. I am relying on indeed peer reviewed scholarship and the most reliable manuscripts of the Talmud. You would know this, if you had actually read my book.

That you think it’s weird to count Peter the founder when even Paul says he was, also suggests you haven’t read my book.

And you have not even correctly described the organization of my book or it’s argument. So I’m starting to think you are lying.

You also seem to have a hard time understanding basic concepts and sentences. I never said Peter was Jesus. If you can’t even follow that, you lack the ability to have any reliable opinion in this discussion.

“The Talmudic Rabbis had zero knowledge of any real Jesus. They didn’t even know he lived in the Roman era. They thought he was stoned to death in Joppa under the Hasmoneans.”

You have obviously not read pre-Christian censorship Talmud texts…

It is interesting that you recognize Peter at all (being an eye witness to Christ) since most Christians consider Paul as their patriarch.

And yes, I did read the book, but it is circular and not logically coherent. Sometimes your argument seems to be that Jesus didn’t exist, even after you explain how common of a name it was…but then you seem to try to assert that Christianity can’t exist since there was no Christ, yet the teachings exist and the religion exists…

Basically I just can’t understand your argument. If Peter is “jesus”, what is the theological implication and should it change anything about the religion? The teachings exist, the magisterium from Peter to Linus to Clement on down obviously exists… so what is the issue? Is the name of the teacher really that much more important than the teachings and traditions?

But back to the Talmud, the Rabbis spoke a lot against Christianity and its patriarch (to which they gave several different names)…but it was pretty obvious who they were speaking about.

Again I will say, it seems like a more helpful argument for them would be to say that the patriarch simply didn’t exist rather than trying to discredit him as a leader.

On the mythicist thesis, the patriarch of Christianity is Peter. In that scenario, Peter is to Jesus, as Joseph Smith is to Moroni.

The Talmudic Rabbis had zero knowledge of any real Jesus. They didn’t even know he lived in the Roman era. They thought he was stoned to death in Joppa under the Hasmoneans.

It’s hard to explain that, on any theory that they would have known he didn’t exist if he didn’t. It’s hard enough to explain that, on any theory that he existed.

As to my argument that the patriarch of Christianity was Peter, to whom was first revealed the Christ, that’s the entire argument of my book. Which you claim to have read, but do not appear to have.

As to the revealed Christ (the Moroni of Christianity) having some “other” name than Savior of God, I do not know what you mean. What other name do you propose their Savior had?

“And as for the “Rabbis,” please note, OHJ, Ch 8.1: the Talmud only knows of a Jesus killed a hundred years before Pontius Pilate. So you have a conundrum. You can’t say they could argue he didn’t exist (though Justin Martyr does depict a Jew suggesting he didn’t), when they didn’t even know what historical period he actually lived in. The Jews were simply responding to what Christians were claiming a century and more later; they had no way of checking if any such person existed or not. No such records were accessible. The Talmudic Jews “heard of” a Jesus killed by the Hasmoneans in the 70s BC. And rebutted this with fake polemics about him. That doesn’t argue he existed. If anything, it is further evidence he didn’t.”

You are still missing two points, the patriarch of Christianity (whatever his name was) did exist, according to even the government and Rabbis that would have benifited more from his not existing.

Also, you have not yet explained the theological implications of the patriarch of Christianity having a name other than “Jesus”… plus, you really haven’t made an argument at all that the patriarch of Christianity wasn’t the Christ…