Did Jesus exist? A discussion with a Jew

We continue, from part 1, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed.
I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.

We continue, from part 1, considering pop-research on the issue of the historical Jesus and Jesus mythicism with regards to some Atheists who have taken to the utterly radical view that Jesus never even existed.
I have been considering Michael Paulkovich and Raphael Lataster and, in this case, I got into a comment section discussion within an article written by YouTube celebrity Atheist AaronRa that was simply titled “Jesus never existed” November 3, 2015 AD.
See my article Historical Jesus – two centuries worth of citations wherein I chronicled 205 texts that reference Jesus dating from pre 70 AD to 200-250 AD

The previous segment left off with an Atheist asking for better proof than my personally chronicled 205 references to Jesus within two centuries after His death and resurrection. I asked what they would consider better proof and a Jewish person replied. The reply was not an elucidation as that which would count as better proof but a rabbit trial. So now, here is my reply to the comment (which you can find within part 1):

Friend, I am afraid that you are repeating Rabbinic Judaism’s talking points which are based on Rabbinic polemics and not the Tanakh.
It could take a long time to get detailed on this but here are some bullet points:

1) Agreed and not problematic: “Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish world, one who by his own word, upheld Torah law and declared that it was in effect to the end of time.”

2) Torah tells us that God is one even whilst employing a term which denotes a unite plurality. In fact, when Maimonides [aka Rabbi Moses ben Maimon aka the Rambam] wrote his principles he quoted the Shema and changed the key term in order to force it to refer to mean that God is one and indivisible. Yet, in any case, Christian theology is premised upon the unalterable view that God is one, there is only one God: monotheism.

3) God refers to His people as his children, His offspring.

4) Torah forbids human sacrifice: not sure why you mention this but indeed, agreed. Just in case, Jesus was not a human sacrifice but a God sacrifice. That is to say that human beings did not offer Jesus to God as a human sacrifice, on an altar, etc.

5) It also tells us that every person must atone for their own sins: please consult Ezekiel 4 where Ezekiel is told by God “lie thou upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it; according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have appointed the years of their iniquity to be unto thee a number of days, even three hundred and ninety days; so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; forty days, each day for a year.”
Also consult Isaiah 53 which states that “Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; Whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed…And the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all…For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due…it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease…their iniquities he did bear…he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

6) If you really believe that there are dozens of stories from the pagan world of a god and mortal woman producing a sacrificial man, etc. please provide citations to primary source material ONLY as such claims proposed by very, very recent pop-“researchers” fall short. Moreover, that is a logically fallacious claim which discredits A by claiming that it is like B.

7) The Jesus story in the NT come from Judaism as Jesus was a Jews, His 12 Apostles were Jewish, His first 70 disciples were Jewish and they based their claims on the Jewish scripture and thus appealed to Jewish prophets.

As I will ultimately conclude, I am quite sad to have this person pegged from the onset with regards to them repeating Rabbinic Judaism’s talking points which are based on Rabbinic polemics and not the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament).
Sad because they have been misinformed and they merely repeat the misinformation. For example, they reply to Isaiah 53 by merely copying and pasting a polemicist which denotes that they are not aware of how to handle the text themselves—which is why they reach for a canned response in the first place.

The Jewish person, lorasinger, replied thusly:

True. Jesus was a Jew and would have remained so to his death – 30 years BEFORE Paul invented the man god. There was no Christianity during his lifetime or even for years afterward, as attested to by Josephus. His apostles remained practicing Jews under James – the “party of the circumcised” which indicating they remained faithful to Torah Law.
Their later followers were Ebionites who also remained faithful to Torah law. Certainly they based their claims on Jewish scripture – That was the only show in town. The gospels didn’t come along until after Paul’s writings which first made their appearance after 70 AD. Paul’s gentile followers documented whatever legend was drifting about 40-80 years after the fact.

The Christian understanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed tobe a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin. But Jews are taught that no one can die for the sins of another.
In Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses tries to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of the people. To be written out of God’s book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. God’s response was “No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:”

Re: Isaiah 53. Mistranslated and misinterpretation:
QUOTED FROM OUTREACH JUDAISM:
Isaiah 53:8 in the Christian bible reads “…for the transgression of my people he was stricken.”
Is this the correct translation from the Hebrew bible? No. The correct translation of Isaiah 53:8 (from the Hebrew bible) is: “as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted.” The correct translation is THEY, not He! This Hebrew word for “they” appears over 40 times in the Hebrew bible – always translated as “they”!
There is one part of the Tanakh that many Christians use to ‘prove’ that Jesus is mentioned/referenced, it is this!
The problem is that, again, they are not only mistranslating but also misinterpreting it. Isaiah 53 actually starts with Chapter 52:13. In Hebrew, the scripture portions are divided by “stumas.” A space of several letters can be found at the closing of a passage before the next passage begins.
This can ***only*** be found in a Hebrew Bible. A Torah scribe has to strictly follow these rules. By reading the passage in its entirety, you learn that God is speaking to his servant and that the servant shall prosper and be exalted and be very high (Isaiah 52:13).
And who is the ’suffering servant’? Christianity claims it is Jesus. But in fact, it is Israel, as clearly shown in Isaiah 41:8 & 44:1-2 & 45:4. Another example is this:
Isaiah 53:10 − The Hebrew Tanakh says “And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.”
But the KJV says:: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he had put him to grief: when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand”….
It’s not about Jesus.

Here is my reply:

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of the article and my comments. Yet, friend, you proved my point about how you are repeating Rabbinic Judaism’s talking points which are based on Rabbinic polemics and not the Tanakh, i.e. Outreach Judaism which exists to promulgate such talking points.

That Jesus gave Himself as vicarious atonement for sin does not correlate to a human sacrifice offered to God by humans on an altar, etc.

I am sure that you know very well that several covenants are outlined within the Tanakh and that Jewish tradition is full of speculations about, for example, the Messiah ben Joseph suffering and dying for the sins of others. They also speculated about the Messiah ben David due to seeking to put together that which they saw within the Tanakh.

If you just want to copy and paste from Outreach Judaism then I will direct you to research done by myself about Isaiah 53 both the text and the many, many, many rabbis who understood that it was about the Messiah. Outreach Judaism disregards these facts because their aim is polemics: to talk Jews into believing things that are not true, they pick one out of many options and tell you “We Jews have always believed ___________ (fill in the blank).”

Consider the classic example of Rashi [Rabbi Shlomo ben Isaac or Itzhtaki] who admits to know ancient interpretive tradition but that it is better to change the ancient sage’s interpretation for the sole reason to seek to refute the minim/sectarians/Christians, “Our masters apply this passage [Psalm 21] to the Messiah; but in order to refute the Minim, it is better to apply it to David.”

Also, by the way, I quoted to you from the JPS [Jewish Publication Society].

I actually ended the comment by referring them to a very detailed study I did on Isaiah 53. In fact, I did one study which complied the interpretation of the text by very many Rabbis and Jewish scholars and another on a consideration of the text itself:
The Suffering Servant According to Isaiah
The Suffering of the Servant
These will definitively prove that Outreach Judaism’s views contradicting Jewish scholarship and the text itself. In the next segment, lorasinger will seek to defend Outreach Judaism and continue all but parroting insubstantial talking points.