Now we are going to respond to Arikm7.messiahtruth on his points.
"I apologize in advance for what appears to be a "tirade"...
Again...Not only is there NO proof that he existed but it's clear that Jesus was not a prophet according to Judaism/Tanach as the age of prophecy (which is NOT fortune-telling) ended with the last of the Prophets, Malachi and the Great Assembly. Again, not one of the prophets ever used the kind of language you find in the NT in addressing the nation or its leaders. Even when the Prophets presented Israel and Judah with some very graphic and illicit imagery, the Prophets stopped short of damning the entire nation! You'll never see/read the type of wanton cursing in Isaiah as you'll find in "Matthew". I mean, to even put the two on the same level is insulting to Israel's great prophets."
Jesus didn't damn every one in the nation, never forget his followers were Jews themselves. This I need not go over again:
Not sure why the fortune telling thing was even brought up though.
"So for Jesus to prattle and blow (or rather his followers for him) as some kind of legitimate prophet, is not only a deception but the ultimate bottom-scraping form of denigration. In fact, the "proof" that Jesus was whatever gospel wants to shade him is predicated upon a complete and purposeful mistranslation, misapplication, molested and maligned use of passages from the Tanach. If the writers of the Nt can't accurately and honestly reproduce verses from the Tanach (since it would totally destroy the raison detre for their being used by the gospel writers), how seriously are we to take this stuff? "
For them to prove Jesus they would have know the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim inside out. In Luke 24 after the resurrection, Jesus is stated to have "opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (referring to his disciples): See my article on Luke 24:44-48: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html
The New Testament writers reaction would have been "Ah, so that's how he fulfilled that prophecy" Was there any purposeful and willful translation on the part of the writers? No and as mentioned before in the previous paper, the resurrection would be a vindication of Jesus' claims as well as how the verses of the TANAKH applies to him. The events of Luke 24 happened after the resurrection and if the resurrection happened, there is no plausible way the disciples could be deceptive, especially since they were significantly changed after the resurrection from cowards to bold men.
"Now we have certain individuals who want buffet-pick what words Jesus may have said and that which he may not have said? "oh jesus could not have cursed the entire nation because that would include himself". Are you serious?? Who makes the determination what goes, what stays and what gets translated and understood how? And what qualifies him to make that decision?? He wants to use the NT to substantiate that Jesus was a historical figure but yet also wants to employ an arbitrary "keep"/"discard" decision of that SAME body of writing (the NT) as to HIS Jesus creation. Then if that weren't enough there's this trying to sell it back to us if not as a bona fide fact, then certainly as an alternative we must consider. Such a tactic is nothing less than an imitation and duplication of the very devices the actual writers of the Gospels have utilized in creating their story and their version of Jesus. And it is nothing short of being intellectually dishonest and simply a diversion/stall tactic to avoid the topic at hand-- that the jesus character for all bluster of his being a torah-observant jew (either by his own claims or by his followers) was NOT. No Torah-observant Jew I know of would use such language. Not when there are sages who had devoted their entire lives to learning, teaching and living the laws against Lashon Hara (the Chofetz Chaim, being one such sage!). If they were to, they would most certainly be called on the carpet. But the Jesus of the NT is a Bet-Din unto himself and answers to NO ONE, which is the ultimate form of a Jew who as they say 'has gone way off the derech (path)"."
Buffet pick Jesus' words? No one who reads the New Testament denies what Jesus said to the Jews but it's false to say we buffet pick when it comes to what he said. The point of contention is what do those words mean. Are they words of hatred, or words that were justified and righteous with no malice at all?
The New Testament is rightly used as a historical account of Jesus Christ but there is no arbitrary keep/discard decision among Christians (biblical not apostates) on what Jesus meant and it certainly did not entail hatred against his own people.
If you want to talk about vile language, there are many individuals among the Jews who have said horrific things about Jesus (especially on Paltalk and no surprise there are individuals in the entertainment industry who have such language or bile), but it's fair to say not all Jews have hatred of Jesus, some are just indifferent.
Galilee and Samaria weren't perfect, there is in John 4 the story of the Samaritan Woman who was involved in many adulterous marriages.
"John 4:16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”"
Jesus also further points out the errors that the woman makes:
"19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”"
Pretty soon in the context, people of many races will to worship YHWH, Jew and Gentile alike and this is brought about by the Jewish people, specifically the Messiah being the one to accomplish this, but where does the Messiah hail from? The Jewish people. Hardly insulting to Jews or Gentiles.
I ask this question. Did Jesus actually reject the Written Torah? or did he actually reject the Oral Traditions the Phariees added? If it was the latter, he did the right thing if there was a tradition that contradicted what Moses said.
"And while we're on the subject of what Jesus may or may not have said: Why is it that you NEVER hear Jesus say anything NEGATIVE of the Roman government, its leaders or its despotic puppet-men? Forget comparing inflective! You never hear anything negative about the Romans. When reading the gospels, one would think that all was well and peaceful along the galilean country side, with benign roman soldiers and their commanders, respectful leaders and god-fearing, genuflecting (to Jesus, that is) rulers. Amazingly, Pilate is painted as some sort of RIGHTEOUS individual wanting to do the right thing but is forced to doing "evil" by those damned Jews! No..it's rainbows and butterflies and tweeting bluebirds for all! Thousands of People congregate on the hillside for a huge open air dissertation (and a free lunch!)---no one is forced to work as servants, no one is enslaved, and certainly no one is being harassed by the "benign" Romans! The enemy of the story is "those damned Jews!". All the while, Rome directly (and via their puppets, the Herods) were butchering men and women with gleeful impunity in Galilee. Only once does Matthew slip up in his Idyllic Galilee presentation when he inadvertently has Jesus mention about Judah of Galilee. Of course, he's quick to move on lest the obvious question would be "well, what happened to him regarding that tower?""
I have written an article on Pontius Pilate here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/pontius-pilate-righteous-man.html
What the Romans were doing to the Jews was inconsequential to the point that the New Testament writers were making. No where is Pontius Pilate painted as a righteous man.
When the Messianic Drew was still around as a Messianic Jew said this to me:
"Pilate was the typical politician. He played both sides against each other. To Jesus, he acted like he was a friend trying to release him. To the Jewish nationalist crowds, he kept holding back on their request until they swore loyalty to Caesar and Rome."
Tony Griffin also mentioned the following:
"Actually the text teaches that he was trying to pacify the Jewish leadership because he was afraid of a revolt and history teaches that another revolt or insurrection would cost him his life and possibly his job as well because he had already been warned by Ceasar to crush any revolts because there were so many issues going on in Palestine. Pilate because he was having trouble crushing all the revolts that had been going on had been warned by Cesar already . He thought that by crucifying Christ he was doing the Jewish leadership a favor because they themselves would've stopped a revolt if he agreed to condemn Jesus. Pilate condemned Jesus and there was no revolt ."
The New Testament doesn't paint all is well in Galilee. Here is the context for the tower that was mentioned:
"13 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”"
Jesus is making the point "What difference does it make to the severity of their wickedness, they must all repent of their evil deeds regardless. How serious it is inconsequential" This ties into a later point.
"You'll never see Jesus spouting off against the Romans who actually killed his countrymen (and later his followers---as a "prophet", you'd think he'd know his followers' fate!), crucified thousands, butchered, raped and pillaged villages and enslaved countless Jews. No, no. You'll never hear Jesus use the kind of language against them as you will hear him churn against the Jews. Of course, we know it's not Jesus but the writers of the gospels themselves, but still...it's attributed to Jesus."
As Jesus mentioned, it doesn't make a difference how wicked someone is, Jew and Gentile alike must repent of their evil ways.
No Jesus doesn't address the atrocities of the Romans, I think it would have been a given how wicked the Romans are but his language towards his kinsmen can be seen as "You should know better, you are God's light to the nations." Again, what the Romans did was not relevant to the point of the New Testament writers.
"Jesus and his followers are to Judaism and Jewish History as crude oil to pure water.
As such, it's almost a nonsensical and a complete pointless endeavor to try to put Jesus (and by extension, the NT) to the test of what the Torah's injunctions are. We KNOW every single passage, page and parcel of the NT is diametrically opposed to anything the Torah has to say on an issue. As such, we don't need to apologize for the conclusions drawn when we compare what the NT said vs. the Mitzvot involving Leaders.
Trying to make the Jesus character "kosher" for the utterly putrid bile that spews from his alleged mouth onto the pages of the Gospels and Revelation is really, really, REALLY reaching and a suspension of reality (not to mention reading and comprehension skills). Wrapping the argument in suppositions and "what if's" is just that.. a futile diversion from what the black and white texts state."
Already pointed out how Jesus was not guilty of "bile" and pointing at that Jesus is not a wicked transgressor does not arise from a suspension of reality or reading and comprehension skills, it stems from reading Jesus' words in context and interpreting them correctly.
I point out again that Jesus was perfectly justified in what he did and did not violate Exodus 22:28.