Steefen said
Second, the video increases the possibilities that Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and James were ethnically mixed.
A flawed argument cannot affect the possibilities that Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Mary Magdalene and James were ethnically mixed, no matter the confidence with which the flawed argument is presented.
Google’s AI Overview:
- Assyrian Invasion: Tiglath-Pileser III invaded the Levant, targeting Israel and its allies, Aram-Damascus.
- Fall of Galilee: Northern Israel, particularly Galilee, suffered heavily, with populations exiled to Assyria, never to return as a distinct group.
- Territorial Loss: Israel was divided, with the northern parts becoming the Assyrian province of Megiddo.
- Vassalization: The southern part of Israel became a vassal state, paying tribute to Assyria, similar to Judah.
- Prophetic Fulfillment: These events confirmed the dire warnings of prophets like Amos, as Israel’s weakened state vindicated their messages of impending doom.
- Foundation for Final Fall: This campaign significantly reduced Israel’s strength, paving the way for its complete conquest and absorption by the Assyrian Empire by 722 BC, resulting in the famous “Ten Lost Tribes”.
Given a statement that can easily be read as “this is not our different interpretations of the law, this is per your interpretation of the law”, insisting on reading it as “this is from the law of you Jews as opposed to a Gentile like me” against all available direct attestations and with no clear supporting attestations seems like a strained reading in support of a desired conclusion.
BJH1960 said
Steefen, please answer the following:
Question 1: Is it your view that the Jewish bureaucracy tapped the Jewish disciple to betray the Gentile Jesus?
Question 2: Do you think the Gospel of John presents us with a Jewish Jesus (e.g. John 4) and a non-Jewish Jesus (e.g. John 10)? If so, why?
Question 1 – Why are you repeating this question? Judas was Judean.
Question 2 – Why are you repeating this question? Yes. Due to prejudice, Jesus was not considered orthodox Temple Jew by the orthodoxy but he practiced Judaism.
Bruce:
Given a statement that can easily be read as “this is not our different interpretations of the law, this is per your interpretation of the law”, insisting on reading it as “this is from the law of you Jews as opposed to a Gentile like me” against all available direct attestations and with no clear supporting attestations seems like a strained reading in support of a desired conclusion.
Steefen:
The verse says your law not our law. That is not strained reading what’s there.
Question 1 – Why are you repeating this question? Judas was Judean.
Question 2 – Why are you repeating this question? Yes. Due to prejudice, Jesus was not considered orthodox Temple Jew by the orthodoxy but he practiced Judaism.
Why are you so impatient with someone merely trying to clarify what your position is? Could it be that you really do not wish to converse with any of us, seeing we are so hard of understanding, but only pontificate your all-encompassing insight?
What happened to ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps, instead of telling us repeatedly that Jesus was not Jewish, it would have been better if you had said that Jesus was Jewish, but not considered to be Jewish by some?
In question 1, there was a Jewish bureaucracy, a Jewish disciple (Judas), and a Gentile Jesus. Your answer tells me Judas was Judean. If I understand what you are saying now, you don’t believe Jesus was a Gentile. Is that correct?
In question 2, you answered yes for some reason. Do you consider Jesus to be non-Jewish despite the fact that he practiced Judaism?
And please, for a pleasant 2026 surprise, might it be possible for you to begin to answer questions without being so condescending?
Steefen said
Bruce:
Given a statement that can easily be read as “this is not our different interpretations of the law, this is per your interpretation of the law”, insisting on reading it as “this is from the law of you Jews as opposed to a Gentile like me” against all available direct attestations and with no clear supporting attestations seems like a strained reading in support of a desired conclusion.
Steefen:
The verse says your law not our law. That is not strained reading what’s there.
It’s the inference you are drawing from it that is the strained reading.
BJH,
Many times I have said Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
Everyone knows the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are problematic.
Those are but only two sentences why I am satisfied on this topic and do not need to discuss it further.
You have no common sense: there is no rule that I have to babysit you. I have answered your questions more than once.
That is pestering. That is applying duress.
Your questions are not valuable to me or to St. Paul. Being an observant Jew is not salvation.
Jesus’ criticism of Temple Judaism and the Exodus makes him non-Jewish and opened the door to St. Paul. The Parable oi the Wicket Tenants also tells us that the owner of the Vineyard adopted non-Jews.
Third, Jesus was a Galilean who read Jewish scripture but also turned over tables in the Temple. If he was so Jewish he would have respected why the moneychangers had been there for at least more than 10 years and would be there for at least 15 more years.
Fourth, Galilee has a history and that history I already discussed–the diversity of Galilee.
Fifth, Jesus’ legacy did not touch the history of Jesus of Galilee who lost the Battle of Galilee during the Jewish Revolt.
= = = = =
Bruce, the root cause is not my interpretation but the wording in Gospel of John. Jesus distances himself from others with your law vs our law. I’m not straining anything. Project your criticism to the author of Gospel of John.
Steefen said:
Many times I have said Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction.
Everyone knows the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are problematic.
Those are but only two sentences why I am satisfied on this topic and do not need to discuss it further.
You have no common sense: there is no rule that I have to babysit you. I have answered your questions more than once.
That is pestering. That is applying duress.
As expected, no 2026 surprise – more condescension!
Of course, you’re satisfied – are you ever not?
And, of course, you don’t feel the need to discuss it further – why would you?
The Readers Forum is supposed to be a place where one welcomes ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Since in your eyes I don’t possess common sense and need to be babysat, you probably don’t wish to hear my thoughts on what you wrote afterwards. But perhaps you might be interested in hearing from AI? I asked them to succinctly summarize how well reasoned it was, and this was the response:
Poorly reasoned. Confuses internal religious criticism with rejection of Jewish identity (prophets criticized Temple practices while remaining Jewish), relies on flawed logic (longevity doesn’t validate practices), misreads parables through later theology, and offers vague historical claims without clear connection to conclusions.
Steefen said
Bruce, the root cause is not my interpretation but the wording in Gospel of John. Jesus distances himself from others with your law vs our law. I’m not straining anything. Project your criticism to the author of Gospel of John.
The straining is the false dichotomy fallacy that any distancing at all must be total distancing.
I am not going to criticize the author of John for not somehow protecting his composition from determined efforts to ignore the clear sense of a phrase in the context in which it is found. No author can protect their composition from that kind of determination to pull things out of context and twist them out of recognition.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)