The Pulling the Thread Podcast

Jesus the Jew within Judaism – Tracing Jesus Beyond Christianity – A Jewish Reclamation of Jesus!

The Resurrection & Ascencion are not in the Oldest Manuscripts

The resurrection and ascension accounts were also not in the oldest manuscripts and are later additions.

Here is a list of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts that do not refer to Jesus’ resurrection:

P52 (3rd century): This manuscript contains fragments of the Gospel of John, but does not include any mention of Jesus’ resurrection.

P66 (3rd century): This manuscript contains most of the Gospel of John, but does not include any mention of Jesus’ resurrection.

P75 (3rd century): This manuscript contains most of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John, but does not include any mention of Jesus’ resurrection.

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century): This manuscript contains the entire New Testament, does not include any mention of Jesus’ resurrection because the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is missing. This ending is widely considered to be a later addition.

Codex Vaticanus (4th century): This manuscript contains the entire New Testament, does not include any mention of Jesus’ resurrection because the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is missing. This ending is widely considered to be a later addition.

It is important to note that the manuscripts listed above are some of the most important and well-preserved manuscripts from the early centuries of Christianity.

The fact that these manuscripts do not refer to Jesus’ resurrection suggests that this belief may not have been universally held by early Christians. The evidence that does exist suggests that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was not held by early Christians.

Regarding the ascension of Jesus at the beginning of Acts this is also not in the earliest manuscripts.

Here is a list of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts that do not refer to Jesus’ ascension in Acts:

P52 (3rd century): This manuscript contains fragments of Acts, but does not include any mention of Jesus’ ascension.

P66 (3rd century): This manuscript contains most of Acts, but does not include any mention of Jesus’ ascension.

P75 (3rd century): This manuscript contains most of Acts, but does not include any mention of Jesus’ ascension.

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century): This manuscript contains the entire New Testament, does not include any mention of Jesus’ ascension but the ending of Acts (Acts 28:31) is missing. This ending is widely considered to be a later addition.

Codex Vaticanus (4th century): This manuscript contains the entire New Testament, does not include any mention of Jesus’ ascension but the ending of Acts (Acts 28:31) is missing. This ending is widely considered to be a later addition.

The fact that they do not include Acts 1:1–9 suggests that this passage may not have been part of the original text of Acts.

There are a few possible explanations for this. One possibility is that Acts 1:1–9 was added to the text of Acts at a later date.

The fact that they do not include this passage suggests that there may have been some variation in the text of Acts in the early centuries of Christianity.

The fact that these manuscripts do not refer to Jesus’ ascension suggests that this belief may not have been universally held by early Christians. The evidence that does exist suggests that the belief in Jesus’ ascension was not held by early Christians.

In addition to the above manuscripts, there are also a number of early Christian writers who do not mention Jesus’ ascension. For example, the Didache, which is an early Christian text that was written in the 1st or 2nd century, does not mention Jesus’ ascension. Additionally, the Epistle of Barnabas, which is another early Christian text that was written in the 1st or 2nd century, does not mention Jesus’ ascension.

The fact that these early Christian writers do not mention Jesus’ ascension suggests that this belief may not have been universally held by early Christians and then evidence that does exist suggests that the belief in Jesus’ ascension was not held by early Christians.

Textual criticism is important shows us that the New Testament has a 50-80% error rate in the manuscripts. There are estimated 300,000 to 500,000 textual variants (errors) between the 5,800 manuscripts. Which isn’t good. Scholars consider the new testament historically inaccurate.

Posted by:

That Kick Ass Dad

I’m “That Kick Ass Dad!” I’m a Single Dad, Martial Artist (JKD/Kali/Silat/JuJitsu Instructor) @CaliCombatSystems, Actor, Rapper @ Podcaster

Leave a comment

Podcast available on Spotify, Stitcher, Pandora, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, Audible, TuneIn, iHeartRadio, Deezer, Radio Public, Cast Box, and many more…

About The Pulling the Thread Podcast

Pulling the Thread is a captivating podcast that delves into a plethora of thought-provoking topics. With its engaging episodes and insightful discussions, it offers a fresh perspective on various subjects, serving as a valuable source of inspiration and knowledge. Whether you’re a seasoned podcast enthusiast or a curious newcomer, Pulling the Thread guarantees to captivate your mind and keep you coming back for more. So, gear up and embark on an intellectual journey with this exceptional podcast!

The Pulling the Threads Podcast’s primary objective is to study and analyze Jesus within his Jewish context through the lens of Judaism before Christianity. Our primary objective is to study and analyze Jesus within his Jewish context, specifically from a pre-Christianity perspective. Seeking a Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, relying on Jewish and secular biblical scholars who specialize in Second Temple Judaism, the Qumran community, the Parting of Ways around 90 CE, the Historical Jesus, and Textual Criticism. Some notable scholars mentioned include Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby, Alan Segal, Carol Harris-Shapiro, Lawrence Kushner, Samuel Sandmel, Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, Robert Eisenman, Paula Frederiksen, and Hugh Schonfield.

The site aims to approach the New Testament using the historical-critical method and textual criticism within the realm of secular Jewish scholarship, reflecting the perspectives of mainstream Judaism today. Engaging in scholarly and polemical discussions, the group seeks to question and challenge established Christian doctrines. The main goal is to establish an independent Jewish understanding of Jesus, emphasizing his significance within a Jewish context and distancing him from centuries of Christian interpretations. Furthermore, the group aims to conduct a comprehensive historical examination of Jesus, employing textual criticism to counter Christianity’s claims regarding the New Testament. The focus is on understanding Jesus within Judaism based on the Torah and Talmud.

This is about Jewish and Secular Scholarship into the New Testament using the Historical Critical method and Textual Criticism within Jewish scholarship. For us Jews, the Tanakh and Talmud inform our view of scripture. In the modern age, as Jews, we struggle with texts with an academic approach. The site is pro-Tanakh and will explore history, archaeology, and textual criticism to comprehend the development of the Jesus movement before the parting of ways with Judaism. It aims to emphasize that Jesus and his followers were seen as Jewish and part of Judaism, and that the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism by the community of James and Peter continued, with some Jewish followers remaining distinctly Jewish for centuries. It is important to note that this is not a study of Jewish-Christians, but rather an examination of Jews who followed Jesus within Judaism before the emergence of Christianity. Anti-Judaism is not welcome in this group, which focuses on Jewish perspectives within an academic framework.

This is an attempt to work out the Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, trying to understand him within Judaism before Christianity existed. The group’s objective is to understand Jesus within Judaism before the influence of Christian perspectives during the historical Jesus movement. It seeks to reclaim Jesus within Judaism, separate from Christianity, Messianic, or Hebrew Roots movements. The study incorporates textual criticism, historical Jesus research, and Jewish scholarship into the New Testament to assert the following beliefs:

  • The New Testament lacks historical accuracy.
  • The New Testament is not divinely inspired.
  • The New Testament has not been divinely preserved.
  • The New Testament was written by individuals decades and even millennia after the events it portrays.
  • Original autographs of the New Testament do not exist.
  • Consequently, the New Testament is not the most reliable source for understanding the historical Jesus as a Jewish figure.
  • To ascertain historical accuracy, we rely on modern Jewish and secular scholarship and engage in historical reconstruction.
  • Through textual criticism, we strive to identify the potentially most authentic sayings of Jesus, following the Q hypothesis in relation to the synoptic gospels.
  • The New Testament bears the influence of Roman culture and language, making it a non-Jewish text with glimpses of Jewish source material.
  • Greco-Roman influences, including Hellenistic, Stoic, Gnostic, and paganistic elements (e.g., Zoroastrianism) and the Roman imperial cult, have shaped New Testament ideas of salvation and hell in a manner contrary to Jewish tradition, resulting in a narrative distinct from the Jewish religion.
  • Both Jewish and secular scholarship acknowledge approximately 500,000 textual errors among the 5,800 New Testament manuscripts. These variations include theological revisions that were added by later editors and were not believed by the original followers.
  • The seven most authentic epistles of Paul were written prior to the gospels, with the gospels reflecting the addition of Pauline theology.
  • Jesus might have been an actual person, with the only point of agreement among Jewish scholars being that he was baptized by John for the repentance of sins and was crucified.
  • Jewish scholars concur that Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not resurrected, is not a savior, may be considered a false prophet, and failed as the Messiah.
  • Judaism represents the religion of Jesus, while Christianity is a religion centered around Jesus.
  • The term “Jewish-Christian,” used to describe the early understanding of Jesus in Judaism, is a misnomer.

Understanding Jesus within Judaism can aid us in grappling with a culture in which Christianity has altered the Jewish message. Given the history of crusades, pogroms, the Holocaust, and inquisitions that have harmed the Jewish people, recognizing Jesus within a Jewish context becomes crucial.

The Catholic Church, in Nostra Aetate, ceased evangelizing Jews and acknowledged them as a covenant people within Judaism. In response, Jewish scholars released Dibre Emet, recognizing the place of Righteous Gentiles, including the offspring of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in Olam HaBa (the world to come). While agreement may not be necessary, it is important to foster understanding and coexistence.

Recent Posts

Newsletter