Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[YoursTrue]

First of all, Hebrews was not written by Paul. Too many strikes against it. It was a very long time before anyone thought it was written by Paul.

But even independent of that, there are many rules in Judaism about atonement for various kinds of sin, mostly from Leviticus. Not many of them involve blood. Now none of the them do because the only allowable place for that was the Temple which is gone. Yom Kippur was a blood sacrifice since it involved forgiveness of sins against God. Obviously a very serious matter. But for that forgiveness to be given to an individual it was/is necessary for sins against other people. Each individual must ask for and receive forgiveness for sins against any other from the wronged person. And this must be done before Yom Kippur if one wants to be written in the book of life for another year. Not literally, but spiritual life after death.

Although a blood sacrifice, Yom Kippur is not about any kind of group atonement as Christians often think. And neither is it the sacrifice that Paul talks about. The Passover sacrifice is about celebrating the freedom from slavery because of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt from which Israelites were protected by marking their door lintels with the blood of sacrificed lambs and by implication the receiving of the Law from God that would soon happen. However, that event itself is Simchat Torah, months later.

The correct Greek word for ‘atonement’ does not appear in the any of the Pauline epistles. The KJV, not known for the best word choice, uses ‘atonement’ only once, but mostly uses the correct word ‘reconciliation’. Trained Pharisee that Paul was, he would never make the mistake.

I'm not going to get into who wrote Hebrews now. I believe it was Paul. On the other hand, since you said it was a very long time before anyone thought it was written by Paul, can you substantiate that allegation?

 

[YoursTrue]

Matthew says that the entirety of the Written Law would be in full force until heaven and earth pass away. If that happened almost two thousand years ago, I missed the memo. And do not try to tell me it is a Jewish expression that means ‘in a few months now’. It is not. It is a reference to Isaiah describing the end of the world. And in that context ‘until all is accomplished’ is very clearly a reference to that same end of days scenario as Matthew describes in the Olivet Discourse. Is the Jewish audience in Mathew going to get this in any other way?

I find it more than a coincidence that Mark writes a story about the destruction of the Temple, yet in referring to 1 Corinthians as part of his overall story, he messes up by sticking together three parts and coming up with that impossible trial on the first of Passover. Recall also that the other two storytellers add disclaimers to the timeframe of Mark that actually violate Mark’s original timeframe, yet keep it in place..

The end of the world. (Do you believe it? And what does rthe "end of the world" mean to you?)
Just so the response is somewhat cohesive, I must say that again, although it was late while you were writing it, the second paragraph does not make sense, since these are vague allegations with no substantial evidence to back up what you're saying.

 

[Miken]

I'm not going to get into who wrote Hebrews now. I believe it was Paul. On the other hand, since you said it was a very long time before anyone thought it was written by Paul, can you substantiate that allegation?

In the 3rd century Origen wrote:

In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.’

Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters.

Eusebius Church History
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews with the others. And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle.

Eusebius Church History
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


“In the 4th century, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo supported Paul's authorship: the Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and affirmed this authorship
…
Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors. antiquity, certain circles began to ascribe it to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an explicit apostolic pedigree. “
Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

 

[Miken]

The end of the world. (Do you believe it? And what does rthe "end of the world" mean to you?)
Just so the response is somewhat cohesive, I must say that again, although it was late while you were writing it, the second paragraph does not make sense, since these are vague allegations with no substantial evidence to back up what you're saying.

The end of the world as it would have meant to the Synoptic Gospel writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke) would have meant this:

Mark 13
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Concerning Mark messing up

“I find it more than a coincidence that Mark writes a story about the destruction of the Temple, yet in referring to 1 Corinthians as part of his overall story, he messes up by sticking together three parts and coming up with that impossible trial on the first of Passover. Recall also that the other two storytellers add disclaimers to the timeframe of Mark that actually violate Mark’s original timeframe, yet keep it in place.”

My points were (1) That Mark invented parts of his story (2) That Mark wrote after Paul.

The Last Supper narrative in Mark can be seen to have its roots in 1 Corinthians. Paul speaks of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Combined with

1 Corinthians 5
7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover (lamb), has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

With

Mark 14
14 and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.” 16 And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

17 And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18 And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” 19 They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” 20 He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Paul had said in 1 Cor 11:23 that this would take place on the night Jesus was betrayed. But when Mark makes all of this into a Passover Seder, that means that the betrayal happens on Passover night. And that means that a trial involving the chief priests and the whole council and a bunch of witnesses was planned for the first night of Passover! This would simply never ever happen. A trial cannot be planned for night, a capital trial requires advance notice and it’s Passover when work of this sort is forbidden.

This could not ever happen. Mark took Paul’s pieces and put them together into an impossible tale. Which means that contrary to prior claims, the Gospels were written after Paul, not before. And it means that Mark invents things. That prophecy about the Temple that the other Synoptic writers need to stretch out the timeframe to keep credible (John drops it entirely) is invention.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the 3rd century Origen wrote:

In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.’

Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters.

Eusebius Church History
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews with the others. And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle.

Eusebius Church History
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


“In the 4th century, Jerome and Augustine of Hippo supported Paul's authorship: the Church largely agreed to include Hebrews as the fourteenth letter of Paul, and affirmed this authorship
…
Because of its anonymity, it had some trouble being accepted as part of the Christian canon, being classed with the Antilegomena. Eventually it was accepted as scripture because of its sound theology, eloquent presentation, and other intrinsic factors. antiquity, certain circles began to ascribe it to Paul in an attempt to provide the anonymous work an explicit apostolic pedigree. “
Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

While I appreciate your diligence in researching this and presenting the opinions, and I thank you for it, it does not convince me that Paul did not write the letter to the Hebrews. Nevertheless, whether Paul wrote it or not, it is a fine testimony to Christians and about Christianity. Furthermore, the commentaries bolster the application that Christianity existed, that Paul existed, and that Christ existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

The end of the world as it would have meant to the Synoptic Gospel writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke) would have meant this:

Mark 13
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.


Concerning Mark messing up

OK, what you are saying shows me that because different writers wrote the gospels, they related what they saw and remembered in different ways. Sometimes I tell a story which happened and I don't relate it word-for-word, but the essence and general gist is there. Many realize that the expressions Jesus used are figurative, such as powers in the heavens shaken, gathering the elect from the four winds, and so forth. And of course, those who want to understand these things may have different concepts. But if one believes, then he also believes Jesus and the holy spirit lead the way.

You wrote many other points which I respect, but I can really only handle one or two points at a time, so, if I don't get side-tracked, I'd like to go over some of your other points at a later time.

 

[YoursTrue]

The end of the world as it would have meant to the Synoptic Gospel writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke) would have meant this:

Mark 13
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Concerning Mark messing up

“I find it more than a coincidence that Mark writes a story about the destruction of the Temple, yet in referring to 1 Corinthians as part of his overall story, he messes up by sticking together three parts and coming up with that impossible trial on the first of Passover. Recall also that the other two storytellers add disclaimers to the timeframe of Mark that actually violate Mark’s original timeframe, yet keep it in place.”

My points were (1) That Mark invented parts of his story (2) That Mark wrote after Paul.

The Last Supper narrative in Mark can be seen to have its roots in 1 Corinthians. Paul speaks of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

1 Corinthians 11
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Combined with

1 Corinthians 5
7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover (lamb), has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

With

Mark 14
14 and wherever he enters, say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says, Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us.” 16 And the disciples set out and went to the city and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.

17 And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18 And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” 19 They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” 20 He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Paul had said in 1 Cor 11:23 that this would take place on the night Jesus was betrayed. But when Mark makes all of this into a Passover Seder, that means that the betrayal happens on Passover night. And that means that a trial involving the chief priests and the whole council and a bunch of witnesses was planned for the first night of Passover! This would simply never ever happen. A trial cannot be planned for night, a capital trial requires advance notice and it’s Passover when work of this sort is forbidden.

This could not ever happen. Mark took Paul’s pieces and put them together into an impossible tale. Which means that contrary to prior claims, the Gospels were written after Paul, not before. And it means that Mark invents things. That prophecy about the Temple that the other Synoptic writers need to stretch out the timeframe to keep credible (John drops it entirely) is invention.

Upon another reading of this, the time frame of the actual writing (whether Mark was written before or after Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians) is not important, since the time frame of events is expressed in Mark, I haven't researched the consensus of the dating of Mark's gospel writing. Furthermore, there very, very well must have been a good reason for the Sanhedrin to meet in the middle of the night. And at that time. Most of the religious leaders wanted to get Jesus. He knew his time was limited. The Sanhedrin must have had to do a cloak and dagger approach, rapidly to put him on trial before Pilate.

 

[Miken]

Upon another reading of this, the time frame of the actual writing (whether Mark was written before or after Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians) is not important, since the time frame of events is expressed in Mark, I haven't researched the consensus of the dating of Mark's gospel writing. Furthermore, there very, very well must have been a good reason for the Sanhedrin to meet in the middle of the night. And at that time. Most of the religious leaders wanted to get Jesus. He knew his time was limited. The Sanhedrin must have had to do a cloak and dagger approach, rapidly to put him on trial before Pilate.

The Sanhedrin scheduling a meeting for the first night of Passover is flatly impossible. There is no way around that,

 

[YoursTrue]

The Sanhedrin scheduling a meeting for the first night of Passover is flatly impossible. There is no way around that,

They did it in the middle of the night. That it was illegal to have a meeting on that night did not deter them. The Sanhedrin evidently had a hall at the Temple, but they did not meet there that night. They met at the home of Caiaphas, the high priest.

 

[Miken]

While I appreciate your diligence in researching this and presenting the opinions, and I thank you for it, it does not convince me that Paul did not write the letter to the Hebrews. Nevertheless, whether Paul wrote it or not, it is a fine testimony to Christians and about Christianity. Furthermore, the commentaries bolster the application that Christianity existed, that Paul existed, and that Christ existed.

Of course Christianity existed, Suetonius talks about it in phrases that are straight out of the Gospel of Luke. Tacitus refers to Christians (spelled that way). In the early 2nd century Pliny the Younger refers to earlier persecutions of Christians and how he should proceed.

And I have argued for the historical existence of Jesus, But not any kind of supernatural Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, Hebrews was not written by Paul. Too many strikes against it. It was a very long time before anyone thought it was written by Paul.

But even independent of that, there are many rules in Judaism about atonement for various kinds of sin, mostly from Leviticus. Not many of them involve blood. Now none of the them do because the only allowable place for that was the Temple which is gone. Yom Kippur was a blood sacrifice since it involved forgiveness of sins against God. Obviously a very serious matter. But for that forgiveness to be given to an individual it was/is necessary for sins against other people. Each individual must ask for and receive forgiveness for sins against any other from the wronged person. And this must be done before Yom Kippur if one wants to be written in the book of life for another year. Not literally, but spiritual life after death.

Although a blood sacrifice, Yom Kippur is not about any kind of group atonement as Christians often think. And neither is it the sacrifice that Paul talks about. The Passover sacrifice is about celebrating the freedom from slavery because of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt from which Israelites were protected by marking their door lintels with the blood of sacrificed lambs and by implication the receiving of the Law from God that would soon happen. However, that event itself is Simchat Torah, months later.

The correct Greek word for ‘atonement’ does not appear in the any of the Pauline epistles. The KJV, not known for the best word choice, uses ‘atonement’ only once, but mostly uses the correct word ‘reconciliation’. Trained Pharisee that Paul was, he would never make the mistake.

As far as "group atonement" on Yom Kippur that you mention, I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Leviticus 16 goes into detail as far as the high priest offering for the sins of the people as well as himself. "No one may be in the Tent of Meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he leaves, after he has made atonement for himself, his household, and the whole assembly of Israel."

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course Christianity existed, Suetonius talks about it in phrases that are straight out of the Gospel of Luke. Tacitus refers to Christians (spelled that way). In the early 2nd century Pliny the Younger refers to earlier persecutions of Christians and how he should proceed.

And I have argued for the historical existence of Jesus, But not any kind of supernatural Jesus.

Do you speak for the supernatural acts of Elijah and Elisha?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course Christianity existed, Suetonius talks about it in phrases that are straight out of the Gospel of Luke. Tacitus refers to Christians (spelled that way). In the early 2nd century Pliny the Younger refers to earlier persecutions of Christians and how he should proceed.

And I have argued for the historical existence of Jesus, But not any kind of supernatural Jesus.

They killed Jesus, the man,.

 

[Miken]

They did it in the middle of the night. That it was illegal to have a meeting on that night did not deter them. The Sanhedrin evidently had a hall at the Temple, but they did not meet there that night. They met at the home of Caiaphas, the high priest.

It is illegal to do any ordinary work (defined precisely in rabbinic writings) on the first day of Passover, beginning at sundown as usual, or any day on which Sabbath rules apply. It is not holding a meeting that is a problem. One goes to synagogue on Passover. Holding a trial that could be and would normally be held on a workday is not allowed. For the high priests to intentionally violate religious laws and render themselves ritually impure ahead of the required duties they must perform when they had a choice of days is inconceivable. For the 70 members of the Sanhedrin to risk being seen violating the law add lose their positions when they had a choice of days is unbelievable. And for the witnesses to be trusted to keep their mouths shut or not to be seen (I saw you sneak out after Seder) is really pushing it when the other people at the trial had a choice of days. And let us not forget that there were servants in the house of the High Priest who seemed to know what was going.

There is simply no way that this scenario ever happened. Please come back with a reason to believe it could happen that is not faith-based.

Keep in mind that John tells a much more credible story that the trial (really just a brief hearing) takes place on the day before Passover and the Last Supper is not a Seder. If you want to believe in the Gospels how do you reconcile that?

 

[Miken]

OK, what you are saying shows me that because different writers wrote the gospels, they related what they saw and remembered in different ways. Sometimes I tell a story which happened and I don't relate it word-for-word, but the essence and general gist is there. Many realize that the expressions Jesus used are figurative, such as powers in the heavens shaken, gathering the elect from the four winds, and so forth. And of course, those who want to understand these things may have different concepts. But if one believes, then he also believes Jesus and the holy spirit lead the way.

You wrote many other points which I respect, but I can really only handle one or two points at a time, so, if I don't get side-tracked, I'd like to go over some of your other points at a later time.

No. what I am saying is that Mark made up a highly detailed story about a Seder where he could implant some really clever imagery, using Paul's previous and less detailed writing. E.g., why does Jesus not drink any more wine? Whether or not it was a Seder is not a question of wording, I am saying that when Mark tied together the several elements from Paul he painted himself into a corner.

 

[Miken]

Do you speak for the supernatural acts of Elijah and Elisha?

2 Kings 2, where Elijah and Elijah part company, can be seen as a really clever tale with a lot below the surface. But not today.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I have argued for the historical existence of Jesus, But not any kind of supernatural Jesus.

The mythicist mantra is more dogma and affectation than anything else. The Epistles, Acts, Josephus, and the notable absence of any early Greek or Jewish mythicist polemic is more than adequate grounds for the presumption of historicity.

 

[Miken]

As far as "group atonement" on Yom Kippur that you mention, I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but Leviticus 16 goes into detail as far as the high priest offering for the sins of the people as well as himself. "No one may be in the Tent of Meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he leaves, after he has made atonement for himself, his household, and the whole assembly of Israel."

The word 'atonement' is used about a gazillion times in Leviticus. They are all different. BTW the word translated as 'atonement'; actually means 'covering up'. The section you referenced is about purifying the holy places of the taint of people's sin. Verses 15-19

The atonement (covering up) of the sins of the people happens after that with the scapegoat

Lev 16
20 “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

But to participate in this covering up of sins against God, one must participate in the Yom Kippur fast and elimination of doing just about anything, instead meditating on your wrongdoings

Lev 16
29 “And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. 30 For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins. 31 It is a Sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute forever. 32 And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments. 33 He shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.” And Aaron did as the Lord commanded Moses.

That is sins against God, Sins against other people must be taken care of by each person.

One who says: I shall sin and repent, sin and repent, they do not afford him the opportunity to repent. [If one says]: I shall sin and Yom HaKippurim will atone for me, Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement. For transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow. This was expounded by Rabbi Elazar b. Azariah: “From all your sins before the Lord you shall be clean” (Leviticus 16:30) for transgressions between man and God Yom HaKippurim effects atonement, but for transgressions between man and his fellow Yom HaKippurim does not effect atonement, until he has pacified his fellow.

Mishnah Yoma 8:9
Mishnah Yoma 8:9

The Mishnah is the written record of the Oral Torah that went beyond the Written Torah.

 

[Miken]

The mythicist mantra is more dogma and affectation than anything else. The Epistles, Acts, Josephus, and the notable absence of any early Greek or Jewish mythicist polemic is more than adequate grounds for the presumption of historicity.

Matthew admitting that there was a story going around among the Jews about the body of Jesus being stolen would be an embarrassment to him. And he comes up with a very oddball story to cover it up. (What exactly what were the soldiers bribed to not say they saw? An angel coming out of the sky? An empty tomb?) Why would Matthew admit that such a stolen body story did exist if in fact no such story was going around? The fact that it was going around shows that there were Jews who believed that there really was a Jesus, although only an ordinary human one.

However, if you are referring to the Testimonium Flavinium, it is clearly a later insertion and I mean the entire paragraph not just words here and there. Take out that paragraph and there is a smooth transition to the next paragraph. Leave it in and the transition to that next paragraph is very awkward. Pilate having a crowd of Jews attacked by soldiers would qualify as a calamity for the Jews. But Jewish Josephus telling his Roman audience, in language straight out of the Gospels, that Jesus was more than a man and then saying that Jesus being executed was a calamity for the Jews does not add up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, if you are referring to the Testimonium Flavinium, ...

Of course not.