My point is that if they wanted to make this Jesus Christ, they really sucked at making any details correct, and if they were trying to make anti-Christian propoganda here, I don't see how this would have been effective

Do you really think the people who wrote the Talmud had any actual details about these things? Do you think they care about those that they are trying to slander?

This is so effective that they had to censor it

But if they are trying to slander Jesus here, then why did they do it in this manner? No lay-Jew would have known to associate this with Jesus Christ, especially when they change almost everything about him

Many of the parts about "totally not Jesus" in the Talmud are censored. What a coincidence

They directly mention his name, that he was a sorcerer, who had followers, led israel to apostasy and is now burning in excrement along with other great enemies of israel

Who do you think jews teach Jesus was?

They say he was an evil heretic

I'm well aware the Jews suck man

Oy vey goy it's totally another Jesus, we are Jews for Jesus.

The sorcerer who claimed to be God, led others to apostasy, and was rightfully executed in the eve of Passover

And that is what you find in the Talmud

Do they also teach he was a guy that lived in 70BC killed under the Hasmonean Dynasty?

I do not read that anywhere

What are you guys arguing about?

Dude

I just told you the reference

But that is like saying that Jesus isn't referenced by Muhammed because the Jesus he references is the son of the sister of Moses

Sanhedrin 43

And I found nothing

But as I said, details about the date were probably unknown and irrelevant to those who wrote, long afterwards, about Jesus

Isn't there the part where it's stated that Jesus the son of Mary boils in hell in a pool of semen and feces? like, even if you could "refute" the other "Totally not Jesus" parts, i think it's clear there is something against the Christ we preach there, and if there is i would not have any reason why i should not connect the dots that it's not just any Yeshu, but rather one that has a clear connection and it's specified to be oddly similar to our Jesus.

In thatpart, he is not mentioned as the son of Mary, just as some Yeshu that was an enemy of israel and is burning in excrement

the name was censored of course

But the oldest copies still have it

Frick, forgot you don't know Hebrew

Malkud is translated as government here

That makes the point even stronger since, why would they censor if those if it's totally another Jesus.

That term specifically refers to the royal government, which was the government in the Hasmonean Dynasty

Misrah is the general term for government

That is a really vague connection, and as I said, these books were written later and probably without much knowledge about when exactly Jesus lived

Dude, Rabbis were the most educated people in Israel in that time

I'm sorry but i'm inclined to say it's obvious any modification to the story of the Jesus in the talmud is meant to make him viewed by the general public as what they want to be thought of him, not a historically accurate one with the true details that happened.

To say that it's not the same Jesus just because obvious changes made deliberately seems weak.

And just as Mozalbete says, it's obvious they did not really had many of the details, giving them reason to completely add things untrue or make up some, you don't really need deep exegesis for this.

And Christianity was the dominant religion

It would have been easy to know that

It would also be easy to not to make up these fictional stories, yet there they are

They didn't care about the date, that is clear

And even the way to attach the Yeshu to a particular date is our inference from the use of some concepts

It isn't even explicitely stated

and if it was a single similarity, sure, I would be prudent and not make quick judgements

But there is just too much. Not to mention that is is foolish to think that jews would not mention Jesus in the Talmud anywhere.