which do you agree that the NT was written and written and presented in a way to create a certain narrative Jesus? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

And if you do accept this, do you agree that if you simply take what is presented at face value, and justify that it must be the actual history, this is a form of apologetics? — schopenhauer1

Maybe it happened differently or is theoretical, the basic issue is purity and not washing hands. I don't believe Job actually happened exactly as described but the book still presents important/true/profound ideas (one might even say divine revelation) and is true in its own sense regardless of whether it happened exactly the way described.

Can we agree that the virgin birth didn't happen, and the Logos is tacked on? — schopenhauer1

Yes. A lot of mythology works its way in. I can't even get straight who J is exactly suppose to be -- the "son of man" of Daniel? The "suffering servant?" We all have our personal Jesus's. He is amazing character unlike anyone I have ever read. I think I mostly closely or generally think of him as perhaps the kin of David. I much prefer him over David though as a model for how to be in this world. J is absolutely amazing with women.

Maybe it happened differently, the basic issue is purity and not washing hands. I don't believe Job actually happened as described but the book still presents important/true/profound ideas (one might even say divine revelation) and is true in its own sense regardless of whether it happened exactly the way described. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, ok, we agree that the NT isn't the most reliable source. However, I think as you are implying, we can take certain kernels of the historical person from it..

One of the things the NT is selling is that Jesus was opposed to the Pharisees. By the time the NT was written, the Gentile Church was already solidified under a Pauline understanding- one antagonistic to the newly forming Rabbinical and Synagogue Judaism that was forming in the Galilee (at varying times in Yavneh, Sepphoris, Tiberius, and Caesarea), and the diaspora, respectively. The antagonism in the NT between the "Pharisees" (predecessors of Rabbinic Judaism), and Jesus was reflected in these debates.

However, what is the historical context here is that Pharisees had their own disagreements. They believed that the Prophets held sway (the Sadducees did not, and the Essenes were also super interested in the Prophets, and especially eschatological matters, like in Daniel and Zechariah, etc.).

There were internal disputes at the time BETWEEN the sects.. Sadducees for example, didn't even RECOGNIZE the later prophets.. So clearly Jesus wasn't from that group. Even this character of Jesus is backing his notions using prophets..The Talmud itself, uses later Prophets to provide context to earlier Torah halachic understanding... I literally just pulled a random quote from a Talmudic passage, and it proved my case (using later prophets to justify earlier halacha):

The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases. There, at the time of the afternoon prayer, drunkenness is uncommon, as it is unusual to drink excessively during the day. However, here, in the case of the evening prayer, drunkenness is common, and therefore there was room to issue a decree requiring one to interrupt his meal to recite the evening prayer. Alternatively, it is possible to explain that with regard to the afternoon prayer, since its time is fixed, he is anxious, and he won’t come to be negligent and forget to pray. However, with regard to the evening prayer, since all night is the time for the evening prayer, he is not anxious, and he will come to be negligent.

Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this: Is it a burden to tie his belt? In addition, if it is a burden, let him stand that way, without a belt, and pray. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to wear a belt while praying, since it is stated: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel” (Amos 4:12). One must prepare and adorn himself when standing before God. — Chapater 1 10a

So like a Pharisee, Jesus is debating OTHER pharisees, or at least in the vein of Pharisaic style debate.

Now there is a heurmeneutics that many historians agree makes logical sense.. "Whatever is embarrassing to Church doctrine left in the text most probably a historical artifact that was left in the text. A Pharisaic Jesus, for example would be embarrassing for Church doctrine..

But you have the character of Jesus say curious things like this:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

Now one can interpret the character of Jesus in multiple ways.. but look at this passage:

There are seven types of [false] Pharisees: the Shechemite Pharisee, the Nakfaite Pharisee, the Miktzoite Pharisee, the Machobaite Pharisee, the Pharisee for the sake of a profession, the Pharisee who was obligated by marriage, the Pharisee driven by lust, and the Pharisee driven by fear. — Avot DeRabbi Natan 37:4

There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious “what is the deduction,” religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds onhis shoulder. Religious on credit, “give me credit that I can perform commandments.” Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious “what is the deduction,” what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment… — "Jerusalem

§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear.… — Sotah 22b:2-6

Also look at this in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 1:4):
There were disputes that led to bloodshed between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.. If disputes got so heated that it led to bloodshed between to Pharisaic houses, would a bit of angry "Woe to the...(Shammaite?) instead of general "Pharisee", but more historically accurate?

In US politics, look at conservative and liberal aspects to any political party.. The election of Gerald Ford vs. Ronald Regan.. For what it means to be conservative.. Or a Southern Democrat vs. a Northern Democrat in the 60s.

All I'm saying is that perhaps legitimately internal debates became "seized upon" by the Gospel writers to make Jesus "other", which is necessary to help move him along as NOT an itinerant blend of Pharisaic and Essenic Judaism, but a sort of non-contexted, universal Cynic.

In any case, I'm onboard with your judgment that Jesus had a Pharisaic-Essenaic background. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, I guess we have some common ground we can work from then in understanding this. I'll have to get back to the halachic stuff later. I think i just read your first sentence and kind of jumped on that in my first comment. It looks like you are open beyond a simple refutation of the Jesus as presented ver batim from the NT....

All I'm saying is that perhaps legitimately internal debates became "seized upon" by the Gospel writers to make Jesus "other", which is necessary to help move him along as NOT an itinerant blend of Pharisaic and Essenic Judaism, but a sort of non-contexted, universal Cynic.

It's really just a love affair with a character. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like J.

I spoke with a rabbi once who told me that the Jewish messiah would never scrub his disciples' feet. But in J's world "the greatest among you will be your servant" so scrubbing their feet is basically his way of flexing. There is no other biblical character that I am aware of who embraces servitude so devoutly. But it's not a weak servitude - it's a servitude which is supposedly prepared to sacrifice oneself in an instant and the Pharisees call him on it.

I read J and think of him like an artist in a way -- he paints a vision of an ideal reality with his words. No one always enacts J's teachings. No one is going to go to prison and think "the greatest among you will be your servant."

Yet there is a time and a place. The standard is still there.

Hillel says "what is hateful do not do to others" which permits neutral actions. J says "in all things do unto others as you'd have done to you."

In most societies one strives upwards -- grow old, wise, build respect in your career, study hard, etc. etc. -- it's all true.

But you know what they say about respect:

“Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be.”
― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

J pitches a fundamentally different vision -- a different side to things -- which doesn't necessarily invalidate the old, but can supplement it. I love reading both Jewish wisdom but I think virtually everyone could benefit from reading and pondering J.

I think of it like inverse Judaism in a way. There are general trends.

In the Talmud grey hairs are seen as a sign of reverence and dignity. This isn't wrong, but J stresses the importance of getting in touch with one's inner child. I'd be interested as to whether other Talmudic thinkers reach this conclusion.

The focus, traditionally in Judaism, is that righteousness is a ladder that one should climb and the higher you reach on that ladder the better it is -- those people should occupy the best positions the 'seats of honor at the banquet'. J's focus is those on the margins of society 'blessed be the poor in spirit.'

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

He does say things like this and in gThomas he tells his followers that after he departs to have James the Just lead them -- James was known as a Judaizer within the early movement.