1 Peter 3:19 refers to Enoch, not Jesus

[Huram Abi]

Even then, he gets those writers wrong and tries to place them all centuries before Jesus so he can appeal to antiquity.

I've never seen anyone so disorganized and deviant from the historical timeline.

 

[cupid dave]

So what we have is:

1) A written statement back to the 12th century, one tellings us of the Jewish Tradition up until that time, that Elijah had a miraculous birth:

"Mention must also be made of a statement which, though found only in the later Kabbalistic literature (Yalḳuṭ Reubeni, Bereshit, 9a, ed. Amsterdam), seems nevertheless to be very old .
According to this legend (which seems to be very old) Elijah was really an angel in human form, so that he had neither parents nor offspring.

2) The age of this ancient 12th century Tradition of the Jews (kabbalah) is atested to by another writer from the 3rd century, Epiphanius.[/

Epiphanius tells us essentially the same story as we find in Luke2

The heavenly father observes the birth of Jesus and Sobach saw Elijah wrapped in swaddling clothes angels of God around him:

"When Elijah was born, his father Sobach saw in a vision angels of God around him. They swaddled him with fire and fed him with flames."

3) Here again we see that the two stories correspond to one another and attest to the idea that Christ was the Elijah, returned in 32AD.

 

[Huram Abi]

No, that is absolutely wrong.

"Later" Kabbalistic literature means 17th-18th century, not 12th century. 12th century would be early kaballistic literature. This later literature does not reiterate Epiphanius.

Epiphanius is 4th century (stop pushing back dates, Cupid) and his account is nowhere similar to Luke. There is no correspondance between these two stories or the later kaballistic literature.

 

[cupid dave]

No, that is absolutely wrong.

"Later" Kabbalistic literature means 17th-18th century, not 12th century. 12th century would be early kaballistic literature. This later literature does not reiterate Epiphanius.

Epiphanius is 4th century (stop pushing back dates, Cupid) and his account is nowhere similar to Luke. There is no correspondance between these two stories or the later kaballistic literature.

LOL

So your position is that Kabbalah is not a record of Jewish Tradition and can start up at any time as brand new???

What kind of a jew would even try to agrue that?

 

[Huram Abi]

Is that all you got?

Later kabbalistic writings constitute 17th-18th century. This is the truth.

You want to sidestep that by insinuating, yet again, that I am a jew? Why is it that everytime things don't go your way you call someone a "jew" to degrade them?