Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

  • Thread starter Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
  • Start date
> For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel
> This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused
> by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman
> soldier named Pantera.

That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt to
discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding Jesus
existing.

> Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.
> You just failed to connect the dots

If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence. There's a
lot of non-evidence though.
 
On Feb 18, 8:20 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> >>===>LIAR!
> >>There's no "MESSIAH/CHRIST" in the Qur'an! -- L.
>
> > There is in the translation I've read.. it occurs several times.

Do you read Arabic? What does Al-Massih mean?
Is this an english word, that is the only translation you
can read anyway
(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! GOD giveth thee glad
tidings of a word from him, whose name is the AL-MASSIH, Jesus, son of
Mary,
illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought
near
(unto Allah). Qur'an.

We knew something was wrong with secular scholarship.
With all evidence everytwhere, they could still claim
that they could see none.
Don't expect evidence without connecting the dots first.



>
> ===>Are you insane or just dishonest?
> You post all these verses from the Qur'an,
> yet NOWHERE does "Messiah/Christ" show up! -- L.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 3:45 (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad
> > tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary,
> > illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near
> > (unto Allah).
>
> > 4:156 And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a
> > tremendous calumny;
> > 4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,
> > Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so
> > unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof;
> > they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him
> > not for certain.
>
> > 4:171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor
> > utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,
> > was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and
> > a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not
> > "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it
> > removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all
> > that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient
> > as Defender.
> > 4:172 The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the
> > favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He
> > assemble unto Him;
>
> > 5:17 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of
> > Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy
> > the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth ? Allah's is
> > the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them.
> > He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.
>
> > 5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.
> > The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and
> > your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath
> > forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no
> > helpers.
>
> > 5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers
> > (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly
> > woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the
> > revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
>> >>===>LIAR!
>> >>There's no "MESSIAH/CHRIST" in the Qur'an! -- L.
>> > There is in the translation I've read.. it occurs several times.

> Do you read Arabic?

No .. I've read and referred to several English translation (including ones
that are claimed to be authoirsed and ones from islamis sites). Every one
refers to either Messiah of Christ. I've not been able to find any
translations that do not use Messiah or Christ.
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:07:17 +1100, "Jeckyl"
<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:


>>>That doesn't seem to make sense .. those myths and legends existed before
>>>the bible stories were written. So they could not have been written to
>>>fullfil scripture.
>>
>> You have been mislead into believing false time lines.
>
>So are you saying that the greek, roman and egyptians myths and gods are
>predated by Jesus (and the gospels)?

I am saying that the idea that Christianity borrowed
from pagan myths, has the time line backward.

You assume that pagan beliefs did not reshape
themselves over time and that what it was at first,
is what it always was.


>> Pick up a book called, "The Gospel
>> and the Greeks", by Ronald H. Nash.
>
>Have to see if I can find it .. its not one that is sitting on my bookshelf
>:)

Amazon will have it.


>But can you explain what you mean, and what the true timeline is then?

See comment above.


>>>They are not historically accurate ..
>> That is a claim, not proof and you should read more
>> than liberal, God hating claims.
>
>Really, the onus is on proving the document is historically accurate and
>credible as evidence.

Actually, no, it isn't. In fact, in the science of
textual criticism, the document is assumed to
be accurate, until disproved. If you disagree,
then you can dismiss many events that you
believe are historically true, since they rely
on single texts and even those are third party
copies, centuries removed from the original,
if there was one.

But even that is irrelevant. I am talking about
claims that you made, that you are responsible
for proving. Honesty and integrity does not
involve making claims and then claiming that
the other guy must always be the one providing
proof. :)


--

Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.
He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never
said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted
anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.
Reading other passages that you think say it will be,
is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to
pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against
his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!

I would not want to be in that position!

The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
 
Bible Believer <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
<kjcjt2562h82o4bsovpned8aasasao1vct@4ax.com>
> In fact, in the science of
> textual criticism, the document is assumed to
> be accurate, until disproved.

There is no such thing as the science of textual criticism. Science involves
testing theories, with the intent to disprove them if possible. That is not
what Christians engaging in "textual criticism" are doing. They are trying to
do just the opposite.

--
If I was in charge of the universe, St Jude's
Hospital for Children would not need to exist


Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3232

[ Followup-To: alt.bible ]
 
On Feb 19, 8:39 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel
> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused
> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman
> > soldier named Pantera.
>
> That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt to
> discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding Jesus
> existing.

What is a better attempt to discredit Jesus?
Saying he never existed or saying that his mother was a whore?
Which one would hit its target?


>
> > Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.
> > You just failed to connect the dots
>
> If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence. There's a
> lot of non-evidence though.

A lot of evidence, historical, theological, legal even
cultural evidence everywhere. You must know how to connect
the dots first.
 
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>>>===>LIAR!
>>>>>There's no "MESSIAH/CHRIST" in the Qur'an! -- L.
>>>> There is in the translation I've read.. it occurs several times.
>
>> Do you read Arabic?
>
> No .. I've read and referred to several English translation (including
> ones that are claimed to be authoirsed and ones
> from islamis sites). Every one refers to either Messiah of Christ. I've
> not been able to find any translations that do not use Messiah or Christ.

But they are not the same. In the Old Testament, the Messiah is the Jewish
savior who was expected to sit on the throne of David and restore the
kingdom of Israel.

Christ is the Christian God who is a member of the godhead.

The Koran refers to Jesus as a prophet.

That is three different and incompatible interpretations of Jesus, who was
none of the above.

--Wax
 
On Feb 19, 8:39 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel
> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused
> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman
> > soldier named Pantera.
>
> That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt to
> discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding Jesus
> existing.

It is not rumor anymore. It is written in their book of FAITH,
the Talmud. If you knew what the Talmud represents in
the Jews religious life you would not talk nonsense.


>
> > Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.
> > You just failed to connect the dots
>
> If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence. There's a
> lot of non-evidence though.
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 1:30 am
weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>>>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>>>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do.
>>>>>>>> Jesus never existed.
>>>>>>>> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO
>>>>>>>> EVIDENCE for your outrageous estimate of
>>>>>>>> probability??
>>>>>>>> Yes, I thought so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am interested to hear
>>>>>>>>> your proof that Paul did not exist,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Non sequitur!!!
>>>>>>>> Read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>and if Christianity did not start with
>>>>>>>>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are conflating my personally not being able to
>>>>>>>> name the con-men that started the scam, with proof
>>>>>>>> that Jesus and Paul really existed!!
>>>>>>>> Where did your brain go on holiday too?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **** me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In other words: You have no credible theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe it!
>>>>>> Are you deliberately acting stupid?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You plainly did not read what I wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the very plausible theory that most of the Christian
>>>>>> fairy tale was invented by humans with a vested interest in
>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is far more credible than anything that delusional
>>>>>> apologists have arrived at, and far exceeds the non-
>>>>>> existent plausiblility of your baseless guesses on the
>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never did answer me as to where you brain is
>>>>>> currently holidaying.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you have a conspiracy theory. Those are easy to make
>>>>> up, and sound convincing, but are less than worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Wax
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory. As the adage
>>>> says -- don't attribute to malice what can be accounted
>>>> for by stupidity. For example ask almost anyone who got
>>>> kicked out of the Garden of Eden and to a person they
>>>> will say Adam and Eve even though some of them have
>>>> read those scriptures more than a hundred times. Yet they
>>>> would be wrong. The bible makes an explicit point to say
>>>> the MAN (and only the MAN) was sent from Eden.
>>>
>>> Michael Gray said. "I have the very plausible theory that
>>> most of the Christian fairy tale was invented by humans with
>>> a vested interest in power." That's called a "conspiracy
>>> theory."
>>
>> No it isn't. To be a conspiracy all of those writers would have
>> had to act in unison.
>
> Michael Gray also referred to "the con-men that started the scam."
> It
> still looks to me as if he is saying that it was a conspiracy. It is
> hard to imagine that they would all be working independently.
>
>> That wasn't what happened.
>
> Of course it isn't what happened. Conspiracy theories are rarely
> true.
>
>
>> And outside the scribes that were in a conspiracy to concoct
>> the Torah "discovered" by King Josiah, there is no evidence
>> any of the other biblical writers actually knew each other
>> especially when considering almost all of scripture was
>> written anonymously.
>
> Not quite true, but the compilation of the Old Testament cannot be
> compared
> to the compilation of the New Testament. They are completely
> different stories.
>

Of course they can be compared. First off, both testaments are a
compilation of multiple stories, you just don't have two stories. And
further more several of those stories are told in multiple ways each a
blatant contradiction of the other. And you are forgetting about the
Apocrypha. It is a testament with a third set of stories.


They are all fables that were "enhanced" by later editors and redactors.
Even later the Old Testament was "Catholicized" by other anonymous
editors.

>> It was more in the nature of knowing a good story and running
>> with it and changing some of it to fit one's own
>> theology/philosophy.
>

> The messianic expectation of the first century was for a king
> (messiah) who would sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdom
> of Israel.
>

How could that be when the bible clearly says that the lineage of King
David was totally wiped out. I would suppose the Jews knew that and
the Christian writers didn't or at least hoped their audience didn't so
it wouldn't ruin a good story.

> Josephus lists seven men who claimed to be the messiahs who came who
> rose
> against Roman rule before Jesus was even born. What differentiated
> Jesus
> from the other messiah's is the fact that Jesus was non-militant.
> When he
> led his followers to the Mount of Olives (Mat 26:30.) He was
> expecting God
> to appear and battle the armies of the world as foretold in
> Zechariah 14.
> God did not appear, Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified.
>

You keep forgetting to add -- as the story goes. And incidentally NONE
of the passion/Easter stories are alike. They like much of scripture
contradict each other.

> Following the death of Jesus, his followers turned to the next man in
> line
> of succession. That was the brother of Jesus, James the Just (Acts
> 15.)
>
> The book of "Acts" was written by Luke, who was a follower of Paul.

You have that wrong. The book of Acts appears to be written by the same
author as the one who wrote the Gospel according to Luke. We have no
idea of who she was. All the gospel names are ascribed at least a
century later. The gospels were written anonymously. And you must
realize that it like the gospels is a complete fabrication. If you
could, please show me where Paul states he traveled with a Luke. You
do realize, do you not, that almost everything including the sequence
of events found in Acts contradicts what the authors of the Pauline
Epistles put in Paul's mouth?

>
> "Acts" attempts to give the impression that the apostels in Jerusalem
> and Paul were
> close in beliefs and objectives. The letters of Paul indicates that
> there were numerous differences between Paul and the apostels.
>

> Your "good story" was invented by Paul.

The good story was "enhanced" by Paul and modeled after other god-man
Greek stories.

> Mark and Luke were both
> followers
> of Paul.

Really? That is quite surprising news. Where exactly does Paul mention
Mark and Luke? There is no basis for your assertion. Absolutely no
evidence. What you have are assertions that were made many years after
all those anonymous texts were written.

> "Matthew" was written by an anonymous author who used
> "Mark" as
> a source. "John" may or may not have by written by an apostle named
> John, but there are so many additions and re-arranging that it makes
> no
> difference. The story of the resurrection is not in "Mark", and the
> "Matthew" version differs significantly from both "Luke" and "John".
> Nor is it present in "Q".
>

> According to Matthew 2:23, Jesus was called a "Nazarene". We know
> from early Christian writers that there was a Jewish sect called the
> Nazarenes
> which claimed decent from the church in Jerusalem. This sect is
> either
> closely related to, or the same as, the Jewish sect of Ebionites.
> The Nazarenes and Ebionites both reject the godhead of Jesus, and
> recognized Jesus and then James as the legitimate kings of Israel.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
>

Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the earliest
manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There are various
corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually give us 'Jesus of
Nazareth' but there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century
(an anachonism that indicates the late date of the gospels.

>
> --Wax

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:07:30 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

>Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the earliest
>manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There are various
>corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually give us 'Jesus of
>Nazareth' but there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century
>(an anachonism that indicates the late date of the gospels.

Weren't Nazorites/Nazarites/Nazirites a sect of Jews who didn't trim
their hair?
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 12:23
am Bible Believer perhaps from noway@nowhere.com wrote:

>>Show us the writings of this Jesus.
>
> It seems that this is a common questions amongst the
> atheists, who aren't too bright to begin with.
 
On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171737854.615196.321550@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
> >> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> >> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> >>> ....I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what
> >>> Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to
> >>> Jesus,
> >> ===>So, what?
> >> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!
> > Rabbi Akiba declared based on this text that Bar Khobah
> > was the Messiah????
>
> No, and it's obvious that he didn't believe Deuteronomy 18:15
> referred to anyone else as Messiah either.
>
> >> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!
> >> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.
> > I already went through this with you sometime ago. I refer
> > you to my post but apparently you never read it therefore
> > you can get rid of your misconceptions.
> > The text indeed refers to Mohammad, but Mohammad
> > as used in the Qur'an is a euphemism for Messiah/Christ
> > So If you want to know more about it Check this post:
> > The Making of the Arabian Messiah, A Prophet like Moses
>
> "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,
> their personalities are totally different!
>
> Deut. 18 is an attempt by Moses
> to prepare the people for an independent national life in Canaan.
> Verses 14-15, paraphrased, say:
> The other nations turn to soothsayers
> and such when they need advice
> but you, when you need advice,
> I shall send you a prophet.
> The Bible mentions many people
> who are called or seem to be, 'prophets'.
> This is inarguable.
> These verses seem to be referring to them,
> not to one special prophet in the distant future,
> about whose mission nothing is said.
> There is nothing in the entire chapter
> to indicate that it's talking about a
> particular event, a particular time period.
> Is verse 14 talking about a particular time period?
> Verse 15 isn't either.
> That's why they're juxtaposed.



I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
and the Apostles are wrong.
I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.
I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,
ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament
because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with
someone
who partially read the Bible.
This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.


>
> The 'singular' is no problem, as I have paraphrased above,
> using the singular, as the Bible does.
> There are many cases of singular meaning plural,
> and plural meaning singular, in the Bible.
> And, to top it off, I have
> an explanation for this use of singular:
> "It may be a hint to the fact that in prophets,
> 'many' doesn't mean anything,
> 450 prophets of the Baal lose to one Elijah.".
>
> The "like Moses" doesn't mean just like Moses,
> We know that from Deut 34:10-12,
> and also from Numbers 12:6-8.
> The phrase 'from amongst their brothers, like you'
> means 'a born Jew, like Moses'.
>
> Why is 'Moses' used here,
> where it seems to be redundant?
> It may be a hint that a prophet must have
> the moral characteristics of Moses, God-fearing etc...
> but this is not a formal requirement
> because it's too difficult for human beings
> to define and judge.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.
> >> > Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or
> >> > a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy
> >> > 18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ, therefore the Apostle
> >> > cheated.
>
> >> ===>That is very easy.
> >> "The traditional Jewish interpretation is that
> >> While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking
> >> about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office
> >> of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.
> >> The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I
> >> shall command him". If, for the sake of argument, one were to assume
> >> that the prophet being described here is to be only one special future
> >> prophet, then it follows that all prophets who came after Moses, except
> >> for Moses and this particular prophet, were false prophets. And, one
> >> must not ignore the warning found in Deuteronomy 18:20 concerning the
> >> fate of a false prophet. This is, of course, absurd - a false
> >> conclusion that would result from a false assumption.
>
> > OK, let us post the text itself and see If you make sense. Here is
> > Deut 18:14-19
> > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who
> > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD
> > your God has not permitted you to do so.
> > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet
> > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
> > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God
> > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,
> > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor
> > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
> > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
> > 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from
> > among their brothers; I will put my words in his
> > mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
> > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet
> > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
>
> > This is what we will end up with following your kind of Nonsense:
> > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who
> > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD
> > your God has not permitted you to do so.
> > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you an OFFICE
> > OF 50 prophets
> > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to HIM.
> > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God
> > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,
> > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor
> > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
> > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
> > 18 I will raise up for them an OFFICE OF 50 prophets like you from
> > among their brothers; I will put my words in HIS
> > mouth, and HE will tell them everything I command HIM.
> > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the OFFICE OF 50
> > prophets
> > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
>
> > Hmmmmmmmmmm...
> > I am sure you don't believe in this craps of your own...
> > You know it makes nosense. You have to ignore even the rule
> > of grammar just to believe that.
> > The trouble with your interpretation is that the word Him
> > indicates that it is not plural and it is not the office either
> > otherwise He would have said,"You must listen to it" that
> > is to say the office.Yet, he said, I will put my words in HIS mouth
> > and not in ITS MOUTH as IN the mouth of the office nor did he
> > say I will put my words in THEIR MOUTHS as to suggest many
> > prophets, but Him that is to say One prophet and that prophet will
> > be in the likeness of Moses.
>
> Your knowledge of Hebrew is weak, to say the least.
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you say to the Prophet Daniel that he was in the likeness
> > of Moses, he would order you be stoned for blasphem.
> > Now here is my interpretation and I will let the readers
> > decide who makes more sense.
>
> > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who
> > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD
> > your God has not permitted you to do so.
> > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you The Messiah/Christ,
> > a prophet like me from among your own brothers.
> > You must listen to him.
> > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God
> > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,
> > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor
> > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
> > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
> > 18 I will raise up for them Christ/Messiah,a prophet like you Moses
> > from among their brothers; I will put my words in his/Messiah
> > mouth, and he/CRIST will tell them everything I command him.
> > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the Messiah, the prophet
> > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
> > Again when Jesus said to the crowd," If you believe
> > Moses, you would believe me for He wrote about me."
> > this is the text He was alluding to.
>
> > The same Deut 18:15 is commented in the Qur'an as
> > a text fortelling the advend of the Messiah/Christ.
> > The Author of the Qur'an went even further by suggesting
> > that accepting the Messiah/Christ was a covenant binding between
> > the Children of Israel and God. Here is the text;
> > Behold! Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets,
> > saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes
> > to you a Messenger/Christ, confirming what is with you;
> > do you believe him and render him help." Allah said:
> > "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?"
> > They said: "We agree." He said:
> > "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." 3:81.
>
> You may as well finish the job and convert to Islam.
> You've got the blinkered mentality that religion demands.
> You'd be a natural fit.
>
>
>
>
>
> > You are displaying a demoniac spirit which pushes you to denial,but
> > you are not opposing me, you are opposing Jesus himself, because
> > Whetever comes from his mouth is infailible, and this indeed comes
> > from his mouth ...
> > YOU ARE WASTING AWAY YOUR TIME and your life.
>
> > But you know what? This text has already hit
> > its target. This is not something in the distant
> > past that you can not verify like the evolving of
> > a monkey into a human, this is indeed current
> > event. You always will have time to verify it. So let us say
> > What is going on there in Jerusalem between the
> > Jews and the Arabs is grounded on this text Deut 18:15
> > and on the Mosaic pronouncement that he would make
> > the children of Israel jealous through a stupid nation.
> > And indeed Israel is jealous to the point of building a wall
> > of separation because it finds itself living
> > in the same land with nation that it used to call its
> > people snakes. But this was done in purpose so that Israel
> > may reread his own text. In the text of its
> > enemies, the Arabs, Jesus is referred to as the
> > Christ/Messiah...the fulfillement of Moses
> > BE CAREFUL JERK
>
> Just as God hardened ...
>
> read more
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:12
am Christopher A.Lee perhaps from calee@optonline.net wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:07:30 -0500, Darrell Stec
> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>
>>Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the earliest
>>manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There are various
>>corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually give us 'Jesus of
>>Nazareth' but there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century
>>(an anachonism that indicates the late date of the gospels.
>
> Weren't Nazorites/Nazarites/Nazirites a sect of Jews who didn't trim
> their hair?

There is not much contemporary evidence to draw from but later early
Christian writers described them as such. They apparently also
dedicated themselves to god for a period of two years, and ate locust
and honey, and would not touch alcohol. (A very dangerous habit
considering the condition of water in those days.) Sounds a lot like
John the Baptist and also what was (now considered erroneous) a sect of
Essenes.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Feb 19, 11:53 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1171737854.615196.321550@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > > wrote:
> > >> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > >> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > >> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> > >>> ....I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what
> > >>> Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to
> > >>> Jesus,
> > >> ===>So, what?
> > >> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!
> > > Rabbi Akiba declared based on this text that Bar Khobah
> > > was the Messiah????
>
> > No, and it's obvious that he didn't believe Deuteronomy 18:15
> > referred to anyone else as Messiah either.
>
> > >> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!
> > >> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.
> > > I already went through this with you sometime ago. I refer
> > > you to my post but apparently you never read it therefore
> > > you can get rid of your misconceptions.
> > > The text indeed refers to Mohammad, but Mohammad
> > > as used in the Qur'an is a euphemism for Messiah/Christ
> > > So If you want to know more about it Check this post:
> > > The Making of the Arabian Messiah, A Prophet like Moses
>
> > "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,
> > their personalities are totally different!
>
> > Deut. 18 is an attempt by Moses
> > to prepare the people for an independent national life in Canaan.
> > Verses 14-15, paraphrased, say:
> > The other nations turn to soothsayers
> > and such when they need advice
> > but you, when you need advice,
> > I shall send you a prophet.
> > The Bible mentions many people
> > who are called or seem to be, 'prophets'.
> > This is inarguable.
> > These verses seem to be referring to them,
> > not to one special prophet in the distant future,
> > about whose mission nothing is said.
> > There is nothing in the entire chapter
> > to indicate that it's talking about a
> > particular event, a particular time period.
> > Is verse 14 talking about a particular time period?
> > Verse 15 isn't either.
> > That's why they're juxtaposed.
>
> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
> and the Apostles are wrong.
> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.
> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,
> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament
> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with
> someone
> who partially read the Bible.
> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.
>


Copycat, I think instead of trying to write this zev off,
what you should do is to break this down to his level .
I am wonder why you assume that he has the IQ needed
to understand all the subtilities of this debat





>
>
>
> > The 'singular' is no problem, as I have paraphrased above,
> > using the singular, as the Bible does.
> > There are many cases of singular meaning plural,
> > and plural meaning singular, in the Bible.
> > And, to top it off, I have
> > an explanation for this use of singular:
> > "It may be a hint to the fact that in prophets,
> > 'many' doesn't mean anything,
> > 450 prophets of the Baal lose to one Elijah.".
>
> > The "like Moses" doesn't mean just like Moses,
> > We know that from Deut 34:10-12,
> > and also from Numbers 12:6-8.
> > The phrase 'from amongst their brothers, like you'
> > means 'a born Jew, like Moses'.
>
> > Why is 'Moses' used here,
> > where it seems to be redundant?
> > It may be a hint that a prophet must have
> > the moral characteristics of Moses, God-fearing etc...
> > but this is not a formal requirement
> > because it's too difficult for human beings
> > to define and judge.
>
> > >> > Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.
> > >> > Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or
> > >> > a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy
> > >> > 18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ, therefore the Apostle
> > >> > cheated.
>
> > >> ===>That is very easy.
> > >> "The traditional Jewish interpretation is that
> > >> While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking
> > >> about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office
> > >> of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.
> > >> The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I
> > >> shall command him". If, for the sake of argument, one were to assume
> > >> that the prophet being described here is to be only one special future
> > >> prophet, then it follows that all prophets who came after Moses, except
> > >> for Moses and this particular prophet, were false prophets. And, one
> > >> must not ignore the warning found in Deuteronomy 18:20 concerning the
> > >> fate of a false prophet. This is, of course, absurd - a false
> > >> conclusion that would result from a false assumption.
>
> > > OK, let us post the text itself and see If you make sense. Here is
> > > Deut 18:14-19
> > > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who
> > > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD
> > > your God has not permitted you to do so.
> > > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet
> > > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
> > > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God
> > > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,
> > > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor
> > > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
> > > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
> > > 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from
> > > among their brothers; I will put my words in his
> > > mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.
> > > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet
> > > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
>
> > > This is what we will end up with following your kind of Nonsense:
> > > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who
> > > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD
> > > your God has not permitted you to do so.
> > > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you an OFFICE
> > > OF 50 prophets
> > > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to HIM.
> > > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God
> > > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,
> > > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor
> > > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
> > > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
> > > 18 I will raise up for them an OFFICE OF 50 prophets like you from
> > > among their brothers; I will put my words in HIS
> > > mouth, and HE will tell them everything I command HIM.
> > > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the OFFICE OF 50
> > > prophets
> > > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
>
> > > Hmmmmmmmmmm...
> > > I am sure you don't believe in this craps of your own...
> > > You know it makes nosense. You have to ignore even the rule
> > > of grammar just to believe that.
> > > The trouble with your interpretation is that the word Him
> > > indicates that it is not plural and it is not the office either
> > > otherwise He would have said,"You must listen to it" that
> > > is to say the office.Yet, he said, I will put my words in HIS mouth
> > > and not in ITS MOUTH as IN the mouth of the office nor did he
> > > say I will put my words in THEIR MOUTHS as to suggest many
> > > prophets, but Him that is to say One prophet and that prophet will
> > > be in the likeness of Moses.
>
> > Your knowledge of Hebrew is weak, to say the least.
>
> > > If you say to the Prophet Daniel that he was in the likeness
> > > of Moses, he would order you be stoned for blasphem.
> > > Now here is my interpretation and I will let the readers
> > > decide who makes more sense.
>
> > > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who
> > > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD
> > > your God has not permitted you to do so.
> > > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you The Messiah/Christ,
> > > a prophet like me from among your own brothers.
> > > You must listen to him.
> > > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God
> > > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,
> > > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor
> > > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
> > > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.
> > > 18 I will raise up for them Christ/Messiah,a prophet like you Moses
> > > from among their brothers; I will put my words in his/Messiah
> > > mouth, and he/CRIST will tell them everything I command him.
> > > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the Messiah, the prophet
> > > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
> > > Again when Jesus said to the crowd," If you believe
> > > Moses, you would believe me for He wrote about me."
> > > this is the text He was alluding to.
>
> > > The same Deut 18:15 is commented in the Qur'an as
> > > a text fortelling the advend of the Messiah/Christ.
> > > The Author of the Qur'an went even further by suggesting
> > > that accepting the Messiah/Christ was a covenant binding between
> > > the Children of Israel and God. Here is the text;
> > > Behold! Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets,
> > > saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes
> > > to you a Messenger/Christ, confirming what is with you;
> > > do you believe him and render him help." Allah said:
> > > "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?"
> > > They said: "We agree." He said:
> > > "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." 3:81.
>
> > You may as well finish the job and convert to Islam.
> > You've got the blinkered mentality that religion demands.
> > You'd be a natural fit.
>
> > > You are displaying a demoniac spirit which pushes you to denial,but
> > > you are not opposing me, you are opposing Jesus himself, because
> > > Whetever comes from his mouth is infailible, and this indeed
>
> ...
>
> read more
 
On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,
> their personalities are totally different!

Does SIMILE applies only to personalities?
You have been told time again and again that
Mohammad is no personal or BIRTH name. At least that is not the way
the author used it in the Qur'an.
What Codi has been trying to tell you is that Mohammad is
a title and a euphemism for Messiah.
Now how does this work.
In Semtic culture, it is discouraged to address a personnality
with his real name, therefore a gloirified name is always used
instead.
Now, Mohammad which means the praised one and other title
like the illustrious, the honored-one are titles associated with
the one who is the Messiah.
Let us say, when you hear the Merciful, you know straight away
that someone is talking about GOD.
The same applies to Messiah and whatever is associated with that
title.
This is obvious to someone who can read the whole translation of the
entire Qur'an in Hebrew.
So basically, what Codi has been saying about the intent of the
Quranic
author is that Mohammad is no personal name, it is a title invented
for a purpose.
Simply put, what the auhtor is saying is that X, the Arabian Leader
looks like Mohammad
but since we know that Mohammad is a euphemism for Messiah,
what IS BEING said secretly is this, X looks like Messiah.
Which takes us back where the author spoke about his work as a SIMILE
or Metaphor
if you ever know what Metaphor is. It is now for you to find
the birth name of X as it would appear on his ID If he had one today.
Notice that like the Messiah, X was subjet to persecution from his own
people
like the Messiah, he was orphan and had just one of
his parents
as the Messiah had only Mary.
Like the Messiah he was preaching the Gospel by
calling his
people from the darkeness of polytheism to the light
of Monotheism.
Thus the word of the prophet can also be applied to him.
"The stone that the builders rejected has become the CONERSTONE."
Now saying that Jesus and X had different personalities is a
misunderstanding
of the word SIMILE.
What was the name of X at birth. You can only find this out by reading
the Sirah Rassul Allah by Ibn Hisham/Ishaq closely.
What those biographers did was to make the name Mohammad appears
as a birth name, that way, you could read the Qur'an literally and by
reading
literally miss the points. Otherwise they would be seen as the puppets
of
the Hebrews Christians who staged the whole scenario. What you have
told
from the hadiths and all other books is only the surface.
I guess this is the message Codi has been trying to convey. In order
to get
his point you would have to get rid of so many things you learned
from the Islamic Tradition.




>
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 6:46 am
Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>>> That a relatively insignificant person (at the
>>> time)
>>> called
>>>Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational
>>>and sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence'
>>>that many claim as proof.
>> Why is it?
> Why is it not? It is not unreasonable, and it would explain things
> that otherwise we need to invent reasons for.
>
> Why is it so irrational and sensible to believe that there was a
> person
> called Jesus at that time? It was a common name .. there were
> probably
> hundreds of Jesus's around.

Which lends itself more to considering the stories nothing but
fabrication. It is precisely that the name is so common that it was
chosen. Look at John Smith. The name is used frequently by criminals
to flesh out a non existant person/witness/assailant/partner etc.

> Why is it irrational to suggest that the
> stories in the gospels may be partly based on a real person from that
> time, who may well have been part of the sect that eventually spawned
> the gospels and Christianity.
>

Because scholars have taken every sentence of Mark (and the Pauline
epistles) and shown the Hellenized Old Testament verse it came from.
Subsequent gospels took the story and enhanced it. Part of the problem
is that people think -- Jesus Christ -- instead of Joshua the oiled
one. Michael Turton shows the artificial construct of Mark in his
upcoming book. He discussed the subject frequently on the IIDB forum.

> It does not mean one beleives Jesus was God, or a Messiah, or that
> what he taught was correct, or that the Gospels are correct in
> everything that they said etc etc.
>
> However, the existence of such a person does neatly explain the
> various non-conclusive stories based on (or mentioning) the life and
> sayings of a
> figure call Jesus. It explains why the stories are all set at the
> same
> time.

But a careful reading show that they aren't. John clearly mixes the
order of events and even changes Jesus' ministry from three years to
one. But then everything you write is equally true of Lord of the
Rings. Paul's Christ is neither set in time nor place. The gospels
pretend to place their hero in the early 1st century CE but were
written sometime after 134 CE as were Paul's Epistles.

> It explains why the stories are so imperfect. For example,
> the claim that Jesus birth satisfied a scripture about Emmanuel .. if
> the story
> was completly fictional, why not name the character Emmanuel?

If you notice, Matthew made many mistakes about Old Testament scripture.
It only means that he did not have a copy with him and relied on an
imperfect memory. It could well be, he didn't know the full text and
that passage was later corrected by scribes. But then such an obvious
blunder instead of lending credence to history only underscores the
fabrication -- the author is not overly concerned with details.


> Why
> choose a different and fairly common name (ie would be like claiming
> today that the
> religious leader was called Fred)? Why have Jesus stated goals change
> during the story? Why have him make mistakes?
>

A common name simply because it was a story and not founded upon a
historical person. Remember the whole premise was based upon the fact
that Jesus was in the lineage of King David whereas the Old Testament
explicitly mentions that that line was wiped out after four
generations. Jews would have known that. Matthew made up a pretend
geneology. Ever wonder while none of the nonsense about virgin birth,
Joseph as Jesus father, or the resurrection was mentioned by Mark?

And do you believe the religious leaders mentioned in Carl Sagan's
Contact were real? A good generic name works well in fiction.

Without mistakes there would be no point/counterpoint. Besides you have
given no examples of what you mean by mistakes.

>> The religion exists, but its founder
>
> What founder is that? Are you talking about Paul?
>
>> knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of
>> stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.
>
> Yes . .there is a great deal in the story that is based on other myths
> and legends and has been constructed to appear to fulfil scriptures.
>
>>>Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the
>>>contrary). I am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a
>>>reasonable explanation.
>>>It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at
>>>all.
>> It's a rationalisation.
>
> So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof
> either way .. but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and
> elsewhere).
>

The bible is not evidence any more than Gone With The Wind is evidence
of Rhett Butler. Sure, there was a civil war, and there was an Atlanta
but every story has a place and time even if they are imaginary. No
only is there not conclusive proof of Jesus, there isn't even a shred
of evidence.

>> And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never
>> existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".
>
> Exactly my point .. perhaps you are missing it. There is no
> historically
> conclusive evidence for an historical Jesus. That does not mean it is
> irational or illogical to personally believe that there was such a
> person, as long as that believe does not contradict any evidence we do
> have.
>

But the story as a whole is unbelievable. But it takes quite a bit of
study to understand why. It is irrational to believe in that Jesus
because EVERY story most especially the most important ones could not
have happened. Take for instance the Temple incident -- totally
impossible. The trial before Pilate and the Sanhedrin totally goes
counter to Jewish law and also what we know about Pilate. The charge
of blasphemy is totally incongruent with the Jewish definition and the
punishment (crucifixion) does not fit the Jewish proscription for the
crime. In fact if such an event occurred during the supposed lifetime
of Jesus, the Jews would never have gone to Pilate to solve a religious
crime. That conditioned occurred after Rome directly ruled the area.
There is far more evidence against almost the entire gospels than the
casual Christian reader realizes.

>> As there is none for, there is no reason to assume he did.
>
> And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.
>

No it doesn't. Is it reasonable to assume Sauron of The Lord of the
Rings is still with us? There are certain postulates that without any
evidence it is sheer folly to believe them.

> However, there is strong evidence against many of the events that were
> supposed to take place concerning Jesus. This evidence does cast
> doubt on
> the bible accounts (and therefore on the existence of Jesus). But
> there are other observations that are better explained by an
> historical Jesus.
>
> Do you have an explanation of the various new testament bible books
> and letters (and the early non-canonical works such as the Gospel of
> Thomas, the Egerton Gospel), and their chronology .. who wrote what
> and upon what previous book it may have been based etc?

All are anonymous. That in itself should set up a red flag. One of the
few authors we do know of was Marcion and his Gospel of Mark, which
could well have been the original. If the person in question were
historical why were such liberties taken with "the truth?" You don't
seem to understand that is is precisely the fact that everything is
anonymous and so different from one story to the next that takes away
from the veracity and historicity of the Jesus fable.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:53
am codebreaker@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
wrote:

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
> and the Apostles are wrong.
> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.
> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,
> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament
> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with
> someone
> who partially read the Bible.
> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.
>

I would be happy to take up your challenge if Zev isn't. But first
please answer a few questions so we might determine your competency.
So far you have avoided them. I suspect it is because you are not up to
the task and really have no idea what the bible says. You have only
memorized a few pet phrases from a poorly translated version of the
bible. Anyway here are the questions:

How does one determine which might deceive the reader:

vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem lemor lekh
mene et-yisrael veet-yehuda


OR THIS

vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael


Can you explain what we should do:

lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol
betsedek tishpot amitekha

OR THIS

me krinete ina me krithete


Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you
believe:

hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis ton
aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos

OR THIS

in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur

OR THIS

horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon

OR THIS

te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon
theou to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai


--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:07
am codebreaker@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
wrote:

> On Feb 19, 8:39 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel
>> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused
>> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman
>> > soldier named Pantera.
>>
>> That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt
>> to discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding
>> Jesus existing.
>
> It is not rumor anymore. It is written in their book of FAITH,
> the Talmud. If you knew what the Talmud represents in
> the Jews religious life you would not talk nonsense.
>

It is still a story based upon rumor. It was written in the sixth or
seventh century CE (600 years after the fact). And the Talmud is
commentary on scripture and other Jewish thought. It does not hold the
significance you give it. Do you belive their story of Adams first
wive, Leah, whom he rejected because she wanted to copulate while on
top? It was made up to explain why there were two entirely different
creation stories in Genesis, one with Adam and this mate being created
at the same time with god breathed dirt, and the other incompatible
story of Eve being created later out of Adam's rib (by the way and
improper translation of a word that means more literally one side of a
hermaphrodite)?

>
>>
>> > Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.
>> > You just failed to connect the dots
>>
>> If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence.
>> There's a lot of non-evidence though.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
Jeckyl wrote:

>>>>===>LIAR!
>>>>There's no "MESSIAH/CHRIST" in the Qur'an! -- L.
>>>
>>>There is in the translation I've read.. it occurs several times.
>>
>>===>Are you insane or just dishonest?
>>You post all these verses from the Qur'an,
>>yet NOWHERE does "Messiah/Christ" show up! -- L.
>
>
> It shows in those verse I quoted
>
> The ones I quoted originally were from the transaltion of the Quran that I
> had infront of me at the time at
> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm . And it is certainly
> there.
>
> The translation at http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm also refers
> to Messiah. You'd think that they would know at that site.
>
> Also there is the authorized English version at
> http://www.submission.org/Q-T.html .. it says "messiah" as well
>
> I looked up another,
> http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran/4-women.html, and another
> here http://www.oneummah.net/quran/03.htm and they both refer to Christ
> (rather than Messiah).
>
> I've been looking, and cannot as yet find an English translation that does
> not include eitehr the word 'messiah' or 'christ'
>
> Can you provide a link to one that doesn't?

===>Where did you see "Messiah/Christ"??? -- L.
 
On Feb 19, 2:03 pm, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,
> > their personalities are totally different!
>
> Does SIMILE applies only to personalities?
> You have been told time again and again that
> Mohammad is no personal or BIRTH name. At least that is not the way
> the author used it in the Qur'an.
> What Codi has been trying to tell you is that Mohammad is
> a title and a euphemism for Messiah.
> Now how does this work.
> In Semtic culture, it is discouraged to address a personnality
> with his real name, therefore a gloirified name is always used
> instead.
> Now, Mohammad which means the praised one and other title
> like the illustrious, the honored-one are titles associated with
> the one who is the Messiah.
> Let us say, when you hear the Merciful, you know straight away
> that someone is talking about GOD.
> The same applies to Messiah and whatever is associated with that
> title.
> This is obvious to someone who can read the whole translation of the
> entire Qur'an in Hebrew.
> So basically, what Codi has been saying about the intent of the
> Quranic
> author is that Mohammad is no personal name, it is a title invented
> for a purpose.
> Simply put, what the auhtor is saying is that X, the Arabian Leader
> looks like Mohammad
> but since we know that Mohammad is a euphemism for Messiah,
> what IS BEING said secretly is this, X looks like Messiah.
> Which takes us back where the author spoke about his work as a SIMILE
> or Metaphor
> if you ever know what Metaphor is. It is now for you to find
> the birth name of X as it would appear on his ID If he had one today.
> Notice that like the Messiah, X was subjet to persecution from his own
> people
> like the Messiah, he was orphan and had just one of
> his parents
> as the Messiah had only Mary.
> Like the Messiah he was preaching the Gospel by
> calling his
> people from the darkeness of polytheism to the light
> of Monotheism.
> Thus the word of the prophet can also be applied to him.
> "The stone that the builders rejected has become the CONERSTONE."
> Now saying that Jesus and X had different personalities is a
> misunderstanding
> of the word SIMILE.
> What was the name of X at birth. You can only find this out by reading
> the Sirah Rassul Allah by Ibn Hisham/Ishaq closely.
> What those biographers did was to make the name Mohammad appears
> as a birth name, that way, you could read the Qur'an literally and by
> reading
> literally miss the points. Otherwise they would be seen as the puppets
> of
> the Hebrews Christians who staged the whole scenario. What you have
> told
> from the hadiths and all other books is only the surface.
> I guess this is the message Codi has been trying to convey. In order
> to get
> his point you would have to get rid of so many things you learned
> from the Islamic Tradition.



Yep, you get my points
and last but not the least, say we have two guys
One saying:
Messiah is a prophet like Moses Deut 18:15
and the other saying:
Mohammad is a prophet like Moses
Both of them will be saying the same thing without knowing.

Imagine the confusion If X is understood
to be Mohammad










>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 

Similar threads

DaMan
What I know about the iPad 3
Replies
0
Views
123
DaMan
DaMan
DaMan
A month with the iPhone 4S
Replies
0
Views
126
DaMan
DaMan
timesjoke
Birds of a feather
Replies
0
Views
161
timesjoke
timesjoke
DaMan
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 review
Replies
0
Views
212
DaMan
DaMan
R
Do Many Jews Believe They Collectively Are The Messiah?
Replies
3
Views
18
Carl
C
Back
Top