Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 18, 7:20 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>did not invent.
>>
>>>>>===>FALSE ASSertion,
>>>>>FALSE CONCLUSION. -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>You are not ashamed of yourself yet?
>>>>A fictional character invented by Paul would not
>>>>be applied to Bar Khobba.
>>
>>===>What kind of dishonest nitwit are you?
>>NO ONE applies ANYTHING of Saul/Paul to Bar Kokhba.
>
>
> What do you think Bar KHobbah was claiming?

===>Certainly NOT that he is a "prophet like Moses"!

> Bar Khobba was claiming that he was the Messiah of
> Israel that is to say the Christ and Savior of Israel.

===>False.
He was DECLARED the "Messiah", but NEVER the
"Christ and Savior".

> What were you thinking? That he was claiming this
> out of the blue? No sir, He was claiming this on the basis
> of the Jewish Scriptures. Hence him being anointed
> by Rabbi Akiva.

===>There's NOTHING in the "Jewish Scriptures" about any
"Christ and Savior"!

> How could Paul invent
> a fictional personage claimed by others?

===>He invented THE NAME of "CHRESTOS or CHRISTOS".
Otherwise he just copied old Pagan mystery teachings.

> You are drowning in the SEA of our knowledge.
>
>
>
>>Yet Bar Kobba and
>>
>>
>>>>his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ.
>>
>>===>Why do you keep on LYING, falsely combining
>>"Messiah" with "Christ"?
>>How dishonest can you get?
>
>
>
> Messiah is the English transliteration of the Hebraic word Mashiach
> which is translated in GREEK as Christ also translated
> in Arabic as Al-Massih.

===>That is true, but the JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely
NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your
"Christ the Savior"!

> Sir I went already through this with you many a time.

===>That just proves you are ineducable.
>

>>therefore Paul did not invent him.
>>
>>===>You're NUTS!
>>Saul/Paul invented the god CHRISTOS
>>for his new savior cult.
>>NOTHING to do with the Jewish "Messiah".
>
>
> Again Christ is Greek for Messiah which is a transliteration
> of the Hebraic word Moshiac or Al-Massih in Arabic.

===>You are still parroting the same old line.
UNDERSTAND THIS:
The JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely
NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your
"Christ the Savior"! -- L.

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Never Knew.
>>
>>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".
>>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,
>>since he never existed. -- L.
>
>
> 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. This does not look like
> a fictional character.

===>You obviously have no sense of humor.
"Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",
a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 18, 7:12 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Tohu.B...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 16, 7:26 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Jeckyl wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>You are such a prentious little asshole...
>>
>>>>>>>Charming.
>>
>>>>>>>>The same way people are trained to explain the American
>>>>>>>>Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel
>>>>>>>>trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.
>>>>>>>>You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about
>>>>>>>>your PRIVATE OPINION.
>>
>>>>>>>So are you saying that the Jewish faith recognises Jesus as the messiah ?
>>
>>>>>>>>You are not a good Historian either
>>
>>>>>>>You ceratinly aren't .. you've not given one single bit of historial
>>>>>>>evidence. Only hearsay from people who never new jesus when he was
>>>>>>>supposedly alive.
>>
>>>>>>>>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
>>
>>>>>>>Whether or not the Jews where expecting a promised messiah is beside the
>>>>>>>point. The issue is whether jesus was that messiah. The old testament and
>>>>>>>jewish scripture do not say that.
>>
>>>>>>>>Do you think that being historian mean reading the works
>>>>>>>>by some Historians?
>>>>>>>>Being historian means being able to investigate and find the cause
>>>>>>>>and effect.
>>
>>>>>>>Exactly .. obviosuly not something you have done, otherwise you would cite
>>>>>>>the credible contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.
>>
>>>>>>>>Hey it looks like History does not support your viewpoint.
>>
>>>>>>>It certainly does not support yours.
>>
>>>>>>>>JESUS IS THE CHRIST, NO JESUS, NO CHRIST
>>
>>>>>>>Shame that.
>>
>>>>>>===>In fact the Gospel writers invented "Jesus" to strengthen
>>>>>>the Pauline claims about "Christ".
>>
>>>>>It is easy to claim it, now you must prove it.
>>>>>Given the fact that you believe that Rabbi Akkiba accepted
>>>>>Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel.
>>
>>>>===>I don't "believe" it.
>>>>I KNOW it.
>>
>>>>>Given the fact that any Jewish claim about the Messiah is always
>>>>>based on Deuteronomy 18:14-19.
>>
>>>>===>FALSE ASSertiom you keep repeating.
>>
>>>Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba
>>>was the Messiah/Christ.
>>
>>===>He PROCLAIMED Bar Kokhba as the Messiah.
>>
>>
>>>We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's
>>>claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS
>>>we can help you connect them. But before anything let me
>>>ask you some:
>>>Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where
>>>do you think that he based his claim on?
>>
>>===>Definitely NOT on Deuteronomy!
>>Only YOU keep ASSSerting that it has to do with
>>"the Messiah". -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> Countless of Rabbis already did. You are the one coming
> up with a novelty, but thanks goodness you are not
> a Rabbi, therefore your opinion is not authoritative.
> You are clueless as how the Law of Moses works in the real
> life

===>Well, Dummkopf, why don't you clue us in on who those
"countless rabbis" were? -- L.

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 2:46 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:20 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>did not invent.
>
> >>>>>===>FALSE ASSertion,
> >>>>>FALSE CONCLUSION. -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>You are not ashamed of yourself yet?
> >>>>A fictional character invented by Paul would not
> >>>>be applied to Bar Khobba.
>
> >>===>What kind of dishonest nitwit are you?
> >>NO ONE applies ANYTHING of Saul/Paul to Bar Kokhba.
>
> > What do you think Bar KHobbah was claiming?
>
> ===>Certainly NOT that he is a "prophet like Moses"!


What else could he base his Messianic claim on?

>
> > Bar Khobba was claiming that he was the Messiah of
> > Israel that is to say the Christ and Savior of Israel.
>
> ===>False.
> He was DECLARED the "Messiah", but NEVER the
> "Christ and Savior".


He was declared the Messiah on what ground?


>
> > What were you thinking? That he was claiming this
> > out of the blue? No sir, He was claiming this on the basis
> > of the Jewish Scriptures. Hence him being anointed
> > by Rabbi Akiva.
>
> ===>There's NOTHING in the "Jewish Scriptures" about any
> "Christ and Savior"!


On what ground did Bar Khoba claim to be the Messiah.
You are not a scribe or a doctor of the Law, are you?



>
> > How could Paul invent
> > a fictional personage claimed by others?
>
> ===>He invented THE NAME of "CHRESTOS or CHRISTOS".
> Otherwise he just copied old Pagan mystery teachings.

You have been told many a time that Messiah and
Christos are the same word which is
Al-Massih in Arabic.
You are not consitent with reality. You have
to ignore all rules and established truth just
for you to make Paul the inventor of Christos.
Why don't you just trash that garbage theory that
you have tossing around which fit nowhere.
It is not consistent with the HISTORY of Israel,
not consistent with their culture, not Consistent
with the History of Christianity, not consistent
with a text, not even with common sense
>
>
>
>
>
> > You are drowning in the SEA of our knowledge.
>
> >>Yet Bar Kobba and
>
> >>>>his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ.
>
> >>===>Why do you keep on LYING, falsely combining
> >>"Messiah" with "Christ"?
> >>How dishonest can you get?
>
> > Messiah is the English transliteration of the Hebraic word Mashiach
> > which is translated in GREEK as Christ also translated
> > in Arabic as Al-Massih.
>
> ===>That is true, but the JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely
> NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your
> "Christ the Savior"!


Post the textual reference and we will examine
together becuase I know you have a reading
comprehension problem.
An intellectual should not be content with a baseless
claim



>
> > Sir I went already through this with you many a time.
>
> ===>That just proves you are ineducable.
>
>
>
> >>therefore Paul did not invent him.
>
> >>===>You're NUTS!
> >>Saul/Paul invented the god CHRISTOS
> >>for his new savior cult.
> >>NOTHING to do with the Jewish "Messiah".

You must now explain how the Ebionites his enemies
found themselves using his term his invention.
I am assuming that you know that the Qur'an is the
reversal of Paul doctrines.
Now you must explain how the qur'an ended up
calling Jesus the Christ/Messiah something
invented by Paul while fighting Paul for
not teaching the Gentile on the merit
of the Law of Moses.
You have a lot of explanation to do. Good luck


>
> > Again Christ is Greek for Messiah which is a transliteration
> > of the Hebraic word Moshiac or Al-Massih in Arabic.
>
> ===>You are still parroting the same old line.
> UNDERSTAND THIS:
> The JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely
> NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your
> "Christ the Savior"! -- L.- Hide quoted text -


Messiah means Christ understood to be Jesus.
You can't connect the dots. so you make up your
own

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

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>
> >>>Never Knew.
>
> >>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".
> >>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,
> >>since he never existed. -- L.
>
> > 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. This does not look like
> > a fictional character.
>
> ===>You obviously have no sense of humor.
> "Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",
> a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

You see how you twist every single thing to make
your twisted point.
Even If it was Smith and Smith means somebody
who do a certain job, this would not be taken to mean
that the accusation is not genuine.
Now you must prove that the one who reported
the accusation and the name was thinking the same thing
than you. Prove that it was just trying to be comical..

YOU ARE A DEMON, YOUR TACTICS SHOW IT




>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 2:58 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> life
>
> ===>Well, Dummkopf, why don't you clue us in on who those
> "countless rabbis" were? -- L.- Hide quoted text -

This is what I have been doing. I have been
trying to connect the dots first for you, then you will be
able to see the big picture, picture that you can't see
until the dots are connected. but apparently
you are too arrogant to get rid of your errors



>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[weatherwax]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
> weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>>
>>> 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.

I began making a few remarks about the writing and canonization of the Old
Testament, but it started getting long and outside the subject, so I will
let that pass for now.

>>> 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.

Not every line was wiped out.

The messianic expectation originated in the period of the exile, and
reflected the desire of many Jews to return to their native land of Israel.
Zerubbabel, a grandson of King Jehoiachim (1 Chronicles 3:17), led the
people back to Israel, and began rebuilding the Temple. In Hagai 2:20-23
Zerubbabel is named the one chosen by God. He was an early fulfillment of
the messianic expectation.

Early chapters of "Matthew" and "Luke" were written to show that Jesus was
from the line of David.

>> 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.

I agree that they do contradict each other. That does not say there is not
a basis to the stories. There usually is.

A few years ago I read an article in the Los Angeles times which said that
my uncle, Rudd Weatherwax, learned to train dogs from his father who trained
sheep dogs on his ranch in Mexico.

That is fine except that the ranch was in New Mexico, not Mexico. He raised
goats, not sheep. And the ranch was sold when my uncle was only two years
old. So, although the story was wrong, there was a basis of fact.

I have been trying to dig out the basis of fact which is within the gospel
stories.

>> 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?

As a historian, Luke was among the worse, and I agree that the sequence of
events in Acts are inconsistent with the Pauline letters. The major problem
comes with Paul's visits to Jerusalem. It is an interesting subject to go
into, but off the subject right now. It is obvious that up to chapter 16
that Luke was using a secondary source. Meanwhile, dismissing everything
Luke says is unwarranted.

Paul himself says almost nothing about Jesus' life. The gospelers were
attempting to fuse Paul's concept of Christ with the story of Jesus they
obtained from the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem.

>> "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.

Paul refers to Mark in Colossians 4:10,
Paul refers to Luke in Colossians 4:14,
and to both Mark and Luke in Philomon 24.

>> "Matthew" was written by an anonymous author who used
>> "Mark" as a source. "John" may or may not have by written
>> by a 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.

"Matthew" was not the earliest gospel. Papias wrote that Matthew compiled
the "logia" in the Hebrew language. "Logia" meant "oracles", but in time
it acquired the meaning of "gospel". Therefore church leaders began to
believe that Matthew wrote a gospel, and being a disciple, it must have been
written first, with Mark and Luke copying him.

Modern authorities are in agreement that "Mark" was written first.

The Greek transliteration of "Yoshowshuwa" was "Iesou". Eventually, it was
Latinized into "Jesus". Or as a friend told me, it was "vulgarized" into
"Jesus" (The letter "J" is found in Vulgar Latin, but not in Classical
Latin.)

The word "Nazarene" has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth, or with
Jewish Nazarites. It was the name of a Jewish sect which dates back to the
1st century c.e.

Sometimes you go too far with your sweeping statements. The claim that
there was no town or village by the name of "Nazareth" in the 1st century
cannot be proven. There were literally hundreds of villages in Galilee
which were never mentioned in any historical text. Nazareth could easily
have existed at the time of Jesus.


--Wax

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>
> >>>Never Knew.
>
> >>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".
> >>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,
> >>since he never existed. -- L.
>
> > 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. This does not look like
> > a fictional character.
>
> ===>You obviously have no sense of humor.
> "Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",
> a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

Jews don't play with their religious book. know the culture


>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Zev]

On Feb 19, 6:53 pm, "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.

Your post mentioned Deuteronomy 18,
I thought I have a better way of explaining
this chapter than you do,
and I explained it, in detail.

Why do you argue from 'authority'?
Why can't you tell me where my mistakes are,
why your explanation is better than mine?
Why do you post to the Usenet,
and then pretend to be aloof?

> > 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

 

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com]

On Feb 17, 11:26 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:38 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:01 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
>
> Hey, son of a black bitch... You are an out of wedlock kid anyway.
> Now go and find your dad

ROFL! Is this what all christians do when they lose an argument?
Mealtimes must be very interesting around your house...

-PF, Atl.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

And you do realize that Black people are religious, right? Reggie's
(The Infidel Guy `net radio show) the only Black atheist I know.

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>
> >>>Never Knew.
>
> >>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".
> >>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,
> >>since he never existed. -- L.
>
> > 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. This does not look like
> > a fictional character.
>
> ===>You obviously have no sense of humor.
> "Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",
> a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

If you had a slightest understanding of jewish
history and culture, you will find out that Jews
take their religion seriously.
No Jew would try to be humorous in their religious
book. It seems to me you have principles
or rules of conduct which you tend to project
onto others. It ain't so in Judaism.
It is because religion they killed people,
prophets, scribes... Religion was a serious
matter specially in the time frame we are talking
about. So try something else instead of that
cheap excuse that the writer was trying to be humorous.
Mary a real woman and a historical fihure was
accused in the Jewish religious book of having
an affair with a roman soldier named PANTERA.
This by itself is an evidence of Jesus historicity



>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[weatherwax]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
> Christopher A.Lee calee@optonline.net wrote:
>> 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.

The Nazirites (not to be confused with Nazarenes,) are described in Numbers
6:2-21. The Nazirite took a vow to "separate himself to the LORD". They
avoided alcohol, and did not cut their hair.

--Wax

 

[Zev]

On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:53
> am codebrea...@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebrea...@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

I came into this thread recently, only to discuss Deuteronomy 18.
By chance I also commented about a remark about a euphemism.
The reply I got referred only to this side remark,
and not at all to Deuteronomy 18.
It seems that 'copy' and 'codi' get confused
working with more than one idea in a single post.
But what was the challenge?
I didn't notice any.

Does your first question refer to the God - Satan contradiction?
I've never seen this as a problem,
but your question is not addressed to me,
I'll let 'codi' work on it, if he can.

> 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 dars...@neo.rr.com
>
> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

[Mettas Mother]

Looks like you are taking it more serious than the Jews themselves!

"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1171918684.884127.209250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
> If you had a slightest understanding of jewish
> history and culture, you will find out that Jews
> take their religion seriously.
> No Jew would try to be humorous in their religious
> book. It seems to me you have principles
> or rules of conduct which you tend to project
> onto others. It ain't so in Judaism.
> It is because religion they killed people,
> prophets, scribes... Religion was a serious
> matter specially in the time frame we are talking
> about. So try something else instead of that
> cheap excuse that the writer was trying to be humorous.
> Mary a real woman and a historical fihure was
> accused in the Jewish religious book of having
> an affair with a roman soldier named PANTERA.
> This by itself is an evidence of Jesus historicity
>
>
> >

 

[Zev]

On Feb 19, 8:18 pm, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:
> 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:

> I am wonder why you assume that he has the IQ needed
> to understand all the subtilities of this debat

Yeah, I think you're right ;-)

Zev

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 4:18 pm, "Mettas Mother" <mettas_moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Looks like you are taking it more serious than the Jews themselves!


Jews did think that Mary was a real person and not fictional...
Jews did think that Jesus was historical.
That is the bottom line


>
> "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171918684.884127.209250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
> > If you had a slightest understanding of jewish
> > history and culture, you will find out that Jews
> > take their religion seriously.
> > No Jew would try to be humorous in their religious
> > book. It seems to me you have principles
> > or rules of conduct which you tend to project
> > onto others. It ain't so in Judaism.
> > It is because religion they killed people,
> > prophets, scribes... Religion was a serious
> > matter specially in the time frame we are talking
> > about. So try something else instead of that
> > cheap excuse that the writer was trying to be humorous.
> > Mary a real woman and a historical fihure was
> > accused in the Jewish religious book of having
> > an affair with a roman soldier named PANTERA.
> > This by itself is an evidence of Jesus historicity- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Zev]

On Feb 19, 9:03 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.

It may be that Mohammad's real name was Ahmed,
but he is not to be confused with Jesus.
Their messages are different,
and historically, both Christians and Muslims
do not confuse the two.

Zev

 

[Jeckyl]

> But they are not the same.

I didn't say they were .. the claim was there was no reference to the words
Messiah or Christ in the Quram. Fairly implicitly that would imply loing at
the English translations to compare (see the calim is about english words,
not arabic) .. and those words appear (one or the other at the same place)
in the all the English translations of the Quram (even ones that are
authorsied and on islamic web sites) I could find. Surely they would not be
authorised translations if they had the wrong translation for whataver
Arabic word is in the original text?

 

[Jeckyl]

> 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?

Saying his mother was a whore is a much better way to discredit.

>> > 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.

There is 'evidence', biblical and non-biblical that support the idea of a
read Jesus. .. but unfortunately, none seem to be credible historical
evidence. Either they a contemporary, but not first hand; or claim to be
first hand, but not contemporary. Each one fails the 'test' for being real
historical evidence in one way or another.

Perhaps if we one day find the theorized pre-gospel text (those called Q and
Signs Gospel in particular) then we'd have the historical evidence required.

I'm not saying such evidence may not be out there somewhere.. I'm not even
saying Jesus did not exist .. I'm saying that (at least as yet) we have no
credible historical evidence for it.

 

[Jeckyl]

> 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.

I do have an appreciation of what the talmud is .. that does not mean that
what is in it wasn't based on a rumour and added to help discredit Jesus.
Why would Jesus being a ******* son of a roman be part of the Jewish faith?
Why were those references edited later on?