Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Zev]

On Feb 20, 7:47 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 4:14 pmZevperhaps from zev_h...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 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
> > 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.
>
> I took the above as a challenge. That is part of the way codi issues
> they by calling anyone who disagrees with him intellectually
> challenged.

You mean the challenge has to do with Deuteronomy 18?
How do I accept a challenge after I've presented my case
and he refuses to discuss it,
other than his appeal to NT authority?

His 'Muhammad = Jesus' euphemism is BS
but it's not much of an issue for me,
I'll leave it to the Christians and Muslims.

> > 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.
>
> If there were a contradiction it must be a problem. This is not the
> book of Job where El and Satan have a bet. And although Satan can be
> called god because he is one of El's sons and Yahweh's brother in the
> contradiction you mentioned the only and specific god mentioned was
> Adonai which usually refers to Yahweh. It is as bad as the
> contradiction about whether Goliath or Goliath's brother was killed.
> Both contradictions stem from two different traditions.

Nothing happens that is against the will of the Almighty,
King David made a big mistake in ordering the count,
both verses are true.

At its root it is a contradiction,
and theologians have been discussing it for millennia.
The verses express a contradiction which exists,
and troubles mankind, even if the verses would not have been written.

Zev

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 3:32 pm
weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "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.
>

That was one story. Yet another says that the entire line of David was
wiped out. The bible contradicts itself over and over again.

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

With made up geneologies which not only contradicted each other but also
contradicted the two contradictory geneologies in the Old Testament.
And besides both of the geneologies in the NT give Joseph's lineage and
if he wasn't the real father then Jesus was not of the line of King
David. The only human parent, Mary, was of the Levite tribe.

>>> 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.
>

What is the basis of Rhett Butler? Of Frodo?
Of Mike Hammer or Sam Spade?

> 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.
>

None. Mark is the original and almost every verse hails back to a
passage in the Old Testament. Mark fabricated a modern hero fashioned
after Joshua of the OT and even gave him the same name, and also
borrowed from many of the prophets and other OT heroes. Matthew and
Luke thought their stories were even better for their audiences. John
borrowed the character and decided his would be more of a god-man.

>>> 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.

NO. No. No. Acts flatly contradicts what the Pauline school put in the
mouth of Paul. Acts fabricated new events and event cotradicted what
Paul thought of the other disciples.

> 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.

Why? She could well have been the originator of the stories found in
Acts.

> 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.

How could that be? There is good evidence that both the Pauline
Epistles, the gospels and Acts were written more than a 100 years after
the purported lifetime of their hero Joshua. By that time there were
no Jews in Jerusalem. They were all kicked out under pain of death.
They returned 19 centuries later.

>
>>> "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,

Please demonstrate that the Markus there is the same person who wrote
the gospel according to Mark.

> Paul refers to Luke in Colossians 4:14,

Two problems with this one. There is nothing that suggests Lukas in
Colossians is the same person as the author of the gospel according to
Luke. And secondly everything and every point of view in the GofLuke
is a woman's point of view. The author of the gospel according to Luke
most certainly had to be a woman no a man. The name in Colossians is
male.

> and to both Mark and Luke in Philomon 24.
>

Once again there is nothing to tie the Luke and Mark mentioned here to
the gospels that bear their names. Secondly Paul does not seem to know
ANY of the gospel stories not even when they would greatly enhance and
underscore a point he was making. Thirdly Paul calls both Mark and
Luke co-workers. They both would have had to be incredibly old (about
three to four times the average lifespan) by the time they wrote their
gospels.

But the biggest reason these are no the same people as the gospel
writers is that the school that wrote what was considered the authentic
Pauline Epistles did NOT write Colossians nor Philomon. those are
pseudo-Pauline forgeries written later to lend credence to the gospel
accounts. The entire theology in these works is different from the
originals and much more developed with a well established hierarchical
church/organization. Even the Greek is different.

>>> "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.

Read what I wrote more carefully. I did not say Matthew was the
earliest gospel but rather the earliest manuscripts of the gospel
according to Matthew call Joshua a Nazorite. That is a huge
difference.

> Papias wrote that Matthew
> compiled
> the "logia" in the Hebrew language.

No Papias wrote no such thing. Eusebius a few centuries later said that
Papias wrote that. Of the voluminous writings ascribed to Papias and
the importance given him by Irenaeus and Eusebius, it is rather curious
that nobody thought his books were worthy of copying. The best reason
for that must be that what he really wrote (if he in fact existed) was
very counter to proto-orthodox Christianity and the later orthodox
Christianity.

And that work could not possibly be the gospel according to Matthew.
All indications are that the original was written in Greek for a Greek
speaking audience. Nothing in our gospel suggests it was a translation
from Hebrew. Not only that but Matthew slaughters the Aramaic. I
doubt someone acquainted with Hebrew would do that.

> "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.)
>

No, it was deliberately translated as Jesus to make the name dissimilar
to the name Joshua. Translators like to obfuscate things in that way.
Just like they purposely translate what should be 'god' and write
angel, messenger or judge. They don't want the reader to understand
what the original really says.

> 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.
>

You are confusing the many similar Greek words in the various
manuscripts. The original Nazorite was eventually morphed into
Nazareth and became a place. There was no Jesus of Nazareth because
the city did not exist in the first century CE.

> 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.
>

You are not current with modern archaeology. It is fairly well
established that in the first two centuries CE the place that later
became Nazareth was a cemetery at that time. Until 135 CE no Jew would
found a city on a cemetery. It was forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Furthermore you are totally unfamiliar with the writing of the early
Church fathers. Nazareth, Cana and several other places were
questioned by those church fathers who lived in the region and knew of
no such cities. That was a great quandary and they were questioning if
other things in the gospels might not be false too. Their solution was
to suggest that the scribes copied the names wrong and the real names
unsolvable so they could continue to believe the other fairy tales.

>
> --Wax

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

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

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:17
am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> Christos (Christ in English) was applied to
>> King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a rock and a loaf of
>> bread in the Old Testament.
>> And in Acts Christos was applied to two
>> other individuals other that Joshua.
>
> Can you please cite the particular verses. I'd be interested to read
> them, and see how the word was translated (if only I could read
> Greek).
>
> Thanks

Several months back I posted a rather detailed article on alt.atheism
quoting the Greek and/or Hebrew texts. It was too lengthy of a reply
to repeat. Google groups should turn in up.

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

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

 

[Jeckyl]

> Several months back I posted a rather detailed article on alt.atheism
> quoting the Greek and/or Hebrew texts. It was too lengthy of a reply
> to repeat. Google groups should turn in up.

I found a thread back in october when you metnioned this, but didn't see any
references.

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:50
am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> He was small asnd inconsequential, yet people started writing about
>> him
>> only a hundred or more years later? How did they hear about him?
>> After a hundred years even important people are forgotten.
>
> Word of mouth (oral tradition and stories etc) would have been very
> strong.
>
> Also it wasn't a delay of hundreds of years .. it was one tens of
> years
> before Paul started writing his letters. Pretty much a continual
> stream.
>

There is nothing in Paul to indicate he wrote a decade of years within
the supposed lifetime of Joshua. There are many indications the school
of Paul wrote sometime after 134 CE with the gospel according to Mark
some months or a year or two later, followed somewhat even later by the
other gospels and Peudo-Pauline Epistles and the other pseudo-apostle
epistles.

> Also consider the theorised 'Q' gospel (the one upon which the
> synoptics are believed to be based, but each with its own alterations
> and 'improvements').
> That would have (obviously) predated the Gospels. Not that I'm
> claiming that that makes things any more belevable, but just that
> there it is very reasonable to assume there was not as long a gap as
> you claim before the first stories stared to appear.

All of the scenarios depicted in the gospels indicate conditions well
after the fall of the Temple and well into the second century CE. The
same goes for the Pauline works and other epistles. There is nothing
but nothing upon which to base an earlier date for any NT work save
perhaps Revelation which was a unique Greek comedy based upon the
retelling of the original Joshua legend recast into contemporary (for
the author) world especially Roman events and setting.

Only wishful thinking by apologists can place any of those works
earlier. Nothing in the stories themselves lends credence to an early
date.

You didn't read the link on Paul I provided, did you? The link provides
almost a verse by verse criticism against orthodox dating of the
Pauline epistles and pseudo-Pauline epistles. When those apologists
can counter the arguments then perhaps considering an early date might
be possible.

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

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

 

[Jeckyl]

>> Also it wasn't a delay of hundreds of years .. it was one tens of
>> years
>> before Paul started writing his letters. Pretty much a continual
>> stream.
> There is nothing in Paul to indicate he wrote a decade of years within
> the supposed lifetime of Joshua.

I didn't say that, i say the delay was one of tens rather than hundres of
years.

> There are many indications the school

The datings I have (which bible supports keep suggesting are too late) come
from (in particular) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

It dates the letters (that are still attributed to him) at 50-60 BC. The
ealiest is typically dates 50/51CE

> the gospel according to Mark some months or a year or two later

Mark is dates 65-80 CE on that site, Matthew 80-100 CE, Luke 80-130 CE, and
John 90-120 CE

Other sites I've seen give similar dates eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark says 60-80 CE

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm says 65-75 CE

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm says 57-75 CE


>> Also consider the theorised 'Q' gospel (the one upon which the
>> synoptics are believed to be based, but each with its own alterations
>> and 'improvements').
>> That would have (obviously) predated the Gospels. Not that I'm
>> claiming that that makes things any more belevable, but just that
>> there it is very reasonable to assume there was not as long a gap as
>> you claim before the first stories stared to appear.
>
> All of the scenarios depicted in the gospels indicate conditions well
> after the fall of the Temple

yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE. It seems
it was written just after that date

> and well into the second century CE.

Nothing indicates this that I have seen. What make you think the dating is
that late (very few scholars suggest anything outside the first century)

> You didn't read the link on Paul I provided, did you? The link provides
> almost a verse by verse criticism against orthodox dating of the
> Pauline epistles and pseudo-Pauline epistles. When those apologists
> can counter the arguments then perhaps considering an early date might
> be possible.

I _think_ I did .. maybe I didn't get to it. I'd have to go back and look
for you post and refresh my memory. I'll do that tonight (my time) if I can

 

[Michael Gray]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:45:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12tlda0cg0ic4d2@corp.supernews.com>
>>> Also it wasn't a delay of hundreds of years .. it was one tens of
>>> years
>>> before Paul started writing his letters. Pretty much a continual
>>> stream.
>> There is nothing in Paul to indicate he wrote a decade of years within
>> the supposed lifetime of Joshua.
>
>I didn't say that, i say the delay was one of tens rather than hundres of
>years.
>
>> There are many indications the school
>
>The datings I have (which bible supports keep suggesting are too late) come
>from (in particular) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
>
>It dates the letters (that are still attributed to him) at 50-60 BC. The
>ealiest is typically dates 50/51CE

This is an unsupported guess, and is almost with 100% probability
quite wrong, by a large margin.
There is zero evidence to support that guess.

>> the gospel according to Mark some months or a year or two later
>
>Mark is dates 65-80 CE on that site, Matthew 80-100 CE, Luke 80-130 CE, and
>John 90-120 CE
>
>Other sites I've seen give similar dates eg
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark says 60-80 CE

See above.

>http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm says 65-75 CE

See above.

>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm says 57-75 CE

See above.

>>> Also consider the theorised 'Q' gospel (the one upon which the
>>> synoptics are believed to be based, but each with its own alterations
>>> and 'improvements').
>>> That would have (obviously) predated the Gospels. Not that I'm
>>> claiming that that makes things any more belevable, but just that
>>> there it is very reasonable to assume there was not as long a gap as
>>> you claim before the first stories stared to appear.
>>
>> All of the scenarios depicted in the gospels indicate conditions well
>> after the fall of the Temple
>
>yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE. It seems
>it was written just after that date

"Seems"? From what evidence?

>> and well into the second century CE.
>
>Nothing indicates this that I have seen. What make you think the dating is
>that late (very few scholars suggest anything outside the first century)
>
>> You didn't read the link on Paul I provided, did you? The link provides
>> almost a verse by verse criticism against orthodox dating of the
>> Pauline epistles and pseudo-Pauline epistles. When those apologists
>> can counter the arguments then perhaps considering an early date might
>> be possible.
>
>I _think_ I did .. maybe I didn't get to it. I'd have to go back and look
>for you post and refresh my memory. I'll do that tonight (my time) if I can

--

 

[Jeckyl]

> This is an unsupported guess, and is almost with 100% probability
> quite wrong, by a large margin.
> There is zero evidence to support that guess.

As there would be for your guesses as well, I would say. I can seem to find
no documentation suggests later dates, but all for thta date ranges I
mentioned.

>>yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE. It
>>seems
>>it was written just after that date
> "Seems"? From what evidence?

See the discussions from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html,
which discusses various date estimates for Mark

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 3:57 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 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...

Losing an argument against an incapaciated ******* monkey-like black
ass ******?
You don't know what an argument is then?


>
> -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.

 

[copycat@yeayea.com]

On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.


It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.
Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an
And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek
root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)
How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER
(Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John
made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an
is no mistery.
You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM
What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE
for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X
have different messages. From Quranic point of view -
not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have
no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope
have different messages.



>
> Zev

 

[Bible Believer]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:04:38 +1100, "Jeckyl"
<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:


>> 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.
>
>Of course they did .. everything does ... and that was WAY before Jesus's
>time.
>
>Are you saying that we magically changed the information we have from the
>time of these stories to be something different. The beliefs and stories
>from before Jesus were what they were .. and that is what I'm referring to.
>Not to some subsequent interpretation.

They have nothing to do with Christianity.
Nor did they cease to change.


>> Honesty and integrity does not
>> involve making claims and then claiming that
>> the other guy must always be the one providing
>> proof.
>
>But that is what you're doing.

No, I called you on your claims.


--

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.

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 12:48 am, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > 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
>
> ===>You're an IDIOT, your comments prove it. -- L.- Hide quoted text -

An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle
to Galatians is far better than you.
Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying
to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents
were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue
as what his opponents were saying you would not come
up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional
Character. How do you reconcile your nonsense theory
with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?

If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that
he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles
why did the pharisees who believed still followed
him around so that he may include the Law of Moses
in his teaching?
Does this make sense to you?
I really prefer to be an idiot than the "expert" you are.


>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[zev]

<copycat@yeayea.com> wrote in message
news:1171980896.320037.189490@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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.

> It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.
> Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an
> And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek
> root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)
> How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER
> (Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John
> made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an
> is no mistery.
> You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM
> What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE
> for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X
> have different messages. From Quranic point of view -
> not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have
> no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope
> have different messages.

Jesus said it is not important what goes into your mouth (Matthew 15)
Muhammed prohibited pork even more than the Jews did.
Jihad (any way you want to understand the word)
is an important concept in Islam.
It isn't in Christianity.
This is just 'off the cuff', it is absurd to say the messages are the same.
All you have to do is read the Quran and NT.

But it hardly matters.
Deuteronomy 18 does not refer to
either of them or both of them or him or it.
I have already explained this in full.
If you have no retort, why don't you agree with me?

Zev

 

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 5:24
am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> This is an unsupported guess, and is almost with 100% probability
>> quite wrong, by a large margin.
>> There is zero evidence to support that guess.
>
> As there would be for your guesses as well, I would say. I can seem to
> find no documentation suggests later dates, but all for thta date
> ranges I mentioned.
>
>>>yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE.
>>>It seems
>>>it was written just after that date
>> "Seems"? From what evidence?
>
> See the discussions from
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html, which discusses
> various date estimates for Mark

That website is by a Christian apologist who MUST believe in an earlier
date lest his religion fail. But there is zero evidence for an early
date.

Two entire schools of higher criticism lay out the reasons for a late
date and so the impossibility for an earlier one. I gave you a link
that explains why verse by verse.

There were far too many mistakes in the gospels for anyone relying on
eyewitnesses. First the charge of blasphemy was totally incorrect.
Calling oneself a son of god was not blasphemy. The writers apparently
did not know this. Pilate would not have been necessary in the first
century CE. Jewish authorities had the right to execute their own
criminals (moral or legal). Notice that they tried to kill Joshua
three times before the crucifixion without resorting to Pilate and the
did execute Stephen on their own. Why didn't they go to Pilate or the
Roman authorities for him? Even the authors of Paul have him saying
they tried to execute him. Again why did they not go to the Romans?
The crucifixion scenario represented conditions in the second century
CE. I could go on and on with examples but it has been done so many
times before by scholars that I leave you with those.

One of the supporting pieces of evidence given in your links to an early
date was a fragment tentatively dated to 125 CE. That fragment is very
tiny and has a whole of 18 LETTERS that can be made out, some of them
just barely. The only whole word on that fragment is the word 'kai'
meaning "and". The verse could well have been from any book during
that time including a cookbook. Furthermore the dating is by
paleography and not radiocarbon 14 dating. In fact nothing in the
first and second centuries CE has been radiocarbon dated with accuracy.
I provided links in a much earlier post by some noted paleographers who
themselves admitted the field is filled with wishful thinking and very
little corraborative evidence.

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

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

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 9:14 am, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.
> Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an
> And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek
> root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)
> How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER
> (Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John
> made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an
> is no mistery.
> You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM
> What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE
> for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X
> have different messages. From Quranic point of view -
> not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have
> no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope
> have different messages.



Abu Quasim is likely to be his birth name. Abu Quasim like
Abu Bekr, Abu Lahab, Abu Talib.
The hadith makers tried to explain it away by saying that
this was not his birth name but a nickname given to him
after he fathered a son named Quasim as we know the name
Abu Quasim means literally father of Quasim.
But this argument is not convincing because by the same
token Abu Bekr would mean the father of Bekr and Abu Lahab,
the father of Lahab?
Did Abu Bekr fathered Bekr? not as we know it.
Was Abu Bekr known by a different birth name? No, not
as we know. What is true for Abu Bekr is also true for Abu Quasim.
Even the story about X having a son by the name Quasim is suspect.

We have been told that Mohammad or X fathered only one boy
from Mary the Coptic and that boy name was Ibrahim.
Now where is the truth? If he had only one boy named after
Ibrahim where did Quasim come from then?
Those biographers don't even know how to lie.
Let us pretend Quasim and Ibrahim are the same name
for the boy. How did Khadija, X first wife get to be
acquainted with that name then?
The only son fathered by X was born of Mary the Coptic.
And Mary the Coptic become X wife way after Khadija death.
Mary the Coptic gave birth to Ibrahim in Medina and not in Mecca.
To know X by the name Abu Quasim, you must have lived
in Medina where Mary the Coptic gave
birth to the only son, which Khadija did not. Yet the biographer
put in Khadija mouth something going like that, " O Abu Quasim
O son of my father, where have you been?
I have been looking for you everywhere."
This is the first story about the cave where X supposedly
had his first revelation. This is Mecca and not Medina...

To make a long story short, I must say that Mohammad
birth name is ABU QUASIM




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

 

[copycat@yeayea.com]

On Feb 20, 10:33 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <copy...@yeayea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171980896.320037.189490@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> > It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.
> > Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an
> > And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek
> > root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)
> > How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER
> > (Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John
> > made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an
> > is no mistery.
> > You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM
> > What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE
> > for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X
> > have different messages. From Quranic point of view -
> > not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have
> > no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope
> > have different messages.
>
> Jesus said it is not important what goes into your mouth (Matthew 15)

Codebreaker is quite right, your refusing to read the New Testament
prevent you from broadening your horizon.
Have you ever come across what is known as the dietary Law by
the Council at Jerusalem, it is in Acts 15, read it, you
would find out that before Mohammad, the Apostles were
reported to have prohibited
the eating of pork based on Moses Law, despite the fact Jesus
was repoted having said the above." It is not important what goes
into your mouth..."
Think critically boy.



> Muhammed prohibited pork even more than the Jews did.
> Jihad (any way you want to understand the word)
> is an important concept in Islam.

Jihad is a political action dressed in a religious garb.
Mohammad needed
an army to prevent the Arabs unbelievers to invade
his land. Jihad is sanctioned by the Law of Moses
This take us back to what codebreaker was saying.
Christianity has also a Mosaic version.
That means that there were Hebrews Christians who
were observing the Law of Moses and advocating it Act 15
What was needed was a STATE to back up their
version of Christianity. X or Mohammad was a statemen
hence the Jihad you spoke of earlier.

> It isn't in Christianity.
> This is just 'off the cuff', it is absurd to say the messages are the same.
> All you have to do is read the Quran and NT.


All you have to do is to think. But probably thinking
is too hard for you

>
> But it hardly matters.
> Deuteronomy 18 does not refer to
> either of them or both of them or him or it.

There is no both. It is one Messiah with multiple dignified names

> I have already explained this in full.
> If you have no retort, why don't you agree with me?


The teaching on Deuteronomy 18:15 is from the
Apostles and is reported by Peter in Acts 2,
At least If you read the New Testament you have come across it.
No man in his right mind would leave what the Apostles taught
behind and follow your speculation.

You are not an apostle, so who cares about
your private opinion?
At least know what the Apostles taught and how it fit
all together in History of Christianity in its both
version Catolic and Islam. At least That is Codi's point


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

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 12:48 am, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>===>You're an IDIOT, your comments prove it. -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle
> to Galatians is far better than you.

===>You only BELIEVE you can "read and grasp" Galatians.
In fact you approach it with preconceived doctrinal prejudices
you acquired from your preacher(s), and apply blind faith
to accept whatever you are SUPPOSED to understand by the
ramblings of a crazy, vision-seeing, hallucinating, lying
phony "apostle".

> Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying
> to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents
> were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue
> as what his opponents were saying you would not come
> up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional
> Character.


===>There was no such thing anywhere in the Jewish culture as a
dying/rising, self-sacrificing, incarnate savior god named
"Christos".
If you believe it was not an invention, prove it otherwise.

How do you reconcile your nonsense theory
> with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?
>
> If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that
> he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles
> why did the pharisees who believed still followed
> him around so that he may include the Law of Moses
> in his teaching?

===>Because he was their competitor,
converting potential allies of the
Jewish resistance to his own pro-Roman, anti-Jewish
new-fangled savior cult, claiming that his converts
would be the new heirs to the Abrahamic promises.

> Does this make sense to you?

===>Of course it makes sense, ifg you see it with
open eyes and consider it with open mind in the
cultural and hiustorical context, instead of blindly
taking it in as the "Word of God".

> I really prefer to be an idiot than the "expert" you are.

===>Well, congratulations.
You seem to be succeeding quite well at your preferred goal. -- L.

 

[weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> So you are saying when the (tranlsated) quram refers to
> Jesus as Christ, that its not the same as whne the bible refers
> to Jesus as the Christ ?

Exactly.

--Wax

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

>
> > An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle
> > to Galatians is far better than you.
>
> ===>You only BELIEVE you can "read and grasp" Galatians.
> In fact you approach it with preconceived doctrinal prejudices
> you acquired from your preacher(s), and apply blind faith
> to accept whatever you are SUPPOSED to understand by the
> ramblings of a crazy, vision-seeing, hallucinating, lying
> phony "apostle".

Ok, now what about his opponent position, how does
their position fit in your theory that Paul created Christ
a fictional character?
I am assuming that you know they wanted Paul to
include circumcision and the Law of Moses in his teaching.
How do you reconcile their position with yours




>
> > Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying
> > to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents
> > were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue
> > as what his opponents were saying you would not come
> > up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional
> > Character.
>
> ===>There was no such thing anywhere in the Jewish culture as a
> dying/rising, self-sacrificing, incarnate savior god named
> "Christos".
> If you believe it was not an invention, prove it otherwise.


Now why the pharisees had not been saying that.
All what they wanted was Paul to teach the costums
of Moses along with the Christos that he invented
Hmmmm.. I still can't get it.
Again let me remind you your premises.
Paul invented Chistos.
There is nothing about Christos in the Jewish Scriptures
Messiah and Christos are two differents world.
Questions again from me.
Why did the pharisees bothered for somebody else invention?
Would not Paul be free to use his invention the way he wanted.
But it looks like the party of Paul and the Party of the pharisees
who advocated circumcision were reading the
same Torah of Moses and reading about the same Messiah/Christ


>
> How do you reconcile your nonsense theory
>
> > with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?
>
> > If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that
> > he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles
> > why did the pharisees who believed still followed
> > him around so that he may include the Law of Moses
> > in his teaching?
>
> ===>Because he was their competitor,
> converting potential allies of the
> Jewish resistance to his own pro-Roman, anti-Jewish
> new-fangled savior cult, claiming that his converts
> would be the new heirs to the Abrahamic promises.


This was not my question. But you are bringing in something
interesting as competitor.
Paul preaching Chrestos was competitor to the pharisee.
What was the Message of the pharisees then?
For them to be competitors, that would mean that
the Pharisees were preaching the same Chrestos
who was supposed to be Paul's invention.
How do you compete with an inventor over his product?
What do you mean by competitor exactly?
And to what extend the pharisees are believed to be
in competition with Paul?

>
> > Does this make sense to you?
>
> ===>Of course it makes sense, ifg you see it with
> open eyes and consider it with open mind in the
> cultural and hiustorical context, instead of blindly
> taking it in as the "Word of God".

There is something missing in your equation
Paul preaching Chrestos have some pharisees
as competitors, yet Chrestos according to your guess
was not foretold by Moses but seems to be
a product of Paul inventive mind. What is the problem here?
What do Pharisees and Paul have in COMMON
for them to be competitors?
What is their goal


>
> > I really prefer to be an idiot than the "expert" you are.
>
> ===>Well, congratulations.
> You seem to be succeeding quite well at your preferred goal. -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

>>>An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle
>>>to Galatians is far better than you.
>>
>>===>You only BELIEVE you can "read and grasp" Galatians.
>>In fact you approach it with preconceived doctrinal prejudices
>>you acquired from your preacher(s), and apply blind faith
>>to accept whatever you are SUPPOSED to understand by the
>>ramblings of a crazy, vision-seeing, hallucinating, lying
>>phony "apostle".
>
>
> Ok, now what about his opponent position, how does
> their position fit in your theory that Paul created Christ
> a fictional character?
> I am assuming that you know they wanted Paul to
> include circumcision and the Law of Moses in his teaching.
> How do you reconcile their position with yours

===>You obviously did not read all my response.
See below.
>
>>>Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying
>>>to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents
>>>were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue
>>>as what his opponents were saying you would not come
>>>up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional
>>>Character.
>>
>>===>There was no such thing anywhere in the Jewish culture as a
>>dying/rising, self-sacrificing, incarnate savior god named
>>"Christos".
>>If you believe it was not an invention, prove it otherwise.
>
>
>
> Now why the pharisees had not been saying that.

===>How do you know they were no saying that?

> All what they wanted was Paul to teach the costums
> of Moses along with the Christos that he invented

===>Why not?

> Hmmmm.. I still can't get it.
> Again let me remind you your premises.
> Paul invented Chistos.
> There is nothing about Christos in the Jewish Scriptures
> Messiah and Christos are two differents world.

===>By gosh, You've got it!

> Questions again from me.
> Why did the pharisees bothered for somebody else invention?

===>I already told you why.
Why do you keep asking the same question?

> Would not Paul be free to use his invention the way he wanted.

===>Of course not.
He claimed he was "grafting on" his followers.

> But it looks like the party of Paul and the Party of the pharisees
> who advocated circumcision were reading the
> same Torah of Moses and reading about the same Messiah/Christ

===>The same MESSIAH, perhaps.
But there never was any "Messiah/Christ".
The word "christos" was used in the LXX as a translation for
"anointed", mainly because Greco-Roman athletes were called that
for having been smeared with oils for their games.
But the messianic liberator king who would free the Jews
from Gentile control was TOTALLY unlike the dying/rising
savior god "Christos", of the Pauline Gentile savior cult.


>>How do you reconcile your nonsense theory
>

===>It is NOT a "theory", and if it seems "nonsense" to you,
it is because you are blinded by your doctrinal prejudices.
>>
>>>with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?
>>
>>>If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that
>>>he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles
>>>why did the pharisees who believed still followed
>>>him around so that he may include the Law of Moses
>>>in his teaching?
>>
>>===>Because he was their competitor,
>>converting potential allies of the
>>Jewish resistance to his own pro-Roman, anti-Jewish
>>new-fangled savior cult, claiming that his converts
>>would be the new heirs to the Abrahamic promises.
>
>
>
> This was not my question. But you are bringing in something
> interesting as competitor.
> Paul preaching Chrestos was competitor to the pharisee.
> What was the Message of the pharisees then?

===>First and foremost, their message was obedience
to the TORAH.
Secondly, their intention was to recruit the Jews in the
Diaspora, as well as Gedntile sympathizers known as
"God fearers", to the Jewish cause.

> For them to be competitors, that would mean that
> the Pharisees were preaching the same Chrestos
> who was supposed to be Paul's invention.

===>Again, you misinterpret "competition", because you are
incapable of thinking outside your doctrinal prejudices.

> How do you compete with an inventor over his product?

It was NOT a competiotion overe any "product".
It was a competition for FOLLOWERS!

> What do you mean by competitor exactly?
> And to what extend the pharisees are believed to be
> in competition with Paul?

===>I already told you that.
>
>
>>>Does this make sense to you?
>>
>>===>Of course it makes sense, if you see it with
>>open eyes and consider it with open mind in the
>>cultural and historical context, instead of blindly
>>taking it in as the "Word of God".
>
>
> There is something missing in your equation
> Paul preaching Chrestos have some pharisees
> as competitors, yet Chrestos according to your guess
> was not foretold by Moses but seems to be
> a product of Paul inventive mind. What is the problem here?

===>The problem is, you don't know what you are talking about.

> What do Pharisees and Paul have in COMMON
> for them to be competitors?

===>MARKETS.
A population of potential converts.
To THEIR "gospel" of JUDAISM and the TORAH
and the coming KINGDOM OF GOD
HERE ON EARTH!
vs.
Saul/Paul's "gospel" of "Christos" and
escape into the air from a coming calamity.
("Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them
in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air")

TWO DIFFERENT AND OPPOSING "GOSPELS".

"deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ,
for a different gospel"
"even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel
contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"
"the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received
it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

I.e., it was his own invention! -- L.