Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

  • Thread starter Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
  • Start date
>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change
>> any emphasis.
> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the
> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon
> an actual person.

Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
him.

Well said.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:58:53 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change
>> any emphasis.
>
>Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the
>followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon
>an actual person.

Non sequitur.

>--Wax
>
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:14:46 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change
>>> any emphasis.
>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the
>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon
>> an actual person.
>
>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
>him.

Then why doesn't he describe the person?

>Well said.
>
 
>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
>>him.
> Then why doesn't he describe the person?

What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of
from others?

Paul himself claims not to have seen/met the human Jesus .. only to have had
a vision.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:32:46 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
>>>him.
>> Then why doesn't he describe the person?
>
>What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of
>from others?

You tell me - you're the one making the claims that he knew of the
historical Jesus that he doesn't describe, from those who knew him.


>Paul himself claims not to have seen/met the human Jesus .. only to have had
>a vision.
>
 
>>>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
>>>>him.
>>> Then why doesn't he describe the person?
>>What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of
>>from others?
> You tell me - you're the one making the claims that he knew of the
> historical Jesus that he doesn't describe, from those who knew him.

Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only talks
of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He says
little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was
teaching.
 
> Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only
> talks of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it).
> He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what
> he was teaching.

argh . .typos .. let me try again and say a little more :)

Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes Jesus physical appearance. The
Gospels talk of what he did during his live, where he went, what he said,
what he did.
Paul only talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he
interpretted it. He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not
relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it was only those
non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his letters (as that
may have been what his followers were having trouble with most).
 
On Feb 20, 9:32 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
> >>him.
> > Then why doesn't he describe the person?
>
> What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of
> from others?
>
> Paul himself claims not to have seen/met the human Jesus .. only to have had
> a vision.

IOW, a temporal lobe aura.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:38:49 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>>>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of
>>>>>him.
>>>> Then why doesn't he describe the person?
>>>What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of
>>>from others?
>> You tell me - you're the one making the claims that he knew of the
>> historical Jesus that he doesn't describe, from those who knew him.
>
>Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only talks
>of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He says
>little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was
>teaching.

Please demonstrate that this is the reason he says little about Jesus.
 
>>Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul only
>>talks
>>of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he interpretted it). He
>>says
>>little about Jesus as a person because it was not relevant to what he was
>>teaching.
> Please demonstrate that this is the reason he says little about Jesus.

Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 8:14
pm Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change
>>> any emphasis.
>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through
>> the
>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based
>> upon an actual person.
>
> Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known
> of him.
>
> Well said.

The tow of you are confusing the fantasies found in Acts with character
of the Pauline school of scribes. There is zero evidence for the
mention of any Jesus, anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline
school in the second century. The human Jesus was invented later. The
character Paul heard nothing of Jesus. Why is it so difficult for you
to understand the plain words the scribes made Paul utter about hearing
nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

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

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:41
pm weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a
>>>>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.
>>>>
>>>> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed
>>>> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew
>>>> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with
>>>> christian knowledge would know that.
>>>
>>> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-
>>> Greek. I did not say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said
>>> that it "refers to the literal Son of God."
>>
>> And you would be wrong. 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. You are now going to suggest a loaf of bread is a son
>> of god? Or a donkey?
>>
>>> It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.
>>>
>>
>> It's too bad you don't read Greek. Otherwise you would not
>> have made that statement.
>
> I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ" does not
> have the
> same meaning as the word "messiah".

It certainly does have the exact same meaning. Had you studied Hebrew
and Greek you would have discovered for yourself that the Greek
Septuagint translated the Hebrew messiah which meant oiled one or oiled
thing as christos. It had the exact same meaning.

> It is true that in the Old
> Testament rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you would never
> call any of them "Christ", and I do not know of an English translation
> which does.
>
Of course not because most translations want the reader to think this
christos is more like a proper name than an adjective. But since you
do not know Greek you cannot see that the word christos was used in all
those circumstances. In Hebrew the OT uses messiah in each of those
instances. It is because of your lack of knowledge of the biblical
languages you make such nonsentical assertions. However you are wrong.


> In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where the
> Greek writers are referring to a person who had been anointed, and
> where they are
> referring to "The Amointed", i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in
> every translation I have even seen.
>
Only because the apologist translators want you to think of christos as
something special. The same way they translate the OT Joshua as Joshua
and translate the exact same name in the NT as Jesus. However if you
could read the Greek you would find the definite article "the" used in
front of Joshua as they usually do for proper names but exclude it in
front of christos. Christos is used more like an adjective, not a
proper noun especially not a name. Besides the original manuscripts
were written with every letter as a capital. The did not use
capitalization as we do in English as you did with Anointed or Christ.
Nor in fact for god.


> --Wax

Why do people who cannot read the Hebrew, Greek or Latin of scripture
always think they are such experts in the field?

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

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> You are reading translations of the Koran. Not the Koran.
>> I forget what word the Koran uses, but I understand that it
>> basically means "anointed". Therefore, a literal translation would be
>> "anointed".
>
> Just as 'christ' means. So its the arabic word that means the same things
> as christ does.

If we were speaking clasical Greek, "al-Masih" would mean the same thing as
"Christos" does.

>> "Christ" and "Messiah" are titles, not names.
>
> Yes
>
>> They both have the ancient meanings of "anointed"
>
> Yes
>
>> but by calling Jesus "Christ" we are referring to him as the
>> supposed "Son of God."
>
> That christians claim Jesus is Christ and is Son of God doesn't
> mean that the term 'Christ' means 'Son of God'. They are just two titles.
>
>> Matthew 16:16
>> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son
>> of the living God."
>
> Yes.. so he is the Christ, and he is the Son of the living God.

The two are not separable. The Christ IS the Son of God. They are one and
the same thing.

>> The Koran is not referring to Jesus as "the Son of the living
>> God."
>
> No .. it is referring to him as Christ or Messiah. Just as
> the Bible does. Note the english translations also use the
> capitalised version 'Christ'
>
> You seem to be unclear in what you are saying .. that the title
> Christ means son of god, then it doesn't, then it does.
>
> Basically, the claim that the Quran does not refer to Jesus as Christ or
> Messiah is disproved. Unless you redefine the terms
> to suit what you are saying.

By your own admission, the passages you quoted sometimes translates the
Arabic "al-Masih" as "Christ", and other times it translates it as
"Messiah". Is it your claim that "Christ" and "Messiah" and "al-Masih" mean
the same thing?

The Christ is the purported Son of God.
The Messiah is the proposed future Jewish savior.
In the Koran, Jesus is a prophet.

Three different meanings.
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:57:58 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12tmrug7c9a1h35@corp.supernews.com>
>> They have nothing to do with Christianity.
>> Nor did they cease to change.
>
>Then why are you arguing about them. owever, other mythical figused have
>many elements in common with the stories around Jesus birth and death. Also
>the Jesus stories have many elements in common with other OT stories. I
>think it likely that the truth was embellished in the Gospels.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>Exactly .. you make claims and then call on me to come up withproviding
>proof.
>
>I'm happy to show evidence of what I make as claims (other than personal
>beliefs and theories, which I will usually describe as such).
>
>What particular claims are they that I've not backed up with some links as
>yet. It is truly hard to keep upwith the posts here to know who said what
>in what thread :)

Could you PLEASE quote as to whom you are responding?
It is terribly annoying.

--
 
On Feb 21, 1:17 am, "weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> If we were speaking clasical Greek, "al-Masih" would mean the
> same thing as "Christos" does.

Tasty new snack chip... mmm...
 
> There is zero evidence for the mention of any Jesus
> anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline
> school in the second century.

The majorty / accepted datings for Paul's letters are the first century.
And the gospels later first century or maybe early second century.

Where do you get your later datings? Wat evidence is there for them being
written that late?

> The human Jesus was invented later.
> The character Paul heard nothing of Jesus.

There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ our
Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.

> Why is it so difficult for you
> to understand the plain words the scribes
> made Paul utter about hearing
> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

Which words are they?
 
> By your own admission, the passages you quoted sometimes translates the
> Arabic "al-Masih" as "Christ", and other times it translates it as
> "Messiah".

Yes .. it depends on the translation

> Is it your claim that "Christ" and "Messiah" and "al-Masih" mean the same
> thing?

It would certainly seem that way.

> The Christ is the purported Son of God.
> The Messiah is the proposed future Jewish savior.

Why do you insist these are (or need to be) different things?

> In the Koran, Jesus is a prophet.

Why does the word get translated as christ or messiah and not prophet in all
the Quram translations I have seen.
 
> Could you PLEASE quote as to whom you are responding?
> It is terribly annoying.

I'm quoting the person I am replying to .. in this case 'Bible Believer'.
Are you using some news reader / service that does not show the three tree?
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:47:37 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5424l9F1uf7kaU1@mid.individual.net>
>After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 8:14
>pm Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change
>>>> any emphasis.
>>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through
>>> the
>>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based
>>> upon an actual person.
>>
>> Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known
>> of him.
>>
>> Well said.
>
>The tow of you are confusing the fantasies found in Acts with character
>of the Pauline school of scribes. There is zero evidence for the
>mention of any Jesus, anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline
>school in the second century. The human Jesus was invented later. The
>character Paul heard nothing of Jesus. Why is it so difficult for you
>to understand the plain words the scribes made Paul utter about hearing
>nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

Some sort of mental pathology arising from willful ignorance, perhaps?

--
 
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:03:46 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <5425jiF1ul8clU1@mid.individual.net>
>After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:41
>pm weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>>>>>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a
>>>>>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed
>>>>> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew
>>>>> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with
>>>>> christian knowledge would know that.
>>>>
>>>> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-
>>>> Greek. I did not say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said
>>>> that it "refers to the literal Son of God."
>>>
>>> And you would be wrong. 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. You are now going to suggest a loaf of bread is a son
>>> of god? Or a donkey?
>>>
>>>> It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's too bad you don't read Greek. Otherwise you would not
>>> have made that statement.
>>
>> I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ" does not
>> have the
>> same meaning as the word "messiah".
>
>It certainly does have the exact same meaning. Had you studied Hebrew
>and Greek you would have discovered for yourself that the Greek
>Septuagint translated the Hebrew messiah which meant oiled one or oiled
>thing as christos. It had the exact same meaning.
>
>> It is true that in the Old
>> Testament rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you would never
>> call any of them "Christ", and I do not know of an English translation
>> which does.
>>
>Of course not because most translations want the reader to think this
>christos is more like a proper name than an adjective. But since you
>do not know Greek you cannot see that the word christos was used in all
>those circumstances. In Hebrew the OT uses messiah in each of those
>instances. It is because of your lack of knowledge of the biblical
>languages you make such nonsentical assertions. However you are wrong.
>
>
>> In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where the
>> Greek writers are referring to a person who had been anointed, and
>> where they are
>> referring to "The Amointed", i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in
>> every translation I have even seen.
>>
>Only because the apologist translators want you to think of christos as
>something special. The same way they translate the OT Joshua as Joshua
>and translate the exact same name in the NT as Jesus. However if you
>could read the Greek you would find the definite article "the" used in
>front of Joshua as they usually do for proper names but exclude it in
>front of christos. Christos is used more like an adjective, not a
>proper noun especially not a name. Besides the original manuscripts
>were written with every letter as a capital. The did not use
>capitalization as we do in English as you did with Anointed or Christ.
>Nor in fact for god.
>
>
>> --Wax
>
>Why do people who cannot read the Hebrew, Greek or Latin of scripture
>always think they are such experts in the field?

My cardiologist is relieved that I have killfiled Granny Weatherwax,
although I feel not 'a little' guilty at leaving the didactic burden
upon your more than learned shoulders.

You are a better man than I, Gungha Din, to put up with this
chronically ignorant bovine excreta in the relatively pleasant manner
that you are able.

--
 

Similar threads

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