Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:26:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12tn56jouap5i56@corp.supernews.com>
>> 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.

Why can't you learn to attribute your posts properly?

--

 

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:23:14 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12to3s9260q4ue4@corp.supernews.com>
>> 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?

Yes.
Almost all of them.
The real ones at least.

Please quote (at least) the nym of the person to whom you are
respinding.
I like reading your contributions, and it would be a pity to have to
killfile youu because I cannot make head nor tail of who you are
responding to.

Has it not occurred to you as to the reason why most people do this?
(And that you are the odd man out?)

--

 

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:17:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12to3h2s4cm9v72@corp.supernews.com>
>> 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?

Where is your evidence for the early datings?
I have asked you before, after informing you that they are PURE
GUESSES, by partisan interests, hell bent on proving their fabricated
fanatasies.

Where is your evidence?

I can demand that in the confidence that you have absolutely NONE!!

And you have the gall to ask for evidence that your wishful guesses
are in error?

Oh, gimme a break!

You appear to have been sucked int, hook line and sinker by the church
inspired con artists.

"Where is the extant evidence?" is the question that one must ask
throughout the whole process.

You have exactly zero for your bizarre claims.


>> 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.

You have the original copies, do you?
I'd be glad to pay a lot of money for them.
A **** of a lot of dosh.
I'd pay a couple of billion dollars for a genuine Pauline letter,
written in his own hand.
Insantantly.

>> 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?

Exactly!!

--

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:07:06 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>>>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?

Not my problem. You made the claim, so back it up.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:io8ot2pi1glb0sadr8it3nl5ppf5827fai@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:23:14 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> Please quote (at least) the nym of the person to whom you are
> respinding.

I'll do so from now on .. if for no other reason than to ensur eyour
continued enjoyment of my posts

Most groups I usually frequent (non-theological) do not have that problem,
and encourage people to be minimalistic in what they quote from other
messages (if anything at all). I'll have to get back into the habit again

 

[Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:t68ot2todns0p83tqm3dvq8ju1tup8hoeh@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:26:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> Why can't you learn to attribute your posts properly?

I have taken your advise and are doing so now. I can learn (and do my best
to do so). But I may slip up on occasion my accident

 

[Jeckyl]

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
newsv8ot2l29eflnhddgsr8q80sqet06jgftn@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:17:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>>Where do you get your later datings? Wat evidence is there for them being
>>written that late?
> Where is your evidence for the early datings?
> I have asked you before, after informing you that they are PURE
> GUESSES, by partisan interests, hell bent on proving their fabricated
> fanatasies.

I have provided the evidence for that dates .. you may not accept them, but
I can find nothing that suggests different dates.

You've so far not provided any evidence for your contrary claims.

I would definitely be interested in reading why they are corect and what
appear to be the generally accepted dates are incorrect.

> And you have the gall to ask for evidence that your wishful guesses
> are in error?

They are not my wishful gueses. You are the one showing some gall here ..
as you are making claims that are contrary to generally accepted estimates.

> You have exactly zero for your bizarre claims.

Do you have any?

> You have the original copies, do you?

Do you have original copies that show otherwise?

>>> 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?
> Exactly!!

So are you saying these 'plain words' that I do not understand do not exist
... that could explain why they are difficult to understand.

Could you please explain what it is you are really trying to say in slightly
more verbose form than 'Exactly!!'

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

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.

And your evidence for these so far baseless assertions, is?

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

 

[weatherwax]

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

>>
>> 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.

Keep in mind that Jeckyl and I were debating modern translations of the
Koran when it describes Jesus as "al-Masih", which means "the anointed".
Would it be proper to translate it as "the Christ"? Or as "the Messiah"? I
say that with the modern meanings of the words, neither translation would be
correct.

The Septuagint was a Hebrew-Greek translation of the Old Testament which
dates before the Christian era. You are correct when you point out that in
it the word "Christos" has the basic meaning "anointed" and refers to Hebrew
kings and priests as "messiah" does. And it often refers to the expected
king who would sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel,
i.e. the Messiah.

However, words have a way of changing meaning. In English translations the
word "Christ" is never used in the Old Testament. "Messiah" is usually
translated as "anointed".

In the New Testament the word "Christos" became identified with a God. This
is a new interpretation which is not found in the Old Testament, or even in
the Septuagint.

>> 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.

It is not my lack of knowledge of biblical languages. I primarily agree
with you, except that Jeckyl and I were talking about modern translations of
the Koran into English. You have just shown how words change in meaning.

>> 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.

Most Christians are aware that "Christ" is a title, but to them it means
"The Son of God."

Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son
of the living God."

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

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:in9ot2hjrq4cchcfhjag5ocvuuvmbsfdio@4ax.com...
>>Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?
> Not my problem. You made the claim, so back it up.

I am just suggesting a possible and plausible explanation for your question
as to why Paul doesn't describe Jesus.

My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not need a
description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no first-hand knowledge
of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples). However, there are numerous
references to Jesus as Christ, Jesus as son of God, Jesus as a man, and of
his crucifixion and raising from the dead (key to Paul's idea of
Christianity). His letters were addressing specific issues for the
communities to whom he was writing, and to whom his 'gospel' had already
been delivered.

That seems to be self-consistent and also consistent with what little we do
know.

Your explanation says Paul doesn't have a description of Jesus or his life
because Jesus doesn't exist, an wasn't invented until later.

Yet that is problematic because Paul mentions Jesus and his crucifixion so
many times in the epistles.

Are there versions of the epistles by Paul that I've not been looking at yet
which do not mention Jesus and his death on the cross?

If not, then your explanation appears to be lacking.

 

[codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 11:55 am, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:
> 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



He does not understant MARKETING PLOY. He does not understand
what a Rabbi is good for.
Otherwise he would realize that there was some Rabbis in Mecca
as attested in this Surat:
"If this book is from God, you believe not, Yet a Rabbi
from among the Children of Israel attests its similitude
and believe while you proudly reject it."
The information given out in this verse is too rich and even
damaging to the position of the hadiths fabricators.
What is a Rabbi? a Rabbi is someone who is trained
to teach and expound on the Law of Moses.
He is someone who can say this is LICITE and This
is ILLICITE. No one is surprised to find some prohibitions
of Moses Law in the Qur'an.
At Mecca, some Jewish Rabbis were marketing their Messiah
along with Moses Law, a reminiscence of those Pharisees
who advocated Moses Law and costums along with Christ in Acts 15


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

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:in9ot2hjrq4cchcfhjag5ocvuuvmbsfdio@4ax.com...

Why did you snip your baseless claim? Here, I'll put it back. Try not
to do this again because it destroys the context of subsequent
remarks.

Here's what you said:

">>>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."

That was a rationalisation based on presumptions you had not yet
justified. Not any kind of conclusion.

>>>Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?
>> Not my problem. You made the claim, so back it up.
>
>I am just suggesting a possible and plausible explanation for your question
>as to why Paul doesn't describe Jesus.

Why is it plausible, when you've not even satisfied the assumptions it
is based on?

>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not need a
>description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no first-hand knowledge
>of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples). However, there are numerous
>references to Jesus as Christ, Jesus as son of God, Jesus as a man, and of
>his crucifixion and raising from the dead (key to Paul's idea of
>Christianity).

Does "many" equal "none"? Paul's are the earliest - and he only
describes a nebulous, spiritual Christ.

You've made several rationalisations but all these do is try to
generate information where there isn't any. And piled them on top of
each other.

> His letters were addressing specific issues for the
>communities to whom he was writing, and to whom his 'gospel' had already
>been delivered.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>That seems to be self-consistent and also consistent with what little we do
>know.

No.

All we know is that his writing is the earliest, and he knows nothing
of the Jesus of the gospels. He talks about Christ not Jesus - the
first mentions of Jesus came later.

>Your explanation says Paul doesn't have a description of Jesus or his life
>because Jesus doesn't exist, an wasn't invented until later.

Please learn to read for comprehension.

>Yet that is problematic because Paul mentions Jesus and his crucifixion so
>many times in the epistles.

But not the Jesus of the gospels, of whom he knows nothing.

>Are there versions of the epistles by Paul that I've not been looking at yet
>which do not mention Jesus and his death on the cross?

Look up "shifting the burden". You claim things, so you get to back
them up.

>If not, then your explanation appears to be lacking.

I don't need one to point out the problems with yours. But then I am
not and have never been a Christian with a desire to prove the
unprovable.

 

[weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> 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.

I would hope that a Christain would know better, but if there is any doubt,
then ask a Jew.

>> 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?

"Christ" is a Christian word, and it refers to "The Son of God."
"Messiah" is a Jewish word, and it refers to a future king. Therefore
"al-Masih" cannot be equated with either Christ or the Messiah.

In the period of the Babylonian exile, there grew a hope that a son of David
would restore the kingdom of Israel and sit on the throne of David:

Jeramiah 23:5
"I, the LORD, promise that a new time will certainly
come when I will raise up for them a righteous branch,
a descendant of David. He will rule over them with
wisdom and understanding and will do what is just and
right in the land.

Jeramiah 30:8-9
When the time for them to be rescued comes,"
says the LORD who rules over all,
"I will rescue you from foreign subjugation.
I will deliver you from captivity.
Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.
But they will be subject to the LORD their God and
to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over
them.

Ezekiel 37:21
21 Then tell them, 'This is what the sovereign LORD says:
Look, I am about to take the Israelites from among the
nations where they have gone. I will gather them from
round about and bring them to their land. 22 I will make
them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel,
and one king will rule over them all. They will never again
be two nations and never again be divided into two
kingdoms.

There are several more such passages. Notice that these passages does not
make the messiah a God. It was Paul who made the Christos into a Greek god,
and the gospilers followed suit.




>> 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.

I'm not saying that the Arabic word means prophet, only that in the
translation you gave it referred to Jesus as a prophet. Christianity holds
Jesus as being much more than a prophet, as Judaism also hold the Messiah as
being more than a prophet. But Islam cannot have a prophet greater than
Mohammad.

--Wax

 

[weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

> 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).

Come to think of it, the Bible says very little about people's appearance.
There are a few minor exceptions, such a King Saul was "handsome" and tall,
but no features are described (1 Samuel 9:2). We also know that Elisha was
bald because a group of young boys called him "baldy" (2 Kings 2:23,) but
what else do we know about his physical appearance?

There seem to be little we can say about the appearance of any Biblical
figures. The exception is in the "Song of Songs", but those characters are
anonymous.

--Wax

 

[Bible Believer]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl"
<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:


>I am just suggesting a possible and plausible explanation
>for your question as to why Paul doesn't describe Jesus.
>
>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not
>need a description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no
>first-hand knowledge of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples).

Galatians 1:1-2:10

1:1) Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man,
but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who
raised Him from the dead),
1:2) and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches
of Galatia:
1:3) Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our
Lord Jesus Christ,
1:4) who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver
us from this present evil age, according to the will of
our God and Father,
1:5) to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
1:6) I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him
who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
1:7) which is not another; but there are some who trouble
you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel to you than what we have preached to you,
let him be accursed.
1:9) As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone
preaches any other gospel to you than what you have
received, let him be accursed.
1:10) For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek
to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not
be a bondservant of Christ.
1:11) But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel
which was preached by me is not according to man.
1:12) For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it,
but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1:13) For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism,
how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and
tried to destroy it.
1:14) And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my
contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly
zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
1:15) But when it pleased God, who separated me from
my mother

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:

[SNIPALOT]

> But here the Pharisees we are concerned with
> preach a Gospel of circumcision. And Gospel
> has always been associated with Christ.

===>In your narrow mind, only.
In fact it comes from Greek literature, a translation
of a Greek word.
E.g. when the death of an enemy king is announced,
it was considered a "GOSPEL" (EUANGELION).

The EUANGELION for the Jews was LIBERATION and the
establishment of the promised Theocracy (literally,
"Kingdom of God").

> How do you reconcile this with your
> Contention that Paul created Christos a fictional
> character?

===>There is nothing to "reconcile".

> What were your pharisees selling
> in the Market and how is that relevant to
> the Epistle to the Galatians?

===>I have explained all this to you. -- L.

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@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?
>
>
> Why not?
> What are you talking about?
> Because Christos being Paul invention
> has no basis in the Scriptures, therefore it would be sacrilegeous
> to associate it with God Law.
> People of the BOOK do nothing without Scriptures
> why you miss that amaze me
>
>
>
>>>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!
>
>
>
> The trouble here is that,the Pharisees in
> the Epistle to the Galatians are preaching the
> Gospel of Circumcision and Gospel being associated
> with Christ,


===>NONSENSE!
"Gospel" is just the English translation of
"EUANGELION", mening GOOD NEWS.
For the Jews, "good news" would have been
LIBERATION and THEOCRACY.
For Saul/Paul, "good news" was a dead and risen
savior god who would take him and his followers
"into the air".

Pharisees are preaching Christ
> a Pauline fictional invention.

===>NEVER!

> What sense does this make If Christ was not
> spoken of in Moses Torah?

===>It makes no sense at all.
But it is just your invention.
>
>>>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
>>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Obedience to the Torah through Circumcision along
> with Christ.

===>NOTHING to do with "Christ".
Can't you get this through your thick skull?
How dense can you get?
>
>>>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.
>
>
>
> Competitors at least in a given Market are those
> selling the same product.

===>Now THAT is stupid!
Coke and Pepsi are in competition.
Are THEY "selling the same product"?
Of course not.
A different product, like a different "gospel"
to the same market.

Wake up, CB! -- L.

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 11:58 am, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>===>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.
>>
>
>
> Nobody ever said that a dying Savior was known
> in the Jewish culture, never until Jesus, this the reason
> they had problem with Jesus being Christ/Messiah
> because of His death.

===The same way they had trouble with Judas the Galilean
(after whom the Jesus fiction was fashioned), Bar Kokhba
a century later, and all other would-be "messiahs".
Your constant reference to any non-existent
"Christ/Messiah" or "Messiah/Christ" is just so much
smoke screen.
You either have a Pauline "Christ" (CHRISTOS)
or a Jewish "Messiah" (MASHIACH).

> Or did you mean to say that there is nothing
> in the Jewish Scriptures suggesting such a scenario?

===>What secnerio?

> You are deceptively combining Theology with History.
> History
> Jesus was arrested and crucified
> was burried and Rose from the dead.

===>That is NOT HISTORY.
It is a theological FICTION.

> Therefore he claimed as the Messiah.

===>Who "claimed as a messiah"?
>
> Theology that is to say the meaning given
> to History
> Christ death and resurrection is the end of Moses
> Law, there is no condemnation for those
> in Christ. The Law of Moses has indeed for the
> believers and Salvation is at our reach because
> of the cross.
>
> It is obvious that the Pharisees who were present
> at the Council in Jerusalem believed in the History
> above

===>There was no "history" to believe! -- L.

 

[Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Your contention
> There is no prediction for Messiah in the Torah
===>CORRECT
> Christ and Messiah are two different words and titles
===>CORRECT
> Paul invented Christ out of the blue.
===>WRONG.
He grew up in Tarsus, the cery CENTER of the MYSTERY
RELIGION. He simply copied the recipe and gave it a Jewish
flavor, to concoct his own new-fangled mystery cult.

> Anointed are greek athletes.
> Here is what disprove your assertion.
> Anointed is a jewish concept.

===>"Anointed" is.
Christor is not.
That just shows your narrow-minded ignorance.

Irrelevant examples deleted.
>
> They were anointed for Kingship.
> Jesus was ANOINTED/MESSIAH with the Holy Ghost

===>There's no such thing as "Holy Ghost"
in either Jewish or Greek culture.
It is an invention of Christians, copying the
Zoroastrian Spanta Mainyu.
It is taken from Zoroastrianism, along with many other features and
doctrines (resurrection, judgement day, Savior, etc.)
In Zarathustra's scheme, the "Holy Spirit" was SPANTA MAINYU, one of the
divine beings under Ahura Mazda, a competitor of ANGRA MAINYU (later
AHRIMAN).

the reason he is
> the King of Kings, the anointed above any
> other anointed and to his kingdom there shall be no end

===>NONSENSE.
If there ever was such a person, he was killed
and remained dead for ever. -- L.
>

 

[Libertarius]

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:33:30 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>At the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from being
>>>>an earthly man into be a spiritual being.
>>>
>>>No. Assuming his letters are genuine, his is the first Christ. The
>>>gospels came later. He knows nothing of the Jesus of the gospels
>>
>>My point being .. if there was a Jesus the man who taught .. Paul change the
>>emphsis from a human teach to a spiritual being. The gospels changed the
>>emphasis again later on to the man Jesus.
>
>
> You've got it the wrong way round.
>
> The first mentions are all of Christ, not Jesus.
>
> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change any emphasis.
>
> He started the religion based on his etherial, spiritual Christ.
> Jesus, whether or not he existed, was added to that later.
>
>
>>>>They are, as I understand, derived from different langauges (greek and
>>>>hebrew) and have somewhat different literal meanings, but both were used
>>>>to
>>>>describe the same things.
>>>
>>>The problem is that all this, is with with the hindsight of the
>>>Christian tradition.
>>
>>So what is the correct unbiased view?
>
>
> Not my problem.
>
>
>>>>It reconciles just fine really. It doesn't matter whether the jesus
>>>>describe by paul was imaginary, embellished, or whatever .. it was still a
>>>>different religion to the pharisees (even if they may have had old
>>>>testament
>>>>in common).
>>>
>>>And a different religion to Constantine's Christianity.
>>
>>Definitely.
>>
===>The authors of the Gospels wrote fictional stories about
someone named IESOUS whom they associated with the fantasy
god CHRISTOS of Saul/Paul.
There were MANY such "Gospels", but the Church picked and
edited and published only four of them in their "Bible". -- L.