Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 21 February 2007 4:17
am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> 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?
>

I gave a link to this several months ago. The author belongs to one of
two entire schools of biblical scholars in the last 70 years that have
decided on late dates and in fact the non-existence of a real
individual named Paul. If you had followed that link you would have
seen a verse by verse explanation for the reasons each epistle was
deemed to be late. On the website the author a very prominent biblical
scholar also gave numerous footnotes on other independent (of the 2
schools) scholars who supported what he said about the verses.

Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles that
supports any date, most especially an early date for their composition.
There is one phrase (one part of a sentence) in the whole of Paul's
epistles that gives any approximation for a time period. That phrase
is charitably called an interpolation by most biblical scholars or
labeled as an outright lie on Paul's part by the less charitable.
Remember Paul calls himself a liar and hypocrite in his own epistles.

>> 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.
>

Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or actually
dishonest) translations into your native language which I assume is
English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of
the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the" as
in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception
to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.

Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and
Joshua for the OT one? You are being dishonest. Either they are both
Jesus or both Joshua. The name was picked intentionally and Christians
are being horrifically dishonest by giving their god-man a special
name. The spelling of the name is identical in both the NT and OT. It
was purposely meant to obfuscate by giving their hero a John Doe name
(an everyman, if you will).

Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human. His theology and
"good news" revolves around a spiritual event which takes place in the
7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens, and one that demons can interact
between it and the material world. Big hint are Paul's explanation of
who crucified the oiled Joshua -- he names classes/divisions of angels
(mostly demons in his story) but falsely translated to hide the fact
from the reader in common translations. If you were more familiar with
the Greek and could read the NT pseudepigrapha would would see this
plainly. Paul mentions many divisions of angels and there are books
which explain the relationship and duties of these various division as
understood at the time of Paul's writing in the second century.

>> 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?

These, for instance: apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi hina
euaggelizomai auton en tois ethnesin eutheos oo prosanethemen sarki kai
haimati oude anelthon eis hierosoluma pros tous pro emou apostolous all
anelthon eis arabian kai palin hupestrepsa eis damoskon

and these are part of the equation: to de dunameno humas sterezai kata
to euaggelion mou kai to kerugma iesou christou kata apokalupsin
musteriou chronois aionios sesigemenou phanerothentos de nun dia te
graphon prophetikon kai epitagen tou aioniou theou eis hupakoen pisteos
eis panta ta ethne gnoristhentos

which is further reinforced by these words from Paul: kauchasthai de oo
sumpherei moi eleusomai gar eis optasias kai apokalupseis kuriou

And lest we forget: oude gar ego para anthropou parelebon auto oute
edidachthen alla di apokalupseos iusou christou

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

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

 

[weatherwax]

<copycat@yeayea.com> wrote
> "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <copy...@yeayea.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > 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.

Acts 15 says nothing about eating pork:

Acts 15:
28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to
us not to place any greater burden on you than
these necessary rules:
29 that you abstain from meat that has been
sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what
has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If
you keep yourselves from doing these things, you
will do well. Farewell.


< CLIP >

> 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.

It is reported by Luke, not Peter. In Acts 2 Luke attributes it to Peter.
nd Acts 2 would not be the only passage where Christians took the Old
Testament out of context, or misinterpreted it. In order to understand what
Deuteronomy 18:15 means, you have to read Deuteronomy 18. None of the
apostles had the power to change its meaning.

--Wax

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:t4iot2tu942uo7aistec3oatngo3ij4hbn@4ax.com...

Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an
immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:
>>>
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
interpreted 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).
>>>

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

And what is it that you claim that is not based on unjustified presumptions?

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

Why is it not?

>>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"?

No .. it is many. Do you me to count them all for you?

> Paul's are the earliest - and he only
> describes a nebulous, spiritual Christ.


Well .. the versions I have looked at are full of references to Jesus in all
of pauls letters (and ceratinly not just those ones whose authorship by paul
directly is disputed)

He describes a Jesus who is a man and was crucified and was rasied from the
dead. Do I need to cite verse for you for this?

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

He claims in several places that he had already been to the communities to
preach the gospel .. these were follow-up letters. This is also very clear
from the context.

>>That seems to be self-consistent and also consistent with what little we
>>do
>>know.
> No.

Please show any inconsistency to back up that one-word claim.

> 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.

No .. he talks consistestently of Jesus Christ, Jesus the Chrisr, the Christ
Jesus. And describes Jesus as a man who was crucified and raised again.

>>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.

If that is not what you are now claiming, then what IS it you are claiming?

>>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.

Untrue. He knows OF Jesus of the Gospels from the time he spent with the
disciples before he started his missions. He ceratinly knows that Jesus was
a man who was crucified and raised from the dead.

>>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".

I'll have a look ..thanks

> I don't need one to point out the problems with yours.

And I don't need to prove my claims to point out the problems with yours.
So right back at you on that one.

 

[Jeckyl]

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:GzYCh.392$as2.54@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

regardless of all that .. the claim that the Quran does contain the word
Christ or Messiah for Jesus is incorrect

(except in the pedantic sense that those are English words and the Quran is
in Arabic .. but in that sense you can therefore claim that 'christ' does
not appear in the bible because it is an English word).

 

[Zev]

On Feb 21, 3:42 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com>
wrote:
> 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:

> > > 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."

Jews admitted to poisoning wells during the Black Plague.
Spanish Jews (Marranos) 'converted'
to Christianity during the Inquisition.
Give me your body for a few days,
you'll say whatever I want you to say.
If I snatch members of your family or community
won't you say anything about an old book
to get them released?

> 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.

But Moses prohibited, Jesus permitted,
and then, Muhammad prohibited.
Does that make sense?

But anyway, please tell me what's wrong
with my explanation of Deuteronomy 18.

Zev

 

[Jeckyl]

"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ecmot2tt12qsclbnoj42sac4u77s66a1ip@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <noone@nowhere.com> claimed:
>>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

Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not
said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting
what I said or disagreeing with it?

 

[Bible Believer]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:37:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"
<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

>"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:ecmot2tt12qsclbnoj42sac4u77s66a1ip@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>> <noone@nowhere.com> claimed:
>>>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
>
>Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not
>said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting
>what I said or disagreeing with it?

If you would have bothered to read it, you would see
what Paul said and his statement completely disagrees
with yours. But what do you care about truth?


--

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.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:543j6aF1v6un4U1@mid.individual.net...

> I gave a link to this several months ago.

I don't have direct access to, or the time to go finding such a link without
something to look for. That's why I'm asking .. can you please post it
again, or some name or phrase that I could search on to find it?

> Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles that
> supports any date, most especially an early date for their composition.

I'd still like to see the article you refer to that shows all this evidence
why the date should be later than what most scholars say.

>> There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus
>> Christ our Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.
> Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or actually
> dishonest) translations into your native language which I assume is
> English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of
> the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the" as
> in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception
> to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.

So you are saying that we really should call him 'Joshua' throughout the new
testament (or Jesus throuhgout the old). that's fine. which name is
actually used make little difference .. the bards words about roses springs
to mind

That really says nothing to you claim that the man called Jesus/Joshua that
was crucified and rose from the dead in Paul's eplistles is not the same man
Jesus/Joshua in the Gospels who was crucified and raised from the dead in
the gospels. It certainly seems like they are talking about the same man,
with the same events and the same name.

> Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and
> Joshua for the OT one?

So that people who read my replies know who I'm talking about.

> You are being dishonest.

No .. I'm not dishonest at all. If I am quoting bible verse from the NT,
then I have to quote them .. and they use the word 'Jesus' for the
Jesus/Joshua name in Greek (not that Jesus was a Greek name).

> Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human.

He claims to be

> His theology and "good news" revolves around a spiritual
> event which takes place in the 7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens

Where did you get that from? Ceratinly in the translated versnios Paul
talks about a man called Jesus (Joshua if you prefer) who was crucified and
rose again. He makes little reference that I remember reading about who
crucified him. Can you cite some verses where he talks about who crucifies
Jesus/Joshua?

Do you have links that I can read about the original Greek version and this
seventh heaven and angels/demons.

>>> 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?

Aha .. so you are talking about Pual's claim that his initial knowledge was
from the his vision of Jesus. But he then goes on to say he later met Peter
and James.

What paul is doing there is claiming how what he teaches has authority
because it was revealed directly to him by God. That would explain why Paul
mentions nothing of Jesus life, other than his crucifixion, because he did
not know it .. only what he may have heard from the other apostles.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i8jpt2lc5qcth7gapa0covc9kfqtrnjpmh@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:37:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"
>>>>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
>>Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not
>>said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting
>>what I said or disagreeing with it?
>
> If you would have bothered to read it, you would see
> what Paul said and his statement completely disagrees
> with yours. But what do you care about truth?

I did .. it seems to be totally agreeing with what I said. That's why I was
wondering why you'd posted it.

The Paul had no first-hand knowledge of Jesus .. his teachings were based on
his vision. The only knowledge he would have had about Jesus was from his
meetings with other aposltes, and from what he would have heard during his
days of persecuting the church.

Paul makes no claim that he has no knowledge of Jesus at all, and that he
had never spoken to any may about it. He is talking about the story he was
preaching of Jesus being cruscified, raised and being son of God .. that
that story came directly from his vision from God, and that that is the
authority by which he preached it and the reason why it can be believed.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:32:28 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:t4iot2tu942uo7aistec3oatngo3ij4hbn@4ax.com...
>
>Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an
>immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:
>>>>
>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
>interpreted 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).

Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the reason he
said nothing about it.

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:42mpt25kqufbge879goau8a0fh488hou81@4ax.com...
>>Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an
>>immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:
>>>>>
>>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
>>interpreted 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).
> Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the reason
> he said nothing about it.

Pauls epistles would be the evidence for what I'm saying.

He claims he has no first-hand knowledge of jesus and that what he preached
came only from the vision. He did not need to anything about Jesus life
outside that for that. His letters addressed concerns for the various
communities he was writing to. He addressed those issue without the need
for a reference to Jesus outside of his own vision (which is what he claims
gave him authority as an apostle).

What exactly is it in what I wrote that you take issue with?

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:05:33 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:42mpt25kqufbge879goau8a0fh488hou81@4ax.com...
>>>Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an
>>>immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:
>>>>>>
>>>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
>>>interpreted 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).
>> Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the reason
>> he said nothing about it.
>
>Pauls epistles would be the evidence for what I'm saying.

Oh, the absence of a mention suddenly becomes "evidence" for it?

>He claims he has no first-hand knowledge of jesus and that what he preached
>came only from the vision. He did not need to anything about Jesus life
>outside that for that. His letters addressed concerns for the various
>communities he was writing to. He addressed those issue without the need
>for a reference to Jesus outside of his own vision (which is what he claims
>gave him authority as an apostle).

Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your
rationalisations.

>What exactly is it in what I wrote that you take issue with?

Sigh.

You're trying to generate information where there isn't any.

 

[weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
> regardless of all that .. the claim that the Quran does contain
> the word Christ or Messiah for Jesus is incorrect
>
> (except in the pedantic sense that those are English words
> and the Quran is in Arabic .. but in that sense you can
> therefore claim that 'christ' does not appear in the bible because it is
> an English word).

I did not mean it in that way, and you know it. So why do you even bring it
up.

However, keep in mind that Jesus only claimed to be the Messiah, i.e. King
of the Jews. He did not claim to be the Christ, i.e. the Son of God.

--Wax

 

[Jeckyl]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:83opt29pt19u4jvgvt4ukevuh8tdbsue9q@4ax.com...

> Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your
> rationalisations.

No .. its there is the epistles .. I'm not inventing things to back up my
explanation. I am drawing plausible conclusions from what is said.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:21:21 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> regardless of all that .. the claim that the Quran does contain
>> the word Christ or Messiah for Jesus is incorrect
>>
>> (except in the pedantic sense that those are English words
>> and the Quran is in Arabic .. but in that sense you can
>> therefore claim that 'christ' does not appear in the bible because it is
>> an English word).
>
>I did not mean it in that way, and you know it. So why do you even bring it
>up.
>
>However, keep in mind that Jesus only claimed to be the Messiah, i.e. King
>of the Jews. He did not claim to be the Christ, i.e. the Son of God.

Which is why we need to know exactly what the word they used, means to
Muslims both today and the time the Koran was written, about 600 years
after the alleged events.

What _their_ POV is/was, not ours.

Do we know much of the religious beliefs in the Arabian Peninsula
prior to Mohammed? We need the meaning of the word used in that
context.

Academically, I mean.

The Muslims say it was pagan, polytheistic and barbaric.

>--Wax
>

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:29:33 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:83opt29pt19u4jvgvt4ukevuh8tdbsue9q@4ax.com...
>
>> Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your
>> rationalisations.
>
>No .. its there is the epistles .. I'm not inventing things to back up my
>explanation. I am drawing plausible conclusions from what is said.

And where do they back up the reasons you rationalised?

 

[weatherwax]

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
>
> I gave a link to this several months ago. The author belongs
> to one of two entire schools of biblical scholars in the last 70
> years that have decided on late dates and in fact the non-
> existence of a real individual named Paul. If you had followed
> that link you would have seen a verse by verse explanation
> for the reasons each epistle was deemed to be late. < CLIP >

I believe I looked this site up when you first posted it. This site gave
links to several other sites on the topic. If I recall the site said
something about the theory being accepted by only a few scholars. So after
70 years, they have not been able to convince many people. Yet here you are
promoting it like a fundamentalist preacher.

There are other ideas, and other theories. Don't assume that people are
stupid just because they disagree with you. Meanwhile, I'm not going to
waste my time studying an offbeat theory. If you want to make arguments for
it, you can, and I will read them.

--Wax






On the website the author a very prominent biblical
> scholar also gave numerous footnotes on other independent (of the 2
> schools) scholars who supported what he said about the verses.
>
> Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles that
> supports any date, most especially an early date for their composition.
> There is one phrase (one part of a sentence) in the whole of Paul's
> epistles that gives any approximation for a time period. That phrase
> is charitably called an interpolation by most biblical scholars or
> labeled as an outright lie on Paul's part by the less charitable.
> Remember Paul calls himself a liar and hypocrite in his own epistles.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or actually
> dishonest) translations into your native language which I assume is
> English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of
> the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the" as
> in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception
> to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.
>
> Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and
> Joshua for the OT one? You are being dishonest. Either they are both
> Jesus or both Joshua. The name was picked intentionally and Christians
> are being horrifically dishonest by giving their god-man a special
> name. The spelling of the name is identical in both the NT and OT. It
> was purposely meant to obfuscate by giving their hero a John Doe name
> (an everyman, if you will).
>
> Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human. His theology and
> "good news" revolves around a spiritual event which takes place in the
> 7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens, and one that demons can interact
> between it and the material world. Big hint are Paul's explanation of
> who crucified the oiled Joshua -- he names classes/divisions of angels
> (mostly demons in his story) but falsely translated to hide the fact
> from the reader in common translations. If you were more familiar with
> the Greek and could read the NT pseudepigrapha would would see this
> plainly. Paul mentions many divisions of angels and there are books
> which explain the relationship and duties of these various division as
> understood at the time of Paul's writing in the second century.
>
>>> 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?
>
> These, for instance: apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi hina
> euaggelizomai auton en tois ethnesin eutheos oo prosanethemen sarki kai
> haimati oude anelthon eis hierosoluma pros tous pro emou apostolous all
> anelthon eis arabian kai palin hupestrepsa eis damoskon
>
> and these are part of the equation: to de dunameno humas sterezai kata
> to euaggelion mou kai to kerugma iesou christou kata apokalupsin
> musteriou chronois aionios sesigemenou phanerothentos de nun dia te
> graphon prophetikon kai epitagen tou aioniou theou eis hupakoen pisteos
> eis panta ta ethne gnoristhentos
>
> which is further reinforced by these words from Paul: kauchasthai de oo
> sumpherei moi eleusomai gar eis optasias kai apokalupseis kuriou
>
> And lest we forget: oude gar ego para anthropou parelebon auto oute
> edidachthen alla di apokalupseos iusou christou
>
> --
> 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 Wednesday 21 February 2007 6:21
pm Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
> news:543j6aF1v6un4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I gave a link to this several months ago.
>
> I don't have direct access to, or the time to go finding such a link
> without
> something to look for. That's why I'm asking .. can you please post
> it again, or some name or phrase that I could search on to find it?
>

Well if I were looking for something I wrote in the last 6 months on
alt.atheism I would go to Google groups advanced choose alt.atheism for
newsgroup, darrell stec as author, a date range during the 6 to 12
months, and keywords such as: paul, 2nd century, dating, epistles and
would end up with 5 articles with at least one with a link. If you
really know anything about biblical scholarship and are not just
blowing smoke, the scholars name in my post should hit you square in
the face.

>> Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles
>> that supports any date, most especially an early date for their
>> composition.
>

> I'd still like to see the article you refer to that shows all this
> evidence why the date should be later than what most scholars say.
>

You still haven't shown any evidence for an early date. You know this
situation is like one we found ourselves in in 1999. Computer
magazines and books everywhere were proclaiming a widespread y2k
problem with pc compatible computers. In fact there was zero evidence
for any hardware problem. I offered a $1000 bond for any of those
authors to name one pc compatible computer that had problems with y2k.
Nobody ever could name one. I wrote to any author I could find online
and ask them to name any computer they could provide evidence for the
problem. Every last one of them said they could not name a specific
computer but there must be a problem, just look at all the information
out there. The problem was that every single one of those authors and
writers were just aping what everyone else was saying without checking.
But the problem with their scenario was that every single pc bios had
the same date format at exactly the same location in the bios (and
pointed to a cmos location). It had to otherwise bios calls in machine
language (and the compiled binaries) would not work. Some of those
authors talked about elevators, traffic lights and washing machines
failing. One big panic to sell more books, magazines and computers (as
well as software. By the way elevators, traffic lights and washing
machines do not track dates though they do track time.

Well you have the same problem here. When a non scholar looks for
evidence on dating Paul's epistles and the gospels, a Google search
will come up with about 180,000 to several million hits. The trouble
is that if one subsequently took the time to read a vast majority of
those websites, one does not find any specific scholars named.
Everybody is copying everybody else. In fact few could even name any
scholars who do give an early dating and in the few times they can,
they do not categorize any evidence other than wishful thinking that
those scholar provide.

To date, as far as I know, not one of those early dating scholars has
ever refuted the late dating scholars while providing evidence for
their claims. Besides, if you can't read the original languages
yourself, how can you judge whether that scholar is being honest. You
don't have the basic equipment to even start to evaluate the arguments.

>>> There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus
>>> Christ our Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.
>> Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or
>> actually dishonest) translations into your native language which I
>> assume is
>> English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of
>> the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the"
>> as
>> in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception
>> to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.
>
> So you are saying that we really should call him 'Joshua' throughout
> the new
> testament (or Jesus throuhgout the old). that's fine. which name is
> actually used make little difference .. the bards words about roses
> springs to mind
>
In the case of the bard, you have another sense with which to
distinguish the difference. Can you smell the difference between
Joshuas of the NT and OT?

> That really says nothing to you claim that the man called Jesus/Joshua
> that was crucified and rose from the dead in Paul's eplistles is not
> the same man Jesus/Joshua in the Gospels who was crucified and raised
> from the dead in
> the gospels. It certainly seems like they are talking about the same
> man, with the same events and the same name.
>

Paul was not talking about a man. I posted the Greek to verify this in
one of today's posts. Paul's god sacrifice was a spirit.

>> Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and
>> Joshua for the OT one?
>
> So that people who read my replies know who I'm talking about.
>
>> You are being dishonest.
>
> No .. I'm not dishonest at all. If I am quoting bible verse from the
> NT, then I have to quote them .. and they use the word 'Jesus' for the
> Jesus/Joshua name in Greek (not that Jesus was a Greek name).
>

You are being dishonest because you are quoting dishonest translators.
Just like they change god to messenger, angel, or judge to obfuscate
the meaning in the OT they want the reader to think this oiled Joshua
was different. That is dishonest.

>> Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human.
>
> He claims to be
>

I just wrote a post that shows the Greek passages. He definitely states
he is not talking about a human being.

>> His theology and "good news" revolves around a spiritual
>> event which takes place in the 7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens
>

> Where did you get that from?

His epistles.

> Ceratinly in the translated versnios
> Paul talks about a man called Jesus (Joshua if you prefer) who was
> crucified and
> rose again.

Read those epistles again. He does not call Joshua the oiled one a man.
In fact explicity states he is talking about a spiritual being in one
of the epistles.

> He makes little reference that I remember reading about
> who
> crucified him.

Your lack of reading or understanding the bible is not my problem. (In
isn't yours either if you wish to remain blissfully ignorant. But in
that case don't portend to know what you are talking about and
proselytize blather.) Paul specifically names the divisions of angels
that crucified the christos. The problem is that you do not understand
Greek and have little knowledge of the other gospels (New Testament
Pseudepigrapha) from which to draw an understanding of the theology and
Hellenic philosophy of the time.

> Can you cite some verses where he talks about who
> crucifies Jesus/Joshua?
>
> Do you have links that I can read about the original Greek version and
> this seventh heaven and angels/demons.
>

As a start try The Other Bible edited by Willis Barnstone and The New
Testament Pseudepigrapha edited by James Charlesworth, Then learn
Greek. Follow that by an Internet search for the Greek manuscripts
mentioned in the two books I mentioned. Note the Greek for the various
divisions of angels (or demons). Follow that by a search for those
same words in the Greek versions of Paul's epistles and the gospels.
You will then have arrived at a basic understanding of the topic. Or
you could do a Google search on alt.atheism for the detailed post I
wrote on the subject with the Greek and other links to substantiate
what I wrote in that article. One little hint: rulers and powers is a
totally misleading translation into English.

>>>> 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?
>
> Aha .. so you are talking about Pual's claim that his initial
> knowledge was
> from the his vision of Jesus. But he then goes on to say he later met
> Peter and James.
>

And where do you see that he changed his theology after meeting them?
He didn't because as he said he obtained his knowledge by revelation
from god and by inspiration from the Old Testament. Nowhere does he
say he learned anything from Peter or James, and nowhere did he change
his message after meeting them. By the way, he met Cephas and James,
not Peter and James. Cephas and Peter were two entirely different
people. Mentions of Peter were interpolations.

> What paul is doing there is claiming how what he teaches has authority
> because it was revealed directly to him by God. That would explain
> why Paul mentions nothing of Jesus life, other than his crucifixion,
> because he did not know it .. only what he may have heard from the
> other apostles.

That is completely wrong. His christos was not a man. He makes that
very plain. He was not killed on earth. That too he made very plain.
And Paul knew nothing, absolutely nothing about the gospel stories of
an earthly Joshua. If he did, he would have mentioned Joshua's raising
people from the dead, or healing, or even Joshua's baptism to support
his views on the subject. Why would Paul talk about baptism using his
own ideas and authority when he had the baptism of Joshua to back up
his claims on the topic? When he was talking about the raising of the
dead, why would he not use the stories about Joshua preforming the act
or the zombies that rose at the time of Joshua's death in support of
his theology if he knew about them. The reason was that the stories of
an earthly Joshua had not been invented yet. Incidentally some of the
early church fathers claim Paul was from Galilee not Tarsus. Yet none
of the gospels makes mention of any Paul.

And Paul does not mention a single fact found in the gospels. Even more
puzzling is that Paul quotes passages from the Greek Septuagint that
Josephus and some early church writers say hadn't been written in the
first century CE. How did Paul accomplish that little miracle if he
wrote in the first century? In a previous post I give a detailed
outline of those passages along with other quotes substantiating that
only the Pentateuch and a few psalms was translated by the end of the
first century. Supporting evidence can be found by reviewing the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Outside of the Torah and some Psalms, no other OT books
can be found.


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

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

 

[Jeckyl]

>>> Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your
>>> rationalisations.
>>No .. its there is the epistles .. I'm not inventing things to back up my
>>explanation. I am drawing plausible conclusions from what is said.
> And where do they back up the reasons you rationalised?

I've explained already what the epistles say that would back up my proposed
explanation of there being nothing of Jesus life in Paul's epistles. he
claimed in those epistles that what he taught came directly to him from his
vision. He started preaching those teaching before he had met with any
other apostles. So anything he had to say related to those teachings would
not require information about Jesus life .. his teaching were only concerned
with Jesus death and resurrection.

Its really not all the hard to follow.

 

[Michael Gray]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:29:56 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12toeqbdkmrr2d3@corp.supernews.com>
>"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:

Thankyou for placing an attribution.
It makes things a lot easier.

>>>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

Evidence?
I see no evidence.
All I see is opinions from highly suspect and thoroughly biases
sources.

This is most definitely NOT evidence of any sort.
If you accept that as "evidence", then I am able to provide you
numerous written accounts attesting to the reality of Sherlock Holmes.

>.. you may not accept them, but

I accept only evidence, not flights of fancy by people who are
desperately trying to make their fantasies true.
I have investigated this in minute details over many years, by the
way.
The deeper that I go into these claims, the more flimsy they become,
until they are all eventually revealed to be either based on the same
outright frauds, or simply wild guesses, supported by nothing more
than wishful thinking.

If you have managed to uncover proof that is new to the world, then I
should like to see it, and translate it myself, if you would be so
kind.

>I can find nothing that suggests different dates.

Then you have investigated to a remarkably shallow extent.

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

Not my problem.
All the extant contemporary evidence available to date supports and
enhance my proposition, yet denies yours.

You have provided no evidence whjatsoever to support your claims.
In fact, the evidence that you do supply, by nature of it's
desperation to support the myth, and it's consequent fraudulent
nature, knocks bruises in your theory to a very large extent.
The field is rife with fraudulent documents, fraudulent attributions,
and you have been taken in by them.

I urge you to go into your bible research to a much much deeper level
before getting back to any of us here.

As an example: If you are unable to read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and
Latin, (yes, all of them), then you have no hope of holding a sensible
critical conversation with many of us.

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

Then please do so.

>> 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.

Oh dear.
I remember going through this whole business some years ago with
another mildly combative neophyte.
Your "generally accepted dates" are only generally accepted by SOME
christians.
Many bible scholars, (most of them devout Christians), shudder when
they have to explain that these G.A.D.s are fantastic.
Talk to a professional bibical historian.
Read a few books on the subject.
Prof. Robert Oden (pron "oh-deen") has some excellent publications on
the matter.

The gulf between us is far too wide at the moment to demand that I
educate you in this newsgroup, (as you have been repeatedly
demanding).

>> You have exactly zero for your bizarre claims.
>
>Do you have any?

Yes.

>> You have the original copies, do you?
>
>Do you have original copies that show otherwise?

Do you have any original documents from Dr. Watson to show that
Sherlock Holmes is not real?
Any original documents from Dumbledore to prove that Harry Potter does
not exist?
Do you realise how desperate you sound?

Honestly mate, it is the VERY LACK of evidence where one would expect
to find it by the tonne, that supports my proposition, and demolishes
yours!

>>>> 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.

It could indeed.

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

No.

--