Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

  • Thread starter Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
  • Start date
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:33:31 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Lets go back in the thread...
>
>There was a discussion between codebreaker and libertarius who had two
>opposing views by about what Paul was preaching. libertarius was claiming
>Paul invented a Christ and that was different to what was in the gospels;
>and codebreaker was saying that the Jesus Paul spoke of was the very same as
>the one in the gospels.
>
>codebreaker was restating libertarius statements about Paul inventing Christ
>and that that was nonsense and so libertarius had no grounds for saying Paul
>was preaching a different Jesus.
>
>I replies to back up Libertatius claims that Paul was preaching something
>different; by saying that even if one disputes that Paul invented Christ,
>then at the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from
>being an earthly man into be a spiritual being. ie The even if you start

Here's what you actually said, in a sentence which stood on its own
between two different quoted lines:

"At the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from
being an earthly man into be a spiritual being."

Which does not have the qualifiers you are now adding.

But even your new version contains obvious errors - Whether or not
Paul invented Christ you do not have the information to determine that
he changed the emphasis.

You do not know what they believed prior to Paul, let alone in an
earthly being.

The only writings that describe an earthly man are the gospels which
were written later, and are unreliable because what they describe is a
re-telling of stories of other hero figures, in an historical scenario
which gets known historical facts wrong.

>from an incorrect assumption about Jesus existing, that you still cannot
>claim Paul was preaching the same as the Gospels.
>
>Then Christopher comes in here and starts attacking me over it.

No. I pointed out that there was no justification for what I was
replying to.

>Frankly, he just took things out of context and appears to have thought it
>would be a fun to have a go at me with the 'back it up with proof' game
>(given that there is so little proof of anything from those times .. only
>large holes where proof should be.

Bullshit. Stop lying by inventing motives which aren't there.

>Really .. its was just childish. Get over it.

Deliberate nastiness.
 
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed
>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?
>
> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any
> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the
> Gospels.

That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact that you are
right. You are 100% right. You have a right to get angry because anybody
who disagrees with you is stupid, and you can't stand stupidy.

I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid. I tried to
give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based upon an
actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't respond to that.

--Wax
 
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:28:24 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>
>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed
>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?
>>
>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any
>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the
>> Gospels.
>
>That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact that you are
>right. You are 100% right. You have a right to get angry because anybody
>who disagrees with you is stupid, and you can't stand stupidy.

You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather
than respond properly.

>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid. I tried to

Idiot.

>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based upon an
>actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't respond to that.

By generating information where there was none.

"Sigh" is the only possible response.

>--Wax
>
>
 
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:27:43 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dge2u21rnesti8ttv1hddibn04526r92la@4ax.com>
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:28:24 GMT, "weatherwax"
><weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>>
>>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed
>>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?
>>>
>>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any
>>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the
>>> Gospels.
>>
>>That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact that you are
>>right. You are 100% right. You have a right to get angry because anybody
>>who disagrees with you is stupid, and you can't stand stupidy.
>
>You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather
>than respond properly.
>
>>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid. I tried to
>
>Idiot.
>
>>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based upon an
>>actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't respond to that.
>
>By generating information where there was none.
>
>"Sigh" is the only possible response.

"Plonk" is another one.

--
 
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>>
>>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed
>>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?
>>>
>>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any
>>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of
>>> the Gospels.
>>
>> That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact
>> that you are right. You are 100% right. You have a right to
>> get angry because anybody who disagrees with you is stupid,
>> and you can't stand stupidy.
>
> You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather
> than respond properly.
>
>>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid.
>>I tried to
>
> Idiot.
>
>>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based
>>upon an actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't
>> respond to that.
>
> By generating information where there was none.
>
> "Sigh" is the only possible response.

You are absolutely right again. Besides being stupid, I'm a liar.

It is also a lie that in six days (2/20/2007-2/25/2007) you have posted 31
replies to Jeckyl in this topic. If that was true, it would look like an
obsession. And of course we know that it was not you who has been making
the attacks and accusations. And you always respond properly, just like
your friend Michael Gray.

--Wax
 
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:22:17 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed
>>>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?
>>>>
>>>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any
>>>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of
>>>> the Gospels.
>>>
>>> That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact
>>> that you are right. You are 100% right. You have a right to
>>> get angry because anybody who disagrees with you is stupid,
>>> and you can't stand stupidy.
>>
>> You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather
>> than respond properly.
>>
>>>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid.
>>>I tried to
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>>>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based
>>>upon an actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't
>>> respond to that.
>>
>> By generating information where there was none.

At best it is rationalisation rather than conclusion.

There is no corroboration for any of the events in a book which
re-tells myths and legends of earlier heroes in th econtext of 1st
century Judea, but gets basic geography and chronology wrong.

Which is why it needs the independent corroboration that has not been
forthcoming.

Which is why it is discounted by anybody looking at it objectively.

>> "Sigh" is the only possible response.
>
>You are absolutely right again. Besides being stupid, I'm a liar.
>
>It is also a lie that in six days (2/20/2007-2/25/2007) you have posted 31
>replies to Jeckyl in this topic. If that was true, it would look like an
>obsession. And of course we know that it was not you who has been making
>the attacks and accusations. And you always respond properly, just like
>your friend Michael Gray.

No. I have been pointing out his logic errors and rather than respond
he has been attacking. Just as you are.

Why don't you address the responses you got showing you the logic and
other errors in what you post, properly? Instead of whining?

>--Wax
>
 
On Feb 21, 1:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@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).


You keep guessing that Messiah and Christ are too different words
but this is unsuported, not by History nor a sound Exegesis not even
by Theology
or sociology.
Messiah is the Hebraic transliteration for the Greek word Christ. It
has been
translated this way since the down of Christianity. Even Islam which
seems to be defending the Law of Moses in opposition to Paul
translates it as Christ which
is Al-Messih in Arabic. Unless you acknowledge that you will failed
to understand the History of Christianity in both its versions,
the New and the Old Covenants.
There is no Prophet like Moses in Deut 18:14-19 but the Messiah
the only prophet who is the Mediator a NEW COVENANT like
the Old Covenant that Moses Mediated.
"The Lord your God will raise for you the Messiah, the Mediator
of a New Covenant like the Covenant you Moses MEDIATED." Paraphrase
Deut 18:14-19
We walk in the TRUTH NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH.

JESUS IS THE MESSIAH




>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
On Feb 21, 12:51 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@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.

All the History of Monotheiem agrees with me


> 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").


This not supported by the Torah. It is just speculation.
There is but one Gospel, the Good New to the Gentile also
which both Covenants, the Old and the New are quarelling over.
Paul brialliantly explained the New Covenant and the Gospel
in relation to the Gentile World, The Pharisees did brilliantly
the same by explaning the Old Covenant in relation to the Semitic
world. Now Acts 15 should make sense to you If you have a brain.

ONE GOSPEL, TWO QUARELLING COVENANTS


>
> > 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.
 
On Mar 3, 9:50 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:51 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
> > codebrea...@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.
>
> All the History of Monotheiem agrees with me
>
> > 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").

Correction
This is not supported by the Torah. It is just speculation.
There is but one Gospel, the Good New to the Gentile world
in both its Covenants. Paul brilliantly expounded this Gospel to the
Gentiles.
in connection to the New Covenant
while the Pharisees did brilliantly
the same to the Semitic world by explaining it in connection to the
Old Covenant
Now Acts 15 should make sense to you If you have a brain.

ONE GOSPEL, TWO QUARELLING COVENANTS

JESUS IS THE MESSIAH/CHRIST OF DEUT 18:19

>
>
>
>
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
On Feb 21, 12:59 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@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.

Where did the Jews tell this?
You make it up as you go.
You are a LIAR.

> For Saul/Paul, "good news" was a dead and risen
> savior god who would take him and his followers
> "into the air".

The point is that according to History and the Bible
the Jews who believed were preaching the Gospel
but in a different context, the context of the Law of
Moses and the Old Covenant.

Are they servants of Christ? So Am I
The pharisees who believe in Jesus
as the Christ/Messiah of Israel were preaching
the Gospel of resurrection of Mankind.
Their doctrines were passed on to the next generation
until the generation who put it in writin and named it the Qur'an


Read my other post:
THE CLASH OF COVENANTS





>
> Pharisees are preaching Christ
>
> > a Pauline fictional invention.
>
> ===>NEVER!


Are they servants of Christ? So Am I. 2 cor 8

Now back your contention up with a text at least.
It is sad you missed the contents of the Bible,
yet you always want to debate about it.
At least Know what you are talking about.


>
> > 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".

Christ according to the world best translators means Messiah
in Hebrew, the equivalent of Al-Massih in Arabic.
You should be ashamed of yourself for making unsuported
speculations. Is this how Academia work? Hmmmmm...


> Can't you get this through your thick skull?
> How dense can you get?


This is speculation. I don't dwell in individual
speculations If you can't back it up with evidence
from History or The Scriptures itself


>
>
>
> >>>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.

Correct me then...
Competitors are those selling the same
product. And Paul made it clear that his
adversaries are also selling Christ/Messiah.
Are they Hebrews? So am I
Are they Israelites? So am I
Are they servant of Christ? So Am I

This is clear. Paul and His opponents are
serving the same Christ of Deut 18:19
but with a different FLAVOR:
The flavor of the New Covenant and the flavor
of the old Covenant.
You see two groups of Jews in JERUSALEM
we see three: The Paul's party,those
who supported his doctrine of the New Covenant,
The pharisees of Acts 15 who accepted Jesus
as the Messiah/Christ but wanted to remain
faithful to Moses Law, and The Jews of Judaism who
reject Jesus as Christ/Messiah. If your understanding
of the Bible and the History of Christianity is not
shaped by this, then you know nothing.



>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" wrote
>
>
> You keep guessing that Messiah and Christ are too different
> words but this is unsuported, not by History nor a sound
> Exegesis not even
> by Theology
> or sociology.
> Messiah is the Hebraic transliteration for the Greek word Christ. It
> has been translated this way since the down of Christianity. Even
> Islam which seems to be defending the Law of Moses in
> opposition to Paul translates it as Christ which is Al-Messih in
> Arabic. Unless you acknowledge that you will failed
> to understand the History of Christianity in both its versions,
> the New and the Old Covenants.

That is so funny, I can't pass it up.

"Messiah" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word "mashiyach"
which isusually translated into English as "anointed". It was commonly used
to designate a king, and sometimes a priest or prophet. "The Messiah" is a
Jewish expression referring to a future king.

In the Greek Septuagint, "mashiyach" was translated into the Greek
"christos", which also means "anointed". In the Greek New Testament, the
word "Christos" was given a new meaning by Paul when he used it to designate
"the son of God." In English it is spelled "Christ".

In the Koran, "Al-Messih" is not the son of God, therefore it cannot have
the Christian meaning of "Christ". Nor is "Al-Messih a future king,
therefore it is not the same as the Jewish "Messiah".

--Wax
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 21, 12:59 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@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.
>
>
> Where did the Jews tell this?
> You make it up as you go.

===>Read Zechariah 14.

> You are a LIAR.
===>So says YOU, an ignorant nitwit.
Have you never heard of the "gospel of the kingdom of God"?
>
>
>>For Saul/Paul, "good news" was a dead and risen
>>savior god who would take him and his followers
>>"into the air".
>
>
> The point is that according to History and the Bible
> the Jews who believed were preaching the Gospel
> but in a different context, the context of the Law of
> Moses and the Old Covenant.

===>The were preaching A "gospel", i.e.
the gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD
ON EARTH, and NOT a PAGAN gospel of some
incarnate savior god dying for them and taking them
up into into the sky!

This nis what you are incapable of comprehending.
>
> Are they servants of Christ? So Am I

===>That has nothing to do with the Jews.
He is talking about another group of CHRISTOS worshiping
GENTILES!

> The pharisees who believe in Jesus
> as the Christ/Messiah of Israel were preaching
> the Gospel of resurrection of Mankind.

===>That is utterly idiotic.
There were NEVER any Pharisees who believed in
"Jesus as the Christ/Messiah"
In fact NO ONE has ever believed in any "Christ/Messiah".
The Jews believed in the coming of a HUMAN
liberator king "Messiah",
and the Pagans (and some renegade Jews)
of Saul/Paul believed in an incarnate savior god
named "CHRISTOS" (Christ for you in English).

> Their doctrines were passed on to the next generation
> until the generation who put it in writin and named it the Qur'an

===>That is pure NONSENSE!
>
>
> Read my other post:
> THE CLASH OF COVENANTS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Pharisees are preaching Christ
>>
>>
>>>a Pauline fictional invention.
>>
>>===>NEVER!
>
>
>
> Are they servants of Christ? So Am I. 2 cor 8
>
> Now back your contention up with a text at least.
> It is sad you missed the contents of the Bible,
> yet you always want to debate about it.
> At least Know what you are talking about.
>
>
>
>>>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".
>
>
> Christ according to the world best translators means Messiah
> in Hebrew, the equivalent of Al-Massih in Arabic.
> You should be ashamed of yourself for making unsuported
> speculations. Is this how Academia work? Hmmmmm...
>
>
>
>>Can't you get this through your thick skull?
>>How dense can you get?
>
>
>
> This is speculation. I don't dwell in individual
> speculations If you can't back it up with evidence
> from History or The Scriptures itself
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>
>
> Correct me then...
> Competitors are those selling the same
> product.

===>STUPID NONSENSE.
Coke and Pepsi are COMPETITORS.
Are they "selling the same product"?
Of course not.

And Paul made it clear that his
> adversaries are also selling Christ/Messiah.
> Are they Hebrews? So am I
> Are they Israelites? So am I
> Are they servant of Christ? So Am I

===>Don't be so stupid.
He is talking about some splinter group of his
"Christos" cult, that believed they should
be more like thgir Jewish ancestors,
But is NOT talking about the Pharisees.
>
> This is clear. Paul and His opponents are
> serving the same Christ of Deut 18:19

===>There's no "Christ" in Deuteronomy.

> but with a different FLAVOR:
> The flavor of the New Covenant and the flavor
> of the old Covenant.
> You see two groups of Jews in JERUSALEM
> we see three: The Paul's party,those
> who supported his doctrine of the New Covenant,
> The pharisees of Acts 15 who accepted Jesus

===>Where does it say anything about pharisees
"who accepted Jesus"?

BOVINE MANURE! -- L.
 
"weatherwax" wrote:
> "Messiah" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word "mashiyach"
> which isusually translated into English as "anointed". It was commonly used
> to designate a king, and sometimes a priest or prophet. "The Messiah" is a
> Jewish expression referring to a future king.

>>
The Red Wheel-Barrow
by William Carlos Williams

so much depends upon
a red wheel barrow
glazed with rain water
beside the white chickens.
<<

Deconstruction:

so much depends upon
ONE MAN
[the] SAVIOR-MESSIAH
[and] ON the MEMORY/REMEMBRANCE of HIS ONE/ONLY SON

Here's why: Using @ = aleph, KH = het, kh = khaf, 3 = aiyin

The Hebrew word for wheelbarrow is KHaDoFeN
< Aramaic KHaD = one + @oFeN = wheel.
The Hebrew word for red is @aDoM.
So, red wheelbarrow = KHaDoFeN @aDoM
Change that a little to KHaD BeN-@aDaM = one + man/human

Rain-water = Ma:-GeSHeM.
Glazed/glassed = ZaGaG/Z'khookhiS.
Change Ma:GeSHeM Z' khookhis
to MaGaSH MaSHiaKH = salver/SAVIOR + MeSSiaH

Beside = 3aL YaD = on + hand; honor/memorial/monument
white chickens = (tarnagol) HoDoo LaVaN
Modify this to KHaD Lo BeN = his one/only son

This transliteration phenomena is related to the genesis of idioms in
a target language. For example: Count sheep ! (to go to sleep) is
probably the translation of a Hebrew pun (transliteration) on a Latin
phrase.
Latin sopor sond = sleep soundly/deeply => Hebrew S'PoR tSo@N = count
(young) sheep. The English idiom has been borrowed back into Israeli
Hebrew as LiSPoR KeVeS = to count sheep.

To see more example like this, do a Google search on < idioms Hebrew
izzy cohen >

ciao,
Israel "izzy" Cohen
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/BPMaps/
 
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:59:51 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" wrote
>>
>>
>> You keep guessing that Messiah and Christ are too different
>> words but this is unsuported, not by History nor a sound
>> Exegesis not even
>> by Theology
>> or sociology.
>> Messiah is the Hebraic transliteration for the Greek word Christ. It
>> has been translated this way since the down of Christianity. Even
>> Islam which seems to be defending the Law of Moses in
>> opposition to Paul translates it as Christ which is Al-Messih in
>> Arabic. Unless you acknowledge that you will failed
>> to understand the History of Christianity in both its versions,
>> the New and the Old Covenants.
>
>That is so funny, I can't pass it up.
>
>"Messiah" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew word "mashiyach"
>which isusually translated into English as "anointed". It was commonly used
>to designate a king, and sometimes a priest or prophet. "The Messiah" is a
>Jewish expression referring to a future king.
>
>In the Greek Septuagint, "mashiyach" was translated into the Greek
>"christos", which also means "anointed". In the Greek New Testament, the
>word "Christos" was given a new meaning by Paul when he used it to designate
>"the son of God." In English it is spelled "Christ".
>
>In the Koran, "Al-Messih" is not the son of God, therefore it cannot have
>the Christian meaning of "Christ". Nor is "Al-Messih a future king,
>therefore it is not the same as the Jewish "Messiah".
>
>--Wax
>
Nice work.

another part of that post ticks me off,
"JESUS IS THE MESSIAH"
They can't just keep it to "my messiah" they have to insist it applies
to everyone, including those of us that think it is bullshit.
Push push push.
For me hayzoos is not a priest, prophet, a king, anointed, son of god,
god, or anything other than a problem.
 
On Mar 3, 9:50 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"
<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 12:51 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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).


What is the GREEK word for community?
I was told it is EKKLESIA which is translated as Church in English
and EGLISE in French.
Does this mean that the word EKKLESIA was never used in the Greeks
everyday life? No, it makes no difference it was used before
or after the Apostles. The truth was that the Apostles adapted
their message to the level of understanding of their audience
within the context of their CULTURE and language. This process is
known
as ACCULTURATION.
Your approach to History and literature and linguistic is dangeroulsy
flawed.
No wonder you dwell in PLATITUDES


>
> The EUANGELION for the Jews was LIBERATION and the
> establishment of the promised Theocracy (literally,
> "Kingdom of God").
>
 
On Mar 3, 6:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 12:59 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
> This nis what you are incapable of comprehending.
>
>
>
> > Are they servants of Christ? So Am I
>
> ===>That has nothing to do with the Jews.
> He is talking about another group of CHRISTOS worshiping
> GENTILES!

Oh God! You are messed up. Do you have reading comprehension
problem or what?
Did you ever learn to analyze a text and how to be consistent with
the author intent?
Are you just too ARROGANT to admit to your ignorance?
Here is the text again for your help.
2Are they Hebrews? So am I.
Are they Israelites? So am I.
Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I.
23Are they SERVANTS of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like
this.)
I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently,
been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.
2 cor 10

Ever since a gentile is an Hebrew? Are they Hebrews here suggest
that he is speaking of the circumcision party, the same group
he has been fighting in Galatia. They preached the old Covenant.
He warned Timothy about hteir motives
"They say,"the Law is good" of course it is good as long as it is
used in accorance with his purpose."
Before attacking someone YOU must know what he is saying AND
from that you can figure out what his opponents are saying.
You have no clue about either side, yet you want to show off
you knowledge.
The Jews are debating their Scriptures, Moses Torah,please
admit to you being at a loss.
I am having some serious doubts about your claim as the world
reknown historian. Reading some History books written by others
does no turn one into an Historian.

SIR YOU HAVE MANY PROBLEMS




>
 
On Mar 3, 6:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
..

> > The point is that according to History and the Bible
> > the Jews who believed were preaching the Gospel
> > but in a different context, the context of the Law of
> > Moses and the Old Covenant.
>
> ===>The were preaching A "gospel", i.e.
> the gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD
> ON EARTH, and NOT a PAGAN gospel of some
> incarnate savior god dying for them and taking them
> up into into the sky!

Paul also mentioned the kingdom of God in his epistle.
Now you must tell us how his opponents kingdom
of God was articulated and how they differed.
But before that let me remind you that the issue here
is whether or not Deut 18:14-19 was about the Messiah/Christ.
If Deut 18:15 is not about the Messiah/Christ, then what is
the content of Paul opponents doctrine about Jesus.
WHY THEY PREACHED HIM, AND THEY PREACHED
HIM AS WHAT?

>
 
On Mar 3, 6:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> the Gospel of resurrection of Mankind.
>
> ===>That is utterly idiotic.
> There were NEVER any Pharisees who believed in
> "Jesus as the Christ/Messiah"
> In fact NO ONE has ever believed in any "Christ/Messiah".
> The Jews believed in the coming of a HUMAN
> liberator king "Messiah",
> and the Pagans (and some renegade Jews)

Why do you keep guessing?
Why don't you read Acts 15.
You truly have no sense of History.
You have no source to back up your ****ING ASSERTIONs
You keep flying from one branch to another branch without
consistency like a lost and desperate bird.

HOW SAD FOR SOMEONE WHO PRIDES HIMSELF AS AN ACADEMIC
 
On Mar 3, 6:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > The pharisees who believe in Jesus
> > as the Christ/Messiah of Israel were preaching
> > the Gospel of resurrection of Mankind.
>
> ===>That is utterly idiotic.
> There were NEVER any Pharisees who believed in
> "Jesus as the Christ/Messiah"
> In fact NO ONE has ever believed in any "Christ/Messiah".
> The Jews believed in the coming of a HUMAN
> liberator king "Messiah",
> and the Pagans (and some renegade Jews)
> of Saul/Paul believed in an incarnate savior god
> named "CHRISTOS" (Christ for you in English).

How about your famous EBIONITES whom you liked
to cite. Did you forgt them so quickly or are you saying
that they were no Hebrews? You have been citing
them for their opposition to Paul. What was their origin?
 
On Mar 3, 6:16 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 12:59 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
>
> >>codebrea...@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.
>
> > Where did the Jews tell this?
> > You make it up as you go.
>
> ===>Read Zechariah 14.
>
> > You are a LIAR.
>
> ===>So says YOU, an ignorant nitwit.
> Have you never heard of the "gospel of the kingdom of God"?
>
>
>
> >>For Saul/Paul, "good news" was a dead and risen
> >>savior god who would take him and his followers
> >>"into the air".
>
> > The point is that according to History and the Bible
> > the Jews who believed were preaching the Gospel
> > but in a different context, the context of the Law of
> > Moses and the Old Covenant.
>
> ===>The were preaching A "gospel", i.e.
> the gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD
> ON EARTH, and NOT a PAGAN gospel of some
> incarnate savior god dying for them and taking them
> up into into the sky!
>
> This nis what you are incapable of comprehending.
>
>
>
> > Are they servants of Christ? So Am I
>
> ===>That has nothing to do with the Jews.
> He is talking about another group of CHRISTOS worshiping
> GENTILES!
>
> > The pharisees who believe in Jesus
> > as the Christ/Messiah of Israel were preaching
> > the Gospel of resurrection of Mankind.
>
> ===>That is utterly idiotic.
> There were NEVER any Pharisees who believed in
> "Jesus as the Christ/Messiah"
> In fact NO ONE has ever believed in any "Christ/Messiah".
> The Jews believed in the coming of a HUMAN
> liberator king "Messiah",
> and the Pagans (and some renegade Jews)
> of Saul/Paul believed in an incarnate savior god
> named "CHRISTOS" (Christ for you in English).
>
> > Their doctrines were passed on to the next generation
> > until the generation who put it in writin and named it the Qur'an
>
> ===>That is pure NONSENSE!
>
Even If you read the Qur'an you would not comprehend. Soo
I am not surprised by what yu say
 

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