Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com]

On Feb 16, 7:28 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> >>None of the Apostles contemporaries ever question Jesus existence.
>
> > That shows a lack of critical thinking on their part.
>
> > Of course, they didn't have the standard of historical evidence we have now,
> > nor the tools to research it. So one really can't blame them for accepting
> > what was told to them.
>
> ===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional characters, just like
> the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.

You like the easy way don't you.
Anything you can't comprehend and explain in a fiction for you.

codebreaker@bigsecret

 

[Michael Gray]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:36:38 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <WWHBh.75714$2m6.15940@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote
>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote
>>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>>>>===>Thsoe "Apostles" are ALSO fictional
>>>>>> characters, just like the main protagonist "Jesus". -- L.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I must disagree there .. there is real historical evidence
>>>>> for the existence of the apostles, just as there is for John
>>>>> the Baptist.
>>>>
>>>> ===>Really?
>>>> Would you please cite some reference to your
>>>> "evidence"??? -- L.
>>
>> They talk about its existence, but never provide it. The
>> conclusion is obvious.
>>
>>> Early Christianity was not big enough to draw the attention
>>> of many people, so we shouldn't expect much historical
>>> evidence for any of the apostle. After Acts 1, most of the
>>> apostles are never heard of again anyway.
>>>
>>>The letters of Paul appear to be historically accurate,
>>> therefore we can safely assume that he lived. Those
>>> letters confirm the existence of an early church in
>>> Jerusalem, and in Galatians 1:18 Paul says that he went to
>>> Jerusalem "to visit Cephas and get information from him."
>>> From further references in 1 Colossians 9:10 and 15:5 it is
>>> reasonable to assume that "Cephas" is a reference to the
>>> apostle Peter.
>>
>> And his Christ is an ethereal, spiritual one. He knows
>> nothing of an historical Jesus let alone the Jesus of the
>> gospels.
>
>Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".
>That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a combination
>of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.
>
>However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who proclaimed
>himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for treason by the
>Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he probably did
>live.

Where on earth is even a scrap of evidence to support that estimate of
probability?
I have looked high and low, and am quite unable to find any.

>Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the historical
>Jesus can be found in the gospels.

And no-where else.
And these "gospels" are most likely fabrications.

>>>Unfortunately, we can't do better than that. Papias is
>>>often cited, but historically, he is unreliable.
>
>--Wax
>

--

 

[weatherwax]

<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote
> Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>> "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why do you think they accepted a list of prophets
>>>>> like a Isaiah, Jeremy, Daniel, Habbakuk, Zakkariah
>>>>> and j'en passe and even compiled their books into a
>>>>> canonical writing, yet rejected Jesus?
>>>>>What rational explanation can you come up with?
>>
>> >>He didn't exist.
>>
>>> How do you insult someone who never existed.

Batman, quit bugging Robbin.
There. I have just insulted somebody who does not exist.

>>> Read the Talmud in its pages where Jesus and his mother are
>>> mentioned. It is even stupid to get angry at something which
>>> not real.
>>
>> ===>The Pauline Christos Cult was ridiculed.
>> "we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block
>> and to Gentiles foolishness".
>> And that was before they began to claim there was a real
>> PERSON who was that "Christos". -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I thought you said Rabbi Akkiba accepted Bar Khobba
> as the Messiah.
> And I know through History that Bar Khobba based his claim
> on Deuteronomy 18:15.
> How on earth can you believe one thing and the opposite
> at the same time. Sometime one needs to be coherent
> with one's premise.
> It seems to me that your knowledge is just sparse and not
> connnected. You put things side by side without unity.
> The man who quoted a text about Rabbi Akiba accepting
> Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel should know
> that this is indeed based on Moses.
> Now what do you believe exactly regarding
> Deuteronomy 18:15
> If you think it is not about Messiah why do you quote
> Rabbi Akkiba to make your point knowing that
> Rabbi Akkiba interpreted Deut 18:15 to mean Bar Khobba?
> Do you really make sense or you are just trying to
> show off your knowledge without susbstance?
> I think you need help

By taking Deuteronomy 18:15 out of context, Peter was able to claim that
Jesus was the messiah. By taking Deuteronomy out of context, Mohammad was
able to claim to be the messiah. By taking Deuteronomy 18:15 out of context
Bar Khobba was able to claim to be the messiah.

By taking text out of context, there is no limit to what can be claimed.
That was a common practice at the time of Jesus, and is still a common
practice among Jew, Christians and Moslems today.

Have you tried looking at Deuteronomy 18:15 in context? You better, because
unless you can show that 18:15 referred to a messiah you have no argument.

--Wax

 

[Libertarius]

Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:26 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>Jeckyl wrote:
>>
>>>>You are such a prentious little asshole...
>>
>>>Charming.
>>
>>>>The same way people are trained to explain the American
>>>>Constitution, the same way there were people in Israel
>>>>trained to read the Law of Moses and interprete it.
>>>>You are not ONE of them, so why should I care about
>>>>your PRIVATE OPINION.
>>
>>>So are you saying that the Jewish faith recognises Jesus as the messiah ?
>>
>>>>You are not a good Historian either
>>
>>>You ceratinly aren't .. you've not given one single bit of historial
>>>evidence. Only hearsay from people who never new jesus when he was
>>>supposedly alive.
>>
>>>>Go back to first Century Jerusalem and quote a Scribe or
>>>>a doctor of the Mosaic Law who ever said that Deuteronomy
>>>>18:15 never was about a Messiah/Christ
>>
>>>Whether or not the Jews where expecting a promised messiah is beside the
>>>point. The issue is whether jesus was that messiah. The old testament and
>>>jewish scripture do not say that.
>>
>>>>Do you think that being historian mean reading the works
>>>>by some Historians?
>>>>Being historian means being able to investigate and find the cause
>>>>and effect.
>>
>>>Exactly .. obviosuly not something you have done, otherwise you would cite
>>>the credible contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.
>>
>>>>Hey it looks like History does not support your viewpoint.
>>
>>>It certainly does not support yours.
>>
>>>>JESUS IS THE CHRIST, NO JESUS, NO CHRIST
>>
>>>Shame that.
>>
>>===>In fact the Gospel writers invented "Jesus" to strengthen
>>the Pauline claims about "Christ".
>
>
>
> It is easy to claim it, now you must prove it.
> Given the fact that you believe that Rabbi Akkiba accepted
> Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel.

===>I don't "believe" it.
I KNOW it.

> Given the fact that any Jewish claim about the Messiah is always
> based on Deuteronomy 18:14-19.

===>FALSE ASSertiom you keep repeating.

> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
> by Jesus enemies.

===>Not the "Jesus" of the NT!

> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud

===>Irrelevant.

> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
> figure

===>NON SEQUITUR, based on false premises.

and that Deuteronomy 18:14-19 in the words of
> Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul
> did not invent.

===>FALSE ASSertion,
FALSE CONCLUSION. -- L.

 

[weatherwax]

<Tohu.Bohu@hotmail.com> wrote
> Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

>
>
> It is easy to claim it, now you must prove it.

Prove somebody's non-existence? That is like proving Superman does not
exist. Could you prove that there was no Superman?

> Given the fact that you believe that Rabbi Akkiba accepted
> Bar Khobba as the Messiah of Israel.
> Given the fact that any Jewish claim about the Messiah is always
> based on Deuteronomy 18:14-19.

Deuteronomy 18:14-16 doesn't even refer to a messiah.

> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a
> book by Jesus enemies.

The Talmud was written hundreds of years after Jesus. Therefore it is not a
good historical source.

> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the
> Talmud
> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
> figure and that Deuteronomy 18:14-19 in the words of
> Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul
> did not invent.
> All your other thesis fall flat on the ground.
>
> You are a poor thinker

I would expect you to come up with better arguments than that.

--Wax

 

[Jeckyl]

> Note also that biblical
> scholars no longer belief all the letters supposedly written by one
> called Paul were written by the same person.

I understand and am well aware of that. Only some of the letters supposedly
by him are accepted as being by the same author (who is gnerally assumed to
be called 'Paul')

However, even though there is more evidence on Paul than Jesus, it is still
possible (as your link indicates) to take legitimate issue with his
existence. Makes claims of Jesus existence seem even less likely.

 

[Jeckyl]

> Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".
> That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a
> combination of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.
>
> However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who
> proclaimed himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for
> treason by the Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he
> probably did live.
> Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the
> historical Jesus can be found in the gospels.

That is close to what I believe as well. The reason for the lack of
evidence is that the events and actions of Jesus life are either exaggerated
or invented to basically make it a good story. To paraphrase Twain, the
rumors of Jesus death are greatly exaggerated.. I think he just wasn't
important enough at the time to enough people (or at least the people who
were keeping records of the day) to warrant being written about. To those
that followed him, of course, he was very important, and his teaching ended
up as the basis for what Christianity was (and probably should be) .. before
it became distorted by Pauline teaching, and Rome's involvement and the many
other factors the have influenced the church.

 

[Jeckyl]

> There are more evidence for Jesus than you have for Darwin.
> The History of Monotheism during
> those past 2000 years is the history of Jesus.

No .. its the history of the Christian religion .. you really see mto have
difficulty in differentiating between evidence for the Chruch and evidence
for Jesus.

> The culture that his name shaped is another evidence for Him

Again, only evidence of the Chruch. and that the name Jesus is associated
with it.

> the Law than nations enacted based on his Gospel
> his evidence for Jesus.

Again, only evidence of the Chruch.

> All these fine cathedrals which have been around the
> world is an evidence of his existence.

Again, only evidence of the Chruch.

> Thousands internal and theological evidence
> and thousands outside evidences all confirm one man Jesus

Again, only evidence of the Church.

If you are going to quote things as evidence for something, please make sure
they are evidence for the actual claim you are making, otherwise it makes
you look a little silly.

 

[Jeckyl]

> I am not applying double standard. You have one standard one
> Jesus and another standard for Darwin

Not at all .. its the same standard

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:40:02 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>> Here we are differentiating between "Christ", and the "historical Jesus".
>> That is an important distinction to make. Paul's "Christ" was a
>> combination of the Jewish "Messiah" with Mithric and Greek beliefs.
>>
>> However, the existence of a first century leader named Jesus who
>> proclaimed himself the messiah, and who was consequently executed for
>> treason by the Romans is very much within the whelm of possibility, and he
>> probably did live.
>> Under the distortions of the Pauline "Christ", I believe that the
>> historical Jesus can be found in the gospels.
>
>That is close to what I believe as well. The reason for the lack of
>evidence is that the events and actions of Jesus life are either exaggerated
>or invented to basically make it a good story.

No. The reason for the lack of evidence is that there is nothing
outside the Christian tradition.

> To paraphrase Twain, the
>rumors of Jesus death are greatly exaggerated.. I think he just wasn't
>important enough at the time to enough people (or at least the people who
>were keeping records of the day) to warrant being written about. To those
>that followed him, of course, he was very important, and his teaching ended
>up as the basis for what Christianity was (and probably should be) .. before
>it became distorted by Pauline teaching, and Rome's involvement and the many
>other factors the have influenced the church.

That rationalisation is as bad as the Christians'.

>

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:43:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>> I am not applying double standard. You have one standard one
>> Jesus and another standard for Darwin
>
>Not at all .. its the same standard

We have the writings of Darwin. We have his descendents. He is part of
recent history.

Evidence points to him. Nobody starts off by "believing in" Darwin and
then looking for something that can be rationalised as "proof".

>

 

[Jeckyl]

> No. The reason for the lack of evidence is that there is nothing
> outside the Christian tradition.

Exactly. Or rather, that the 'evidence' that is outside is non-contemporary
and/or of duibious validity.

>> To paraphrase Twain, the
>>rumors of Jesus death are greatly exaggerated.. I think he just wasn't
>>important enough at the time to enough people (or at least the people who
>>were keeping records of the day) to warrant being written about. To those
>>that followed him, of course, he was very important, and his teaching
>>ended
>>up as the basis for what Christianity was (and probably should be) ..
>>before
>>it became distorted by Pauline teaching, and Rome's involvement and the
>>many
>>other factors the have influenced the church.
>
> That rationalisation is as bad as the Christians'.

Not at all, it perfectly sensible. That is the same reason why there is no
historical evidence about the overwhelming majority of individual that
existed .. they just weren't important enough for someone else to document.
I'm sure you're not going to say that there were only a handful of human
beings that existed because we don't have evidence of the existence of each
individual. That a relatively insignificant person (at the time) called
Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational and
sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence' that many
claim as proof.

Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the contrary). I
am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a reasonable explanation.
It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at all.

As there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Jesus at
all, it becomes a matter of personal belief and what one judges to best fit
what information we do have. However, there is fairly strong evidence that
many of the things said about him were untrue ... in particular the
contradictory accounts of his birth that do not make sense, for example.

 

[Jeckyl]

>>Not at all .. its the same standard
> We have the writings of Darwin. We have his descendents. He is part of
> recent history.
>
> Evidence points to him. Nobody starts off by "believing in" Darwin and
> then looking for something that can be rationalised as "proof".

I'm also pretty sure we have actual records of his birth, his death, his
education, his expeditions, his journals, contemporary writings about him
(in particular ones refuting his claims, which hold more weight than ones
that are in support).

 

[Jeckyl]

> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
> by Jesus enemies.

Can you please quote the reference to it.

And the esteimate date it was written (if it was non-contemporary, then it
is not really proof, just a reteeling of a story.

> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud

No.. but those who wrote the Talmub could well have been influence by the
bible stories.

> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
> figure

But not to prove it.

> and that Deuteronomy 18:14-19 in the words of
> Rabbi Akiva is about the Messiah/Christ that Paul
> did not invent.

I ceratinly don't dispute that the old testament has many references to a
forthcoming prophet / messiah / christ.

That doesn't mean Jesus was that person, and that person was not someone
else or is yet to come.

> All your other thesis fall flat on the ground.
> You are a poor thinker

The only one showing poor thinking so far has been you.

 

[Jeckyl]

>> >Christ resurrected, Darwin not
>> There is no evidence that He resurrected.
> Say you are clueless as how this kind of evidence would work
> Supernatural evidence: Jesus is the Christ.
> Before resurrection he was Jesus of Nazereth
> After resurrection, everybody including you addresses him
> as CHRIST. supernatural evidence

That is not evidence in any way at all. You really are grasping at straws
here.

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:52:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>> No. The reason for the lack of evidence is that there is nothing
>> outside the Christian tradition.
>
>Exactly. Or rather, that the 'evidence' that is outside is non-contemporary
>and/or of duibious validity.
>
>>> To paraphrase Twain, the
>>>rumors of Jesus death are greatly exaggerated.. I think he just wasn't
>>>important enough at the time to enough people (or at least the people who
>>>were keeping records of the day) to warrant being written about. To those
>>>that followed him, of course, he was very important, and his teaching
>>>ended
>>>up as the basis for what Christianity was (and probably should be) ..
>>>before
>>>it became distorted by Pauline teaching, and Rome's involvement and the
>>>many
>>>other factors the have influenced the church.
>>
>> That rationalisation is as bad as the Christians'.
>
>Not at all, it perfectly sensible. That is the same reason why there is no
>historical evidence about the overwhelming majority of individual that
>existed .. they just weren't important enough for someone else to document.
>I'm sure you're not going to say that there were only a handful of human
>beings that existed because we don't have evidence of the existence of each
>individual.

Now you're just being silly. Those we know about are conclusions not
presumptions.

> That a relatively insignificant person (at the time) called
>Jesus existed (but not fully as described in the bible) is a rational and
>sensible explanation of the non-conclusive hearsay 'evidence' that many
>claim as proof.

Why is it? There is no evidence. The religion exists, but its founder
knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of
stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.

>Notice that I did not claim that there was any proof (on the contrary). I
>am simply stating what I believe to be likely and a reasonable explanation.
>It is no less reasonable than the assertion that he never existed at all.

It's a rationalisation.

And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never
existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".
having
>As there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of Jesus at
>all, it becomes a matter of personal belief and what one judges to best fit
>what information we do have. However, there is fairly strong evidence that
>many of the things said about him were untrue ... in particular the
>contradictory accounts of his birth that do not make sense, for example.

As there is none for, there is no reasonto assume he did.

 

[Jeckyl]

>> ===>EXACTLY.
>> CHRIST is Fantasy/FICTION.
>> DARWIN not.
> This is the opinion of someone at a loss as where to get the clues
> for a sound investigation. So you resort to easy ways.

A sound investigation would show no evidence for Jesus .. it would show
substantial evidence for Darwin.

 

[Jeckyl]

> The Talmud talks about Jesus' trial in their own words

Its not contemporary evidence.

> Trial for someone who never existed is ridiculous.

There is no evidence of the trial, only talk about it in a document hundreds
of years later

> But of course you always twist or pick and choose
> any source to fit your prejudice.

There is no credible contemporary source. If there is, please present it ..
I would be very happyto see it.

> What do you think Paul is saying? He is just rewording
> the usual jewish oppositon. A Crucified Messia/Christ
> how is this possible? The Jews did not think that the Messiah
> could be crucified. But they are not saying that Jesus was not
> crucified. I am not sure If you will ever be able to see
> the nuance. Jesus crucifixion made him unlikely to be the
> Messiah/Christ according to the Jews understanding
> of Moses prophecy.

Anything paul says on jesus (which is very little about him as a person) is
hearsay, as he never claimed to have met jesus as a person (only in a
vision, when he was blind).

 

[Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:57:58 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
>> by Jesus enemies.
>
>Can you please quote the reference to it.

It seems to be a later response to what Christians said. But all I
know of this comes from a book by Frank Zindler, The Jesus the Jews
Never Knew.

 

[Jeckyl]

> Yet they described in their Talmud how Jesus was TRIALED

Please provide a quoted dated (approximately) reference to this

> Does this make sense If there were no such person?

If hundreds of years later there were stories about it, then possibly.
Please provide a quote in context so we can see.