Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

  • Thread starter Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
  • Start date
"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. 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.

Basically, the 1st century Jews were expecting a king who would sit on the
throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel. This is reflected in the
gosples themselves:

Luke: 24:21
But we had hoped that he was the one who was going
to redeem Israel.

That is what Bar Kochba attempted to do when he proclaimed himself the
messiah, and some Jews even believed that Herod the Great was the promised
messiah. The belief that the messiah was to be a god was foreign to Jewish
thought and is not in the old testament.

--Wax
 
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"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.

I assume that you have a more probable theory. I am interested to hear
your proof that Paul did not exist, and if Christianity did not start with
Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

--Wax
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 16 February 2007 9:08 pm
Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com 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.
>
> One may not agree with their teaching, or claim that they had no basis
> in fact, but claiming those particular figures did not exist is not
> justified.
>
> To do so gives a point of attack to people like codebreaker who will
> then start quoting evidence for the existence of the apostles, and
> then conclude (illogically) that if you were wrong about the Apostle,
> you were wrong about
> Jesus. I don't think you want to give him any more ammunition for his
> baseless claims.

There is no to little evidence of John the Baptist and even less for any
apostles. Josephus is the closest to John the B. and even he is not
contemporary. In fact John if he actually existed could have lived a
century or two early or a century later than the designated lifetime of
Jesus.

There is nothing but nothing contemporary written about John the Baptist
nor any apostle.

Codebreaker can no more provide evidence that John the Baptist nor any
apostle existed any more than he could for Joshua ben Joseph.
Incidently the name Joshua/Jesus was chosen for a reason -- it was one
of the most popular names among the Jewish population and was used the
same way we use John Doe today. Some estimates say Joshua was a name
held by one in four males, and Joseph one in ten. I personally think
that is on the high side but there is no debate that the name was
chosen for its generic usage and popularity. Besides it was also
suggestive of the original Joshua.

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

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:19:35 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <WIOBh.19783$5j1.12126@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>"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.
>
>I assume that you have a more probable theory.

I do.
Jesus never existed.
I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for your outrageous
estimate of probability??
Yes, I thought so.

> I am interested to hear
>your proof that Paul did not exist,

Non sequitur!!!
Read what I wrote.
I was referring to Jesus, as were you!

>and if Christianity did not start with
>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?

You are conflating my personally not being able to name the con-men
that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and Paul really existed!!
Where did your brain go on holiday too?

**** me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.

--
 
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:52:25 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12tf8qdh0fnjdee@corp.supernews.com>
>> 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.

There is NO extant contemporary evidence whatsoever.
Dubious or not.

>>> 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.
>

--
 
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>
>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.
>
> I do.
> Jesus never existed.
> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for
> your outrageous estimate of probability??
> Yes, I thought so.
>
>> I am interested to hear
>>your proof that Paul did not exist,
>
> Non sequitur!!!
> Read what I wrote.
> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!
>
>>and if Christianity did not start with
>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?
>
> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the
> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and Paul
> really existed!!
> Where did your brain go on holiday too?
>
> **** me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.

In other words: You have no credible theory.

--Wax
 
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:15:24 GMT, "weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
- Refer: <wWTBh.81767$2m6.25209@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.
>>
>> I do.
>> Jesus never existed.
>> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for
>> your outrageous estimate of probability??
>> Yes, I thought so.
>>
>>> I am interested to hear
>>>your proof that Paul did not exist,
>>
>> Non sequitur!!!
>> Read what I wrote.
>> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!
>>
>>>and if Christianity did not start with
>>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?
>>
>> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the
>> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and Paul
>> really existed!!
>> Where did your brain go on holiday too?
>>
>> **** me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.
>
>In other words: You have no credible theory.

I don't believe it!
Are you deliberately acting stupid?

You plainly did not read what I wrote.

I have the very plausible theory that most of the Christian fairy tale
was invented by humans with a vested interest in power.

That is far more credible than anything that delusional apologists
have arrived at, and far exceeds the non-existent plausiblility of
your baseless guesses on the subject.

You never did answer me as to where you brain is currently holidaying.

--
 
>> 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?
Why is it not? It is not unreasonable, and it would explain things that
otherwise we need to invent reasons for.

Why is it so irrational and sensible to believe that there was a person
called Jesus at that time? It was a common name .. there were probably
hundreds of Jesus's around. Why is it irrational to suggest that the
stories in the gospels may be partly based on a real person from that time,
who may well have been part of the sect that eventually spawned the gospels
and Christianity.

It does not mean one beleives Jesus was God, or a Messiah, or that what he
taught was correct, or that the Gospels are correct in everything that they
said etc etc.

However, the existence of such a person does neatly explain the various
non-conclusive stories based on (or mentioning) the life and sayings of a
figure call Jesus. It explains why the stories are all set at the same
time. It explains why the stories are so imperfect. For example, the
claim that Jesus birth satisfied a scripture about Emmanuel .. if the story
was completly fictional, why not name the character Emmanuel? Why choose a
different and fairly common name (ie would be like claiming today that the
religious leader was called Fred)? Why have Jesus stated goals change
during the story? Why have him make mistakes?

> The religion exists, but its founder

What founder is that? Are you talking about Paul?

> knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of
> stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.

Yes . .there is a great deal in the story that is based on other myths and
legends and has been constructed to appear to fulfil scriptures.

>>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.

So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof either way
... but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and elsewhere).

> And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never
> existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".

Exactly my point .. perhaps you are missing it. There is no historically
conclusive evidence for an historical Jesus. That does not mean it is
irational or illogical to personally believe that there was such a person,
as long as that believe does not contradict any evidence we do have.

> As there is none for, there is no reason to assume he did.

And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.

However, there is strong evidence against many of the events that were
supposed to take place concerning Jesus. This evidence does cast doubt on
the bible accounts (and therefore on the existence of Jesus). But there are
other observations that are better explained by an historical Jesus.

Do you have an explanation of the various new testament bible books and
letters (and the early non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the
Egerton Gospel), and their chronology .. who wrote what and upon what
previous book it may have been based etc?
 
> Basically, the 1st century Jews were expecting a king who would sit on the
> throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel. This is reflected in
> the gosples themselves:
>
> Luke: 24:21
> But we had hoped that he was the one who was going
> to redeem Israel.
>
> That is what Bar Kochba attempted to do when he proclaimed himself the
> messiah, and some Jews even believed that Herod the Great was the promised
> messiah. The belief that the messiah was to be a god was foreign to
> Jewish thought and is not in the old testament.

Well said.
 
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:46:23 +1100, "Jeckyl"
<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:


>> knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of
>> stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is rationalisation.
>
>Yes . .there is a great deal in the story that is based on other myths and
>legends and has been constructed to appear to fulfil scriptures.

It is the other way around.


>So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof either way
>.. but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and elsewhere).

The science of textual criticism states that we accept
a text as true, until it is proved false. Especially one
that is historically accurate and the Bible texts are.


>> And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never
>> existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".
>
>Exactly my point .. perhaps you are missing it. There is no historically
>conclusive evidence for an historical Jesus. That does not mean it is
>irational or illogical to personally believe that there was such a person,
>as long as that believe does not contradict any evidence we do have.

See above. The fact is, that you don't question the existence
of many historical figures, even though their existence is
based on a copy of single text, by a third party much later.

And it's not about "extraordinary claims requiring
extraordinary evidence", because Caesar claimed to be,
"God above all gods" and yet, even with only a small
amount of textual evidence, his existence is not questioned.
This is hypocrisy!


>> As there is none for, there is no reason to assume he did.
>
>And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.
>
>However, there is strong evidence against many of the events that were
>supposed to take place concerning Jesus.

That's not true.


>Do you have an explanation of the various new testament bible books and
>letters (and the early non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the
>Egerton Gospel), and their chronology .. who wrote what and upon what
>previous book it may have been based etc?

Try to place on equal footing, texts that were not written
by the people whose names appear on them and were
actually written one to two centuries later, is disingenuous.

What critics try to do, is use the date of a council in the
4th century and demand to know why certain books
were excluded, without ever asking when the books were
written and wondering if that's the reason they were excluded.

Hello??? :)


--

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.
 
On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
> Tohu.B...@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.

Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba
was the Messiah/Christ.
We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's
claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS
we can help you connect them. But before anything let me
ask you some:
Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where
do you think that he based his claim on?
Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the
Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,
where do you think he based his claim on?.

Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva
Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author
of the Qur'an, The Ebionites
and thousand of Rabbis who later
converted into Islam all agree on one thing:
in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.
And this is what we have been saying.

Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect
the dots


>
> > Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
> > by Jesus enemies.
>
> ===>Not the "Jesus" of the NT!


How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day
when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?
How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?

>
> > Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud
>
> ===>Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.
Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew
yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later
put to death


>
> > It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
> > figure
>
> ===>NON SEQUITUR, based on false premises.

What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have
any clue



>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -

You are not ashamed of yourself yet?
A fictional character invented by Paul would not
be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and
his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore
Paul did not invent him.
Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same
source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT



>
> - Show quoted text -
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>> Tohu.B...@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.

>
> Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba
> was the Messiah/Christ.

He goofed, and he paid the price.

> We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's
> claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS
> we can help you connect them. But before anything let me
> ask you some:
> Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where
> do you think that he based his claim on?
> Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the
> Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,
> where do you think he based his claim on?.
>
> Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva
> Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author
> of the Qur'an, The Ebionites
> and thousand of Rabbis who later
> converted into Islam all agree on one thing:
> in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.
> And this is what we have been saying.


It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots
of Prophets. End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you
simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no
theological weight for the Jews.

>
> Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect
> the dots

And misinterpreting it is equally useless.
>
>
>>> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
>>> by Jesus enemies.
>> ===>Not the "Jesus" of the NT!
>
>
> How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day
> when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?
> How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?
>
>>> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud
>> ===>Irrelevant.
>
> Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.
> Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew
> yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later
> put to death
>
>
>>> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
>>> figure
>> ===>NON SEQUITUR, based on false premises.
>
> What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have
> any clue
>
>
>
>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You are not ashamed of yourself yet?
> A fictional character invented by Paul would not
> be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and
> his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore
> Paul did not invent him.
> Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same
> source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT
>
>
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
 
On Feb 18, 1:33 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
> >> Tohu.B...@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.
>
> > Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba
> > was the Messiah/Christ.
>
> He goofed, and he paid the price.
>
>
>
>
>
> > We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's
> > claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS
> > we can help you connect them. But before anything let me
> > ask you some:
> > Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where
> > do you think that he based his claim on?
> > Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the
> > Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,
> > where do you think he based his claim on?.
>
> > Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva
> > Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author
> > of the Qur'an, The Ebionites
> > and thousand of Rabbis who later
> > converted into Islam all agree on one thing:
> > in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.
> > And this is what we have been saying.
>
> It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots
> of Prophets. End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the
> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you
> simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no
> theological weight for the Jews.

Hey Dhimmi, like it or not, Messiah/Christ is the prophet like Moses
is the reading of Deuteronomy 18:14-19.
Paul says so I believe it that settle it.
The Qur'an says so, I believe it that settle it



>
>
>
> > Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect
> > the dots
>
> And misinterpreting it is equally useless.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
> >>> by Jesus enemies.
> >> ===>Not the "Jesus" of the NT!
>
> > How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day
> > when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?
> > How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?
>
> >>> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud
> >> ===>Irrelevant.
>
> > Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.
> > Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew
> > yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later
> > put to death
>
> >>> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
> >>> figure
> >> ===>NON SEQUITUR, based on false premises.
>
> > What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have
> > any clue
>
> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You are not ashamed of yourself yet?
> > A fictional character invented by Paul would not
> > be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and
> > his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore
> > Paul did not invent him.
> > Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same
> > source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
On Feb 18, 1:33 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:
> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > wrote:
> >> Tohu.B...@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.
>
> > Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba
> > was the Messiah/Christ.
>
> He goofed, and he paid the price.
>
>
>
>
>
> > We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's
> > claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS
> > we can help you connect them. But before anything let me
> > ask you some:
> > Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where
> > do you think that he based his claim on?
> > Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the
> > Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,
> > where do you think he based his claim on?.
>
> > Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva
> > Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author
> > of the Qur'an, The Ebionites
> > and thousand of Rabbis who later
> > converted into Islam all agree on one thing:
> > in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.
> > And this is what we have been saying.
>
> It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots
> of Prophets.

The text say, you shall listen to HIM and not to THEM.
So it does not matter how many prophets arose in Israel
here we are concerned with only one particular prophet
like Moses and that is the Messiah/Christ.
LITTLE COMMON SENSE IS WHAT YOU NEED SON
OF A JEWISH WHORE


>End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the
> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you
> simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no
> theological weight for the Jews.
>
>
>
> > Reading historical material is useless If you can't connect
> > the dots
>
> And misinterpreting it is equally useless.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Given the fact Jesus TRIAL is mentioned in the Talmuld a book
> >>> by Jesus enemies.
> >> ===>Not the "Jesus" of the NT!
>
> > How many Jesuses broke Moses Law on SABBATH day
> > when Pontius Pilatius was Governor of Judea?
> > How many Jesuses did Caiphas trialed, you son of a bitch?
>
> >>> Given the fact that the Gospel writers could not write the Talmud
> >> ===>Irrelevant.
>
> > Irrelevant to you because it caught you off guard.
> > Talmud was not written by Luke or Mark or Matthew
> > yet it mentions a trial of a man named Jesus who was later
> > put to death
>
> >>> It is safe to believe that Jesus existed as a historical
> >>> figure
> >> ===>NON SEQUITUR, based on false premises.
>
> > What is my premises here. Please tell me If you have
> > any clue
>
> >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You are not ashamed of yourself yet?
> > A fictional character invented by Paul would not
> > be applied to Bar Khobba. Yet Bar Kobba and
> > his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ. therefore
> > Paul did not invent him.
> > Rabbi Paul and Rabbi Akiva are reading the same
> > source, the Torah of Moses. AS SIMPLE AS THAT
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.
>>>
>>> I do.
>>> Jesus never existed.
>>> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for
>>> your outrageous estimate of probability??
>>> Yes, I thought so.
>>>
>>>> I am interested to hear
>>>>your proof that Paul did not exist,
>>>
>>> Non sequitur!!!
>>> Read what I wrote.
>>> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!
>>>
>>>>and if Christianity did not start with
>>>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?
>>>
>>> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the
>>> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and
>>> Paul really existed!!
>>> Where did your brain go on holiday too?
>>>
>>> **** me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.
>>
>>In other words: You have no credible theory.
>
> I don't believe it!
> Are you deliberately acting stupid?
>
> You plainly did not read what I wrote.
>
> I have the very plausible theory that most of the Christian fairy
> tale was invented by humans with a vested interest in power.
>
> That is far more credible than anything that delusional apologists
> have arrived at, and far exceeds the non-existent plausiblility of
> your baseless guesses on the subject.
>
> You never did answer me as to where you brain is currently
> holidaying.

So you have a conspiracy theory. Those are easy to make up, and sound
convincing, but are less than worthless.

--Wax
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 9:31 am
Bible Believer perhaps from noway@nowhere.com wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:46:23 +1100, "Jeckyl"
> <noone@nowhere.com> claimed:
>
>
>>> knew nothing of the Jesus of the gospels, which is a mish-mash of
>>> stories about earlier hero figures. All there is, is
>>> rationalisation.
>>
>>Yes . .there is a great deal in the story that is based on other myths
>>and legends and has been constructed to appear to fulfil scriptures.
>
> It is the other way around.
>
>
>>So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof
>>either way .. but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and
>>elsewhere).
>
> The science of textual criticism states that we accept
> a text as true, until it is proved false. Especially one
> that is historically accurate and the Bible texts are.
>
>

It is obvious that you know nothing about higher biblical criticism.
Your statement is false. A work that has such blatant examples of tall
tales like walking on water, zombies by the thousands getting up and
walking around, 7 loaves and fishes feeding hundreds of people, must be
considered at the onset as a work of fiction, myth etc. Only an idiot
would treat such a work of fiction as true.

>>> And please learn the difference between "the assertion that he never
>>> existed at all", and "no reason to believe he existed".
>>
>>Exactly my point .. perhaps you are missing it. There is no
>>historically
>>conclusive evidence for an historical Jesus. That does not mean it is
>>irational or illogical to personally believe that there was such a
>>person, as long as that believe does not contradict any evidence we do
>>have.
>
> See above. The fact is, that you don't question the existence
> of many historical figures, even though their existence is
> based on a copy of single text, by a third party much later.
>
> And it's not about "extraordinary claims requiring
> extraordinary evidence", because Caesar claimed to be,
> "God above all gods" and yet,

Where did he do this?

> even with only a small
> amount of textual evidence, his existence is not questioned.

Show u;s the writings of this Jesus. So us contemporary remarks by
others for this Jesus. Show us contemporary statutes or coins with the
portrat of this Jesus. Julius Caesar has been mentioned in the records
of the senate of his day. Who or what mentions anything about this
Jesus anywhere near his lifetime?

To same you the effort of looking the answers are none exist, none
exists, none exists, none exists and none exists. You comparison is
not even remotely apropos.


> This is hypocrisy!
>
>

No, rather your proposal is hypocrisy.

>>> As there is none for, there is no reason to assume he did.
>>
>>And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.
>>
>>However, there is strong evidence against many of the events that were
>>supposed to take place concerning Jesus.
>
> That's not true.
>

Perhaps you might provide some of this evidence you say exists?

>
>>Do you have an explanation of the various new testament bible books
>>and letters (and the early non-canonical works such as the Gospel of
>>Thomas, the Egerton Gospel), and their chronology .. who wrote what
>>and upon what previous book it may have been based etc?
>
> Try to place on equal footing, texts that were not written
> by the people whose names appear on them and were
> actually written one to two centuries later, is disingenuous.
>
> What critics try to do, is use the date of a council in the
> 4th century and demand to know why certain books
> were excluded, without ever asking when the books were
> written and wondering if that's the reason they were excluded.
>

Those councils most likely could not tell when ANY of the texts nor by
whom they were written for those accepted and for those rejected. All
were anonymous as to author and date.


> Hello??? :)
>
>

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

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Feb 17, 7:04 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:43:15 +1100, "Jeckyl" <n...@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.

Anybody can write anything and attributes it to a character that he
made up.
writing is no evidence of existence of someone.
Even If Jesus did write something we know you as malicious ****s, and
as so, we will come up with some malicious ideas that Paul wrote for
him
or this that or.
Did not Moses write the Torah, was that enough to count him
as a historical figure?
**** YOU AAAAALLLLLLLLLL


>
> Evidence points to him. Nobody starts off by "believing in" Darwin and
> then looking for something that can be rationalised as "proof".
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 2:01 pm
weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote
>>>> "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I assume that you have a more probable theory.
>>>>
>>>> I do.
>>>> Jesus never existed.
>>>> I assume by your reply that you have ZERO EVIDENCE for
>>>> your outrageous estimate of probability??
>>>> Yes, I thought so.
>>>>
>>>>> I am interested to hear
>>>>>your proof that Paul did not exist,
>>>>
>>>> Non sequitur!!!
>>>> Read what I wrote.
>>>> I was referring to Jesus, as were you!
>>>>
>>>>>and if Christianity did not start with
>>>>>Paul, who started it, and when did it begin?
>>>>
>>>> You are conflating my personally not being able to name the
>>>> con-men that started the scam, with proof that Jesus and
>>>> Paul really existed!!
>>>> Where did your brain go on holiday too?
>>>>
>>>> **** me, you are as bad as the worst theist kooks.
>>>
>>>In other words: You have no credible theory.
>>
>> I don't believe it!
>> Are you deliberately acting stupid?
>>
>> You plainly did not read what I wrote.
>>
>> I have the very plausible theory that most of the Christian fairy
>> tale was invented by humans with a vested interest in power.
>>
>> That is far more credible than anything that delusional apologists
>> have arrived at, and far exceeds the non-existent plausiblility of
>> your baseless guesses on the subject.
>>
>> You never did answer me as to where you brain is currently
>> holidaying.
>
> So you have a conspiracy theory. Those are easy to make up, and
> sound convincing, but are less than worthless.
>
> --Wax

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory. As the adage says -- don't
attribute to malice what can be accounted for by stupidity. For
example ask almost anyone who got kicked out of the Garden of Eden and
to a person they will say Adam and Eve even though some of them have
read those scriptures more than a hundred times. Yet they would be
wrong. The bible makes an explicit point to say the MAN (and only the
MAN) was sent from Eden.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
On Feb 18, 1:33 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:
>
> It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots
> of Prophets. End of story. Another example of Christians invoking the
> "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy using texts from Tanach. Now you
> simply drag in Muslims as well. Christians and Muslims carry no
> theological weight for the Jews.
>

See I did not drag the Muslims in this, Muslims were in
this long ago. You did not know that? This is the reason
we have telling you to investigate more bfore taking
any position. Here is what dragged the Muslims.
Yet I did not write it:
Say people of the Book!
commit no excesses in your religion:
Nor say of God nothing but truth.
MESSIAH/CHRIST, Jesus the Son of Mary
was a Messenger of God, and His
WORD, which He casted in Mary,
and a Spirit proceeding from Him
So believe in God and His Messengers,
Say not Three: desist it will
be better for you for God is one.
Glory be to Him for far exalted
is He above having a Son. To
Him belong all things in heaven and on
earth. And enough is
God as a disposer of affairs. Qur'an 4:171
 
"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1171825168.844983.77200@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 1:33 pm, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote:
> > codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> > > wrote:
> > >> Tohu.B...@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.
> >
> > > Did not you say that Rabbi Akiva believe Bar-Khobba
> > > was the Messiah/Christ.
> >
> > He goofed, and he paid the price.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > We are reading the same source about Bar-Khobbah's
> > > claim, so If you can't connect the DOTS
> > > we can help you connect them. But before anything let me
> > > ask you some:
> > > Bar-Khobbah claimed that he was the Messiah. Where
> > > do you think that he based his claim on?
> > > Rabbi Akiva anointed Bar-Khobba thinking he was the
> > > Messiah/Christ, though he changed his mind later,
> > > where do you think he based his claim on?.
> >
> > > Now as you see. Bar Khobba, Rabbi Akiva
> > > Jesus, Paul, Peter, Appolos, Stephen, the author
> > > of the Qur'an, The Ebionites
> > > and thousand of Rabbis who later
> > > converted into Islam all agree on one thing:
> > > in Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses fortold the Messiah.
> > > And this is what we have been saying.
> >
> > It doesn't. All it does is mention Prophets, and Nevi'im contains lots
> > of Prophets.
>
> The text say, you shall listen to HIM and not to THEM.
> So it does not matter how many prophets arose in Israel
> here we are concerned with only one particular prophet
> like Moses and that is the Messiah/Christ.
> LITTLE COMMON SENSE IS WHAT YOU NEED SON
> OF A JEWISH WHORE
>
Prove he is the son of a Jewish whore!!!
Didn't think you could....

Host
 

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