Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 8:39 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel

> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused

> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman

> > soldier named Pantera.

>

> That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt to

> discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding Jesus

> existing.

What is a better attempt to discredit Jesus?

Saying he never existed or saying that his mother was a whore?

Which one would hit its target?

>

> > Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.

> > You just failed to connect the dots

>

> If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence. There's a

> lot of non-evidence though.

A lot of evidence, historical, theological, legal even

cultural evidence everywhere. You must know how to connect

the dots first.

February 19, 2007

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>>>>>===>LIAR!

>>>>>There's no "MESSIAH/CHRIST" in the Qur'an! -- L.

>>>> There is in the translation I've read.. it occurs several times.

>

>> Do you read Arabic?

>

> No .. I've read and referred to several English translation (including

> ones that are claimed to be authoirsed and ones

> from islamis sites). Every one refers to either Messiah of Christ. I've

> not been able to find any translations that do not use Messiah or Christ.

But they are not the same. In the Old Testament, the Messiah is the Jewish

savior who was expected to sit on the throne of David and restore the

kingdom of Israel.

Christ is the Christian God who is a member of the godhead.

The Koran refers to Jesus as a prophet.

That is three different and incompatible interpretations of Jesus, who was

none of the above.

--Wax

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 8:39 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel

> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused

> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman

> > soldier named Pantera.

>

> That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt to

> discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding Jesus

> existing.

It is not rumor anymore. It is written in their book of FAITH,

the Talmud. If you knew what the Talmud represents in

the Jews religious life you would not talk nonsense.

>

> > Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.

> > You just failed to connect the dots

>

> If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence. There's a

> lot of non-evidence though.

February 19, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 1:30 am

weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>

> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

>> weatherwax weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

>>>> weatherwax 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?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Fuck 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.

>>>

>>> Michael Gray said. "I have the very plausible theory that

>>> most of the Christian fairy tale was invented by humans with

>>> a vested interest in power." That's called a "conspiracy

>>> theory."

>>

>> No it isn't. To be a conspiracy all of those writers would have

>> had to act in unison.

>

> Michael Gray also referred to "the con-men that started the scam."

> It

> still looks to me as if he is saying that it was a conspiracy. It is

> hard to imagine that they would all be working independently.

>

>> That wasn't what happened.

>

> Of course it isn't what happened. Conspiracy theories are rarely

> true.

>

>> And outside the scribes that were in a conspiracy to concoct

>> the Torah "discovered" by King Josiah, there is no evidence

>> any of the other biblical writers actually knew each other

>> especially when considering almost all of scripture was

>> written anonymously.

>

> Not quite true, but the compilation of the Old Testament cannot be

> compared

> to the compilation of the New Testament. They are completely

> different stories.

>

Of course they can be compared. First off, both testaments are a

compilation of multiple stories, you just don't have two stories. And

further more several of those stories are told in multiple ways each a

blatant contradiction of the other. And you are forgetting about the

Apocrypha. It is a testament with a third set of stories.

They are all fables that were "enhanced" by later editors and redactors.

Even later the Old Testament was "Catholicized" by other anonymous

editors.

>> It was more in the nature of knowing a good story and running

>> with it and changing some of it to fit one's own

>> theology/philosophy.

>

> The messianic expectation of the first century was for a king

> (messiah) who would sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdom

> of Israel.

>

How could that be when the bible clearly says that the lineage of King

David was totally wiped out. I would suppose the Jews knew that and

the Christian writers didn't or at least hoped their audience didn't so

it wouldn't ruin a good story.

> Josephus lists seven men who claimed to be the messiahs who came who

> rose

> against Roman rule before Jesus was even born. What differentiated

> Jesus

> from the other messiah's is the fact that Jesus was non-militant.

> When he

> led his followers to the Mount of Olives (Mat 26:30.) He was

> expecting God

> to appear and battle the armies of the world as foretold in

> Zechariah 14.

> God did not appear, Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified.

>

You keep forgetting to add -- as the story goes. And incidentally NONE

of the passion/Easter stories are alike. They like much of scripture

contradict each other.

> Following the death of Jesus, his followers turned to the next man in

> line

> of succession. That was the brother of Jesus, James the Just (Acts

> 15.)

>

> The book of "Acts" was written by Luke, who was a follower of Paul.

You have that wrong. The book of Acts appears to be written by the same

author as the one who wrote the Gospel according to Luke. We have no

idea of who she was. All the gospel names are ascribed at least a

century later. The gospels were written anonymously. And you must

realize that it like the gospels is a complete fabrication. If you

could, please show me where Paul states he traveled with a Luke. You

do realize, do you not, that almost everything including the sequence

of events found in Acts contradicts what the authors of the Pauline

Epistles put in Paul's mouth?

>

> "Acts" attempts to give the impression that the apostels in Jerusalem

> and Paul were

> close in beliefs and objectives. The letters of Paul indicates that

> there were numerous differences between Paul and the apostels.

>

> Your "good story" was invented by Paul.

The good story was "enhanced" by Paul and modeled after other god-man

Greek stories.

> Mark and Luke were both

> followers

> of Paul.

Really? That is quite surprising news. Where exactly does Paul mention

Mark and Luke? There is no basis for your assertion. Absolutely no

evidence. What you have are assertions that were made many years after

all those anonymous texts were written.

> "Matthew" was written by an anonymous author who used

> "Mark" as

> a source. "John" may or may not have by written by an apostle named

> John, but there are so many additions and re-arranging that it makes

> no

> difference. The story of the resurrection is not in "Mark", and the

> "Matthew" version differs significantly from both "Luke" and "John".

> Nor is it present in "Q".

>

> According to Matthew 2:23, Jesus was called a "Nazarene". We know

> from early Christian writers that there was a Jewish sect called the

> Nazarenes

> which claimed decent from the church in Jerusalem. This sect is

> either

> closely related to, or the same as, the Jewish sect of Ebionites.

> The Nazarenes and Ebionites both reject the godhead of Jesus, and

> recognized Jesus and then James as the legitimate kings of Israel.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

>

Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the earliest

manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There are various

corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually give us 'Jesus of

Nazareth' but there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century

(an anachonism that indicates the late date of the gospels.

>

> --Wax

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 19, 2007

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:07:30 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

>Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the earliest

>manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There are various

>corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually give us 'Jesus of

>Nazareth' but there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century

>(an anachonism that indicates the late date of the gospels.

Weren't Nazorites/Nazarites/Nazirites a sect of Jews who didn't trim

their hair?

February 19, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 12:23

am Bible Believer perhaps from noway@nowhere.com wrote:

>>Show us the writings of this Jesus.

>

> It seems that this is a common questions amongst the

> atheists, who aren't too bright to begin with.

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1171737854.615196.321550@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>

> > On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

> >> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> >> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> >> > wrote:

> >> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> >> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

> >> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

> >>> ....I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what

> >>> Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to

> >>> Jesus,

> >> ===>So, what?

> >> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!

> > Rabbi Akiba declared based on this text that Bar Khobah

> > was the Messiah????

>

> No, and it's obvious that he didn't believe Deuteronomy 18:15

> referred to anyone else as Messiah either.

>

> >> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!

> >> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.

> > I already went through this with you sometime ago. I refer

> > you to my post but apparently you never read it therefore

> > you can get rid of your misconceptions.

> > The text indeed refers to Mohammad, but Mohammad

> > as used in the Qur'an is a euphemism for Messiah/Christ

> > So If you want to know more about it Check this post:

> > The Making of the Arabian Messiah, A Prophet like Moses

>

> "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,

> their personalities are totally different!

>

> Deut. 18 is an attempt by Moses

> to prepare the people for an independent national life in Canaan.

> Verses 14-15, paraphrased, say:

> The other nations turn to soothsayers

> and such when they need advice

> but you, when you need advice,

> I shall send you a prophet.

> The Bible mentions many people

> who are called or seem to be, 'prophets'.

> This is inarguable.

> These verses seem to be referring to them,

> not to one special prophet in the distant future,

> about whose mission nothing is said.

> There is nothing in the entire chapter

> to indicate that it's talking about a

> particular event, a particular time period.

> Is verse 14 talking about a particular time period?

> Verse 15 isn't either.

> That's why they're juxtaposed.

I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

and the Apostles are wrong.

I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.

I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,

ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament

because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with

someone

who partially read the Bible.

This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.

>

> The 'singular' is no problem, as I have paraphrased above,

> using the singular, as the Bible does.

> There are many cases of singular meaning plural,

> and plural meaning singular, in the Bible.

> And, to top it off, I have

> an explanation for this use of singular:

> "It may be a hint to the fact that in prophets,

> 'many' doesn't mean anything,

> 450 prophets of the Baal lose to one Elijah.".

>

> The "like Moses" doesn't mean just like Moses,

> We know that from Deut 34:10-12,

> and also from Numbers 12:6-8.

> The phrase 'from amongst their brothers, like you'

> means 'a born Jew, like Moses'.

>

> Why is 'Moses' used here,

> where it seems to be redundant?

> It may be a hint that a prophet must have

> the moral characteristics of Moses, God-fearing etc...

> but this is not a formal requirement

> because it's too difficult for human beings

> to define and judge.

>

> >> > Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.

> >> > 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, therefore the Apostle

> >> > cheated.

>

> >> ===>That is very easy.

> >> "The traditional Jewish interpretation is that

> >> While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking

> >> about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office

> >> of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.

> >> The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I

> >> shall command him". If, for the sake of argument, one were to assume

> >> that the prophet being described here is to be only one special future

> >> prophet, then it follows that all prophets who came after Moses, except

> >> for Moses and this particular prophet, were false prophets. And, one

> >> must not ignore the warning found in Deuteronomy 18:20 concerning the

> >> fate of a false prophet. This is, of course, absurd - a false

> >> conclusion that would result from a false assumption.

>

> > OK, let us post the text itself and see If you make sense. Here is

> > Deut 18:14-19

> > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

> > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

> > your God has not permitted you to do so.

> > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet

> > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.

> > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

> > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

> > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

> > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

> > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

> > 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from

> > among their brothers; I will put my words in his

> > mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

> > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet

> > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

>

> > This is what we will end up with following your kind of Nonsense:

> > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

> > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

> > your God has not permitted you to do so.

> > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you an OFFICE

> > OF 50 prophets

> > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to HIM.

> > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

> > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

> > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

> > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

> > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

> > 18 I will raise up for them an OFFICE OF 50 prophets like you from

> > among their brothers; I will put my words in HIS

> > mouth, and HE will tell them everything I command HIM.

> > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the OFFICE OF 50

> > prophets

> > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

>

> > Hmmmmmmmmmm...

> > I am sure you don't believe in this craps of your own...

> > You know it makes nosense. You have to ignore even the rule

> > of grammar just to believe that.

> > The trouble with your interpretation is that the word Him

> > indicates that it is not plural and it is not the office either

> > otherwise He would have said,"You must listen to it" that

> > is to say the office.Yet, he said, I will put my words in HIS mouth

> > and not in ITS MOUTH as IN the mouth of the office nor did he

> > say I will put my words in THEIR MOUTHS as to suggest many

> > prophets, but Him that is to say One prophet and that prophet will

> > be in the likeness of Moses.

>

> Your knowledge of Hebrew is weak, to say the least.

>

> > If you say to the Prophet Daniel that he was in the likeness

> > of Moses, he would order you be stoned for blasphem.

> > Now here is my interpretation and I will let the readers

> > decide who makes more sense.

>

> > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

> > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

> > your God has not permitted you to do so.

> > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you The Messiah/Christ,

> > a prophet like me from among your own brothers.

> > You must listen to him.

> > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

> > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

> > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

> > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

> > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

> > 18 I will raise up for them Christ/Messiah,a prophet like you Moses

> > from among their brothers; I will put my words in his/Messiah

> > mouth, and he/CRIST will tell them everything I command him.

> > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the Messiah, the prophet

> > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

> > Again when Jesus said to the crowd," If you believe

> > Moses, you would believe me for He wrote about me."

> > this is the text He was alluding to.

>

> > The same Deut 18:15 is commented in the Qur'an as

> > a text fortelling the advend of the Messiah/Christ.

> > The Author of the Qur'an went even further by suggesting

> > that accepting the Messiah/Christ was a covenant binding between

> > the Children of Israel and God. Here is the text;

> > Behold! Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets,

> > saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes

> > to you a Messenger/Christ, confirming what is with you;

> > do you believe him and render him help." Allah said:

> > "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?"

> > They said: "We agree." He said:

> > "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." 3:81.

>

> You may as well finish the job and convert to Islam.

> You've got the blinkered mentality that religion demands.

> You'd be a natural fit.

>

> > You are displaying a demoniac spirit which pushes you to denial,but

> > you are not opposing me, you are opposing Jesus himself, because

> > Whetever comes from his mouth is infailible, and this indeed comes

> > from his mouth ...

> > YOU ARE WASTING AWAY YOUR TIME and your life.

>

> > But you know what? This text has already hit

> > its target. This is not something in the distant

> > past that you can not verify like the evolving of

> > a monkey into a human, this is indeed current

> > event. You always will have time to verify it. So let us say

> > What is going on there in Jerusalem between the

> > Jews and the Arabs is grounded on this text Deut 18:15

> > and on the Mosaic pronouncement that he would make

> > the children of Israel jealous through a stupid nation.

> > And indeed Israel is jealous to the point of building a wall

> > of separation because it finds itself living

> > in the same land with nation that it used to call its

> > people snakes. But this was done in purpose so that Israel

> > may reread his own text. In the text of its

> > enemies, the Arabs, Jesus is referred to as the

> > Christ/Messiah...the fulfillement of Moses

> > BE CAREFUL JERK

>

> Just as God hardened ...

>

> read more

February 19, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:12

am Christopher A.Lee perhaps from calee@optonline.net wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:07:30 -0500, Darrell Stec

> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

>

>>Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the earliest

>>manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There are various

>>corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually give us 'Jesus of

>>Nazareth' but there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century

>>(an anachonism that indicates the late date of the gospels.

>

> Weren't Nazorites/Nazarites/Nazirites a sect of Jews who didn't trim

> their hair?

There is not much contemporary evidence to draw from but later early

Christian writers described them as such. They apparently also

dedicated themselves to god for a period of two years, and ate locust

and honey, and would not touch alcohol. (A very dangerous habit

considering the condition of water in those days.) Sounds a lot like

John the Baptist and also what was (now considered erroneous) a sect of

Essenes.

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 11:53 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message

>

> >news:1171737854.615196.321550@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>

> > > On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > > wrote:

> > >> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > >> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > >> > wrote:

> > >> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > >> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

> > >> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

> > >> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

> > >>> ....I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what

> > >>> Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to

> > >>> Jesus,

> > >> ===>So, what?

> > >> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!

> > > Rabbi Akiba declared based on this text that Bar Khobah

> > > was the Messiah????

>

> > No, and it's obvious that he didn't believe Deuteronomy 18:15

> > referred to anyone else as Messiah either.

>

> > >> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!

> > >> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.

> > > I already went through this with you sometime ago. I refer

> > > you to my post but apparently you never read it therefore

> > > you can get rid of your misconceptions.

> > > The text indeed refers to Mohammad, but Mohammad

> > > as used in the Qur'an is a euphemism for Messiah/Christ

> > > So If you want to know more about it Check this post:

> > > The Making of the Arabian Messiah, A Prophet like Moses

>

> > "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,

> > their personalities are totally different!

>

> > Deut. 18 is an attempt by Moses

> > to prepare the people for an independent national life in Canaan.

> > Verses 14-15, paraphrased, say:

> > The other nations turn to soothsayers

> > and such when they need advice

> > but you, when you need advice,

> > I shall send you a prophet.

> > The Bible mentions many people

> > who are called or seem to be, 'prophets'.

> > This is inarguable.

> > These verses seem to be referring to them,

> > not to one special prophet in the distant future,

> > about whose mission nothing is said.

> > There is nothing in the entire chapter

> > to indicate that it's talking about a

> > particular event, a particular time period.

> > Is verse 14 talking about a particular time period?

> > Verse 15 isn't either.

> > That's why they're juxtaposed.

>

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

> and the Apostles are wrong.

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.

> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,

> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament

> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with

> someone

> who partially read the Bible.

> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.

>

Copycat, I think instead of trying to write this zev off,

what you should do is to break this down to his level .

I am wonder why you assume that he has the IQ needed

to understand all the subtilities of this debat

>

> > The 'singular' is no problem, as I have paraphrased above,

> > using the singular, as the Bible does.

> > There are many cases of singular meaning plural,

> > and plural meaning singular, in the Bible.

> > And, to top it off, I have

> > an explanation for this use of singular:

> > "It may be a hint to the fact that in prophets,

> > 'many' doesn't mean anything,

> > 450 prophets of the Baal lose to one Elijah.".

>

> > The "like Moses" doesn't mean just like Moses,

> > We know that from Deut 34:10-12,

> > and also from Numbers 12:6-8.

> > The phrase 'from amongst their brothers, like you'

> > means 'a born Jew, like Moses'.

>

> > Why is 'Moses' used here,

> > where it seems to be redundant?

> > It may be a hint that a prophet must have

> > the moral characteristics of Moses, God-fearing etc...

> > but this is not a formal requirement

> > because it's too difficult for human beings

> > to define and judge.

>

> > >> > Apparently If you were a good historian you should do the same.

> > >> > 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, therefore the Apostle

> > >> > cheated.

>

> > >> ===>That is very easy.

> > >> "The traditional Jewish interpretation is that

> > >> While, on the surface, Deuteronomy 18:9-22 might appear to be speaking

> > >> about a prophet, in reality it concerns the establishment of the Office

> > >> of the Prophet, a position filled by 50 Jewish prophets after Moses.

> > >> The Office of the Prophet is established via the expression "all that I

> > >> shall command him". If, for the sake of argument, one were to assume

> > >> that the prophet being described here is to be only one special future

> > >> prophet, then it follows that all prophets who came after Moses, except

> > >> for Moses and this particular prophet, were false prophets. And, one

> > >> must not ignore the warning found in Deuteronomy 18:20 concerning the

> > >> fate of a false prophet. This is, of course, absurd - a false

> > >> conclusion that would result from a false assumption.

>

> > > OK, let us post the text itself and see If you make sense. Here is

> > > Deut 18:14-19

> > > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

> > > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

> > > your God has not permitted you to do so.

> > > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet

> > > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.

> > > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

> > > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

> > > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

> > > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

> > > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

> > > 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from

> > > among their brothers; I will put my words in his

> > > mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

> > > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet

> > > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

>

> > > This is what we will end up with following your kind of Nonsense:

> > > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

> > > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

> > > your God has not permitted you to do so.

> > > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you an OFFICE

> > > OF 50 prophets

> > > like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to HIM.

> > > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

> > > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

> > > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

> > > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

> > > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

> > > 18 I will raise up for them an OFFICE OF 50 prophets like you from

> > > among their brothers; I will put my words in HIS

> > > mouth, and HE will tell them everything I command HIM.

> > > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the OFFICE OF 50

> > > prophets

> > > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

>

> > > Hmmmmmmmmmm...

> > > I am sure you don't believe in this craps of your own...

> > > You know it makes nosense. You have to ignore even the rule

> > > of grammar just to believe that.

> > > The trouble with your interpretation is that the word Him

> > > indicates that it is not plural and it is not the office either

> > > otherwise He would have said,"You must listen to it" that

> > > is to say the office.Yet, he said, I will put my words in HIS mouth

> > > and not in ITS MOUTH as IN the mouth of the office nor did he

> > > say I will put my words in THEIR MOUTHS as to suggest many

> > > prophets, but Him that is to say One prophet and that prophet will

> > > be in the likeness of Moses.

>

> > Your knowledge of Hebrew is weak, to say the least.

>

> > > If you say to the Prophet Daniel that he was in the likeness

> > > of Moses, he would order you be stoned for blasphem.

> > > Now here is my interpretation and I will let the readers

> > > decide who makes more sense.

>

> > > 14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who

> > > practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD

> > > your God has not permitted you to do so.

> > > 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you The Messiah/Christ,

> > > a prophet like me from among your own brothers.

> > > You must listen to him.

> > > 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God

> > > at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said,

> > > "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor

> > > see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

> > > 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.

> > > 18 I will raise up for them Christ/Messiah,a prophet like you Moses

> > > from among their brothers; I will put my words in his/Messiah

> > > mouth, and he/CRIST will tell them everything I command him.

> > > 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the Messiah, the prophet

> > > speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.

> > > Again when Jesus said to the crowd," If you believe

> > > Moses, you would believe me for He wrote about me."

> > > this is the text He was alluding to.

>

> > > The same Deut 18:15 is commented in the Qur'an as

> > > a text fortelling the advend of the Messiah/Christ.

> > > The Author of the Qur'an went even further by suggesting

> > > that accepting the Messiah/Christ was a covenant binding between

> > > the Children of Israel and God. Here is the text;

> > > Behold! Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets,

> > > saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes

> > > to you a Messenger/Christ, confirming what is with you;

> > > do you believe him and render him help." Allah said:

> > > "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?"

> > > They said: "We agree." He said:

> > > "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." 3:81.

>

> > You may as well finish the job and convert to Islam.

> > You've got the blinkered mentality that religion demands.

> > You'd be a natural fit.

>

> > > You are displaying a demoniac spirit which pushes you to denial,but

> > > you are not opposing me, you are opposing Jesus himself, because

> > > Whetever comes from his mouth is infailible, and this indeed

>

> ...

>

> read more

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,

> their personalities are totally different!

Does SIMILE applies only to personalities?

You have been told time again and again that

Mohammad is no personal or BIRTH name. At least that is not the way

the author used it in the Qur'an.

What Codi has been trying to tell you is that Mohammad is

a title and a euphemism for Messiah.

Now how does this work.

In Semtic culture, it is discouraged to address a personnality

with his real name, therefore a gloirified name is always used

instead.

Now, Mohammad which means the praised one and other title

like the illustrious, the honored-one are titles associated with

the one who is the Messiah.

Let us say, when you hear the Merciful, you know straight away

that someone is talking about GOD.

The same applies to Messiah and whatever is associated with that

title.

This is obvious to someone who can read the whole translation of the

entire Qur'an in Hebrew.

So basically, what Codi has been saying about the intent of the

Quranic

author is that Mohammad is no personal name, it is a title invented

for a purpose.

Simply put, what the auhtor is saying is that X, the Arabian Leader

looks like Mohammad

but since we know that Mohammad is a euphemism for Messiah,

what IS BEING said secretly is this, X looks like Messiah.

Which takes us back where the author spoke about his work as a SIMILE

or Metaphor

if you ever know what Metaphor is. It is now for you to find

the birth name of X as it would appear on his ID If he had one today.

Notice that like the Messiah, X was subjet to persecution from his own

people

like the Messiah, he was orphan and had just one of

his parents

as the Messiah had only Mary.

Like the Messiah he was preaching the Gospel by

calling his

people from the darkeness of polytheism to the light

of Monotheism.

Thus the word of the prophet can also be applied to him.

"The stone that the builders rejected has become the CONERSTONE."

Now saying that Jesus and X had different personalities is a

misunderstanding

of the word SIMILE.

What was the name of X at birth. You can only find this out by reading

the Sirah Rassul Allah by Ibn Hisham/Ishaq closely.

What those biographers did was to make the name Mohammad appears

as a birth name, that way, you could read the Qur'an literally and by

reading

literally miss the points. Otherwise they would be seen as the puppets

of

the Hebrews Christians who staged the whole scenario. What you have

told

from the hadiths and all other books is only the surface.

I guess this is the message Codi has been trying to convey. In order

to get

his point you would have to get rid of so many things you learned

from the Islamic Tradition.

>

February 19, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 18 February 2007 6:46 am

Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>>> 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.

Which lends itself more to considering the stories nothing but

fabrication. It is precisely that the name is so common that it was

chosen. Look at John Smith. The name is used frequently by criminals

to flesh out a non existant person/witness/assailant/partner etc.

> 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.

>

Because scholars have taken every sentence of Mark (and the Pauline

epistles) and shown the Hellenized Old Testament verse it came from.

Subsequent gospels took the story and enhanced it. Part of the problem

is that people think -- Jesus Christ -- instead of Joshua the oiled

one. Michael Turton shows the artificial construct of Mark in his

upcoming book. He discussed the subject frequently on the IIDB forum.

> 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.

But a careful reading show that they aren't. John clearly mixes the

order of events and even changes Jesus' ministry from three years to

one. But then everything you write is equally true of Lord of the

Rings. Paul's Christ is neither set in time nor place. The gospels

pretend to place their hero in the early 1st century CE but were

written sometime after 134 CE as were Paul's Epistles.

> 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?

If you notice, Matthew made many mistakes about Old Testament scripture.

It only means that he did not have a copy with him and relied on an

imperfect memory. It could well be, he didn't know the full text and

that passage was later corrected by scribes. But then such an obvious

blunder instead of lending credence to history only underscores the

fabrication -- the author is not overly concerned with details.

> 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?

>

A common name simply because it was a story and not founded upon a

historical person. Remember the whole premise was based upon the fact

that Jesus was in the lineage of King David whereas the Old Testament

explicitly mentions that that line was wiped out after four

generations. Jews would have known that. Matthew made up a pretend

geneology. Ever wonder while none of the nonsense about virgin birth,

Joseph as Jesus father, or the resurrection was mentioned by Mark?

And do you believe the religious leaders mentioned in Carl Sagan's

Contact were real? A good generic name works well in fiction.

Without mistakes there would be no point/counterpoint. Besides you have

given no examples of what you mean by 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).

>

The bible is not evidence any more than Gone With The Wind is evidence

of Rhett Butler. Sure, there was a civil war, and there was an Atlanta

but every story has a place and time even if they are imaginary. No

only is there not conclusive proof of Jesus, there isn't even a shred

of evidence.

>> 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.

>

But the story as a whole is unbelievable. But it takes quite a bit of

study to understand why. It is irrational to believe in that Jesus

because EVERY story most especially the most important ones could not

have happened. Take for instance the Temple incident -- totally

impossible. The trial before Pilate and the Sanhedrin totally goes

counter to Jewish law and also what we know about Pilate. The charge

of blasphemy is totally incongruent with the Jewish definition and the

punishment (crucifixion) does not fit the Jewish proscription for the

crime. In fact if such an event occurred during the supposed lifetime

of Jesus, the Jews would never have gone to Pilate to solve a religious

crime. That conditioned occurred after Rome directly ruled the area.

There is far more evidence against almost the entire gospels than the

casual Christian reader realizes.

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

>

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

>

No it doesn't. Is it reasonable to assume Sauron of The Lord of the

Rings is still with us? There are certain postulates that without any

evidence it is sheer folly to believe them.

> 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?

All are anonymous. That in itself should set up a red flag. One of the

few authors we do know of was Marcion and his Gospel of Mark, which

could well have been the original. If the person in question were

historical why were such liberties taken with "the truth?" You don't

seem to understand that is is precisely the fact that everything is

anonymous and so different from one story to the next that takes away

from the veracity and historicity of the Jesus fable.

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 19, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:53

am codebreaker@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebreaker@bigsecret.com

wrote:

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

> and the Apostles are wrong.

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.

> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,

> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament

> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with

> someone

> who partially read the Bible.

> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.

>

I would be happy to take up your challenge if Zev isn't. But first

please answer a few questions so we might determine your competency.

So far you have avoided them. I suspect it is because you are not up to

the task and really have no idea what the bible says. You have only

memorized a few pet phrases from a poorly translated version of the

bible. Anyway here are the questions:

How does one determine which might deceive the reader:

vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem lemor lekh

mene et-yisrael veet-yehuda

OR THIS

vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael

Can you explain what we should do:

lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol

betsedek tishpot amitekha

OR THIS

me krinete ina me krithete

Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you

believe:

hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis ton

aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos

OR THIS

in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur

OR THIS

horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon

OR THIS

te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon

theou to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 19, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:07

am codebreaker@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebreaker@bigsecret.com

wrote:

> On Feb 19, 8:39 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel

>> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused

>> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman

>> > soldier named Pantera.

>>

>> That was just a rumour hundreds of years later (probably an attempt

>> to discredit Jesus) so its doesn't really prove anything regarding

>> Jesus existing.

>

> It is not rumor anymore. It is written in their book of FAITH,

> the Talmud. If you knew what the Talmud represents in

> the Jews religious life you would not talk nonsense.

>

It is still a story based upon rumor. It was written in the sixth or

seventh century CE (600 years after the fact). And the Talmud is

commentary on scripture and other Jewish thought. It does not hold the

significance you give it. Do you belive their story of Adams first

wive, Leah, whom he rejected because she wanted to copulate while on

top? It was made up to explain why there were two entirely different

creation stories in Genesis, one with Adam and this mate being created

at the same time with god breathed dirt, and the other incompatible

story of Eve being created later out of Adam's rib (by the way and

improper translation of a word that means more literally one side of a

hermaphrodite)?

>

>>

>> > Our faith is based on History with evidence everywhere.

>> > You just failed to connect the dots

>>

>> If only there was indisputable credible contemporary evidence.

>> There's a lot of non-evidence though.

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 19, 2007

Jeckyl wrote:

>>>>===>LIAR!

>>>>There's no "MESSIAH/CHRIST" in the Qur'an! -- L.

>>>

>>>There is in the translation I've read.. it occurs several times.

>>

>>===>Are you insane or just dishonest?

>>You post all these verses from the Qur'an,

>>yet NOWHERE does "Messiah/Christ" show up! -- L.

>

> It shows in those verse I quoted

>

> The ones I quoted originally were from the transaltion of the Quran that I

> had infront of me at the time at

> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm . And it is certainly

> there.

>

> The translation at http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm also refers

> to Messiah. You'd think that they would know at that site.

>

> Also there is the authorized English version at

> http://www.submission.org/Q-T.html .. it says "messiah" as well

>

> I looked up another,

> http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran/4-women.html, and another

> here http://www.oneummah.net/quran/03.htm and they both refer to Christ

> (rather than Messiah).

>

> I've been looking, and cannot as yet find an English translation that does

> not include eitehr the word 'messiah' or 'christ'

>

> Can you provide a link to one that doesn't?

===>Where did you see "Messiah/Christ"??? -- L.

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 2:03 pm, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:

> On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,

> > their personalities are totally different!

>

> Does SIMILE applies only to personalities?

> You have been told time again and again that

> Mohammad is no personal or BIRTH name. At least that is not the way

> the author used it in the Qur'an.

> What Codi has been trying to tell you is that Mohammad is

> a title and a euphemism for Messiah.

> Now how does this work.

> In Semtic culture, it is discouraged to address a personnality

> with his real name, therefore a gloirified name is always used

> instead.

> Now, Mohammad which means the praised one and other title

> like the illustrious, the honored-one are titles associated with

> the one who is the Messiah.

> Let us say, when you hear the Merciful, you know straight away

> that someone is talking about GOD.

> The same applies to Messiah and whatever is associated with that

> title.

> This is obvious to someone who can read the whole translation of the

> entire Qur'an in Hebrew.

> So basically, what Codi has been saying about the intent of the

> Quranic

> author is that Mohammad is no personal name, it is a title invented

> for a purpose.

> Simply put, what the auhtor is saying is that X, the Arabian Leader

> looks like Mohammad

> but since we know that Mohammad is a euphemism for Messiah,

> what IS BEING said secretly is this, X looks like Messiah.

> Which takes us back where the author spoke about his work as a SIMILE

> or Metaphor

> if you ever know what Metaphor is. It is now for you to find

> the birth name of X as it would appear on his ID If he had one today.

> Notice that like the Messiah, X was subjet to persecution from his own

> people

> like the Messiah, he was orphan and had just one of

> his parents

> as the Messiah had only Mary.

> Like the Messiah he was preaching the Gospel by

> calling his

> people from the darkeness of polytheism to the light

> of Monotheism.

> Thus the word of the prophet can also be applied to him.

> "The stone that the builders rejected has become the CONERSTONE."

> Now saying that Jesus and X had different personalities is a

> misunderstanding

> of the word SIMILE.

> What was the name of X at birth. You can only find this out by reading

> the Sirah Rassul Allah by Ibn Hisham/Ishaq closely.

> What those biographers did was to make the name Mohammad appears

> as a birth name, that way, you could read the Qur'an literally and by

> reading

> literally miss the points. Otherwise they would be seen as the puppets

> of

> the Hebrews Christians who staged the whole scenario. What you have

> told

> from the hadiths and all other books is only the surface.

> I guess this is the message Codi has been trying to convey. In order

> to get

> his point you would have to get rid of so many things you learned

> from the Islamic Tradition.

Yep, you get my points

and last but not the least, say we have two guys

One saying:

Messiah is a prophet like Moses Deut 18:15

and the other saying:

Mohammad is a prophet like Moses

Both of them will be saying the same thing without knowing.

Imagine the confusion If X is understood

to be Mohammad

>

> - Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 19, 2007

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 18, 7:20 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>

>>>>>>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.

>>

>>===>What kind of dishonest nitwit are you?

>>NO ONE applies ANYTHING of Saul/Paul to Bar Kokhba.

>

> What do you think Bar KHobbah was claiming?

===>Certainly NOT that he is a "prophet like Moses"!

> Bar Khobba was claiming that he was the Messiah of

> Israel that is to say the Christ and Savior of Israel.

===>False.

He was DECLARED the "Messiah", but NEVER the

"Christ and Savior".

> What were you thinking? That he was claiming this

> out of the blue? No sir, He was claiming this on the basis

> of the Jewish Scriptures. Hence him being anointed

> by Rabbi Akiva.

===>There's NOTHING in the "Jewish Scriptures" about any

"Christ and Savior"!

> How could Paul invent

> a fictional personage claimed by others?

===>He invented THE NAME of "CHRESTOS or CHRISTOS".

Otherwise he just copied old Pagan mystery teachings.

> You are drowning in the SEA of our knowledge.

>

>>Yet Bar Kobba and

>>

>>>>his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ.

>>

>>===>Why do you keep on LYING, falsely combining

>>"Messiah" with "Christ"?

>>How dishonest can you get?

>

> Messiah is the English transliteration of the Hebraic word Mashiach

> which is translated in GREEK as Christ also translated

> in Arabic as Al-Massih.

===>That is true, but the JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely

NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your

"Christ the Savior"!

> Sir I went already through this with you many a time.

===>That just proves you are ineducable.

>

>>therefore Paul did not invent him.

>>

>>===>You're NUTS!

>>Saul/Paul invented the god CHRISTOS

>>for his new savior cult.

>>NOTHING to do with the Jewish "Messiah".

>

> Again Christ is Greek for Messiah which is a transliteration

> of the Hebraic word Moshiac or Al-Massih in Arabic.

===>You are still parroting the same old line.

UNDERSTAND THIS:

The JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely

NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your

"Christ the Savior"! -- L.

February 19, 2007

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>

>>Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>

>>>Never Knew.

>>

>>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".

>>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,

>>since he never existed. -- L.

>

> For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel

> This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused

> by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman

> soldier named Pantera. This does not look like

> a fictional character.

===>You obviously have no sense of humor.

"Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",

a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.

February 19, 2007

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 18, 7:12 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> 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 PROCLAIMED Bar Kokhba as the Messiah.

>>

>>>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?

>>

>>===>Definitely NOT on Deuteronomy!

>>Only YOU keep ASSSerting that it has to do with

>>"the Messiah". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> Countless of Rabbis already did. You are the one coming

> up with a novelty, but thanks goodness you are not

> a Rabbi, therefore your opinion is not authoritative.

> You are clueless as how the Law of Moses works in the real

> life

===>Well, Dummkopf, why don't you clue us in on who those

"countless rabbis" were? -- L.

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 2:46 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 18, 7:20 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>>>>>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.

>

> >>===>What kind of dishonest nitwit are you?

> >>NO ONE applies ANYTHING of Saul/Paul to Bar Kokhba.

>

> > What do you think Bar KHobbah was claiming?

>

> ===>Certainly NOT that he is a "prophet like Moses"!

What else could he base his Messianic claim on?

>

> > Bar Khobba was claiming that he was the Messiah of

> > Israel that is to say the Christ and Savior of Israel.

>

> ===>False.

> He was DECLARED the "Messiah", but NEVER the

> "Christ and Savior".

He was declared the Messiah on what ground?

>

> > What were you thinking? That he was claiming this

> > out of the blue? No sir, He was claiming this on the basis

> > of the Jewish Scriptures. Hence him being anointed

> > by Rabbi Akiva.

>

> ===>There's NOTHING in the "Jewish Scriptures" about any

> "Christ and Savior"!

On what ground did Bar Khoba claim to be the Messiah.

You are not a scribe or a doctor of the Law, are you?

>

> > How could Paul invent

> > a fictional personage claimed by others?

>

> ===>He invented THE NAME of "CHRESTOS or CHRISTOS".

> Otherwise he just copied old Pagan mystery teachings.

You have been told many a time that Messiah and

Christos are the same word which is

Al-Massih in Arabic.

You are not consitent with reality. You have

to ignore all rules and established truth just

for you to make Paul the inventor of Christos.

Why don't you just trash that garbage theory that

you have tossing around which fit nowhere.

It is not consistent with the HISTORY of Israel,

not consistent with their culture, not Consistent

with the History of Christianity, not consistent

with a text, not even with common sense

>

> > You are drowning in the SEA of our knowledge.

>

> >>Yet Bar Kobba and

>

> >>>>his Rabbi thought he was the Messiah/Christ.

>

> >>===>Why do you keep on LYING, falsely combining

> >>"Messiah" with "Christ"?

> >>How dishonest can you get?

>

> > Messiah is the English transliteration of the Hebraic word Mashiach

> > which is translated in GREEK as Christ also translated

> > in Arabic as Al-Massih.

>

> ===>That is true, but the JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely

> NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your

> "Christ the Savior"!

Post the textual reference and we will examine

together becuase I know you have a reading

comprehension problem.

An intellectual should not be content with a baseless

claim

>

> > Sir I went already through this with you many a time.

>

> ===>That just proves you are ineducable.

>

> >>therefore Paul did not invent him.

>

> >>===>You're NUTS!

> >>Saul/Paul invented the god CHRISTOS

> >>for his new savior cult.

> >>NOTHING to do with the Jewish "Messiah".

You must now explain how the Ebionites his enemies

found themselves using his term his invention.

I am assuming that you know that the Qur'an is the

reversal of Paul doctrines.

Now you must explain how the qur'an ended up

calling Jesus the Christ/Messiah something

invented by Paul while fighting Paul for

not teaching the Gentile on the merit

of the Law of Moses.

You have a lot of explanation to do. Good luck

>

> > Again Christ is Greek for Messiah which is a transliteration

> > of the Hebraic word Moshiac or Al-Massih in Arabic.

>

> ===>You are still parroting the same old line.

> UNDERSTAND THIS:

> The JEWISH "Messiah" has absolutely

> NOTHING to do with, no resemblance to, your

> "Christ the Savior"! -- L.- Hide quoted text -

Messiah means Christ understood to be Jesus.

You can't connect the dots. so you make up your

own

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>

> >>>Never Knew.

>

> >>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".

> >>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,

> >>since he never existed. -- L.

>

> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel

> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused

> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman

> > soldier named Pantera. This does not look like

> > a fictional character.

>

> ===>You obviously have no sense of humor.

> "Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",

> a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

You see how you twist every single thing to make

your twisted point.

Even If it was Smith and Smith means somebody

who do a certain job, this would not be taken to mean

that the accusation is not genuine.

Now you must prove that the one who reported

the accusation and the name was thinking the same thing

than you. Prove that it was just trying to be comical..

YOU ARE A DEMON, YOUR TACTICS SHOW IT

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 2:58 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> life

>

> ===>Well, Dummkopf, why don't you clue us in on who those

> "countless rabbis" were? -- L.- Hide quoted text -

This is what I have been doing. I have been

trying to connect the dots first for you, then you will be

able to see the big picture, picture that you can't see

until the dots are connected. but apparently

you are too arrogant to get rid of your errors

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 19, 2007

"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

> weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

>>

>>> And outside the scribes that were in a conspiracy to concoct

>>> the Torah "discovered" by King Josiah, there is no evidence

>>> any of the other biblical writers actually knew each other

>>> especially when considering almost all of scripture was

>>> written anonymously.

>>

>> Not quite true, but the compilation of the Old Testament

>> cannot be compared to the compilation of the New

>> Testament. They are completely different stories.

>>

>

> Of course they can be compared. First off, both testaments

> are a compilation of multiple stories, you just don't have two

> stories. And further more several of those stories are told in

> multiple ways each a blatant contradiction of the other. And

> you are forgetting about the Apocrypha. It is a testament with

> a third set of stories.

>

> They are all fables that were "enhanced" by later editors and

> redactors. Even later the Old Testament was "Catholicized"

> by other anonymous editors.

I began making a few remarks about the writing and canonization of the Old

Testament, but it started getting long and outside the subject, so I will

let that pass for now.

>>> It was more in the nature of knowing a good story and

>>> running with it and changing some of it to fit one's own

>>> theology/philosophy.

>>

>

>> The messianic expectation of the first century was for a king

>> (messiah) who would sit on the throne of David and restore

>> the kingdom of Israel.

>>

>

> How could that be when the bible clearly says that the lineage

> of King David was totally wiped out. I would suppose the

> Jews knew that and the Christian writers didn't or at least

> hoped their audience didn't so it wouldn't ruin a good story.

Not every line was wiped out.

The messianic expectation originated in the period of the exile, and

reflected the desire of many Jews to return to their native land of Israel.

Zerubbabel, a grandson of King Jehoiachim (1 Chronicles 3:17), led the

people back to Israel, and began rebuilding the Temple. In Hagai 2:20-23

Zerubbabel is named the one chosen by God. He was an early fulfillment of

the messianic expectation.

Early chapters of "Matthew" and "Luke" were written to show that Jesus was

from the line of David.

>> Josephus lists seven men who claimed to be the messiahs

>> who came who rose against Roman rule before Jesus was

>> even born. What differentiated Jesus from the other

>> messiah's is the fact that Jesus was non-militant. When he

>> led his followers to the Mount of Olives (Mat 26:30.) He

>> was expecting God to appear and battle the armies of the

>> world as foretold in Zechariah 14.

>> God did not appear, Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified.

>>

>

> You keep forgetting to add -- as the story goes. And

> incidentally NONE of the passion/Easter stories are alike.

> They like much of scripture contradict each other.

I agree that they do contradict each other. That does not say there is not

a basis to the stories. There usually is.

A few years ago I read an article in the Los Angeles times which said that

my uncle, Rudd Weatherwax, learned to train dogs from his father who trained

sheep dogs on his ranch in Mexico.

That is fine except that the ranch was in New Mexico, not Mexico. He raised

goats, not sheep. And the ranch was sold when my uncle was only two years

old. So, although the story was wrong, there was a basis of fact.

I have been trying to dig out the basis of fact which is within the gospel

stories.

>> Following the death of Jesus, his followers turned to the next

>> man in line of succession. That was the brother of Jesus,

>> James the Just (Acts 15.)

>>

>> The book of "Acts" was written by Luke, who was a

>> follower of Paul.

>

> You have that wrong. The book of Acts appears to be written

> by the same author as the one who wrote the Gospel according

> to Luke. We have no idea of who she was. All the gospel

> names are ascribed at least a century later. The gospels were

> written anonymously. And you must realize that it like the

> gospels is a complete fabrication. If you could, please show

> me where Paul states he traveled with a Luke. You

> do realize, do you not, that almost everything including the

> sequence of events found in Acts contradicts what the authors

> of the Pauline Epistles put in Paul's mouth?

As a historian, Luke was among the worse, and I agree that the sequence of

events in Acts are inconsistent with the Pauline letters. The major problem

comes with Paul's visits to Jerusalem. It is an interesting subject to go

into, but off the subject right now. It is obvious that up to chapter 16

that Luke was using a secondary source. Meanwhile, dismissing everything

Luke says is unwarranted.

Paul himself says almost nothing about Jesus' life. The gospelers were

attempting to fuse Paul's concept of Christ with the story of Jesus they

obtained from the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem.

>> "Acts" attempts to give the impression that the apostels in

>> Jerusalem and Paul were close in beliefs and objectives.

>> The letters of Paul indicates that there were numerous

>> differences between Paul and the apostels.

>>

>

>> Your "good story" was invented by Paul.

>

> The good story was "enhanced" by Paul and modeled after

> other god-man Greek stories.

>

>> Mark and Luke were both followers of Paul.

>

> Really? That is quite surprising news. Where exactly does

> Paul mention Mark and Luke? There is no basis for your

> assertion. Absolutely no evidence. What you have are

> assertions that were made many years after all those

> anonymous texts were written.

Paul refers to Mark in Colossians 4:10,

Paul refers to Luke in Colossians 4:14,

and to both Mark and Luke in Philomon 24.

>> "Matthew" was written by an anonymous author who used

>> "Mark" as a source. "John" may or may not have by written

>> by a apostle named John, but there are so many additions and

>> re-arranging that it makes no difference. The story of the

>> resurrection is not in "Mark", and the "Matthew" version

>> differs significantly from both "Luke" and "John".

>> Nor is it present in "Q".

>>

>

>> According to Matthew 2:23, Jesus was called a "Nazarene"

>> We know from early Christian writers that there was a

>> Jewish sect called the Nazarenes which claimed decent from

>> the church in Jerusalem. This sect is either closely related to,

>> or the same as, the Jewish sect of Ebionites. The Nazarenes

>> and Ebionites both reject the godhead of Jesus, and

>> recognized Jesus and then James as the legitimate kings of

>> Israel.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

>>

>

> Well now you are back on track. (Almost) Matthew, as the

> earliest manuscripts show called Joshua a Nazorite. There

> are various corruptions in the early manuscripts that gradually

> give us 'Jesus of Nazareth' but there was no such city as

> Nazareth in the first century (an anachonism that indicates the

> late date of the gospels.

"Matthew" was not the earliest gospel. Papias wrote that Matthew compiled

the "logia" in the Hebrew language. "Logia" meant "oracles", but in time

it acquired the meaning of "gospel". Therefore church leaders began to

believe that Matthew wrote a gospel, and being a disciple, it must have been

written first, with Mark and Luke copying him.

Modern authorities are in agreement that "Mark" was written first.

The Greek transliteration of "Yoshowshuwa" was "Iesou". Eventually, it was

Latinized into "Jesus". Or as a friend told me, it was "vulgarized" into

"Jesus" (The letter "J" is found in Vulgar Latin, but not in Classical

Latin.)

The word "Nazarene" has nothing to do with the city of Nazareth, or with

Jewish Nazarites. It was the name of a Jewish sect which dates back to the

1st century c.e.

Sometimes you go too far with your sweeping statements. The claim that

there was no town or village by the name of "Nazareth" in the 1st century

cannot be proven. There were literally hundreds of villages in Galilee

which were never mentioned in any historical text. Nazareth could easily

have existed at the time of Jesus.

--Wax

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > wrote:

>

> >>Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>

> >>>Never Knew.

>

> >>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".

> >>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,

> >>since he never existed. -- L.

>

> > For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel

> > This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused

> > by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman

> > soldier named Pantera. This does not look like

> > a fictional character.

>

> ===>You obviously have no sense of humor.

> "Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",

> a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.- Hide quoted text -

Jews don't play with their religious book. know the culture

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 19, 2007

On Feb 19, 6:53 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:

> On Feb 19, 5:37 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > "codebrea...@bigsecret.com" <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message

>

> >news:1171737854.615196.321550@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>

> > > On Feb 16, 7:02 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > > wrote:

> > >> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > >> > On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> > >> > wrote:

> > >> >>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> > >> >>>On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:

> > >> >>>>On 13 Feb 2007 20:59:03 -0800, "Snowman" <jkel...@zoomnet.net> wrote:

> > >> >>>>>On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:

> > >>> ....I went back 2000 years in time and quoted what

> > >>> Paul said about Deuteronomy 18:15 and how it applied to

> > >>> Jesus,

> > >> ===>So, what?

> > >> Rabbi Akiba declared it was Bar Kochba!

> > > Rabbi Akiba declared based on this text that Bar Khobah

> > > was the Messiah????

>

> > No, and it's obvious that he didn't believe Deuteronomy 18:15

> > referred to anyone else as Messiah either.

>

> > >> ===>In fact Muslims claim that passage refers to MOHAMMED!

> > >> "From amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites.

> > > I already went through this with you sometime ago. I refer

> > > you to my post but apparently you never read it therefore

> > > you can get rid of your misconceptions.

> > > The text indeed refers to Mohammad, but Mohammad

> > > as used in the Qur'an is a euphemism for Messiah/Christ

> > > So If you want to know more about it Check this post:

> > > The Making of the Arabian Messiah, A Prophet like Moses

>

> > "Mohammad" couldn't be a euphemism for Jesus,

> > their personalities are totally different!

>

> > Deut. 18 is an attempt by Moses

> > to prepare the people for an independent national life in Canaan.

> > Verses 14-15, paraphrased, say:

> > The other nations turn to soothsayers

> > and such when they need advice

> > but you, when you need advice,

> > I shall send you a prophet.

> > The Bible mentions many people

> > who are called or seem to be, 'prophets'.

> > This is inarguable.

> > These verses seem to be referring to them,

> > not to one special prophet in the distant future,

> > about whose mission nothing is said.

> > There is nothing in the entire chapter

> > to indicate that it's talking about a

> > particular event, a particular time period.

> > Is verse 14 talking about a particular time period?

> > Verse 15 isn't either.

> > That's why they're juxtaposed.

>

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

> and the Apostles are wrong.

> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right

> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.

> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,

> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament

> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with

> someone

> who partially read the Bible.

> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.

Your post mentioned Deuteronomy 18,

I thought I have a better way of explaining

this chapter than you do,

and I explained it, in detail.

Why do you argue from 'authority'?

Why can't you tell me where my mistakes are,

why your explanation is better than mine?

Why do you post to the Usenet,

and then pretend to be aloof?