Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

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 -

 

If you had a slightest understanding of jewish

history and culture, you will find out that Jews

take their religion seriously.

No Jew would try to be humorous in their religious

book. It seems to me you have principles

or rules of conduct which you tend to project

onto others. It ain't so in Judaism.

It is because religion they killed people,

prophets, scribes... Religion was a serious

matter specially in the time frame we are talking

about. So try something else instead of that

cheap excuse that the writer was trying to be humorous.

Mary a real woman and a historical fihure was

accused in the Jewish religious book of having

an affair with a roman soldier named PANTERA.

This by itself is an evidence of Jesus historicity

 

 

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest weatherwax]

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

> Christopher A.Lee calee@optonline.net wrote:

>> 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.

 

The Nazirites (not to be confused with Nazarenes,) are described in Numbers

6:2-21. The Nazirite took a vow to "separate himself to the LORD". They

avoided alcohol, and did not cut their hair.

 

--Wax

[Guest Zev]

On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>

wrote:

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

> am codebrea...@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebrea...@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

 

I came into this thread recently, only to discuss Deuteronomy 18.

By chance I also commented about a remark about a euphemism.

The reply I got referred only to this side remark,

and not at all to Deuteronomy 18.

It seems that 'copy' and 'codi' get confused

working with more than one idea in a single post.

But what was the challenge?

I didn't notice any.

 

Does your first question refer to the God - Satan contradiction?

I've never seen this as a problem,

but your question is not addressed to me,

I'll let 'codi' work on it, if he can.

> 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 dars...@neo.rr.com

>

> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com

> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest Mettas Mother]

Looks like you are taking it more serious than the Jews themselves!

 

"codebreaker@bigsecret.com" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message

news:1171918684.884127.209250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

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

> wrote:

> If you had a slightest understanding of jewish

> history and culture, you will find out that Jews

> take their religion seriously.

> No Jew would try to be humorous in their religious

> book. It seems to me you have principles

> or rules of conduct which you tend to project

> onto others. It ain't so in Judaism.

> It is because religion they killed people,

> prophets, scribes... Religion was a serious

> matter specially in the time frame we are talking

> about. So try something else instead of that

> cheap excuse that the writer was trying to be humorous.

> Mary a real woman and a historical fihure was

> accused in the Jewish religious book of having

> an affair with a roman soldier named PANTERA.

> This by itself is an evidence of Jesus historicity

>

>

> >

[Guest Zev]

On Feb 19, 8:18 pm, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:

> 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:

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

> to understand all the subtilities of this debat

 

Yeah, I think you're right ;-)

 

Zev

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 19, 4:18 pm, "Mettas Mother" <mettas_moth...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Looks like you are taking it more serious than the Jews themselves!

 

 

Jews did think that Mary was a real person and not fictional...

Jews did think that Jesus was historical.

That is the bottom line

 

>

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

>

> news:1171918684.884127.209250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

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

> > wrote:

> > If you had a slightest understanding of jewish

> > history and culture, you will find out that Jews

> > take their religion seriously.

> > No Jew would try to be humorous in their religious

> > book. It seems to me you have principles

> > or rules of conduct which you tend to project

> > onto others. It ain't so in Judaism.

> > It is because religion they killed people,

> > prophets, scribes... Religion was a serious

> > matter specially in the time frame we are talking

> > about. So try something else instead of that

> > cheap excuse that the writer was trying to be humorous.

> > Mary a real woman and a historical fihure was

> > accused in the Jewish religious book of having

> > an affair with a roman soldier named PANTERA.

> > This by itself is an evidence of Jesus historicity- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest Zev]

On Feb 19, 9:03 pm, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:

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

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

> > their personalities are totally different!

>

> Does SIMILE applies only to personalities?

> You have been told time again and again that

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

> the author used it in the Qur'an.

 

It may be that Mohammad's real name was Ahmed,

but he is not to be confused with Jesus.

Their messages are different,

and historically, both Christians and Muslims

do not confuse the two.

 

Zev

[Guest Jeckyl]

> But they are not the same.

 

I didn't say they were .. the claim was there was no reference to the words

Messiah or Christ in the Quram. Fairly implicitly that would imply loing at

the English translations to compare (see the calim is about english words,

not arabic) .. and those words appear (one or the other at the same place)

in the all the English translations of the Quram (even ones that are

authorsied and on islamic web sites) I could find. Surely they would not be

authorised translations if they had the wrong translation for whataver

Arabic word is in the original text?

[Guest Jeckyl]

> 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?

 

Saying his mother was a whore is a much better way to discredit.

>> > 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.

 

There is 'evidence', biblical and non-biblical that support the idea of a

read Jesus. .. but unfortunately, none seem to be credible historical

evidence. Either they a contemporary, but not first hand; or claim to be

first hand, but not contemporary. Each one fails the 'test' for being real

historical evidence in one way or another.

 

Perhaps if we one day find the theorized pre-gospel text (those called Q and

Signs Gospel in particular) then we'd have the historical evidence required.

 

I'm not saying such evidence may not be out there somewhere.. I'm not even

saying Jesus did not exist .. I'm saying that (at least as yet) we have no

credible historical evidence for it.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> 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.

 

I do have an appreciation of what the talmud is .. that does not mean that

what is in it wasn't based on a rumour and added to help discredit Jesus.

Why would Jesus being a bastard son of a roman be part of the Jewish faith?

Why were those references edited later on?

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

>> http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm

>> http://www.submission.org/Q-T.html

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

>> http://www.oneummah.net/quran/03.htm

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

>

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

 

I showed you EXACTLY where .. in each of those translations above in the

verses I quoted in my previous post. Try reading.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Jews did think that Mary was a real person and not fictional...

> Jews did think that Jesus was historical.

> That is the bottom line

 

So .. just because they thought it (or at least addressed the accepted

existence of Jesus at that time), hundreds of years later, that doesn't mean

it was based on the real existence of an historical Jesus.

[Guest weatherwax]

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

news:53ub5oF1ui3bmU2@mid.individual.net...

> 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

2 Samuel 24:1

>

>

> OR THIS

>

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

1 Chronicles 21:1

 

Obviously 1 Chronicles 21:1 has deceived more Christians, but that is

because of poor translations. It only says that an adversary stood up

against Israel. It does not give the name of that adversary.

 

I will leave the rest for those much wiser than me to answer.

 

--Wax

>

>

> 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

[Guest Jeckyl]

> I am saying that the idea that Christianity borrowed

> from pagan myths, has the time line backward.

> You assume that pagan beliefs did not reshape

> themselves over time and that what it was at first,

> is what it always was.

 

Of course they did .. everything does ... and that was WAY before Jesus's

time.

 

Are you saying that we magically changed the information we have from the

time of these stories to be something different. The beliefs and stories

from before Jesus were what they were .. and that is what I'm referring to.

Not to some subsequent interpretation.

> Honesty and integrity does not

> involve making claims and then claiming that

> the other guy must always be the one providing

> proof. (:

 

But that is what you're doing.

> I am talking about

> claims that you made, that you are responsible

> for proving.

 

I'm lost .. what is it you want me to prove? How can I prove a lack of

evidence .. other than pointing at the space where it should be and saying

its not there?

 

And why is it right for me to be expected to prove claims and not you?

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Ever wonder while none of the nonsense about virgin birth,

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

 

Beacuse it was not an actual event. I've already said that I do not claim

all the mystical events aournd jesus birth were real. . i'm just saying that

the existence of a person called Jesus who had some sort of smal lfollowing

around that time could have been a basis around whic h to frame the Gospel

stories which, as you point out, combine ideas etc from other old-testament

stories (like the flight to egypt etc).

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

> given no examples of what you mean by mistakes.

 

There are lots of examples of mistakes in the Bible .. do we need to prove

them to each other (or do you think the Gospel stories are inerrant) .. if

not, lets just accept that we both believe there are many misatkes and

contradictions and move

>> 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

 

That what I've been saying .. and why I put 'evidence' in quotes like that

> But the story as a whole is unbelievable.

 

Yes .. I didn't say it was.

> EVERY story most especially the most important ones could not

> have happened.

 

Yes.

 

That doesn't mean there was not (or could not have been) a man called Jesus

with a small following whom he taught. If that is somethng that was known

(but not important enough to have been written about), then taking that

factual basis and embellishing it would make the story seem more real. Its

a lot easier to get a story or rumour accepted and spread when based on a

real person than an imaginary one.

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

 

Yes it does. I have never claimed to have proof Jesus existed .. I'm been

claiming the opposite. That does not mean that is is impossible that he

did.

> Is it reasonable to assume Sauron of The Lord of the Rings is still with

> us?

 

No .. that story was never meant to be believed as true. The stories in the

bible were meant to be believed as true. So basing them around an actual

person would be sensible. Especially doing so after he was dead, so those

reading could not verify things for themselves.

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>> But they are not the same.

>

> I didn't say they were .. the claim was there was no reference

> to the words Messiah or Christ in the Quram. Fairly implicitly

> that would imply loing at the English translations to compare

> (see the calim is about english words, not arabic) .. and those

> words appear (one or the other at the same place) in the all the English

> translations of the Quram (even ones

> that are authorsied and on islamic web sites) I could find. Surely they

> would not be authorised translations if they had the wrong translation for

> whataver Arabic word is in the

> original text?

 

Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a Christian word and

refers to the literal Son of God. Anybody with a knowledge of Christianity

knows that, yet the idea is incompatible with both Judaism and Islam.

 

In Judaism, there has been many messiahs: i.e. anointed kings and priests.

Some Jews say that there is a potential messiah in every generation, and

that many more will appear. In other schools of Judaism he is the

anticipated savior of the Jews, who will bring peace on earth.

 

Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to a messiah.

 

--Wax

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:16:25 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

- Refer: <53u0o9F1u1312U2@mid.individual.net>

>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.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a Christian word

> and refers to the literal Son of God.

 

No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed one' or 'chosen

one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of

God'. Anyone with christian knowledge would know that.

> Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to a messiah.

 

It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to English is)

'Christ' or 'Messiah'.

 

Obviously the original quram wouldn't have in it the exact English word

'christ' (it didn't even evist then) .. for that matter the old testament

and gospels don't have it either .. because they weren't written in English.

All we can go on to compare is to look at translation inot a single language

(in this case English0 and compare that. And Quram uses 'Christ' or

'Messiah' (depending on the translation) to describe Jesus.

 

There's really nothing there to argue further about.

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a

>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.

>

> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed

> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew

> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with

> christian knowledge would know that.

 

You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-Greek. I did not

say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said that it "refers to the literal Son

of God." It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.

>> Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to

>> a messiah.

>

> It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to English

> is) 'Christ' or 'Messiah'.

 

Not any Jesus known to Christianity. I agree that it is trying to make that

identification, but it can only do that by transforming him into a prophet

rather than the Son of God.

> Obviously the original quram wouldn't have in it the exact English word

> 'christ' (it didn't even evist then) .. for that

> matter the old testament and gospels don't have it either ..

> because they weren't written in English. All we can go on

> to compare is to look at translation inot a single language (in this case

> English0 and compare that. And Quram uses

> 'Christ' or 'Messiah' (depending on the translation) to

> describe Jesus.

 

The Arabic term corresponds with neither the Jewish concept of the messiah,

or the Christian concept of Christ. Perhaps that is why it is said that the

Koran cannot be translated.

> There's really nothing there to argue further about.

 

There is always more to argue about.

 

--Wax

[Guest Jeckyl]

> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-Greek. I did not

> say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said that it "refers to the literal Son

> of God." It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.

 

Its a shame you didn't say that more clearly.

 

So you are saying when the (tranlsated) quram refers to Jesus as Christ,

that its not the same as whne the bible refers to Jesus as the Christ ?

>> It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to English

>> is) 'Christ' or 'Messiah'.

>> There's really nothing there to argue further about.

> There is always more to argue about.

 

No there's not :)

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 7:18 pm

Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> Ever wonder while none of the nonsense about virgin birth,

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

>

> Beacuse it was not an actual event. I've already said that I do not

> claim all the mystical events aournd jesus birth were real. . i'm just

> saying that the existence of a person called Jesus who had some sort

> of smal lfollowing around that time could have been a basis around

> whic h to frame the Gospel stories which, as you point out, combine

> ideas etc from other old-testament stories (like the flight to egypt

> etc).

>

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

>> have given no examples of what you mean by mistakes.

>

> There are lots of examples of mistakes in the Bible .. do we need to

> prove them to each other (or do you think the Gospel stories are

> inerrant) .. if not, lets just accept that we both believe there are

> many misatkes and contradictions and move

>

>>> 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

>

> That what I've been saying .. and why I put 'evidence' in quotes like

> that

>

>> But the story as a whole is unbelievable.

>

> Yes .. I didn't say it was.

>

>> EVERY story most especially the most important ones could not

>> have happened.

>

> Yes.

>

> That doesn't mean there was not (or could not have been) a man called

> Jesus

> with a small following whom he taught. If that is somethng that was

> known (but not important enough to have been written about), then

> taking that

> factual basis and embellishing it would make the story seem more real.

> Its a lot easier to get a story or rumour accepted and spread when

> based on a real person than an imaginary one.

>

 

He was small asnd inconsequential, yet people started writing about him

only a hundred or more years later? How did they hear about him?

After a hundred years even important people are forgotten.

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

>

> Yes it does. I have never claimed to have proof Jesus existed .. I'm

> been

> claiming the opposite. That does not mean that is is impossible that

> he did.

>

>> Is it reasonable to assume Sauron of The Lord of the Rings is still

>> with us?

>

> No .. that story was never meant to be believed as true. The stories

> in the

> bible were meant to be believed as true. So basing them around an

> actual

> person would be sensible. Especially doing so after he was dead, so

> those reading could not verify things for themselves.

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 9:16 pm

Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:16:25 -0500, Darrell Stec

> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

> - Refer: <53u0o9F1u1312U2@mid.individual.net>

>>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.

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 4:14 pm

Zev perhaps from zev_horn@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>

> wrote:

>> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007

>> 11:53 am codebrea...@bigsecret.com perhaps from

>> Codebrea...@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

>

> I came into this thread recently, only to discuss Deuteronomy 18.

> By chance I also commented about a remark about a euphemism.

> The reply I got referred only to this side remark,

> and not at all to Deuteronomy 18.

> It seems that 'copy' and 'codi' get confused

> working with more than one idea in a single post.

> But what was the challenge?

> I didn't notice any.

>

 

I took the above as a challenge. That is part of the way codi issues

they by calling anyone who disagrees with him intellectually

challenged.

> Does your first question refer to the God - Satan contradiction?

> I've never seen this as a problem,

> but your question is not addressed to me,

> I'll let 'codi' work on it, if he can.

>

 

If there were a contradiction it must be a problem. This is not the

book of Job where El and Satan have a bet. And although Satan can be

called god because he is one of El's sons and Yahweh's brother in the

contradiction you mentioned the only and specific god mentioned was

Adonai which usually refers to Yahweh. It is as bad as the

contradiction about whether Goliath or Goliath's brother was killed.

Both contradictions stem from two different traditions.

>> 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 dars...@neo.rr.com

>>

>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com

>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> 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

 

===>You're an IDIOT, your comments prove it. -- L.

[Guest Jeckyl]

> He was small asnd inconsequential, yet people started writing about him

> only a hundred or more years later? How did they hear about him?

> After a hundred years even important people are forgotten.

 

Word of mouth (oral tradition and stories etc) would have been very strong.

 

Also it wasn't a delay of hundreds of years .. it was one tens of years

before Paul started writing his letters. Pretty much a continual stream.

 

Also consider the theorised 'Q' gospel (the one upon which the synoptics are

believed to be based, but each with its own alterations and 'improvements').

That would have (obviously) predated the Gospels. Not that I'm claiming

that that makes things any more belevable, but just that there it is very

reasonable to assume there was not as long a gap as you claim before the

first stories stared to appear.