Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

February 20, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 6:50 pm

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

>

> "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.

>

Of course it does. The Hebrew word is both a name and a description

like a majority of the Hebrew names. That adversary was named Satan on

of El's sons and brother to Yahweh. And it is a problem because the

first verse says that Adonai (usually Yahweh) was the one who did the

ordering and nothing about standing up to Israel.

> 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

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 20, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:17

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

>

> "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."

And you would be wrong. Christos (Christ in English) was applied to

King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a rock and a loaf of

bread in the Old Testament. And in Acts Christos was applied to two

other individuals other that Joshua. You are now going to suggest a

loaf of bread is a son of god? Or a donkey?

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

>

It's too bad you don't read Greek. Otherwise you would not have made

that statement.

>>> 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

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 20, 2007

> Christos (Christ in English) was applied to

> King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a rock and a loaf of

> bread in the Old Testament.

> And in Acts Christos was applied to two

> other individuals other that Joshua.

Can you please cite the particular verses. I'd be interested to read them,

and see how the word was translated (if only I could read Greek).

Thanks

February 20, 2007

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:33 -0500, Darrell Stec

<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:

- Refer: <53ves5F1uak4aU2@mid.individual.net>

>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.

February 20, 2007

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

news:53vgilF1u11eaU1@mid.individual.net...

> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 6:50 pm

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

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

>>>

>>> 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.

>>

> Of course it does. The Hebrew word is both a name and a

> description like a majority of the Hebrew names. That

> adversary was named Satan on of El's sons and brother to

> Yahweh. And it is a problem because the first verse says that

> Adonai (usually Yahweh) was the one who did the

> ordering and nothing about standing up to Israel.

In the Book of Job and other places where "satan" is used to designate an

individual it is given as "ha satan", i.e. "the satan" or "the adversary".

In 1 Chronicles 21:1 no article is used, therefore it should be translated

as "an adversary".

In verse 5, Joab reports the numbers in terms of swordsmen, which indicates

that the adversary must have been a military threat.

--Wax

February 20, 2007

On Feb 20, 7:47 am, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>

wrote:

> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 4:14 pmZevperhaps from zev_h...@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

> > 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.

You mean the challenge has to do with Deuteronomy 18?

How do I accept a challenge after I've presented my case

and he refuses to discuss it,

other than his appeal to NT authority?

His 'Muhammad = Jesus' euphemism is BS

but it's not much of an issue for me,

I'll leave it to the Christians and Muslims.

> > 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.

Nothing happens that is against the will of the Almighty,

King David made a big mistake in ordering the count,

both verses are true.

At its root it is a contradiction,

and theologians have been discussing it for millennia.

The verses express a contradiction which exists,

and troubles mankind, even if the verses would not have been written.

Zev

February 20, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 3:32 pm

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

>

> "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.

>

That was one story. Yet another says that the entire line of David was

wiped out. The bible contradicts itself over and over again.

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

> was from the line of David.

>

With made up geneologies which not only contradicted each other but also

contradicted the two contradictory geneologies in the Old Testament.

And besides both of the geneologies in the NT give Joseph's lineage and

if he wasn't the real father then Jesus was not of the line of King

David. The only human parent, Mary, was of the Levite tribe.

>>> 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.

>

What is the basis of Rhett Butler? Of Frodo?

Of Mike Hammer or Sam Spade?

> 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.

>

None. Mark is the original and almost every verse hails back to a

passage in the Old Testament. Mark fabricated a modern hero fashioned

after Joshua of the OT and even gave him the same name, and also

borrowed from many of the prophets and other OT heroes. Matthew and

Luke thought their stories were even better for their audiences. John

borrowed the character and decided his would be more of a god-man.

>>> 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.

NO. No. No. Acts flatly contradicts what the Pauline school put in the

mouth of Paul. Acts fabricated new events and event cotradicted what

Paul thought of the other disciples.

> 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.

Why? She could well have been the originator of the stories found in

Acts.

> 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.

How could that be? There is good evidence that both the Pauline

Epistles, the gospels and Acts were written more than a 100 years after

the purported lifetime of their hero Joshua. By that time there were

no Jews in Jerusalem. They were all kicked out under pain of death.

They returned 19 centuries later.

>

>>> "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,

Please demonstrate that the Markus there is the same person who wrote

the gospel according to Mark.

> Paul refers to Luke in Colossians 4:14,

Two problems with this one. There is nothing that suggests Lukas in

Colossians is the same person as the author of the gospel according to

Luke. And secondly everything and every point of view in the GofLuke

is a woman's point of view. The author of the gospel according to Luke

most certainly had to be a woman no a man. The name in Colossians is

male.

> and to both Mark and Luke in Philomon 24.

>

Once again there is nothing to tie the Luke and Mark mentioned here to

the gospels that bear their names. Secondly Paul does not seem to know

ANY of the gospel stories not even when they would greatly enhance and

underscore a point he was making. Thirdly Paul calls both Mark and

Luke co-workers. They both would have had to be incredibly old (about

three to four times the average lifespan) by the time they wrote their

gospels.

But the biggest reason these are no the same people as the gospel

writers is that the school that wrote what was considered the authentic

Pauline Epistles did NOT write Colossians nor Philomon. those are

pseudo-Pauline forgeries written later to lend credence to the gospel

accounts. The entire theology in these works is different from the

originals and much more developed with a well established hierarchical

church/organization. Even the Greek is different.

>>> "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.

Read what I wrote more carefully. I did not say Matthew was the

earliest gospel but rather the earliest manuscripts of the gospel

according to Matthew call Joshua a Nazorite. That is a huge

difference.

> Papias wrote that Matthew

> compiled

> the "logia" in the Hebrew language.

No Papias wrote no such thing. Eusebius a few centuries later said that

Papias wrote that. Of the voluminous writings ascribed to Papias and

the importance given him by Irenaeus and Eusebius, it is rather curious

that nobody thought his books were worthy of copying. The best reason

for that must be that what he really wrote (if he in fact existed) was

very counter to proto-orthodox Christianity and the later orthodox

Christianity.

And that work could not possibly be the gospel according to Matthew.

All indications are that the original was written in Greek for a Greek

speaking audience. Nothing in our gospel suggests it was a translation

from Hebrew. Not only that but Matthew slaughters the Aramaic. I

doubt someone acquainted with Hebrew would do that.

> "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.)

>

No, it was deliberately translated as Jesus to make the name dissimilar

to the name Joshua. Translators like to obfuscate things in that way.

Just like they purposely translate what should be 'god' and write

angel, messenger or judge. They don't want the reader to understand

what the original really says.

> 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.

>

You are confusing the many similar Greek words in the various

manuscripts. The original Nazorite was eventually morphed into

Nazareth and became a place. There was no Jesus of Nazareth because

the city did not exist in the first century CE.

> 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.

>

You are not current with modern archaeology. It is fairly well

established that in the first two centuries CE the place that later

became Nazareth was a cemetery at that time. Until 135 CE no Jew would

found a city on a cemetery. It was forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Furthermore you are totally unfamiliar with the writing of the early

Church fathers. Nazareth, Cana and several other places were

questioned by those church fathers who lived in the region and knew of

no such cities. That was a great quandary and they were questioning if

other things in the gospels might not be false too. Their solution was

to suggest that the scribes copied the names wrong and the real names

unsolvable so they could continue to believe the other fairy tales.

>

> --Wax

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 20, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 1:17

am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> Christos (Christ in English) was applied to

>> King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a rock and a loaf of

>> bread in the Old Testament.

>> And in Acts Christos was applied to two

>> other individuals other that Joshua.

>

> Can you please cite the particular verses. I'd be interested to read

> them, and see how the word was translated (if only I could read

> Greek).

>

> Thanks

Several months back I posted a rather detailed article on alt.atheism

quoting the Greek and/or Hebrew texts. It was too lengthy of a reply

to repeat. Google groups should turn in up.

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 20, 2007

> Several months back I posted a rather detailed article on alt.atheism

> quoting the Greek and/or Hebrew texts. It was too lengthy of a reply

> to repeat. Google groups should turn in up.

I found a thread back in october when you metnioned this, but didn't see any

references.

February 20, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:50

am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> 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.

>

There is nothing in Paul to indicate he wrote a decade of years within

the supposed lifetime of Joshua. There are many indications the school

of Paul wrote sometime after 134 CE with the gospel according to Mark

some months or a year or two later, followed somewhat even later by the

other gospels and Peudo-Pauline Epistles and the other pseudo-apostle

epistles.

> 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.

All of the scenarios depicted in the gospels indicate conditions well

after the fall of the Temple and well into the second century CE. The

same goes for the Pauline works and other epistles. There is nothing

but nothing upon which to base an earlier date for any NT work save

perhaps Revelation which was a unique Greek comedy based upon the

retelling of the original Joshua legend recast into contemporary (for

the author) world especially Roman events and setting.

Only wishful thinking by apologists can place any of those works

earlier. Nothing in the stories themselves lends credence to an early

date.

You didn't read the link on Paul I provided, did you? The link provides

almost a verse by verse criticism against orthodox dating of the

Pauline epistles and pseudo-Pauline epistles. When those apologists

can counter the arguments then perhaps considering an early date might

be possible.

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 20, 2007

>> 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.

> There is nothing in Paul to indicate he wrote a decade of years within

> the supposed lifetime of Joshua.

I didn't say that, i say the delay was one of tens rather than hundres of

years.

> There are many indications the school

The datings I have (which bible supports keep suggesting are too late) come

from (in particular) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

It dates the letters (that are still attributed to him) at 50-60 BC. The

ealiest is typically dates 50/51CE

> the gospel according to Mark some months or a year or two later

Mark is dates 65-80 CE on that site, Matthew 80-100 CE, Luke 80-130 CE, and

John 90-120 CE

Other sites I've seen give similar dates eg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark says 60-80 CE

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm says 65-75 CE

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm says 57-75 CE

>> 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.

>

> All of the scenarios depicted in the gospels indicate conditions well

> after the fall of the Temple

yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE. It seems

it was written just after that date

> and well into the second century CE.

Nothing indicates this that I have seen. What make you think the dating is

that late (very few scholars suggest anything outside the first century)

> You didn't read the link on Paul I provided, did you? The link provides

> almost a verse by verse criticism against orthodox dating of the

> Pauline epistles and pseudo-Pauline epistles. When those apologists

> can counter the arguments then perhaps considering an early date might

> be possible.

I _think_ I did .. maybe I didn't get to it. I'd have to go back and look

for you post and refresh my memory. I'll do that tonight (my time) if I can

February 20, 2007

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:45:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

- Refer: <12tlda0cg0ic4d2@corp.supernews.com>

>>> 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.

>> There is nothing in Paul to indicate he wrote a decade of years within

>> the supposed lifetime of Joshua.

>

>I didn't say that, i say the delay was one of tens rather than hundres of

>years.

>

>> There are many indications the school

>

>The datings I have (which bible supports keep suggesting are too late) come

>from (in particular) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

>

>It dates the letters (that are still attributed to him) at 50-60 BC. The

>ealiest is typically dates 50/51CE

This is an unsupported guess, and is almost with 100% probability

quite wrong, by a large margin.

There is zero evidence to support that guess.

>> the gospel according to Mark some months or a year or two later

>

>Mark is dates 65-80 CE on that site, Matthew 80-100 CE, Luke 80-130 CE, and

>John 90-120 CE

>

>Other sites I've seen give similar dates eg

>

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark says 60-80 CE

See above.

>http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm says 65-75 CE

See above.

>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm says 57-75 CE

See above.

>>> 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.

>>

>> All of the scenarios depicted in the gospels indicate conditions well

>> after the fall of the Temple

>

>yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE. It seems

>it was written just after that date

"Seems"? From what evidence?

>> and well into the second century CE.

>

>Nothing indicates this that I have seen. What make you think the dating is

>that late (very few scholars suggest anything outside the first century)

>

>> You didn't read the link on Paul I provided, did you? The link provides

>> almost a verse by verse criticism against orthodox dating of the

>> Pauline epistles and pseudo-Pauline epistles. When those apologists

>> can counter the arguments then perhaps considering an early date might

>> be possible.

>

>I _think_ I did .. maybe I didn't get to it. I'd have to go back and look

>for you post and refresh my memory. I'll do that tonight (my time) if I can

--

February 20, 2007

> This is an unsupported guess, and is almost with 100% probability

> quite wrong, by a large margin.

> There is zero evidence to support that guess.

As there would be for your guesses as well, I would say. I can seem to find

no documentation suggests later dates, but all for thta date ranges I

mentioned.

>>yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE. It

>>seems

>>it was written just after that date

> "Seems"? From what evidence?

See the discussions from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html,

which discusses various date estimates for Mark

February 20, 2007

On Feb 19, 3:57 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 11:26 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

>

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

> > On Feb 16, 1:38 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:

>

> > > On Feb 15, 11:01 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

>

> > Hey, son of a black bitch... You are an out of wedlock kid anyway.

> > Now go and find your dad

>

> ROFL! Is this what all christians do when they lose an argument?

> Mealtimes must be very interesting around your house...

Losing an argument against an incapaciated BASTARD monkey-like black

ass ******?

You don't know what an argument is then?

>

> -PF, Atl.

> aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

>

> And you do realize that Black people are religious, right? Reggie's

> (The Infidel Guy `net radio show) the only Black atheist I know.

February 20, 2007

On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.

Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an

And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek

root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)

How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER

(Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John

made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an

is no mistery.

You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM

What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE

for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X

have different messages. From Quranic point of view -

not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have

no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope

have different messages.

>

> Zev

February 20, 2007

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:04:38 +1100, "Jeckyl"

<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

>> 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.

They have nothing to do with Christianity.

Nor did they cease to change.

>> 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.

No, I called you on your claims.

--

Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.

He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never

said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted

anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.

Reading other passages that you think say it will be,

is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to

pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against

his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!

I would not want to be in that position!

The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!

If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that

you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make

that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.

February 20, 2007

On Feb 20, 12:48 am, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@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.- Hide quoted text -

An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle

to Galatians is far better than you.

Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying

to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents

were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue

as what his opponents were saying you would not come

up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional

Character. How do you reconcile your nonsense theory

with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?

If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that

he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles

why did the pharisees who believed still followed

him around so that he may include the Law of Moses

in his teaching?

Does this make sense to you?

I really prefer to be an idiot than the "expert" you are.

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 20, 2007

<copycat@yeayea.com> wrote in message

news:1171980896.320037.189490@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 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.

> It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.

> Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an

> And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek

> root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)

> How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER

> (Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John

> made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an

> is no mistery.

> You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM

> What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE

> for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X

> have different messages. From Quranic point of view -

> not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have

> no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope

> have different messages.

Jesus said it is not important what goes into your mouth (Matthew 15)

Muhammed prohibited pork even more than the Jews did.

Jihad (any way you want to understand the word)

is an important concept in Islam.

It isn't in Christianity.

This is just 'off the cuff', it is absurd to say the messages are the same.

All you have to do is read the Quran and NT.

But it hardly matters.

Deuteronomy 18 does not refer to

either of them or both of them or him or it.

I have already explained this in full.

If you have no retort, why don't you agree with me?

Zev

February 20, 2007

After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 20 February 2007 5:24

am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> This is an unsupported guess, and is almost with 100% probability

>> quite wrong, by a large margin.

>> There is zero evidence to support that guess.

>

> As there would be for your guesses as well, I would say. I can seem to

> find no documentation suggests later dates, but all for thta date

> ranges I mentioned.

>

>>>yes.. that is why the upper range of accepted dates is after 70CE.

>>>It seems

>>>it was written just after that date

>> "Seems"? From what evidence?

>

> See the discussions from

> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html, which discusses

> various date estimates for Mark

That website is by a Christian apologist who MUST believe in an earlier

date lest his religion fail. But there is zero evidence for an early

date.

Two entire schools of higher criticism lay out the reasons for a late

date and so the impossibility for an earlier one. I gave you a link

that explains why verse by verse.

There were far too many mistakes in the gospels for anyone relying on

eyewitnesses. First the charge of blasphemy was totally incorrect.

Calling oneself a son of god was not blasphemy. The writers apparently

did not know this. Pilate would not have been necessary in the first

century CE. Jewish authorities had the right to execute their own

criminals (moral or legal). Notice that they tried to kill Joshua

three times before the crucifixion without resorting to Pilate and the

did execute Stephen on their own. Why didn't they go to Pilate or the

Roman authorities for him? Even the authors of Paul have him saying

they tried to execute him. Again why did they not go to the Romans?

The crucifixion scenario represented conditions in the second century

CE. I could go on and on with examples but it has been done so many

times before by scholars that I leave you with those.

One of the supporting pieces of evidence given in your links to an early

date was a fragment tentatively dated to 125 CE. That fragment is very

tiny and has a whole of 18 LETTERS that can be made out, some of them

just barely. The only whole word on that fragment is the word 'kai'

meaning "and". The verse could well have been from any book during

that time including a cookbook. Furthermore the dating is by

paleography and not radiocarbon 14 dating. In fact nothing in the

first and second centuries CE has been radiocarbon dated with accuracy.

I provided links in a much earlier post by some noted paleographers who

themselves admitted the field is filled with wishful thinking and very

little corraborative evidence.

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

February 20, 2007

On Feb 20, 9:14 am, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:

> On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > 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.

>

> It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.

> Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an

> And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek

> root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)

> How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER

> (Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John

> made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an

> is no mistery.

> You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM

> What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE

> for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X

> have different messages. From Quranic point of view -

> not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have

> no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope

> have different messages.

Abu Quasim is likely to be his birth name. Abu Quasim like

Abu Bekr, Abu Lahab, Abu Talib.

The hadith makers tried to explain it away by saying that

this was not his birth name but a nickname given to him

after he fathered a son named Quasim as we know the name

Abu Quasim means literally father of Quasim.

But this argument is not convincing because by the same

token Abu Bekr would mean the father of Bekr and Abu Lahab,

the father of Lahab?

Did Abu Bekr fathered Bekr? not as we know it.

Was Abu Bekr known by a different birth name? No, not

as we know. What is true for Abu Bekr is also true for Abu Quasim.

Even the story about X having a son by the name Quasim is suspect.

We have been told that Mohammad or X fathered only one boy

from Mary the Coptic and that boy name was Ibrahim.

Now where is the truth? If he had only one boy named after

Ibrahim where did Quasim come from then?

Those biographers don't even know how to lie.

Let us pretend Quasim and Ibrahim are the same name

for the boy. How did Khadija, X first wife get to be

acquainted with that name then?

The only son fathered by X was born of Mary the Coptic.

And Mary the Coptic become X wife way after Khadija death.

Mary the Coptic gave birth to Ibrahim in Medina and not in Mecca.

To know X by the name Abu Quasim, you must have lived

in Medina where Mary the Coptic gave

birth to the only son, which Khadija did not. Yet the biographer

put in Khadija mouth something going like that, " O Abu Quasim

O son of my father, where have you been?

I have been looking for you everywhere."

This is the first story about the cave where X supposedly

had his first revelation. This is Mecca and not Medina...

To make a long story short, I must say that Mohammad

birth name is ABU QUASIM

>

> > Zev- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 20, 2007

On Feb 20, 10:33 am, "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <copy...@yeayea.com> wrote in message

>

> news:1171980896.320037.189490@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>

> > On Feb 19, 4:42 pm, "Zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> 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.

> > It is unlikely X real name was Ahmed.

> > Mohammad and Ahmed first appear in this Qur'an

> > And Ahmed according to some translations has a greek

> > root meaning Comforter (Paracletos)

> > How did the original Greek word for COMFORTER

> > (Ahmed) found in the life of the Messiah according to John

> > made into the pages of what is now known as the Qur'an

> > is no mistery.

> > You still are not clear with the meaning and definition of EUPHEMISM

> > What is being said is that Mohammad is a substitute TITLE

> > for Messiah/Christ. Yet you are still thinking Jesus and X

> > have different messages. From Quranic point of view -

> > not to confuse with the HADITH - Jesus and X have

> > no different message. It is like saying Jesus and the pope

> > have different messages.

>

> Jesus said it is not important what goes into your mouth (Matthew 15)

Codebreaker is quite right, your refusing to read the New Testament

prevent you from broadening your horizon.

Have you ever come across what is known as the dietary Law by

the Council at Jerusalem, it is in Acts 15, read it, you

would find out that before Mohammad, the Apostles were

reported to have prohibited

the eating of pork based on Moses Law, despite the fact Jesus

was repoted having said the above." It is not important what goes

into your mouth..."

Think critically boy.

> Muhammed prohibited pork even more than the Jews did.

> Jihad (any way you want to understand the word)

> is an important concept in Islam.

Jihad is a political action dressed in a religious garb.

Mohammad needed

an army to prevent the Arabs unbelievers to invade

his land. Jihad is sanctioned by the Law of Moses

This take us back to what codebreaker was saying.

Christianity has also a Mosaic version.

That means that there were Hebrews Christians who

were observing the Law of Moses and advocating it Act 15

What was needed was a STATE to back up their

version of Christianity. X or Mohammad was a statemen

hence the Jihad you spoke of earlier.

> It isn't in Christianity.

> This is just 'off the cuff', it is absurd to say the messages are the same.

> All you have to do is read the Quran and NT.

All you have to do is to think. But probably thinking

is too hard for you

>

> But it hardly matters.

> Deuteronomy 18 does not refer to

> either of them or both of them or him or it.

There is no both. It is one Messiah with multiple dignified names

> I have already explained this in full.

> If you have no retort, why don't you agree with me?

The teaching on Deuteronomy 18:15 is from the

Apostles and is reported by Peter in Acts 2,

At least If you read the New Testament you have come across it.

No man in his right mind would leave what the Apostles taught

behind and follow your speculation.

You are not an apostle, so who cares about

your private opinion?

At least know what the Apostles taught and how it fit

all together in History of Christianity in its both

version Catolic and Islam. At least That is Codi's point

>

> Zev- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 20, 2007

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 20, 12:48 am, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>

>>codebrea...@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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle

> to Galatians is far better than you.

===>You only BELIEVE you can "read and grasp" Galatians.

In fact you approach it with preconceived doctrinal prejudices

you acquired from your preacher(s), and apply blind faith

to accept whatever you are SUPPOSED to understand by the

ramblings of a crazy, vision-seeing, hallucinating, lying

phony "apostle".

> Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying

> to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents

> were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue

> as what his opponents were saying you would not come

> up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional

> Character.

===>There was no such thing anywhere in the Jewish culture as a

dying/rising, self-sacrificing, incarnate savior god named

"Christos".

If you believe it was not an invention, prove it otherwise.

How do you reconcile your nonsense theory

> with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?

>

> If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that

> he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles

> why did the pharisees who believed still followed

> him around so that he may include the Law of Moses

> in his teaching?

===>Because he was their competitor,

converting potential allies of the

Jewish resistance to his own pro-Roman, anti-Jewish

new-fangled savior cult, claiming that his converts

would be the new heirs to the Abrahamic promises.

> Does this make sense to you?

===>Of course it makes sense, ifg you see it with

open eyes and consider it with open mind in the

cultural and hiustorical context, instead of blindly

taking it in as the "Word of God".

> I really prefer to be an idiot than the "expert" you are.

===>Well, congratulations.

You seem to be succeeding quite well at your preferred goal. -- L.

February 20, 2007

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>

> 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 ?

Exactly.

--Wax

February 20, 2007

>

> > An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle

> > to Galatians is far better than you.

>

> ===>You only BELIEVE you can "read and grasp" Galatians.

> In fact you approach it with preconceived doctrinal prejudices

> you acquired from your preacher(s), and apply blind faith

> to accept whatever you are SUPPOSED to understand by the

> ramblings of a crazy, vision-seeing, hallucinating, lying

> phony "apostle".

Ok, now what about his opponent position, how does

their position fit in your theory that Paul created Christ

a fictional character?

I am assuming that you know they wanted Paul to

include circumcision and the Law of Moses in his teaching.

How do you reconcile their position with yours

>

> > Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying

> > to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents

> > were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue

> > as what his opponents were saying you would not come

> > up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional

> > Character.

>

> ===>There was no such thing anywhere in the Jewish culture as a

> dying/rising, self-sacrificing, incarnate savior god named

> "Christos".

> If you believe it was not an invention, prove it otherwise.

Now why the pharisees had not been saying that.

All what they wanted was Paul to teach the costums

of Moses along with the Christos that he invented

Hmmmm.. I still can't get it.

Again let me remind you your premises.

Paul invented Chistos.

There is nothing about Christos in the Jewish Scriptures

Messiah and Christos are two differents world.

Questions again from me.

Why did the pharisees bothered for somebody else invention?

Would not Paul be free to use his invention the way he wanted.

But it looks like the party of Paul and the Party of the pharisees

who advocated circumcision were reading the

same Torah of Moses and reading about the same Messiah/Christ

>

> How do you reconcile your nonsense theory

>

> > with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?

>

> > If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that

> > he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles

> > why did the pharisees who believed still followed

> > him around so that he may include the Law of Moses

> > in his teaching?

>

> ===>Because he was their competitor,

> converting potential allies of the

> Jewish resistance to his own pro-Roman, anti-Jewish

> new-fangled savior cult, claiming that his converts

> would be the new heirs to the Abrahamic promises.

This was not my question. But you are bringing in something

interesting as competitor.

Paul preaching Chrestos was competitor to the pharisee.

What was the Message of the pharisees then?

For them to be competitors, that would mean that

the Pharisees were preaching the same Chrestos

who was supposed to be Paul's invention.

How do you compete with an inventor over his product?

What do you mean by competitor exactly?

And to what extend the pharisees are believed to be

in competition with Paul?

>

> > Does this make sense to you?

>

> ===>Of course it makes sense, ifg you see it with

> open eyes and consider it with open mind in the

> cultural and hiustorical context, instead of blindly

> taking it in as the "Word of God".

There is something missing in your equation

Paul preaching Chrestos have some pharisees

as competitors, yet Chrestos according to your guess

was not foretold by Moses but seems to be

a product of Paul inventive mind. What is the problem here?

What do Pharisees and Paul have in COMMON

for them to be competitors?

What is their goal

>

> > I really prefer to be an idiot than the "expert" you are.

>

> ===>Well, congratulations.

> You seem to be succeeding quite well at your preferred goal. -- L.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

February 20, 2007

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

>>>An idiot who can read and grasp the meaning of the Epistle

>>>to Galatians is far better than you.

>>

>>===>You only BELIEVE you can "read and grasp" Galatians.

>>In fact you approach it with preconceived doctrinal prejudices

>>you acquired from your preacher(s), and apply blind faith

>>to accept whatever you are SUPPOSED to understand by the

>>ramblings of a crazy, vision-seeing, hallucinating, lying

>>phony "apostle".

>

> Ok, now what about his opponent position, how does

> their position fit in your theory that Paul created Christ

> a fictional character?

> I am assuming that you know they wanted Paul to

> include circumcision and the Law of Moses in his teaching.

> How do you reconcile their position with yours

===>You obviously did not read all my response.

See below.

>

>>>Apparently you don't know what Paul was saying

>>>to the Galatians on one hand and what his Opponents

>>>were saying in the other hand. If you had any clue

>>>as what his opponents were saying you would not come

>>>up with that nonsense that Paul created a fictional

>>>Character.

>>

>>===>There was no such thing anywhere in the Jewish culture as a

>>dying/rising, self-sacrificing, incarnate savior god named

>>"Christos".

>>If you believe it was not an invention, prove it otherwise.

>

> Now why the pharisees had not been saying that.

===>How do you know they were no saying that?

> All what they wanted was Paul to teach the costums

> of Moses along with the Christos that he invented

===>Why not?

> Hmmmm.. I still can't get it.

> Again let me remind you your premises.

> Paul invented Chistos.

> There is nothing about Christos in the Jewish Scriptures

> Messiah and Christos are two differents world.

===>By gosh, You've got it!

> Questions again from me.

> Why did the pharisees bothered for somebody else invention?

===>I already told you why.

Why do you keep asking the same question?

> Would not Paul be free to use his invention the way he wanted.

===>Of course not.

He claimed he was "grafting on" his followers.

> But it looks like the party of Paul and the Party of the pharisees

> who advocated circumcision were reading the

> same Torah of Moses and reading about the same Messiah/Christ

===>The same MESSIAH, perhaps.

But there never was any "Messiah/Christ".

The word "christos" was used in the LXX as a translation for

"anointed", mainly because Greco-Roman athletes were called that

for having been smeared with oils for their games.

But the messianic liberator king who would free the Jews

from Gentile control was TOTALLY unlike the dying/rising

savior god "Christos", of the Pauline Gentile savior cult.

>>How do you reconcile your nonsense theory

>

===>It is NOT a "theory", and if it seems "nonsense" to you,

it is because you are blinded by your doctrinal prejudices.

>>

>>>with the issues debated against his opponent in Galatians?

>>

>>>If Paul created Chrestos, a fictional character that

>>>he chose to preach to the Greeks or the Gentiles

>>>why did the pharisees who believed still followed

>>>him around so that he may include the Law of Moses

>>>in his teaching?

>>

>>===>Because he was their competitor,

>>converting potential allies of the

>>Jewish resistance to his own pro-Roman, anti-Jewish

>>new-fangled savior cult, claiming that his converts

>>would be the new heirs to the Abrahamic promises.

>

> This was not my question. But you are bringing in something

> interesting as competitor.

> Paul preaching Chrestos was competitor to the pharisee.

> What was the Message of the pharisees then?

===>First and foremost, their message was obedience

to the TORAH.

Secondly, their intention was to recruit the Jews in the

Diaspora, as well as Gedntile sympathizers known as

"God fearers", to the Jewish cause.

> For them to be competitors, that would mean that

> the Pharisees were preaching the same Chrestos

> who was supposed to be Paul's invention.

===>Again, you misinterpret "competition", because you are

incapable of thinking outside your doctrinal prejudices.

> How do you compete with an inventor over his product?

It was NOT a competiotion overe any "product".

It was a competition for FOLLOWERS!

> What do you mean by competitor exactly?

> And to what extend the pharisees are believed to be

> in competition with Paul?

===>I already told you that.

>

>>>Does this make sense to you?

>>

>>===>Of course it makes sense, if you see it with

>>open eyes and consider it with open mind in the

>>cultural and historical context, instead of blindly

>>taking it in as the "Word of God".

>

> There is something missing in your equation

> Paul preaching Chrestos have some pharisees

> as competitors, yet Chrestos according to your guess

> was not foretold by Moses but seems to be

> a product of Paul inventive mind. What is the problem here?

===>The problem is, you don't know what you are talking about.

> What do Pharisees and Paul have in COMMON

> for them to be competitors?

===>MARKETS.

A population of potential converts.

To THEIR "gospel" of JUDAISM and the TORAH

and the coming KINGDOM OF GOD

HERE ON EARTH!

vs.

Saul/Paul's "gospel" of "Christos" and

escape into the air from a coming calamity.

("Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them

in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air")

TWO DIFFERENT AND OPPOSING "GOSPELS".

"deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ,

for a different gospel"

"even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel

contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

"the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received

it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

I.e., it was his own invention! -- L.

Sign In

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

Recommended Posts

Guest Darrell Stec

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Darrell Stec

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Michael Gray

Guest weatherwax

Guest Zev

Guest Darrell Stec

Guest Darrell Stec

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Darrell Stec

Guest Jeckyl

Guest Michael Gray

Guest Jeckyl

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest copycat@yeayea.com

Guest Bible Believer

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest zev

Guest Darrell Stec

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest copycat@yeayea.com

Guest Libertarius

Guest weatherwax

Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com

Guest Libertarius

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support