Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Guest weatherwax]

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

> weatherwax 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.

 

I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ" does not have the

same meaning as the word "messiah". It is true that in the Old Testament

rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you would never call any of

them "Christ", and I do not know of an English translation which does.

 

In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where the Greek

writers are referring to a person who had been anointed, and where they are

referring to "The Amointed", i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in every

translation I have even seen.

 

--Wax

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> ===>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.

 

What jewish cause? You are not making any sense

with a lot guessing and frivolous speculation.

In His Epistle to the Galatians Paul accused

some pharisees from "the party of circumcision"

of preaching a different Gospel.

 

Let me remind you again your contention:

There is nothing about Messiah in Deut 18:15

Paul invented Christ

Christ and Messiah have different meaning

And now Paul and the Pharisees are competitors

in the Market.

But here the Pharisees we are concerned with

preach a Gospel of circumcision. And Gospel

has always been associated with Christ.

How do you reconcile this with your

Contention that Paul created Christos a fictional

character?

What were your pharisees selling

in the Market and how is that relevant to

the Epistle to the Galatians?

 

>

> > For them to be competitors, that would mean that

> > the Pharisees were preaching the same Chrestos

> > who was supposed to be Paul's invention.

>

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@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?

 

Why not?

What are you talking about?

Because Christos being Paul invention

has no basis in the Scriptures, therefore it would be sacrilegeous

to associate it with God Law.

People of the BOOK do nothing without Scriptures

why you miss that amaze me

 

>

> > 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!

 

 

The trouble here is that,the Pharisees in

the Epistle to the Galatians are preaching the

Gospel of Circumcision and Gospel being associated

with Christ, Pharisees are preaching Christ

a Pauline fictional invention.

What sense does this make If Christ was not

spoken of in Moses Torah?

>

> > 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

>

>

> >>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.

 

Obedience to the Torah through Circumcision along

with Christ. you are deceptively leaving out Christ.

If not Paul argument that Christ was the end of Moses

Law makes no sense.

Again Paul and his opponent had a common ground

Messiah/Christ that is foretold in the Torah.

Where they differed was whether or not the Gentiles

should be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses.

This is the content of the Epistle to Galatians.

But of course I expect you to do some guessing

instead sticking to the text and trying to make sense of it.

You are the one whose mind is set up to invent

fiction and not read History.

The Apostles had mission to interpret the Torah

of Moses for us. They did it brilliantly. It is not for us

to try to play the Doctors of the Law, they did

already their job. Ours is to make sense of history

by connecting the dots.

 

 

 

 

>

> > 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.

 

 

Competitors at least in a given Market are those

selling the same product.

What would make pharisees Paul's competitors If

they were not selling the same product in the Market.

Tell the pharisees how good is Buddha and lecture him

why you think that Buddha should be included, they

would smile at you and keep going their way

Why? Because has no rlevancy in their Scriptures.

This is not the case with Christ that Paul preached

 

 

>

> > 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 1:41 pm, "weatherwax" <weather...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

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

>

>

>

>

>

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

> >> "Jeckyl" <n...@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.

>

> I was attempting to show that in English the word "Christ" does not have the

> same meaning as the word "messiah". It is true that in the Old Testament

> rocks, kings and priest were "anointed", but you would never call any of

> them "Christ", and I do not know of an English translation which does.

>

> In the New Testament it is never difficult to determine where the Greek

> writers are referring to a person who had been anointed, and where they are

> referring to "The Amointed", i.e. "The Christ." This is reflected in every

> translation I have even seen.

 

Because Christ is greek and Messiah is Hebrew.

Simple common sense.

 

 

>

> --Wax- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest Jeckyl]

> They have nothing to do with Christianity.

> Nor did they cease to change.

 

Then why are you arguing about them. owever, other mythical figused have

many elements in common with the stories around Jesus birth and death. Also

the Jesus stories have many elements in common with other OT stories. I

think it likely that the truth was embellished in the Gospels.

>>> 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.

 

Exactly .. you make claims and then call on me to come up withproviding

proof.

 

I'm happy to show evidence of what I make as claims (other than personal

beliefs and theories, which I will usually describe as such).

 

What particular claims are they that I've not backed up with some links as

yet. It is truly hard to keep upwith the posts here to know who said what

in what thread

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> 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.

 

Not really by an apologist afaik .. but regardless, I've checked many other

sites (trying to avoid ones that seemed clearly to have a christian-biased

agenda).. all offer the same date ranges.

> 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.

 

I've not found that link looking back as yet .. perhaps it lost from my

newsgroup server/newsreader. If you have it handy could you post it again?

Thanks. I do want to read it.

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

> eyewitnesses.

 

Yes .. I have continually claimed the the Gospels are not written by

eye-witnesses and have many mistakes.

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 11:58 am, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

 

> ===>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.

>

 

Nobody ever said that a dying Savior was known

in the Jewish culture, never until Jesus, this the reason

they had problem with Jesus being Christ/Messiah

because of His death.

Or did you mean to say that there is nothing

in the Jewish Scriptures suggesting such a scenario?

You are deceptively combining Theology with History.

History

Jesus was arrested and crucified

was burried and Rose from the dead.

Therefore he claimed as the Messiah.

 

Theology that is to say the meaning given

to History

Christ death and resurrection is the end of Moses

Law, there is no condemnation for those

in Christ. The Law of Moses has indeed for the

believers and Salvation is at our reach because

of the cross.

 

It is obvious that the Pharisees who were present

at the Council in Jerusalem believed in the History

above but did not believe in the meaning

given by Paul, hence their request that

Gentiles alike should obey the Law.

Yet the same pharisees believed that Jesus

was that Christ foretold by Moses. Acts 15.

 

Your problem is that you need both

the theology given by Paul and the

Deuteronomy 18:15 which the pharisees based

their theology on.

You got problem

[Guest Jeckyl]

> There is nothing about Messiah in Deut 18:15

 

That is true .. its about a prophet. One can possibly associate that

prophet with promises fora messiah, but it doesn't necessarily follow. What

would matter is a) the intent of the author and b) the interpretation of

people at that time.

> Paul invented Christ

 

At the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from being

an earthly man into be a spiritual being.

> Christ and Messiah have different meaning

 

They are, as I understand, derived from different langauges (greek and

hebrew) and have somewhat different literal meanings, but both were used to

describe the same things.

> And now Paul and the Pharisees are competitors

> in the Market.

 

If they wer eboth in the same region trying to convert to people to their

faith and/or stop the other from converting to a different faith.

> But here the Pharisees we are concerned with

> preach a Gospel of circumcision. And Gospel

> has always been associated with Christ.

> How do you reconcile this with your

> Contention that Paul created Christos a fictional

> character?

 

It reconciles just fine really. It doesn't matter whether the jesus

describe by paul was imaginary, embellished, or whatever .. it was still a

different religion to the pharisees (even if they may have had old testament

in common).

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:11:20 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>> There is nothing about Messiah in Deut 18:15

>

>That is true .. its about a prophet. One can possibly associate that

>prophet with promises fora messiah, but it doesn't necessarily follow. What

>would matter is a) the intent of the author and b) the interpretation of

>people at that time.

>

>> Paul invented Christ

>

>At the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from being

>an earthly man into be a spiritual being.

 

No. Assuming his letters are genuine, his is the first Christ. The

gospels came later. He knows nothing of the Jesus of the gospels

>> Christ and Messiah have different meaning

>

>They are, as I understand, derived from different langauges (greek and

>hebrew) and have somewhat different literal meanings, but both were used to

>describe the same things.

 

The problem is that all this, is with with the hindsight of the

Christian tradition.

>> And now Paul and the Pharisees are competitors

>> in the Market.

>

>If they wer eboth in the same region trying to convert to people to their

>faith and/or stop the other from converting to a different faith.

>

>> But here the Pharisees we are concerned with

>> preach a Gospel of circumcision. And Gospel

>> has always been associated with Christ.

>> How do you reconcile this with your

>> Contention that Paul created Christos a fictional

>> character?

>

>It reconciles just fine really. It doesn't matter whether the jesus

>describe by paul was imaginary, embellished, or whatever .. it was still a

>different religion to the pharisees (even if they may have had old testament

>in common).

 

And a different religion to Constantine's Christianity.

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> 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.

 

So what is your basis for this, and what are the two different meanings of

'Christ' and 'Messiah' in the Quram and Bible translations?

 

It seems to me that now its shown that the Quram does refer to Christ or

messiah, that you're now modifying the claim that it doesn't to say"yes, it

does, but even though its the same word, the meaning is not the same".

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:22:41 +1100, "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.

>

>So what is your basis for this, and what are the two different meanings of

>'Christ' and 'Messiah' in the Quram and Bible translations?

>

>It seems to me that now its shown that the Quram does refer to Christ or

>messiah, that you're now modifying the claim that it doesn't to say"yes, it

>does, but even though its the same word, the meaning is not the same".

 

Remember that the Quran was written maybe 600 years after the alleged

events. So it includes 6 centuries of Christian tradition

 

What is said is going to be even less reliable than the NT. you would

need to speak Arabic to know exactly what it meant, but it would not

sup rise me if it had a third meaning - or was just used as a name or

even an honorific.

 

Remember that "son of God" was also an honorific not a literal

description to Muslims

>

>

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:

> 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.

 

 

Your contention

There is no prediction for Messiah in the Torah

Christ and Messiah are two different words and titles

Paul invented Christ out of the blue.

Anointed are greek athletes.

Here is what disprove your assertion.

Anointed is a jewish concept.

 

 

 

4 Then the men of Judah came to Hebron and there they

ANOINTED David king over the house of Judah.

 

Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on

Saul's head and kissed him, saying,

"Has not the LORD ANOINTED you leader

over his inheritance? [a] 1 Samuel 16:3

 

15 Now the day before Saul came, the LORD had

revealed this to Samuel: 16 "About this time tomorrow I will

send you a man from the land of Benjamin.

ANOINT him leader over my people Israel; he will deliver

my people from the hand of the Philistines.

I have looked upon my people, for their cry has reached me." 1 Samuel

9:15

 

The LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say,

'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.'

3 Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do.

You are to ANOINT for me the one I indicate." 1 Samuel 16:3

 

They were anointed for Kingship.

Jesus was ANOINTED/MESSIAH with the Holy Ghost the reason he is

the King of Kings, the anointed above any

other anointed and to his kingdom there shall be no end

[Guest Zev]

On Feb 20, 6:55 pm, copy...@yeayea.com wrote:

> 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.

 

Acts 15 makes no mention of dietary laws,

and if it would have,

it would not have prohibited pork,

just as it didn't insist on circumcision.

> > 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

 

Because of the one time conquest of Canaan?

Jihad is part and parcel of Islam, ask a Moslem.

> 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.

 

Can you imagine Jesus leading his apostles into battle?

Moses never took part in a battle, Mohammed did.

> > 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

 

Do you want me to think about Trinity, Incarnation,

Vicarious Atonement, Transubstantiation

and statues/icons in church?

Whatever Mohammad's real name was

he cannot be confused with Jesus.

Their messages are different,

and historically, both Christians and Muslims

do not confuse the two.

> > 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.

 

Acts 2 does not refer in any way to Deuteronomy 18.

> You are not an apostle, so who cares about

> your private opinion?

 

You told me to think.

Now you say: "The apostle is right!".

Why not take your own advice,

read my explanation of Deuteronomy 18,

think about it, tell me what's wrong with it.

Appealing to authority is not thinking.

> 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

 

Historically, both Christians and Muslims

do not confuse Jesus and Muhammad.

So Codi is wrong.

 

But my point is only about Deuteronomy 18,

which is not referring to either of the above

because it's not referring to anyone in particular.

 

Zev

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>At the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from being

>>an earthly man into be a spiritual being.

> No. Assuming his letters are genuine, his is the first Christ. The

> gospels came later. He knows nothing of the Jesus of the gospels

 

My point being .. if there was a Jesus the man who taught .. Paul change the

emphsis from a human teach to a spiritual being. The gospels changed the

emphasis again later on to the man Jesus.

>>They are, as I understand, derived from different langauges (greek and

>>hebrew) and have somewhat different literal meanings, but both were used

>>to

>>describe the same things.

> The problem is that all this, is with with the hindsight of the

> Christian tradition.

 

So what is the correct unbiased view?

>>It reconciles just fine really. It doesn't matter whether the jesus

>>describe by paul was imaginary, embellished, or whatever .. it was still a

>>different religion to the pharisees (even if they may have had old

>>testament

>>in common).

> And a different religion to Constantine's Christianity.

 

Definitely.

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 1:23 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

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

>

> TWO DIFFERENT AND OPPOSING "GOSPELS".

 

 

Of course, this is why the Council of Jerusalem was held

to debate the course of Action

You are getting too close to my point without knowing it

There is the Gospel of CIRCUMCISION and the Gospel

preached to the Gentiles by Paul,

but one christ/Messiah fortold by the

Torah of Moses as claimed by both sides.

How can you possibly believe that the Opposition to Paul

knew nothing about Messiah from Moses Torah

that there is no mention of Messiah in Deuteronomy 18:15

but at the same time believe that the pharisees

preached a Gospel of

the Law knowing that Gospel since the beginning

has been associated with the Messiah/Christ?

 

 

>

> "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."

>

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:33:30 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>At the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from being

>>>an earthly man into be a spiritual being.

>> No. Assuming his letters are genuine, his is the first Christ. The

>> gospels came later. He knows nothing of the Jesus of the gospels

>

>My point being .. if there was a Jesus the man who taught .. Paul change the

>emphsis from a human teach to a spiritual being. The gospels changed the

>emphasis again later on to the man Jesus.

 

You've got it the wrong way round.

 

The first mentions are all of Christ, not Jesus.

 

Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change any emphasis.

 

He started the religion based on his etherial, spiritual Christ.

Jesus, whether or not he existed, was added to that later.

>>>They are, as I understand, derived from different langauges (greek and

>>>hebrew) and have somewhat different literal meanings, but both were used

>>>to

>>>describe the same things.

>> The problem is that all this, is with with the hindsight of the

>> Christian tradition.

>

>So what is the correct unbiased view?

 

Not my problem.

>>>It reconciles just fine really. It doesn't matter whether the jesus

>>>describe by paul was imaginary, embellished, or whatever .. it was still a

>>>different religion to the pharisees (even if they may have had old

>>>testament

>>>in common).

>> And a different religion to Constantine's Christianity.

>

>Definitely.

>

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>My point being .. if there was a Jesus the man who taught .. Paul change

>>the

>>emphsis from a human teach to a spiritual being. The gospels changed the

>>emphasis again later on to the man Jesus.

> You've got it the wrong way round.

 

No .. we're really saying the same things.

> The first mentions are all of Christ, not Jesus.

 

Yes .. by paul. But those stories were written after the historical Jesus

(if he existed). On the wild assumption the ther ewas a real Jesus, Paul

painted him entirely differently. Then the Gospels cam along after that,

and portrayed the historical Jesus (if he existed).

> Paul never knew an historical Jesus

 

Yes

> and didn't change any emphasis.

 

Depends on whether one is accepting the concept of an historical Jesus (ie

just a man who taught some things .. not necessarily a virgin-born, son of

god etc)

> He started the religion based on his etherial, spiritual Christ.

> Jesus, whether or not he existed, was added to that later.

 

Yes .. i understand your point. Whether you express it as I do, or as you

do .. its the same things . The only difference is whetehr you approach it

from the perspective that they as an historical Jesus (I'm not particaulrly

convinced there was)

>>> The problem is that all this, is with with the hindsight of the

>>> Christian tradition.

>>So what is the correct unbiased view?

> Not my problem.

 

Ok .. so you don't have a correct view either. Fairynuff. It was a log

time ago. And we are when we are now, and can't go back and see firt-hand

what really happened.

[Guest weatherwax]

"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.

>

> So what is your basis for this, and what are the two different

> meanings of 'Christ' and 'Messiah' in the Quram and Bible

> translations?

>

> It seems to me that now its shown that the Quram does refer

> to Christ or messiah, that you're now modifying the claim that it

> doesn't to say"yes, it does, but even though its the same word,

> the meaning is not the same".

 

You are reading translations of the Koran. Not the Koran. I forget what

word the Koran uses, but I understand that it basically means "anointed".

Therefore, a literal translation would be "anointed".

 

"Christ" and "Messiah" are titles, not names. They both have the ancient

meanings of "anointed", but by calling Jesus "Christ" we are referring to

him as the supposed "Son of God."

 

Matthew 16:16

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son

of the living God."

 

The Koran is not referring to Jesus as "the Son of the living God."

 

In the Old Testament kings, priests and others were anointed. Kings were

often referred to as "the anointed of God." The future king who was to sit

on the throne of David and restore the kingdom of Israel was called "the

messiah", i.e. "the anointed".

 

Isaiah 45:1

This is what the LORD says to his chosen one

To Cyrus, whose right hand I hold.

 

The Koran was not referring to Jesus as the "King of the Jews".

 

--Wax

[Guest Jeckyl]

> You are reading translations of the Koran. Not the Koran. I forget what

> word the Koran uses, but I understand that it basically means "anointed".

> Therefore, a literal translation would be "anointed".

 

Just as 'christ' means. So its the arabic word that means the same things

as christ does.

> "Christ" and "Messiah" are titles, not names.

 

Yes

> They both have the ancient meanings of "anointed"

 

Yes

> but by calling Jesus "Christ" we are referring to him as the supposed "Son

> of God."

 

That christians claim Jesus is Christ and is Son of God doesn't mean that

the term 'Christ' means 'Son of God'. They are just two titles.

> Matthew 16:16

> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son

> of the living God."

 

Yes.. so he is the Christ, and he is the Son of the living God.

> The Koran is not referring to Jesus as "the Son of the living God."

 

No .. it is referring to him as Christ or Messiah. Just as the Bible does.

Note the english translations also use the capitalised version 'Christ'

 

You seem to be unclear in what you are saying .. that the title Christ means

son of god, then it doesn't, then it does.

 

Basically, the claim that the Quran does not refer to Jesus as Christ or

Messiah is disproved. Unless you redefine the terms to suit what you are

saying.

[Guest weatherwax]

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

> any emphasis.

 

Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the

followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon

an actual person.

 

--Wax

[Guest Jeckyl]

>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>> any emphasis.

> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the

> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon

> an actual person.

 

Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

him.

 

Well said.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:58:53 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>

>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>> any emphasis.

>

>Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the

>followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon

>an actual person.

 

Non sequitur.

>--Wax

>

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:14:46 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>> Paul never knew an historical Jesus and didn't change

>>> any emphasis.

>> Paul did not personally know Jesus, but Paul knew of Jesus through the

>> followers whom Paul persecuted. Therefore Paul's "Christ" was based upon

>> an actual person.

>

>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

>him.

 

Then why doesn't he describe the person?

>Well said.

>

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

>>him.

> Then why doesn't he describe the person?

 

What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of

from others?

 

Paul himself claims not to have seen/met the human Jesus .. only to have had

a vision.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:32:46 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>Exactly .. He didn't know directly (first hand), but would have known of

>>>him.

>> Then why doesn't he describe the person?

>

>What does he describe of the person Jesus that he wouldn't have heard of

>from others?

 

You tell me - you're the one making the claims that he knew of the

historical Jesus that he doesn't describe, from those who knew him.

 

>Paul himself claims not to have seen/met the human Jesus .. only to have had

>a vision.

>