Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 20, 11:55 am, 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.

>

> > 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

 

 

 

He does not understant MARKETING PLOY. He does not understand

what a Rabbi is good for.

Otherwise he would realize that there was some Rabbis in Mecca

as attested in this Surat:

"If this book is from God, you believe not, Yet a Rabbi

from among the Children of Israel attests its similitude

and believe while you proudly reject it."

The information given out in this verse is too rich and even

damaging to the position of the hadiths fabricators.

What is a Rabbi? a Rabbi is someone who is trained

to teach and expound on the Law of Moses.

He is someone who can say this is LICITE and This

is ILLICITE. No one is surprised to find some prohibitions

of Moses Law in the Qur'an.

At Mecca, some Jewish Rabbis were marketing their Messiah

along with Moses Law, a reminiscence of those Pharisees

who advocated Moses Law and costums along with Christ in Acts 15

 

>

>

>

>

>

> > Zev- Hide quoted text -

>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>news:in9ot2hjrq4cchcfhjag5ocvuuvmbsfdio@4ax.com...

 

Why did you snip your baseless claim? Here, I'll put it back. Try not

to do this again because it destroys the context of subsequent

remarks.

 

Here's what you said:

 

">>>Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes jesus appearance. Paul

>>>only talks of the Jesus he knows 9from his ision, and how he

>>>interpretted it). He says little about Jesus as a person because

>>> it was not relevant to what he was teaching.

>> Please demonstrate that this is the reason he says little about

>> Jesus."

 

That was a rationalisation based on presumptions you had not yet

justified. Not any kind of conclusion.

>>>Why not .. can you demonstrate a better reason?

>> Not my problem. You made the claim, so back it up.

>

>I am just suggesting a possible and plausible explanation for your question

>as to why Paul doesn't describe Jesus.

 

Why is it plausible, when you've not even satisfied the assumptions it

is based on?

>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not need a

>description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no first-hand knowledge

>of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples). However, there are numerous

>references to Jesus as Christ, Jesus as son of God, Jesus as a man, and of

>his crucifixion and raising from the dead (key to Paul's idea of

>Christianity).

 

Does "many" equal "none"? Paul's are the earliest - and he only

describes a nebulous, spiritual Christ.

 

You've made several rationalisations but all these do is try to

generate information where there isn't any. And piled them on top of

each other.

> His letters were addressing specific issues for the

>communities to whom he was writing, and to whom his 'gospel' had already

>been delivered.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>That seems to be self-consistent and also consistent with what little we do

>know.

 

No.

 

All we know is that his writing is the earliest, and he knows nothing

of the Jesus of the gospels. He talks about Christ not Jesus - the

first mentions of Jesus came later.

>Your explanation says Paul doesn't have a description of Jesus or his life

>because Jesus doesn't exist, an wasn't invented until later.

 

Please learn to read for comprehension.

>Yet that is problematic because Paul mentions Jesus and his crucifixion so

>many times in the epistles.

 

But not the Jesus of the gospels, of whom he knows nothing.

>Are there versions of the epistles by Paul that I've not been looking at yet

>which do not mention Jesus and his death on the cross?

 

Look up "shifting the burden". You claim things, so you get to back

them up.

>If not, then your explanation appears to be lacking.

 

I don't need one to point out the problems with yours. But then I am

not and have never been a Christian with a desire to prove the

unprovable.

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

>> By your own admission, the passages you quoted

>> sometimes translates the Arabic "al-Masih" as "Christ", and other times

>> it translates it as "Messiah".

>

> Yes .. it depends on the translation

>

>> Is it your claim that "Christ" and "Messiah" and "al-Masih"

>> mean the same thing?

>

> It would certainly seem that way.

 

I would hope that a Christain would know better, but if there is any doubt,

then ask a Jew.

>> The Christ is the purported Son of God.

>> The Messiah is the proposed future Jewish savior.

>

> Why do you insist these are (or need to be) different things?

 

"Christ" is a Christian word, and it refers to "The Son of God."

"Messiah" is a Jewish word, and it refers to a future king. Therefore

"al-Masih" cannot be equated with either Christ or the Messiah.

 

In the period of the Babylonian exile, there grew a hope that a son of David

would restore the kingdom of Israel and sit on the throne of David:

 

Jeramiah 23:5

"I, the LORD, promise that a new time will certainly

come when I will raise up for them a righteous branch,

a descendant of David. He will rule over them with

wisdom and understanding and will do what is just and

right in the land.

 

Jeramiah 30:8-9

When the time for them to be rescued comes,"

says the LORD who rules over all,

"I will rescue you from foreign subjugation.

I will deliver you from captivity.

Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.

But they will be subject to the LORD their God and

to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over

them.

 

Ezekiel 37:21

21 Then tell them, 'This is what the sovereign LORD says:

Look, I am about to take the Israelites from among the

nations where they have gone. I will gather them from

round about and bring them to their land. 22 I will make

them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel,

and one king will rule over them all. They will never again

be two nations and never again be divided into two

kingdoms.

 

There are several more such passages. Notice that these passages does not

make the messiah a God. It was Paul who made the Christos into a Greek god,

and the gospilers followed suit.

 

 

 

>> In the Koran, Jesus is a prophet.

>

> Why does the word get translated as christ or messiah and

> not prophet in all the Quram translations I have seen.

 

I'm not saying that the Arabic word means prophet, only that in the

translation you gave it referred to Jesus as a prophet. Christianity holds

Jesus as being much more than a prophet, as Judaism also hold the Messiah as

being more than a prophet. But Islam cannot have a prophet greater than

Mohammad.

 

--Wax

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

> Sorry .. I misread you. Noone describes Jesus physical

> appearance. The Gospels talk of what he did during his

> live, where he went, what he said, what he did. Paul only

> talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he interpretted it.

> He says little about Jesus as a person because

> it was not relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it

> was only those non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his

> letters (as that may have been what his followers

> were having trouble with most).

 

Come to think of it, the Bible says very little about people's appearance.

There are a few minor exceptions, such a King Saul was "handsome" and tall,

but no features are described (1 Samuel 9:2). We also know that Elisha was

bald because a group of young boys called him "baldy" (2 Kings 2:23,) but

what else do we know about his physical appearance?

 

There seem to be little we can say about the appearance of any Biblical

figures. The exception is in the "Song of Songs", but those characters are

anonymous.

 

--Wax

[Guest Bible Believer]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl"

<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

 

>I am just suggesting a possible and plausible explanation

>for your question as to why Paul doesn't describe Jesus.

>

>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not

>need a description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no

>first-hand knowledge of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples).

 

Galatians 1:1-2:10

 

1:1) Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man,

but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who

raised Him from the dead),

1:2) and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches

of Galatia:

1:3) Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our

Lord Jesus Christ,

1:4) who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver

us from this present evil age, according to the will of

our God and Father,

1:5) to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

1:6) I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him

who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

1:7) which is not another; but there are some who trouble

you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

1:8) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any

other gospel to you than what we have preached to you,

let him be accursed.

1:9) As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone

preaches any other gospel to you than what you have

received, let him be accursed.

1:10) For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek

to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not

be a bondservant of Christ.

1:11) But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel

which was preached by me is not according to man.

1:12) For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it,

but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1:13) For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism,

how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and

tried to destroy it.

1:14) And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my

contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly

zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

1:15) But when it pleased God, who separated me from

my mother

[Guest Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

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

> wrote:

 

[sNIPALOT]

> But here the Pharisees we are concerned with

> preach a Gospel of circumcision. And Gospel

> has always been associated with Christ.

 

===>In your narrow mind, only.

In fact it comes from Greek literature, a translation

of a Greek word.

E.g. when the death of an enemy king is announced,

it was considered a "GOSPEL" (EUANGELION).

 

The EUANGELION for the Jews was LIBERATION and the

establishment of the promised Theocracy (literally,

"Kingdom of God").

> How do you reconcile this with your

> Contention that Paul created Christos a fictional

> character?

 

===>There is nothing to "reconcile".

> What were your pharisees selling

> in the Market and how is that relevant to

> the Epistle to the Galatians?

 

===>I have explained all this to you. -- L.

[Guest Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> 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,

 

 

===>NONSENSE!

"Gospel" is just the English translation of

"EUANGELION", mening GOOD NEWS.

For the Jews, "good news" would have been

LIBERATION and THEOCRACY.

For Saul/Paul, "good news" was a dead and risen

savior god who would take him and his followers

"into the air".

 

Pharisees are preaching Christ

> a Pauline fictional invention.

 

===>NEVER!

> What sense does this make If Christ was not

> spoken of in Moses Torah?

 

===>It makes no sense at all.

But it is just your invention.

>

>>>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.

 

===>NOTHING to do with "Christ".

Can't you get this through your thick skull?

How dense can you get?

>

>>>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.

 

===>Now THAT is stupid!

Coke and Pepsi are in competition.

Are THEY "selling the same product"?

Of course not.

A different product, like a different "gospel"

to the same market.

 

Wake up, CB! -- L.

[Guest Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> 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.

 

===The same way they had trouble with Judas the Galilean

(after whom the Jesus fiction was fashioned), Bar Kokhba

a century later, and all other would-be "messiahs".

Your constant reference to any non-existent

"Christ/Messiah" or "Messiah/Christ" is just so much

smoke screen.

You either have a Pauline "Christ" (CHRISTOS)

or a Jewish "Messiah" (MASHIACH).

> Or did you mean to say that there is nothing

> in the Jewish Scriptures suggesting such a scenario?

 

===>What secnerio?

> You are deceptively combining Theology with History.

> History

> Jesus was arrested and crucified

> was burried and Rose from the dead.

 

===>That is NOT HISTORY.

It is a theological FICTION.

> Therefore he claimed as the Messiah.

 

===>Who "claimed as a 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

 

===>There was no "history" to believe! -- L.

[Guest Libertarius]

codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> 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

===>CORRECT

> Christ and Messiah are two different words and titles

===>CORRECT

> Paul invented Christ out of the blue.

===>WRONG.

He grew up in Tarsus, the cery CENTER of the MYSTERY

RELIGION. He simply copied the recipe and gave it a Jewish

flavor, to concoct his own new-fangled mystery cult.

> Anointed are greek athletes.

> Here is what disprove your assertion.

> Anointed is a jewish concept.

 

===>"Anointed" is.

Christor is not.

That just shows your narrow-minded ignorance.

 

Irrelevant examples deleted.

>

> They were anointed for Kingship.

> Jesus was ANOINTED/MESSIAH with the Holy Ghost

 

===>There's no such thing as "Holy Ghost"

in either Jewish or Greek culture.

It is an invention of Christians, copying the

Zoroastrian Spanta Mainyu.

It is taken from Zoroastrianism, along with many other features and

doctrines (resurrection, judgement day, Savior, etc.)

In Zarathustra's scheme, the "Holy Spirit" was SPANTA MAINYU, one of the

divine beings under Ahura Mazda, a competitor of ANGRA MAINYU (later

AHRIMAN).

 

the reason he is

> the King of Kings, the anointed above any

> other anointed and to his kingdom there shall be no end

 

===>NONSENSE.

If there ever was such a person, he was killed

and remained dead for ever. -- L.

>

[Guest Libertarius]

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

> 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.

>>

===>The authors of the Gospels wrote fictional stories about

someone named IESOUS whom they associated with the fantasy

god CHRISTOS of Saul/Paul.

There were MANY such "Gospels", but the Church picked and

edited and published only four of them in their "Bible". -- L.

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 21 February 2007 4:17

am Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> There is zero evidence for the mention of any Jesus

>> anywhere until the epistles from the Pauline

>> school in the second century.

>

> The majorty / accepted datings for Paul's letters are the first

> century. And the gospels later first century or maybe early second

> century.

>

> Where do you get your later datings? Wat evidence is there for them

> being written that late?

>

 

I gave a link to this several months ago. The author belongs to one of

two entire schools of biblical scholars in the last 70 years that have

decided on late dates and in fact the non-existence of a real

individual named Paul. If you had followed that link you would have

seen a verse by verse explanation for the reasons each epistle was

deemed to be late. On the website the author a very prominent biblical

scholar also gave numerous footnotes on other independent (of the 2

schools) scholars who supported what he said about the verses.

 

Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles that

supports any date, most especially an early date for their composition.

There is one phrase (one part of a sentence) in the whole of Paul's

epistles that gives any approximation for a time period. That phrase

is charitably called an interpolation by most biblical scholars or

labeled as an outright lie on Paul's part by the less charitable.

Remember Paul calls himself a liar and hypocrite in his own epistles.

>> The human Jesus was invented later.

>> The character Paul heard nothing of Jesus.

>

> There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus

> Christ our Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.

>

 

Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or actually

dishonest) translations into your native language which I assume is

English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of

the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the" as

in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception

to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.

 

Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and

Joshua for the OT one? You are being dishonest. Either they are both

Jesus or both Joshua. The name was picked intentionally and Christians

are being horrifically dishonest by giving their god-man a special

name. The spelling of the name is identical in both the NT and OT. It

was purposely meant to obfuscate by giving their hero a John Doe name

(an everyman, if you will).

 

Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human. His theology and

"good news" revolves around a spiritual event which takes place in the

7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens, and one that demons can interact

between it and the material world. Big hint are Paul's explanation of

who crucified the oiled Joshua -- he names classes/divisions of angels

(mostly demons in his story) but falsely translated to hide the fact

from the reader in common translations. If you were more familiar with

the Greek and could read the NT pseudepigrapha would would see this

plainly. Paul mentions many divisions of angels and there are books

which explain the relationship and duties of these various division as

understood at the time of Paul's writing in the second century.

>> Why is it so difficult for you

>> to understand the plain words the scribes

>> made Paul utter about hearing

>> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

>

> Which words are they?

 

These, for instance: apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi hina

euaggelizomai auton en tois ethnesin eutheos oo prosanethemen sarki kai

haimati oude anelthon eis hierosoluma pros tous pro emou apostolous all

anelthon eis arabian kai palin hupestrepsa eis damoskon

 

and these are part of the equation: to de dunameno humas sterezai kata

to euaggelion mou kai to kerugma iesou christou kata apokalupsin

musteriou chronois aionios sesigemenou phanerothentos de nun dia te

graphon prophetikon kai epitagen tou aioniou theou eis hupakoen pisteos

eis panta ta ethne gnoristhentos

 

which is further reinforced by these words from Paul: kauchasthai de oo

sumpherei moi eleusomai gar eis optasias kai apokalupseis kuriou

 

And lest we forget: oude gar ego para anthropou parelebon auto oute

edidachthen alla di apokalupseos iusou christou

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest weatherwax]

<copycat@yeayea.com> wrote

> "zev" <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

>>

>>

>> > 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 says nothing about eating pork:

 

Acts 15:

28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to

us not to place any greater burden on you than

these necessary rules:

29 that you abstain from meat that has been

sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what

has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If

you keep yourselves from doing these things, you

will do well. Farewell.

 

 

< CLIP >

> 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.

 

It is reported by Luke, not Peter. In Acts 2 Luke attributes it to Peter.

nd Acts 2 would not be the only passage where Christians took the Old

Testament out of context, or misinterpreted it. In order to understand what

Deuteronomy 18:15 means, you have to read Deuteronomy 18. None of the

apostles had the power to change its meaning.

 

--Wax

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:t4iot2tu942uo7aistec3oatngo3ij4hbn@4ax.com...

 

Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an

immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:

>>>

Noone describes Jesus physical appearance. The

Gospels talk of what he did during his live, where he went, what he said,

what he did.

Paul only talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he

interpreted it. He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not

relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it was only those

non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his letters (as that

may have been what his followers were having trouble with most).

>>>

> That was a rationalisation based on presumptions you had not yet

> justified. Not any kind of conclusion.

 

And what is it that you claim that is not based on unjustified presumptions?

> Why is it plausible, when you've not even satisfied the assumptions it

> is based on?

 

Why is it not?

>>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not need a

>>description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no first-hand knowledge

>>of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples). However, there are

>>numerous

>>references to Jesus as Christ, Jesus as son of God, Jesus as a man, and of

>>his crucifixion and raising from the dead (key to Paul's idea of

>>Christianity).

>

> Does "many" equal "none"?

 

No .. it is many. Do you me to count them all for you?

> Paul's are the earliest - and he only

> describes a nebulous, spiritual Christ.

 

 

Well .. the versions I have looked at are full of references to Jesus in all

of pauls letters (and ceratinly not just those ones whose authorship by paul

directly is disputed)

 

He describes a Jesus who is a man and was crucified and was rasied from the

dead. Do I need to cite verse for you for this?

>> His letters were addressing specific issues for the

>>communities to whom he was writing, and to whom his 'gospel' had already

>>been delivered.

 

He claims in several places that he had already been to the communities to

preach the gospel .. these were follow-up letters. This is also very clear

from the context.

>>That seems to be self-consistent and also consistent with what little we

>>do

>>know.

> No.

 

Please show any inconsistency to back up that one-word claim.

> All we know is that his writing is the earliest, and he knows nothing

> of the Jesus of the gospels. He talks about Christ not Jesus - the

> first mentions of Jesus came later.

 

No .. he talks consistestently of Jesus Christ, Jesus the Chrisr, the Christ

Jesus. And describes Jesus as a man who was crucified and raised again.

>>Your explanation says Paul doesn't have a description of Jesus or his life

>>because Jesus doesn't exist, an wasn't invented until later.

> Please learn to read for comprehension.

 

If that is not what you are now claiming, then what IS it you are claiming?

>>Yet that is problematic because Paul mentions Jesus and his crucifixion so

>>many times in the epistles.

> But not the Jesus of the gospels, of whom he knows nothing.

 

Untrue. He knows OF Jesus of the Gospels from the time he spent with the

disciples before he started his missions. He ceratinly knows that Jesus was

a man who was crucified and raised from the dead.

>>Are there versions of the epistles by Paul that I've not been looking at

>>yet

>>which do not mention Jesus and his death on the cross?

> Look up "shifting the burden".

 

I'll have a look ..thanks

> I don't need one to point out the problems with yours.

 

And I don't need to prove my claims to point out the problems with yours.

So right back at you on that one.

[Guest Jeckyl]

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:GzYCh.392$as2.54@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

 

regardless of all that .. the claim that the Quran does contain the word

Christ or Messiah for Jesus is incorrect

 

(except in the pedantic sense that those are English words and the Quran is

in Arabic .. but in that sense you can therefore claim that 'christ' does

not appear in the bible because it is an English word).

[Guest Zev]

On Feb 21, 3:42 pm, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

<Codebrea...@bigsecret.com>

wrote:

> On Feb 20, 11:55 am, 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:

> > > 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

>

> He does not understant MARKETING PLOY. He does not understand

> what a Rabbi is good for.

> Otherwise he would realize that there was some Rabbis in Mecca

> as attested in this Surat:

> "If this book is from God, you believe not, Yet a Rabbi

> from among the Children of Israel attests its similitude

> and believe while you proudly reject it."

 

Jews admitted to poisoning wells during the Black Plague.

Spanish Jews (Marranos) 'converted'

to Christianity during the Inquisition.

Give me your body for a few days,

you'll say whatever I want you to say.

If I snatch members of your family or community

won't you say anything about an old book

to get them released?

> The information given out in this verse is too rich and even

> damaging to the position of the hadiths fabricators.

> What is a Rabbi? a Rabbi is someone who is trained

> to teach and expound on the Law of Moses.

> He is someone who can say this is LICITE and This

> is ILLICITE. No one is surprised to find some prohibitions

> of Moses Law in the Qur'an.

 

But Moses prohibited, Jesus permitted,

and then, Muhammad prohibited.

Does that make sense?

 

But anyway, please tell me what's wrong

with my explanation of Deuteronomy 18.

 

Zev

[Guest Jeckyl]

"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:ecmot2tt12qsclbnoj42sac4u77s66a1ip@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl"

> <noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

>>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not

>>need a description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no

>>first-hand knowledge of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples).

>

> Galatians 1:1-2:10

 

Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not

said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting

what I said or disagreeing with it?

[Guest Bible Believer]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:37:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"

<noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

>"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message

>news:ecmot2tt12qsclbnoj42sac4u77s66a1ip@4ax.com...

>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:13:55 +1100, "Jeckyl"

>> <noone@nowhere.com> claimed:

>>>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not

>>>need a description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no

>>>first-hand knowledge of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples).

>>

>> Galatians 1:1-2:10

>

>Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not

>said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting

>what I said or disagreeing with it?

 

If you would have bothered to read it, you would see

what Paul said and his statement completely disagrees

with yours. But what do you care about truth?

 

 

--

 

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.

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:543j6aF1v6un4U1@mid.individual.net...

> I gave a link to this several months ago.

 

I don't have direct access to, or the time to go finding such a link without

something to look for. That's why I'm asking .. can you please post it

again, or some name or phrase that I could search on to find it?

> Please, if you can, show me anything in all of the Pauline epistles that

> supports any date, most especially an early date for their composition.

 

I'd still like to see the article you refer to that shows all this evidence

why the date should be later than what most scholars say.

>> There certainly seems to be references to Christ Jesus and Jesus

>> Christ our Lord, and Lord Jesus Christ in the Pauline eplistles.

> Once again you make incorrect assumptions based upon poor (or actually

> dishonest) translations into your native language which I assume is

> English. If you were able to read Greek, you would see that most of

> the time proper names are prefaced with the indefinite article "the" as

> in "the Peter" or "the Joshua". The epistle of Peter is an exception

> to this as are some of the Pauline epistles.

 

So you are saying that we really should call him 'Joshua' throughout the new

testament (or Jesus throuhgout the old). that's fine. which name is

actually used make little difference .. the bards words about roses springs

to mind

 

That really says nothing to you claim that the man called Jesus/Joshua that

was crucified and rose from the dead in Paul's eplistles is not the same man

Jesus/Joshua in the Gospels who was crucified and raised from the dead in

the gospels. It certainly seems like they are talking about the same man,

with the same events and the same name.

> Why do you continue to use the name Jesus for the NT character and

> Joshua for the OT one?

 

So that people who read my replies know who I'm talking about.

> You are being dishonest.

 

No .. I'm not dishonest at all. If I am quoting bible verse from the NT,

then I have to quote them .. and they use the word 'Jesus' for the

Jesus/Joshua name in Greek (not that Jesus was a Greek name).

> Read what Paul writes. He is not speaking of a human.

 

He claims to be

> His theology and "good news" revolves around a spiritual

> event which takes place in the 7th heaven, the lowest of the heavens

 

Where did you get that from? Ceratinly in the translated versnios Paul

talks about a man called Jesus (Joshua if you prefer) who was crucified and

rose again. He makes little reference that I remember reading about who

crucified him. Can you cite some verses where he talks about who crucifies

Jesus/Joshua?

 

Do you have links that I can read about the original Greek version and this

seventh heaven and angels/demons.

>>> Why is it so difficult for you

>>> to understand the plain words the scribes

>>> made Paul utter about hearing

>>> nothing about Jesus or the Christology from any man?

>> Which words are they?

 

Aha .. so you are talking about Pual's claim that his initial knowledge was

from the his vision of Jesus. But he then goes on to say he later met Peter

and James.

 

What paul is doing there is claiming how what he teaches has authority

because it was revealed directly to him by God. That would explain why Paul

mentions nothing of Jesus life, other than his crucifixion, because he did

not know it .. only what he may have heard from the other apostles.

[Guest Jeckyl]

"Bible Believer" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message

news:i8jpt2lc5qcth7gapa0covc9kfqtrnjpmh@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:37:28 +1100, "Jeckyl"

>>>>My explanation is that what Paul was writing about did not

>>>>need a description of Jesus or his life. Further, he had no

>>>>first-hand knowledge of Jesus (only what he heard from disciples).

>>> Galatians 1:1-2:10

>>Of what relevance is that long bible citation .. you've quoted it but not

>>said why .. what point atre you trying to make thru it .. is it supporting

>>what I said or disagreeing with it?

>

> If you would have bothered to read it, you would see

> what Paul said and his statement completely disagrees

> with yours. But what do you care about truth?

 

I did .. it seems to be totally agreeing with what I said. That's why I was

wondering why you'd posted it.

 

The Paul had no first-hand knowledge of Jesus .. his teachings were based on

his vision. The only knowledge he would have had about Jesus was from his

meetings with other aposltes, and from what he would have heard during his

days of persecuting the church.

 

Paul makes no claim that he has no knowledge of Jesus at all, and that he

had never spoken to any may about it. He is talking about the story he was

preaching of Jesus being cruscified, raised and being son of God .. that

that story came directly from his vision from God, and that that is the

authority by which he preached it and the reason why it can be believed.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:32:28 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>news:t4iot2tu942uo7aistec3oatngo3ij4hbn@4ax.com...

>

>Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an

>immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:

>>>>

>Noone describes Jesus physical appearance. The

>Gospels talk of what he did during his live, where he went, what he said,

>what he did.

>Paul only talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he

>interpreted it. He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not

>relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it was only those

>non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his letters (as that

>may have been what his followers were having trouble with most).

 

Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the reason he

said nothing about it.

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:42mpt25kqufbge879goau8a0fh488hou81@4ax.com...

>>Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an

>>immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:

>>>>>

>>Noone describes Jesus physical appearance. The

>>Gospels talk of what he did during his live, where he went, what he said,

>>what he did.

>>Paul only talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he

>>interpreted it. He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not

>>relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it was only those

>>non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his letters (as that

>>may have been what his followers were having trouble with most).

> Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the reason

> he said nothing about it.

 

Pauls epistles would be the evidence for what I'm saying.

 

He claims he has no first-hand knowledge of jesus and that what he preached

came only from the vision. He did not need to anything about Jesus life

outside that for that. His letters addressed concerns for the various

communities he was writing to. He addressed those issue without the need

for a reference to Jesus outside of his own vision (which is what he claims

gave him authority as an apostle).

 

What exactly is it in what I wrote that you take issue with?

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:05:33 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>news:42mpt25kqufbge879goau8a0fh488hou81@4ax.com...

>>>Here is my corrected (for typos) and slightly expanded explanation from an

>>>immediately subsequent post: Please refer to that one:

>>>>>>

>>>Noone describes Jesus physical appearance. The

>>>Gospels talk of what he did during his live, where he went, what he said,

>>>what he did.

>>>Paul only talks of the Jesus he knows from his vision, and how he

>>>interpreted it. He says little about Jesus as a person because it was not

>>>relevant to what he was teaching. Perhaps also it was only those

>>>non-worldly issues that needed to be talked about in his letters (as that

>>>may have been what his followers were having trouble with most).

>> Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that this is the reason

>> he said nothing about it.

>

>Pauls epistles would be the evidence for what I'm saying.

 

Oh, the absence of a mention suddenly becomes "evidence" for it?

>He claims he has no first-hand knowledge of jesus and that what he preached

>came only from the vision. He did not need to anything about Jesus life

>outside that for that. His letters addressed concerns for the various

>communities he was writing to. He addressed those issue without the need

>for a reference to Jesus outside of his own vision (which is what he claims

>gave him authority as an apostle).

 

Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your

rationalisations.

>What exactly is it in what I wrote that you take issue with?

 

Sigh.

 

You're trying to generate information where there isn't any.

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

> regardless of all that .. the claim that the Quran does contain

> the word Christ or Messiah for Jesus is incorrect

>

> (except in the pedantic sense that those are English words

> and the Quran is in Arabic .. but in that sense you can

> therefore claim that 'christ' does not appear in the bible because it is

> an English word).

 

I did not mean it in that way, and you know it. So why do you even bring it

up.

 

However, keep in mind that Jesus only claimed to be the Messiah, i.e. King

of the Jews. He did not claim to be the Christ, i.e. the Son of God.

 

--Wax

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:83opt29pt19u4jvgvt4ukevuh8tdbsue9q@4ax.com...

> Again, you're inventing things which aren't there, to "support" your

> rationalisations.

 

No .. its there is the epistles .. I'm not inventing things to back up my

explanation. I am drawing plausible conclusions from what is said.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:21:21 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

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

>> regardless of all that .. the claim that the Quran does contain

>> the word Christ or Messiah for Jesus is incorrect

>>

>> (except in the pedantic sense that those are English words

>> and the Quran is in Arabic .. but in that sense you can

>> therefore claim that 'christ' does not appear in the bible because it is

>> an English word).

>

>I did not mean it in that way, and you know it. So why do you even bring it

>up.

>

>However, keep in mind that Jesus only claimed to be the Messiah, i.e. King

>of the Jews. He did not claim to be the Christ, i.e. the Son of God.

 

Which is why we need to know exactly what the word they used, means to

Muslims both today and the time the Koran was written, about 600 years

after the alleged events.

 

What _their_ POV is/was, not ours.

 

Do we know much of the religious beliefs in the Arabian Peninsula

prior to Mohammed? We need the meaning of the word used in that

context.

 

Academically, I mean.

 

The Muslims say it was pagan, polytheistic and barbaric.

>--Wax

>