Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:01:38 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>news:ccmst25j0c9fiec243dbgopj32nc3o2rjb@4ax.com...

>

>> He also thinks that saying there is no reason to think something, is

>> the same as thinking the opposite.

>

>No .. I don't. That is the opposite of what I say.

 

That's what you have been doing with what I have told you.

>> That's the only reason I can come up with, for his repeatedly twisting

>> what I say into the opposite of what he says.

>

>Funny.. that's what I thought you were doing.

 

Bullshit.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:24:56 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.

>>

>> And your evidence for these so far baseless assertions, is?

>

>The existence of the New Testament itself. No proof, but evidence.

 

Sigh.

 

Are the Hindu scriptures evidence for Krishna?

 

The NT is a book of religious propaganda, heavily edited over time and

describes religious beliefs including impossibilities and things that

never happened.

 

Which is why claimed events need the corroboration which simply isn't

there.

>It has been shown that many legendary heroes, such as Ulysses and King

>Author, were based upon real people. Therefore it does not make sense for

>you to claim that Jesus could not have existed simply because there is no

>proof.

 

WHERE DO I DO THAT?

 

Feel free to demonstrate that the Jesus of the NT is based on a real

person.

 

Demonstrate not rationalise.

 

I point out the lack of evidence, and that Paul's mentions were

written before the gospels, describing an ethereal, spiritual Christ.

He knows nothing of the Jesus of the gospels.

 

So it is both unjustified and ass-backwards to claim that Paul

"changed the emphasis from a human Jesus" when this is the first

mention.

 

The gospels came later, and are a mish mash of earlier myths and

legends retold about a Jesus hero-figure, laced with events that never

happened, places that didn't exist at the time, etc. These myths and

legends are the only "mention" of a human Jesus".

 

Hint: ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR AN

HISTORICAL JESUS. PAUL'S WRITINGS DESCRIBE A SPIRITUAL, ETHEREAL ONE.

 

{lease learn the difference between that and your straw man.

>If you do not accept even the possibility that Christ was based upon a

 

If you can't stop misrepresenting what you have been told....

>historical person, then you should at least suggest another explanation for

>the existence of the gospels and letters.

 

Not my problem. It's somebody else's religion. That's all.

 

Feel free to demonstrate, not rationalise, that there was an

historical Jesus instead of shifting the burden and inventing straw

men.

..

 

 

 

>--Wax

>

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:19:27 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message

>news:ujvst25l8hj1jpfv53j7kq15pd183vk16u@4ax.com...

>

>>>>I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical evidence

>>>>for

>>>>it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds with many of the events

>>>>in

>>>>the gospels, and so I reject those. However, I've yet to see any that

>>>>would

>>>>mean that Jesus did not exist at all.

>>>Sigh.

>> He has yet to see any that would mean that Sherlock Holmes did not

>> exists at all!

>

>Poor example .. we have evidence that Sherlock Holmes was a ficitonal

>character. There are no serious works claiming the Holmes was real.

>

>> He is tackling it completely arse backwards.

>

>Not at all. I make no claim that Jesus existed, only that it is possible.

 

With no justification.

>I am simply open to the possibility; given that there is no evidence to the

>contrary, and given that assumption based on Jesus existing do not create

>any contradictions with existing evidence.

 

It doesn't need "evidence to the contrary". It needs evidence for the

positive BEFORE using it as a starting point.

> If you claim someone could not

>possibly exist because we have no evidence that they did, then you have to

>reject the existence of the bulk of humanity

 

And you still pretend you don't invent things that weren't said.

[Guest weatherwax]

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

> "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.

>>>

>>> And your evidence for these so far baseless assertions, is?

>>

>>The existence of the New Testament itself. No proof, but

>> evidence.

>

> Sigh.

 

That response shows why it is so difficult to discuss things with you.

 

< CLIP >

> Not my problem. It's somebody else's religion. That's all.

 

It must be a problem to you. You are dogmatic about it and continue to

post your opinion. If all you have to say is, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR AN

HISTORICAL JESUS." Then you have said it. There is no reason for you to

keep posting.

 

--Wax

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:47:27 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

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

>> "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.

>>>>

>>>> And your evidence for these so far baseless assertions, is?

>>>

>>>The existence of the New Testament itself. No proof, but

>>> evidence.

>>

>> Sigh.

>

>That response shows why it is so difficult to discuss things with you.

 

You know why the NT isn't evidence for the things it contains.

 

And why it needs the very corroboration which you can't provide.

 

Which is why it is difficult to discuss things with YOU, hypocrite.

>< CLIP >

>> Not my problem. It's somebody else's religion. That's all.

>

>It must be a problem to you. You are dogmatic about it and continue to

 

Liar.

>post your opinion. If all you have to say is, "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR AN

>HISTORICAL JESUS." Then you have said it. There is no reason for you to

>keep posting.

 

There isn't. Which is why your "suggestions" are baseless.

 

Keep making them and this will be pointed out again.

 

But this isn't the same as the straw man opposite of your beliefs that

you attribute to me.

>--Wax

>

[Guest weatherwax]

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote

> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote

>>>>I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical

>>>> evidence for it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds with

>>>> many of the events in the gospels, and so I reject those.

>>>> However, I've yet to see any that would mean that Jesus did not exist

>>>> at all.

>>>Sigh.

>> He has yet to see any that would mean that Sherlock Holmes did not exists

>> at all!

>

> Poor example .. we have evidence that Sherlock Holmes was a ficitonal

> character. There are no serious works claiming the

> Holmes was real.

>

>> He is tackling it completely arse backwards.

>

> Not at all. I make no claim that Jesus existed, only that it is possible.

>

> I am simply open to the possibility; given that there is no evidence

> to the contrary, and given that assumption based on Jesus existing

> do not create any contradictions with existing evidence. If you claim

> someone could not possibly exist because we have no

> evidence that they did, then you have to reject the existence of the

> bulk of humanity

 

Jeckyl. In order to find out where Michael Gray was coming from, I looked

up his past posts going back to October. So far they are almost all short

or one line insults, often vulgar, with nothing to contribute. For example,

here are his total unedited contributions on alt.bible between 11:5:2006 to

11:8:2006:

 

news:gb7rk2p2v1n33q62dskbcenm7bpa0hqrsq@4ax.com...

> All this rubbish about the earth being round is NUTS!

 

news:3kosk2liml25igohilig5chfs7m948fuad@4ax.com...

> Have you checked in with the ward nurse for your next dose of

> anti-psychotic medication?

 

news:3i0uk29tvqbktok5aoe5lfe54vnt79i4gm@4ax.com...

> If that is not a joke of some sort, then you are barking mad.

> Completely bonkeroony.

> Totally tonto.

> Off your chump.

> Away with the fairies.

> Christian.

> Not playing with a full deck.

 

news:qo0uk25qt2r8k1r8c8dnhnupihkb28nfi6@4ax.com...

>>Maybe it is elephants all the way down.

>

> Last I heard, it was Turquoise.

 

news:onevk2pket8sb4ssluuet3spspb1g3gebr@4ax.com...

> Profound mental illness is NOT a joke, Robyn.

 

news:8bfvk25jbinjcpsg7b38bm87sk6414b128@4ax.com...

> Gravity is just a theory, too.

>

> But the Christian fuckwits like "Godspeed" who prostitute science when it

> suits them, and then lie thorough their stinking

> teeth about it when it suits them, don't recognize any form of

> logic or reality for that matter. The universe would be much improved

> without these dangerous frauds.

 

news:e1c0l29vgl8a804lh45v6n3q9ptvvm7mnh@4ax.com...

>>But it's not nice to point out to 3 whole newsgroups that they're all

>>mentally ill, Michael.

>

> No, they might demand that they have a say in running the world.

> Then where would we be?

 

news:u2r1l2hkmcn74h6aa615r2a1gutautuod5@4ax.com...

> "marcinmnd" appears to be that very thing.

> that genuinely stupid that he thinks that argumentum ad populum

> constitutes science.

 

news:9hs1l2hskqovt3qvjgi3g03dm78dhcpf63@4ax.com...

> It's not because we have advanced, but more that we are being

> retarded, dragged back to the middle-ages.

> Dragged back to ignorant superstition, deliberately engineered

> for the short term comfort and power of a tiny minority of humans.

 

news:nls1l2td8qmdbqpvtog8m4tiflk00qdshp@4ax.com...

> Hint: Read Terry Pratchett.

 

news:4b73l2h1050qprtbps56c267vb1m1ip5oi@4ax.com...

> This appears to be the norm in the retarded "imitation scholar"

> circles that this anonymous coward thrashes about in.

> None of them is able to comprehend simple modern English,

> let alone be able to read ancient tongues.

>

> This cretinous jerk's purposeful ignorance has gone beyond

> the merely tedious, and has reached the downright annoying,

> (and well on it's way to the positively criminal).

 

news:eq73l2pdv7orv9v3ekckossbaua7t55jq3@4ax.com...

> I think that Isaac Newton might take offense to that sideways

> slight! With the obvious difference that Newton has been

> demonstrated to have been correct, time and time again.

 

news:1083l2duvkqjql01ond7p7jb5frmipdcjr@4ax.com...

> Including acceptance of outright fraudulent fabrication on

> his behalf. His meme made him do it!

 

news:gnb3l21jdsqibflqhdmv7khs8dp5crcpb4@4ax.com...

>>I've probably read what you're referring to. Memory is the

>>second thing to go.

>

> Yeah, I forgot that for a minute there.

 

news:jpb3l21mec5t991ji1hsccuprdqf1n0ekc@4ax.com...

> So do we.

> So does Ted Haggard.

 

news:kkc3l2h096lo9ljjge5a7lnoeiedmqugrl@4ax.com...

>>Life requires death.

>

> Death requires scythe-tithes.

 

news:glc3l295n25p1q5bpo1h124oh75sbvo2vg@4ax.com...

> Not Big Janice from the co-op, it wouldn't.

 

news:u9l4l2hm0cnvt16k36hgkdrdkkdv0pmpq7@4ax.com...

> Did you see where I put my keys?

> I had them only a minute ago.

> And I can find my cup of tea either.

 

news:ljl4l2t2b8pq3jd3tmhuv2jjl5bol1m0v0@4ax.com...

> Liar.

 

It is a waste of time to discuss anything with Michael Gray.

 

--Wax

[Guest Darrell Stec]

After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 23 February 2007 1:30 pm

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

>

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

>> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote

>>>>>I've said consistently that there is no verifiable historical

>>>>> evidence for it. I've seen plenty of evidence that is at odds

>>>>> with many of the events in the gospels, and so I reject those.

>>>>> However, I've yet to see any that would mean that Jesus did not

>>>>> exist at all.

>>>>Sigh.

>>> He has yet to see any that would mean that Sherlock Holmes did not

>>> exists at all!

>>

>> Poor example .. we have evidence that Sherlock Holmes was a ficitonal

>> character. There are no serious works claiming the

>> Holmes was real.

>>

>>> He is tackling it completely arse backwards.

>>

>> Not at all. I make no claim that Jesus existed, only that it is

>> possible.

>>

>> I am simply open to the possibility; given that there is no evidence

>> to the contrary, and given that assumption based on Jesus existing

>> do not create any contradictions with existing evidence. If you

>> claim someone could not possibly exist because we have no

>> evidence that they did, then you have to reject the existence of the

>> bulk of humanity

>

> Jeckyl. In order to find out where Michael Gray was coming from, I

> looked

> up his past posts going back to October. So far they are almost all

> short

> or one line insults, often vulgar, with nothing to contribute. For

> example, here are his total unedited contributions on alt.bible

> between 11:5:2006 to 11:8:2006:

>

> news:gb7rk2p2v1n33q62dskbcenm7bpa0hqrsq@4ax.com...

>> All this rubbish about the earth being round is NUTS!

>

> news:3kosk2liml25igohilig5chfs7m948fuad@4ax.com...

>> Have you checked in with the ward nurse for your next dose of

>> anti-psychotic medication?

>

> news:3i0uk29tvqbktok5aoe5lfe54vnt79i4gm@4ax.com...

>> If that is not a joke of some sort, then you are barking mad.

>> Completely bonkeroony.

>> Totally tonto.

>> Off your chump.

>> Away with the fairies.

>> Christian.

>> Not playing with a full deck.

>

> news:qo0uk25qt2r8k1r8c8dnhnupihkb28nfi6@4ax.com...

>>>Maybe it is elephants all the way down.

>>

>> Last I heard, it was Turquoise.

>

> news:onevk2pket8sb4ssluuet3spspb1g3gebr@4ax.com...

>> Profound mental illness is NOT a joke, Robyn.

>

> news:8bfvk25jbinjcpsg7b38bm87sk6414b128@4ax.com...

>> Gravity is just a theory, too.

>>

>> But the Christian fuckwits like "Godspeed" who prostitute science

>> when it suits them, and then lie thorough their stinking

>> teeth about it when it suits them, don't recognize any form of

>> logic or reality for that matter. The universe would be much

>> improved without these dangerous frauds.

>

> news:e1c0l29vgl8a804lh45v6n3q9ptvvm7mnh@4ax.com...

>>>But it's not nice to point out to 3 whole newsgroups that they're all

>>>mentally ill, Michael.

>>

>> No, they might demand that they have a say in running the world.

>> Then where would we be?

>

> news:u2r1l2hkmcn74h6aa615r2a1gutautuod5@4ax.com...

>> "marcinmnd" appears to be that very thing.

>> that genuinely stupid that he thinks that argumentum ad populum

>> constitutes science.

>

> news:9hs1l2hskqovt3qvjgi3g03dm78dhcpf63@4ax.com...

>> It's not because we have advanced, but more that we are being

>> retarded, dragged back to the middle-ages.

>> Dragged back to ignorant superstition, deliberately engineered

>> for the short term comfort and power of a tiny minority of humans.

>

> news:nls1l2td8qmdbqpvtog8m4tiflk00qdshp@4ax.com...

>> Hint: Read Terry Pratchett.

>

> news:4b73l2h1050qprtbps56c267vb1m1ip5oi@4ax.com...

>> This appears to be the norm in the retarded "imitation scholar"

>> circles that this anonymous coward thrashes about in.

>> None of them is able to comprehend simple modern English,

>> let alone be able to read ancient tongues.

>>

>> This cretinous jerk's purposeful ignorance has gone beyond

>> the merely tedious, and has reached the downright annoying,

>> (and well on it's way to the positively criminal).

>

> news:eq73l2pdv7orv9v3ekckossbaua7t55jq3@4ax.com...

>> I think that Isaac Newton might take offense to that sideways

>> slight! With the obvious difference that Newton has been

>> demonstrated to have been correct, time and time again.

>

> news:1083l2duvkqjql01ond7p7jb5frmipdcjr@4ax.com...

>> Including acceptance of outright fraudulent fabrication on

>> his behalf. His meme made him do it!

>

> news:gnb3l21jdsqibflqhdmv7khs8dp5crcpb4@4ax.com...

>>>I've probably read what you're referring to. Memory is the

>>>second thing to go.

>>

>> Yeah, I forgot that for a minute there.

>

> news:jpb3l21mec5t991ji1hsccuprdqf1n0ekc@4ax.com...

>> So do we.

>> So does Ted Haggard.

>

> news:kkc3l2h096lo9ljjge5a7lnoeiedmqugrl@4ax.com...

>>>Life requires death.

>>

>> Death requires scythe-tithes.

>

> news:glc3l295n25p1q5bpo1h124oh75sbvo2vg@4ax.com...

>> Not Big Janice from the co-op, it wouldn't.

>

> news:u9l4l2hm0cnvt16k36hgkdrdkkdv0pmpq7@4ax.com...

>> Did you see where I put my keys?

>> I had them only a minute ago.

>> And I can find my cup of tea either.

>

> news:ljl4l2t2b8pq3jd3tmhuv2jjl5bol1m0v0@4ax.com...

>> Liar.

>

> It is a waste of time to discuss anything with Michael Gray.

>

 

That is true in your case. You do not have the education to even begin

to understand his arguments. You cannot read the scripture in the

early languages as he can. If you were a male, you would be a eunuch

when it comes to biblical scholarship. You lack the basic equipment to

engage in the activity.

> --Wax

 

--

Later,

Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

 

Webpage Sorcery

http://webpagesorcery.com

We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

[Guest Jeckyl]

>>I'm not trying to generate anything. All I am saying is IF (see that ..

>>IF)

>>the Gospels were written early enough to have been written by people

>>claming

>>to know Jesus first hand, then that would remove SOME (see the .. SOME) of

>>the objections to them being credible historical evidence. I did not say

>>the were credible evidence, nor that an earlier date would make them

>>credible.

>

> Yes you are, because there is no information from which to derive your

> suggestions. They are plucked out of nothing.

 

I am not claiming the gospels are completely true, or that Jesus definitely

existed. Get over it.

[Guest Jeckyl]

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

news:vtntt2l7ts2ia5k1jmu4b44tp50eu83q4t@4ax.com...

>> If

>> you claim someone could not

>>possibly exist because we have no evidence that they did, then you have to

>>reject the existence of the bulk of humanity

> And you still pretend you don't invent things that weren't said.

 

Its just a logical conclusion from your attitude that unless there is proof

that someone exists, then you have to reject any possibility of them

existing, and not even look at hypothetically.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:41:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>>>I'm not trying to generate anything. All I am saying is IF (see that ..

>>>IF)

>>>the Gospels were written early enough to have been written by people

>>>claming

>>>to know Jesus first hand, then that would remove SOME (see the .. SOME) of

>>>the objections to them being credible historical evidence. I did not say

>>>the were credible evidence, nor that an earlier date would make them

>>>credible.

>>

>> Yes you are, because there is no information from which to derive your

>> suggestions. They are plucked out of nothing.

>

>I am not claiming the gospels are completely true, or that Jesus definitely

>existed. Get over it.

 

Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed the emphasis

from a human Jesus to a sp ritual one?

 

Who still doesn't seem to understand that there is no information

prior to Paul's writings from which to make that determination?

 

Whip hides his presumptions behind "if" that he doesn't satisfy, and

subsequently adds more "ifs".

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:44:53 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

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

>news:vtntt2l7ts2ia5k1jmu4b44tp50eu83q4t@4ax.com...

>>> If

>>> you claim someone could not

>>>possibly exist because we have no evidence that they did, then you have to

>>>reject the existence of the bulk of humanity

>> And you still pretend you don't invent things that weren't said.

>

>Its just a logical conclusion from your attitude that unless there is proof

>that someone exists, then you have to reject any possibility of them

>existing, and not even look at hypothetically.

 

Learn the difference between having zero reason to think something,

and thinking the opposite.

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:12:01 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <8mh0u2hcstok5uo4ud74v2ap86v2f15vru@4ax.com>

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:41:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>wrote:

>

>>>>I'm not trying to generate anything. All I am saying is IF (see that ..

>>>>IF)

>>>>the Gospels were written early enough to have been written by people

>>>>claming

>>>>to know Jesus first hand, then that would remove SOME (see the .. SOME) of

>>>>the objections to them being credible historical evidence. I did not say

>>>>the were credible evidence, nor that an earlier date would make them

>>>>credible.

>>>

>>> Yes you are, because there is no information from which to derive your

>>> suggestions. They are plucked out of nothing.

>>

>>I am not claiming the gospels are completely true, or that Jesus definitely

>>existed. Get over it.

>

>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed the emphasis

>from a human Jesus to a sp ritual one?

>

>Who still doesn't seem to understand that there is no information

>prior to Paul's writings from which to make that determination?

>

>Whip hides his presumptions behind "if" that he doesn't satisfy, and

>subsequently adds more "ifs".

 

It is known as the truly elementary logical error of "ad hoc

rationalization".

 

(But one amongst the litany of fallacies that he deigns to commit, and

ignore.)

 

Methinks that, despite his vehement protestations to the contrary, he

made up his mind from the very beginning as to what the target

conclusion would be, and protests vigorously when his totally

unsupported imagings are questioned.

 

--

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:32:20 +1030, Michael Gray

<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:12:01 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

><calee@optonline.net> wrote:

> - Refer: <8mh0u2hcstok5uo4ud74v2ap86v2f15vru@4ax.com>

>>On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:41:45 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>>>I'm not trying to generate anything. All I am saying is IF (see that ..

>>>>>IF)

>>>>>the Gospels were written early enough to have been written by people

>>>>>claming

>>>>>to know Jesus first hand, then that would remove SOME (see the .. SOME) of

>>>>>the objections to them being credible historical evidence. I did not say

>>>>>the were credible evidence, nor that an earlier date would make them

>>>>>credible.

>>>>

>>>> Yes you are, because there is no information from which to derive your

>>>> suggestions. They are plucked out of nothing.

>>>

>>>I am not claiming the gospels are completely true, or that Jesus definitely

>>>existed. Get over it.

 

Which doesn't address what I wrote.

>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed the emphasis

>>from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?

 

This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any

justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the

Gospels.

 

For him to have something to change the emphasis of, he would have had

previously available knowledge, which he doesn't have.

 

In the Christian canon this knowledge would come from the Gospels -

which were written later.

>>Who still doesn't seem to understand that there is no information

>>prior to Paul's writings from which to make that determination?

>>

>>Who hides his presumptions behind "if" that he doesn't satisfy, and

>>subsequently adds more "ifs".

>

>It is known as the truly elementary logical error of "ad hoc

>rationalization".

 

I know.

 

But instead of addressing the point he answers things I didn't say and

accuses me of things I'm not. In another sub-thread he sounds almost

like Chris Wilson with "if you are so certain he didn't exist there is

no point in discussing it".

 

Which again is not what I said. I'm merely pointing out the flaws in

his "suggestion".

 

Just that there is no information to make the determination he

attempts to rationalise.

 

I'm not a believer. I have no stake in it. I am simply treating what

they tell me as an exercise in information theory and logic.

 

In spite of what he pretends I don't have to come up with a

counter-theory about something I would never give a thought to if its

believers had the sense to keep it where it is appropriate.

>(But one amongst the litany of fallacies that he deigns to commit, and

>ignore.)

>

>Methinks that, despite his vehement protestations to the contrary, he

>made up his mind from the very beginning as to what the target

>conclusion would be, and protests vigorously when his totally

>unsupported imagings are questioned.

 

I think so too.

 

But there is nothing wrong with that if you can get there logically

and inescapably.

 

But you don't announce it before doing that.

 

If you start off with "what if XXX then it could be YYY" then you have

to prove both XXX and YYY.

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:32:26 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <n1l1u2laoe95oaio0m1s38v5kacnmqhnoe@4ax.com>

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:32:20 +1030, Michael Gray

><mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

 

:

>>Methinks that, despite his vehement protestations to the contrary, he

>>made up his mind from the very beginning as to what the target

>>conclusion would be, and protests vigorously when his totally

>>unsupported imagings are questioned.

>

>I think so too.

>

>But there is nothing wrong with that if you can get there logically

>and inescapably.

>

>But you don't announce it before doing that.

 

I feel that, for the purposes of emphasis and rhetoric, it IS

legitimate to announce one's conclusions, to get the requisite

attention, and then present the deductive trail that led you to that

inescapable conclusion, much as might be the style of prosecution in a

criminal court case.

State your conclusion first, then establish it's inevitability by

presenting a trail of evidence and substantiated fact, working

backward through time.

 

Except that he entirely misses the vital second element of the

rhetorical formula, as he doesn't possess even an inkling of it.

>If you start off with "what if XXX then it could be YYY" then you have

>to prove both XXX and YYY.

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

The monomaniac is another duplicitous mountebank, as far as I can

determine.

 

--

[Guest Jeckyl]

Lets go back in the thread...

 

There was a discussion between codebreaker and libertarius who had two

opposing views by about what Paul was preaching. libertarius was claiming

Paul invented a Christ and that was different to what was in the gospels;

and codebreaker was saying that the Jesus Paul spoke of was the very same as

the one in the gospels.

 

codebreaker was restating libertarius statements about Paul inventing Christ

and that that was nonsense and so libertarius had no grounds for saying Paul

was preaching a different Jesus.

 

I replies to back up Libertatius claims that Paul was preaching something

different; by saying that even if one disputes that Paul invented Christ,

then at the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from

being an earthly man into be a spiritual being. ie The even if you start

from an incorrect assumption about Jesus existing, that you still cannot

claim Paul was preaching the same as the Gospels.

 

Then Christopher comes in here and starts attacking me over it.

 

Frankly, he just took things out of context and appears to have thought it

would be a fun to have a go at me with the 'back it up with proof' game

(given that there is so little proof of anything from those times .. only

large holes where proof should be.

 

Really .. its was just childish. Get over it.

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:33:31 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com>

wrote:

>Lets go back in the thread...

>

>There was a discussion between codebreaker and libertarius who had two

>opposing views by about what Paul was preaching. libertarius was claiming

>Paul invented a Christ and that was different to what was in the gospels;

>and codebreaker was saying that the Jesus Paul spoke of was the very same as

>the one in the gospels.

>

>codebreaker was restating libertarius statements about Paul inventing Christ

>and that that was nonsense and so libertarius had no grounds for saying Paul

>was preaching a different Jesus.

>

>I replies to back up Libertatius claims that Paul was preaching something

>different; by saying that even if one disputes that Paul invented Christ,

>then at the very least he dramatically changed the emphasis on Jesus from

>being an earthly man into be a spiritual being. ie The even if you start

 

Here's what you actually said, in a sentence which stood on its own

between two different quoted lines:

 

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

being an earthly man into be a spiritual being."

 

Which does not have the qualifiers you are now adding.

 

But even your new version contains obvious errors - Whether or not

Paul invented Christ you do not have the information to determine that

he changed the emphasis.

 

You do not know what they believed prior to Paul, let alone in an

earthly being.

 

The only writings that describe an earthly man are the gospels which

were written later, and are unreliable because what they describe is a

re-telling of stories of other hero figures, in an historical scenario

which gets known historical facts wrong.

>from an incorrect assumption about Jesus existing, that you still cannot

>claim Paul was preaching the same as the Gospels.

>

>Then Christopher comes in here and starts attacking me over it.

 

No. I pointed out that there was no justification for what I was

replying to.

>Frankly, he just took things out of context and appears to have thought it

>would be a fun to have a go at me with the 'back it up with proof' game

>(given that there is so little proof of anything from those times .. only

>large holes where proof should be.

 

Bullshit. Stop lying by inventing motives which aren't there.

>Really .. its was just childish. Get over it.

 

Deliberate nastiness.

[Guest weatherwax]

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

>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed

>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?

>

> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any

> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the

> Gospels.

 

That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact that you are

right. You are 100% right. You have a right to get angry because anybody

who disagrees with you is stupid, and you can't stand stupidy.

 

I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid. I tried to

give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based upon an

actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't respond to that.

 

--Wax

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:28:24 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

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

>

>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed

>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?

>>

>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any

>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the

>> Gospels.

>

>That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact that you are

>right. You are 100% right. You have a right to get angry because anybody

>who disagrees with you is stupid, and you can't stand stupidy.

 

You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather

than respond properly.

>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid. I tried to

 

Idiot.

>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based upon an

>actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't respond to that.

 

By generating information where there was none.

 

"Sigh" is the only possible response.

>--Wax

>

>

[Guest Michael Gray]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:27:43 -0500, Christopher A.Lee

<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

- Refer: <dge2u21rnesti8ttv1hddibn04526r92la@4ax.com>

>On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:28:24 GMT, "weatherwax"

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

>

>>

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

>>

>>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed

>>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?

>>>

>>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any

>>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of the

>>> Gospels.

>>

>>That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact that you are

>>right. You are 100% right. You have a right to get angry because anybody

>>who disagrees with you is stupid, and you can't stand stupidy.

>

>You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather

>than respond properly.

>

>>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid. I tried to

>

>Idiot.

>

>>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based upon an

>>actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't respond to that.

>

>By generating information where there was none.

>

>"Sigh" is the only possible response.

 

"Plonk" is another one.

 

--

[Guest weatherwax]

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

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

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

>>

>>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed

>>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?

>>>

>>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any

>>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of

>>> the Gospels.

>>

>> That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact

>> that you are right. You are 100% right. You have a right to

>> get angry because anybody who disagrees with you is stupid,

>> and you can't stand stupidy.

>

> You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather

> than respond properly.

>

>>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid.

>>I tried to

>

> Idiot.

>

>>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based

>>upon an actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't

>> respond to that.

>

> By generating information where there was none.

>

> "Sigh" is the only possible response.

 

You are absolutely right again. Besides being stupid, I'm a liar.

 

It is also a lie that in six days (2/20/2007-2/25/2007) you have posted 31

replies to Jeckyl in this topic. If that was true, it would look like an

obsession. And of course we know that it was not you who has been making

the attacks and accusations. And you always respond properly, just like

your friend Michael Gray.

 

--Wax

[Guest Christopher A.Lee]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:22:17 GMT, "weatherwax"

<weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>

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

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

>

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

>>>

>>>>>>Was it some other Jeckyl who claimed that Paul changed

>>>>>> the emphasis from a human Jesus to a spiritual one?

>>>>

>>>> This is what got me going. It is plucked out thin air without any

>>>> justification because Paul shows no knowledge of the Jesus of

>>>> the Gospels.

>>>

>>> That is not what got you going. What got you going is the fact

>>> that you are right. You are 100% right. You have a right to

>>> get angry because anybody who disagrees with you is stupid,

>>> and you can't stand stupidy.

>>

>> You are a liar and an idiot, who resorts to personal slanders rather

>> than respond properly.

>>

>>>I disagree with you, but that doesn't matter because I'm stupid.

>>>I tried to

>>

>> Idiot.

>>

>>>give you some of the reasons I think that the Gospels are based

>>>upon an actural person, but your response was, "sigh". I can't

>>> respond to that.

>>

>> By generating information where there was none.

 

At best it is rationalisation rather than conclusion.

 

There is no corroboration for any of the events in a book which

re-tells myths and legends of earlier heroes in th econtext of 1st

century Judea, but gets basic geography and chronology wrong.

 

Which is why it needs the independent corroboration that has not been

forthcoming.

 

Which is why it is discounted by anybody looking at it objectively.

>> "Sigh" is the only possible response.

>

>You are absolutely right again. Besides being stupid, I'm a liar.

>

>It is also a lie that in six days (2/20/2007-2/25/2007) you have posted 31

>replies to Jeckyl in this topic. If that was true, it would look like an

>obsession. And of course we know that it was not you who has been making

>the attacks and accusations. And you always respond properly, just like

>your friend Michael Gray.

 

No. I have been pointing out his logic errors and rather than respond

he has been attacking. Just as you are.

 

Why don't you address the responses you got showing you the logic and

other errors in what you post, properly? Instead of whining?

>--Wax

>

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 21, 1:04 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@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).

 

 

You keep guessing that Messiah and Christ are too different words

but this is unsuported, not by History nor a sound Exegesis not even

by Theology

or sociology.

Messiah is the Hebraic transliteration for the Greek word Christ. It

has been

translated this way since the down of Christianity. Even Islam which

seems to be defending the Law of Moses in opposition to Paul

translates it as Christ which

is Al-Messih in Arabic. Unless you acknowledge that you will failed

to understand the History of Christianity in both its versions,

the New and the Old Covenants.

There is no Prophet like Moses in Deut 18:14-19 but the Messiah

the only prophet who is the Mediator a NEW COVENANT like

the Old Covenant that Moses Mediated.

"The Lord your God will raise for you the Messiah, the Mediator

of a New Covenant like the Covenant you Moses MEDIATED." Paraphrase

Deut 18:14-19

We walk in the TRUTH NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH.

 

JESUS IS THE MESSIAH

 

 

 

>

> > 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 21, 12:51 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@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.

 

All the History of Monotheiem agrees with me

 

> 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").

 

 

This not supported by the Torah. It is just speculation.

There is but one Gospel, the Good New to the Gentile also

which both Covenants, the Old and the New are quarelling over.

Paul brialliantly explained the New Covenant and the Gospel

in relation to the Gentile World, The Pharisees did brilliantly

the same by explaning the Old Covenant in relation to the Semitic

world. Now Acts 15 should make sense to you If you have a brain.

 

ONE GOSPEL, TWO QUARELLING COVENANTS

 

>

> > 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 codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Mar 3, 9:50 am, "codebrea...@bigsecret.com"

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

> On Feb 21, 12:51 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

> wrote:

>

> > codebrea...@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.

>

> All the History of Monotheiem agrees with me

>

> > 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").

 

Correction

This is not supported by the Torah. It is just speculation.

There is but one Gospel, the Good New to the Gentile world

in both its Covenants. Paul brilliantly expounded this Gospel to the

Gentiles.

in connection to the New Covenant

while the Pharisees did brilliantly

the same to the Semitic world by explaining it in connection to the

Old Covenant

Now Acts 15 should make sense to you If you have a brain.

 

ONE GOSPEL, TWO QUARELLING COVENANTS

 

JESUS IS THE MESSIAH/CHRIST OF DEUT 18:19

>

>

>

>

> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

[Guest codebreaker@bigsecret.com]

On Feb 21, 12:59 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>

wrote:

> codebrea...@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.

 

Where did the Jews tell this?

You make it up as you go.

You are a LIAR.

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

> savior god who would take him and his followers

> "into the air".

 

The point is that according to History and the Bible

the Jews who believed were preaching the Gospel

but in a different context, the context of the Law of

Moses and the Old Covenant.

 

Are they servants of Christ? So Am I

The pharisees who believe in Jesus

as the Christ/Messiah of Israel were preaching

the Gospel of resurrection of Mankind.

Their doctrines were passed on to the next generation

until the generation who put it in writin and named it the Qur'an

 

 

Read my other post:

THE CLASH OF COVENANTS

 

 

 

 

>

> Pharisees are preaching Christ

>

> > a Pauline fictional invention.

>

> ===>NEVER!

 

 

Are they servants of Christ? So Am I. 2 cor 8

 

Now back your contention up with a text at least.

It is sad you missed the contents of the Bible,

yet you always want to debate about it.

At least Know what you are talking about.

 

>

> > 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".

 

Christ according to the world best translators means Messiah

in Hebrew, the equivalent of Al-Massih in Arabic.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making unsuported

speculations. Is this how Academia work? Hmmmmm...

 

> Can't you get this through your thick skull?

> How dense can you get?

 

 

This is speculation. I don't dwell in individual

speculations If you can't back it up with evidence

from History or The Scriptures itself

 

>

>

>

> >>>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.

 

Correct me then...

Competitors are those selling the same

product. And Paul made it clear that his

adversaries are also selling Christ/Messiah.

Are they Hebrews? So am I

Are they Israelites? So am I

Are they servant of Christ? So Am I

 

This is clear. Paul and His opponents are

serving the same Christ of Deut 18:19

but with a different FLAVOR:

The flavor of the New Covenant and the flavor

of the old Covenant.

You see two groups of Jews in JERUSALEM

we see three: The Paul's party,those

who supported his doctrine of the New Covenant,

The pharisees of Acts 15 who accepted Jesus

as the Messiah/Christ but wanted to remain

faithful to Moses Law, and The Jews of Judaism who

reject Jesus as Christ/Messiah. If your understanding

of the Bible and the History of Christianity is not

shaped by this, then you know nothing.

 

 

>

> > 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.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -