And since when do we need a pissing contest?

x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:51:01 -0500, Alric Knebel
<alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

john w <johnw wrote:

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:45:54 -0500, Alric Knebel
<alric@[cableone.net]> wrote:
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

IKnowHimDoYou- A. wrote:

In article <foerj29iconm9pc8ogngpcapio8l93b8br@4ax.com>, john w
<johnw<no>@yoo.how> wrote:

x-no-archive: yes
On 23 Oct 2006 16:51:46 -0700, "Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
Not-Easily-Duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
© 2006 John Weatherly; all rights reserved; no portion of this
article may be used elsewhere without express written consent of the
author

IKnowHimDoYou- A. wrote:

New Testament Books

All of the New Testament boks were in place before the end of the first
century. This is borne out by the Qumran discoveries along with the
Egyptian papyri discoveries. In fact W. F. Albright, one of the world's
foremost biblical archaeologists, says that "every book of the New
Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first
century A.D. Below are the accepted date periods for each of the
authors:

Paul's letters- A. D. 50-60
Matthew- A.D. 70-80
Mark- A.D. 50-65
Luke- A.D early 60s
John- A.D. 80-100

Complete sets of these books came to be before 120 A. D. long before the
existance of the pagan church in Rome or Constantinople (315 A.D.). In
fact the evidence of archaeology shows all of the New Testament was in
place before the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 69-70.

Listen up fool, these books canonized by humans as authoritative were
no treatise
on faith or doctrines.

Why do you call someone with whom you disagree "fool?"

j w

___________________________________________________________

They do that becasue they cannot win the argument so they degrade
themselves by behaving childish...

Oh, look at that: One nitwit comes to the rescue the other one.
Brotherly love.

Hey, you moron, did you ever notice that this nitwit you're rescuing is
so stupid, he actually copyrights his POSTS.

Last I heard, smart money is on writers (which I am) copyrighting
EVERYTHING we write.

You're as much of a writer as I am.

Likely, I'm more of a writer than you are.

If you are a writer, kindly give me a few urls so I can check your
writing out.

My writing has been posted in here NUMEROUS times. (just Google)

"Darrell Stec" <> wrote in message

2And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath
days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

WHAT?? Paul used the scriptures??

Well actually NO it does not say that. It says:

kata de to eiothos to paulo eiselthen pros autous kai epi sabbata
tria dielegeto autois apo ton graphen

which means:

but according to the custom of Paul, he went into to them and on
three Sabboths he disputed to them from the writings.

WOW, I am inpressed. See I have a bible translated by bible scholars,
and you have your own translation!!

Is your translation of the bible coming out anytime soon??

I'd like to get a copy, because it would correct all the errors that
the bible scholars have made!!

Give us a break!! Every time people like you don't like what the bible
says, you make your own translation!!

It is misleading to translate "graphen" as Scripture because there is
no
modifier on which to base that conclusion. Graphen simply means
writings. Those writings could be Hellenistic philosophy, Greek
comedy (upon which Revelation was based) or even pornography.

Or even the story of Santa Claus and the reindeer??

I know, you will say that it was the OT.

But read verse 3!!

3Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and
risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto
you, is Christ.

Actually it reads:

dianoigon kai paratithemenos hoti ton christon edei pathein kai
anastenai ek nekron kai hoti outos estin ho christos [ho] iesous hon
ego kataggello humin

which means:

opening completely and setting along that it was necessary the oiled
one to suffer and to stand up from the dead and this is the oiled one
[the] (not found in all manuscripts) joshua whom I proclaim to you.

Even a poor dumb clown like me, knows that the oiled one, is actually
the annointed one. See they annointed with oil.

One problem when you translate with a dictionary. You lose the
concept.

But tell us again, is your version of the bible coming out anytime
soon??

Where in the OT testament is there anything about The Christ rising
from the dead??

There isn't. But then again there is nothing in those passages that
say
it was scripture Paul was using, just plain and simple WRITINGS.
They could be any writings including any of the Greek mythologies.

Once you had typed THERE ISN'T, you could have stopped, rather than
try and make excuses!!

Another thing you must consider is that you talk of THE CHRIST as
though
it were someone special. However christos simply means oiled one or
oiled thing. King Darius was called The Christ. And so were two
other
people in Acts. Also christos was a designation given to a rock, a
pillar, bread, and even a donkey in the Old Testament. Oiling
someone or something simple designated that they were being dedicated
to god or the gods depending upon the time in Jewish history.

Try to use annointed one, instead of oiled one.
It makes your translation look childish!!

However more to the point, this little passage about Paul in Acts is
a
complete fabrication by the author of Acts. And do you want to know
why? It is because the author of Acts puts words into Paul's mouth
that Paul would never have said, and in fact did not say/write. This
author uses the word "anastenai" which is an Aorist ACTIVE verb
meaning
to stand up (or arise). Paul never used the word "anastenai" nor is
that word to be found in any of the pseudo Pauline epistles either.
Paul always used the word "egeiro" which means "to awaken."
Furthermore Paul always used the word in the Passive mood, that is
the
oiled Joshua was RAISED from the dead. His oiled one could not rise
from his own power but rather needed daddy to awaken him.

WOW, are you saying that the book of Acts has errors??
AMAZING stuff.
Will you be on Oprah anytime soon, with your new translation of the
bible, and your fasinating discoveries??

OOOPS. sounds like NT to me!!

Well, yes in fact it was NT. The author of Acts put words into the
mouth of Paul (words which Paul never used in any of his epistles and
furthermore words that contradicted what Paul himself said he
believed). The author of Acts borrowed from the author of the gospel
according to Luke, specifically:

tote dienoixen auton ton noun tou sunienai tas grapheas kai eipen
autois hoti outos gegraptai kai outos edei pathein ton christon kai
avatenai ek nekron te trite hemera

which means:

then he (Joshua of course) opened completely the mind of them to
understand the writings (which in this case can actually be
translated Scriptures because the passages before this one meantion
the books of the Old Testament and only the books of the Old
Testament) and he
{Joshua) said to them thus it has been written that the oiled one
suffer and stand up from the dead in the third day

In other words Luke of Acts is copying Luke of the gospel and then
attributing those words to Paul in Acts. But then that is efficiency
for you. Luke is recycling his old material. But where in the Old
Testament does it say the oiled one will suffer and stand up on the
third day? Like you wrote, it doesn't. Not exactly. However the
parallel is actually to be found in the Old Testament in the story of
Jonah and the big fish which Paul compares to the oiled one's
suffering, descent into Hell, and being raised. The same parallels
are

Luke is famous for his plagarizing of the OT to create his fictional
accounts of things!!

Furthermore, Acts must be referring to the Old Testament simply
because of the first verse of Acts 17:

diodeusantes de ten amphipolin kai apollonian elthon eis
thessaloniken hopou en he synagoge ton ioudaion

which means:

after they having made way through Amphihipolis and Apollonia they
came into Thessalonica where was a synagogue of the Judeans

Surely you do not think the Jews would allow any but their own sacred
texts into the Temple (for which the synagogue was a substitute), do
you? If you do, you really need to go back and read your Old
Testament again to find out the penalty for committing such an act in
the Temple was.

But then this is just a story. One from the second century CE. We
can
tell because there were no synagogues in the first century CE. The
earliest evidence for any synagogue dates from the third century.

So you are saying that all the references to Jesus, Paul or anyone
else, teaching in the synagogues is a frabication??

You are saying that there was no synagogue in Nazareth??

Surely you jest??

You mean Luke lied in Luke 4:16?? -

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his
custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood
up for to read.

These are just stories that the gospel writers made up by recycling
passages from the Old Testament and decorating them with literature
and mythologies of the Hellenistic world.

You don't have to convince me!!

Here, are some examples.

The eucharist - Adapha in Sumerian clay tablets is offered the food of
life and the water of life, which in turn will give him eternal life.

Inanna dies and is in the netherword for three days.

Then is treated with the food of life and the water of life and arises
from the dead.

Wasn't Jesus in the grave for three days??

But Inanna had to supply two people to take her place.

OOOPS, wasn't Jesus crucified with two thieves??

And we haven't even touched on Egyptian texts.

You don't have to convince me that the bible is nothing new!!

Smile.