| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Weatherwax" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:17:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ojm60l50ct4ieinpr7sqo7h2bf0rco8os@4ax.com...
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in
alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief. It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions upon
gentile converts.
--
Wax
..
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Apr 2004 01:24:54 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote in alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief. It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions upon
gentile converts.
Quite frankly, I can't see why anyone in their right mind would take
any Jewish mythology seriously. The Jewish god is an abysmal failure
with a bad temper and taste for blood, according to their scriptures.
It supposedly took the blood of his own son to finally appease itself,
in some mock trial in which the "sun of the father" seems to have
been set free. Maybe to shine another day?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Apr 2004 02:37:51 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:tnqo60d90k4rio64mj25puq66tjk5mcfec@4ax.com...
Weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote in alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to
live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem
depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief.
It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions
upon
gentile converts.
Quite frankly, I can't see why anyone in their right mind
would take any Jewish mythology seriously. The Jewish
god is an abysmal failure with a bad temper and taste for
blood, according to their scriptures. It supposedly took
the blood of his own son to finally appease itself, in some
mock trial in which the "sun of the father" seems to have
been set free. Maybe to shine another day?
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously. They
destest it because it proves that the New Testament is full of
lies.
The New Testament writers takes verses and passages out of the
Old Testament and and gives them false interpretations in order
to prove that Jesus was the messiah.
For example: What honest writer would associate the line "I
summoned my son out of Egypt," (Hosea 11:1) with Jesus Christ?
But that is exactly what the author of Matthew did at 2:15.
The original reference was to Israel, but by applying it to
Jesus, the author made Jesus a worshipper of Baal:
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him like
a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Apr 2004 04:11:00 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Weatherwax <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote in alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to
live by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem
depended upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their
relief.
It would be against their best interest to impose restrictions
upon gentile converts.
Quite frankly, I can't see why anyone in their right mind
would take any Jewish mythology seriously. The Jewish
god is an abysmal failure with a bad temper and taste for
blood, according to their scriptures. It supposedly took
the blood of his own son to finally appease itself, in some
mock trial in which the "sun of the father" seems to have
been set free. Maybe to shine another day?
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
That's not entirely true. While channel-flipping yesterday, I ran
across a Christian preacher yapping about Isaiah and Daniel. Lots
of TV evangelists seem to still refer quite a bit to the OT. Can't
say what any local preachers in my area are using these days, since
I haven't been to any churches in my area to observe the sermons
in quite a while.
The New Testament writers takes verses and passages out of the
Old Testament and and gives them false interpretations in order
to prove that Jesus was the messiah.
The TV evangelists are good at that as well...
For example: What honest writer would associate the line "I
summoned my son out of Egypt," (Hosea 11:1) with Jesus Christ?
But that is exactly what the author of Matthew did at 2:15.
The original reference was to Israel, but by applying it to
Jesus, the author made Jesus a worshipper of Baal:
The original reference to Israel is to some character named Jacob
who "wrestled with god" one day. Suddenly his name became Israel,
and strangely enough, you can find some dietary restrictions tied into
the story, in which an explanation is given for why the Hebrews or
Jews or Israelites (what should they actually be called?) don't, or
aren't supposed to eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip.
Genesis 32:28-32
"Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,
because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."
Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you
ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place
Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life
was spared." The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was
limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do
not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the
socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon."
If you notice the "el" suffix in the names "Israel" and "Peniel,"
you will see that the "el" refers to a specific god named "El."
He was considered or supposed to be part of the El-ohim.
If you look at the above verses, I think it's clear that there was
some struggling going on not with some actual existing god and
a living man in some physical wrestling match, but rather a struggle
with a linguistic name of a new god, and what it should be called.
I've seen "Israel" expanded out to "Isis" + "Ra" + "El" before,
and that works pretty well for me, not only linguistically, but also
historically, since Isis, Ra, and El were all popular gods of the
time.
I've also seen "Isra" expanded out to "Isra" + "El" which means
"struggling with El" if you take the "Isra" to mean "struggling."
Maybe "Ezra" and "Isra" mean the same thing? I don't know
for sure, but I think the people who actually believe that some
man named Jacob really "wrestled with God" one day are barking
up the wrong tree...
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him like
a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
Notice the change in reference from "I loved him" to
"I summoned them." Curious, and quite revealing...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Apr 2004 02:23:33 PM |
|
|
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW TESTAMNET ARE STRONG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Apr 2004 04:07:52 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW TESTAMNET ARE STRONG.
That would be the approach of assuming it is all true and ignoring the
errors and contradictions I suppose
--
#1636
Not BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
04 Apr 2004 03:06:26 PM |
|
|
Ash <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c4nct7$hka$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW TESTAMNET ARE STRONG.
That would be the approach of assuming it is all true and ignoring the
errors and contradictions I suppose
Because you overlooked the greatness of the sacred oral tradition.
This is the reason we say your approach is flowed.
I am not one of the sola Scriptura crowd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
06 Apr 2004 11:38:15 AM |
|
|
(Not-easily-duped) wrote in alt.atheism
Ash <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW TESTAMNET ARE STRONG.
That would be the approach of assuming it is all true and ignoring the
errors and contradictions I suppose
Because you overlooked the greatness of the sacred oral tradition.
This is the reason we say your approach is flowed.
I am not one of the sola Scriptura crowd.
How old do you think the Celtic crosses are?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Apr 2004 02:33:59 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
===>That is a clear admission of the point made.
By "secular and atheistic" you refer to the scholarly approach.
It shows the falsehoods of the "New Testament".
By "sacred approach", you refer to the blatant
Christian deceptive misuse of the Hebrew material. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
04 Apr 2004 03:32:42 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<406F1FB7.2B47378D@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
===>That is a clear admission of the point made.
By "secular and atheistic" you refer to the scholarly approach.
What scholarly approach??????
By atheistic and secular I refer to those who work from wrong premises like
this:"The Gospels were written centuries after the alleged event, therefore
Jesus is no historical figure."
But when they are asked to explain the why and when
of the letter of the Apostles to the antiochian Community just after
the Council, they remain silent.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO TELL ME THAT YOUR SCHOLARS ARE INFAILLIBLE.
It shows the falsehoods of the "New Testament".
By "sacred approach", you refer to the blatant
Christian deceptive misuse of the Hebrew material. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
04 Apr 2004 05:19:57 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<406F1FB7.2B47378D@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
===>That is a clear admission of the point made.
By "secular and atheistic" you refer to the scholarly approach.
What scholarly approach??????
By atheistic and secular I refer to those who work from wrong premises like
this:"The Gospels were written centuries after the alleged event, therefore
Jesus is no historical figure."
But when they are asked to explain the why and when
of the letter of the Apostles to the antiochian Community just after
the Council, they remain silent.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO TELL ME THAT YOUR SCHOLARS ARE INFAILLIBLE.
Of course, no scholars really claim they gospels were written centuries
after the alleged events, I doubt there are even any who would go as far
as a single century
--
#1636
Not BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
06 Apr 2004 10:18:20 AM |
|
|
Ash <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c4q1vt$ovo$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<406F1FB7.2B47378D@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
===>That is a clear admission of the point made.
By "secular and atheistic" you refer to the scholarly approach.
What scholarly approach??????
By atheistic and secular I refer to those who work from wrong premises like
this:"The Gospels were written centuries after the alleged event, therefore
Jesus is no historical figure."
But when they are asked to explain the why and when
of the letter of the Apostles to the antiochian Community just after
the Council, they remain silent.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO TELL ME THAT YOUR SCHOLARS ARE INFAILLIBLE.
Of course, no scholars really claim they gospels were written centuries
after the alleged events, I doubt there are even any who would go as far
as a single century
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they were not written
as gospels but as a document to justify to the Jews why Jesus was
the Messiah and how he fulfilled the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The Gospel was preached orally though
and there HAS always been but one GOSPEL.
Investgating and dating some old manuscripts will not tell you anything and
leading nowhere even though those manuscripts talk about Jesus and his life.
How did Clement the bishop of Rome become christian? were there any Christians
in Ephesus in the first century?
Were there any christian before the "gospels" were put into writing?
How and when they converted?
These are some questions we expect from your scholars if they work without any
preconcieved idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
07 Apr 2004 04:29:37 PM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
--
Wax
I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The Gospel was preached
orally though
and there HAS always been but one GOSPEL.
Investgating and dating some old manuscripts will not tell you
anything and
leading nowhere even though those manuscripts talk about Jesus
and his life.
How did Clement the bishop of Rome become christian? were
there any Christians
in Ephesus in the first century?
Were there any christian before the "gospels" were put into
writing?
How and when they converted?
These are some questions we expect from your scholars if they
work without any
preconcieved idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
08 Apr 2004 12:17:33 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
Of course they were written against the Jews and their propangada
machine which wanted the gentiles to believe that Jesus was not the Messiah.
So yes indirectly they were written for the Jews.
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
--
Wax
I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The Gospel was preached
orally though
and there HAS always been but one GOSPEL.
Investgating and dating some old manuscripts will not tell you
anything and
leading nowhere even though those manuscripts talk about Jesus
and his life.
How did Clement the bishop of Rome become christian? were
there any Christians
in Ephesus in the first century?
Were there any christian before the "gospels" were put into
writing?
How and when they converted?
These are some questions we expect from your scholars if they
work without any
preconcieved idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
08 Apr 2004 05:43:58 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
Of course they were written against the Jews and their propangada
machine which wanted the gentiles to believe that Jesus was not the Messiah.
===>That is so ignorant.
The Gentiles could not care less who was or was not the "Messiah",
a strictly Jewish concept, any more than you care who is or is
not the Saoshyant of the Zoroastrian Parsi of India, or who is the
latest Dalai Lama.
So yes indirectly they were written for the Jews.
===>The only book that was written for Jews was "Hebrews", a book
loaded wit lies and inaccuracies aimed at converting already Hellenized
diaspora Jews to the mystery cult of Saul/Paul. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
10 Apr 2004 02:41:03 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4075D5AE.F46DD525@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
Of course they were written against the Jews and their propangada
machine which wanted the gentiles to believe that Jesus was not the Messiah.
===>That is so ignorant.
The Gentiles could not care less who was or was not the "Messiah",
This is why Son of God was appropriate for them, VERY CLOSE TO WHAT
THEY COULD COMPREHEND
a strictly Jewish concept, any more than you care who is or is
not the Saoshyant of the Zoroastrian Parsi of India, or who is the
latest Dalai Lama.
So yes indirectly they were written for the Jews.
===>The only book that was written for Jews was "Hebrews", a book
loaded wit lies and inaccuracies aimed at converting already Hellenized
diaspora Jews to the mystery cult of Saul/Paul. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yetti" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
07 Apr 2004 10:45:19 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
--
Wax
I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The Gospel was preached
orally though
and there HAS always been but one GOSPEL.
Investgating and dating some old manuscripts will not tell you
anything and
leading nowhere even though those manuscripts talk about Jesus
and his life.
How did Clement the bishop of Rome become christian? were
there any Christians
in Ephesus in the first century?
Were there any christian before the "gospels" were put into
writing?
How and when they converted?
These are some questions we expect from your scholars if they
work without any
preconcieved idea.
BUY VIAGRA PHARMACIES ONLINE
Providing a list of Viagra Pharmacies online from which you can buy
viagra online.We have a list of quality Viagra Pharmacies online.
These pharmacies are based in the USA. Top 10 list of Viagra
Pharmacies online from which you can buy viagra online.
http://www.buy-viagra-pharmacies-online.com/
Buy Viagra Pharmacies Online - Buy Cheap Viagra Online
http://www.buy-viagra-pharmacies-online.com/
Buy Viagra Pharmacies Online - We provide a list of Viagra Pharmacies
online from which you can buy viagra online.
http://www.buy-viagra-pharmacies-online.com/
CLICK-CIALIS
http://www.click-cialis.com/
Top 10 Cialis Online - Buy Cialis Online -
http://www.click-cialis.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
08 Apr 2004 12:20:52 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
There are many interpretations of the Scriptures and you should be cautious
when commentting on such a thing.
--
Wax
I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The Gospel was preached
orally though
and there HAS always been but one GOSPEL.
Investgating and dating some old manuscripts will not tell you
anything and
leading nowhere even though those manuscripts talk about Jesus
and his life.
How did Clement the bishop of Rome become christian? were
there any Christians
in Ephesus in the first century?
Were there any christian before the "gospels" were put into
writing?
How and when they converted?
These are some questions we expect from your scholars if they
work without any
preconcieved idea.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
08 Apr 2004 05:45:38 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
There are many interpretations of the Scriptures and you should be cautious
when commentting on such a thing.
===>What is there to be cautious about?
One can easily see the deceptions of the Gospel writer!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
10 Apr 2004 02:38:52 PM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4075D612.D827D97C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
There are many interpretations of the Scriptures and you should be cautious
when commentting on such a thing.
===>What is there to be cautious about?
One can easily see the deceptions of the Gospel writer!
Did you mean the deception of those who wrote the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH?
The Gospel was orally preached and not written.
You should see the difference If you knew what you were talking about.
Again focussing too much at the written document you lost out the
wonderful big picture. JESUS NEVER ASKED ANYBODY TO WRITE ANYTHING
THE APOSTLES DID NOT SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT WRITING WAS THE ONLY MEDIUM
TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE otherwise they would have compiled what is needed.
Therefore, If what is written and compiled in a corpus
seems to be contradictory, that has no
bearing on our FAITH in the raisen Savior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
10 Apr 2004 04:06:04 PM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<4075D612.D827D97C@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<5p_cc.31925$vo5.1010813@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
< CLIP >
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they
were not written as gospels but as a document to justify to
the Jews why Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled
the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
If they were written for Jews, then they would have been written
in Aramaic or Hebrew. The accounts we have in Acts and the
letters of Paul mainly records the evangelizing to the gentiles.
The gospel which relies to the greatest extent upon the Old
Testement is Matthew, but it repeatedly misquotes the Old
Testament. I doubt if a Jew would have accepted Matthews
interpretations.
For example: How can Matthew 2:14-15 possible be a fulfillment
of Hosea 11:1?
Matthew
2:14 Then he got up, took the child and his mother
at night, and went to Egypt. 2:15 He stayed there
until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: "I called
my Son out of Egypt."
Hosea 11:1-2
11:1 When Israel was a young man, I loved him
like a son, and I summoned my son out of Egypt.
11:2 But the more I summoned them,
the farther they departed from me.
They sacrificed to the Baal idols
and burned incense to images.
There are many interpretations of the Scriptures and you should be cautious
when commentting on such a thing.
===>What is there to be cautious about?
One can easily see the deceptions of the Gospel writer!
Did you mean the deception of those who wrote the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH?
===>What is that?
YOUR composition?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
06 Apr 2004 12:04:43 PM |
|
|
(Not-easily-duped) wrote in alt.atheism
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they were not
written as gospels but as a document to justify to the Jews why
Jesus was the Messiah and how he fulfilled the prophetic revelations
in the Old Testament I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The
Gospel was preached orally though and there HAS always been but
one GOSPEL.
Do you consider yourself racially Jewish? If not, why do you feel
that you have to be saved from the Jewish god in some way?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
08 Apr 2004 11:15:52 AM |
|
|
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Ash <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c4q1vt$ovo$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<406F1FB7.2B47378D@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
Not-easily-duped wrote:
Frankly, Christians don't take the Old Testament seriously.
They destest it because it proves that the New Testament is
full of lies.
Depending on the metodology you apply when studying the NT.
If you apply the secular and atheistic one of course your conclusion
is valid but not when you apply the sacred approach.
===>That is a clear admission of the point made.
By "secular and atheistic" you refer to the scholarly approach.
What scholarly approach??????
By atheistic and secular I refer to those who work from wrong premises like
this:"The Gospels were written centuries after the alleged event, therefore
Jesus is no historical figure."
But when they are asked to explain the why and when
of the letter of the Apostles to the antiochian Community just after
the Council, they remain silent.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO TELL ME THAT YOUR SCHOLARS ARE INFAILLIBLE.
Of course, no scholars really claim they gospels were written centuries
after the alleged events, I doubt there are even any who would go as far
as a single century
It dodesn't matter when they were written because they were not written
as gospels but as a document to justify to the Jews why Jesus was
the Messiah and how he fulfilled the prophetic revelations in the Old Testament
I call them the ACTS OF THE MESSIAH. The Gospel was preached orally though
and there HAS always been but one GOSPEL.
If they were to justify things to the Jews, they would have reffered to
the real prohecies, not ones the Christians writers took out of context
and made up
--
#1636
Not BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
08 Apr 2004 02:13:42 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
< CLIP >
If they were to justify things to the Jews, they would
have reffered to the real prohecies, not ones the
Christians writers took out of context and made up
The New Testament is full of quotes from the Old Testament which
purports to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. But to get
Christians to read those quotes in context from the Old Testament
itself is nearly impossible.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Not-easily-duped" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
10 Apr 2004 02:17:21 PM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message news:<Gvhdc.60876$He5.1163688@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
< CLIP >
If they were to justify things to the Jews, they would
have reffered to the real prohecies, not ones the
Christians writers took out of context and made up
The New Testament is full of quotes from the Old Testament which
purports to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. But to get
Christians to read those quotes in context from the Old Testament
itself is nearly impossible.
That was for the Apostles to do, they did brilliantly. Ours is to
obey and trust
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
12 Apr 2004 01:31:25 AM |
|
|
"Not-easily-duped" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in
"Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in
"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
< CLIP >
If they were to justify things to the Jews, they would
have reffered to the real prohecies, not ones the
Christians writers took out of context and made up
The New Testament is full of quotes from the Old
Testament which purports to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah. But to get Christians to read those quotes
in context from the Old Testament itself is nearly
impossible.
That was for the Apostles to do, they did brilliantly. Ours
is to obey and trust
If the New Testament is an example of how well the apostles
interpreted the Old Testament, then they did not do well at all.
In Matthew 21, Jesus is described as riding into Jerusalem on
both an *****, and upon the colt of an *****. And the author tells
us that it was in fulfillment of a prophecy in Zechariah 9:9.
Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!
Look! Your king is coming to you:
he is legitimate and victorious,
humble and riding on an *****-
on a young *****, the foal of a female *****.
The author of Matthew failed to recognize that the last two lines
in that verse forms a single bistich. The last line merely
elucidates the previous line. The king is not riding on two
asses. He is only riding on one. The other gospels have it
right.
Not only did the author of Matthew misunderstand the prophecy, he
also deliberately misquoted it. As you can see, the line says,
"victoriously". Jesus did not enter Jerusalem victoriously,
therefore the author had to drop that part of the prophecy. That
is dishonest.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
09 Apr 2004 06:13:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:13:42 GMT, "Weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
The New Testament is full of quotes from the Old Testament which
purports to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. But to get
Christians to read those quotes in context from the Old Testament
itself is nearly impossible.
Reading the words in context with the OT is exactly what brought Christianity
into the world. For what is greater than "love one another as God loves you".
God introduced himself to mankind in the OT, and prophesized the coming of the
Messiah. He became man to die on the cross for the redemption of sin and the
return of salvation to man's soul. All revelation is now complete. From here
on, the expections are cast for us all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
09 Apr 2004 12:00:49 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cs0d7019q5h9uq9u8m9gbc2blm20c6jngn@4ax.com...
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:13:42 GMT, "Weatherwax"
<weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
The New Testament is full of quotes from the Old
Testament which purports to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah. But to get Christians to read those quotes
in context from the Old Testament itself is nearly
impossible.
Reading the words in context with the OT is exactly what
brought Christianity into the world. For what is greater
than "love one another as God loves you".
God introduced himself to mankind in the OT, and
prophesized the coming of the Messiah. He became
man to die on the cross for the redemption of sin and the
return of salvation to man's soul. All revelation is now
complete. From here on, the expections are cast for us all.
You still fail to support your claims. Where does the Old
Testament say that god will become man and will die on a cross?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION-- WARNING! |
08 Apr 2004 06:15:29 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Ash" <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
< CLIP >
If they were to justify things to the Jews, they would
have reffered to the real prohecies, not ones the
Christians writers took out of context and made up
The New Testament is full of quotes from the Old Testament which
purports to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. But to get
Christians to read those quotes in context from the Old Testament
itself is nearly impossible.
===>It is likely to open their eyes, as it did mine, when I began to
seriously STUDY the Bible -- its content, supposed cross-references
such as you mention, its cultural and historical context, its place in
the literature of religions of the world and in literature in general,
etc.
It is too easy to simply believe the few artificially connected verses
used by priests and preachers to promote the purported truth and
validity of their doctrines.
WARNING: Thinking may be hazardous to your faith! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION-- WARNING! |
09 Apr 2004 07:33:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:15:29 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
===>It is likely to open their eyes, as it did mine, when I began to
seriously STUDY the Bible -- its content, supposed cross-references
such as you mention, its cultural and historical context, its place in
the literature of religions of the world and in literature in general,
etc.
It is too easy to simply believe the few artificially connected verses
used by priests and preachers to promote the purported truth and
validity of their doctrines.
WARNING: Thinking may be hazardous to your faith! -- L.
Yes, you should heed your own words.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION-- WARNING! |
09 Apr 2004 11:07:56 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:15:29 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
===>It is likely to open their eyes, as it did mine, when I began to
seriously STUDY the Bible -- its content, supposed cross-references
such as you mention, its cultural and historical context, its place in
the literature of religions of the world and in literature in general,
etc.
It is too easy to simply believe the few artificially connected verses
used by priests and preachers to promote the purported truth and
validity of their doctrines.
WARNING: Thinking may be hazardous to your faith! -- L.
Yes, you should heed your own words.
===>Well, that warning was not expressed to me, so,
unlike you, I dared to think, and sure enough, the faith
was recognized as nothing but credulous acceptance of
falsehoods. So, now I know better.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
