Jesus is The Christ, not the messiah. The Romans defeated Israel

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Disturbinatti

the name Jeshua is used many time in the preserved word of God it is pronounce with a silent 'J' which is Yeshua. Never is Jesus referred to as Jeshua or Yeshua this is a modern day perversion of the word of God.

Sadly, I don't think the specificity of nomenclature is given particularly high priority by ol' Padawan.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
a reply to: chr0naut

...

Jews today expect 2, ben Ephraim and ben David.

Some Jews, unable to to understand a suffering servant messiah who dies and a conquering King messiah who restores Israel and reigns forever, have interpreted two separate Messiahs.

But the Christian interpretation of Jesus who came as a servant, suffered and died, but then rose again and will return again in glory and triumph, to establish His Kingdom, does not need multiple persons and fits with the prophecies.

Herod Antips's "experts in the Law" seemed to identify the prophesied King of the Jews as the 'branch of David' who would be born in Bethlehem.

Jesus conformed with that and was the suffering servant who died, too.

a reply to: chr0naut

yeah, his priority is to spread falsehoods and confusions not truth.

One thing I have been thinking about when I have read the book of Job. Is that Job is a suffering servant of God who goes through some real trying time, in the end, he gets back everything plus more, and if I am not wrong (of course I could be) God resurrected his 7 sons and 3 daughters.

But I saw Israel in tribulation and in the end God restores them and resurrects them to serve him forever.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

I don't think he was called Christ until long after he Ascended to Heaven alive. Seriously doubt it as he didn't live as a Hellenistic Judahite of the dispersion but a Palestinian Judahites.

You say that Jesus was not called Christ till long after His death? Wow-- While alive Jesus was referenced as Christ 571 times in 532 verses of the NT.

Mark_8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

that Aramaic is a language of Babylonian sorcery (because the Talmud was written in Aramaic), even though it was the Phoenician/Canaanites who they learned it from and the language Yeshua the Messiah pbuh spoke.

Quote
The Jerusalem Talmud predates its counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud (known in Hebrew as the Talmud Bavli), by about 200 years,[citation needed] and is written in both Hebrew and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic.

Babylonian Talmud - The entire Talmud consists of 63 tractates, and in standard print is over 6,200 pages long. It is written in Tannaitic Hebrew and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and contains the teachings and opinions of thousands of rabbis (dating from before the Common Era through the fifth century CE) on a variety of subjects, including Halakha (law), Jewish ethics, philosophy, customs, history, lore and many other topics. The Talmud is the basis for all codes of Jewish law, and is widely quoted in rabbinic literature.
Unquote
Source Wikipedia ==

Being that the Jerusalem Talmud predates the B Talmud by 200 years, you will note that the dialects have also changed with cultures.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

yeah, his priority is to spread falsehoods and confusions not truth.

No. But your priority and m.o. IS slander.

I have spoken no falsehoods, evidenced by the absence of specific quote of said falsehood, not 1.

If you or anyone else is confused, it's not because of me spreading it, "confusion", as you say.

I would be happy to explain so you understand better though even though you are a slanderer, as I have not done what you say I do, implying that I do something I don't and more than once without proof is not different than what the opposite of truth is called (a lie, in case that was confusing, is what you said about me personally which is further evidence you are disreputable and untrustworthy).

Making it about my person, not Jesus (p), is because you are unable to refute my person with fact, you must resort to fiction, slandering of a person who spoke no word of a lie makes you the liar and spreader of confusion. It won't matter to me ever but you will have to face God one day and "Though shall not lie" IS Law.

What you said about me, it's not true and you didn't even offer a quote as evidence because you know it. You are gossiping with a person whom I have been correcting because hasn't been correct and think two wrong people makes two right so long as they pretend they are and talk about the person who is and dishonestly at that.

One thing I have been thinking about when I have read the book of Job. Is that Job is a suffering servant of God who goes through some real trying time, in the end, he gets back everything plus more, and if I am not wrong (of course I could be) God resurrected his 7 sons and 3 daughters.

But I saw Israel in tribulation and in the end God restores them and resurrects them to serve him forever.

But you know you are right when people talk about you in a thread about Jesus (p) because they are both of ill informed opinions, as such can agree, though they agree in error.

But truth doesn't change because hurt by being wrong people agree on an error, and nothing I said was false, so you are a 'gossip queen', no more.

a reply to: chr0naut

No the Bible is in English.. God rode a John Deer to create America

originally posted by: Disturbinatti

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

yeah, his priority is to spread falsehoods and confusions not truth.

No. But your priority and m.o. IS slander.

I have spoken no falsehoods, evidenced by the absence of specific quote of said falsehood, not 1.

You said that there was no true tribe of Benjamin after the bondage in Babylon and that being a Benjamite in the 1st Century was equivalent to being a Herodian.

Clearly, many times in the Bible, reference is made to the Tribe of Benjamin post exile and to persons who were members of that tribe and also of their family trees. I previously provided a few biblical references in support of that.

You also suggested that Paul the Apostle was a Herodian, based upon your inference that he called himself a Benjamite and that he wrote a letter to a 'Titus', and there was a relative of Herod who was also named Titus.

That is really grasping at straws.

We have no indication that suggests being called a Benjamite was equivalent to being a Herodian - at all. Titus was a common Roman given name and during the time that the letter was written, Christianity was somewhat underground and oppressed. To have identified a specific person as a Christian, in an open letter, would not have been wise.

So your statements were:
- The tribe of Benjamin did not exist after the exile in Babylon - proven false.
- Being called a Benjamite was equivalent to being a Herodian - was based upon the previous falsehood.
- Paul was a Herodian - was based upon the previous two falsehoods.

If you or anyone else is confused, it's not because of me spreading it, "confusion", as you say.

I would be happy to explain so you understand better though even though you are a slanderer, as I have not done what you say I do, implying that I do something I don't and more than once without proof is not different than what the opposite of truth is called (a lie, in case that was confusing, is what you said about me personally which is further evidence you are disreputable and untrustworthy).

Making it about my person, not Jesus (p), is because you are unable to refute my person with fact, you must resort to fiction, slandering of a person who spoke no word of a lie makes you the liar and spreader of confusion. It won't matter to me ever but you will have to face God one day and "Though shall not lie" IS Law.

What you said about me, it's not true and you didn't even offer a quote as evidence because you know it. You are gossiping with a person whom I have been correcting because hasn't been correct and think two wrong people makes two right so long as they pretend they are and talk about the person who is and dishonestly at that.

One thing I have been thinking about when I have read the book of Job. Is that Job is a suffering servant of God who goes through some real trying time, in the end, he gets back everything plus more, and if I am not wrong (of course I could be) God resurrected his 7 sons and 3 daughters.

But I saw Israel in tribulation and in the end God restores them and resurrects them to serve him forever.

But you know you are right when people talk about you in a thread about Jesus (p) because they are both of ill informed opinions, as such can agree, though they agree in error.

But truth doesn't change because hurt by being wrong people agree on an error, and nothing I said was false, so you are a 'gossip queen', no more.

DisturbiGnostic, You make assertions, about things which are purely speculative, as if they are true.

You quote from small snippets of history and the Bible, out of context and apply meanings clearly unintended by the writers.

You act as though you have some superior knowledge to the millions of people over thousands of years who have questioned the same things and found resolution by examining further the content and context.

If someone makes a statement that can be proven false, it is a falsehood by definition. It doesn't matter how deeply it is believed. Proven false = it is a falsehood.

No amount of repetition of the falsehood or character assassination of those who point out its invalidity makes it any less false.

There is nothing wrong with questioning fundamental beliefs, but when others provide simple and rational answers that explain the true sense of what is meant, by reference to rationality and by clarification from context, it is not a valid response to disclaim it by yet another speculative interpretation, or to accuse the respondents of ignorance, or to say that they are liars.

If we are wrong, convince us with factual third party support of your interpretation.

Name calling is childish.

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
a reply to: chr0naut

No the Bible is in English.. God rode a John Deer to create America

No, I think you are confusing it with Johnny Appleseed who swallowed too many apple seeds and then went on a mad axe spree to cut down all the trees that sprang up everywhere he $h@t... all over America (He wore a chamber pot on his head but refused to use it because it was "unnatural").

Some say he died of Lyme disease, contracted from the bite of a mosquito he refused to "burn with fire". Others say he died of sleeping naked in the snow so as not to "disturb the bears". Still others say that it was his trying to eat a hardwood plank like his pet termite "Swedenborg" that did him in.

We may never know the truth, but history will remember him as one of the true nut-cases that made America what it is today.

There might be a bit of controversy about who the daddy was back then , with a Roman soldier called Pantera being in the frame

www.truthcontrol.com...

Since the most erudite scholars in the world, down through the ages, have demolished all possible arguments for the physical existence of Jesus, as the bible has portrayed him, it would be most gratifying if apparently "independent" and "objective" researchers from the secular world were to come up trumps.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

There might be a bit of controversy about who the daddy was back then , with a Roman soldier called Pantera being in the frame

www.truthcontrol.com...

Since the most erudite scholars in the world, down through the ages, have demolished all possible arguments for the physical existence of Jesus, as the bible has portrayed him, it would be most gratifying if apparently "independent" and "objective" researchers from the secular world were to come up trumps.

How does a non-existent person having dubious parentage? Either he didn't exist or he had a dubious (or otherwise) parentage, not both.

Not to mention the even more dubious nature of the allegation.

a reply to: chr0naut

I cannot see a carpenter getting so close to the priests back then and turning over tables in anger and getting away with it





was Yoshua a Rabbi one wonders ?

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: chr0naut

I cannot see a carpenter getting so close to the priests back then and turning over tables in anger and getting away with it



was Yoshua a Rabbi one wonders ?

He wasn't near the priests then, He was in the outer courts of the Temple, which had been turned into a marketplace = public access.

He was called rabbi (teacher) by his followers according to the gospels.

... and a carpenter back then did more than woodwork. Carpenters did house building and all sorts of construction work, including stonework.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

Name calling does not hurt me. the Truth speaks for itself. We know who you are and this is, what, about 75 different ATS user accounts and you still say the same old lies and distortions.

It is not slander when it is truth.

a reply to: Seede

Don't forget even Peter called him the Christ, as well as others.

Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matt 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mark 8:29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Luke 9:20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard [him] ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Here is what it says those who deny Jesus is the Christ

1John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

and Disturbo calls me a slanderer when he is a liar and an anti-christ.

But those of us who believe Jesus is the Christ are begotten and loved of God

1Jo 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: chr0naut

I cannot see a carpenter getting so close to the priests back then and turning over tables in anger and getting away with it



was Yoshua a Rabbi one wonders ?

He wasn't near the priests then, He was in the outer courts of the Temple, which had been turned into a marketplace = public access.

He was called rabbi (teacher) by his followers according to the gospels.

... and a carpenter back then did more than woodwork. Carpenters did house building and all sorts of construction work, including stonework.

When all knowledge back in the day was controled by the church and even posetion of a book or bible was punishable by death and much blood was spilled in the council of Nicea , when gods word was much edited and fought over en.wikipedia.org...

for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie:

tektonics.org...


39 STEPS with this kid

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: chr0naut

I cannot see a carpenter getting so close to the priests back then and turning over tables in anger and getting away with it



was Yoshua a Rabbi one wonders ?

He wasn't near the priests then, He was in the outer courts of the Temple, which had been turned into a marketplace = public access.

He was called rabbi (teacher) by his followers according to the gospels.

... and a carpenter back then did more than woodwork. Carpenters did house building and all sorts of construction work, including stonework.

When all knowledge back in the day was controled by the church and even posetion of a book or bible was punishable by death and much blood was spilled in the council of Nicea , when gods word was much edited and fought over en.wikipedia.org...

for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie:

tektonics.org...


39 STEPS with this kid

They certainly did weave spin a fable, but as for the man himself, are the words attributed to him, even though they aren't the original Gospels, "Gospel of the Hebrews" so called and possibly "Nazarene", containing quotes proving the figurative language of "Father" for God is equal (despite the fallacious reason offered for legitimate double standard) to "My Mother" the Holy Spirit..."

Because "Spirit" is fem. (True) in Aramaic-Hebrew, Syriac too, it is claimed to be the reason for the "My Mother the Holy Spirit" quote re: Mother.

Yet there is LITERALLY no reason to believe this. Feminine word "Spirit" explains the use of "she", but NOT "Mother."

In Syria Homilies and Recognitions of Clement of Rome, dated 411AD and the oldest DATED MS. in the world, Simom Cepha (p) says "She" in reference to the H.S

Because Spirit IS a feminine word.

"He" is for God, and only Isa (p) al Masih uses "My Father" unless he is telling us "You have ONE Father in Heaven."

I imagine in the figurative sense the Christian understanding of Her as "Mother" had greater meaning.

To breath life into someone God uses "His (God doesn't have genitalia)", "breath/spirit."

That God is Father, H. Spirit Mother, but they are One, is similar to modern and ancient Talmudic exegesis where Elohim is fem., "Mercy" YaHUH is masc., "Judgement."

Wisdom/Understanding

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Disturbinatti

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

yeah, his priority is to spread falsehoods and confusions not truth.

No. But your priority and m.o. IS slander.

I have spoken no falsehoods, evidenced by the absence of specific quote of said falsehood, not 1.

You said that there was no true tribe of Benjamin after the bondage in Babylon and that being a Benjamite in the 1st Century was equivalent to being a Herodian.

Clearly, many times in the Bible, reference is made to the Tribe of Benjamin post exile and to persons who were members of that tribe and also of their family trees. I previously provided a few biblical references in support of that.

You also suggested that Paul the Apostle was a Herodian, based upon your inference that he called himself a Benjamite and that he wrote a letter to a 'Titus', and there was a relative of Herod who was also named Titus.

That is really grasping at straws.

We have no indication that suggests being called a Benjamite was equivalent to being a Herodian - at all. Titus was a common Roman given name and during the time that the letter was written, Christianity was somewhat underground and oppressed. To have identified a specific person as a Christian, in an open letter, would not have been wise.

So your statements were:
- The tribe of Benjamin did not exist after the exile in Babylon - proven false.
- Being called a Benjamite was equivalent to being a Herodian - was based upon the previous falsehood.
- Paul was a Herodian - was based upon the previous two falsehoods.

If you or anyone else is confused, it's not because of me spreading it, "confusion", as you say.

I would be happy to explain so you understand better though even though you are a slanderer, as I have not done what you say I do, implying that I do something I don't and more than once without proof is not different than what the opposite of truth is called (a lie, in case that was confusing, is what you said about me personally which is further evidence you are disreputable and untrustworthy).

Making it about my person, not Jesus (p), is because you are unable to refute my person with fact, you must resort to fiction, slandering of a person who spoke no word of a lie makes you the liar and spreader of confusion. It won't matter to me ever but you will have to face God one day and "Though shall not lie" IS Law.

What you said about me, it's not true and you didn't even offer a quote as evidence because you know it. You are gossiping with a person whom I have been correcting because hasn't been correct and think two wrong people makes two right so long as they pretend they are and talk about the person who is and dishonestly at that.

One thing I have been thinking about when I have read the book of Job. Is that Job is a suffering servant of God who goes through some real trying time, in the end, he gets back everything plus more, and if I am not wrong (of course I could be) God resurrected his 7 sons and 3 daughters.

But I saw Israel in tribulation and in the end God restores them and resurrects them to serve him forever.

But you know you are right when people talk about you in a thread about Jesus (p) because they are both of ill informed opinions, as such can agree, though they agree in error.

But truth doesn't change because hurt by being wrong people agree on an error, and nothing I said was false, so you are a 'gossip queen', no more.

DisturbiGnostic, You make assertions, about things which are purely speculative, as if they are true.

You quote from small snippets of history and the Bible, out of context and apply meanings clearly unintended by the writers.

You act as though you have some superior knowledge to the millions of people over thousands of years who have questioned the same things and found resolution by examining further the content and context.

If someone makes a statement that can be proven false, it is a falsehood by definition. It doesn't matter how deeply it is believed. Proven false = it is a falsehood.

No amount of repetition of the falsehood or character assassination of those who point out its invalidity makes it any less false.

There is nothing wrong with questioning fundamental beliefs, but when others provide simple and rational answers that explain the true sense of what is meant, by reference to rationality and by clarification from context, it is not a valid response to disclaim it by yet another speculative interpretation, or to accuse the respondents of ignorance, or to say that they are liars.

If we are wrong, convince us with factual third party support of your interpretation.

Name calling is childish.

Why don't you go ahead and read where the tribes were taken into exile and explain how if only Judah and Levi returned Benjamin shows up as a tribe for a century or so.

Then why Epiphanius tells us of a sect of people who, misinterpreting the Shiloh prophecy, took Herod as a Messiah as the first non Israelite Jewish King?

Which makes him, Herod, being a Benjaminite laughable, I've clearly explained it to you, you are "grasping at straws" because you erroneously claimed Herod the Idumean (Ashkelon slave of the Appollo Temple tradition is rejected by scholars) was a Nabatean.

I don't know what to make of people like you. Obviously your Biblical knowledge is sub par at best.

One more time:

Herod Arche-laus, the Herod I first mentioned, is an obvious anagram.

Herod Arche-laus
Herod Acher-Saul, "Other Saul."

Saul, King Saul, was a Benjaminite, hence a Herodian Judahite was called a Benjaminite, due to loyalty to or nationality shared possibly.

There weren't any Benjaminites after Babylon aren't today. You have Sephardic Judahites and non Semitic Ashkenazi from Europe who converted in the 8th century under King Bulon.

Follow me here now so it doesn't confuse you.

Herod the Idumean wasn't an Israelite. Herod Archelaus wasn't either.

So what on Earth leads you to the erroneous conclusion that he was of a legitimate Israelite? He was a convert, and even a convert to Judaism is not Israelite unless they change religions often and convert BACK.

I am simply amazed how arrogant you are in easily observable defeat. The facts beat you, I just said them. Factually speaking Arche-laus is an anagram for Acher-Saul, regardless of your opinion regarding why and your subsequent confused (mis) explanation of whatever you randomly use to try and say it's a coincidence (my guess is you will use translation/literation as an excuse, but doubt you know Koine Greek so it should be funny to see).

a reply to: chr0naut


I didn't SUGGEST Paul was kinsmen with Herodians, PAUL DID!!!

He gives shout outs to relatives, "Herodion", for one, and "Aristobulos", a known Roman sympathizing Jew, and many others.

You would do well to pay attention to Academia and non biased scholars who say the exact same thing as I am just relaying after seeing the evidence it can't be denied by anyone of sense.

You would of course rather ignore evidence as "coincidence" as if Herodion wasn't related to the family whose name he has.

That Paul was a Roman collaborator is a matter of literal, plain exegesis, not speculation. Either you are astute, or you are not. If you don't see it, yet it's true and there to see, astuteness isn't your thing. I will help you.

Like Paul's traveling companion Manaen, in Acts is called "Kinsman/foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch."

You don't even know (nobody does) who this "Manaean" is, doesn't matter. What's important is it proves that Paul was loyal to Herod's Kingship, friends with HIS (FOSTER) BROTHER!!!

"Kinsman of Herod..."

I CAN'T WAIT to amuse myself with you trying to come to terms with the obvious fact you didn't know Paul was a Herodian Jew (Benjaminite) which is HILARIOUS because he actually BOASTS OF IT!!!

Yet you want people to treat you as if you possess knowledge of God, Christ (p), the bible, that is clearly a book you just like to be associated with, it's contents don't seem to mean as much to you as your desire for Trinity legitimacy.

Impossible, "Our God is ONE God worship HIM with ALL your heart."

All is 100%. Do you worship Jesus in a Trinity? If so you're violating God's Commandments and in fact according to the NT the GREATEST COMMANDMENT!!!

If .00001% of your heart worships al Masih, Issa (p), this is the case, according to the man himself!!! Jesus, as you call him in Latinized tongues.

"Whoever doesn't honor the son doesn't honor the Father.''

Figuratively speaking "Father" is God.

What else don't you get? Know? You talk a big game but it gets you in trouble because of fanatical adherance to tradition, no matter how easy to prove errant you may be.

But if it suits you, you resort to eisegesis like the allegation that Almah was translated to virgin 3 centuries BC and that a prophecy about Cyrus and fulfilled already is/was somehow applicable to Issa al Masih (p), but it isn't because it DOESN'T SAY VIRGIN, is about Cyrus of Persia.

He dictates to a mystery relative of Titus. Whether you know or not, you didn't call yourself Titus unless you had permission to and there is little to nothing plausible about suggesting no relation, yet another coincidence. Patronage at the least

Face it, my calling Chester John drama queen wasn't name calling (those aren't actually names btw, but you didn't invent dumb idioms, just applied them incorrectly).

If someone IS a LITERAL drama queen, and you tell them, it's a statement of fact. And there is no reasonable way to deny that Friar John IS.

If you were honest you would not be such a hypocrite. If you weren't always erring when I am around you wouldn't be on a mission and making mistakes because all you care about is someone busted you saying incorrect things about things you could not possibly know, nobody could, and stating them AS "INTERESTING" FACTS.

You can't get your weird revenge because I am not saying that isn't true. That's your problem. You need someone dumb for that, i.e. not me.

If you were knowledgeable you would not be arguing for lies like "Almah means virgin" when there is no way you have never been told that's false. That passage isn't even talking about Issa al Masih (p) but King Cyrus.

Go ahead, say something. I am loving this.

You want proof Cyrus was called Messiah and is who the Almah gives birth to? Ask!

It definitely doesn't say virgin. Almah, a young woman, isn't a word indicative of promiscuity or chastity.

Your reason for not letting go is that it becomes obvious "Matthew" was written by someone who didn't even know Hebrew or proper exegesis.

And the Bible is not inspired. Pseudepigraphal. Pretty much all of it. Definitely the Gospels, Torah, Daniel, Psalms, Proverbs and most of the Prophets.

And it's a perverted book of murder porn. And porn murder. Genocide commanded by 'God.' Infanticide ditto. Accepted human sacrifice as a condition of military victory (Jephthah and daughter), idol worshippers, slander of Israels greatest King as an idolater, exaltation of heinous crimes disproportionate in terms of justice (rape of Dinah).

Which pretty nearly decimated Benjamin and we come full circle.

When did Benjamin return? How? They mated with other tribes and mitochondrial line was erased, making it literally MORE impossible to assert a derogatory euphemism isn't the meaning of ''Benjaminite."

I get it reveals the author wasn't very bright, and why that would bother a person who can't deal with facts not supportive of presuppositions you want to be true but never really looked at without bias.

I am not surprised that "Beware the Wolf of the tribe of Benjamin" didn't tip you off. But tell me before that the last appearance of ANY descendants of Benjamin.

If you are the type of person who is arrogant enough to think you know more than respected even if disliked (he is a pain for Christians with his knowledge and honesty) scholars such as Eisenman. My guess is you will try and discredi the source because the information makes it obvious the only way you AREN'T wrong is if he IS.

I DON'T see THAT happening. He wrote a thousand page plus book on Yaqub al Sadiq, and another volume, liberated and translated the unrealeased DSS fragments establishing clear links with Ebionim, Hasidim, and MENTION what most scholars can't because need work. That is, that there are parallels between the N.T., DSS, Homilies and Recognitions, Talmud. Josephus.

That Paul was the enemy the NT portrays him as was a life long ambition.

Owing to his being a Herodian Jew loyalist. The first Herodian-Judahite marriage was with Mariamne, and doesn't make anyone before that Judahite (it's Agrippa 1, Pretty sure. Can't memorize everything so I will check on my own accuracy).

Easier than correcting your tradition-bias-errant presuppositions? No. The New Testament is something I know in depth and have studied for decades, 2, actually.

Let me know when you're caught up and capable of debate beyond saying things such as (paraphrasing) "Nuh uh."

Although it's better than saying something that isn't true is like you usually do because you assume that the Bible is 100% reliable truth, oral trraditions flawless, no theologian today wrong( so long as they agree with you), etc.

But if you can check your massive amount of arrogance, I will give you a link.

But I am fairly certain you would dispute Issa (p) if Issa didn't agree with you, because he doesn't, if you believe in Trinity, vicarious atonement, Pauline Christianity.

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
a reply to: chr0naut

I cannot see a carpenter getting so close to the priests back then and turning over tables in anger and getting away with it



was Yoshua a Rabbi one wonders ?

He wasn't near the priests then, He was in the outer courts of the Temple, which had been turned into a marketplace = public access.

He was called rabbi (teacher) by his followers according to the gospels.

... and a carpenter back then did more than woodwork. Carpenters did house building and all sorts of construction work, including stonework.

When all knowledge back in the day was controled by the church and even posetion of a book or bible was punishable by death and much blood was spilled in the council of Nicea , when gods word was much edited and fought over en.wikipedia.org...

Please read the Wikipedia link you provided with attention to the section called misconceptions. Basically nothing that you have just said in the previous paragraph is correct.

The First Council of Nicea was non-violent and no changes were made to any scriptures.

The council, its aims, proceedings and conclusions are a matter of historical record.

for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie:

tektonics.org...

39 STEPS with this kid

As per your link, Pope Leo X never said that.

Your link traces the saying back to a satiric play called "The Pageant of Popes" (on pages 179-180) written by a John Bale (1495-1563), an English ex-Carmelite Protestant, to satirise the Catholic Church.

You should read the content of your links.

a reply to: Padawan #1 now aka Disturbinatti

Padawan #1, your a fuit loop dude. Get some air, some real life in ya.

Yeshi is the One... Christian wise. Yeshi mannn!!

Master Coomba