Misquoting Jesus

Well, well, the truth comes out - Produkt is not interested in learning the truth - he is interested in promoting an idea - a falsehood.

I have no doubt at all now that Pordukt is a jew (actual or at heart) - his referal to Jesus as the "bastard son of Mary" is right out of the satanic talmud.

His judiac misquoting of prophecy that refers to the Spiritual Kindgom of Jesus Christ, Who made it clear to Pilate that His Kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD, his bizarre unwillingless to accept the obvious truth - all betray his judiac spirituality.

But most telling is his bizarre insistence that Jesus was a follower of Judaism.

Rather bold assumption's there. I'm not religious at all, and most definitely not a Jew or practitioner of Judaism. I'm neither saying Jesus was a strict follower of Judaism either, he clearly was not. Not in the fullest extent at least. Jesus was a Jew none the less.

www.pbs.org...

Was Jesus a Jew? Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He went on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem where he was under the authority of priests.... He lived, was born, lived, died, taught as a Jew. This is obvious to any casual reader of the gospel text. What's striking is not so much that he was a Jew but that the gospels make no pretense that he wasn't. The gospels have no sense yet that Jesus was anything other than a Jew. The gospels don't even have a sense that he came to found a new religion, an idea completely foreign to all the gospel text, and completely foreign to Paul. That is an idea which comes about only later. So, to say that he was a Jew is saying a truism, is simply stating an idea that is so obvious on the face of it, one wonders it even needs to be said. But, of course, it does need to be said because we all know what happens later in the story, where it turns out that Christianity becomes something other than Judaism and as a result, Jesus in retrospect is seen not as a Jew, but as something else, as a founder of Christianity. But, of course, he was a Jew.

Lets see what the New Testament has to say about Judaism. In fact - it is clear from the New Testament that the Pharasees and Scribes were not even the blood decendants of the Hebrews - of which Jesus and Mary were.

en.wikipedia.org...
More specifically, the Pharisees were one of the successor groups of the Hasidim (the "pious"), an anti-Hellenic Jewish movement that formed in the time of the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes (175–163 BCE).

Mary and her Jewish wedding rituals.

en.wikipedia.org...
During their betrothal – the first stage of a Jewish marriage, during which the couple are not ever permitted to be alone together under one roof, hence may not yet cohabit, despite already being husband and wife in legal terms – the angel Gabriel announced to her that she was to be the mother of the promised Messiah by conceiving him through the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High (the Annunciation, Luke 1:35). When Joseph was told of her conception by the Holy Spirit, he was afraid; but "an angel of the Lord" commanded him in a dream to be unafraid and take his wife to his home, which Joseph obediently did, thereby formally completing the wedding rites (Matthew 1:18-25).

"Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham: and we have never been slaves to any man. How sayest thou: You shall be free? Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you that whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."

Note well - that these Jews, who did not believe in him (the ones whom He was originally speaking too - beame his disciples) said that they, as the seed of abraham - have NEVER BEEN THE SLAVES TO ANY MAN - well we all know that the TRUE HEBREWS WERE INDEED SLAVES TO THE EGYPITIANS FOR MANY MANY YEARS!

Abraham had two lines - Isaac and Ismael - the jews would love to have you believe that the arabs are the sons of Ismael - but as the New Testament reveals it is those who say that they are jews - who are the descendant sof Ismael and Esau. You see - Isaac's line split also - between Esau and Jacob - twins - whom God said would form two peoples - one blessed and one not. Esau sold his birthright for a bowel of protage!

Your talking about two different Sects of Judaism. Just because one sect endures the hardships forced upon them by the Egyptians does not make another sect that has not undergone the same anymore lesser then the other. Also, the Egyptian account for Exodus is abit more different then the Christian story told in the bible.

www.touregypt.net...

The sons of Jacob were slaves to the Egyptians and were the true Hebrews that were the "chosen" of the Old Testament.

Irrelevant. Pretty much all sect's in existence back then and of today claim to be the 'chosen ones'. Obviously they all can not be

The sons of Esau were not Jews - in that they followed the true God and true Faith - instead they invented JUDAISM, which Jesus and the New Testament CONDEMNS!

They were but one of a few sect's of Judaism, one that did not view Jesus as the Prophesied Messiah, and with good reason, he was not the Messiah as he did not fulfill the entire prophecy. There is no chance that Jesus was the Messiah as per JEWISH Prophecies were looking for.

www.angelfire.com...

If Jesus was not Jewish, then there should have been no reason for him nor Mary to rely upon Jewish Prophecies to 'prove' he was the Messiah.

So we can see from the New Testament - that the followers of Judaism - who by their own admission have never been the slaves to any man - are NOT THE TRUE HEBREWS or Jews and hence their religion is FALSE!

Again, we're talking about two different Sect's of Judaism. The Hebrew language was used to write the Jewish Tanakh, which is also referred to as the Hebrew Bible. How is a Jewish text referred to as a Hebrew Bible, if the Hebrew's were not a sect of Judaism?

Revelations was written sometime between 68CE and 96CE, by Christians, so of course there is going to be some biased verses against the Jewish people that killed who the Christians considered to be the Messiah. 1 Thessalonians, was started around 50CE, again by Christians and again, no surprise that there would be some biased hatred against the Jewish people who killed the guy the Christians assumed was the Messiah.

[EDIT] Thought I should post this as well...

The Jewish Messiah is supposed to return the Jews to the Holy Land, but Jesus lived while the Jews were still there before they were exiled by the Romans. How can he return them to their land if they were still living in it?
# The Bible states that the Messiah will redeem Israel, but 30 years after Jesus died, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews were exiled by the Roman to suffer 1900 years of persecution, mostly by the followers of Jesus.
# The Prophets of the Bible foretold that all the nations of the world will acknowlege and worship the one true God (Isaiah 11.9, 45, and Zephaniah 3), but nothing like this happened after Jesus died; in fact, Islam develpoed and became the religion of many nations while Christianity splintered into many sects which constantly fight each other, and almost two-thirds of the human race worships idols. The world is very far from monotheism even to this day.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Produkt]

For those who desire the truth - we are not talking about two different sects of Judaism at all - We are talking about the blessed and the cursed, tlhe loved and the hated by God.

Esau was cursed.

Jacob was Blessed.

Malachi 1:1-3

"The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by the hand of Malachias. I have loved you, saith the Lord: and you have said: Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau brother to Jacob, saith the Lord, and I have loved Jacob, But have hated Esau? and I have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert."

Romans 9:13

"As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated. "

Romans 9:
"Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel. Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called."


Here is a very telling passage - that reveals that Jesus DID NOT FOLLOW THE FALSE RELIGION OF JUDAISM - and in fact - says that it is of SATAN!

Remember - People willfully try to confuse the true Old Testament Faith that awaited the coming of Christ and ACCEPTED HIM with the false religion of the pharasees. Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, etc... - never practed this heretical form of the true Old Testament Faith - known as Judaism - here is more proof.

John 8: 38 - 59:

speaking to the pharasees and the jews who believed in him - note if you read the chapter you will see clearly that there is a DIFFERENCE:

"38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. 41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me. 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me: 47 He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. 48 The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father. And you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

51 Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. 52 The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? 54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 And you have not known him: but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him and do keep his word. 56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad. 57 The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old. And hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM. 59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."


Jesus makes it quite clear that they are of SATAN!

Originally posted by Enkidu
Are you try to imply that the Original Jesus never said:
"Why am I surrounded by women named 'Mary?'"

mucho funny!!!

The Gospel of John was written in 120CE, so again, there is no surprise that there would be biased hatred by the early Christians towards the Jews that killed Jesus. Where there any Christians prior to Jesus' birth? Were there any Chrsitian's durring Jesus' lifetime? No and No. There were no such thing as the Christian religion untill after Jesus' death (or supposed death). Of what religion was Jesus if there was no such thing as Christianity and if Jesus did not set out to create a new religion? Was he a Buddhist?

Note: It's only though Christian writtings do we see Jews equated with satan.

www.infidels.org...

Also, one interpretation I've read for how God could 'hate' Esau is that he didn't literally hate Esau, he just chose Jacob over Esau.

www.gotquestions.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
According to all midrashim, Esau is a very significant character in world history. Inasmuch as Jacob is considered to be the creator of the Children of Israel, it is Esau who is regarded as the forefather of Rome and the Roman Empire. The struggle between the Roman Empire and the Jews stemming from the land of Judah alternated, according to history, between cooperation and outright hate and warfare. The argument is proposed that Esau was born with red coloring in his hair and body, and the ancient rabbis have connected this with the red banner and standard favored by Rome's legions.

Ok, so Jacob is considered the creator of Isreal. So, the Isrealite's would be the 'chosen' people. Esau is regarded as the forefather of Rome. And how did christianity come to rise?

en.wikipedia.org...
Christianity began within Judaism among the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Under the leadership of the Apostles Peter and Paul it welcomed Gentiles, gradually separating from Rabbinical Judaism. Some Jewish Christians rejected this approach and developed into various Jewish Christian sects of their own, and still more diversity existed among Gentile Christians. Professor Bentley Layton writes, 'the lack of uniformity in ancient Christian scripture in the early period is very striking, and it points to the substantial diversity within the Christian religion.' A church hierarchy seems to have developed by the time of the Pastoral Epistles, and was certainly formalized by the 3rd century

...

In 313 AD the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity, and in 391 Theodosius I established an orthodox Christianity as the official and, except for Judaism, the only legal religion of the Roman Empire. Doctrinal disputes, especially regarding Christology, intensified, and led to attempts to reach clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils. Theological disputes over Christian teachings led Church authorities to defining orthodoxy in contrast to what they regarded as heresy, resulting in the condemnation some theologians as heretics.

So, Christianity is legalized by the Roman Emporer Constantine and the Roman Empire's forefather is the cursed Esau. Does this make sense? It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense that Jacob, the creator of the Children of Isreal, being the 'chosen' one's by God would not come to power, where as Esau's Roman Empire does come to power through a FALSE Prophet.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Produkt]

History of Isreal.

en.wikipedia.org...

The earliest known mention of the name 'Israel', probably referring to a group of people rather than to a place, is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele dated to about 1210 BCE. [3] For over 3,000 years, Jews have held the Land of Israel to be their homeland, both as a Holy Land and as a Promised Land. The Land of Israel holds a special place in Jewish religious obligations, encompassing Judaism's most important sites — including the remains of the First and Second Temples, as well as the rites concerning those temples. [4] Starting around 1200 BCE, a series of Jewish kingdoms and states existed intermittently in the region for over a millennium. [5]

Note the word Judaism Isreal was first mention as a group of people around 1200BCE.

History of Rome.

en.wikipedia.org...
and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (L. 2). Dio in his Roman History (Book I) confirms these data by telling that Romulus was in his 18th year of age when he founded Rome. Therefore, three eclipse records indicate that Romulus reigned from 746 BC to 709 BC.

Rome was founded between 743 - 709 BC. So how does Esau go off to become the forefather of the Roman Empire 491 years AFTER Israel's first mentioning by the Egyptions who first came around between 3050 - 2890? The chronology is all wrong.





[edit on 17-3-2006 by Produkt]

The scholarship of Ehrman is commendable but hardly original. I don't mean to imply that he plagarized any works - simply that many others have done this same work before him and reached basically the same conclusions. It is not easy to do this kind of research as it requires a mastery of several ancient languages. Ancient Hebrew and Greek, for example, are as different from modern Hebrew and Greek as is the English, German, or French of the Middle Ages from what we have today. I commend anyone who undertakes a sincere, difficult, and lengthy study such as this. I doubt that I have either the intellect, talent, or number of years left in my life to do this myself.

Having said all of that, the one thing that is set aside in this argument about whether the current versions match the original versions is whether the original versions contain the truth. Indeed, the gospels themselves don't agree on certain details of the story of the Christian Jesus and there were many other versions of the story that could easily be more accurate (we will never know) but were not canonized. Quite a number of sincere and devout early Christian sects did not believe that Jesus was born of an earthly mother at all and they vehemently rejected the idea of a crucifixion and/or resurrection - accusing those who propogated these stories as blasphemers and preachers of a false doctrine.

So, whether Ehrman is correct in his findings or not, we still don't know how much "truth" there was in the "original" versions.

Those who angrily accuse such scholars of having some kind of "agenda" are merely reflecting their own agenda of attempting to silence anyone who holds a different point of view. Who is more wrong?

This jew - Produkt - will try anything to discredit Jesus Christ.

This persons credibility is zero!

i have had enough of this bashing of Jesus Christ and His Church.

This jew - Produkt - will try anything to discredit Jesus Christ.

Again, with the rather bold and unfounded assumption's. With an insulting tone to boot! Does your version of God teach you to not love thy enemy, but instead, to insult and hate?

This persons credibility is zero!

My credibility is probably just as good as your's. Then again, the source's of information we're bothing using would be the true value of what's credible and what's not. You tend to be using sources with a biased hatred towards Jews written well after the death of Jesus.

i have had enough of this bashing of Jesus Christ and His Church.

I brought up the issue that Jesus does not fulfill the entire messianic prophecies. And in fact, this is very true. Where is the world peace? Where is the third temple? Why doesn't everyone worship the one true lord as prophesied? So how is this bashing Jesus if he is in fact a false messiah? The Lord even states that there will be such people and to NOT fall for them. The Christians have done just that. And not to mention, and through your own acknowledgement either direct or indirect, the Roman Empire which was founded by Esau in the biblical text's (even if it's foretold differently in accordance to true Roman history), Esau being someone 'hated' by God. His people 'cursed'. And yet these very people are the one's that brought the false Messiah to power. The prophecies state the Messiah was to redeem Israel, and yet 30 years after Jesus' death Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews exiled by the (Esau) Roman Empire, and become persecuted for the past 1900 years mostly by follower's of the false Messiah Jesus.

And you've yet to still answer my question. Of what religion was Jesus if he was not Jewish and not to have set out to form a new religion?

hey Al Davison,

you bring some excellent points to the discussion, and without having to do a bunch of name-calling. How...mature...of you.

the earliest copies of our NT manuscripts are just that: copies of copies of copies...

And, as you noted, Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites...all held different interpretations of what Christianity "is" and, subsequently, accorded authority to a whole raft of different manuscript traditions, many of which were not accepted into the final canon of scripture. And, some of the earliest manuscript copies we have are associated with some of these groups, such as the Nag Hammadi corpus, which was probably associated with strong Gnostic influences.

Anyway, thankyou for restoring some civility to the discussion.

I'm curious: what would a person do if he/she had any original inspired writings in hand?


ê¿ê

Other than immediately becoming exceptionally wealthy...?

I dunno...I suppose that if they valued such things, they would live them as best they can.. That really was the point of my earlier comment about people (maybe) being a little less scandalized if they read Ehrman's book. The possible redactions he talks about don't really effect the overall message of the NT, even in it's particulars.

In the Daily Show interview Ehrman indicated that he had begun as a real Born Again Conservative type, but that his conclusions had led him on to something else, although he never says specifically what.

Misquoting Jesus didn't effect my faith in the Biblical message, and I am a fairly conservative Christian.

Could not any writing, from any period in the past, which represents a paradigm shift in one's personal worldview be regarded as a de facto first inspired writing?

ê¿ê

Originally posted by sozzledboot
Could not any writing, from any period in the past, which represents a paradigm shift in one's personal worldview be regarded as a de facto first inspired writing?

ê¿ê

How far back in history would you like to go? The very first people to invent writing? The ancient sumerians? I guess they would have the true story then?

sure..but Ehrman isn't talking about paradigm shifts in thought...it's something less than that...other than unintentional changes (99%), it's more about authority..."fixing" the text at a point in time when it's authoritative canon is being settled.

All IMHO of course

Quote: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Mathew 10:45)


Speaking of Mis-Quoting Jesus & putting Words in his Mouth - no doubt this was done here. Perhaps this (as well as the "Fufill the Law" line) line was taken & translated from the Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew. After all it was this Gospel that was used most to try & convert Jews.


Quote: "Life of Jesus that show he was not the Jewish Messiah the Jewish people were looking for."


Oh you mean the Hebraic "WAR Messiah" that they were looking for - that "Sword" line does indeed make more sense in that context!


Quote:"

"Quote: "Jesus CONDEMNED JUDAISM as a false religion."

Where in the bible does Jesus condemn his own religion? Mary was a Jew and was subject to Jewish law's. Had she not twisted the prophecies to make it appear that her bastard son was born of god, she would have been stoned to death per Jewish laws. Jesus was a Rabbi, how many Christians rabbi's are there?" "



First off the Word "Rabbi" simply means "Teacher" - I think that Jesus qualifies!

Well Jesus was more of a Gnostic or Qabalistic/Mystical Jew. He did see plenty of Corruption (even at that time) & wished to change things! It seems that even Jesus has the right to "Interpret Scripture" as he wishes! In the Gosples Jesus Criticizes the Pharisees & Saudicees PLENTY! Oh so according to Jewish Law Mary should have been Stoned - sounds like good Compassionate stuff (no wonder Jesus wasn't feeling it)! So what if Jesus was Half Semite & Half Gentile!!! Man this Racism stuff has been around for too long - it has been institutionalized! It is Jesus' *TEACHING* that Interests us! It is SALVATION that we wish for all! Race means *NOTHING* in the eyes of a truly Universal God!!!


[edit on 19-3-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Interesting how the Gospel of Matthew is quoted so often in this thread.

Matthew is a pretty sloppy work. Some really poor, weak, inaccurate attempts to retrofit OT prophecies to the new religion and some very interesting reports that conflict with other gospels. Clearly it was heavily influenced by the politics of the day and walking a very thin line between attempting to convert Jews without angering the Romans made for a most awkward and almost undecipherable text. It is kinda hard to believe that this book was ever canonized on any merit other than pure politics. For one thing, it wasn't even really necessary for the Christians and it surely didn't impress too many Jews. It should probably be renamed "The Embarrassing Gospel" - it really is pretty shoddy work.