Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

Originally posted by Logician
Now you're lashing out at Sunday School Teachers ?. You know if you would just skip the insults, your posts would be at least 50% shorter!

LOL! Sorry, that was rich.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Logician
Now you're lashing out at Sunday School Teachers ?. You know if you would just skip the insults, your posts would be at least 50% shorter!

LOL!

Sorry, that was rich.

Oh mannnnnnnnnn LOL take away the points! The laugh is worth it

hey there....
Well...thanks for thinking that I think outside the box...but...I am simply repeating what I was taught in my church. and you can believe...that I agree with it 100%.

Originally posted by Logician
Hi Boaxnj,

NOW another great proof for me...is Mary's silence at the cross....

look at it this way...suppose you were mary...they accused you of having a bastard son...they were ready to kill your very son because he claimed his father was God...now...if Mary DID know a man who fathered Jesus...SURELY she would have said...OKAY OKAY...DONT CRUCIFY MY SON...HE IS NOT THE SON OF GOD...BUT THE SON OF "So and so"...

Mary clearly would have spoken out and saved her son....and named an earthly father...if there was one...

Her silence....speaks volumes of evidence...

An intrigueing idea!.. I appreciate people like yourself who have the gumption and intelligence to think 'out of the box'.

Never looked at it this way.

Thanks,

Hello again, Logician:

You know, I too had to laugh when I read your post this morning: you�re actually right----- for once------I haven�t even begun to �show my teeth� on this thread�.. not yet, anyway.

But then again, what was it that skinny kid said about fat ladies and operas? Well anyway�

And speaking of smoke and mirrors, your last post has intrigued me not a little ---inasmuch as you actually had the nerve to quote from a real scholar, Frank Moore Cross (but naturally, who as a Harvard academic with real credentials, clearly does not support any of your usual jejune string of Watch Tower Sunday School notions, but is firmly entrenched in ye olde AMADEUS camp, especially with respect to the formation of the gospel traditions�as you would already know that if you ever read his work...

But before I give you some food for thought about the what constituted the Oral Gospel material by 110 AD, here is: A Brief Word on Beit Javneh and the Qumran Time Capsule.

You seem quite confused once again, so time for a little more background...

Frank Cross and the Harvard School knows very well that "Iesous" during the period BC 12- AD 36 had no universally fixed canon but just three sets of writings e.g. "Moses, Prophets and David "

(take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls which was a kind of �Time Capsule� sealed up in June of AD 68 in the midst of the Failed Jewish Way of AD 66 to give you an idea what was being copied)

And if we can believe what is placed in his mouth in the Greek �canonical� gospels ---he quoted from books which fell somewhat outside the later Jewish �canon� as Holy Scripture---

Here's a couple of small examples:

1. The Mangled Greek of John 4:22 �for [it is written] , Salvation [ ] is from the Judaeans�

This verse is taken as a Zionist Proof Text from Pseudipigrapha [ �The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs]

Naphtali 13:8 � �For the Salvation of Israel shall come from the Judaeans�

2. Mark 14:21 �as it is written of him� woe to him who betrays the Son of Man: it would have been better for him if he had not been born�

=adapted from : I Henoch 38:2 �Woe to them who have rejected the Lord : it would be better for them had they never been born�

[Both these "non canonical" books were however widely copied at Qumran before AD 68, and were moreover considered "canonical sacred scripture" by the Ethiopic Nazorean churches, which shows that a different and wider canon existed among Coptic Christians which hearkened back to the most primitive Christian communities which similarly quoted such "non-canonical" texts as these regularly as "holy scriptiure"]

As I mentioned before on these threads, the non canonical �Book of Enoch� was also widely quoted as scripture by some early Bishops before AD 130: e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas quotes the Book of Enoch three times, twice calling it "the Scripture," a term specifically denoting what they themselves considered to be the inspired "Word of God "(Epis. of Barnabas 4:3, 16:5,6).

Iesous was able to quote from some of these "non canonical books" simply because in his lifetime [before the AD 70 Jewish War] that is during the period BC 12 to AD 36 he had access to many more additional writings than post AD 70 �Rabbinic Judaeism� later had--

But of course we do not know his rulings (or whether he even had any) viz. whehter any of them "defiled the hands" or not. We just notice that the "council approved" Greek Gospels place these non canonical OT scripiures into his mouth---which by the way, so do the early Church Fathers (see below)

And durign the time when Iesous was alive, there was no PRECISE set in stone �official� canon of the "Old Testament" to limit his oral Hebrew Scripture citations to certain EXACT books (like a specific list of exact books arranged into a single book between two covers)--�all we know was that there were certain scriptures (scrolls) that were considered to be �core� to the sacred collection that eventually was decided to be what we would call "canonical" but which they would call that which �defiled the hands� i.e were to be regarded as inspired sacred scriptures, e.g. the Torah, the Psalms (although the number of these Psalms "of David" varied well into the Middle Ages) and the Prophets---

The Rabinnic Council meetings held at Jamnia (in the AD 90s but others also well into to AD 130) were still debating several issues including the subject of whiach exact books "defiled the hands" by AD 138 (when the Rebbes were forcibly removed from Palestine by the Emperor Hadrian) whether such books as Lamentations, Eccelsiastes, Daniel,Esther and Chronicles as well as Hezekiel �defiled the hands� or not....

(for an overview of the Rabbinic literature on this see: Jean Paul Audet, a Hebrew Aramaic List of Books of the OT in Greek transcription, in the JTS New Series I, pagers 135-154 (1950)

So you could say "core and non-core" books, but you cannot say "fixed canon of scriptures" before AD 200.

Logician, you do not seem to like the idea of fluidity of anything: you seem to like things neat and complete wrapped in pink ribbons. That is not the way to approach the writings of the Jews (or any ancient people), since their writings (like the Christians community's writings) change and grow over time to fit the needs of the communities as they morphed.

One could say that before AD 70 (or even before the Rebbes started meeting at Jamnia around AD 90) aside from the Torah which was more fixed in number by then, the rest of the "canon" of the Hebrew OT was still not fixed but open (especially in the Writings Section) and books like the Assumption of Moses and I Henoch could still be quoted as scripture (see Jude v. 9 and Jude v. 14 which are citations of these books as scripture)

Now as for Frank Cross� somewhat negative opinion (or "de-ephasis" rather) about Javneh and the power of the Babylonian Rebbes in the 90s to lord a fixed canon over the rest (and he�s not alone) :

There were no full eyewitness written testimony to these Javneh meetings, just later Rabbinic summary citations in the Mishnah : all we know are the net results of them in the years following them leading up to the Bar Kokhba Revolt of AD 136 when the MT was more or less settled (and the number of books more or less decided upon).

But after AD 90, it clearly appeared as it Jews (now without their Temple) were �more agreed� on the exact number of sacred books and the names of those books (in other words a Canon of sorts) AFTER Javneh (or after the Jewish War) than BEFORE the Javneh debates�and the evidence shows that they suddenly began to copy the proto-Masoretic Text only from that point on.

The Babylonian Talmud mentions a number of Rabbinic debates on the subject in the AD 90s (and some going back as far as AD 10 with R. Shammai and R. Hillel offering opposite opinions on whether Ecclesiastes �defiled the hands� or not.)

It is not by chance that the specific text the POST JAVNEH REBBES settled on was the Babylonian text (protoMasoretic) since the Rebbes that came to Palestine from the east (R Akiva and R. Hillel II etal.) were all from the Babylonian Synagogues who naturally wanted their own text type to dominate.

And they certainly did have the political power to encourage their own familiar texts on the rest (if they chose to).

So the beginning of the AD 90s marked a turning point in terms of canon decision: and why were they even discussing Esther and Daniel and Chronicles or Eccelesiastes and Song of Sons in the first place, if they were not debating about �what texts defiled the hands� (i.e. were �sacred�) and which �did not defile the hands� (were not sacred)?

So what caused them finally to have to decide upon a canon and a text type?

The answer: The War of AD 70 and the concomitant destruction of the 2nd Temple: those events changed everything for Christians AND Jews overnight.

It caused the Jews to settle on a canon, and it caused the Christians to write their Greek Messianic Apologetic Midrash Collections later called Gospels �to be read in the churches� as teaching material for catechumens new to the Faith.

In fact it was the confused political and religious turmoil in war ravaged Palestine during the aftermath of the decimating Jewish War against Rome after AD 70 that caused all of this Scripture �canonization� to come to the fore, simply because after AD 70, the Jews found themselves without a Temple, and had in many ways lost their religious and political identity as a result.

They therefore were forced to turn inwards, to their �sacred texts� to replace the former �cult� and �sacrificial� focus: they became the People of the Book�just as the Qumran sectarians did when they withdrew from Jerusalem effectively losing their own Temple (and their founder Teacher was once a Jerusalem High Priest!)---whereas in the past they referred to themselves as a �Kingdom of Priests, a holy Nation� with their 3 times a year for males to present themselves at the Jerusalem Temple).

The first thing the Qumran sectarians (�the Followers of The Way�) did when they broke off from the Temple at Jerusalem back in 167 BC was�.turn inwards and start revering and studying their sacred books (can you see the pattern yet?)� =no temple = emphasis on sacred scriptures.

Frank Cross is quite right in saying that we have no exact proceedings or even an official ruling from Beit Jamnia in the 90s documented.

But in the absence of any �detailed minutes� from all the Babylonian Rebbe meetings at Javneh (AD 90/91) we really will probably never know what actually went on in detail in terms of the actual process of dictating or influencing policy on such things as the OT Canon for the �People of the Book� who had lost their Temple�and were reduced to a powerless group of wanderers----all we know is that Rebbes met at Beth Javneh and they debated canonicity among other rabinnic matters in the absence of a 2nd temple priesthood.

(I use Jamnia more as a date marker on these threads to show the point in the marked shift from A MARKED PLURALITY of HEBREW TEXTS PRIOR TO JAVNEH to A TENDENZ TOWARDS STANDARDISATION OF BABYLONIAN MASORETIC ONLY TEXTS AFTER JAVNEH �and it is known that these Rebbes were non Palestinian in origin after the War (not surprisingly) and naturally favoured their own texts).

In the POST JAVNEH PERIOD there was also a marked Tendenz towards the later MT standardization of Text Types (

i.e. towards the text of the MT you read today in your bibles) which process of �standardization� did not stop until after AD 200�at least according to Lawrence Shiffman, the Mishnaic scholar who has some experience in post AD 200 Hebrew texts, a view shared by many in his field.

It could well be that this proto-MT standardization (which MT Tendenz began even before Jamnia, again according to Lawrence Shiffman) had more to do with the Failed Jewish War against Rome in AD 70 (which destroyed lot of old pluriform text types of the OT) and that the Time Capsule of Caves 1-11 at Qumran (sealed up by the "Followers of the Way" in June of AD 68) happily preserved many older �pluriform� families of texts which normally would have been consigned to the flames, and had they not been sequestered, the world would never have known or suspected the exact extent of the pluriform varieties of Hebrew Texts that in fact existed in the 2nd temple period.

More of this Response is Continued on the Next Thread�there's actually a number of false statements and assumptions that you've made on your last thread that will require addressing before I can give you some background on all the different gospel messages in the 1st centuiry...so I suppose I will have to make the sacrifice !

And now to part 2...

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Amadeus]

I see Logician has indeed run away as he cannot find a plausible argument to explain why one of the first saints of the church would argue that Jesus had to have died an old man, so he pretends to have me on ignore. How absolutely trite. Yet I see he waffles from argument to argument in the hopes that his prevails, invoking quotes from the elders quoting quotes.

Logician has thus far tried to bolster his case by mentioning people such as Thallus, a virtual unknown save for him being quoted by others decades and centuries removed: Eusebius; Africanus: Syncellus: here is a man who rests his argument on the darkening of the moon, a phenomenon known today as an eclipse, and one which happens at least once a year in part, with a total every 300 years or so. Logician does not offer the other side of this argument which is using it as divine providence in favour of ones testimony and ignoring same when it is not. He also fails to reconcile that the last �total� eclipse of that era would have occurred 4BCE, which makes the year 2004 today absolutely bogus.

He references Phlegon, author of the Chronicles and Olympiad, a man who too quoted others and from whom logician relies on his quotes as made by Origen and Philipon, centuries after the fact. He references Phiny the Younger, a man who does not state that Jesus existed, but that followers in his name were superstitious. He mentions too Tacitus, who refers to the followers as believing in a �most mischievous superstition.� These are his support for a case now morphed from not being able to prove the gospels were fully canonized and accepted until the 4th century, to proof that Jesus existed.

Yet nowhere has he been challenged on that issue. But my favourite is where he aspires to Josephus as a source. Josephus, who I thoroughly enjoyed reading and who, in an earlier work, wrote of Jesus as �he is called Christ,� yet magically later his words later changed to; �Jesus he is Christ.� How befitting an author wouldn�t you say who was well received in the Roman courts and presented his books to languish in Rome and modify same as the church obviously saw fit to do so after the fact? Josephus actually does speak to Jesus, three at a minimum in fact, and he also speaks to a new sect of Jews which he loved to refer to as �robbers.� But Logician won�t tell you any of that.

The fact is, that Josephus is downright unkind to these seditionists, whose secondary leader is one called John the son of Levi, along with the principals; Joseph; Simon: Jonathan: Thadeus and Philip, all assisted by several high priests, one named Ananias, and the leader of all, a man of great wealth, an owner of a castle (Acts) a high priest himself; Jesus of Sapphia. Logician, does not speak of Josephus himself either, but in passing. Neither did Logician actually take the time to do his research, or he would have taken care to proably not omit and report that this John, as was Josephus, of the line of the most esteemed high priests; the (John)Hyrancus lineage, whose daughter Mary(Marianme) was thought by Herod to have had an affair with one Joseph. This very same Josephus who begged that 3 men crucified on the cross be released, where two died and one was revived. Never mind the fact that the gospels claim that a Joseph a disciple asked for Jesus� body, but an apocryphal version of John says a man connected to the court of the Herods made the request. Never mind that Marianme was Herods wife, and never mind that all progeny held the names of their grand whatevers. Josephus was a Jew who was well indoctrinated with his relative�s teachings, a man who retired to Rome in all its splendour, living off the avails of one Vespasian, one he earlier called his savior, as he, Mattathias ben Josephus, along with others, indoctrinated the Roman wives, then their husbands into their religion.

This Jesus the high priest was the leader of a massive revolt against those Jews who did not believe in resurrection and baptism. He was the third high priest with that name, and even more coincidentally, the third to be accepted to the position after two previous Jesuses were turned down. These men were all Pharisees, the only sect which believed in resurrection and baptism, and all held high court with one name Ananais. For those who know your scripture take note, for Logician is surely receiving an education.

Then I get back to Salome. Yet another question Logician ducked, but I am sure he had no clue as to where to start on even her, for he takes his folklore from the Bible and whatever sustenance he can get from googling phrases such as �proof of Christ.� I am sure. Salome, �The� queen Alexandra, (read Alexander the great), to the third Salome all through her line via Herod the Great, and his final tetrarch of sons, to the end of Jerusalem.

And then we have Paul, that usurper of glory. A Roman/Jew/Cilician/Pharisee himself, a veritable salamander, who alienated just about every disciple in the four gospels in his own power play. A man whose shipwreck may as well be an extension of Josephus� own. A man who, sent to Rome a prisoner, finds himself ensconced in a house and able to preach for two years after having escaped from the Romans. And yet none of you, including Logician seek to cure myopia. One only need read his salute at the end of Romans to see who exactly he addresses: Aquila of Rome and her husband Prisca; Mary(Mariamne): Andronicus a roman; the house of Aristobulus or the sons of Herod; Herodion of the house of Herod; Trypho of Rome; Rufus governor of Judea on behalf of Rome;Hermas the Shepard of the Gospel; Julia the wife of Caesar Nero; Nereus, or Caesar Nero; and Olympus his sister.

Amadeus You won�t be imparting any reason in here with the responders of this thread, and that is probably a good thing since I doubt the world can handle the truth to be handed to them so propitiously. It takes time, and little by little an adjustment period comes into play as the truth is unraveled.

Well per your signature mr. or ms. inbetween you should question quite alot of things. I mean if you think about it, the only reason that grass is green and the sky blue is because someone TOLD you that grass is green and the sky is blue.

[edit on 12/1/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Well per your signature mr. or ms. inbetween you should question quite alot of things. I mean if you think about it, the only reason that grass is green and the sky blue is because someone TOLD you that grass is green and the sky is blue.

[edit on 12/1/2004 by just_a_pilot]

Really? And on what basis pray tell do you make that obtuse observation? were you witness to someone teling me about this or were you just interested in posting a vacuous response?

If you have nothing to add, then don't, these silly comments as with yours above tell me that you wish to pick a bone, but can't find one. When you have something of even the minutest substance to say, you will hear from me again.

Sorry inbetween. It was in no way meant as a jab at you. Just a quip and observation that it all is relative in what you are questioning.

Again apologies if it seemed I was trying to belittle you.

John

Greetings Amadeus. I hope you're well.

You know, I too had to laugh when I read your post this morning: you�re actually right----- for once------I haven�t even begun to �show my teeth� on this thread�.. not yet, anyway.

"I haven't even begun to "show my teeth" on this thread...not yet anyway" ! Reminds me of that old axiom about the barking dog.

Frank Cross and the Harvard School knows very well that "Iesous" during the period BC 12- AD 36 had no universally fixed canon but just three sets of writings e.g. "Moses, Prophets and David "

On the contrary. I think Jesus had a very wholesome �canon�, and the Hebrew one at that. That Jesus makes reference to the explicit Hebrew canon is shown at several points in the Gospels.
For instance,
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35)

In this passage, Jesus records a concise history of the persecution of righteous men of God for speaking the Word of Truth through the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures, with Abel being the first recorded (Genesis 4:8) to the last recorded, Zechariah the priest (II Chronicles 24:20-21). This apparent order follows the traditional ordering of the Hebrew books, starting with Genesis and ending with II Chronicles. Jesus commonly spoke of, and thus delineated, the Old Testament scriptures (the only ones present at the time of His earthly ministry) using the term "the Law and the Prophets", which encompassed both the Pentateuch and all the other Jewish canonical books (see Matthew 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, etc.) Likewise, on occasion He would fully delineate the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, making individual reference to the Pentateuch, the earlier prophets, and the other writings (thus, the Tanak, see Luke 24:27-44). And at other times, such as Matthew 5:18, He used "the Law" as a term to encompass all of God's Word.(Interestingly, the apocryphal books were never classed within any of these three categories, and hence fall outside the sphere of jesus's reference.)

BTW, Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books,the bulk of the OT. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.
It is not significant that they were never quoted in the New Testament, because they were part of "collections" of Old Testament books.In this sense then, ALL of the modern day Masoretic �canon� is indeed refrenced by Jesus explicitly, or mentioned in the NT. So we have the Maesoretic canon implicitly.

Jesus, like all the Jews of the first century, divided the Old Testament into three "collections": the law, the prophets, the psalms. Jesus said: "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

Sometimes the sum of the Old Testament was referred to as two collections: the law and the prophets. Intestingly, Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 as "Law": "Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, �I said, you are gods�?" John 10:34. This may explain why most of the time there were two collections referred to as a sum for the whole.


Frankly I�m getting bored�.. Where are you going with all this? What�s the point? Where�s your thesis?

�And if we can believe what is placed in his mouth in the Greek �canonical� gospels ---he quoted from books which fell somewhat outside the later Jewish �canon� as Holy Scripture---Here's a couple of small examples: 1. The Mangled Greek of John 4:22 �for [it is written] , Salvation [ ] is from the Judaeans�
This verse is taken as a Zionist Proof Text from Pseudipigrapha [ �The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs]�

... etc.


Once again you�re making a mountain out of a mole hill. How does this prove Jesus used the Apocrypha? Many of the claims to apocryphal references in the New Testament are rather vague and ill-defined, and could rightly be viewed as belonging to this category of "general truths". Further Jesus didn�t exist in a vacuum. They were a part of the fabric of the social life and context of Palestinian Hebrew life in the early-to-mid 1st century. This social context included a literary history which contained the apocryphal books, and which was based upon the combined, shared experiences of the Jewish people. While these books were not recognised as canon, they still existed and were part of this combined socio-religious experience which the 1st century Jews had in their cultural repositories.

So, no, it should not be particularly surprising to us if the New Testament relates a challenge to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ which was made by certain of His detractors, the Saduccees, and whose primary element was drawn from the apocryphal book of Tobit (this being the resurrection of the woman with seven successive husbands through Levirate marriages - Matthew 22:23-32). It should not be surprising to us if certain passages even seem to echo phraseology found in the Apocrypha, and which probably represented common theological understanding among the Jews at this time (such as the Johannine reference to the Lord Jesus as "King of Kings" in Revelation 17:14, which follows the title used in 2 Maccabees 13:4, but which yet again, finds its original basis in the use of "Lord of Kings" in Daniel 2:47. The highly-educated Paul, in NT scripture, quoted three times from the works of Greek poets. In Acts 17:28, Paul said and Luke wrote, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." This is a quotation of a passage from Aratus' Phaenomena .
In Titus 1:12-13, Paul quotes a saying from the 6th century BC Cretan poet Epeminides, found in his De Oraculis, and follows it by saying, "This witness is true..."
In I Corinthians 15:33, Paul quotes from Menander's Thais.

So what? One more point. Many of these so-called quotations of the Apocrypha turn out simply to be quotations from canonical books, though the wording in the apocryphal book may be similar.

Examples of this type would include the statement in Matthew 9:36 concerning "sheep having no shepherd" is attributed to Judith 11:19. However, this phrase is a pointed reference to I Kings 22:17, and certainly echoes as well Numbers 27:17, Ezekiel 34:5-6, and Zechariah 10:2,

etc.

Iesous was able to quote from some of these "non canonical books" simply because in his lifetime [before the AD 70 Jewish War] that is during the period BC 12 to AD 36 he had access to many more additional writings than post AD 70 �Rabbinic Judaeism� later had�

This is a red herring argument, as already shown above.

And durign the time when Iesous was alive�all we know was that there were certain scriptures (scrolls) that were considered to be �core� to the sacred collection that eventually was decided to be what we would call "canonical" but which they would call that which �defiled the hands� i.e

Odds are the following books formed the core of the �sacred collection� when Jesus was alive:

1.)The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
2.)The Prophets (Neviim) - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one volume), 1 & 2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one volume)
3.)The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (one volume), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one volume)

The Rabinnic Council meetings held at Jamnia (in the AD 90s but others also well into to AD 130) were still debating several issues including the subject of whiach exact books "defiled the hands" by

As previously mentioned the Jamnia canon did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

So you could say "core and non-core" books, but you cannot say "fixed canon of scriptures" before AD 200

Well, even you can be right(albeit partially) once in a while. I could dare agree with this your statement , with proviso ofcourse with regard to 'before AD 200' and definition of 'core' and 'non-core'. .. All said and done, I guess we don't agree after all.

Logician, you do not seem to like the idea of fluidity of anything: you seem to like things neat and complete wrapped in pink ribbons.

A generalization.

That is not the way to approach the writings of the Jews (or any ancient people), since their writings (like the Christians community's writings) change and grow over time to fit the needs of the communities as they morphed.

.The Jews might have �morphed� over time, but their scriptures barely did. Consider the Isaiah scroll for instance . It remained virtually identical after a thousand years.

the rest of the "canon" of the Hebrew OT was still not fixed but open (especially in the Writings Section) and books like the Assumption of Moses and I Henoch could still be quoted as scripture (see Jude v. 9 and Jude v. 14 which are citations of these books as scripture)

I proved this to be an invalid argument.

But after AD 90, it clearly appeared as it Jews (now without their Temple) were �more agreed� on the exact number of sacred books and the names of those books

�More agreed� ?, irrevalent even if true, since we know the Jamna council accomplished very little. Morely likely it was the Jewish people who became �more agreeable� because of their new role as the proverbial wanderers ( itinerants after AD 70), but the fabric of their �OT canon� remained fairly stable through the centuries, essentially �as agreeable� as it was before the time of Christ.


Amadeus, for over two thousand years many �wise� and �learned� men have tried unsuccessfully to prove �the Jesus movement� a joke; in this regard you�re hardly the brightest crayon in the pack. You see, long after you�re dead and forgotten, the name of Jesus will tarry .

Best Wishes,


























[edit on 1-12-2004 by Logician]

Originally posted by just_a_pilot

Originally posted by Logician
Now you're lashing out at Sunday School Teachers ?. You know if you would just skip the insults, your posts would be at least 50% shorter!

Oh mannnnnnnnnn LOL take away the points! The laugh is worth it

Do you get points deducted for telling the truth on this site?

Originally posted by Logician
Greetings Amadeus. I hope you're well.

You know, I too had to laugh when I read your post this morning: you�re actually right----- for once------I haven�t even begun to �show my teeth� on this thread�.. not yet, anyway.

"I haven't even begun to "show my teeth" on this thread...not yet anyway" ! Reminds me of that old axiom about the barking dog.

"Iesous" during the period BC 12- AD 36 had no universally fixed canon but just three sets of writings e.g. "Moses, Prophets and David "

On the contrary. I think Jesus had a very wholesome �canon�, and the Hebrew one at that. That Jesus makes reference to the explicit Hebrew canon is shown at several points in the Gospels.
For instance,
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35)

In this passage, Jesus records a concise history of the persecution of righteous men of God for speaking the Word of Truth through the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures, with Abel being the first recorded (Genesis 4:8) to the last recorded, Zechariah the priest (II Chronicles 24:20-21). This apparent order follows the traditional ordering of the Hebrew books, starting with Genesis and ending with II Chronicles. Jesus commonly spoke of, and thus delineated, the Old Testament scriptures (the only ones present at the time of His earthly ministry) using the term "the Law and the Prophets", which encompassed both the Pentateuch and all the other Jewish canonical books (see Matthew 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, etc.) Likewise, on occasion He would fully delineate the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, making individual reference to the Pentateuch, the earlier prophets, and the other writings (thus, the Tanak, see Luke 24:27-44). And at other times, such as Matthew 5:18, He used "the Law" as a term to encompass all of God's Word.(Interestingly, the apocryphal books were never classed within any of these three categories, and hence fall outside the sphere of jesus's reference.)

BTW, Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books,the bulk of the OT. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.
It is not significant that they were never quoted in the New Testament, because they were part of "collections" of Old Testament books.In this sense then, ALL of the modern day Masoretic �canon� is indeed refrenced by Jesus explicitly, or mentioned in the NT. So we have the Maesoretic canon implicitly.

Jesus, like all the Jews of the first century, divided the Old Testament into three "collections": the law, the prophets, the psalms. Jesus said: "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

Sometimes the sum of the Old Testament was referred to as two collections: the law and the prophets. Intestingly, Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 as "Law": "Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, �I said, you are gods�?" John 10:34. This may explain why most of the time there were two collections referred to as a sum for the whole.

�And if we can believe what is placed in his mouth in the Greek �canonical� gospels ---he quoted from books which fell somewhat outside the later Jewish �canon� as Holy Scripture---Here's a couple of small examples: 1. The Mangled Greek of John 4:22 �for [it is written] , Salvation [ ] is from the Judaeans�
This verse is taken as a Zionist Proof Text from Pseudipigrapha [ �The Testament of the 12 Patriarchs]�

... etc.


Once again you�re making a mountain out of a mole hill. How does this prove Jesus used the Apocrypha? Many of the claims to apocryphal references in the New Testament are rather vague and ill-defined, and could rightly be viewed as belonging to this category of "general truths". Further Jesus didn�t exist in a vacuum. They were a part of the fabric of the social life and context of Palestinian Hebrew life in the early-to-mid 1st century. This social context included a literary history which contained the apocryphal books, and which was based upon the combined, shared experiences of the Jewish people. While these books were not recognised as canon, they still existed and were part of this combined socio-religious experience which the 1st century Jews had in their cultural repositories.

So, no, it should not be particularly surprising to us if the New Testament relates a challenge to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ which was made by certain of His detractors, the Saduccees, and whose primary element was drawn from the apocryphal book of Tobit (this being the resurrection of the woman with seven successive husbands through Levirate marriages - Matthew 22:23-32). It should not be surprising to us if certain passages even seem to echo phraseology found in the Apocrypha, and which probably represented common theological understanding among the Jews at this time (such as the Johannine reference to the Lord Jesus as "King of Kings" in Revelation 17:14, which follows the title used in 2 Maccabees 13:4, but which yet again, finds its original basis in the use of "Lord of Kings" in Daniel 2:47. The highly-educated Paul, in NT scripture, quoted three times from the works of Greek poets. In Acts 17:28, Paul said and Luke wrote, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." This is a quotation of a passage from Aratus' Phaenomena .
In Titus 1:12-13, Paul quotes a saying from the 6th century BC Cretan poet Epeminides, found in his De Oraculis, and follows it by saying, "This witness is true..."
In I Corinthians 15:33, Paul quotes from Menander's Thais.

So what? One more point. Many of these so-called quotations of the Apocrypha turn out simply to be quotations from canonical books, though the wording in the apocryphal book may be similar.

Examples of this type would include the statement in Matthew 9:36 concerning "sheep having no shepherd" is attributed to Judith 11:19. However, this phrase is a pointed reference to I Kings 22:17, and certainly echoes as well Numbers 27:17, Ezekiel 34:5-6, and Zechariah 10:2,

etc.

Iesous was able to quote from some of these "non canonical books" simply because in his lifetime [before the AD 70 Jewish War] that is during the period BC 12 to AD 36 he had access to many more additional writings than post AD 70 �Rabbinic Judaeism� later had�

This is a red herring argument, as already shown above.

And durign the time when Iesous was alive�all we know was that there were certain scriptures (scrolls) that were considered to be �core� to the sacred collection that eventually was decided to be what we would call "canonical" but which they would call that which �defiled the hands� i.e

Odds are the following books formed the core of the �sacred collection� when Jesus was alive:

1.)The Law (Torah) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
2.)The Prophets (Neviim) - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one volume), 1 & 2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one volume)
3.)The Writings (Kethubim) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (one volume), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one volume)

The Rabinnic Council meetings held at Jamnia (in the AD 90s but others also well into to AD 130) were still debating several issues including the subject of whiach exact books "defiled the hands" by

As previously mentioned the Jamnia canon did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

So you could say "core and non-core" books, but you cannot say "fixed canon of scriptures" before AD 200

Well, even you can be right(albeit partially) once in a while. I could dare agree with this your statement , with proviso ofcourse with regard to 'before AD 200' and definition of 'core' and 'non-core'. .. All said and done, I guess we don't agree after all.

Logician, you do not seem to like the idea of fluidity of anything: you seem to like things neat and complete wrapped in pink ribbons.

A generalization.

That is not the way to approach the writings of the Jews (or any ancient people), since their writings (like the Christians community's writings) change and grow over time to fit the needs of the communities as they morphed.

.The Jews might have �morphed� over time, but their scriptures barely did. Consider the Isaiah scroll for instance . It remained virtually identical after a thousand years.

the rest of the "canon" of the Hebrew OT was still not fixed but open (especially in the Writings Section) and books like the Assumption of Moses and I Henoch could still be quoted as scripture (see Jude v. 9 and Jude v. 14 which are citations of these books as scripture)

I proved this to be an invalid argument.

But after AD 90, it clearly appeared as it Jews (now without their Temple) were �more agreed� on the exact number of sacred books and the names of those books

�More agreed� ?, irrevalent even if true, since we know the Jamna council accomplished very little. Morely likely it was the Jewish people who became �more agreeable� because of their new role as the proverbial wanderers ( itinerants after AD 70), but the fabric of their �OT canon� remained fairly stable through the centuries, essentially �as agreeable� as it was before the time of Christ.


Amadeus, for over two thousand years many �wise� and �learned� men have tried unsuccessfully to prove �the Jesus movement� a joke; in this regard you�re hardly the brightest crayon in the pack. You see, long after you�re dead and forgotten, the name of Jesus will tarry .

Best Wishes,



























[edit on 1-12-2004 by Logician]

Best Wishes to All.


Suetonius was the official historian of Rome AD 125. in his 'Life of Claudius'(25.4) he referred to the Christians causing disturbances in Rmoe which led to their being banished from thecity. He identifies the sect of christians as being derived from "the instigation of Chrestus" which was his spelling of the name christ.

When time permits I will elaborate.

Originally posted by LogicianSo what? One more point. Many of these so-called quotations of the Apocrypha turn out simply to be quotations from canonical books, though the wording in the apocryphal book may be similar.

Now that is an absolutely outrageous statement. Enoch, an apocryphal book, not in any of the Testaments, is quoted in the New Testament numerous times. The proof is in the pudding, if the books were not at one time included as canon, then it stands to reason that quoting from same meant absolutely nothing to the people to whom the apostles preached, and these were gentiles, people who knew little or nothing of the Jewish scriptures

From Enoch, Jesus adopted the phrase; �The Son of Man, his brother James, and Peter also quoted Enoch. Jude makes his case for Jesus by quoting thusly: �"In the seventh (generation) from Adam Enoch also prophesied these things, saying: "In the seventh (generation) from Adam Enoch also prophesied these things, saying: 'Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners spoke against him�."

Jesus, according to Mark, incorrectly names the high priest Abiathar as the one in the temple as David entered (MK.2:26) Now either the divine one was wrong, or the scripture he quoted from was different to what it is today, because Abiathar was in fact the son of the real high priest confronting David in the temple; Ahimelech, (1Sam. 21:6).

It is obvious that logician is pulling his/her information from unreliable and unlearned sources, and to continue to defend his/her claims without having conducted proper research suggests to me that s/he has taken no time read the scriptures and understand the relation of the NT to the OT. S/he is also quite confused as to what to defend, i.e. Jesus didn�t quote the apocyrpha per this demand of Amadeus; � How does this prove Jesus used the Apocrypha?� And in the same literal breath lambastes his/her own position with; � This social context included a literary history which contained the apocryphal books, and which was based upon the combined, shared experiences of the Jewish people. While these books were not recognised as canon, they still existed and were part of this combined socio-religious experience which the 1st century Jews had in their cultural repositories.�

Most absurd is this attempt at a cover: �Many of the claims to apocryphal references in the New Testament are rather vague and ill-defined,� Whereas we have Jude uttering 56 consecutive words of Enoch. But Logician considers that a vague reference.

Logician took this stance previously: � Yet it is a fact that the four Gospel accounts (as we have them today) are, on the whole, remarkably consistent documents and generally agree on the basic essentials. Sure there are �inconsistencies� here and there in genealogies, in the precise rendering of certain words or events, but on the whole they present us a very unified and coherent paradigm.�� a stance which has been found desperately wanting for a defense as he has been shown time and again exactly how inconsistent these Gospels are.

Considering that most Christians defend every word in the Bible as being divine and directly from God, it stands to reason then there should be no error, no discrepancies and inconsistency of reporting between the apostles, all of the very first church fathers should have been speaking of Jesus in exactly the same manner the 4 Gospels speak of his life and works, and there should have been no division among the Christians as early as 50 years after his death to cause such an uproar as to have letters flying between the church fathers, each declaring the other a heretic. When one is expected to believe everything as written, those words have to be consistent and accurate, and if many are not, then it begs the question; what else is incorrect?

The blatant deception of Jesus's divinity among others, was sculpted by the forefathers, by Paul, and by those who attempted to rewrite his history as evidenced by their accounting of his divine and immaculate birth as well as his resurrection. The most damaging aspect to these gospels are the words of the early church fathers which failed along with the apocrypha to have made it to the fires or some dusty shelf deep within the bowels of the Vatican�s secret library. Such is what happens when news spreads by print, it becomes impossible to destroy them all.






















[edit on 1-12-2004 by Logician]

I've got to throw in my two bits...

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Considering that most Christians defend every word in the Bible as being divine and directly from God,

How many times must it be said before it is understood? Fine, I'll all caps it for the sake of those who need it repeated: GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE! Most Christians believe it was divinely inspired account of his works. Besides, what language does God speak? If God wrote it, who would be able to understand it? Lay off it already, I'm tired of reading this argument over and over again about what people 'think' a Christian believes. Become a Christian and we'll revisit the discussion if you still believe your 'direct from God' statement to be true.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
it stands to reason then there should be no error, no discrepancies and inconsistency of reporting between the apostles, all of the very first church fathers should have been speaking of Jesus in exactly the same manner the 4 Gospels speak of his life and works, and there should have been no division among the Christians as early as 50 years after his death to cause such an uproar as to have letters flying between the church fathers, each declaring the other a heretic. When one is expected to believe everything as written, those words have to be consistent and accurate, and if many are not, then it begs the question; what else is incorrect?

Perfection cannot be achieved by man alone. When you washed your hair this morning, did you rinse and repeat? No? Here you were clearly instructed on the bottle to rinse and repeat and you chose to ignore those instructions. What else did you ignore? Your argument is a superfluous generalization. If you're going to accuse, at least know the crime and why it is a crime.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The blatant deception of Jesus's divinity among others

Support this statement please.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
, was sculpted by the forefathers, by Paul, and by those who attempted to rewrite his history as evidenced by their accounting of his divine and immaculate birth as well as his resurrection.

Did not the other apostles speak the same? Are you saying only Paul believed this?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The most damaging aspect to these gospels are the words of the early church fathers which failed along with the apocrypha to have made it to the fires or some dusty shelf deep within the bowels of the Vatican�s secret library.

Is not the apocrypha available to read? If not, you're suggesting there's something contradictory in there. What is contradictory?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Such is what happens when news spreads by print, it becomes impossible to destroy them all.

It has nothing to do with being in print. People believing in the books and buying them makes it impossible to destroy them all. Experience in marketing will tell you, the quickest way to destroy any product is to have people not buy it.


[edit on 2-12-2004 by saint4God]

Hi SaintfoGod,

Good post.

Regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls:-- In 1991 the world was astonished to hear that one of the unpublished scrolls included incredible refrences to a �Messiah� who suffered crucifixion for the sins of men. The scroll was translated by Dr. Robert Eisenman, Professor of Middle East Religions of California State University. He declared, �the text is of the most far-reaching significance because it shows that whatever group was responsible for these writings was operating in the same general scriptural and Messianic framework of early Christianity.� Although the original scroll team still claimed that there was no evidence about early Christianity in the unpublished scrolls, this new scroll totally contradicted their statements. This single scroll is earth shaking in its importance. As Dr. Norman Golb, Professor of Jewish History at the University of Chicago said, �it shows that contrary to what some of the editors said, there are lots of surprises in the scrolls, and this is one of them.�

This remarkable five line scroll contained fascinating information about the death of the Messiah. It referred to the �prophet Isaiah� and his messianic prophecy(ch. 53) that identified the messiah as one who will suffer for the sins of his people. This scroll provides an amazing parallel to the New Testament revelation that the messiah would first suffer death before he would ultimately return to rule the nations.Many scholars believed that the Jews during the first century of our era believed that, when he finally came, the messiah would rule forever without dying. The exciting discovery of this scrollreveals that the Essene writer in this scroll understood the dual role of the messiah as Christians did. This scroll identified the messiah as the �shoot of jesse�(King David�s father) the �Branch of David�, and declared that he was �pierced� and �wounded�. The word �pierced� remind us of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 22:16� �they pierced my hands and feet.�The prophet Jeremiah (23:5) said, �I will raise unto David a righteous branch.�

The scroll also describes Messiah as a �leader of the community� who was �put to death�. This refrence pointing clearly to the historical Jesus of Nazareth is creating shockwaves for certain segments of scholars who previously assumed the gospel account about Jesus was a myth. This and other evidencse, in all probability, suggests that the Jewish Essene writer acknowledged that Jesus of Nazareth was the �suffering Messiah� who died for the sins of his people.

Another fascinating scroll discovered in cave Four known as 4Q246 refers to the hopes of a future messiah figure. This is another of the scrolls that was unpublished until recently . Amazingly, the text in this scroll refers to the mressiah as �the son of God� and the �son of the Most high�. These words are the exact wording rcorded in the gospel of Luke.

The text of Scroll 4Q246 �

�He shall be called the Son of God,
and they shall designate him son of the Most High.
Like the appearance of comets, so shall be their kingdom.
For brief years they shall reign over the earth and shall trample on all;
One people shall trample on another and
One province on another until the people of God shall rise and all shall rest from the sword.�

Compare these words in the scroll 4Q246 test to the words found in Luke 1:32 and 35: �He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord god shall give unto him the throne of his father David� And the angel answered and andsaid unto her, The holy Ghost shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.� (Luke 1:32-35).

Anyone comparing these two first century texts will be startled by the amazing similarity of concept and wording describing the messianic leader. One of the great differences between Christian and Jewish conceptions of the promised Messiah revolves around His relationship to God. While the Jews believe the Messiah will be a great man, such as Moses, with a divine mission, the Christians believe that the Bible teaches that the Messiah would be uniquely �the Son of God�. The Jewish view usually held that the concept of a �son of God� violated the primary truth of monotheism found in Deuteronomy 6:4 �hear, O Israel : The Lord our god is one Lord.� The Christians believed that Jesus� claim to be Son of God was not a violation of Deut. 6:4. It is fascinating in this regard to consider the presence of these statements in this first century Jewish text� �He shall be called the son of God, and they shall designate him son of the Most high.�

The presence of these statements in the Dead sea scrolls suggests that some of the Essenes either accepted the Messianic claims of Jesus to be the Son of God or anticipated this concept.Either possibility opens up new areas for exploration. Another possibility that must beconsidered is this: is it possible that this scroll 4Q246 is a direct quote from the writer hearing the words of the gospel of Luke that was now widely circulating according to early Christian witnesses? Luke, the physician, claimed that he wrote the gospel of Luke as an eyewitness of the evenets he personally observed. In Luke 1:1-3, he says :� Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the wor; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.�

The discovery of the virtually identical wording �Son of God� from Luke 1:32 and 35 with the scroll found buried in a cave in AD 68, stands as a tremendous witness to the early existence and transmission of the Gospel records within thirty-five years of Christ. If the gospels were written and distributed wuthun thurty-five years of the events of the life of Jesus(as the gospels claim) then they stand as the BEST eyewitness historical records we could ever hope to possess. In fact, all of these ancient historical records confirm the truth of the gospels.

Over and over again, archeological discoveries have consistently proved the Bible to be correct. � Pi Ramses, Mernepta Stella, Armena Letters, Sodom and Gomorra, Jerico etc. etc.

More Later��.


[edit on 6-12-2004 by Logician]

saint4God,

Blessings again. Our scroll, whose siglum number is 4Q246, has also been studied by Paris scholar, J. T. Milik, and he too suggests it bears remarkable similarity to passages from the Gospel of Luke. "The parallels between the text of this scroll, dating to the time of Jesus' life on earth, and the wording in the Gospel of Luke is intriguing," said Mazar.[ Jerusalem historian, Prof. Ory Mazar, the son of renowned Hebrew University president and archaeologist, Prof. Benjamin Mazar.]

"For centuries, historians have questioned the integrity of this passage, believing that the narration was likely changed, re-written or simply added at a later date to the New Testament," said Mazar. Scholars have further questioned the belief in Jesus as the "Son of God," suggesting that it was not a part of the faith of the first followers of Jesus and was simply inserted into the Church's teachings by the Greeks or Romans, decades later.

Written in Hebrew, the language spoken by Jesus and the Jewish people of the first century, this Dead Sea Scroll was found in extremely poor physical condition and is therefore very difficult to read. However, scholars have been able to decipher the following three phrases. I will quote these lovely verses once more (and will do so again at every opportunity).:

"He will be great... upon the earth..."
"[He] will be called the Son of the Highest..."
"[He] will be called the Son of God..."

"What is remarkable," says Mazar, "is that we have never before seen the terms 'Son of the Highest' or 'Son of God' used in first century Hebrew writings. While much more work must still to be done, obviously this text is of extraordinary importance to New Testament scholars and to every individual Christian..."

Even more fascinating is an older Dead Sea Scroll, which dates to the first century B.C. It too appears to reveal details of the Qumran scribes' knowledge of the birth of the Messiah. �

More Later�I�m very excited about what the next few years in biblical archeology will bring us(many scrolls remain yet to be scientifically deciphered)�. I predict people like Amadeus will then not even have blanks left to shoot.

Silence is Golden.



[edit on 6-12-2004 by Logician]

Originally posted by saint4God
I've got to throw in my two bits...

Good cover Saint4God, but unfortunately not all of your fellow Christians agree with you. Since you cannot agree amongst yourselves, then whom are we supposed to believe in your house divided?

I reiterate: This book is an accounting of the last three years of Christ, the supposed divine son of God, and brought to us by those who witnessed those three years. Their accounts are fraught with disagreement and inconsistency in reporting. Considering this then, which of them do we believe if we are to believe any at all? And if these at odds stories contain errors, then why on God�s green and watery earth should we believe any of the other stories, including the words attested to him, for I ask you, which is more difficult to recall, what one did or what another said?

I quote your fellow ATSers
Dbrandt: We can't make you believe that the Bible is one of the ways God talks to us. You have decided to not believe the truths that are in it.

Voidmtter: (in defense of that position): Your problem is the limitaions placed on God by your definition of God.
With your God it is not possible. With my definition of God it couldn't be any other way.

Lastday prophet: The first proof that the Bible is God's word and is accurate is the FACT that there are many people that take the Bible just as it is written and they get the results that the Bible says you should get.

Majic, the bible is God's written word. Just like he spoke to the writers of the bible what to write, he can speak to others and tell them what he expects and they in turn explain his message to others.

Rawiea: Well, I think the bible was written Literally, Figuratively AND Symbolically.
You need to read it to find the context. If literal, it means just what it says.

JesterBR549: Actually, the Book of Genesis was compiled by Moses from eye witness accounts from before the flood.

Leiphasw: But back to the subject; I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God as the author wrote it down in his own words. I believe that God supernaturally insured that any stylistic affect of the writer did not change the intent of the passage.

Amethyst: Actually the Bible is the literal Word of God.

When people claim the Bible contradicts itself, one has to wonder if they're looking at the Authorized King James, the modern versions, or all of the above?

And those are from only one thread� www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your apologetic posts for the fallible scriptures would expect those who read them to forego the very significant errors and just accept the four gospels as truth. That defies logic. For if someone told you a story and you confirm that half of it was not true, would any amount of imploring you to accept the rest as truth cause you to place your faith in the tale?

And we are not speaking here of washing my hair, since I have not written a gospel which is being presented to the world and all generations as truth. I was not chosen by Jesus to be his disciple and spread his word, and that last fact alone demands that word be consistent and precise, when matched with other chosen disciples, so there really is nothing superfluous about my position since I do not reduce Jesus to my brand of shampoo.

I have supported the statement on the �blatant deception of his divinity.� Relative to his resurrection on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... if you want the rest of it; i.e. his birth, I�ll be happy to oblige. This also answers your next question as to the resurrection.

Yes, the apocrypha is available to read, and no, I do not suggest there is something contradictory in there, I state it outright. Your question on what is contradictory suggests that you think it is but a few lines here and there. It is not. Just find my posts in the biblical sections and you can avail yourself of those which I have mentioned, on threads which you have been a participant I might add, like here; www.abovetopsecret.com... Is it necessary to repeat myself? But, do not despair, I am sure to post others.

It has nothing to do with being in print. People believing in the books and buying them makes it impossible to destroy them all.

Buying them? You are not familiar with the texts of the first through third centuries or the epistles of the church fathers, or the various councils, are you?

I'm beginning to think 'Somewhereinbetween' and Amadeus are one and the same person; either that or they're soul mates. .... very uncanily alike.

Good Lord man, whom do you attempt to mislead, yourself or the viewers? There is this which can be umpteen characters in the OT: Are you aware that the Essenes were devout followers of John the Baptist, and his teachings were not in sync with those of Jesus? Are you aware that the Essenes as with John the Baptist were believers in resurrection, even before Jesus made his presence known? No, I don�t think you are, or you would have to admit that the messiah is expected to rise from the dead. Much like the forgers of the gospels who ripped off Daniel, Ezekiel and Isaiah to make Jesus fit the bill decided to do. Are you aware that these scrolls are dated centuries after Jesus, and as such add nothing to clear up the numerous arguments between the church elders in the early first century to the mid fourth?

When do you suppose the world will actually be introduced to the thousands of fragments uncovered and not just the select few since their discovery 47 years ago?

Why is it that the Books of Enoch are prevalent among the DSS which you attempt to use as support for Jesus�s whatever, and yet, Enoch is not found in your Bible?

Why is it that you cite the Dead Sea scrolls but fail to mention that your previous case on authenticity of the canon melts away as the fragments contain lines for Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy, not in your Bible? Why didn�t you tell the readers this:

God said to Moses, "I have heard what the people have said to you. They are correct in all they have said. If 5they continue to fear [Me and obey all the commandments all may go well for them and their children forever! Now that you have heard] My words tell them, ['I will give them a prophet like you from their own people; This prophet will speak everything I tell him. Anyone] who does not listen [to this prophet, I will hold accountable.

Why don�t you then tell the readers about this, after all, Paul certainly knew what he had to elucidate to the gullible?

Any prophet who speaks falsely in My name,] or spea[ks in the name of other gods will die. You may ask, "How will we know if a prophet speaks the LORDs words?"] If [the things a prophet says do not happen it's not the LORDs word. This prophet has spoken presumptuously, but do fear him."]

Why don�t you tell them that the Dead Sea scrolls you use as a testament records the flood differently to the Bible you seek to exalt?

And the Lord covered the land with fruits and gave them plenty of food and made every living thing content with the fruit. "May everyone who does as I ask be filled with food and be satisfied[1]," said the Lord, "and show devotion to my [holy] name." "But now they have done things that I believe are evil[2]," God said. And they went against what God asked through their actions. And God judged them according to their actions and their thoughts of the [immoral] tendency of their evil hearts and thundered against them with through his power. And the entire earth shook, and the waters overflowed from the gorges; all the entrance gates of the heavens opened up and the abysses overflowed with strong waters; 5 and the entrance gates of the heavens poured rain. And they were destroyed by the flood.[...] everyone[3] died in the waters...[...] This is why everything that was on land [disappeared,] and men, the [animals and all the] birds, everything with wings [died.] Not even the strongest escaped. [...]...And God made [a contract] and put the rainbow [in the clouds] to remember the contract he made with the people [...and never again will] a flood [come] for [destruction, or] will the chaos of the waters be opened. [...] they made, and clouds [...] for (the) waters [...] 10 [...]

See Noah in there anywhere? Are these words in your Bible?

What about the astrological aspect of the fragments, why have not you mentioned those in relation to your Bible?

his stone is granite[1].
He has fixed eyes[2]. He has long and slender thighs, toes, and feet. He was born during the second phase of the moon[3]. His spirit has six parts in the house of light[4] and three parts in the house of darkness.[5] He shall be born under the haunch of Taurus[6] and he will be poor. His animal sign is bull.

...and his head...[and his cheeks are] fat. His eyes are terrifying... His teeth are different lengths. His hands and fingers are thick. Each of his thighs is thick and very hairy. His toes are thick and short. His spirit has eight parts in the house of darkness and one in the house of light.

You have employed deceptive practices to mislead the reader, Logician. You cannot pull but one piece which you wish to interpret to your liking and not report the rest. The evidence is clear from the DDS, your Bible has either been redacted, changed or appended, or the DDS are bogus.

But allow me to wrap up your DDS proof of Jesus for you, the Jesus which you and fellow Christians have decided did away with sacrifices:

After the Sabbath, there are three days added and then the year is complete, three hundred and sixty-four days. There are some rules concerning God, which are part of the works we are looking at and they all relate to the purity laws. When wheat is offered, Gentiles cannot touch it. No one should accept wheat from the Gentiles. No wheat touched by the Gentiles will be allowed in the temple.
The flesh of the sacrifies should be cooked in bronze canisters. Both the meat and the broth of the sacrifices should be taken outside into the courtyard. The sacrifice is of the Gentiles, what we think is a sacrifice is an offering of thanks, which is postponed from one day to the next. Concerning this sacrifice, it should be a man of stature who has a woman with him.

'Inbetween' person,

Please take a deep breath: relax.


You don't even know where you belong('somewhereinbetween'), how then CAN you even begin to fathom a coherent discourse. Frankly your post makes absolutely no sense at all. For this reason, and as I said before, I'm not interested in dialogueing with you. I can barely put up with Amadeus, as is.

Best wishes and have a good day.