'Sound doctrine' has left the building! (tradition, blood, miracles, religion)

[pneuma]

1. Nothing written by Jesus

which to me is a good point, showing that it is NOT the pen that is to lead us but rather the spirit.


2. Earliest writings are of Paul mentioning Jesus 25 years after his crucifixion, but not an earthly Jesus---a celestial Jesus. Paul claims he gets everything NOT FROM MAN, including the apostles, but from a Jesus who talks to him. I have an uncle in a ward who claims Napoleon talks to him and has visions of him. Paul never mentions one earthly event in Jesus' life.


the crucifixion was not an earthly event?

3. Earliest gospels written 40-100 years after Jesus' death. The writers were Greeks who never met Jesus, but were listening to stories passed around for generations before someone wrote down the gospel called Mark. This Jesus is not divine and doesn't claim to be divine. He calls one person good--God. Later accounts gradually deify Jesus more and more until we have the Jesus/God of John.

prove this

4. Not one contemporary historian of Jesus' time mentions him even once. There are hundreds of them but the most famous was Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-50 AD) who had relatives living in Jerusalem during Jesus' time. Don't you think they would have send back reports to Philo of something---ANYTHING of all the turmoil caused by Jesus at his crucifixion and resurrection? That would have been news all over the Roman world. But Philo never mentions Jesus once.

true but that does not prove anything, your making an argument from silence.

5. There is not one artifact left behind that is associated with Jesus--nothing to show he was a real person.

what kind of artifact are you looking for?


6. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus.

false

All there is are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.

false


7. The Dead Sea Scrolls, also known as the Qumran texts, contain no mention of Jesus.

most of the dead sea scrolls were written before Jesus time, and those afterword do make mention of an anti Christ. you can't have an anti Christ without a Christ.

Paul, credited with spreading “Christianity” shortly after the supposed death of Jesus, never says that Jesus was a real person — even in the Bible itself.

forgot about the crucifixion again already.

[chadgates]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Hi Chadgates, glad you got back to me.

[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]Glad to here that[/color]

That's what you took out of what was shown? The difference is Jesus in the quotes I gave contradicted what was in the law of Moses.So the question is why did Jesus contradict those laws if they were the laws of God?

Chad you are going to have to show me the paragraph you are speaking about as I never said anything about being a bible idolator in my post. Are you sure it was my post where you seen this?

First, I owe you a tremendous apology. I did indeed mistook pcamps post for yours.

I am still looking over your material, and will be honest. It is something that is going to take a good bit of time. You presented quite a large amount of text and source material, which I will be looking into at length. When the subject matter is one of such importance I cannot and will not jump to any conclusions. This will be a long process whereby I pray and read. I cannot do your argument justice by merely reading what you have posted and not doing my due diligence in checking into it for myself.

The first question I have is concerning what I already mentioned, and what you attempted to address in blue above.

Quoting you now:
First, Jesus does not say it is written, but says ye have heard that it hath been said.

Jesus purposely chose the words ye have heard that it hath been said instead of it is written to show us that the law of forswearing comes from the lying pen of the Scribes and is an addition to the law of Moses, but attributed to Moses by those same Scribes.

My question was concerning the fact that Jesus also used the same phraseology concerning murder and adultery. If Jesus purposely chose these words for the reason you suggest, why then does he use the same carefully chosen words to describe what (I assume) you also believe to be factual scripture and not additions (ie. the ten commandments)?


The second question I have is that while you have presented a lot of information I am somewhat confused by the fact that you list several quotes (6 to be exact) of Bible scholars who made claims of broad and general Biblical corruption, and then you even post an example from 1 Peter. However none of the 6 quotes mentions 1 Peter at all. Next comes additional quotes, starting with Conybeare then goes on and quotes the biblical scholar Dr. C.R. Gregory, and writes: "In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19).

So while I appreciate the effort, I think it would be more effective if there were some quotes focusing directly on the corruption of 1Peter, since that is the Biblical text you showcased for an example. What is the source of the 1st quote?

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by pneuma

1. Nothing written by Jesus

which to me is a good point, showing that it is NOT the pen that is to lead us but rather the spirit.


2. Earliest writings are of Paul mentioning Jesus 25 years after his crucifixion, but not an earthly Jesus---a celestial Jesus. Paul claims he gets everything NOT FROM MAN, including the apostles, but from a Jesus who talks to him. I have an uncle in a ward who claims Napoleon talks to him and has visions of him. Paul never mentions one earthly event in Jesus' life.


the crucifixion was not an earthly event?

3. Earliest gospels written 40-100 years after Jesus' death. The writers were Greeks who never met Jesus, but were listening to stories passed around for generations before someone wrote down the gospel called Mark. This Jesus is not divine and doesn't claim to be divine. He calls one person good--God. Later accounts gradually deify Jesus more and more until we have the Jesus/God of John.

prove this

4. Not one contemporary historian of Jesus' time mentions him even once. There are hundreds of them but the most famous was Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-50 AD) who had relatives living in Jerusalem during Jesus' time. Don't you think they would have send back reports to Philo of something---ANYTHING of all the turmoil caused by Jesus at his crucifixion and resurrection? That would have been news all over the Roman world. But Philo never mentions Jesus once.

true but that does not prove anything, your making an argument from silence.

5. There is not one artifact left behind that is associated with Jesus--nothing to show he was a real person.

what kind of artifact are you looking for?


6. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus.

false

All there is are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.

false


7. The Dead Sea Scrolls, also known as the Qumran texts, contain no mention of Jesus.

most of the dead sea scrolls were written before Jesus time, and those afterword do make mention of an anti Christ. you can't have an anti Christ without a Christ.

Paul, credited with spreading “Christianity” shortly after the supposed death of Jesus, never says that Jesus was a real person — even in the Bible itself.

forgot about the crucifixion again already.

pneuma, all your responses are pithy one-line red herrings: "prove it; show me; how do you know this; that's not true", etc. I'm not going to do the leg work for you. If you're interested in finding the truth research it yourself. It's right there. If you're just interested in making me write a long dissertation you're going to ignore anyway, I've been down that path before with a few other fundamentalists here and I'm not interested.

true but that does not prove anything, your making an argument from silence.

That is about the silliest response I've ever heard.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Historians have to be cold and impassionate and look at what is before them with an unbiased attitude.

why is it then you do not believe these historians and what they said?

Tacitus
Suetonius
Pliny the Younger

By disbelieving what they reported of Jesus your saying these historians did not do their jobs as historian very good. that they lived so closely after the time of Jesus do you not think they would have had documents concerning Jesus that no longer exist today? Do you honestly believe they would state hearsay as a fact? You seem to be picking and choosing which historians are good and which are bad historians. that is being very bias thrill.


Also if you think about it the nay sayers never questioned the historical Jesus the gospels put forth, surely if Jesus never existed some nay sayer would have said something about it when Paul or the apostle brought Jesus up.

And one more thing to think about is that if Jesus was only a myth do you really believe that the apostles and Christians of that day would have died the horrible deaths they died for a myth.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

pneuma, all your responses are pithy one-line red herrings: "prove it; show me; how do you know this; that's not true", etc. I'm not going to do the leg work for you. If you're interested in finding the truth research it yourself. It's right there. If you're just interested in making me write a long dissertation you're going to ignore anyway, I've been down that path before with a few other fundamentalists here and I'm not interested.



That is about the silliest response I've ever heard.

sorry thrill you are the one that said Jesus was a myth, thus the onus is on YOU to prove that statement, so far you have not done that. You refer to the W-post as though that has all the answers you need, yet I found it very lacking in info.

If you have something else, other then conjecture, to show then lets see it, as so far all I see is your own bias toward any historian that made mention of Jesus.

[pneuma]

Originally Posted by chadgates

First, I owe you a tremendous apology. I did indeed mistook pcamps post for yours.

I am still looking over your material, and will be honest. It is something that is going to take a good bit of time. You presented quite a large amount of text and source material, which I will be looking into at length. When the subject matter is one of such importance I cannot and will not jump to any conclusions. This will be a long process whereby I pray and read. I cannot do your argument justice by merely reading what you have posted and not doing my due diligence in checking into it for myself.

The first question I have is concerning what I already mentioned, and what you attempted to address in blue above.

Quoting you now:
First, Jesus does not say it is written, but says ye have heard that it hath been said.

Jesus purposely chose the words ye have heard that it hath been said instead of it is written to show us that the law of forswearing comes from the lying pen of the Scribes and is an addition to the law of Moses, but attributed to Moses by those same Scribes.

My question was concerning the fact that Jesus also used the same phraseology concerning murder and adultery. If Jesus purposely chose these words for the reason you suggest, why then does he use the same carefully chosen words to describe what (I assume) you also believe to be factual scripture and not additions (ie. the ten commandments)?


The second question I have is that while you have presented a lot of information I am somewhat confused by the fact that you list several quotes (6 to be exact) of Bible scholars who made claims of broad and general Biblical corruption, and then you even post an example from 1 Peter. However none of the 6 quotes mentions 1 Peter at all. Next comes additional quotes, starting with Conybeare then goes on and quotes the biblical scholar Dr. C.R. Gregory, and writes: "In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19).

So while I appreciate the effort, I think it would be more effective if there were some quotes focusing directly on the corruption of 1Peter, since that is the Biblical text you showcased for an example. What is the source of the 1st quote?

Tis ok chad, I have done that myself, these board can get confusing at times.

that is good chad and would expect nothing less, get back to me when you have the time. I will be adding a few other things after this post for your consideration that support further what I have already stated.

as my computer that works with my bible software is acting up can you post the scriptures you are referring to so I can look them up.

I was just giving an example within the NIV where there was an addition added to show that the quotes were accurate in what they said. I did not mean to imply that the scholars were referring to 1 peter.

[chadgates]

4. Not one contemporary historian of Jesus' time mentions him even once. There are hundreds of them but the most famous was Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-50 AD) who had relatives living in Jerusalem during Jesus' time. Don't you think they would have send back reports to Philo of something---ANYTHING of all the turmoil caused by Jesus at his crucifixion and resurrection? That would have been news all over the Roman world. But Philo never mentions Jesus once.

Quote:
true but that does not prove anything, your making an argument from silence.
That is about the silliest response I've ever heard.



Let me add to this discussion concerning this claim. Especially targeting "That would have been news all over the Roman world".

Really it is not a valid claim. To suppose that a small commotion in the insignificant town of Jerusalem was "newsworthy" to Roman historians is absurd. There was no revolt. Just a commotion. These types of commotions were not uncommon at all throughout the vast region occupied by the Roman Empire. These commotions were not newsworthy events, because they were not at all unique, and had very little impact on the Roman Empire.

[chadgates]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Tis ok chad, I have done that myself, these board can get confusing at times.

that is good chad and would expect nothing less, get back to me when you have the time. I will be adding a few other things after this post for your consideration that support further what I have already stated.

as my computer that works with my bible software is acting up can you post the scriptures you are referring to so I can look them up.

I was just giving an example within the NIV where there was an addition added to show that the quotes were accurate in what they said. I did not mean to imply that the scholars were referring to 1 peter.

Matthew 5:21
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’

Matthew 5:27
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


My question is what is the source that reveals the "actual text". Where did that come from?
IOW, how am I to know that ANYTHING was added unless you provide a source for the supposed "actual text".

Like where the one quote:
Conybeare then goes on and quotes the biblical scholar Dr. C.R. Gregory, and writes: "In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19).

It would be more beneficial if we saw the two versions of Matthew 28:19. THEN his commentary would be much more useful.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by pneuma

why is it then you do not believe these historians and what they said?

Tacitus
Suetonius
Pliny the Younger

By disbelieving what they reported of Jesus your saying these historians did not do their jobs as historian very good. that they lived so closely after the time of Jesus do you not think they would have had documents concerning Jesus that no longer exist today? Do you honestly believe they would state hearsay as a fact? You seem to be picking and choosing which historians are good and which are bad historians. that is being very bias thrill.


Also if you think about it the nay sayers never questioned the historical Jesus the gospels put forth, surely if Jesus never existed some nay sayer would have said something about it when Paul or the apostle brought Jesus up.

And one more thing to think about is that if Jesus was only a myth do you really believe that the apostles and Christians of that day would have died the horrible deaths they died for a myth.

Jeez, how many times do I have to answer this! It's because they were writing about a hundred years after Jesus' death so how could they get their information any other way except from 100th-hand sources. The legends and myths about jesus had been passing around in thousands of permutations for a century. No judge in the world would accept as valid testimony the words of an uninterested party who circulated a rumor about Abraham Lincoln in 1877. But gospel writers trying to push a particular belief would certainly collect a bunch of tales and twist them around any way they wanted to suit their agenda. Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or watch YouTube videos of him talking about it if you really are interested in knowing about all this.

You'd make a lousy historian, pneuma.

PS the stories circulating about the apostles deaths are themselves myths. There not one shred of evidence to support the wild tales circulating about how they died. For example Thomas supposed rose out of the burning oil he was thrown into and into the air with arms outstretched to his persecutors. That's the kind of rubbish that was being spun over the centuries.

[pneuma]

Chad here are the other conciderations.


According to the Jewish study Bible pages 1835 & 1838

The Jews interpreted scripture by using scripture, thus they turned the scripture over and over to find new truths from examining the scriptutres and reordering the old scriptures. Thus when they came upon problem scriptures they would translate those scripture according to thier own interpretation and took sides in theological and legal contraversies, expaned the narritive and legal material all the while purporting to merely convey the meaning of the text they translated.

Thus in ancient times it was the responsiblity of the translator not to only translate the text, but to render it comprehensible to those who could not read the sacred writting themselves. Thus many of their interpretation of the scripture became a part of the scriptures.




　


Justin Martyr lamented that the scribes in his day deleted from scripture prophesy that in fact showed Jesus Christ was the Messiah.








Matthew 2:23




23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth:

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

　

Nowhere in scripture can this prophesy be found.


Could Justin Martyr be correct and this is one of the prophesies the scribes deleted from the scriptures?

Just because God does not want people to do something does not mean people won’t do it.

　

And history proves that man has tampered with the scripture.

　

Witness 1John.5:7

1John.5-7 Scripture or an addition to scripture by the lying pen of the scribes.


Barnes says

this scripture is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings.
He goes on to give the reasons why.

I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century.

II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.


III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity



VI. The passage is now omitted in the best editions of the Greek Testament, and regarded as spurious by the ablest critics.


Clark says

It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.

It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.


　

　

Some things of interest concerning an eye for an eye. If it did not originate from God but came from the lying pen of the scribes adding to the law given to Moses where did this law come from?

　

In the bible, we read often about God giving His people heck for going out and serving OTHER GODS.

　

Could this law an eye for an eye come from the service to other gods (namely Babylonian gods), and the lying pen of the scribes added it to the Mosaic Law and attributed by those lying scribes to Moses?

　

Well read this excerpt from the Code of Hammurabi, which was written somewhere between 1750 B.C. and 1792 B.C. This Code was written some 200+ years before the time of Moses.

　


　

　

　

　

　

　

　

　




　

　

196


　　　If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]


197


　　　If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.


198


　　　If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.


199


　　　If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.


200


　　　If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]

　

And what was Jesus reply to this Code? NO

Was Jeremiah correct in saying the lying pen of the scribes added to the Law of Moses? YES

　

Chad do you believe these book are scripture?









I Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I Maccabees, II Maccabees,








III Maccabees, IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Osee, Michaeas, Ambacum, Sophonias










Aggaeus


if not why?

As The Septuagint contains these books and it was the Septuagint Paul was speaking of when he said all scripture was inspired by God.

Yet these books Have been deleted out of almost every bible today. Proving man has tampered with God word, as they were in the bible when Paul said all scripture is inspired by God.

　

The scribes who Jesus said were not capable of hearing the WORD, but went about doing the works of their father the devil are the same scribes that made the boast that they preserved perfectly the word of God.

How can those who did the works of the devil be the preservers of the Word of God?



The Word of God is not given to us by means of pen and paper. It come to us as a seed and that seed grows within us.



Acts 6:7
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Acts 12:24
24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.


Acts 19:20
20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

Obviously these scriptures are not talking about the bible, they are talking about the seed of the Word of God within us growing and multiplying, that we might come to the full stature of Christ. This all done by the leading of the Holy Spirit which is the ONLY means by which we can obtain maturity in Christ. Acts 7:51





John 5:39-40
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.



The WORD OF GOD cannot be contained in a book, it can only be contained within US. If Christ (the WORD OF GOD) is alive within you, you have but to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit to access that WORD.

Satan has always corrupted or tried to corrupt the words of God, he did so in the garden, he tried again with Jesus, but failed because Jesus Christ is the WORD OF GOD and could not be corrupted.

Balaam taught that the best way to undo Gods people was to infiltrate and destroy them from within; what better way to try and destroy God people then adding, deleting or changing the scriptures.

Here are a few more examples.

Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem. That means that each line of the Psalm starts with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet in the Karaites/Masoretic Text this does not happen, one verse (or line) is completely missing.

That verse which has been deleted reads


　

"God is faithful in all of his words, and pious in all of his deeds; blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name, forever, and ever."

　

　


　

Now because the Karaites/Masoretic Text has deleted this scripture all translations made on the Karaites/Masoretic Text do not have this scripture either, which includes the KJV of the bible.

　

So how can those bible translated from the Karaites/Masoretic Text be the undefiled Word of God if one whole verse is missing from it?

　

But how do we know that this verse


　

　

"God is faithful in all of his words, and pious in all of his deeds; blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name, forever, and ever."

　

　

　

Has really been deleted from the scriptures of the Karaites/Masoretic Text?

　

We know because of the discovery of the dead sea scrolls which has this verse


　

"God is faithful in all of his words, and pious in all of his deeds; blessed is the Lord and blessed is his name, forever, and ever."

　


　

In it. Thus making complete the acrostic poem.


　

　

　

Now if the Karaites/Masoretic Text bibles have deleted a whole line of scripture how many other scriptures have been deleted or added or changed?


　

　

　

Let's look at another verse

　

　

Psalms 22:16

　

The Karaites/Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible originally read,
"like a lion, my hands and my feet." and it was not until the dead sea scrolls were discovered that this verse was changed to "They pierced my hands and my feet." which the Septuagint had correctly translated it.

　



Scholars put this down as a scribal error, however Justin Martyr in his day said the scribes were deleting scripture that clearly showed Jesus was the Messiah.


　


Now after seeing what the Karaites/Masoretic Text did to Psalms 145 is it really so hard to believe Justin Martyr?

　

　

But some might say that is not enough evidence to go on. So let's keep looking.

　

I have read 16 different translations of Deuteronomy 8:6 which reads

　

　



"And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in his ways and
by fearing him."


　

　

And every one of them (the 16 translations) is in ERROR.

　

According to the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy 8:6 should read

　


"And you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, by walking in his ways and
by loving him"

　


　

　


To quote another

　

These variants refer to two powerful but different emotions—fear and love. The variants also set forth a difference in how one understands Old Testament doctrines; in particular, the variants introduce the question of whether one should keep the commandments through fear or through love. The reading of love also provides us with an important view of the God of the Old Testament, who is sometimes portrayed as a strict Deity when compared with Jesus Christ and his teachings of love in the New Testament.

　

Can any still believe the bibles today are the undefiled WORD OF GOD?

Chad, did you know Moses even changed one of Gods laws, and that Jesus corrected what Moses had changed?

　

Mark 10 and it is also in Mathew 19 I think.

Jesus states Moses changed the law because of the hardness of the peoples hearts but from the begininng it was not so.

In past discussion on this topic one here told me that "God gave to Moses those words because of the hardness of their hearts"


Yet Jesus actually gives us the reason Moses changed the law


it was because of the hardness of people hearts




. NOT because God told him to.


　

　

Chad, There are tares among the wheat of God’s word written in the bibles, and as we listen to Christ the vail of ignorance is lifted and the tares are removed and we have the pure undefiled word of God.

My friend the only way we can determine the tares from the wheat ( because tares and wheat look alike, but one is a dead and the other alive) is by taking every thought (including every thought recorded in the bible) and filter them through Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit of agape love, and if it is not based on agape love ( for God is agape love)we know that it is but a tare.

God bless.