Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

Read the Bible,... especially Revelation which says Jews who did not accept Jesus are not actually believers in what is the real Judaism:

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

- - - Updated - - -

Do more research.
The Protestant churches differ with the Catholics on this, and there are dozens of "experts," all making way different claims.

 

Sorry, history is not on your side. But, keep your fantasies.

 

1) It was ONLY for the Jews of today,...
The whole matter has been Israel and Jesus was their messiah ben Joseph.

2) The point about the source you used was that it is wrong and weak about Mark.

 

You re wrong again, here, too.

You were wrong about Mark being criticized in the one case because the writings you referred us too are the poorest sources on the subject.
And here, Eusebius lived from 260-339AD, and the canon of the New Testament was in 380 AD, 40 years after Eusebius had died.

- - - Updated - - -

?
Jesus himself said, "The Truth will set you free."

Could both Truth and Christ be saviors?

 

The people who try to say that Daniel was written after the events are just making their own case at this late date in time.
But we KNOW that Daniel was also mentioned in Matt and in Mark, too, by Jesus.
Jesus said what was to come would still happen, in spite of the duality with what happened in Maccabbees.


Dan. 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away (in 70 AD), and (until) the abomination (of the Dome of the Rock) that maketh desolate set up (in 690 AD), there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days, (1290 + 690 = 1980 AD, the re-dedication of The New Jerusalem as Capital of Israel).

Dan. 12:12 Blessed is he, (1290 years after the 690 AD construction of the Dome of the Rock, that is: 1980 AD), that waiteth (45 more years), and cometh to (the end), the thousand, three hundred and five and thirty days, (2K25 AD).

Dan. 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end be (in the 21st Century, i.e.; Daniel 12:7 "times, times and half a times"): for thou shalt rest (in the genetic pool of the Jewish people), and stand in thy lot (when drawn again, from the gene pool of man for resurrection in your name and mind) at the end of the days (of Modern Homo sapiens).


And this ALL came true, so far...

 

The Hebrew has no capital for prophet, and doesn't mention miracles. This could refer to any major prophet.

- - - Updated - - -

By your unique calculations and interpretations

 

You're scoffing at Paul's words. Get "sola fide" out of your mind for a second and read what I'm typing.

You. Are. Scoffing. At. Paul's. Words.

It's just that simple. So, just call him a liar already.

 

The sheer number of manuscripts allow for textual critics to identify the issue you're claiming. However, your original point was that the bible has to be inaccurate because these false manuscripts exist. Once again, the sheer number of manuscripts allow for textual critics to identify these discrepancies. So, where are the inaccuracies?

 

Matthew was written long after Mark.Certainly not 54AD whatever your Bible says. The Catholics won't commit themselves.

 

?
The Bible used the capital P.
And the Christianity DID come and was very sexually proper for the first 1000 years, before the Renaissance of the seven headed beast returned the Roman Culture to Europe/America again:

Rev. 20:3 And cast him, (this dragon, the subtle cultural system of exploitative sexual mores, that old serpent, cultural Paganism), into the bottomless pit (of time), and shut him, (Satan), up (Monasticism for 1000 years so as to inhibit the culture of libidinal freedom and sexual excess), and set a seal, (the Cross), upon him, that he (could not maintain that pagan, astrological/mythological promiscuous religious subculture that) should deceive the nations (in the Western world) no more (with his pagan culture), ...

... till the thousand years (of the Dark Age of Monasticism) should be fulfilled (and the Renaissance of the Beast begin):

...and after that, (in a Renaissance), he must be loosed (to open the adolescent subculture of ever increasing sexual permissiveness) a little season (of @ 1000 years).

 

Are you real? There are genuine manuscripts which include things and genuine manuscripts which leave them out.
Do you know that modern translations are leaving out verses which are in the KJV because they have found earlier and more accurate manuscripts which do not have them.
Try these 3. John 5:4. 1 John 5:7. Acts 8:37

 

The Bible used capital P. Then the Septuagint mistranslated the Hebrew or Christianity added the P for it's own purpose of relating it to Jesus - as it often has done.

 

The KJV is the most inaccurate translation of the bible right now. If you were following the convo, you'd see that I mentioned that.

 

I have done far more research than you on the subject. That you would even mention protestant or Catholic Churches in relation to your dating claim is evidence of your ignorance of the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone can say "that is weak" ??? anyone can have an opinion Dave, but is it informed ?

 

You are speaking nonsense. 1) the codex sinaiticus is from this time period and has many correction of the centuries 2) the long ending of Mark was not included the early Bibles. There are Bibles up to the 9th century AD that still do not have the long ending.

The passage was contested "known to have something wrong with it" which is why it was not in many Bibles for centuries after the Bible was put together.

There are also a number of long endings ... folks adding lib as they went along.

You are just blubbering and making things up as you go but not substantiating anything. If you want to claim that the folks who declared Canon "Canon" had the Long ending of Mark in the Bible that they used then give some evidence for this.

 

Once again you are trying to divert from the topic = "Sola Fide"

I realize that you want to get the bad news to go away "get it out of your mind", and so you are trying anything to avoid discussing the fact that
Sola Fide doctrine attributed to Paul contradicts the works based salvation formulation preached by Jesus.

We have no clue whether or not Paul was lying and nor do we know if he was telling the truth.

The only lie is the idea that we know for sure either way. The lie that you tell yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again - Is the version of Mark with the long ending correct, or incorrect ? according to textual critics !

 

You keep bringing up Sola Fide and you're getting no where. I'm not going to let you talk about any doctrine. You're going to talk about Paul's words and Paul's words only. You like to scoff at them, but you won't say whether YOU believe he's lying or not. You keep bringing up Jesus. So, do you, yourself, believe Paul is lying? Yes or No. Just answer the question.

 

Yeah, it is true that the Old Testament, too, has been dramatically changed in many cases, also.
The Hebrew Bible was actually long lost around the time of Jesus, and had been translated into Aramaic even then.
It wasn't until the 12th century that a Hebrew Bible was reconstructed by the Masorates.

 

Remember there are some Jewish people here who do say Paul is a liar.
It is no defense to use this here.

I am not sure why Gift thinks Paul contradicts Jesus.
He doesn't.

What is the actual claim?

 

women ought not teach in churches because the whole issue in Judeao-Christianity is concerned with sexual promiscuity.
Feminism is the enemy, the great Harlot of Babylon, Istar.

Look at America since the Feminist Sexual Revolt of 1960.
Women joined the Unskilled Labor Market and wages stagnated at around $6/hr even today, half a century later.
Twice the Labor Pool, half the wages is a Law of Economics.

Then Welfare has grown such that half the kids born today are illegitimate.
IIlegitimacy is now half of all births.
Gays are out, expanding the sexual culture openly.

 

Codex Sinaiticus is the poorest manuscripts we have, and is not a great place to find evidence for what you say here, as I told you before.
And that Mark had not personally seen Jesus after the resurrection seems fine, because he was not among the witnesses to that event.

 

Then what did the Septuagint translate from Hebrew into Greek before Jesus time?

 

Thank you for the morning laugh Dave.

That you think a woman in a teaching position means that she is putting herself out there as a sex object pretty much speaks for itself. So no further comment there.

Not sure why you are so against Ishtar, Goddess of Death and Rebirth. The ancients celebrated death and rebirth in the name of this Goddess and Christians still celebrate Jesus in the name of (Easter/ Ishtar).

As far as women "speaking and teaching" in the name of God. Have you never heard of the OT prophetess Deborah ?

Who are you to speak for God by claiming God does not want women to speak in church or teach men.

 

I have never scoffed at Paul's words in relation to Sola Fide. On the contrary I have admitted to you numerous times that "faith alone" was preached by Paul.

Whether or not this is the correct salvation formulation is debatable. We simply do not know whether or not God told Paul directly that "faith alone" was the only way to salvation.

What we do know is that in Matt and Mark Jesus preaches a salvation formulation that included works.

Paul probably had a vision/dream - whatever and in that dream the idea of Sola Fide came to him and he attributed that idea to God. Do we know for sure ? Absolutely not and we will never know.

I believe that Paul believed his own vision. This does not mean that I believe that Paul's vision actually came from God.

Where I scoffed at Paul was when he says things like this: Romans 13

So Paul is saying that folks like Hitler and Stalin are there because they are Gods servants and so we should not rebel against this kind of leadership.

This is Paul trying to appease the Romans and has little to do with anything coming from God.

Paul's views on women (no speaking in churches or teaching men) is contradicted by God having female Prophets in the OT (Deborah)

Paul's "faith alone" salvation formulation then is not the only place where Paul is in contradiction with God.

 

This is just abject nonsense as you have provided no support for this fallacious claim nor suggested anything better.

I might as well claim the green cheese the moon is made of is the poorest green cheese in the solar system.