Sheshbazzar

'Jesus' and the 'apostles' never existed. We agreed on that point long ago. repeating it over and over adds nothing, and proves nothing at all.

That 'Jesus' and the 'apostles' never existed, does not entail that nothing else ever existed prior, that led up to the composition of these unrealistic propaganda tales.
You are caught up in disproving the tales as being literal history, but utterly failing to comprehend why they contain the material that they do, being unable to appreciate the literature and principals upon which they were founded and fashioned.

No. I am not implying any such thing. I am STATING as a FACT that I know a great many things about The Scriptures that you do not.

That is NOT 'knowing it all', -it is simply knowing -more- about certain aspects of The Scriptures than you do.

Now IF you know, understand, and have DONE -שמרתם את־הדבר הליל שמרים- You should know a considerable bit about the subject.

I have both known and have done it, and have mapped it out in exacting detail, and have studied the subject intensively for over thirty years.

Go ahead. IF you DO know so much more than me, explain to everyone reading here exactly what measure of knowledge you possess regarding what this "some kind of foreign language" -שמרתם לעשות את־הדבר הליל שמרים- says,
and DO demonstrate to all here that you are NOT in ignorance regarding its meaning, and what it has to do with understanding when and why the NT was written.
(I do not quote it in English because no existing English 'Version' conveys its sense. )

While you are at it, why not also explain to all in detail the length of the three 'measuring reeds', and the number of cubits, spans, hand-breadths, and digits that are in each, and explain why. And why there are so many things in The Scriptures measured with a 'measuring reed'.
Explain to them the tashbatz ta'benith.

Do also tell them why 'twenty fathoms' and 'fifteen fathoms' were numbered and recorded for all of posterity.
If you are knowledgable in these matters of Scripture, it should not present you with any difficulties at all. Either you got it or you don't.

aa5874

How many times must I repeat that I am NOT dealing with your imagination and Revelations ?? Imagination and Revelations are NOT evidence of anything.

What you Imagine and Speculate is of NO interest to me. Imagination history is for HJers, Christians and fundamentalist.

You REPEAT your imagination and become extremely upset when I show the DATED manuscripts.

I do NOT accept that Jesus and the Apostles ever lived in the 1st century.

You seem to have have forgotten.
You are caught up with your imagination and Belief. Are you NOT caught up in Disproving the tales in Gospels and the Pauline writings?? Did you NOT claim that there was NO Paul BUT ONLY Saul??

Did you NOT claim that you ALSO do NOT accept there a Jesus and the Apostles??

You BELIEVE Saul was a Literal figure of history.

You have already forgotten.

You are engaged in mere rhetoric.

You seem to have forgotten that I am dealing with EVIDENCE from antiquity that shows that Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

You knew in advance that what you have claimed cannot be shown to be true in English yet you still posted your foreign language of "unknown English sense".

You don't even know what your foreign language conveys in the English sense.

Please open a thread to discuss the English sense of your foreign language.

This thread is NOT about your knowledge of foreign language--- it is about EVIDENCE from antiquity that shows the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

This thread, unfortunately for you, is also about how much you think you know, and how much you actually don't know.
The 'Jesus story' and cult was not arrived at without antecedents, it did not just pop up full-blown one day in the 2nd century.

'Cannot be shown to be true?' Obviously you are unable to read the statement, it has nothing at all to do with being 'true' or false, it is simply a statement of something to be DONE. Either one understands and DOES it or one does not.
If someone instructs you to, say for example; 'Answer the phone' is it a true or false statement?

What I wrote in Hebrew was first taught to me by the elders in English, and I DID the thing with them for years along with the entire congregation, years before I learned to read even a word of Hebrew. It can certainly be conveyed into English and can be explained (although requiring quite a few more words than Hebrew) in English as well as in any other language.
And can be DONE and is DONE by people of many different languages and nationalities. ((because the elders explain to the assembled how and when to DO the thing)

When I stated that 'no existing English 'Version' conveys its sense', It should have been evident that I was referring to available English language TEXTS, these 'VERSIONS' not being sufficiently accurate nor clear in their translations of the Hebrew words.
In other words, if I sent you to The Bible to look up this specific verse, and you employed any commonly available English 'VERSION' you still would not understand the...hmmm....strength, permanent injunction, and the practical applications of these words.
They simply do not come across as important in English, as in the original tongue, and are thus virtually overlooked by superficial readers of English 'Versions'. And of course in not conforming to commonly known Christian rigmarole and religious practices remain obscure to those who are uneducated.

Hey look at it this way. I relieve you from having to present a droning monologue that people will get fed up with and put you on ignore. My input here gives you something to bitch about daily, and a ready excuse to keep on repeating yourself page after page after page, and is giving this groaner of a thread an excuse to survive for yet another day. I'm entertaining your readers and doing you a big favor.
Long as the banter remains entertaining and provocative enough you'll retain your podium to repeatedly pontificate from.
Are we having fun here or what? Why hell, I'm having a ball!

MrMacSon

This is an important statement: the Jesus story may have been cemented in the 2nd century or later, in contrast to claims it started in the early 1st century, but there have been plenty of people saying the antecedents were much older.

Such as the hypothesis some antecedents had their origins when the LXX was translated into Greek ~300BCE.

Sheshbazzar

That is where the name Ἰησοῦν 'Jesus' first enters the Bible, being the Greek version of the name יהושע Yahoshua, the son of Nun in the LXX.
The 'Joshua' <sic> Ἰησοῦν 'Jesus' -national hero that in the Scriptures led the children of Israel into The Promised Land.

The Name also comes up in prophecy as;
"Behold the man ( יהושוע 'Joshua' - Ἰησοῦ 'Jesu' in Greek) whose Name is the BRANCH. and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of יהוה:" (Zech 6:12) and is in Hebrew quite literally the ancient word for 'Saviour' or 'Deliverer'
The Greek name Ἰησοῦν or 'Jesus' has no such intrinsic meaning and only derives that meaning through its association with the Hebrew name.
So Ἰησοῦν 'Jesus' via the LXX, was expected to be that 'Joshua' Deliverer to come, for several centuries before he was ever 'born'.
No surprise then that the authors of The Gospels would make a big point of sticking their mystical god/man infant with that LXX derived Greek moniker.

Of course the English spelling and pronunciation 'Jesus' does not accurately convey either the Hebrew or Greek pronunciations.
People of the early church did not actually go around baptizing or preaching in the English name 'Jesus', no matter how vehemently todays Televangelists may shout;
'In Jeezuz Name'. .

MrMacSon

So, the name Ἰησοῦν ['Jesu'] is the Greek version of the name יהושע [Yahoshua; Joshua = English(?)], the son of Nun in the LXX.

And, 'Jesus' is the English version of Ἰησοῦν ['Jesu'] ??

Where do these names tie to Christus/Christos & Chrestos?



as for "Name is the BRANCH" - is that tied to netzer, and Nazorean or Nazareth; or is that too loose an association??



As for is that a re-writing of the story of Moses?

Duvduv

The word used in Zechariah 6 is TSEMACH, not NETZER. The first is a shoot, the second is a branch. In any case the vision concerns Joshua the high priest at the time of the start of the second Temple.
The Talmud recounts the story of Yeshu/Yehoshua the son of Miriam and Yosef Pandera. However Yeshu was never accused of being a false messiah, but a deceiver of Jews and magician.

aa5874

You don't know what you are talking. You are clueless. You seem to think that your attempts to derail my thread are "entertaiment". You are PIGGY-BACKING on my thread to promote your Imagination about SAUL and your Revelations from Hebrew Scripture.

I am NOT amused. I do not post for entertainment.

My argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century simply cannot be Overturned.

My argument cannot be successfully challenged at all.

My argument is extremely Solid and the Strongest argument in the HJ/MJ debate which is ACTUALLY supported by recovered DATED manuscripts.

All arguments that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 1st century are EXTREMELY weak and without a shred of ACTUAL credible corroborative evidence--No dated manuscripts--no eyewitnesses even from supposed contemporary Apologetic sources--Not even the Church can say with certainty when Jesus was born and when Jesus and Paul really died.

The very writings of the Church suggest that their supposed 1st century history is Bogus and was invented to DUPE and DECEIVE the people of the Roman Empire.

I will EXPOSE the Fraudulent writings of the Church.

This is a partial list of the fraudulent writings whether wholly or in part.

Acts of the Apostles.

All the Pauline letters.

Writings under the name of Ignatius.

Writings under the name of Clement of Rome.

Writings under the name of Clement of Alexandria.

Writings under the name of Irenaeus.

Writings under the name of Polycarp.

Writings under the name of Tertullian.

Writings under the name of Origen.

Writings under the name of Eusebius.

Writings under the name of Jerome.

Those writings were deliberately composed to DUPE people into believing that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 1st century when there was NO known actual evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the 1st century.

TedM

Ok, aa, can you expand your argument further?

Can you tell us WHO wrote what documents, when, where, in what language, and why?

Let's start with Paul. Who wrote the documents traditionally attributed to Paul, when were they written, and why were they written?

I realize you may not have a full account, but please provide what evidence you are able to. Surely you can indicate who, when, where, in what language, and why at least a couple of the documents were written. Romans, Galations? perhaps?

You are VERY big on actual evidence, so I'm sure you have some, right?

Duvduv

Hi, Mountainman. You may have missed this posting from last week. See below.

Also, I think it is rather clear that the authors of Galatians and Acts could not go into any detail about the actual extent and religious beliefs of the "Christians" throughout Judea or among the pillars in Jerusalem because there were NO "Christians" there, and also because the authors themselves had not yet worked out exactly what Christians would have believed at the earliest stages.

Thus, the writers could talk about "churches in Judea" Christians being "persecuted" by Saul, and the pillars or apostles in Jerusalem (who had seen the ostensible historical Jesus) without explaining in any meaningful way what they believed, where the churches were and who the members were. For similar reasons it was not possible for the authors to shed any light on how anyone could have logically been "in Christ" before Paul in any authentic way without understanding Christ the way Paul did. This is a glaring contradiction in the central story line of the apostleship of "Paul."

Everything is left up to the reader's imagination, and seeing as how the texts were presented as a SET and with no evidence of any "stand-alone" texts, the authors could expect that the readers would "realize" that all the texts complemented one another. Thus the Christianity of these "churches" in Judea, apostles and believers must surely have been the same religion as their own at the time the texts were written.