CJD

cass256, you ought not post again unless you can come up with the following:

1. A historical reference for every controversial statement you have made in this post thus far.

2. Realize that one cannot rip quotes out of context (either from the TNK or the NT) and then face a challenge by another poster who employs the same texts by saying: "Don't try to con me with your text. Your whole NT was hand picked by a pagan Roman Emperor."

a. Don't quote from the NT or the TNK if you are not willing to look at how the author may have originally intended said passages to be read.

b. If you are not here to discuss the text — or valid historical analysis — then let me show you the door. This is, after all, the biblical criticism and history forum.

Finally (and this has nothing to do with the validity — or not — of your arguments), you sound like a [edited: had second thoughts about this], and I think the moderators ought to be a little quicker to curb the ranting displayed herein.

CJD

cass256

Yes, you pointed out that this is a bibllical criticism and history forum. If you can't take criticism of the bible and it's history, I suggest you follow your own foot out the door. I'll quote as I please, and not take for granted you have any idea who the author was or what his thoughts may have been. I have consistantly described the authors conflicting texts within the Bible. Look them up for yourself. I did not create the errors and contradictions in the Bible. You may want to find an "everyone agree with me and do as I say,or I'll bully you around" forum. My con with text quote was in response to your "context". If you are just going to post a text that does nothing to disaprove my point, and think the word "context" changes meaning of what was written 15 chapters earlier, you are sadly mistaken. Thaat word is a tool for people who are at a loss and grasping at straws. IMO

CJD

Cass256, it comes down to this: you mistrust any first-century commentary on the person and work of this guy named Jesus from Galilee. All you have, then, is the TNK. All this is good and well, but don't presume to tell professing followers of this Jesus anything about his agenda, for what basis do you have to decide or say anything about it? You want to degrade the program by using its own texts against it, yet you won't hear any rebuttal from those texts because they were hand-picked by that pagan, Constantine (or written by that heretic, Paul). Why are you even talking?

On the other hand, you can state ONE point you disagree with from my first post, and I will respond accordingly. I can't fathom how this would work, though, given your a priori dismissal of the so-called 'apostolic' writings. On the other, other hand, I think many of the NT writings are a good commentary on the TNK, while you do not. You do not because of its apparent contradictions and the notion that it was canonized deceitfully by Constantine. Apologists have answered the first point in all sorts of (sometimes contorted) ways. But the second point, well, it behooves you to show some documented proof that the agenda of Constantine was as you describe.

CJD

cass256

CJD, I'll have to read back on my posts, because I believe it was
ziechman who said he didn't believe jesus said a statement i quoted about not one jot or tittle of the law passing away in matthew. My problem is not with what Jesus said before he died. My problem is where Paul took him after he left.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I get attacked for questioning Paul's authority and motives. Zeichman didn't believe Matthew's quote of Jesus saying not one jot or tittle would pass, or anything about the law. Where does that leave him? With a free pass.

At any rate, I thank you for toning it down a notch. My disagreement is with Paul and Luke, ie Rome. They ignore the point of law that states that one who is not Israel has to be circumcised, in order to recieve of the passover sacrifice. Once he is, then he takes on the laws of israel, and is as one with Israel. If I posted in an attacking manner, i apologize. I'm just used to people being so rude here that I am defensive.
I'm afraid it is Robert Eisenman, author of The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, that has me on a side against Paul. I was trying to find out more info on James, who's letter contradicts Paul. (I believe Zeichman, above, also stated he did not believe the letter from James.) He is mentioned by Paul as a pillar, by josephus as James the Just, or James the Righteous, as well as Eusibus, Hegesippius and Clement. His death was at the temple. Quoting from the online Enclyclopedia, I have no clue who writes the stuff,. I am not the only person in the world, obviously who doesn't trust Paul or the writings of Luke, who as i stated before writes 3 differeing verions of Paul's conversion in 1 letter to theophilus. (Acts)

Eisenman has written a book on james, and after his examination of the DSS has come to the conclusion that the one they call james the Just, or Righteous, is the Teacher of righteousness in the Scrolls. He believes paul is the Liar (I forget how it is worded) that confronts James.
I cannot remember which Author believes that Paul is responsible for James death at the temple. He incites the riot. The odd part is it was with permission of the High Priest at the time, named Ananais, who also had a beef with james. The same name as the person Paul is sent to in one of the versions of his conversion in acts.

At any rate, to cut the story short, At nag Hammadi there was found a Gospel of Thomas. In it, Jesus is asked where his followers should go, or to who they would be answering to after yeshua is gone and he (Jesus) replies something on the order of So this is the position I am coming from. I do not read jesus doing away with the law. I do not believe his followers did either. I did not come up with this idea out of thin air. I have never written anything for the online Enclyclopedia. So someone else out there holds the view, besides Robert Eisenman, who went on the write a book on James and another on the Dead Sea scrolls and the First Christians. I believe it is the habakuk Pesher that deals with the Righteous one and the Liar, but don't quote me on that.
At any rate, it stays my opinion that Jesus never did away with the law of YHWH. Also that Paul is the inventor of Christianity. I believe there is a book by that title, but i have not read it. One step further, I believe that it is possible that righteous blood was to be shed at the temple site, in order to expiate sin, according to law. The sin sacrifice would not take on sin, the sin goes on the living scapegoat. I won't argue that one. it is still under research.

So that is my position. I can dig up more sources, but won't argue the point. I've mentioned before i've lost my personal library, unfortunately, or i could give you references on my opinion of Constantine and why Paul and Luke are even in the bible. I'm in the midst of some reading presently, and as I come across them i will post.


I'll just leave one last quote, that comes from the Bible, that I mentioned before but did not specifically quote. The question would be who fits the profile, or am I misreading the quote on who the deciever was. And on that note i will consider the war of words over for the time being.

Zeichman

Irrellevency alarm! Irrellevancy alarm!

Thus, you are an atheist. I am not. I don't think the truth of Christianity can be reduced to such things. Regardless, your portrayal of Paul as the great Hellenizer of a previously innocent religion is anachronistic.

What's your basis for equating the Torah with the will of God in Jesus' eyes?

You honestly believe Jesus said that? Or are you just appealing to whatever Gospel fits your desire, regardless of historical criticism? How about I just pull out John and point out that Jesus was the means by which the whole world was created, or that John the Baptist in there claims that Jesus will take away the sin of the world? Fair is fair, right?

How much ammo are you trying to give me? Can you cite that Paul killed anyone? And as for you following "murderous persecutors"?
Nice Try
Care to cite any examples of Paul claiming to be the messiah?

And why do you continue to appeal to situations which you do not believe historically happened?
Care to cite any evidence that Constantine "canonized" anything? And any evidence for your non-conclusion that Paul was recognized by Barnabas and Mark to be an anti-Christ, or is this wholly speculation?

Thought so.
What are you talking about? I'm saying "don't appeal to things which cannot be verified to be historically true", you, on the other hand appeal to anything which fits your view.

Why do I get the impression you don't actually read what I say?

Probably because you appeal to passages which I have already appealed to... more than once.

[quote]
. i have been saying james/jacob was the head of the church all along. It is widely agreed upon by everyone from josephus, to Eusibius. Peter was called Satan by jesus, why would anyone follow him? are Lutherans as misguided as catholics? There is even less reason to follow Paul. But a false prophet was prophesied, so I guess they had to write one in. I'm just surprised the sheep were so quick to follow the blind one.[quote]
You have been saying that? *shakes head, confused* I must be out of it or something. Is there any reason why I can't be a Paulinist in my theology? Does the spiritual realm have nearly anything to do with the historical realm of thinking?
Nice non-argument.
Or not.

Evidence is what I'm asking for. I defy you to find any credible scholar who agrees with that statement.

cass256

[QUOTE=Zeichman]

Sorry T, I was responding in kind, and neither posts were informative or pruductive. I will refrain from answering goading posts. If Z wants to post some historical Evidence he claims contradicts Matthew, let that be a berrer use of time than empty claims and falsly representing my position. In particular accusing me of claiming Paul was a Messiah. I said no such thing. It was misread on his part, is all I can see.

Toto

Mod request

A little bit more dignity and less invective, please!

(I don't have time to do any substantial editing right now)

cass256

Lets see... Constantine's influence on Christianity. Change the Sabbath day of rest, directly against the law of YHWH, to Sunday 1. There was something about planting when the seasons are ok, but I wanted to keep the main point here evident.

The Venerable day of the Sun. Not the day of YHWH, or God, but true to his Sol Invictus worshipping self, the day of his Sun God. After the Edict of milan, giving Christians religios freedom, but influencial in placing on them the new first day of the week rest they still enjoy today, against the law of YHWH. this because he "detested" the Jews ("When jesus Became God", referenced "The rise In Christianity" by Frend, 499) and did not want any Christian to celibrate a holy day of the jew's . The Passover came next, at Nicea a few years later. I'll post his letter to those who were not at the Nicean council. It gives a good look at the way he felt about the jews.. It may be offensive to some. and then the letter comissioning the 50 copies of the book of scripture to be formed.

I am pulling the laws off the internet Enclyclopedia, but they should be easy to find other places. the date of 321 when Constantine created the new Sunday law seems to be uncontested. Any Historian feel free to cite a contradiction.

Craigart14

Hi. Came into this thread late, so forgive me if I'm not properly worked up yet. I have often wondered why anyone would take an apostle's word over Jesus', and why and how people can argue over what Jesus actually said, as if there were any way to determine which reported conversations are accurate and which are not. If we're going to accept the NT as God's Word, then we're pretty much stuck with what it says, even when parts of it disagree with other parts. (Of course, I don't have to deal with this problem because as an atheist and lit prof I'm pretty sure it's a work of fiction anyway. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and the quacking is pretty obvious.)

That said, I would suggest what I see as a problem: Jesus does say that the law will not be changed; only a few pages later, when the Pharisees, who were real fanatics about the law, criticize him and the disciples for not washing their hands before eating, he says that "it is not what goes into a man that renders him unclean, but what comes out of him" or words to that effect. Does this not in itself negate the dietary laws? Along with giving us divine permission to eat with dirty hands?

Craig

cass256

On the subject of constantine not wanting anything associated with the Jews, in the least, his post nicean letter is an example. Remember jesus followers were jews
From Constantines letter to those who weren't at the nicean council, I went to Fordahm universities Center for midieval studies. Here, the official excuse for Easter to forever be locked on Sunday, instead of Passover. someone may correct me, but he was not a Christian at this point. he still worshipped the "Sun" God who's official day...
" From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council. (Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.) "


oops, lost the second half. no time