patcleaver

No Ben, you still don't understand. The fact that in Hebrew they are the same name, and in the Greek bible they used similar names and sometimes even the same name for Joshua of Nazareth and for the Joshua in the OT, and that in the Latin bible Jerome sometimes used similar names and sometimes used even the same name for Joshua of Nazareth and for Joshua of the OT, just draws attention to the Jesus name forgery.

The problem is that the lying forgers who created the King James bible invented the name Jesus. Jesus is clearly not the same name as Joshua in the King James bible. Jesus is just a fake name that they invented for Joshua of Nazareth of the NT. They used a different name for the Joshua of the NT than they used for the Joshua of the OT. They probably did it so the congregations would not realize how confusing the Bible really is. They just tried to hide the fact that Joshua of Nazareth had the same name as Joshua of the OT. All modern English language bibles continue to perpetuate this travesty.

Ben, are there any references to the name Jesus before the King James bible was written? I can't find any.

patcleaver

Wrong, I never made any claims about when Barnabus was written.

BTW, What is your evidence that it was written before the 3rd century besides unsupported Christian apologetics?

Jeffrey Gibson

Which of the English Bibles - not to mention the works of English theologians and Clerics and hymn writers and poets -- that were in existence before 1611 have you looked in?

Jeffrey

spamandham

I think I've misunderstood your postulate then. I was under the impression it involved the invention of Jesus from whole cloth in the early 4th century. If it is really only about the canonical texts and a few others attributed to church fathers, then it becomes much more plausible than what I thought you were proposing.

Roger Pearse

Ever tried looking at a Latin text?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

MountainMan invented this theory out of malice a couple of years ago (there is a charming usenet post in which he more or less admits this). No-one believes it; not even himself.

What he's doing is making bare assertions, waiting to see what educated people respond (which usually involves appeals to data), then thinking up reasons why the data (previously unknown to him) can be ignored or twisted, and then embellishing his theory with the extra data. In this way his theory gets more and more impressive to those who don't realise the trick.

Hence all the endless posts on the same subject. All his posts are really shrimping exercises.

I hope this doesn't sound too negative? We're all entitled to hold different political and religious opinions (although mine are the only correct ones, of course! ). But those who deliberately poison the well of knowledge... what fate is too bad for them?

Well, linguistic changes in the language over the period in question certainly appear, with the arrival of various social and rhetorical trends. Quotations from other writers, and a mass of chronological and archaeological links make such a thing nearly impossible. Ancient writers had huge difficulties with chronology anyway, since they lacked AD and BC, and had no agreed way to timestamp events.

When we compare this with the (genuinely) inauthentic Augustan history, we find that the composer of this in fact couldn't keep his story straight, and his supposed authors who quote each other live (according to him) at the wrong date to quote each other!

Indeed so. Not to mention in quite a number of different languages.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Asclepius was known both as "Healer" and "Saviour".
Alexander the Great material.

The head priest of Asclepius is described by Eusebius
as "an unseen inmate, neither demon nor god, but rather
a deceiver of souls, who had seduced mankind
for so long a time through various ages."

Eusebius had little regard for the pagan priesthood ...
He worked for "The Boss" ...

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Dear Roger,

You are supposed to introduce Edward Gibbon first, and after thrashing Mr. Gibbon for his insolence (which you do routinely - I was very impressed), you should then bring out more modern examples, such as mine. The Vatican stopped its prohibited authors publication in 1966, so dont you think you could follow suit sometime soon?

</IRONY>

Best wishes,


Pete Brown



;

Ben C Smith

These were the only facts at issue in the post you responded to. (And it is the same name in Greek, not a similar name.)

Patent nonsense.

Of course. The Clementine Vulgate of century XVI uses Jesus, as one of literally thousands of examples. (Refer to several instances in 1 John, for example.)

Ben.

Amaleq13

I was referring to your claim about crucifixion (ie "...Crucifixion is something Jerome invented when he translated the Greek NT into Latin.").

Your insufficient background knowledge is showing. Educate yourself about the evidence and reasoning used to date the text here.

At the very least, Clement's clear use of it establishes a terminus ante quem of ca190 and that is certainly incompatible with your ridiculous assertion.