IamJoseph

What the NT calls Hebrew is not Hebrew but European.

spin

(So when Acts 6:1 tells us of the Greeks complaining about the Hebrews, it really means they're complaining about the Europeans, an entity whose existence wouldn't be graced with a gentilic for a thousand years. Perhaps, it means non-Greek Europeans (of the future).

When Paul says in 2 Cor 11:22, "Are they Hebrews?... So am I!", he meant "Europeans". So Paul is a European. Ya live 'n'learn.

Or again Phil 3:5, "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;" I'd never have guessed it meant Europeans.

Or even when someone added to the end of the book of Hebrews, "Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy." To Europeans from Italy?

Every singular use of ebrais in the new testament refers to the Hebrew language with many examples to show which language is meant.

One wonders why this fellow makes such blatant errors. So why the fuck do I respond?




spin)

IamJoseph

Yes, Saul/Paul was a 3rd generation European Greek citizen, one who never met Jesus, and who was expelled from the early Nasserite group in Jerusalem who knew Jesus better than Paul did. Nor do we have any reason to believe what is percieved as Paul's writings today - as being Paul's writings. We have no contemporary writings of him - when we should have - this being a time when writings was commonplace. Nor can one posit portions of the NT writings as proof for other portions of the NT.


Those who wrote the Latin NT were Europeans, and pre-christian Europeans had already vast archives and interaction with the hebrews for many centuries before. If you read those pre-christian archives, you will see almost everything in the NT is pre-mentioned there!

What I am saying is, the European writers are writing about the Hebrews - from a European disposition, which is preceded with numerous wars and rejections of each other's beliefs, and on the heels of the first European Holocaust in 70 CE by Rome. This was a war for the right of freedom of belief, with a human toll of over a million Hebrews: not even recorded in the NT, constituting a terrible lie-by-omission. Is the pursuit of truth not pivotal?

Hint. Not a single verse in the NT has been proven authentic, historical or truthful - the exact reverse applies with the hebrew writings. Not a single accusation in the NT has not been disproven. Is the blood libels and Protocols true? - where did this come from? - how come all of Christianity perform a face turn when this is pervasive in the islamic world today: who's onus to confront their own falsehoods? If this silence is seen today - what does it say of its inception times and the early Christians of Europe?

There was no trial of Jesus, nor was Barabus offered in exchange [a fact]. If a Jew in Judea would loose his life by crucifixtion, this would be because there was a Heresy decree hovering over Judea, and many, not one, perished: this makes any notion of GIVING UP ONE'S LIFE FOR OTHERS' as totally superfluos. Please tell me how Jesus would have escaped the Roman decree - what would he or any other Jewish people have stated or defended their case with? Where is this trial listed of outside of the NT: why is it not recorded in Roman, Greek or Hebrew archives? Why would Rome release Barabus, who was a then Bin Laden type catch? Why would the Jews, who awaited a savior, as opposed the Europeans, not see what Europe did?

Please consider: if there is not a shred of factual, historical evidence in a report which should have such back-up, it does not become true by 'belief' - it has to be declared as fiction only. It became a belief only because the Eurpeans never demanded proof, and accepted a story from far away, which catered to pre-existing hatreds - and because they were enforced to accept it. After all, a belief in God should not rely on a hatred and negation of another - and names attached to Godliness has more to do with politics than Godliness. There are credible reasons why the Jews did not seccumb - and they appear correct. The truth will set you free - even if it is disdained. :wave:

IamJoseph

It would have been good if proof was available, no doubt of this, and one can legitimately decry this report - no doubt of it.

However, there is no ancient Egyptian writings in this time - of anything else of that period; there is also almost none, or very meagre writings anyplace else at this time. Significantly, there is no disputation of any writings - when there should be - specially from the numerous nations encountered by the Israelites on their return to Canaan. There is also proven knowledge the Egytpian Pharoahs never allowed any writings of negativism, and erazed their previous Pharoah's names and writings.

There is also factual, historical proof the Israelites were in Egypt at this time, and that there was a war between them and Egypt, and that the israelites DID leave Egypt and returned to their homeland in Canaan around this time, making Canaan their sovereign Hebrew state for a 1000 years. [The Egytpian Stelle]. What this Stele does not say is, how the Israelites freed themselves from the world's greatest super power of its times, after 400 years in slavery, when no other peoples did. What this says is that everything stated in the book of Exodus is historical - except the issue of the FX miracles how it occured.

spin

Unsupported conjecture.

Unsupported conjecture.

Tangent.

Unsupported conjecture.

Meaningless.

Unsupported conjecture.

Unsupported conjecture.

Tangent.

Misrepresentation.

Non sequitur.


Not a good indication of content.


spin

Clivedurdle

Compare Solomon - Bible Unearthed.

The term European is problematic - for example, are Greeks European? Therefore is the Library at Alexandria a European Library?

And as the majority of Jews have always lived outside Judea, are Jews Europeans?

But the Persians were called Barbarians and do have Celtic connections, are Persians Europeans?

IamJoseph

If you don't know of these indisputable facts, how can one debate anything.

Paul was a Greek citizen whose parents and grandparents were secularised Jews who never observed religious customs - the reason he was expelled by the Nasserite group for what was seen as alien hellenist proposals. These were only accepted by Europeans much later, and constitutes the break between Christianity and Judaism. He was a member of the Greek/Roman Parlaiment, the reason he was released from a prison in Ceasarea and sent to Rome for his trial - he made his defense based upon the criteria, a citizen of Rome can request a trial in Rome.

He was released from prison in Judea with the aid of his relatives Aggrippa and his sister Berenice. Paul was killed in Rome by the Romans for advocating a form of Judaism embellished with hellenism - if the Romans were so severe about the Jewish religion - what chance would jesus have? Jesus was crucified by Rome - but not as sensationally as the Gospels tells it.

Paul 'NEVER' met Jesus - he arrived in Judea 30 years after Jesus passed away - his imprisonment in Ceasarea was in 66 CE. We have no evidence he wrote or said anything as described in the NT - there are no contemporary manuscripts - the oldest being many centuries later. In fact Saul/Paul of Tarsus could not write owing to a vision problem, and is said to have used a scribe to write what is ascribed to him in the NT.

The only descriptions of what occured at this time, between 20 to 75 CE, which has any potential credibility - is the Hebrew depictions, rather than the European Latin: after all this whole issue is about the jews and their situation and their history and war, in which close to 2 Million perished. Also, Jesus was not a Christian - we have no proof he would have ascribed to anything in the NT. Here, although Islam also makes a report about Jesus, which is again totally contradictory to the NT - it is a fact there was no Arabic writings to document anything described in the Quran for 400 years after these events. IMHO, the Jewish sources are far more credible.

IamJoseph

Greek, Rome, Spain, Briton and Germania - are European. That they invaded Arabia and established cities and many institutions there - does not make those cities European. Christianity is based on Roman latin writings, which was never used by Jews.

The NT is making historical claims which are devoid of any historical validity, and in dispute by all sectors not European, then Christianity is also claiming that 'belief' is required to accept them. This is absurd: one cannot retreat to belief when there is no proof - it is too suspicious and non-credible.

spin

Based on an implicit false assumption.

Simple conjecture.

Unsupported conjecture.

If the "who" refers to Paul, he contradicts this statement. If the parents, unsupported conjecture.

("Nasserite"? The tsade usually becomes a single /s/ when transliterated.)

That the group was "Naserite", or more traditionally and less accurately "Nazerite", is an assumption (probably based on influence from materials whose relevance hasn't been established).

1) Assumption that Paul's notional influences were hellenistic and not hybrid mysteric as much of the area was.

2) People change and Paul says he did.

3) The Jews had been influenced by hellenism for centuries. (They were also influenced from other directions including Persian. Where did the notion of millennium or apocalypse or paradise come from?)

Assuming conclusion.

Bald assumption.

False assumption and confused idea about Roman institutions.

Assertion based on conjecture.

More assertions based on conjecture.

He says he did. But I guess you mean that he never met Jesus in the flesh. Did the pillars? Paul doesn't allow you to think so.

Mainly tangents and an error (1 Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11).

Sources?

Which whole issue do you think we are supposed to be talking about?

We have no proof of this Jesus, so this is another statement based on false assumption.

Relevant sources for the period?

The only Jewish sources I know of regarding Jesus are not placeable in a historical context and have perhaps even less relevance to history than the new testament.


spin

arnoldo

The Book Of Hebrews does call Jesus the High Priest. .
Hebrews (with Revelations) to me are conclusive of the supernatural nature of Jesus. In fact, Psalm 110 states an individual exists who will be a priest "forever". . . which certainly is above the natural realm of possibilities.