Jesus vs the New Testament

[PruePhillip]

there are no eyewitness accounts of jesus..

Really? John was Jesus' favorite disciple. He gave us the Gospel according
to John, some letters and the book of Revelations.
You can see the similarities with the account of John in the Gospel and the
man in the letters.
Matthew was a govt official. He wrote in shorthand style of govt documentation.
Luke apparently never met Jesus. He compiled a lot of material, much from
primary sources I would say, to create his Gospel. He was with Paul on his
last journey to Rome. He wrote the book of Acts.

 

[PruePhillip]

The gospels don't appear in history until 160AD..the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH admits they are anonymous..there were zero eyewitness accounts of jesus...

..THE CATHOLICS were the ONLY christians from near the start.until 1520...you HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE JESUS EXISTED....NOT ONE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT...PAUL THE APOSTLE DOES NOT MENTION THE GOSPELS...

Saying something "didn't appear in history" simply means that the oldest
manuscripts go back that far. You can't expect parchment or papyrus to
last long - even ten or twenty years would have worn them out.
They were anonymous in the sense the authors didn't add their name.
That is to be expected. But the Gospels were widely credited with being
from those sources.
Paul quotes the Gospels.
We have, what, seven authors who wrote of Jesus. If that is not evidence
then what is?
And yes, these documents are nearly all Temple era texts. They don't
mention the fall of the temple - something which was profound.

 

[sooda]

Really? John was Jesus' favorite disciple. He gave us the Gospel according
to John, some letters and the book of Revelations.
You can see the similarities with the account of John in the Gospel and the
man in the letters.
Matthew was a govt official. He wrote in shorthand style of govt documentation.
Luke apparently never met Jesus. He compiled a lot of material, much from
primary sources I would say, to create his Gospel. He was with Paul on his
last journey to Rome. He wrote the book of Acts.

John the disciple didn't seem to know the Temple had been destroyed. John the Revelator did.

 

[PruePhillip]

John the disciple didn't seem to know the Temple had been destroyed. John the Revelator did.

Really? That's super interesting. Must look it up.

 

[sooda]

Really? That's super interesting. Must look it up.

I just don't see how they could possibly be the same. John the Revelator is so obviously an old Jew who hates Rome and he writes in a very old apocalyptic style.

 

[PruePhillip]

I just don't see how they could possibly be the same. John the Revelator is so obviously an old Jew who hates Rome and he writes in a very old apocalyptic style.

He would write in an "apocalyptic style" if he had an apocalyptic vision.
“Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches..."

 

[sooda]

He would write in an "apocalyptic style" if he had an apocalyptic vision.
“Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches..."

I don't know.. There is an earlier version of "Revelation" that is strictly Jewish.. Its nearly verbatim to Revelation in the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't know.. There is an earlier version of "Revelation" that is strictly Jewish.. Its nearly verbatim to Revelation in the Bible.

It's super strange, these apocalyptic books in the bible.
There's Daniel, Zechariah and bits of Isaiah and Haggai
too. They drift in and out, from prophecy to apocalypse.
Guess you could say some of the Jesus' saying are
like this.
What is this Jewish Revelations?

 

[sooda]

It's super strange, these apocalyptic books in the bible.
There's Daniel, Zechariah and bits of Isaiah and Haggai
too. They drift in and out, from prophecy to apocalypse.
Guess you could say some of the Jesus' saying are
like this.
What is this Jewish Revelations?

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version
Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship

Revelation of John, the original Jewish version. Apocalypse composition, dating & authorship

Apocalyptic literature was very popular for about 300 years starting about 200 BC.. If you scan early Jewish writings you will see several Apocalypse of Abraham, Daniel etc.

Early Jewish Writings: Old Testament, Apocrypha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and More

 

[IndigoChild5559]

'Jesus' is one of the names of God. It's actually a description name, and not only is what you say, not traditionally true, religiously, it's scholarly a bad argument, [purely academic or scholarly.

You don't have an argument, that's for sure, because you would know what isn't a good argument, if you did.

I didn't give an argument, mostly because it would have been a great deal of work and would have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Whether Jesus is a name of God or Brahman is a name of God or Allah is a name of God or Tao... is all a matter of debate. For me, the yad hey and vav hey is not pronounceable and too sacred to put into print. I settle for the titles of God or Lord.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hence refuting the basis of your arguments.

What are you talking about??????

You called Jesus' religion "Judaic." There is no such religion. Saying so refutes nothing I have said.

 

[Desert Snake]

What are you talking about??????

You called Jesus' religion "Judaic." There is no such religion. Saying so refutes nothing I have said.

'Judaic' is a description. So, for example, in the Epistles, Jesus is said to be from Juda.



your religion might be called, 'Talmudic'.

So forth.

 

[Desert Snake]

For me, the yad hey and vav hey is not pronounceable and too sacred to put into print. I settle for the titles of God or Lord.

For Jews, if one is using the name 'God', as just a title, then actually, it needs specification, like 'the Tetragrammaton', or such. Or, 'satan', whatever entity you are referring to.
So, thusly, you are not using the name 'God', as a title, you are using it as a name. Because, Biblically, it is a name. It's a name, a title, and a word, or description, in other words.
God=name of the Biblical God[name
God of gods=name & title, description

The way 'God' is translated as a name, makes this easy for Jews, because the occasion where the Tetragrammaton is translated as something besides 'Lord', it is translated as 'God'.

'Lord', in Christianity, is also a 'name', because it is used without specification, in a similar manner, ie as a name, inferred meaning. This might be a bit different, however in a really strict sense, it's also a name.
•
El Shaddai = name, title, and description
Elohim = name and description
El Elyon = name and title
•
Adonai = name & title
Lord of Hosts = title and description, note here, it's the religious belief, that makes this a 'name', also.

Religious belief tends to be the factor, here, in other words, the names and titles, used as titles, can thusly change inference. [Lord, lord, same idea in other words.

 

[Desert Snake]

The reason why this 'matters', is because, using 'God', as just a title, means whatever belief you are ascribing, to that usage, you are basically expecting the other person, to agree with you.

So, if you say, that name can mean this or that deity, without specification, then I'm saying, no, I don't agree with your belief, concerning that, and following direct usage of the name God, it doesn't infer that, either.

Hence the name used as a 'belief inferred title', unless there is agreement on whatever that is, you are in a " meaningless discussion", since that usage is either vague, or not agreed upon.

That is where you are getting personal belief mixed up with actual usage, and it 'seems' correct, even though it isn't.

 

[Desert Snake]

It should be noted, this being 'the English Bible', or the gothic[english Bible, you're going to encounter 'interpretation'. Whether a Christian or other religious perspective, agrees with that, then that is something else, and thusly one is reading "outside the interpretation".
Shouldn't be a concern for Jews, though, and most Christians.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

'Judaic' is a description. So, for example, in the Epistles, Jesus is said to be from Juda.



your religion might be called, 'Talmudic'.

So forth.

You are making religions up out of whole cloth. You can describe Judaism as "Judaic" and "Talmudic" but the name of the religion is Judaism. There is no such religion as Judaic or Talmudic. The religion of Jesus was Judaism, specifically Second Temple Judaism.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are making religions up out of whole cloth. You can describe Judaism as "Judaic" and "Talmudic" but the name of the religion is Judaism. There is no such religion as Judaic or Talmudic. The religion of Jesus was Judaism, specifically Second Temple Judaism.

Jesus didn't practice your 'religion'. Your definition is too broad, because you are also using certain ideas of " heresy". So, you are not using descriptions to any logical meaning.

If you were talking about something unimportant, then it wouldn't matter , however you are also 'interpreting ' the Bible, and therefore your belief about the religion, instead of what the religion actually is, are different things.

Im not interested in your " interpretation" of another religion, that you don't understand, don't follow, and consider a heresy even by your subjective 'ideas'.

That is even outside the texts and texts usage, it's just uninformed opinions.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no such religion as Judaic or Talmudic. The religion of Jesus was Judaism, specifically Second Temple Judaism.

Therefore?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For Jews, if one is using the name 'God', as just a title, then actually, it needs specification, like 'the Tetragrammaton', or such. Or, 'satan', whatever entity you are referring to.
So, thusly, you are not using the name 'God', as a title, you are using it as a name. Because, Biblically, it is a name. It's a name, a title, and a word, or description, in other words.
God=name of the Biblical God[name
God of gods=name & title, description

The way 'God' is translated as a name, makes this easy for Jews, because the occasion where the Tetragrammaton is translated as something besides 'Lord', it is translated as 'God'.

'Lord', in Christianity, is also a 'name', because it is used without specification, in a similar manner, ie as a name, inferred meaning. This might be a bit different, however in a really strict sense, it's also a name.
•
El Shaddai = name, title, and description
Elohim = name and description
El Elyon = name and title
•
Adonai = name & title
Lord of Hosts = title and description, note here, it's the religious belief, that makes this a 'name', also.

Religious belief tends to be the factor, here, in other words, the names and titles, used as titles, can thusly change inference. [Lord, lord, same idea in other words.

You have given many things as names which are not. Adonai simply means Lord -- this is not a name. Elohim simply means God (or gods, or judges, or heavenly beings) and is not a name. El Elyon simply means God Most High and is not a name etc.

Exodus 6:3 states, " and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name [yad hey and vav hey] I made Me not known to them.

In other words, Abraham gave God a title, but after Egypt, the Israelites knew the actual name of God.

The pronunciation of this name is now lost in history. As Jews we do not attempt to use approximations when we read the text. Rather we substitute the word Adonai. And even now I am using Adonai for instructive purposes -- normally when we are not worshiping, we substitute Hashem or Adoshem (the Name). I have been taught that the spelling out of the letter names in print is acceptable if instructing. This is out of the GREATEST respect for the name of God, and the unwillingness to even come close to taking his name in vain.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

you are also 'interpreting ' the Bible

So are you. It is impossible to read the sacred texts or even the Christian scriptures without interpreting them.