Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?

[paarsurrey]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?

Post #29 Thread on "Bible Reading Rainbow! "

paarsurrey said: ↑ #2
" World English Bible "

Does it belong to JWs, please? Right?
If yes, any special reason, why to read from it? Right?
#7 If there is a difference in the text and or the translation, how to resolve it, please? Right?

paarsurrey said: ↑ #10
Urdu is my first language, but this problem one would face in every language of the world, please. Right?
English is my second language, one faces this problem in English also, please, right?

Kxxxxxx said:↑
If a native language version isn't the issue, then I'm not sure what you're asking.

I did find this version of the world English bible with an Urdu translation. I don't know how good it is, but its what I could find: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hk.itchurch.urduwebbible&hl=en_US&gl=US
Paarsurrey :

I have an Urdu Bible it gives translation of Matthew Chapter 12:40 as under:
40 کِیُونکہ جَیسے یُوناہ تین رات دِن مَچھلی کے پیٹ میں
رہا ویسے ہی اِبنِ آدم تین رات دِن زمِین کے اَندر رہے گا۔
متّی 12 - انجیل مقدس - نئے عہد نامہ
It mentions "three night day" instead of "three days and three nights" in English Bibles:
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 12:40 - New International Version
In English Bible "days" come first and then "nights" while in Urdu Bible the "nights" are given first and then "days", please.
Isn't it a corruption done by the translators, please? Right?
Isn't it an accusation on Yeshua that he had anything to do with the NT Gospels, please? Right?

Regards
____________
کِیُونکہ جَیسے یُوناہ تین رات دِن مَچھلی کے پیٹ میں رہا ویسے ہی اِبنِ آدم تین رات دِن زمِین کے اَندر رہے گا۔
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
متّی 12:40 Provided by Bible Factory - Urdu English WEB Bible https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hk.itchurch.urduwebbible
Yonah - Jonah - Chapter 2 (Jewish Bible)
1And the Lord appointed a huge fish to swallow up Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights.
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16184/jewish/Chapter-2.htm
Google
17 لیکن خُداوند نے ایک بڑی مچھلی مقرر کر رکھی تھی کہ یُوناہ کو نگل جائے اور یُوناہ تین دن تین رات مچھلی کے پیٹ میں رہا۔
یُوناہ / Jonah 1- انجیل مقدس - پرانے عہد نامہ
لیکن خُداوند نے ایک بڑی مچھلی مقرر کر رکھی تھی کہ یُوناہ کو نگل جائے اور یُوناہ تین دن تین رات مچھلی کے پیٹ میں رہا۔
Yahweh prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
یُوناہ 1:17 Provided by Bible Factory - Urdu English WEB Bible https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hk.itchurch.urduwebbible

#29

 

[paarsurrey]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible?

Post Post #115 Thread on " LDS fascination "

rxxxxxx (actually) said:↑
The problem people have with the doctrine is it's all or nothing. Either the LDS* church is the only true church on earth or it isn't. I know of no other religious group that claims this. If you have problems with whether it's true I recommend bookofmormoncentral.org or evidencecentral.org.
As for the rules if you want to know if one is true you are supposed to try it.
And thank you for admiring us
Paarsurrey says:

" or it isn't. "

I agree with one's later expression colored in magenta above, please.

In the basic creeds of Christianity, isn't LDS as wrong as any other 45000+ Hellenist Pauline denomination is including the JWs, one gets to know, please? Right?
Don't they follow Hellenist Paul rather than following Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, his teachings and his acts, please? Right?

Regards
Post #115
______________
*LDS - the "Church of the Latter Day Saints" aka "Mormons"

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #386 Thread " Three Days and Three Nights " also relates here, please.

lostxxxxxxxxxx said: ↑
Jesus said that in the same way Jonah was three days and three nights in the fish, he would be three days and three nights in the tomb. No body claims that Jonah was only in the fish for a day and a half so why claim Jesus was only in the tomb for a day and a half? If Jesus was not in the tomb for three full days and three full nights then he was a liar and not someone we should worship. Do you believe Jesus was a liar? Yes? Right?
Paarsurrey wrote:↑
" If Jesus was not in the tomb for three full days and three full nights then he was a liar and not someone we should worship."

Did any of the believers here say that Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was a liar, please? Right?
Why don't the Hellenist Paulines admit that:

1. It was the Hellenist Paul who was a liar,
2. who first of all faked a vision and
3. then self styled himself an Apostle,
4. then made false creeds of Hellenist Pauline Christianity
5. that have nothing to do with Yeshua his teachings , his deeds and the path Yeshua followed, please?

Right?
Paarsurrey added further :
The anonymous Gospel narratives:

1. (later named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John most certainly to deceive the simple minded followers of Yeshua),
2. we are told were illiterate persons
3. so they could not pen down the events of Cross as these happened, and none of them was eye-witness of the events most certainly
4. their earliest narrative (fictious name "Mark") was written down in 70 AD
5. and rest three even much later, in the Greek language
6. and are said to be the original Gospels while these are not;
7. how could the illiterate narrators of Hebrew/Aramaic do the translation job to Greek which in itself is an experts' job, please? Right?

It must be remembered that Hellenist Paul faked the vision on the road to Damascus in the year 33 A.D, his epistles appeared in 50 A.D., much before the Four Gospels (Mark 70 A.D), by then Paul ,his associates and the Hellenist-Pauline Church had got hold on the simple minded followers of Yeshua and the Paulines doctored the Four Gospels profusely to fit to their creeds, it transpires, please. Right?
As a thief would leave clues of the theft, so even if doctored, these gospels have clues that they have been doctored, one gets to know, please. Right?

Regards
________________
Timeline and about:

• Jesus dies around AD 33
• But despite this impossible timeline, many churches decided that Paul must have converted in CE 33 (36 A.D. #3, KenS timlinehttps://lightofword.org/images/stories/teachings/Acts/timeline4.pdf )
• Paul then has a vision on the road to Damascus somewhere between 33 and 37 CE
• Mark being the original (or the oldest we have), and the rest are just copies of Mark with embellishments. The first four books of the new testament are actually Mark with added stuff, Mark, Mark with added stuff, and Mark with a lot of added stuff. They were created toward the end of the first century to retro-fit prophesy, in order to benefit the Romans.
• Paul never met Jesus. He specifically said so, and he also never talked to anyone that gave him information about JesusThe Problem of Paul

• That third point is important, because the letters explicitly present themselves internally as having been written in the 50s A.D.The Historicity of Paul the Apostle • Richard Carrier

• 70CE, so Paul predates the Jesus narrative by a couple of decades, it was written after Paul died. #18 lukethethird,
• "4-7 years

The narrative of the Book of Acts suggests Paul's conversion occurred 4-7 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.": Conversion of Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia
30 Crucifixion of Christ
31(?) A Pharisee (Phil 3:5)
c. 32 Present at Stephen's stoning (Acts 7:58; 8:1)
c.33-34 Persecutor of the church (Acts 8:1-3; Phil 3:6)
34 Conversion on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9)
(Adopted from the "Blue Letter Bible", upto Paul's "conversion"
Apostle Paul's Timeline - Study Resources

• his Epistles appeared before the four Gospels - anonymous narrations #48 paarsurrey,
  By then Hellenist-Paul's associates and Hellenist-Pauline Church got well established and when the four Gospels-narrations appeared they doctored them as per the Hellenist Pauline creeds #48
• By then Hellenist-Paul's associates and Hellenist-Pauline Church got well established and when the four Gospels-narrations appeared they doctored them as per the Hellenist Pauline creeds #48

#386

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #10 Thread " A Centurion glorified God and called Jesus, ‘A Man’ yet Trinitarians believe Jesus is Almighty God " is useful here also.
Sxxxxxx said:↑
The Centurion rightly gives God the glory and also states correctly that Jesus was a righteous man (Luke 23:47)

How is it that some people who say they are followers of Christ justify claiming Jesus was God almighty yet this same ‘god’ of theirs is shown to die in the manner in outlined the Old Testament reiterated later by angels:

• “The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ “ (Luke 24:7)

Some people say there were two people called ‘Jesus’. One was God, and the other was a man born of Mary. The one that died was the one born of Mary - the other ‘Jesus’ did not die.

Yet, others say both persons were the one Jesus. They say that Jesus was GOD and Jesus was man. But if Jesus is God, how did he die? And how was he committing his spirit TO GOD as he died… commuting his spirit TO HIMSELF?:

• “Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.” (John 23:46)

Paarsurrey says:
" Luke 23:47, Luke 24:7, Matt 27:54 ( referenced in post #12 ), "

Just to inform the participants in this thread that none of the verses " Luke 23:47, Luke 24:7 , Matt 27:54 ( referenced in post #12, "* is from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, so kindly don't judge Yeshua because of these verses, please. Right?
First the followers of Yeshua must quote , for a meaningful discussion/debate verse/verses from Yeshua, and then the discussion debate be within the purview of such verses, not the vice a versa, please, right?

Regards
_______________
*Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible

Post #10

 

[paarsurrey]

Just to mention a principle, please
Post #10 Thread " A Centurion glorified God and called Jesus, ‘A Man’ yet Trinitarians believe Jesus is Almighty God " is useful here also.
Sxxxxxx said:↑
The Centurion rightly gives God the glory and also states correctly that Jesus was a righteous man (Luke 23:47)

How is it that some people who say they are followers of Christ justify claiming Jesus was God almighty yet this same ‘god’ of theirs is shown to die in the manner in outlined the Old Testament reiterated later by angels:

• “The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ “ (Luke 24:7)

Some people say there were two people called ‘Jesus’. One was God, and the other was a man born of Mary. The one that died was the one born of Mary - the other ‘Jesus’ did not die.

Yet, others say both persons were the one Jesus. They say that Jesus was GOD and Jesus was man. But if Jesus is God, how did he die? And how was he committing his spirit TO GOD as he died… commuting his spirit TO HIMSELF?:

• “Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.” (John 23:46)

Paarsurrey says:
" Luke 23:47, Luke 24:7, Matt 27:54 ( referenced in post #12 ), "

Just to inform the participants in this thread that none of the verses " Luke 23:47, Luke 24:7 , Matt 27:54 ( referenced in post #12, "* is from (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, so kindly don't judge Yeshua because of these verses, please. Right?
First the followers of Yeshua must quote , for a meaningful discussion/debate verse/verses from Yeshua, and then the discussion debate be within the purview of such verses, not the vice a versa, please, right?

Regards
_______________
*Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible

Post #10

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #6 , thread " Judah's Priest. "

Jxxxxxxx said:
"In ancient mythology, god segregated out a people for himself. They were called "priests." "
paarsurrey said: ↑
Does one agree that Pauline-Christianity is mythical and based on the myths of Hellenism (dying rising deity), please? Right?

If not, why not, please? Right?

Jxxxxxxx said:↑
Yes. I agree that Pauline-Christianity parallels pagan myths. What the pagans get wrong, through contamination of the spiritual truth, Judaism and Christianity correct through the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, there are such close parallels between the pagan and Judeo/Christian myths that Judaism and Christianity can and should study the pagan myths to better understand their own mythology and symbolism.
John
Paarsurrey said:

Friend @ Dxxxxxxxxx ,please.
" Yes. I agree that Pauline-Christianity parallels pagan myths "

and one knows it for sure that the mythical characters don't and never can exist in reality, please, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #51 , thread " bible vs Bible"

paarsurrey said: ↑
Was there any capitalization practice in the ancient times also, please?
If not, why not, please?
Paarsurrey said:
To add further, the practice of inverted commas never existed in (Jesus') Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah's time in Hebrew or Aramaic the languages Mary , Jesus and the his disciples spoke. They never spoke Greek, one gets to know, please, right?:

"The double quotation mark derives from a marginal notation used in fifteenth-century manuscript annotations to indicate a passage of particular importance (not necessarily a quotation); the notation was placed in the outside margin of the page and was repeated alongside each line of the passage.[6] In his edition of the works of Aristotle, which appeared in 1483 or 1484, the Milanese Renaissance humanist Francesco Filelfo marked literal and appropriate quotes with oblique double dashes on the left margin of each line.[7] Until then, literal quotations had been highlighted or not at the author's discretion.[7] Non-verbal loans were marked on the edge. After the publication of Filelfo's edition, the quotation marks for literal quotations prevailed.[7] During the seventeenth century this treatment became specific to quoted material, and it grew common, especially in Britain, to print quotation marks (now in the modern opening and closing forms) at the beginning and end of the quotation as well as in the margin"
Quotation mark - Wikipedia
Right?

Paarsurrey says:

I just warn the friends here @ RF to be careful and not be mislead by the "inverted commas" and or the quotation marks in the Gospels that these are the sayings of Jesus, it is not the case as the four Gospels are the third person narratives of anonymous narrators as rightly admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenæus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Stromata I.21), and St. Irenæus (Against Heresies III.11.7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the Gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That, however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed, and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides, as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, “the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason.”
” It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel and Gospels

" According to (anonymous) Mathew" " According to (anonymous) Mark", and these names (Matthew, Mark, Luka and John) have been given to these anonymous narratives most probably and or most certainly as a deception measure to the simple minded followers of (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, to win them over for Hellenism (of dying, rising deity) by the Hellenist Paul, his Associates and the Pauline-Church, it transpires, please , right?

Regards

Post #51 by Paarsurrey

 

[syo]

Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the (whole) Bible?

?

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #32 , thread " Are the Simpsons atheists? And how representative are they? "

paarsurrey said: ↑
I understand that Western Atheism is a part of the Christendom as when they say that they don't believe in god, they mean that "Jesus is not god", please. Right?
I mean they started in reaction to the Hellenist Pauline Christianity who believe in "dying, rising deity they name Jesus", please. Right?
The Western Atheists are not " Scientific Atheists people", I understand, please. Right?
Fxxxxxxxx↑
Incorrect. Rejecting Christianity is not the same as rejecting the concept of god entirely.
Paarsurrey wrote:
They were critical of the " Jesus god " concept of Hellenist Paulines (all 45000+ shades of them including JWs and LDS ) and then generalized it to other religions, which is a totally unscientific approach, please. Right?

Regards
_____________
"~Many scientists have sought to explain the evolution of religion. But an equally relevant question is: How did atheism evolve in a religious species?
~One need not be a believer to appreciate the cultural richness and evolutionary usefulness of religion."
Atheism is not as rare or as rational as you think
Atheists in the West do not belong to Scientific Atheism: search
" Crossbreeding Atheism with Spirituality: Notes on Soviet and Western Attempts"
Secularism and Nonreligion

Post #32

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #31 , thread " Are the Simpsons atheists? And how representative are they? "
paarsurrey said: ↑
I understand that Western Atheism is a part of the Christendom as when they say that they don't believe in god, they mean that "Jesus is not god", please. Right?
I mean they started in reaction to the Hellenist Pauline Christianity who believe in "dying, rising deity they name Jesus", please. Right?
The Western Atheists are not " Scientific Atheists people", I understand, please. Right?
xxxxxxxxxx said:↑
In my part of the US, Atheism means they don't believe in Jesus(other than perhaps a historical figure), Yahweh, nor Zeus. (Or any of the other myriad of Gods you can think of.)
Most tend to be 'scientific Atheist people', though they may not all be overly involved in science.
Paarsurrey says:

" Modernist atheists, the largest subset of atheist scientists, are the most like the New Atheists. They do not identify as religious or spiritual, they do not interact with religious individuals or organizations, and they are more likely than other atheists to view the science-faith interface as a relationship of conflict. Nevertheless, while this group includes fierce critics of religion, many view it as having a positive role in society. And independent of these views, most modernist atheists believe that New Atheist discourse on the relationship between religion and science is damaging to public trust in science and scientists."
“I Am Not Like Richard”: Modernist Atheist Scientists

Right?

Regards
__________
Atheists in the West do not belong to Scientific Atheism: search
"~Many scientists have sought to explain the evolution of religion. But an equally relevant question is: How did atheism evolve in a religious species?
~One need not be a believer to appreciate the cultural richness and evolutionary usefulness of religion."
Atheism is not as rare or as rational as you think
Crossbreeding Atheism with Spirituality: Notes on Soviet and Western Attempts"
Secularism and Nonreligion
OO

United States, that a large number of people are Christians / Protestants, that it is proper to be a church member and atheists / agnostics are rather the exception. Would you say that the Simpsons are atheists? And how representative is their lifestyle for the U.S.A. ?

" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #13 , Thread "lazarus"

pxxxx said: ↑
May I suggest you try a good study Bible? The Catholic bible you refer to has long been outdated and is not reliable.

paarsurrey said: ↑
I googled for " Was Jesus a Catholic?, and the very first entry I get is:
"Of course, Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues."
He Was Born, Lived And Died As A Jew | From Jesus To Christ
https://www.pbs.org › pages › frontline › shows › religion
There is no mention of the "Catholic Jesus" or the " Catholic Bible" that (Jesus) Yeshua-the Israelite Messiah did read from or commanded to read from, please, right?
If Jesus could do without "(NT) Bible Study", isn't it futile to study/read it, please? Right?

pxxxx said:↑
The Catholic translation you refer to is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, not of manuscripts in the original Biblical languages – a distinction that leads a few lingering Tridentine die-hards to prefer it to the newer translations.
Paarsurrey says:
Did Yeshua - the Israelite Messiah had anything to do with the "Catholic English Translation" and or the the "Latin Vulgate" etc., all of these being work of the Hellenist Paulines** who had doctored the anonymous gospels narratives to such an extent that Pagan mythology became grafted onto the biography of Jesus*, it transpires to one, please? Right?

Regards
__________
*"Pagan mythology became grafted onto the biography of Jesus. It was this school of Christianity that was adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century CE, becoming Roman Catholicism and all its subsequent offshoots."
Ref: THE JESUS MYSTERIES, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, HarperCollins Publishers, London, UK, 2000, pp. 6-8.

Post #13 , Thread "lazarus"
" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "
___________
*"The Vulgate is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible." It never existed in the time of Yeshua and never read by Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah and or Mary his mother. The English translations were rendered even much later and never existed in the time of Yeshua, please.
**I meant from the "Hellenist Paulines" Paul who set the tenets of Hellenist Pauline-Christianity , his associates and the Church, doctored the anonymous gospels to make these according to Hellenism, one gets to know, please.

 

[pearl]

Did Yeshua - the Israelite Messiah had anything to do with the "Catholic English Translation" and or the the "Latin Vulgate" etc.

Vulgate, from Vulgar meaning 'common'. The common language of the people was no longer Greek but Latin. The purpose of the Vulgate, to translate Scripture to the language of the people, Latin. In the Orthodox Churches the common language remains Greek. You seem to forget the Orthodox Churches are also 'Catholic', sharing in Apostolic succession, the priesthood, the sacraments etc.

all of these being work of the Hellenist Paulines who had doctored the anonymous gospels narratives to such an extent that

And how did Paul doctor gospels not yet penned? Yes Paul was a Greek speaking Jew and quoted from the Septuagint as did most of the NT authors. What's your point?

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #14 , Thread " Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe Psalms 121:8.Points to an afterlife? "

Fxxx Gxxx said: ↑
Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe Psalms 121:8.Points to an afterlife?I do.Because of how Psalms 121:8 uses the words From this time forth, and even forevermore.

The bible I am quoting is the king james bible.

Psalm 121:8
King James Version

8 The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.

I got this right here: Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 121:8 - King James Version

paarsurrey said: ↑
" The bible I am quoting is the king james bible. "

Why not the Catholic Bible, please? Right?
Fxxx Gxxx said:↑
I like the the king james translation better.

Paarsurrey wrote:
How one likes " King James version" in spite of its many shortcomings, please?:

" Ditzy.52
Protestants only got biblical texts bcse they were preserved by the Catholic Church. Also, Protestant bibles are adapted to protestant theology of which there are TWO! Couldn’t make their minds up it seems. The Tyndale bible was so corrupted that Henry VIII TWICE issued an Edit banning it. The source of all truth for 2000 years is the Catholic Church. Protestantism is only 500 years old!"
Difference Between Catholic Bible and King James Bible | Difference Between
Right?

Regards

Post #14 , Thread " Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe Psalms 121:8.Points to an afterlife? "

" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #141 ,thread " I Believe ..."

xxxxX said:↑
If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.
Click to expand...

Paarsurrey says:
"I believe"

Blind faith/belief is not required in religion, Yeshua said:
Matthew 15:13-14
King James Version (KJV)
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
a blind man cannot guide a blind man
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 15:13-14 - King James Version

The Hellenist Pauline Christianity is not planted by G-d (whom Yeshua described as Heavenly Father), one gets to know, it is clear now that Hellenist Paul faked a vision (in which he got blinded also) to convert the followers of Yeshua to Hellenism, of dying rising deity, so the tree of Pauline Christianity is being pulled out and rooted up, Is there any need to the true lovers of Yeshua to remain fallen in the ditch with Hellenist Paul, rather they come out of it and follow Yeshua's true and reasonable teachings, please? Right?

Regards

Post #141 ,thread " I Believe ..."
" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "

 

[pearl]

The Hellenist Pauline Christianity is not planted by G-d (whom Yeshua described as Heavenly Father), one gets to know, it is clear now that Hellenist Paul faked a vision (in which he got blinded also) to convert the followers of Yeshua to Hellenism, of dying rising deity, so the tree of Pauline Christianity is being pulled out and rooted up, Is there any need to the true lovers of Yeshua to remain fallen in the ditch with Hellenist Paul, rather they come out of it and follow Yeshua's true and reasonable teachings, please? Right?

That does not explain Paul's transition from persecuting Christians to becoming one of them. Paul did not invent Hellenism, defined as a body of classical ideals associated with ancient Greece and including reason, the pursuit of knowledge, and the application of philosophy to the study of religion. Assuming the guiding hand of Providence, Hellenism played an important role in helping to shape, on its human and cultural side, the origins and development of Christianity. The language of the New Testament writings was Greek, the Gentile civilization into which the Church entered was Greek, and the thought patterns of the educated classes in the first-century Mediterranean world were Greek.

I think you need to take a good look at what exactly is Hellenism and its influence on culture of first century Christins and Jews, the Gospels and the world of Paul.

isthereacritiqueofgreekphilosophyinthegospels.pdf (gospelofmark.org)

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #87 , thread " I am the living bread "

Exxxxxxxx said↑ in response to WxxxxxxWxxxxxx : ↑

You better be careful or else they will call you Mad Schizophrenic and, possibly, lock you up. There are literally Millions of Christians that assert they heard the Voice of Elohim/God telling them to do this or that. Most of the time it's Elohim'S/God's instrument the Satan/Devil speaking to them.

Matthew 22:14

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

The Elect Cross Practitioners are Giants of the Spirit and the Elect Inverted Cross Practioners are Giants of the Flesh/Carnal.

The Holy Scriptures/Bible from Genesis to Revelation is a Unified Whole. Only the Wise can Really understand the Words of the Wise. What does a person have to do to become Wise?

Are you saying that you don't believe in Faith? If yes, how can you be a Christian without belief in Faith?

Esoteric Knowledge is Secret Spiritual Knowledge for the Spiritual.

And what do you Intend to do with the Knowledge your are learning?
Click to expand...
Paarsurrey says:
Quote " The Holy Scriptures/Bible from Genesis to Revelation is a Unified Whole. " Unquote

A big claim, please.
How could one claim it, if Yeshua didn't say it, please? Right?
If yes, then kindly quote from Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah in an unequivocal, straightforward and unambiguous manner, please. Right?
Else, won't it be an accusation on (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah, please? Right?

Regards

Post #87 , thread " I am the living bread ".
" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "
___________
I am not opposing anybody, I am helping one out.

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #207 , thread " I Believe ..."

PxxxX said: ↑
If I assert to myself, or to you, that "I believe (in) "X"", I am basically asserting that I am choosing to no longer be skeptical or doubtful or undecided about the validity of "X" as a true assessment of reality. That's what it means to believe: not that "X" is true, but that I am choosing to hold it as true, and I am asserting that choice to myself and/or to you.

But why would I do such a thing? What am I gaining from making this choice? What does anyone else gain from my making this choice, and/or asserting that I have done so? These questions puzzle me because I can't give myself a reasonable answer. I mean I guess I would gain some peace or mind, in that I no longer have to carry any burden of doubt around about the validity of "X" as a proposed truth. And having dropped my skepticism I would no longer have to look out for and measure any possible evidence to the contrary. But these results do not sound like advantages, to me. In fact, they sound rather like examples of willful ignorance. Like ways of setting myself up for error and misjudgment. They sound like an authorization of personal bias.

We are constantly discussing and debating people's "beliefs" around here. It's nearly all anyone seems to be concerned about. And yet I'm having trouble seeing why any of us should be "believing in" anything! What are any of you gaining from it that is not ultimately just a biased and willful ignorance of the possibility that you could always be wrong? And I'm not asking to be insulting. I'm asking because I genuinely don't see any good reason to "believe in" things. To forfeit doubt, and skepticism, and just presume that we got this proposition right ... no questions asked.
Click to expand...
Paarsurrey said :↑
"I believe"

Blind faith/belief is not required in religion, Yeshua said:
Matthew 15:13-14
King James Version (KJV)
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
a blind man cannot guide a blind man
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 15:13-14 - King James Version

The Hellenist Pauline Christianity is not planted by G-d (whom Yeshua described as Heavenly Father), one gets to know, it is clear now that Hellenist Paul faked a vision (in which he got blinded also) to convert the followers of Yeshua to Hellenism, of dying rising deity, so the tree of Pauline Christianity is being pulled out and rooted up, Is there any need to the true lovers of Yeshua to remain fallen in the ditch with Hellenist Paul, rather they come out of it and follow Yeshua's true and reasonable teachings, please? Right?
Paarsurrey added further:
(Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah had a reason oriented Religion like Moses, and Yeshua had no blindfaith/religion, please, right?
Didn't he, please? Right?
If yes, then, why don't " Christians" follow Yeshua, please?

Regards

Post #207 , thread " I Believe ..."
" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #42 , thread " The Lords Prayer - ‘Thine is the Kingdom’ "
exchxxxxx said:↑

It seems to be the case that St John's gospel is the one with the most developed theology, including the idea of Jesus as God, though there are some suggestions in other places, esp. St Paul, I think.
But as far as I know, even Jehovah's Witnesses accept St John's gospel.
Paarsurrey says:
" the idea of Jesus as God "

So, this idea of Jesus-god has been manufactured by the (anonymous) John and or by those who picked this verbal narrative up, and doctored it as per their ulterior motives; Jesus never claimed as such in unequivocal, straightforward and unambiguous manner, please, right?

Regards

Post #42 , thread " The Lords Prayer - ‘Thine is the Kingdom…’ "
" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "

 

[pearl]

" Why do the Christians accuse Jesus of writing the NT Bible? "

Where do you even get this idea from? Of course Jesus did not write the NT, he wrote nothing!

 

[pearl]

So, this idea of Jesus-god has been manufactured by the (anonymous) John and or by those who picked this verbal narrative up, and doctored it as per their ulterior motives; Jesus never claimed as such in unequivocal, straightforward and unambiguous manner, please, right?

I think in John it is what his community believed and as reflected in his prologue which many believe to be from a hymn during worship. Pliny states that Christians sing to Jesus as a 'God'.