"The Passion" and Historical Accuracy

[Goose]

Shalom,

Assuaging Controversy Over Gibson's New Movie -- More Reliance on History, Less on Tradition



Controversy over Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, overlooks the movie's failure to achieve its main goal: shedding inaccurate, faith-biased tradition alien to the first-century Judaic perspective of the movie's main character and incorporating recent discoveries (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) that demand updating our historical perspective.



The Jews who shouted for the Romans to execute Ribi Yehoshua were the Temple-based Sadducees (Hebrew Mt. 26.57ff). ("Ribi" is different from rabbi or rebbe. Ribi designated Pharisaic rabbis ordained in Judea during the time of the Temple.) Generalizing from the Temple-based Sadducees to "the Jews" is either a logical fallacy or misojudaism. The pivotal question, the answer to which may solve the controversy, is "Which Jews were, and weren't, standing with the Temple-based Sadducees shouting for the Romans to execute him?"



The late Oxford historian, James Parkes, demonstrated (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that the antinomian Jesus of Christianity, defined by the fourth century Church, was the antithesis of the first-century Pharisee of the Jewish community, Ribi Yehoshua Ben-David (son of David). The Christian view of Jesus traces back no earlier than the Roman crushing of the Bar Kokhva Rebellion in 135 C.E. It was then, according to Eusebius, that the Romans deposed the 15th and last Jewish leader of Ribi Yehoshua's original followers (Yehudah), displacing him with the first gentile "bishop" (Marcus). Correspondingly, the Christianity of Jesus is the antithesis of the first century Judaism taught by Ribi Yehoshua. Confusing Ribi Yehoshua with his antithesis, Jesus, is self-contradicting.



Beyond Parkes' findings, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT is recently discovered, hard evidence confirming, in the words of Prof. Ya'aqov Sussman, that, for all three sects of first century Jews, the Jewish Torah (Pentateuch, interpreted by Jewish religious courts as Oral Law) was "the central factor in Jewish life," which "stood in the center of their spiritual world." MMT clarifies the distinctions between the three main sects of Judaism: the Pharisees and two branches of Sadducees -- Temple-based and Essene (Qumran). The Essene Sadducees were legitimate genealogical Jewish priests who had been deposed and exiled from the Temple. The author of MMT was an Essene Sadducee.



How the Hellenist Temple Sadducees deposed the legitimate Essene Sadducees, Hellenizing the priesthood and Temple, and how they were then regarded by the other two sects, requires some background history that precedes the story of Hanukah. Before the Maccabbees rebelled against the Syrian occupiers of Judea, the Hellenization of the Temple and priesthood had already propelled the Temple Sadducees into ascendancy and dispersed the legitimate, Essene, Temple priests, primarily to Qumran.



Hellenization of the Temple and priesthood began with two brothers, one of whom was the High Priest. About B.C.E. 175, Antiochus IV Epiphanes sought to secure control over Judea by imposing Hellenism -- the antithesis of Judaism. Khonyo ("Onias III") and Yehoshua ("Jason") Ben-Shimon were descendants of Tzadoq, Biblically legitimate Jewish priests. Khonyo was a pious High Priest, but his brother was a zealous Hellenist. Yehoshua (Ben-Shimon) went to king Antiochus, promising to impose Hellenism and paying a substantial price to remove Khonyo as High Priest and install himself High Priest instead. Khonyo was the last Scripturally legitimate High Priest in Jewish history. Yehoshua then replaced the legitimate Sadducee priests with Hellenist Sadducees, becoming the first Hellenist -- apostate -- High Priest and banishing the legitimate Sadducee priests from the Temple (most of whom retired to Qumran). Soon, another Hellenist Sadducee non-priest, not even genealogically qualified, bribed King Antiochus and replaced Yehoshua as High Priest. The priesthood deteriorated from there and the Khanukah story begins soon after. Even the Maccabbees didn't satisfy the Scriptural requirements for the office of High Priest. Finally, the Hellenist Romans took over the practice of selling the priestly offices to the Hellenist Sadducees.



The Temple-based Sadducees were an elitist and aristocratic sect of Roman-appointed, and backed, Hellenists; Jews who, at the pleasure of the Romans, controlled the Temple and High Priesthood. Purchasing their priestly positions, including the office of the High Priest, from the Romans, these Hellenists were often genealogically unqualified, Scripturally illegitimate 'priests' By the time of Ribi Yehoshua, "the Jews" abhorred the Temple Sadducees, regarding them as religiously apostate traitors polluting (Hellenizing) the Temple.



To be historically accurate, Mr. Gibson's movie must move the audience to sympathize with "the Jews", who loathed the illegitimate Sadducee false-priest apostates who conspired with their Roman backers to execute Ribi Yehoshua.


END


Yirmeyahu Ben-David, ne Clint Van Nest, is a Mensan, an Orthodox Jew and former Baptist preacher who is a citizen of both the U.S. and Israel and Paqid of the Netzarim (Nazarene Jews, www.netzarim.co.il).

Note: Mr. Ben-David is also a former intelligence analyst with the USAF Air Intelligence Agency, a veteran of the Israel Defence Forces (ret.) and safety engineer (ret.). His books on early Judaism and the emergence of Christianity include "Who Are the Netzarim? - Advanced Level," "Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant'," "The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu," "The 1993 Covenant" (Biblical Prophecies) and "The Unveiling" (the NT book of Revelation).

Cordially,
Paqid Yirmeyahu
(Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16)
The Netzarim
Raanana, Israel

Netzarim... Authentic (http://www.netzarim.co.il)

[Dimo]

Do you mean we are not supposed to hate Jews?

[Goose]

Thoughts anyone?

[Mr Potato Head]

To be historically accurate, Mr. Gibson's movie must move the audience to sympathize with "the Jews", who loathed the illegitimate Sadducee false-priest apostates who conspired with their Roman backers to execute Ribi Yehoshua.

From what I know it seems to me that Mr. Gibson's aim is not to get the audience to sympathize with the Jews and their anti-hellenism, but to portray the sacrifice of Christ. That's what the point is. Not so much helping us understand the socio-political feelings of the Jews.

[Mateo]

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Mateo

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. That would help prove that "the Jews" as a whole didn't condemn Jesus, but only a select few. And according to the DSS, the Saduccees would have condemned Jesus for political/financial gain.

[Mateo]

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

From what I know it seems to me that Mr. Gibson's aim is not to get the audience to sympathize with the Jews and their anti-hellenism, but to portray the sacrifice of Christ. That's what the point is. Not so much helping us understand the socio-political feelings of the Jews.

That's my understanding as well. :up:

[Goose]

Mr Potato Head and SOTK,

But shouldn't Mel strive for historical accuracy.

[Goose]

Mel Gibson's movie is traditional, not historical.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Goose

That would help prove that "the Jews" as a whole didn't condemn Jesus, but only a select few.

I don't see how that's not obvious, even from scripture. The
crowd of Jews before Pilate had politics in mind, otherwise
they wouldn't have been there. Its like condemning the
entire United States for the acts of a small group of political
activists. They were probably zealots more interested in
Barrabas' release than the death of Jesus.

djm

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I don't see how that's not obvious, even from scripture. The
crowd of Jews before Pilate had politics in mind, otherwise
they wouldn't have been there. Its like condemning the
entire United States for the acts of a small group of political
activists. They were probably zealots more interested in
Barrabas' release than the death of Jesus.

djm Dave,
I'm glad you see that, but from 2000 years of miso-judaism in Christian history, proves that Christianity as a whole isn't as smart as you.

see "The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue" by James Parkes

[1Way]

Goose – You said The late Oxford historian, James Parkes, demonstrated (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that the antinomian Jesus of Christianity, defined by the fourth century Church, was the antithesis of the first-century Pharisee of the Jewish community, Ribi Yehoshua Ben-David (son of David). How many times do we have to remind folks that man’s history is not the sources for eternal truth, God is. Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture.

Jesus was NOT an antinomian prior to His raising up Paul and giving Him the dispensation of Mystery and Grace, He plainly taught a works based faith (nomianism) during His earthly ministry and even after that and up to God cutting of the Jews for national unbelief, He remained a consistent nomianist.

This stuff about separating the various sects of the Jews apart from the masses is rubbish. The bible says that the masses rejected Jesus, only the few became saved, and that Israel as a nation was cut off due to national unbelief. Sadducees, Pharisees, all the way from the King to the peasant, national unbelief.

Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross? And why do you put into doubt the wholesale unbelief of national Israel? You can read anything from anyone teaching whatever, but you only have ONE word of God and it is THE authority for such matters. At least the last I checked, it was.

[1Way]

Goose – Also, why do you say “Torah” studying and not studying all of God’s word? Do you think there is some problem with NT or whole word of God studies? Why highlight just a focus on the Torah?

God, the authentic God of the bible teaches that all scripture is profitable and God breathed, that man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Do you think that Jesus Christ Lord God the son is any less God than God the father? Do you think that the OT is more authoritative than the NT? Jesus said that you must have room in your heart for His word, or risk being a child of the devil because of not accepting His word.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Goose

Mr Potato Head and SOTK,

But shouldn't Mel strive for historical accuracy.

I didn't realize that it wasn't historical. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read in the Bible, religious Jewish leaders were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. I understand that this is depicted in Mel's The Passion. Do you have access to historical documents which show that Jewish religious leaders did not conspire to have Jesus crucified?

[1Way]

SOTK4ever - I may be wrong to some details, but it’s not just historical in any normal sense, he means historical according to his sources. He is trying to point out that there was a difference between the religious leaders and widespread Judaism especially amongst the whole of Israel. Was it mainstream normal Jews who wanted Jesus dead, or was it more like a radical fringe group, that sort of thing.

His comment about it being traditional instead of historical is strange, because he is trusting in his tradition of which history to trust in. His point is not so much about history verses tradition, it’s just an excuse for him to promote this authentic Jewish binge he is on.

It's like he is trying to paint a better picture about the Jews than what God did in the bible. It is true that Israel had competing religious sects, but that does not matter, God cut off “Israel” due to national unbelief from the king on down, not from one sect or another on down. God stipulates that the few who were saved were not part of this national casting away. Evidently, Goose has some interest in making it seem like the Jews were not so against God in the crucifixion. But I don’t know why he is doing this.

[1Way]

To me the question is simple. Are you more concerned about man’s understanding which include history and tradition, or the truth of the matter, via God’s word.

Just think about it for a minuet, consider two (religious orthodox) Jews arguing today about the appropriate way to consider theology, should it be with a greater emphasis on history or tradition. We Christian’s know that the Jews are cut off from God as a national people precisely because of their national unbelief and a stiff necked determination to view God according to what seems right in their eyes, according to their traditions, according to their historical views.

The answer is not historical accuracy verses traditionalism. God’s word is the answer.

May the truth set them free.

[jeremiah]

To Goose:

I will heartily concede the point that the small remnant of non hellinized Torah observant Jews, and true Levitical priests, did not have Yeshua put to death. In fact many of them came to be believers in Him as Messiah ben Yosef.
Will those who see Mel Gibson's movie as anti semitic, concede the point that the true remnant observant followers of Christ, have not put any Jews to death?
The corrupt Sadducees and corrupt Catholic and Protestant leaders who have taken over the positions of worldly and spiritual power have orchestrated the Murder of innocents.
Remember most importantly that Yeshua himself said that He gave His life, of His own accord. He said, "Father forgive them", why, "because they know not what they do."
From my understanding of the Bible, I can no more hate those who actually had Yeshua put to death, than I can hate myself for putting Him on the cross. All of us our guilty of placing God in the position where he had to shed His pure and innocent blood in order to redeem us. In this world, those who believe in not blaming and scapegoating others for their own sins, are as rare as Torah observant Jews are both then and now.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

To me the question is simple. Are you more concerned about man’s understanding which include history and tradition, or the truth of the matter, via God’s word.

Just think about it for a minuet, consider two (religious orthodox) Jews arguing today about the appropriate way to consider theology, should it be with a greater emphasis on history or tradition. We Christian’s know that the Jews are cut off from God as a national people precisely because of their national unbelief and a stiff necked determination to view God according to what seems right in their eyes, according to their traditions, according to their historical views.

The answer is not historical accuracy verses traditionalism. God’s word is the answer.

May the truth set them free.

God's word as you interpret it. Your lack of humility is alarming.

Some of us Christians know that God's Grace extends to all
if His children, Jew and Gentile alike. Some of us, in our quest to
know Jesus Christ, actually value Judaism as a way to better
understand who Jesus Christ was and is; after all, Jesus Christ
was Jewish. It seems your sense of Divine Wisdom cuts Him off
from God as well.

Man oh man, the amount of antisemitic prejudice here at TOL
is getting downright alarming.

djm

[SOTK]

Originally posted by 1Way

SOTK4ever - I may be wrong to some details, but it’s not just historical in any normal sense, he means historical according to his sources. He is trying to point out that there was a difference between the religious leaders and widespread Judaism especially amongst the whole of Israel. Was it mainstream normal Jews who wanted Jesus dead, or was it more like a radical fringe group, that sort of thing.

His comment about it being traditional instead of historical is strange, because he is trusting in his tradition of which history to trust in. His point is not so much about history verses tradition, it’s just an excuse for him to promote this authentic Jewish binge he is on.

It's like he is trying to paint a better picture about the Jews than what God did in the bible. It is true that Israel had competing religious sects, but that does not matter, God cut off “Israel” due to national unbelief from the king on down, not from one sect or another on down. God stipulates that the few who were saved were not part of this national casting away. Evidently, Goose has some interest in making it seem like the Jews were not so against God in the crucifixion. But I don’t know why he is doing this.

I agree with you. I don't think there is any "historical documents" which show that Jews are not responsible for Christ's crucifixion. I also think Goose is attempting to "paint" a better picture of the Jews versus the picture we're given in the New Testament.

[Dave Miller]

Great points Jeremiah. True humility requires a meditation upon
every character who participated the death of Christ. I am Peter, the
man who loved Him like a brother, knew Him as Lord, and ultimately
denied Him. I am the soldier who scourged and spat on
Him. I am the bystander who bore His cross. I am the soldier
who nailed His wrists and feet to the cross. I am the woman
who cried at His feet. I am the passer by who reviled Him as He
gasped His last breath. I am the thief who died at His side. I am
Jew, Roman, man, Woman, Gay, Straight, Priest, Prophet, shephard,
merchant, King, peasant etc. I am the undeserving person whom He
died for.

Anyone who views the Passion looking for someone to blame,
needs take a good look in the mirror. Its not about "them," its
about "us."

Dave Miller

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

How many times do we have to remind folks that man’s history is not the sources for eternal truth, God is.Are you saying the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Tzedoqim(temple priests) don't tell Godly history, or are somehow historically inaccurate? What about the "old testament". Written by the same line of men, is that also considered man's history to you? I would choose the Dead Sea Scroll Community's writings(existed 150BCE-68BC (which also include a manuscript of Isaiah, a Godly ducoment) over the redacted writings of the early Catholic Church(post-137BC) any day. If a pin drops, and I write on paper that a pin dropped, can't writing be trusted? Is that not to be trusted, because it's not written in what you designate as the Bible?

Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture.Not true. What you're referring to as the whole law is actually concerning a few minor halachic arguments(judgements) concerning orthodox Jewish law. Never once was the whole of Torah put into question on whether to keep or not to keep it. Never would have any of Yehoshua's true talmidim(disciples) have rejected the Torah(instruction - doesn't mean "law"). The Netzarim Yehudim(Nazarene Jews) instructed new believers everywhere to begin their walk with the simple laws ordered in Acts 15.

Jesus was NOT an antinomian prior to His raising up Paul and giving Him the dispensation of Mystery and Grace, He plainly taught a works based faith (nomianism) during His earthly ministry and even after that and up to God cutting of the Jews for national unbelief, He remained a consistent nomianist.This is another misconception of Christianity. Judaism isn't a works-based faith. That's an oxy-moron. Judaism a faith-based faith. What you do is a reflection of your faith. The Meshiach(anointed one) will never call for the nullification of Torah(instruction). There was/is/and will always be a lone dispensation of faith. Any other teaching is gnosticism. There is nothing you "must know" or some "new and improved" thing to get to heaven(nor is their two ways to get there).

This stuff about separating the various sects of the Jews apart from the masses is rubbish.If you think that mass documentation and historical accuracy is rubbish, then you have bigger problems then I can help you solve, and there is little point in keeping this conversation, as every ounce of evidence I show, will have no effect.

The bible says that the masses rejected Jesus, only the few became saved, and that Israel as a nation was cut off due to national unbelief. Sadducees, Pharisees, all the way from the King to the peasant, national unbelief.If I found a 1700 year old document and it said things that could have happened, does it mean they did? And if I found 1,000s of contradicting manuscripts reference the same material, would you still believe the first document you found to be 100% accurate? I'd like to know which bible you deem as the prestine document, and why.
Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross?Can God's word contradict?
And why do you put into doubt the wholesale unbelief of national Israel?I don't believe the writings that you do are accurate.
You can read anything from anyone teaching whatever, but you only have ONE word of God and it is THE authority for such matters. At least the last I checked, it was. You need to check again. You're missing the logic. I could just as easily ask you the same question about your NT. You can read any old NT manuscript, but why do you choose that one over the thousands of others that clearly contradict, sometimes drastically? If you don't use scientific/historic data to make your decision(as you seem to not accept) then how are you going to make your decision? You are going to make your decision, using your way of thinking(circular reasoning), by going with whatever you believe to be true. Not by what is known to be true. In this case, historic data like the DSS, written by Godly men.

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

Goose – Also, why do you say “Torah” studying and not studying all of God’s word?I don't believe your NT is God's word.
Do you think there is some problem with NT or whole word of God studies?There are a great many problems with the "NT".
Why highlight just a focus on the Torah?The Torah is more then just words. It's also action. Torah does not mean "law". It means "instruction". Torah is the only accurate instruction from God.

God, the authentic God of the bible teaches that all scripture is profitable and God breathed, that man does not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God.Even with a pure Christian way of thinking, it's obvious that Paul was talking about the Torah and not the NT, as the NT wasn't even canonized until centuries after Paul's death.

Do you think that Jesus Christ Lord God the son is any less God than God the father?I don't believe Yehoshua to be Alohiym(de-judaized to "GOD"). The Jewish Messiah was never ever ever ever ever thought to be God. This is actually a pagan idea, which was later syncretized by hellenists centuries after Ribi Yehoshua's death.
Do you think that the OT is more authoritative than the NT?I hope you realize now that I don't reguard the NT as authoritative. I'd also like to know just which version of the NT you deam as authoritative, and why.
Jesus said that you must have room in your heart for His word, or risk being a child of the devil because of not accepting His word. Are you sure Jesus really said that, or is it an early Christian redactor scaring people like you into submission.

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to get you to think. :think:

[Goose]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

I didn't realize that it wasn't historical. I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read in the Bible, religious Jewish leaders were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. I understand that this is depicted in Mel's The Passion. Do you have access to historical documents which show that Jewish religious leaders did not conspire to have Jesus crucified? SOTK,

You would be correct in saying that some of the Jewish leaders judged him. I'm not saying that some didn't. I'm saying that not all the Jews condemned Jesus. The source material used is the earliest extant sources of the gospels, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which show who was in charge, why they were in charge, and how they got there. It's actually a lot of evidence that starts from about 200BCE to 30CE (of course). Here's an excellent site that covers about all you wanted to know:
http://www.netzarim.co.il

I'd love to have the time to write you a book about it, but why write a book when it's already been written. If that's not enough for you, I'll write more when my browser lets me access more resources. I'm currently recompiling my whole Gentoo Linux system, and things are crashing.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

God's word as you interpret it. Your lack of humility is alarming.

Some of us Christians know that God's Grace extends to all
if His children, Jew and Gentile alike. Some of us, in our quest to
know Jesus Christ, actually value Judaism as a way to better
understand who Jesus Christ was and is; after all, Jesus Christ
was Jewish. It seems your sense of Divine Wisdom cuts Him off
from God as well.Precisely. It's called displacement theology.

Man oh man, the amount of antisemitic prejudice here at TOL
is getting downright alarming.

djm I agree. What's more alarming is that the TOL Admins don't do anything about it. Just look at Crytavhn's(sp?) threads.

[SOTK]

Originally posted by Goose

SOTK,

You would be correct in saying that some of the Jewish leaders judged him. I'm not saying that some didn't. I'm saying that not all the Jews condemned Jesus.

I can agree with that. I don't think anybody here is stating that all Jews in that period of time were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Are you saying that that is what is portrayed in the film? If yes, how so? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[1Way]

Dave – You couldn’t be more wrong. I spoke nothing anti-Jewish, only for God’s word as a higher authority than man’s word. And I didn’t even present a single biblical view, other than to say that God’s word should rein even over man’s word.

Your sense of alarm and false judgment would be alarming if you had any credence to your claims. God did not cut off every Jew without exception, He cut of the nation as a whole, thankfully the few believed.

As to your “antisemitic prejudice here at TOL” comment, someone splash Dave with a glass of cold water, his is delirious and projecting some crazy inner plight within himself.

[1Way]

SOTK4ever – Thank you kindly. But I don’t know why he is wanting to do this. :think: Perhaps he’ll clue us in as we read on.

Wow, reading on is going to be a tough task!

Heads up, Goose just invalidated Himself as an orthodox (I almost hate using that word) Christian, plainly denying the NT as being part of God’s word. I can’t believe the land mines he just dropped in his previous post, so watch where you step!!!

[1Way]

Dave and Jeremiah – Ok, this is better.

1) We agree that what Christ did voluntarily was for the sake of all of us, no one is any less in need of God’s grace than anyone else.

2) Aside from the universal and same need for redemption amongst men, there are differing levels of sin in each man. Jeremiah was right for establishing their ignorance in what they did, because they knew not what they were doing, thus, whoever it was that was wanting Jesus dead was for the most part ignorant about what they were doing. Christ must have counted on that fact so that His plan could be carried out. But do not go so far as saying that “all” blame for wrong doing should be equally spread because we are all sinners, that is too broad of a stroke. But again, I agree that the case of the cross is not a good place to look to for a source of blame against the Jews or any particular sect. Where the blame does come is was in their national unbelief from the King on down, which was a sin not forgiven them by God and we should not be nicer than God.

Thanks Jeremiah for that timely insight and in my case, welcomed guidance, however passively offered, I well receive. I did not mean to overstate the case against the Jews, your comments helped set things quite right.

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Great points Jeremiah. True humility requires a meditation upon
every character who participated the death of Christ. I am Peter, the
man who loved Him like a brother, knew Him as Lord, and ultimately
denied Him. I am the soldier who scourged and spat on
Him. I am the bystander who bore His cross. I am the soldier
who nailed His wrists and feet to the cross. I am the woman
who cried at His feet. I am the passer by who reviled Him as He
gasped His last breath. I am the thief who died at His side. I am
Jew, Roman, man, Woman, Gay, Straight, Priest, Prophet, shephard,
merchant, King, peasant etc. I am the undeserving person whom He
died for.

Anyone who views the Passion looking for someone to blame,
needs take a good look in the mirror. Its not about "them," its
about "us."

Dave Miller

.............................................
:first: You get my POTD.

..... its not about "them", its about "us", and then its not about us its about Him, and His great love for us!
Notice how the unbelieving, are trying to distract and obfuscate from the central meaning and message of the Passion. The Son of God suffered a horrible physical and Spiritual substitutionary death for us, because we are worth that much to Him!
But those who have already seen the film are moved by its message and not by its attempted hijacking by those promoting their own victim status. There is one innocent victim in the Passion and His deliberate victimization is for the benefit of all of us who belong to the human race.

[1Way]

Goose – You said Are you saying the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Tzedoqim(temple priests) don't tell Godly history, ... No, you quoted me, I find it hard to understand your inability to understand. When comparing God and man, God should be trusted, even over man, that is my point, that was my comparison, not that no history or no manmade tradition should be trusted.

Goose quoted me saying Even the 12 disciples and Paul had nomian anti-nomian doctrinal arguments that included the way of salvation! We should NOT be seeking to emulate the early historical church, we should be seeking to emulate the faith taught in scripture. and then Goose said Not true. What you're referring to as the whole law is actually concerning a few minor halachic arguments(judgements) concerning orthodox Jewish law. Never once was the whole of Torah put into question on whether to keep or not to keep it. Never would have any of Yehoshua's true talmidim(disciples) have rejected the Torah(instruction - doesn't mean "law"). The Netzarim Yehudim(Nazarene Jews) instructed new believers everywhere to begin their walk with the simple laws ordered in Acts 15. to which I now say, hu?

Goose, I was arguing from the bible, the NT historical record of the believers in the first century. I remind you that I was not talking about some other sects or groups of people, I was talking about Paul and the 12 and their doctrinal problems involving nomian and antinomian issues that even involved salvation. If you are going to discuss things with me, try to at least remain on the same page as the discussion.

Goose said This is another misconception of Christianity. (1) Judaism isn't a works-based faith. That's an oxy-moron. Judaism a faith-based faith. What you do is a reflection of your faith. The Meshiach(anointed one) will never call for the nullification of Torah(instruction). (2) There was/is/and will always be a lone dispensation of faith. Any other teaching is gnosticism. There is nothing you "must know" or some "new and improved" thing to get to heaven(nor is their two ways to get there). Wow, so now you’re a comedian. This is getting entertaining. A works based system of faith is an oxy-moron, Judaism is a faith based faith.

(1) So you beg the question of what a nomian sort of faith even is. Nomianism is a faith that is based on or emphasizes works. To say that a faith based on works is an oxy-moron is to beg the very question of the existence of any works based faith, and trust me, you are not that influential, works based faith/nominanism is a faith based in works, they do exist and it is not an oxy-moron.

Secondly, a faith based faith is a nonsense statement, a redundancy that clarifies nothing is not helpful nor clarifying.

(2) That is weird, if you don’t believe in the NT, then where do you get off in teaching about “dispensations” anyway? To my understanding, it is most expounded upon from the Pauline epistles (NT text). I see from your other post that you are apparently not a Christian, you disallow the word of God for your life, so I guess discussing any NT theology is a mute point with you.

Wait a minuet, you said something very strange, what did you mean when you said There is nothing you "must know" or some "new and improved" thing to get to heaven(nor is their two ways to get there). I don’t get the extent of what you said, can you know the right way to God and reject it and still such faith will not keep you from heaven? Anyone knowing and believing whatever they want to can get to heaven? Please explain what you meant and are you a universalist of some sort?

You ripped the meaning of my comment with your next comment, so I will not respond.

Goose next said. If I found a 1700 year old document and it said things that could have happened, does it mean they did? And if I found 1,000s of contradicting manuscripts reference the same material, would you still believe the first document you found to be 100% accurate? I'd like to know which bible you deem as the prestine document, and why. If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, it’s not about any one single pristine document, it’s about primarily two NT manuscript families. One is called the majority or received text, and the other is called the minority or the critical text. Long story short is, the majority text has the vast majority of material, it consists of a (nearly) unprecedented amount of internal accuracy (to my knowledge, only the OT has a more glorious tradition of care and accuracy), but, the NT scribes were under Roman occupation and great and terrible persecution, the fact that we have problems in preserving that Greek text when the people paid with their lives over this document, should not be surprising. But such is not the main point. The area of great and detestable contradiction rests solely in the critical text, and not in the majority text. So I rest my confidence of accuracy with the family of text known as the majority or the received text, this new fangled scholarship behind the critical text is a bunch of bunk as I think your analogy would affirm. Was that what you were getting at with your analogy?

Goose quoted me saying Goose, why do you raise other considerations above God’s word as though it is not sufficient for our understanding about what happened at the cross?

then Goose said Can God's word contradict? In what manor of speaking? God does repent from what He said and thought He was going to do, Jer 18 the potter and the clay makes this perfectly clear, as does Jonah and Nineveh chapter 3.4&10 as an example of God executing divine repentance against what He said He would do, so in that manor of speaking, yes, God can contradict what He said He would do, and not do it.

Goose said You need to check again. You're missing the logic. I could just as easily ask you the same question about your NT. You can read any old NT manuscript, but why do you choose that one over the thousands of others that clearly contradict, sometimes drastically? If you don't use scientific/historic data to make your decision(as you seem to not accept) then how are you going to make your decision? You are going to make your decision, using your way of thinking(circular reasoning), by going with whatever you believe to be true. Not by what is known to be true. In this case, historic data like the DSS, written by Godly men. I do allow for scientific historical data, but not in a way like evolutionists do for example. They distort true science and raise theory to the level of fact when it is convenient for them to do so, whereas true science needs no such manipulation. I’m satisfied with my inquiry into the science of textual criticism and manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the received text of the NT. Although I have studied that issue much more than the average Christian, I am not expert, and it has been years since I’ve studied it, but the issue is a fascinating and controversial one. But now that you are correlating your analogy to the NT, I would agree with you whole heartedly concerning the critical text, the ones that the liberal love and we conservatives distrust. Dare say, what do you say, if anything, is wrong with the received text?

[1Way]

Goose – In your next post, you said Even with a pure Christian way of thinking, it's obvious that Paul was talking about the Torah and not the NT, as the NT wasn't even canonized until centuries after Paul's death. Not so, the NT writers considered Paul’s writings as scripture, and there are other examples where God through the NT writers was affirming that the NT was also scripture. Who cares when it was canonized if the NT itself says that it is scripture, then it is scripture, God did not have to wait for the councils to decide if the NT should be included as scripture.

You have come this far in rejecting the NT as being God’s word, and you are THAT ignorant. Please explain this grievous oversight.

Goose, you are getting hard to deal with. I said Do you think that Jesus Christ Lord God the son is any less God than God the father? to which you said I don't believe Yehoshua to be Alohiym(de-judaized to "GOD"). The Jewish Messiah was never ever ever ever ever thought to be God. This is actually a pagan idea, which was later syncretized by hellenists centuries after Ribi Yehoshua's death. Your first entire sentence is Greek to me, but I’m sure it’s Hebrew to you, come on man, if I say Jesus, you know what I am talking about, your diversionary exclusivist terminology is not helping anyone. But to the point, you said that the Jewish Messiah was never ever thought to be God. That is about as bogus as could be. From the OT, we read things like, there is only one God, only one savior, and, His name shall be mighty God, prince of peace, everlasting father, etc. Jesus, the one born of a virgin is named mighty God from the OT, and in the OT the savior of the world would only be God Himself. Do you reject the OT also?

Goose, didn’t you used to be a Christian? Didn’t you previously believe in the entire word of God? Didn’t you previously put your faith in Jesus Christ? If so, then exactly what made you give that all up?

And stop giving us all this redactict yashu, navidad bit, you have a command of the English language, you are communicating to normal everyday common folk, speak to me with terms that openly promote a common understanding or know that your excessive use of exclusivist communications are a thinly veiled attempt at obfuscation. An occasion fitting reference here and there explained or accompanied within an understandable context is just fine. But you are being a bit too “I'm smart and authoritative because I use high falutine scholarly and ancient linguistic terms”. God’s word, OT and NT, establish a predominant common man’s mode of communication quite unlike what you are starting to promote.

So, spit it out, what exactly is your authority for what is God’s word, what do you hold as being God’s word? Are you an orthodox or competing strand of Judaism? Or what?

[1Way]

Jeremiah - I don't watch TV and I don't see much movies, I didn't even know when the passion came out. I'm not as dumb as the following question might imply, but, I was told that it was going to be made in Latin only, but such a thing would be practically like making a movie without sound. So, they did provide captions or they did do it in English, didn't they?

So, how was it? Any surprising elements, anything especially good or bad? General stuff, no need to give the plot away, :darwinsm: Just kidding.

[Behira]

Assuaging Controversy Over Gibson's New Movie -- More Reliance on History, Less on Tradition

This is an excellant historical piece, thanks for sharing. I have heard a brief explanation of what has been written. Also it is thought by some that the one called "John the Baptist", not his real name was of the Essenes; and that part of the big uproar was that the "real guys were back in town"; when the one Christians called Jesus came on the scene; also there were "lost tribe" representatives (Samaria) who where shut out from "Jerusalem" ; so those that say if Jesus were the Messiah; he was a "failed Messiah" because the tribes did not all return; are in error; some had and were refused entry; Jesus paved the way for the "lost tribes" to come home. To Rome; if the tribes returned, the temple built; and Messiah came; that would put Israel as the "new world" power.

It's also interesting to note that when the Jews were allowed to return to Israel in '49; the Brittish (old Rome) approved the first High Priest; much has not changed since 2,000 years ago.
So one thing is for sure the Real High Priest; Y'hoshua Ben Joseph Ha Messiah, has entered the Heavens; and the priesthood can't be fiddled with anymore; just the games on the ground; and He will return again; just as Moses had twice acended and deceded Mt. Sinia; only the Glory is Israel will Have An Eternal Priest/King for ever.

[Behira]

As stated by Peter, Paul's writtings were difficult to understand. Paul often had a mixed bag of people; some Jews, together with total pagans; some were lost tribes; who once knew the Torah. We could more clearly understand is response; if we had the reasons for the questions posed to him.

Those who never knew the covenant of Elohim; had to start somewhere; as was previously stated in Act the 4 prohibitions; those were the minimum necessary requirements for people to come into the meeting with other Torah observant people; since they would be coming into the teaching; on Shabbat; they would have received futher Torah instruction.

The New Testament is a misnomer for the writtings; the 4 gospels as they are called were the written testimonies of the authors as to the legitamacy of the one called Jesus as being the Messiah. Those written testimonies are not a Covenant; the remaing books are regarding how to live out the faith of Fathers' Abraham, Issac and Jacob as was given to them by Elohim.

If there were a New Covenant in the NT; it would appear as a writen legal document; just like the others; the sages looked for one in whom the covenant was written (Jesus); that is a new way for the Covenant to be transmitted through Jesus; (on the heart and mind); rather than stone.

And no where does G-d calle His people, His HOly Nation by any other name than Israel; not Christian; the term Christian; was given to the Notzrim; by pagans; who saw them annoint with oil (Christos annointed) and the laying of of hands. You might say it was a handle; by certainly not the name G-d called His people; if my people who are called by my name.....Jesus name was not Christ; His name was Yohashua Ben Joseph; the name by my name; could have been Israel. That is not to say that Elohim did not use the "Christian" system for good all the year's it's been around; but it's time to call in His people and restore them to His Kingdom; to their rightful culture; the Torah, to His Holy Days, To His Shabbat.

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by 1Way

Jeremiah - I don't watch TV and I don't see much movies, I didn't even know when the passion came out. I'm not as dumb as the following question might imply, but, I was told that it was going to be made in Latin only, but such a thing would be practically like making a movie without sound. So, they did provide captions or they did do it in English, didn't they?

So, how was it? Any surprising elements, anything especially good or bad? General stuff, no need to give the plot away, :darwinsm: Just kidding.

...............................................
jeremiah

I have not seen it yet. I think it comes out toward the end of this month for the general public. There have been several "screenings" for the VIP's and religious leaders, to receive their input. I was referring to the quotes of such people who have already seen it. Most say it is a tremendously powerful movie even with the subtitles.Why wouldn't it be?!

BTW, the last I heard from Goose, he was converting to an orthodox sect of Judaism. He used to be a " Christian "! Pray for Him! I used to be a Baptist but now I worship on Saturdays, with a Messianic fellowship. We worship Jesus, Yeshua, We believe the Lord God is one God in unity, Father, Son, and Spirirt. We observe the feasts of the Lord and rest on the Sabbath.
Gooses's study and teachers led him away from believing that Yeshua was either Messiah or God. My study and teachersled me to a deeper faith in Jesus as Messiah and God. He is the one who lived the Torah and fulfilled the spring feasts, because it is all about Him. Upon his return, He will fulfill the fall feasts.
The Movie the Passion, shows Yeshua, fulfilling the Passover as the perfect sacrificial lamb, killed at the exact time, and day, as the passover lambs were killed.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by jeremiah


BTW, the last I heard from Goose, he was converting to an orthodox sect of Judaism. He used to be a " Christian "! That is not possible.

[Goose]

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

I can agree with that. I don't think anybody here is stating that all Jews in that period of time were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Are you saying that that is what is portrayed in the film? If yes, how so? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I believe that the movie will represent that all the Jewish leadership condemned Jesus, also with the backing of the lay Jews. This is tradition. I highly doubt that it will accurately portray only the one sect, the wicked tzedoqim(wicked Sadducees), condemning Jesus for political gain. Jesus was a Ribi(1st Century Rabbi) under the Perushim(Pharisees) and created his own upstart sect known as the Netzarim(Nazarenes(Acts 24:5)), that worked within the Orthodox Jewish Community of that time period, and continued to live in harmony with the Torah observant community until their scattering in 137CE, by the hands of the Romans, and then forcefully assimiliated by the Romans again in 333CE, by order of the Christian Roman Emperor.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Sozo

That is not possible.
http://www.netzarim.co.il

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Goose

http://www.netzarim.co.il

What am I looking for?

[Lighthouse]

Any true Christian knows that Christ died for ur sins, and therefore we are the ones who killed him. That is all people are responsible for His death.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Any true Christian knows that Christ died for ur sins, and therefore we are the ones who killed him. That is all people are responsible for His death.


"I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

[Goose]

1Way,

You didn't even answer my questions. Although ,you made it abundantly clear that:

1) You use circular reasoning
2) You know nothing of 1st Century Judaism or present day Judaism
3) You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful

You can't use the NT supported by your circular reasoning(The NT says it's right, therefore it's right because the NT says it's right, etc). You're going to have to use actual evidence to support your case. And any evidence that you try to present will be blown away by my richer, older and extant documentation (like the Dead Sea Scrolls).

You mention your texts for the NT. You just clearly shown that there are differences in the NT. And since God does not contradict in his word, then all (except for one, maybe) are going to be wrong. It's simple logic. Therefore, you have no grounds for saying I'm wrong, using your NT.

Besides, you being a dispensationalist, the things that we can prove, you agree with me on to an extent. And that is that Yehoshua(Jesus) was an orthodox Jew and so were his followers. This is something that most all manuscripts and all history agrees on. Therefore, when looking at ancient manuscripts with our understanding of 1st Century Judaism, we can logically deduce which manuscripts are probably more accurate then others. The ones you are using for your majority text, are probably wrong. And looking at all the information, it starts to become extremely apparent that most of what Christianity thinks really happened, is backed by heavily redacted manuscripts, written by people who use logic like yourself.

[Freak]

Originally posted by 1Way


So, how was it? Any surprising elements, anything especially good or bad? Your idol, Enyart makes a cameo apperance. :chuckle:

[1Way]

Goose - I can't make you deal responsively and directly with the questions and arguments I've thoughtfully given you. Your response is shall we say, a bit light on the convincing side, a mountain bit light in the area of countering what I have said.

When ever you feel ready to deal with these issues, I’ll be glad to hear from you. For example, what is wrong with the majority text, that was my answer to you, but your counter point shows no reasonable amount of understanding. Any three year old can say, no, your wrong, I’m right, it takes a man of understanding to answer the reasons for the hope you have.

You appropriately used NT support for your reasoning, and so did I. Also, I had not read your NT invalidation post until after I responded to your first post. So of course I was not fully dealing with that issue. For example, you said Even with a pure Christian way of thinking, it's obvious that Paul was talking about the Torah and not the NT, as the NT wasn't even canonized until centuries after Paul's death. to which I said Not so, the NT writers considered Paul’s writings as scripture, and there are other examples where God through the NT writers was affirming that the NT was also scripture. Who cares when it was canonized if the NT itself says that it is scripture, then it is scripture, God did not have to wait for the councils to decide if the NT should be included as scripture.

You have come this far in rejecting the NT as being God’s word, and you are THAT ignorant. Please explain this grievous oversight. This is not a hard question or line of reasoning. You should have had a full grasp of this issue long before you judged against the NT as you have. If you shrink from answering this, then it is plain for everyone to see that you are not standing on solid ground, you don’t even know much about the ground you stand on.

Also, as for me, I explained my understanding of my faith in the NT not using circular reasoning. I gave textural criticism analysis, which the last I checked was a field of science, for why I trust in the NT, not just because the NT says I should trust it. A bit more realistic, if you please.

??? Name calling, abundantly clear that I am name calling. What are you talking about?

The only thing I could find was a comment I made about you attempting to be a comedian, because of denying that a system of faith can not be nomian because that would be an oxy-moron, which is begging the entire question of what a nomian system of faith is. And then you also asserted the redundancy, a faith based faith, which in light of what you had just said was pretty funny, as though nomian and antinomianism is a mute point with you. All that was not far from that infamous politician (the name escapes me right now) who said something to the effect of,

tolerance, the only thing I won’t tolerate is intolerance.

You were addressing the issue of anti-nomianism, supporting it, while defining it away at the same time. It was comedic, yet you may not think it funny, but that hardly justifies your slander against my person as being

“You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful”

I don’t think I even called you a single name for that matter. But within the space of three bulleted points, you attempted to make me into a rather illegitimate poster and thinker. If you disagree with what I have said, then deal with it directly, don’t worry about my ego, I can deal with a point counterpoint exchange, really, I can.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by lighthouse
Any true Christian knows that Christ died for ur sins, and therefore we are the ones who killed him. That is all people are responsible for His death.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sozo

"I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

Woo hoo! Great exchange! You each make a great point, but
together, its a one two punch! Awesome, thankyou!

Too bad this debate is way down in archeology, I think
everyone would benefit from this exchange!

Sozo, how about chapter and verse so we don't have to
dig it up ourselves?

Dave

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Dave Miller


Sozo, how about chapter and verse so we don't have to
dig it up ourselves?



I'll do whatever it takes to get some of you people to actually study your bibles.

:D

[1Way]

Goose has left the Christian faith

He says that the NT is full of contradictions and thus is not God’s word

I’ve provide a reasonable response for why the NT is reliable

I’ve asked why Goose has no reasonable response for his inaccurate claims

and what gets my goat, is not so much that Goose put me on his ignore list after a misunderstanding over in the Windows Nerds forum about ms.net framework. In other words, since I evidently pushed a hot button about the fact that he used to be a Christian and exposed how week his argument was against the NT, no one has picked up the cause and tried to help Goose see the error of his way.

Now, it could be that most people do not know much about manuscript evidence and such, nor about what I claimed which was that the majority and minority texts represent to very different textual families or traditions, and that only the minority/critical text matches Gooses attack, which I gave him credit for so doing, yet he has not differentiated between the minority and the majority text! I plainly asked him what is wrong with the majority text, and he never answered back. Instead he decided to take matters personally against me and so now he has set me to ignore, whatever that means.

From my standpoint the issue is pretty simple, Goose has thrown out the NT because it is untrustworthy, but he has not demonstrated why when considering the two very different main text families, the received/majority, and the critical/minority.

I hope for the sake of Goose and for the sake of all whoever you may run into about this topic, that we can learn to present a reasonable answer for why we trust in the NT as being accurate. Goose was right in asking me why I trust it, and I admit that I am no pro about defending it, but there are some very clear facts and historical considerations about the two very different text families that you all should have at least some basic understanding of, and especially so with Goose, since he has supposedly judged against the NT from a standpoint of understanding, and not ignorance.

It seems somewhat obvious to me that Goose has several followers here, and maybe a leader or so.

Come on TOL, take a stand for righteousness. Pick up your bible, look at it, and ask yourself, do you know why you trust it. How do you answer against Goose who knows that it contradicts itself wildly when you take all the various manuscripts into consideration. Evidently he won’t talk to me anymore, that’s his free will choice, just like him rejecting Jesus and His word for himself. I hope and pray that folks will carry a torch of caring, that the truth may prevail for Goose, and for yourself. Goose may be a lost cause, but if you can’t answer his questions, then maybe it’s you who needs the help.

[1Way]

Does anyone have a good quick sheet run down of the differences between the two families? Maybe a web site with some of the more practical stats and info.

I'm not thinking so much about the KJV only issue, although my studying that issue was how I got my feet wet into this topic. I don't want to turn this into a “KJV only” issue, which can get really ugly really quickly. I just talking about being able to answer Gooses charges that the NT is seriously in contradictory conflict. And I don’t mean your English translation, other than to say that if your NT bible was based on the more modern scholarship, then usually on just about every page on your NT will be footmarks notating that some of the text is placed into question by saying one of the following things, better or earlier manuscripts read, or, better earlier manuscripts omit, or some manuscripts say such and such instead of so and so, or some manuscripts don’t even have this portion included.

What I’d specifically like to see is the following concerning the majority and minority text families. And if it is provided by a KJVer, that is fine as long as the discussion does not go there. Also, the KJV only camp would refer to a special subset within the majority text family, generally called the textus receptus, (received text). I also provide my basic understandings of the data, but without the specific numbers and citations from memory.

Number of manuscript articles, from small to large, or at least the percentage of one to the other
The percentage of divergence and disagreement strictly within their own family
The nature of the disagreement within each family, i.e. the minority texts two main resources, the Vaticinus and the Siniaticus (spellings?) disagree with each each other wildly, entire passages omitted or included, contradictory or conflicting word and ideas, even thematic alterations are common, etc.

While in the majority text, the vast majority of the disagreement is over mundane things like the spelling of proper names, and letter transpositions known from common human error. Etc.

Any such helpful data would be most appreciated.

Thanks

[Mateo]

Several authors have undertaken the task of text comparison that you refer to; the lastest of which was done by Gail Riplinger. There are others as well. She's a bit strident and in the habit of trying to rhyme at inapropriate times but the majority of her book is a visual side by side comparison of the versions and texts in question.

[1Way]

Mateo, thanks for the info. I will need to do some searching online to find postable examples and stats. We don't really need the minute details behind the stats; we mostly just need the stats, along with the critical analysis of the nature of the internal integrity differences between the two very different text families.

Is she a Ruckman KJV only type, or a non-KJV’er? And does she lay out the basic statistical differences in short form, something that could be relatively easily posted here on TOL?

If it is so, then maybe I could get a hold of that book somehow and reference that info for all to consider, or, maybe you could if you had the inclination to do so.

I think this issue is a wonderful issue which addresses very forcefully the questions about which translation to use for example. There is a terrible reality within modern scholarship in the field of biblical studies, especially since Wescott and Hort produced their greek text from the critical/minority texts. One of the chapters, if not the last one in Mark has the entire end of that passage omitted, also, in the minority family, if I have my facts correct, there are thematic alterations and contradictions between various individual texts! The history behind these two families are also extremely telling, where the majority text stayed with the blood of the Christians and was openly used and “accepted”, while the critical text’s star examples were kept behind closed doors stored away and not openly used, hence their unusual yet natural preservation in larger portions. And they were mostly found in areas where the people were known to hate God. These statistics and accompanying critical analysis helps us today to be confident in why we can trust the extreme internal consistency of the accepted majority text family and thus the scholarship and translations that are based upon that, and not for such which is based upon the minority texts.

Thanks again for understanding the importance of this issue, and for lending a hand the best you can.

And again, I don't mean to stray off the topic, I would be pleased to have these posts moved to their own thread even if Goose and his like minded does not follow. Yet if the thread's creator will admit this change in direction, it is tangentially related to the issue of historical verses traditional verses God's eternal truth. Either way is fine with me. :o

[1Way]

Wow, this from one web site which spoke especially harsh against the KJV only position. It is even less logical to pay heed to Gail Ripplinger after she was exposed as having no formal academic credentials in manuscript history or Hebrew and Greek textural criticism, to the point that the Christian Research Institute forced her to admit that she herself could not even read the Greek language. Going to someone like Ripplinger for professional opinion on textual criticism is like going to a make-believe physician who never studied anatomy, for medical opinion. Not to completely discredit her, but just to say, she is noted as a KJV only type. Sorry, I forgot the get the web address.

[Mateo]

1Way,

This is not the first of Goose's threads to get hijacked by textual concerns.

:chuckle:

I do not offer Ms. Riplinger's book as a be all and end all on the subject but it is well footnoted and one can build a respectible library on the subject both pro and con from said notes.

While I prefer the KJV and use the Companion Bible as my primary resource I would be the first to admit that it has translational warts, some of which appear to be innocent and some of which appear to be the result of trying to bend what it says to conform to doctrines prevalent in the day in which it was born.

That said, I use the KJV as it has as it's base the Textus Receptus and the Massoretic texts which I have come to see as the most reliable that we have available to us. It also has the most thurough and reliable ancillary texts with which to dig further into the native tounges of the afore mentioned texts as well as the granddaddy of all Concordances.

This is my take on the subject... that and a few quarters will get you a cup of coffee.

;)

[Dave Miller]

I agree with the concordance and cross reference value of KJV,
given how long its been around. I would add that I value it
because of the poetic beauty of the language used. Maybe
not a great text for basic understanding, but great for inspiration.

Dave

[Dave Miller]

Goose makes some great claims, and I think 1way has missed the
point on many of them. But 1way makes some valid claims as
well, as painful as it is for me to admit that...

Paul did not have an NT in hand. He had a gospel which he preached,
orally. Tradition presumes the gospel that Paul preached to have
been recorded as the gospel according to Luke.

On the whole antinomian vs nomian debate, I think Paul's early
interpretation of gospel created antinomian atmospheres in the
churches he started, which resulted in some of his documented
letters appealing for good behavior, and trying to explain his
understanding of Grace more clearly.

The original 11 disciples were clearly kosher, and preached a
Christianity which remained kosher, but not kosher in a nomian
sense. I think they viewed obedience to the law as a fruit of
salvation, not a source of salvation, and that is consistant with
what Paul preached as well. Paul added the dimension that
"kosherness" is not the only fruit of the Spirit, there are many
others.

Paul's whole line of thinking on the law serving to convict rather
than save on the surface seems counter to the Judaic tradition of
the the Torah
being the Word of God, and therefore the source of salvation.

But, as I think Goose states, Torah tradition is not that
salvation is found through absolute obedience to the law,
but rather through recognizing God's presence through His Word
in the Torah. Torah is a prescious gift from God.

In that light, I think Paul's nomianism argument, as was Jesus
Christ's argument, was against biblical literalism, not against
Judaic law. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not remove it, and
again, obedience to the law as a sign of one's love for God
is blessed, but thinking that literal obedience to the law is a
ticket to salvation is mistaken.

Dave Miller

[Goose]

Dave,

You're getting there, but not quite. One thing, is that Torah doesn't mean "law". It means "instruction". Plus, this isn't a nomian, anti-nomian debate. I'm just proving the facts in the article. And the facts are, that it was a wicked priesthood(based on DSS 4Q MMT) that made a judgement under an illegal court(a capital crime judgement in Judaism has to last for 40 days, let alone one night). This is what the thread is about. I'm showing the facts, that Jesus wasn't tried by the Jews as a whole, but by a wicked priesthood that the main body of Jews rejected anyways. The real priesthood, was waiting it out in the desert, known as the Qumran/Essene Community.

[1Way]

Where does he get the 40 days bit? Is Goose now invalidating the OT also? :think: Remember, God said to not subtract from, nor add to His laws/commands, and God did not command a 40 day waiting period prior to execution. If Goose ignores me, then maybe someone will kindly relay this info to him to see if he will explain where he gets the forty days bit. :o

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

Where does he get the 40 days bit? Is Goose now invalidating the OT also? :think: Remember, God said to not subtract from, nor add to His laws/commands, and God did not command a 40 day waiting period prior to execution. If Goose ignores me, then maybe someone will kindly relay this info to him to see if he will explain where he gets the forty days bit. :o

Will you knock it off with the personal attacks? Goose is
obviously educated regarding Judaism far beyond you or I.
Does this threaten you in some way? Are you afraid to learn
something?

And don't give us that "its not in the bible" argument, its invalid.
Any exegete worth his salt knows that just one verse in the
bible contains so many truths that a lifetime of meditation
and prayer cannot reveal all of them. The Word of God in
Scripture has infinite depth, there's plenty of room for harmony
with the findings of scholars, historians, archeologists, and
even scientists of all faiths. These people are truth seekers,
and the Bible contains ultimate truth, so in the long run, real
truth can be found in harmony between these sources and
disciplines, not taking one source at face value and rejecting
all others.

Christ Himself INVALIDATED LITERALISM in many many places,
one example being the good Samaritan story. The Priest and
Levite were BIBLICAL LITERALISTS, so by the law they could
not help a dieing man in a ditch. The disciples not performing
ritual washing, breaking traditional fasting, Jesus dwelling
among and working with prostitutes and tax collectors, all the
same message. Biblical Literalists have a screw loose, because
they choose narrow minded literal face value interpretation
of scripture over God's Intent for humanity, which is to love God
and love each other.

Dave

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Dave Miller


Christ Himself INVALIDATED LITERALISM in many many places,
one example being the good Samaritan story. The Priest and
Levite were BIBLICAL LITERALISTS, so by the law they could
not help a dieing man in a ditch. The disciples not performing
ritual washing, breaking traditional fasting, Jesus dwelling
among and working with prostitutes and tax collectors, all the
same message. Biblical Literalists have a screw loose, because
they choose narrow minded literal face value interpretation
of scripture over God's Intent for humanity, which is to love God
and love each other.


Dave,
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to undermine. Our obligation "love God and love each other," is arrived at through a literal interpretation of scripture. Ignoring that, you attempt to undermine the very literalness by which we arrive at that high ideal. The priest and Levite should have helped the man in the ditch; that is what love demands.

You apparently see literalism as an evil thing, and I suspect it is because certain "literal" interpretations cut across your view of how love ought to show itself. Perhaps your view of literalism is too literal. Do you equate literalism with fundamentalism? Fundamentalisms goal, simply stated, is to reverence and interpret scripture as God's Word, so as to understand "God's Intent for humanity". Is God able to reveal Himself through scripture?

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by LightSon

Dave,
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to undermine. Our obligation "love God and love each other," is arrived at through a literal interpretation of scripture. Ignoring that, you attempt to undermine the very literalness by which we arrive at that high ideal. The priest and Levite should have helped the man in the ditch; that is what love demands.

You apparently see literalism as an evil thing, and I suspect it is because certain "literal" interpretations cut across your view of how love ought to show itself. Perhaps your view of literalism is too literal. Do you equate literalism with fundamentalism? Fundamentalisms goal, simply stated, is to reverence and interpret scripture as God's Word, so as to understand "God's Intent for humanity". Is God able to reveal Himself through scripture?

Literalism, fundamentalism, liberalism, all can be evil if they
ignore the Spirit of the law in favor of using the letter of the law
to oppress, ridicule, harm others.

My problem with literalism is that it can castrate the power and
depth of scripture.

I accept the call to love God and others literally, yes, but I
also respect and open myself to the infinite depth of
understanding that embracing those commandments can
provide.

Dave

[1Way]

So, where did he get the forty days concept? God said to not add to, nor take away from His commandments. Is Goose invalidating God's word in the OT also?

(This is a sincere non-personal attacking inquiry) Should I provide references for the part about God commanding to not add nor subtract from His commandments? Maybe you can find them on your own.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by 1Way

So, where did he get the forty days concept? God said to not add to, nor take away from His commandments. Is Goose invalidating God's word in the OT also?

(This is a sincere non-personal attacking inquiry) Should I provide references for the part about God commanding to not add nor subtract from His commandments? Maybe you can find them on your own.

Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting. It
might add some new insight into the account of Christ's
trial at the hands of Satan for 40 days in the desert...

Dave

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting. It
might add some new insight into the account of Christ's
trial at the hands of Satan for 40 days in the desert...

Dave But Dave, some people don't like pragmatism and evidence. ;)

[1Way]

Dave

Goose may have lifted up non-biblical research, I do not know, he did not specify his sources, but I did not address that issue as being an issue with me, because, it is not an issue with me. What I asked about was whether or not Goose was going against the OT, since God says not to add nor subtract from His word, and He does not teach a 40 day waiting period, my question is only reasonable and without your incongruent comments, I was not criticizing as much as seeking clarification for Gooses sources and why his information does not agree with God's word in the OT.

The bible is replete with example after example of how terribly Israel failed God and yet how the few remained true to Him. That being the case, I would not be the least bit surprised to find secular sources that demonstrated some Jews holding to teachings and traditions that do not conform to God's teachings as recorded in the OT. If this report from Goose is true, then I appreciate such secular research, unlike your estimation of my response otherwise.

[Mateo]

"It
might add some new insight into the account of Christ's
trial at the hands of Satan for 40 days in the desert...

Dave"

... and His being seen of men forty days after His resurrection... and then there was Jonah warning Nineveh that it would be destroyed in 40 days... and then there was Ezekiel being directed to lay on his side for 40 days... and then there was Elijah going 40 days on the strength of one meal to Horeb... and then there was Goliath who presented himself 40 days before the Jews before getting his little spanking... and then there was Moses... who fasted that long twice before receiving the law... and then there was Noah...


Yeah... 40... an interesting number

[Goose]

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." - Jhn 21:25

There is more to the Almighty's Word then just what is written.

[Dave Miller]

I just posted a Lenten poem I wrote a couple years ago
under Exclusively Christian Theology - Lenten Meditation.

I would appreciate it if my good friends Goose and Mateo
and others would give it a gander (oh, I just made a pun, goose and
gander!) and comment.

thanx,

Dave Miller

[Goose]

Hahaha :)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose

Mel Gibson's movie is traditional, not historical. But Mr. Gibson is a conservative Roman Catholic. Such folks place much greater emphasis on tradition than history.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath

But Mr. Gibson is a conservative Roman Catholic. Such folks place much greater emphasis on tradition than history. Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose

Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary. :chuckle:

Oh, you were serious... :(

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Goose

Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary.

What? Titanic wasn't a documentary. :shocked:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by LightSon

What? Titanic wasn't a documentary. :shocked: :doh:

[Sozo]

Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Sozo

Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version. I tried, he's dead.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Zakath

I tried, he's dead.

You are the one who is dead to Him.

[Mateo]

Originally posted by Sozo:

"Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version. "


To which Zakath replied:

"I tried, he's dead. "


To which Mateo inquires:

I'm curious as to what epiphany led you to this juncture.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Goose

Very true. But I'm not worried about Gibson, I'm worried about the people who thought "Titanic" was a documentary.

Keen observation. Same goes true for "Disneyizing" history
as well.

But the same can be said of any depiction of history, whether
intended to entertain or inform. No story can be told without
the mark of the teller, its called subjectivism, and its
inescapable.

Dave

[1Way]

De 4:2 "You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of the LORD your God which I
command you.

De 12:32 "Whatever I command you,
be careful to observe it; you shall not
add to it nor take away from it.

Pr 30:6 Do not add to His words, Lest He
rebuke you, and you be found a liar. – God

[Goose]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Keen observation. Same goes true for "Disneyizing" history
as well.

But the same can be said of any depiction of history, whether
intended to entertain or inform. No story can be told without
the mark of the teller, its called subjectivism, and its
inescapable.

Dave In Nazi Germany, it was also used to brainwash and murder. Believe it or not, "The Passion of Christ" is going to brainwash people (not totally, but theologically) who don't know their facts. I can't wait for someone to say, "You mean, Satan wasn't really holding a hairy backed midget in the crowd?".

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
... I can't wait for someone to say, "You mean, Satan wasn't really holding a hairy backed midget in the crowd?". You mean he wasn't????? ;)

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

De 4:2 "You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take from it,
that you may keep the commandments
of the LORD your God which I
command you.

De 12:32 "Whatever I command you,
be careful to observe it; you shall not
add to it nor take away from it.

Pr 30:6 Do not add to His words, Lest He
rebuke you, and you be found a liar. – God So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath

You mean he wasn't????? ;) Hahaha. I'm sorry, but did anyone laugh at the site of that thing? I was like,"What in the freak?!"

[1Way]

goose – Answer - I find the NT in glorious harmony with itself and the OT.


In light of my response which was a point counter point to your earlier suggestion that the NT is not trustworthy, I’m still seeking your understanding of the differences between the majority and minority text families.

I am no expert, but I’ve read up on some who are experts, some not much, and not recently. But there is a significant (perhaps overwhelming, virtually unanimous) consensus within “Christian” scholarship (especially conservative) for the unity and trustworthiness of the NT, especially when it comes to the majority text, again, I don’t vouch for the trustworthiness of the critical text at all, in fact in general I denounce it as compared to the Majority text. So my basic question is, what is “your” understanding of the difference between the majority and minority text families in light of your criticisms that the NT is “shamefully redacted”, it is not God’s word? Do you agree or reject my understanding about the differences between the minority and majority texts?

I looked up the word so that myself and others can understand your claim.

Webster’s
Redacted = To force; to reduce to form.

More specifically, why do you have a problem with the majority text family/tradition?

I hold to translations that hold to the majority text family (the vast majority of the time), and I find no problems with those translations. Please present some key considerations (general problems, specific examples) for your view, that would be helpful.

What’s all this about Disney and Satan and a

“hairy backed midget in the crowd?"

?

[1Way]

TOL - Again, I'm being responsive to the thread's evolving discussion, I don't mean to divert away from the topic. I would be glad to start another thread if need be. I don't even know if Goose has shared these things here at TOL before or not, so please forgive if this has already been covered elsewhere. Thanks.

[Goose]

1Way,

Your hatred of me is starting to hijack yet another thread. You're not forgiven. Take it somewhere else.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Goose

Believe it or not, "The Passion of Christ" is going to brainwash people (not totally, but theologically) who don't know their facts.
Oh puhlease, you really think this movie is going to do that much damage? I think you are giving it way too much credit.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Lucky

Oh puhlease, you really think this movie is going to do that much damage? I think you are giving it way too much credit.

It's turned Freak into an idolator!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Sozo

It's turned Freak into an idolator!

I think he idolized Britney Spears way before this.

[1Way]

Goose – I don’t hate you. I plainly answered your question in response to our otherwise seemingly respectful and sincere discussion. But after repeated failed attempts at seeking your response to my inquiry about

the two very different NT text families/traditions,

you remain unresponsive to me. (Other than obfuscate with a personal attack.)


All – So will someone please tell me what Goose was talking about concerning Disney and Satan and a “hairy backed midget in the crowd?"

[1Way]

Goose I don't believe your NT is God's word. There are a great many problems with the "NT". ...

I'd also like to know just which version of the NT you deam as authoritative, and why.
1Way Long story short is, the “majority” text has the vast majority of material, it consists
of a (nearly) unprecedented amount of internal accuracy (to my knowledge,
only the OT has a more glorious tradition of care and accuracy), ... . The
area of great and detestable contradiction rests solely in the “critical” text,
and not in the “majority” text. So I rest my confidence of accuracy with
the family of text known as the majority ... text, this new
fangled scholarship behind the critical text is a bunch of bunk as I think
your analogy would affirm. Was that what you were getting at with your analogy?
Goose You didn't even answer my questions. Although ,you made it abundantly clear that:

1) You use circular reasoning
2) You know nothing of 1st Century Judaism or present day Judaism
3) You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful
...
You mention your texts for the NT. You just clearly shown that there are differences
in the NT. And since God does not contradict in his word, then all
(except for one, maybe) are going to be wrong. It's simple logic.
1Way I did not call you names. I gave you textural criticism for why I trust the NT, and told
you which one I trusted. So what is wrong with the Magority text NT?
Unanswered Question (1)

No direct answer


Goose it was a wicked priesthood(based on DSS 4Q MMT) that made a
judgement under an illegal court (a capital crime judgement in
Judaism has to last for 40 days, let alone one night). This is what
the thread is about. I'm showing the facts, that Jesus wasn't tried
by the Jews as a whole, but by a wicked priesthood that the main
body of Jews rejected anyways. The real priesthood, was waiting
it out in the desert, known as the Qumran/Essene Community.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Miller Will you knock it off with the personal attacks? Goose is obviously
educated regarding Judaism far beyond you or I.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting.
Goose But Dave, some people don't like pragmatism and evidence.
1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words. ...

The bible is replete with example after example of how terribly
Israel failed God and yet how the few remained true to Him. So I
would not be the least bit surprised to find secular sources that
demonstrate some Jews holding to teachings and traditions that
do not conform to God's teachings as recorded in the OT. If this
report from Goose is true, then I appreciate such secular
research, unlike your estimation of my response otherwise.
No clear direct response.


1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words.
De 4.2, De 12.32, Pr 30.6
Goose So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture.
1Way Because I find the NT in glorious harmony with itself and the OT.

Again I ask, what is wrong with the NT majority text tradition?
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)


Goose Your hatred of me is starting to hijack yet another thread. You're
not forgiven. Take it somewhere else.

I'm responsive, your evasive.

[Dave Miller]

Since the subject is the movine, I assume the midget is a
character in the movie. I haven't seen it yet, but that's my
guess. And since the subject is the historical accuracy of the
movie, I would have to agree that I haven't read about any
midets in the gospels...

I'm hoping to see the movie this afternoon. Well, I'm kind of
dreading it also, but its something I need to do.

Dave

[Dave Miller]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Goose

So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture. [/QUOTE]

Goose,

I can't defend the NT against your accusations, you're probably
right in many ways.

I can say that the intent that Jesus put forth was to fulfill
rather than overthrow the Hebrew scriptures which are,
admittedly, sometimes misquoted in the gospels.

This concept has been misused over time, but my understanding
is that for example, in the case of maintaining Kosher lifestyle,
Jesus had no problem with it, He maintained it Himself.

His problem was with people who misused the Word of God
to justify unloving behavior, as is illustrated in the story
of the Good Samaritan. His problem was also with people
who mistakenly misrepresented Scripture as a replacement
for the Grace of God.

In other words, its the Grace of God that saves, not strict
adherence to the law. Reverence for and adherence to
the law can be a sign of one's obedience to God, if done
humbly, not hypocritically.

Dave

[Freak]

Originally posted by Sozo

It's turned Freak into an idolator!

Originally posted by Freak

Sozo, you saw the movie. Were you deceived?



Originally posted by Sozo

Yes.


I had honestly hoped that the movie would give the message of the gospel, but it fell short.

Maybe some good will come of it, but I doubt it.

I think the facts speak for itself--Sozo hates the gospel. :nono:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Freak

I think the facts speak for itself--Sozo hates the gospel. :nono:

Jay Bartlett, you are a liar!!

This movie does not present the gospel. You are an idolator, and a hater of Jesus, the Son of the living God.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Sozo

Jay Bartlett, you are a liar!!

This movie does not present the gospel. You are an idolator, and a hater of Jesus, the Son of the living God.

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

The movie declares the gospel according to Paul. Sozo your heart is cold. No wonder you don't serve Christ. :down:

[Sozo]

Go to hell Jay Bartlett.


It is Jesus alone who owns my heart, so you have insulted Him... again.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Sozo

Go to hell Jay Bartlett. I can't for I belong to the Lord Jesus Christ.


It is Jesus alone who owns my heart, so you have insulted Him... again. Originally posted by Freak

Sozo, you saw the movie. Were you deceived?



Originally posted by Sozo

Yes.


I had honestly hoped that the movie would give the message of the gospel, but it fell short.

Maybe some good will come of it, but I doubt it.

[Goose]

Originally posted by 1Way

Goose I don't believe your NT is God's word. There are a great many problems with the "NT". ...

I'd also like to know just which version of the NT you deam as authoritative, and why.
1Way Long story short is, the “majority” text has the vast majority of material, it consists
of a (nearly) unprecedented amount of internal accuracy (to my knowledge,
only the OT has a more glorious tradition of care and accuracy), ... . The
area of great and detestable contradiction rests solely in the “critical” text,
and not in the “majority” text. So I rest my confidence of accuracy with
the family of text known as the majority ... text, this new
fangled scholarship behind the critical text is a bunch of bunk as I think
your analogy would affirm. Was that what you were getting at with your analogy?
Goose You didn't even answer my questions. Although ,you made it abundantly clear that:

1) You use circular reasoning
2) You know nothing of 1st Century Judaism or present day Judaism
3) You use namecalling like a 7 year old and are disrespectful
...
You mention your texts for the NT. You just clearly shown that there are differences
in the NT. And since God does not contradict in his word, then all
(except for one, maybe) are going to be wrong. It's simple logic.
1Way I did not call you names. I gave you textural criticism for why I trust the NT, and told
you which one I trusted. So what is wrong with the Magority text NT?
Unanswered Question (1)

No direct answer


Goose it was a wicked priesthood(based on DSS 4Q MMT) that made a
judgement under an illegal court (a capital crime judgement in
Judaism has to last for 40 days, let alone one night). This is what
the thread is about. I'm showing the facts, that Jesus wasn't tried
by the Jews as a whole, but by a wicked priesthood that the main
body of Jews rejected anyways. The real priesthood, was waiting
it out in the desert, known as the Qumran/Essene Community.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Miller Will you knock it off with the personal attacks? Goose is obviously
educated regarding Judaism far beyond you or I.
1Way So where does Goose get this 40 day waiting period from? Is Goose invalidating the OT also?
Unanswered Question (2)
Unanswered Question (2)


Dave Apparently Goose has some historical evidence in mind that the
tradition at the time of Jesus was for people being tried for
capital crimes be given 40 days before judgement is passed.

Contrary to your criticism, if this is the case, I find it exciting.
Goose But Dave, some people don't like pragmatism and evidence.
1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words. ...

The bible is replete with example after example of how terribly
Israel failed God and yet how the few remained true to Him. So I
would not be the least bit surprised to find secular sources that
demonstrate some Jews holding to teachings and traditions that
do not conform to God's teachings as recorded in the OT. If this
report from Goose is true, then I appreciate such secular
research, unlike your estimation of my response otherwise.
No clear direct response.


1Way God says not to add nor subtract from God’s words.
De 4.2, De 12.32, Pr 30.6
Goose So why are you holding your shamefully redacted NT as scripture.
1Way Because I find the NT in glorious harmony with itself and the OT.

Again I ask, what is wrong with the NT majority text tradition?
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)
Unanswered Question (1)


Goose Your hatred of me is starting to hijack yet another thread. You're
not forgiven. Take it somewhere else.

I'm responsive, your evasive. 1Way,

I ignored you for a reason. You hate me and it clearly shows in all your threads with me in them. If you're showing love, then please quit "loving" me. I don't want it.

The answers to your questions can be summed up in the following. The NT is not true based on historical evidence and also the logical fact that if you have manuscripts that contradict, yet are held to be God's Word, then all except for maybe one, is false, as God's Word can't contradict.

Historians like Eusebius and Justin state that there was only one manuscript that was accurate and considered authoritative (but still not held on par with the Torah), which was a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew. Is your Gospel of Matthew written from this Hebrew Gospel? No. Hence, the books you use were not held as scripture by the earliest followers of Jesus. It wasn't until later, when hellenization and syncretization started to spread through out the church, was your present day bible born, which became a new religion called Christianity.

[LightSon]

"only by pride comes contention".

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." -Jesus

I wonder if it pains the Lord Jesus to have His own disciples hurling insults at each other, and in front of the lost.

It pains me. :(

[1Way]

Lightson – I wonder if you know that saying I wonder if it pains the Lord Jesus to have His own disciples hurling insults at each other, and in front of the lost. is insulting on at least two clear levels. 1) I am not “hurling insults” at each other, I am respectful and responsive. 2) Goose and his type plainly do not serve the Lord Jesus, they reject Him as their Lord and savior. So you managed to be somewhat insulting to everyone involved.

I can not and should not be held to blame for trusting Goose was sincere over his discussion with me.

Lots of people misunderstand one another all the time, so I don’t take offense at what you said other than to simply correct the misunderstanding involved. Goose on the other hand does not seek resolution/reconciliation; instead he creates offenses where none clearly exist, while avoiding the question that was probably the real point of contention between us.

I realize that most people do not follow everyone else’s discussions, so I provided a basic reader’s digest recap of our discussion and highlight the main aspects of what we had been discussing. It is startling how unresponsive Goose is, especially in light of his otherwise respectable and informed input. Thanks for caring that we treat each other respectfully, to that extent I fully agree.

[Goose]

1Way is not my brother and we do not follow the same Christ.

[1Way]

Goose – I do not hate you, your attempts at placing hatred in me for you is not true, I do not hate you, and I do not cut you off from relationship (set you to ignore mode) because I don’t require others to meet so many personal loving needs that I desire from others. I hope for them, but if I they are not caring towards me, then such is life, disappointments happen. When misunderstandings happen, deal with it in a productive way, don’t seek such occasions to tear down and destroy relationships. Whenever possible buildup, edify, exhort, hope, bless, encourage, etc.

Thank you for responding to my observations, and I am very happy to see you directly respond to our discussion over my questions to you (however incomplete), at least you responded.

You said.

The answers to your questions can be summed up in the following. (1) The NT is not true based on historical evidence and also (2) the logical fact that if you have manuscripts that contradict, yet are held to be God's Word, then all except for maybe one, is false, (3) as God's Word can't contradict.

(4) Historians like Eusebius and Justin state that there was only one manuscript that was accurate and considered authoritative (but still not held on par with the Torah), which was a Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew. Is your Gospel of Matthew written from this Hebrew Gospel? No. Hence, the books you use were not held as scripture by the earliest followers of Jesus. It wasn't until later, when hellenization and syncretization started to spread through out the church, was your present day bible born, which became a new religion called Christianity.

(1) My understanding is that the NT’s historical considerations are held in the highest esteem compared to any ancient document. If you are referring to issue 4, then perhaps we all have much to learn, I do not know about this info and am curious about it.

(2) I do not hold to manuscripts that contradict, that is fundamentally why I reject the minority text. The majority text is characterized by the vast majority of the written portions, and they also have the vast majority of agreement and harmony. It is mostly when you get to the minority text that your argument has sway, and there I totally agree with you. So fundamentally, you are not answering my question. You are saying that there is one NT, at since it is contradictory, then it is invalid. My point counter point is that effectively the NT is not one, it is two, and if you just take your standard of internal consistency to each NT tradition, then the majority is fine while the minority fails miserably. So the question remains, what is wrong with the majority text family as an overwhelmingly consistent and verified document? If your answer is within your response where you said, except for perhaps one, then you would be agreeing with me that the NT according to the majority family is not contradictory and is therefore acceptable as being God’s word. But since you still reject that conclusion, then my question has not been answered as mentioned.

(3) Amen, it does not contradict. The NT that the Christian’s carried with them and used has a glorious history in terms of volume and internal and external agreement. The minority text is not proud of it’s history and unique shaded circumstances, instead they try to simply claim that their manuscripts are old, thus better, even though their agreement and attestation is horrible.

Note, again, I am not a scholar, and although these remarks are from previous research into this issue, I have by no means ruled out every minority text as being untrustworthy. I feel I know enough general information about the differences between the majority and the minority texts to be suspicious of say two other schools of thought on textural criticism, 1) KJV only, which only affirms a subgroup of the majority text, which has not been found (although has been “arrived” at via reconstruction) does not argue convincingly for the extent of their conclusions, however they do a pretty good job of exposing the problems with the minority text. 2) Various forms of eclecticism. The differences between the minority and majority text seem important enough to be suspicious of crossing the lines between these two very different text groupings. But if some of these examples agree in great harmony with the majority text, then there could be arguments for partial validity, but I have not remotely dived that far into this debate.

There has been so much historical and archeological support for the NT, that claims of it’s contradictory nature seem unrealistic. Except of course there does seem to be a significant argument against the validity of the minority text as mentioned.

(4) Ok, I am willing to consider these ideas, but first we should settled the issue of the two divergent families and how that significantly alters the framework of this contention. There is a tremendous amount of historical support for the trustworthiness of the NT. So lets give that evidence a fair hearing prior to dismissing it. Or, if you grant the two family differences in general, then you can not invalidate the NT (according to the majority text) via contradiction, you would need to use some other reasoning.

[1Way]

Lightson and ALL - After just receiving a friendly third party note of observation, it seems likely that Lightson was referring to Freak and Sozo's “go to hell”, “your not saved” tirade.

So my comments only apply to the extent that Lightson included me in his remarks.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Mateo

Originally posted by Sozo:

"Get to know the real Jesus, not Hollywood's "Catholic" version. "


To which Zakath replied:

"I tried, he's dead. "


To which Mateo inquires:

I'm curious as to what epiphany led you to this juncture.
Epiphany - A revelatory manifestation of a divine being.

I was assured that "Jesus" was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent deity. When I had no epiphany, my conclusion was that the object of my search didn't exist.

Of course billions of Christians could be wrong about the attributes of the deity they've been conversing with and serving for almost 2000 years... :think:

[Dave Miller]

I just saw it for the first time.

First let me say that it was scriptural, and Catholic. From the
scripturally accurate parts, the story was told mostly from the
perspective of Luke.