Two 'literal translation' Bibles..tell me it isn't true.

[Michael Christ]

(KJV)
Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks.
Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou
have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the
city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

(NIV)
Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul,
Saul, why do you persecute me?"
Acts 9:5 "Who are you Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus whom you are
persecuting," he replied.
Acts 9:6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what
you must do."

No mention of Paul's willingness to surrender to the Lord (what you
must needs be) in that moment, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

No mention of 'trembling and astonished' (fear of the Lord brings
quickness of understanding and wisdom).

10 words that Jesus said have been removed, 10 words you could write
10 books on regarding the hard-heartedness and the like of man to kick
against the will of God (i.e. the prick of the truth) in their lives.

Now, more than ever, do you need to be led by the Spirit of God as
this world drifts more and more away from any thought of God in His
true image, and into the sacred cow of man's morality and humanistic
standards.



Michael Christ

[duke]

Actually, all the other bibles except the kjv do not have "pricks". But all it
means is to continue to fight back as he has been doing.

And that's already well reflected in the NT.

Here it is in Portugese.
5-6Quem és tu, Senhor?, perguntou.Sou Jesus, aquele a quem tu persegues!
Levanta-te, vai para a cidade e espera por instruções minhas.

>Now, more than ever, do you need to be led by the Spirit of God as
>this world drifts more and more away from any thought of God in His
>true image, and into the sacred cow of man's morality and humanistic
>standards.

>Michael Christ

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:20:26 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

>Mistake the same with NASB, ESV, LEB, and a couple others, most "new"
>stuff.

Pete, you're truly an ignorant guy believing that the kjv is all that great.

[Linda Lee]

The KJV holds most closely to the words in the existing Greek texts of
the NT (as do the New KJV [NKJV], Modern KJV [MKJV], and the KJ3
Literal Translation. The Authorized KJV's biggest flaw is the use of
archaic English words (like "pricks" for goads) and Old English forms
of words like "thee" and "thou", and the existence of such flaws are
easy to understand since the current version was translated in 1769 in
England.


The NIV says pretty much anything the translators liked, regardless of
what the Greek texts said. The NIV was produced by Protestants, and
it doesn't contain the deuterocanonical books considered canonical by
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, so any Catholic who relies upon it
must not care very much to have access to reading their Scriptures.

It doesn't matter to me that Protestants produced the NIV; since the
translators of the NIV changed the meaning of the words in the Greek
texts, it is a false text.


Nicholas Thomas Wright, an Anglican bishop and a leading New Testament
scholar, said of the original NIV in 1080 (it's been slightly revised
twice since then):
"When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one
of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about
itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there,
and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses....
Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by
verse through several of Paul's letters, not least Galatians and
Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the
NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had another
principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that
Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition
said he said.... [I]f a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it
will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about.[17]"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version


-

[duke]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:03:09 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek texts"
are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.

>The Authorized KJV's biggest flaw is the use of
>archaic English words (like "pricks" for goads) and Old English forms
>of words like "thee" and "thou", and the existence of such flaws are
>easy to understand since the current version was translated in 1769 in
>England.

One truth is guaranteed about the bible translations - either they are
translations between languages which make all valid, or they are interpretations
which make them worthy of fuel for the fires.

The current kjv is a valid bible written in an awful language style difficult to
follow. But I guarantee that it says no more or no less than any other valid
bible.

>The NIV says pretty much anything the translators liked, regardless of
>what the Greek texts said.

You're a fool for pushing that stupid idea.

[Michael Christ]

You are all missing the point.

Man is interfering, adding and taking away according to his morality
as what the Bible means.

Therefore inerrant??

I have no doubt scripture is inerrant, but what has happened to it
when words like 'perfect' are now become to mean 'mature'. 'Mature'
by whose standards?? Man doesn't think his standards are filthy
compared to God's.

What happens is the Bible becomes a book that suits the fallen man's
morals, a sinner's remain-as-you-are refuge.

I submit to you that that is exactly what it has become, and the fruit
of that is fully exhibited on these newsgroups.



Michael Christ

["grasshopper"]

"You are all missing the point.

Man is interfering, adding and taking away according to his morality
as what the Bible means."

This is the case especially with passions of the flesh.

If we say we do not sin the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he
is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.

Some add and take away to exclude themselves.

[Michael Christ]

Your understanding is not replete, Sweetie.

You go about pointing your finger in your sin as though you are
sinless using the Bible as self-justification.

It is not hard to understand what I have been saying here. It is
simple, clear, and true.

You are a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

[Michael Christ]

> 5-6Quem s tu, Senhor?, perguntou.Sou Jesus, aquele a quem tu persegues!
> Levanta-te, vai para a cidade e espera por instru es minhas.

>
> >Now, more than ever, do you need to be led by the Spirit of God as
> >this world drifts more and more away from any thought of God in His
> >true image, and into the sacred cow of man's morality and humanistic
> >standards.
> >Michael Christ
>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

You have had more than enough opportunity.

You made your choice.



Michael Christ

["grasshopper"]

> "You are all missing the point.
>
> Man is interfering, adding and taking away according to his morality
> as what the Bible means."
>
> This is the case especially with passions of the flesh.
>

> If we say we do not sin the truth is not in us. =A0If we confess our
sins=

, he
> is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all
> unrighteousness.
>
> Some add and take away to exclude themselves.

"Your understanding is not replete, Sweetie.

You go about pointing your finger in your sin as though you are sinless
using the Bible as self-justification.

It is not hard to understand what I have been saying here. It is simple,
clear, and true.

You are a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

"What happens is the Bible becomes a book that suits the fallen man's
morals, a sinner's remain-as-you-are refuge.

I submit to you that that is exactly what it has become, and the fruit of
that is fully exhibited on these newsgroups.""

Some attempt to avoid the finger in the mirror by changing the subject or
by covering up the mirror.

If we say we do not sin the truth is not in us. If we confess our sin it
is forgiven.

Some want to add or subtract from that simple truth.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:14:16 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:42:46 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek texts"
>> are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>

>Gotta love that ignorance.

Christians are the definition of ignorance.

>--
>Peter

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 10, 1:42 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:03:09 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

Many biblical scholars.

> Remember, that the "Greek texts"
> are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.

No one knows that. Greek was the universal language then, of the Jews
as well as of the Gentiles.

>
> >The Authorized KJV's biggest flaw is the use of
> >archaic English words (like "pricks" for goads) and Old English forms
> >of words like "thee" and "thou", and the existence of such flaws are
> >easy to understand since the current version was translated in 1769 in
> >England.
>
> One truth is guaranteed about the bible translations - either they are
> translations between languages which make all valid, or they are interpretations
> which make them worthy of fuel for the fires.
>
> The current kjv is a valid bible written in an awful language style difficult to
> follow.  But I guarantee that it says no more or no less than any other valid
> bible.
>
> >The NIV says pretty much anything the translators liked, regardless of
> >what the Greek texts said.
>
> You're a fool for pushing that stupid idea.

You're a fool for accepting a text that not only doesn't stick to the
texts, but was compiled by Protestants, one that even other
Protestants say is error-ridden, are you not? Why not use a NKJV? It
does not use the archaic language.

["wwwmmm.-"]

> Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek

texts"
> are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.

"Gotta love that ignorance."

The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and
conversations and verbal information is concerned. That is all those red
letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.

Some early church writers were of the view the entire book of hebrews was
first aramaic and then in greek. Some churches say that aramaic was the
source for all of the NT and later in greek. One can easily find
translations from the aramaic NT into english.

How interesting that the very thing one scolds another for is for that one
a source of great pride when it comes to ignorance of church history and of
the modern history of their core doctrines.

Education proceeds afoot. If we canfind a fault in another we best first
look to ourselves for same, no?

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 10, 7:05 pm, "wwwmmm.-" wrote:
> > Who told you that - the authors of the kjv?  Remember, that the "Greek
> texts"
> > are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>
> "Gotta love that ignorance."
>
> The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and
> conversations and verbal information is concerned.  That is all those red
> letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.

You assume that because Aramaic was spoken then, but so was Greek
spoken by the Jews of the time, and Greek was the universal language.
All we know for sure is that those redletter words were attributed to
Christ. Surely the apostles would have valued their first texts, yet
all we hear of are the Greek texts.

>
> Some early church writers were of the view

Yes, their "view", but no proof.

> the entire book of hebrews was
> first aramaic and then in greek.  Some churches say that aramaic was the
> source for all of the NT and later in greek.

> One can easily find
> translations from the aramaic NT into english.

Where?

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 10, 7:05 pm, "wwwmmm.-" wrote:

All I have heard of being in Aramaic was notes taken by Matthew.

[duke]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:14:16 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:42:46 -0600, duke wrote:
>

>> Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek texts"
>> are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>

>Gotta love that ignorance.

You can overcome it if you pray, pete. Jesus didn't speak Greek. WE all know
that even if you don't.

[duke]

Pete is "false pride personified".

[duke]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:33:54 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 10, 7:05 pm, "wwwmmm.-" wrote:
>> > Who told you that - the authors of the kjv?  Remember, that the "Greek
>> texts"
>> > are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>>
>> "Gotta love that ignorance."
>>
>> The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and
>> conversations and verbal information is concerned.  That is all those red
>> letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.
>
>You assume that because Aramaic was spoken then, but so was Greek
>spoken by the Jews of the time, and Greek was the universal language.

Yet Jesus spoke Aramaic, a little Hebrew and probably knew a few words of Greek
and Latin. He was a poor little carpenter boy near a desert garrison far, far
away in another galaxy.

>> the entire book of hebrews was
>> first aramaic and then in greek.  Some churches say that aramaic was the
>> source for all of the NT and later in greek.
>> One can easily find
>> translations from the aramaic NT into english.
>Where?

Here's one.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/

In addition, St Jerome in the 4th century translated the Greek into Latin, now
making the New Catholic study bible in English a firm source of Greek and Latin.
St Jerome had the good sense to include the Apocrypha rather than run and hide
like the kjv does.

[duke]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:27:17 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

Not an answer. The kjv writers were stupid enough to follow the Jews rather
than the Christians in the Apocrypha exclusion.

>> Remember, that the "Greek texts"
>> are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>
>No one knows that. Greek was the universal language then, of the Jews
>as well as of the Gentiles.

But not for a poor and uneducated carpenter boy living in the deep desert near a
remote Roman Garrison. Would you like to try again?

>> >The Authorized KJV's biggest flaw is the use of
>> >archaic English words (like "pricks" for goads) and Old English forms
>> >of words like "thee" and "thou", and the existence of such flaws are
>> >easy to understand since the current version was translated in 1769 in
>> >England.

>> One truth is guaranteed about the bible translations - either they are
>> translations between languages which make all valid, or they are interpretations
>> which make them worthy of fuel for the fires.
>> The current kjv is a valid bible written in an awful language style difficult to
>> follow.  But I guarantee that it says no more or no less than any other valid
>> bible.

Oh, with the preference for following the Jews rather than the Christians for
the Apocrypha. The Jews left those out because they were either a) written in
Greece rather than the Holy Land, or b) written in a language other than Hebrew.

>> >The NIV says pretty much anything the translators liked, regardless of
>> >what the Greek texts said.
>> You're a fool for pushing that stupid idea.

>You're a fool for accepting a text that not only doesn't stick to the
>texts,

Who's text? ALL valid bible express the same idea.

> but was compiled by Protestants

Uh, that's properly called "protest_ers".

>, one that even other
>Protestants say is error-ridden, are you not? Why not use a NKJV? It
>does not use the archaic language.

Then why do they all say the same thing except for language style?

[duke]

>You have had more than enough opportunity.
>You made your choice.

Yep, and you are a failure. I project that you do not understand what a "prick"
is.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 11, 10:31 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:33:54 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 10, 7:05 pm, "wwwmmm.-" wrote:
> >> > Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek
> >> texts"
> >> > are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>
> >> "Gotta love that ignorance."
>
> >> The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and
> >> conversations and verbal information is concerned. That is all those red
> >> letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.
>
> >You assume that because Aramaic was spoken then, but so was Greek
> >spoken by the Jews of the time, and Greek was the universal language.
>

> >> Some churches say that aramaic was the
> >> source for all of the NT and later in greek.

NOTE: People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
Testament's Greek Scriptures.

"The Aramaic New Testament exists in two forms, the classical Aramaic,
or Syriac, New Testament, part of the Peshitta Bible,[1] and the
"Assyrian Modern" New Testament and Psalms published by the Bible
Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from Greek. The
official Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian Church) does not
recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally
considers the New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New
Testament, and Aramaic to be its original language. This view was
popularised in the West by the Nestorian Assyrian scholar George
Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the
Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.
...
Aramaic original New Testament hypothesis

The HYPOTHESIS OF AN ARAMAIC ORIGINAL FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT holds that
the original text of the New Testament was not written in Greek, AS
HELD BY THE MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS, but in the Aramaic language, which
was the primary language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.

The position of the Assyrian Church of the East, per Mar Eshai Shimun
XXIII in 1957, is that the Syriac Peshitta (which is written in a
cursive form of Aramaic), used in that church, is the original of the
New Testament. Variants of this view are held by some individuals who
may argue for a lost Aramaic text preceding the Peshitta as the basis
for the New Testament.

This view is to be distinguished from higher criticism and text-
critical transmission theories such as the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis of
Lessing and others. The Hebrew Gospel or Proto-Gospel hypothesis
includes either Aramaic or Hebrew urtexts for Matthew and possibly
Mark.
...
Nestorian Church beliefs concerning the Peshitta

This is a traditional belief held in the Nestorian Church that THE
PESHITTA TEXT, WHICH MOST SCHOLARS CONSIDER A TRANSLATION FROM GREEK,
is in fact the original source of the Greek:" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

[Michael Christ]

On Nov 11, 8:13 am, "grasshopper" wrote:
> > "You are all missing the point.
>
> > Man is interfering, adding and taking away according to his morality
> > as what the Bible means."
>
> > This is the case especially with passions of the flesh.
>
> > If we say we do not sin the truth is not in us. =A0If we confess our
>
> sins=
> , he
>
> > is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all
> > unrighteousness.
>
> > Some add and take away to exclude themselves.

Michael Christ wrote:
> Your understanding is not replete, Sweetie.

> You go about pointing your finger in your sin as though you are sinless
> using the Bible as self-justification.

> It is not hard to understand what I have been saying here.  It is simple,
> clear, and true.

> You are a perfect example of what I have been talking about.

> What happens is the Bible becomes a book that suits the fallen man's
> morals, a sinner's remain-as-you-are refuge.

> I submit to you that that is exactly what it has become, and the fruit of
> that is fully exhibited on these newsgroups.""

Anonymously wrote:
> Some attempt to avoid the finger in the mirror by changing the subject or
> by covering up the mirror.

> If we say we do not sin the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sin it
> is forgiven.

It does not end there and recycle and recycle and recycle and recycle
in your sin. Jesus didn't die for you to remain doing what the world
does!! Sin!!!

He has called you to something more.

Anonymously wrote:
> Some want to add or subtract from that simple truth.

Then I suggest that you do confess.

But don't be a half-hearted confessor and confess a little error on
your part, confess that everything about what you do and say is wrong;
smite your breast sincerely like you really are that sinner. Confess
that your heart is, all of it, is deceitfully wicked, which it surely
is.

And then you won't have to try and find scriptures that 'appear' to
allow you to remain as you are in your sin.

And then the Lord will do something...new...in your life...and cleanse
you of ALL unrighteousness...which He is able...

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

All of you is sin, all of you is wrong for sin in not what you
do...but what you are.


If you are a sinner when you die, then a sinner you will remain for
that is what you chose in this life.

If you want to become different. Well, as you have heard it said,
with God all things are possible.

Become a real believer and not just someone who likes to quote bible
verses they don't live by.



Michael Christ

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 11, 3:58 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> >> Education proceeds afoot. If we can find a fault in another we best first

> >> look to ourselves for same, no?
>

> A very small minority believe that most or all of the New Testament was
> originally written in Aramaic. This position, called Aramaic primacy, has
> been rejected by mainstream scholarship. Instead, the consensus among
> mainstream academia is that where it is very likely that there are Aramaic
> layers or source materials that underpin portions of the New Testament, the
> volume as we know it today was compiled and redacted in the Greek language.
>
> Fool does not even realize most of the NT was written outside Jerusalem.
>
> I have seen Fools posting on a good deal of my posts. Just so people know,
> I do not read her clap trap and hence do no know what she is into these
> days.

You are reminded of Jesus' admonition in Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever
shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Those we presume are fools are often the same by which we learn our
own humility.

TCross

["ooeemm.-"]

> > Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? =A0Remember, that the
"Gree=

k
> texts"
> > are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>
> "Gotta love that ignorance."
>
> The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and

> conversations and verbal information is concerned. =A0That is all those
r=

ed
> letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.

"You assume that because Aramaic was spoken then, but so was Greek spoken
by the Jews of the time, and Greek was the universal language. All we know
for sure is that those redletter words were attributed to Christ. Surely
the apostles would have valued their first texts, yet all we hear of are
the Greek texts."

Greek was the language of the literate, not the language on the street for
daily life. The bulk of the apostles were peasants not literate in
greek,ie. fishermen. When Christ spoke to the multitudes and the rural
places of palistine greek would be rarely understood.

Elsewhere in the greco-roman world greek was much more widely used as a
daily language for jews. Most jews of that time did not live in palistine.
That is why the hebrew bible was translated into greek and used by jews for
religious purposes some 300 years before Christ.

["curious"]

"Fool does not even realize most of the NT was written outside Jerusalem."

Relevance, the vast bulk of the sayings of Christ and of others would have
been done in palistine where Aramaic was the daily street language. They
would have been translated into greek when the books of the NT were
written.

"I have seen Fools posting on a good deal of my posts. Just so people know,
I do not read her clap trap and hence do no know what she is into these
days.""

Has our intrepid poster considered that responses to his posts are intended
for correction of his errors and information generally for the benefit of
others?


If posts are not read, then what vanity to even mention it?

[Sam Taylor]

"Linda Lee" wrote in message
news:63ea1dc8-fcba-4b64...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 10, 9:39 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:20:26 -0800, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:33:14 -0800 (PST), Michael Christ wrote:
>
> >> (KJV)
> >> Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him,
> >> Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
> >> Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
> >> Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the
> >> pricks.
> >> Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou
> >> have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the
> >> city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
>
> >> (NIV)
> >> Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul,
> >> Saul, why do you persecute me?"
> >> Acts 9:5 "Who are you Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus whom you are
> >> persecuting," he replied.
> >> Acts 9:6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what
> >> you must do."
>
> >> No mention of Paul's willingness to surrender to the Lord (what you
> >> must needs be) in that moment, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"
>
> >> No mention of 'trembling and astonished' (fear of the Lord brings
> >> quickness of understanding and wisdom).

Sam Injects,
Words written in Italics or enclosed in Brackets "(-) are
NOT part of the Original text, but added translators
notes an thoughts.
just as the words " Which being translated as
as G-D with Us" are a translators IDEA of what happened.
Therefore were not Included in Literal Translations
Sam

[duke]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:55:19 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 11, 10:31�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:33:54 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 10, 7:05 pm, "wwwmmm.-" wrote:
>> >> > Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek
>> >> texts"
>> >> > are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>>
>> >> "Gotta love that ignorance."
>>
>> >> The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and
>> >> conversations and verbal information is concerned. That is all those red
>> >> letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.
>>
>> >You assume that because Aramaic was spoken then, but so was Greek
>> >spoken by the Jews of the time, and Greek was the universal language.

>> >> Some churches say that aramaic was the
>> >> source for all of the NT and later in greek.

>NOTE: People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
>Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
>TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
>Testament's Greek Scriptures.

The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures?? Why would anyone do
that?

>
>"The Aramaic New Testament exists in two forms, the classical Aramaic,
>or Syriac, New Testament, part of the Peshitta Bible,[1] and the
>"Assyrian Modern" New Testament and Psalms published by the Bible
>Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from Greek. The
>official Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian Church) does not
>recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally
>considers the New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New
>Testament, and Aramaic to be its original language. This view was
>popularised in the West by the Nestorian Assyrian scholar George
>Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the
>Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.
>...
>Aramaic original New Testament hypothesis

>The HYPOTHESIS OF AN ARAMAIC ORIGINAL FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT holds that
>the original text of the New Testament was not written in Greek, AS
>HELD BY THE MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS, but in the Aramaic language, which
>was the primary language of Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.

I say guess that's correct. Mark was Aramaic-speak first written in Greek. The
key is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and thus the first translation into writing
would be Greek, but first translation only.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 12, 3:18 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:55:19 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 11, 10:31 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:33:54 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 10, 7:05 pm, "wwwmmm.-" wrote:
> >> >> > Who told you that - the authors of the kjv? Remember, that the "Greek
> >> >> texts"
> >> >> > are not the original but instead the first translation from Aramaic.
>
> >> >> "Gotta love that ignorance."
>
> >> >> The greek was the first translation from the aramaic where sayings and
> >> >> conversations and verbal information is concerned. That is all those red
> >> >> letter sections for example of the sayings of Christ.
>
> >> >You assume that because Aramaic was spoken then, but so was Greek
> >> >spoken by the Jews of the time, and Greek was the universal language.
> >> >> Some churches say that aramaic was the
> >> >> source for all of the NT and later in greek.
> >NOTE:  People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
> >Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
> >TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
> >Testament's Greek Scriptures.
>
> The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures??  Why would anyone do
> that?

Think.

"The Aramaic New Testament exists in two forms, the classical Aramaic,
or Syriac, New Testament, part of the Peshitta Bible,[1] and the
"Assyrian Modern" New Testament and Psalms published by the Bible
Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from Greek. The
official Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian Church) does not
recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally
considers the New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New
Testament, and Aramaic to be its original language. This view was
popularised in the West by the Nestorian Assyrian scholar George
Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the

Peshitta or the Greek New Testament." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

[duke]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

If something was stated in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, why would
anyone then translate the Greek back into Aramaic.

[Michael Christ]

Without any of that knowledge it is clear to see that the NIV is
watered down.

But there it is prominent, if not the most prominent, bible around in
the hands of religionists today.

Shocking, but not surprising.



Michael Christ

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 12, 4:17 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

Okay, don't think. They would not have needed to translate the NT into
Aramaic if they had already been done in Aramaic. The fact remains,
the entire Peshitta Bible, _OLD Testament_ and New Testament is
considered a TRANSLATION into Aramiac/Syriac. The translation was
needed because people still spoke that language.

"The Aramaic New Testament exists in two forms, the classical Aramaic,
or Syriac, New Testament, part of the Peshitta Bible,[1] and the
"Assyrian Modern" New Testament and Psalms published by the Bible
Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from Greek. The
official Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian Church) does not
recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally
considers the New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New
Testament, and Aramaic to be its original language. This view was
popularised in the West by the Nestorian Assyrian scholar George
Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the
Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.

Old Syriac texts

It is in the Gospels, however, that the analogy between the Latin
Vulgate and the Syriac Vulgate can be established by evidence. If the
Peshitta is the result of a revision as the Vulgate was, then we may
expect to find Old Syriac texts answering to the Old Latin. Such texts
have actually been found. Three such texts have been recovered, all
showing divergences from the Peshitta, and believed by competent
scholars to be anterior to it. These are, to take them in the order of
their recovery in modern times, (1) the Curetonian Syriac, (2) the
Syriac of Tatian's Diatessaron, and (3) the Sinaitic Syriac.[1]" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament


Peshitta - "Of the New Testament, attempts at translation must have
been made very early, and among the ancient versions of New Testament
Scripture the Syriac [Aramaic] in all likelihood is the earliest. It
was at Antioch, the capital of Syria, that the disciples of Christ
were first called Christians, and it seemed natural that the first
translation of the Christian Scriptures should have been made there.
The tendency of recent research, however, goes to show that Edessa,
the literary capital, was more likely the place." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta#Syriac_New_Testament

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 12, 3:42 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> Very Good Terry, but the woman chooses to go by the name Fool.

That is not showing up on Google Groups.

> If you pay
> attention I use her name like any other name. I do not say thou fool and so
> on. I capitalize her name, and address her with her chosen name. And I
> respect her for who she is.
>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 12, 1:17 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> wrote:

> >> >NOTE: People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
> >> >Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
> >> >TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
> >> >Testament's Greek Scriptures.
>
> >> The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures?? Why would anyone do
> >> that?
>
> >Think.
>
> If something was stated in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, why would
> anyone then translate the Greek back into Aramaic.

This is part of the movement to turn Jesus into a loyal Jew who
honored the Pharisees and worshiped Israel. Israel needs your money
and your weapons. The best way to get them is to convince you that
Jesus was their boy, and Israel is the "holy land."

In these forums, Jesus is given a growling, hissing name that sounds
like something a rabbi might say to when he is trying to smother the
pain of a stubbed toe.

So of course the Gospels were written in Aramaic. It is all part of
the same campaign.

One detail that makes it all a lie is that Jesus gave Simon the Greek
name "Peter." In the Judaic Gospels, nobody would understand the
reference.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 12, 9:47 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> What is not showing up? If you mean her chosen name in all they mysterious
> posts, that is because she changes it on every post? it is found via her
> headers/

You are wrong, Pete, and you are exposed. Linda always uses her own
name. Back up and apologize.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

About that, the only reason you might sometimes see a lyndalee8888
email is because, when I was setting up that free email account, Juno
kept telling me lindalee + any combination of numbers I was trying was
already taken. Apparently, there are a LOT of women named Linda Lee in
the world who use Juno. So I just gave up and changed the spelling to
Lynda on that email account.

> Back up and apologize.
>
> TCross

I think he's talking about the poster who doesn't have a name showing
at the top of their posts on Google Groups, nor is there anything
under their Profile. All I see in the headers in this post for
instance is ""wwwmmm.-" wrote:", not Fool wrote. So I asked because I
didn't know what he was talking about, especially since he said it in
a post that was a reply to me.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 12, 8:47 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:17 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >NOTE: People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
> > >> >Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
> > >> >TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
> > >> >Testament's Greek Scriptures.
>
> > >> The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures?? Why would anyone do
> > >> that?
>
> > >Think.
>
> > If something was stated in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, why would
> > anyone then translate the Greek back into Aramaic.
>
> This is part of the movement to turn Jesus into a loyal Jew who
> honored the Pharisees and worshiped Israel.  Israel needs your money
> and your weapons.  The best way to get them is to convince you that
> Jesus was their boy, and Israel is the "holy land."
>
> In these forums, Jesus is given a growling, hissing name that sounds

The Hebrew name Yahashua` does not have a growling or hissing sound.
Does the word "should" sound like a hiss to you because it contains
"sh"?

> like something a rabbi might say to when he is trying to smother the
> pain of a stubbed toe.

"Jesus" is undeniably an English name for Christ.

The Hebrew name Yahashua` was translated to the Aramaic Yeshua`
(Yahshua`, later accepted as a Hebrew name also), which was translated
to the Greek name Iesous, which was translated to the Latin name
Iesus, which was translated to the English name Jesus.

Yahashua` > Yeshua` > Iesous > Iesus > Jesus.

(Also keep in mind that the Masoretes, when they developed the
Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures now known, changed Hebrew
names prefixed with Yah to Yeho, so now the texts say Yehoshua` for
Yahashua`.)


Christ's name is the first form, Yahashua`, because the Scriptures say
Joshua (Yahashua`) the priest had the same name ("The Branch" being a
name for the Messiah).

Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them
upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up
out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

>
> So of course the Gospels were written in Aramaic.  It is all part of
> the same campaign.
>
> One detail that makes it all a lie is that Jesus gave Simon the Greek
> name "Peter."  In the Judaic Gospels, nobody would understand the
> reference.

Christ changing his apostle's name to a Greek name, whose meaning
would be understood by a Greek-speaking audience, does seem to
indicate his audience spoke Greek. Also the case is similar with
"Paul", whose Hebrew name had been Saul, began calling himself Paul, a
Greek name meaning little. I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.

G3972
Παῦλος
Paulos
pow'-los
Of Latin origin; (little; but remotely from a derivative of G3973,
meaning the same); Paulus, the name of a Roman and of an apostle

The word Paulos (Paul) is ultimately derived from, Gk. 3973, means
desist, stop.

Gk. 3973
pauō
A primn. verb (“pause”); to stop (transitive or intransitive), that
is, restrain, quit, desist, come to an end.

>
> TCross

[duke]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:22:36 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>> >> The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures?? Why would anyone do
>> >> that?
>> >Think.

>> If something was stated in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, why would
>> anyone then translate the Greek back into Aramaic.

>Okay, don't think. They would not have needed to translate the NT into
>Aramaic if they had already been done in Aramaic. The fact remains,
>the entire Peshitta Bible, _OLD Testament_ and New Testament is
>considered a TRANSLATION into Aramiac/Syriac. The translation was
>needed because people still spoke that language.

See how easy that was. Why don't you learn to be nice?

[duke]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:47:50 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 12, 1:17 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >> >NOTE: People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
>> >> >Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
>> >> >TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
>> >> >Testament's Greek Scriptures.
>>
>> >> The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures?? Why would anyone do
>> >> that?
>>
>> >Think.
>>
>> If something was stated in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, why would
>> anyone then translate the Greek back into Aramaic.

>This is part of the movement to turn Jesus into a loyal Jew who
>honored the Pharisees and worshiped Israel. Israel needs your money
>and your weapons. The best way to get them is to convince you that
>Jesus was their boy, and Israel is the "holy land."

Do you know when the Preshitta was published? That would imply very recently.

>In these forums, Jesus is given a growling, hissing name that sounds
>like something a rabbi might say to when he is trying to smother the
>pain of a stubbed toe.

>So of course the Gospels were written in Aramaic. It is all part of
>the same campaign.

The Gospels were essentially written in Greek firstly, as Jesus spoke Aramaic
making Greek the first translation.

>One detail that makes it all a lie is that Jesus gave Simon the Greek
>name "Peter." In the Judaic Gospels, nobody would understand the
>reference.

Yes. and Abram to Abraham and Saul to Paul. But Jesus changed Simon's name to
"Kephas/Cephas", not Peter. The true Greek translation would be "petra" or
"petros" which, because of the difficulty in Aramaic/Greek translations, was
rendered "peter".

>TCross

[duke]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:42:46 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 12, 8:47 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 1:17 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> >NOTE: People can believe what they choose to believe, but The
>> > >> >Peshitta is accepted by the majority of scholars as being an Aramaic
>> > >> >TRANSLATION of both the OLD Testament's Hebrew Scriptures and the New
>> > >> >Testament's Greek Scriptures.
>>
>> > >> The Peshitta is a Aramaic translation of Greek Scriptures?? Why would anyone do
>> > >> that?
>>
>> > >Think.
>>
>> > If something was stated in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, why would
>> > anyone then translate the Greek back into Aramaic.
>>
>> This is part of the movement to turn Jesus into a loyal Jew who
>> honored the Pharisees and worshiped Israel.  Israel needs your money
>> and your weapons.  The best way to get them is to convince you that
>> Jesus was their boy, and Israel is the "holy land."
>>
>> In these forums, Jesus is given a growling, hissing name that sounds
>
>The Hebrew name Yahashua` does not have a growling or hissing sound.
>Does the word "should" sound like a hiss to you because it contains
>"sh"?

For Christians, we call him Jesus the Christ.

>> like something a rabbi might say to when he is trying to smother the
>> pain of a stubbed toe.
>"Jesus" is undeniably an English name for Christ.

No, "Christ" is "anointed", as in the warrior king called Messiah.

>Christ's name is the first form, Yahashua`, because the Scriptures say
>Joshua (Yahashua`) the priest had the same name ("The Branch" being a
>name for the Messiah).

>Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them
>upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
>Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
>saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up
>out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

I'm a Christian. We call him Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Christ.

>> One detail that makes it all a lie is that Jesus gave Simon the Greek
>> name "Peter."  In the Judaic Gospels, nobody would understand the
>> reference.

>Christ changing his apostle's name to a Greek name, whose meaning
>would be understood by a Greek-speaking audience, does seem to
>indicate his audience spoke Greek.

Jesus didn't call him Peter, he called him Kephas or Cephus.

> Also the case is similar with
>"Paul", whose Hebrew name had been Saul, began calling himself Paul, a
>Greek name meaning little.

No. Paul is his baptismal name on conversion

>I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
>name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.

Book it. Saul definitely didn't do it.

Stick with me, linda. You'll learn something.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 13, 8:42 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:47:50 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>

The NT Gospel of John has both that Christ called Simon "Cephas", from
the Aramaic/Chaldee name Kephas, and that Christ called Simon "Peter",
from the Greek name Petros (Latin form Petrus).


[LITV]
Joh 1:41 This one first found his own brother Simon and tells him, We
have found the Messiah (which being translated is, the Christ).
Joh 1:42 And he led him to Jesus. And looking at him, Jesus said, You
are Simon the son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas (which
translated is Peter).

Both of these phrases ("which being translated is, the Christ" and
"which translated is Peter") are in the Greek text as shown in The New
Greek-English Interlinear New Testament; English version as follows:
John 1:41-42, "This one finds first his own Simon and says to him, we
have found the Messiah, which means, being translated, Christ. He led
him to to Jesus, having looked at him Jesus said, you are Simon, the
son of John, you will be called Cephas, which is translated Peter".

So Christ called Simon Barjonas (Simon son of Jona/Jonas/John) the
Aramaic name Kephas ("Cephas"), but it is indicated the Gospel of John
itself was WRITTEN IN GREEK because the writer of the Gospel (and NOT
the English translator) gave the correct name (Kephas), but translated
the name Kephas to Petros for his audience.

IF the Gospel of John were an Aramaic original translated into Greek,
there would have been no need to include the name Kephas ("Cephas");
the name would simply have been translated, like all the other words,
to Petros, without any mention of how Kephas is translated as Petros
in the Greek.


Cephas - Gk. 2786
Kēphas
Of Chaldee [Aramaic] origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that
is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.

Elsewhere (see below) in the Gospel of John (and everywhere else in
the Gospels), Simon is called "Peter" from the Greek name Petros/
Petrus (Petros is Greek, and Petrus is the Latin form). Again, this
indicates the writer of the Gospel originally wrote in Greek, as once
the author explains that the name that Christ bestowed on Simon was
Kephas and is interpreted as Petros, he begins calling Simon Petros
(not Kephas). ONLY in Paul's writings is Simon Peter ever again
called Kephas ("Cephas").

Matt. 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
...
Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Petros/
Petrus], and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Peter - Gk. 4074
Petros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a
name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare Gk. 2786. [Cephas/
Kephas]

Here in Matt. 16:18, "rock" is translated from Gk. 4073 -
petra:
Rock - Gk. 4073 -
Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or
figuratively).



John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon,
son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea,
Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my
lambs.
John 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that
I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas,
lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third
time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all
things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my
sheep.


It appears Paul/Saul took a Roman name for himself, as "Paul" is from
the Latin Paulus.

Acts 13:9 "Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy
Ghost, set his eyes on him".

Paul - Gk. 3972
Paulos

Of Latin origin; (little; but remotely from a derivative of G3973,

meaning the same); Paulus, the name of a Roman and of an apostle.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 13, 8:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:42:46 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

I did not say Jesus MEANT Christ; I said "Jesus" is an ENGLISH name
FOR Christ.

>
> >Christ's name is the first form, Yahashua`, because the Scriptures say
> >Joshua (Yahashua`) the priest had the same name ("The Branch" being a
> >name for the Messiah).
> >Zec 6:11  Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them
> >upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
> >Zec 6:12  And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
> >saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up
> >out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
>
> I'm a Christian.  We call him Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Christ.
>
> >> One detail that makes it all a lie is that Jesus gave Simon the Greek
> >> name "Peter." In the Judaic Gospels, nobody would understand the
> >> reference.
> >Christ changing his apostle's name to a Greek name, whose meaning
> >would be understood by a Greek-speaking audience, does seem to
> >indicate his audience spoke Greek.
>
> Jesus didn't call him Peter, he called him Kephas or Cephus.
>
> >  Also the case is similar with
> >"Paul", whose Hebrew name had been Saul, began calling himself Paul, a
> >Greek name meaning little.
>
> No.  Paul is his baptismal name on conversion
>
> >I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
> >name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.
>
> Book it.  Saul definitely didn't do it.

Likely Saul/Paul did change his own name; first, he did not claim
Christ bestowed it upon him, and it's a name of Latin origin (not
Hebrew or Aramaic like "Cephas"/Kephas, which Christ bestowed upon
Simon Barjonas), Paulus (which the Greek NT writers translated as the
Greek name Paulos, from the Latin form Paulus), and Paul was both a
Jew and a Roman citizen.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 13, 1:05 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> You made a comment about "it" not showing up in google groups, I asked what
> you mean?
>
> Fool shows up by her college server account.

>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

Are you using a newsreader like Thunderbird? If you go into
alt.messianic via Google Groups, you don't see the headers. You see a
name (like LInda Lee) followed by something like "Linda Lee
<lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:", once you open their post

But this person does not have any of that on their posts, when I just
now opened their last post to you, there was no name on it before I
opened it, and after I opened it, it said only: "On Nov 12, 10:53 am,

"curious" wrote:
> "Fool does not even realize most of the NT was written outside Jerusalem.""

So there, apparently "curious" had been in their header. ANYWAY, we
don't see 'fool'.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 13, 5:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:42:46 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

Source?

TCross

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 14, 3:00 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> You won't, like I said you will see it was mailed from
> cmt.edu

We do not see that either.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 13, 12:59 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> I was not speaking of Linda as "Fool". I am not wrong. You should apologize
> to Linda for thinking such trash about her. I find it offensive.

I thought the same thing at first, as you started talking about the
Fool and how they were bothering you in a reply to my post. Then I saw
the unnamed poster was in the same post.

[Linda Lee]

Of Latin origin; (little; but remotely from a derivative of G3973,

meaning the same); Paulus, the name of a Roman and of an apostle.

[Linda Lee]

Interesting, the meaning of the word associated with the name Paul,
considering he said Christ appeared to him to tell him to desist from
continuing his persecution of the church of God.

Paul:
Gk. 3972
Paulos
Of Latin origin; (little; but remotely from a derivative of Gk. 3973,

meaning the same); Paulus, the name of a Roman and of an apostle.

Gk. 3973 -

[duke]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:54:06 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

IT_IS_NOT!!! Christ = anointed one = messiah = the warrior king that would
deliver the Jews back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.

>> No.  Paul is his baptismal name on conversion

>> >I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
>> >name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.

>> Book it.  Saul definitely didn't do it.

>Likely Saul/Paul did change his own name; first, he did not claim

>Christ bestowed it upon him

It is established that God changes the names of those with special purpose:
Abram to Abraham, Simon to Kephas, Saul to Paul. The

>, and it's a name of Latin origin (not
>Hebrew or Aramaic like "Cephas"/Kephas, which Christ bestowed upon
>Simon Barjonas), Paulus (which the Greek NT writers translated as the
>Greek name Paulos, from the Latin form Paulus), and Paul was both a
>Jew and a Roman citizen.

NO, saul was.

[duke]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:31:46 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

John 1:42 (New International Version)
42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called
Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).
Footnotes:a.John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock.

[Sam Taylor]

"Sam Taylor" wrote in message news:XLbos.953$JT4...@newsfe22.iad...

Sam Adds,
Numbers,Chapters, Punctuation Marks, ARE NOT PART OF THE TEXT>
these also were added by the translators.

-

[duke]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:45:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

Peter is still a rendering.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 15, 1:58 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:54:06 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

It is so, you idiot. Jesus is the English form of the name Yahashua`.

> Christ = anointed one = messiah = the warrior king that would
> deliver the Jews back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.
>
> >> No. Paul is his baptismal name on conversion
> >> >I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
> >> >name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.
> >> Book it. Saul definitely didn't do it.
> >Likely Saul/Paul did change his own name; first, he did not claim
> >Christ bestowed it upon him
>
> It is established that God changes the names of those with special purpose:
> Abram to Abraham, Simon to Kephas, Saul to Paul.

Your opinions are not evidence. Nowhere do the NT Scriptures claim
God/Christ bestowed the name Paul on Saul. And if you had any
intelligence, you'd realize your opinion that Christ bestowed a Latin/
Greek name on Paul only supports that Christ spoke Greek, which you
have denied.

> The
>
> >, and it's a name of Latin origin (not
> >Hebrew or Aramaic like "Cephas"/Kephas, which Christ bestowed upon
> >Simon Barjonas), Paulus (which the Greek NT writers translated as the
> >Greek name Paulos, from the Latin form Paulus), and Paul was both a
> >Jew and a Roman citizen.
>
> NO, saul was.
>
> Stick with me, linda. You'll learn something.

All you have is your ignorant opinions; you have no knowledge.

[Terry Cross]

Since there is only one case of this name in relevant history, and we
have no original documents in Aramaic, The original name of Jesus is
unknown.

> > Christ = anointed one = messiah = the warrior king that would
> > deliver the Jews back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.
>
> > >> No. Paul is his baptismal name on conversion
> > >> >I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
> > >> >name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.
> > >> Book it. Saul definitely didn't do it.
> > >Likely Saul/Paul did change his own name; first, he did not claim
> > >Christ bestowed it upon him
>
> > It is established that God changes the names of those with special purpose:
> > Abram to Abraham, Simon to Kephas, Saul to Paul.
>
> Your opinions are not evidence.  Nowhere do the NT Scriptures claim
> God/Christ bestowed the name Paul on Saul.  And if you had any
> intelligence, you'd realize your opinion that Christ bestowed a Latin/
> Greek name on Paul only supports that Christ spoke Greek, which you
> have denied.

Jacob -> Israel
Moses -> Moses
Aaron -> Aaron
Joshua -> Joshua

TCross

[Linda Lee]

It is not unknown, and it is certainly not Jesus, a name that wasn't
used for Christ until around the 17th century A.D. Even the 1611 KJV
calls him Iesus, the Latin form of his name, in which the letter "I"
had a "Y" sound. Later, the English letter "I" took on a harsher "J"
sound, and so we now have Jesus.

>
>
> > > Christ = anointed one = messiah = the warrior king that would
> > > deliver the Jews back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.
>
> > > >> No. Paul is his baptismal name on conversion
> > > >> >I always wondered why Saul/Paul changed his
> > > >> >name. Perhaps the Messiah bestowed that name upon him.
> > > >> Book it. Saul definitely didn't do it.
> > > >Likely Saul/Paul did change his own name; first, he did not claim
> > > >Christ bestowed it upon him
>
> > > It is established that God changes the names of those with special purpose:
> > > Abram to Abraham, Simon to Kephas, Saul to Paul.
>
> > Your opinions are not evidence.  Nowhere do the NT Scriptures claim
> > God/Christ bestowed the name Paul on Saul.  And if you had any
> > intelligence, you'd realize your opinion that Christ bestowed a Latin/
> > Greek name on Paul only supports that Christ spoke Greek, which you
> > have denied.
>
> Jacob -> Israel
> Moses -> Moses
> Aaron -> Aaron
> Joshua -> Joshua

What is your point here?

>
> TCross

[duke]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 07:10:51 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

WE concur.

>> Christ = anointed one = messiah = the warrior king that would
>> deliver the Jews back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile.

>> It is established that God changes the names of those with special purpose:
>> Abram to Abraham, Simon to Kephas, Saul to Paul.

>Your opinions are not evidence. Nowhere do the NT Scriptures claim
>God/Christ bestowed the name Paul on Saul.

Saul took the baptism name of Paul when he was filled with the holy Spirit.

> And if you had any
>intelligence, you'd realize your opinion that Christ bestowed a Latin/
>Greek name on Paul only supports that Christ spoke Greek, which you
>have denied.

Yet I, unlike you, have the common sense to understand that all bibles today are

>> >, and it's a name of Latin origin (not
>> >Hebrew or Aramaic like "Cephas"/Kephas, which Christ bestowed upon
>> >Simon Barjonas), Paulus (which the Greek NT writers translated as the
>> >Greek name Paulos, from the Latin form Paulus), and Paul was both a
>> >Jew and a Roman citizen.

>> NO, saul was.
>> Stick with me, linda. You'll learn something.

>All you have is your ignorant opinions; you have no knowledge.

But I, unlike you, know that saul became known as paul when he was filled by the
Holy Spirit.

[duke]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:06:49 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

Penny ante.

[Terry Cross]

I did not acknowledge this post before, but I am grateful for the
time and effort you put into it.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

Thanks. Do you agree that if the author of the Gospel of John felt he
had to translate the Aramaic name Cephas as to what the name would be
in the Greek (Petros), then that indicates he was writing in Greek to
people who speak Greek? He did not say Cephas means petra (rock); he
said Cephas being translated is the name Petros (Peter), and
afterwards always referred to him as Simon Petros, and not Simon
Cephas, whereas if John was writing in Aramaic, he would have
continued to refer to him using the Aramaic name that Christ gave him.
And he did not say Messias means chrio (anointed); he said Messias
being interpreted/translated is the Greek name Christos (Christ). That
tells me that John was writing in Greek to a Greek-speaking (and Greek-
reading) audience.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" scribbled in crayon:
> Linda Lee wrote:
> >
> > Okay, don't think. They would not have needed to translate the
> > NT into Aramaic if they had already been done in Aramaic. The
> > fact remains, the entire Peshitta Bible, _OLD Testament_ and
> > New Testament is considered a TRANSLATION into
> > Aramiac/Syriac. The translation was needed because people
> > still spoke that language.
>
> See how easy that was. Why don't you learn to be nice?

What a condescending answer from a bloviating ignoramus.

> You can't fix stupid.

LMFAO!

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:

> Linda Lee wrote:
> >
> > The Hebrew name Yahashua` does not have a growling or
> > hissing sound. Does the word "should" sound like a hiss to
> > you because it contains "sh"?

LMAO Perhaps it is merely the serpent.

> For Christians, we call him Jesus the Christ.

And Jesus H Christ LOL

> > "Jesus" is undeniably an English name for Christ.
>
> No, "Christ" is "anointed", as in the warrior king called Messiah.

Oh, I see you have a f*cking red pencil mentality LMAO.

> Stick with me, linda. You'll learn something.

LMFAO!!! Yeah, how to be a bloviating ignoramus who
uses internet porn and duel masterbation as a form of birth
control. Which in reality is very fortunate for this world.

[Up from the Abyss]

"Pete" wrote:

> Terry Cross wrote:
> >
> > You are wrong, Pete, and you are exposed. Linda always uses
> > her own name. Back up and apologize.
>

> I was not speaking of Linda as "Fool". I am not wrong. You should
> apologize to Linda for thinking such trash about her. I find it offensive.

Well done! I so love self-justification, especially when combined
with a slap to the face. So Terry f*cked up and you justify yourself
with a slap to Terry's face. Guess your own ass cheeks are a little
too sore from all that discipline to turn the other cheek LMFAO

[Up from the Abyss]

<curious> wrote:
>
> If posts are not read, then what vanity to even mention it?

LMFAO!!!

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" condescends:
> Pete wrote:
> >
> >Gotta love that ignorance.
>
> You can overcome it if you pray, pete. Jesus didn't
> speak Greek. WE all know that even if you don't.

Gotta love the pompous ignorant arrogance LMAO.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" his ever so humble savant wrote:
>
> Pete is "false pride personified".

Or was that idiot?

Such humility!

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
> >

> > No one knows that. Greek was the universal language then,
> > of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles.
>
> But not for a poor and uneducated carpenter boy living in the
> deep desert near a remote Roman Garrison.
> Would you like to try again?

How about Luke 2:42 for that "uneducated" boy?

Or how about Luke 4:16-19?

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> Michael Christ wrote:
> >
> > You have had more than enough opportunity.
> > You made your choice.
>
> Yep, and you are a failure. I project that you do
> not understand what a "prick" is.

You're too f*ckin easy. But at least you got your
"project"ion right.

[duke]

Your fat ass is all you have going for you.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************

You can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

And you're not making any points to boot. It's takes discussion.

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 15:50:43 -0800, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

>
>"duke" wrote:
>> Linda Lee wrote:
>> >
>> > The Hebrew name Yahashua` does not have a growling or
>> > hissing sound. Does the word "should" sound like a hiss to
>> > you because it contains "sh"?
>
>LMAO Perhaps it is merely the serpent.

Your fat ass must be worn out by now.

>> For Christians, we call him Jesus the Christ.
>And Jesus H Christ LOL

No, that's for the ones seeking the eternal flames.

>> > "Jesus" is undeniably an English name for Christ.
>> No, "Christ" is "anointed", as in the warrior king called Messiah.
>Oh, I see you have a f*cking red pencil mentality LMAO.

Your ass is gone.

>> Stick with me, linda. You'll learn something.
>LMFAO!!! Yeah, how to be a bloviating ignoramus who
>uses internet porn and duel masterbation as a form of birth
>control. Which in reality is very fortunate for this world.

Then stop it.

[duke]

What education did he have?

>Or how about Luke 4:16-19?

What education did he have? Speaking aramaic?

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:

> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >
> >Or how about Luke 4:16-19?
>
> What education did he have? Speaking aramaic?

Should have read the verse Duke.

Hey, you wouldn't happen to be a D cup now would ya?

LMAO

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >

> >LMAO Perhaps it is merely the serpent.
>
> Your fat ass must be worn out by now.

Damn boy! You're already fantasizing about
my ass!!! You know, I heard God can help
you with your gay fantasies.

But if that's your thing, enjoy, I do have a
nice ass! LMFAO

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >

> >LMFAO!
>
> Your fat ass is all you have going for you.

Well that would still leave me as having one more
thing going for me than you have going for you

LMFAO!

[duke]

And you're welcome to it, ass.

[duke]

I'm sure your husband likes it.

[duke]

Luke 4:16-19 (New International Version)
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he
went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the
scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place
where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Here it is. Jesus is God become flesh.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:

> >"duke" wrote:
> >>
> >> Your fat ass is all you have going for you.
> >
> >Well that would still leave me as having one more
> >thing going for me than you have going for you
> >
> >LMFAO!
>
> And you're welcome to it, ass.

At least you admit that I've got more going for me
than you have. LMFAO

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >
> >Damn boy! You're already fantasizing about
> >my ass!!! You know, I heard God can help
> >you with your gay fantasies.
> >
> >But if that's your thing, enjoy, I do have a
> >nice ass! LMFAO
>
> I'm sure your husband likes it.

He does, so does our harem of busty babes.

You're just worried that your husband will
like mine better as well.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >"duke" wrote:
> >> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Or how about Luke 4:16-19?
> >>
> >> What education did he have? Speaking aramaic?
> >
> >Should have read the verse Duke.
>

> Luke 4:16-19 (New International Version)
> 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up,
> and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as
> was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll
> of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he
> found the place where it is written:
> 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
> because he has anointed me
> to proclaim good news to the poor.
> He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
> and recovery of sight for the blind,
> to set the oppressed free,
> 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

You really are stupid! Read the f*cking verse and
tell me what education is demonstrated within it.

> Here it is. Jesus is God become flesh.

What a f*cking ignorant answer!

[duke]

Yep, a fat ass. But, otoh, I'm a Christian and you are working on toast.

[duke]

Not really.

[duke]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:42:00 -0800, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

>
>"duke" wrote:
>> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
>> >"duke" wrote:
>> >> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Or how about Luke 4:16-19?
>> >>
>> >> What education did he have? Speaking aramaic?
>> >
>> >Should have read the verse Duke.
>>
>> Luke 4:16-19 (New International Version)
>> 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up,
>> and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as
>> was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll
>> of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he
>> found the place where it is written:
>> 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
>> because he has anointed me
>> to proclaim good news to the poor.
>> He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
>> and recovery of sight for the blind,
>> to set the oppressed free,
>> 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
>
>You really are stupid! Read the f*cking verse and
>tell me what education is demonstrated within it.

Reading Aramaic.

>> Here it is. Jesus is God become flesh.
>What a f*cking ignorant answer!
>

SWOOSH, right over your head...........eh, make that ass.

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >
> >At least you admit that I've got more going
> >for me than you have. LMFAO
>
> Yep, a fat ass. But, otoh, I'm a Christian and
> you are working on toast.

LMFAO!

You should convert to Islam, probably
be the closest you ever get to a virgin.

Of course, like Achmed, you might be
screwed. Your virgins are all ugly ass
men.

[Up from the Abyss]

Oh, so that uneducated guy could read.

But are you sure that it was Aramaic?
Where did the verse quoted come from?

> >> Here it is. Jesus is God become flesh.
> >
> >What a f*cking ignorant answer!
>
> SWOOSH, right over your head...........eh,
> make that ass.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to your Godman.

And that IS an ignorant answer to the former
question.

[duke]

Yes, you profess to be a big ass alright.

[duke]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:40:18 -0800, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

>
>"duke" wrote:
>> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
>> >
>> >At least you admit that I've got more going
>> >for me than you have. LMFAO
>>
>> Yep, a fat ass. But, otoh, I'm a Christian and
>> you are working on toast.
>
>LMFAO!
>
>You should convert to Islam, probably
>be the closest you ever get to a virgin.

Virgin queers?

>Of course, like Achmed, you might be
>screwed. Your virgins are all ugly ass
>men.

That be you?

[duke]

Maybe he spoke it from memory instead.

>But are you sure that it was Aramaic?
>Where did the verse quoted come from?

It could have been Hebrew, but Jesus didn't know that much Hebrew.

>> >> Here it is. Jesus is God become flesh.
>> >What a f*cking ignorant answer!
>> SWOOSH, right over your head...........eh,
>> make that ass.
>Sorry, I don't subscribe to your Godman.

So that makes you the ass and not me, but we already knew that.

>And that IS an ignorant answer to the former
>question.

How would an ignorant person like you know?

[Up from the Abyss]

"duke" wrote:
> "Up from the Abyss" wrote:
> >
> >Of course, like Achmed, you might be
> >screwed. Your virgins are all ugly ass
> >men.
>
> That be you?

Now wouldn't that be hell?

LMAO

[Up from the Abyss]

Your base arguement is that he was uneducated.
If he spoke it from memory, your eyewitness account
is worth diddly squat.

> >But are you sure that it was Aramaic?
> >Where did the verse quoted come from?
>
> It could have been Hebrew, but Jesus didn't
> know that much Hebrew.

Supposition! For this allegedly being God
become flesh, you certainly portray him as
being ignorant or stupid.

The same God that allegedly wrote the original
ten commands can't read or write. LMAO

But again, from what source is the verse being
quoted from?

> >> >> Here it is. Jesus is God become flesh.
> >> >
> >> >What a f*cking ignorant answer!
> >>
> >> SWOOSH, right over your head...........eh,
> >> make that ass.
> >
> >Sorry, I don't subscribe to your Godman.
> >

> >And that IS an ignorant answer to the former
> >question.
>
> How would an ignorant person like you know?

You posited that Jesus was uneducated, yet
answered in response to that that he was God
become flesh. One who you portray as
uneducated.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 30, 3:23 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:34 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:31 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:22 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <29c1731b-89c3-4350-bb93-b145b4e52...@r10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 4:21 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <22478485-e4b5-4f6b-a72a-e3f54a2ed...@m4g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 28, 9:54 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <9f6d8171-873d-43e7-a01e-9d24e0d92...@pe9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > > Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 28, 10:14 am, Mike Painter <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:11:35 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
>
> > > > > > > > > > <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Not interested in proof.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I want objective, verifiable evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >"Falsification" is an element of proof and principle, but now you
> > > > > > > > > > >are
> > > > > > > > > > >"not interested." You do keep moving, don't you. ADHD?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >TCross
>
> > > > > > > > > > No he does not move about. You keep refusing to learn what science
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > about.
>
> > > > > > > > > > If there was any contemporary documents dealing with this man it
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > approach "proof", but all we need is evidence.
>
> > > > > > > > > Why do you "need" evidence? I have never before heard that an Atheist
> > > > > > > > > "needs" evidence of Jesus, but I don't hang out that much with you
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > your friends. Perhaps if we examine your "need" more closely, we can
> > > > > > > > > find what you are looking for.
>
> > > > > > > > There's not a single contemporary mention of this Jesus person. The
> > > > > > > > Romans, compulsive record-keepers that they were, make no mention of
> > > > > > > > any such person being executed.
>
> > > > > > > You still have not told us why YOU "need" evidence of Jesus. Can you
> > > > > > > answer that question?
>
> > > > > > Because I have a functional and curious brain which loves to know all
> > > > > > the facts behind the various mythologies of the world. Learning new
> > > > > > things is one of the greatest joys of life for me; isn't it for you?
>
> > > > > Still waiting for your explanation of "need.." I am sure it will be
> > > > > good, though.
>
> > > > I gave you my reason. I crave knowledge; I need knowledge.
>
> > > Because suddenly, in a world ruled by force of arms, in an obscure
> > > Roman province dedicated to personal vengeance like no other, there
> > > arose a man who spoke against those things and persuaded a hundred
> > > thousand people, then millions, to follow his teachings.
>
> > Yup: Buddhism. Christianity, as the bible tells Jesus taught it, is
> > pretty much Buddhism 101.
>
> Uh, no, not really. The goals are quite different, the methods for
> reaching them. Buddha was intent on harmlessness, Jesus was intent on
> charity.

>
> Buddha was intent on stopping the endless cycles of birth
> and death, Jesus did not mention it.

What did Christ mean by "he shall go no more out" in the following?
Rev 3:12, "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of
my God, and he shall go no more out..."


> Buddha had the Four Noble
> Truths, the 8-fold path, etc. Jesus did not.
>
> Jesus was intent on wrecking the barbaric system of Judaism, and the
> Jews were quite willing to return the favor, ending in the
> Crucifixion. Buddha wreck the caste system, at least for the
> Buddhas. There are similarities, but the differences are greater.
>
> > Which makes perfect sense; we know that
> > Buddhist missionaries had reached as far west as Greece by 100 BCE,
>
> YOU know that? Wow. What is your source?

Didn't you hear? It's probably that giant purple dragon that SkyEyes
has in her garage. I believe her even if no one else does... :-)

[Linda Lee]

Lol!

>
> Your base arguement is that he was uneducated.
> If he spoke it from memory, your eyewitness account
> is worth diddly squat.

Christ could not have spoken from memory: "Unrolling it, he found the
place where it is written". How did he find the proper quote if he
couldn't read?

>
> > >But are you sure that it was Aramaic?
> > >Where did the verse quoted come from?
>
> > It could have been Hebrew, but Jesus didn't
> > know that much Hebrew.
>
> Supposition!  For this allegedly being God
> become flesh, you certainly portray him as
> being ignorant or stupid.
>
> The same God that allegedly wrote the original
> ten commands can't read or write.  LMAO

Paul said in Acts 26:14 that the Spirit of Christ spoke to him in the
Hebrew tongue, so why Duke assumes the Messiah "didn't know that much
Hebrew" is anyone's guess.

>
> But again, from what source is the verse being
> quoted from?

It is from the Hebrew Scriptures.
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath
anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to
bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of
vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isa 61:3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them
beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise
for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of
righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

>
> > >> >> Here it is.  Jesus is God become flesh.
>
> > >> >What a f*cking ignorant answer!
>
> > >> SWOOSH, right over your head...........eh,
> > >> make that ass.
>
> > >Sorry, I don't subscribe to your Godman.

It's a free subscription.

>
> > >And that IS an ignorant answer to the former
> > >question.
>
> > How would an ignorant person like you know?
>
> You posited that Jesus was uneducated, yet
> answered in response to that that he was God
> become flesh.  One who you portray as
> uneducated.

Duke has some confusion regarding whether Christ was God in the flesh
or just another run of the mill man; he claims that Christ was
'unaware of his divinity' until the cross.