Jesus was not a Jew

[irosie91]

oh ----that ----not news

 

[BreezeWood]

roosters often crow in the wee hours long before the dawn....

only when very confused. If you live in an area with a one rooster for every hen house and
a few extra for EVERY POT-----the cacophony is AT DAWN

Sure a cacophony at dawn, but thats not what Jesus said.

I have spent time where roosters roamed free and there was always some wiseguy crowing at 4 am...

ok------some rooster saw a street light and got confused ----the reality is that "the crowing of the cock"
MEANS dawn ----it is a much used imagery thing in Hebrew writings

Even though a rooster will crow during the night.

Even though that is not what was said.
Roosters crow at dawn and yes he was disowned 3 times before dawn.
Reading comprehension needs to be worked on by some of the left.

.

Roosters crow at dawn and yes he was disowned 3 times before dawn.
Reading comprehension needs to be worked on by some of the left.

"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

Peter replied, “Even if I must die with You, I will never deny You.” And the rest of the disciples said the same.…


if reading comprehension is the criteria ... saying "before the Sun rises" would have been far more astute. something is missing in the translation the events must have occurred simultaneously For Whom the Bell Tolls - to have meaning.




oh, and are those who then led the flock ...

 

[Penelope]

Josephus tells it like it was, of course he does not claim divine inspiration, he is not writing a theology except for what he wrote in the NT. You can't dismiss the similarities, they are not a coincidence. Philo , the uncle of Tiberius Alexander, who was Titus right hand man, also was involved which is how we got the Logos , of which he combine Hellenistic Judaism with Platonism.

you are inventing history. Josephus had nothing to do with the writing of the NT----as to Philo---
the writers of the NT were undoubtedly familiar with his writings------after all he wrote in GREEK
and the people who wrote the NT ------were into Hellenistic stuff. Philo was CERTAINLY not
Hellenized------the romans all but worshipped the greeks. Philo may have liked feta cheese----
but that stuff has been made "kosher" for millennia. Olives are part and parcel of all of the
Mediterranean area.

Josephus wrote the war of the jews in Greek and Vespasian (who adopted him) and Titus used him as a interpreter. Apparently they didn't know Aramaic, which the maj spoke. Who was educated, Philo and Josephus both came from elite families and could read and write.

yes----both Philo and Josephus could read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What point
are you so DESPERATE to make? I do not understand your usage of the word "ELITE" ----you
use it LOTS. Lots of jews in the time of Josephus in Judea knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and
lots of jews in the time of Philo knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek --------and wrote in those languages.
ELITE? The romans often needed interpreters------they kinda worshipped greek scholarship but
they did not KNOW GREEK unless they were SPECIAL. Does "elite" mean "SPECIAL"? Jews
back then did not have to be all that special to know those three languages. Today----lots of not
so special people know English, Hebrew and Aramaic-----in New York City----some not so special people
know Aramaic, Arabic and English and even French........in New York City. --------the only language
I know with any facility at all is English. I have no idea if Josephus knew Latin. It would seem logical
that he did. ----at least simple conversational stuff (???) anyone?

Simple , fishermen didn't write in those days. They could tell tales though. Most of the OT is from tales, and the scribes wrote the tales down when they came from Babylon. That is why the bible is known as the greatest story ever told.

you engage in the well known ego defense mechanism PROJECTION. If you really were a health
care worker you would understand. In fact---your personal life and heritage is not the NORM for
all of the world. Amongst jews----literacy amongst men has approached 100% for those of normal
brain function for more than 2500 years (less for girls ---but a lot more than most of your kith and
and kin) It is not surprising that Jesus----coming from the GALIL (which was "the sticks" of
Judea back then) knew how to read and write. Mary probably did also---maybe not. . Why did you
change the subject? You have a need to promote the notion that illiteracy is a NORM?

Yes I'll trust the articles I've read. It was the norm in the first century and many centuries later.

 

[irosie91]

you are inventing history. Josephus had nothing to do with the writing of the NT----as to Philo---
the writers of the NT were undoubtedly familiar with his writings------after all he wrote in GREEK
and the people who wrote the NT ------were into Hellenistic stuff. Philo was CERTAINLY not
Hellenized------the romans all but worshipped the greeks. Philo may have liked feta cheese----
but that stuff has been made "kosher" for millennia. Olives are part and parcel of all of the
Mediterranean area.

Josephus wrote the war of the jews in Greek and Vespasian (who adopted him) and Titus used him as a interpreter. Apparently they didn't know Aramaic, which the maj spoke. Who was educated, Philo and Josephus both came from elite families and could read and write.

yes----both Philo and Josephus could read and write in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What point
are you so DESPERATE to make? I do not understand your usage of the word "ELITE" ----you
use it LOTS. Lots of jews in the time of Josephus in Judea knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and
lots of jews in the time of Philo knew Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek --------and wrote in those languages.
ELITE? The romans often needed interpreters------they kinda worshipped greek scholarship but
they did not KNOW GREEK unless they were SPECIAL. Does "elite" mean "SPECIAL"? Jews
back then did not have to be all that special to know those three languages. Today----lots of not
so special people know English, Hebrew and Aramaic-----in New York City----some not so special people
know Aramaic, Arabic and English and even French........in New York City. --------the only language
I know with any facility at all is English. I have no idea if Josephus knew Latin. It would seem logical
that he did. ----at least simple conversational stuff (???) anyone?

Simple , fishermen didn't write in those days. They could tell tales though. Most of the OT is from tales, and the scribes wrote the tales down when they came from Babylon. That is why the bible is known as the greatest story ever told.

you engage in the well known ego defense mechanism PROJECTION. If you really were a health
care worker you would understand. In fact---your personal life and heritage is not the NORM for
all of the world. Amongst jews----literacy amongst men has approached 100% for those of normal
brain function for more than 2500 years (less for girls ---but a lot more than most of your kith and
and kin) It is not surprising that Jesus----coming from the GALIL (which was "the sticks" of
Judea back then) knew how to read and write. Mary probably did also---maybe not. . Why did you
change the subject? You have a need to promote the notion that illiteracy is a NORM?

Yes I'll trust the articles I've read. It was the norm in the first century and many centuries later.

Oh---perhaps you are referring to a norm for the WORLD Yes---it was the norm for the dregs
from which you were spawned and MOST OF THE WORLD-----it was not a norm for jews for the
past 2500 years If you consider the WHOLE world------It is probably true that illiteracy is STILL
THE NORM. When you mentioned "fishermen" ---I assumed that you referred to the fishermen
of the GALIL ----ie northern Judea -----I think the prominent important fisherman for catholics is
PETER SIMON <<< probably NOT ILLITERATE

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"this very night, before the rooster crows ...


I guess J was giving himself plenty of leeway ... the point still remains they threw him under the buss when it was time to count their own blessings. maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book - hoping no one would remember their cowardliness and the forgeries would be less relevant to their own transgressions. and it obviously worked. from that time, the 4th century to the present their duplicitous manuscript prevails under the guise of authenticity. - so to for their flock.

The Dead Sea Scrolls shoot the shit out of the 400 year thing.[/QUOTE

I am LOST----what do the dead sea scrolls do?

"They" didn't wait 400 years "write the book".
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written within 70 years after Christ's death. So was "the book". "They" would have mentioned the destruction of the Temple if the book had not been written before the destruction.
Peter sat with eye witnesses and wrote his account of the return of Christ...

In order for "they" to wait 400 years to write the same thing as the dead sea scrolls, they would have had to FIND the scrolls, copy them, and then re- hide them for a few thousand years... The scrolls are proof that the Bible was a contemporary piece of work.

your post makes no sense ----I am rosie---I am not the person who wrote "they waited 400 years"
What does "the scrolls are proof that the bible was a contemporary piece of work" mean To what
"book" do you allude that you call "THE BOOK".

The dead sea scrolls do not constitute "THE BIBLE" they simply include copies of some of the
then known books of the bible that you call the "old testament" along with some other esoteric writings,
What are you calling "find the scrolls and then........ "RE HIDE THEM" ("re-hide them"???----you are
really confused)

if "the book" means the NT-----that one was compiled from older writings by a committee
circa 300 AD which is more than 70 years after Jesus died

Rosie I was addressing this comment:

maybe that is why they waited 400 years to write their book

You can read Matthew in the Bible or in the dead sea scrolls. All written before 70 AD.

.
you failed to address the forgeries that are included in the compiled 4th century christian bible, the date being 398 AD ... when "written".

exclusion for those unfamiliar with your religion: from The Everlasting and pretensive Heaven - is a sin.


your choice.

 

[irosie91]

breezie-----COLD

 

[Picaro]

I am convinced Jesus DID exist----but your suggestion that there was NO INCENTIVE to tweak
the facts is silly.

So do tell us how wonderful it was to be a Christian, all the great riches that fell into their laps, all the vast territories they gained as a result of their works in making up a fake religion and fake Messiah.

I agree that the book consists of some teachings contemporary to the time it was
written----mostly around 300 AD----- for the glory and agenda of the ROMAN EMPIRE. In fact it was
written to justify lots of murder and slavery

Nonsense. The oral stories were written down a couple of decades after their first appearance; nobody in 300 A.D. could have invented them out of nothing, not without a whole host of anachronisms, and if they were frauds they would have made themselves heroes of the stories, not some Messiah. As for justifying lots of murder and slavery, Jews certainly fit that bill, especially re Christians, ans they even preferred Muslims over Christians after the rise of Islam.

The orthodox teachings existed from the beginning, not '300 years later'; they were they most prevalent by far. Only two or three 'books' were suspect as to providence, Hebrews and a couple of others. 22+ of them have cites in other works long before '300 years', from Origen to Iranaius and others. The orthodox canon prevailed because it was there all along.

 

[irosie91]

I am convinced Jesus DID exist----but your suggestion that there was NO INCENTIVE to tweak
the facts is silly.

So do tell us how wonderful it was to be a Christian, all the great riches that fell into their laps, all the vast territories they gained as a result of their works in making up a fake religion and fake Messiah.

I agree that the book consists of some teachings contemporary to the time it was
written----mostly around 300 AD----- for the glory and agenda of the ROMAN EMPIRE. In fact it was
written to justify lots of murder and slavery

Nonsense. The oral stories were written down a couple of decades after their first appearance; nobody in 300 A.D. could have invented them out of nothing, not without a whole host of anachronisms, and if they were frauds they would have made themselves heroes of the stories, not some Messiah. As for justifying lots of murder and slavery, Jews certainly fit that bill, especially re Christians, ans they even preferred Muslims over Christians after the rise of Islam.

The orthodox teachings existed from the beginning, not '300 years later'; they were they most prevalent by far. Only two or three 'books' were suspect as to providence, Hebrews and a couple of others. 22+ of them have cites in other works long before '300 years', from Origen to Iranaius and others. The orthodox canon prevailed because it was there all along.

you are quite confused. Jews enslaved Christians? when was that? Who suggested that
"stories were invented out of nothing" what stories? Your JUMP to "jews preferred muslims
to Christians" is really quite a mess. Did your catechism whore tell you that in order to
JUSTIFY THE INQUISITION? and despoilment and ENSLAVEMENT of native
americans? It is certainly true that jews preferred EARLY muslims to the filth and stench of
canon law------do you have any idea about early CANON LAW and JEWS? (probably not -----
your hero adolf hitler knew------the Nuremburg laws were nothing new----even the yellow insignia
was nothing new.

 

[peach174]

only when very confused. If you live in an area with a one rooster for every hen house and
a few extra for EVERY POT-----the cacophony is AT DAWN

Sure a cacophony at dawn, but thats not what Jesus said.

I have spent time where roosters roamed free and there was always some wiseguy crowing at 4 am...

ok------some rooster saw a street light and got confused ----the reality is that "the crowing of the cock"
MEANS dawn ----it is a much used imagery thing in Hebrew writings

Even though a rooster will crow during the night.

Even though that is not what was said.
Roosters crow at dawn and yes he was disowned 3 times before dawn.
Reading comprehension needs to be worked on by some of the left.

.

Roosters crow at dawn and yes he was disowned 3 times before dawn.
Reading comprehension needs to be worked on by some of the left.

"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

Peter replied, “Even if I must die with You, I will never deny You.” And the rest of the disciples said the same.…


if reading comprehension is the criteria ... saying "before the Sun rises" would have been far more astute. something is missing in the translation the events must have occurred simultaneously For Whom the Bell Tolls - to have meaning.




oh, and are those who then led the flock ...

You are putting modern day logic for a time that was 2,000 yrs. ago.
Back then they did not even use last names, they were addressed as son of ,or daughter of each of their fathers.
Like the people would have said, "Jesus son of Joseph".

 

[BreezeWood]

So do tell us how wonderful it was to be a Christian, all the great riches that fell into their laps, all the vast territories they gained as a result of their works in making up a fake religion and fake Messiah.

those from the 1st century ... were not the same as those that compiled the late 4th century christian bible their forgeries in the text made themselves a selfserving entity of their own making not of the Almighty that is reflected in their history of their oppression from that time to the present day - that book does not reflect the events that led to the crucifixion ... those events untold were the missions attempt from the Almighty through Jesus.

 

[irosie91]

So do tell us how wonderful it was to be a Christian, all the great riches that fell into their laps, all the vast territories they gained as a result of their works in making up a fake religion and fake Messiah.

those from the 1st century ... were not the same as those that compiled the late 4th century christian bible their forgeries in the text made themselves a selfserving entity of their own making not of the Almighty that is reflected in their history of their oppression from that time to the present day - that book does not reflect the events that led to the crucifixion ... those events untold were the missions attempt from the Almighty through Jesus.

----well true------even Paul was NO CONSTANTINE. A somewhat conflicted person-----but NO CONSTANTINE.

 

[Picaro]

you are quite confused. Jews enslaved Christians?

Now you want to invent your own answers to something I didn't say, now. Why is that?

when was that? Who suggested that
"stories were invented out of nothing" what stories?

Babbling gibberish isn't a rebuttal of anything.

Your JUMP to "jews preferred muslims
to Christians" is really quite a mess.

No, it's a fact, and documented by Jewish scholars and its history, including such Jewish scholars themselves. they massacred and oppressed Christians at every opportunity, under their own rule, under Muslims, Persians, and anybody else who allowed them to. Your anger over that being known isn't impressive.

Did your catechism whore tell you that in order to
JUSTIFY THE INQUISITION?

I don't do 'catechisms'; you however like to repeat lame memes. As for the Inquistion, take it up with the Spaniards, they had zero reason to trust Jews, as they worked with the Muslim butchers and had zero problems helping them out in their invasions and butchery. Cry us a river.

and despoilment and ENSLAVEMENT of native
americans?

More rubbish, and of course there is nothing in native american history that proves them to be hapless innocents either; they had slaves, and they murdered for money, and they massacred anybody they could when they could, and they rarely took prisoners, except of course to torture them for entertainment and amusement. they were happily doing ths many centuries before we got here, and didn't stop after we got here.

You like the Hollywood version better, though, right?

It is certainly true that jews preferred EARLY muslims to the filth and stench of
canon law------do you have any idea about early CANON LAW and JEWS?

More rubbish. there was no 'canon law' during the Muslim conquests and invasions of Spain, Italy, and North Africa, and by the time they were being driven out of Spain there was no reason to be nice to their friends, either. Jews have little room to be sniveling; they loved committing atrocities like every other ME tribe. Just because they lost doesn't make them more 'noble' and blameless, any more than it does native americans.

(probably not -----
your hero adolf hitler knew------the Nuremburg laws were nothing new----even the yellow insignia
was nothing new.

Yeah sure, it's all about 'Da nazis'. Too bad nazis occupy barely 12 years out thousands of years of Jewish history, and you're an idiot who knows she's babbling nonsense and needs to deflect from that.

 

[Picaro]

So do tell us how wonderful it was to be a Christian, all the great riches that fell into their laps, all the vast territories they gained as a result of their works in making up a fake religion and fake Messiah.

those from the 1st century ... were not the same as those that compiled the late 4th century christian bible their forgeries in the text made themselves a selfserving entity of their own making not of the Almighty that is reflected in their history of their oppression from that time to the present day - that book does not reflect the events that led to the crucifixion ... those events untold were the missions attempt from the Almighty through Jesus.

Rubbish. Nicea didn't establish a 'canon', and Constantine didn't force anybody to do anything at Nicea, much less order them to rewrite anything to suit him personally. The bishops overwhelmingly voted that the orthodox view was the oldest and most reliable, that's because it had been around for centuries before and so many copies existed it was easy to identify forgeries, like the Arians were peddling. The Roman church was just another church, important for it location, but had no authority over the others and didn't determine doctrine for the rest. this is made very clear early on and throughout the first 300 years of history. The Romans in the West didn't even outlaw pagan rites until long after Constantine was dead, under Theodosius I.

Arianism persisted for a while because it was popular with the Visigoths and other invaders who sacked the city. the Gnostic crap was just that, crap, and never had any big following, that's just nonsense peddled by Bauer and Pagels, who were only interested in peddling their finds of a few scraps of the Book of Thomas as some sort major discovery and built a big conspiracy theory around it, that's all. A bunch of stoners and nutjobs picked it up and ran with it. The 'Gnostic' myths have been thoroughly refuted, and the fake claims about Constantine and the Nicean Creed are junk as well, long refuted. The Catholic Church didn't come along until later, and the Greek Orthodox was still around as well; it didn't go anywhere just because Popes were invented, neither did the Ethiopian Church or those in North Africa..

 

[irosie91]

you are quite confused. Jews enslaved Christians?

Now you want to invent your own answers to something I didn't say, now. Why is that?

wrong---you falsely claimed that jews enslaved Christians-----nevah happened

when was that? Who suggested that
"stories were invented out of nothing" what stories?

Babbling gibberish isn't a rebuttal of anything

wrong----I repeated YOUR gibberish------and asked for an explanation of the
catechism shit

Your JUMP to "jews preferred muslims
to Christians" is really quite a mess.

No, it's a fact, and documented by Jewish scholars and its history, including such Jewish scholars themselves. they massacred and oppressed Christians at every opportunity, under their own rule, under Muslims, Persians, and anybody else who allowed them to. Your anger over that being known isn't impressive.

nope----Christians were never under jewish rule----your catechism whore lied again

Did your catechism whore tell you that in order to
JUSTIFY THE INQUISITION?

I don't do 'catechisms'; you however like to repeat lame memes. As for the Inquistion, take it up with the Spaniards, they had zero reason to trust Jews, as they worked with the Muslim butchers and had zero problems helping them out in their invasions and butchery. Cry us a rive

OH that idiot claim------"we had to murder jewish children----the HELPED the muzzies"
btw ----did the catechism whore tell you that the inquisition was limited to SPAIN-----
Who do you think murdered Montezumah and STOLE HIS BILLIONS IN GOLD--
whore Catherine----INQUISITION QUEEN

and despoilment and ENSLAVEMENT of native
americans?

More rubbish, and of course there is nothing in native american history that proves them to be hapless innocents either; they had slaves, and they murdered for money, and they massacred anybody they could when they could, and they rarely took prisoners, except of course to torture them for entertainment and amusement. they were happily doing ths many centuries before we got here, and didn't stop after we got here.

oh---blame the Mexicans for the perverse filth of the catholic hero and pimp
HERNAN CORTEZ-----(Catherine's pimp)



You like the Hollywood version better, though, right?

It is certainly true that jews preferred EARLY muslims to the filth and stench of
canon law------do you have any idea about early CANON LAW and JEWS?

More rubbish. there was no 'canon law' during the Muslim conquests and invasions of Spain, Italy, and North Africa, and by the time they were being driven out of Spain there was no reason to be nice to their friends, either. Jews have little room to be sniveling; they loved committing atrocities like every other ME tribe. Just because they lost doesn't make them more 'noble' and blameless, any more than it does native americans.

"there was no canon law"??? when was that?

(probably not -----
your hero adolf hitler knew------the Nuremburg laws were nothing new----even the yellow insignia
was nothing new.

Yeah sure, it's all about 'Da nazis'. Too bad nazis occupy barely 12 years out thousands of years of Jewish history, and you're an idiot who knows she's babbling nonsense and needs to deflect from that.

The good catholic emperor of the THIRD HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE-----did not
last long enough for you and your perverted "VIRGINS" ???

 

[eflatminor]

The entirety of what we know of the life of Jesus is not limited to the scriptures in the church-approved bible.

Really don't care what you consider false, but thanks for sharing.

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. Get over it.

.

Really don't care what you consider false, but thanks for sharing.

you did not answer the question whether your consideration is relevant or not - those that fought Jesus or those that emerged in the 4th century ... and of course, a "rabbinic" epiphany - - > * they would gun him down today in a heartbeat, Jerusalem.

Not a question mark in sight. Guessing English isn't your first language.

.

Not a question mark in sight. Guessing English isn't your first language.

in religion no such expression exists ... (are) the 1st century crucifiers and those that emerged in the 4th century the same set of people. ? -

... they are the same today.


"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

No idea what "set of people" means. Nobody lived from the 1st to 4th century.

Are you trying to make a point? Speak clearly man!

.

No idea what "set of people" means. Nobody lived from the 1st to 4th century.

Are you trying to make a point? Speak clearly man!

"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."


there was a progression from the 1st century events (of the original intent) to the culmination of the christian bible written in the late 4th century - as I have clearly stated, the same "set of people" that were responsible for the crucifixion were the same that wrote their christian bible in the late 4th century - until the crucifiers are brought to Justice (rewriting their errant manuscript) the Almighty will forever withhold their blessing for those people - the followers of the 4th century christian bible.

Okeedookee.

One pretty much loses all credibility when they claim to know the mind of God. Stated differently, you have no idea whom the 'the Almighty' will or will not bless. It's that sort of arrogance that attempts to justify evil towards other men.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
you did not answer the question whether your consideration is relevant or not - those that fought Jesus or those that emerged in the 4th century ... and of course, a "rabbinic" epiphany - - > * they would gun him down today in a heartbeat, Jerusalem.

Not a question mark in sight. Guessing English isn't your first language.

.

Not a question mark in sight. Guessing English isn't your first language.

in religion no such expression exists ... (are) the 1st century crucifiers and those that emerged in the 4th century the same set of people. ? -

... they are the same today.


"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

No idea what "set of people" means. Nobody lived from the 1st to 4th century.

Are you trying to make a point? Speak clearly man!

.

No idea what "set of people" means. Nobody lived from the 1st to 4th century.

Are you trying to make a point? Speak clearly man!

"this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."


there was a progression from the 1st century events (of the original intent) to the culmination of the christian bible written in the late 4th century - as I have clearly stated, the same "set of people" that were responsible for the crucifixion were the same that wrote their christian bible in the late 4th century - until the crucifiers are brought to Justice (rewriting their errant manuscript) the Almighty will forever withhold their blessing for those people - the followers of the 4th century christian bible.

Okeedookee.

One pretty much loses all credibility when they claim to know the mind of God. Stated differently, you have no idea whom the 'the Almighty' will or will not bless. It's that sort of arrogance that attempts to justify evil towards other men.

.

One pretty much loses all credibility when they claim to know the mind of God. Stated differently, you have no idea whom the 'the Almighty' will or will not bless. It's that sort of arrogance that attempts to justify evil towards other men.

"there was a progression from the 1st century events (of the original intent) to the culmination of the christian bible written in the late 4th century - as I have clearly stated, the same "set of people" that were responsible for the crucifixion were the same that wrote their christian bible in the late 4th century - until the crucifiers are brought to Justice (rewriting their errant manuscript) the Almighty will forever withhold their blessing for those people - the followers of the 4th century christian bible".


your arrogance speaks for itself and your dismissal for the purpose to enshrine a fabricated 4th century religion of a crime against an individual's purpose is in itself a repudiation of that religion and of the true events representing the 1st century that history from that time, the 4th century to the present is an open record of deceit and oppression.

 

[BreezeWood]

breezie-----COLD

.

no, Jesus was not a jew nor a rabbi your book too lies - the repudiation of judaism is contextual for their purpose in the 1st century to establishing the true religion of the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

 

[irosie91]

So do tell us how wonderful it was to be a Christian, all the great riches that fell into their laps, all the vast territories they gained as a result of their works in making up a fake religion and fake Messiah.

those from the 1st century ... were not the same as those that compiled the late 4th century christian bible their forgeries in the text made themselves a selfserving entity of their own making not of the Almighty that is reflected in their history of their oppression from that time to the present day - that book does not reflect the events that led to the crucifixion ... those events untold were the missions attempt from the Almighty through Jesus.

Rubbish. Nicea didn't establish a 'canon', and Constantine didn't force anybody to do anything at Nicea, for the rest. this is made very clear early on and throughout the first 300 years of history. The Romans in the West didn't even outlaw pagan rites until long after Constantine was dead, under Theodosius I.

Arianism persisted for a while because it was popular with the Visigoths and other invaders who sacked the city. the Gnostic crap was just that, crap, and never had any big following, that's just nonsense peddled by Bauer and Pagels, who were only interested in peddling their finds of a few scraps of the Book of Thomas as some sort major discovery and built a big conspiracy theory around it, that's all. A bunch of stoners and nutjobs picked it up and ran with it. The 'Gnostic' myths have been thoroughly refuted, and the fake claims about Constantine and the Nicean Creed are junk as well, long refuted. The Catholic Church didn't come along until later, and the Greek Orthodox was still around as well; it didn't go anywhere just because Popes were invented, neither did the Ethiopian Church or those in North Africa..

breezie-----COLD

.

no, Jesus was not a jew nor a rabbi your book too lies - the repudiation of judaism is contextual for their purpose in the 1st century to establishing the true religion of the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil.

'MY BOOK'??? which book is that? I read the "New Testament". Jesus----
according to the writings of the New Testament was a typical Pharisee jew of his time.
He was not a SADDUCEE nor a SAMARITAN------a Pharisee jew of the school of
HILLEL My education in religion is ENTIRELY-------acquired thru lots of fairly random
reading. I never attended any "religion school or classes" ---other than Lutheran sunday
school with a playmate about one dozen times. I colored a cartoon of Jesus holding a
lamb Books lying around my childhood home included the NEW TESTAMENT---lots of copies------kindly old Christian ladies handed them out----Christmas time----and a tattered
copy of the "old testament" I read them along with a crumbling volume of POEMS BY
SHELLEY ----later on I read more stuff-----enough to know that Jesus was a jew----
Pharisee by inclination and-----he quoted HILLEL incessantly. The term "rabbi" ----is
an Aramaic honorific title- It was not a profession back then (It may be Hebrew too---but I think the origin is Aramaic-------as is the name YESHUA----) It is very possible----if
Jesus lectured on religion that people called him "rabbi"-----back then. The repudiation
of Judaism is a ROMAN thing

 

[Penelope]

Rome didn't mind the moderate jews, it was the zealots and sacarii they didn't like and well who could blame them, they were killing moderate jews and greeks and romans. They pruned the messianic root.

 

[irosie91]

Rome didn't mind the moderate jews, it was the zealots and sacarii they didn't like and well who could blame them, they were killing moderate jews and greeks and romans. They pruned the messianic root.[/QUOTE

Is that what your catechism whore told you?. Romans exploited and oppressed
in all the lands in which they conquered and imposed the filth of their world view.
When the ROMANS worshipped ZEUS-----they imposed him and his whore HERA---
and their sense of entertainment that included feeding people to lions whilst the
VESTAL "VIRGINS" moaned in orgiastic delight. They enslaved copiously----
continuing to do so with the adoption of the Christian theology as their perversity.
They PARTICULARLY liked blond Slavic slaves-----rendering northern Italy----virtually
blue eyed. Greek slaves were highly prized since they liked to learn Greek (the language)
The "INQUISITION" was simply an adaptation of ROMAN LAW as was the murderous
imposition of Catholicism in all conquered lands------and the murder of poor innocent
MONTEZUMAH by ISABELLA's pimp-------Hernan Cortez, Slavery of blacks in the \"NEW
WORLD" was based on the "CATHOLIC" model of slavery------absolute chattel slavery----
the most barbaric form on the globe. The catholic church----in its first 1400 years managed
to accomplish the GENOCIDE of hundreds of millions