Oldest bible found in Palestine confirms Jesus was a servant of god?

This is a story that has been hidden for more than 2000 years. It goes right back to the very beginning of Christianity and if true, it will rock everything that Christians believe in. It’s the story of the people that were closest to Jesus, the people who shared his bloodline.

It’s original message was, however, too dangerous for the new religion. The Church official kidnapped the achievements and tried to delete the story.

You should definitely check this out:



Thoughts?

a reply to: WombRaider69

Its a lot simpler than some ancient text…

Jesus wasn't God anymore than I am my father.

It has to do with genetics. I am from my fathers loins, but we are two different people.

Of course Jesus was only a servant of God, he wasn't God himself and never stated as such. His deification was simply invented in order to get people to worship an idol.

I dislike the title of the video though, I don't think anything about this "confirms the Quran", it's simply an implication that Jesus was not God. If that confirms the Quran then it confirms anything else that has said Jesus was not God.

a reply to: WombRaider69
What's the big news? Half of the bible translations below are already aware that the word "servant" is used at Acts 3:26.

Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant,...: Bible Hub

And that it was God that raised up his servant Jesus, not Jesus raising up himself as Trinitarians will often phrase it (heard Ian Juby from the youtube Wazooloo channel phrase it as "the Lord Jesus, who supernaturally rose from the dead"). Still not gonna stop anyone who uses these bibles from teaching something different though. They'll just do the temporary split between Jesus and his God and Father when someone asks questions about this verse (only to join them back together again into 1 being later when they've discarded this verse as refuting their philosophy/idea and doctrine about God's identity).

It helps if you leave out the name Jehovah and replace it with "the LORD" or "God" in the same bible translations almost 7000 times.

Gnosisfaith we meet again
So 1 new bible found, let's drop everything and follow you

a reply to: WombRaider69

As the bible was written well before the quran you actually mean to say the bible confirms the quran.

That is if we are being accurate. However Jesus is the son of god, ask any christian.

They didn't start binding books in that region until much later than when Christ's family lived. Around the Med, they were still using scrolls or folded writings, not bound books. Not sure about the legitimacy of that "book."

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: WombRaider69

As the bible was written well before the quran you actually mean to say the bible confirms the quran.

.

Well you're actually right, we muslims believe the orignal bible also came from God, just like the Original Torah came from God. All these books confirmed eachother until people started to alter its meaning.

a reply to: WombRaider69

This is a story that has been hidden for more than 2000 years.

Not quite...

Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising fiction of the early third century. It bears no date itself, nor does it make reference to any datable external event, yet the picture of the Church which it presents could only be described as primitive, reaching back to the very earliest stages of the Church's order and practice in a way which largely agrees with the picture presented by the NT, while at the same time posing questions for many traditional interpretations of this first period of the Church's life. Fragments of the Didache were found at Oxyrhyncus (P. Oxy 1782) from the fourth century and in coptic translation (P. Lond. Or. 9271) from 3/4th century. Traces of the use of this text, and the high regard it enjoyed, are widespread in the literature of the second and third centuries especially in Syria and Egypt. It was used by the compilator of the Didascalia (C 2/3rd) and the Liber Graduun (C 3/4th), as well as being absorbed in toto by the Apostolic Constitutions (C c. 3/4th, abbreviated as Ca) and partially by various Egyptian and Ethiopian Church Orders, after which it ceased to circulate independently. Athanasius describes it as 'appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness' [Festal Letter 39:7]. Hence a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century probable.

Draper states in a footnote (op. cit., p. 284), "A new consensus is emerging for a date c. 100 AD."

Link

There are links to the Didache on-site for those who would like to read it themselves.

a reply to: WombRaider69

So many things that happened and was said could make no sense if Jesus were his Father. Like hsi being offered the rulership of Earth since clearly it is owned by evil at this time.

(Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13)
1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2where for forty days He was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He was hungry.

3The devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”

4But Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’a”

5Then the devil led Him up to a high place and showed Him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6“I will give You authority over all these kingdoms and all their glory,” he said. “For it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. 7So if You worship me, it will all be Yours.”

8 But Jesus replied, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord Your God and serve Him only.’b”

9 Then the devil led Him to Jerusalem and set Him on the pinnacle of the temple. “If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw Yourself down from here. 10For it is written:

‘He will command His angels concerning You
to guard You carefully;
11 and they will lift You up in their hands,
so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.’c”
12 But Jesus declared, “It also says, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’d”

13 When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time.

a reply to: WombRaider69

The interpretation is actually biased and as you know yourselves the commentator is a British muslim whom made a series that was made as an alternate view of the history.

I am very certain that the priest whom keep's that book would never have accepted THERE interpretation of it and would have been extremely furious at there revisionist history.

Now I can play that game as well,
www.bibleprobe.com...

By the way the Syriac Orthodox Church which has been so persecuted over the ages was always independent of the western control and Nicea interpretation's and guess what they an independent church founded by JAMES brother (Apostle) of Jesus and whom still hold there mass in Aramaic held almost identical tradition's to the western church's and non of this false interpretation even though it was independent of both the Greek Orthodox (Whom they had quite a bit of very strong disagreement with) and the Catholic church, indeed they were a fully independent church whom have very recently split in two with one part alligning with the Catholic church and the other part retaining there full autonomy.

Now why are the Islamic State trying to erase all evidence of this TRUE church of christ and there TRUE tradition's including demolishing some of the most ancient christian site's in the world outside of jerusalem and murdering priests, monk's and nun's.

You know very well why?.

Don't you for one moment think that the Church founded by Jame's would have venerated his teaching's if they were actually his, they most certainly would and did not venerate this nonsense so therefore?.
Don't you think that he would have founded his church on this set of interpretation's if they were actually his interpretation's since he was the Patriarch of the Syriac orthodox church and yet He did not So?.
Modern false interpretation and deliberate mis understanding.

You may want to research the Syriac Orthodoxy, it IS the oldest surviving christian church and is also not and never was a part of the conclave of Nicea or the Constantine legacy though you may be upset to find it has almost everything in common with them and does so independently without THERE teaching's or doctinal law's.
en.wikipedia.org...
So I guess they actually exonerate the Christian faith of the accusation's the makers of that documentary tried to pass off as factual evidence despite the fact it was merely THERE interpretation and biased against Christianity.

a reply to: WombRaider69

The orthodox document in the video is not an original, quite some centuries later.

originally posted by: WombRaider69
This is a story that has been hidden for more than 2000 years. It goes right back to the very beginning of Christianity and if true, it will rock everything that Christians believe in. It’s the story of the people that were closest to Jesus, the people who shared his bloodline.

It’s original message was, however, too dangerous for the new religion. The Church official kidnapped the achievements and tried to delete the story.

You should definitely check this out:

Thoughts?

Just because Jesus was "the suffering servant" doesn't mean He wasn't the Son of God and God incarnate (as it says elsewhere in the canonical Gospels).

The appelation "the suffering servant" as applying to the Messiah actually comes from Isaiah 52 and 53 - prophecies penned thousands of years before Christ.

The Didache refers to Christ twenty times as "Lord" which is at odds with the Koran S. 3:79-80 where it says that Allah would never let an angel or a prophet be called lord. So, if one were to take the Koran literally and use it to interpret the Didache, it is clearly calling Jesus Lord - and therefore God.

The Didache at no stage says that Jesus wasn't the Son of God, nor does it say that Jesus wasn't God incarnate. The interpretation provided by the cleric has no basis in fact.

From what I have read of Yeshua:s teaching he seemed to be a blessed One. I would not call him lord since in certain circles calling someone lord is one of the worst insult you can give.

Paul and Muhammad I would not follow since they remind me of the kind of souls who would want to lord and abuse other souls to feel powerful.

If logic and reason is shown and action makes sense then I have no trouble taking a suggestion as long as it follows the golden rule.

Actually the youtube does not seem very accurate in some respect. It says in the Didache no mention of virgin birth, no mention of resurrection, and no mention that Jesus is GOD.


Here in the Didache it mentions the Resurrection and points towards that Jesus is GOD! With there prayers in the book.
Here it references Jesus as the HOLY VINE.

Chapter 9 begins:

"Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.."

Most Christians understand no human being is really holy because we are all sinners but just like the didache says. Jesus is the HOLY VINE. Perfect without sin.

And concerning the broken bread:

"We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs"

This prayers references what Jesus says in the Gospel that he is the true bread. Jesus was the bread that was made broken and his blood dripped and watered and taken to a different place. As then his followers scattered but Christ was that starting 'point'. But then Jesus was made whole and became one again. As his followers who were sad and in hiding were then made one again. This is the resurrection. The main theme is in the end. God's kingdom, God's glory, and God's power is only 'through" Jesus Christ "forever.'

Even this non canon book cannot HIDE the true TRUTH about the HOLY SERVANT who is both LORD and SAVIOR! Who died and was resurrected for us! The only accurate statement is that it does not mention a virgin birth but for Jesus to be truly the HOLY VINE from God. It had to have taken place by GOD.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Your verse numbers seem to be a bit out of whack, but more importantly, verse 10 says (which is verse 8 in your quotation):

Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

Jesus was referring (when he said "it is written") to scriptures such as,

Deuteronomy 6:13:
13 Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear.

Deuteronomy 10:20:
20 “Jehovah your God you should fear, him you should serve, to him you should cling, and by his name you should swear.

Where you will find God's name in the oldest manuscripts before they replaced it (for example the dead sea scrolls). Something similar is going on in verse 12 where also God's name has been replaced in a lot of bible translations with "the LORD" and even more deceptively in some translations as "the Lord", but I don't expect you to realize why the 2nd one (your version as well) is even more deceptive (intentionally).

Ahhh, now I get it, you were quoting from Luke in verse 8. Nothing changes about the rest I said though.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Your verse numbers seem to be a bit out of whack, but more importantly, verse 10 says (which is verse 8 in your quotation):

Ahhh, now I get it, you were quoting from Luke in verse 8. Nothing changes about the rest I said though.

I don't get your point, I just selected the first thing I saw to show that clearly Jesus was not ever saying he was his Father. he was not tempting himself if he threw himself off a cliff for instance. This has nothing to do with the fact they remove the name of god from the bible.

a reply to: SeaWorthy
edit: oh btw, just to make it clear, I wasn't saying you were being deceptive (intentionally) but the bible translation and translators you picked.

It facilitates the doctrine that Jesus is the same Lord and God as Jehovah if you replace the name "Jehovah" with "the LORD" (or more deceptively "the Lord"). Because there are many lords and gods (these are titles that can apply to others as well, so more easily confused then). One of the reasons why 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 reminds us that (NWT):

Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

Now to some people who like to misinterpret the bible the bolded parts above may sound contradictory, what is it, is there only 1 God or are there many gods? But it's not a contradiction (and neither is he talking about only false gods in comparison to the true God) cause what's being made clear in this verse is that there is only 1 God in the supreme ultimate sense (the Hebrew and Greek words used for "God" have a broader definition, "mighty one" is another definition, there is only 1 almighty God). And the bible verses above identify that 1 God in comparison with the other gods, including Jesus, who is a god in a special role as Messiah, Lord and savior (note that the bible also mentions other saviors and lords, something similar is going on in the verses that say that there is only 1 savior, in the ultimate sense compared to the other saviors as well as the source of salvation, standing out from the rest of the saviors that God sent to Israel as the source of that salvation).

Nehemiah 9:27:

For this you gave them into the hand of their adversaries, who kept causing them distress. But they would cry out to you in the time of their distress, and you would hear from the heavens; and because of your great mercy, you would give them saviors to rescue them out of the hand of their adversaries.

Trinitarians won't mention that verse either when they go on about there being only 1 savior and because Jesus is called a savior therefore he must be God (the same thing they do with the words for "god(s)" and "lord"), as in Jehovah God (but when asked directly if Jesus is Jehovah they might give you conflicting answers, there are Triniarian videos on youtube with titles such as "Jesus is Jehovah" (or Yahweh) but another Trinitarian trained with the usual picture that Trinitarians use that say that Jesus is God but "is not" the Father (Jehovah, obviously they won't mention the name then) might say something else.

So yeah, all this is very much related to you trying to remind people that Jesus never said he was his Father. It is related to the people you are trying to reach with that statement as well as your own views that contain both missing information as misinformation (but I didn't want to bother you with pointing out the misinformation you have been taught, cause people usually don't want to hear anything about that). So I'm sticking to giving you and others the missing pieces of the puzzle.

Once you begin to realize that God has a name of his own, that "Allah" is just the Arabic word for "God" (not a name, no exact identification), you can start the process of getting to know someone. Usually you start with their names first. In terms of endless confusing debates about the exact identity and name (incl. spelling in different languages), there is a reason Proverbs 18:10 says:

Darby Bible Translation:
The name of Jehovah is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.

ASV:
The name of Jehovah is a strong tower; The righteous runneth into it, and is safe.

YLT:
A tower of strength is the name of Jehovah, Into it the righteous runneth, and is set on high.

NWT:
The name of Jehovah is a strong tower.

Into it the righteous one runs and receives protection.*

* = Lit., “is raised high,” that is, out of reach, safe.

It makes the puzzle (and dealing with elaborate argumentation of people's views/beliefs and doctrines) really easy.

"Jah" is the shortened version of "Jehovah" also used in the bible.

In some (many?) bible translations "Hallelujah" (Praise Jah!) is not translated to english on purpose in what some people call the New Testament or Greek Scriptures (while some bibles will mistranslate it to "Praise the LORD" in what some people call the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, again misleading people concerning God's name, and thereby demonstrating they are opposed to Jehovah God, much like those who the bible mentions as "making people forget about his name").
The video below explains better with archeological evidence (which should be of more value to you than anyone's words about it on ATS) and comparing bible translations:

Now the videos below are off-topic, but everytime I hear the ending of the video above I have to think about this illustration:

a reply to: SeaWorthy
Now if one can understand my last comment (or given that information), Isaiah chapter 45 in a translation that uses God's name where it is found in the Hebrew manuscripts (such as the dead sea scrolls) in the appropiate places can begin to make sense to a person:

Additional information concerning some of the things I mentioned can be found in this comment and the comment in that thread before it. That comment also contains a video of a debate about this subject which is reasonably detailed, but read my caveats about it in the comment if you don't want to go down the wrong track or waste any time (the video is quite long, but I suggested some timeframes to watch in that comment and corrected any mistakes or missing information that's important to be aware of when you hear someone talking about this subject of God's exact identity and what he's like).