Muslims Understand Jesus More Than Christians

The Qur'an says little about Issa or Jesus. But the obviously influenced by Islam Gospel of Barnabas does. Forget when it was written, if you are looking for the Muslim view of Jesus this link has every chapter of the 4 Gospel sized Gospel of Barnabas with brief intermittent commentary whenever it disagrees with the Qur'an.

The most interesting feature is the claim that Paul was a deviever, and it has also been compared to the a portion of the book of Maccabees, I think the story of Judah Maccabeus.

Gospel of Barnabas

originally posted by: UFOdanger

originally posted by: [post=21528823]Raggedyman
What I find funny is that Islam is a religion that is only 1400 years old, some 600 years after Christ
600 years of nothingness, how can it claim knowledge of anything that happened prior to its own birth.
Divine revelation?

The whole concept is a joke, Islam, the moon religion of the ancients understands Jesus?
Would Jesus have ever used a sword or gun
Did Jesus have a preteen bride
Did Christ ever call for jihad

Understand Jesus, not according to their actions

I understand what you mean, and my post comes off very strange at first. Basically I am claiming that I can prove that western Pauline Christianity is so tremendously corrupt from the very inside that Muslims have a better understanding of the historical Christ from their own scriptures.

You can have knowledge of the past, it is the future which would be hard to determine.

Christ used a sword in our bible yes. Peter also used a sword. I have also read the legitimate texts from Peter as I mentioned that I know Peter better now as I have read from him, and do I believe for a second that he cut the ear of a soldier with his sword? No I do not. Do I believe Christ told his apostles to travel with swords? No I do not. I am contending that the bible is lying, because I know that they tried to use the story of a Zealot named Judas as a historical reference to the life of Christ. They did this to utterly confuse the birth of the church which was brought about by Christ as his brothers.

Where did Christ use a sword and when Pete used a sword, Christ rebuked him and healed the damage
Yes Christ told his apostles to get a sword to fulfill prophecy

I will contending you havnt any real understanding of what the bible teaches at all

originally posted by: [post=21530841]ServantOfTheLamb

Yeshua is the Hebrew name for Jesus.The English spelling of Yeshua is “Joshua.” However, when you translate from Hebrew into the Greek language the name Yeshua becomes Iēsous. The English spelling for Iēsous is “Jesus.” There ya go. That is the reason we use Jesus, so your most bold point goes out the window.

ServantOfTheLamb I apologize that these sources are far and wide, but I just wanted to mention that when we talk about facts, you cannot say that "Yeshua becomes Iēsous" without giving a proper explanation and revealing as to why it becomes such a thing. Now you may think that dead sea scroll translator John M. Allegro is a nutcase, but I am telling you that before he wrote about strange things he was an extremely knowledgeable man when it comes to etymology and the origin of words. This can also be confirmed from other sources outside of John. That when you have a Hebrew name such as Yahoshua, it means God Saves. But to Transliterate that, which is different than translate, is to say God Saves in Greek. I am telling you the scholarly understanding that the Latin pronunciation of Jesus is correct in that the second syllable reads Zeus. Do you understand that many names in Hebrew have the suffix Yah, this is true and equivalent to understand that the Greeks had "Sous" as a suffix to many of their names in reference to God. This is the factual explanation for why we have the name Iēsous (the name before Jesus), and this explanation proves that the transliteration for the Hebrew name of Joshua is rooted in PAGANISM, meaning that you are committing an injustice every time you say the word Jesus.

Oh really? Some unknown document from 500 years later. Want to source that for us? From my understanding Paul was both a Jew and a Roman Citizen. He even says so in his own writings which we have. So your argument against the evidence against your position is oh he was a liar. Not a very good historical argument.

Gladly, I will give you the source even though you don't believe me, there is a Ton of evidence to support that Paul was a complete liar: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities Proceedings Volume II No. 13, The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source by Shlomo Pines (which is a copy of a 6th century text). Believe me, when you get closer to the historical source of this religion things are classified and secret and just to obtain a text like this you have to go through many hoops, here is a video to show how some of the scrolls made it to the CIA.

Yes lets ignore the fact that people worship and bow to Jesus numerous times in the new testament and he doesn't correct them. Let's ignore that he claims to be God in the flesh numerous times

Let me know if you want sources of this, but there are numerous, numerous errors with the Greek texts in the new Testament. This not a not a theory of the early church. It is testified upon the apostles. Christ was begotten of God. That means that Christ was a Son of God, not a God. But even the tern Son of God became misused and it was dropped by early Christians.

Where does Christ say this? Sounds to me like you are making up quotes because a google search of this only pulls up your post.

You just admitted that he said that, and I said he "would" say it. You are trying to nail me but you are truly coming up with nothing.

My God can you be more blinded. The suffering servant is a reference to Isaiah 53 which describes the death of Christ many years before he is crucified.

I still don't understand your point, you are agreeing with me that Christ came to fulfill the prophets, what else are you trying to prove here other than agreeing with me?

I see a lot of unsupported claims. You are claiming they manipulated the story where is the evidence? He is called Joseph of Arimathea because he came from the Judean town of Arimathea.....

Honestly, 100s and 100s of scholars and historians claim there is no such thing as a town called Arimathea. You are ignoring that I put together vast amounts of connecting evidence to prove my claims.

The location of the town of Arimathea, where Joseph was from, is unknown. According to Loftus, there is no textual evidence for the town outside the gospels, and no archaeological evidence exists as well. He concludes that this means that the town must be imaginary. This explains why Luke 23:51 calls it a “Jewish town” since no one had ever heard of it before.

Christianity is the only unique message among the religions of the world. Every religion aside from Christianity teaches that it is by your own works that you get into heaven. This is a lie, and if you seek to fall into be my guest. You do not do what is good for reward but you do it simply for goodness sake. God does not force me to act a certain way in order to gain his love. He grants it to me freely and allows me to either accept or reject that love. My actions are for me to choose and as a person goes closer to Christ the sins the used to enjoy become less appeasing simply because the person that they are is changing not from the outside in but from the inside out. This walk is slower for some people than others, but God is there for all of us at every point with open arms. Maybe Christians should be vegetarians who knows. I love animals, but I also love meat. I also don't agree with eating animal with higher forms of pain awareness like monkeys, dolphins, elephants, whales, but animals like cows and pigs are said to have a lower form of pain awareness in which the experience mental states of pain, but are not aware of being in such a state. So it makes me feel a little better

I fully agree, I also eat meat, even when all of our senses know it is such a great thing, but Christ is the teacher for how to be spiritually perfect, and we try to walk closer in those steps, and to be 100% pure in the soul, also means that no blood of any thing is on our hands.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Let's ignore that he claims to be God in the flesh numerous times one of my favorite would be:

Matthew 22
...

That text doesn't have Jesus claiming that he's "God in the flesh", a phrase derived from a corrupted text at 1 Timothy 3:16 (and even after the changes that were made it still doesn't read "God in the flesh"). I guess with a conveniently biased interpretation you can get to"numerous", but if Matthew 22:41-45 is your favorite example, well, that already seems pretty far-fetched.

1 Timothy 3:16a (KJV):

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,...

NWT:

Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,...

Likewise, NIV, ESV, Berean Study Bible, ("Who" in the Berean Literal Bible), HCSB, NASB, ISV, NET, ASV and many other bible translations. Here are some of the reasons why (btw "Θεὸς" is the Greek word for "God" and transliterated as "Theos" to the Roman Alphabet; the greek "O" or "ὃ" mentioned below can be translated to the english "he", "who", "which" depending on the context):

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (by Isaac Newton):

What the Latines have done to this text the Greeks have done to that of S. Paul 1 Tim. 3.16. For by changing Ο in ΟΣ & both into ΘΣ (the abbreviation of Θεὸς) they now read Great is the mystery of godlinesse God manifested in the flesh: whereas all the Churches for the first four or five hundred years, & the authors of all the ancient Versions, Ierome as well as the rest, read, Great is the mystery of godliness which was manifested in the flesh. For this is the common reading of the Ethiopic, Syriac & Latine Versions to this day, Ierome's manuscripts having given him no occasion to correct the old Vulgar Latine in this place. Grotius adds the Arabic, but the Egyptian Arabic Version has Θεὸς, & so has the above mentioned Sclavonian Version of Cyrillus. For these two Versions were made long after the sixt Century wherein the corruption began. With the ancienter Versions agree the writers of the first five Centuries both Greeks & Latines. For they in all their discourses to prove the Deity of the Son, never allege this text (that I can find,) as they would all have done, & some of them frequently, had they read God manifested in the flesh, & therefore they read Ὃ. Tertullian adversus Praxeam & Cyprian adversus Iudæos industriously cite all the places where Christ is called God, but have nothing of this. Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, the Bishops of the Council of Sardica, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Cyril of Ierusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Cassian; Also Hilary, Lucifer, Ierome, Ambrose, Austin, Phœbadius, Victorinus Afer, Faustinus Diaconus, Pope Leo the great, Arnobius junior, Cereatis, Vigilius Tapsensis, Fulgentius wrote all of them in the fourth & fift Centuries for the Deity of the Son & incarnation of God, & some of them largely & in several Tracts; & yet I cannot find that they ever allege this text to prove it excepting that a[41] G. Nyssen once urges it, if the passage crept not into him out of some marginal [annotation]. In all the times of the hot & lasting Arian controversy it never came into play, thô now those disputes are over they that read God manifested in the flesh think it one of the most obvious & pertinent texts for the businesse.

The Churches therefore of those ages were all strangers to this reading: for on the contrary their writers as often as they have any occasion to cite the reading then in use discover that it was Ὃ. For thô they cite it not to prove the Deity of the Son, yet in their Commentaries & sometimes in other discourses they produce it. And particularly Hilary lib 11 de Trinitate & Ambrose, or whoever of his contemporaries was the author of the Commentary on the Epistles, reads Ὃ; & so doth S. Austin in Genesin ad litteram lib 5, & Beda in his commentary on this text where he cites the reading of S. Austin, & the Author of the Commentary on the Epistles ascribed to Ierome. So also do Primasius & Sedulius in their Commentaries on this text, & Victorinus Afer lib 1 adversus Arium, & Idacius Clarus or rather Vigilius Tapsensis lib. 3. adversus Varimadum cap. 12. & Fulgentius cap. 2 de incarnatione. And so did Pope Leo the great Epist 20 ad Flavianum & Pope Gregory the great lib 34 Moral. cap 7 . These ancient Latines all cite the text after this manner Great is the mystery of godlinesse which was manifested in the flesh, as the latine MSS of S. Pauls Epistles generally have it to this day; & therefore it cannot be doubted but that this hath been the constant public reading of the Latine Churches from the beginning. So also one of the Arians in a Homily printed in Fulgentius's works reads Ὃ & interprets it of the son of God who was born of the Father ante sæcula & of the Virgin in novissimo tempore: & Fulgentius in his answer to this Homily found no fault with the citation, but on the contrary in his first book ad Trasimundum, chap. 6, seems to have read & understood the text after the same manner with other Latines.

Now for the Greeks, I find indeed that they have changed the ancient reading of the text not only in the MSS of S. Pauls Epistles but also in other authors, & yet there are still remaining sufficient instances among them of what the reading was at first. So in Chrysostom's Commentary on this Epistle they have now gotten θεὸς into the text & yet by considering the Commentary it self I am satisfied that he read ὃ. For he neither in this Commentary nor any where else infers the Deity of Christ from this text nor expounds it as they do who read θεὸς,...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Jesus is a false idol. There is only one true all-powerful and all-loving God. And that God is God.

Correct, except that it is better to say "And that God is the Mother-Father of all that has been created in the universe, and all that is being created and will ever be created.

It is also better to say "Jesus is a false idol, and the historical Savior Christ has been deliberately suppressed and made hidden from the world.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

I agree fully with your comments and ideas. Can you elaborate on the non-dualistic aspects of living? From what I know Christ observed dualism to the fullest degree.

originally posted by: [post=21531734]InhaleExhale

So do you steal the things you sold to give it to the poor?

How does one sell their things and also give it to the poor without stealing it back, do you buy it back with the money you made from selling them?

I am not sure what you mean here. The family of Christ sold a ton of property to give to the poor, they did not buy it back, but gave away the proceedings.

If they sell all their things and they have a lot of valuable things then they might become multi millionaires.

Even if they give away all the money they were still multi millionaires for a moment.

So according to your real teachings, A Christian is OK being a millionaire but is forbidden from being a multi millionaire?

going by your title, if Muslims understand Jesus better than Christians, are there no Muslim Multi millionaires?

This is just thinking into it too deeply. Remember I do not judge anybody, I was speaking metaphorically to give a general and vague example. If Christ judges a millionaire purely and sees this individual to be clean and deserving of heaven, that is no problem for me. I am giving an interpretation of the teachings below:

"Master, what good thing shall I do and live?"
Iesous said, "Perform the Law and the prophets."
He answered, "I have performed them." Iesous answered, "Go, sell all thou hast and divide with the poor, and follow me." But this saying pleased him not.
And the Lord said unto him, "How sayest thou that thou hast performed the Law and the prophets? Behold many of thy brethren are clad with filthy rags, dying from hunger and thy house is full of much goods, and there goeth from it nought unto them."
And he said unto Simon, "It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, for the rich care for themselves, and despise them that have not."

Christ is not being picky over mere words trying to invoke an argument InhaleExhale, he is saying that you feed yourself with a golden spoon while others are sleeping in rags and you do not even think as to give away something to help save the poor and suffering of the world! This is very black and white, cut and dry.

And there came a certain poor widow and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And He called His disciples unto him and said, Verily I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast more in than all they which have cast into the Treasure. For all they did cast in of their abundance, but she of her poverty did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
Lection XIV : Aramaic Gospel

You keep quoting things yet fail to show where you are quoting from.
anyway good luck in spreading your gospel

For that response I will give you Matthew 7:6 -

Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces

I am the Truth, the Light, and the Way. I am the Love, the heart, and the Soul. The world believes in me not, though I have no lie inside of me. The world loves me not, through I am not deserving of hate.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: UFOdanger

You talk a lot about facts and maybe you have them. Every post though you just expect us to take your word for it.

That is hilarious that when I bring facts, you ignore me, and when I speak ideologically, you attack me.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

Well since there was no j in Aramaic/Hebrew in those times, it stands to chance that it was indeed an i. Even today the Hebrew letter ו is used in the case of both letters, and others, although there might be differences between their usage in respect of dialect. So yes, pronouncing a j when referring to Christ seems incorrect.

Consider Jupiter as well - even the Latin version is Iuppiter, no "j" in there. Speaking of which, there is a stark similarity between that word and Jehovah, or rather in respect of Jove.

Now that you've got me started on this subject... I've just noticed something. The Welsh for Jupiter is Iau (again, an "i" instead of "j"), while the same word in Welsh can also mean yoke. The yoke was bar put across two oxen for agriculture, and the Hebrew for this is seemingly עול, which could more accurately mean burden or to harm. Certainly, having a yoke across the nape would surely be a burden and harmful, but let's put those meanings aside and instead concentrate on the sound of the word - we have what might sound like "aisle". An aisle could the "wing of an animal", which is precisely where a yoke is placed. Further, איל also sounds the same and can refer to either the ram or as a word for God. Thus, there appears to be some kind of intrinsic link between the planet, the animal and religion.

This has to make sense to you if you have studied the origins of Christianity. There was a move, from Jewish people to Greek people in the first century. The Jewish people followed Peter, and a very few Greeks or Romans. The Greeks followed Paul. These are two separate doctrines and it is absolute fact (it would take days to post all the material). You can very easily see how the Greeks accepted the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah and brought it over into their culture, adding things they saw fit to their own beliefs, and removing the opposite. Well in today's religion, Peter's voice has been wiped clean from history, and all we have is the voice of Paul. Well this would be ok, but in reality, both Peter and James declare that Paul is a cunning liar, a manipulative evil man who is only out for his own gain, and to not listen to him. We know the Greeks and Romans cored out the center of this religion and rebuilt it to the way they wanted to. If you really look into this, you would have to be blind to not see that they changed the names of both Christ and his brother James in order to dishonor them.

"They (the Graeco-Roman World) had worshipped Zeus as the supreme deity. Their savior was Zeus, so now they were ready to accept Yahushua as Jesus - Iesous. Now our translated scriptures say that Yahweh's son's name is Jesus, which is a compound word made up of Ie and Zeus. This name of the true Messiah, (Yahushua), being Hebrew, was objectionable to the Greeks and Romans, who hated the Judeans (Jews), and so it was deleted from the records, and a new name inserted. Yahushua) was thus replaced by Ie-Sous (hail Zeus), now known to us as Jesus."
-The Origin of Christianity by A.B. Traina

"It is simply amazing to think that all these years, hundreds of years, mankind has been calling the Saviour by the wrong name!! It's hard to give up the name of Jesus because it's so deeply ingrained in us and much has been said and done in that name. In the 1611 KJ New Testament the name Yahshua (Yehoshua) appeared originally wherever the Messiah was spoken of. Yehoshua means Yehovah's Salvation. Later the Messiah's name was replaced with Iesus (Greek) which later in the 1600's it became Jesus starting with the new English letter "J" which was introduced at that time. Further, the Greek "Iesus" comes from the name Zeus, the ruling God in the Greek pantheon."
-Gospel of The Kingdom True Names and Title Dr. Henry Clifford Kinley 1931 - Ohio USA

Everybody, Listen Close, I know that Dr. Henry Clifford Kinley is the correct scholar out of all - Because this Jewish scholar below uncovered a real conspiracy among the same subject we are speaking of - and he surely uncovered the correct name of God that has been withheld from civilization since the beginning, I will post his video below, and I know that he has exposed the true name as Yahovah.



People this is what I said in another post - you must Listen! This is an educated professor saying this and he Knows What He is Talking about 100 times more than you guys who are just being stubborn.

"It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus."
-Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend Professor J. C. J. Metford

Tarsus means Sweat of Zeus, Paul of Tarsus? Did you all not here that the discovered 6th century Jewish Christian document claims that Paul had both Greek parents? It all makes sense when you here from the real truthful people and not the horrible Greek liars.

"Some authorities, who have spent their entire lives studying the origins of names believe that "Jesus" actually means - "Hail Zeus!" For Iesous in Greek IS "Hail Zeus." "Ie" translates as "Hail" and "sous" or "sus" translates as Zeus. The English name "Jesus", therefore, stems etymologically from "Jupiter-Zeus" the chief god of the ancient Greek Olympus." -"Yeshua" or "Jesus" -- Which? Biblical Research Institute; 1996 by Les Aron Gosling

"‘Jesus’ is a transliteration of a Latin name Ioesus, pronounced heysus - which means nothing in Hebrew, but in Latin it means ‘Hail Zeus’. If Yahshua’s name had been transliterated into our language, it would have been closer to Joshua (or Jehoshua).." -Winds of Praise Broadcasting Believer or Follower? The Sound of the Shofar By Jon Thompson

"research reveals that the name "Jesus" is linked to the Greek Sun-god "Zeus" "
-C. J. Koster

Are you really that stubborn and ignorant, to where you refuse to believe researchers over your ego?

"The plan of the Greeks was simple, they merely dropped the Hebrew terminology of names which referred to the Hebrew deity, and substituted the name, or letters, referring to the name of the supreme deity, Zeus."
-The Faith Magazine Volume 69

Fine, right when I bring real, raw facts to the table that challenge peoples beliefs you guys just ignore me.

Conclusion. Just know that what I say is right and none of you can challenge me to oppose what I say and end up being victorious in the end. I am respected by the Mother-Father and by Christ for having the intelligence and courage to stand up to the enemies of Christ and to those which have deliberately dishonored him by lying to you over and over throughout history. I am the one who is respected greatly by these scholars who have not been bought out by the mainstream media, that I actually listen to them when the media puts a dark blanket over their research in order to continue lying to the earth, and you all choose to believe those who have lied to you rather than the people screaming for you to listen to them. And most hideously, all you Christians claim to believe in a god called Jesus but when I bring to you the actual historical truth from the words of his own language, and that which his own brothers said and wrote down, and you people still believe Greek speaking strangers who were historically anti-semitic over the truly blessed holy brothers of the Messiah! The fact that you all can be such a horrible contradiction is more than a complete disgrace!

a reply to: UFOdanger

I have read (I think) the document that says the Ebionites considered Saul of Tarsus an "apostate" of a Hellenistic Greek background who wished to marry the daughter of the High Priest and was circumcised.

When informed he would not be marrying the High Priests daughter he became incensed, specifically against circumcision and the Jewish Torah.

So the Latin church, according to the pen of Eusebius of Cesarea a relative of Constantine and church historian, admits to the non acceptance of the Jewish Ebionim disciples of Jesus, of Paul, who never says he was named Saul and relies on the Septuagint which all point to a false pedigree.

Further the Ebionites rejected the deity of Christ and said at baptism he became the Son of God by receiving the Holy Spirit, who was female. He was not born of a virgin either and the way he interpreted the Torah was how they lived not forsaking what was a multi generational tradition. Paul said that the Torah was a curse because it appealed to the Greeks and did, even according to Acts, get him in hot water for it from Yacov at Jerusalem. He ends up in the hands of hundreds of Roman soldiers also is something Acts claims. Pretty hard to believe but that he was actually rescued from the Romans and never saw or dealt with the apostles again, nothing exists to say he did and to think it is no more logical as when he writes he is writing AGAINST them, and without using names, they him. Albeit more humbly.

But the icing on the cake is the so called Gospel of the Hebrews which is probably the original Matthew. Eusebius claims they redacted the real original and that a man named Ebion, who didn't exist as Ebionim means Poor, plural, founded the Ebionites. An outright lie as not only are ''the Poor" mentioned by Paul who is quoting James, but Jesus too. Lost in translation.

And they were the first or second most common title for the sects that authored the DSS, second or first being Zaddikim, I've never actually counted but those two, Sons of Light, and Hasidim were also used which is interesting as no evidence of a group called the Essenes exists in any fragment. Osim is used once and some try using that meaning Doer or Doers Ha Torah or of Torah. No way does one obscure mention that they follow the Torah is a pathetic attempt.

But the community had 12 and 3 leaders, like the apostles and James, John and Peter with possibly a Righteous Teacher if there were more than one and a Wicked Priest as well as a Lying Tongue/Comedian refered to that is all so familiar.

Shalem.

a reply to: UFOdanger

Conclusion. Just know that what I say is right and none of you can challenge me to oppose what I say and end up being victorious in the end. I am respected by the Mother-Father and by Christ for having the intelligence and courage to stand up to the enemies of Christ and to those which have deliberately dishonored him by lying to you over and over throughout history. I am the one who is respected greatly by these scholars who have not been bought out by the mainstream media, that I actually listen to them when the media puts a dark blanket over their research in order to continue lying to the earth, and you all choose to believe those who have lied to you rather than the people screaming for you to listen to them. And most hideously, all you Christians claim to believe in a god called Jesus but when I bring to you the actual historical truth from the words of his own language, and that which his own brothers said and wrote down, and you people still believe Greek speaking strangers who were historically anti-semitic over the truly blessed holy brothers of the Messiah! The fact that you all can be such a horrible contradiction is more than a complete disgrace!

And there it is



Thanks for showing the readers your true colours.


I do hope you get well soon

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: UFOdanger

I have read (I think) the document that says the Ebionites considered Saul of Tarsus an "apostate" of a Hellenistic Greek background who wished to marry the daughter of the High Priest and was circumcised.

When informed he would not be marrying the High Priests daughter he became incensed, specifically against circumcision and the Jewish Torah.

So the Latin church, according to the pen of Eusebius of Cesarea a relative of Constantine and church historian, admits to the non acceptance of the Jewish Ebionim disciples of Jesus, of Paul, who never says he was named Saul and relies on the Septuagint which all point to a false pedigree.

Further the Ebionites rejected the deity of Christ and said at baptism he became the Son of God by receiving the Holy Spirit, who was female. He was not born of a virgin either and the way he interpreted the Torah was how they lived not forsaking what was a multi generational tradition. Paul said that the Torah was a curse because it appealed to the Greeks and did, even according to Acts, get him in hot water for it from Yacov at Jerusalem. He ends up in the hands of hundreds of Roman soldiers also is something Acts claims. Pretty hard to believe but that he was actually rescued from the Romans and never saw or dealt with the apostles again, nothing exists to say he did and to think it is no more logical as when he writes he is writing AGAINST them, and without using names, they him. Albeit more humbly.

But the icing on the cake is the so called Gospel of the Hebrews which is probably the original Matthew. Eusebius claims they redacted the real original and that a man named Ebion, who didn't exist as Ebionim means Poor, plural, founded the Ebionites. An outright lie as not only are ''the Poor" mentioned by Paul who is quoting James, but Jesus too. Lost in translation.

And they were the first or second most common title for the sects that authored the DSS, second or first being Zaddikim, I've never actually counted but those two, Sons of Light, and Hasidim were also used which is interesting as no evidence of a group called the Essenes exists in any fragment. Osim is used once and some try using that meaning Doer or Doers Ha Torah or of Torah. No way does one obscure mention that they follow the Torah is a pathetic attempt.

But the community had 12 and 3 leaders, like the apostles and James, John and Peter with possibly a Righteous Teacher if there were more than one and a Wicked Priest as well as a Lying Tongue/Comedian refered to that is all so familiar.

Shalem.

Do you have any idea why people like InhaleExhale refuse to listen to us?

There is one thing to be said to every American or European Christian: Your Jesus was Jewish! You admit that. So listen to the Jewish Christian manuscripts. I am telling you the truth that the Greek manuscripts do not agree with the Jewish Christian manuscripts, so why do you refuse to believe the Jewish and do believe in the Greek, when the Greek is also filled with unrealistic miracle stories!

originally posted by: UFOdanger

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: UFOdanger

I have read (I think) the document that says the Ebionites considered Saul of Tarsus an "apostate" of a Hellenistic Greek background who wished to marry the daughter of the High Priest and was circumcised.

When informed he would not be marrying the High Priests daughter he became incensed, specifically against circumcision and the Jewish Torah.

So the Latin church, according to the pen of Eusebius of Cesarea a relative of Constantine and church historian, admits to the non acceptance of the Jewish Ebionim disciples of Jesus, of Paul, who never says he was named Saul and relies on the Septuagint which all point to a false pedigree.

Further the Ebionites rejected the deity of Christ and said at baptism he became the Son of God by receiving the Holy Spirit, who was female. He was not born of a virgin either and the way he interpreted the Torah was how they lived not forsaking what was a multi generational tradition. Paul said that the Torah was a curse because it appealed to the Greeks and did, even according to Acts, get him in hot water for it from Yacov at Jerusalem. He ends up in the hands of hundreds of Roman soldiers also is something Acts claims. Pretty hard to believe but that he was actually rescued from the Romans and never saw or dealt with the apostles again, nothing exists to say he did and to think it is no more logical as when he writes he is writing AGAINST them, and without using names, they him. Albeit more humbly.

But the icing on the cake is the so called Gospel of the Hebrews which is probably the original Matthew. Eusebius claims they redacted the real original and that a man named Ebion, who didn't exist as Ebionim means Poor, plural, founded the Ebionites. An outright lie as not only are ''the Poor" mentioned by Paul who is quoting James, but Jesus too. Lost in translation.

And they were the first or second most common title for the sects that authored the DSS, second or first being Zaddikim, I've never actually counted but those two, Sons of Light, and Hasidim were also used which is interesting as no evidence of a group called the Essenes exists in any fragment. Osim is used once and some try using that meaning Doer or Doers Ha Torah or of Torah. No way does one obscure mention that they follow the Torah is a pathetic attempt.

But the community had 12 and 3 leaders, like the apostles and James, John and Peter with possibly a Righteous Teacher if there were more than one and a Wicked Priest as well as a Lying Tongue/Comedian refered to that is all so familiar.

Shalem.

Do you have any idea why people like InhaleExhale refuse to listen to us?

There is one thing to be said to every American or European Christian: Your Jesus was Jewish! You admit that. So listen to the Jewish Christian manuscripts. I am telling you the truth that the Greek manuscripts do not agree with the Jewish Christian manuscripts, so why do you refuse to believe the Jewish and do believe in the Greek, when the Greek is also filled with unrealistic miracle stories!

The reason is Paul is more influential than Jesus and Paul denounced all things Jewish.

And they love Paul.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Thank you, I have uncovered this truth and I respect and love the Jewish Christians so much now I need to stand up and fight for them. Here is a famous quote from Eusebius of Cesarea, it shows how him and his Greek counterparts seriously believed in corrupting the church:

The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.
-Edward Gibbon

So what is this quote by Eusebius?

It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interest of the church might be promoted
-Eusebius

Those are the words of a car salesman. Those words come from the mouth of a pitiful corrupt pathetic and spiritually insignificant man. Eusebius is a liar, a fraud, a piece of filth, a demon in hell...

Joseph Wheless charged that Eusebius was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church, and a great romancer; in his hair-raising histories of the holy Martyrs, he assures us "that on some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs, even after having been fully digested"
jdstone.org...

Irenaeus is the less liar and forger of the fathers, and below he states that the fours gospels are the number four due to paganism. I am telling you all who are listening, there is so much paganism behind the NT is will make you cry if you don't wake up.

It is not possible that the gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world and the pillar and ground of the Church is the gospel, it is fitting that we should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side
-Irenaeus

How are Christians so utterly blind? How are they in such denial that they cannot admit what is in front of their face? Every Christian who does not listen Will Be Taken For a Fool in the next world to come.

a reply to: UFOdanger

Yes, though I don't find Iranaeus to be the biggest liar he was an intolerant jerk who persecuted anything that moved if it didn't agree with him.

He couldn't have been too bright either as his reasoning for the existence of no more or less than 4 Gospels is that there "are four cardinal directions and four corners of the world."

There is nothing logical behind that, the world doesn't actually have four corners and N,S,E,W are not religious concepts unless you are talking about direction to face while praying.

Eusebius was the worst though, I agree, he would lie about anything. the one occasion he speaks honestly that I can recall was to correct the erroneous belief that Zoroaster was Nimrod, something Christianity promoted at one time, probably because Zoroaster sounds like seed of Ishtar (Isis, Semiramis, Nimrods mother/wife), that is my personal theory of why they made that false connection.

But every good liar knows you have to appear honest, so I don't credit him for it as it is not that significant.