The Conspiracy of the 'other' Gospel

so are you saying i can go around and do whatever I want like forsaking Jesus and refusing to ask for forgiveness because after a little "cleansing" I'll be fine to live eternally with him?

I love no consequences personally, makes my life so much better.

See my question before, about blaspheme the Holy Spirit, totally contradicts what your saying because it is unforgivable and yet your saying he will forgive it. Hmm.

If the above is misleading from what you are saying, I apologize, for that's what I got from your posts.

Hi Suzie:

What "gospels", pray tell, are written in Hebrew so that you could "read" them?

The canonical NT was written in late 1st century Koine Greek with only a few words here and there that roughly transliterated from the Aramaic into Greek like Hinnom (gehenna) and Benei Regesh (boanerges) and Gab Bayitha (gabbatha)\

What "bible" are you people reading????? !!!!!!!!!

Or as an infamous Rebbe once was purported to say to his own mother,

"Mah li u-lekha ?!!!"

Somebody needs to read their bible more closely...

or perhaps one should realize the Bible is open to interpretation by each individual.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I have seen this interpreted several ways. I prefer "except with me".

What "bible" are you people reading????? !!!!!!!!!

I have yet to figure out why anyone needs a Bible to figure the power of GOD.

Hi Madman across water

Are you referring to the god of the Jews or some other perhaps more universal god who doesn't necessarily hate gentiles?

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi QueenieAnne:

I'm a little confused, which "god" did you say was connected in some way with "love"?

That would be my God. The Living God.

What did their ANIMALS do wrong? sacrifice the wrong goat?

That's surely something you'd have to address to Yod He Vav He.

Even Adolph Hitler, monster that he was, didn't go so far as to exterminate the village animals and burn their bones upon his altar as a "perpetual holocaust"...

I'm not up for comparing God to Hitler, or any man. That seems too much like the potsherd striving against the potter.

Where's the "love" there? Are you actually closely reading what the text says?

Closer than you realize, no doubt.

I'm not understanding your logic, it seems, or even your feelings...

That's quite alright.

(or maybe you just need some help in understanding unpointed paleo-Hebrew...because the "bible" you're reading doesn't seem to match all the versions of the texts I have read very closely !)

That's not a problem, either ---in fact I'm quite literate when it comes to unpointed paleo-Hebrew, and my understandings come from that deeper root--I don't rely on the English translations for ultimate interpretation.

However, the understanding of scripture does not come from private interpretation. (or was that a forgery, also?)


I'm not sure your intentions here, other than what obviously seems a campaign to sway me to your school of thought. This thread was started about something I see as an inherent flaw in religion, ie men's theories, and I would think it obvious to the reader that I am not one to side with one man's opinion over another man's, when I don't even value my own opinion when it comes to essential truths according to the guidance given for studying the scriptures.

[edit on 9/16/2005 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by spamandham
I hope this doesn't come off too trite queenie, but if you live near a big city, the main library may have the book, or the ability to get hold of it at no cost to you.

In the age of internet, we tend to forget about this free and valuable service.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by spamandham]

No, it doesn't come off too trite! You're right--I forget about the library: my once-favorite of all places--so sadly forsaken for the world-wide library currently at my fingertips. *sigh*
Not a perfect source, either one--but together--the world of information for (almost) free!

You made me both laugh at myself and feel a nostalgic pain for my library-haunting days.

I'll have to investigate what they can do for me, thank you.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Queenie, when I gave up searching the truth in the 'endless writings of man' and read the gosples in the hebrew and greek (having all my life prayed to understand the truth of God) I found the same same "good news" you are shareing with us. Thank You for this thread.

It's amazing when you dig down to the original writings, isn't it? I have a little harder time with the greek, but the Hebrew seems to go perfectly with the message it's used for.

Hi Queenannie:

What "original version" of the paleo-Hebrew texts are you reading?

Do you mean the unpointed Hebrew "Masoretic text" of AD 980 based on a single MSS in Leningrad which did not become standardised until the middle ages in terms of counting middle letters in a column of text??

The various unpointed Hebrew and Aramaic Vorlages to the Greek LXX Old Testament (inlcuding Ben-Sirach and the Testament of Moses) used by the Dead Sea Sects, including the scribal marginalia additions?

Maybe you mean (at least as far as the Torah is concerned) the Sammaritan Pentateuch from around 470BC?

Or maybe all the Aramaic Targums found at Qumran from around 100 BC?

You do know, don't you, that all of these "original texts" differ from one another in actual verbal contents by more than 28% don't you?

Then how can you say you know the "text" as if it were a single entity?

Can you explain EXACTLY what you are talking about???!!!!!

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Queenannie:

What "original version" of the paleo-Hebrew texts are you reading?

I'm not 'reading' any certain one of those texts, in the sense of just 'reading' them. They are references, and the 'text' in general is the bible, itself. There are many versions, 'original' mss, and translations available for all parts of it, old and new testament. I don't count any certain one as the ultimate text, but instead study all the sources I have available. I quote from the KJV because it is handy and is public domain. But my understanding of the text, itself, comes from all the texts--although for the targum texts I have to rely on translators, since I don't know aramiac--and the greek is very time consuming, since I am only just getting deeper into the koine, but I use references of other ancient greek literature contemporary to the NT, as far as word usage of the time.

Why all the questions? Are you hoping to suggest your knowledge is superior than anyone else's, in order to further your campaign toward what you feel is a certain instance of forgery of an epistle or two in the bible?

IOW, what is your agenda? Because this line of questioning is meandering off topic of what was intended for this thread--if you've got something significant, then why don't you start a thread, yourself?

The question of selective salvation isn't really to do with Peter vs. Paul anyway--it seems you're on more of a 'jew vs gentile' tangent--and that's not what this thread is about.

At the time of the crucifixion, how many believers were there? None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.





Hay Queen,,, Maybe I am not understanding what you were talking about in this line..

If you are talking about followers of Jesus at the time he went to the cross, There were Many followers of his teachings, I think the NT at least says of over 10,000 or more by the time he went to the cross..

As for the rest of your threads, I can follow well enought ..... OK

Originally posted by jfdarby

At the time of the crucifixion, how many believers were there? None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.





Hay Queen,,, Maybe I am not understanding what you were talking about in this line..

If you are talking about followers of Jesus at the time he went to the cross, There were Many followers of his teachings, I think the NT at least says of over 10,000 or more by the time he went to the cross..

As for the rest of your threads, I can follow well enought ..... OK

Where do you find those kind of numbers in the NT, before the crucifixion? I only ask because I don't recall ever seeing such.

But I'm not talking about followers--I'm talking about believers in the resurrection--that's where the power lies, and not a single one of even his closest disciples remotely understood what was about to take place, even when He told them He was going to be executed soon. When Mary Magdalene went back to the 11, to tell them of the Risen Christ, they didn't believe her! She was the first to believe--and only after she saw Him Risen. Therefore, at the time of the crucifixion, the time of the actual sacrifice--no one could be legitimately called a believer in the resurrection.

Do you see what I'm saying, now? He died for a world that had not even one believer in what He was about to do. It is not correct to say He only died for believers, when there was no such thing at the time. The world did not know, did not believe, but yet He gave Himself for the world, anyway.

Originally posted by Forgiven
so are you saying i can go around and do whatever I want like forsaking Jesus and refusing to ask for forgiveness because after a little "cleansing" I'll be fine to live eternally with him?

Yes, and no. We are all born forsaking Jesus--none of us are born free of 'sin'--we are born to a world in which God is not apparent to our limited perception. It is not a 'little cleansing', it is purification and refining with the Holy Spirit of God. And it is never painless, never easy, and never fun. The longer one holds out, the more painful it is, I imagine.

I love no consequences personally, makes my life so much better.

Maybe on the surface, but when it comes to the point when you have to face the fire, ease is out the window.

See my question before, about blaspheme the Holy Spirit, totally contradicts what your saying because it is unforgivable and yet your saying he will forgive it. Hmm.

What does blaspheme mean? It means to say things against something. If one says things against the Holy Spirit, they are resisting the fire of purification, and therefore 'forgiveness.' Christ doesn't say that blasphemy will never be forgiven to anyone who ever does it--He says that blasphemy is the one thing that can never be forgiven. But once the blasphemy stops, forgiveness begins. We are all born resistant to the truth, just by the nature of our birth, as blind skin-clothed human beings.

[edit on 9/17/2005 by queenannie38]

Hi QueenieAnne:

You seem a mite confused by my posts on this threadlet---- which is perhaps understandable for a layperson who is still struggling with her Koine Greek.

But I seem to read in your initial proposition on this threadlet that "the Apostles preached the Gospel," ---the latter term which you refer to in the singular, as if it were set in stone and forever unchangeable over time.

My questions to you are actually quite basic:

l. Which persons (exactly) do you consider "hoi Apostoloi" (lit. "the sent ones"), or "Apostles" in your belief that they preached some kind of singular message of "good news"?

Can you provide a definite list of these apostle-persons you have in mind, when even the Greek gospels cannot even do so coherently?

2. Do you include "Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul)" in that number? Why? Because he said so? Because your church says so? Because you've never bothered to read around the subject with an open mind?

3. What "gospel" message (sg.) are you referring to, exactly?

Are you under the impression that "the gospel message" of the earliest Christians after the execution of their hero was somehow set in stone and was always contained the same exact message no matter who preached it or where or to whom?

Now take a deeeeeeeeeeep breath, back up and reflect for a minute:

Peter (Shimeon bar Yonah, haKephah) and the earliest Nazorean/Ebionite Christian churches were headed up by Daviddic blood relatives of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (starting with his own brother Yakkov ha Tsaddiq, aka James, who by the way was NOT NOT NOT one of the twelve disciples, and according to Mark's gospel was among those who wanted to lock his brother "Jesus" up for insanity, see Mark 3:4)--

The authority of the leader of this group was not based on whether they were a disciple of "Jesus" but rather on their blood lineages to the Daviddic family:

These early Nazorean groups preached a "Nazorean Gospel" message which was quite different in content from what was preached in the socalled Paul Gospel----Peter and the "so called Pillars" of the Jerusalem churches demanded obedience to the Torah and sacrifices in the then-standing Herodian 2nd Temple in Jerusalem long after R. Yehoshua was executed by the Romans.

These Nazoreans (many of whom knew and followed "Jesus" in the flesh during his lifetime) were called "Judaisers" or "of the circumcision" by Paul, who was naturally jealous of their influence over doctrine.

This Nazorean group preached a "gospel type number one" (aka the Nazorean Gospel) and can be echoed in e.g. words placed into the mouth of "Jesus" in "Matthew's" Greek-gospel, and reflected a "Jewish Messianic" gospel message preached not only in Palestine, but also in major port cities o the Roman Empire by the "twelve" who were sent out abroad (presumably by their Founder) "to preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (i.e. Jews with a Mesianic Hope) scattered amongst the Gentiles" i.e. in the Diaspora.

Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) on the other hand, never met "Jesus" except in dreams and trances, fought bitterly with the disciples of "Jesus", styled himself an "apostle", and clearly preached "another gospel" (gospel message #2) which was especially crafted for easy pagan Gentile consumption, who even after their baptismal conversion to his own mis-guided brand of "Christianity" were not compelled as new converts to be circumcised or eat Kashrut or follow any Mitzvot (commandements) of the Torah, even though "Matthew's gospel" (whoever wrote that book !) clearly has words to the contrary of this teaching coming out of "Jesus" mouth to the contrary, viz.:

"Think you that the Son of Man has come to destroy the Torah?: Amen I say uto you, the Son of Man has come forth not to destroy the Torah, but to add to it..."

"Whoever then goes against the smallest of the Mitzvot [the 613 commandments of Moses] and teaching men to do the same, will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven; but he who keeps these Mitzvot, teaching others to keep them, will be the called great in the kingdom of heaven..." (see Matt chapter 5:19)

or,

"The son of Man cometh ONLY to save the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel: and anyway, since when is it right for the Children's bread to be taken out of their mouths and thrown to dogs underneath the table?" (Matt chapter 15)

(try reading this last passage from Matt chapter 15 a couple of dozen times, in the Koine Greek if you can, where a "gentile" Syro-Phoenician woman with a sick daughter in need of "healing" was basically told at first to go to hell---being as it were a "dog under the table", i.e. being a member of an unclean race for whom the son of man was sent to preach to....)

In AD 70, Jersualem and its sacrificial temple was destroyed by the Romans in the failed Jewish Revolt (AD 66-72) , and the Nazorean church members and their leaders died during the uprising, or otherwise disappeared from the scene: what churches survived the war in the larger Greco-Roman empire was the curious and anti-Jesus message (Pauline Gospel Message Number Two) which became the core "message" of the official "gospel" of the Roman Catholic Church.

In view of all this, why do you insist on thinking there were only one set of "apostles" who all thought and acted alike and only "one single gospel" message-- when even a cursory examination of the texts you claim to be able to read in Greek show this not to be the case?

Walking around thinking you have some kind of divinely magical interpretive skills of imaginary religious texts that somehow are magically able to say to you what you want them to say to you is getting rather tiresome to many of us on this thread who have to deal with actual documentary evidence, and who have taken the time and trouble to study these issues in depth for a number of years...








[edit on 17-9-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS

You seem a mite confused by my posts on this threadlet---- which is perhaps understandable for a layperson who is still struggling with her Koine Greek.

Actually, my ‘confusion’ related to your posts has nothing to do with my so-called struggle with Koine Greek—what I’m puzzled about is your insistence in hijacking it from the originally intended topic. As I said before, if you’re concerned with the issues you keep bringing up, you have the perogative of starting a thread for the purpose of the discussion with which you’re interrupting this one.
Should I understand your above comment to be implying that you are a professor of some sort, or linguistic scholar? I'm just curious as to your criteria for determining 'layperson' status in the area of ancient languages?

My questions to you are actually quite basic:

l. Which persons (exactly) do you consider "hoi Apostoloi" (lit. "the sent ones"), or "Apostles" in your belief that they preached some kind of singular message of "good news"?

Can you provide a definite list of these apostle-persons you have in mind, when even the Greek gospels cannot even do so coherently?

God has sent messengers all throughout human history—malaks. These would include angels, prophets, and apostles. Being the ones sent from God, their message was unified around a singular core principle: the restoration of the ‘fall’ (or ‘salvation’).

2. Do you include "Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul)" in that number?

Yes

Why?

Because his message is part of the unified whole (not because the RCC chose to include his letters in their ‘canon,’ but because once his words are correctly understood, it becomes apparent.

Because he said so?

No.

Because your church says so?

I don’t go to church.

Because you've never bothered to read around the subject with an open mind?

Because I don’t agree with what you say doesn’t mean my mind is not open. If it weren’t open, I would be agreeing with you—because I’d still be holding on to the partial misunderstanding about the Paul thing that I had in the past. You assume I won’t investigate these things, or haven’t considered it, on my own. But the fact is, I have already gone through the Paul-identity crisis. I used to think surely he was ‘the antichrist’ or some such.

3. What "gospel" message (sg.) are you referring to, exactly?

The plan for restoration that has been in place since even before the fall.

Are you under the impression that "the gospel message" of the earliest Christians after the execution of their hero was somehow set in stone and was always contained the same exact message no matter who preached it or where or to whom?

My impressions are little to do with ‘christianity.’ I am not a ‘christian’ nor do I make any effort to follow christian doctrines and whatever else goes by that name. The gospel message started long before the NT times—back in Genesis.

Now take a deeeeeeeeeeep breath, back up and reflect for a minute:

Peter (Shimeon bar Yonah, haKephah) and the earliest Nazorean/Ebionite Christian being as it were a "dog under the table", i.e. being a member of an unclean race for whom the son of man was sent to preach to....)
what churches survived the war in the larger Greco-Roman empire was the curious and anti-Jesus message (Pauline Gospel Message Number Two) which became the core "message" of the official "gospel" of the Roman Catholic Church.

The ‘gospel’ of the RCC is a faulty one, at best—designed to maintain bondage rather than promote and declare liberation. What they promote as Paul’s message is not accurate—they don’t understand it at all. They’ve wrested with those words, as well—and what they have come up with, and the protestants who followed, is not ‘good news,’ nor is it consistent with the rest of the scriptures, especially the OT.

In view of all this, why do you insist on thinking there were only one set of "apostles" who all thought and acted alike and only "one single gospel" message-- when even a cursory examination of the texts you claim to be able to read in Greek show this not to be the case?

I don’t depend only upon one portion of the scriptures, nor do I pick one ‘testament’ over the other—the foundation of the NT is in the OT. That which I ‘insist on thinking’ is more properly, ‘that which has been revealed to me’—the process of which makes the unity of the Spirit an undeniable fact through personal experience.

Walking around thinking you have some kind of divinely magical interpretive skills of imaginary religious texts that somehow are magically able to say to you what you want them to say to you is getting rather tiresome to many of us on this thread who have to deal with actual documentary evidence, and who have taken the time and trouble to study these issues in depth for a number of years...

'Actual documentary evidence' is evidence collected, analyzed, and documented by men--which is obviously your own preferred 'authority'. That's all fine and good--we all have the right to choose whose 'truth' we will follow. I do not criticize you for that, but I do object to your insistence that I treat what you consider your authority with the same deference as you do---when I have chosen a different authority for my own guide. I believe whole-heartedly in Psalms 118:8. As far as 'the time and trouble to study these issues in depth for a number of years'--I can honestly claim approx 28 years in that area--just because I didn't arrive at the same conclusions that you have doesn't mean I am making rash statements without the backing of substantial research and study.

I did find a portion of text (from the book you recommended earlier in the thread) on-line, which I did read. It is here, FYI.

If my approach to this thread is getting 'tiresome' to you, then you might do well to take note of who started this thread, and once again, the main idea initially set forth.

Hay Queenie,, Guess what,, I has seen with my bran Of what my eyes has been looking at for a time..

I know that after he left the grave that some people will say he went world wide, telling tribes of his gift and his love he has left us, and the Bible only tells of his time he spent there in the Holy land...

I do understand now what You were trying to tell me OK.... Late is better, that not a all...

I recognize Queenannie, that you currently have your hands full with Amadeus, but a few of your statements aside from his/her concerns, caught my eye.

Originally posted by queenannie38The idea of 'hell' that the world currently holds is one based in christian theology…

Not true. Such a concept was already envisioned by the Essenes decades before the first writings attesting to Jesus and credited to Christians.

No doubt. We must be tried by fire--something which I didn't realize until it happened to me.

What in your mind constitutes no doubt? Obviously no doubt would unequivocally rely on all of humankind being in agreement, yet, we have not ever been and are not unequivocally in agreement that we must be “tried by fire.”

Which leads me to my next question, can you prove that your belief in that statement is in fact backed by undeniable evidence?

We are all born forsaking Jesus--none of us are born free of 'sin'--we are born to a world in which God is not apparent to our limited perception.

It is safe to say that this is the interpretation of those whom you rely on for your perception of true religiosity. Yet, in fact, there is nothing in the OT that actually supports this point of view unless the verses are twisted to interpretation. This notion of not being born free of sin is further compounded by the fact that there is an inadequate explanation as to why if man after Adam and Eve were born of their sin, Christian teachings to this day state and rely on Jesus as the redeemer of same by declaring that he died to redeem us of our sins. It is either then, that he-Jesus, washed away that so-called original sin or that he failed to do so. It cannot be both.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I recognize Queenannie, that you currently have your hands full with Amadeus, but a few of your statements aside from his/her concerns, caught my eye.

Originally posted by queenannie38The idea of 'hell' that the world currently holds is one based in christian theology…

Not true. Such a concept was already envisioned by the Essenes decades before the first writings attesting to Jesus and credited to Christians.

Would that be a concept similar to the tartarus/abyss ideology which is also found in early gnostic writings?

What in your mind constitutes no doubt? Obviously no doubt would unequivocally rely on all of humankind being in agreement, yet, we have not ever been and are not unequivocally in agreement that we must be “tried by fire.”

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you are saying/asking, but I'll try to answer and then maybe you can clarify if I'm not addressing the same point you are.
I thought I would include the whole quoted comment which was before my 'no doubt' reply:

Originally posted by Icarus Rising You must admit there has been, and will be a lot more human suffering and misery, and physical and emotional pain on the way to eternal life. Nobody ever said salvation was easy on the body and spirit, but its good for the soul, right? A God of Love, Peace, and Healing doesn't prevent suffering of the flesh, he uses it to bring salvation.

annieNo doubt. We must be tried by fire--something which I didn't realize until it happened to me.
It all depends on how we face the hardships and troubles of our lives--if we remain steadfast in optimism, not blaming an eternal Creator for temporal tribulation, then the truth will come to light and the hope will be seen as a fruitful investment, rather than a vain delusion than pessimism would have it to be.

Although I'm not sure if it will be any help to me...

You say that 'Obviously no doubt would unequivocally rely on all of humankind being in agreement,' but I can't relate--when I say 'no doubt' I am only speaking of that which I can legitimately claim certainty of (which is the opposite of doubt, of course). IOW, my lack of doubt in any certain statement or concept is solely based on personal certainty and so I can't see how that would be dependent upon whether or not any portion of the rest of humanity shares my certainty. In this particular case, I would have to say that I believe that humanity as a whole will not (can not) unanimously agree that there is truth to the statement that we must all be tried by fire--it is a certainty that can only come directly from the actual experience of same.

Also, my 'no doubt' was directly mainly at the last statement of that quote---which was 'A God of Love, Peace, and Healing doesn't prevent suffering of the flesh, he uses it to bring salvation.'

Which leads me to my next question, can you prove that your belief in that statement is in fact backed by undeniable evidence?

Certainly not--my belief is grounded and backed by evidence that can only be undeniable to me, personally--as it arises directly from my own experience. I could probably go a great deal into the specific background, the various situations and their cause-and-effect interactions in my life, as well as the subsequent results that came about in the end--but even if I were extremely adept at describing my inner experiences and understandings in such a way that you truly could understand where I was coming from, where I'm going, and what is occurring along the way--it would still be limited to the realm of personal testimony that only I can really perceive and process toward any benefit gained from such events.

We are all born forsaking Jesus--none of us are born free of 'sin'--we are born to a world in which God is not apparent to our limited perception.

It is safe to say that this is the interpretation of those whom you rely on for your perception of true religiosity. Yet, in fact, there is nothing in the OT that actually supports this point of view unless the verses are twisted to interpretation. This notion of not being born free of sin is further compounded by the fact that there is an inadequate explanation as to why if man after Adam and Eve were born of their sin, Christian teachings to this day state and rely on Jesus as the redeemer of same by declaring that he died to redeem us of our sins. It is either then, that he-Jesus, washed away that so-called original sin or that he failed to do so. It cannot be both.

Christian teachings are often a muddle in the midst of those seeking to overcome something which all forms of that religion inherently deny--which is duality. And duality is directly related the concept which has been deformed into legalism--centered around man's idea of what 'sin' is.

Sin=skin
Spirit=truth

Originally posted by jfdarby
Hay Queenie,, Guess what,, I has seen with my bran Of what my eyes has been looking at for a time..

I know that after he left the grave that some people will say he went world wide, telling tribes of his gift and his love he has left us, and the Bible only tells of his time he spent there in the Holy land...

I do understand now what You were trying to tell me OK.... Late is better, that not a all...

Wow.

Totally cool!