The True Authorship of the New Testament

reply to post by DissentFromDayOne


Another come-lately lurker. This one with a love of Jesus.

From one of your few posts lurker:

I got off aspartame (and all other artificial sweeteners) when I found the head of GD Searle rammed it through the FDA under questionable circumstances....the head of GD Searle who rammed it through? Donald Rumsfeld.

Well sir or madam, I got off the Jesus train when I found out who the "head" was. A story rammed through "under questionable circumstances". That's why the remaining Jews don't buy it. Their Messiah was supposed to win!

DissentFromDayOne? Cute name. What long time, Jesus loving member is this name a cover for? A few posts, no threads, came aboard just days ago. I was born at night, it just wasn't last night! You wont swallow any pill except for the big one. Don't choke on it.


[edit on 2-1-2010 by Hemisphere]

their messiah has allready won, their messiah is a group of people, reflected by
jesus as a mirror, symbol of what happened in the total of history.

the only problem is that they (religion) can't see their own messiah.
Just as humans in general can't see the logic of truth, which is god.

That's why you fight here, to understand, thats how it works.

anyway,
take care, be sceptic on your own views above being sceptic on others,
every idea from another is a wall along your road,
you choose where to bump on. How more walls, how more the road is clear,
and you'll find truth. More important is the way then the absolute yet.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by pasttheclouds]

Truth has logic?
I've seen that film from Mel Gibson, Apocalypto. There is pictured the importance and impact of civilization and also a function of religion in a civilization (class society). All evil you can imagine comes from civilization, and Christianity was meant to serve as apology for it, a means to convince people to accept the necessary evil. No more than that. And the way it does this is by confusing people. Confused people need someone to guide them. Abracadabra!

And it is nicely explained by Jesus from NT that all those who don't go along with the herd, are prodigal sons... Let us all hunt them down. And if they still don't want to comply, we got a stake for them...

confusion takes judgement away,
what you can't, you can't blame another
or you are morally dishonest

doubt is the way to salvation.

it is feeling secure, security that made monsters that abused religion.

what people accuse (with no open ending to understanding and forgiving) in others, is exactly what they probably do wrong
in their own selves.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by pasttheclouds]

The only positive guy in Bible is Job who wouldn't be affected by the evil from God and his pal Satan. And the other guy, what's his name, who wrestled with God (angel) all night and won.

Everybody else is just slave material.

jacob you mean, jacob symbolised israel, which symbolised you if you struggle for righteousness with god, which is truth

fighting with god, truth, gives you salvation
because you care

in opposite to ignorance.

that is the gospel, the quran and the bible,
all the rest is misunderstandings by human minds,

yes job is the prime example,
he knew suffering was not because of sin,
but because of CAUSE, and suffered because of his REASONING,
mental growth.

thats why israel played blessing and curse in the bible
because care makes mistakes,
thats why every accusation against another,
is one against the self.

Until this day religion and science play both curse and blessing,
it is still the same world, until tomorrow.


[edit on 2-1-2010 by pasttheclouds]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by oliveoil
Yeah, Matthew and Mark did author each a book in the NT. Whats your point

Neither Gospel was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.

K.

I didn't say that. I said that Matthew (who's account was indeed first hand) authored his book. And Mark (john mark, associate of peter) Authored his book.

reply to post by lordtyp0

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

They were trying to trap Jesus into self incriminating statements
Jesus was asked if it was right to pay tribute money to Caesar. If Jesus agreed that it was, he would seem to suport tyranny,and if he condemned the tribute,he could be held accountable by the Romans for disloyalty.

just thought I would add that to your post

Originally posted by pasttheclouds
their messiah has allready won, their messiah is a group of people, reflected by
jesus as a mirror, symbol of what happened in the total of history.

the only problem is that they (religion) can't see their own messiah.
Just as humans in general can't see the logic of truth, which is god.

That's why you fight here, to understand, thats how it works.

anyway,
take care, be sceptic on your own views above being sceptic on others,
every idea from another is a wall along your road,
you choose where to bump on. How more walls, how more the road is clear,
and you'll find truth. More important is the way then the absolute yet.

Thanks for that ptc. I think the Romans gave them a Messiah and then took him away. The Jews never knew a "Jesus", "Jeshua", "Jesse" that fit all of these criteria. I think Jesus was a composite character. One very blatant clue, I think, is "Do unto others". There happened to be a living Messianic contender that said this. It was not Jesus, it was Hillel the Elder (c.110BCE-10CE) and Josephus would have been very familiar with him and his school of sages. And of course even Hillel was not the first as you well know.

From Wikipedia on Hillel the Elder:

He considered "love of man" the kernel of Jewish teaching.

Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" (Shab. 31a). Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish moral law.

"Appear neither naked nor clothed, neither sitting nor standing, neither laughing nor weeping." Man should not appear different from others in his outward deportment; he should always regard himself as a part of the whole, thereby showing that love of man Hillel taught.

Snippets of teachings of course and not direct quotes but all having direct parallels to those of Jesus. The first "Love one another", the second "Do unto others" and the third "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

All of these teachings were accepted by the Jews already giving credence to this newly minted Messianic character and all of these teachings could be twisted by the Romans for their benefit. And so for the Romans, Love us even though you do not. Again, lift no hand against us and this is more than enough for you to know. Consider that Hillel gave them "the whole Torah" and then says go and learn. He didn't mean the rest of the Torah, he meant how to implement that one teaching. Submit! Finally no public displays of faith. We don't want you all gathering, knowing who is with you, plotting and comparing notes. Just a few examples of how Jesus was likely a composite character.

The way is extremely important and I hope to make my way unencumbered by the shackles of long dead men. Thanks!

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

They were trying to trap Jesus into self incriminating statements
Jesus was asked if it was right to pay tribute money to Caesar. If Jesus agreed that it was, he would seem to suport tyranny,and if he condemned the tribute,he could be held accountable by the Romans for disloyalty.

just thought I would add that to your post

Thanks Olive. I/we don't have to agree but there is logic to back that angle of course. Let's carry this further. Do you think the Jews would have had the opportunity to ask this of any Rabbi? Or do you think the Roman tax collectors would have taken the tribute without consent? I think the latter and that backs my take on this, that it was a veiled order to submit without resistance.

you are familiar with the teacher of righteousness
and the predictions in qumran for these times ?

Look, in the absolute, end of struggle, a human ends knowing nothing,
when he is an empty cup, he will be filled,
that is the cup of elijah, and it is becoming one with truth.

Because Truth is found where everything that is not true is
seen first.

this empty cup becoming is the prophets, the law and the way to the father,
which is logic or his better name Life and Truth.
Logic = see what is not true first = repenting = reflecting

anyway, as i said before, take care .

Originally posted by Hemisphere

The True Authorship of the New Testament

I've always thought that only a Roman could have written that.

You are right.

Luke, Acts, and the Epistles, were all written by Saul (and he edited the others too). And also, Saul was Josephus Flavius.

But Saul-Josephus was a Jewish quisling (traitor) working for the Romans. Judaism had fomented many revolts, and its people were very divisive and separatist - they were not good Romans. So what Rome wanted was a Rome-friendly Judaism - Judaism Lite, or Simple Judaism as I call it.

Saul-Josephus created that new form of Judaism for Emperor Vespasian, and it was promoted by these Emperors (with Vespasian's cousin becoming the third Pope). The persecutions we all hear about, were of the Nazarene - the original Church of Jesus. Rome wanted Judaism Lite, not a cult that promoted castration (Tossers of Testicles, as they were known).




.

reply to post by pasttheclouds


Obviously, your empty cup is overflowing, my brother.

When religion is mandatory, people are terrorized and victimized by it.
In other words, such religion is the source of violence. And everyone who has filled his cup with it becomes the same.

Originally posted by Hemisphere

The True Authorship of the New Testament

Read the following Biblical verse:

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

- Mark 12:17 KJV

I've always thought that only a Roman could have written that. Give to me, your oppressor, everything of earthly value and as for God? Give him those intangibles that will soothe you. Give God your soul, your prayers and your allegiance. Those have no value to the Caesars. You are slaves and we your controllers have given you a creed that will sustain you in your oppression and lock you blissfully into that oppression.

The NT is full of catch phrases that prescribe submission to tyranny.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. - Matthew 5:5 KJV

That's quite a promise and as I said the NT is a submission repository in my opinion. I am far from alone as many have suspected a direct connection between the Roman Empire and the authorship of the New Testament.

Wow,
Looks like you put some research into this topic.

Now that we have your opinion on what those verses mean, to prove your point we need the opinion of the early christian church. Can you show any christian writers within the first 800 years that espouse the same opinion as you? Please list some primary sources. Otherwise you are just showing your ignorance of the subject.

thanks

Church and religion are being created and interpreted every moment and calling upon the authorities from the past is one of the most common tricks to shut up opposition.

What is this babbling about the meek who will inherit the kingdom of heaven?
It is the stick to hit people on their heads, nothing else.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Church and religion are being created and interpreted every moment and calling upon the authorities from the past is one of the most common tricks to shut up opposition.

What is this babbling about the meek who will inherit the kingdom of heaven?
It is the stick to hit people on their heads, nothing else.

I am not calling up any authorities. The OP needs to show that his opinion matches that of the early church to show that the verses were used to subjugate the church to the emperor of rome. If the OP cannot produce any commentary from church writing to that effect then his proposition falls flat. Hermeneutics is a very complicated science. Words can mean all kinds of things, but what they meant to the early church is what this whole thread is about. Otherwise we have a proposition without any proof and a poorly constructed assertion at that.

reply to post by Dr_Suess


There is no such proof. But, there is plenty of proofs in the practice. Vatican, Constantinople, (the Church itself) aspired to be the Empire. It was the most important political factor in Europe for a long time. What more proof do you need? This cannot be reduced to democratic interpretation of some verse. The Church has ruled with fire and sword for centuries. There is absolutely nothing to compare with the lambish verse assigned to Jesus from NT - Church practice is exactly the opposite. Nevertheless, people have been forced to stare into those verse as if that mattered. It was simply used as an attractor with only purpose to immobilize the oppressed masses. And it still works, because people are being conditioned not to educate themselves and not to develop analytical ability to abide by their own opinion.

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.

They were trying to trap Jesus into self incriminating statements
Jesus was asked if it was right to pay tribute money to Caesar. If Jesus agreed that it was, he would seem to suport tyranny,and if he condemned the tribute,he could be held accountable by the Romans for disloyalty.

just thought I would add that to your post

Thanks Olive. I/we don't have to agree but there is logic to back that angle of course. Let's carry this further. Do you think the Jews would have had the opportunity to ask this of any Rabbi? Or do you think the Roman tax collectors would have taken the tribute without consent? I think the latter and that backs my take on this, that it was a veiled order to submit without resistance.

I think that if the tribute was not collected they would have collected something else or maybe even rape or beat or kill.

There is no such proof.

So you have read all the primary sources on this subject or is this just an uneducated assertion on your part?

But, there is plenty of proofs in the practice. Vatican, Constantinople, (the Church itself) aspired to be the Empire.

Again you will have to show me wear the church tried to be the government itself and not just a major influencing part. The verse used in the OP was proposed as meaning to subject oneself to the government not the church. What about the first three centuries of the christian church before the government of rome was christianized?

What more proof do you need?

I need proof that this is what the church taught to its members. Otherwise you and the OP are making baseless assertions which show very little thought or time even given to the subject at hand.

This cannot be reduced to democratic interpretation of some verse.

Who said it needed to be? Give me one primary source from the first 800 years of the christian church. Just one. Please actually do some research.

Originally posted by Dr_Suess

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Church and religion are being created and interpreted every moment and calling upon the authorities from the past is one of the most common tricks to shut up opposition.

What is this babbling about the meek who will inherit the kingdom of heaven?
It is the stick to hit people on their heads, nothing else.

I am not calling up any authorities. The OP needs to show that his opinion matches that of the early church to show that the verses were used to subjugate the church to the emperor of rome. If the OP cannot produce any commentary from church writing to that effect then his proposition falls flat. Hermeneutics is a very complicated science. Words can mean all kinds of things, but what they meant to the early church is what this whole thread is about. Otherwise we have a proposition without any proof and a poorly constructed assertion at that.

The Church and the Empire were one in the same that's the assertion. Why would one give away the other? That's the point of my premise. Rome authored Christianity. If you read through the thread you would see that this was brought up by another poster:

* Sozomen, Historia Ecclesia, Book 1, ch.21. This describes the results of the council. (Chapter 17 onwards describes the council). Constantine writes to all the cities ordering the destruction of the works of Arius and his followers, and the penalty of death for any who refused to destroy them. The letter is not quoted. There is also an anecdote where a Novatianist bishop is interviewed by the emperor. The bishop agrees to sign the creed but not to resume communion with the Catholics. Constantine tells him to get a ladder and ascend into heaven alone, then; but there is no mention of action against the Novatianists.

Although not my find, I expect that is the way dissension was handled and thus none or scant little written evidence to be researched. These were devious people out to conquer the world. The Romans were both shrewd and ruthless. Covering their tracks and eliminating their enemies. If they could win with mind control, all the better.