Since Jesus didn't write his parts in the four gospels...

...the word written "to" could truely be "two" in, say, an english version for an example of much more concerning words Jesus chose to utter by voice than write himself.

It is a good damn reason why Jesus did not write his parts in these gospels we get to read. The reason is maybe Jesus wanted each people to go by the sound of the words written in their language rather than the original written word by translation. The language Jesus spoke may also have words where if written by someone else other than Jesus you could be missing the actual truth in what word Jesus actually uttered verbally.

Here is an example by the english language. Take this gospel quote below and go by what it sounds like in the way that may happen to also make sense, and see if it makes sense or not:

"For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch." What it may sound like: Fore the Sun of Man is ass a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority two his servants, and two every man his work, and commanded the porter two watch.

Well, that's just for starters as to a reason why Jesus chose not to write the exact words he was speaking, but left it up to them which originally wrote what they can only think Jesus spoke. Anyone see what I mean?

Oh yeah, and from the sound like version I take it the two servants watch the porter (baggage carrier or burden carrier) for reasons being the baggage or the burden rather than the porter just watch.

Truth is universal when you uncover it, so I take it the english words written in, say, the KJV can also be translated to what they may also happen to sound like. But what think you?

Here is another last example I'll leave you with:

"Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." What it may sound like: To women, shell bee grinding together; the won shell bee taken, and the other left.

bee would mean to have eccentric or fanciful ideas or schemes. And so I take the sound like version to mean the other is the shell which lost in being, say, a fanciful scheme. See how what it sounds like goes well?

The truth is in truth. Why else did Jesus say "in truth" a lot? It is what it sounds like there. And it's since you have to uncover the uttered secrets from the foundation of the world for yourself. An uttered secret is what it may happen to also sound like. Get what I'm implying now?

A conspiracy is the uttered words have been sealed up by the writings by others other than Jesus himself. It's up to us to wipe away the conspiracy that's coving up the utterance. Utterance is vocal expression which trumps vocal expression being written down by someone other than the one uttering.


[edit on 16-3-2010 by Tormentations]

I think the book written by jesus was probably taken out
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/22faf7d74632.gif[/atsimg]

I think you're misunderstanding the fact that Jesus did not speak English.

reply to post by Tormentations


The Gospels were written way way after the fact, why do you think they are so full of impossibilities and supernatural happenings. The teachings might be in tact on some level but I'm guessing a lot of supernatural embellishments took place, as typically happens with mythical figures (even those based on real people).

Sort of like a good fish story, every time you tell it the fish gets bigger, the comic zaiger posted might have eventually came to be if people had kept writing Gospels, who knows maybe one of the lost Gospels contains zombie Jesus' ultimate revenge...

Here it is!

Matt 13:35

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

It does not say I will WRITE things which have been kept secret. No! It says I will UTTER things which have been kept secret. Utter by way of open mouth. Utter is vocal expression. Yes, there are some spots in the gospel of Jesus sayings where one should INDEED go by what it happens to ALSO sound like. For it is wisdom that says you should go by such.

There are different secrets embeded in every language written if you go by the sound-like conversion method I'm using.

But to each their own. No one has to be as wise as I am to know to go by what written words may also sound like.


[edit on 17-3-2010 by Tormentations]

reply to post by Solasis



What makes you think Jesus hadnt anticipated the english language? Or any languages for that matter?

Being the all-knowing, certainly you undereximate God's intellect and intelligence and master mindedness in the scheme of things.

There are utterances of what is in truth hidden under written languages of Jesus' sayings.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Tormentations]

No there OP, Hebrew Greek and Latin (all of which He knew to read and speak) are explicitly definitive...

We run into very few mistakes in quote and translation -mostly due to similarity to a verse in the Scriptures extant in His times- and rarely due to a similar sounding word.

English is strange among languages for being so diverse in meaning of words sounding alike, for Him that was not a problem (usually)!


An obvious example of this is the single letter difference between the words ShaBaCh "forsake"/abandon and ShaBaQ 'kept/ preserved' in the supposed quote from Psalm 22 "why have you forsaken me" rather than the correct saying of "for what I was kept"!



[edit on 2010/3/17 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]

Lets hear your translation of this OP?

John 10:16
American King James Version
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Heeeeey...Maybe that means ET ?

[edit on 17-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

First of all...back in that time papyra which is what they wrote on was very expensive and possibly even hard to come by for the lower income peoples ..
Second they wrote on tablets first (they took notes while they walked with him)
And later on down the road made it into a book form.(Like 20 years or so later).....

I had a link once where they found tablets that had scripture written on them that came from the apostles time period (Its lost in my links and would take days to find it because I have so many links lol ..or I could have lost it when backing up files when I got my new computer) but I will see if I can find it.

Plus Jesus only walked with the apostles teaching them everything in a very short period of time (3 1/2 years) .....he spent days and nights with them teaching along with spending hours and hours with crowds of people ..and going to peoples houses healing etc ..so when would he have had time to write it all down too ? ........



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Simplynoone]

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Simplynoone]

I still could not find it but I did find this that I kept on my computer..(I checked the link and it still works)
I think you will find it interesting if you havent seen it before ..


Raiders of the Lost Codex
Scholars Piece Together Ancient Bible

By Matthias Schulz

Parts of the 1,600-year-old Codex Sinaiticus -- which includes the world's earliest complete New Testament -- are scattered between Leipzig, London and St. Petersburg. Now researchers want to digitize the fragments and publish the whole volume on the Internet. But controversy still rages over the proper ownership of the relic.
(Read the whole thing its very interesting)
www.spiegel.de...

truth is your soul. Nothing else. That is the immortal part of you. The words of Jesus or any other prophet is not as important as the words you speak to yourself. That is the only way to learn, through self-study. You can't place your faith in a guru, it doesn't work.

reply to post by wayaboveitall

[[[[[[[[Lets hear your translation of this OP?
John 10:16
American King James Version
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Heeeeey...Maybe that means ET ? ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Nope I think if you would really think about it ...When Jesus told them that Paul had not yet come on the scene and Paul was the one that was sent to the GENTILES (them being the other sheep that were not of the fold of the literal Israelites) ............Because the Jews rejected Christ and the apostles it opened the door for the Gentiles to be invited as adopted children.

The invite for those to come to the wedding tells the whole story ..the wedding was being prepped for in advance and the prophets who were sent to give out the invitations went to those who were invited(the Israelites) they didnt want to come ..they treated the prophets badly (John the Baptist etc) then the father sends his own son and they kill him ..so then the prophets are told to out into the highways and byways and invite ANYONE would come (this is the Gentile world that was invited now) ...

Its all here ...

Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
(Read the whole chapter to see all of it ) ..
Mat 22:10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
Luk 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel [them] to come in, that my house may be filled.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Simplynoone]

Gday,

Originally posted by Tormentations
...the word written "to" could truely be "two" in, say, an english version for an example of much more concerning words Jesus chose to utter by voice than write himself.

So,
Jesus didn't write his own words, because Jesus would not know exactly what word Jesus meant, so he left it to someone ELSE?

As if someone ELSE would know better than Jesus what Jesus meant ?

Originally posted by Tormentations
The language Jesus spoke may also have words where if written by someone else other than Jesus you could be missing the actual truth in what word Jesus actually uttered verbally.

Now you say if someone ELSE wrote it, you could be missing the actual truth?


You just completely contradicted yourself in the first 2 paragraphs.
Are you drunk?


K.

reply to post by Tormentations


Just consider how writing would have slowed him down. all the timing getting bogged up in penmanship...edits...sort of like looking at tapes of movies captured...you miss out on thee present as soon as you start reliving (writing) the past, no matter how recently passed.

Gday,

Originally posted by Simplynoone
First of all...back in that time papyra which is what they wrote on was very expensive and possibly even hard to come by for the lower income peoples ..

Which shows the books were not written by anyone who knew Jesus

Originally posted by Simplynoone
Second they wrote on tablets first (they took notes while they walked with him)

No they didn't.
There is no mention of this ANYWHERE in Christian writings.
There is NO evidence of tyhis happening at all.

There is NOT ONE SINGLE claim to have met Jesus, or anyone who knew Jesus (not countin the forged 2 Peter.)

Not ONE Christian claimed to have met Jesus.
When anyone who HAD would have enormous credibility.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
And later on down the road made it into a book form.(Like 20 years or so later).....

Rubbish.
The books were written between 40 years a century after the alleged events.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
I had a link once where they found tablets that had scripture written on them that came from the apostles time period (Its lost in my links and would take days to find it because I have so many links lol ..or I could have lost it when backing up files when I got my new computer) but I will see if I can find it.

There are NO contemporary references to Jesus or the apostles.
None.



K.

reply to post by Kapyong




Did you see my second post where I showed where they say they do have some writings .....check it out ..
www.spiegel.de...


MOre
The New Testament, however, survived in the Ancient Aramaic throughout the ages. In the 4th Century, the University in Urhai (in today's Turkey) was the center for Christian studies. The Ashurai theologians were prominent in the early Church. Working with the Jewish converts of the Christian faith they produced the Bible as we know it today. They put it together from the different manuscripts they had collected and copied by hand from the apostles. Then the persecution of the Aramaic speaking people began by Rome and the Ashurai theologians, priests and deacons were driven out of the region towards the Persian Empire. Many of them were killed. Ironically, driving out the Ashurai Church of the East from the Roman sphere of influence was the key factor in the preservation of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures.
www.v-a.com...

More
www.probe.org...

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Simplynoone]

Originally posted by Tormentations
reply to post by Solasis

 

What makes you think Jesus hadnt anticipated the english language? Or any languages for that matter?

Being the all-knowing, certainly you undereximate God's intellect and intelligence and master mindedness in the scheme of things.

There are utterances of what is in truth hidden under written languages of Jesus' sayings.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Tormentations]

Coudn't he have also seen then, that his words would be used by people to torture and murder others? Or did he skip over that bit?

Actually the earliest disciples of this R. Yehoshua bar Yosef person believed that the End of the World was coming within their own lifetimes ('Amen Amen I say unto you: there are some standing here now that will not taste of death until they see the Bar Enasha (Son of Man, see Aramaic Daniel 7:13) approaching the Power of EL upon the clouds of heaven, with all of his holy ones with him') so there was NO NEED TO WRITE ANYTHING DOWN since there WAS NOT GOING TO BE A POSTERITY in their Weltanschauung ('world view') :

The Kittim (aka the 'sons of Darkness' = those filthy non Jewish Roman goyim 'idolator-occupiers of the holy land') were going to be overthrown after some kind of Cosmic Final Battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness ('The Times of the Amorites are Fulfilled ! Repent now and believe the Good News of the Coming Kingdom !') and the 'saints of the most High El' will 'reign with Messiah ben-Joseph for 1000 generations' i.e. on a new earth under a new heaven cleared of all 'the evildoers' who basically would be destroyed 'leaving no remnant'

cf: 'in that Day the poor ones will inherit the land [of Israel]' sometimes mistranslated as 'the meek shall inherit the earth'.

We recall the words of Saul of Tarsus some of whose teaching is recorded in the hotchpotch letter of 2 Corinithians (composed of at least 4 different Pauline letters smashed into one letter)

'for the letter kills, but the spirit giveth life' - an old axiom which many in the earliest Christian communities must have taken to heart in their orality because they knew if they were ever to commit anything to writing (whether it was zionist passages from those dangeriously seditionistic Dead Sea Scrolls or some of the more political statements attributed to their Teacher) could be confiscated by the Romans and used as evidence against them.

Sedition against the State in those days carried the death penalty (well, some things never change - of course, we just waterboard people today)

There must have been a number of very solid political/survivial reasons why this R. Yehoshua did not write down any of his teachings - being when all is said and done, a Daviddic Pretender to the Throne of Israel (the Davidds were thrown out in 587 BCE in the Babylonian invasion (and in the Persian Invasion and in the Egyptian Invasion and in the Greek Invasion and in the Roman Invasion, and whatever DID happen to Zerubbabel anyway...he just 'disappeared' from the scene after his revolet against the Medes, but I digress) and were just ITCHING to come back to take back the holy land from the 'filfthy goyim' in the Last days to usher in the 'Kingdom', now being run by a corrput high priesthood appointed by Roman edicts ('the Hashmonean Priests following the Macabbean revolt in 163 BC eventually started after 104 BCE with John Hyrcanus to call themselves KINGS too...'thou shalt be unto me, sayeth YHWH, a Kingdom of Priests, a holy Nation...' which they applied to themselves.

Apparently when questioned about his doctrine at a preliminary hearing before his execution for armed sedition against Rome on the 100th Anniversary of the Roman Invasioin (Luke 22:41-51) he purportedly told his accusers - at least according to the 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('John' whoever he was) 'Why do you ask me? Ask those who HEARD what I had spoken to testify here...' whereupon he was beaten in the face for it by a close relative of the slave of the high priest - you know, the one who somehow got an ear cut off during the Scuffle on the Hill on the night of his arrest...

Either way, the original oral Northern Galilean traditions that had come from the lips of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (Gk. Iesous) were quite mangled even in the earliest oral stages before they were even translated into Greek then written down some 40 years later - hence GAMLA (Aramaic 'ship's rope') got easily confused with KAMLU ('camel') so that innocent sayings like

'It is easier for a Ship's Rope (Gamlu) to slide into the Eye of a Silkweaver's Needle than for a worshipper of Mammonah (the goddess of riches) to barge into the Kingdom of Heaven'

morphs into garbage in the Greek:

'It's Easier for a Camel to pass through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom'

And this is just one example of hundreds. When scholars look at the very very very bad Greek of say the 2nd canonical gospel ('Mark' whoever he was) and translate EACH WORD BACK INTO ARAMAIC, sometimes we get better grammar and sometimes even ARAMAIC POETRY - and when passed from the reconstructed Aramaic into English, we can see that many of his more 'harmless sayings' were actually politically charged words of rebellion e.g.

As derived from a Greek back to Aramaic grammer: 'Therefore, if any man IS ABOUT TO smack you on your LEFT cheek (i.e. with the back of the hand like a master would hit a slave), BE DEFIANT (i.e. don't let him !): turn to him the other cheek instead ! (i.e. make him clout you with the FRONT of the hand)

In other words, what he is really saying is: Remember who you are, the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (i.e. don't let them (the Roman Occupiers) treat you with disrespect...

This process of re-translation from the bad Greek placed into the mouth of 'Iesous' in the gospels back into his MOTHER TONGUE (1st century Galilean Aramaic) reveals alot of the TONE of the original teaching which echoes much of the zionist seditionist language of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were being copied up until they were hidden in their TIME CAPSULES in June of AD 68 during the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (at the 70th anniversary of the death of Herod when Jerusalem and Judaea passed into 'direct Roman rule')

No wonder the Catholic Church seized the Dead Sea Scrolls and prevented them from being published for more than 40 years (and when most of the matieral DID come out, it was against their orders and was fought bitterly in the courts for decades afterwards) -- here were documents that were CONTEMPORARY writings to the life of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (their purported Founder) who quoted VERBATIM from a a great many of them himself, if we are to believe anything in the canonical Greek placed into his mouth in the Gospels -- too close for comfort.

In fact the earliest Christian aphorisms echo the scrolls almost letter for letter in places - another disturbing discovery to hush up from the masses....



[edit on 17-3-2010 by Sigismundus]

Gday,

Originally posted by Simplynoone
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Did you see my second post where I showed where they say they do have some writings .....check it out ..
www.spiegel.de...

They 'have some writings'?
A bible copy from the 4th century?
So what?

I simply do not understand your point.
What does that have to do with Jesus time?

Originally posted by Simplynoone
They put it together from the different manuscripts they had collected and copied by hand from the apostles.

We have NO manuscripts copied by apostles.
All the mss are from long long after the alleged time of Jesus.
We have NO evidence for ANYONE ever meeting Jesus.


K.

Originally posted by Tormentations
The language Jesus spoke may also have words where if written by someone else other than Jesus you could be missing the actual truth in what word Jesus actually uttered verbally.

I assumed he meant misinterprated parables. I dont think people even then were misinterprating Synonyms of english, nor was anyone there speaking any form of english.

"Blessed are the cheesmakers" ?
"No dear, its not meant to be taken literally, it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products"

www.youtube.com...





[edit on 17-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]