Jesus allegedly wrote nothing during his life, both up to & during his ministry. Or did he..?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Greetings ATSers

The OP on this thread seems to cling to the delusion that there magically-existed a single, error-free, divinely-sanctioned, letter-for-letter version of the Hebrew Scriptures (or in the case of Daniel, Ezra & Nehemiah, Hebrew with long Aramaic sections) during the life-time of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (c. BCE 12 - c. 36 CE); but the Dead Sea Scrolls (re-discovered in 1947 at Qumran (= ancient Secaccah) blows all of that nonsense out of the water and clearly demonstrates anything approaching that conclusion is based on pure fantasy.

One must also add that (apart from some scribbling in the sand with his index finger during the stoning of an adulteress in the 4th canonical Greek Gospel, 'according to Yohanon', whoever he was), the 'good Rebbe' left posterity nothing in writing, foreshadowing the later Christian dictum outlined in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that 'the (written) Letter (causeth) Death; it is the Breath that giveth life...')

In fact a close-examination of the (albeit fragmentary) surviving carefully-handwritten copies of the Torah, Prophets & Writings (written between BCE 300 and 68 CE, with the majority copied while the 2nd 'Herodian' Temple in Jerusalem was in existence, with many of these copies still being copied-out during the lifetime of R. Yehoshua) shows that the Hebrew texts of the 'Old Testament' were not in any single version-form but were, in fact, 'pluriform', i.e. the caves 1-11 contained non-matching copies of the same book (e.g. whether it be Isaiah or Genesis) which existed in two or even three versions lying side by side in their jars, sealed-up in 68 CE (see e.g. 1QIsa and 1QIsb of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, where the letter-for-letter differences, sometimes whole words or phrases, are totally different from one another, in more than 100 places.

Have a look at some of the telling research undertaken by the methodical Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Emmanuel Tov, a brilliant Hebrew linguist who has studied the thorny issue of the text of the Hebrew Bible for more than thirty years and had eventually come to the conclusion that before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, there was no single, authoritative text comprising the Hebrew Bible nor was there even a single canonic list of books before then (even whole books like Esther and Hezekiel had not been finally decided to be included when the Rebbes met in Javneh in 90CE after Jerusalem had been ground to powder) to decide the matter more or less in favor with the Masoretic unpointed text which had been popular earlier among Babylonian Jews). In fact, as the Dead Sea Scrolls show, there are whole books of the Hebrew OT that were widely regarded as 'defiling the hands' (an odd expression meaning, 'holy and authoritative sacred scripture') before 70 CE that are no longer included in modern-day Bibles, such as The Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch (i.e. 1 Enoch), the Testament of Moses, Judith, Tobit, The Book of The Divisions of the Times Into Their Jubilees and Weeks (aka The Book of Jubilees') to name only a few of them.

All that existed before 70CE when 'Jesus' was still alive were various handwritten copies of books of the OT that didn't match each other letter for letter. Moreover, judging from the words placed into his mouth in the canonical Greek Gospels, 'Jesus' could not possibly have produced a single version of the Torah and Prophets, when his own quotations placed into his mouth (especially the Greek citations of OT prophecies in 'Matthew' and in OT citations found in the Book of Revelation) do NOT match very closely the later Masoretic Text (c. 900CE) used by Jews and Protestant Christians to-day, but actually quote (in Greek translation) from several of these ancient and earlier variant versions that existed 'in the wild' and often line up more closely with the variant versions found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the Hebrew and Aramaic textual underlays (the actual Hebrew source material) to the Greek Septuaginta LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible (c. BCE 250), the Hebrew texts underlying the (later) Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible by Symmachus and Aquila and Theodotion (c. 120 CE) who likewise utilized several 'pluriform' non-Masoretic Hebrew textual (consonantal) underlays.

What all this boils down to is that the 'Hebrew Bible' that 'Jesus' was familiar with before 70 CE DID NOT MATCH the text of the Hebrew Bible used to-day and that the 'books' he and his disciples would have regarded as 'sacred scripture' are no longer part of the modern text of 'the Bible.'

Clear as mud ?

originally posted by: Sigismundus
What all this boils down to is that the 'Hebrew Bible' that 'Jesus' was familiar with before 70 CE DID NOT MATCH the text of the Hebrew Bible used to-day and that the 'books' he and his disciples would have regarded as 'sacred scripture' are no longer part of the modern text of 'the Bible.'

Clear as mud ?

Thank you Sigismund's for very informative post.
I always suspect original ancient texts are nothing like we have today. I also believe that original oral verses were different than written texts due to difficulty of ancient people to express their thought accurately through primitive symbols and letters. Due to this, it is impossible to get matching word-by-word narratives from one person to another, thus making it impossible to know the meaning accurately. This strengthen my belief that, God does not attempt to preserve his words. All the prophets were sent in accordance to their eras and traditions. They were meant to be obsolete and replaced by newer convenants as our world evolve from bronze to enlightment age.

Based on your information, I come to realise that mud is far thicker than I previously thought.

a reply to: Sigismundus

"And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law."

-Apocalypse of Peter

a reply to: cooperton

quick question...

Why are you poking though gnostic material lately?

a reply to: Akragon

2 questions.

1) Why does an unbeliever like yourself study a Bible?

2) Can you give me at least five different meanings of the English word escheweth? The challenge is for you not to go to any so called original languages other than English. You may use all the English variants of it as well. i.e. N
nouns, verbs, adjectives and the like.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon

2 questions.

1) Why does an unbeliever like yourself study a Bible?

2) Can you give me at least five different meanings of the English word escheweth? The challenge is for you not to go to any so called original languages other than English. You may use all the English variants of it as well. i.e. N
nouns, verbs, adjectives and the like.

First... Im not an unbeliever... I just don't believe your version of God, or the bible for that matter... Though i did believe in your book before i actually studied it...

And what does #2 have to do with anything?

a reply to: Akragon

then you are an unbeliever in Christ and the word of God that shows the truth.

#2 has a lot to do with you showing you know what you say when you said you studied the Bible.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

An unbeliever in "Christianity"... And thus your interpretation of the bible, and its usefulness

I don't idolize said book as you clearly do... i don't hold it on a pedestal...

I don't believe the book is "the word of God" though i do believe said words can be found within...

Just because YOU believe the book is does not mean i should bow to your beliefs... nor am i forced to agree with them

AS you've said in the other thread... We are not brothers, and though i disagree... your beliefs and preaching of such have no effect on me.

Like many Christians, i see little to no love in your words

And So... AS you believe i do not know your god... i would say YOU do not know God, or his messiah

The love of God is just not in you....

Unfortunately from what i've seen, the only thing you love is your book.... and perhaps those that agree with your belief system

a reply to: Akragon

You don't believe the Bible as it stands, literal, unbiased, Bigoted, racial, segregational and objective. You would change it to fit your own belief and make God a liar, and you or man if you like, the basis of all truth.

I love God, His WORD, the Holy Bible and the people of God. Jesus is my Saviour, He is a messiah tot he Jews, I am not a Jew. I love God Through is Son, the WORD, the Lord of Hosts, The fullness of the Godhead Bodily. For his work on the cross was God Grace to all men, as his grace has been since the beginning.

The Love of God is what continues my ability to look above you unsound mind and see that you need Jesus Christ as saviour above all else and until then, the word of God will remain a total mystery to you. You couldn't or wouldn't even give me five biblical meanings for the English word Eschew. That tells me a lot about what you don't know, and even more about what you think you know.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Right... you love your book

and it makes you feel superior to other people...

We've been over this before man

whatever you say

a reply to: Akragon

no The Love of God's words is part of the whole Christian experience as it is to love Christ and God the Father. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

Not superior. But it is something God honors, the first verse are about loving God's word

Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
Joh 15:9 ¶ As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Ro 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 8:3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 6:6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
[/quuote]

a reply to: ChesterJohn

no The Love of God's words is part of the whole Christian experience as it is to love Christ and God the Father. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

Christian most of my life dude... i know all about your beliefs

Not superior. But it is something God honors

Like i said, whatever you say man...

Your words reflect whats in your heart

And it ain't love

a reply to: Akragon

I stand by your own words, you are not an never have been a true Christian. You have already proven by your own confession and not one idle word will pass when you stand before him and he shows your lies. If you love God, Jesus then you will love his word.

The only one that has all the verses in it is the AKJV. But you deny it,hate it, claim it is in error and written by mere men. A Christian all their life knows better than to confess such.

I know a man who published a book that denied the resurrection of the believers, raved against the AKJV and premillennialism. Two weeks after it was published he was admitted to a hospital with stage 4 prostrate and bone cancer. Said he was a Christian for over 40 years and he denies the resurrection of the believers. Paul said that was a false teaching.

All he had to do was believe the scriptures instead of men. He is still in the hospital and a friend is going to see him but even at bedsides it is hard to convince someone that after he dies he will be resurrected when they believe it already took place. We know who taught him his preterist view, the man is trusted by many and leading many to deny the resurrection of the believer. That is a worker for the Devil and he is a so called Christian

So people can claim all they want but only through faith on the FINISHED Work of Jesus Christ substitutionary death on the cross saves a man. It is a gift of God not of works. God inspired those words for us to have assurance of our resurrection even as Jesus was resurrected through the Spirit of God.

Does your Bible version tell you to study the word of Truth and how too? check 2 Timothy 2:15, the AKJV is the only one that does.

Good night my friend but until I see the correct Biblical view come from you I will not call you brother.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nonsense...

A Christian does not need to abide my your standards.... and many a "true Christian" have realized the truth of Christianity and abandoned it

Only difference between myself in my Christian years (which was most of my life as i've said) and you, is that i have never bought into the bullshtick of inerrancy.

I don't hate, the bible, or anything for that matter... unlike yourself, Hate is not in me... so theres no need to lie about it

So again, you keep your Paulian beliefs... I'll have none of it, and stick to what the man you call God instead

a reply to: Akragon

A christian has to abide by Bible standards. and those standards are found in the church writings of Paul. Deny His writings is to deny Christ substitution for your death. you can't be saved by OT through the Gospels of John and be saved in the church age.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon

A christian has to abide by Bible standards.

You idolise your bible. Your bible states to not idolise things. That would make you not a Christian, according to your above sentence.

At least you finally came out and admitted it.