Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah? Part 2A

[PoFFizdaMan]

1 John was an early epistle, was it not?

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan The consensus seems to be that it was written from 90 to 130 (meaning anytime in that range).

Again, I think one would have better luck by temporarily shelving these FEW apparent anomalies and looking at the positive evidences that point toward the conclusion that there never was an actual Jesus on the landscape during the 1st century. I've explained SOME of those anomalies in later vids but not all of them. I'd love to knock out a few more soon.

[PoFFizdaMan]

@TruthSurge Out of the ones that you've explained were thoses verses among them?

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan nope. I have not yet tried to deeply examine the 1 John "flesh" references. I know Earl Doherty likes to translate that as "in the sphere of the flesh" which would then allow Jesus to be IN our domain (lowest level of heaven as in Ascension of Isaiah) but still be a KIND of flesh, not born as a human with an entire life lived on earth,etc. There is WAY too much for a "look alike" Jesus to worry about this one author BUT I will someday look at it more.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan I believe i did a vid or two on Paul calling Jesus a man. Why, those 2 verses destroy my whole theory! If Paul, who I claim believed in a heaven Jesus calls Jesus a man.... well, how do I get around that??? I did a vid on that one. It's pretty simple. but i won't spoil it for ya. If you can't find the vid, msg me and I'll look it up and msg a link.

But Paul refers to Jesus as a LIKENESS of man. in the FORM of a man. that is not very orthodox.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan But when I come across a "problem" passage or verse, I look at the underlying Greek in the earliest mss I can find. I try to rule out interpolation. If I can't, then it was a later insertion by someone of the "orthodox" belief or the gospel strand. If not an interpolation, it is possible, by examining the actual Greek, that it was translated wrong or at least poorly which might lend the verse to a slightly different meaning in favor of the JM theory.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan So, i've spent countless hours studying this issue and countless hours making this series. I would say the least someone might do is to view them BEFORE dismissing them due to a couple of apparent problems. There are some real gems in this series and the funny thing is that it isn't even 1/3 of what could be said in favor of the theory. I haven't even covered the silences. So, if you watch the series, you will see there is much there.

[PoFFizdaMan]

@TruthSurge You seem very defensive, but as I've already said, I've got no axe to grind, I'm only trying to uncover the truth myself. And i have been watching the videos, I'm on part 5C right now..

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan "You seem very defensive," You might be too if you got haters who just watched half of the first vid then spewed pages of "what about THIS verse??? your theory is wrong!".

For those who care, they will watch the vids and then ask about the problems along the way (as you did). those who have already decided it's false, will just come by to attack w/o watching the vids. Sad. Their loss. So, search for "truthsurge jesus myth exception" should bring up some.

[PoFFizdaMan]

I'm sorry but, 1 John 4:2 immediately comes to mind: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.." <--doesn't this disprove the whole premise of these videos?

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan No. You would base your entire stance on one verse when a mountain of evidence to the contrary is available? IOW, let's assume this verse WAS what it states at face value in the form you have written. If a theory has only one verse against it with MANY others for it and tons of other evidences that also support it including the silences that should NOT be there, we STILL have a very strong theory with one verse that needs to be explained (older mss, interpolation,)

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan Do you think that one odd fossil that doesn't fit into any known category means that all of evolution must be false?

Would you also say that one contradiction in the Bible necessarily means that all of the Bible is then false?

Finally, there is always a need to examine the actual Greek, not an English translation of the Greek by someone who lived in 1611. :)

You seem anxious to do away with this theory. Am I wrong?

[PoFFizdaMan]

@TruthSurge No, I'm not trying to do away with it in any way, I'm just asking how do you explain these verses... so, i guess it's all about the meaning of the words in the original Greek? Or are they later additions to the text by early christians who tried to influence the writings in order to give them an orthodox meaning?

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan In general, later copyists didn't always deliberately alter texts but did so DUE to their orthodox and gospel beliefs. But the end result is the same. An earlier text muddied by later orthodox insertions.

So, I've written my ways of explaining these in another reply. hope all of it makes sense. Yes, you have to always look at the underlying Greek words because EVERY now and then, it actually does explain a problem verse. "betrayed" is a good example.

[rchuso]

Hey! Where's the mp4 version?

[MercuryRis]

So where exactly is "Up"? didnt they think he had a "deluxe apartment in the sky" in the firmament? We have been up there. planes, spacecraft, etc. So where is he? Another dimension? Venus? It it like Wonder Woman's invisible Jet? Always love yout insight TS!

[TruthSurge]

@MercuryRis yep. Those people thought that heaven was above THEM. Egocentrism. They had no idea the earth was round and that there was an UP below them. but yeah, now he is this invisible being somewhere in some spiritual realm beyond the entire universe. gotta protect god at all costs! thank ya!

[mythicalhell]

I just had to scratch my arse crack. Bummer is(pun intended)now my fingers smell like fecal matter. Power is out so no water. I'm left to lick my fingers. Just thought I would "reveal" that story to you. o.O

[TruthSurge]

@mythicalhell now, that's a revelation I could have lived without. :) hehe Next time, reach for a paper towel or something. Baby wipes work great.

[mythicalhell]

@TruthSurge I'm now keeping a bottle of bleach close by as it whitens. lol

[TruthSurge]

@mythicalhell if that doesn't work, try some hydraflouric acid. should take it off - along with all your skin. HEHHHE

[mythicalhell]

@TruthSurge lol

[TruthSurge]

@mythicalhell but now you've got me wondering what video 2B is going to reveal to me. HEHE

[mythicalhell]

@TruthSurge did you mean but now or butt now?  lol

[TruthSurge]

@mythicalhell oh, yes, it was a typo. sorry. HEHEHHE

[MercuryRis]

@mythicalhell LMAO!!

[VyckRo]

About your explanation on the Αποκάλυψη = faceplam to that!

're serious?

What you do is to pick up pieces to support a predetermined conclusion of your mind!

You impose your  Western, American and modern idea of the revelation, on a an ancient Greek text!

The Revelation is continuous, because even if everything has been said, nobody understands everything ... yet.

It's a concept that your Western mind, it can not include comprise!

[TruthSurge]

@VyckRo Ok, I looked at your YT channel page.  Explains a lot. Explains your poor English and also your predisposition to considering what I have to say.

[VyckRo]

@TruthSurge

"your predisposition to considering what I have to say."

Nothing I have not heard before!

"Explains your poor Englis"

You know French, Italian or Latin?

[TruthSurge]

@VyckRo Yes. It's called a lexicon. Now, if you have nothing to point out as flawed in my vids, I'll be on my way.

[byron84]

Did you film this video in a cave? What's with the reverb?

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 No. I just like to add different backgrounds sometimes.

[byron84]

@TruthSurge

By reverb I meant the echoes, which is why I referenced a cave, I do have a question relating to the video, though. Do you believe that the writers of the Gospels were knowingly writing a derivation of a regionally popular god-man myth and that the fictional accounts were later portrayed as being factual? Also, what is your take on the so-called Gnostics who didn't interpret the Gospel accounts as literal but still believed they could derive gnosis from "Jesus's" teachings?

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 Yeah, the reverb I added to make it seem more cave-like.

Yes, I firmly believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke KNEW they were writing fiction. Matthew simply copies Mark but with many intentional edits and many synthesized prophecy fulfillments that he made up himself. Mark being the first gospel, is an intentional work of fiction. whether a proto-Mark existed or whether a Q document existed, Mark is the first of the 4 to exist and it contains many elements of the Odyssey, for example.

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 John's gospel relies somewhat on Mark but it might well be that he actually believed what he wrote as his version doesn't rely verbatim on the other 3 so much and it's different on many levels than the 3 almost carbon copy gospels. Luke and Acts... fiction. Whether Mark WAS a Christian when he wrote his story... I'm undecided. But yes, these stories came to be seen as historical sometime in the early 2nd century. Even Ignatius defends Jesus' humanity ca. 110 or 115CE. But...

[TruthSurge]

@byron84  there are some who question whether the letters of Ignatius are later forgeries. It is certainly possible but again, I'm not entirely sure. But the gospels floated around from after 70CE till 180CE NAMELESS until Irenaeus of Lyons mentioned them by name. Even some of Justin Martyr's mentions are not verbatim and he never names the authors and that's around 160CE. He says "Memoirs of the apostles" and seems to use a harmonized version of the synoptics.

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 So, my take is that the early believers (paul) did NOT believe in an earthly Jesus. Their views, however, spawned Mark's story as a merging of the roaming preacher, mythic son of god, epic hero figure from the Odyssey as well as his secret identity throughout and this mere exercise in literary sculpting by Mark became later seen as history as all 4 gospels began to land in qty. No one then could have known they were mere fiction (well, the miracles).

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 I could stand to read up more on gnosticism but my basic stance is that gnosticism must predate Christianity. It makes no sense for it not to. It has too much in common with Plato and Paul the apostle to be a later counter-movement to orthodox Christianity. And since it is not tied to Christianity, this explains why we see a diverse set of beliefs in all the gnostic writings. Some gnostics lived and NEVER were Christians. Some were.

[byron84]

@TruthSurge

I should've been more clear. I meant Christian Gnostics. If you don't know about them then you're missing the other half of your puzzle. I'd strongly recommend reading the Gnostic Gospels and the writings of Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. With an understanding of these writings you will see that the Jesus of the canonical New Testament was a far stretch from what the earliest Christian groups viewed him as. Since the Gnostic view didn't prevail, they, of course, became "heretics."

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 I've only read "Misquoting Jesus" by Ehrman. I almost go the Pagels book you mention but for some reason never did. That was like 8 years ago or thereabouts. I got a b'day coming up in a few months. Maybe I'll buy a used copy of Pagels and this other book on some ancient gods. I know that the earliest Christians believed a lot of things that are clearly gnostic but as for claiming that they were gnostics, I haven't done so but I totally agree that their views became heresy.

[byron84]

@TruthSurge

Pagels wrote a book called "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" in which she claimed that the Gospel of John was written in direct response to the Gospel of Thomas. She said that John was the only Gospel that promoted Christ's divinity ( the logos, 3:16, etc.) This seems suggestive of the fact that the first three canonical gospels weren't clear about his divinity at all. No wonder it's so easy for Muslims to pick them apart. So much for the supposed uniformity of the texts!

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 RIght. John is more in line with Paul and the early Christians than the synoptics. John is all about God and Jesus being one. In the beginning was the word (logos) and the word was with god and the word WAS god. No bones about it. God manifest in human form as opposed to God merely choosing a good man as his sacrificial lamb which seems the case in the synoptics as God only tells Jesus he's his son UPON getting baptized among other things.

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 But as a literal son of god, he would have been divine but NOT = god. he would have been somehow a separate entity. But John has them as somehow the same yet separate. Makes you wonder why Jesus had to pray to himself in the garden of Gethsemane, eh?

I'll make a note to check out the gnostic gospels book.

Most of Jesus' life is copied from the OT heroes Joseph and David with a bit of Moses and Elijah thrown in. It's total fiction.

[byron84]

@TruthSurge

No, actually. You again act as a fucking incompetent moron. I'd recommend learning the language of Jesus. Makes you wonder what the fuck you exist for on the earth since you can't even play this simple bullshit? Do you want me to stya above or say something else? I'm sorry sweetheart

[TruthSurge]

@byron84 das all fo now, I guess. thanks for the questions.

[Apologist117]

You also have to understand that the earliest form of docetism was not as definitive as later docetism. The original docetists did not officially reject the idea Jesus had a body. There was a lot of ambiguity. It was only when later docetism matured that they took a more firm position and rejected the flesh and body of Christ. There was a lot of diversity within these gnostic movements.

[TruthSurge]

"There was a lot of ambiguity."

And yet you seem to know definitively about each layer of docetism. We only know a little and that comes from those who were ATTACKING it. Ironic, isn't it? That the only way we even know they existed is from those who desired to destroy them? I smile each time I think of how that backfired at least for the sake of history. They DID beat them down doctrinally and physically. So much love in Christ.

[TruthSurge]

There was diversity withing CHRISTIANITY. Do you think one day a group of Christians just up and decided to reject Jesus' humanity? HAHAHHA There were all sorts of competing doctrines in the very earliest days of Christianity.

[Apologist117]

Here we are in video 2, and you still have not given the name or work of any early Christian writer who accepted the epistles but rejected the gospels. Additionally, you have not cited one passage from an epistle that says Jesus was killed by demons.

[TruthSurge]

There are about 25 vids. You are griping that I didn't cram everything into one vid? I refuse to do what you do.

As for rejecting the gospels, think about docetism for a minute. Just go think (or read).  Maybe it will come to you. Maybe it won't. Docetism is rather a blend of the epistle Jesus (heavenly only) and the gospel Jesus (a REAL human who died). My theory is that once the early beliefs and gospel tradition met, the constituents HAD to reconcile them. Docetism.

[TruthSurge]

There are about 25 vids. You are griping that I didn't cram everything into one vid? I refuse to do what you do.

As for rejecting the gospels, think about docetism for a minute. Just go think (or read). Maybe it will come to you. Maybe it won't. Docetism is rather a blend of the epistle Jesus (heavenly only) and the gospel Jesus (a REAL human who died). My theory is that once the early beliefs and gospel tradition met, the constituents HAD to reconcile them. Docetism.

[TruthSurge]

Docetism tried to blend the orthodox with Paul's version.  Jesus was on Earth (gospel story) but wasn't really human (Paul's version). Once the two traditions met in the latter part of the 1st and early part of the 2nd century, it spawned the docetics. Of course the PURELY orthodox (who were never exposed to the Paul cult) would label docetics heretics because by then, the birth stories had been added and that helped to fight the docetics (as did "flesh" in 1 john). All added later.

[Apologist117]

I proved from Paul's writings that he believed in the human Jesus. He even called Jesus a man (anthropos), and said he came from the seed (sperma) of David.

[TruthSurge]

Okay, let me just put my very strong urge to be a dick on hold for a sec. Do you really think for one second that I have not researched those "exceptions"? Do you think, after watching my vids (IF you did) that I have not given consideration to all of the problem passages?

One question: Does God have a penis? It's really just a yes or no question. Answer that, then my next reply will answer your "anthropos" objection.

[Apologist117]

The answer is no. God the Father does not have parts. He is spirit.

[TruthSurge]

Wow. We are actually making progress for a change. Okay, I obviously don't believe any god exists, but follow me further. Look at your last sentence. "he" is spirit. ! If something has no gender (male sex organs or female sex organs), why do you think you refer to god as a "he"? How can a spirit be a "he"? Wouldn't you logically want to refer to it as something w/o gender reference?  God also has no arms, no legs, no head, no face, so why "he"???

[Apologist117]

God revealed Himself to humanity as "He" and "Father" in order to relate to us, and Christ referred to Him as Father and He. God is completely beyond human comprehension.

[TruthSurge]

Actually, the male-based society back then created god in their image. That is why god has human attributes in Genesis.

But I'll get on with my pt.

1) god is NOT human and NOT male.

2) yet, you refer to god as 'HE'.

now, do you see where I am going with this?

Paul calls Jesus a man only twice in his 7 letters. BOTH in the same passage - a passage where Paul is comparing Jesus to Adam - one "man" to another. Paul uses "man" out of convenience due to the comparison/contrast.

[TruthSurge]

So, Adam, the first man, disobeyed. Jesus, the 2nd "man", obeyed. Adam, was created. Jesus was not. Adam was on earth. Jesus was not. Adam was flesh. Jesus was spirit. The comparison simply worked better if Jesus was called "man" because as we learn from Paul himself, Jesus took on the likeness of a man (only appeared to be human) and the physical shape of a man is what allows Paul to refer to him as "man". It was fitting for Paul's comparison to Adam.

[Apologist117]

I have come across information that I didn't have when I made my response. As I have stated, it is a falsehood to assert the earliest Christians rejected the gospels. You are talking about early Christian heresies. But The Ebionites accepted Matthew. Marcion and his followers accepted Luke, other Gnostics who believed Jesus had suffered but Christ had not, preferred the Gospel of Mark, The Valentinians relied on the Gospel of John. I know of no early heretic who rejected all four gospels.

[TruthSurge]

"As I have stated, it is a falsehood to assert the earliest Christians rejected the gospels."

It sure is. They couldn't reject something that didn't exist yet.

Marcion is ca. 130CE, about 80 years after Paul's writings. The gospels didn't start to circulate much until the latter part of the 1st century.

It would help you to know this stuff so you wouldn't make such blunders as your first statement.

[Apologist117]

You have to take the entire corpus of Paul's teaching into account and not isolate passages. Paul refered to Jesus as "man," on several occasions. And was specific that Jesus was from the seed of King David. Additionally, he said Jesus has a body (soma).. Peter said Jesus had flesh (sarx). They teach that Jesus bled, died and rose again.

[TruthSurge]

One question: have you read "The Jesus Puzzle" or the website by Doherty?

[TruthSurge]

So, like you refer to god as a 'him' and god is not human, Paul refers to Jesus as a 'man' even though Jesus was never actually a human but simply assumed the SHAPE of a human in order to get the demons to kill him (see ascension of isaiah).

[Apologist117]

Your argument does not follow logically and it is circular. I hope you can see that. The Ascension of Isaiah dates to the late first to early secon centuries. The Gospels are older. And the former's portion on Jesus was probably written by a school of Docetic Gnostics. I diagnosed this heresy in my video.

[iamemocore]

hey truth! i'm trying to find the vid where you use the argument that jesus broke jewish law by touching a dead body. can you point me in the right direction? cant find it.

[4YAH2]

The question was 'is it important that Elohim proscribe stoning of children when they became unruly?' I will answer both questions: Is it important / is that a good thing: It was important that YHVH handed down a Commandment to stone disobedient children and it was a Good thing to do, yes, absolutely. At that time is was necessary for the people of YHVH to stone disobedient children. This is a common cop out for not believing in The Creator - that The Creator Commanded to kill people.

[TruthSurge]

"At that time..." ahhhh the old AT THAT TIME copout. HAHAHA you are great, man. The very thing Christians and Jews and Muslims DO, they turn right around and accuse their opposition of. SWEET!

Screw your god.  No all-powerful, all knowing and most importantly, all LOVING god would EVER tell people to kill children for disobedience.

Good day.

[coolliger]

so i guess your a god?

[TruthSurge]

Yes, I am. And I demand your worship or I will send you to a fiery torture chamber for all eternity.

[coolliger]

ah, sarcasm...

[TruthSurge]

No, I'm telling you the truth. Why don't you believe me? You seem to believe anonymous authors of 2000 years ago but yet you won't believe someone right in front of your eyes.

[4YAH]

age old cop out / last resort to dodge The Truth. I know, I have heard that one a hundred times over the last 20 years of my Walk with The Living Elohim.

Elohim = mighty one

halleluYaH, The Real Mighty One, YHVH = I Am The I Am ( I Exist). Please look into these Things with some depth, open mind and open Heart. You appear to be sooo opinionated and shallow. With True Love, Joyfully, Curtis

halleluYaH !

[TruthSurge]

So, you are ignorant of your own origins. "el" was a Canaanite god among many others such as Baal, Asherah or Ashteroth and Chemosh etc. It is this "el" that the Israelites claimed as their own god when they broke off from the Canaanites. It is why so many names end with "el" such as "yisrah el" which means "to wrestle with el".

You still did not answer my question about "yahweh" requiring people to stone rebellious children. Is that a good thing to do?

[4YAH]

Please look into these things with a True open mind and Heart. Please. You are teaching twisted deceptions. halleluYaH!!

[apocalypseap]

"Please look into these things with a True open mind and Heart."

I'd rather keep my heart closed because I think it'd stop pumping if it was open.

Seriously, though, where do you get this wording of having your "heart open?" It's synonymous with mind anyway because the brain is what constitutes emotion and not your heart.

"You are teaching twisted deceptions"

No; you are. Teaching that the "heart" governs emotions. Fuck off.

[4YAH]

So I am behooved. I ASSume from your comment that you don't know history, languages, Scripture / bible, etc. Sorry, I ASSumed you did. "My bad." You never answered my question though. What do you read (study / listen to / etc. ) besides mainstream propaganda? It appears that you don't know much Truth about the mistrayim, nicea, islam, sol invictus, nimrod, dagon ( I don't capitalize deceptive garbage), etc..

[4YAH]

I want to encourage you to really look into The Truth of Creation. Be careful what you are teaching. You are teaching that The Writings of The Living Elohim are false.?? The Creator of this universe is real and teaching about The Truth of Creation, The Messiah, life and what to follow and where to go is VERY important. Please, halleluYaH !

[TruthSurge]

Then tell me, is it very important for elohiym (which is actually the sons of el) to proscribe stoning of children should they become unruly? If that is the great moral standard of "god", I want to have no part of it.

[4YAH]

Myths have copied The Truth of The Creator since thousands of years ago. Yahushua, the One you call jesus, The Messiah ( YHVH Saves) was a Yisraelite, A YaHudim, of The Tribe of Yahuda. No, there was no such thing as a "jew" then (during the time of the original Writings - Scripture / bible). Hebrew still has no letter J in thier language to this day! You appear to think that you know history, languages, Scripture, Truth, etc. What do you read besides mainstream propaganda?

[TruthSurge]

It might behoove you to avoid making assumptions about what I know and what I don't know. Assuming can get one into trouble. :)

Let me ask you a question. Have you watched my Jesus Myth series of vids? I might assume that you haven't or else you would see that I know a few things about your yisrah el religion.

[4YAH]

Greetings.

I always remember to go placidly amid the noise and haste, and I remember what peace there is in silence. Even more than that I Know what Shalom and Wisdom there is in YHVH, fearing YHVH and receiving and walking with the Ruach of YHVH, halleluYaH!

Sir, we know that evil (self -centeredness / pride / ego / greed / fear / etc. ) ha shatan, alah, mithras, nimrod, catholics & their "priests," "jews" and their "rabbis," etc. have lied to everyone for years.

[4YAH2]

Greetings Everyone. Shalom!

[TruthSurge]

Salomi to you! :) hehehe

[PermanentWater]

What an awful narrator! You repeat yourself so much. If I didn't find the subject so interesting I would have logged off after a minute.

[TruthSurge]

Do you have an example of a great narrator? Do you not know how to use the interface of the vid to fast forward? Or better yet, you can always not watch. It'd save yourself a lot of time. If each vid averages say 6 min, then you can save yourself about 2 1/2 hours by not watching any more! I hate to waste people's time and cause them undue stress by repeating myself over and over and over. So, please, don't torture yourself like this! I'll be just fine if you don't watch them.

[U2ber17]

TruthSurge.... We dont need proof of god... then there would be a such thing as Faith.....and people would want to believe in god they would be forced...So people love believing in a god because there is so much love and it says in the bible that love conquers all even faith

[TruthSurge]

you mean so much love as in god drowning newborn babies? God commanding children to be killed just for backtalking or hitting their parents?

That TRULY is tough love!

[U2ber17]

Middlek your wrong it says Pilate answered: Am i a Jew? jesus answered my kingdom is not of this world. if my kingdom were of this world , my servants would fight, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE JEWS... so that proves that jesus wasnt a jew

[TruthSurge]

where to start.... okay, the gospels were written in part to vilify the Jews as a whole for not accepting the Jesus idea so this is why you find a lot of anti-semitism in the gospels and even the epistles. It in no way proves anything. Many Christian writings were written to combat beliefs or people the author violently opposed. It's why the author of Matthew has Jesus calling the Pharisees horrible names. The Jews did not buy the new son of god idea and later xtians jabbed them via gospels

[TehBloggaar]

Jesus was not a Jew, he was an Israelite.

[TruthSurge]

What is the difference?

[TehBloggaar]

Jesus was a Judean, not a Jew. During his lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere.

When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the homeland of the ancestors of those who today style themselves Jews. Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea.

The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as Jews, were known as "Pharisees". Judaism today and Pharisaism in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus hated Pharisees, called them Satan's seed.

[TruthSurge]

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but in ALL four gospels (ca late 1st and early 2nd century) Jesus was said to have been crucified with a sign above his head which read: King of the... JEWS.

Can you explain why all four gospel writers would call Jesus a Jew if "no persons were described as 'Jews' anywhere"?

Plus, there are other references to the word "Jew" in the New Testament.

[TehBloggaar]

Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew. During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their homeland, and were known as Khazars. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a Jew.

[TruthSurge]

Last thing before I leave you alone. Was Jesus' mother a Jew (yehudai in Hebrew)? I think you are missing the point. words change as languages evolve. Jesus was allegedly born of Mary who, as far as we know, was an Israelite/Jew.

[TehBloggaar]

The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

Jew is not interchangeable with Israelite, and the Jews of today are not Israelites.

[TehBloggaar]

Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom.

[baconeater]

Moron!

[middlekk]

John 18:35 --

"Am I a Jew? Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

And so, your entire argument falls.

[TruthSurge]

windekindje, your comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with my video. I am, therefore, removing it.

[windekindje]

the Love in this voice cannot be heard on earth, the beauty i hear if people who love eachother sing together forHim and further away i heard all your hair is counted

i was frightened then because i knew these are Jesuswords and i rejected Him a day before(because of the holocaust ) as the last person that i had loved

nobody anymore that i loved .my heart was cold as ice

i do nt know whyme?bible says if you help others as much as you can God will also help you if you are in trouble.hugs win

[TruthSurge]

We don't need superstitions to do good. There is good and bad in all of us. We choose, to some degree, what we do. we don't have 100% free will, however, due to our individual circumstances. But we do have free will in most of our choices. Why don't you choose to study about this superstition you've chosen to embrace? You should start by READING the Bible front to back. Good luck.

[windekindje]

Revelation is a book i hate because it is not the spirit of Jesus there is treathening

outside the city are the dogs and bad people

Jesus loved dogs. i think it because he tells of the poor Lazarus who had no friend only streetdogs washing his wounds

if i had not met Jesus i would probably be like you but He saved me

they know the bible iknow Jesus

its true He is the mostkind loving Higher creature i have no words for

the enemy was not Judas but the spirit of lies fear and hate winny

[TruthSurge]

Wow! You met Jesus? where did you meet him? What did he say to you? What did he look like? Why haven't I met him?

[windekindje]

dear friend you know that i must be careful to tell holy things to people that make fun of it.i have waited 20 years .

it was in an isolationcell and i was strangling myself and pulling of my hair not to feel the pain in my soul.

maybe it was a neardeath experience

i have seen nothing i thought how can the sun shine? here because there is no window or glass in the door this sun did ntshine upon me but through me "but Winny what have you done to yourself? do nt you know life is holy?

winny

[TruthSurge]

Experiences such as yours happen all the time and oddly, not ONE of them contains any hardcore evidence that any Jesus, god, or the likes exist. What would you have thought if you'd have been raised as a Muslim and had your experience? Or raised as a Buddhist? And why is it that people who hit the bottom THEN turn to Christianity thinking it will somehow fix their life? Every wonder about that or do you even know that's true?