The Biggest Jewish Trick of All

[Penelope]

was when they wrote the NT in Alexandria Egypt and created Christianity and now have millions worshipping a fake Jewish man.

and as a result now worship the land of Israel.

 

[jillian]

was when they wrote the NT in Alexandria Egypt and created Christianity and now have millions worshipping a fake Jewish man.

are you insane?

never mind.. rhetorical question

 

[Penelope]

was when they wrote the NT in Alexandria Egypt and created Christianity and now have millions worshipping a fake Jewish man.

are you insane?

never mind.. rhetorical question

No, my mother had me tested.

 

[Sunni Man]

If anyone wants to know about the Jews and their agenda.

Just read the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

It will tell you everything that you need to know. .....

 

[Capstone]

Christianity was a Roman invention, not a Jewish one. The Romans were known for allowing conquered peoples to keep their Faiths, so long as they weren't in conflict with the dictates of Rome. Since militant messianic sects were behind a couple of bloody uprisings following the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, Judaism was sort of infiltrated (though not very cunningly)...and much of the undeniably Roman-friendly New Testament was authored and promoted in Jewish communities throughout the Empire as a peaceful alternative to the troublesome doctrines of messianic zealots. Very few Jews were fooled by the ham-handed ploy, but many played along for the sake of peaceful survival.

You can't blame the Jews for all things evil in the world, Penelope, first and foremost because you wouldn't be promoting the truth in doing so.

 

[DriftingSand]

1) The Alexandrian Text IS spurious and tainted.
2) The Textus Receptus is the proper text and is true.
3) Jesus Christ is no "invention." There are secular witnesses to His existence.
4) Jesus Christ was not a "Jew" in the modern sense of the word. He was, however, of the Tribe of Judah. Today's Jews have little (if any) relationship to the actual, biblical Tribe of Judah.
5) Jesus Christ, Himself, stood toe to toe with the spurious "Jews" of His day and called them "children of their father the devil" and a "generation of vipers." He had no love for them and literally condemned the religious "Jews" of that era to hell.

 

[Lipush]

was when they wrote the NT in Alexandria Egypt and created Christianity and now have millions worshipping a fake Jewish man.

and as a result now worship the land of Israel.

Eh?!

 

[Capstone]

1) The Alexandrian Text IS spurious and tainted. ...

So's your underwear.

Let me guess; you mean "tainted" by the critical hand of Origen (and the ideology of fallibility) and/or the more subtle influences of Gnosticism over the early Church in the Alexandrian region?

...2) The Textus Receptus is the proper text and is true. ...

Because it was derived from the less tainted Antiochian manuscripts, yes?

You do realize that the earliest complete listing of all twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament canon was given in Egypt in 367 CE by Athanasius (more than 300 years prior to the Second Council of Trullan), right?

Also, I wonder whether you're familiar with certain aspects of the TR's history.

In Erasmus's own words: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep." ("Epistle 337" in Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 3, 134.)

Ironically (in light of the above criticism)...

. . .Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the LatinVulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a lateByzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.[6][...]

[Source] [6]Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 145.

So, it seems the Textus Receptus was error-ridden on a number of levels, which probably goes a long way in explaining the 30,000-some textual variants to the Editio Regia enumerated by John Mills in his Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707).

In any case, even granting all the silly Chickian arguments (to coin a phrase) against the legitimacy of Alexandrian manuscripts, the Flavian hypothesis for the advent of Christianity is entirely unaffected by such arguments.

...3) Jesus Christ is no "invention." There are secular witnesses to His existence. ...

For example?

And before you come back with a couple of vague references to some unnamed "Chrestos" or "Christos", bear in mind that the Flavian hypothesis relies on the pre-existence of some number of militant messianic sects. It was, in fact, the activities of such groups that resulted in the persecution of their suspected members in the decades following Rome's conquest of the so-called Holy Land.

...4) Jesus Christ was not a "Jew" in the modern sense of the word. He was, however, of the Tribe of Judah. Today's Jews have little (if any) relationship to the actual, biblical Tribe of Judah. ...

That may well be the case (given the Chaldean ancestry of Judah, even according to the Bible), but it bears mentioning that the lineage laid out at the outset of the NT is regarded as dubious even by Non-Jewish scholars. Then again, the establishment of such a lineage would have been crucial in order to sell the Roman-friendly cult to Jewish communities throughout the Empire.

...5) Jesus Christ, Himself, stood toe to toe with the spurious "Jews" of His day and called them "children of their father the devil" and a "generation of vipers." He had no love for them and literally condemned the religious "Jews" of that era to hell.

You mean to tell me the messiah of the undeniably Roman-friendly NT was opposed to traditional Judaism in certain respects? Well, duh. What else should we expect from a Roman invention?!

 

[peach174]

was when they wrote the NT in Alexandria Egypt and created Christianity and now have millions worshipping a fake Jewish man.

and as a result now worship the land of Israel.

Archaeology proves that is wrong.

 

[HaShev]

Answering the OP:
It was not the Jews who did that it was Rome, let me repost this here in response since it's fitting this issue.

Romes master charade

Actually it's not to hard to figure out when you study the pattern of Rome and how they conquered and controlled kingdoms and cultures. Always setting themselves up as new authority & new temple to the people's deities.
Rome was the adversary at the time of the writings, thus being warned about by John of Patmos as the one world religion ploy occuring in his time not a later time.
Motive: Their expansion was being met with resistance, & revolts were taking place against their authority and taxes. For Rome to make kingdoms submit to their whims and authority and to collect money from them they had to now cleverly hide the Political power behind the mask of religious authority with cultural familiar masks thus converged deities and mythologies pleasing each culture they ruled over. This is called the two horn (power) system, which is why the symbolism of the devil is the scarlet (color of Rome) with two horns (powers) both political hidden behind it's religious authority. Now Rome could stick it's feet in many kingdoms like warned, and be unsuspected nor challenged, while also collected taxes without revolt in the form of tithes to the cultures gods. Collecting money for salvation and homage to their deities when that money was lifting high Romes power and authority as the real god of this world speaking behind the mask of the one world religious image named Jesus.
One of the charachters used for the Jesus image had warned, they will "come in my name" (meaning his name) and say I am christ (saying HE IS Christ-not they are) and deceive many. Throuout the NT they speak of son of man third person tense as another future person not that he is son of man. Rome the adversary created his mage using many christ figures and mythical deities to draw Jews and other cultures to this new religion under their control. Baal worship given new name and mask to get revolting Jews to worship Baal under he guise of fulfilled prophecy. Meanwhile all that as fulfilled was the warning of this perfect image of man representing the fallen one aka Lucifer

 

[Penelope]

Yes many zealot Jews, the Maccabees come to mine in the time right before Christ, and Herod, known as the King of the Jews who was an Jewish edomite, from the line of Esau , but the main language of Jerusalem was Greek and Arabic, not Hebrew. Besides the zealots they had the Romanized and Hellenistic Jews, and I agree that the only reason Jesus was a Jew was to try and pacify the zealot Jews, especially since Herod's temple fell.

The NT itself is mainly Greek, Logos, virgin birth, water into wine, Hades, etc, not much Jewish in it.
Greeks even had pharmakos, like a scapegoat of the Jews, and they have agape meals and offered animal sacrifices to the Gods. Who took from whom.

Capstone your right I can't blame them for making Jesus a Jew , and since most Jews have nothing good to say about him, they should quit using him , I can blame them for using the Bible as a means for Evangelical support , they have no problem taking Evans money, and they also use it , and they also lord it over us.

Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism. Jews and Muslims are much closer in thought and action. The Jews took a lot of Persian beliefs and incorporated it and also Canaanite Religion which was copied from Sumerian.

Lets not forget the largest population of Jews in 1 Ad was in Alexandria and the we still have all the Jews that stayed in Babylon and wrote the Talmud, which is really their book.

 

[DriftingSand]

1) The Alexandrian Text IS spurious and tainted. ...

So's your underwear.

Let me guess; you mean "tainted" by the critical hand of Origen (and the ideology of fallibility) and/or the more subtle influences of Gnosticism over the early Church in the Alexandrian region?

...2) The Textus Receptus is the proper text and is true. ...

Because it was derived from the less tainted Antiochian manuscripts, yes?

You do realize that the earliest complete listing of all twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament canon was given in Egypt in 367 CE by Athanasius (more than 300 years prior to the Second Council of Trullan), right?

Also, I wonder whether you're familiar with certain aspects of the TR's history.

In Erasmus's own words: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep." ("Epistle 337" in Collected Works of Erasmus Vol. 3, 134.)

Ironically (in light of the above criticism)...

. . .Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the LatinVulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a lateByzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.[6][...]

[Source] [6]Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 145.

So, it seems the Textus Receptus was error-ridden on a number of levels, which probably goes a long way in explaining the 30,000-some textual variants to the Editio Regia enumerated by John Mills in his Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707).

In any case, even granting all the silly Chickian arguments (to coin a phrase) against the legitimacy of Alexandrian manuscripts, the Flavian hypothesis for the advent of Christianity is entirely unaffected by such arguments.

...3) Jesus Christ is no "invention." There are secular witnesses to His existence. ...

For example?

And before you come back with a couple of vague references to some unnamed "Chrestos" or "Christos", bear in mind that the Flavian hypothesis relies on the pre-existence of some number of militant messianic sects. It was, in fact, the activities of such groups that resulted in the persecution of their suspected members in the decades following Rome's conquest of the so-called Holy Land.

...4) Jesus Christ was not a "Jew" in the modern sense of the word. He was, however, of the Tribe of Judah. Today's Jews have little (if any) relationship to the actual, biblical Tribe of Judah. ...

That may well be the case (given the Chaldean ancestry of Judah, even according to the Bible), but it bears mentioning that the lineage laid out at the outset of the NT is regarded as dubious even by Non-Jewish scholars. Then again, the establishment of such a lineage would have been crucial in order to sell the Roman-friendly cult to Jewish communities throughout the Empire.

...5) Jesus Christ, Himself, stood toe to toe with the spurious "Jews" of His day and called them "children of their father the devil" and a "generation of vipers." He had no love for them and literally condemned the religious "Jews" of that era to hell.

You mean to tell me the messiah of the undeniably Roman-friendly NT was opposed to traditional Judaism in certain respects? Well, duh. What else should we expect from a Roman invention?!

1) Gnosticism and Origin go hand in hand.

2) Physical Description of Jesus

3) Depends of which "scholars" you choose to believe.

 

[irosie91]

Yes many zealot Jews, the Maccabees come to mine in the time right before Christ, and Herod, known as the King of the Jews who was an Jewish edomite, from the line of Esau , but the main language of Jerusalem was Greek and Arabic, not Hebrew. Besides the zealots they had the Romanized and Hellenistic Jews, and I agree that the only reason Jesus was a Jew was to try and pacify the zealot Jews, especially since Herod's temple fell.

The NT itself is mainly Greek, Logos, virgin birth, water into wine, Hades, etc, not much Jewish in it.
Greeks even had pharmakos, like a scapegoat of the Jews, and they have agape meals and offered animal sacrifices to the Gods. Who took from whom.

Capstone your right I can't blame them for making Jesus a Jew , and since most Jews have nothing good to say about him, they should quit using him , I can blame them for using the Bible as a means for Evangelical support , they have no problem taking Evans money, and they also use it , and they also lord it over us.

Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism. Jews and Muslims are much closer in thought and action. The Jews took a lot of Persian beliefs and incorporated it and also Canaanite Religion which was copied from Sumerian.

Lets not forget the largest population of Jews in 1 Ad was in Alexandria and the we still have all the Jews that stayed in Babylon and wrote the Talmud, which is really their book.

Penelope----your post is so utterly FANTASTICALLY DELUSIONAL----that it is evidence that you are insane. Try reading it again------and then delete it. You have gotten NOTHING correct

 

[amrchaos]

The water-bath technique in the making of cheesecake?

 

[irosie91]

The water-bath technique in the making of cheesecake?

NO~~~ not the biggest jewish trick-----good---but not the biggest. The biggest jewish trick is
eggs. Eggs in bread and eggs in chopped meat and eggs in noodle puddling and eggs in chopped liver ----EGGS ------eggs ------cooking with eggs -----PAREVE ----
whoever decided that eggs are pareve was a
GENIUS.. Eggs in matzoh balls and eggs in
gefilte fish. EGGS!!!!!!. The biggest jewish trick is EGGS without bacon.

 

[irosie91]

did Penelope really claim that the main language spoken in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was
ARABIC???? -------I have known lots of really weird people in the course of my life----but the only sort of people I believe might come up with a statement so utterly idiotic-----would be ---sorry---I do not mean to offend (really I don't) ....would be a Pakistani------Penelope,, were you born in Karachi?

 

[amrchaos]

did Penelope really claim that the main language spoken in Jerusalem 2000 years ago was
ARABIC???? -------I have known lots of really weird people in the course of my life----but the only sort of people I believe might come up with a statement so utterly idiotic-----would be ---sorry---I do not mean to offend (really I don't) ....would be a Pakistani------Penelope,, were you born in Karachi?

I don't know what the main language in Israel was around 4 a.d, but I do know there were a lot of foreign people in Jerusalem due to both trade and repeated conquest plus its strategic position in terms of defending egypt/attacking the arabian penisular.

People call Israel and the surrounding region the holy lands. I tend to see it as a land designed for war and strife. To see religions pop up here is therefore, not surprising.

 

[Yarddog]

was when they wrote the NT in Alexandria Egypt and created Christianity and now have millions worshipping a fake Jewish man.

and as a result now worship the land of Israel.

Never mind that Islam was started by a Jesuit priest who sought to undermine the eastern Orthodox Christians, too bad it got out of control and spread aroung the world, I bet he never saw that comming

 

[Capstone]

1) Gnosticism and Origin go hand in hand. ...

Somehow I doubt the non-Christian Gnostics of his day, I.E. the many who regarded him as the first legitimate philosopher to author a sound refutation of Gnosticism proper, would agree with that statement if they were alive today. Tomāto, tomäto, I guess.

...2) Physical Description of Jesus...

All of the supposedly contemporary references to "Jesus Christ" that are listed at the site you've linked have long been regarded as apocryphal in the realm of legitimate scholarship (yes, even by notable Christian scholars). Right off the bat, the letter of Lentulus is an obvious fake, because no Roman governor would have addressed the Senate in the manner represented in the letter, nor would any fully Roman writer have employed the Hebrew idioms "sons of men" and "prophet of truth".

I won't put in the time and effort to spell out the damning criticisms against all of the spurious references listed at that site, for two reasons. First, I'm fully aware that it would make little or no difference as far as your beliefs are concerned. Second and more importantly though, even if there were any number of legitimate, non-controversial, secular references to "Jesus Christ", they'd have no negative bearing whatsoever on the Flavian hypothesis, because, as I mentioned in my previous post, the theory is based on the pre-existence of at least one legitimate messianic sect of militant zealots (one of whom may have been named Yeshua).

...3) Depends of which "scholars" you choose to believe.

Yeah, I suppose if you buy into the sort of scholarship that's on display at the link you posted, it must be pretty easy for you to justify a butt-load of ridiculous beliefs!

 

[HaShev]

Ironically their labeling the icon the prophet of truth and the truth is as to say he was the Luciferian expectations that Lucifer comes as the image claimed messenger and prophet of light= truth (aka spiritual light is knowledge and truth). We see the fables were neither true, nor were their beliefs and teachings knowledgable.
Furthermore they believed in physical luciferous light teachings and it was a luciferous light that came to Paul and Constantine saying it's name was Jesus.