Was Jesus a Creationist?

The Godspell Jesus: The only revered person in history who never wrote his own manuscript. Never happened ever before or after. This leaves the figure of JC to be whatever whoever wants to make of him. And we can say, Europe went for its life - attributing everything valid to JC, and if they could not - then it was not a valid thing.One thing which renders JC very un-jewish, aside from the latin name, european depictions, gospellian non-hebrew manuscripts, Israel is bad and will die-ho-ho-ho! and other such lovelies - are two standout factors:1. He never wrote it down! Its so unlike 55 other jewish revered souls. The dead sea scrolls was surpressed for 50 years not because it contained something negative about Jesus - in fact it was surpressed because it was set in the same period of Jesus - and that NOTHINGNESS was said of, by, for him. Shock of shocks - nothing. This while the scrolls contained 100s of copies of all of the OT books, and new ones never known, and which gave details of the minutae news of the day - like reading yesterday's NY Times. Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry sus!2. Instead of confronting Rome - the gospels hails Jesus for confronting hapless, rowdy money-changers, doing what they did for 2000 years - observing a mandated OT law. WHAT - GASP - SERIOUS!!??? Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr un-jewish!

Define, 'CREATIONIST'?The term is first recorded in the opening preamble of genesis, and is vested in the singular, perfect [past/present/future] tense. It is a technical term, signifying EX NEHILO, because no tools or products contained in the universe existed then - thus the mandated advocation not to worship any images within the universe, which are post-creation factors. Technically, to 'create' ['something from nothing'], is totally varied from 'formed' or 'made' ['something from something else'], and does not occur outside of the first creation chapter of genesis.To be a creationist, one must clearly and totally acknowledge that Monotheism in its strictest possible sense is the first and primal factor.

Define the term 'bible'. If your talking OT, there are no errors, or more importantly, no contradictions in its narratives. if your talking about minutae discrepencies like spellings, alphabeticals and an extra zero here and there, this is attributed to non-bona-fine copies.The 5 books of Moses cannot have any errors if a bona fide hebrew edition with a kosher certificate, because the alphabeticals are numerals, and act as mathemtical quotients in sub and final totals of verses, passages and books. The net is brim full of forged copies of the OT.The D.S Scrolls, written mostly in hebrew, contain not a single error in its narratives from today's bible, notwithstanding much of these works were recovered in bits and pieces, then completed on a matrix by expanding words and sentences from other existing copies - but yes, there are no stand out errors, to a degree like nothing else in comparison.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

The last peoples' word which can be trusted about the NT and Jesus narratives would have to be Europe. The first peoples' credible pov would have to be that of the Jews, second the pre-islamic arabs: these are people from this vicinity and space-time.There is no arms length from a european view, because it is motivated, and subsequent to its own earlier historical beliefs being clung to. The assumption that jews would distort or hide any truth is without ant credibility whatsoever: my reading of history of this space time says the Judean Jews were obsessed to recieve a savior, and even nominated five others which turned out incorrect. Jesus was not one of those five, and had no equivalent following as them.Basically, europe cannot be judge and jury here, and has a record of the most historical false charges subsequent to the NT: blood libels, deicide, the protocols, the OT laws are passe, jews are disbelievers, etc, etc. Most of those false charges have been over-turned by the previous Pope, but they prevailed for some 1800 centuries, and all europeans held them as gospel truth. Today, the truth itself is quagmired and a prisoner, vested against millions of innocent christians being hijacked by falsehoods implanted in their souls, and attached with belief in God per se. Ultimately, this is not a jewish but christian problem, and one for the Messiah to rectify.The premise of Creation is not related to the NT - this scripture says nothing about this issue.

quote:

---

harper's biblical dictionary writes:
Transmission of ot Text: Prior to the discovery of the dss, the oldest copy of any extended portion of the Hebrew Bible was dated a.d. 895 (a codex of the Former and Latter Prophets, from the Cairo Genizah). In Cave One, however, a full text of Isaiah was found, dated palaeographically to 100 b.c. The differences between the Qumran text and the Masoretic Text (mt), the Hebrew text preserved from medieval manuscripts, separated in date by a thousand years, amounted to thirteen significant variants and a host of insignificant spelling differences, which have proved a gold mine for the study of first-century b.c. Palestinian Hebrew.

---

This is ridiculous. Why should the scrolls be measured by an egyptian writings dated 895 CE - a 1000 years later, when the Jews were in a state of dispersal and persecution? Your link is also historically corrupted - there was no 'Palestine' at this time, only Judea - this name came later, in 135 CE.Here too: "Palestinian Judaism: Josephus mentions three kinds or ”sects’ of Palestinian Jews in his day: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.".Josephus does NOT mention the term Palestine.Re

quote:

---

Transmission of ot Text: Prior to the discovery of the dss, the oldest copy of any extended portion of the Hebrew Bible was dated a.d. 895 (a codex of the Former and Latter Prophets, from the Cairo Genizah). In Cave One, however, a full text of Isaiah was found, dated palaeographically to 100 b.c. The differences between the Qumran text and the Masoretic Text (mt), the Hebrew text preserved from medieval manuscripts, separated in date by a thousand years, amounted to thirteen significant variants and a host of insignificant spelling differences, which have proved a gold mine for the study of first-century b.c. Palestinian Hebrew. This illustrated the care with which the text of Isaiah had been transmitted over the centuries. When Cave Four was discovered, however, a different picture appeared. For certain books of the ot, especially 1 and 2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus, there were copies of the Hebrew text, from pre-Christian times, in forms differing from the medieval mt. In some cases, the Qumran biblical texts were closer to the Greek Septuagint (lxx); in others, closer to the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now apparent that these differing ancient text forms of the ot deserve far greater care and attention than they received in the past. The lxx, for example, is now seen not just as a poor, tendentious translation of the Hebrew, but rather as a witness to a different pre-Christian Hebrew text form. Moreover, there appear to have been three local text types in pre-Christian times: a form of the Pentateuch known in Babylon, close to the mt; a form known in Palestine, close to the Samaritan Pentateuch; and a form of ot books known in Egypt, related to the lxx. Eventually (probably between a.d. 70 and 132 in Palestine), a process of standardization apparently set in, preferring one form of text, a set spelling, and even a definitive shape of writing.

---

The above passage actually says the reverse of your conclusion. It is highlighting 'spelling errors', in Isaiah and Jeremaya [not the Mosaic], written in exilic states, and then goes on to say how remarkable these are that it is almost error free. The main factor should not concern spellings - but that the narratives are substantially the same, and with no significant variants. The term Palestinians, and the reference to the NT, only says the author is desperate to prove the NT - these are hardly significant errors!Here too, we see a clear agenda in the author's conclusion, in his connecting terms such as son of light, with the NT, rather than that it indicates the NT was made elsewhere and in another spacetime. I found no discrepensies in the OT of the scrolls and today:

quote:

---

Palestinian Background of nt: So far, no mention has been found in these thoroughly Jewish writings of Jesus, John the Baptist, or early Christians. Many of the tenets and practices of the Essene community, however, as seen in the dss, provide a new and interesting background for aspects of nt writings. The use of isolated ot quotations in the nt resembles many of the similar quotations of the ot in the dss; the formulas introducing such quotations in the nt are far closer to Qumran introductory formulas than to those in the Mishnah (the earliest part of the rabbinic writings). The ”sons of light,’ a designation for Christians (Luke 16:8; John 12:36; 1 Thess. 5:5), has no ot background and is not found in rabbinic writings, but it occurs, with its counterpart ”sons of darkness,’ in the Manual of Discipline and the War Scroll. Light has been shed from various Qumran texts on several titles applied to Jesus in the nt (”Son of God,’ ”Son of man,’ ”Lord,’ ”Prophet,’ ”Christ’); thus, these titles apparently were not the product of the hellenization of the Christian gospel as it was carried by early missionaries from Palestine into the Greco-Roman world, as some have maintained. Parallels have been found for many items and expressions in the Gospels of Matthew and John, in the Pauline corpus, and in the Letter to the Hebrews. Lastly, whereas the origins of Christian monasticism were formerly traced to the Christian fathers of the Egyptian desert, the dss, in agreement with Josephus’ description of the Essenes, reveal Qumran as an ascetic community, at least partially celibate, living a strict communal life, and thus, in the judgment of some, a far more intelligible matrix for early Christian monasticism than the Egyptian fathers.

---

.