Robtard's point is a good one, and he's focusing on the written Bible more so than prior to it, where most of the changes likely occurred. Think of it like this: we've all played some variation on "telephone" where a sentence changes drastically over about a dozen tellings in the same room. Now compound that by decades of retellings of the Jesus myth before anything was written down, all while the orators of the stories were surrounded by and aware of literally dozens (hundreds?) of other religious stories and savior myths, intermingling with one another in the cultural zeitgeist.
Frankly, thinking that the Bible didn't change demonstrably from what actually happened in lunacy, imo.
Also, Mary and Joseph were married, no? Does anyone who thinks it through actually think she was a virgin? I'm not sure how that's a shocker to all but the stridently religious.
I forgot about this thread. I can't necessarily post a link, but just look up Shem Tov's hebrew matthew. There is an awesome study on it by nehemiah gordon called The Greek Jesus vs The Hebrew Yeshua. He's a Karite Jew. As for the virgin thing, the old test originally doesn't say virgin, but instead says Young Woman. Which honestly is the same seeing she obviously didn't have sex before being married.
See, Digi, that's why this hebrew version is so important. The Greek was indee written decades after Jesus' death, which rightfully bugs critics. But it's very possible that the hebrew version was written way earlier. The bible itself says it was written down three years later. The original was written in Hebrew. As for this one, it's clearly not as currupted as the Greek. Hence all the corrections in logic and such.
Here's more: 1. This one is HUGE because it destroys the basis of a priest absolving sins. Instead of saying "Whatever you have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven" it says "Whatever OATH you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever OATH you loosen on earth shall be loosed in heaven". 2. Instead of saying Jesus was hung on a cross it says he was on a "stick" or "pole". 3. Instead of saying Jesus was a carpenter, he is called a "smith". Tradition and Josephus say he was a tin smith. 4. This one clears up a lot: Instead of saying "From the days until John until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force" it says "From the days of john until now the kingdom of heaven has been oppressed and fools try to tear it apart". Big diff. 5. Instead of saying "All the prophets prophecied until John" Which has been taken to mean John was the last prophet "All the prophets have prophecied ABOUT John".
The whole contraversy regarding jesus being hung on a cross shouldn't be a big deal. Not once in the Greek does the word Cross appear. It always says tree or stick.
Re: Re: Has ne1 read the newly found original hebrew version of Matt?
True, but it doesn't say she wasn't either. Catholics believe they were the children of Joseph from a previous marriige. This one clears it up totally.
Well....that's not what he said. heh. An "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" isn't revenge, it's justice. It's a figure of speech meaning the punishment should fit the crime. It's not literal. The "Eye" referres to a major crime and the "tooth" part means a minor crime. Basically, don't punish someone who commited a minor crime like they commited a major crime and visa versa. What he said to the Pharasee is that they turned that law into revenge. Jesus' whole beef with them was thier oral torah, what we now call the talmud. I know the talmud....and it's evil.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 20th, 2011 04:55 AM
