Posted on 04/04/2005 10:11:49 AM PDT by robowombat
2005-03-30 Gospel of Judas back in spotlight after 20 centuries Swiss foundation seeks to shed light on controversial Christian text named after apostle said to have betrayed Jesus. By Patrick Baert - GENEVA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About 2,000 years after the Gospel according to Judas sowed discord among early Christians, a Swiss foundation says it is translating for the first time the controversial text named after the apostle said to have betrayed Jesus Christ.
The 62-page papyrus manuscript of the text was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950s or 1960s, but its owners did not fully comprehend its significance until recently, according to the Maecenas Foundation in Basel.
The manuscript written in the ancient dialect of Egypt's Coptic Christian community will be translated into English, French and German in about a year, the foundation specialising in antique culture said on Tuesday.
"We have just received the results of carbon dating: the text is older than we thought and dates back to a period between the beginning of the third and fourth centuries," foundation director Mario Jean Roberty said.
The existence of a Gospel of Judas, which was originally written in Greek, was outlined by a bishop, Saint Irenee, when he denounced the text as heretical during the second century.
"It's the only clear source that allows us to know that such a Gospel did exist," Roberty explained.
The foundation declined to say what account Judas is said to give in his alleged gospel.
According to Christian tradition, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ by helping the Romans to find him before he was crucified.
"We do not want to reveal the exceptional side of what we have," Roberty said.
The author of the text is unknown.
"No one can clearly state that Judas wrote it himself," Roberty said, while pointing out that the other gospels were probably not written by their supposed authors either.
The four recognised gospels of the New Testament describe the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and are said to record his teachings from the eyes of four of his disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The Roman Catholic Church limited the recognised gospels to the four in 325, under the guidance of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine.
Thirty other texts - some of which have been uncovered - were sidelined because "they were difficult to reconcile with what Constantine wanted as a political doctrine," according to Roberty.
The foundation's director said the Judas Iscariot text called into question some of the political principles of Christian doctrine.
It could also to some extent rehabilitate Judas, whose name has often come to symbolise the accusation of deicide - God-killing - levelled by some Christian teachings against the Jewish people, he added.
After the manuscript is restored, the text is due to be translated and analysed by a team of specialists in Coptic history led by a former professor at the University of Geneva, Rudolf Kasser.
Jean-Daniel Kaestli, an expert on gospels who has seen the manuscript, said the discovery was "very interesting", although the papyrus was in a bad state.
He added that it was not going to lead to a revolutionary change in the vision of the Bible, although it could shed some new light on parts of Christianity's holy text.
The Maecenas Foundation, which aims to protect archaeological relics found in poor countries, hopes to organise exhibitions around the manuscript and to produce a documentary on the process of unravelling the text.
The full launch is due in Easter 2006.
Gospel of Judas back in spotlight after 20 centuries Swiss foundation seeks to shed light on controversial Christian text named after apostle said to have betrayed Jesus. By Patrick Baert - GENEVA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About 2,000 years after the Gospel according to Judas sowed discord among early Christians, a Swiss foundation says it is translating for the first time the controversial text named after the apostle said to have betrayed Jesus Christ.
The 62-page papyrus manuscript of the text was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950s or 1960s, but its owners did not fully comprehend its significance until recently, according to the Maecenas Foundation in Basel.
The manuscript written in the ancient dialect of Egypt's Coptic Christian community will be translated into English, French and German in about a year, the foundation specialising in antique culture said on Tuesday.
"We have just received the results of carbon dating: the text is older than we thought and dates back to a period between the beginning of the third and fourth centuries," foundation director Mario Jean Roberty said.
The existence of a Gospel of Judas, which was originally written in Greek, was outlined by a bishop, Saint Irenee, when he denounced the text as heretical during the second century.
"It's the only clear source that allows us to know that such a Gospel did exist," Roberty explained.
The foundation declined to say what account Judas is said to give in his alleged gospel.
According to Christian tradition, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ by helping the Romans to find him before he was crucified.
"We do not want to reveal the exceptional side of what we have," Roberty said.
The author of the text is unknown.
"No one can clearly state that Judas wrote it himself," Roberty said, while pointing out that the other gospels were probably not written by their supposed authors either.
The four recognised gospels of the New Testament describe the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and are said to record his teachings from the eyes of four of his disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The Roman Catholic Church limited the recognised gospels to the four in 325, under the guidance of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine.
Thirty other texts - some of which have been uncovered - were sidelined because "they were difficult to reconcile with what Constantine wanted as a political doctrine," according to Roberty.
The foundation's director said the Judas Iscariot text called into question some of the political principles of Christian doctrine.
It could also to some extent rehabilitate Judas, whose name has often come to symbolise the accusation of deicide - God-killing - levelled by some Christian teachings against the Jewish people, he added.
After the manuscript is restored, the text is due to be translated and analysed by a team of specialists in Coptic history led by a former professor at the University of Geneva, Rudolf Kasser.
Jean-Daniel Kaestli, an expert on gospels who has seen the manuscript, said the discovery was "very interesting", although the papyrus was in a bad state.
He added that it was not going to lead to a revolutionary change in the vision of the Bible, although it could shed some new light on parts of Christianity's holy text.
The Maecenas Foundation, which aims to protect archaeological relics found in poor countries, hopes to organise exhibitions around the manuscript and to produce a documentary on the process of unravelling the text.
The full launch is due in Easter 2006.
Your comments about dogma are spot on. Deeply held beliefs of any sort can be a strong drug to people, and can serve as an inhibition to any dialog. I can appreciate the difficulty involved with conversing with one who believes he is absolutely right regarding a particular matter, as it is impossible to convince someone of something when they do not wish to be convinced. I am glad you have taken the time to try regardless!
I suppose I am just a little confused about several points in your post. First, you said:
"Looking at it one way, biblically, it all started when "the people" came top Moses and said, "We want a "government/ religion like all the other people around us.. thereby rejecting God as their supreme leader and wanting a social structure like the Amelkites, Canaanites, Egyptians and other primitive social structures around them at the time.. After a severe warning (as the bible recounts) from God. The big guy said said, OK, but you must do it this way.. and provided the design for the new renagade system of government/religion..
I am not entirely certain to what you are refering here. It sounds as though you have the story of God giving the Law confused with the institution of the Hebrew Kingship. There was no warning against the former - God called Moses to the top of the mountain in order to give him the Law. The Law forms the basis of the Hebrew faith and is ultimately given to man so that we can know that we can never live up to the standards of God. It is the sign of God's righteousness, which we learn that we cannot justify ourselves purely through our own works and efforts. In addition, it was given to the people of God as a means to set them apart from the rest of the world. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that God resisted the idea of giving the Law itself... in fact, the text suggests it was part of the Divine Plan all along.
The institution of the Hebrew Kings, however, was suggested against, and the Jews insisted on it anyway, a request to which God eventually obliged. But the Law, the basis of the Jewish religion, was already well in place at that time, as it was well after the institution of the Torah. Thus, I am not certain how the cases to which you refer prove that God disapproves of religion. God wanted the Hebrews to follow His Law all along.
God removed the Ark not as a means to remove the Jewish religion, but rather because of the attitudes that were extended towards the ark itself. The basis for the Jewish religion was the Law itself, based upon the covenant God established with the Jewish people. The loss of the ark did not cause a single letter of the Hebrew law to pass.
We should also note that God is not the author of rebellion, as God is the source of lawfulness. God would not establish a system abhorrent to Himself, as God cannot sin against Himself. (Omnipotence does not mean God can violate His own nature.)
I am not quite certain why you say God has no name: in the Old Testament he reveals it to be YHWH. In addition, many of the points you make ultimately beg the question from the outset: you basically seem to be arguing that God would not create a religion because religions are and always have been human made institutions.
As you astutely point out, it is unlikely that we will come to an agreement here, but are both posting for the benefit of lurkers. I would not go so far as to say that the inability on either of our parts to change our positions is due to obstinance, but rather upon a fundamental difference in certain starting premises. At any rate, I always enjoy the exchange of ideas!
Luke 11 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
This may be a shock to your belief system, but the first Christians and todays Christians did not base their belief on faith. It is based on the evidence.
Fine.
Show me the evidence that will prove to anyone that Jesus is the Son of God and was resurrected as described in the Bible.
What if I think Luke is lying? Prove he's telling the truth.
Show me the evidence.
Have you ever read court testimony? Do you get a sense that the truth is being told or its lies? If not then don't waste your time. If however, you think you can discern lies from truth start reading the gospels. Head three sheets of paper. One says evidence for, one evidence against and the third questions.
When you are done, weigh the evidence and arrive at a descision. Like you would if you were a jurist. However, if you approach the task like an OJ jury member with predetermined attitude, don't waste your time.
At the very least you will gain an appreciation that Christians do in fact base their belief on evidence. You may decided that the evidence for you is insufficient but its not honest to claim there is no evidence.
John 20 30And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
The purpose of the gospels was to provide evidence, not faith, for the events.
Ever been conned? Con-men are pretty slick at making lies sound like the truth.
When you are done, weigh the evidence and arrive at a descision. Like you would if you were a jurist. However, if you approach the task like an OJ jury member with predetermined attitude, don't waste your time.
What evidence? You've presented none. At least the OJ jury had some evidence to weigh.
You've provided no evidence which may be independently corraborated. You keep quoting from the same source --The Holy Bible in an attempt to prove that what The Holy Bible says is true.
At the very least you will gain an appreciation that Christians do in fact base their belief on evidence. You may decided that the evidence for you is insufficient but its not honest to claim there is no evidence.
What evidence?! The only thing I've gained an appreciation for is you penchant for engaging in circular logic.
I made a simple request. Provide evidence that Jesus is the Son of God and that he was resurrected as described in the Bible.
Either you can provide evidence that will prove it to the world or you can't. I say you can't because God doesn't work that way. His proof is in the hearts of men, not in stone temples. He does this because He wants us to love Him of our own free will, not because of intimidation that comes with physical proof.
So, I take it you wish to ignore the evidence and make your rejection based on your faith in yourself. Fine by me.
I think it's time to bring this discussion to an end. You have completely missed the point.
**Not exactly. The manuscript that includes reference to Jesus is believed to be a later altered version and this reference does not appear in other manuscripts***
I believe it was Origen who quoted from Josephus quite often. Origen lived before Constantine when the libraries were still under Pagan Roman control. How did someone "change" then the scrolls?
If other manuscripts do not have the references to Jesus show them!
How easy is it to slip into a library and change a scroll?
Did "they" change all? Did they splice ? did they erase and paste?
Years ago I heard of a manuscript without the Jesus reference. I have been looking for proof of it for 37 years and have not found it yet!
***Faith without evidence is delusions.***
As it was stated on a tv news program several years ago,
2000 years from now, people will be saying George Washington is just a myth.
If people still believe George W lived will that be a delusion?
None taken..
"Looking at it one way, biblically, it all started when "the people" came top Moses and said, "We want a "government/ religion like all the other people around us.. thereby rejecting God as their supreme leader and wanting a social structure like the Amalkites, Canaanites, Egyptians and other primitive social structures around them at the time.. After a severe warning (as the bible recounts) from God. The big guy said OK, but you must do it this way.. and provided the design for the new renegade system of government/religion..I am not entirely certain to what you are referring here. It sounds as though you have the story of God giving the Law confused with the institution of the Hebrew Kingship.
I said nothing of the 10 suggestions.. and they were suggestions.. They were not Laws.. To have a law you must be able to enforce it.. God had no intention of enforcing it.,. He just implied if you want to follow me you must do THIS.. or NOT <<- also implied.. Most chose not to and reaped the whirlwind in their lives, as most do NOW.. 10 simple truths.. as suggestions.. You don't have to believe they are the truth, so don't.. No bolt from the heavens like from Zeus with impale you.. They are simple social suggestions for a good life on the earth.. Don't follow them and you will end up with not only a religion but a government too.. For after all government is a structure to prevent or watch over those that don't follow the suggestions to guard the rest that do.. Simple really. Government and Religion are replacements for GOD(by men) for NOT following Gods suggestions.. . And a brief look at human history will show how wise that was.. You don't seem you know the bible very well.. Thats OK.. The bible is not a manual anyway..
The institution of the Hebrew Kings, however, was suggested against, and the Jews insisted on it anyway, a request to which God eventually obliged. But the Law, the basis of the Jewish religion, was already well in place at that time, as it was well after the institution of the Torah. Thus, I am not certain how the cases to which you refer prove that God disapproves of religion. God wanted the Hebrews to follow His Law all along.
Actually God made suggestions, the rabbis made it LAW.. God is not the Ogre the rabbis were.. Mankind can't follow laws anyways.. i.e. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (right and wrong).. Which of course was a obviously a metaphor.. God uses metaphors a lot.. in the bible.. or those that recounted the bible recount them.. Why would God demand laws when obviously man can't follow laws.? maybe God is stupid.? I don't think so, or naive even . . Christianity also uses the (renegade) government of Israel to model their own religious superstructure on too.. Pitiful really..
God removed the Ark not as a means to remove the Jewish religion, but rather because of the attitudes that were extended towards the ark itself. The basis for the Jewish religion was the Law itself, based upon the covenant God established with the Jewish people. The loss of the ark did not cause a single letter of the Hebrew law to pass.
Really.. Religious dogma it is.. Is God stupid.?. The Talmud is composed of the Mishna and Geamarra(sp?) anyway Mishna = some Rabbis opinions on what the Torah REALLY means and the Gemarra = other Rabbis opinions on what the first set of Rabbis meant.. Dogma... religious semantics.. So, then; GOD that KNOWS man cannot follow law, demands that man follow law.. actually its job security for the Rabbis.. Do sense a disconnect here.. Religion, ALL religion is a spiritual disease. just as human government is a social disease.. Tevi (Fiddler on the Roof) did not need religion, any religion.. as an example.. there are others..
We should also note that God is not the author of rebellion, as God is the source of lawfulness. God would not establish a system abhorrent to Himself, as God cannot sin against Himself. (Omnipotence does not mean God can violate His own nature.)
Sin!..... Sin is a straw man... Man is responsible for and to himself.. Responsible to do what.?. Responsible to be grateful... simply thats it.... Man is responsible to be grateful for that he is aware of.. Dogs are more grateful than most people.. Awareness is measured by gratitude.. The 10 suggestions simply allows man to be more grateful.. The rarest thing on this planet is gratitude.. More important than "sin" is gratitude.. A deeply grateful man "sins" very little.. Everybody lives forever, its just where you'll spend your time.. And the gratitude you've gained will determine what that will be.. A very "aware" person is a very grateful person.. Happiness comes from the inside out determined by the gratitude that lives within.. Sin is a straw man.. The less gratitude the more "sin".. So then, trying NOT to sin is a mistake.. Seek gratitude and then you will become more Aware of more things to be grateful for.. You will sin anyway, because you ARE sin... Gratitude is the cure for sin, sin is not the absence of gratitude.. A man can be grateful for a pretty, and cheap whore..
I am not quite certain why you say God has no name: in the Old Testament he reveals it to be YHWH. In addition, many of the points you make ultimately beg the question from the outset: you basically seem to be arguing that God would not create a religion because religions are and always have been human made institutions.
His/its answer to Moses shows he has no name.. i.e. "I am than I am".(Ex: chap3).. Basically WHO are you to ask my name.?. <-implied... Good enough for Moses, good enough for me.. God does not need to identify itself.. Works for me.. Naming God is 'bagging" God.. Is God Stupid.?... Call him whatever you want.. names mean nothing.. as does human language.. Very very crude way of communication.. God dealt with Adam and can and will deal with you, directly.. You don't need religion.. How do I know.? I do ... trust me... LoL..... or not...
As you astutely point out, it is unlikely that we will come to an agreement here, but are both posting for the benefit of lurkers. I would not go so far as to say that the inability on either of our parts to change our positions is due to obstinance, but rather upon a fundamental difference in certain starting premises. At any rate, I always enjoy the exchange of ideas!
Mee too, sometimes.. rarely in this depth,.. Hey, but the subject seemed right.. And "something" came over me... Me the only prophet in my cult with one member.. got a lot of hats.. d;-)..
"What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them." - Rm 3:1,2 (Douay Rheims translation)
From this it is seen that the word of God was committed originally to the Jews. As the designated custodians of the inspired word of God, they knew which books were canonical, and which were not, and they knew this without the assistance of the yet to appear Catholic Church.
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures," - Lk 24:44,45
Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written word of God into three categories. The Hebrew Bible, known by the acronym TaNaKh, from the first letter of its three divisions: the Torah (first five books of Moses), the Nevi'im (the Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). Christ was appearing to the disciples shortly after His resurrection and He was expounding to His disciples on the testimony of the scriptures about Himself, from one end of the Bible to the other. From the beginning at Moses; next to the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with Psalms; Christ explained from the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, how it revealed Him to be the Messiah.
While many have previously believed that Christ and the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint because it was the common tongue of the day, the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran proves conclusively that the Old Testament was available in Hebrew in Israel at the time of Christ. Note the following verse: A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:
jot or tittle: "Jot" refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; "tittle" is a slight serif on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter. - The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-614934-0, page 641.
So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!
Christ's discourse before the Pharisee's in Mt 23:29-Mt 23:36, he makes a most telling statement in Mt 23:35. In response to Christ's scathing accusation in v34, the Pharisee's protest that they would not have stoned the prophets of God, that they would have known better. "... from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias". What could Jesus be referring to? Well, Abel was murdered in the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. And Zacharias?
In Lk 11:51,52 Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of taking away the key of knowledge. What key is that? And what is God requiring of that generation? The answer is in the phrase "From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ..." It can be inferred that Jesus is referring to the full breadth of the scriptures (the key of knowledge, the oracles of God), from the first book of the Old Testament, to the last book of the Old Testament. A Protestant therefore, might well open their Bible to search in the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, for the martyrdom of Zacharias. However, Malachi is not the last book of the Hebrew Tanakh! The Hebrew Bible, though identical in content to the Protestant Old Testament, is not in the same order as Protestant or Catholic Bibles. In the Hebrew Bible the last book is the book of Chronicles. It is in II Chr 24:20-22 (2 Paraliponenon in the Latin Vulgate & Catholic OT) where we find the murder of Zechariah between the altar and the temple.
Neither can Jesus be speaking chronologically. He is speaking from the beginning to the end of all that was recorded in the Jewish Canon. While Abel was the first martyr, Zechariah is not the last in the Old Testament. That distinction belongs to the prophet Urijah, killed by king Jehoiakim more than a century after the martyrdom of Zechariah as recorded in Jeremiah 26:20-23. Jeremiah is the 11th book of the Hebrew OT.
King Joash, who had Zechariah stoned within the temple's court, was the 13th king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and he ruled from 798-782 B.C. King Jehoiakim, who slew Urijah with a sword, was the 18th ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C. Had Jesus been speaking chronologically, (from the first martyr to the last) He would have said - from the blood of Able unto the blood of Urijah, but that is not what He intended. He was clearly saying from the first book of scripture, to the last book of scripture. Therefore, in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, and in Luke 24:44, Jesus was explicitly referring to the order and divisions of the books in the Hebrew Bible as the complete span of scripture.
Some Catholics may object that there is a seeming discrepancy between II Chr 24:20 and Matt. 23:35. The protest stemming from the apparent reference to two different people because of the different in fathers. Because the parallel passages of Luke 11:51 and Matt. 23:35 both state that Zechariah perished between the altar and the temple, it is clearly the same Zechariah mentioned in II Chr. Mt 1:1 intimates Jesus being the son of David, the son of Abraham. Clearly this could not be, Jesus wasn't David's son, neither was David Abraham's son. However, Scripture does not absolutely intend the "son of" to be the immediate father-son relationship, in that it can also mean "descendent of" in a general sense. So to say that Zechariah was the son of Barachias in one place in scripture, and then say he was the son of Jehoiada somewhere else, does not present the problem some might want.
Moreover, long before any Roman Catholic councils, this same Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, was being referred to by the Christians as the Old Testament (see: II Cor 3:14). And interestingly enough, 40 years after Christ's crucifixion, after the Jewish War against the Romans (and resultant destruction of the Temple), a council of top Jewish scholars met in Jamnia, Palestine and agreed on an official set ‘canon’ of books/writings that included none of the apocryphal books. This group of scholars belonged for the main to the group known as Pharisees, and they in no way conferred any authority upon the books they established as canonical, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity (one example being Christ's aforementioned teaching).
Without doubt, those scholars were absolutely aware of the blatant:
The oldest existing manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrius) are dated no earlier than the 4th century A.D., and were clearly produced by Christians (in that books of the New Testament are included). The caves of Qumran, in which were found all of the canonical books of the Old Testament except Esther, also contained fragments of chapter 6 of the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus [Wisdom of Jesus the Son of (Ben) Sirach] in Hebrew, found in Cave 2, a fragment of Tobit in Aramaic, found in Cave 4, and a fragment of the Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch Chapter 6) in cave 7.
Previous to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the two oldest known complete Hebrew (Masoretic) texts of the Bible were the Aleppo Codex dated to the 10th century A.D. and the Leningrad Codex, dated to the early 11th century A.D. Both these texts, attributed to Ben-Asher, placed Chronicles at the beginning of the 3rd division, the Ketuvim (Writings). However, modern reprints of the Leningrad Codex have moved the book of Chronicles back to its tradition place at the end of the Ketuvim.
The King James Old Testament was translated from a Hebrew Bible printed in Venice in 1524-25 by Daniel Bomberg. Known as the Second Rabbinic Bible, it was edited by Ben Chayyim (or Ben Hayyim), and was compiled from many collected Hebrew texts. Considered the standard Masoretic text for the next 400 years (well into the 20th Century), it placed Chronicles at the end of the Ketuvim.
The foundation of the King James commission is called the Textus Receptus and stems from the Antiochen Text (according to Acts 11:26 the disciples were first referred to as Christians in Antioch). Of the almost 5300 ancient Greek manuscript copies of the New Testament in existence today, 95% of them are in agreement, and these texts are referred to as being the Majority Text.
The Septuagint is the name for the Greek translation of Hebrew first done in about 250 B.C. and significant perversion of text is evident when compared with readings of Talmudic or Masoretic texts. The 262 Greek copies of the New Testament which are not in agreement neither between themselves, or with the greater majority, are known as the Textus Receptus - Minor Text. The Minor Text originates predominantly in Alexandria, Egypt, being the Gnostic capital of the world at the time. Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious system (1st to 6th centuries A.D.) that taught that knowledge (as opposed to faith) was the key to salvation. These texts attack the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, the infallibility of the Bible, and the trinity as the nature of God.
Jerome used the Septuagint and Codex Alexandrius as the source for his Latin translation of the Bible in 382 A.D. Jerome's Vulgate serves as the root for the Douay Bible in 1582. The Douay Bible is the stem for the present day Catholic Bible.
The Old Testament as it has come down in Greek translation from the Jews of Alexandria via the Christian Church differs in many respects from the Hebrew Scriptures. The books of the second and third divisions have been redistributed and arranged according to categories of literature -- history, poetry, wisdom, and prophecy. - Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
It is a significant fact that in all these Alexandrian Bibles the traditional Hebrew order is broken up by the interspersion of the additional literature among the other books, outside the law, thus asserting for the extra writings a substantial equality of rank and privilege. - Catholic Encyclopedia Online
The Protestant Bible of 66 books, while it contains the same 39 Old Testament canonical books as the Hebrew Tanakh, does not retain the original grouping and order cited by Jesus Christ, rather, it follows the order of the Latin Vulgate used by the Council of Trent in 1546, when it declared Roman Catholic Canon infallibly.
What is most striking about the grouping, sequencing and content of the Greek Septuagint MSS (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrius) that Catholic Tradition largely holds to be representative of Old Testament canon, is no two NSS are exactly alike. Each MSS contains books the other two don't and are fashioned in a completely different arrangement. What is common between all three MSS is that Psalms contains chapter 151, Daniel contains v24-91 in Chapter 3 and ends at Chapter 14, Esther runs on from Est 10:4 through Chapter 16.
Quotations of the New Testament by early Christian writers are so extensive that the N.T. could be virtually reconstructed purely by consulting these quotes without reliance on the manuscripts whatsoever.
The comparison of these writers quotes with the content of the manuscripts show discrepancies that are of no consequence whatsoever (essentially amounting to a drop in the Pacific ocean). And all this was written well before Constantine.
Ah, now we are just getting into matters of interpretation regarding the Old Testament, with which I cannot argue with you because different interpretations, by nature, involve different starting premises when approaching the text in question. The process would be long and drawn out, as both sides would have to explain and support fundamental premises, which is a lot more work than either of us really want to do. That would be way more in depth than this forum would allow (still, it's always nice to show that discussions can go on without the almost ad hominem attacks that are almost obligatory around here).
Still, I like the hat. I've always thought that a prophet needs a good hat. I lost my hat... that's why I gave up my prophethood. Needless to say, my cult was disappointed... (well, it was just me, but I still felt pretty bad... it was a nice hat).
Well, you're an ol' poop, aren't you ... I especially like the Moonbat references.. its so descriptive and accurate applied to the proper bat.. RINO ain't bad either.. Creative Ad Hominums are so human.. and sinful, they're delicious.. Probably thats why are used and consumed.. Lame Ad Hominums give the Creative ones a bad name.. Practice, Practice, Practice as they say.. Maybe you're just jealous... d;-)~
Still, I like the hat. I've always thought that a prophet needs a good hat. I lost my hat... that's why I gave up my prophethood. Needless to say, my cult was disappointed... (well, it was just me, but I still felt pretty bad... it was a nice hat).
Pity... lost the prophethood eh!.. Now you'll be robbed of the villagers being after you with pitchforks and torches.. COWARD... Was going to allow others entry into my cult once, but chickened out..
I thought about getting another hat. I decided instead to just shave my head bald and am going to start a newer type cult like the $cientologists. That's where the money is.
Don't ever let other people join your cult. Do that and you'll lose all respect in my eyes. Having others join is the purview of us hypocrites. ;-)
Hypocritos means actor, and I'm not acting, I really am a moron.. Pity too.. When I was twenty, I was the smartest man on earth.. Not a year passes I don't get dumber.. with infinite gratitude for it too... have found no one dumb enough to join my cult.. Only the smart ones apply.. pretty dumb of them really.. But I refer them to some religion.. you know,, to dumb them down a little more... hasn't worked though.. That Religion makes them think they are the smartest people on earth.. even smarter than before..
True; I hear ya, I'm an evil icehole... sending people to be injected with Bull Sperm.. Better them than me, I got that from the Big Guy.... Its all going according to plan..
Is God cool or WHAT.?.
Oh, I wasn't calling you a hypocrite - I was refering to cult leaders like myself with actual followers... ;-)
I am in my 20s, but I am not all that knowledgable. It's a bit difficult being peers with so many people that know everything about how the world works, but I manage. I have my beliefs, of course, and I have conviction behind them, but I heard a wise man say that all he knew was that he knew nothing. It was rather good advice.
I could be wrong. I keep a constant inspection on my beliefs, driving even Catholic friends crazy with my questions as to why they believe and how they are so certain as to why they are correct. Ultimately, I believe because I choose to, and all the rest falls into place. My paradigm has made sense thus far and there is no need to change what ain't broke. When things stop making sense, I guess then will be the time for another major change in my worldview.
And no one called you an evil icehole... now you're just launching into personal attacks on yourself. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.