It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Misquoting Jesus

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Just got done watching a quick interview with the author of the book titled Misquoting Jesus. I did abit of searching and found an .mp3 interview for all to listen too, and a link to look at excerpts, and buy the book on amazon.com.

www.ibiblio.org...
qurl.com...

One of the intersting bit's mention on the show I watched was the quote used alot here on ATS.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

From what this author has discovered, the earliest manuscript known doesn't even have this quote. Jesus never said this in the most earliest manuscripts we have. The author used to be a born again christian and took it so seriously that he set out to learn more about the original biblical manuscripts, and from what he had learned through this research was there are some bits here and there in todays modern biblical texts that simply DO NOT exist in the ancient text's. We don't have the original manuscripts, the earliest manuscript that we have is written centuries after 'jesus' had died. In the .mp3 interview, he even mentions to different version's of 'jesus's' ressurection, in one version the women tell people, in the other version, they don't. Which version is true? Are today's biblical text's more true with all their additions and ommisions of the original text's? Are you really even following the word of christ?

Christians should really listen to the .mp3 interview. Don't just brush it off and dismiss it as blasphemous hogwash. You'll learn even more about your 'faith' in jesus. Put this and the gospel of thomas(judas) together ...




posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
She is long gone from this hell hole. Why would she come back to this? To be killed again for telling the truth.

All this to keep a fraudulent, lucrative scheme alive. If someone ask for money to be saved, you know it is fraudulent.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Found a few more links for you guy's to take a look at, one being another interview with a different author of a book titled Did Jesus Really Say That?.

www.mereislam.info...
rosetta.reltech.org...
rosetta.reltech.org...
www.charlotte.com...



There's only one verse in the New Testament that explicitly states the doctrine of the trinity (that there are three persons in the godhead, but that the three all constitute just one God).

It's 1 John 5:7-8. You'll find the verses in the King James Bible, and they've always been used as an explicit statement of the doctrine of the trinity. But those verses aren't found in any of the Greek manuscripts down to the 14th century.

And in the Last Supper...Jesus says, "This is my body which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me." And he gives the cup and says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you."

But those verses are missing from some of the oldest and best manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. Without those verses, Luke nowhere else talks about Jesus' death as being an atonement, a sacrifice for the sake of others.

It also turns out that the account in Luke about Jesus sweating blood as he prays in the garden is missing from our oldest and best manuscripts.

I think scribes added that because there were debates in the second and third centuries as to whether Jesus was fully human or not. These verses were inserted to show he really was human and really did suffer.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I don't understand... If you say that we don't have the original manuscripts, how can you know what the original manuscript does and does not say?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Exactly. We don't know, but what this guy has done is gone through the most oldest manuscripts we do have, which would obviously be the most closest to the original manuscripts.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Are you try to imply that the Original Jesus never said:
"Why am I surrounded by women named 'Mary?'"



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

14. Most English translations render the beginning of v. 41 so as to emphasize Jesus' compassion for this poor outcast leper, "moved with compassion/filled with pity." In doing so, they are following the Greek text found in most of our manuscripts, splagxnisqei\j e)ktei/naj th\n xei=ra au)tou=, "feeling compassion, reaching out his hand." It is certainly easy to see why compassion might be called for in the situation. We don't know the precise nature of the man's disease--many commentators prefer to think of it as a scaly skin disorder rather than the kind of rotting flesh that we commonly associate with leprosy. In any event, he may well have fallen under the injunctions of the Torah that forbad "lepers" of any sort to live normal lives; they were to be isolated, cut off from the public, considered unclean (Leviticus 13-14). Moved with pity for such a one, Jesus reaches out a tender hand, touches his diseased flesh, and heals him.

15. The simple pathos and unproblematic emotion of the scene may well account for translators and interpreters, as a rule, not considering the alternative text found in some of our manuscripts. For the wording of one of our oldest witnesses, Codex Bezae, which is supported by three Old Latin manuscripts, is at first puzzling and wrenching. Here, rather than saying that Jesus felt compassion for the man, the text indicates that he became angry. In Greek it is a difference between the words splagxnisqei/j and o)rgisqei/j. Because of its attestation in both Greek and Latin witnesses, this reading is generally conceded by textual specialists to go back at least to the second century. Is it possible, though, that this in fact is what Mark himself wrote?


Basically, one of the arguments that Ehrman brings up is that an Old Latin Scripture states that "Jesus became angry with a leper, and then proceeded to heal him." .... Does this make sense to anyone?

To support his theory that the original manuscripts stated Jesus was angry when healing a leper, Ehrman obviously brought up tons of hard evidence. You see, Ehrman has an Old Latin Scripture that clearly states Jesus became angry at a leper and then out of pure frustration, healed him(gasp!)!! And by the way, the Old Latin Scripture that Ehrman used also contained two different testimonies of Jesus feeling compassion for the leper, which was his reason for healing him. Besides this scripture among thousands of other refuting scriptures, his evidence also contains.... uh.... er..... well, nothing.

Furthurmore, Ehrman never mentions how old his "Old Latin Scriptures" actually are. And he never states that they are the oldest manuscripts that exist. For all we know, this one scripture could be an inaccurate misprint or it could have been made by a disgruntled writer. But I could also be wrong. Perhaps Jesus really was angry at a leper, and then proceeded to heal him... *snicker*


[edit on 15-3-2006 by TheBlueSoldier]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
The author used to be a born again christian and took it so seriously that he set out to learn more about the original biblical manuscripts, and from what he had learned through this research was there are some bits here and there in todays modern biblical texts that simply DO NOT exist in the ancient text's. We don't have the original manuscripts, the earliest manuscript that we have is written centuries after 'jesus' had died.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. The author - Bart Ehrman is a liar - he was never a born again Christian - he is a Jew and always was a Jew - if you don't believe me - see for yourself:

www.houseofnames.com...

2. While it is true that we do not have the original manuscripts - we know from the ealiest translation of the completed bible - the Vulgate by Jerome that his translation of the Old Testament into Latin matches the Greek Septuagint Version which dates back to the 3rd century before Christ.

We also know that St. Jerome completed his translation of the bible around 360ad - a time when anyone who was literate could read both Greek and Latin and most probably could also read Hebrew as well. If Jerome had mistranslated the earlier manuscripts - or added things that were not there - certainly he would have been called on it - yet he was not - there is on evidence of anyone questioning his translation until 1500 years later at the time of the protestant revolt.

The idea that this clown could now - nearly 2000 years later - figure out that all these years everyone was wrong - but him - is absolutely absurd. He admits that none of the original manuscripts exist - yet - he knows what they said - COME ON!

This is simply the case of a jewish man with an axe to grind against Christ and His Church - and the lemmings of this world are buying this nonense hook line and sinker!

WAKE UP!

People far more intelligent than this idiot have tried to discredit the New Testament and failed - so has this character.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead


WAKE UP!

People far more intelligent than this idiot have tried to discredit the New Testament and failed - so has this character.




You just got a WATS onesharpbroadhead


and welcome to the Christian bashing threads.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Aside from the obvious holes in the ideas, there is no conspiracy is there? Just another one of these usual threads that really should be in BTS.

There is nothing wrong with BTS, people, and there is NOTHING wrong in posting in the proper forum and domain.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   


The author - Bart Ehrman is a liar - he was never a born again Christian - he is a Jew and always was a Jew - if you don't believe me - see for yourself:


That's not really good evidence that he was ever a jew himself. Your showing me a family crest, this doesn't make him a jew automagically just because you say so.




While it is true that we do not have the original manuscripts - we know from the ealiest translation of the completed bible - the Vulgate by Jerome that his translation of the Old Testament into Latin matches the Greek Septuagint Version which dates back to the 3rd century before Christ.


I haven't fully looked into all the different version's yet, but I will get around to it. If I'm not mistaken, his research is dealing with today's bible compared to yesterdays bible. A text from 360AD is obviously going to look more like the text's from say, 150AD. But today's text's have thing's added into them that don't exist in yesterday's text's. And from what I understand, one of those saying's by jesus was let he who is without sin cast the first stone. To me, that's rather interesting. Put's alot of doubt on the supposed divinely inspired theory. People today aren't reading the oldest translation's, they're reading the translations that have omission's and addition's to the story and claiming THOSE translations are of divine inspiration, which they can not be if certain thing's are left out or added that never happened.




The idea that this clown could now - nearly 2000 years later - figure out that all these years everyone was wrong - but him - is absolutely absurd. He admits that none of the original manuscripts exist - yet - he knows what they said - COME ON!


I don't recall him saying on the .mp3 interview that he alone know's what the originals say, but he was simply looking at the oldest text's compared to today's and doing quiet probably a hell of alot more research into his faith then anyone here on ATS has done.




Basically, one of the arguments that Ehrman brings up is that an Old Latin Scripture states that "Jesus became angry with a leper, and then proceeded to heal him." .... Does this make sense to anyone?


My second post has a link on that subject, you should read it.

How can the bible be of divine inspiration when there's so many different interpretation's, mistranslation's, ommision's, addition's. All within the christian faith itself. I just read one verse from two different bible's, both don't say the same exact thing, which is right? KJV or NIV? John 5:7-8



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Found this news article on homosexuality in the bible and how two different groups are at odds over it. One commenter I'm going to quote now.



news.bbc.co.uk...
Jesus' words have been distorted through time. Through translations and interpretations no true copy of the Bible exists today.
Mo Murad, UK


That's very true. We don't have any one true copy of the bible, all these copies you people are worshipping are not divinely inspired. Not a single one.

We also must not forget that nothing was written by jesus himself, nor by anyone durring the time jesus lived. Anything we have on him and his supposed teaching's are all after his death. Can anyone of you remember what you said last year on march 24th at 12:15pm? Word for word.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Aside from the obvious holes in the ideas, there is no conspiracy is there? Just another one of these usual threads that really should be in BTS.

There is nothing wrong with BTS, people, and there is NOTHING wrong in posting in the proper forum and domain.


The conspiracy being that somewhere, by quiet a few people, rewrote the bible. Added and subtracted and mistranslated to fit their view's and not those of the original author's. The conspiracy of trying to deny and hide this fact and dismiss it to save one's faith. But hey, your rule is ultimate so who am I to argue with someone as great as you who think's this country was founded on your belief's.


www.religioustolerance.org...
www.ellenwhite.org...

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Produkt]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
We have the Latin Vulgate - and it is exactly as St. Jerome translated it - and we have an english version that is a faithful translation of the Vulgate -t he Douay-Rheims.

The vulgate matches exactly the earliest translations of the Old Testament and is the earliest translation of the New Testament.

Note well - that the only people who are constantly questioning the content of Scripture are those who don't like what it says.

I can see why homosexual perverts and the followers of judiams and other false religions would want the new testament to not say what it says - after all it says that they are both reprobates.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   


We have the Latin Vulgate - and it is exactly as St. Jerome translated it -



gbgm-umc.org...

Jerome's earliest translations of the Hebrew Bible were based upon Origen's revisions of the Septuagint; however around 393 he turned to manuscripts written in the original Hebrew. Augustine argued that, by using Hebrew manuscripts, Jerome was driving a wedge between Christians of the East and West because the Greek-speaking Christians of the East were using the Septuagint.

To illustrate the folly of Jerome’s approach, Augustine told him the tale of a bishop from Tripoli who authorized Jerome’s new translation for use in his church. When the people heard the Old Testament lesson from Jonah, it was so unfamiliar that they protested the bishop’s innovation by rioting in the streets. Augustine saw this as proof that Jerome’s “Hebrew” version was a serious mistake.1


Jerome’s translation did not achieve wide acceptance until centuries after his death.

The first book printed with movable type by Johannes Gutenberg was the Vulgate. A handful of copies of the compete original Gutenberg Bible (four on parchment and seventeen on paper) exist today.

The Vulgate as we know it today is not the one done by Jerome. He did not complete a translation of the New Testament. The Vulgate was created by assembling books from a variety of sources, including Jerome.





The vulgate matches exactly the earliest translations of the Old Testament and is the earliest translation of the New Testament.


It can't match exactly if he never finnished the translation.




that the only people who are constantly questioning the content of Scripture are those who don't like what it says.


I don't really care what the scripture say's, I'm more interested in the validity of it's claim to be of divine inspiration. Evidence dictate's that it is in fact not of divine inspiration. We have nothing more then copies of copies of copies, and each with it's own mistranslation's, addition's, and ommision's. No biblical text in existance today is an original, nor translated word for word from an original.

Jerome version was based on Origen's revisions of the Septuagint While it was once thought that the Septuagint manuscript was the oldest recorded biblical text, that idea has been changed with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls.



en.wikipedia.org...

Manuscript copies of the Septuagint are the oldest and most important complete version of the Old Testament and until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls predated the Hebrew, or Masoretic, manuscripts texts by as much as 1,000 years


www.ccel.org... (Septuagint)



en.wikipedia.org...

The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they are practically the only remaining Biblical documents dating from before AD 100.

...

According to carbon dating and textual analysis, the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–AD 61. The Nash Papyrus from Egypt, containing a copy of the Ten Commandments, is the only other Hebrew document of comparable antiquity.


The Qumran community was still in existence durring the time of Jesus' ministry, and yet none of the dead sea scroll's mention him nor his follower's. Why is it that the oldest biblical text available fail to make any mention of the famous Jesus of Nazereth? The only mentioning of Jesus in existence today are all after his death. All teaching's of Jesus are after his death. Nothing was written durring his life and nothing written before his death. And as we know, all translations of the biblical text's are copies of copies of copies with addition's, omission's, mistranslation's, and reinterpretation's. There does not exist an original new testemant text today that would lead one to conclude that any of today's biblical text's are valid. There is no mention of Jesus durring his life.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   


and we have an english version that is a faithful translation of the Vulgate -t he Douay-Rheims.




en.wikipedia.org...
The Douai Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douay-Rheims Bible, is a Catholic translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English.


As we've already learned, the Latin Vulgate translation was not entirely written by Jerome as he never finnished the translation. So there is no possible way these two version's are faithfull to one another.



en.wikipedia.org...
Among the various Christian groups, the Vulgate is most commonly used among Roman Catholics.

...


  1. The use of sacred images, candles, vestments and music, and often incense and water, in worship.




The original jewish commandment ... #2



"You shall have no other gods besides Me... Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

One is required to believe in God and God alone. This prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities, gods, spirits or incarnations. To deny the uniqueness of God, is to deny all that is written in the Torah. It is also a prohibition against making or possessing objects that one or other may bow down to or serve, including any artistic representations of God or symbols thereof, including crucifixes, or any sulpture of a human being. One must not bow down to or serve any being or object but God.


Christian/Catholic reinterpretation #2 (Jewish #2 commandment was inserted into Christian commandment #1)



"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain." --

The moral lesson here involves more than simply a prohibition of swearing; it also prohibits the misappropriation of religious language in order to commit a crime, to participate in occult practices, or blaspheming against places or people that are holy to God.


Christian/Catholic Commandment #1 (graven images section only)



You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;


(Note: No mention of "including any artistic representations of God or symbols thereof, including crucifixes, or any sulpture of a human being.")

The jewish people were around and had these commandment's well before Jesus was even around or mentioned. This is just but one example of christian belief's rewriting bits and pieces of the earlier biblical text's for their own purposes. For what reason did the early christian's have to move around the original commandments and not keep the lord's 'holy' word intact in it's original jewish form?







[edit on 16-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Produkt.

Jerome finished his translation - i suggest you check out other sources than your methodist church site - a church that a great many Christian denominations do not even consider Christian!

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not older than the Septuagint which is from the 3rd century before christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been carbon dated from between the 2nd century before Christ to the first century AD. And guess what - THE REASON THAT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS DO NOT MENTION CHRIST IS BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN BEFORE CHRIST!

BTW - the Septuagint - matches the Dead Sea Scrolls.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   


The Dead Sea Scrolls are not older than the Septuagint which is from the 3rd century before christ. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been carbon dated from between the 2nd century before Christ to the first century AD.


Sorry, simply misread that part. Although I did find some more interesting information on the Septuagint.



faculty.cbhs.org...


According to legend (intended to insure Jews of the text's faithfulness to the original) seventy-two scholars working for seventy-two days produced seventy-two identical versions.

In reality, however, it wasn't completed for over two centuries (finished in the 1st century BC).

Translating the scriptures from Greek into Hebrew meant that many ideas that had been developed within the Jewish worldview were transferred into the worldview of Greek philosophical thinking.

The Septuagint was most influential outside of Palestine, and it became scripture for Greek-speaking Christians as the early church began to develop.
As a result, most NT quotations of scripture come from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text of the OT.


I tried doing more search's on the Septuagint and found this site here

www.geocities.com...



www.geocities.com...

Septuagint

And the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I will give this land to thy seed. And Abram built an altar there to the Lord, who appeared to him

...

New Testament

Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ

...

Masoretic Text

And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto Jehovah, who appeared unto him


No where in the Septuagint does it mention christ (nor should it since it's written before jesus' time), whereas in the NT version of this verse it does. How is that possible if the NT and Septuagint are so faithfull to one another? And then the Masoretic text is so much more different then the two.




THE REASON THAT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS DO NOT MENTION CHRIST IS BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN BEFORE CHRIST!


From what I've read there are text's that have been dated into Jesus' time. The Qumran community was still around durring Jesus' time. Yet, there still is no mention of Jesus himself at all, period, durring his time.




the Septuagint - matches the Dead Sea Scrolls.


I'll have to check on that later. Everything I've been learning about christianity and it's begining's are ... well, not so good. The lies, the war's, etc.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Yeah, maybe the way they are now is original
and the stuff that got left out of the oldest manuscripts
was put back in in the later editions because they
found the originals again
and corrected the stories
and it wasn't just a big kludge job
meant to back up the current regime
and this is the true word of God
even truer than before
so there



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
There is nothing wrong with BTS, people

BTS is like the murky backwater of ATS. Someplace for the kids to play while the grownups drink beer and talk their important talk.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join