Here's some information about the "missing" books as told from a Catholic viewpoint.  Lots of interesting information here.

- Matt Small
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: brob
  To: CF-Community
  Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:47 PM
  Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"

  I wish i had knew/been told about this a long time ago so i can do some research!
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wayne Putterill
    To: CF-Community
    Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:39 AM
    Subject: RE: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"

    That sounds like what the documentary said from memory, thanks for
    reassuring me that I'm not imagining things (this time anyway :)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
    Sent: 16 October 2003 13:44
    To: CF-Community
    Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"

    There were many religious manuscripts written at this time and some of
    them were not included in the Bible, although are still studied for
    information.  The Council of Nicene back in the 300's got together and
    decided what was "canon" - that is, which books were determined to be
    the Word of the Lord for the Bible and which were only works of men.  In
    addition, (and I don't know how this came to be) the Catholic Bible has
    five books that the Protestant Bible does not include.

    - Matt Small
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Wayne Putterill
      To: CF-Community
      Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:12 AM
      Subject: RE: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"

      I'm far from being an expert on the Bible (being Buddhist for a
    start!),
      but I remember seeing a TV documentary years ago that claimed that
    there
      were originally far more than four gospels in the NT and that at some
      point an editing process occurred.

      A quick google search brought up these pages HYPERLINK

    "http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TextHist.html"http://www.skypoint.com/
      ~waltzmn/TextHist.html and HYPERLINK

    "http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html"htt
      p://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html which
      seem to show that either my memory or the program were basically
    wrong,
      but that there have been a lot of changes and editing to the text over
      the years - "Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time,
      truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the
      Bible.  It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous
    writings
      before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it
      was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by
      chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until
      priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and
    holy,
      and even they were not unanimous." (The Formation of the New Testament
      Canon)

      Warning - the links are to quite long articles which will either bore
      you rigid or take up far too much of your day!

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
      Sent: 15 October 2003 20:31
      To: CF-Community
      Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"

      Sorry, I should have made clear that I don't know whether that bit in
      the
      bible is a victim of translation, revisionist history, or if it's
      correctly
      translated and Vatican II is engaging in revisionism. I was asking the
      question before because I don't know but I know it's within the realms
      of
      possibilty based on things I know about translation and the study of
      religions.

      <cf_speculation>
      It is possible for entire sections to be, if not mistranslated per se,
      misinterpreted. Many of the concepts are presented in such a way that
      they
      are rife with cultural interpretation. When referring to the "chief
      priests", what does that mean? Are they actually jewish priests? Are
      they
      roman priests, but maybe that was lost in understanding? Are they
    jewish
      slaves who the romans used as their figureheads to control the jewish
      population and they are given the title of "chief priests" by the
      romans?

      Take the latter. One reference to a roman installed "chief priest"
    here
      or
      there and a translator's approach to later sections will be skewed
    based
      on
      that misunderstanding.
      </cf_speculation>

      <cf_sociology>
      It's also interesting to look at the cultural background of the
      political
      necessity of a christ figure. At the time, the Caesar was god. Perhaps
      self-appointed, but culturally that was his position. There were also
      many,
      many jewish tribes/sects/groups what have you. There was particularly
    a
      differentiation of city and country jewish communities. The jewish
      people as
      a whole were trying to come up with a way to get out from under the
      romans.
      They needed an alternative to the Caesar. But they were also fighting
      amongst themselves for power, just as people in the city today have
      different social needs than people in the country. I've read accounts
    of
      many viable christ figures that came out of the jewish communities,
    but
      the
      personage of Jesus as a diametrical opposite to the rich, wealthy,
      powerful
      and ruthless Caesar was the one that history remembers and was
      eventually
      documented in the bible. Documented of course by the ones who put him
    in
      power.
      </cf_sociology>

      I'm just stringing together things I've read years ago and
    suppositions
      based on that. They provide a viable enough context for me to see the
      Vatacan II pronouncement as credible as any of the religious history.
      But
      I'm not a believer. If anything these days, I'm an armchair scholar.

      So my only question is, if intellectually there's enough reason to
    cast
      doubt on the story, why stick steadfastly to a story that justifies
    some
      people's hatred of some other people?

      -Kevin

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Matthew Small" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
      To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
      Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:45 PM
      Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"

      > OK, that's a single word, but are there entire sections of text
    which
      are
      mistranslated so that it appears that Jews are responsible for the
    death
      of
      Jesus rather than some other group - the Romans, perhaps?  Like Brob,
      I'd
      always thought it was the Romans alone who put Jesus to death, but
    then
      I
      started reading the Bible.
      >
      >  Matthew 26:14-16
      > 14Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the
      chief
      priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him
    over
      to
      you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on
      Judas
      watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
      >
      > John 18:12-13
      > 12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish
      officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to
      Annas,
      who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.
      >
      > I'm not holding anybody today responsible for the death of Jesus,
    but
      the
      Bible does say what it says.  Are you saying that these passages are
      incorrect?
      >
      > -Matthew Small
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: Michael Dinowitz
      >   To: CF-Community
      >   Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:12 PM
      >   Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
      >
      >
      >   Sorry, the actual word is Michashefa, which is the feminine form
      used in
      the
      >   particular place. Its from the root Kishuf.
      >
      >   ----- Original Message -----
      >   From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
      >   To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
      >   Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:55 PM
      >   Subject: Re: Mel Gibson's "THE PASSION"
      >
      >   > I can document it with a single word. Michushef. This Hebrew
    word
      has
      a
      >   > meaning of sorceress or witch. i.e. one who uses impure forces
    to
      affect
      >   > reality. A type of magic basically. Because of the way Greek is,
      the
      word
      >   > they used was basically one who uses herbs or poisons which was
      translated
      >   > later on as poisoner and on and on. King James has it as witch,
      which
      >   pisses
      >   > off the modern pagans.
      >   > What the word is and what it has become and is becoming over
    time
      and
      due
      >   to
      >   > 'popular' input shows exactly how the Christian Bible has
    changed.
      Yes,
      >   the
      >   > original Greek is the original Greek, but who here reads that?
    We
      all
      read
      >   > the English.
      >   > A change in a word can be a change in the entire story. Take my
      comment
      >   > about the last supper not being able to be the Passover Seder.
      That
      was
      >   > probably added later in a translation.
      >
      >
      >
         _____  

      [HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5"Todays
      Threads] [HYPERLINK
      "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=i:5:92216"This Message]
      [HYPERLINK
      "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5"Subscription]
      [HYPERLINK

    "http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=464.445.5"Fa
      st Unsubscribe] [HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/"User
      Settings]
         _____  

      HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17"
    \n

      ---
      Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003

      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003

       _____  

    [HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5"Todays
    Threads] [HYPERLINK
    "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=i:5:92310"This Message]
    [HYPERLINK
    "http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5"Subscription]
    [HYPERLINK
    "http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=464.445.5"Fa
    st Unsubscribe] [HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/signin/"User
    Settings]
       _____  

    HYPERLINK "http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=38" \n

    ---
    Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/2003


[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to