Mel Gibson, Armenia, Stamp Out Genocides

[Thai-Samurai]

This is the opinion police: You're all arrested.

[garegin]

and u guys think that not pucking for ur life is next to impossible?

[Crimson Glow]

Christs life and death is historically confirmed.

Ummmmm.....no it's not. For starters, there have been those that have traced his steps, and believe in a different story. They believe Jesus never died on the cross, that he lived on and had children of his own, and that his lineage continues today. There are all sorts of different opinions and takes on what happened. I have also read on many accounts that the word "virgin" was misinterpreted in translation from its original, Hebrew form. Nothing in the realm of religion (or.....much of anything for that matter) can be "confirmed".

[XxgoeyxX]

Ummmmm.....no it's not. For starters, there have been those that have traced his steps, and believe in a different story. They believe Jesus never died on the cross, that he lived on and had children of his own, and that his lineage continues today. There are all sorts of different opinions and takes on what happened. I have also read on many accounts that the word "virgin" was misinterpreted in translation from its original, Hebrew form. Nothing in the realm of religion (or.....much of anything for that matter) can be "confirmed".

Do you happen to know what the word was that was misinterpreted from the translations. Or what they thought the word was. I know there were thousands of Greek manuscripts and all and all that translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek couldnt have changed a lot of things.

[Azgaser]

Ummmmm.....no it's not. For starters, there have been those that have traced his steps, and believe in a different story. They believe Jesus never died on the cross, that he lived on and had children of his own, and that his lineage continues today.

Huh??? So Pontus Pilot lied when he wrote to Rome and said that he had crucified Jesus?

[XxgoeyxX]

Do you happen to know what the word was that was misinterpreted from the translations. Or what they thought the word was. I know there were thousands of Greek manuscripts and all and all that translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek couldnt have changed a lot of things.

I meant could* have changed!

I'm still curious to know where you got that information from. I know you said in many accounts you have read that, but do you remember any specific one.

And by the way, there are a lot of opinions about everything but are they facts?

[Crimson Glow]

I saved this to Word a while ago:

Scriptural References

In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original Hebrew. You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs. The two places that you mentioned are good examples. In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus!

And this was from a more recent discussion I was reading (if you're reaaally bored; there's more then I have shown, but I ran over the post size limit):

There are explicit references to the virgin birth in only two places in the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are believed to be amongst the latest written parts of the New Testament. The apparently older Gospel of Mark, on which Matthew and Luke are believed to be partly based (see Markan priority), does not mention the virgin birth, and some scholars also argue from lexicon and style that the first two chapters of Luke, describing the virgin birth, were a later addition to the Gospel, which may originally have began at 3:1:

2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
At 3:1 there is an abrupt change of subject and the story begins again. The letters of Paul also appear to be older than Matthew and Luke, and Paul does not take a clear opportunity to refer to Mary as a virgin when he describes the birth of Jesus:

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...
The phrase in Greek is γενομενον εκ γυναικος, genomenon ek gunaikos, "having-become of a-woman", not γενομενον εκ παρθενου, genomenon ek parthenou, "having-become of a-virgin". Christian apologists reply that Mary's virginity was not relevant to Paul's reasoning at this point, and point out that he uses a special verb to describe Jesus's birth, which he plainly regarded as a special event. However, Jesus's birth would have been special to Paul whether or not it had taken place by parthenogenesis, and if Paul had not known of the virgin birth, it could never have been relevant to any of his reasoning and so could never have appeared in his writing. This argumentum ex silentio, or "argument from silence", cannot be conclusive, but it does increase the probability that only the writers of Matthew and Luke knew of and believed in the virgin birth. If other writers had mentioned the virgin birth in the New Testament, it would be certain that they believed in it. They did not mention it, therefore it cannot be certain that they believed in it and, like the resurrection appearances, the virgin birth may be an example of the gradual supernaturalization of the Christian story. Some scholars have argued that early Christians did not claim that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. They point to the geneaologies in Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2, which use descent through Joseph to demonstrate that Jesus was the heir to King David. Moreover, the Ebionites (a group of Palestinian Judeo-Christians rejected by Gentile Christians as heretics) maintained that Jesus was naturally conceived.

1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
This seems to say that Jesus was human by the flesh and divine by the spirit: he was the "seed of David" by descent in the male line through Joseph. Furthermore, he was declared to be the Son of God by his virgin birth as well as by his resurrection from the dead, and later in Romans Paul says this:

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Why is a body begotten of a virgin by the Holy Spirit called a ομοιωματι σαρκος αρματιας, homoiomati sarkos harmatias, a "likeness of sinful flesh"? These and similar references may suggest that Paul does not mention the Virgin Birth because it had not yet been created as a way of honoring Jesus or overcoming the difficulties of reconciling human flesh and divine spirit, and although Paul refers to Jesus as "Son of God" after his death, Jesus repeatedly refers to himself in life as υιος του ανθροπου, Huiou tou Anthropou, "Son of Man" (Matthew 8:20 etc; Mark 2:10 etc; Luke 5:24 etc; John 1:51 etc).

Dispute regarding Isaiah 7:14
In past two millennia there has been considerable controversy among Christians and their opponents about the plain translation and the precise meaning of a small section of Isaiah. The crux of the matter is the translation of the word : עלמה, `almah which has been translated as young woman and as virgin.

In the King James Bible, a traditional Protestant translation, the verses in question run like this:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Many modern translations concede that the word in the Hebrew does not mean "virgin".

This demonstrates that many Christian scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, have conceded that the traditional translation of the Hebrew is not preferred in the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Skeptics argue that this is not a very clear prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ. For example, what does the "butter and honey" refer to? (One possible response to the "butter and honey" problem: it is a reference to one who, metaphorically, "has eaten good meat their entire life in order to spit out the bad meat if it ever touched their lips". Note that the "butter and honey" reference is immediately followed by the comment on an ability to choose between god and evil; you may suggest that they are related.) And why is Christ, who was sinless from birth in the traditional Christian understanding, described as having to learn to refuse the evil and choose the good? Skeptics raise even greater questions about the translation of the first verse in this passage:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, עלמה (a `almah) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Is it accurate to translate עלמה (`almah) as virgin? Greek version of the Book of Isaiah 7:14 (see below and the articles on Biblical canon, Tanakh, Septuagint and Old Testament) translates עלמה (`almah) as parthenos shall conceive a child called Immanuel (meaning "God with us"), "parthenos" which is conventionally translated as into English as virgin. Furthermore, the Gospel of Matthew 1:22-23 explicitly links the Isaiah prophecy to the birth of Jesus. Accordingly, many Christians understand the Isaiah prophecy as referring to Mary at the birth of Jesus.

There are two important words in Hebrew that can be translated into English as "virgin": בתולה, bethulah, and עלמה, `almah. Isaiah uses `almah in the Masoretic Text, and so conservative Christians have tried to demonstrate that the word unambiguously means "virgin", while other scholars, Christian, Jewish and otherwise, have tried to demonstrate that the word means simply "young woman", without any necessary connotation of virginity. `Almah occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible and usually seems to mean a young woman of marriageable age (e.g. Genesis 24:43); bethulah is accepted in modern Hebrew usage as the characteristic Hebrew word for virgin. There is no Hebrew tradition of virgin birth: Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Hannah were infertile women who miraculously gave birth late in life. The Bible makes no claim of divine impregnation. Christian apologists nevertheless argue that many first century Jews, including Jewish converts to Christianity used the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which used the word παρθενος, parthenos, which Christian apologists say clearly means "virgin". However, the great Greek-English Lexicon edited by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott lists other meanings for the word:

παρθενος, parthenos, I. 1. maiden, girl; virgin, opp. γυνη gynê, "woman". 2. of unmarried women who are not virgins, Iliad 2.514, etc. 3. Parthenos, hê, the Virgin Goddess, as a title of Athena at Athens. 4. the constellation Virgo. II. as adj., maiden, chaste. III. as masc., parthenos, ho, unmarried man, Apocalypse 14.4.
There is also archaeological evidence that Jewish speakers of Greek used the word "parthenos" elastically; Jewish catacombs in Rome identify married men and women as "virgins," and some have suggested that in this case the word was used to call attention to the fact that the deceased was someone's first spouse. Nevertheless, it remains true that Jews stopped using the more explicit Septuagint translation as Christianity spread, and that post-Christian Jewish translations into Greek use νεανις, neanis, meaning "young woman" rather than "virgin". The Septuagint does not use parthenos very precisely and translates at least three different Hebrew words by it: bethulah, "maiden/virgin"; `almah, "maiden/virgin"; and נערה, na`arah, "maiden, young woman, servant". When we look at parthenos in the Septuagint, we discover that its meaning is sometimes expanded in a way not seen in Isaiah:

Genesis 24:16 And the damsel [parthenos = Hebrew na`arah] was very fair to look upon, a virgin [parthenos = Hebrew bethulah], neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins [parthenous = Hebrew bethulah], that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

It all boils down to this: the distinctive Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah, whereas `almah means a 'young woman' who may be a virgin, but is not necessarily so. The aim of this note is rather to call attention to a source that has not yet been brought into the discussion. From Ugarit of around 1400 B.C. comes a text celebrating the marriage of the male and female lunar deities. It is there predicted that the goddess will bear a son ... The terminology is remarkably close to that in Isaiah 7:14. However, the Ugaritic statement that the bride will bear a son is fortunately given in parallelistic form; in 77:7 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew `almah 'young woman'; in 77:5 she is called by the exact etymological counterpart of Hebrew betulah 'virgin'. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of `almah as 'virgin' for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. (Feinberg, BibSac, July 62; the citation to Gordon is: C. H. Gordon, "`Almah in Isaiah 7:14", Journal of Bible and Religion, XXI, 2 (April, 1953), p. 106.)

This philological reasoning seems to raise three possibilities: virgin birth is a pagan concept that Christianity has 1) taken from contemporary paganism; 2) taken from pre-Mosaic paganism through Isaiah; or 3) taken from contemporary paganism and justified from Isaiah, who took it from pre-Mosaic paganism. If pre-Mosaic paganism supports Isaiah, and Isaiah supports Matthew and Mark, paganism has anticipated Christianity, perhaps because God was preparing the way for Christianity or because, as some Church Fathers argued, the Devil was blasphemously imitating Christianity. On the other hand, if pre-Mosaic paganism does not support Isaiah, there are several possibilities. For example, perhaps virgin birth was invented separately, first in paganism, then in Christianity or perhaps, despite the earlier date of the Ugaritic text, virgin birth existed first in Judaism, without any other instances than this one, and was borrowed by paganism.

And that's just for starters. I don't book mark every single thing I come across. That would just be an immense amount of sites, rendering them useless to me, and just as time consuming as searching for them all over again. The info is out there if you search for it, and want to learn more about it. Certainly gives you something to think about. The discussion that second quote was from also went deep into whether jesus existed at all. Some excellent points against his existence that I never really gave prior thought to.

[garegin]

like i said, nothing in religion can be confirmed, because thats the whole point of it. believing without seeing. however i dont think the old Pilate lied to Rome. Yeah... thats basicly it. There many biblical scholars who fight with each other, so this guy could have been a poser. i trust the church fathers on this, rather than some nubes who re-translate the bible with million mistakes.

[XxgoeyxX]

I saved this to Word a while ago:
And this was from a more recent discussion I was reading (if you're reaaally bored; there's more then I have shown, but I ran over the post size limit):
And that's just for starters. I don't book mark every single thing I come across. That would just be an immense amount of sites, rendering them useless to me, and just as time consuming as searching for them all over again. The info is out there if you search for it, and want to learn more about it. Certainly gives you something to think about. The discussion that second quote was from also went deep into whether jesus existed at all. Some excellent points against his existence that I never really gave prior thought to.

Well thank you Crimson. Yes, if had seached I would have found it. But I thought maybe you already had it without even having to search for it again. But thank you. Sorry I made you go though all that trouble.

I very much agree that translation has or many had caused this problem. Yes it does give me something to think about, but I am going to ask my Bible studies professor, maybe he can give me more references. This is very interesting. Now I have to add it on to my "to do list", of understand everything about the Bible. Thats going to take a life time.

[HyeJinx1984]

I love stamps. Stamps friend. *hugs stamps*