Martial Arts & Religion

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not to mention the huge errors in translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, which would make the king james bible the least reliable one of them all.

Its a interesting one, the new testament that is, if we look into the translating part.
First off, we don't know who wrote them, not for certainty and we don't know who translated them either.
We do know that Jesus and his muchachos were hebrew that spoke aramaic and, if they were educated (most weren't), spoke and wrote classical greek.
We kind of have to assume that the original writings were classical greek being translated from spoken aramaic (ouch!) and then eventually translated into Latin or perhaps into "modern greek" and then into latin, then into German if I remember correctly and then into english.
Now, if that isn't a headache and a half, one has to remember that the vast majority of translators don't do literal translations, they do what they think a given sentence/paragraph means.

[kwaichang]

Arhat Stupid is as stupid does and you just did it I did not say King James wrote the bible he did however bring togethor the scholars to decide what would be in the Bible STUPID KC

[kwaichang]

The King James Version
James desired to secure a reconciliation between the throne and the Anglican church on the one hand, and the puritans on the other. Therefore he called the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church" inviting Anglican bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. None of the Puritan demands were met but one. The Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

James replied that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

The resolution states in in part::

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."

Gee no mention of shakespeare KC

[David Jamieson]

The term rabbi is used toward Jesus as a sign of respect, it means teacher in this context. If he were chinese maybe he'd have been called sifu. He certainly wasn't part of the Jewish priest class as is evidenced by the whole Caiphus debacle. i.e How dare a common man come to our holy city and preach his dangerous ideas... let's get the Romans to kill him.

Not wishing to speak for SW but I don't think he was saying that Christ's profession was a fisherman he was talking about the 'alleged' gospel writers.

Then it all becomes murky depending on how you think the gospels came about; the most popular theory is the two-source theory. Matthew, Luke and John come from one source and Mark form a different source. The gospel of Mark is the most Pauline and there are errors of geography when it talks about the holy lands suggesting it was written by someone who never visited there.

sorry you are wrong. He was considered a Rabbi. Not just a teacher. He was a jew and he was a rabbi in the jewish faith and he preached the Torah along with his radical taunts of the pharisees who he saw as a problem for the people.

Caiphus was a pharisee. the pharisees were a power base, but were not the whole of the jewish preisthood.

and "young girl" is only that. Virgin is a different word and if it were a virgin birth, it would have distinctly said so.

It is this type of redaction and repression that has in fact made everything so difficult to source. When people keep dead ending on the whole deification of jesus, they fill in the blanks with their fear and anger and denial.

If jesus were only a man like the rest of us, or like buddha or mohammed or moses or any other messenger of god, then that would not shake the truth of his teachings one iota.

it is foolishness and heirarchical thinking that makes people want to be one up from other people to feel better about themselves. This is why fun****etalists come across as stubborn and ignorant. Not because of what they believe, but because of why they believe it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Going back to the MA, I have noticed that many MA systems are based on, or have in their history, divine revelation.
Aikido being the most recent/notable.
The Tenshin Shoden katori Shinto ryu is another example.

[NJM]

For instance, where King James says that he was born of a virgin, the original hebrew merely says "young girl",As in "he was born of a young girl".

While I don't find this implausible, I was under the impression we had no record of the gospels earlier than the greek version.

[David Jamieson]

Going back to the MA, I have noticed that many MA systems are based on, or have in their history, divine revelation.
Aikido being the most recent/notable.
The Tenshin Shoden katori Shinto ryu is another example.

the starting point of almost every tradition can in one perspective be attributed to divine interference, revelation, etc.

It's the beginning afterall and what a wonderous thing that is!

[sanjuro_ronin]

While I don't find this implausible, I was under the impression we had no record of the gospels earlier than the greek version.

The oldest one, if I recall, was about 70 years AD and it was in classical greek.

[sanjuro_ronin]

the starting point of almost every tradition can in one perspective be attributed to divine interference, revelation, etc.

It's the beginning afterall and what a wonderous thing that is!

Actually, over the weekend I saw a cheesy movie called Gabriel, about the Arc-Angel Gabriel sent to take out the "fallen ones" in a city that represented
purgatory" and Gabriel knew MA, including knife work and gun work.
Divine inspiration indeed !!

[jacksawild]

sorry you are wrong. He was considered a Rabbi. Not just a teacher. He was a jew and he was a rabbi in the jewish faith and he preached the Torah along with his radical taunts of the pharisees who he saw as a problem for the people.

Respectfully, I disagree. The modern meaning of rabbi and the meaning from that time is subtly different.

From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi#Historical_overview

The governments of the kingdoms of Israel and the Judah were based on a system of Jewish kings, prophets, the legal authority of the court of the Sanhedrin and the ritual authority of priesthood. Members of the Sanhedrin all had to receive their semicha ("ordination" derived in an uninterrupted line of transmission from Moses) yet they were more frequently referred to as judges (dayanim) akin to the Shoftim or "Judges" as in the Book of Judges, rather than rabbis.

All of the above personalities would have been expected and assumed to be steeped in the wisdom of the Torah and the commandments, which would have made them - in modern language - “rabbis”. This is illustrated by an important two thousand year old teaching in Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot) of the Mishnah which cites King David by saying:

He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For so we find with David King of Israel, who learned nothing from Ahitophel except two things, yet called him his teacher (in Hebrew: rabbo meaning ‘his rabbi’), his guide, his intimate, as it is said: 'You are a man of my measure, my guide, my intimate' (Psalms 55:14). One can derive from this the following: If David King of Israel who learned nothing from Ahitophel except for two things, called him his teacher (i.e. rabbo -- his "rabbi"), his guide, his intimate, one who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, how much more must he treat him with honor. And honor is due only for Torah, as it is said: 'The wise shall inherit honor' (Proverbs 3:35), 'and the perfect shall inherit good' (Proverbs 28:10). And only Torah is truly good, as it is said: 'I have given you a good teaching, do not forsake My Torah' (Psalms 128:2). (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3)

With the destruction of the two Temples in Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish monarchy, and the decline of the dual instititutions of prophets and the priesthood, the focus of scholarly and spiritual leadership within the Jewish people shifted to the sages of the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshe Knesset HaGedolah). This assembly was composed by the earliest "rabbis" as we know them for the last two thousand years, in large part because they began the formulation and explication of what became known as Judaism's "Oral Law (Torah SheBe'al Peh). This was eventually encoded and codified within the Mishnah and Talmud and subsequent rabbinical scholarship, producing what is known as Rabbinic Judaism.

[David Jamieson]

Wiki is definitely not a reliable source for things theological. In fact, I would rank it in scholastic value on the subject, somewhere around the value of this thread. lol.

If Yeshua Bar Joseph was not part of the priesthood, how is it that after he had his mitzvah he was allowed to debate and argue with the rabbinical group of his temple? If he was an average grunt, this would not be so.

be careful where you try to diminish. A rabbi is whole and apart from a regular teacher both in the here and now and then.

[NJM]

The oldest one, if I recall, was about 70 years AD and it was in classical greek.

Then how can we know what "the original hebrew" text translated as if we don't have the original hebrew (if there was such a thing) of the gospels?

[jacksawild]

Wiki is definitely not a reliable source for things theological. In fact, I would rank it in scholastic value on the subject, somewhere around the value of this thread. lol.

If Yeshua Bar Joseph was not part of the priesthood, how is it that after he had his mitzvah he was allowed to debate and argue with the rabbinical group of his temple? If he was an average grunt, this would not be so.

be careful where you try to diminish. A rabbi is whole and apart from a regular teacher both in the here and now and then.

Mark 6:
1: And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2: And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Wiki is an excellent resource for finding that which is already known but as a sole source of research it has it's flaws.

If Jesus were an official rabbi he would have been under the jurisdiction of the temple and it would have been the temple officials who punished him for claiming to be God. The term rabbi in the time of Jesus did not necessarily refer to a specific office or occupation. That would be true only after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (70 AD). Rather, it was a word meaning great one or my master which was applied to many kinds of people in everyday speech. It clearly was used as a term of respect for ones teacher as well even though the formal position of rabbi would come later. In one sense then, calling Jesus Rabbi is an anachronism. In another sense the use of this term for him by the people of his day is a measure of their great respect for him as a person and as a teacher and not just a reference to the activity of teaching he was engaged in.

The more you know....

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then how can we know what "the original hebrew" text translated as if we don't have the original hebrew (if there was such a thing) of the gospels?

That is the question, isn't it?

[NJM]

That is the question, isn't it?

The question is, how can someone on these forums claim to know what the original hebrew said?