Chili

Oh no, I like criticism, a lot! I am saying that to deny the bible it's last word is to argue against the truth that is in us, as in each one of us.

Ulrich

I may not be able to understand you, but I have more than a passing acquaintance with the Bible. I do not see how pointing out inconsistancies and fallabilities makes me a persecutor of anyone. Of course I do not believe that the Jesus depicted in the Bible ever existed, and I see how a fictional character can undergo persecution in the real world. Finally, I have never made a promise to you on any subject, much less in a situation where I would be naming myself as my own enemy (I have never done this either).

First I would like to say that I do finally understand what you are saying here, so thanks for bringing this down to my level, I simply do not agree with you.

I do not think Matthew was the name of the author of the gospel attributed to the disciple Matthew. I find it doubtful that the disciple Matthew depicted in the NT was a real person, as that existance is dependant upon the existence of Jesus as depicted in the NT. I find that the Gospel of Matthew is much more easily explained as a 2nd century Christian writing that was intended to lend more credence to the religion.

In order to give the fictional Jesus more legitimacy in the eyes of possible Jewish converts, the author of Matthew attempted to shoehorn jesus into the pre-existing Messianic prophecies. In doing so he made several mistakes, one of which was the mistranslation which we are discussing.

How did you come by your hypothesis regarding this passage in the Gospel of Matthew?

Chili

You did it right here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulrich
For some reason I am now compelled to whistle the tune to "Always look on the bright side of life."

I think my point here is that they bible is pure truth that is concealed in the metaphor and when we read it this truth must find harmony thru beauty with the truth that is concealed in us, the reader. In other words, if you find conflict in the bible it tells about dissonance with truth and if this bothers you you are well advised not to read it.

I think I complimented you for putting it down and look for brighter things in life. But I do not disagree with that. The gospels happen only in the mind of one person but 'there' they are real in the metaphor of the gospel. The four versions are needed to purify the metaphysics of the event in the mind of the believer, which they did.We have this icon (lol), wherein Joseph is as much as dragging his ass behind the donkey upon which Mary was enthroned while on their way to Bethlehem where Joseph was to give an account of himself . . . wherefore Christ was born unto him then.

It is too bad that I lost the picture and cannot find it on line or I would link it for you. The donkey was the animal man here beyond theology. Mary was the female identity of Joseph who presides over his tree of life (lets call it the purity of his soul). So it can be said that it was by intuition that Joseph was led to his state of mind as a child wherefore Mary was in charge of the donkey. So here we have already three identities: Joseph behind the donkey, Mary enthroned (she was just riding the donkey 'side-saddle') and the donkey itself.

The old donkey was Lord God as animal man and the colt is the God of this life after he is raised from the dead when the ego of Joseph is crucified. So Joseph remains Joseph but now fully in charge of his subconscious and conscious mind (except that he is called Jesus here . . . although it was Joseph who supplied the tomb on his land when he came for the body of Jesus, etc.).