|
What exactly are you calling "the real thing"? 
Real? Firstly, lets just clarify - you are talking about the New Testament. If we believe that Jesus existed at all, whether he was a "son of God", so-called prophet, or a very clever orator, this was written some 100-300 years AFTER Jesus died. It cannot be taken as a quoted, word for word, account of what Jesus said. They are "accounts" of what happened, in the opinion of the writer, hundreds of years after events took place. I believe if any of us tried to remember what you said in 300 years time, we may make some mistakes  (frankly if I tried to remember what you said in 3 mins time I would have a problem) ...
Or...all versions are fairy stories, so what does it matter?
Secondly, the quality of the Vatican copy - very very dubious!!! There are no original manuscripts surviving. The Vatican´s most complete manuscripts (Vatican MS. No. 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) are dated 300 AD. The originals were either carelessly lost or never existed. If they did exist, what is followed now are copies of copies of copies of the "original"
Jesus himself never said his Mother conceived him from God himself. He was a messenger of God, a prophet and a mortal man. That is what Quran says.
Bible was first written in Hebrew; a language in which terms like "son of the desert", "son of the wind" etc. are commonly used and Jesus may have been referred as "son of god", in that totally symbolic sense.
Hebrew version was probably translated into Greek first. Greeks must have had no problem identifying with the idea of "son of god" because all their own gods lived on Mt.Olympos at the time - with their wives and kids.
Greeks took the translation literally, and that is exactly how the story spread around.
PS; I too have my doubts about the version of Bible Vatican is promoting. Their copy does not mention imminent arrival of Muhammad....can you believe that?
Edited (11/14/2009) by AlphaF
Edited (11/14/2009) by AlphaF
|
