From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: What Did Judas Betray?
Date: 22 Nov 92 06:32:09 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: avi@seal.imagen.com

 Av> was stoned or even killed in any way related to the Jews.

     Actually, the account in Sanh. 43a, together with Ulla's comments,
     do show a "Jewish" involvement.  However, that really isn't the
     main contention I'd have.  Since we have manuscripts of the Brit
     HaChadashah from about 130 AD (Rylands MS), along with major
     portions of the New Testament from 200 AD (Beatty Papyri).  Along
     with a first Century Mishnaic Hebrew Matthew, as well as various
     late 1st and early 2nd century AD/Ce quotes of earlier
     manuscripts, not to mention the early Syriac #30 manuscripts;
     etc..  - Why should we heed obscure Talmidic writings from 467
     years after the fact as any thing?  Unless you are viewing the
     Talmudic accounts as absolutely 100% accurate as a historical
     document on ancient history. - BUT... isn't that just exactly
     what you accused us of doing?!  Further, if that be the case,
     then why not take as valid a somewhat later writing, also written
     by Jews, who did not care for either Messianic Believers or
     Rabbinic Jews, as more objective:

From the Karaite Anthology, by Leon Nemoy, Yale press, pgs. 50-51, 9...
Next there appeared Yesua,  who  Rabbanites say was the son of Pandera;
he is known as Jesus, the son of Mary.  He lived in the days of Joshua,
the son  of  Perahiah,  who  is said to have been the maternal uncle of
Jesus. The Rabbanites plotted against Jesus until they put him to death
This took place in thereign  of  Augustus Ceasar,  the emperor of Rome,
i.e.,at the time of the second Temple.{Jacov Al-Kirkisani,900's AD/CE.}

      And if you find the logic faulty in my using this Kararim source
      to prove my point, I'd point out that we equally find fault with
      your appeal to the later Talmudic passages to disprove the
      earlier New Covenant portions.  Besides, the Roman goyim nailed
      Yeshua to the tree.

 Av> it is thus NOT CREDIBLE anymore as an Historical document, because
 Av> - how can you tell what was revised and what was not.

     But the more obvious conclusion would be that the much later
     Talmudic account was not credible as a Historical document, and
     that the rendering was revised to suit the notions of the
     Rabbanim; - unless you contend for a "inspired / or 100% true
     Talmud"; but if that is the case, then you are doing exactly what
     you are accusing us of doing anyway.

 Av> the Jewish Bible, ... was NEVER revised.

     While I would tend to agree with you in principle (in part), in
     fact, the Yesha'yahu Scroll on display in Jerusalem from the Dead
     Sea collection does vary on several minor points from the later
     Masoretic text.  So..., you could not appeal for your conclusion
     from that angle.  And there are several other points I'd like to
     make on what you wrote in this post, but sorry, just do not have
     the time.

 Av> Jewish bible have one version only, exactly matching the original

     One more point....  There is the Greek LXX of Torah and the
     entire Tanakh, the Sammaritan Torah, the Peshitta Tanakh, etc....
     You can not say there is only "one version" of the Tanakh.  There
     is only one Masoretic Hebrew version of the Tanakh; but as already
     mentioned, there are variations in the Hebrew text when compaired
     to some of the Dead Sea Scroll's Tanakh. - Perhaps even as few as
     between the Alexandrian and the Receptus Greek New Covenant. :-)

--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG