|
|
Post by ghost on Apr 7, 2006 3:30:13 GMT -5
Judas: this is what really happenedJulian Borger and Stephen Bates Friday April 7, 2006 Guardian After being reviled for almost 2,000 years as the embodiment of treachery, Judas Iscariot's side of the story was finally published yesterday. Thanks to a newly discovered gospel in Judas's name, we now know what his excuse was: Jesus made me do it. The Gospel of Judas, a fragile clutch of a leather-bound papyrus thought to have been inscribed in about AD300, was unveiled yesterday in Washington by the National Geographic Society, and it represents a radical makeover for one of the worst reputations in history. According to this version of events, not only was Judas obeying orders when he handed Jesus to his persecutors, he was Christ's most trusted disciple, singled out to receive mystical knowledge. According to the 26-page gospel, copied in the ancient Coptic language apparently from a Greek original more than a hundred years older, Jesus told Judas: "Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal." In the days before the fateful Passover holiday, Jesus also told Judas: "You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." The line, according to biblical scholars, suggests that Jesus chose Judas to help him achieve his destiny by liberating him from his earthly body. "It's a striking contrast with the negative portrayal of Judas as the quintessential traitor," said Marvin Meyer, a biblical scholar from Chapman University in California who helped translate the gospel. "The figure of Judas is often portrayed as the evil Jewish person who turned Jesus in to be killed." It is unlikely, however, that the documents are about to trigger a total rehabilitation for the Iscariot name, with shrines in his name and readings from his gospel at church services, let alone a film treatment by Mel Gibson. see the rest of the article here www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1748968,00.html And the BIG question: Will the workers who fight for the Truth, adopt this Gospel alongside their other religious texts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Valinor on Apr 7, 2006 4:35:56 GMT -5
Why would they? And why would anyone else, when it derives from gnostics?
The only people who will put credence on this "gospel" are those who refuse to accept the historicity of the canonical gospels but place stock in anything non-canonical.
Q. Are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reliable witnesses?
A. "Oh no. We can't trust anything they claim. We don't even know if they were written by the writers whose names are attached to them."
Q. Are the gospels of Mary, Thomas, Judas, Peter, etc. reliable witnesses?
A. "Oh, definitely. They contradict everything the canonical writers claim about Jesus."
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 7, 2006 4:49:33 GMT -5
"Truth is the spindle upon which untruth is entwined. Yet do not the prairie fowl scratch the soil ?"
Gene Nelson (exact year unknown, to truck driver alighting from his cab)
|
|
jungo
Junior Member
Posts: 141
|
Post by jungo on Apr 7, 2006 7:51:09 GMT -5
Math 28 vs 2 And behold there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Math 28 vs 3 His countanance was like lightning,and his raimont white as snow
Math 28 vs 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and become as dead men
Math 28 vs 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
Math 28 vs 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said, come seen the place where the Lord lay.
Mark 16 vs 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were afrighted.
Luke 24 vs 4 and it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, beholf two men stood by them in shining garments.
John 20 vs 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
If it is ok to accept different versions of the resurection morning why wouldn't it be ok to except the Gospel of Judas a different version of the betrayal of Jesus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest Again on Apr 7, 2006 9:10:14 GMT -5
Math 28 vs 2 And behold there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Math 28 vs 3 His countanance was like lightning,and his raimont white as snow Math 28 vs 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and become as dead men Math 28 vs 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. Math 28 vs 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said, come seen the place where the Lord lay. Mark 16 vs 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment, and they were afrighted. Luke 24 vs 4 and it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, beholf two men stood by them in shining garments. John 20 vs 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. If it is ok to accept different versions of the resurection morning why wouldn't it be ok to except the Gospel of Judas a different version of the betrayal of Jesus? Can anyone explain this contradiction? I would like to understand how a book, which people claim is the ultimate truth without error have such obvious faults. More importantly, how can anyone still call it the perfect verbatim word of a supreme being? The bible is famous for many such contradictory statements. If it was presented in any classroom it would never pass the smell test. |
|
|
|
Post by Celestine on Apr 7, 2006 9:16:18 GMT -5
Why not accept the (celestine prophecies), or better yet the Koran? Ok Ok anything goes. Why not use book of Dravidianism You can't go wrong because it must be the one and only truth. After all it was first, I mean aside from worshiping rocks stones water stars and death. Oh but that had no written proof. So ---
Every religion today most likely has some aspect of an ancient belief in its philosophy or practice, but to say that one particular religion is the oldest is naive. The reality is-- we do not know. We have no basis for comparison. Most reference books list Hinduism as the oldest world religion. This is probably because Hinduism has the oldest recorded roots, which lie in Dravidianism. Dravidianism is estimated to have been practiced around 6,000 to 3,000 BCE and as such predates the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Babylonian cultures.
|
|
towit
Senior Member
. . .with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right. . .
Posts: 295
|
Post by towit on Apr 7, 2006 9:22:54 GMT -5
And the BIG question: Will the workers who fight for the Truth, adopt this Gospel alongside their other religious texts? People do err not knowing their history. There were many other books that were considered when the bible was compiled (first by the Catholics) and then recompiled for the protestants after the reformation. Martin Luther, during the reformation, didn't want to include the book of James in the new version of the bible- but he got over ruled. He also didn't like the book of Esther (the Catholic version of the bible includes more chapters for the book of Esther). The Catholic bible also includes the books of Baruch, Maccabees I and II, Tobit, Judith, and Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. It is said that these books were known by the Jews, including Jesus and the disciples. But, in 100 AD the Jewish Council of Jamnia sought to purify Judaism of all foreign and Gentile influence- anything not purely Hebrew- so they removed these so called Deuterocanonical Books. During the Protestant Reformation in 1517- Martin Luther chose to adopt the Hebrew canon- which did not include the Deuterocanonical books. And as mentioned- he also didn't like the book of James, and a few others- but they were kept- and we now have the version of the bible that we enjoy. There are also some so-called Lost Books of the Bible- these books are the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of St. John, and others. All of these works were considered uninspired and therefore never made it into the bible.My guess, St. Judas will be considered uninspired as well and not included into the bible. |
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Apr 7, 2006 9:36:29 GMT -5
There is a challenge for all theists to give a detailed account of what happened on Easter morning @ ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.phpI find it funny that people like poster # 2 easily brushes it off because it is "gnostic" and not canoninical. Well, if you did a little studying on how we came up with the current New Testament (read misquoting jesus and other like books) you might subscribe to my world view. But I don't think you have the courage to. No, it's just easier to write everything else off as "gnostic" or "satanic" or "not inspired by god." By the way, I have never heard anyone come up with this conclusion: I do, however, agree with the former. I would say that current scholarship does not consider any of the gospels to be written by Matheew, Mark, Luke or John, nor are they considered to be an eywitness account. If you want to weave the puzzle you call Jesus I think you have to be open to all avenues. On a lesser note this is an amazing find. And the painstaking work they went through to preserve and translate it is amazing! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2006 9:45:01 GMT -5
There is a challenge for all theists to give a detailed account of what happened on Easter morning @ ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.phpI find it funny that people like poster # 2 easily brushes it off because it is "gnostic" and not canoninical. Well, if you did a little studying on how we came up with the current New Testament (read misquoting jesus and other like books) you might subscribe to my world view. But I don't think you have the courage to. No, it's just easier to write everything else off as "gnostic" or "satanic" or "not inspired by god." By the way, I have never heard anyone come up with this conclusion: I do, however, agree with the former. I would say that current scholarship does not consider any of the gospels to be written by Matheew, Mark, Luke or John, nor are they considered to be an eywitness account. If you want to weave the puzzle you call Jesus I think you have to be open to all avenues. On a lesser note this is an amazing find. And the painstaking work they went through to preserve and translate it is amazing! What current scholarship are you talking about? If anything there is a trend towards acceptance of the NT canon as for what it purports itself to be, the entire New Perspective school adheres to this. What scholars do you have in mind? Karl |
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Apr 7, 2006 9:48:31 GMT -5
non coservative
|
|
|
|
Post by Lloyd unplugged on Apr 7, 2006 10:12:23 GMT -5
Marrage and children were common place in the days of jesus yet the four gospels do not indicate such
Even the Jews support a Jesus they know
How could Judas write something 200 yrs after his death he hung himself threw the money back to those who gave it
|
|
|
|
Post by trigger on Apr 7, 2006 10:39:41 GMT -5
I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the Bible, but from what I understand there are some definite inconsistencies, contradtictions and perhaps things that have been lost in translation. The allegations that certain gospels were not written by those whom are claimed, along with this new surfacing of the gospel of Judas, makes me think that maybe it would do us all good to realize that there's likely a lot we don't know about the Bible, that it may very well not be the absolute truth and standard like so many believe and say that it is, and therefore that maybe we should be a little less dependent on it and more so on God's dealings in our own lives. The way I see it is that we cannot always trust the written words of other human beings, but we can always trust God's voice to our hearts, so to me that is the logical choice when it comes to guidance and help, although the Bible does (as I have said before) teach some good lessons and provides good encouragement. I guess what I am trying to say is "everything in its place"...
Trigger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2006 14:03:03 GMT -5
Would you consider Anglican/Episcopal non conservative? Karl |
|
|
|
Post by Valinor on Apr 7, 2006 18:08:38 GMT -5
Spanky wrote: I did more than a little study....I did university level study on the subject.  And because of that I converted from your worldview to Christianity. The Q/A I gave was meant to be ironic, not serious. I think it aptly displays the skeptical bias against canonical sources in preference to non-canonical sources. There is a reason they are in the canon and it isn't based on a big Catholic conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Valinor on Apr 7, 2006 18:15:19 GMT -5
Spanky: "I would say that current scholarship does not consider any of the gospels to be written by Matheew, Mark, Luke or John, nor are they considered to be an eywitness account."
Karl: "What current scholarship are you talking about?"
Spanky: "non coservative"
And there's your bias. Conservative scholarship can't possibly be considered serious "current scholarship", despite the fact that many the pre-eminent NT scholars are conservative. You've just proven the point of my ironic Q/A.
|
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Apr 7, 2006 20:41:40 GMT -5
Would you consider Anglican/Episcopal non conservative? Karl No, they are liberal, and getting warmer. But they are not critical/skeptical enough. They have to much to lose with a critical approach. Almost all of the "scholars" (god I hate that word) are not critical at all of the NT. If you want the truth you can't have just funde mental innerantists running the show. If you know what I mean. As far as your posts Valinor. I have nothing to say. Of course this book will not be side by side with the synoptics. But as much as you do or could find fault with this new gospel I also find fault with the existing ones. I guess that is the bias I have. No, there is no vast catholic conspiracy. Nor is there a gnostic one. As far as the rest of your ramblings are concerned I am afraid I can't decifer them! Sorry. I proved nothing of your Q&A. I agree with the first and disagree with the second. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2006 20:53:17 GMT -5
They are part of the New perspective school, and for them the histrocity of the Bible is not a question. They are one of the more liberal bodies in Christendom, and they, though not to a man, affirm the accuracy of the scriptures.
See NT Wright's web site for more detailed info...
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 7, 2006 20:58:47 GMT -5
I admit that I don't know a whole lot about the Bible, but from what I understand there are some definite inconsistencies, contradtictions and perhaps things that have been lost in translation. The allegations that certain gospels were not written by those whom are claimed, along with this new surfacing of the gospel of Judas, makes me think that maybe it would do us all good to realize that there's likely a lot we don't know about the Bible, that it may very well not be the absolute truth and standard like so many believe and say that it is, and therefore that maybe we should be a little less dependent on it and more so on God's dealings in our own lives. The way I see it is that we cannot always trust the written words of other human beings, but we can always trust God's voice to our hearts, so to me that is the logical choice when it comes to guidance and help, although the Bible does (as I have said before) teach some good lessons and provides good encouragement. I guess what I am trying to say is "everything in its place"... Trigger Amen. (Gene Nelson, April 2006, on a message board) |
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Apr 7, 2006 21:10:11 GMT -5
They are part of the New perspective school, and for them the histrocity of the Bible is not a question. They are one of the more liberal bodies in Christendom, and they, though not to a man, affirm the accuracy of the scriptures. See NT Wright's web site for more detailed info... Karl Can you post a link Karl? I'll google it for now! |
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Apr 7, 2006 21:18:21 GMT -5
Found it! www.ntwrightpage.com/Yes, that is more like it. Provacative, skeptical, liberal, critical. Much better qualities if one wants to seek the truth. Where does he stand on the dating and order of the synoptics? |
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on Apr 7, 2006 21:18:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Valinor on Apr 7, 2006 21:33:39 GMT -5
Spanky wrote:
Except if the truth leads in a direction that is opposed to skeptical/liberal/critical conclusions. That's when the truth is abandoned in favour of a skeptical/liberal prejudice. You're no more open-minded than those awful "conservatives" you're ranting about. You just have a different prejudice which prevents you from accepting any conclusions which might be deemed "conservative".
Every post of yours confirms the ironic point I made of skeptics: "We will accept anything that contradicts conservative scholarship and canonical historicity. And we may choose to accept one of two minor points of the canonicals as history (as long as no non-canonical source says otherwise)".
|
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Apr 7, 2006 21:40:06 GMT -5
Right!
|
|
liz
Senior Member
Posts: 285
|
Post by liz on Apr 7, 2006 22:50:26 GMT -5
Thanks for this thread, whoever posted it.
I love events that shake our world and this newly discovered Gospel of Judas may be one of those events.
It's been a long time since I've read the Bible literally. I read it allegorically and find helpful truths therein.
Like other posters have mentioned, I find too many discrepancies between too many authors writing during too many centuries. Politics & egos were involved in picking & choosing what went into various interpretations. Too many fingers in the pot for my comfort!
|
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Apr 8, 2006 5:25:42 GMT -5
Thanks for this thread, whoever posted it. I love events that shake our world and this newly discovered Gospel of Judas may be one of those events. It's been a long time since I've read the Bible literally. I read it allegorically and find helpful truths therein. Like other posters have mentioned, I find too many discrepancies between too many authors writing during too many centuries. Politics & egos were involved in picking & choosing what went into various interpretations. Too many fingers in the pot for my comfort! Thanks liz ! The problem is what are the «workers» going to do? Just sweep the new evidence under the carpet? I would also like to hear some comments by eminent ex-workers with a theistic view. Is their little world going to come apart, are they going to question their «rock-hard» belief on the current Bible - which many maintain that has been established by Constantine and his acolytes in order to better control the Roman empire. |
|
|
|
Post by lacpastorunplugged on Apr 8, 2006 7:32:41 GMT -5
Thanks for this thread, whoever posted it. I love events that shake our world and this newly discovered Gospel of Judas may be one of those events. It's been a long time since I've read the Bible literally. I read it allegorically and find helpful truths therein. Like other posters have mentioned, I find too many discrepancies between too many authors writing during too many centuries. Politics & egos were involved in picking & choosing what went into various interpretations. Too many fingers in the pot for my comfort! Thanks liz ! The problem is what are the «workers» going to do? Just sweep the new evidence under the carpet? I would also like to hear some comments by eminent ex-workers with a theistic view. Is their little world going to come apart, are they going to question their «rock-hard» belief on the current Bible - which many maintain that has been established by Constantine and his acolytes in order to better control the Roman empire. Who are among the many? Karl |
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Apr 8, 2006 14:35:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Apr 9, 2006 12:30:48 GMT -5
Do you recall that verse in the bible that says that we should not add or take away anything from the bible as it is? (I cannot remember the exact verse)
|
|
And because of that I converted from your worldview to Christianity. The Q/A I gave was meant to be ironic, not serious. I think it aptly displays the skeptical bias against canonical sources in preference to non-canonical sources. There is a reason they are in the canon and it isn't based on a big Catholic conspiracy. 
