Ancient Text says Jesus asked Judas to betray Him

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Gnostic texts were translated just as many times, and were generally proven to be not based in fact time after time back in the early days of the church. I put it as a caveat since most of what they have to say is pretty much opposite to the teachings of Jesus and they guise His words as proof for for their false-religion

Actually, barring that argument - a lot of what religion is today goes against the teachings of Jesus. He specifically stated he did not want Christianity to become what it has become today. Saying to pray outside and in congregation with your fellow man. Knowing that the idea of a church in and of itself was something he didn't want.

the point about churches is true as well, I've often wrestled with this fact and referred back to the Bible several times.


Also many gnostic groups took on the form of cults with bizarre rituals. And I still say that the idea that Christ's message was secret is wrong. He came to spread the Word to everyone, believers or not.

Thats just it, you said "Gnostic texts were translated just as many times, and were generally proven to be not based in fact time after time back in the early days of the church". When I just gave you several examples of why the "early church" couldn't be trusted either. So your writing off these Gnostic gospels as make believe, for the very same reasons that you should also write off the entire catholic religion.

And as far as the "were translated just as many times" - its historical fact that the gnostics wrote those documents in caves on cliffs that archaelogists have trouble getting to without repelling equipment even today. The scholars and monks that wrote these were far enough from Roman Influence that its logical to conclude that these documents are probably closer to the original then anything influenced by the Roman Catholic Church with their single sided agenda.

 

[zanieladie]

Yeah...regarding original post...w/e.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Very good point...it reminds me of a joke:

New monk arrives at a monestary devoted solely to translating ancient text.
The head monk tells him to "take this copy and start translating".
New monk responds "This is not the original? Why would you want to make copies of a copy? What if the copy has a mistake?"
The head monk just said "that's the way we've always done it" so the new monk went to work.
The head monk, however, started to think about this and took a copy down to the dungeon to compare it to the original text.
After not having seen the head monk for a few days, the new monk went looking for him and found him in the dungeon, beating his head against the wall and crying "the word is celebrate!"
:laugh:

This is the bible in a nutshell...IMHO of course.

 

[InterpolAgent]

even if the find is an authentic ancient manuscript, it doesn't mean what was written is true. besides, isn't that why it's called "Faith?"

 

[Ramma2]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
They wrote in pen names or aliases, which wasn't trustworthy back then.
Wow, just because it's ancient, it must be true.

Same goes for the Bible!

 

[l Xes l]

actually.. Jesus is real, he cooks me a meal

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why is the fact that it's a Gnostic text a caveat?

ZV

I've noticed people won't believe anything new that sheds light on Christianity. The Bible is the be all end all and thats just the way it is.

In my personal opinion, the Gnostic gospels are even more valid then the gospels written in the bible. Mainly because they haven't been translated 50 times and changed each time.

I still ask Christians occasionally about their thoughts on Mary Magdeline, and they always say its the most blasphemous concept ever spoken of. Frankly, anyone who doesn't believe jesus had a wife just doesn't pay any attention to history at all.

Very good point...it reminds me of a joke:

New monk arrives at a monestary devoted solely to translating ancient text.
The head monk tells him to "take this copy and start translating".
New monk responds "This is not the original? Why would you want to make copies of a copy? What if the copy has a mistake?"
The head monk just said "that's the way we've always done it" so the new monk went to work.
The head monk, however, started to think about this and took a copy down to the dungeon to compare it to the original text.
After not having seen the head monk for a few days, the new monk went looking for him and found him in the dungeon, beating his head against the wall and crying "the word is celebrate!"
:laugh:

This is the bible in a nutshell...IMHO of course.

That reminds me of some other things the catholic church did and still practice today. Back in the era when Christianity was rising, woman were looked at as the lesser of the sexes. More then that, they were looked at as barely human at all with very few rights in anything. The catholics made it even worse. They still don't allow woman to be anything more then nuns, even today. They can't move up in the heirachal ranks that is catholicism. When early pagan religion was the exact opposite, celebrating the feminine and the fact that they are the gender that could create life

Back then, since sex and orgys and general hedonism was getting out of hand. The church decided that all monks should not have sex, Jesus never actually said anything of the sort. Which makes perfect sense as to why the church may have wanted to get rid of Mary Magdeline (just saying it makes sense), that way they could claim that Jesus never got laid and support that sort of celebate attitude. Instead it promoted sex with little boys. Yet another reason why Catholicism is the epitome of hypocrisy in the world of Christianity.

 

[RCN]

First the arguement that Judas was not a traitor is not new and is supported by the Bible.

Second this text can't automatically be passed off as gnostic because it does not jive with the traditional interpretation of the Bible. There were many non-gnostic sects of Christianity such as the Ebionites

A lot of post here also seem to show an ignorance of the synoptic problem, how the Bible as we know it was compiled, and the fact that the Gospels were not necessarily written by the authors they are attributed to.........


Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

 

[fitzov]

Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: RCN
Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

What was it?

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: RCN
Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

What was it?

probably referring to the 2 deaths

one that he hung himself

one that he (i believe it was suicide in both cases) spilled his guts in a field, literally. or something close to that, i dont think it was seppuku anyway

this will probably start a list of biblical contradictions, wouldnt be the first time.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: RCN
Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

What was it?

One of them can be found by comparing Acts 1:18-19 to Matthew 27:3-5......

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: RCN
Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

What was it?

probably referring to the 2 deaths

.

correct

 

[ElFenix]

meh, jesus had to die to save the rest of us, so i don't blame judas or jews or romans. and the death had to be unjust. had jesus lived to 90 and died of old age it wouldn't be a sacrifice.

 

[alien42]

primetime on abc is doing a story on this tonight in about 10 to 15 minutes (after the self amputee story )

 

[fitzov]

"...and the Lord says, 'blah, blah, blah'."

That was the best part of the whole show.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: RCN
First the arguement that Judas was not a traitor is not new and is supported by the Bible.

Second this text can't automatically be passed off as gnostic because it does not jive with the traditional interpretation of the Bible. There were many non-gnostic sects of Christianity such as the Ebionites

A lot of post here also seem to show an ignorance of the synoptic problem, how the Bible as we know it was compiled, and the fact that the Gospels were not necessarily written by the authors they are attributed to.........


Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

Weren't the gospels based off of the Gospel of Q?

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: RCN
First the arguement that Judas was not a traitor is not new and is supported by the Bible.

Second this text can't automatically be passed off as gnostic because it does not jive with the traditional interpretation of the Bible. There were many non-gnostic sects of Christianity such as the Ebionites

A lot of post here also seem to show an ignorance of the synoptic problem, how the Bible as we know it was compiled, and the fact that the Gospels were not necessarily written by the authors they are attributed to.........


Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

Weren't the gospels based off of the Gospel of Q?

Depends on which hypothesis you use to explain the synoptic problem or if you even acknowledge it as a problem. The most accepted hypothesis is that "Q" and Mark are the sources for Mathew and Luke.

There can also be several "Q"s.

Why the question though?


Anyway here is an overview of the different hypotheses:
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: RCN
First the arguement that Judas was not a traitor is not new and is supported by the Bible.

Second this text can't automatically be passed off as gnostic because it does not jive with the traditional interpretation of the Bible. There were many non-gnostic sects of Christianity such as the Ebionites

A lot of post here also seem to show an ignorance of the synoptic problem, how the Bible as we know it was compiled, and the fact that the Gospels were not necessarily written by the authors they are attributed to.........


Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

Weren't the gospels based off of the Gospel of Q?

Depends on which hypothesis you use to explain the synoptic problem or if you even acknowledge it as a problem. The most accepted hypothesis is that "Q" and Mark are the sources for Mathew and Luke.

There can also be several "Q"s.

Why the question though?


Anyway here is an overview of the different hypotheses:
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/

I was just curious. I remember reading a little about it a while ago and was wondering if it was how I remember it.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: j00fek
give me a break, this is horse sh!t

..if this pans out may have to rewrite the bible.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: JoLLyRoGer

Originally posted by: j00fek
give me a break, religion is horse sh!t

Fixed..

OK person that uses St. Nicholas as an avatar. I guess you only like religion when it gives out presents.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Dragoon42
Don't see why everyone is so convinced that it's not true?

Because a lot of people here are convinced they're smarter than everyone else and will instantly take the other side of a controversy to make them look that way.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: RCN
First the arguement that Judas was not a traitor is not new and is supported by the Bible.

Second this text can't automatically be passed off as gnostic because it does not jive with the traditional interpretation of the Bible. There were many non-gnostic sects of Christianity such as the Ebionites

A lot of post here also seem to show an ignorance of the synoptic problem, how the Bible as we know it was compiled, and the fact that the Gospels were not necessarily written by the authors they are attributed to.........


Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

The Vatican just released a statement saying the finding is "a fantasy". Heheh...guess they've known about it for years.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: RCN
First the arguement that Judas was not a traitor is not new and is supported by the Bible.

Second this text can't automatically be passed off as gnostic because it does not jive with the traditional interpretation of the Bible. There were many non-gnostic sects of Christianity such as the Ebionites

A lot of post here also seem to show an ignorance of the synoptic problem, how the Bible as we know it was compiled, and the fact that the Gospels were not necessarily written by the authors they are attributed to.........


Oh and the Bible itself has contradictory statement on Judas.

The Vatican just released a statement saying the finding is "a fantasy". Heheh...guess they've known about it for years.

They have known about it for over 1800 years. This isn't a big secret. It was known to exist and its content was written about. This is just the only copy although I'd imagine the Vatican may have one.....


"They believe that Judas the Betrayer was fully informed of these things and that only he understanding the truth like no one else fulfilled the secret of betrayal that confused all things, both in heaven and on earth. They invented their own history called the Gospel of Judas." - Adversus Haereses I.31.1 AD 180

Of course they are going to say it is fantasy..........

 

[senseamp]

Does it mean Jesus committed suicide by cop?