Ancient Text says Jesus asked Judas to betray Him

[engineereeyore]

If the translation is accurate, this book largely contradicts the Bible, so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery.

 

[JDrake]

R

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
If the translation is accurate, this book largely contradicts the Bible, so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery.

What are you talking about? There are tons of correctly translated documents that contradict what is in the "Bible" today and this one isn't exactly new. What would you base it being innacurate on? How about the forgery?

Hell the Bible contradicts itself on Judas so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery................

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
If the translation is accurate, this book largely contradicts the Bible, so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery.

What are you talking about? There are tons of correctly translated documents that contradict what is in the "Bible" today and this one isn't exactly new.

Hence the comment, If the translation is accurate, this book largely contradicts the Bible, so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery.

What would you base it being innacurate on? How about the forgery?

I would base it being inaccurate or a forgery on the fact that anyone could have written it, and apparently someone did. According to reports, it is assumed to have been written around 200 ad, much later than the time that Judas died. Also, the account contains a history of the betrayal, and I would assume the crucification as well. Judas did live long after the crucification, and I doubt he cared enough to leave a history of it. Considering those factors, I would be hesitant to consider it anything other than inaccurate or a forgery.

Hell the Bible contradicts itself on Judas so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery................

Yes, there are contradictions contained within the Bible due to misinterpretations during language translations. However, this theory goes well beyond a simple language translation error. This is an entire story, not a simple passage. And there is therefore a large difference between the two.

As for the contradiction on Judas, care to ellaborate?

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
If the translation is accurate, this book largely contradicts the Bible, so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery.

What are you talking about? There are tons of correctly translated documents that contradict what is in the "Bible" today and this one isn't exactly new.

Hence the comment, If the translation is accurate, this book largely contradicts the Bible, so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery.

What would you base it being innacurate on? How about the forgery?

I would base it being inaccurate or a forgery on the fact that anyone could have written it, and apparently someone did. According to reports, it is assumed to have been written around 200 ad, much later than the time that Judas died. Also, the account contains a history of the betrayal, and I would assume the crucification as well. Judas did live long after the crucification, and I doubt he cared enough to leave a history of it. Considering those factors, I would be hesitant to consider it anything other than inaccurate or a forgery.

Hell the Bible contradicts itself on Judas so I would be hesitant to accept it as anything other than inaccurate and/or a possible forgery................

Yes, there are contradictions contained within the Bible due to misinterpretations during language translations. However, this theory goes well beyond a simple language translation error. This is an entire story, not a simple passage. And there is therefore a large difference between the two.

As for the contradiction on Judas, care to ellaborate?

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RCN

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

I do not use the late date to dismiss the document, but to point out that if it was written at that time, it was not written by Judas. Therefore, it should not simply be accepted as truth.

As for what I know as truth being only a prevailing school of thought, I did not receive it from any school of thought. I simply read the Bible, and in that Bible is a man by the name of Peter, the leader of the Church of Christ after his death and appointed by Christ himself. So even if Judas himself did write the stories and only later did someone rewrite it, who am I supposed to trust? The appointed leader of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ, or the traitor of Christ? Not a very hard decision, though I would still investigate it.

As for what someone would have to find in order for me to question the Bible, I'm not sure. Joseph Smith found an ancient record and translated it and it very much confirms the writings in the Bible. So therefore it would need to be something to make me question not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well.

Which brings up an interesting question. The Book of Mormon was brought about through an ancient manuscript that was found. Have you put as much interest into it as you have this book?

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

I do not use the late date to dismiss the document, but to point out that if it was written at that time, it was not written by Judas. Therefore, it should not simply be accepted as truth.

As for what I know as truth being only a prevailing school of thought, I did not receive it from any school of thought. I simply read the Bible, and in that Bible is a man by the name of Peter, the leader of the Church of Christ after his death and appointed by Christ himself. So even if Judas himself did write the stories and only later did someone rewrite it, who am I supposed to trust? The appointed leader of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ, or the traitor of Christ? Not a very hard decision, though I would still investigate it.

As for what someone would have to find in order for me to question the Bible, I'm not sure. Joseph Smith found an ancient record and translated it and it very much confirms the writings in the Bible. So therefore it would need to be something to make me question not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well.

Which brings up an interesting question. The Book of Mormon was brought about through an ancient manuscript that was found. Have you put as much interest into it as you have this book?

And which Gospel can be confirmed to have been written by the author it is attributed to?

Did Peter have access to the Bible you use?

and yes I'm very interested in Mormons but I'm really not following you here...........

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RCN

And which Gospel can be confirmed to have been written by the author it is attributed to?

Did Peter have access to the Bible you use?

and yes I'm very interested in Mormons but I'm really not following you here...........

I'm not sure that you can *confirm* any of the writings to be literally written by that person. The gospel of John, as well as his different writings have been "commonly agreed upon" to have been written by him, with dates from the 50-90 ad, if memory serves.

As for Peter having access to the Bible, he did have access to the writings of ancient prophets, many (but not all) of which are contained within the Bible. The Book of Acts is the one that contained the quote of Peter concerning Judas, and is presumed to be correct.

However, you are correct. How do we know that all the Gospels presented thus far are correct as apposed to this new set of writings? Is it not possible that the Gospels are actually ficticious and this new set of writings is accurate? Yes, anything is possible. It is for this exact reason that the Lord gave his word to multiple people in different places around the world. The Book of Mormon becomes a second witness of Christ and a confirmation of the Bible. Written by men who never knew or lived around the men of the Bible, it still confirms the writings of the Bible, as well as the calling of John and Peter, who some of these prophets saw in visions.

Does that make sense? It's difficult to keep it simple, so if I've lost you somewhere, please let me know.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

And which Gospel can be confirmed to have been written by the author it is attributed to?

Did Peter have access to the Bible you use?

and yes I'm very interested in Mormons but I'm really not following you here...........

I'm not sure that you can *confirm* any of the writings to be literally written by that person. The gospel of John, as well as his different writings have been "commonly agreed upon" to have been written by him, with dates from the 50-90 ad, if memory serves.

As for Peter having access to the Bible, he did have access to the writings of ancient prophets, many (but not all) of which are contained within the Bible. The Book of Acts is the one that contained the quote of Peter concerning Judas, and is presumed to be correct.

However, you are correct. How do we know that all the Gospels presented thus far are correct as apposed to this new set of writings? Is it not possible that the Gospels are actually ficticious and this new set of writings is accurate? Yes, anything is possible. It is for this exact reason that the Lord gave his word to multiple people in different places around the world. The Book of Mormon becomes a second witness of Christ and a confirmation of the Bible. Written by men who never knew or lived around the men of the Bible, it still confirms the writings of the Bible, as well as the calling of John and Peter, who some of these prophets saw in visions.

Does that make sense? It's difficult to keep it simple, so if I've lost you somewhere, please let me know.

No need to keep it simple on my account. I was just trying to figure out if you were Mormon or Catholic.

Nothing on the Gospel of John is agreed upon at least from the perspective he wrote it. Brief overview from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

Why wouldn't the Mormon dogma confirm for the most part the "bible". They just needed to add the stuff they thought was needed and it would be perfect. Where is that tablet again?


The point I was trying to make is that there were differing views of the Jesus from the very beginning. What makes the church as we see it any more than the prevailing "sect". Why did it prevail? Because God wanted it so or man made it so? I'd hate to think someone missed the true word of Jesus due to arrogance...............

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RCN

No need to keep it simple on my account. I was just trying to figure out if you were Mormon or Catholic.

Should have just asked dude, I'd have been happy to tell ya.

Nothing on the Gospel of John is agreed upon at least from the perspective he wrote it. Brief overview from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john

Yeah that's why I say, I'm not sure you can *confirm* the time or the author simply from Biblical evidence. After almost 2,000 years, it's hard be to certain about exact dates. All goes to show the importance of the Book of Mormon in my opinion.

Why wouldn't the Mormon dogma confirm for the most part the "bible". They just needed to add the stuff they thought was needed and it would be perfect. Where is that tablet again?

Not sure I completely understand what you asking here. We accept the King James Version of the Bible as one of the most accurate, and therefore use it. The Book of Mormon is not an addition to the Bible, but a companion. It contains the writings of prophets in the Americas, mostly of a group of Israelites who branched off just previous to the Babylonian captivity. Ezekial wrote it best:

Ezek. 37
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:"

The people who left Jerusalem at that time and came to the Americas were from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. The Book of Mormon is their record and contains their dealings with the Lord, so I'm not really sure that putting it with the Bible would be the best thing.

Is that what you were asking, or did I misunderstand?

The point I was trying to make is that there were differing views of the Jesus from the very beginning. What makes the church as we see it any more than the prevailing "sect". Why did it prevail? Because God wanted it so or man made it so? I'd hate to think someone missed the true word of Jesus due to arrogance...............

I would have to say because God wanted it. However, you must understand that it did not always prevail. The Bible speaks very often of a falling away, a time when mens ears would be close to sound doctrine (I can provide references if you wish). But the Lord promised that a time of restitution would in fact come, and that all things, including his church, would be restored. That is what we believe our church to be, the literal restoration of the Church Christ established while here on the Earth.

So in all honesty, it's probably a combination of the two. Men must be willing to hear and listen. If their not, then God will simply not speak to them. The purposes of God will go forth with our without our assistance.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

I do not use the late date to dismiss the document, but to point out that if it was written at that time, it was not written by Judas. Therefore, it should not simply be accepted as truth.

As for what I know as truth being only a prevailing school of thought, I did not receive it from any school of thought. I simply read the Bible, and in that Bible is a man by the name of Peter, the leader of the Church of Christ after his death and appointed by Christ himself. So even if Judas himself did write the stories and only later did someone rewrite it, who am I supposed to trust? The appointed leader of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ, or the traitor of Christ? Not a very hard decision, though I would still investigate it.

As for what someone would have to find in order for me to question the Bible, I'm not sure. Joseph Smith found an ancient record and translated it and it very much confirms the writings in the Bible. So therefore it would need to be something to make me question not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well.

Which brings up an interesting question. The Book of Mormon was brought about through an ancient manuscript that was found. Have you put as much interest into it as you have this book?

Has the book of Mormon ever been carbon dated???

 

[AlienCraft]

Without the cruxifiction, there would be no sacrifice for our souls. The"debt" would be unpaid. And "Christianity" would not exist as we know it. The Gnostics are not "wrong". In fact, I believe that there have been many gospels withheld for reasons that have been lost over time, just to say it simply would be "politics' within the Holy Roman Church.
Given that Jerome was the main translator during the 3rd century, working on commission, it doesn't seem farfetched that certain "mistranslations" would have occured.

I recommend anyone looking for other perspectives might want to read "Misquoting Jesus".

 

[lokiju]

I'd like to think there is some truth to this.

 

[ballmode]

I see that this is true.

 

[JulesMaximus]

So, Jesus set the whole thing up?

The more I read/hear of Jesus the more I think he was just another David Koresh and if he lived today the BATF would probably burn down his compound in Texas just like they did that other nutjob. Maybe in the future people will be reading the works of David Koresh and worshiping another 2000 year old dead guy.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
So, Jesus set the whole thing up?

The more I read/hear of Jesus the more I think he was just another David Koresh and if he lived today the BATF would probably burn down his compound in Texas just like they did that other nutjob. Maybe in the future people will be reading the works of David Koresh and worshiping another 2000 year old dead guy.

Hum, Jesus = modern day David Blane?

 

[Bartino]

BS

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

I do not use the late date to dismiss the document, but to point out that if it was written at that time, it was not written by Judas. Therefore, it should not simply be accepted as truth.

As for what I know as truth being only a prevailing school of thought, I did not receive it from any school of thought. I simply read the Bible, and in that Bible is a man by the name of Peter, the leader of the Church of Christ after his death and appointed by Christ himself. So even if Judas himself did write the stories and only later did someone rewrite it, who am I supposed to trust? The appointed leader of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ, or the traitor of Christ? Not a very hard decision, though I would still investigate it.

As for what someone would have to find in order for me to question the Bible, I'm not sure. Joseph Smith found an ancient record and translated it and it very much confirms the writings in the Bible. So therefore it would need to be something to make me question not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well.

Which brings up an interesting question. The Book of Mormon was brought about through an ancient manuscript that was found. Have you put as much interest into it as you have this book?

Has the book of Mormon ever been carbon dated???

Sorry for not answering your question. Didn't see it until today.

There is not way to carbon date the Book of Mormon. The record from which it was translated was taken back to Heaven for safe keeping. Not sure we can get access right now.

 

[Accipiter22]

mememmememememega bump lol

 

[BigToque]

Page was not found

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

I do not use the late date to dismiss the document, but to point out that if it was written at that time, it was not written by Judas. Therefore, it should not simply be accepted as truth.

As for what I know as truth being only a prevailing school of thought, I did not receive it from any school of thought. I simply read the Bible, and in that Bible is a man by the name of Peter, the leader of the Church of Christ after his death and appointed by Christ himself. So even if Judas himself did write the stories and only later did someone rewrite it, who am I supposed to trust? The appointed leader of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ, or the traitor of Christ? Not a very hard decision, though I would still investigate it.

As for what someone would have to find in order for me to question the Bible, I'm not sure. Joseph Smith found an ancient record and translated it and it very much confirms the writings in the Bible. So therefore it would need to be something to make me question not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well.

Which brings up an interesting question. The Book of Mormon was brought about through an ancient manuscript that was found. Have you put as much interest into it as you have this book?

Has the book of Mormon ever been carbon dated???

Sorry for not answering your question. Didn't see it until today.

There is not way to carbon date the Book of Mormon. The record from which it was translated was taken back to Heaven for safe keeping. Not sure we can get access right now.

Taken back to heaven for safekeeping? If God wanted to keep it safe, couldn't he do that with it on earth?

 

[sourceninja]

it reminds me of a song from south park...

 

[Lazy8s]

@mercanucaribe: exactly this is the major beef most people have with the mormon faith. How can you believe the leader of a new spin on christianity used a couple rocks and a golden breastplate to translate metal plates that got magically taken up to heaven when he was done?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: RCN

It contradicts the Bible as you know it. Why do people never consider what was going on in the early church when reading the Bible? This copy was is believed to have been written in 300AD. It was mentioned as early as 180AD and is likely to have originated around 130AD.

If you want to use the late dates to dismiss it please note that it predates any surviving complete manuscripts of the Canonical Gospels. You may also want to look at the dates they were believed to have been written.

What you know as truth is simply a prevailing school of thought. What would someone have to find in order for you to question a book that was translated and compiled by men?

I do not use the late date to dismiss the document, but to point out that if it was written at that time, it was not written by Judas. Therefore, it should not simply be accepted as truth.

As for what I know as truth being only a prevailing school of thought, I did not receive it from any school of thought. I simply read the Bible, and in that Bible is a man by the name of Peter, the leader of the Church of Christ after his death and appointed by Christ himself. So even if Judas himself did write the stories and only later did someone rewrite it, who am I supposed to trust? The appointed leader of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ, or the traitor of Christ? Not a very hard decision, though I would still investigate it.

As for what someone would have to find in order for me to question the Bible, I'm not sure. Joseph Smith found an ancient record and translated it and it very much confirms the writings in the Bible. So therefore it would need to be something to make me question not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon as well.

Which brings up an interesting question. The Book of Mormon was brought about through an ancient manuscript that was found. Have you put as much interest into it as you have this book?

I have studied the book of mormon and gone to a monmon church for a long time and I think you are doing a great job of showing why so many people have a problem with the way religious people argue. You are saying you disbelieve this text because it contradicts what you have read in the bible. The problem is the bible might be wrong and this is correct. The only reason you believe the bible is because it's what you were taught. To truly give this document a fair shake you have to pretend that this document instead of the bible was held as common belief by the LDS teachings and weigh the two.

I know the prophet is your lifeline to God and he has prayed on the bible and believes it but he never knew about this document and that's a key part of the mormon faith. Why do people who have never had lessons go to heaven? Because they never had the chance to accept or deny christ. Same here, none of the LDS prophets have had the chance to pray about this and accept or deny it. If I were you I would encourage you to read the document, pray about it and even discuss it with your bishop before you toss it out as contradictory. One of the largest contradictions in the mormon faith is they accept new revalations from the prophet but deny ancient scrolls that contradict their teachings up to that point. Remember in your own teachings God reveals knowledge when you can handle it, perhaps certain events in history would have been different if people knew the truth about Judas. Perhaps god is revealing this to us now so that we know the truth. Etc etc.

What I'm saying is the christians will deny it because it contradicts their current beliefs even though their own teachings widel contradict themselves. Non-christians will either ignore it or try to show how it fits into christianity very well. Personally I think it's interresting and I can't wait to ask God myself when I see him.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: DaShen
gnostic gospels.

interesting read but overall put into practice as an outshooting of a cult following.

Hmm...cult-following....kinda like mainstream Christianity? (and any other organized religion)

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Taken back to heaven for safekeeping? If God wanted to keep it safe, couldn't he do that with it on earth?

I'm sure he could have, but how many lives would have been sacrificed in doing so? How many people would have fought to the death to get those plates? Why do that when he could keep them somewhere no one could get them and not have to worry about it? We have the writing, the record has been translated into many languages. Why cause unnecessary death? If you want proof, just ask him if the record is true.