News of interest to former Christians


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.

Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.

The discovery in the desert of Egypt of the leather-bound papyrus manuscript, and now its translation, was announced by the National Geographic Society at a news conference in Washington. The 26-page Judas text is said to be a copy in Coptic, made around A. D. 300, of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek the century before.

Terry Garcia, an executive vice president of the geographic society, said the manuscript, or codex, is considered by scholars and scientists to be the most significant ancient, nonbiblical text to be found in the past 60 years.

"The codex has been authenticated as a genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature," Mr. Garcia said, citing extensive tests of radiocarbon dating, ink analysis and multispectral imaging and studies of the script and linguistic style. The ink, for example, was consistent with ink of that era, and there was no evidence of multiple rewriting.

"This is absolutely typical of ancient Coptic manuscripts," said Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at the University of Munster in Germany. "I am completely convinced."

The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."

The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.

Unlike the accounts in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the anonymous author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone among the 12 disciples understood the meaning of Jesus' teachings and acceded to his will. In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton who specializes in studies of the Gnostics, said in a statement, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was."

The Gospel of Judas is only one of many texts discovered in the last 65 years, including the gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Philip, believed to be written by Gnostics.

The Gnostics' beliefs were often viewed by bishops and early church leaders as unorthodox, and they were frequently denounced as heretics. The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.

As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.

For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers. The Gospel of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most favored disciple and willing collaborator.

Scholars say that they have long been on the lookout for the Gospel of Judas because of a reference to what was probably an early version of it in a text called Against Heresies, written by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, about the year 180.

Irenaeus was a hunter of heretics, and no friend of the Gnostics. He wrote, "They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Karen L. King, a professor of the history of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School, and an expert in Gnosticism who has not yet read the manuscript released today, said that the Gospel of Judas may well reflect the kinds of debates that arose in the second and third century among Christians.

"You can see how early Christians could say, if Jesus's death was all part of God's plan, then Judas's betrayal was part of God's plan," said Ms. King, the author of several books on the Gospel of Mary. "So what does that make Judas? Is he the betrayer, or the facilitator of salvation, the guy who makes the crucifixion possible?"

At least one scholar said the new manuscript does not contain anything dramatic that would change or undermine traditional understanding of the Bible. James M. Robinson, a retired professor of Coptic studies at Claremont Graduate University, was the general editor of the English edition of the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of Gnostic documents discovered in Egypt in 1945.

"Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas," Mr. Robinson said in a telephone interview. He said that the New Testament gospels of John and Mark both contain passages that suggest that Jesus not only picked Judas to betray him, but actually encouraged Judas to hand him over to those he knew would crucify him.

Mr. Robinson's book, "The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and his Lost Gospel" (Harper San Francisco, April 2006), predicts the contents of the Gospel of Judas based on his knowledge of Gnostic and Coptic texts, even though he was not part of the team of researchers working on the document.

The Egyptian copy of the gospel was written on 13 sheets of papyrus, both front and back, and found in a multitude of brittle fragments.

Rudolphe Kasser, a Swiss scholar of Coptic studies, directed the team that reconstructed and translated the script. The effort, organized by the National Geographic, was supported by Maecenas Foundation for Ancient Art, in Basel, Switzerland, and the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, an American nonprofit organization for the application of technology in historical and scientific projects.

The entire 66-page codex also contains a text titled James (also known as First Apocalypse of James), a letter by Peter and a text of what scholars are provisionally calling Book of Allogenes.

Discovered in the 1970's in a cavern near El Minya, Egypt, the document circulated for years among antiquities dealers in Egypt, then Europe and finally in the United States. It moldered in a safe-deposit box at a bank in Hicksville, N. Y., for 16 years before being bought in 2000 by a Zurich dealer, Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos. The manuscript was given the name Codex Tchacos.

When attempts to resell the codex failed, Ms. Nussberger-Tchacos turned it over to the Maecenas Foundation for conservation and translation.

Mr. Robinson said that an Egyptian antiquities dealer offered to sell him the document in 1983 for $3 million, but that he could not raise the money. He criticized the scholars now associated with the project, some of whom are his former students, because he said they violated an agreement made years ago by Coptic scholars that new discoveries should be made accessible to all qualified scholars.

The manuscript will ultimately be returned to Egypt, where it was discovered, and housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

Ted Waitt, the founder and former chief executive of Gateway, said that his foundation, the Waitt Institute for Historical Discovery, gave the National Geographic Society a grant of more than $1 million to restore and preserve the manuscript and make it available to the public.

" I didn't know a whole lot until I got into this about the early days of Christianity. It was just extremely fascinating to me," Mr. Waitt said in a telephone interview. He said he had no motivation other than being fascinated by the finding. He said that after the document was carbon dated and the ink tested, procedures his foundation paid for, he had no question about its authenticity. "You can potentially question the translation and the interpretation, he said, but you can't fake something like this. It would be impossible."

story link | Explore the document | Download an expert from the document
 
Anonymous Jim Lee said...
Tony Bushby, Australain author of the Bible Fraud. See www.thebiblefraud.com
reveals that the "mortal" Jesus was the second born of twins born out of an adultress affair by his mother Princess Miriamne Herod who had an affair with Tiberius. The first born twin of this affair was Judas. So Judas and Jesus were brothers. These twins mother was the sister of Princess Elizabeth Herod, who gave birth to John, who became the biblical John the baptist. Intreaging read.


Blogger mq59 said...
This is interesting.

However, is the 200 AD-ish copy that this manuscript was copied from the oldest one?*

If it was written in +/- 200 AD, then it's too late to be written by the historical Judas.

Even assuming Judas lived well past the assumed time he died (33 AD), he would certainly be dead by 200 AD.

*Yes, I am aware it could be a copy of a copy.


Blogger Bentley said...
In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.


One of today, must also take in account what people thought and believed 2000 years ago.

They believed in spirits, talking snakes, donkeys, flat Earth, demons, devils, angels, miracles, superstitions, super natural intervention, ghosts, etc.

After Jesus found out for himself that he was not sent by a God as had been told by his mother and every other loony back then, Jesus could have easily pulled off a fake crucifixion with the help of 12 loyal followers, in order to fulfill OT prophesy.

Funny thing how Jesus's physical body was missing from the tomb, but it was supposed to be his soul, that rose to heaven on the third day.

Where the hell was Jesus's body? Where did it go, no one had any use for his dead body, unless of course it walked away with said prophesy fulfilled, in order to keep them all from being stoned to death.

Funny too that the papers found where 13 sheets, sounds somewhat premeditated.


Anonymous Antlerman said...
MQ59 said: "Even assuming Judas lived well past the assumed time he died (33 AD), he would certainly be dead by 200 AD."

The same can be said of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, none of which were written during their assumed authors supposed lifetimes.

But honestly, considering people lived to be 900 years old back in Bible days, who's to say Judas didn't die when he was 400 years old? All things are possible when it comes to God's miracles, right?

I believe it! Saint Judas Iscariot, chiefest amongst the disciples, bringer of salvation to all mankind. All hail the blessed Judas!


Blogger mq59 said...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_and_Date_of_the_Canonical_Gospels

This site (which contains links to other, more scholarly sites) indicates that the Gospels were likely written between 60 and 150 AD.


Blogger Tim Simmons said...
It's written as if they all believe it to be an eyewitness account. NONE of the new testament is an eyewitness account. The first Christians worshipped a heavenly-only Jesus (Paul's) and only after the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John began to circulate widely(probably not till around 100) did Christians start believing in a Jesus who actually walked the earth and performed miracles and taught wise sayings - NONE of which can be found in the authentic writings of Paul (~50-60CE)!

Jesus - whose very name means 'God saves' - is an invention of man. Bringing the son of 'god' down to walk among men is the invention of 'Mark' (probably post 70CE) and the whole affair is an evolution of ideas - not a relating of historical events.

Why do you think there was such a war between those who believed in a spiritual Jesus (earliest Christians) and those who were "orthodox"? The letters of Paul and his Jesus spread far and wide. The gospels did, too. After the #s of both camps grew large enough for each to know of the other, they began writing tomes against the "heresies" and "heretics" and "orthodoxy" (Mark's Jesus) won out.

It was all a literary plagiarism party. Oooh! I'll write a gospel of Thomas. Ooooh! I'll write a gospel of Judas!

Ooooh! I'll rewrite Mark, edit out the embarrassing parts, add my own theology and call it the gospel of Matthew!

Do some reading!

Tim


Blogger SpaceMonk said...
"Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas," Mr. Robinson said..."

Except why would Jesus ask Judas to do such a thing and then, in both Matthew and Mark, say 'Woe to that man that betrays me, it would be better for him if he had never been born'.

Also Luke says it was Satan that entered Judas to betray Jesus, which the Gospel of Judas contradicts.
Isn't that undermining enough?

Oh well, poor St. Judas.


Anonymous bill said...
tim>
Ooooh! I'll rewrite Mark, edit out the embarrassing parts, add my own theology and call it the gospel of Matthew!

and then add even more embarrassing parts. The new authors had a chance to fine tune Mark to at least some realm of believability and they completely botched it by including their ignorance of the language of their sources. (ie, 2 donkeys for Jesus to ride on during the Triumphant Entry to Jerusalem) or ( fantastic light show at the dawn of the ressurection; you would think Mark would have mentioned that...) Once I read Matthew, compared to Mark, then the reality of the agenda became obvious. I should have been shocked to the loss of my faith, but I was laughing too hard.


Blogger J. C. Samuelson said...
Nobody asked me, but...

I saw this yesterday in the news. It's hard to disagree with the statement by Mr. Robinson that "Correctly understood, there's nothing undermining about the Gospel of Judas," for two reasons. First, as he indicates, the other Gospel writers seem to imply that Jesus knew of Judas' role. Secondly because it won't make a bit of difference to many believers, who will consign this Gospel to relative oblivion in the same way they have generally done to the other non-canonical Gospels.

I'm going to indulge in a bit of conjecture here...

Assuming the Gospel of Judas is given the same credibility (by Christians) as the others and Jesus did actually ask Judas to betray him, it could be that Jesus was cognizant of the emotional effect his perceived martyrdom would have on his disciples and felt Judas would be receptive to the idea. This could be considered consistent with a Jesus who was viewed as an outlaw/revolutionary who wanted to instigate a change to the status quo.

As to why Judas might want to carry it out after being asked, we'd have to read the text of this new Gospel to figure that out. However, a hint is given in the post that might indicate that Judas wanted the glory of being greater than the other disciples. This would be consistent with Mark 9:32-34, which describes the disciples as having argued about who among them was the greatest.

But who really knows, and does it really matter today? I doubt it.

MQ59,

"However, is the 200 AD-ish copy that this manuscript was copied from the oldest one?*

If it was written in +/- 200 AD, then it's too late to be written by the historical Judas."

Since the earliest extant manuscripts for nearly all of the NT gospels date to ca. 200 or later (John being the only exception), your argument should apply to all of them. In other words, by your reasoning I could rephrase your argument thus:

"However, are the 200 AD-ish copies that these manuscripts were copied from the oldest ones?

If the Gospels were written in +/- 200 AD, then it's too late to be written by the historical Matthew, Mark, or Luke."

See my point? Antlerman touched on this too.

Tim,

Although I agree with you in general, your position on Jesus' name is a non-starter when it comes to his alleged historicity. All names are inventions of men, and since it is generally agreed that Jesus is the Greek rendering of Yeshua/Joshua ("Yahweh is Salvation", or "God Saves" to use modern English as you do), it seems to me to be useless to quibble about what name the founder of Christianity went by.

Otherwise, good discussion!


Blogger mq59 said...
Actually, in one of Paul's letters, he talks about the Last Supper.

The Scripture is 1 Corinthians 11:23-27

This kinda damages your theory that Christians did not believe in an earthly Jesus until decades later.


Blogger mq59 said...
Perhaps the gospels were eyewitness accounts that were written down at a later date? Jesus's immediate followers did't die with him--they lived for years or decades afterwards.

Mark is kinda/sorta an eyewitness account--according to the writings of the early church fathers, Mark was a disciple of Peter who copied down what Peter told him.


Blogger mq59 said...
Of course, you can make the same argument I did with the Gospel of Judas re: the Four Canonical Gospels, so I will concede you that point.


Blogger freeman said...
I was laughing my ass off last night with this story!

The Judas problem was one of the first that I questioned as a teenager. Judas had to be an agent of god for his plan to work! Had jesus not been betrayed, he would not have died and the resurection would not have occured and christainity simply would not have been!!! No salvation. There was nothing for a devil to gain by jesus dying!

If all christians would just simply read the gnostic gospels, they would understand that jesus was never real and only used as a metephor!


Blogger FaceBat said...
I understand that, sometime in the last twenty years, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene has also been discovered & that the Catholic Church (& probably some other religious groups) have been trying to keep it under wraps because Mary Magdalene supposedly knew Jesus better than anyone & her gospel reveals intimate details of Jesus' life that most religious leaders don't want made public. My guess is that the Gospel of Judas will be similarly revealing; my impression has always been that Judas was Jesus' most outspoken & closest (male) friend.


Anonymous Jim Lee said...
There was no cross in early biblical writings.
The Greek scriptures state that Jesus was crucified on a "stauros" (Mark 18:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26, John 19:17). This Greek word means a vertical pole without a crossbar, a torture stake.
Acts 5:30. Says that Jesus was murdered by hanging from a tree.
1 Peter 2:24 also infers that Jesus body was hung from a tree. Strong Concordance, Greek: # 4716; atow-ros', a stake or post; set upright, used as an instrument of capital punishment.
The church did not adopt the cross until about 5-6 hundred years after the supposed birth of Jesus. (New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol.4, page 475.) The word “cross” was later substituted for the word 'stake' in the rewriting of the Christian text. (Crosses In Tradition. W.W.Seymour N.Y. 1898)
Christian archives record that general use of the crucifix became ratified at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680 CE (Canon 82) the council decreed that “the figure of a man fastened to a cross be now adopted”. This new church logo was later confirmed by Pope Hadrian 1 (772-795 CE). The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. As far as I'm concerned the New Testament Jesus as the Son of a God is a myth and the crucifixion was a non event


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
I think the most important thing about this "Gospel" is that it was ordered destroyed as heretical.

Book burning from the earliest days of the Church.

I have no problem with people denouncing a piece of literature, but destroying it? What's to fear?


Anonymous Jim Lee said...
Hi Face bat. The mortal Jesus who also was a Rabbi (confirmed in the New Testament) who was the brother of Judas was married three times according to the Bible Fraud by Tony Bushby. see www.thebiblefraud.com
Jesus mother by the way was the Grand daughter of King Herod. So she had a royal bloodline. Jesus was firstly married to Princess Cypros, his second wife was Princess Mary Magdalene, and his third wife was Queen Cartismandus. Its all a very interesting scenario this Christian deception.


Blogger J. C. Samuelson said...
MQ59,

I don't think there's a debate that the gospels are accounts written down at a later date, it's the "eyewitness" part that is contentious. Although it can easily be conceded that Jesus' immediate followers survived him, the accuracy, validity, authorship, and date of composition for the gospels is certainly subject to a great deal of doubt. Whether the current Bible was transmitted more or less accurately in comparison to other ancient texts doesn't even need to be considered to argue that the original texts themselves may have been inaccurate - even wildly exaggerated - versions of events written by people who were not eyewitnesses.

You know, I'd like to agree with you about Mark, but I can't. Even early church fathers never said Mark was an eyewitness. For example, Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, quoted by Eusebius had this to say:

"And John the presbyter also said this, Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

So, according to Eusebius, quoting Papias, quoting John the presbyter, Mark "wrote with great accuracy," but only what Peter had taught him. Note the "...For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him..." part. Then there is the fact that Peter's goal wasn't to preserve history, and "accommodated his instructions" to his audience, bringing even Mark's best source into question.

All of this is simply to point out that Mark's testimony can be considered, at best, hearsay.

Back to the topic at hand...


Blogger mq59 said...
You've got the whole quote I was referring to right there when I said that Mark wrote what Peter told him. I said "kinda/sorta" b/c it was an eyewitness account written down by someone else.

I just remembered "Mark the interpreter of Peter" and thought that Mark was Peter's secretary (since Peter was probably illiterate--some say that the differences between 1 and 2 Peter are the result of Peter having someone help him write the second).


Blogger Tim Simmons said...
“Actually, in one of Paul's letters, he talks about the Last Supper.

The Scripture is 1 Corinthians 11:23-27

This kinda damages your theory that Christians did not believe in an earthly Jesus until decades later.”


Actually, Paul doesn’t say “Last Supper”. He doesn’t even say “Lord’s Supper” with capitalization. Apparently, you haven’t read the above verse lately. Here is most of the chapter.

20ye, then, coming together at the same place -- it is not to eat the Lord's supper; [note the lower case “s”]
21for each his own supper doth take before in the eating, and one is hungry, and another is drunk;
22why, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or the assembly of God do ye despise, and shame those not having? what may I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I do not praise!

[Here is a very critical verse if you are wanting to discuss Jesus’ historicity.]
23For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,
[Paul is saying he was told by God that Jesus, when he was delivered up, ate bread and drank wine but I fear a complete discussion of the idea that this story was perceived to have happened in the spiritual realms is beyond your ability to grasp it all, since it would involve an intense topical study of the entire NT from this perspective.]
24and having given thanks, he brake, and said, `Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.'
25In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;'
26for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death of the Lord ye do shew forth -- till he may come;
Now, I want you to go read the entire new testament [pref in a good translation – at LEAST not the NIV PLEASE!] and note every last instance of where Jesus’ “coming” is mentioned. In all the NT except ONE place, it is referred to as a “coming” and not a “return”. Here’s one from Hebrews.
Hebrews 8
37for yet a very very little, He who is coming will come, and will not tarry;
Why would the author say coming instead of returning? Maybe… Jesus had not yet appeared on the earth? In fact, I have about 60 pages of an article exploring this very phenomenon but I have never actually finished it. I find it telling that of the entire NT, all of the writings use “come” to refer to a return (except the one in Hebrews that would take more writing to defend).
This idea could only be true IF he never was on earth to begin with. THAT is exactly what the author of Hebrews says in 8:4.

4for if, indeed, he were upon earth, he would not be a priest
Jesus is compared to Melchizadek in a sort of Platonic relationship. Mel is the earthly priest, Jesus the heavenly priest. Lower, upper. Earthly, Heavenly. Sinful, sinless. Offers continually each year the blood of bulls, etc, offers ONCE for all time (his death) so the analogy fails if Jesus lived a life on earth. But you’d need to reread all of Hebrews and the NT with this notion AND study G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty’s arguments before it would have a chance to make sense. Funny how Hebrews and Paul don’t like to mention any miracles or teachings of Jesus – a man who was god in the flesh!

Anyway… I’m tired of typing.


Tim


Blogger muttmutt1978 said...
somethign tells me the gospel of Judas might be a hoax. then again with all the pro christian nuts out there its jsut another way of saying it really did happen try and discredit it......


Blogger muttmutt1978 said...
hey i was wondering if theres some kind of petition to get christianity out of public schools. anyone with me?


Anonymous Anonymous said...
actually Judas was Jeuss sister Jesus has a brother named emannuel thats the tiwn


Blogger mq59 said...
What's wrong with the NIV?


Anonymous Todd said...
What I don't understand is how can Judas be considered evil, period?

1.)If he was apart of a divine plan then apparently god damned him from birth. It's kind of like the story of Oedipus Rex(a myth by the way). Oedipus could not escape his fate because Apollo had it mapped out, per detail, every step of the way. He had to yield to it.
Likewise with Judas...
If anything Judas is blameless.

2.) After the Gospel of Judas then Jesus is just as much at fault. He had no right to tell him he was punished simply because Judas helped him facilitate his demise...

So Judas got a bum rap.


Blogger Bentley said...
Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

When did Judas find the time to compose a 26 page manuscript?

Plus, being so distraught, it should have been blurred with tears.

I believe the whole thing is a hoax, including the 12 diciples, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Mary's secret lover, whom got her pregnant, unless God was her secret lover, but God has 72 virgins at his disposal, at any given moment.


Blogger mq59 said...
The 72 virgins bit comes from the warped minds of Islamic fundamentalists. It has nothing to do with Christianity at all.

Tim,

Study the entire NT from that perspective (the idea that Paul preached a "heavenly Jesus" and the Gospels portray an "earthly Jesus")? Doesn't that mean I ought to look at the NT with a preconceived idea about what it means and try to bend everything to fit that conclusion?


Anonymous Passerby said...
mq59,
you said, "what's wrong with the NIV."


The NIV conceals Biblical flaws. Here are a couple of examples:

Ex 21:22, states in the NIV version;
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely.......”

In the (NRSV):
"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage,.......”

This verse is sometimes used incorrectly to explain that abortion is wrong. Notice the use of the words "gives birth prematurely" is used instead of miscarriage, or the correct interpretation, "loses her offspring." Why is this important? Because different penalties were dictated, determined by the death of the mother and the death of the fetus, where the death of the fetus was insignificant as opposed to the death of the mother. Of course we know the Bible is totally silent on the abortion issue...looks like God is not omniscient.


Here's another one, but there are probaby more:

In the NIV Gen 2:16-17 states, “....But you must not eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat it you will surely die.”

And in the NRSV Gen 2:16-17 states, “....but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Again the NIV used equivocation to conceal the real meaning of the verse. Why was this done? To cover up Biblical flaws, of course. It's a false prophecy when the verse states, "you shall die in the DAY that you eat the fruit." To take it further, brainwashed Christians use fallacious statements like, one day is like a thousand days because Adam lived almost a 1000 years(from 2 Peter 3:8). Brainwashed Christians also try to "add to his words" by saying "die" really means a spiritual death. Brainwashed Christians will twist and turn, lie, and use deceit to cover up Biblical flaws.


mq59, you are deceitful and disingenuous, just like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell. You only post statements with a Christian bias...why is that? What are you afraid of? Why the deceit? Why the denial? You said the gospel of Judas was too old to be written by a historical Judas, knowing the same can be said about the anonymous authors of the other Gospels. You're only fooling yourself, mq59.

Cheers


Blogger Tim Simmons said...
MQ59,

Yes!

I challenge you to approach the topic - topically!

If it holds no water at all, you should be able to find tons of evidence against it and little for it. If it is at least plausible, you might find a decent split. If it is probable, you should find that the dates of authorship, contents, LACK of contents, in favor of the mythical Jesus theory.

See, this way, you can either be convinced or after a long study, be unconvinced. Either way, you win. You can actually decide what you believe based not on what your preacher shoved down your throat (hypothetically speaking) but what you read and discovered on your own (with insights from others).

Since there are clearly divisions among even the earliest Christians about the very nature of Christianity (just read Paul) it is clear that there was no "ground zero". Christianity sprang up in many areas and many people believed variations of it and even INVENTED much of it. Why are the theologies of even the NT authors so divergent????

The earliest writings we have outside of the gospels all are conspicuously quiet about an earthly life of Jesus.It is only after the gospels began to widely circulate (say > 100CE) that we see OTHER writings that mention and even defend an earthly Jesus.

Why do you think Ignatius (~ 110CE) was claiming Jesus actually lived and was born of Mary if there was no one saying otherwise?

The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Trallians

"9:1 Be ye deaf, therefore, when any one speaketh unto you apart from Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David, who was born of Mary, who was truly born, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the sight of the things that are in heaven and on earth and under the earth;

9:2 and was truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up; according to the similitude of which also his Father shall raise up us who believe in him in Christ Jesus, apart from whom we have not the true life."



If Jesus had actually lived, did miracles, died, then why would it be necessary to defend these basic concepts? Some may say that "heresy" arose after his death and Christians were saying he was a spirit because they couldn't stomach the idea that God could associate with human (sinful) flesh. That DID happen but much later than the earliest beliefs (of Paul, eg.).

You have exactly what you'd expect in the NT if Christianity arose in a haphazard way. The only homogeneity we find is within single authors (Paul's 7 letters, eg.).


Google "Earl Doherty", go to his website and spend the next year studying it. When you think you have a good rebuttal, email him and me because I certainly would love to hear it. But only after you've spent the time I have in studying it. Otherwise, you'll just keep asking the same questions.


Here are a few reasons why you should stay away from the N(on)I(nspired)V(ersion).

How many days of plagues? NIV and other newer translations use 3 days in the Samuel account just to remove the obvious discrepancy.
2nd Samuel 24:13 vs 1 Chron. 21:12

Add that the NIV has conveniently altered the wording of many passages to try and mask the contradictions. That is one reason I include more than just the NIV translation when I feel a passage has been mistranslated in the NIV. Here are examples of this.

Jonah 3:3 (covering the fact that ninevah couldn’t have possibly been 3 days journey across!)

Hosea 8:13 and Hosea 11:5 (they will not vs will they not)

However, this is the way the KJV and ASV read. The NIV reads “3000 chariots” instead of ’30,000 chariots’. The NIV translators apparently caught this error and changed it, calling it a copyist error in the manuscripts. Funny how later translations alter the true content to make it more believable.

Niphilem, sons of god in gen 6 and job etc

The NIV, for example, changed Ahaziah's age from 42 to 22 in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to make it agree with a parallel statement in 2 Kings 8:26.

Well, just look at how it rendered Jeremiah 7:22-23, "For when I [Yahweh] brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people." In Van Eck's reply to this part of Hutchinson's article, he demanded something of Hutchinson that I'm going to ask him too. What word in the Hebrew text justified putting the English word just into the translation of this verse? I'll even answer that question. There is no word in the Hebrew text that justifies this English translation. I have checked the Hebrew text and Hendrickson's literal translation; I have checked Young's Literal version; I have checked over 20 English translations; I have checked Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint; I have checked Segond's French translation; and I have found no support for the NIV rendition of this verse. I wish space permitted me to publish all of the different translations I consulted when checking into this, but I'll have to settle for just three. First is the translation of the Jewish Publication Society: "For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. But this is what I commanded them: Do my bidding, that I may be your God and you may be my people." Hmmm, the poor Jewish scholars who worked on this translation didn't know enough about Hebrew to put in the word just. They should have consulted Roger Hutchinson.

The Greek in Acts 22:9 is:"ten de phonen ouk ekousan (EE-koo-san, aorist [past tense] of akouo, 3rd person plural). The KJV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) say that the men did not "hear" the voice, but the NIV and Living Bible (LB) say that the men did not "understand" the voice. On what grounds do the NIV and LB use such a translation? The passage is not poetic. In fact, in the parallel Acts 9:7, telling the same story, the NIV and LB do use "hear," from the verb akouo with the same object. There is nothing in the context of either Acts 9:7 or Acts 22:9 to warrant a looser translation of akouo.
There is nothing in Acts 22:9--nothing grammatical, contextual, or explicit--to indicated that akouo should be translated anything other than "hear." In fact, the same words (often the very same phrase: ouk ekousan) occur throughout the New Testament, but neither the NIV nor the LB use "not understand" in those instances. Look at Matthew 13:17 (NIV): "Many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear (ouk ekousan) it." If Acts 22:9 should be translated "not understand," why not here?
Look at Mark 8:18 (NIV): "Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" The phrase "fail to hear" is ouk akouete: "You do not hear." Again, if Acts 22:9 should be "not understand," then why not here?
Other examples are John 5:37 (NIV): "You have neither heard his voice nor seen his form"; and Romans 10:18 (NIV): "Did they not hear (ouk ekousan)?" (See also Mark 6:11, Luke 10:24, Luke 16:31, John 10:8, Acts 9:12, Romans 15:21.) Why is the NIV not consistent?


Tim


Anonymous Dano said...
I mean like, didn't God have to get the poor innocent Romans to murder his son so he could have his blood sacrifice, so that he would forgive the sins of the rest of us? The sins that he created in the first place, and knew we would commit.

Wasn't that like taking a contract out on his only son, the only child of his that wasn't conceived by the filthy sex act like the rest of were?

Wasn't Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit all the same entity, so didn't Jesus commit suicide, or wasn't he at least complicit in his own death?

Why should I be punished, just because Adam and eve did something that pissed God off?

Dan (Who would like to still be naked and stupid, but now that one of my ancestors ate from the tree of good and evil, I just have to do the best that I can with knowledge and rational thought.)

(No, I don't think sex is filthy!)


Blogger mq59 said...
Tim,

My. This will take some study--you know the Greek and everything.

Passerby,

You also made some good arguments.

However, you didn't have to call me a liar--as I said, I may be wrong, but I'm going about this in total good faith.


Blogger Bentley said...
mq59 said: The 72 virgins bit comes from the warped minds of Islamic fundamentalists. It has nothing to do with Christianity at all.

Yeah like your belief (christianity)is not from warped minds...thanks for reminding me...lol


Blogger Tim Simmons said...
mq59,


Don't worry about TIME. Just keep a log (on your PC, or a notebook or few hundred, and write all the stuff down that doesn't make sense). Also, use resources that have lots to see (I have the LOGOS software on my PC which has TONS of translations, commentaries, dictionaries, lexicons, etc.)


The thing that caused me to leave Christianity was the Bible.




Tim


Blogger nosh said...
From what i understood of the the whole Judas thing is that he merely wants to cover_up his guilt of decieving Jesus for money,so used a false statement that JESUS himself tolt him for this sacrifice.

Mostly writers write in accordance to what their inner selves are satisfied with not what really is the fact.

tim
The thing that caused me to leave Christianity was the Bible.

you have abondened Bible after yor so-called research of its faults etc,but take a closer look at everything that goes on in life,that is all round us ,may be you'll prefer not to live at all!
but its your life after all.


Blogger Onanite said...
all of these so called "gospels" have been re-written many many times to suit the authors personal beliefs. It has and will always be myth.

Religion is just myth formed to control others.


Blogger mq59 said...
Onanite,

The Book of Isaiah in modern Bibles is identical to the 2000-year-old Book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I know the BoI is not one of the gospels (canonical or otherwise). However, if the Bible is being altered as a means of social control, why not change BoI too?


Blogger Angel said...
The Gospels of Judas and Thomas cannot be proven were ever written closer than 80 years after the last Apostle wrote down his Revelation. Historians judge according to closeness to actual events. All of the cannonized Gospels were written within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection, which would make them the best. The closest thing we have on the Gospel of Judas is AD 170.

It is HISTORICAL proven fact that the Gospels included in the Bible were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If you take into account their personalities, these books well reflect their own view of Christ. The Gospels of the Bible do not contradict one another, but do in fact give the entire story of Christ that they knew.

It is commonly understood among attorneys that several witnesses can see the same crime, but catch different important pieces of the crime. For example: The witnesses at the shooting of Poilce Officer JD Tippet (the officer who was allegedly shot by Lee Harvey Oswald on the day of JFK's assassination) all saw very different things. The woman closest to the crime refused to identify Oswald and the killer. Another witness said that Oswald was WITH the man who shot Tippet. So much is it like that with the Gospels.

Matthew, the former tax collector, would be more exact and detailed. He is this, giving even small details of the things Christ did. It is Matthew who sets down Christ's lineage through his earthly father. Matthew looking at Christ as King and Messiah, shows Jesus lineage back to Solomon. He also gives the most detailed account of the crucifixion. I can see Matthew sitting the Marys' down and questioning them for details for hours even days.

Mark, known as John Mark, of all people might have wanted to write bad things about Christ. He was the one who deserted the Apostle Paul, and then returned and turned out to be the greatest of Paul's converts. I believe of all the Apostles, Paul would have most likely committed the story of Christ to Dr. Luke and Mark, maybe telling different parts of the story to each. It possible and even likely that Paul was with the Sanhedrin the night Jesus was tried. He might even have watched him die. Luke and Mark, both converts of Paul, would also more than likely have recieved this story possibly from Peter, John, James or any of the Apostles during Paul's visits to Jerusalem. Luke the doctor and Early Church historian who is the one to set down the DAVIDIC linegage of Christ. To be a true Jew and decendant of David, Christ had to come through the line of David by his MOTHER. Which is why it is SO important that MARY be in the line of David. Luke not only traces Christ to David, but through the true heir. Remember Solomon was chosen by David to be his heir over his true heir Nathan.it is interesting that the Apostles turn to LUKE, a convert of PAUL to write their history down in Acts. So I look at the Gospels of Luke and Mark as the Gospel according to the rest of the disciples.

John saw Christ as God, and being the most beloved of his Disciples, John's awe of Christ would come out in every letter in his Gospel, which obviously it does.

The reality of the whole situation is the proper interpretation or "rightly divinding" of the scriptures." 2 Timothy 2:15

The Gospels and Pauls letters do not IN ANY WAY contradict themsleves if you put them into their proper Historical, spiritual, and scriptural context.

In Galatians 2:

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentiles) was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

If Christian and non-Christian would recognize this historical separating of the Jewish Church and Genitle Church, most of the common problems would be solved. It explains why Paul taught Salvation by grace through faith alone, and the other Apostles taught repentance + works. Jewish believers were looking for Christ to return and set up the Kingdom promised to Abraham. The Gentiles were not promised this, and Christ's ministry was NOT to the Gentiles. In fact he referred to them as dogs.

Matthew 15:

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan (Gentile) came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

So Peter and the other original Apostles were preaching to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Take all the little side paths you want and you come to the same conclusion. Study the sermon of Peter on the day of Pentecost and how he calls the crowd "Ye men of Israel", The crowd would be Jews who came to Jerusalem for the celebration of Pentecost.

Over and over you will see and understand, and Paul explains, the difference between Jew and Gentile. As Gentiles we look to the books of Paul and are not under Jewish tradition and laws anymore, but the Holy Spirit and the God conciousness that he gives us.

I can tell you more if you want more.


Anonymous tigg13 said...
Angel, what exactly is this historical proof that you have that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? What credible, reliable evidence do you have to substanciate this claim?

Oh, and please don't site the Bible as your source as it is the Bible's credibility that is in question here.


Blogger enersia said...
new texts will be found about beliefs in God until we finally nuke ourselves to death, it all comes down to a simple question "Do you want to believe"


Blogger Testing Point said...
I'd been looking forward to reading the Gospel of Judas since I found out about it a year ago. I was a little disappointed after finally reading it because I guess I was expecting more.

I still think it's incredible that we have now have access to this gospel that was almost lost so many times.

The most intriguing thing to me is that these early Christians had also thought of the mystery of Judas and his betrayl and wrote this gospel to explain it.

The idea of Judas being good by carrying out the "handing over" of Jesus has been expressed by many scholars and authors, such as John E. Hueter, C.S. Griffin, and similar ideas are expressed in the movie The Last Temptation of Christ.

In honor of this Gospel of Judas, I've created an icon of Saint Judas. If you're interested, check it out at www.testingpointdesign.deviantart.com and let me know what you think.


Blogger Bentley said...
Yes thank you Saint Judas!

If it had not been for you Saint Judas, selling Jesus away, betraying him, for our rotten stinking souls, we would all be burning or destined straight for Hell right now!

Let us give Holy Thanks to Saint Judas, because if it were not for Him, we would not have a personal savior, Jesus Christ, But we owe it all to Judas!

Thank you Judas! Thank you! I pray that you will recieve a 1000 virgins and an endless supply of condoms, and wine, for your brave act of selling our Savior to be killed for 30 pieces of Silver. Had it not been for you, look at all the lost souls wondering around in space, looking forever for salvation.

I think Judas out-plays Jesus in the importance of getting everyones souls saved and just in the nick of Time.

All Hail St. Judas! We are all so indepted to you, how can we ever repay you?

Blessed be to you always and always, these things I pray in Judas's Holy name, amen and amen, so be it!


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
Hey TP,

Do you mind if I display your St. Judas here?

Message me if you approve.


Post a Comment | Create a Link | Post in the Forums | Permalink



The first 200 comments appear here under the article. If over 200 comments are posted, click on the "newer" and "newest" links on the Post a Comment page to continue reading the latest comments.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

  Subscribe to this post's Comments (Atom).
Subscribe to every post's Comments (RSS).
Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page.

<< Home