Reply With Quote
Hasn't anyone seen or read "The Last Temptation of Christ"?
It is cool that they found actual written do ents... But these are not new ideas.
Catholic Church = not moving at all
Hasn't anyone seen or read "The Last Temptation of Christ"?
It is cool that they found actual written do ents... But these are not new ideas.
OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.
Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense.
Gtown who owns in a academic battle about things done almost 2000 years ago.OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.
Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense.
Shame on me for not having an opinion on such an obvious fact before us.
I agree that given that these do ents were written almost 2000 yrs. ago, discussing about them not always yields clear cut answers.Gtown who owns in a academic battle about things done almost 2000 years ago.
Shame on me for not having an opinion on such an obvious fact before us.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence to discredit the Gospel of Judas and other gnostic writtings (please, do your reasearch, you'll find that there are plenty of these kind of do ents and thier contents have been known for a long time).
When I say discredit, I'm not saying they are not historical or original. What I'm saying is that their premises are false.
I don't believe that's what Extra Stout said.... learn how to read.
you cant handle the truth!
The Gospel of Judas won't be a revolution, but adds a little bit to the doubt about early Christian texts and how some made it into the NT and lots didn't, and about how Early Orthodox Christianity did a pretty good job of suppressing whoever they thought were heretics.
No it doesn't. It's crystal clear why texts such as the gospel of Judas and other gnostic texts already mentioned in this thread did not make it into the NT.
It makes more sense to discuss why other texts, such as Clement of Rome's Epistle, the Sheperd or Hermas or the Epistle of Barnabas, did not make it into the NT given that many early churches viewed these texts as insipired (some of our earliest complete Bibles, dating from the fourth Century, include some of these texts).
It also would meake more sense to ask why some others did make it when not all the Church Fathers were sure of their autenticity, such as 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John and the Apocalypse.
But it is very easy to see why the Gospel of Judas, of Thomas, of Peter, etc did not make it into the NT.
This is true.
Same can be said of the Bible, Christianity, and the religious dogma associated therewith. pwnt.
Did Jesus himself denounce the writings? It seems that only he and Judas would know what Jesus did or did not ask of Judas. pwnt.
or even that the message may have been God-inspired, but the inclusion/excluion of some elements was tainted by humanity
Jesus died before any Christian writtings were penned. What is your point?
Again, what does this have to do with anything? Where is the proof that Jesus ever told Judas what this manuscript claims.
In case you did not read my other posts, this do ent was written between 130 - 150 AD. What it says contradicts other Gospels and Epistles that were written between 50 and 90 AD by the followers of Christ themselves. And the followers of the disciples of Christ already were discrediting the do ent in 170 AD.
Which do ent has more credibility? You tell me.
Junior, you haven't pwnt anything or anyone. You haven't brought any thought which I have not refuted with historical facts.
Correct. But it's much more difficult to say the Bible is a fabrication than this "new" gospel is a fabrication.
I can try to explain this to you, but you don't seem willing to debate the point, but simply through your one liners with little substance attached to them.
Youre right, actually.OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.
Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense.
good post
Gtown who owns in a academic battle about things done almost 2000 years ago.
Shame on me for not having an opinion on such an obvious fact before us.
an oppinion based on some obscure writer whose text was penned 400 yrs after the fact. Yeah, stick your sarcasm somewhere else.
You may not realize, but you giving credence to the Judas writings, is like me giving credence to a literary work NBAdan wrote a day ago, casting doubt about the accounts of the Lincoln assasination, when quite frankly, he wasn't there to witness the Lincoln assasination 150 years ago.
You must think Clifford the Big Red Dog also discredits the whole bible.
So all these Biblical and early Christianity writings a man-written, with definite, undoubtable political agendas to include/exclude ideas and people, are all fallible?
OK, then Genesis as scientific cosmology is total bull .
Well, up to now we were discussing the veracity/accuracy of what these do ents say, the Canonical Gospels on one side and the gnostic ones on the other. I've been claiming that the gnostic gospels, given that they were not wr ten in the first century by Apostles or people who were closely acquainted with the Apostles, are mostly fabrications. The opposite is true for the Canonical Gospels, written by the people who walked with Christ during his (Christ's) minister on Earth.
You, OG, DR and other hand, with little knowledge of early Christianity, are trying to push for the veracity of the Gospel of Judas.
If you introduce fallability into the equation, then we will get nowhere because believing the Holy Spirit guided the Church in deciding which writtings were inspired and which were not, requires faith, something neither you, OG nor DR have.
Genesis should not bee taken literally.
dont feel like reading everything but the article in the usatoday was pretty interesting
kinda sucks that a whole religion is based off whata few people decided is "right" way back when
If you read the whole thread (two pages, not that long) you will find reason explaining why your comment is innacurate at best.
Now that I watched the National Geographic special on this subject, I can see how evil the Orthodox (led by Bishop Ireaneu of Lyon) are not allowing this gospel to make it into the Bible
I cant believe I am going to enter into a direct conversation with you, but here goes...You must think Clifford the Big Red Dog also discredits the whole bible.
Now, I dont think Clifford proves or disproves anything. But if some weird sect of people found Clifford's book and somehow drew allegorical refrences from it, worshipped his stories as some sort of divine plight, then yeah...it certainly could for that small group of people.
Now, what if those Cliffordites grew in number? Would their "religion" be furthered or more credible?
Not to me. No matter how popular, they still worship a gigantic fictional dog.
And what I meant by your previous post...
...was that you were very right. Every single sentence in your quote is not only possible, but very true. I wasnt purporting that this Judas revelation means . I dont know if it does or doesnt. That depends on the individual reading said do ent.OmG! So if the bible is fallable because it is written by man, then the Judas manuscripts, who were written by man, consequently shed infallable evidence against the fallable manly written bible, by the fallable Judas Manuscripts.
Wow!! after a few bong hits, Oh Gee's and Dark Reign's logic makes perfect sense.
Point is, this is all a matter of faith. No amount of do ents are going to change your mind. Good for you! Seriously. You wont be swayed from your scripture so easily.
But, some may. SOME might. Some will question. And that was the aim of the article, IMO.
I think you were reaching too far with the conotation of your previous post, though. I will say though, history was written by the winners up until this century. Man is fallable, dude. Bible was written by man. The Bible is fallable. That is a true, logical statement. Doesnt mean its CORRECT, but it is logical and considered a true statement.
The other half is always left to the reader. Do you believe?
That question is posed to every reader of every do ent everyday. Just because the NYT writes an article about Iraq / the President / deforestation / etc doesnt make it correct.
That was my point.
When the canonical gospels were written and who wrote them is not clear. Probably between 60 and 90 AD and probably by second-hand information, but who knows. My recollection is that none of the surviving manuscripts are even close to that old. Christianity was persucuted off and on for a few hundred years, making it difficult to maintain an archive.
It's clear that anything non-orthodox was suppressed. We are lucky to have any surviving manuscripts. Whether right or wrong, it's interesting/unsettling to find out more about a significant early Christian community who believed things quite different from the orthodox view.
"NYT writes an article .... doesnt make it correct."
But the NYT writers don't claim to be inspired by God and therefore infallible, and don't ever persecute and suppress the rabble-rousers writing different news, eg, for Faux News, nor claim that The One True Way to heaven is reading and believing the NYT.
What's considered orhodox Bible writings now was written by the winners in early Christianity who beat out other writers who were probably as "true" and accurate as the winners, but were for many non-Godly reasons, were excluded by the winners.
A key objective of the early Christians was to define Christianity as different and better than whatever else was around, pure politics, to make Christianity unchallengeable, and to amass blind followers who hued closely to the party line, with going to for eternity being the standard punishment for diverging.
I think the Bible is "true" in its moral and spiritual lessons and guidelines (as are the sacred core writings of all the worlds major religions), but is in no way to be taken scientifically or literally "true".
Last edited by boutons_; 04-10-2006 at 12:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions