Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Apr 10, 2006 4:50:53 GMT -5
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Apr 10, 2006 8:45:44 GMT -5
Meh, it isn't to surprising. There are two sides to every story, so there was little doubt that there was some story that would make Judas seem good. I mean, if you really start examining the early Christian movement, you'll find a lot of storys with quite a few differences.
For example, take the virgin birth, that particular fact is only found the Gospels that were written later. It was most likely introduced to counter Roman Emperors' claims that they were the son of Jupiter.
Another interesting one is the Gospel of Thomas, which, from what I've been told, is more of a collection of sayings than anything else, and it makes no reference to Jesus being the son of God.
It is really interesting stuff that makes one take a second look at what to believe in.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Apr 10, 2006 9:00:03 GMT -5
Indeed, I did know that they had found more text than they had put into the bible. As if they were saying man has authority over how much of "what God said" should fit into a book.
Its like someone bludgeoning a 3 hour movie into an hour and a half.
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 12, 2006 18:41:43 GMT -5
It's a nice article, but I'd doubt the, a-hem, Gospel's authenticity unless it were written by Judas himself. If he was drawn specifically away from the group and given specialised intelligence into his role in Jesus' reign, he'd have to have written it himself. Or allowed the other apostles to have the knowledge as well (which is unlikely since it was never mentioned in other books). Even then, Jesus had to be betrayed by men, he even said: "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me." (Mat, 26:45-46) "Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Ris up, let us go, lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand." (Mark, 14:41-42) "Judas, betrayest though the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luke, 22:48) Furthermore, if Judas knew and accepted his role in Jesus' death, why did he try to undo what he did? Referencing Matthew, 27:3-5, he returned the money he took as incentive to "betray" Jesus and "cast [it] down" before hanging himself. In truth Jesus' death is meant to be a gift of salvation, so what Judas did was for the better of humanity. However, it was still betrayal, and John even accuses Judas as having been posessed during the time that he committed the acts. If Judas had committed the crime with the overall effect in mind, would he have regretted his actions? And since he died before the crucifixion, who would have written his gospel? The Gospel According to Matthew was written around A.D. 50, long before this Gospel (and thus written by an actual Apostle), it's likely to be more correct. Not only that, but the "Gnostics" recognised as having written the "Gospel" aren't original followers of Jesus like said (because the original followers of Jesus didn't survive 300 years after his death). This is a good article for the topic, with the exception that Judas would very much have betrayed for money (he had, after all, questioned whether or not the perfume that was poured on Jesus' head should have been sold). It can't be "The Gospel According to Judas", it's "The Gospel of Judas", and thus I find it hard to take entirely seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Apr 12, 2006 20:57:12 GMT -5
Meh, how do you know Matthew wrote that gospel...
The way I see it, if judas was actualy doing a good thing, jesus would have informed the other apostles(With more detail than what he said at the last supper) and judas wouldnt have killed himself.
Anyways, its just like the gospel according to thomas, people will beleive what they want to beleive, if this one of judas threatens christianity too much, it will be dissproven and banished, if it sounds good, it will be praised. How do you think all of the books in the bible where chosen... there are a lot more teachings, whos to say they were wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 12, 2006 21:10:21 GMT -5
You also have to take into account that there are different Bibles, the Gospel of Thomas is perfectly accessable to Christians, just as some Christians (like many Mormons) believe Christ had married Mary Magdalene (there are even Catholics that believe Jesus was a symbol rather than a man). As far as I understand, the Gospel of Thomas isn't a Gospel at all, rather a collection of dictations or sayings supposedly stated by Jesus. However, the reason it wasn't included probably lies in the fact it wasn't written when other apostles wrote their Gospels. It was either written long before or long after (and probably, again, not by Thomas).
It's true, Christians pick Gospels they prefer. But when some like Thomas or Judas are written and inherently disagree with the overwhelmingly majority teachings in the Bible and there's a large possiblity that these documents are false teachings, could you blame them? And with the amount of people out to discredit Christian belief, it's not surprising that Christians are weary.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Apr 12, 2006 21:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Apr 13, 2006 0:05:49 GMT -5
You also have to take into account that there are different Bibles, the Gospel of Thomas is perfectly accessable to Christians, just as some Christians (like many Mormons) believe Christ had married Mary Magdalene (there are even Catholics that believe Jesus was a symbol rather than a man). As far as I understand, the Gospel of Thomas isn't a Gospel at all, rather a collection of dictations or sayings supposedly stated by Jesus. However, the reason it wasn't included probably lies in the fact it wasn't written when other apostles wrote their Gospels. It was either written long before or long after (and probably, again, not by Thomas). It's true, Christians pick Gospels they prefer. But when some like Thomas or Judas are written and inherently disagree with the overwhelmingly majority teachings in the Bible and there's a large possiblity that these documents are false teachings, could you blame them? And with the amount of people out to discredit Christian belief, it's not surprising that Christians are weary. I dont think you see the entire point of what I'm saying. Just because the majority rule out "the gospal of judas" doesnt mean the majority are right, the majority might just sound better. Just like the gospal of thomas, just like every single other thing in our society... EDIT: The gospal of thomas is supposedly, extremely contradictory to the rest of the bible, unfortuantely I havent read it. Having said that, I'm not saying that the gospal is correct either, I'm just saying theres not enough evidence to know the truth, because the truth is based on perception.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Apr 13, 2006 13:26:47 GMT -5
You also have to take into account that there are different Bibles, the Gospel of Thomas is perfectly accessable to Christians, just as some Christians (like many Mormons) believe Christ had married Mary Magdalene (there are even Catholics that believe Jesus was a symbol rather than a man). As far as I understand, the Gospel of Thomas isn't a Gospel at all, rather a collection of dictations or sayings supposedly stated by Jesus. However, the reason it wasn't included probably lies in the fact it wasn't written when other apostles wrote their Gospels. It was either written long before or long after (and probably, again, not by Thomas). It's true, Christians pick Gospels they prefer. But when some like Thomas or Judas are written and inherently disagree with the overwhelmingly majority teachings in the Bible and there's a large possiblity that these documents are false teachings, could you blame them? And with the amount of people out to discredit Christian belief, it's not surprising that Christians are weary. You do know that none of the apostles actually wrote 'their' Gospels, right?
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 13, 2006 17:07:15 GMT -5
You do know that none of the apostles actually wrote 'their' Gospels, right? You do know that's not proven, right? I understand perfectly well what you meant. However, you're missing my point that when the doctrine of Christians that has withstood 2000 years is suddenly contradicted with a singular document a small fraction of its size that has even the tiniest chance of being untrue, it's understandable that this document is disregarded. It can be true, it can be false-- just like the Bible is true for some and false for others. But Christians have every right to believe what they want to believe and can't be criticised for rejecting something that seems in all ways a dangerous and possibly forged addition to their doctrine. Also, I read portions of the Gospel of Thomas and found it to be mostly the same quotes you find in red throughout the New Testament. There were far less instances that an anecdote was contradictory, but when it was it was extreme.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Apr 13, 2006 19:45:33 GMT -5
You do know that none of the apostles actually wrote 'their' Gospels, right? You do know that's not proven, right? Yeah, and there is so much proof that Jesus existed... In matters that happened almost 2000 years ago, we gotta go with our best guess, and considerin' that most of the apostles came from uneducated backgrounds, it is pretty safe to assume that they didn't write their gospels, right? As for Christian Doctrine withstanding 2000 years, what about the Protestant Reformation in 1517? Or the even earlier split between Catholic and Orthodox churches? Christian Doctrine has changed and adapted, both to survive in it's early days, and to suit the needs and wants of power within the church itself. Sorry if I sound mean or anything, I don't intend to.
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 13, 2006 20:01:11 GMT -5
You do know that's not proven, right? Yeah, and there is so much proof that Jesus existed... In matters that happened almost 2000 years ago, we gotta go with our best guess, and considerin' that most of the apostles came from uneducated backgrounds, it is pretty safe to assume that they didn't write their gospels, right? As for Christian Doctrine withstanding 2000 years, what about the Protestant Reformation in 1517? Or the even earlier split between Catholic and Orthodox churches? Christian Doctrine has changed and adapted, both to survive in it's early days, and to suit the needs and wants of power within the church itself. Sorry if I sound mean or anything, I don't intend to. Matthew was a Publican (tax collector), Mark born into a wealthy family, Luke a Gentile physician, John from a well-to-do Galilean family (true he was the son of a fisherman, but a wealthy one), and Timothy the son of a Gentile farmer. Not only that, just because one was "uneducated" in those days, he wasn't illiterate. True formal education was given by Rabbis, but illiteracy was really only commonplace among the very poor (and quite a few craftsmen and fishermen were wealthy). Any of the apostles had a background that prepared them for reading and writing. And there there is no proof for Jesus, it's true-- but part of the doctrine of Christianity is that you have faith in Him. It's not faith if there's concrete evidence of His existence. Even with splits, the doctrine remains the same: you're a Christian if you're Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. In any case the Bible says inherently the same thing, and not until recently would any form of Christianity consider Judas a hero. EDIT: And there certainly is no nice way to say, "Everything you believe in is wrong." Understandable.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Apr 13, 2006 20:29:32 GMT -5
Meh, its a part of most cults that you beleive unconditionaly, or you dont get the reward, funny how the church is the biggest buisness in the world and all... But, if your right cortana, I'll be burning in hell... thats a great way to rub it in my face .
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Apr 14, 2006 1:57:37 GMT -5
I thought he was the coolest character in Jesus Christ Super Star, so that must make him some sort of hero. Plus his singing pwned Jesus'.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Apr 14, 2006 2:26:50 GMT -5
I read it on TIME Magazine...
It seems the Orthodox Christianity tries to stamp out all these different strands of Christianity...
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Apr 15, 2006 22:56:18 GMT -5
Exactly, more worshipers and less dissenters for them. It seems rather evident how the majority of the christian church does not value unique thought.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Apr 16, 2006 15:47:49 GMT -5
The Orthodox Church (Roman Catholics) says the newly found parchments was wrong since it was written by heretics... Whom they decried heretics in the 3rd (?) Century AD...
Roman Catholics tries to ban other types of Christianity and the result is Martin Luther...
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 17, 2006 13:44:22 GMT -5
It wasn't so much that they banned religion as it was they packaged it and sold it for a profit, and then refused to truly turn it around for the betterment of people's understanding. Even if Christians disagree on the inherent meaning of the text-- the Bible remains constant through each division of the religion as a whole. And until now, it's just generally agreed that Judas was, in fact, a traitor.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Apr 17, 2006 14:49:36 GMT -5
I suppose it doesn't really matter now since Judas has been stamped into the minds of men (non-Christians too) and stereotyped so much that nobody would really care now...
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 17, 2006 19:38:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't think it so much a veritable stereotype if the only people with written documents concerning him knew him for the latter part of his adult life, travelled with him, and wrote down his final acts with such loathing as to create a lasting effect for some 2000 years. What I mean to say is, it's not a stereotype if the only people to have known him openly felt so strongly about his actions that they thought he was posessed by Satan to have completed them.
|
|
|
Post by penguinhhunter on Apr 19, 2006 15:53:56 GMT -5
Whether Judas is a hero or not is not the inportant question. The inportant question is why did they wait so long to put this out and what other writings are they keeping from us?
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 19, 2006 17:18:32 GMT -5
Whether Judas is a hero or not is not the inportant question. The inportant question is why did they wait so long to put this out and what other writings are they keeping from us? The important question to Christians, which is who this whole situation applies to, is whether or not Judas is a hero. It won't affect most other people one way or the other if there are other documents being hidden-- it affects the faith of the people by differing entirely from the generally accepted doctrine. And I'd like to know who "they" are that are keeping documents from "us".
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Apr 19, 2006 19:13:24 GMT -5
The thing that sort of bugs me about this is that a lot of people (yes, I'm generalizing without evidence ) are using this to say "Haha! Christianity is wrong!". What's wrong with people believing in something that you don't? Whether Judas is a hero or not is not the inportant question. The inportant question is why did they wait so long to put this out and what other writings are they keeping from us? Because it was in various collector's private collections, not in a museum.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Apr 20, 2006 0:04:14 GMT -5
What's wrong with people believing in something that you don't? . Its just frustrating that religion creates just as much problems than it solves, it single handedly slows down the evolution of our species. It brain washes millions of people into blindly following out dated and petty dogma. Its an obviouse tool of the government. There are millions of pages of proof its wrong, but because so many people beleive it "it has to be true"... thats what they said when they thought the world was flat... Its nothing but a cult that people enter from birth to make their miserable little lives that little more hopefull. Noone realises its a cult because they make excuses to hang onto that little natural high they call "gods love"... Most religious people look down on us non-religious (most think they dont but they do). Thats why its wrong that people beleive in something I dont. Thats just my opinion anyway. [/rant]
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Apr 20, 2006 9:00:06 GMT -5
I've never caused anyone harm by being a Christian, certainly not you cheez, and because what I believe doesn't provide answers to you doesn't make it unplausible to me. At the end of my life, if what I've believed was wrong, the worst I've done was lived my life by a strict moral code that brought personal satisfaction, and given 10% of all of my money to an organization that returns that money to the larger public by setting up soup kitchens in India. My life isn't little or miserable, and so I derive strength and hope from the stories of sacrifice I'm not a lesser intelligence because of it.
And to dispel one of these myths that seems so popular-- by Christopher Columbus' time, no one believed the world was flat. So early as Ptolemey's geocentric theories, it was accepted that the world was round. In truth the "flat" story was made up by Victorians to make a hero of Columbus, because he was actually a failure in his whole endeavour.
|
|