PDA

View Full Version : The Gospel According to Judas?


NewChief
04-02-2007, 11:22 AM
This will probably hit DC pretty quickly, but it's an interesting interview. I hadn't heard about this "gospel" yet.

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/02/elaine_pagels/print.html
Gospel according to Judas
The recently unearthed Gospel of Judas "contradicts everything we know about Christianity," says religious historian Elaine Pagels.
By Steve Paulson

Apr. 02, 2007 | As almost every child knows, Judas was the disciple who betrayed Jesus, selling his life for 30 pieces of silver. If there's an arch villain in the story of Jesus, it's Judas Iscariot. Or is it? The newly discovered Gospel of Judas suggests that Judas was, in fact, the favorite disciple, the only one Jesus trusted to carry out his final command to hand him over to the Romans.

Rumors about the gospel have circulated for centuries. Early church fathers called it a "very dangerous, blasphemous, horrendous gospel," according to historian Elaine Pagels. We now know that the manuscript was passed around the shadowy world of antiquities dealers, at one point sitting in a safe deposit box in a small town in New York for 17 years. Pagels herself was once asked by a dealer in Cleveland to examine it, but he only showed her the last few pages, which revealed little more than the title page. She assumed there was nothing of significance. Finally, the manuscript was acquired by the National Geographic Society, which hired Pagels as a consultant to study it.

More than any other scholar, Pagels has brought the lost texts of early Christianity to public attention. A Princeton historian of religion, she wrote the 1979 bestseller "The Gnostic Gospels" -- the book that launched the popular fascination with the Nag Hammadi manuscripts found by Egyptian peasants in 1945. That book, which won both the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award, was later chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best nonfiction books of the 20th century. Pagels went on to write a series of acclaimed books about early Christianity and, along the way, recounted her own personal tragedies -- her young son's death after a long illness and, just a year later, her first husband's death in a hiking accident. It's no surprise that Pagels has felt compelled to wrestle with some of religion's thorniest subjects, like how to make sense of suffering and evil.

For much of her career, Pagels has straddled two worlds -- the academic and the popular. She's often the go-to expert when a magazine needs a comment on the latest theory about Mary Magdalene or some other bit of revisionist Christian history. But her standing among the scholars who study early Christianity is more complicated. Conservative scholars tend to dismiss the Gnostic texts as a footnote in Christian history, hardly worth all the hype that's been generated by "The Da Vinci Code" and other racy stories. Not surprisingly, these scholars have questioned Pagels' interpretations of early Christian texts.

With Harvard historian Karen L. King, Pagels has written a new book, "Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity." The authors argue that this recently discovered gospel offers a new understanding of the death of Jesus. I spoke with Pagels by phone about the bitter quarrels among early Christians, why it's a bad idea to read the Bible literally, and the importance of this new discovery.

When was the Gospel of Judas written?

As far we can tell, probably at the end of the first or early second century.

So it's clearly not written by Judas himself, or even dictated by Judas.

That's right. And most New Testament scholars would say the gospels in the New Testament -- all of them attributed to disciples or followers of disciples -- were probably not written by the people whose names are on them. If you say, "the Gospel according to Matthew," you might not be pretending to be Matthew if you wrote it. You might be saying, this is the gospel the way Matthew taught it, and he was my teacher. So these are certain followers of Jesus who collected and transmitted his teaching.

Does this Gospel of Judas reveal something new about early Christianity?

Yes, the Gospel of Judas really has been a surprise in many ways. For one thing, there's no other text that suggests that Judas Iscariot was an intimate, trusted disciple, one to whom Jesus revealed the secrets of the kingdom, and that conversely, the other disciples were misunderstanding what he meant by the gospel. So that's quite startling.

It's shocking to suggest that Judas wasn't just one of the disciples but was actually the favorite disciple of Jesus.

That's right. And also the idea that he handed over Jesus to be arrested at the orders of Jesus himself. This wasn't a betrayal at all. In fact, it was obedience to a command or request that Jesus had made.

But how do we reconcile this with all the other stories we've ever heard about Judas? He's the symbol of treachery and betrayal.
Well, he has become the symbol of treachery and betrayal. But once you start to look at the gospels one by one, you realize that followers of Jesus were trying to understand what had happened after he was arrested and killed. They knew Judas had handed him over to the people who arrested him. The earliest gospel, Mark, says Judas handed him over, but it doesn't give any motive at all. The people who wrote after Mark -- Matthew's and Luke's gospels -- apparently felt that what was wrong with the Gospel of Mark was that there was no motive. So Matthew adds a motive. Matthew says Judas went to the chief priests who were Jesus' enemies, and said, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?" And they agree on a certain sum of money. So in Matthew's view, the motive was greed. In Luke's gospel, it's entirely different. It says the power of evil took over Judas. Satan entered into him.

I think Luke is struggling with the question, If Jesus is the son of God, how could he be taken by a mere trick, by a human being? And Luke is trying to show that all evil power was concentrated in Judas. So they are very different stories. However, other gospels, like John's, suggest that Jesus not only anticipated what was going to happen but initiated it. The Gospel of John says that he told Judas to go out and do what he had to do, which Jesus knew was to betray him. So the Gospel of Judas just takes the suggestion one step further. Jesus not only knew what was going to happen but initiated the action.

There's something else that's striking about the Gospel of Judas. The writer is very angry, and he's especially angry at the other disciples.

Yes, that's where we realized that it's not just a story about Jesus and the disciples. It's a story about this follower of Jesus -- the Christian who's writing this story, maybe 60 years after the death of Jesus. Even using the name of Judas is a slap in the face to the tradition. You realize that whoever wrote it was a very angry person. And we were asking, What's going on here? Why is he so angry? And we discovered that it's very dangerous to be a follower of Jesus in the generations after his death. You know, they say his disciple Peter was crucified upside down. And Paul was probably beheaded by the Romans. James was lynched by a crowd, and so were Stephen and other followers. So leaders of this movement were in great danger. And other Christians were also in danger of being arrested and killed because they followed Jesus. The question for many of them was, What do you do if you're arrested?

And to acknowledge that you were a Christian would probably kill you.

Exactly. All you had to do is say no. Or you can try to escape or bribe the people persecuting you. And many did. The only answer that most Christians agreed was right was to say, "Yes, I'm a Christian." You defy them and you go heroically into the lions. So we've always thought of Christianity as a religion that glorifies martyrdom. Now we realize that we've had that impression because the people who weren't in favor of martyrdom had their writings buried and burned and trashed and ridiculed. And they were called cowards and heretics.

So the Gospel of Judas is a kind of protest literature. It's challenging leaders of the church. Here the leaders are personified as disciples who are encouraging people to get killed, to "die for God," as they called martyrdom. This gospel is challenging them and saying, when you encourage young people to die for God, you're really complicit in murder.

Are there also theological issues at stake? This gets at the meaning of suffering, and the nature of evil as well.

It does. This was at a time when all followers of Jesus were struggling with the question, Why did Jesus die? What does it all mean? In the New Testament, the gospels say he died as a sacrifice. Paul says Christ, our Passover lamb, was sacrificed for us. Why? Well, to save us from sin.

But this author is saying, wait a minute. If you think God wants his son to be tortured and killed before he'll forgive people their sins, what kind of God do you have in mind? Is this the God who didn't want animals to be sacrificed in the temple anymore? So this author's asking, isn't God a loving father? Isn't that what Jesus taught? Why are we saying that God requires his son to die for the sins of the world? So it's a challenge to the whole idea of atonement, and the idea that Christians -- when they worship -- eat bread and drink wine as if it were the body and blood of Christ. This person sees that whole thing as a celebration of violence.

You can see why some early Christians would have attacked this gospel. This is very threatening to other Christian accounts of why Jesus died.

It contradicts everything we know about Christianity. But there's a lot we don't know about Christianity. There are different ways of understanding the death of Jesus that have been buried and suppressed. This author suggests that God does not require sacrifice to forgive sin, and that the message of Jesus is that we come from God and we go back to God, that we all live in God. It's not about bloody sacrifice for forgiveness of sins. It suggests that Jesus' death demonstrates that, essentially and spiritually, we're not our bodies. Even when our bodies die, we go to live in God.

Does this raise questions about how we should think about the Resurrection? In orthodox Christian accounts, this is considered a resurrection of the flesh.

That's right. The idea that Jesus rose in the flesh is very important for a lot of Christians. And certainly for the martyrs. When people were going to get themselves killed, some of them were asked, Do you believe that you're going to be raised from the dead in your body? And many of them said yes, of course we do. That's why we're doing this. So those promises of bodily resurrection and heavenly rewards were very important for many Christians.

Some of the things we're talking about would seem to have great resonance in the Islamic world. Do you see any parallels between this Christian history and what we're seeing among Muslim martyrs today?

I do. The author of the Gospel of Judas wasn't against martyrdom, and he didn't ever insult the martyrs. He said it's one thing to die for God if you have to do that. But it's another thing to say that's what God wants, that this is a glorification of God. I think he would have spoken in the way that an imam might today, saying those who encourage young people to go out and supposedly die for God as martyrs are complicit in murder. The question of the uses of violence is very much at the heart of the Gospel of Judas. If you have to die as a martyr, you do because you don't deny Christ. But you don't go around encouraging people to do it as though they would get higher rewards in heaven.

Can you put the Gospel of Judas in perspective, alongside some of the other Gnostic texts that have come to light in recent decades -- the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? Do these really change our understanding of early Christianity?

Before, we had a puzzle with just a few pieces. Now we have many more pieces. We begin to see that in the early Christian movement, people discussed and struggled with all the issues that we now think of as normative Christianity, like, What does the death of Jesus mean? There wasn't one kind of understanding of Jesus in the early Christian movement. Actually, there were many.

In recent years, there's been a huge debate over what to make of the Gnostic Gospels. And plenty of Christian scholars and theologians say there's good reason they were not admitted into the Christian canon. They say the Bible presents the most reliable story of Jesus based on eyewitness accounts. For instance, Ben Witherington has written, "The four canonical gospels have stood the test of time and other apocryphal gospels and texts have not ... This is because the canonical gospels are our earliest gospels and have actual historical substance, while the later gospels have none."

Well, Witherington has a particular point of view to prove. I would say it's very hard to date these other texts. Some of them are as early as the gospels of the New Testament, like the Gospel of John. But what's different is the emphasis. Let me give you an example. The Gospel of Thomas says that all who recognize that they come from God are also children of God, instead of teaching that Jesus is the only son of God through whom one must be saved. It's a teaching that is akin to what the Quakers and some other Christian groups teach, including some Greek and Russian Orthodox groups. The divine is to be found in everyone, and we can discover, at some level, that we're like Christ. It's not a complete contradiction, but it is somewhat different.

But aren't there crucial doctrinal issues at stake in terms of what it means to be a Christian? For instance, was Jesus the son of God? Was the return of Jesus an actual resurrection of the flesh?

In the fourth century, the Council of Nicaea established certain doctrines about what it means to be orthodox: belief in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and one Jesus Christ, his only son and Lord. So Jesus Christ is the only one who brings salvation to the whole world. There are, of course, Christians who believe in Jesus but also wonder whether people can't find God in other religions -- if they're Jews or Muslims or Buddhists and so forth. There's nothing Jesus himself said that contradicts that, as far as I can see. But fourth-century Christian orthodoxy did set out the doctrines you're talking about.

Some people say the historical study of early Christianity really doesn't matter to a person's faith. Being a Christian means you believe in certain things, like the Resurrection, like the Virgin Birth. These are matters of faith, not of historical research. You can choose not to believe those things, but then you're not part of the Christian creed. How do you respond to that argument?

Well, it's absolutely true that the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection can't be verified historically. On the other hand, if you start to look at it historically, you find out that there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who see those very things differently. There have been Christians from the beginning -- St. Paul is one of them -- who say the Resurrection is not a matter of this kind of body. Paul talks about resurrection as a matter of being transformed. Yes, it's about the body, he said, but it's more like a body of the stars or the moon or the sun -- a body of light. So there are many ways that people have understood themselves to be Christians.

This has huge implications for so many people today, especially those who simply can't accept these kinds of miracles. It does raise the question of whether you can be a Christian if you don't believe any of the Bible's supernatural stories.

I don't think you have to discard all the supernatural stories. The Bible is really about what is beyond the natural. But there are other ways of understanding. For example, the Gospel of Philip, which some people called a heretical text, actually says Jesus had human parents as you and I do. His parents were Mary and Joseph. But when he was born of the spirit, he became the son of the Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit. In Syriac and Hebrew, the spirit is spoken of in feminine forms, so metaphorically, one could speak of her as a divine mother, just as one speaks of God as a divine father. So there are Christians who didn't reject the Virgin Birth, but said wait a minute, why would you take it literally? Why don't you take it as an image for spiritual reality?

You have spent decades studying early Christian history. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
Yes, I do. And the reason I can is that I understand that there are countless people who've been Christians for 2,000 years, in many different ways. It's not a matter of one version, you must believe this exactly the way I tell it to you. Christian theologians have always said that the truth of God is beyond our understanding. And so we speak in metaphors. Paul said we see through a glass darkly.

I've heard that you didn't grow up in a religious family.

Well, it was a Protestant family, nominally. We went to church, but my father had rejected the Bible for Darwin. He decided the Bible was a bunch of old fables and that evolution was right. So I was brought up to think the Bible was just kind of irrelevant. I grew up and became deeply and passionately interested in it and went to a church and was born again. I was 14 or 15. It was quite wonderful, and I loved what I found there.

Even though your father was a confirmed atheist.
It did shock him, yes. Of course, that's one way adolescents like to shock their parents. I didn't do it for that reason, but it had that effect. The power and the passion of that kind of evangelical Christianity was very real for me. And it was a discovery of something very important -- a spiritual dimension in life that I was not able to ignore. On the other hand, after a year of living in that church, one of my friends in high school was killed in an automobile accident. The people at the church asked, was he born again? And I said, no, he wasn't. And they said, well, then he's in hell. And I thought to myself, I don't believe that. That doesn't match up with what I'd heard about God. So at that point, I decided I had to find out for myself what I could about the early Christian movement, what I believe about it, and what is being said in the name of Jesus that I found not true.

That's fascinating. Basically, it was because you couldn't buy into that fundamentalist version of Christianity that you launched your career as a historian of Christianity.

That's the truth, yes.

Well, this does raise the question of what we mean by God and what we mean by transcendence, and whether there is a transcendent reality out there. Is that discussion of transcendence meaningful to you?

Oh, certainly it is. If we don't understand how important spiritual life is to people, I don't think we're going to understand human beings or the 21st century. There are many people who said religion is essentially over now, and everyone will become rational. They don't understand that the way humans are has a lot to do with religious experience.

Your late husband, the eminent physicist Heinz Pagels, wrote very eloquently about the mysteries of science. Did he influence your thinking about this intersection between science and religion?
Oh yes, he was deeply interested in philosophy and religion and science, and understood how profound and complicated those issues are. When you're dealing with science, for example, you're dealing all the time with metaphors. So to assume that religious language isn't metaphor doesn't make sense to me.

There's a big debate right now over whether religion and science are two totally different domains, as Stephen Jay Gould once said, or whether they overlap. Where do you come down on that?

That's a very tough question. I think religion and science both have a lot to do with understanding and imagination, but they certainly explore the world in very different ways. For example, when the eminent physicist Stephen Weinberg wrote in his book "The First Three Minutes," "the more we know about the universe, the more we know it's pointless and meaningless," my late husband said, "That doesn't make any sense." Einstein thought the more we knew about the universe, the more we knew about the divine intelligence. There are many ways to make inferences from physics. And inferences like that are not scientific at all; they're philosophic.

Of course, there's still a huge debate about whether Einstein was religious or not. The atheists want to claim him for their camp, but religious people say he was actually quite open to religious ideas.

Part of the problem is that Einstein used the language about God as a metaphor. When he said, "God does not play dice with the universe," he meant the universe is not put together in an accidental way. It does show a kind of intelligent process in it. Einstein was speaking about God in the way that physicists would -- aware that language like that is always going to be metaphorical, speaking beyond our understanding. But many people took him literally and said he's a religious man. Scientists said he was just using language carelessly.

Isn't that part of the problem that we get into when we talk about metaphor and the religious imagination? If you don't take scripture literally, how do you take it?

You can take scripture seriously without taking it literally. If you speak about the Resurrection of Christ, all we know historically is that after Jesus died, his followers became convinced that he was alive again. Now, what does that mean? They told many stories. Some of them said, I saw him with my own eyes, I touched him, he actually ate food, he was not a ghost. That's in Luke's gospel. And others said, I saw him for a moment and then he faded -- the way many people say they've seen people they knew who died. What I'm saying is there are many ways that people who believe in the Resurrection speak about Christ being alive after his death without meaning that his body got out of the grave and walked.

It sounds like you're saying that it's perfectly possible to take the Bible very seriously, to be a Christian, and yet not to believe in the supernatural miracles that so many people simply cannot accept.

Well, that may be. I don't dismiss all supernatural miracles, like a healing that can't be explained. Those do happen sometimes.

You've been studying these texts for decades. Has your scholarly work deepened your own faith?

Yes. And the scholarly work is part of the spiritual quest. Opening ourselves to exploring as much as we can about this can be, in fact, an act of faith. At Princeton, there's a course in the study of New Testament that some evangelical students were warned not to take. They called it "Faith Busters 101." And some of them come just to flex their muscles and see if they can sit there and stand it while somebody teaches them about how the gospels were written. But what they usually discover is that learning about those things doesn't change the fundamental questions about faith.

Does faith necessarily involve some leap into mystery, into something that can't be explained?
I think it does. Earlier this year, I was asked to do an interview with somebody who had written a book to demonstrate that Jesus had been raised bodily from the dead. And they expected me to say that was impossible. But I can't say it's impossible. From a historical point of view, there's no way you can comment on that. It's just not susceptible to that kind of analysis. So there's a lot that history can't answer and that science can't answer. I mean, there's a lot about all of our lives that we have no rational understanding of. And so faith comes into our relationships with the people we love, and our relationship to our life and our death.

There seems to be a rather vigorous movement among scientists to try to explain the origins of religion. I'm struck by how often these theories come from atheists. And I think the underlying impulse is to demystify the divine. But can religion really be explained from the outside, by people who are not themselves religious?

Probably not. For example, suppose you found the basic brain chemistry that explains religious perceptions. In fact, there are neurologists in New York trying very hard to understand precisely that. And you find that when people who've clinically died say they've had a near-death experience, they've gone into a brilliant light and then they've come back from some place. This is the flashes of light on the brain as it expires. Well, it may be. And it may not be. Is this a trick that our brain plays on us? Or is this intimations of some other kind of reality? I don't think science is going to answer that question.

Isn't there an inherent limitation to any of those brain-imaging studies? Because there's the whole question, Are we just imagining this? Or is there really some contact with the divine?

Exactly. For example, there's a study now at New York University about epilepsy. We know that epileptics often have an experience of seeing an aura. They can have an epileptic convulsion and they have a kind of vision. It was understood in ancient times to be demonic possession. So if people then say, epilepsy has a certain relationship to electrical activity in the brain, and that's what precipitates these experiences, does that mean that they are not real? I don't think that answers the question.

What do you make of the recent claim by the atheist Richard Dawkins that the existence of God is itself a scientific question? If you accept the idea that God intervenes in the physical world, don't there have to be physical mechanisms for that to happen? Therefore, doesn't this become a question for science?

Well, Dawkins loves to play village atheist. He's such a rationalist that the God that he's debunking is not one that most of the people I study would recognize. I mean, is there some great big person up there who made the universe out of dirt? Probably not.

Are you saying that part of the problem here is the notion of a personal God? Has that become an old-fashioned view of religion?

I'm not so sure of that. I think the sense of actual contact with God is one that many people have experienced. But I guess it's a question of what kind of God one has in mind.

So when you think about the God that you believe in, how would you describe that God?

Well, I've learned from the texts I work on that there really aren't words to describe God. You spoke earlier about a transcendent reality. I think it's certainly true that these are not just fictions that we arbitrarily invent.

Certainly many people talk about God as an ineffable presence. But if you try to explain what transcendence is, can you put that into words and explain what it means?

People have put it into words, but the words are usually metaphors or poems or hymns. Even the word "God" is a metaphor, or "the son of God," or "Father." They're all simply images for some other order of reality.

There's one aspect of the Bible that's especially troubling. What do you make of the many passages that condone violence? Killing infidels seems to be what God wants.

You mean in the Hebrew Bible?

Yes, I'm particularly thinking about the Hebrew Bible.

Well, yes. When you read the discussion of holy war in the Hebrew Bible, it's violent, definitely. This was a war god, identified with a particular tribe, with particular kinds of religious war. Christians often don't read that now. But when I talk with Jewish leaders, they say, yes, we remember that very well because we remember the Crusades. And the Muslims of course say the same. They say, why are you talking to us about violence? Christians have done violence in the name of Christ for nearly 2,000 years.

So how should we read those passages that are so violent?

That gets us back to the question, Can you read the Bible seriously without reading it literally? There are parts of the New Testament which encourage slaves to remain slaves. Do we take that literally? Those were fighting words during the Civil War when some Christians said slavery was part of God's plan and some people should live and die as slaves. I think few would agree with that now. But it was a position that one could seriously take on the basis of many biblical passages.

You're saying we have to understand context?

I think we do. You were saying that some people believe faith has nothing to do with history. The fact is, somebody wrote those texts. They wrote them in a world in which slavery was taken for granted. That's a different world. So if we don't understand that, well, it says, Slaves, obey your masters, for this is right.

BigCatDaddy
04-02-2007, 11:29 AM
It was brought up last summer I believe. It can be filed in the fiction department right next to the Davinci Code.

Pitt Gorilla
04-02-2007, 11:37 AM
It was brought up last summer I believe. It can be filed in the fiction department right next to the Davinci Code.Fiction? Are you sure? From what I remember (watching Discovery), this gospel was considered for inclusion into the Bible. It's not like it was written a few years ago.

BigCatDaddy
04-02-2007, 11:41 AM
Yes, it was written by a group called the Gnostics over a hundred years after the original gospels were written. The Gnostics were actually a huge threat to the early church, but seem to have reared their ugly head again with this find. Just another attempt to make $$$ of those who want to disprove Christianity.

Jenson71
04-02-2007, 11:44 AM
This book is out, and you can get it at almost any bookstore. I haven't read it, but I do enjoy early Christianity history. All quite fascinating, although some new claims are easily disproven, and some are consipiracy theories. I haven't done too much reading about this particular Gospel.

Pitt Gorilla
04-02-2007, 11:51 AM
Yes, it was written by a group called the Gnostics over a hundred years after the original gospels were written. The Gnostics were actually a huge threat to the early church, but seem to have reared their ugly head again with this find. Just another attempt to make $$$ of those who want to disprove Christianity.I didn't realize it "disprove(d) Christianity." Can you provide an example?

Redrum_69
04-02-2007, 11:53 AM
In three days I'm predicting this thread wont rise in fullfillment of the scriptures

Redrum_69
04-02-2007, 11:54 AM
And someone needs to shorthand that


like Judas wasnt as bad as people thought

the da vinci code sucks

happy easter

BigCatDaddy
04-02-2007, 11:56 AM
To Make a short story long.....


On Sunday, the National Geographic Channel revealed to the world The Gospel of Judas. The Gospel of Judas was a document found in Egypt which presents itself to be the words of Jesus to Judas.

The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic document produced by the same people who left a collection of other books known today as the Nag Hammadi library. Among the books in the library is one document called The Gospel of Thomas.

The Gnostics were a group of people who believed themselves to be the preserves of the true teachings of Christianity. The truth, however, was that Gnosticism was a deviation of the basic teachings of Christianity and a denial of many truths taught in the New Testament. The Gnostics departed from the accepted teachings of the early church.

The word “Gnostics” comes from the Greek word for “knowledge.” This is the reason that Paul, in his advice to Timothy, warned him to avoid the teachings of those who claimed to have a superior or hidden knowledge: “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’ for by professing it some have swerved from the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20-21 ESV).

The Gnostics believed that the resurrection of believers was an event of the past. This false Gnostic teaching appears in Paul’s warning to Timothy:

“But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:16-18 ESV).

When reading The Gospel of Judas, it is important to remember that this document was written many years after the death of Judas, who died not long after he betrayed Jesus (Matthew 27:1-5). The dialogue between Jesus and Judas is not biblical and represents the views of the person who wrote that document.

In the program sponsored by the National Geographic, the people who participated in the presentation of the document, affirmed over and over again that the document was authentic. The fact is, the document is authentic because it is clear that The Gospel of Judas was written in the second or third century of the Christian era. However, just because the document is authentic, it does not mean that its content has authority over the church or is above the four Gospels that appear in the New Testament.

The church was right in rejecting The Gospel of Judas as a part of the canon of the New Testament. Gnosticism was a rejection of the traditional doctrines of Christianity. Gnosticism presented a radical form of Christianity that sought to gain acceptance by becoming apostolic, that it, they used the names of the apostles in order to gain acceptance among believers. Some of Gnostic books are called The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles.

The Gospel of Judas poses no threat to Christianity. The media tried to portray The Gospel of Judas as an alternative to the teachings of the New Testament, as a threat to the traditional view about Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus did not ask Judas to betray him; Judas betrayed Jesus voluntarily.

The Gospel of Judas is an apology for Judas. In it, the writer of the document tries to present a more sympathetic view of Judas. The dialogue between Jesus and Judas attempts to show that Judas would be misunderstood and maligned because he would be called a betrayer of Christ.

A legion of scholars may affirm the importance of The Gospel of Judas, but they cannot change the fact the Judas betrayed his friend, that he sold Jesus for a few coins of silver. Try as it may, The Gospel of Judas can never erase the teachings of the New Testament and the Christian church, that Judas was indeed the one who betrayed Jesus Christ.

If you want to read more about The Gospel of Judas, read “Gospel of Judas is heresy & unreliable history” by clicking here.

You can also read the article by Jim West who concludes that the Gnostic writings “are not ‘higher teachings’- they are heretical texts from heretics. The ‘Gospel’ of Judas is no ‘gospel’ at all.’”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Redrum_69
04-02-2007, 12:00 PM
I think Satan is planting these hidden texts all over to get everything out of whack, so he can plan his invasion from Hell.

MOhillbilly
04-02-2007, 12:12 PM
I think Satan is planting these hidden texts all over to get everything out of whack, so he can plan his invasion from Hell.


thats not even close to our plan.

Pitt Gorilla
04-02-2007, 12:14 PM
When reading The Gospel of Judas, it is important to remember that this document was written many years after the death of Judas, who died not long after he betrayed Jesus (Matthew 27:1-5). The dialogue between Jesus and Judas is not biblical and represents the views of the person who wrote that document.
IIRC, neither Mark nor Luke hung out with Jesus, and they wrote a few of the gospels long after Jesus' death. I'm not saying the Gosel of Judas is "right," but I'm not sure we can dismiss it outright either.

Radar Chief
04-02-2007, 12:16 PM
If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by
You're thinkin' like a fool cause it's a case of do or die
Out there is a fortune waitin' to be had
You think I'll let it go you're mad
You've got another thing comin'

http://froogle.google.com/base_image?size=2&q=music/image/0/0Pq0Dx4voAYO.jpg

:rockon:

Oh, I guess you’re talk’n a different Judas.

Brock
04-02-2007, 12:20 PM
The Gnostics were actually a huge threat to the early church, but seem to have reared their ugly head again with this find. Just another attempt to make $$$ of those who want to disprove Christianity.

lol, you mean the church that sold itself out to the Roman Empire?

NewChief
04-02-2007, 12:21 PM
lol, you mean the church that sold itself out to the Roman Empire?

To the victor goes the spoils... and the right to create history.

Jenson71
04-02-2007, 12:22 PM
IIRC, neither Mark nor Luke hung out with Jesus, and they wrote a few of the gospels long after Jesus' death. I'm not saying the Gosel of Judas is "right," but I'm not sure we can dismiss it outright either.

Mark didn't hang out with Jesus, but he did (more than likely) hang out with Peter, and was his interpreter. Mark was written about 65AD, so a good 30 years or so after Jesus died. Luke and Matthew were written about 20 years after that, and used Mark as a source, among other things.

DaneMcCloud
04-02-2007, 12:45 PM
To the victor goes the spoils... and the right to create history.

Absolutely.

MOhillbilly
04-02-2007, 12:56 PM
To the victor goes the spoils... and the right to create history.

Might makes Right.

stevieray
04-02-2007, 01:08 PM
I remember being a kid and looking at Judas with comtempt.

Found out later that he loved Jesus dearly, and his role was highly misunderstood.. which makes sense about the torment that drove him to suicide.

As par for the course, it goes back to sacrifice, serving and mercy.

InChiefsHell
04-02-2007, 01:10 PM
It must be Easter, another attack on Christianity. This stuff is like clockwork. Wonder what they'll drudge up next year...

Pitt Gorilla
04-02-2007, 01:44 PM
It must be Easter, another attack on Christianity. This stuff is like clockwork. Wonder what they'll drudge up next year...Where is the attack?

keg in kc
04-02-2007, 01:50 PM
It must be Easter, another attack on Christianity. This stuff is like clockwork. Wonder what they'll drudge up next year...Considering this story (of the gospel, not the particular story referenced in the thread) has been out for years, I think you need to save the tin foil hat for another conspiracy theory.

crazycoffey
04-02-2007, 02:07 PM
This isn't an attack, and IMO neither was Devinci code, If Jesus was married then he could still be sinless.

Juda's role is easy to misunderstand, I have before too, misunderstood his part in the history.

At the end of the day, you have to have faith to believe in any religion, because they all have their percieved (and even absolute) truths and falsities.

The funny thing about faith is none of us have experienced death, yet, and transformed from our physical life to a spiritual life (if it does exist, and I believe it does) hence the vast differences of opinions and denominations of the Christian religion, I read somewhere that there were hundreds of different versions of all the Christian denominations.

I only hope that God will take into consideration that we don't know the whole story, that we believed, tried to walk a straight line and treated others with respect to make the world a better place. Not that we believed the mother Mary was just as holy as Jesus or not, not that we argued over communion being symbolic or actual transformations of the body and blood, etc. etc.

greg63
04-02-2007, 02:09 PM
..Too long.

cdcox
04-02-2007, 02:55 PM
Mark didn't hang out with Jesus, but he did (more than likely) hang out with Peter, and was his interpreter. Mark was written about 65AD, so a good 30 years or so after Jesus died. Luke and Matthew were written about 20 years after that, and used Mark as a source, among other things.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Mark as one of Jesus' close followers. Not one of the 12, but in the next circle of intimacy. According to Church tradition (says the Lutheran to the Roman Catholic :) ), the "young man" in the passage from Mark concerning Jesus arrest is actually Mark writing about himself:

"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind."

Mark 14:51-52

Mr. Kotter
04-02-2007, 04:22 PM
To the victor goes the spoils... and the right to create history.

Except when it comes to the "truth" of Civil War revisionist historians, eh? ;)

Logical
04-02-2007, 06:52 PM
It was brought up last summer I believe. It can be filed in the fiction department right next to the Davinci Code.Not necessarily, many of the Gospels were not acccept by the Church back then, but if you believe the ones that were might be real you have to accept the ones that were not might be just as real just not popular.

Silock
04-02-2007, 06:59 PM
lol, you mean the church that sold itself out to the Roman Empire?

Not all Christians are Catholics.

crazycoffey
04-02-2007, 07:03 PM
Not all Christians are Catholics.


but all Catholics are Christians,


and Jesus was Jewish,




hell even the Koran mentions Jesus as a healer disciple of Allah, but because he was confused with his role and thought he was god incarnated he will only be the ruler of one of the lessor heavens (they have seven phases of heaven) I don't remember which one, third or fourth.....

Jenson71
04-02-2007, 07:07 PM
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Mark as one of Jesus' close followers. Not one of the 12, but in the next circle of intimacy. According to Church tradition (says the Lutheran to the Roman Catholic :) ), the "young man" in the passage from Mark concerning Jesus arrest is actually Mark writing about himself:

"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind."

Mark 14:51-52

It seems Mark is getting far too intimate to the Disciples here.

Sully
04-02-2007, 07:10 PM
It must be Easter, another attack on Christianity. This stuff is like clockwork. Wonder what they'll drudge up next year...
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


Christmas is UNDER ATTACK!!!!!!

crazycoffey
04-02-2007, 07:12 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


Christmas is UNDER ATTACK!!!!!!



wasn't that last year? The holiday tree, or whatever......

Sully
04-02-2007, 07:16 PM
wasn't that last year? The holiday tree, or whatever......
It's every year. This particular brand of paranoia is about the funniest thing ever.

crazycoffey
04-02-2007, 07:20 PM
It's every year. This particular brand of paranoia is about the funniest thing ever.


Paranoia probably stems from either a wavering faith or uneducation in one's religion.

bogie
04-02-2007, 07:24 PM
This isn't an attack, and IMO neither was Devinci code, If Jesus was married then he could still be sinless.

Juda's role is easy to misunderstand, I have before too, misunderstood his part in the history.

At the end of the day, you have to have faith to believe in any religion, because they all have their percieved (and even absolute) truths and falsities.

The funny thing about faith is none of us have experienced death, yet, and transformed from our physical life to a spiritual life (if it does exist, and I believe it does) hence the vast differences of opinions and denominations of the Christian religion, I read somewhere that there were hundreds of different versions of all the Christian denominations.

I only hope that God will take into consideration that we don't know the whole story, that we believed, tried to walk a straight line and treated others with respect to make the world a better place. Not that we believed the mother Mary was just as holy as Jesus or not, not that we argued over communion being symbolic or actual transformations of the body and blood, etc. etc.

When I die, if possible I will come to Chiefsplanet first and answer all your questions. In the mean time, live for today and do unto others as you would have them live unto you.

bogie
04-02-2007, 07:27 PM
I meant to say...In the mean time, live for today and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Spott
04-02-2007, 07:32 PM
Judas made some pretty good headbanging music back in the day before all those big hair bands came around. Hopefully God will forgive him for being gay.

crazycoffey
04-02-2007, 08:16 PM
I meant to say...In the mean time, live for today and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


I'll have more questions when that day comes...... :)

Pitt Gorilla
04-02-2007, 08:18 PM
I just read a letter from my childhood minister talking about how the whole Jesus' "grave" thing is anti-religious. I was a bit disappointed.

Brock
04-02-2007, 08:40 PM
Not all Christians are Catholics.

Thanks for that vital contribution. I think if you follow the thread a little better you will notice we're discussing the church at that time, not post Reformation.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 07:56 AM
It's every year. This particular brand of paranoia is about the funniest thing ever.

Glad I could entertain ya!

What if I took something that you believed in with all your heart, and came up with "evidence" that basically it was all a load of bull. Then I put it on TV and legitimize it with all these "experts" who know waaaaay more about it than you do, and pushed it out as absolute truth. And I did this pretty much every year around Easter time. Last year was the DaVinci Code (which was an attack, I don't care what anyone says) this year it was the Tomb of Christ and now this. Yes, these "gospels" have been around for hundreds of years, yet they are being drudged up again now, like its new news or something.

Mark my words, next year at this time there will be another "new revelation" about how Christians are wrong and our religion is a lie. Bet me.

NewChief
04-03-2007, 08:08 AM
Yes, these "gospels" have been around for hundreds of years, yet they are being drudged up again now, like its new news or something.

Mark my words, next year at this time there will be another "new revelation" about how Christians are wrong and our religion is a lie. Bet me.

I honestly don't see how the "Gospel of Judas" questions the fundamental teachings of Christ. I can see how the DaVinci Code might, but it was fiction. The Gospel of Judas, in my opinion, does nothing to diminish the story of Christ.

Brock
04-03-2007, 08:21 AM
I honestly don't see how the "Gospel of Judas" questions the fundamental teachings of Christ. I can see how the DaVinci Code might, but it was fiction. The Gospel of Judas, in my opinion, does nothing to diminish the story of Christ.

Yeah, what exactly does this change?

Adept Havelock
04-03-2007, 08:55 AM
What if I took something that you believed in with all your heart, and came up with "evidence" that basically it was all a load of bull. Then I put it on TV and legitimize it with all these "experts" who know waaaaay more about it than you do, and pushed it out as absolute truth.

Happens to me every time History Channel, TLC, Discovery etc. waste time on pseudo-science like Astrology, Psychic Powers, UFO, Prophecy, the EOTW, "Revelations" and such.

I usually check to see how the peer-review work was done, and investigate/dismiss it accordingly. Perhaps I have a thicker skin when it comes to these grave "attacks" on what I believe. :shrug:

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 09:11 AM
Your "faith" can't be very strong if you're not willing to look at your own religion with an objective eye. Raising questions, looking at things from an historical aspect, understanding where the religion came from in terms of the human agenda (and make no mistake, much of the origin and direction of Christianity at large, throughout its 2000+ year history, was perpetuated for the express benefit of individuals in power) is not an "attack". Seeking truth is not an "attack", and it will never invalidate the message or tenets set forth by the figure named named 'Jesus' at the core of it all. Perhaps in the end, it will even serve to strengthen the religion.

Sully
04-03-2007, 09:51 AM
Glad I could entertain ya!

What if I took something that you believed in with all your heart, and came up with "evidence" that basically it was all a load of bull. Then I put it on TV and legitimize it with all these "experts" who know waaaaay more about it than you do, and pushed it out as absolute truth. And I did this pretty much every year around Easter time. Last year was the DaVinci Code (which was an attack, I don't care what anyone says) this year it was the Tomb of Christ and now this. Yes, these "gospels" have been around for hundreds of years, yet they are being drudged up again now, like its new news or something.

Mark my words, next year at this time there will be another "new revelation" about how Christians are wrong and our religion is a lie. Bet me.
I am a Christian and believe it with all of my heart. I just don't buy into the paranoia that my faith is "under attack" (I can't even type it without a chuckle)
The DaVinci Code, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Gnostic gospels, and Elaine Pagels (a theologan) are not out to get you, they are all additions to the depth of the story of Christ. There is nothing to be afraid of. If the mantle of your faith rests on things that (IMO) are so shallow as Judas being the most evil person ever, or Jesus never marrying, or anything of the sort, then (IMO) it's sad that learning such things would shake your faith so much.
Obviously different Christians believe different things, and believe Jesus meant different things, and believe different things about the Bible. Keeping that in mind, it might be better for your fear if you realize that many Christians welcome these types of examinations, and in that case, there's no way it could be an "attack ROFL " on Christianity.

Sully
04-03-2007, 09:52 AM
Your "faith" can't be very strong if you're not willing to look at your own religion with an objective eye. Raising questions, looking at things from an historical aspect, understanding where the religion came from in terms of the human agenda (and make no mistake, much of the origin and direction of Christianity at large, throughout its 2000+ year history, was perpetuated for the express benefit of individuals in power) is not an "attack". Seeking truth is not an "attack", and it will never invalidate the message or tenets set forth by the figure named named 'Jesus' at the core of it all. Perhaps in the end, it will even serve to strengthen the religion.
I couldn't agree more.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 09:53 AM
Yeah, what exactly does this change?

Well, to start with, from the article:

Does this Gospel of Judas reveal something new about early Christianity?

Yes, the Gospel of Judas really has been a surprise in many ways. For one thing, there's no other text that suggests that Judas Iscariot was an intimate, trusted disciple, one to whom Jesus revealed the secrets of the kingdom, and that conversely, the other disciples were misunderstanding what he meant by the gospel. So that's quite startling.

If this gospel is authentic, that means that from the beginning, the Early Church got it wrong, and only Judas had it right. It means that everything is made up, or worse, the truth was "ommited" and poor Judas was framed. It goes a lot deeper than what it first seems. I don't have time to go into it, but if you think about it, the "authenticity" of this calls into question the authenticity of the entire New Testament, the teachings of the Apostles, and on and on. Same as the DaVinci Code, same as the Tomb of Jesus, etc.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 10:05 AM
Your "faith" can't be very strong if you're not willing to look at your own religion with an objective eye. Raising questions, looking at things from an historical aspect, understanding where the religion came from in terms of the human agenda (and make no mistake, much of the origin and direction of Christianity at large, throughout its 2000+ year history, was perpetuated for the express benefit of individuals in power) is not an "attack". Seeking truth is not an "attack", and it will never invalidate the message or tenets set forth by the figure named named 'Jesus' at the core of it all. Perhaps in the end, it will even serve to strengthen the religion.

It goes much deeper than simply thinking Jesus was a cool dude who had some great teachings. To understand Christianity, at it's core, is a whole lot deeper than Jesus the man. Jesus was and is God. The second person of the Trinity. I do enjoy learning about the History of the Church and of Christianity in general. But at some point, the Truth is out there, it's accepted. Then people come along and try to drudge up crap to "prove" it's false, or that we were not given the whole truth, or whatever. Please don't assume to know or understand the depth of my "faith". I'm not here to give testimony to my journey, but suffice it to say that my faith runs deeper every day, more than you will know and more than I can communicate on a football message board.

If someone came up with something nasty about your family, your parents, what have you. And it was a falsehood, but because it was a juicy peice of news that people really wanted to believe, it got perpetuated as fact, or at least a very plausible situation. Even though you knew it was not true, would you feel you had been attacked, or that your family had been attacked? It's the same with those of us who take our faith that seriously. I do sincerely apologize if it rubs some people the wrong way. :shrug:

Brock
04-03-2007, 10:08 AM
Well, to start with, from the article:



If this gospel is authentic, that means that from the beginning, the Early Church got it wrong, and only Judas had it right. It means that everything is made up, or worse, the truth was "ommited" and poor Judas was framed. It goes a lot deeper than what it first seems. I don't have time to go into it, but if you think about it, the "authenticity" of this calls into question the authenticity of the entire New Testament, the teachings of the Apostles, and on and on. Same as the DaVinci Code, same as the Tomb of Jesus, etc.

This is completely backwards. If the only way for Jesus to complete the work he claimed to have been sent here for was to be betrayed, he probably would have trusted that job to the disciple he trusted the most. As for the Early church, I can cite many examples of things they omitted and things that they compromised on. These aren't opinions, they're facts.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 10:08 AM
I am a Christian and believe it with all of my heart. I just don't buy into the paranoia that my faith is "under attack" (I can't even type it without a chuckle)
The DaVinci Code, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Gnostic gospels, and Elaine Pagels (a theologan) are not out to get you, they are all additions to the depth of the story of Christ. There is nothing to be afraid of. If the mantle of your faith rests on things that (IMO) are so shallow as Judas being the most evil person ever, or Jesus never marrying, or anything of the sort, then (IMO) it's sad that learning such things would shake your faith so much.
Obviously different Christians believe different things, and believe Jesus meant different things, and believe different things about the Bible. Keeping that in mind, it might be better for your fear if you realize that many Christians welcome these types of examinations, and in that case, there's no way it could be an "attack ROFL " on Christianity.

Again. Glad I could lend you some entertainment! :)

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 10:11 AM
This is completely backwards. If the only way for Jesus to complete the work he claimed to have been sent here for was to be betrayed, he probably would have trusted that job to the disciple he trusted the most. As for the Early church, I can cite many examples of things they omitted and things that they compromised on. These aren't opinions, they're facts.

Well, the first part of you comment is opinion. I don't know why God sets things up the way that he does, but what you think he "probably" would have done is just that, your opinion.

As to the facts about what was omitted, I guess I'd have to know what these facts were, but even without knowing I guarantee there are probably sources that will conflict with them. It boils down to what you want to believe I guess.

Sully
04-03-2007, 10:13 AM
It ALL boils down to an interesting question.


Do you worship God?
Or do you worship the Bible (or the church)?

tooge
04-03-2007, 10:21 AM
Hey, who really gives a flip whether the Gospel of Judas is real, factual, or BS. Since when does what other people tell you influence your ideas about god, faith, and religion. Am I wrong in my personal beliefs if I believe certain parts of the bible but not others, does that make me wrong? No, in fact, it makes me right, because it affirms my faith, and that which affirms my faith is right for me, and therefore right for god. So, when some born againer tells me that something is the truth because they say it is, or the bible says it is, I say great for you, if that affirms your faith, then it is true for you, but not for me. In other words, there doesn't have to be a right or wrong. It is insignificant if Jesus rose in the flesh or not for example, if you believe he is Lord, then what does it matter what form he rose in? Who cares if Judas betrayed Jesus on his own, or he was told to by Jesus himself. The fact is, Jesus died. Again, if you believe he is lord, than non of the other stuff matters.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 10:24 AM
Glad I could entertain ya!

What if I took something that you believed in with all your heart, and came up with "evidence" that basically it was all a load of bull. Then I put it on TV and legitimize it with all these "experts" who know me.


don't get too defensive, just try and learn the truth, then it doesn't matter what they come at you with, you will be confident in your faith. I can't speak for the rest of the people here, but I'm not trying to attack you, just share my thoughts on the subject.

You are right, next year something else will probably come up, but that is not new, it has been happening for hundreds/thousands of years, Christianity has been the most abused, ridiculed, and attacked religion on earth throughout time. What does that tell you.....

A close second would be the Jewish (Jesus was Jewish) again, what does that tell you.

Why aren't there "experts" trying to denounce the Hindu (include Buddhism with them), or Muslim religions?

Lzen
04-03-2007, 10:26 AM
It ALL boils down to an interesting question.


Do you worship God?
Or do you worship the Bible (or the church)?

??? The Bible is the word of God.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 10:26 AM
It ALL boils down to an interesting question.


Do you worship God?
Or do you worship the Bible (or the church)?


very good point, you should worship God, and use the Bible and the Church as resources to help you with the first part.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 10:30 AM
It ALL boils down to an interesting question.


Do you worship God?
Or do you worship the Bible (or the church)?

An interesting question indeed, although I would simply say we worship God. Perhaps a better way to frame the question is this: Do you BELIEVE in God, or do you believe in the Bible and\or the Church.

See, for Catholics, we believe that God, in the form of the second person of the Trinity Jesus, instituted the Church. We believe that the Church gave us the Bible, the official canon was not decided upon until like the 3rd or 4th century. So, the root of everything is God. God sent His son. His Son established a Church. The Church established the canon of the Bible. So, we believe in the Bible because we believe in the Church because we Believe in Jesus because we believe in God.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 10:33 AM
Hey, who really gives a flip whether the Gospel of Judas is real, factual, or BS. Since when does what other people tell you influence your ideas about god, faith, and religion. Am I wrong in my personal beliefs if I believe certain parts of the bible but not others, does that make me wrong? No, in fact, it makes me right, because it affirms my faith, and that which affirms my faith is right for me, and therefore right for god. So, when some born againer tells me that something is the truth because they say it is, or the bible says it is, I say great for you, if that affirms your faith, then it is true for you, but not for me. In other words, there doesn't have to be a right or wrong. It is insignificant if Jesus rose in the flesh or not for example, if you believe he is Lord, then what does it matter what form he rose in? Who cares if Judas betrayed Jesus on his own, or he was told to by Jesus himself. The fact is, Jesus died. Again, if you believe he is lord, than non of the other stuff matters.

OK.

So, if I understand you, there is no such thing as Truth, everybody gets to figure out their own version of truth. And that's how God wants it. Everybody runs by their own opinions of right and wrong, and everyone should be cool with that.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 10:39 AM
don't get too defensive, just try and learn the truth, then it doesn't matter what they come at you with, you will be confident in your faith. I can't speak for the rest of the people here, but I'm not trying to attack you, just share my thoughts on the subject.

Well, I didn't mean to come off defensive with that, sorry if that's how it came off. In fact, my first post was more of a *sigh* rather than an explosion of anger. I'm not huddled in the basement bracing for the "ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY". :) I was simply pointing out that the attack does exist, however mild it may seem. It's kinda like that percieved "liberal bias" in the media. I see it, but that's because I'm a conservative so I'm more sensative to it. Hope that makes sense.

You are right, next year something else will probably come up, but that is not new, it has been happening for hundreds/thousands of years, Christianity has been the most abused, ridiculed, and attacked religion on earth throughout time. What does that tell you.....

A close second would be the Jewish (Jesus was Jewish) again, what does that tell you.

Why aren't there "experts" trying to denounce the Hindu (include Buddhism with them), or Muslim religions?

Because, it's not the biggest player on the block. When you have people like Rosie O'Donnel actually saying that Christians are just as terroristic as Muslim terrorists or whatever, you know that the people they have the biggest problem with is the Christians. Otherwise they would not exhaggerate about them and compare them to actual killers.

Lzen
04-03-2007, 10:41 AM
Well, I didn't mean to come off defensive with that, sorry if that's how it came off. In fact, my first post was more of a *sigh* rather than an explosion of anger. I'm not huddled in the basement bracing for the "ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY". :) I was simply pointing out that the attack does exist, however mild it may seem. It's kinda like that percieved "liberal bias" in the media. I see it, but that's because I'm a conservative so I'm more sensative to it. Hope that makes sense.

Yup. I agree.

Mr. Kotter
04-03-2007, 10:47 AM
I am a Christian and believe it with all of my heart. I just don't buy into the paranoia that my faith is "under attack" (I can't even type it without a chuckle)
The DaVinci Code, the Dead Sea scrolls, the Gnostic gospels, and Elaine Pagels (a theologan) are not out to get you, they are all additions to the depth of the story of Christ. There is nothing to be afraid of. If the mantle of your faith rests on things that (IMO) are so shallow as Judas being the most evil person ever, or Jesus never marrying, or anything of the sort, then (IMO) it's sad that learning such things would shake your faith so much.
Obviously different Christians believe different things, and believe Jesus meant different things, and believe different things about the Bible. Keeping that in mind, it might be better for your fear if you realize that many Christians welcome these types of examinations, and in that case, there's no way it could be an "attack ROFL " on Christianity.


:hmmm:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=160673


My wife says the key is really relaxing your jaw, that way it won't lock up and cramp on you as you are sucking him off.
Also, don't forget to cup the balls. Cupping the balls is key.

Good luck to you, and don't forget that teeth are bad...mmmkay?

Sully
04-03-2007, 10:50 AM
:hmmm:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=160673
Christians aren't allowed blow jobs?

chagrin
04-03-2007, 10:52 AM
I also actually like Elaine Pagels and her writing. "The Origin Of Satan" is an excellent book

Sully
04-03-2007, 10:53 AM
An interesting question indeed, although I would simply say we worship God. Perhaps a better way to frame the question is this: Do you BELIEVE in God, or do you believe in the Bible and\or the Church.

See, for Catholics, we believe that God, in the form of the second person of the Trinity Jesus, instituted the Church. We believe that the Church gave us the Bible, the official canon was not decided upon until like the 3rd or 4th century. So, the root of everything is God. God sent His son. His Son established a Church. The Church established the canon of the Bible. So, we believe in the Bible because we believe in the Church because we Believe in Jesus because we believe in God.
So am I understanding you correctly that you believe that anything that God created is infallible?

tooge
04-03-2007, 10:58 AM
OK.

So, if I understand you, there is no such thing as Truth, everybody gets to figure out their own version of truth. And that's how God wants it. Everybody runs by their own opinions of right and wrong, and everyone should be cool with that.


No, what I am saying is that there is certainly some truth out there, but until Jesus comes back and takes everyone back to god, nobody will know what that TRUTH is, soooooo, what is the point in anyones getting worked up over whether a document is stating that truth or not. What IS important is the big picture, not the little details. Let me use a chiefs analogy since we are on a football forum. Say you are the greatest chiefs fan ever. Nothing could make you waiver from being a chiefs fan, no matter how many years it took to win the superbowl, you still believed. Then someone told you that he heard from second hand info that one of the players from the last superbowl was in on a fix. You gonna go out and buy a bunch of Broncos gear there are ya? No, because A. It may or may not be true B. You love the chiefs regardlass of some little factoid that took place long ago that you cant confirm, and C. The BRONCOS BLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My point being, your faith matters, and my faith matters, whether or not Judas is even real doesn't matter to me, cause it doesnt' change my faith in the big picture which is that I beleive in God, Jesus, and nothing will change that.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 11:00 AM
Well, I didn't mean to come off defensive with that, sorry if that's how it came off. In fact, my first post was more of a *sigh* rather than an explosion of anger. I'm not huddled in the basement bracing for the "ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY". :) I was simply pointing out that the attack does exist...

Because, it's not the biggest player on the block.


:) you know you are..... :p J/K


I don't think it's just because it's the biggest player on the block, it's certainly the most diverse. If you take all the varieties of Christianity it certainly is the biggest, but if you only take only Catholics or another denomination, and put them next to Hinduism or Muslim they would then be overshadowed.

I think Jewish was the most ridiculed / persecuted throughout early time and now (and in the more recent past couple thousand years) Christianity is. Is it because of their proximity to being closest to the truth? I believe so, now the big obstacle, which denomination is most correct and how would you know?

This is my opinion from studing different religions, not to bash the muslim or hindu (or buddha either)

cdcox
04-03-2007, 11:02 AM
The Church established the canon of the Bible. So, we believe in the Bible because we believe in the Church because we Believe in Jesus because we believe in God.

This is the essence for me (a Lutheran). I believe there is an absolute truth which God has preserved in the Church and in the canonical scriptures. Humans in their great weakness have acted to distort the true teaching, and quite likley no single Church body has every detail correct. Nevertheless, the central teachings of the Christian faith have been preserved by God for over 2000 years. Which is why spurious "gospels" that teach a different truth I do not consider to be inspired no matter how authentic their antiquity (there were plenty of heretics in the early Church, just as today) nor a threat to my faith.

Redrum_69
04-03-2007, 11:08 AM
Does it mention anything about the plague that befalling our pets?

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 11:15 AM
I've always thought the so-called "liberal media bias" was not only a misperception, but an impossibility, since the news outlets in the country are owned by conservative conglomerates, with a couple of exceptions. In my experience, news that is not delivered with a decided conservative bent is considered "liberal", regardless of how neutral the delivery may be. It's sort of the "I don't like what I'm hearing, so I'm going to disregard it out of hand" syndrome.

Which is exactly what seems to be going on here, as well. And that's not surprising in the least.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:16 AM
So am I understanding you correctly that you believe that anything that God created is infallible?

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The Church is infallible. The Bible is infallible. Jesus is infallible.

...people are NOT infallible. So no, not everything that God created is infallible. But I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was.

Sully
04-03-2007, 11:21 AM
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The Church is infallible. The Bible is infallible. Jesus is infallible.

...people are NOT infallible. So no, not everything that God created is infallible. But I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was.
I arrived at that conclusion because the very point for creation of the church, and subsequently the Bible, was God's having created them. It seemed (sorry if I misunderstood) that this was your whole argument for the infallible church and Bible.
If not, please help me understand your reason for believing in the infallibility of the church and bible.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:22 AM
No, what I am saying is that there is certainly some truth out there, but until Jesus comes back and takes everyone back to god, nobody will know what that TRUTH is, soooooo, what is the point in anyones getting worked up over whether a document is stating that truth or not. What IS important is the big picture, not the little details. Let me use a chiefs analogy since we are on a football forum. Say you are the greatest chiefs fan ever. Nothing could make you waiver from being a chiefs fan, no matter how many years it took to win the superbowl, you still believed. Then someone told you that he heard from second hand info that one of the players from the last superbowl was in on a fix. You gonna go out and buy a bunch of Broncos gear there are ya? No, because A. It may or may not be true B. You love the chiefs regardlass of some little factoid that took place long ago that you cant confirm, and C. The BRONCOS BLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My point being, your faith matters, and my faith matters, whether or not Judas is even real doesn't matter to me, cause it doesnt' change my faith in the big picture which is that I beleive in God, Jesus, and nothing will change that.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you didn't have the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus. Maybe you could argue that you would know about God I suppose. Point is, the Bible is supposed to be the Truth. It is not supposed to be added to or taken away from. If it is wrong in any way, than it is wrong in all ways, because you could never nail down where it was right and where it was in error. In my opinion, there is no such thing as little truth and Big Truth. It is all equally important. I know you don't see it that way, and that's fine. I'm just illustrating where I'm coming from here.

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 11:23 AM
Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The Church is infallible. The Bible is infallible. Jesus is infallible.

...people are NOT infallible. So no, not everything that God created is infallible. But I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was.The inherent issue there is that the Church (I don't know which one you're talking about, but it's not really pertinent) itself is composed of people, and the Bible was originally penned by people, and has, several times throughout history, been reorganized and/or outright re-written by groups of people. Even if we leave the Bible out of the equation for the time being, how can the Church, a structure built on people and run by people, be infallible?

As for the Bible itself, there are different versions for different denominations, and sometimes different versions within the same denomination. So which version is the 'right' version, and why?

That's not to say there isn't a divinely inspired version of the Bible out there, but with the hand of man, so to speak, muddying the waters to such an extreme extent, how is anyone supposed to know which version that is?

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:25 AM
This is the essence for me (a Lutheran). I believe there is an absolute truth which God has preserved in the Church and in the canonical scriptures. Humans in their great weakness have acted to distort the true teaching, and quite likley no single Church body has every detail correct. Nevertheless, the central teachings of the Christian faith have been preserved by God for over 2000 years. Which is why spurious "gospels" that teach a different truth I do not consider to be inspired no matter how authentic their antiquity (there were plenty of heretics in the early Church, just as today) nor a threat to my faith.

Oh, I don't worry about it in regards to MY faith, but I worry about the possibility of corruption of other's faith. Like Jesus said, if anyone causes one of these to stumble, he'd be better off hanging a millstone around his neck and jumping into the sea...(massive paraphrase there...) I'd hate to see others led astray by this type of stuff...of course, I suppose that is inevitable. As you said, there were plenty of heretics in the early Church just like today...

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:28 AM
I've always thought the so-called "liberal media bias" was not only a misperception, but an impossibility, since the news outlets in the country are owned by conservative conglomerates, with a couple of exceptions. In my experience, news that is not delivered with a decided conservative bent is considered "liberal", regardless of how neutral the delivery may be. It's sort of the "I don't like what I'm hearing, so I'm going to disregard it out of hand" syndrome.

Which is exactly what seems to be going on here, as well. And that's not surprising in the least.

Well, I suppose that's correct. I mean, everybody approaches things with their own slant. Believers are inclined to believe in the traditional truths of their religion, while non-believers or fence-riders are inclined to think that there HAS to be something wrong with this belief. In that sense, everyone is covering up their ears and saying "LALALALALALAAAA". Nobody is un-biased. Least of all are those who claim that they are. IMO.

chagrin
04-03-2007, 11:31 AM
:) you know you are..... :p J/K


I don't think it's just because it's the biggest player on the block, it's certainly the most diverse. If you take all the varieties of Christianity it certainly is the biggest, but if you only take only Catholics or another denomination, and put them next to Hinduism or Muslim they would then be overshadowed.


Just FYI, there are 4 "denominations" of Hinduism, and if I am not mistaken, Catholics do actually make up the 2nd or 3rd largest religious group in the world. "...1,098,366,000 or approximately one in six of the world's population."

Or did I misunderstand your posT?

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:35 AM
I arrived at that conclusion because the very point for creation of the church, and subsequently the Bible, was God's having created them. It seemed (sorry if I misunderstood) that this was your whole argument for the infallible church and Bible.
If not, please help me understand your reason for believing in the infallibility of the church and bible.

OH! I see what you mean. In other words, if I believe that the Bible and Church are infallible SIMPLY because God created them, then do I believe that ALL things he created are infallible...now I gotcha.

I guess my answer remains the same. We were promised that "The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church..." This infers infallibility. God would not allow Satan to screw with His church. Now, we all know that there have been plenty of PEOPLE in the church who suck (please, no more references to the Inquisition, the Crusades, the sex scandals...I've heard it a million times) but in order for us to recieve the Truth, God set up an infallible mechanism in the Church. So that, even if man screws it up from time to time, the Church will live on and has for 2000 years.

Remember, this is a Catholic's viewpoint. I'm sure that my Protestant brothers and sisters have a different view on what the actual Church is, so I'm just clarifiying that this is a Catholic's view on it.

KC Kings
04-03-2007, 11:37 AM
I went to a seminar with Elaine Pagels for her book Beyond Belief about her work translating the Gospel of Thomas. She is well educated and I find her to be more believable then many other Historical Jesus scholars, and she does not seem to be trying to push any agenda.

Judas is an intersting story in itself, and the oppinion of Judas is used to being able determine the timeline of the gospels. Both Matthew and Luke say that there are 12 thrones for the 12 disciples. Judas is Jesus' best friend. Jesus had to die on the cross in order to pay the price for mankind. If you were in Jesus' position, who would you trust with the secret and who would you want to turn you in. Jesus knew that this was going to be his last meal. He tells them that somebody will "betray" him. In Matthew the Greek word used is paradidomi, which can mean to betray could be translated as handed over. Only in the last written gospel, John, does Judas become this horrific traitor. If you read the gospels, John is the only one that is written like a story, and there are mulitple instances where the eyebrows are raised unless you have blind faith and and refuse to question any item that is questionable.


Here is a link to the Gospel. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf Tell me what passage disproves Christianity?

There are many gnostic gospels out there, but the only one that has credibility with a majority of the historical Jesus scholars. Many of these gnostic gospels are humorous even. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas where the young grade school Jesus gets in trouble horsing around with his friends in school, so it makes the teacher disappear is a great story. Heck, go back to the OT to some of the apocraphies for a good read. Two people in the history of the world never died and went straight to heaven. Enoch was one of them, and his book is better than Harry Potter. Scorcery, giants, angels swooping down to earth and humping all the hot chicks. Now that is a story.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:40 AM
The inherent issue there is that the Church (I don't know which one you're talking about, but it's not really pertinent) itself is composed of people, and the Bible was originally penned by people, and has, several times throughout history, been reorganized and/or outright re-written by groups of people. Even if we leave the Bible out of the equation for the time being, how can the Church, a structure built on people and run by people, be infallible?

**EDIT**
Well, as to how the Church is infallible, see my post above. Suffice it to say that it requires faith that God would not allow Satan to prevail against His church, and that He would not allow man to destroy it either. So, the quick answer is, because God won't let it. It requires faith...


As for the Bible itself, there are different versions for different denominations, and sometimes different versions within the same denomination. So which version is the 'right' version, and why?

That's not to say there isn't a divinely inspired version of the Bible out there, but with the hand of man, so to speak, muddying the waters to such an extreme extent, how is anyone supposed to know which version that is?

Exactly. This was the problem with the Reformation. Yes, I know that Luther was pointing out abuses by some of the Clergy, especially with Indulgences but that's by the by. Before Luther, there was pretty much no disagreement about doctrine, core beliefs if you will. Procedures yes, customs yes, but core doctrine no. Once you have a bunch of people spouting their viewpoints as truth, well, you wind up with 25K and counting denominations of Christianity, each claiming to be correct and each claiming to go by the Bible. This is why God instituted His Church, to guide and teach people about what the Bible means and how to understand it. I know I'll proabably get flamed to no end, and I don't mean to sound superior, but that's how I see it. Was Luthor right? In some ways I'm sure he was. But I doubt that he, a devout Catholic priest, meant to throw the baby out with the bathwater and create the chaos of believers we have today. JMHO.

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 11:50 AM
Believers are inclined to believe in the traditional truths of their religion, while non-believers or fence-riders are inclined to think that there HAS to be something wrong with this belief. I think there's a difference between pointing to something and saying "that might be wrong" based on evidence you've found, as opposed to simply "thinking there has to be something wrong". I believe that there are people out there, people with agendas, who do research specifically to prove their preexisting point (both for and against various religions; this also happens far, far too often in science outside of theology...), and to me, that's wrong. That's not being skeptical, that's not applying logic or seeking truth, that's not looking at the world with an open mind; that's debunking or affirming a belief structure you already hold to be true or false.

In that sense, you're not wrong when you say that some people attack Christianity. The converse is also true. That's reality. The operative word,there, however, is "some". It's the idea that everybody is out to get Christianity, like there's some wide-ranging anti-Christian hate brigade, that I don't believe. A lot of people are simply curious, or find theology or archaeology to be their life's calling, or something that they are interested in learning about and talking to other people about. Sometimes they may discover things that don't...fit, for lack of a better word. And sometimes, on the other hand, they find things that do.

In any case, the real value of religion is when people, regardless of faith, come together and discuss these issues, with open minds. In the end, you can often learn the most about yourself, your own perspectives and beliefs, by talking with folks who are diametrically unique. It's okay to be different. That doesn't mean you're antagonists.

KC Kings
04-03-2007, 11:56 AM
The inherent issue there is that the Church (I don't know which one you're talking about, but it's not really pertinent) itself is composed of people, and the Bible was originally penned by people, and has, several times throughout history, been reorganized and/or outright re-written by groups of people. Even if we leave the Bible out of the equation for the time being, how can the Church, a structure built on people and run by people, be infallible?

As for the Bible itself, there are different versions for different denominations, and sometimes different versions within the same denomination. So which version is the 'right' version, and why?

That's not to say there isn't a divinely inspired version of the Bible out there, but with the hand of man, so to speak, muddying the waters to such an extreme extent, how is anyone supposed to know which version that is?

That is a great question. The Gospels were written between 40-80 years after Jesus died. Say for example, that Jesus died 60 years ago. In the past 60 years birth control pills have become readily available, and the Catholic church has taken a stance on whether it is acceptable. If the bible were to be written today, the writer might include a piece against them.

There are a lot of things that are considered biblicle even though they are not. There were no oxen or donkeys at the Nativity until 1,000 years after the fact when the book of Psuedo-Matthew was written. A lot of the content of The Gopel of Mel Gibson was based on the dreams of a nun, well after the fact. Because things change and involve, I see the earlist Gospels as the most pure and closest to what Jesus' message truly was.

This is not an oppinion shared by Christians, but it is my oppinion. When somebody argues the case of Jesus' divinty and whether he was truly the biological offspring of God, or if it was a metaphore historicized I will gladly give my oppinion but to me it doesn't matter. The general consensus of the majority of Christians immediately after his death believed that he was literal son of God due to the impact of his works. The original gospels mean more to me because of the timeline that they were written, not because it goes for or against any agenda.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 11:57 AM
Wow after reading it at that link, I have to kinda chuckle. If nothing else, I can see why the Early Church Fathers tossed it out. It is so far removed from what the other Gospels (and subsequently) the Apostles themselves taught, that it's obviously not authentic. But hey, I'm not a scholar and I don't play one on TV, so there you go...

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 11:58 AM
**EDIT**
Well, as to how the Church is infallible, see my post above. Suffice it to say that it requires faith that God would not allow Satan to prevail against His church, and that He would not allow man to destroy it either. So, the quick answer is, because God won't let it. It requires faith...Do you believe in predestination?

I've always been more enamored with the concept of deism, where God (should such a creature exist; I'm an atheist, this is some theological theorization for the sake of discussion here...) put things in motion, but then left it to humanity to decide which way things go. I tend to think there'd be no greater gift, or demonstration of love, than the freedom to choose our own path.

KC Kings
04-03-2007, 12:02 PM
Before Luther, there was pretty much no disagreement about doctrine, core beliefs if you will. Procedures yes, customs yes, but core doctrine no. Once you have a bunch of people spouting their viewpoints as truth, well, you wind up with 25K and counting denominations of Christianity, each claiming to be correct and each claiming to go by the Bible. This is why God instituted His Church, to guide and teach people about what the Bible means and how to understand it. I know I'll proabably get flamed to no end, and I don't mean to sound superior, but that's how I see it. Was Luthor right? In some ways I'm sure he was. But I doubt that he, a devout Catholic priest, meant to throw the baby out with the bathwater and create the chaos of believers we have today. JMHO.

The major contributor to this was that the bible was required to be written in Latin, and the majority of the world, including the Priest, didn't speak the language. Thanks to Gutenberg the world was able to read the bible themselves and see all of the non-scriptural activities the the Catholic "meaning Universal, and until the Greek Orthodox split Catholicism was THE Christian religion.

I am not sure that I agree with the chaos movement, since he orchestrated a protest against the Catholic church he had to know that there would be some backlash.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 12:05 PM
In any case, the real value of religion is when people, regardless of faith, come together and discuss these issues, with open minds. In the end, you can often learn the most about yourself, your own perspectives and beliefs, by talking with folks who are diametrically unique. It's okay to be different. That doesn't mean you're antagonists.

Amen brutha! :thumb: I guess it does go both ways too...

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 12:11 PM
Thanks to Gutenberg the world was able to read the bible themselves and see all of the non-scriptural activities the the Catholic "meaning Universal, and until the Greek Orthodox split Catholicism was THE Christian religion.

Not to be a dick, but could you re-write that last part there, I honestly don't know what you are saying... :(

I am not sure that I agree with the chaos movement, since he orchestrated a protest against the Catholic church he had to know that there would be some backlash.

Well, what I meant was that, just for instance, Luther was a big believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary, a view not shared by most Lutherans and protestants today. He also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (transubstantiation) which is a view shared only by Catholics and Orthodox today. Those are both pretty big deals, and Luther started a movement that eventually did away with these things which even he saw as absolute Truth.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 12:15 PM
Christians aren't allowed blow jobs?

I certainly hope that's not the case... :)

Dave Lane
04-03-2007, 12:17 PM
Heres a link to the other gospels (there are 100s) that were not included in the canon.

You can actually read these online if you wish. Most of them seem very weird but I'm sure any of the canons of the bible that were not originally included would seem just as weird due to unfamiliarity.

Dave

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

tooge
04-03-2007, 12:19 PM
I guess what I'm saying is, if you didn't have the Bible, you wouldn't know anything about Jesus. Maybe you could argue that you would know about God I suppose. Point is, the Bible is supposed to be the Truth. It is not supposed to be added to or taken away from. If it is wrong in any way, than it is wrong in all ways, because you could never nail down where it was right and where it was in error. In my opinion, there is no such thing as little truth and Big Truth. It is all equally important. I know you don't see it that way, and that's fine. I'm just illustrating where I'm coming from here.

Cool. LIke I said, it really bothers me when some are so adamant that those of us that dont take the bible literally will be damned, because, I could argue that those who judge others to be damned will therefore have that fate bestowed upon them. Yeah, I know, all sounds rediculous, but I do see where you are coming from and I honor you for your beliefs and faith, regardless of whether they are the same as mine or not. Hey, in some places, one of us (porbably me) would be getting beheaded for saying "who cares about the facts of the bible, its a great story, lets just celebrate god".

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 12:19 PM
Do you believe in predestination?

I've always been more enamored with the concept of deism, where God (should such a creature exist; I'm an atheist, this is some theological theorization for the sake of discussion here...) put things in motion, but then left it to humanity to decide which way things go. I tend to think there'd be no greater gift, or demonstration of love, than the freedom to choose our own path.

Agreed. That's the beauty of the Gift of the Church. Without God making sure that it is not corrupted, we would not have a way to know what the Truth as He wants it taught is...therefore we would not have the freedom to choose Him or reject Him. If He didn't tell us the Truth, then it would hardly be fair to hold anything against us. How would we know we were doing wrong or whatever?

As an atheist, I would think you would appreciate it as much as I do.

KC Kings
04-03-2007, 12:24 PM
Not to be a dick, but could you re-write that last part there, I honestly don't know what you are saying... :(



Well, what I meant was that, just for instance, Luther was a big believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary, a view not shared by most Lutherans and protestants today. He also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (transubstantiation) which is a view shared only by Catholics and Orthodox today. Those are both pretty big deals, and Luther started a movement that eventually did away with these things which even he saw as absolute Truth.

That's because I didn't finish the sentence...
Thanks to Gutenberg the world was able to read the bible themselves and see all of the non-scriptural activities the the Catholic church had constructed and adopted as tradition. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with the traditions, just that they are not scriptural.

As for the perpetual virginity, the bible does not specify that she remained a virgin and does say that there were other children in the house. They could be step children of Joseph's, but this seems to me more a view point based on tradition rather than scripture.

For the Eucharist is that concerning the bread and wine literrally becoming Jesus' body and blood once you injest it? If not, please explain. If so, once again I don't see where this is scriptural. During the Last Supper as Jesus poured the wine, his blood content didn't literraly reduce, and when he broke the bread parts of his body did not disappear.

When I say that is unscriptural I am not saying that it is wrong or shouldn't be believed, just that it is not included in the scriptures. That is ironic that things that Luther held as dear to him and as truths, were deemed non-scriptural during the movement that he started.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 12:27 PM
Just FYI, there are 4 "denominations" of Hinduism, and if I am not mistaken, Catholics do actually make up the 2nd or 3rd largest religious group in the world. "...1,098,366,000 or approximately one in six of the world's population."

Or did I misunderstand your posT?



ah, I think we are saying the same thing, essentially.

I meant that all the denominations of Christianty put together outnumbers the others, in agreement to your post about being the big dogs on the court, and that's why everyone tries to knock it down.

Yes Catholics make up a large portion of christianity, but do not stand alone as the third largest religion. Islam and Hindu is second and third, with Buddhism fourth (and actually Siddhartha Gautama was an extreme Hindu "renouncer", for renouncers, think yoga) it is of couse not all just this simple as for many thousands of years Hinduism has evolved, it is considered the oldest organized religion still practiced today, certainly of the top several religions.

Much of Hindu theology mirrors Judaism-Christian theology, and of course we know the stories of the Isamic religion being tied to the judaism - Christian tree at Abraham....

Thus if you stand back and look at all the religions they have such similar implications of good vs. evil, creator gods, other heavenly beings (either Angelic or demi-god) and even early stories (moving mountains, noah's ark/gilgamesh's epic, etc) that it really becomes increasingly difficult to denounce the possibilities of a heavenly creation as apposed to the 'big bang'.

So now that mankind has messed it up from there all you can do is study what has a high percentage of being real and make your own assessment to what your faith will allow, and of course treat each other and their possible different beliefs, with kindness. A generally accepted practice to almost all of the above religions, even though there are some exception.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 12:30 PM
are we in the DC forum yet?

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 12:31 PM
Agreed. That's the beauty of the Gift of the Church. Without God making sure that it is not corrupted, we would not have a way to know what the Truth as He wants it taught is...therefore we would not have the freedom to choose Him or reject Him. If He didn't tell us the Truth, then it would hardly be fair to hold anything against us. How would we know we were doing wrong or whatever?

As an atheist, I would think you would appreciate it as much as I do.If someone has no access to said Church, say they live in another country where a completely different religion is prevalent, are they damned? Since, if they have no way of knowing God exists, they can't possibly choose him.

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 12:31 PM
are we in the DC forum yet?Shouldn't be, no.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 12:34 PM
If someone has no access to said Church, say they live in another country where a completely different religion is prevalent, are they damned? Since, if they have no way of knowing God exists, they can't possibly choose him.

seems I remember studing something about this topic before, kinda gray in my mind, but the basics was that if you didn't have access to the truth, third world country, small child, etc. and died without the opportunity to discover that faith then you have a chance to stand before God and either accept him and go to heaven or denounce him and go to Hell.

Not saying it's right, or the best answer, just that I remember studing that at somepoint.......

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 12:36 PM
seems I remeber studing something about this topic before, kinda gray in my mind, but the basics was that if you didn't have access to the truth, third world country, small child, etc. and died without the opportunity to discover that faith then you have a chance to stand before God and either accept him and go to heaven or denounce him and go to Hell.I make me laugh sometimes...the first thing that popped into my head was 'loopholes! Sweet!"

I crack me up.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 12:37 PM
I make me laugh sometimes...the first thing that popped into my head was 'loopholes! Sweet!"

I crack me up.

ROFL

ME TOO


anyway probably we just suffer from the Human Condition......

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 12:43 PM
BTW, Keg I just heard a few months ago, some famous Atheist that wrote many books to denounce organized religions, he was a scientist and stuff, but I can't remember his name.

All I remember was in the final several or maybe just few years of his life. His life's work, to use science to prove religion was man made, and he ended up proving to himself that he was wrong.

I'm not trying to throw that up "in your face" or anything, just curious how that would be looked upon by an atheist.

Are you an Atheist or just agnostic?

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 12:55 PM
If someone has no access to said Church, say they live in another country where a completely different religion is prevalent, are they damned? Since, if they have no way of knowing God exists, they can't possibly choose him.

Well, this is why the Apostles were commanded to go and preach the Gospels to all nations. Now, as far as people who have not heard of Christ being damned, here is something on it from the Catechism:


851 Missionary motivation. It is from God's love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth";344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God's universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

I believe that there is even a better way that this is put, but to my understanding, we are all given a moral code, implanted in us at birth by God. If people will live by this moral code, then I believe they can be saved even if they have not heard of Jesus, for that is through no fault of their own. I know that somewhere in the Catechism there is a better way that this is put, but I'm at work so this is the best I can do... :redface: It's a long friggin' read after all...

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 01:09 PM
That's because I didn't finish the sentence...

...whew. I thought I was going nuts for a second there...


Thanks to Gutenberg the world was able to read the bible themselves and see all of the non-scriptural activities the the Catholic church had constructed and adopted as tradition. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with the traditions, just that they are not scriptural.

As for the perpetual virginity, the bible does not specify that she remained a virgin and does say that there were other children in the house. They could be step children of Joseph's, but this seems to me more a view point based on tradition rather than scripture.

For the Eucharist is that concerning the bread and wine literrally becoming Jesus' body and blood once you injest it? If not, please explain. If so, once again I don't see where this is scriptural. During the Last Supper as Jesus poured the wine, his blood content didn't literraly reduce, and when he broke the bread parts of his body did not disappear.

When I say that is unscriptural I am not saying that it is wrong or shouldn't be believed, just that it is not included in the scriptures. That is ironic that things that Luther held as dear to him and as truths, were deemed non-scriptural during the movement that he started.

Well, even when Gutenburg created the printing press, the vast majority of the world was pretty illiterate. It was invented in 1455. Prior to that, Bibles were kept at Churches, but again, people were pretty illiterate so they were'nt really reading a bunch of scripture after the printing press was invented. I suppose that's neither here nor there. Now to say that they are non-scriptural, to a degree I agree, only in the fact that not all these tratitions are specifically spelled out in the Bible. The Trinity is a great example. But, you will find that the Church has ample scriptural backing for her Traditions, even if they are not spelled out verbatum.

Regarding the Eucharist, it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ when the Priest says the words "This is my Body..." and "This is the cup of my blood...", not when it is ingested. In the Gospel of John, before the Last Supper, Jesus explains that unless you "Eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will have no life within you." This freaked a lot of people out. Yet, he did not bother to clarify it like he did with every other teaching in the Gospels that his desciples had a problem understanding. This is because there was nothing to explain, He meant it exactly how he said it. He repeats it several times. This would be part of the scriptural backing for the Eucharist, but there is more to it than that. I understand that it is not seen that way today by many, but it was all the way up until shortly after the Reformation. As the desciples said, "This is a hard teaching...who can accept it?"

I agree that there is irony in the results of the movement that Luther started. That's what I meant when I said I don't think he intended it to go as far as it did.

Cochise
04-03-2007, 01:09 PM
Just a quick look around the internet says that the book is generally thought to be 400 years later than the rest of the canonical books. What more could it be with a dating like that than the ancient equivalent of fan fiction?

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 01:14 PM
Just a quick look around the internet says that the book is generally thought to be 400 years later than the rest of the canonical books. What more could it be with a dating like that than the ancient equivalent of fan fiction?

Well, that's the thing. This woman says that it was written at the end of the first, or possibly the beginning of the second century. I'm with you, I had heard that it was much later than that, but that's not what this "expert theologean" says so...

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 01:24 PM
BTW, Keg I just heard a few months ago, some famous Atheist that wrote many books to denounce organized religions, he was a scientist and stuff, but I can't remember his name.

All I remember was in the final several or maybe just few years of his life. His life's work, to use science to prove religion was man made, and he ended up proving to himself that he was wrong.

I'm not trying to throw that up "in your face" or anything, just curious how that would be looked upon by an atheist. I don't know anything about that individual, in particular, but scientists aren't all atheists. Eistein is often used as an example, although he's usually misquoted or misrepresented.Are you an Atheist or just agnostic?Depends on the day you ask me, or how I interpret the definition at the time. Atheist is probably the most accurate, although I'm more pragmatic in that I acknowledge that I don't understand the universe, and I don't try to force it into my own limited perception. A God is certainly a possibility, one of an infinite number. I do, however, fall into the camp that sees religions, in general, as human socio-political constructs. A neccessary one, in some ways, I think.

I also think that "science" in many ways is simply a religion of its own. Many choose to believe that theology, based on rational thought and logic, rather than on something more...supernatural.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 01:30 PM
Cool. LIke I said, it really bothers me when some are so adamant that those of us that dont take the bible literally will be damned, because, I could argue that those who judge others to be damned will therefore have that fate bestowed upon them. Yeah, I know, all sounds rediculous, but I do see where you are coming from and I honor you for your beliefs and faith, regardless of whether they are the same as mine or not. Hey, in some places, one of us (porbably me) would be getting beheaded for saying "who cares about the facts of the bible, its a great story, lets just celebrate god".

Well, as a Catholic, I don't read the Bible "Literally" in the sense that every word is exactly what it means on it's face. You can read it in a Literal Sense, or a Literalist sense.

That's like saying to my kid "I told you a million times...". Now, did I really tell them a million times, or was I trying to convey that I have told them on numerous occasions? A literal interpretation is that I told him a bunch of times. A literalist interpretation is that I told him exactly one million times.

That's not to say that the Bible contains error or anything like that, it just means that logic must be applied to get to the meaning that the author at the time he wrote it was trying to convey. This difference in interpretation styles is what causes a ton of rift between Christians, btw.

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 01:34 PM
I don't know anything about that individual, in particular, but scientists aren't all atheists.


I'm mainly Christian, but also philisophocially Agnostic, because, well dang it I just don't know 100% what happens when you die......
:)


Yeah, many sides of different beliefs want to claim Einstein, funny. The one scientist I was referring to supposedly wrote many books and was supposed to be thought highly in the atheist camp. I can't remember his name, and I'm coming up empty on internet search (which I admit, isn't my forte)

been nice talking to you. Refreshing to share differing opinions with someone without being called a knucklehead, or worse......


I need to get out of this mindframe and get some work done. See ya around.

You too, InChief'sHell. Keep your chin up, look for the truth and you will find it.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 01:59 PM
I'm mainly Christian, but also philisophocially Agnostic, because, well dang it I just don't know 100% what happens when you die......
:)

Yer a knucklehead...or worse...

heheheheh
You too, InChief'sHell. Keep your chin up, look for the truth and you will find it.

Back atcha bro!

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 02:10 PM
I didn't realize you were Catholic. I was born, baptized, eucharized and confirmed Catholic, but had never encounted the concept of an infallible Church prior to today.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 02:16 PM
I didn't realize you were Catholic. I was born, baptized, eucharized and confirmed Catholic, but had never encounted the concept of an infallible Church prior to today.

See, you learn something new every day. Now get into Confession and come on home, you!:)

...I do get a set of steak knives for every wayward soul I bring back, you know...or maybe this month it's a blender...
:p

keg in kc
04-03-2007, 02:29 PM
Oh, I'll never return to the Catholic church, or any other.

It was interesting reading up on the concept of infallibility on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church).

crazycoffey
04-03-2007, 04:01 PM
I was born and raised Catholic lite, Luthern. But go to a "non-denominational" Bible church now. Less threatening on all the "rules" that turn many away......

Not that It means they are better than being catholic or Luthern or Muslim or atheist....

DaneMcCloud
04-03-2007, 04:10 PM
Well, as a Catholic, I don't read the Bible "Literally" in the sense that every word is exactly what it means on it's face. You can read it in a Literal Sense, or a Literalist sense.

That's like saying to my kid "I told you a million times...". Now, did I really tell them a million times, or was I trying to convey that I have told them on numerous occasions? A literal interpretation is that I told him a bunch of times. A literalist interpretation is that I told him exactly one million times.

That's not to say that the Bible contains error or anything like that, it just means that logic must be applied to get to the meaning that the author at the time he wrote it was trying to convey. This difference in interpretation styles is what causes a ton of rift between Christians, btw.

No offense to you personally because there are millions of others who feel this way, but I Bullsh*t. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and was an alter boy. I am no longer religious, whatsoever. I think it's a bunch rules made up to tame the savages. But regardless, either you follow the doctrine completely or you don't follow it all. It's not a cafeteria, it's a religion. Of course The Catholic Church and later Henry the Eight both decided what was right and wrong for them and deviated from the Word, as did Martin Luther, Brigham Young and on and on.

I feel the same way about the Bill of Rights. You don't change it, you don't alter it and you don't throw sh*t out.

The whole idea of picking and choosing what you want to believe and adhere to is part of the reason why I feel it's a bunch nonsense.

Again, no offense intended.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 04:17 PM
Oh, I'll never return to the Catholic church, or any other.

It was interesting reading up on the concept of infallibility on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church).

Well, you know what they say...never say never. :p

Just kidding. Look, I don't know why you left the Church or faith in God for that matter. Everyone has a story. I left the Church for many years. I was a cradle Catholic, did all the Catholic Calisthenics. You know, sit stand kneel, sit stand kneel, take the Jesus pill and go home. I walked away at 18. It's not uncommon, but I think the biggest reason for me anyway is that I was severely under-Catechised...if that's a word. I didn't know jack about my faith or why the Church taught and believes what it does. So to me it was boring and all rules based. Sadly, this is the case with many Catholics. I'm fortunate in that the parrish I am in now is doing a lot of adult education and so far it's very successful. A lot of people it turns out DO want to know more about their faith. Go figure.

Well, call it a waste of time if you will, but I'll be praying for you. Even if you don't come back to the Church, I hope that somehow you will return to faith in God. All in your own time of course. I'm not here to convert anybody. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen on internet discussion forums anyway...heheheh.

InChiefsHell
04-03-2007, 04:27 PM
No offense to you personally because there are millions of others who feel this way, but I Bullsh*t. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and was an alter boy. I am no longer religious, whatsoever. I think it's a bunch rules made up to tame the savages. But regardless, either you follow the doctrine completely or you don't follow it all. It's not a cafeteria, it's a religion. Of course The Catholic Church and later Henry the Eight both decided what was right and wrong for them and deviated from the Word, as did Martin Luther, Brigham Young and on and on.

I feel the same way about the Bill of Rights. You don't change it, you don't alter it and you don't throw sh*t out.

The whole idea of picking and choosing what you want to believe and adhere to is part of the reason why I feel it's a bunch nonsense.

Again, no offense intended.

None taken. Not sure what you mean though. I mean, all I was getting at is that the Church has defined a proper way to interperet scripture. Like I said in my above post, most Catholics don't really know jack about the nuts and bolts of the faith, and you are probably one of those. That's not an attack, by the way, so please don't take me to mean that you are an idiot. I don't know hardly anything about the Church and I probably know more than most people I know. When I walked away from the Church, my mom said that my problem was that I stopped learning and growing in the faith when I was confirmed. Years later, I realized that she was right. All of my knowlege about the faith stopped at the age of 14. What if I ran the rest of my life like that? Well, I'd be a 14 year old moron for one.

The Church defines doctrine, usually when it suddenly becomes disputed. The early Church fathers write of things that the Church teaches today, but these were just truths that were accepted. Then, somebody came along and challenged these truths, so the Church had to officially define them. I dunno. Some call it changing to fit the times, but there is enough evidence to show that largely the Church still teaches and believes what it did when the apostles were teaching. Certainly, time marches on and the world changes, so the Church must define it's teachings in keeping with the times.

I don't dig Cafeteria Catholocism either. Personally, there are many teachings of the Church that I don't like, but I have grown to accept them and I realize that it's on me to understand. The more I look into things, the easier it is for me to accept the Church. But it's not something that just happens by accident. Like going to school, you need to crack a book to learn anything I guess...

Jenson71
04-03-2007, 04:35 PM
While we're on the subject...

I was terribly disappointed with Sean Hannity and is his attack on Father Thomas Euteneuer. It was beyond disrespectful.

DaneMcCloud
04-03-2007, 05:28 PM
Certainly, time marches on and the world changes, so the Church must define it's teachings in keeping with the times.

I guess that's the biggest problem I have with the Church and Christianity in general. The Church shouldn't change. They shouldn't have changed from an all Latin Mass, they shouldn't suddenly preach abstinence (though I think it's completely irresponsible not to teach it), there shouldn't be women priests, etc. They're changing because they need the followers and they need the money to stay in business (which is another part of their ugly history, altogether).

Let's just say that you don't see Muslim leaders telling their followers "Hey, you don't have to pray to Mecca five times a day anymore. We're all too busy for that. So twice is cool". That's the difference.

InChiefsHell
04-04-2007, 06:23 AM
While we're on the subject...

I was terribly disappointed with Sean Hannity and is his attack on Father Thomas Euteneuer. It was beyond disrespectful.

Sean Vannity has a serious problem with his pride. I watched that interview, and I was shocked and dismayed. Honestly, I have'nt listened to him or watched him in a long time. I've kinda burned out on politics. But a friend pointed me to the video online, and it made my blood boil. Here's another guy who professes to be a Catholic, but spurns the Church's teaching and then "calls out" a priest on the air in front of millions to make himself look (and feel) better. What a twit.

InChiefsHell
04-04-2007, 06:33 AM
I guess that's the biggest problem I have with the Church and Christianity in general. The Church shouldn't change. They shouldn't have changed from an all Latin Mass, they shouldn't suddenly preach abstinence (though I think it's completely irresponsible not to teach it), there shouldn't be women priests, etc. They're changing because they need the followers and they need the money to stay in business (which is another part of their ugly history, altogether).

Let's just say that you don't see Muslim leaders telling their followers "Hey, you don't have to pray to Mecca five times a day anymore. We're all too busy for that. So twice is cool". That's the difference.

Well, I may agree with you on some things, like the Latin Mass. The point was, you need to have everything in one language so that the message is the same, universally. However, you are correct, they realized that Latin is no longer the universal language that it once was, so changing to Mass in the vernacular made sense. I suppose you can be disgruntled with that, (and a lot of older Catholics sure are) but I don't really see how that's a huge problem. Again, it's a procedure change, not a doctrinal change. Surely you must realize the need for some things to change.

The Church has always preached abstinence, so I don't know where you are coming from with that. And if you have evidence that women are being ordained as Priests, I can tell you that the Church does not now or has ever allowed that. If you are seeing a "Catholic" priest that is a woman, it is not a church that is in harmony with Rome.

The motives for change can be looked at in the way you see them. But I would suggest that the motives for change were that the Church needs to be able to reach the people, without compromising the actual message. This has been the case with the Church throughout the ages. Christmas, the Advent Wreath, etc. These are examples of how the Church was able to reach the Pagans without compromising the teachings of the Church. (Many of my Protestant brothers and sisters will argue with me on that, and I'm not engaging that argument. I don't really have time, and I've learned that if people want to believe the Church had actually gone pagan, well, they are not going to change their minds...)

Jenson71
04-04-2007, 06:46 AM
There's going to be a show on the History Channel called Banned From the Bible on this Sunday, that will be talking about the Gospel of Judas. It's on at 8:00pm CST, for all those interested.

InChiefsHell
04-04-2007, 07:22 AM
There's going to be a show on the History Channel called Banned From the Bible on this Sunday, that will be talking about the Gospel of Judas. It's on at 8:00pm CST, for all those interested.

Yeah, and I saw and add for Anderson Cooper 360 for a show he's doing called "What is a Christian" and they had a little video montage of chicks drinking and partying, and some faith healer and stuff...I wonder what they were getting at with that little montage? :rolleyes:

...but there is no attack on Christians or Christianity. Nothing to see here. Move on please... :p

KC Kings
04-04-2007, 07:47 AM
Well, that's the thing. This woman says that it was written at the end of the first, or possibly the beginning of the second century. I'm with you, I had heard that it was much later than that, but that's not what this "expert theologean" says so...
There is no need to quote expert theologean. She is definately an expert, and as non-impacting as this gospel is there is no reason or agenda to fill that would benifit from an earlier dating. She has done a lot of work with the documents found in the Nag Hamadi library, and has demonstrated her ability to give an unbiased oppinion in the past. If you are not familiar with the "Q", you should do a little googling on it. When they found the Gospel of Thomas many people thought/hoped it was the "Q". A lot of expert theologeans dated GOT as being the earliest gospel, obviously because they wanted it to be the "Q". Pagels was the leading expert on the gospel, she translated it, and dated it early to mid 1st century, which is probably correct but making it impossible to be the "Q" and ruined the chance of the finding being one of the biggest Christian finds in history.

InChiefsHell
04-04-2007, 09:36 AM
There is no need to quote expert theologean. She is definately an expert, and as non-impacting as this gospel is there is no reason or agenda to fill that would benifit from an earlier dating. She has done a lot of work with the documents found in the Nag Hamadi library, and has demonstrated her ability to give an unbiased oppinion in the past. If you are not familiar with the "Q", you should do a little googling on it. When they found the Gospel of Thomas many people thought/hoped it was the "Q". A lot of expert theologeans dated GOT as being the earliest gospel, obviously because they wanted it to be the "Q". Pagels was the leading expert on the gospel, she translated it, and dated it early to mid 1st century, which is probably correct but making it impossible to be the "Q" and ruined the chance of the finding being one of the biggest Christian finds in history.

Fair enough, and I admit that I was being a bit flippant when I quoted "expert theologean". I should have left the quotes off actually. All I was trying to get at is that this is one expert, and there are many who disagree with her. I'm sure she knows what she is talking about, but I'm also sure that some of her detractors also know what they are talking about.

Just a quick for instance:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1655/Peter_Jones

This is just one of many detractors to this. These people are "expert Theologeans" as well. I guess it still boils down to which expert you want to listen to. :shrug:

KC Kings
04-04-2007, 10:13 AM
Fair enough, and I admit that I was being a bit flippant when I quoted "expert theologean". I should have left the quotes off actually. All I was trying to get at is that this is one expert, and there are many who disagree with her. I'm sure she knows what she is talking about, but I'm also sure that some of her detractors also know what they are talking about.

Just a quick for instance:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1655/Peter_Jones

This is just one of many detractors to this. These people are "expert Theologeans" as well. I guess it still boils down to which expert you want to listen to. :shrug:

I agree that it is hard to find one to listen to, that you can believe is giving an unbiased professional oppinion. IMO, Peter Jones is not one of them. Nobody that I have ever read works on has ever said that all Gnostic Gospels are religously equal, yet Jones compares it to the Second Treatise of the Great Seth in which Jesus plays a trick on God and the Romans by using Simon as a stunt double for the crucifixtion.

Jones says, "Judas contains all the typical (and radical) notions of second century "Sethian" Gnosticism. God the Creator is an evil demon; the reprobates of Old Testament history-Cain, Esau, Korah and the Sodomites-are the true heroes; Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets are "a laughingstock." Clearly Judas fits the prototype for heroes. "

Read the Gospel of Judas, and show me where any of the above paragraph occurs? Historical Jesus scholars have argued for years that Judas was portrayed more negatively as time goes on. The earliest versions of Luke that have been found do not include the verse about Satan entering him. Even more evident of Judas' relationship with Christ, is that in Matthew and Luke Jesus says that there will be a throne in heaven for each of the 12 disciples. This means that either a.)Jesus is not all knowing and didn't know what Judas was going to do, b.) Jesus is forgetful, and accidentally said 12 thrones instead of 11, or c.) Jesus is correct, and there are minor account discrepencies between the gospels.

Jones has an agenda to debunk any possibilities of biblical discrepencies, so he compares the Gospel of Judas to a completely different gnostic finding to discredit it.

Bart Ehrmen, Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington... those are a few of the level headed non-agenda driven historical scholars that IMO can be trusted.

Pitt Gorilla
04-04-2007, 10:14 AM
While we're on the subject...

I was terribly disappointed with Sean Hannity and is his attack on Father Thomas Euteneuer. It was beyond disrespectful.It was a bit disrespectful and I truly dislike Hannity, but I agree with much of what he was saying. Weird.

Jenson71
04-04-2007, 10:21 AM
It was a bit disrespectful and I truly dislike Hannity, but I agree with much of what he was saying. Weird.

I never had a problem with him until then. Actually, I didn't watch his show that much, but I wouldn't avoid it like I mostly likely would now.

Hannity - "Did you know I studied Latin?" Please, Hannity. It could have been civil. It could have been an acknowledgment of differences and a deeper understanding of both positions. Hannity attacked not just a leader of his religion; it showed more than just that.

Just my opinion. Obviously, I'm a Catholic and this was important to me. It was a bad feeling watching that.

InChiefsHell
04-04-2007, 11:04 AM
It was a bit disrespectful and I truly dislike Hannity, but I agree with much of what he was saying. Weird.

Well, the thing is, Hannity was basically telling the Priest what the Catholic Church SHOULD believe and teach...in other words, what Hannity believes and teaches. Then when he didn't get satisfaction, he jumped all over the sex scandals. What a disingenuous prig. As a Catholic, I found his diatribe offensive as hell, because he basically is saying his version of Catholocism is "righter" than that of the Church. Pompous ass is not even a strong enough term for what he is. If you don't like the teachings of the Church, you either struggle with that and try to understand, or you friggin' leave the Church. What you DON'T do is take it out on the airwaves to pump yourself up and crap on your Church. I pray for him, because I think he's lost and clueless and worse he has a big ass microphone that he uses to spew his tripe all over the place. I hope he wakes up to some truth soon. But I won't be watching him cuz I really can't stand him anyway.

InChiefsHell
04-04-2007, 11:10 AM
I agree that it is hard to find one to listen to, that you can believe is giving an unbiased professional oppinion. IMO, Peter Jones is not one of them. Nobody that I have ever read works on has ever said that all Gnostic Gospels are religously equal, yet Jones compares it to the Second Treatise of the Great Seth in which Jesus plays a trick on God and the Romans by using Simon as a stunt double for the crucifixtion.

Jones says, "Judas contains all the typical (and radical) notions of second century "Sethian" Gnosticism. God the Creator is an evil demon; the reprobates of Old Testament history-Cain, Esau, Korah and the Sodomites-are the true heroes; Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the prophets are "a laughingstock." Clearly Judas fits the prototype for heroes. "

Read the Gospel of Judas, and show me where any of the above paragraph occurs? Historical Jesus scholars have argued for years that Judas was portrayed more negatively as time goes on. The earliest versions of Luke that have been found do not include the verse about Satan entering him. Even more evident of Judas' relationship with Christ, is that in Matthew and Luke Jesus says that there will be a throne in heaven for each of the 12 disciples. This means that either a.)Jesus is not all knowing and didn't know what Judas was going to do, b.) Jesus is forgetful, and accidentally said 12 thrones instead of 11, or c.) Jesus is correct, and there are minor account discrepencies between the gospels.

Jones has an agenda to debunk any possibilities of biblical discrepencies, so he compares the Gospel of Judas to a completely different gnostic finding to discredit it.

Bart Ehrmen, Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg, Ben Witherington... those are a few of the level headed non-agenda driven historical scholars that IMO can be trusted.


Well, I'm not an expert. I threw that dude out there as a result of a quick google search. THere are plenty other opinions out there as well, but I'm not going to go out there and track them all down. You make a very good point.

By the way, the Apostles replaced Judas' office in the book of Acts. One of the first things Peter did actually. It's one of the events that the Church points to when we talk about Apostolic succession. So, that is not a problem at all, because each had an office, or bishopric.