The Gospel of Judas Iscariot
 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

For over 2000 years, the name Judas has been synonymous with sin and betrayal. With the discovery of the so-called "Gospel of Judas," an entirely different picture has been painted of Jesus' most trusted confidant. What if, as the Gospel suggests, Judas did not betray Jesus? What if Jesus asked Judas to turn him over to the Romans? If you think about it from a political point of view, it does make sense. If the historical Jesus was, indeed, a freedom fighter, his martyrdom by Rome may have been a calculated political move to encourage the Jews to rise up against their oppressors. But nevermind all that for now. What about the impact this revelation has on Christians today? It questions one of the most widely accepted "facts" in the traditional Gospels and, for me at least, underscores the role of the early church (a role that continues to this day) in suppressing the truth, or the perceived truth, about Christ for political reasons. If we do accept the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not privy to all Jesus' actions, motivations, and plans, then how can we take their testimony at face value? Did they lie to incriminate Judas? Did they lie to cover up the truth, to hide the purposeful martyrdom behind a holy veneer, to perpetuate Judas as the bad guy and Jesus as the Christ, suffering at the hands of ungrateful humans? Or did they simply hate Judas for his betrayal (as they perceived it), or for being Jesus' favourite? Did they do it to protect themselves from prosecution by angry Christ Worshippers? For me, this is only scratching the surface of what this Gospel means to Christianity. Is the Gospel true? I don't know. The relationship between Jesus and Judas has been recorded in many Christian writings, including the four Gospels, as being unusually close. If, as the GoJ suggests, Judas really was the only Apostle to truly understand Jesus, and if other early Christian writings support this theory, should we believe it? Even if it is true (which will be impossible to prove) the Church will not accept it as such, ever. But will it have an impact on traditional Christianity, or just be a blip that has no lasting impact? Personally, the whole thing absolutely blows my mind, but I can't imagine what (if any) lasting effects will come of it.

I don't think, in mainstream Christianity, it will hold that much water.

The G of J's dating is very shaking, giving a time of authorship ranging from 100 AD to as far as 400 AD(so I've gathered).
Considering that it is most likely not written by Judas at all, I think one possible origin is that it was just a fictional narrative written later. Perhaps by someone postulating on what might have happened, or why things happened.

What does it matter?

They're both dead and long gone. So Judas may or may not have been a horrible traitor to Jesus. Either way - so what? How does it affect anything today?

Maybe someone can clue me in to why this is so important to Christians.

If Christianity is wrong about Judas, then what else are they wrong about? It has been an accepted, undeniable, unquestionable FACT that Judas betrayed Jesus. So what if that fact was fiction? What else of the Christian faith has been misinterpreted or misrepresented by political forces? The Gospel of Judas was deliberately suppressed and destroyed by the early church. Why? Because Jesus having asked Judas to betray him threatens Jesus identity as an omniscient being. Ok, Jesus knew he was going to be crucified, say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But does that remain such an amazing feat if you ASKED your friend to turn you in for the purpose of martyrdom? Is knowing that you're going to die because you planned your own death the same as knowing you were going to die because you have some great cosmic knowledge? No. Besides all that, Judas has been demonized and reviled for thousands of years. PArt of it may simply be about setting the record straight. I mean, a few years ago, the Vatican apologised for the Sack of Constantinople. The church is very much a historical entity and is responsible for shaping the world and human perception. They are accountable for the truths they fabricate.

I don't know. The entire religion is up for question, don't you think?

Like any religion, it takes faith to believe in. And everything is open to broad interpretation.

And according to the Christians, it is a FACT that Jesus is a zombie. I don't really believe in their ideas of "fact."

Man, now you're talking like a crazy person.

I don't personally believe in any of it. I was just curious why it matters so much that Christians had it all wrong.

Whats it going to change? Pretty much nothing, right?

Uh. I think you're giving The Vatican way too much credit. Especially in today's age. Unless you're a diehard Christian, I don't see why it adds up to anything of consequence.

I get this imposing feeling that you're a huge Dan Brown fan, though.

So, despite my being an atheist, I really don't see why any of this would matter to a regular, average Christian church-goer. In fact, I would think its pretty awesome Judas wasn't actually a traitor to Jesus. If he was Jesus' best buddy, isn't that super happy great for them?

And if you're thinking that maybe you're going to sway some of the Christians around here, you best guess again.

Traditionally John was considered to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved." There doesn't seem to be any animosity towards him from the other disciples for being the favorite.

Again based on the canonized 4 gospels, it was recorded that Peter was the first one to really understand Christ's message and who he was.

I don't see any of these writings having too lasting of an impact on Christianity as a whole. In a way, the fictional da Vinci Code seems to have contributed more to the widespread question of faith than any of these gnostic gospels in particular. These writings should however be examined and taken with all seriousness. While many think that the questioning of Christianity in such a way is disrespectful or irreverent, it may lead to the reaffirmation of faith by many people.

Edit: Also, can you actually imagine planning to get tortured and crucified as a political move? That just doesn't seem too rational, but then again under this assumption one could argue that Jesus was insane.

Well, there are a lot of things that are done for the purpose of making political statements that are not exactly rational, terrorism for example.

I was given a lot of Christian propaganda thrown at me throughout my entire school carear and I actually took an interest in it and I was always under the impression that Jesus was fully aware of Judas' alledged betrayal and that in order for him to save humanity he had to sacrifice himself.

The idea that Judas is some kind of bad guy is ridiculous, he set in motion to the plan that SAVED OUT SINS PEOPLE!

I definitely agree. I guess though that being willingly crucified takes a little more spine than just blowing yourself up, or crashing a plane. Self sacrifice with regards to terrorism rarely includes 24 hrs of torture.

And yah RABicle, you're correct. Jesus knew full well what he had to do, and he knew that Judas would be the one to set things in motion. In many ways, Judas is a metaphor for mankind, and I think it's been unfair for the church to demonize him in such a way. If it wasn't Judas, it would've been somebody. He was merely a pawn in a bigger plan. In the same way, it's strange how many people within the church treat Mary the mother of Jesus as a deity underservingly. It's not like she died for the sins of mankind. She was also a pawn used to serve a greater purpose. More than anything for her it was just a great personal honor to be so directly involved and have a positive role.

Judas should be the first to greet new arrivals in heaven just to laugh at them and demand they thank him for helping to save their sins.

This is true, but you have to look a little deeper. According to Christianity, God doesn't make men into robots. You always, always, always have a choice. So Judas *chose* to betray Jesus, he wasn't forced into it by some cosmic guiding hand. Judas was flawed, Judas was the betrayer of the Christ. And though Jesus had to die to fulfill his role as Christ, his betrayer still sold out the son of God, by choice.

Sassafrass...

The question of Judas' betrayal matters to Christians on a level of fundamental belief and truth. Christianity has been a political tool since its inception. This is still true today. Like it or not, Christianity has influenced almost every aspect of Western life, and has played a pivotal role in the course of history. The Vatican is and was a political machine, but it is not the only Christian organization that has been involved in politics. Beginning even before Constantine, and progressing right to the present, Christian beliefs have influenced culture and basic human understanding, and thus have influenced the world. North America is what it is today in large part because of the worldview of Christian followers. Religion, more than anything else, defines who people are as a group. It defines their way of life, their actions, their reality. To your average Christian, to the butts-in-pews, this might not make a fundamental difference right now. But to Christian theologians and philosophers, this might be a significant revelation, or may lead to a new perspective on the Bible and its meaning. If Judas is no longer the typical sinful human, if he is a loyal friend, what does this mean to the eternal forgiveness of sins via the passion? Judas is a metaphor for all the fundamentally flawed human beings that Christ had to save by dying. If Judas wasn't so flawed, if he was actually the most loyal of all the Apostles, what does this say about us? Jesus died because of Judas's sin, and FOR our sins. If one of those is wrong, is the other wrong too?

And I'm not giving the Vatican too much credit. They were an extremely wealthy, extremely important political contingent for centuries. This is not really debatable. It is true. No historian would argue with this. Please don't think I'm trying to be evangelical; I'm not. I'm an atheist as well, but I don't really care what people believe, either way. On a personal level, I find the whole thing extremely interesting, and I think it makes political sense for the church to have suppressed the GoJ at the time it disappeared. IMO, the most fascinating part of religion is how it effects the people who believe it, and the world they control. Oh, and while Dan Brown tells amusing stories (but is a terrible, terrible writer), I am able to draw the line between fact and fiction; something many Christians are having a hard time doing.

Depending what interpretation you accept, that might or might not be the case. Not all denomination thinks that way. My aunt is a Pentecostal; I like how her favorite line is "god has a plan for each and every one of us", and then proceed to coerce me to church. Although I guess the concept of "sin" only exist because of the appearance of personal choice, but just how much meaning do those choice really hold in the context of an all knowing all omnipotent being with every outcome in the Universe predetermined?

Yea, you haven't been reading Dan Brown at all!

So have a lot of things, sir. That makes it neither right or wrong, good or bad. It just kind of exists. The power was given from the people to the church through faith and faith alone.

Are you going to state anything that people don't know anytime soon.

I think you're making some really SWEEPING generalizations there.

I am sure the Average Joe Christian won't give a shit if Judas was Jesus' bestest friend forever. THATS the point I am making.

We all know that the church hides shit, contorts shit, and that very little in religion should be taken literally. People skew things when they're in power. Okay, yea, no big revelation there. Tell us something we don't know.

Matter of interpretation, really. If thats what you want to think about Judas, you're free to. I happen to not agree with it, but whatever.

I like how you're taking the Bible as some kind of fact. You realize it's been twisted a million times in order to control the populus in question, right?

Any real Christian would probably not define their personal value as a human being based off of what Judas may or may not have done to Jesus. Thats absolutely ridiculous.

Yea, and no one is arguing with you either. Cut to the chase already.

It makes sense for them to surpress whatever may put their own intentions in jeopardy, yes. Or, to dismiss their OWN faults.

Uh huh.
You can not convince someone with faith in something that there IS fact and not. They think God is fact.

Much like yourself, they see fact in something that just isn't there.

Honestly, I'm a little confused about what Dan Brown has to do with any of this. Is it all the Da Vinci fever? Any freshman Christianity course will give you an overview of the political machinations of Christianity from the very beginning. At one moment you're dismissing the idea that Christianity is a political tool, and the next minute you're waving it away like its an old truth. I never said that Christianity was good or evil, simply that it exists and has influence over both believers and non-believers.

Anyways, this isn't really about the church, or about Joe Christian. On a theological level, I'm curious as to whether this will make a difference to Christians. Please don't assume that I mean Catholics, or Protestants, or Baptists, etc. On a purely theological, philosophical level, will a Christian (any Christian) look at this and get something from it. Will they ask these questions, and if so, what will come from it? Christianity has as many different sets of beliefs as it has followers. I'm not saying this will change anything within the Vatican, but it may change God for an individual thinker. If this happens, what may result? Schism-esque instances happen frequently; I wonder if we could ever have a Christian sect dedicated to Judas, or living by his moral code as they perceive it. A group like the Franciscans or Dominicans, though clearly not living within the boundaries of institutional Christianity.

I don't take the Bible as fact. No one looking at it from an academic perspective could reasonably do so. But if you are going to address issues in the Bible from the point of view OF A CHRISTIAN, you have to regard it as the truth. I can't make historical evaluations of the Bible and impose them on a Christian worldview. As for "real Christians," I don't really know what you mean. Most Christians are fairly ignorant about the fine details of their religion, from my experience. If you asked a Catholic, for instance, why wine and bread are called the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist, most would probably tell you it was a metaphor. Again, I don't mean that your average Southern Baptist will come away from this new codex with an altered view of his faith. I'm just wondering if anyone, of any sect, will take the GoJ seriously, and what the consequences may be.

What am I imagining to be factual?

Oh, come on. No, you don't. You don't have to regard the Bible as anything, Christian or not.

To summarize the eternal argument - the Bible is a set of stories which may or may not be true. We have no definitive proof, so it's up to the reader to believe what he/she feels is right. This is where the "regarding the Bible as truth" mandate pretty much ceases.

The real meat of the Bible isn't derived from whether or not it's a factual account, but rather the lessons in morality and higher being that are contained within each Book. These lessons are subjective and will always be placed under differing interpretation, depending upon where you are and with whom you speak.

For the Christians, it's a matter of their doctrine that they accept the Bible as fact. Yet it's not specifically required, per se. It's only that the Bible is taught as fact within the Christian organization and the majority of its practitioners are willing to accept this belief that leads us to assume that factuality is intrinsic to the Christian practice.

It's not. Teaching the Bible as fact only serves to better facilitate the lessons within to an accepting crowd. If it were presented as myth, it would be subject to debate, and that doesn't serve the church's interests of aiding people toward betterness, by and large. But even within the Christian faith, followers are free and able to recognize the Bible as little more than a storybook. The zealotry of others who disagree, that's what leads to derision and extrication from the faith. It's nothing to do with the Bible itself.

Fundamentally, even within Christianity, there is no palpable difference between someone who takes the Bible as fact, living as Jesus might, and someone who merely recognizes the object lessons within and is a good person for it.

The Gospel of Judas is as mutable as any Book in the Bible and it will appeal to those who have an open mind about spirituality in general. Some may condemn it. Fair enough. It's an idea and ideas are always threatening to those who would lose power by them. But even if there's any shred of credibility to this discovery, it's foolishness to put the horse before the cart and claim that it serves to solidify centuries of suspected lies and cover-ups.

I'm no fan of organized religion. But, likewise, I'm no fan of people who take interesting, new discoveries and use them as ammunition in their personal vendettas against Christianity.
What will the Gospel of Judas ultimately prove? Most likely, nothing. Just like the Bible itself really proves nothing. All we can do at this phase is speculate and doing so will accomplish very little.

It's an interesting idea. It would be best to leave it at that.

Perhaps I should have phrased that differently. "If you are going to address issues in the Bible from the point of view OF A CHRISTIAN, you have to regard these issues as relevant and important." I never meant to suggest that Christians cannot interpret the Bible differently, simply that these interpretations have to be regarded as genuine if you want to see the world through Christian eyes. Basically, you have to see the Bible as having some value, either factual or philosophical.

I'm not sure when I made these foolish claims. The Gospel of Judas was suppressed, sure, but it was more or less forgotten about after that happened. I never suggested that the Vatican, Canterbury, or anyone else has been sitting in a dark room, rubbing their hands together, trying to hide the Judas Gospel from the unknowing public. The church hides things, as does every other organization on the planet. Honestly, I don't care. Like I said before, I'm more interested in what impact this may or may not have on the theological public (however slim a population this may be). I also don't have a vendetta against Christianity, if this is what you are implying. I'm curious to know what would have made you think I did. o_o

Yes. And nothing ever comes of interesting ideas. I mean, like, the idea that salvation is by faith alone. Nothing happened there, it was just a neat little thought in a tower. Oh, wait...

It wasn't you, specifically. You did seem to allude to a few potential allegations, but the real culprits are others whose "outrage" has been given fervor by the Judas Gospel. I've heard them elsewhere, in different forums and such. So far, this thread's been tame.

Certainly things come from ideas, but if the idea involves tangible elements, it's much simpler to translate those ideas into fact or fiction, or at least refine them to a stronger indication toward one or the other.

Discussing religion is tantamount to discussing the presence of black holes. We think black holes exist. We have photo-magnetic images that certainly suggest the theory is true. But can we know for sure? How do we get close enough to a black hole in order to define it without falling victim to its (supposed) forces? What if it's something else entirely? What would that do to our present understanding of physics and the universe? The mind reels!

(I draw this parallel to illustrate both sides of the coin; neither faith nor science is entirely absolute.)

Ideas can gain acceptance, and through that, power. It's by this that "salvation by faith alone" took root. But the problem remains: the entire basis for the idea and corresponding faiths is - for now - empyrically unprovable.

So what I meant, and should've clarified, is that right now, the Gospel of Judas is an idea. Like black holes. If and when we obtain better evidence to support its factuality, it's at that point that we should reexamine the implications that evidence brings. The same holds true for any part of the Bible, or any other religious text, for that matter. For lack of evidence, currently, speculation is all we have and it proves nothing.

I didn't allude to anything that hasn't been documented and known to historians for some time. The Judas Gospel was suppressed, but this wasn't uncommon in the upheaval of the early church. It's not something I would suggest Christians be ashamed over. Those were dangerous times, and it was important for Chrisitianity to retain a foothold. I don't think suppressing the Gospel was a bad thing, but it was politically motivated. The church did what it had to do to survive. No big deal.

Yes, the Gospel of Judas is an idea, but so are all the other Gospels. What you are failing to understand is that factuality doesn't have much to do with religious interpretation. All the unknowns that apply to the Gospel of Judas also apply to other Christian writings, including the entirety of the NT. This doesn't stop people from analyzing them and drawing religious meaning from them, nor should it. It's fine for you to say, from a view point that is outside Christianity (I assume), that no one should take these writings, or any religious writings seriously until we know for sure. But many religious people already *do* know with absolute certainty that they are right, that God exists, that their religious interpretation is correct. You have to add faith to the equation when you discuss these things. Science and scientific rationality do not always have a place here. I'm not sure how this all went astray, really. My initial interest was a faith-based one, not a scientific one. What does this discovery mean for the theological, faithful Christian? I didn't mean to imply that the Judas Gospel was historically or factually accurate, but rather that it exists and may influence matters of faith.

The Gospel of Judas will have little to no impact on Church doctrine. Most of Christianity denies all of the gnostic gospels as truth, and the Gospel of Judas is just another text the Christian church will add into the gnostic category.

As for it's authenticity, it probably wasn't written by Judas. But then, the names Matthew-Mark-Luke-John are only the supposed authors of those texts. Church men hundreds of years later decided to name these texts what they're called now. Plenty of non-gospel NT text is also attributed to be written by a certain person but the dates don't match up. So, the point is that authenticity doesn't matter when it comes to scripture. Judas may not be legitimate, but neither is most of the NT scripture. Of course, authenticity has never been needed to produce truth.

Actually, the most interesting message in the Gospel of Judas is how it uplifts the Jewish people of the area. It can be documented that the older the text in the New Testament, the more anti-Jewish the author is. Earlier texts start off saying that the roman authority was mostly in control of Jesus' crucifixion. Later dated texts say it was the roman authority AND the Jewish masses who condemned him. Finally the latest texts place most the blame on the Jews. This was due mostly to the Christian message being spread throughout the Roman empire, and what better way to get on the Roman's good side than by romanticizing Pilot's role ("I wash my hands of his blood") and condemning the Jew's role.

So what's interesting about the Gospel of Judas is that it now creates 2 interpretations of Judas. The traditional condemn-Judas-and-Jewish people already exists, but now we find that there were other churches, probably existing right after the death of Christ, who believed Judas was actually the beloved disciple and was following orders. Remember, history - Christian history - was complied by the winners (aka those who Canonized the Bible). A gnostic scripture is invaluable, in that it shows the other beliefs of other churchs in the early days of Christianity.

The so called gospel of Judas is just one of many Gnostic writings done during the first century. Paul writes about his problems with the Gnostics in his letters. The main point of Gnosticism is that there is some secret or hidden knowledge that people need to acquire in order to be saved. The Judas letter is full of references to such secret knowledge.

You mean like how the gospels were written well after the writers would have been alive?

Hypocrisy ++.

Go read Misquoting Jesus.

FallDragon, I'm wondering if you read ANY other posts in this thread before hitting "Reply." I gots my doubts.

QFT

Heck, most of the Bible was probably written well after their lifetimes. There is a huge credibility problem when it comes to the Bible for this and many other reasons.

As for the Gnostic stuff, if God does exist and all that, I actually think the Gnostic stuff is closer to being accurate than the mainstream Bible itself. Too many contradictions in the Bible, really.

yeah hay look i'm not rly versed (PUNTENDO) in the damn thing's historicity, but are they really contradictions if the books and their redactions are by dozens of different ppl over several centreez

i mean it's not a fucking novel you're readin

1st Point...Dead wrong.
2nd Point...Right, but the problems he wrote about were NOT about the Gnostic Gospels.

I am very suprised that so many people here have not researched the true history of the bible and Gnostic writings.
All Christian and 99% of NON Christian scholars and historians are NOW in FULL agreeance that the earliest Gnostic Gospel was written NO earlier then 150 AD...which would be approx 120 years after Jesus rose to heaven.

All Christian and 99% of NON Christian scholars and historians also AGREE that the 4 Gospels that are in the Christian bible were all written beforee 95 AD..and the only one written that late was the Gospel of John, yet it WAS written by him because he lived to a very old age and also wrote revelation.
John also followed Jesus from the first teachings to the time Jesus assended into heaven..therefore getting his info first hand.

Matthew wrote his gospel around 60 AD and followed Jesus through it all and heard him speak, as well as do miracles.
Mark wrote his gospel possibly a few years earlier and got his writings from hundreds of Jesus's followers that were all in agreeance to what was written in that gospel.
The gospel of Luke was written by Luke and he got his information similiar to Mark. Luke was a brilliant scribe and scholar (very educated). He wrote his Gospel in around 55-60 AD..and then he also went on to write the book of ACTS a year or so later.
In the entire book of ACTS, there is NO mention of the destruction of Jeruselm (70AD) or the decimation of Christians under Nero (65-70AD).

Now..since Nero(65-70AD) AND the fall of Jeruselm (70AD) is a HISTORICAL FACT...one would have to think that if Luke wrote his Gospel and the book of ACTS AFTER those happend...hey..he might just of mentioned them in his books which are in the bible...

HOWEVER....those 2 historical occurances are NOT mentioned in the bible...that being said, the gospel of Luke and the book of ACTS MUST of been written BEFORE 65 AD, which makes THOSE bible books written at least 85 YEARS earlier then ANY GNOSTIC gospel.
And if you do your research...you will see that all Christian Scholars as well as around 97% of NON Christian Scholars and historians AGREE with what I said.

My mistake..what I meant to say was that the Gnostic movement was a problem going back to the start of the church. The Catholic Church of today has embraced many Gnostic principle with its embrace of many secret and mystical practices. Many people who oppose Christianity oppose it based on their knowledge of the catholic Church and other organized religions. Yet if one were to follow the biblical precedent there would be no denominations, no priests, no Vatican. The biblical Christian church was an independent local church, governed by locally appointed elders. There was no hierarchy governing the church. Jesus himself negated the need to have a priest or go between, between God and man. We can now come to God directly, because of Jesus. These are just some of the many errors associated with Catholicism.

As to the dates of the Gospels, Supebobby is 100% correct. Not to mention all of the copies and manuscripts associated with the 4 gospels compared to the one copy found of the so called judas gospel.

The contradictions are in God's supposed actions and words throughout the Bible. In one book, he's some benevolent almighty being giving out just laws like the Ten Commandments, and then a few pages later, he's some vengeful hateful piece of garbage who wants everything that doesn't agree with him to be stoned to death (Leviticus, Corinthians).

Just doesn't make sense.

Actually, I think the Bible fits the exact definition of a historical novel. Of course believers would never agree with that, but until the contradictions are explained and there is some sign of historical accuracy in the whole Bible, I don't think any historians would ever dare consider the Bible a legitimate source of historical information or fact.

Where is Corinthians is there any stoning to death of those who don't believe? Corinthians is a New Testament book, all about forgiveness and what not. Maybe you should try reading the book before claiming to know the content.

You're forgetting the most important thing.
He is GOD. You are a mere human. He owes you NO explanation...and the reason he made some laws that included stoning, was to punish those who did not follow HIS law. What is fair to God...may not seem fair to you . His intelligents level is at a high that you cannot comprhend. Deal with it...There is NO contradiction here.


Again...totally not true, and you have nothing to back that up.
Even most NON Christian Scholars and Historians will publicly say that the bible is bar-none....one of the BEST sources of History we have for the Middle East.
The entire rise and fall of Jeruselm as well the rise and fall of the Babylonian Empire is in the bible. I could go on.
The capture and captivity of the Jews in Babylon.
Oh...and we can't forget about Solomon and all his wealth. Its ALL there in the bible.
The life, kingdom, and death of David (The most respected King in Israel's history).
The bible contains ALMOST EVERY bit of HISTORY that EVER happend in the middle east.
Non Christian Scholars will agree too. This is not something they argue about.
In fact....we are now at a point where the only thing about (Christianity and the bible) that gets argued about is the deity of Jesus and whether he rose from the dead or not. There are multiple NON Christian sources that witnessed Jesus's miracles, and instead accused him of sorcery. That being said, we know that these NON believers witnessed his POWER.

I suggest that some of you do some REAL research to the authenticity of the Gospel and the rest of the bible...You' would be very suprised.

You're forgetting the most important thing: there are people who think you are full of shit. Deal with it... The majority of the world's populous does not agree with you. Also, no amount of sudden capitalization will help you get your point across. How can you internet evangelists expect people to take them seriously when they can't even fucking spell? Well, damn, I guess grammar is only important to us mere humans.

Well, if you completely ignore anything after 10 A.D., or anything that happened outside of Israel or Egypt, you're entirely accurate. Israel is a speck in the Middle East. It is roughly 1/100th the size of Saudi Arabia, where approximately 0% of the bible takes place; never mind the land that is now Iraq, Afghanistan, Oman, Jordan, etc. It's practically a fucking Middle Eastern Almanac. Get a map for Christ's sake.

Maybe you should take up your own advice. Until you're fluent in ancient languages and want to authenticate for us, I suggest you shut the fuck up. Maybe while you're being quiet you can do some reading. Ever heard of Thomas Paine?

This is the Job bit, yes?

You know, your style is familiar. Your name is Bobby, huh? That's short for Robert, isn't it. Does anyone ever call you "Rob"? I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. Ahh, you're unmistakable.

In any case, cite for me these historians, if you will? I'm not going to take your word for that, unless you offer me a source.

Since you've apparently already done this reasarch for me, I suggest you show me your sources, citations, findings, and conclusions. They must, of course, be rigorous.

knkwzrd..If you actually ever read the bible, you'd know that ALMOST every place in the middle east is mentioned in the bible. Not just Israel and Egypt.
And yes...that would of ended at approx 65 AD.
I don't recall Afghanistan being mentioned though...I'll have to check on that.

Soulzar...right now you can find 100s of debates going on because of the Da Vinci code and all that.
People are realizing more and more how authentic the bible gospels are, and that the gnostics don't have anything to back their teachings up with. The Gnostic gospels are PROVEN to be written late (some as late as 290 AD).
The research is all over the internet, as well as many well respected speakers all over the world right now debating the whole Gnostic thing. Even Non Christian scholars are agreeing with the Christians on the authenticity of the 4 bible gospels.

Actually, if you believe the theologians that appear on the History Channel's "Banned From The Bible", the Apocrypha of Peter was considered more credible than the Revelation of John, and it was written not long after Revelations. It was on the canon's "maybe" list--as one theologian put it--while Revelations was considered for being discarded and this allowed for the Catholic church to go either way on its decision about whether or not it should be allowed in the canon. However, it is uncertain about why this gnostic book was not added since it seemed more credible than Revelations at the time, but the theologians theorized it was because of the "ultimate forgiveness".

I fail to see how this is "relevation" if true could undermind/change Christianity one way or another? Nothing would be taken away from Jesus's apparent sacrafice whether he asked Judas to betray him or not. Unless you're trying to somehow imply that Jesus's death was a suicide? This just make's the Bible a happier story. Jesus not only knew about his impeding doom, he, himself put the events in motion. Possibly to avert a greater calamity.

Then again, I don't know anything. I have my ideas, but I'm a non-believing infidel who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as his personal lord and savior. Too bad. I've heard heaven is swell. :eyebrow:

If you truly believe this, then how much arrogance do you have to have to assume that you, or anybody else for that matter knows or understands the universal truth and purpose that GOD has set out for all of us? Jesus didn't write or translate the whole bible after all.

That's a huge contradiction in your beliefs. Not one you're likely to understand given what you've said thus far.

Furthermore, how can you not comprehend that the true message could not have possibly been lost throughout the many translations/mistranslations? After all we don't know if the original words given were the original words written, which are the current words we have. Man is falliable after all.

So you expect us to believe that nearly all historians agree that John lived for over 100 years during a time when life expectancy was very short? What leads them to believe that this one person not only lived longer than average, but at least double the average, without question? I would love to know why this is obvious to them, when it defies any standard of common sense. That it is technically possible, though statistically improbable doesn't usually cut it from my experiences.

Double Post:
So basically, what we may perceive as a contradiction, with our mere human senses and potentially flawed logic don't count. They only appear to be contradictions, but since it's God, who by definition we cannot comprehend, then it doesn't have to make sense. How then can we, in good conscience, interpret God's actions, and guess at God's will, in deciding how he intended us to?

This is a point that I've heard argued against actually, or perhaps it was a similar one. But could you please point me to a non-biblical source that coroborates (sp?) the enslavement of Jews in Babylon/Egypt? I'd appreciate it.

You have to realize how false your statements about nearly all scholars etc. believing the same things, and there being nearly no debate on these issues. It's argued all the time, for all kinds of angles, and nearly every single point/issue is argued as well. It has *not* been just accepted as fact by almost all scholars, at least not in it's entirety.

I agree that it was highly unlikely that it was the same John. There was a show on the National Geographic Channel that discussed Revelations. First of all, it was unlikely that he would live for that long, especially since the John that allegedly wrote Revelations was sent to exile on a 13 acre island that had a lot of rugged terrain. Secondly, the Gospel of John was written "plain and simple" while Revelations was full of "dark and metaphorical language". There's still a chance that it could be the same John, but many theologians doubt that it's the same John.

Back up. You're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said I understand the universal truth and purpose that God has set out for all of us. I'm just stating what the bible says. No contradiction here. The biggest problem with unbelievers is that they cannot accept the fact that God is ABOVE them.
Reality check time. God IS above US, and we will never be able to fully understand or comprehend him, whether we are Christians or not. And if you read the bible, you will find that scripture CLEARLY states that God owes us nothing in the way of explanation or reasoning as to why he does the things he does. He is your almighty and everlasting GOD....not some Jo shmoe

2 Timothy 3:16
(All Scripture is "God-breathed" and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness)

Sorry, but Jesus did write the whole bible. (In a sense anyway)

The message is not lost. Even the most skeptical Non Christian Scholars admit the Gospel is 99.6% (approx) pure and athentic. The research is all over the internet. Just look for it, not too mention there are many highly respected documents that proves the authenticity of the gospel and its age.

John lived to be a very old man. It was possible in those days, although not common. However..scripture tells us that God has numbered each of our days before we were born. If God wanted John to live to an old man, then so be it, that is what he did. One thing is certain. John was exiled, and he couldn't of been exiled until at least 65 AD. Historians, know that scroll of Revelation came from where John was exiled. Going on that evidence alone, would make him 70 years old. However, there is other evidence that points out he wrote it in his 90s. I do not have the evidence handy at the moment, but I assure you, it does exist.

Why do you see a contradiction? If you read the bible from start to finish and study it, even as a human being, you will realize there are no contradictions in the bible. The bible is clear in its message.

I just did a yahoo search on this and found over 200 sources from NON Christian sites that talk about Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and everything else that happened in their captivity. This is real history whether you want to believe it or not. I looked into about 6 or 7 of them.
Its only argued about from people who don't do the full research. Do some searches..you'd be surprised what is out there.


It is the same John, and I don't know what theologians you are talking about. I've never even heard that.
The bible itself makes that fact unquestionable.

I'm not going to enter this argument, but I would like to advise you on something.

SuperBobby, generally in an argument you should back up your claims with evidence. Simply saying "it's common knowledge that all scholars belive that 99.6 percent of the bible is accurate history" etc... without posting actual links to this information discredits you.

Instead of saying "I did a yahoo search and got 200 results on this," maybe actually post a few of these links?

I mean, this forum is set up for intelligent, credible debates.

Don't be so modest.

"and the reason he made some laws that included stoning, was to punish those who did not follow HIS law"

Sounds like you have a pretty good grasp of "God's purpose". As for the universal truth; I was referring to the manner in which you refer to the Bible. After all you believe that the bible is God's word handed down to man, and God is the only absolute truth of the universe.

Now you claim to understand what non-believers think? Or are you just referring to what you've been told to think about non-believers?

I know there's no room for debate or openmindedness when talking religion, but I interpet that as it make's the bible "inspired by God". That doesn't make it infallible. It was compiled by man, thus it is fallible. Otherwise I'd really like to know the reason why a good 20 years of Jesus's life was omited as somehow not important. This is my own personal lord and savior we're talking about here.


That's a matter of faith. Namely, your faith. Everything you read on the internet isn't true. Man is still fallible so there's still a chance that even if every person agreed they could all be wrong if they aren't on the path of righteousness. Religion is an endless cycle of contradictions. A game of pick and choose what serves your faith best.

Ahh, don't listen to me. It's really easy to criticize and mock. I'm just here to undermind and test that faith. I SERVE THE DARK ONE!

Not if you look at the way the original texts of both books were written, then the format alone disproves that theory. Now, if you want to take a look at the National Geographic Channel or the History Channel and watch "Secrets From the Bible" or "Decoding the Past" then you'd probably get a chance to see the theologians from Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Cal. Tech, etc. and hear their discussions about the issue.

The Gospel of Judas Iscariot would succeed in generating arguments at best. It won't change the overall Faith, but it's bound to raise a few heads and influence legions of Christians to voice their outrage and/or disbelief.

If anything, it'll make Christians turn to their beliefs even further. For all they know, the recent events have already been preordained and they feel their Faith is being tested, so as a result, expect Christians to disprove of these new, "Hey, what if..." statements. But I am intrigued. History does tend to change, and religious beliefs are no different.

Only it's just easier for people to keep things the way they are. But is it plausible for the overall view of Judas to change? Yes, it is. Remember, Christians were once the minority. But their numbers grew. While I doubt a minority number of people praising Judas will intensify, it can over time and it can operate.

Considering I'm debating against pretty much everyone, I'd be looking up and citing text all day. I just don't have time to cite everything. If someone is truely interested in 1 or 2 things, then I don't finding some documents.

Thats what they tell me. I've asked several times. Most non believers tell me they can't stand the thought of some God being above and in control of them.

Faith definitely plays a part here.
I fully Believe the bible as inerrant.
As to why Jesus's early life was not in the bible..you'll have to ask God about that, although, there is a quick bit on when he was 12 years of age. Anyway..if God thought it was important for us to know any 'other' details of Jesus's life, you can bet its in the Gospels.


Again, this isn't about believing everything you read on the internet. I've read all sorts this stuff from "several" reputable Christian sites, to "several" reputable NON Christian sites, and then gone and read physical documents for study and have been able to match up some very good evidence in all 3 areas of source material. Most of this has already been brought forth by many scholars (christian, and non christian). And again, I'm not going to spend hours presenting it here. I just don't have that kind of time. sorry.
So you can either believe me that I'm just trying to debate or I'm a liar. Either way, as a Christian, I don't rely on lying to get my point across.

I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but if not, then you probably won't understand this anyway.
It is unquestionable that revelation and john are written in 2 different formats. Lets understand something here. The FIRST 3 CHAPTERS in Revelation are written no different then the gospel of John. The context only changes in CHAPTER 4 and then remains that way. In chapter 4 of Revelation, John is 'taken' in "spirit" to heaven where he witnesses the END TIMES and watches Jesus reveal Judgments on the earth. Now...considering heaven is a spiritual realm and we have NO idea the exact form it takes, we also have no real idea how things will look. John probably had a heck of a time trying to describe what he saw in heaven, because he would of never seen ANYTHING like it on earth. Also, he was in exile. He had to get this document to the Christians without being caught, so he had to write it in a manner that would not make it obvious what he was doing...so he symbolized most of Revelation and wrote it in a different format.

True bible believing Christians have the same view they had 2000 years ago...period.

I can see your viewpoint with the John argument, but I'm still going to consider the theologians as well. I'm a non-denominational Christian, just for reference.

Not exactly. Christians in Europe invented Christmas way after the birth of Christ in order to compete against the carnival-style celebration of Yule. Americans didn't embrace Christmas until the 1800's. Before then, they used to think that the winter holidays was for Paganistic worship, but the whole competition over Paganism and the turmoil of unemployment changed the views of the winter holidays into something worth celebrating.

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibi...mas/real4.html

At the moment I'm not trying to argue with you. What I would like is to read the sources you have, both Christian and non-Christian which give the 99%+ statistic you've been using, and some regarding the non-biblical evidence of jewish slavery in Egypt. I'm especially curious about the latter.

Thanks in advance for the time and effort in enlightening me.

Type "history on Jews in Captivity in Babylon" into the Yahoo search engine exactly as I have it. The first few pages are loaded with great historical documents.

As for your first point, just do a search on Da Vinci Code debates.
You'll have enough info on Gospel authenticity to last you into next year.

Visavi...I said "true BIBLE believing Christians."
Believe it or not, celebrating Christmas on DEC 25th really has nothing to do with being a Christian. Its an irrelevant point.

Has it ever struck you that "bible believing Christians" have been killing eachother since the time of Jesus over what the bible means? There is no one true interpretation of the bible. Other Christians can (gasp!) have a different opinion than you and still believe in the bible.

Also, stop assuming you're the only one who has ever studied religion. I've had 16 years of education with a Christian slant, including bible studies, and I still think you are a twat.

Um...no....REAL Christians don't kill each other over anything...16 years of education would tell you that.

Partially true. There are some areas of the bible that some Christian groups slightly differ from others. However, the MAIN points, like Jesus as the divine Messiah, and him being the only way to heaven, are NOT argued about by any Christian.
And the smaller conflicts do NOT hurt Christianity and its beliefs in any way.

I never assumed or said that, but I can see most people haven't read many of the documents out there by both Christian and Non Christian scholars/historians. If they had, we wouldn't be argueing the authenticity of the gospels.

Please don't resort to flaming. I can still kick your arse at any videogame out there. I'm not living under a blanket.:)

I wasn't flaming. The twat comment, when read in context,was just an extension of the main point that you have a very narrow understanding of "REAL Christians", as you put it. Anyhow, I won't be posting again in this thread. It's hopeless.

I looked over them, and didn't see the word "gnostic" anywhere, so I thought to add that perspective of looking on non-canonized scripture. Please reply to me with something meaningful next time.

This is incorrect. In the book "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman, he quotes "1 Clement" being dated ca. 98, "The Didache" ca. 100, the "Epistle of Barnabas" ca. 135. 9 other texts he dates to "Early 2nd c.", as opposed to Mid or Late, which implies 100-133 AD range, I would assume. So no, you are wrong, or else provide proof.

It's amusing how you say "EVERYONE AGREES ALL 4 WERE WRITTEN BEFORE 95 AD... except John <.<"...

---------
From Wikipedia:
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
----------

Yes, the 4 gospels date back later than most gnostic/non-canon scripture. But keep in mind, most gnostic/non-canon scriptures were BURNED AND DESTROYED by the later-to-be Catholic church since the churches were competing for followers. Comparing dates isn't an appropriate way to judge "truth."

That's because it's one of the only existing sources. It wins by default, not by being an amazingly accurate document.

Yes, the Bible talks about things that happened, congratulations. But sometimes, the dates and order of events don't match up. It's amazing how you've provided no evidence for anything you've posted so far. Are you trying to imitate God, in that faith in your rants is necessary for belief instead of evidence?

Well, from the viewpoint of the author, "scripture" meant Old Testament scripture, not what he was writing. He was saying "The Ancient Jewish Texts are God-breathed etc..." This doesn't credit the NT as being God-breathed. Well, unless you believe the New Testament was meant to be understood only from our present-day perspective; an error than many Bible-thumpers make in their supposedly unbiased interpretation.

What this translates to: I make shit up, and then claim it to be true, so I'm not worth debating.

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that during the canonization of the Bible, the church fathers almost didn't include the text because of what it says. This means the canonization of the Bible was up to the discretion of men, not the discretion of God. Which then means, the message of the Bible may or may not be what God intended, since it was decided by MAN what the "correct" message would be.

Really? I guess they do things differently in your denomination, because I know a lot of the denominations in this part of the country consider Christmas to be one of the most important milestones of Christianity (other than Baptisms/Christenings and Easter)

This obviously being because whichever side loses isn't a bunch of real Christians. :tpg:

If you can waste hours of your time by writing up long arguments per post, I think you can give another 5 or so minutes to linking a site or listing a research document.

I'm not here to read bullshit. For the amount of effort that you've put into every one of your posts here, you've lacked in giving 1 credible resource for your claims (saying "I read it somewhere else" does not count, okay?) and for either the ridiculous 99-something percentage you always bring up. Be serious.

I'm not trying to get into the debate here ("Then why are you in this thread, amirite?"), but I wanted to point out some very interesting things said when I read through the Gospel of Judas, specifically through the PDF available as the National Geographic's Translation available HERE

First interesting observation: Page 2:
This implies several things:
1. That Judas had knowledge of Gnostic concepts and ideas.

2. Barbelo is a Gnostic term which refers to the first emmnation of god in Sethian Gnostic cosmogonies. As it was said that Jesus is supposed to be from the immortal realm of Barbelos, this can be interpreted that he knows Jesus came from Heaven ("The immortal realm") of God ("Barbelos").

3. Sethians were an ancient group of Gnostics who probably existed before Christianity [1].

4. That he said that Jesus comes from the Immortal realm of Barbelos is significant, because it presents a somewhat conflicting viewpoint. Traditionally Creationists have stated that God created the Universe from nothing, that his will was the force that drove what exists now into becoming and into existing. On the otherhand, since Barbelos refers to the first emanation of God.
Emanation is defined as a concept oncept that explains the creation of the world by a series of radiations, or emanations, originating in the godhead. Godhead being defined as the Christian God, the holy Trinity.

However, from the same article about emanations: "In the history of Western thought it has been to some extent, as in Neoplatonism (Since emanation is a characteristic term also associated with Neoplatonism), opposed to the Judeo-Christian conception of creation, in which the eternal God makes all from nothing."

Oddly enough, this presents a scientific reasoning two thousand years earlier then it would have been understood properly. Emanations are also "Any of several radioactive gases that are isotopes of radon and are products of radioactive decay."

What this all Suggests is that the Chrisitan God created the universe possibly via the Big Bang Theory. Obviously there are some fundamental holes in this, such as to why Judas says he is from the realm of Barbelos, when Barbelos is a term for an emanation of God, the first specifcally. Since it states it is the first, logically it can be assumed that there are more then one emanations. If the theory that God created the universe via emanations (Radioactive Gasses) is plausable, then why is there reference to multiple emanations? One possiability is that the Gnostics simply thought there were more then one emissions from god. Another is that while the creation of the universe was ONE such Emanation, the deliverance of Jesus Christ to Earth via a virgin birth was another such Emanation.

"To explain the relation of a totally transcendent God to a finite and imperfect world, the belief in emanation denies that God directly created the world but maintains rather that the world is the result of a chain of emergence through emanations." This definition taken from Answers.com on Emanation, also would explain why Barbelos is refered to as the "First" emanation, and why multiple emissions are possible."

Continuing:
"[i]From God (the One, or the Absolute), the one prime principle, flows the divine substance; his own substance never lessens. As the flow proceeds farther from God, however, its divinity steadily decreases.[i]" The most important part is that the Divinity decreases. Jesus was human, no doubts there, so he would be less divine then his father, being God. Makes sense.

Continuing again, and with an interesting analogy:
"When a stone is dropped into water, the circles ever widening from the point (God) where the stone fell are emanations, becoming fainter and fainter. Emanation never ceases, the whole process moving continuously outward from God." This would be consitent with the principle that God is somewhat in all of everything, that since he is the source of all creation, all of creation (The universe) has a small bit of divinity of God.

This Gospel is very interesting indeed, and for various reasons not quite seen before.

I KNOW I probably messed up on some things and many of you may be still confused, but It was nonetheless an interesting obseration I found, and one that shows Judas may have known more then history lets on.

Jesus then talks more about some Gnostic concepts, the most obvious being Yaldabaoth, on Page 5. I don't have the energy to diluge into discussions about those
more obvious observations of inter-use of Gnostic concepts.

Anyway, thoughts on my observations? I wholy acknowledge there are some assumptions and errors, the most blantant being the validity of this entire "Gospel".

What is the function of the quotation marks you've used here?

After reading a rather lengthy Washington Post article concerning Mr. Ehrman and his book, I don't even think that it is worth discussing. Mr. Ehrman is not a believer (it is recorded in the article that he is an agnostic) and therefore I would hold him incapable of telling the truth concerning God.

He has an axe to grind against the Christ of faith.
I have seen Muslims use his work as a defense of their position of the unreliability of the Injeel (gospel). Not to mention Ehrman has next to nothing in the way of sources to back up anything he says. None of his articles use much in the way of sources at all. He is trying to rewrite the history of Christianity to what he THINKS is right..instead of using the proper historical documents and truth.

I said the other 3 were all written around 60AD give or take a few years. John was written in 95 AD at the LATEST. 90AD is a more agreed on figure by most scholars.

Wikipedia has been known on SEVERAL occasions to be unreliable. And in this case, the above statement is out to lunch. 'Luke' could NOT have been written that late. Its impossible, as I mentioned Luke also wrote the book of ACTS which is commonly known to be written AFTER the Gospel of 'Luke'. That being said..if ACTS was written after Luke, it ALSO would of been written 80-100 AD, and in that case, the book would of contained history on Nero (65-70AD) and the fall of Jeruselm (70AD).

The reason they were burned because they were blasphemes and complete trash.

You admit then that it is a source of history. Now we're getting somewhere.

If you go by the bible alone, the dates ALL match up. If you bring in outside sources, then there are some SMALL discrepancies, but nothing that is a big issue for the reliability of it all.

It means 'God's Word'. In other words, the "whole bible".

When you use moronic sources like the Ehrman guy, then yes. Go to a Christian debate Forum and bring him up. You'll be shot to pieces in 5 minutes. And there, you will get proven sources.

Completely wrong. The book of Revelation and 1 or 2 of Pauls letter's were up for debate. NONE of the 4 Gospels EVER were considered being tossed out. That is a fact if you do your research.

Christmas is a very important celebration in the church, and for Christians. What I was trying to get at is the fact that is has very little to do with your personal walk with God as a Christian, or your eternal salvation.

You do not need to believe in Christ in order to do an anthropological study.

Oh My God. Are you saying you know more than Bart Ehrman?

Summary of Curriculum Vitae

* Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
* M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
* B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

Principal Areas of Research Interest: New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers;

Secondary Areas of Interest: Jewish-Christian Relations in Antiquity; Greco-Roman Religions; Christianization of the Roman World.

Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University.

Prof. Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. Since then he has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press).

Prof. Ehrman has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field.

Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Those are Bart Ehrman's credentials. Can I see yours now? Please, enlighten me.
You're the expert, remember?

Yes, and you know this because you've read them, right?
I remember this one time, me and Jesus were baking some cookies, and he let me read the texts.

By the bible alone? Hahahahahaahahahahahfshgdgfdklnasfgsjhdhsedlizhurg fxjiofstrey465zsfdtr
Sorry, was laughing a little too hard. That's like saying "Well, if you're in my room, and you close your eyes, based on hearing alone, it's a circus!"
Doesn't mean it's a fucking circus, now does it? Doesn't mean you should turn this thread into a giant circus either.


The Bible is not the word of God. Sorry, not anymore it isn't. Remember the telephone game? Well try playing that for a few centuries. It's NOT the word of God. It's not even what it was in the beginning. The Bible in a whole, is tainted.


Yes, while I'm at it, I'm going to a forum about Satanism and I'll preach the word of God to them. I'll convince them that God is their saviour, and they'll be rational about it.

How about you do me a huge fucking favour? YOU give me proven sources. You're playing this hide-and-seek-because-I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-I'm-talking-about-and-I-don't-want-to-look-like-an-idiot game.

What eternal salvation? I've got it right here, it's called alcohol.

So hey, like, wasn't the bible canonized by the Romans?

I dunno. Maybe the Emperor and a couple of dudes with funny hats know more about the truth of God than anybody else did.

Constantine and the Council of Nicea.

And most likely. HORSEHAIR CREST FOREVER.

The stoning isn't in Corinthians, the stoning is in Leviticus. Corinthians more or less "backs it up" by saying all the people who were declared as being fit for execution in Leviticus "won't inherit the kingdom of God".

The reason I mentioned it is because some people like to say the Bible isn't as strict as people say because the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. I bring up Corinthians because it's in the New Testament and still validates the so-called "evils" of many things said to be as such in Leviticus. I would give a quote, but the Book of Leviticus is far too long for this forum, and the entire thing has all sorts nonsense in it. I will quote Corinthians for you, though:

1 Corinthians 6:9
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"

Not quite as bad as Leviticus, mind you, but it's still there. Leviticus targets many more people, including saying such garbage like women on their periods are tainted (something to that effect), asking for animal sacrifices, prostitutes getting stoned to death, adulterers getting stoned to death, lots of people getting stoned to death, all sorts of crap.

The contradiction is that, how funny, very few of those things are mentioned in the Ten Commandments. As such, I'd say that's a good indication that someone decided to create some of their own laws and falsely claim that God told them they were his laws. This is why I don't subscribe to Christianity or Catholicism. If there weren't millions of followers, both would be cults! After all the only difference between a cult and a religion are the number of people who believe in it . . .

@SuperBobby: Sorry, but I have never heard of even one legitimate non-Christian or non-Catholic scholar or historian out there who considers the bible to be a historical text. If you'd be so kind as to give names . . .

I think this discovery could serve to open the eyes of a lot of Sheeple who just unquestionably follow the Church. The Church basically got together and picked the books that wouldn't lead to people questioning church doctrine. I believe somewhere in the canonical Gospels, Judas is told by Jesus to do what must be done. We never know what this is, but the Gospel of Judas seems to gel with what is in the Gospels. It is a logical idea that the other disciples would view Judas as a traitor if they didn't know he had been instructed by Jesus to turn him in.

Double Post:
In order to get converts, Christians basically stole other people's holy days. Christmas was a celebration of the winter solstice. Easter was the rites of... uh... Belltaine? Something to that effect. It was basically a time to worship the goddess of fertility to the Celts. Halloween and All Saint's Day were originally Samhain. History proves that Jesus of Nazareth was born in the spring.

Do you think the date or the meaning behind the ceremonies is what's important?

True, but you can't have a vendetta against it either.

Reznor, you're comments aren't even worth replying to, but I'll say this:
I don't care how many degrees he has. His mission is to belittle the Christian faith and doing it without real proof..nothing more. Therefore he is not a reliable source. Like I said...go to some Christian forums where they have a few scholars there. They'll give you sources and proof that he is a liar.
And yes, those other gospels did NOT have enough proof or reliable sources that they were valid. That is why they never made it into the bible.

You obviously know NOTHING about the preservation of the bible over the last 2000 years +. You are clueless.
You probably haven't even heard of the Dead Sea scrolls found in 1948. When they translated the OT book of Isaiah 58 years ago from the DS scrolls, they compared it to the 'then current' Isaiah in the bible and found the meaning had been preserved PERFECTLY. And if you have any real knowledge in studying this sort of thing, you would know that. Not to mention, Isaiah is arguably one of the most important books in the Old Testament.
Alcohol??? Yeah I figured as much.

Sorry, but don't fucking say "PROOF" in a religious debate.
Faith = Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Been so preferved perfectly that Lucifer still remains in the bible? Right?

How about you do like I said. How about you REFUTE what he has said. I never said Christian forums. I said YOU. Can you fucking read?

I guess not if you're reading a fucking bible. $500 says your knuckles drag on the floor.

No of course I haven't heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I still have black and white television.

Who, precisely, is "they"? If it's a faction of Christians whose faith stood to lose credibility due to discrepancies between the printed Gospel and the Scrolls, then it would make sense to me that "they" would just nod their heads and say "Yup. This matches perfectly. Yes, it does.", knowing that there are/was precious few who had both access and the ability to decipher the scrolls themselves enough to argue.

I'm not saying that this DID happen, but when you say "they", it would help if you were more specific. Names, affiliations, etc. Otherwise, as far as I know, it was just a special "damage control" team that told us they were congruous.

Says who?

That does not follow. That logical fallacy is called an ad hominem attack. You must prove his arguments to be weak on the basis of facts, rather than on some presumption of bias. It doesn't matter what his bias is, as long as his evidece, assumptions, and conclusions hold up under scrutiny. I've said it before, and I will say it again. Learn how to debate!

So why can't you do exactly that, and then bring those sources here for us? You can feed the "I don't have time..." line as long as you like, but you're the one trying to convince us here. None of us has any personal stake in trying to prove the alternate point of view, which puts the onus on you, sir.

I would have to point out that although not enough proof could be found to satisfy the far-from-impartial scholars who were responsible for the canon Bible, that does not mean that they are not valid. It simply means that they have not been proved valid. You should have learned that distinction in high-school.
Even if this process of comparison were acknowledged to be entirely free of bias, and to have been conducted in a fair and even handed manner, the book of Isaiah is only one of many. Proving that one book has not been altered might imply that the others have not been, but it cannot prove it.

What would be your point? It is an important book, I understand why just as wel as you do, and I don't deny that fact. However, what does that prove? It's certainly not the most important book of the Old Testament, and even if it were, it still can't be taken as a representative sample, when the books of the bible have been subjected to such different treatment over the years. You know perfectly well that prior to the definition of the canon Bible, the various books that comprise it had been in the keeping and stewardship of many different groups for years prior to that. Any one of them might have introduced deliberate distortions during the process of copying by hand, and we would never know.

Again..this shows that there is very little research done by anyone here.
The original dead sea scrolls have been translated by so many groups, I couldn't even mention them all.
And many of those groups are not Christian, so you can toss that theory out.
Who says Isaiah is one of the most important books??? Lets see...We have a perfectly translated copy of Isaiah that prophesized the coming of CHRIST 700 years prior to when it happened, Then as it is written in the Gospels, it happened EXACTLY that way....including his birth, life, death, and ressurection.. If that aint important, then I don't know what is.
I've given great links and searches that will put the proof of everything I say. I don't have time to cut and past and cite all these sources. I have no reason to lie to anyone.
Alright...lets give this to you another way. Lets say today I put 4 apples in front of you...and we both agree that they are red. We publish an article about our findings. Then 150 years from now, someone reads our article and puts out a new article saying the apples were ACTUALLY all green. The gospels are no different. The 4 gospels written in the first century were AGREED upon by the VERY early church (thousands of people). There was NO reason to add anymore gospels to the bible 150 years later. The most authentic writings were already in place. And some of these people who agreed to the 4 gospels were eye witnesses or were the children of eyewitnesses. Here is an example of a VERY early witness.
2 Peter 1:16
(We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.)
That was written around 60 AD or so.
And yes...Isaiah is only one of many books, and the dead sea scrolls contain other books of the bible. I just used that one, because its one of my favorite in the OT as well as one of the main prophesies for the coming of Christ.

As to your last statement...this is where its better to be a believer. GOD has his hand in EVERYTHING and the believer will trust in him. By faith, I will tell you, There is nothing in the bible that God doesn't want to be there. And everything he wants in there...IS.

I don't know about this guy or anything, but if you have proof that his dates are wrong that are reasonably undisputed, maybe you'd have something there. I don't think you do, becides "most scholars say".

You have not provided any links in this thread. I ran the search, but my cursory look at some of the sites didn't really help me. If you could please provide links to sites discussing non-biblical proof of the Exodus from Egypt I'd very much appreciate it. Having done so much research into things, your input would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a site that mentions a lack of proof outside of the bible. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm

Your turn.

Problem is, I can't find anything on his sites or any other site that shows his sources...Pretty much everyone else who talks about him says the same thing to. Most people have come to the conclusion he has made most of his stuff up. He has no source or proof in his own articles. What good is that?

Ah....now you got something we can really debate. Unfortunately, Christians....or anybody for that matter does NOT have any real evidence for the Exodus from Egypt.

However......
One of the most common theories among Christians is the 'embarrasment' issue. History tells us very CLEARLY that the culture of the Egyptians would not have apprieciated telling the world the fact that they were taken down by someone else's God in the Red Sea.
The may very well have just kept it to themselves.
Not to mention the God had placed plague after plague on them just prior to the Exodus. There wouldn't have been much trade or travel in and out of Egypt for the immediate thereafter. Not to mention a huge % of the Egyptians were killed by God at that time.

Now...if you believe the Gospels inerrantly (which I do), Jesus clearly tells a story about the 5 books of Moses. One of those books is Exodus. The others are Genesis, Lev, Num, Deut.....That being said. We know Jesus fully approved of the 1st 5 books of the bible including Exodus, therefore people understood everything that happened in them was the TRUTH...including the Exodus.

Other then that, I have NO proof for the Exodus.

Here is the passage from Abraham that shows the 5 books were approved by God.

Luke 16: 19-31
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

BTW....this is a passage that if people truely listened to, they might stop and think....

You're a fine one to talk, Bobby. I'd be ashamed to mouth such hypocrisy if were me.

Answer this...
How am I supposed to argue evidence when the other person has none.
If he had some sources of his own, then I'd use the appropriate sources to match them...providing its not to time consuming of course.
He basically just lectures people with whatever comes out of his mouth.

So, we have learned that the Gospel of Judas Iscariot will give us lots of back and forth arguing, but nothing productive.

Preach it, brother!