The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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 thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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:

Quote:

"Judas [said] to him, "I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you."

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 kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

I've read all sorts this stuff from "several" reputable Christian sites, to "several" reputable NON Christian sites

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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

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.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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.

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).

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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."

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

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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

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

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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?

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.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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.

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

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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

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.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Visavi

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)

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Some Zealot

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

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.

Originally Posted by Some Tard

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Some Moron

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

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.

Originally Posted by Some Idiot

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Some Douchebag

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Wesker

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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:

Originally Posted by Visavi

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)

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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.

Originally Posted by reznor

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Rob

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.

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.

Quote:

Isaiah is arguably one of the most important books in the Old Testament.

Says who?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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!

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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'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.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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

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".

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

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".

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?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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....

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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?

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Preach it, brother!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.