The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Cal

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

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.

Originally Posted by Cal

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

The bible contains ALMOST EVERY bit of HISTORY that EVER happend in the middle east.

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

He is GOD. You are a mere human. He owes you NO explanation.

This is the Job bit, yes?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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:

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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:

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

The capture and captivity of the Jews in Babylon.

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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?

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

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.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

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.

Its only argued about from people who don't do the full research. Do some searches..you'd be surprised what is out there.

Originally Posted by Visavi

There's still a chance that it could be the same John, but many theologians doubt that it's the same John.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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. .

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

The biggest problem with unbelievers is that they cannot accept the fact that God is ABOVE them.

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?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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)

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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!

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Watts

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Visavi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomzilla

[I] History does tend to change, and religious beliefs are no different.
.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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

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

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

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Has it ever struck you that "bible believing Christians" have been killing eachother since the time of Jesus over what the bible means?

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

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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.

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.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

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,

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.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

and I still think you are a twat.

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

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Jerrica

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

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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."

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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.

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

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

Non Christian Scholars will agree too. This is not something they argue about.

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?

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

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

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.

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

Even the most skeptical Non Christian Scholars admit the Gospel is 99.6% (approx) pure and athentic.

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

Originally Posted by SuperBobby

It is unquestionable that revelation and john are written in 2 different formats.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.