Originally posted by jonathanyong truth or fake? what does everyone think?
There were many gospels written in the early christian era that did not make it into the bible for one reason or another. Were they fake? No. They were written by people who believed them to be true. They contain as much truth as the four gospels that eventually did make it into the bible.
Originally posted by rwingett There were many gospels written in the early christian era that did not make it into the bible for one reason or another. Were they fake? No. They were written by people who believed them to be true. They contain as much truth as the four gospels that eventually did make it into the bible.
I disagree. that is why the book is a best seller. It has some truth and most of it contains fictions which is of man's imagination. This is a deception to those who do not know the word.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
18 Apr '06 09:20
Originally posted by jonathanyong truth or fake? what does everyone think?
As far as I can see the churches have made no attempt to refute the gospel. All the pope could say was "he was an evil man; he was a betrayor".
Well I'm glad he settled that. Now all the Catholics can be contented that their spiritual leader using dazzling reasoning skills falsified the entire document.
Here is an article that appeared in my state paper. It was written by the head of the anti- abortionist and counter feminist movement. Its a real laugh. Watch out for the anti evolution sentiments too...lol!
A fishy story about Judas
The “discovery” of the “Gospel of Judas”, makes me nostalgic for India where in every bazaar there are con men trying to sell everything from “genuine” paintings like the Mona Lisa to equally “genuine” ruby bracelets. When I point out to the enthusiastic salesman that his painting could not possibly be the Mona Lisa because it is hanging in the Louvre, Paris, quite unabashed he will say “But Madam, this is a genuine fake, painted by the best artist in Delhi”.
The Judas “Gospel” is like that - a genuine fraud. Religion-revisionist stories surface around Christmas or Easter, in the New York Times or the Melbourne Age. First we had the fish fossil , Tiktaalik roseae, from the Canadian arctic, which could live on land or water, and had wrists just like us. It is Darwin’s missing link (one of the many which are still missing) which proves conclusively that God did not create the world. Well that’s the spin the New York Times puts on it anyway.
Then there was the Florida scientist who said Jesus didn’t really walk on water. He walked on ice: there was an unusual cold snap 2,000 years ago that froze the Sea of Galilee. Of course Peter also walked on water before his lack of faith sank him. Perhaps the ice cracked up, like this theory cracks me up.
Next is the National Geographic, all agog over a newly discovered ‘Gospel of Judas’. “It totally changes our view of history’s greatest traitor” says the publicity blurb. In this document written around 130 - 170 AD, long after the events it purports to describe, Jesus is revealed as having urged Judas to betray him. That a number of Judas’ contemporaries said otherwise in the Gospels written much closer to the events matters not to sceptics, nor the fact that although the latest translation of the Judas Gospel may be new, its existence has been known for hundreds of years. It was condemned as a fraud by the early Church fathers as were many other productions of the Gnostic sect. Gnosis is a Greek word meaning secret. Conspiracy theories always have appeal - think about the moon landings or September 11, 200l.
I enjoy the story on a CWN news blog, 8/4/06, of another “New Gospel Discovered: Archeological researchers in New Jersey discover an ancient Christian document that offers a radically new account of the founding of the Catholic Church.
”The newly discovered document, ‘The Gospel of Skip and Muffy’ was found in an abandoned house which formerly housed a Rutgers sorority.
”Theologians and anthropologists agree ‘The Gospel of Skip and Muffy’ is likely to cause intense debate among Christians, forcing a complete re-examination of all Catholic teachings.
”There is no debate, however, about the authenticity of the document. It was typed on an IBM Selectric II, according to Dr. Ernest Litewaite, professor of Contemporary Archeology at Kutztown. Using a Courier 72 10-pitch element, the document is believed to be a copy of an earlier statement crafted by students at an East Coast private college around 1970.
” ‘The Gospel of Skip and Muffy’ is an extended dialogue between two young theologians who take a new approach to the faith. The document suggests that young Christians of the 1970s generation did not accept Church teachings on some moral issues.
”B.F.D. Zeitgeist, a Professor of Serious Christianity at Dupont University, said the ‘Gospel of Skip and Muffy’ will force Christians to re-examine the nature of Church authority. He pointed to one key passage in the manuscript:
” ‘The Church is—I mean—it’s just a bunch of, like, rules and stuff,’ said Muffy.
’Yeah,’ Skip replied.....
”Ultraconservative Catholic officials may not accept the validity of the new Gospel.... Msgr. Pius Grümbling, a pastor in Hoboken, replied to queries by saying: ‘We do not accept the validity of this document.’
”Professor Zeitgeist says...’This document will force Christians to re-examine their moral principles, starting with the outmoded taboo preventing teachers from having affairs with their students’.
”Professor Litewaite said he had found the manuscript of ‘The Gospel of Skip and Muffy’ several months ago. ‘The significance of the discovery was immediately obvious, but my publicist suggested that I wait until Holy Week to make it public.’”
Originally posted by jonathanyong I disagree. that is why the book is a best seller. It has some truth and most of it contains fictions which is of man's imagination. This is a deception to those who do not know the word.
The Da Vinci Code was a bestseller too. How much truth do think was in it? Perhaps the deception is on those who blindly accept the 'word.'
Originally posted by jonathanyong I disagree. that is why the book is a best seller. It has some truth and most of it contains fictions which is of man's imagination. This is a deception to those who do not know the word.
Originally posted by rwingett There were many gospels written in the early christian era that did not make it into the bible for one reason or another. Were they fake? No. They were written by people who believed them to be true. They contain as much truth as the four gospels that eventually did make it into the bible.
Depends on what you mean by 'truth'.
The NatGeo G.Judas was transcribed c.300 AD. Assuming it was the same G.Judas that Iranaeus talked about c.180 AD, it's date of composition is still about half a century after the last of the four canonical gospels were written. So, common sense dictates that it contains less [historical] truth than the four canonical gospels.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Depends on what you mean by 'truth'.
The NatGeo G.Judas was transcribed c.300 AD. Assuming it was the same G.Judas that Iranaeus talked about c.180 AD, it's date of composition is still about half a century after the last of the four canonical gospels were written. So, common sense dictates that it contains less [historical] truth than the four canonical gospels.
So Paul's Letter to the Corinthians contains more truth than the Gospel of John? Is that how it works in your opinion? Whichever is the oldest contains the most truth?
Originally posted by rwingett So Paul's Letter to the Corinthians contains more truth than the Gospel of John? Is that how it works in your opinion? Whichever is the oldest contains the most truth?
I'm not saying it's an absolute law - more a rule of thumb or heuristic - something that I would expect to hold all else being equal.
Corinthians and John are not exactly comparable, are they? I mean, they belong to two distinct genres of literature.
Originally posted by lucifershammer I'm not saying it's an absolute law - more a rule of thumb or heuristic - something that I would expect to hold all else being equal.
Corinthians and John are not exactly comparable, are they? I mean, they belong to two distinct genres of literature.
The main objection to the choice of the four gospels is they contradict one another. They can't all be right if one book says Jude was an ok kind of guy and not three books later, he's the devil incarnate.
Originally posted by sonhouse The main objection to the choice of the four gospels is they contradict one another. They can't all be right if one book says Jude was an ok kind of guy and not three books later, he's the devil incarnate.
They do [apparently] contradict each other on some factual matters - but none of the Gospels says Judas was "an ok kind of guy". Mark, considered by many to be the earliest of the canonical gospels, mentions Judas three times (3:19, 14:10 and 14:43). In the first two citations, Mark explicitly says that Judas betrays Jesus; the third citation is the actual kiss in the garden.
EDIT: And I cannot see how the word "betray" implies "an ok kind of guy", do you?
Originally posted by rwingett The [b]Da Vinci Code was a bestseller too. How much truth do think was in it? Perhaps the deception is on those who blindly accept the 'word.'[/b]
Generally in my point of view if anything which considers anything to be a best seller then there is simply less truth in it because it is always the people's imaginations that will make the book or movie interesting. And the word is the Truth whether you like it or not.
Originally posted by jonathanyong Generally in my point of view if anything which considers anything to be a best seller then there is simply less truth in it because it is always the people's imaginations that will make the book or movie interesting. And the word is the Truth whether you like it or not.
Gospel of Judas
17 Apr '06 09:22
Back to Top