PDA

View Full Version : Gospel of Judas



Drop1
04-06-2006, 12:58 PM
A Third or Fourth Century Coptic manuscript authenticated,and translated,and displayed at Nationl Geographic Headquarters.
The Papyrus manuscript known as a Codex has been subjected to radio carbon dating,ink analysis,multispectral Imaging,and paleographic evidence. I will leave it to you to research what is written. Start with "Gospel of Judas" on Yahoo.

hondo
04-07-2006, 09:59 AM
Have you ever read some of the books in
the Nag Hamadi Library? Some fascinating reading.

Drop1
04-07-2006, 11:54 AM
Yes I think the Book of Philip,is of great intrest,especially the questions of Peter,to Jesus,concerning Mary Magdalen. These are books discovered in Egypt,and kept apart from the creation of the Bible by the selective censorship of the First Council of Bishops set by Constantine. The divinity of Jesus was still a subject of debate,as late as the early Fourth Century. The Church gave us the Myth of Jesus,and now we are beginning to know the Historical Jesus. Faith is the road of self knowledge,and not the end. Those who claim Jesus,but do not seek Jesus,will never have knowledge of the self. The present oganized institutions of The Church,are hollow perversions of the Gnostic sect,of which Jesus was a member.

hondo
04-17-2006, 06:33 AM
Well, I agree with part of what you say. Gnostic
is a generic term like " new age" today.
There were all types of philosophies that came
under the label " gnostic". Maybe Jesus was a gnostic,
I suspect he was, but that is purely speculation.
If the Gospel of Thomas is legitimate he was certainly
more of a "mystic" than modern day Christianity could
ever imagine.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Yes I think the Book of Philip,is of great intrest,especially the questions of Peter,to Jesus,concerning Mary Magdalen. These are books discovered in Egypt,and kept apart from the creation of the Bible by the selective censorship of the First Council of Bishops set by Constantine. The divinity of Jesus was still a subject of debate,as late as the early Fourth Century. The Church gave us the Myth of Jesus,and now we are beginning to know the Historical Jesus. Faith is the road of self knowledge,and not the end. Those who claim Jesus,but do not seek Jesus,will never have knowledge of the self. The present oganized institutions of The Church,are hollow perversions of the Gnostic sect,of which Jesus was a member. <hr /></blockquote>

jtlabs
04-17-2006, 08:15 PM
What do these scrolls prove about jesus in your opinion?

Drop1
04-17-2006, 08:32 PM
By them selves, the confirmation that Jesus was a man, subject to worldly desire. But more importantly is the question why were these texts excluded from the bible. Why did James the brother of Jesus call Paul to Jeruselum, and why was Paul saved by Roman soldiers. Why did the Jews not accept Jesus as the son of God. Why does the Catholic Church say the bible cannot be taken literally,and is more the work of man than God. If Jesus was not the son of God,would you be a different person?

nAz
04-17-2006, 10:11 PM
"If Jesus was not the son of God,would you be a different person?"
great question Drop!

hondo
04-18-2006, 04:19 AM
Most of modern day Christianity is St. Augustine's
interpretation of Paul &amp; only indirectly connected
to the actual words of Christ.
St. Augustine was a disgruntled former gnostic
who lashed out against all gnostic beliefs such as
reincarnation and Jahweh as a lower manifestation
of God.
The Jews didn't accept Christ because he didn't fit
their picture of the Messiah- a Conan-like warrior
who would also appreciate the zeal of the Pharisees
and the Saducees.
Also, if the Catholics truly believe the Bible is
mainly the work of man &amp; not God,don't you think
they're right?



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> By them selves, the confirmation that Jesus was a man, subject to worldly desire. But more importantly is the question why were these texts excluded from the bible. Why did James the brother of Jesus call Paul to Jeruselum, and why was Paul saved by Roman soldiers. Why did the Jews not accept Jesus as the son of God. Why does the Catholic Church say the bible cannot be taken literally,and is more the work of man than God. If Jesus was not the son of God,would you be a different person? <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
04-18-2006, 04:34 AM
Hondo If you really want to read something read St John of the Cross. Very heavy, the more I read the more confused I got. ####

hondo
04-18-2006, 05:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Hondo If you really want to read something read St John of the Cross. Very heavy, the more I read the more confused I got. #### <hr /></blockquote>

I read it several years ago, Dick. The Catholic mystics
are pretty interesting.

Drop1
04-18-2006, 08:58 AM
The real philosophical refinements came from Paul,the cheif inventor of the early Church,St.Augustine,in his book" The City of God",an explanation of why Rome fell,and the writings of St.Thomas Aquinas. After all Thomism remains the domonant philosophy of Europe,and the U.S.

jtlabs
04-19-2006, 05:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
By them selves, the confirmation that Jesus was a man, subject to worldly desire. <hr /></blockquote> Jesus was a man, but not only man, god in the flesh.

[ QUOTE ]
But more importantly is the question why were these texts excluded from the bible.<hr /></blockquote> Well one good argument might be that the 4 gospels in the new testament were actually written by the apostles while the book of judas was not and the Book of Philip makes no claim to be written by philip. Remember, in any day in age you can find those who do not believe even if they see it with their own eyes, so whos to say who wrote those books? Similarly the book of Thomas is just made up of quotes of what jesus have lectured about and does not have any real narration that puts things into perspective like the 4 gospels. With the exception of prophecy the Bible is written like any book you can find today. Finally I like to add that Thomas was known as doubting Thomas but in the end finally believed.

[ QUOTE ]
Why did James the brother of Jesus call Paul to Jerusalem, and why was Paul saved by Roman soldiers.<hr /></blockquote>
Ill research this one and get back to you. Their is much to learn.

[ QUOTE ]
Why did the Jews not accept Jesus as the son of God. <hr /></blockquote> On one side of the coin their are Jews today who actually do believe in Jesus and that Jesus is indeed their messiah. http://www.jewsforjesus.org. Today their are Jewish scholars who confirm that Jesus actually fulfills the over 200 prophecies written about the coming messiah in the old testament. The reason why Jesus is not their messiach according to them is that he did not take the throne and become king of the Jews as was prophesied. They were expecting a conquering messiah not a suffering one. But in revelation it clearly states that Jesus will take that "throne" in the end of days.

[ QUOTE ]
"Why does the Catholic Church say the bible cannot be taken literally, and is more the work of man than God." <hr /></blockquote>
First understand that the catholic church is not the authority on god, in fact their is no religious sect that can claim such authority. In fact the catholic religion breaks many of the ten commandments in the bible! For example, in the bible it states that only God can forgive sins, and yet you can find priests doing this very thing in what is called "confession". Another thing that would be considered seriously blasphemous would be that the Catholic church considers the Pope to be God on earth. It says on the popes door, "Lord God Thy Pope." What is even more eerie is that prophecy talks about a world power that claims to be god on earth, he will have eyes like a man, and his power would be given to him by Rome. How weird is that?

Would you find it hard to believe that many other sects in Christianity have a major thing in common(other then the bible)? They feel the catholic church does very little in the way of actually teaching the true meaning of the bible! I have to agree since I went to catholic school for 8 year. In fact, mass will have a 10 minute story about morality and may quote one verse on the bible(You can go to mass all your life and learn nothing about the new testament). If you want to learn about the Bible, it is not through the catholic church. Could it be if catholics learned about the bible and understood it themselves that they would leave the church in a heart beat? The early Catholic church definitely thought so hence the reason for the crusades and hence the reason why people were burned at the stake for reading the bible.


Finally, for your last question about "if Jesus was just the son of god, would I be a different person?" As far as a different person, refer to below. Jesus being the son of GOd makes all the difference because old testament prophecy would not be fulfilled, and in fact, the old testament prophecy would become out dated because some of the prophecy already fulfilled by Jesus can not happen in this day in age due to the changes in technology and transportation(that is actually a funny one).

I also like to add that I was a atheist first then a christian, and what turned me to Christianity? a unlikely hero is the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I started researching and listening to both sides and started looking at the FACTS. I went in expecting to prove the bible full of crap and came out finding that the bible is actually supported by facts and their is nothing to date that can disprove the bibles authenticity. In fact, their is fact upon fact in the Bible column of debate and 0 facts(but many theories) in the atheist column of their anti-biblical debate.

Drop1
04-19-2006, 08:50 PM
My friend you are ignorant of the foundations of early church,and the history of the bible. I hope you are not offended. Dan Brown's book is fiction,and should be accepted as such. I found it to be a form of entertainment,and nothing more. If you found salvation in the book,I'm amazed. Please come back,when you can trash me with facts.

jtlabs
04-19-2006, 08:55 PM
Actually, Dan Browns book is a work of fiction with many truths in it. What I did was research the truths and it lead me to many paths. I read research done on the Dead Sea scrolls(mostly old testament) and I read the hammadi library. What exactly do you want to know reguarding facts? What have I said so far that is false? Enlighten me as I know that I do not know it all. I always keep my mind open. Do you?

hondo
04-20-2006, 06:32 AM
I think you need to re-read his comments. Also,there
are many paths that can lead us to enlightenment.
Carlos Casteneda lead me into further exploring
Christianity, believe it or not.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> My friend you are ignorant of the foundations of early church,and the history of the bible. I hope you are not offended. Dan Brown's book is fiction,and should be accepted as such. I found it to be a form of entertainment,and nothing more. If you found salvation in the book,I'm amazed. Please come back,when you can trash me with facts. <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
04-20-2006, 06:35 AM
I agree with a lot of what you say but you need
to research a little more into who may or may not
have written the 4 Gospels.

Deeman3
04-20-2006, 07:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> I agree with a lot of what you say but you need
to research a little more into who may or may not
have written the 4 Gospels. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Hondo,

You are right. Many assume that the Gospels were written by easily known people right after the death of Christ. In fact, only one is suspected of even being written in the first century. People also assume the early Christian Church was some what organized. It was loose groupings of bands of Jewish sects that had major disagreements over fundamental things such as was Jesus the Son of God, could non-Jews be Christians, etc.

The Gospel of Judas was one of many, as many as 30 Gospels, that did not make the cut several hundred years later. I guess the real beauty of this is the many interpretatins we can have (and thusly divisions or congretations) even just applying the accepted cannons.

The Gnostics, the Levites all had a much stricter interpretation of how Jewish law (The Old Testament)would be applied to Christian theology. After all, they didn't really know they were Christians, they just thought they were knowledgable Jews!</font color>


Deeman

hondo
04-20-2006, 08:43 AM
Brown got his ideas from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
I imagine Jesus &amp; Mary Magdalene were married.
They only referred to married men as Rabbi.
Why couldn't Jesus have sex? I like sex myself
and I'm rather spiritual. In fact I'd have multiple
parners if I wasn't afraid my wife would leave me.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> My friend you are ignorant of the foundations of early church,and the history of the bible. I hope you are not offended. Dan Brown's book is fiction,and should be accepted as such. I found it to be a form of entertainment,and nothing more. If you found salvation in the book,I'm amazed. Please come back,when you can trash me with facts. <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
04-20-2006, 10:54 AM
I'd be definately out of my league trying to join in on the discussion, with the knowledge that you Hondo, and Drop1 seem to have on the subject.
Interesting stuff...wish I had studied it.

Deeman3
04-20-2006, 11:11 AM
I think they both must know more than me but I had to put my twp cents in, can't help myself. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman
Here I am. I can do no otherwise, so help me God....

Drop1
04-20-2006, 12:17 PM
Hi Hondo: What is enlightenment,and is it specific to Christianity. I re read what was written,and cannot add to what I said.

Drop1
04-20-2006, 12:24 PM
Glad you did,and thought what you said was right on target.