|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 04/10/2006 : 06:01:45 [Permalink]
|
Very interesting find. I doubt that it'll have much religious impact though. It's not like the Bible is without contradiction even as it stands. This newly discovered gospel isn't going to be added to the cannon so from a Christian perspective it's completely irrelevent. In fact I'd wager that some will claim that it's part of a conspiracy to persecute Christians.
These are the last days... er decades. The antichrist is even now establishing his power base. It's hardly surprising to the true believer that "tests of faith" such as this would pop up from time to time in these trying times. |
 |
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 10:39:48 [Permalink]
|
pleco:
quote:
For some reason I bet this won't be talked about much in the local Baptist/AoG etc. churches this Sunday. I also don't see this gospel being added to the NT ever.
....
It will still cause headaches for the fundies, not that I'm unhappy with that.
You're right, it probably won't be talked about, because it is laughably irrelevant to anything.
Anyone could have written anything they wanted about Jesus in those first centuries. They could have written that He came from Mars and had a dozen wives. It's is obviously contradictory to what we do know about Jesus, so there's no reason to consider it as anything but the work of a "false prophet" or "wolf in sheep's clothing" that the Bible warns about.
Of course, that begs the question:
How do we know the version of Jesus we read about in the Bible is the correct version? I'll get to that...
Filthy:
quote:
I think that the Gospel of Judas will inspire some very interesting discussion amongst the more sincere of the believers and fits of apoplexy amongst the idiots. I am now waiting to hear the idiot's take on it.
It does inspire interesting discussion. I've done a lot of reading and thinking on this topic over the last few days (and to a lesser extent over the last few years, since I've become a Christian). The only thing I know for sure is that I have a lot more reading and thinking to do. At the moment, however, this is where I stand:
How the canon took it's current form is a very weighty topic, obviously, as Christianity is based on what we accept today as the "Bible."
The books that were accepted by the Catholic Church for canonization weren't simply those that were in conformity with the current authority viewpoint of the time. They were the books that conformed to what was known of Jesus as communicated orally, or as was generally known about Jesus by those who knew him/knew of him personally. Also, portions of the Old Testament (notably "The Psalms") paint a general picture of Jesus' nature.
In other words, aside from any NT books, a certain amount was known about Jesus' character. The books that were rejected were those that obviously conflicted with that character (i.e. doing miracles as a child in such a manner as to "show off" His supernatural abilities). The books that aligned with his known character were accepted.
That is not the only criteria by which the books were judged by the early church, but it is an important one - particularly for sifting out obviously-counterfeit books.
R.Wreck:
quote:
Apparently they haven't read the official 4 gospels very closely, or they would realize that they already have a mess of contradictory nonsense.
There are minor variations between the gospels, as would be expected in any story telling. The points of conflict are minor, incidental points (i.e. one or two angels at the empty tomb?). There is perfect coherency in doctrine. There is perfect coherence in Jesus' character between the gospels.
"A mess of contradictory nonsense" is a very simple-minded conclusion to the complex topic.
People seem to have the idea that "Inerrant Word of God" implies zero mistakes, and perfect translation. That is obviously not true. I tend to prefer the NIV translation, although it has shortcomings, in which case I resort to the KJV. Yes, there are translational differences. How could there not be? Greek to English is not easy to do. For example, the Greek language has many different words for "love": I agape my wife, I phileo my best friend, I stergo my parents. You can lose a lot of meaning when you translate!
But, when the scripture is taken as a whole, the nature of God, and all of the critical doctrines are very coherent and clear.
The "Gospel of Judas" conflicts with what we know about Jesus. The obvious conclusion for me is that the gospel is not genuine.
The bottom line is - the development of the canon has a very (disconcertingly) complex history. While I believe the Bible we have today is the inspired Word of God, I do have reservations, and keep an open mind about it. As John Calvin said:
quote:
But in regard to the Canon itself, which they so superciliously intrude upon us, ancient writers are not agreed. Let the mediators, then, enjoy their own as they please, provided we are at liberty to repudiate those which all men of sense, at least when informed on the subject, will perceive to be not of divine original.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 11:29:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
You're right, it probably won't be talked about, because it is laughably irrelevant to anything.
It is historically relevant. Since Christians believe that Jesus is an actual historical figure it is definitly relevant in that sense.
Granted it's not relevant to doctrine or theology. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 12:42:27 [Permalink]
|
It's an interesting find, but as far as being historically accurate, I'm even more skeptical of the Gospel of Judas than I am of those that made it into the New Testament.
The Gospel of Matthew was written approximately 60 years after the death of Jesus, and the author was anonymous. An editor named it later. Matthew may have already been dead. The same is true of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John, and they were written even later. A lot can change in a story that has been passed around for sixty years or so before it is written down.
I understand from a television program I watched last night that the Gospel of Judas, while believed to be authentic by experts, was written somewhere between 260 and 340 AD. That's hardly an eyewitness account. Interesting, but unreliable, in my opinion.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 12:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Interesting, but unreliable, in my opinion.
Absolutely, but that applies to the entire bible too. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 13:29:01 [Permalink]
|
It's about as relevant as other apocryphal gospels. The Nag Hammadi Library is full of them. The reasons why this Gospel got attentions is, (1.) It is supposedly written by or of Judas Iscariot. (2) National Geographic had shown it on Palm Sunday, and (3) this is really good PR for the DaVinci Code.
Did anybody see the NG show on it? I am not to sure they said who wrote it. Only that the document was written between 285-330 AD.
It doesn't matter really. It just marketing. Now the Gospel of Barnabas (Paul's buddy I believe) is another matter. Apparently the Roman Catholic church has been hiding that for centuries. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 13:50:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
It's an interesting find, but as far as being historically accurate, I'm even more skeptical of the Gospel of Judas than I am of those that made it into the New Testament.
Well yeah, accepting it as the gospel truth (pardon the pun) would be a mistake. But unless it turns out to be an actual forgery it's historicaly relevant. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 14:47:59 [Permalink]
|
I guess its main relevance is that it belonged to a sect that lost in the early struggle for how Christians were to define themselves and their relationship to God. There were many Christian sects running around and they didn't all believe the same thing. The Gospel of Judas comes from a Gnostic sect.
And hey, sixty years is a very long time to go before actually writing down a historically accurate account of anything. By the time the final four were chosen, out of twenty or so, some three hundred years later, I suspect that they were chosen more for supporting the winner's message (the early church) than for there accuracy.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 17:26:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso:
R.Wreck:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently they haven't read the official 4 gospels very closely, or they would realize that they already have a mess of contradictory nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are minor variations between the gospels, as would be expected in any story telling. The points of conflict are minor, incidental points (i.e. one or two angels at the empty tomb?). There is perfect coherency in doctrine. There is perfect coherence in Jesus' character between the gospels.
"A mess of contradictory nonsense" is a very simple-minded conclusion to the complex topic.
OK:
Matthew and Luke don't agree on any of Jesus' lineage before Joseph, not even Joseph's father.
Nobody agrees how Judas died.
Matthew claims that dead people got out of their tombs and went into the city. Surely a singular event in the history of mankind. The most spectacular occurence ever. Nothing like it before or since. But no other gospel mentions it, nor does any contemporary historian. You would think at least one other person might find this detail worth capturing in his story.
I could go on, but you get my drift. Taken as a whole, the four official gospels are a mess of contradictory nonsense. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't change the facts.
quote:
People seem to have the idea that "Inerrant Word of God" implies zero mistakes, and perfect translation. That is obviously not true. I tend to prefer the NIV translation, although it has shortcomings, in which case I resort to the KJV. Yes, there are translational differences. How could there not be? Greek to English is not easy to do. For example, the Greek language has many different words for "love": I agape my wife, I phileo my best friend, I stergo my parents. You can lose a lot of meaning when you translate!
Inerrant does imply "no errors". If god was so concerned about getting the word out the way he wanted it, you'd think he'd see to it that the translators didn't screw it up. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 07:57:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
Did anybody see the NG show on it? I am not to sure they said who wrote it. Only that the document was written between 285-330 AD.
I did. Just as with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the author is unknown.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 09:33:22 [Permalink]
|
verso wrote: quote:
The books that were accepted by the Catholic Church for canonization weren't simply those that were in conformity with the current authority viewpoint of the time. They were the books that conformed to what was known of Jesus as communicated orally, or as was generally known about Jesus by those who knew him/knew of him personally. Also, portions of the Old Testament (notably "The Psalms") paint a general picture of Jesus' nature.
First of all, you trust to put together the proper scripture, the same institution that carried out the crusades and Inquisition, and in modern times has failed to criticize the actions of Irish terrorists and Nazis (who were both associated with the Catholic church) and banned the use of all birth control even in third world nations where people are in abject poverty, infant mortality rates are high, and food is scarce. And of course these are just highlights of the Catholic Church's career in increasing human suffering for its own authoritative gain.
But moving on, Biblical scholars are in agreement that the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses. It is a general consensus that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as their main source, and that all three were written to be the gospel, not to be in a set with two others telling basically the same story with various contradictions. Not only that, but we also know that certain things in the Gospels were changed to accomodate the theology of the leaders of what would become the Church.
The current New Testament's establishment was a long and arduous process that involved much bickering among church leaders with growing power and influence, and they most certainly did base what they chose on their own theological agendas. When Biblical historians look at different versions of the New Testament from different times, they sometimes see whole new additions of stories or deletions, and some of these changes occur a century after Jesus walked the earth. One example is how in Luke Jesus acts very different about his impending death as he does in Mark. In Mark he shows signs of being very upset, angry, afraid. But in Luke he's at peace with his destiny - except when he sweats blood in the garden. Lots of Biblical scholars think that part was added to make Luke more consistent with the other Gospels. And what the hell of Jesus's last words! The difference between them seem to me to be pretty big damn differences in spiritual interpretation of the meaning of his suffering and death.
But the New Testament in its present form wasn't even fully accepted by the Church until 367AD! Previous to that were oral traditions and then the Gospels were in the hands of secret groups of Christians who worshipped in private. It is one hell of a leap of faith to believe that somehow after all that, very little human bias seeped into the scripture.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 10:12:27 [Permalink]
|
Um, everything I heard was that the Judas Gospel was written before 160 something as it was mentioned in the writings of some famous french priest guy at that time, the copy that was found was written at the later date...
And I would like to point out that the inconsistancies are anything but minor in the NT, to say that the difference between one and two angels is meaningless seems weird because its the same difference between one and zero angels. I would think that on a matter as important as this where a lifetime of worship/dedication is involved the details would need to be more precise.
And also Verso you mentioned that the books left out were inconsistant with what was known orally about Jesus, this is questionable as it is just as likely that they were just not what the Bible authors wanted Jesus to be (or were told how Jesus should be, they were working for Rome after all) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 11:31:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Um, everything I heard was that the Judas Gospel was written before 160 something as it was mentioned in the writings of some famous french priest guy at that time, the copy that was found was written at the later date...
I misspoke. I should have said that it has been dated between 220 - 340 AD (not 260 as I stated in my earlier post) and it is certainly possible, even likely, that it is not the original.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
verso
Skeptic Friend
USA
76 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 12:03:28 [Permalink]
|
R.Wreck:
quote:
OK:
Matthew and Luke don't agree on any of Jesus' lineage before Joseph, not even Joseph's father.
Nobody agrees how Judas died.
Matthew claims that dead people got out of their tombs and went into the city. Surely a singular event in the history of mankind. The most spectacular occurence ever. Nothing like it before or since. But no other gospel mentions it, nor does any contemporary historian. You would think at least one other person might find this detail worth capturing in his story.
Nearly all the contradictions cited by "skeptics" are seen as contradictions due primarily to simplistic reasoning and lack of research. There are very rationally acceptable answers to all 3 "issues" you posted.
Those detail contradictions that are legitimate simply evidence the fact that the gospels are separate, authentic accounts. If they were all merely plagiarized off of each other far after the fact, you'd expect them all to be identical.
quote:
I could go on, but you get my drift. Taken as a whole, the four official gospels are a mess of contradictory nonsense.
As a whole - even including a very minor lack of harmony - the four official gospels are remarkably coherent.
If you want to pick one of these "contradictions" and research it yourself first, I will be happy to debate it with you.
But all I see here at the moment is you doing what people on this forum constantly compain about creation scientists doing in debates: "winning" the debate by spewing out flimsy arguments rapid-fire - arguments to which the refutation takes time and careful reasoning.
marfknox:
quote:
First of all, you trust to put together the proper scripture, the same institution that carried out the crusades and Inquisition, and in modern times has failed to criticize the actions of Irish terrorists and Nazis (who were both associated with the Catholic church) and banned the use of all birth control even in third world nations where people are in abject poverty, infant mortality rates are high, and food is scarce. And of course these are just highlights of the Catholic Church's career in increasing human suffering for its own authoritative gain.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
"The last shall be first." "Turn the other cheek." "Love your enemies." Do you honestly think those who committed the atrocities that you mentioned wanted to push that message?!
Not only have you have assumed that the early Church was identical to the later groups that claimed to be Christian, yet violated basics tenants of the Bible, but you have gone as far as to make the ludicrous assumption that the tendency in the Bible to humble servant-hood was hand-picked by power hungry, bickering Church authorities. A little counter-productive, don't you think?
quote:
But moving on, Biblical scholars are in agreement that the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses. It is a general consensus that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as their main source, and that all three were written to be the gospel, not to be in a set with two others telling basically the same story with various contradictions. Not only that, but we also know that certain things in the Gospels were changed to accommodate the theology of the leaders of what would become the Church.
Cite. I know there are many Biblical scholars who would disagree with most of that.
quote:
But the New Testament in its present form wasn't even fully accepted by the Church until 367AD! Previous to that were oral traditions and then the Gospels were in the hands of secret groups of Christians who worshipped in private. It is one hell of a leap of faith to believe that somehow after all that, very little human bias seeped into the scripture.
Again, human bias to what? Have you actually read the NT? Jesus constantly promotes love, humility and servant-hood. Does that sound like a message power hungry, manipulative leaders would push?
The Bible challenges us to "Deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow Him." It is hard to believe anyone would have manipulated the NT for personal gain when it exemplifies personal sacrifice.
Edit: quote fix |
| Edited by - verso on 04/11/2006 12:05:26 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2006 : 14:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Nearly all the contradictions cited by "skeptics" are seen as contradictions due primarily to simplistic reasoning and lack of research. There are very rationally acceptable answers to all 3 "issues" you posted.
Those detail contradictions that are legitimate simply evidence the fact that the gospels are separate, authentic accounts. If they were all merely plagiarized off of each other far after the fact, you'd expect them all to be identical.
Verso, you are just in denial as to how many and how significant Bible inconsistencies are.
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Not only have you have assumed that the early Church was identical to the later groups that claimed to be Christian, yet violated basics tenants of the Bible, but you have gone as far as to make the ludicrous assumption that the tendency in the Bible to humble servant-hood was hand-picked by power hungry, bickering Church authorities.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
quote:
Originally posted by verso
Again, human bias to what? Have you actually read the NT? Jesus constantly promotes love, humility and servant-hood. Does that sound like a message power hungry, manipulative leaders would push?
Is that consistent with gay bashing, blowing up women's clinics and announcing publicly that the USA should assassinate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela?
quote:
Originally posted by verso
The Bible challenges us to "Deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow Him." It is hard to believe anyone would have manipulated the NT for personal gain when it exemplifies personal sacrifice.
Actually, your version of what is in the Bible isn't there. The Bible is full of cruelty and violence, injustice, intolerance, anti-family values, and is generally negative toward women.
And as for the false claim that Jesus changed all the Old Testament hatred God unleashes on everyone and expects everyone to unleash on each other, nowhere in the New Testament can you find any such claim made by Jesus or God. There is the stuff about believing in Jesus in order to get to heaven and the claim Jesus died for the sins of people, (which is absurd on its face anyway), but there is nothing about now that Jesus is here, all the Old Testament accounts of God never getting his fill of tormenting animals and killing off children of any group who he dislikes is somehow no longer relevant.
I gave my son life. If he failed to worship me should I torture him?
If God is the one condemning all his little creations to misery for failing to worship God, then why would it make any sense to let those little creations torture one child and that makes it all better now? And if we are all God's children, why was Jesus special? And there are thousands if not millions of human beings who over the course of history certainly suffered immensely more pain than Christ. Humans are most creative in their cruelty. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
