I wanted to know all of your peoples view on the "Gospel" of Judas.
What is your point on the gospel of Judas?
I think its interesting how random peoples books are suddenly Gospels because they are demi important...
i don't read it...because my religon is diffrent but i want to learn what's your opinions(i don't mean what's your religion i'm happy with my religion)
Bah, I could not care less, as long as I follow the main morals, I am happy. I do not need to know the past.
Religion,
its belief
now it's become the logic and truth.
so lets face the both way views.
its belief
now it's become the logic and truth.
so lets face the both way views.
How much would it shock you that there were errors in the bible? I don't see the big deal really. If it was a devine document then it wouldn't be able to be misinterpreted.
The Gospel of Judas is part of what is called the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha for the most part are a bunch of writings considered to be forgeries that circulated in the early years. The Apocrypha are also writings that failed what is known as Canonization. A stringent process in which all ancient writings go through to help determine authenticity. Most "Christian Scholars "have been dealing with this for about 1500 years or so and it's not new information. The Bible the Catholics use typically contain some of the the Apocrypha as it helps sometimes to see how the Early Christian writings affected the writings of other people of that time period.
The errors in the bible as most scholars already know are due to difficulties in translating from one language to another. Languages like english are continually morphoing and the meanings of words in culture change making it difficult sometimes for one generation to grasp the orginal idea. The errors are small in percentage and are well documented. Most of time when people raise the errors issue they don't realize what type of errors they are. No significant changes in context are noted even by "Atheist" Scholars who study textural criticism. The error's issue died somewhat after the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that some of the earlier copies were no different in context of the newer translations for the most part. Though recent years some people have tried to be revisionists and even others have watered down "thier" versions to be popular with certain crowds. The fortunate thing is that we still have the majority of the early texts in Greek, Latin Vugate, Septuagint to compare with these recent "interpretive" bibles.
The divinity of something has nothing to do with interpreting or understanding. Being a parent I constantly see my words being twisted in such a way to avoid being responsible for ones actions.
Just because a person rejects truth does not mean truth does not exist.
Mose effort goes into justifying disbelief than anything else.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
The errors in the bible as most scholars already know are due to difficulties in translating from one language to another. Languages like english are continually morphoing and the meanings of words in culture change making it difficult sometimes for one generation to grasp the orginal idea. The errors are small in percentage and are well documented. Most of time when people raise the errors issue they don't realize what type of errors they are. No significant changes in context are noted even by "Atheist" Scholars who study textural criticism. The error's issue died somewhat after the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that some of the earlier copies were no different in context of the newer translations for the most part. Though recent years some people have tried to be revisionists and even others have watered down "thier" versions to be popular with certain crowds. The fortunate thing is that we still have the majority of the early texts in Greek, Latin Vugate, Septuagint to compare with these recent "interpretive" bibles.
The divinity of something has nothing to do with interpreting or understanding. Being a parent I constantly see my words being twisted in such a way to avoid being responsible for ones actions.
Just because a person rejects truth does not mean truth does not exist.
Mose effort goes into justifying disbelief than anything else.
There is nothing new under the Sun.
There are numerous other "gospels" that were circulated in the early Church that are well-preserved and well-known. This is just another one of them. That doesn't mean they are divine and part of scripture. They were being rejected with the other books (like many of the Gnostic Texts). They're definately interesting for historians and religion majors but I don't think they are part of divine scripture.
I think we know what Divine Scripture is now. Besides, each story has multiple sides, so from Judas' point of view... maybe he didn't betray Jesus. But still, I really don't see how it affects anything.
Judas Priest is a good band, yes.
What is my point on the gospel of Judas?!...
I don't have a point on the gospel of Judas, because I didn't find a romanian translation of this gospel... and, for me, to read in English a very long text is difficult enough...
I hope that I'll find this interesting text and, after I'll be read it, I'll post my point... here...
I don't have a point on the gospel of Judas, because I didn't find a romanian translation of this gospel... and, for me, to read in English a very long text is difficult enough...
I hope that I'll find this interesting text and, after I'll be read it, I'll post my point... here...
The point is that religious texts cannot be trusted.
woops double post. sorry...
Last edited by dandan on Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by dandan on Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Dating has proved that the "Gospel" of Judas was written at around 187 A.D., or around 130 years after Christ's death and resurrection. (Time, USA Today) You must also realise that Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, died before Jesus, therefore, cannot be the work of Judas.
On another brief note, the Gospels of Matthew, John, Mark and Luke were written just several years after Christ's death and resurrection and are almost identical, citing its genuinity.
On another brief note, the Gospels of Matthew, John, Mark and Luke were written just several years after Christ's death and resurrection and are almost identical, citing its genuinity.
| Quote: |
| James M. Robinson, America's leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt, predicts in a new book that the text won't offer any insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. His reason: While it's old, it's not old enough. |
| dandan wrote: | ||
| Dating has proved that the "Gospel" of Judas was written at around 187 A.D., or around 130 years after Christ's death and resurrection. (Time, USA Today) You must also realise that Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, died before Jesus, therefore, cannot be the work of Judas.
On another brief note, the Gospels of Matthew, John, Mark and Luke were written just several years after Christ's death and resurrection and are almost identical, citing its genuinity.
|
Your dating is incorrect. The Gospel of Judas was mentioned by Irenaeus of Lyons in Adversus Haereses ~180CE. That means it existed on that date and had probably been in circulation for at least some time before (if it had been written yesterday, Irenaeus would have hardly have mentioned it). Of course, it is possible that the manuscript called the Gospel of Judas we see today is not the same as the one Irenaeus mentioned, but there is no reason to believe that at this time.
Current scholarship puts the most likely date for writing at 130-170CE. That would make it one of the last of the 20-odd gospels written.
As for the canonical gospels, Mark is believed to have been written around 65-80CE. If Jesus died ~30CE, that would put this writing at least 30 years after his death, so if an actual apostle wrote it, that would make him around (at least) 50-70 years old. Mark is also believed to have been the first gospel written. Matthew and Luke were written between 80-100CE, at least 50 years after Jesus, and are also widely believed to have used Mark as source material. If either of those were written by apostles, they would have to have around (at least) 70-80 years old. John was written last, between 90-120CE, and if it was actually written by an apostle, they would be at least around 80-90 years old at the time.
Calling the four canonical gospels "almost identical" is severely misleading. First of all, there is strong evidence that they all copied each other, so any similarties are proof of nothing except dilligent plagiarism. Second, despite the fact that they copied each other, they are most certainly not identical. There is lots of juggling around of the events of Jesus' life, and in several cases there are contradictions in the details of such events that Christian scholars have struggled for millenia to explain and/or resolve. Barabbas was a theif in some, a murderer in others. John has the last supper on the day before passover, the others on the day of. In one Jesus tells Peter to go get a sword which Peter then uses to cut some dude's ear off, in another Jesus tells Peter that using a sword is wrong. The geneologies are all different. Sometimes the Sermon on the Mount is on a mount, sometimes it's not. And those are just a few of the inter-gospel contradictions. There are many intra-gospel contradictions, some only lines apart, as well as contradictions between the gospels and the epistles, and so on. There are also several contradictions between the gospels and historical documents. Are the canonical gospels similar? Sure. But almost identical? Not by a longshot.
 |