Figjam 1 V Christians 0

[Qsaint]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/revealed-the-gospel-of-judas/2006/04/07/1143916683844.html


So the church dismisses an early gnostic book, which by the way is as old as the earliest gospels

 

[Bombers 2003]

The "book of Judas"is either a forgery or a concoction of misunderstandings.

 

[Former]

... so says b2003 after intense scrutiny of the original artefact.

Thinking back to primary school scripture lessons, even then we were told Judas wasn't an evil character. We were told that he was pretty much locked in to his actions in order to complete the 'destiny' of Jesus. The choice was his but he was sort of maneuvered into it by divine will.

Its all bollocks anyway but Judas' betrayal is probably the most interesting issue in the whole mythology.

 

[Contra Mundum]

... so says b2003 after intense scrutiny of the original artefact.

Thinking back to primary school scripture lessons, even then we were told Judas wasn't an evil character. We were told that he was pretty much locked in to his actions in order to complete the 'destiny' of Jesus. The choice was his but he was sort of maneuvered into it by divine will.

Its all bollocks anyway but Judas' betrayal is probably the most interesting issue in the whole mythology.

The only gnostic gospel with any credibility is the Book of Thomas - unlucky not be be included in the canonical documents, as for the Book of Mary, the Book of Mary Magdalin, and the Book of Judas they have about as much credibility as the fabled Book of Bilbo Baggins!

 

[Bombers 2003]

... so says b2003 after intense scrutiny of the original artefact.

No Barbara Theiring is saying it.John Spong ,as far as i know hasnt expressed an opinion on it as yet.

 

[Contra Mundum]

No Barbara Theiring is saying it.John Spong ,as far as i know hasnt expressed an opinion on it as yet.

Barbara Theiring is a godless heretic and friend of Satan [not that there's anything wrong with that]

 

[Qsaint]

The only gnostic gospel with any credibility is the Book of Thomas - unlucky not be be included in the canonical documents, as for the Book of Mary, the Book of Mary Magdalin, and the Book of Judas they have about as much credibility as the fabled Book of Bilbo Baggins!

Hang on it will give dan brown another 40 million dollar book, and the upside is that Judas can’t take him to the old bailey for copyright infringement

Fuller explanation here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1748835,00.html

 

[freo heave ho]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/revealed-the-gospel-of-judas/2006/04/07/1143916683844.html


So the church dismisses an early gnostic book, which by the way is as old as the earliest gospels

Not quite- the only copy they've got of Judas is 3rd-4th century which takes it close to when they finally resolved the New Testament canon.
There are copies and extracts of the 4 canonical gospels that go back as far as the early second century (at least- there might even be some from late 1st century)

 

[otaku]

Barbara Theiring is a godless heretic and friend of Satan [not that there's anything wrong with that]

glad you put in that disclaimer. Satan is a good personal friend of mine, and in fact he is a good personal friend to the majority of the godless heathen community.

Please be respectful of our infernal friend. People need to understand that a persons belief system shouldnt be ridiculed.

 

[CoggaRules]

Barbara Theiring is a godless heretic and friend of Satan [not that there's anything wrong with that]

CM, dont you know the deal, he who gets in first is believed. Its not her fault that she was not born in the ancient days. If so, they would have been going gaga at her writings and anyone spruiking lines now, from someone elses writings, i.e. Holy scriptures would have been treated the same way as Barbara Theiring and Dan Brown, only in it for the bucks. Always pays to be the first to be believed, it sets you up for the future.

 

[Qsaint]

Not quite- the only copy they've got of Judas is 3rd-4th century which takes it close to when they finally resolved the New Testament canon.
There are copies and extracts of the 4 canonical gospels that go back as far as the early second century (at least- there might even be some from late 1st century)

Earliest is John 70 AD Ithink but it doesn't resemble the re written John in the 3rd century, when most were totally changed

 

[Qsaint]

Not quite- the only copy they've got of Judas is 3rd-4th century which takes it close to when they finally resolved the New Testament canon.
There are copies and extracts of the 4 canonical gospels that go back as far as the early second century (at least- there might even be some from late 1st century)

Earliest is John 70 AD Ithink but it doesn't resemble the re written John in the 3rd century, when most were totally changed

 

[Contra Mundum]

Earliest is John 70 AD Ithink but it doesn't resemble the re written John in the 3rd century, when most were totally changed

The chronological order is the order they appear in the New Testament:

1. Matthew (written first];
2. Mark
3. Luke;
4. John

They are all. of course, based on the Q documents

Dead Give away that John is last is the ex post facto bagging of Jews and Pharisees due battles between old style Jews and Jesus loving Jews

 

[Murray]

Barbara Theiring is a godless heretic and friend of Satan [not that there's anything wrong with that]

Doesn't she say John the Baptist is Satan?

 

[dan warna]

glad you put in that disclaimer. Satan is a good personal friend of mine, and in fact he is a good personal friend to the majority of the godless heathen community.

Please be respectful of our infernal friend. People need to understand that a persons belief system shouldnt be ridiculed.

or as some like to call him...Toby.

 

[Qsaint]

The chronological order is the order they appear in the New Testament:

1. Matthew (written first];
2. Mark
3. Luke;
4. John

They are all. of course, based on the Q documents

Dead Give away that John is last is the ex post facto bagging of Jews and Pharisees due battles between old style Jews and Jesus loving Jews

Sorry Earliest known manuscript that exists is John

scrap of papyrus discovered in Egypt in 1920, now at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, accession number P52 bears parts of John 18:31-33 on one side and 18:37-38 on the other. If it has been correctly dated to the first half of the second century (by C. F. Roberts), it ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

 

[Contra Mundum]

Sorry Earliest known manuscript that exists is John

Pretty sure John was last and Matthew first. This link [can't vouch for its veracity] seems to agree with me: http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Gospel_of_John

This is an excerpt from that link [emphasis added]

The Gospel of John is the fourth gospel in the sequence of the canon as printed in the New Testament, and scholars agree it was the fourth to be written. Like the other three gospels, it contains an account of the life of Jesus.
The Church Fathers believed only The Gospel of John and Authentic Matthew to be written by desciples of Jesus. The Gospel of John is the most divergent of the four. While the "beloved disciple," who is traditionally identified as John the Apostle, has previously been regarded as the author, this is now disputed

Also the Wikpedia entry for Gospel contains the following chronological chart:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others. 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:

• Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
• Mark: c. 68–73
• 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.

 

[Qsaint]

The only gnostic gospel with any credibility is the Book of Thomas -

Thomas basically says go out and work it out for yourself, that Jesus is everywhere. The other 4 Basically put Jesus as a teacher. Thomas doesn't fit in with a church heirachy does it

 

[Contra Mundum]

Thomas basically says go out and work it out for yourself, that Jesus is everywhere. The other 4 Basically put Jesus as a teacher. Thomas doesn't fit in with a church heirachy does it

There is one gnostic gospel where Jesus turns sinners into piles of ashes and goats - can't remember which one. There is a great book about Gospel of Thomas called appropriatley the "Fifth Gospel" - they should have put that in and left the crappy Book of Revelation out - geo-politics would be a lot safer these days if they had done that!

 

[Bombers 2003]

glad you put in that disclaimer. Satan is a good personal friend of mine, and in fact he is a good personal friend to the majority of the godless heathen community.

Please be respectful of our infernal friend.

My suspicions are now confirmed.

 

[FIGJAM]

Woohoo! Do I win an all expenses paid trip to the ABC's set of Compass??

Seriously though, I haven't "won" anything. My goal is for people to recognise that all of these "gospels" or manuscripts or scraps of parchment, contain Truths, and are Truths which run at a deeper level than mere belief or literal translation. And also that they relate directly to experiential practices, such as mediation, as taught in the Eastern religions.

From my favourite Gnostic website regarding Judas:

...each of the apostles in the Christian Gospels is symbolic. As in all mythological and religious narratives, the literal truth becomes illustratrive of spiritual truths. In other words, we know that Jesus and his disciples existed, but the story that is written of them is symbolic, not literal.

The written Gospels preserve teachings, not histories. As such, those who look to ancient writings for literal truth will always be disappointed, for the writers of the Gospels were not concerned with telling the literal history: they were concerned with helping others escape suffering and enter into spiritual understanding.

The genuine Gospel of Judas is allegorical: it contains some literal meaning, but the true intent and meaning of the writing is only perceivable by the consciousness when the consciousness is free of the ego: pride, anger, attachment, envy, fear, etc. In so much as we free ourselves of negative qualities, we see the sacred scriptures of any tradition more clearly. This in itself is the basic meaning of the Gospel: Judas, as a symbol of the ego, must die. Only in this way can the Savior (Christ) may be resurrected.

The church will flick anything that hurts their collective viewpoint. In fact, even if they found one which completely correlated to their chosen literal translation, I doubt they'd recognise it anyway, so them not accepting this text is hardly surprising.

Anyway. I'll shut up now, or I'll be labelled a Hare!

 

[freo heave ho]

The chronological order is the order they appear in the New Testament:

1. Matthew (written first];
2. Mark
3. Luke;
4. John

They are all. of course, based on the Q documents

Dead Give away that John is last is the ex post facto bagging of Jews and Pharisees due battles between old style Jews and Jesus loving Jews

They all have a good bagging of the Jews: Matthew 27:25 has the Jews taking on blood guilt for Jesus' death- a favourite phrase to justify anti Semitic behaviour by Christians over the ages.
Probably due to the Jews kicking the Christians out of the synagogues and also the persecutions that occurred from time to time- often as a result of agitation by local people such as the Jews of the town.

my understanding of Q is that Mark is not based on it. The Q source or document was to explain why there are things that Luke and Matthew share in common but do not appear in Mark.
Other stuff that appears in all three is thought to have started with Mark and been adapted by luke and Matthew.
There are instances where this has neatened up the text or theology eg Matthew changes Jesus prohibition on divorce to allow it for adultery- Mark has no exceptions. This is part of the argument for Matthew and Luke being later than Mark- makes more sense to tidy up a gospel that poses some theological problems for you, than to create those problems.

 

[Qsaint]

Pretty sure John was last and Matthew first. This link [can't vouch for its veracity] seems to agree with me: http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Gospel_of_John

This is an excerpt from that link [emphasis added]

The Gospel of John is the fourth gospel in the sequence of the canon as printed in the New Testament, and scholars agree it was the fourth to be written. Like the other three gospels, it contains an account of the life of Jesus.
The Church Fathers believed only The Gospel of John and Authentic Matthew to be written by desciples of Jesus. The Gospel of John is the most divergent of the four. While the "beloved disciple," who is traditionally identified as John the Apostle, has previously been regarded as the author, this is now disputed

Also the Wikpedia entry for Gospel contains the following chronological chart:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others. 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:

• Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
• Mark: c. 68–73
• 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.

I don't dispute that, I thought only mathew and Luke? were written from Q.
The oldest parchment that still exists of any gospel is John even though the M's were written First. As a side issue there is a body of thought that suggests thomas was written first as it is substanially diffferent and original, and infact there are older Greek bits of it than this one, that they didn't know what it was until this finding

 

[Qsaint]

Woohoo! Do I win an all expenses paid trip to the ABC's set of Compass??

!

You win a box set of 900 hours of billy graham

I am not your teacher. Because you have drank and become drunk from the very same spring from which I draw.

I am the light that shines over all things. I am everywhere. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there


Sounds like the dali lama wrote it

 

[Mr Eagle]

Does this book confirm that Greedo shot first?