View Full Version : Gospel Of Judas Surfaces After 1,700 Years
LostCause
2006-04-06, 22:29
http://www .nytimes.c om/2006/04 /06/scienc e/06cnd-ju das.html?e x=13019760 00&en=83f9 90ad468000bf&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
I don't really have the time at the moment to delve too deeply into this, but I wanted to post a thread before I went to school.
Cheers,
Lost
Dre Crabbe
2006-04-07, 00:40
tai nee url
I'm actually quite intrested in this. I'll check when I have woken up again, from my slumber http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)
MasterPython
2006-04-07, 01:13
It is interesting to find another book of the Bible but for mainstream religion it is just one more piece of apcryptical text to ignore.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-07, 14:05
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/
Millixion
2006-04-08, 03:59
quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:
It is interesting to find another book of the Bible but for mainstream religion it is just one more piece of apcryptical text to ignore.
I was thinking the same thing.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-08, 18:25
The first thing that tells me the Book fo Judas is not of God is the fact that it contradicts every other Gospel in the New Testament.
The second thing that tells me it was not of God is the fact that it's been lost to us all these years. God is in complete control of His word, and if this book were meant for our consumption, it would have been made available to us.
The third, and most important, thing that tells me it's not of God is the fact that atheists the world over are reveling in it. People who spend their lives abhoring God, and trying to refute the Bible suddenly holding this ONE book in such high regard is not only disturbing, but a clear sign of where this text really comes from.
The message of the book of Judas is not surprising to me...having read the Gospels NUMEROUS times, I can say that Jesus knew from the beginning what Judas would do (as He is omnipotent). It is also clear from the beginning of Jesus' ministry that his life would end in sacrifice.
The fact that it would be Judas that betrayed Jesus was unbeknownst to Judas himself, or the other disciples. When Jesus revealed that one of them would betray him, they ALL murmered amongst themselves, asking, "Who will it be ?"
Jesus is God. He knew Judas' heart was wicked, yet he handpicked Judas anyway (just as he did all his disciples). It is ridiculous to assume that Jesus was unaware that Judas would eventually betray him. It can be postulated that Jesus chose Judas specifically because he knew that Judas was capable of such a thing, not that he pre-ordained him to.
Here is the verse that supports what I am saying...
Matthew 26:20-25 - When evening came, Yeshua (Jesus) reclined with the 12 talmidim (apostles); and as they were eating, he said, "Yes, I tell you that one of you is going to betray me." They became terrbily upset and began asking him, and after the other, "Lord, you don't mean me, do you ?" He answered, "The one who dips his matzah (bread) in the dish with me is the one who will betray me. The Son of Man (Jesus) will die just as the Tanakh (Old Testament), but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It would have been better for him had he never been born !" Y'hudah (Judas), the one who was betraying him, then asked, "Surely, Rabbi, you don't mean me ?" He answered, "The words are yours."
Ok, the first thing you should notice is that Judas seems unaware of the fact that it will be himself that will betray Jesus. The apostles don't seem to know either.
The second thing that should have grabbed your attention is the fact that they were all upset. No one thought himself capable of such a betrayal, including Judas.
This is not a singular witness to this converstion, either.
John 6:63-71 - It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life, yet among you, you do not trust." (For Yeshua knew from the the outset which ones would not trust him, also which one would betray him)
"This," he said, "is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has made it possible for him." From this time on, many of his talmidim turned back, and no longer travelled around with him.
So, Yeshua said to the 12, "Don't you want to leave, too ?" Shim'on (Simon) Kefa (Peter) answered him, "Lord, to whom would we go ? You have teh word of eternal life. We have trusted, and we know that you are the holy one of God."
Yeshua answered them, "Didn't I choose you ? The twelve ? Yet one of you is an adversary." (He was speaking of Y'hudah Ben-Shim'on (Judas of Simon [his father]), from K'riot (Iscariot); for this man -one of the 12 !- was soon to betray him.)
John 13:18 - "I am not talking to all of you - I know which ones I have chosen. But the words of the Tanakh (Old Testament) must be fulfilled that say, 'The one eating my bread has turned against me.' I am telling you now, before it happens; so that when it does happen, you may believe that I AM [who I say I am]. Yes, indeed ! I tell you that a person who receives someone I send receives me, and that anyone who receives me receives the One (God) who sent me." After saying this, Yeshua, in deep anguish of spirit, decalred, "Yes, indeed ! I tell you that one of you will betray me."
The talmidim apostles) stared at one another, totally mystified - whom could he mean ? ONe of his talmidim, the one Yeshua particularly loved, was reclined close beside him. So, Shim'on Kefa (Simon Peter) motioned to him and said, "Ask which one he is talking about."
Leaning against Yeshua's chest, he asked Yeshua, "Lord, who is it ?" Yeshua answered, "It's the one to whom I give this piece of matzah after I dip it in the dish." So he dipped the piece of matzah, and gave it to Y'hudah Ben-Shim'on from K'riot (Judas, son of Simon, from Iscariot). As soon as Y'hudah took the piece of matzah, the Adversary went into him. "What you are doing, do quickly," Yeshua said to him.
Judas didn't know that he was the Lord's betrayer, period. The Book of Judas is not a book for the Bible, nor was it inspired by God.
All the more reason not to believe in the Bible if you ask me.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-08, 18:38
quote:Originally posted by Millixion:
I was thinking the same thing.
Except "apcryptical" isn't even a word...
MasterPython, did you mean apocryphal ? Even then, it's not correct... http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)
elfstone
2006-04-08, 19:43
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The first thing that tells me the Book fo Judas is not of God is the fact that it contradicts every other Gospel in the New Testament.
How do you know you have the correct gospels in the Bible? Maybe this is the correct one.
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The second thing that tells me it was not of God is the fact that it's been lost to us all these years. God is in complete control of His word, and if this book were meant for our consumption, it would have been made available to us.
It's been made available now. Or is it too late now? You don't presume to know what's late or early for God, right?
Besides, the opposite should be true for those books that were NOT meant for your consumption. If God is in complete control how do you explain the Quran, the book of Mormons etc.? God seems unable to stop the spreading of "false" religions, even within christianity. Losing a small gospel is no big deal in comparison.
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The third, and most important, thing that tells me it's not of God is the fact that atheists the world over are reveling in it. People who spend their lives abhoring God, and trying to refute the Bible suddenly holding this ONE book in such high regard is not only disturbing, but a clear sign of where this text really comes from.
You are one paranoid person indeed. Atheists reveling? Where is the celebration and is there cake? Why don't you just admit that you are so insecure in your faith that scientific discoveries frighten you? The fact that you make identical posts in two different threads shows that you find this discovery threatening and you rush to set things right for everyone to see.
This discovery just strengthens the view that christianity is man-made and it was widely inconsistent in those first centuries.
ArmsMerchant
2006-04-08, 20:19
Judas didn't betray the Nazz, he was just playing his part. It was a dirty job, but someone had to do it.
Too bad Constantine used him for a scapegoat, but he (Constantine, that is) was a pussy-whipped asshole, anyway.
MasterPython
2006-04-08, 23:42
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
MasterPython, did you mean apocryphal ? Even then, it's not correct... http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)
That looks like the word I am looking for, I have never actualy heard anyone say it so spelling is kinda difficult. Why would the book of Judas not count as apocryphal text? It is non canno isn't it?
IanBoyd3
2006-04-09, 00:08
[Edit: Messed up quote bold somehow]
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The first thing that tells me the Book fo Judas is not of God is the fact that it contradicts every other Gospel in the New Testament.
The second thing that tells me it was not of God is the fact that it's been lost to us all these years. God is in complete control of His word, and if this book were meant for our consumption, it would have been made available to us.
The third, and most important, thing that tells me it's not of God is the fact that atheists the world over are reveling in it. People who spend their lives abhoring God, and trying to refute the Bible suddenly holding this ONE book in such high regard is not only disturbing, but a clear sign of where this text really comes from.
Fucking hell, slam the brakes on the first sentence. The current gospels contradict each other all over the place, you just happen to be to blind to see it. Er, 'faithful.'
Next, if God is in full control, why would he cause another book to surface at all then? How the hell do you claim to know what God is doing? You constantly yell at people for pretending to know God (they are actually just working off your religions definitions of God), then go and make a ridiculous assertion (which coincidentally supports your faith).
If you want to argue that you somehow know that God would not allow any of his gospels to be lost, but that he would somehow allow this false gospel to be discovered, you are, excuse the bluntness, full of shit.
I don't believe your religion, but even I can reason about this.
First of all, it's written by Judas, the guy who fucking betrayed the hero of your religion. Don't you think this may have perturbed the 'simpletons' back then? Not that there aren't simpletons now who disbelieve science and ignore contradictions and so on, but you get my point.
Perhaps your all powerful God happens to know better then (gasp) even you, digital savior!
Perhaps the christian world is ready to accept this. Although, I would actually argue with God on this one- I mean hell, they can't even except science. (Well, okay, the smart ones can- my parents for example).
And just to let you know, atheists have been reveling in every book of the bible until now, so obviously they're going to revel in this one as well. If you believe atheists reveling in it proves it wrong, you're out of a religion, kiddo.
As to where it comes from, I have nothing to say- You don't believe all science that contradicts your religion because it contradicts your religion hence you have a non-argument and therefore all your arguments have no water.
Seriously, if God has the power to control things (like whether a gospel is found or not) why would he mislead modern science and allow all our best, tested, proven, repeated, agreed upom by the scientific community methods to be completely and utterly wrong? Because tell you what, if they are wrong, then he let them be wrong by your own logic, and in that case he cause modern science to destroy my faith and give me a lower place in heaven or even in hell for all eternity.
Boy, your God's a real hardass, eh?
[This message has been edited by IanBoyd3 (edited 04-09-2006).]
Digital_Savior
2006-04-09, 00:24
quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:
That looks like the word I am looking for, I have never actualy heard anyone say it so spelling is kinda difficult. Why would the book of Judas not count as apocryphal text? It is non canno isn't it?
Because it's not of God.
In reading it, you can see that it is in direct contradiction with the rest of the gospels. Why would that ONE book be different ?
Also, it's not about salvation. It's about Judas. There is no other book in the Bible that is like that, except maybe Psalms.
I am still waiting to get my hands on the texts. I can only base my opinion on what has been said of it, by scholars and others interviewed.
I cannot believe that God would allow a portion of His word to remain hidden from the world, amidst all the other prophecy that is coming true daily. He is in complete control of His word, and there is no logical reason for Him to allow some of it to be lost to us.
IanBoyd3
2006-04-09, 00:37
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Because it's not of God.
In reading it, you can see that it is in direct contradiction with the rest of the gospels. Why would that ONE book be different ?
Also, it's not about salvation. It's about Judas. There is no other book in the Bible that is like that, except maybe Psalms.
I am still waiting to get my hands on the texts. I can only base my opinion on what has been said of it, by scholars and others interviewed.
I cannot believe that God would allow a portion of His word to remain hidden from the world, amidst all the other prophecy that is coming true daily. He is in complete control of His word, and there is no logical reason for Him to allow some of it to be lost to us.
John's gospel disagrees with the others in many cases. Why is that one gospel different?
You can google it and find it if you want, by the way.[Edit: Find the gospel of Judas, that is.]
Also, why then would he allow this book to suddenly resurface and appear to be the real gospel of Judas honestly written back then? Where is the logic there?
And like I said, the logical reason for it not surfacing before is what I just said- Back then christians would not have understood a gospel written by the guy who turned over their hero.
So I'm not sure what you're claiming.
This book was written back then but you know it wasn't inspired by God because it contradicts the others? In that case, the gospel of John wasn't divinely inspired.
Atheists made it up? Yea, because modern science is just a bunch of atheists making things up for the sole purpose of disproving christianity (even though some of them are christian). :sarcasm:
[This message has been edited by IanBoyd3 (edited 04-09-2006).]
Digital_Savior
2006-04-09, 00:45
quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:
Fucking hell, slam the brakes on the first sentence. The current gospels contradict each other all over the place, you just happen to be to blind to see it. Er, 'faithful.'
There are no contradictions, only a lack of understanding.
I'd be happy to help you. I left my contact info for you in the thread dedicated to me.
quote:Next, if God is in full control, why would he cause another book to surface at all then?
God "caused" it ?
So...you argue Christian theology by abandoning it's tenets. Nice.
quote:How the hell do you claim to know what God is doing?
Reading the Bible as often as I have, for as long as I have, has taught me a great deal about God's will and character.
quote:You constantly yell at people for pretending to know God (they are actually just working off your religions definitions of God), then go and make a ridiculous assertion (which coincidentally supports your faith).
I correct people for turning Him into a human being.
I also correct errors, to the best of my knowledge.
quote:If you want to argue that you somehow know that God would not allow any of his gospels to be lost, but that he would somehow allow this false gospel to be discovered, you are, excuse the bluntness, full of shit.
My claim is what He claims: He offers salvation to ALL people.
Giving mixed messages is not a logical way to do that, wouldn't you agree ?
quote:I don't believe your religion, but even I can reason about this.
You clearly do not know enough about Christianity to formulate an educated argument against it, so I doubt that very much.
quote:First of all, it's written by Judas, the guy who fucking betrayed the hero of your religion.
He did ?
Prove it.
quote:Don't you think this may have perturbed the 'simpletons' back then?
Strawman.
quote:Not that there aren't simpletons now who disbelieve science and ignore contradictions and so on, but you get my point.
I assume you are calling me a simpleton, for relying on the science that DOESN'T contradict the Bible.
Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research)
quote:Perhaps your all powerful God happens to know better then (gasp) even you, digital savior!
Of course He does. He's omnipotent, I'm not.
Why do you think when I talk about God's will, I am making it up ? From where would I get the information necessary to understand His will, aside from His own word ?
quote:Perhaps the christian world is ready to accept this. Although, I would actually argue with God on this one- I mean hell, they can't even except science. (Well, okay, the smart ones can- my parents for example).
The Christian World ? LOL
Apologists and Biblical Literalists will never accept this, because it's not of God. Sorry.
Catholics and Mormons just might, though !
quote:And just to let you know, atheists have been reveling in every book of the bible until now, so obviously they're going to revel in this one as well. If you believe atheists reveling in it proves it wrong, you're out of a religion, kiddo.
Maybe you need a refresher course on usage of the English language, particularly in reference to the definition of words.
REVELING (http://tinyurl.com/nf72t)
1. To take great pleasure or delight: She reveled in her unaccustomed leisure.
2. To engage in uproarious festivities; make merry.
3. A boisterous festivity or celebration; merrymaking.
Does that describe any atheists YOU know or have seen on TV, when discussing the Bible ?!
I think not.
Yet they can't SHUT UP about the Book of Judas. If this book was really inspired by God, they'd be burning it before the Christians got a hold of it, mark my words.
quote:As to where it comes from, I have nothing to say- You don't believe all science that contradicts your religion because it contradicts your religion hence you have a non-argument and therefore all your arguments have no water.
Science is science. I believe science. I don't believe in the conclusions some men have come to, based on the misapplication and manipulation of science.
I also don't consider "making up dates" and using UNRELIABLE dating methodologies scientific.
And for the record, my arguments hold tea. Earl Grey. Hot. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)
quote:Seriously, if God has the power to control things (like whether a gospel is found or not) why would he mislead modern science and allow all our best, tested, proven, repeated, agreed upom by the scientific community methods to be completely and utterly wrong? Because tell you what, if they are wrong, then he let them be wrong by your own logic, and in that case he cause modern science to destroy my faith and give me a lower place in heaven or even in hell for all eternity.
Another strawman.
Lemme know when you want to have a real debate about this.
quote:Boy, your God's a real hardass, eh?
He can be. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-09-2006).]
Digital_Savior
2006-04-09, 01:03
quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:
John's gospel disagrees with the others in many cases. Why is that one gospel different?
No, it doesn't.
quote:You can google it and find it if you want, by the way.[Edit: Find the gospel of Judas, that is.]
I had tried it as Book of Judas. My bad. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)
quote:Also, why then would he allow this book to suddenly resurface and appear to be the real gospel of Judas honestly written back then? Where is the logic there?
Why would Judas be writing in Coptic ?
Dictionary.com defines Coptic as "The Afro-Asiatic language of the Copts, which survives only as a liturgical language of the Coptic Church."
All the other gospels are written in Aramaic and Greek.
Where is the logic there ?
quote:And like I said, the logical reason for it not surfacing before is what I just said- Back then christians would not have understood a gospel written by the guy who turned over their hero.
How do you know what the Christians would have received or not received back then ?
Judging by your complete ignorance of this subject, I think it's safe to say that you haven't got a CLUE what the Christians back then thought, not to mention the fact that the Christians back then didn't have a Bible to reference. *shakes head*
quote:So I'm not sure what you're claiming.
I am not claiming anything.
I am SAYING that the Gospel of Judas isn't inspired by God, and should therefore not be considered as canonical.
quote:This book was written back then but you know it wasn't inspired by God because it contradicts the others? In that case, the gospel of John wasn't divinely inspired.
There is a common theme, writing style, and purpose to the Gospels. The Gospel of Judas strays so completely from these that it is illogical to assume it is anything more than a form of diary.
He was writing about himself. Not God.
"There's yer sign !"
quote:Atheists made it up? Yea, because modern science is just a bunch of atheists making things up for the sole purpose of disproving christianity (even though some of them are christian). :sarcasm:
Oh, I see....atheists that are Christian...right.
You're a skilled debater.
http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)
Adrenochrome
2006-04-09, 01:03
Maybe Judas was writing about himself. Maybe it was kinda of like a diary.
If the Bible is true, then it is very likely the book Judas wrote is true too. Maybe the Bible is lying and what Judas wrote is the truth…
Just because it’s not part of the bible doesn’t make it any less true…
Digital_Savior
2006-04-09, 01:06
quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:
That looks like the word I am looking for, I have never actualy heard anyone say it so spelling is kinda difficult. Why would the book of Judas not count as apocryphal text? It is non canno isn't it?
APOCRYPHAL
1. Of questionable authorship or authenticity.
2. Erroneous; fictitious
3. Apocryphal Bible. Of or having to do with the Apocrypha.
Is this what you meant ?
Digital_Savior
2006-04-09, 01:09
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
Maybe Judas was writing about himself. Maybe it was kinda of like a diary.
Yeah, that is very possible, and I mentioned that earlier. *points up*
quote:If the Bible is true, then it is very likely the book Judas wrote is true too. Maybe the Bible is lying and what Judas wrote is the truth…
I am sure the authors of the Gospels wrote other books, but being that they weren't divinely inspired, it doesn't really matter, now does it ?
If the rest of the Bible is a lie, and the Gospel of Judas is the truth, then there is no God, and it doesn't matter either way.
quote:Just because it’s not part of the bible doesn’t make it any less true…
True about what ?
It's "true" in the sense that it exists...but where is the proof that it was written by Judas himself ?
The fact that it is written in a language that none of the other Gospels were written in gives me GREAT cause to question it's authenticity as having been written by Judas himself.
Perhaps it was written by one of the Pharisees...it hardly matters.
It's not about Jesus, and that's the 1st requirement it should meet to even be considered as part of the Biblical canon.
Adrenochrome
2006-04-09, 01:18
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
It's "true" in the sense that it exists...but where is the proof that it was written by Judas himself ?
I can say the same about the Bible.
Where's the proof it was written by people influenced by God?
[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 04-09-2006).]
coolwestman
2006-04-09, 02:05
DS your good at defending your faith, but I don't understand how you can stand being christian.
IanBoyd3
2006-04-09, 02:13
quote:There are no contradictions, only a lack of understanding."
I understand that the gospels make factual statments that cannot both be true. What am I not understanding?
quote:God "caused" it ?
So...you argue Christian theology by abandoning it's tenets. Nice.
No, I argue about how your christian assertions are false based on your theology. Your faith is the only thing you give any credit to, so I have to. You said God would not allow his gospel to be hidden for so long. I say, then, why would he allow something that appears to be a gospel from back then to surface? He either kept it in hiding, or deceieved us, by your logic.
quote:Reading the Bible as often as I have, for as long as I have, has taught me a great deal about God's will and character.
His character turns out to involve massive, unnecessary, and brutal slaughter, many times. But regardless, you are human and cannot assert God's reasons (by your own logic which you have before stated; you are not God)
quote:I correct people for turning Him into a human being.
You yourself are human, yet somehow your logic equates with God's logic.
quote:My claim is what He claims: He offers salvation to ALL people.
Giving mixed messages is not a logical way to do that, wouldn't you agree ?
Yes. That's what I just said. My point exactly, he is giving mixed messages, which is a cruel thing to do. Why are you arguing for my side?
quote:You clearly do not know enough about Christianity to formulate an educated argument against it, so I doubt that very much.
The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't know enough about your religion. You argue against evolution, as though your word is better then all the scientists and the vast majority if not all respected scientists' opinion based on hard evidence and facts. I don't really think you're the one to talk.
quote:He did ?
Prove it."
Good point. The gospel of Judas says otherwise. And, I can't prove either of them existed either. But again, why are you arguing for my side?
quote:Strawman.
How so? I'm presenting a logical reason God would not have allowed this gospel to surface back then. It's called the gospel of Judas, and he (according to your inerrant bible) betrayed Jesus willfully. Either that, or your bible is false, or else God forced him to betray him, or else you are agreeing with the gospel of Judas which (I'm pretty sure) says that Judas agreed to help him die or something.
quote:I assume you are calling me a simpleton, for relying on the science that DOESN'T contradict the Bible.
The science that contradicts the fundamentalist bible is the accepted science, so yea.
quote:Maybe you need a refresher course on usage of the English language, particularly in reference to the definition of words.
REVELING
1. To take great pleasure or delight: She reveled in her unaccustomed leisure.
2. To engage in uproarious festivities; make merry.
3. A boisterous festivity or celebration; merrymaking.
Does that describe any atheists YOU know or have seen on TV, when discussing the Bible ?!
I think not.
Yet they can't SHUT UP about the Book of Judas. If this book was really inspired by God, they'd be burning it before the Christians got a hold of it, mark my words.
Consider them marked. I used the word revel because you did, I apologize for any errors in vocabulary. But atheists do use the bible to disprove fundamentalist christains, that's what I meant. And no scientist would burn anything. At least, very very few. You see, they aren't deadset on belief in anything- that's the point of science. That's how it works. Scientists have no doctrine that states that evidence is invalid if it contradicts previous beliefs- those doctrines do nothing but set us back and delay us. Thank God science doesn't work like creationist docrtines.
quote:Science is science. I believe science. I don't believe in the conclusions some men have come to, based on the misapplication and manipulation of science.
I also don't consider "making up dates" and using UNRELIABLE dating methodologies scientific.
And for the record, my arguments hold tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Blech, I don't really like tea.
However, if you believe evolution is based on 'making up dates' then you don't understand science. The science community does not see dating methods as unreliable. That comes from fundamentalist creationists. If you try to quote Ken Hovind, you are not talking about science anymore.
quote:Another strawman.
Lemme know when you want to have a real debate about this.
This isn't a strawman. You are disproving it based on what you believe God would do; I am explaining that you aren't right about God's motives.
quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:
John's gospel disagrees with the others in many cases. Why is that one gospel different?
quote:No, it doesn't.
John has the events of Easter in a different order. He has some other facts wrong too. Read it and compare. If you think it does, then submit a timeline chronology of the events that happened on easter, in order, without leaving out a fact from the bible. Or else, admit they don't agree.
quote:Why would Judas be writing in Coptic ?
Dictionary.com defines Coptic as "The Afro-Asiatic language of the Copts, which survives only as a liturgical language of the Coptic Church."
All the other gospels are written in Aramaic and Greek.
Where is the logic there ?
I am not a scholar. I don't know for sure.
I don't know anything about Aramaic or Coptic, but...
If the Aramaic and Greek are different languages (I'm assuming they are?), then all the other gospels weren't written in the same language, and I don't know about the languages, there origins, who knows them and so on, but then the logic is that the gospels were either written in: Greek, Greek, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic which means either throw out Aramaic and Coptic or neither for being different, or Greek Greek Aramaic Aramaic Coptic which means they were written in different languages in general.
Also, this has been lost for 1700 years. Maybe we found a translation of a Greek or Aramaic gospel which happened to survive when the original didn't. If we suddenly died, aliens would be more likely to find a modern english bible (or french, spanish, whatever) then the original version itself, if it even still existed. But like I said, I don't know language very well.
quote:How do you know what the Christians would have received or not received back then ?
Judging by your complete ignorance of this subject, I think it's safe to say that you haven't got a CLUE what the Christians back then thought, not to mention the fact that the Christians back then didn't have a Bible to reference. *shakes head*
Whoa whoa whoa what? You changed it. If the christians back then had no bible at all, then they wouldn't have had the gospel of Judas either. I mean...you aren't making sense. You said at the point when christians knew the bible and all that started, God would've put in that gospel if he wanted it.
When they actually had a bible to reference, and 'consumed it,' you're saying Judas would've been there if God wanted it there.
But then the people would read it and see Judas as the guy who betrays Jesus and then see a gospel written by this betrayer in the so-called word of God bible and get very confused. You're changing it to say when there was no bible that they knew about, it wouldn't have confused them. Well duh, because they wouldn't have had it to reference either.
I don't know what that was supposed to show.
quote:There is a common theme, writing style, and purpose to the Gospels. The Gospel of Judas strays so completely from these that it is illogical to assume it is anything more than a form of diary.
He was writing about himself. Not God.
"There's yer sign !"
Yea but Judas' diary would certainly bring to light what happened back then. I mean, he's not going to lie about it. And if he wrote it, he couldn't have killed himself. At least not immediately. He is writing about himself, ok, but he also happened to be hanging out with God. So obviously he's writing about God and Jesus as well. In the gospel of Judas he talks about nothing but Jesus, who is God.
"There's yer sign!"
quote: quote:Atheists made it up? Yea, because modern science is just a bunch of atheists making things up for the sole purpose of disproving christianity (even though some of them are christian). :sarcasm:
Oh, I see....atheists that are Christian...right.
You're a skilled debater.
Hmm...You're a skilled reader...
That's not what I said. I was disproving that modern science is just a bunch of atheists who make up stuff to disprove christianity by saying that some of the scientists themselves are christians.
Read it again. I'm saying modern science is not atheist religion doctrine. Atheism isn't a religion. There are christian scientists who support evolution, not because they are atheist, but because the data shows clear as day that evolution is correct.
That's what I said.
[EDIT: Whoops I feel dumb, typo...the second atheists is supposed to be scientists, I meant that it isn't scientists making stuff up to disprove atheists and that some scientists are christian...it's late and I'm tired]
quote:It's not about Jesus, and that's the 1st requirement it should meet to even be considered as part of the Biblical canon.
It is about Jesus, but since you haven't read it yet I'll let that slide. Also, I'll say that the old testament isn't about Jesus and doesn't mention his name at all ever. It just vaguely refers to a guy to come and stuff like that.
[This message has been edited by IanBoyd3 (edited 04-09-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The first thing that tells me the Book fo Judas is not of God is the fact that it contradicts every other Gospel in the New Testament.
The second thing that tells me it was not of God is the fact that it's been lost to us all these years. God is in complete control of His word, and if this book were meant for our consumption, it would have been made available to us.
The third, and most important, thing that tells me it's not of God is the fact that atheists the world over are reveling in it. People who spend their lives abhoring God, and trying to refute the Bible suddenly holding this ONE book in such high regard is not only disturbing, but a clear sign of where this text really comes from.
The message of the book of Judas is not surprising to me...having read the Gospels NUMEROUS times, I can say that Jesus knew from the beginning what Judas would do (as He is omnipotent). It is also clear from the beginning of Jesus' ministry that his life would end in sacrifice.
The fact that it would be Judas that betrayed Jesus was unbeknownst to Judas himself, or the other disciples. When Jesus revealed that one of them would betray him, they ALL murmered amongst themselves, asking, "Who will it be ?"
Jesus is God. He knew Judas' heart was wicked, yet he handpicked Judas anyway (just as he did all his disciples). It is ridiculous to assume that Jesus was unaware that Judas would eventually betray him. It can be postulated that Jesus chose Judas specifically because he knew that Judas was capable of such a thing, not that he pre-ordained him to.
Here is the verse that supports what I am saying...
Matthew 26:20-25 - When evening came, Yeshua (Jesus) reclined with the 12 talmidim (apostles); and as they were eating, he said, "Yes, I tell you that one of you is going to betray me." They became terrbily upset and began asking him, and after the other, "Lord, you don't mean me, do you ?" He answered, "The one who dips his matzah (bread) in the dish with me is the one who will betray me. The Son of Man (Jesus) will die just as the Tanakh (Old Testament), but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed ! It would have been better for him had he never been born !" Y'hudah (Judas), the one who was betraying him, then asked, "Surely, Rabbi, you don't mean me ?" He answered, "The words are yours."
Ok, the first thing you should notice is that Judas seems unaware of the fact that it will be himself that will betray Jesus. The apostles don't seem to know either.
The second thing that should have grabbed your attention is the fact that they were all upset. No one thought himself capable of such a betrayal, including Judas.
This is not a singular witness to this converstion, either.
John 6:63-71 - It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life, yet among you, you do not trust." (For Yeshua knew from the the outset which ones would not trust him, also which one would betray him)
"This," he said, "is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has made it possible for him." From this time on, many of his talmidim turned back, and no longer travelled around with him.
So, Yeshua said to the 12, "Don't you want to leave, too ?" Shim'on (Simon) Kefa (Peter) answered him, "Lord, to whom would we go ? You have teh word of eternal life. We have trusted, and we know that you are the holy one of God."
Yeshua answered them, "Didn't I choose you ? The twelve ? Yet one of you is an adversary." (He was speaking of Y'hudah Ben-Shim'on (Judas of Simon [his father]), from K'riot (Iscariot); for this man -one of the 12 !- was soon to betray him.)
John 13:18 - "I am not talking to all of you - I know which ones I have chosen. But the words of the Tanakh (Old Testament) must be fulfilled that say, 'The one eating my bread has turned against me.' I am telling you now, before it happens; so that when it does happen, you may believe that I AM [who I say I am]. Yes, indeed ! I tell you that a person who receives someone I send receives me, and that anyone who receives me receives the One (God) who sent me." After saying this, Yeshua, in deep anguish of spirit, decalred, "Yes, indeed ! I tell you that one of you will betray me."
The talmidim apostles) stared at one another, totally mystified - whom could he mean ? ONe of his talmidim, the one Yeshua particularly loved, was reclined close beside him. So, Shim'on Kefa (Simon Peter) motioned to him and said, "Ask which one he is talking about."
Leaning against Yeshua's chest, he asked Yeshua, "Lord, who is it ?" Yeshua answered, "It's the one to whom I give this piece of matzah after I dip it in the dish." So he dipped the piece of matzah, and gave it to Y'hudah Ben-Shim'on from K'riot (Judas, son of Simon, from Iscariot). As soon as Y'hudah took the piece of matzah, the Adversary went into him. "What you are doing, do quickly," Yeshua said to him.
Judas didn't know that he was the Lord's betrayer, period. The Book of Judas is not a book for the Bible, nor was it inspired by God.
Humans voted on what bible should and should not have. Read some background history before you open you mouth. How many other books/scrolls do you think are still lost? There is no telling. So stfu.
I havent read the whole thread so maybe this has already been talked about but anyway.
Was is actually Judas fault for Betraying jesus? If Jesus knew Judas would betray him Jesus actually needed Judas to betray him otherwise how would he ressurect himself? By betraying jesus Judas was working in God's master plan. But killing or at least betraying and having a hand in someone's murder is a sin and also is suicide ( judas killed himself afterwards) so Judas was probably sent to hell. But he was only following God's plan. So does that mean that God chooses some people to go to hell and some to go to heaven. that doesnt really fit in with an all loving god.
I am probably rambling a bit but I have had a little to drink and me and my friend were just talking about this so you'll have to excuse me.
Oh and by the way Judas himself didnt actually write this book. Some of you seem to be under the impression that he did but Judas killed himself after he handed over Christ. I think he killed himself pretty quickly after he gave up judas I dont think he had time to write a Gospel.
[This message has been edited by Lucky (edited 04-10-2006).]
Digital_Savior
2006-04-10, 06:32
quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:
DS your good at defending your faith, but I don't understand how you can stand being christian.
Why ?
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Why ?
I think he is referring to you as being smart, yet you have silly beliefs.
JesuitArtiste
2006-04-10, 16:30
Has anyone else seen the part in which Satan (Under the name Saklas?) is named creator of the universe? I wa looking through and Im preety sure there was a part that mentioned this. Also the creation and legions of angels ....
If Satan created the world would it not show gods grace far more greatly than if god created the world? In that he allows it to live and despite being the creations of evil god still offers us salvation ,still permits our existence ,indeed makes attempts at helping ....
In anycase ,I feelt hat perhaps you look at this in a far to negative light. Can you not look at this and see good? It is not the text ,after all , that matters but the interpretation which varies....
Have A Nice Day.
Ps. Digital_Saviour ,you'll probaly get a lot more support if you stop being such a condescending bitch. We may not believe in God ,but talk to us like equals, we're stil people and we still have a chance at salvation.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-10, 16:54
quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:
Has anyone else seen the part in which Satan (Under the name Saklas?) is named creator of the universe? I wa looking through and Im preety sure there was a part that mentioned this. Also the creation and legions of angels ....
You did see the name Saklas (supposedly an angel) in it. I've seen it too.
If Satan created the world would it not show gods grace far more greatly than if god created the world? In that he allows it to live and despite being the creations of evil god still offers us salvation ,still permits our existence ,indeed makes attempts at helping ....
The issue is that it doesn't fit all the other gospels, including those of apocrypha or other gnostic texts.
In anycase ,I feelt hat perhaps you look at this in a far to negative light. Can you not look at this and see good? It is not the text ,after all , that matters but the interpretation which varies....
What 'good' do you speak of?
Ps. Digital_Saviour ,you'll probaly get a lot more support if you stop being such a condescending bitch. We may not believe in God ,but talk to us like equals, we're stil people and we still have a chance at salvation.
I think you have it backwards. Digi has constantly been called all sorts of names simply because they don't argee with her opinion. Its been going on for nearly three years.
Atomical
2006-04-10, 17:47
Constantly Digital is calling people on this forum kidiots because she doesn't agree with their position. Am I wrong in thinking that draws hostility?
hyroglyphx
2006-04-10, 17:54
Comparitvely, it holds no water. Let's see: she's called a bitch, a whore, a cunt, a fucking moron, blah, blah, blah... And she takes it on the chin. And as her husband, I take it on the chin too. Why? One, because it holds no water whatsoever. And two, because most of you know not what you do. If being called a 'Kidiot' hurts any of your feelings, (which I highly doubt, based on the verbal diarrhea I see in here), I'll tell her to stop. Fair enough?
midgeymonkey2
2006-04-10, 18:13
Fuck christianity. It shits me with it's bullshit every time i hear about it.
If the bible is the word of God,why did man have to write it?Many number of people roam our planet claiming to be juses or bhudda *talking about crazy bums*
Who's to say jesus wasn't a lying psycho?
I just don't give a fuck.When a bible surfaces thats written on the side of fucking jupiter,maybe then i'll be convinced.
In closing: Show me a single piece of information about christianity that couldn't have been made up by wackos.One concrete piece that doesn't need belief,and is infallible.
Lou Reed
2006-04-10, 18:17
Digital saviour please,
you talk about the Gospel being inspired by God and such but that is besides the point because faith justifies a person before God
AND
this new gospel along with the others is distorted due to translation and interpretation
simple as that
Atomical
2006-04-10, 19:27
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
Comparitvely, it holds no water. Let's see: she's called a bitch, a whore, a cunt, a fucking moron, blah, blah, blah... And she takes it on the chin. And as her husband, I take it on the chin too. Why? One, because it holds no water whatsoever. And two, because most of you know not what you do. If being called a 'Kidiot' hurts any of your feelings, (which I highly doubt, based on the verbal diarrhea I see in here), I'll tell her to stop. Fair enough?
You're wife called me an arrogant prick. It just isn’t just the name calling either. What’s with “*starts a slow clap*”. You think that’s cute? It shows how unintelligent she is that she has to resort to such childish measures. It doesn't matter if it bothered me or not, it's still ad hom. It makes little difference to me if you want to use ad hom, but it surprises me that you play the small violin when you participate equally in this mess.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-10, 19:50
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
You're wife called me an arrogant prick.
You come off as extremely arrogant. As far as her refering to you as a 'prick,' well that was a poor choice of words.
It just isn’t just the name calling either. What’s with “*starts a slow clap*”. You think that’s cute?
I think its funny, but hey, that's just me. And if someone said it to her you'd find it amusing too. Your humor is just distasteful and hateful. "Starts a slow clap," well that's just funny and playful banter. I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I'll try extra hard not to hurt your feelings and ask that she do the same.
It shows how unintelligent she is that she has to resort to such childish measures.
Wow, I've never heard such hypocrisy before. If you want to build a case against her, then play by your own rules.
It doesn't matter if it bothered me or not, it's still ad hom. It makes little difference to me if you want to use ad hom, but it surprises me that you play the small violin when you participate equally in this mess.
And how do I participate in this 'mess.' What name-calling have I engaged in? The fact of the matter is, your point is moot when you and some of your cohorts say the most vile things about her, not because a lick of it is true, but because you want to be hurtful. And why do you that? Because you have no real argument and it ticks you off that she can articulate hers so well. So you resort to some of that childish name-calling you accuse her of.
[/B]
Dark_Magneto
2006-04-10, 20:07
All you need to know is that, according to Christians, there can be no contradictions in their holy scripture.
All contradictions are percieved, none will be considered real. There is no criteria that can be satisfied to even theoretically show a biblical contradiction. That is because it is considered an impossible ocurrance by TrueBelievers™.
Without even looking at any specific examples, you can already rationalize away any apparent contradiction with the following formula:
If it contradicts known reality, it is figurative. If it doesn't and it needs to be considered real for the purposes of the religion, then it will be until further notice.
Using this method, Christianity has withstood the test of time. What are today known as absolute falsehoods which would crumble under analysis were considered as real in past generations as any other tenet.
As long as there are gaps of ignorance in which to dwell in, rest assured, religions will jump into them and make unsubstantiated, baseless claims about that which we do not fully understand.
The more we understand, the more religion retreats into smaller and smaller crevices. I think it speaks volumes about religious positions that they lose ground with every major scientific discovery in a pertinent area.
[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 04-10-2006).]
Atomical
2006-04-10, 20:15
quote:
And why do you that? Because you have no real argument and it ticks you off that she can articulate hers so well.
That simply isn't the case. There is a thread in religion where beastiality came up. I made the claim that you couldn't produce proof that the APA is actively treating beastiality as a pathology. You submitted a paper on internet porn which had nothing to do with the APA or beastiality as a pathology.
Second, if you check the thread in Politics I think you'll find that Digital Savior refused to defend her statement that no study has been done on homosexual parents.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-10, 20:33
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
That simply isn't the case. There is a thread in religion where beastiality came up. I made the claim that you couldn't produce proof that the APA is actively treating beastiality as a pathology. You submitted a paper on internet porn which had nothing to do with the APA or beastiality as a pathology.
Second, if you check the thread in Politics I think you'll find that Digital Savior refused to defend her statement that no study has been done on homosexual parents.
What does this have to do with anything we were just discussing? And when did I ever speak to you about beastiality? You must be thinking about someone else.
Atomical
2006-04-10, 20:54
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
What does this have to do with anything we were just discussing? And when did I ever speak to you about beastiality? You must be thinking about someone else.
You are claiming that I do not substantiate my opinions.
RogueEagle91
2006-04-10, 21:39
i read about that in the paper. it was apparently dated 100 years before judas should have lived. so, does that really make any sense? a gospel written far too early? i dont exactly have much knowlege of the bible, but i just think it's odd.
Atomical
2006-04-10, 22:18
Some creationists don't believe dating is accurate. Therefore, it shouldn't matter to them.
asthesunsets
2006-04-10, 22:45
When Romans decided to accept Christianity, they accepted only certain approved texts. They put together the Bible as we know it and declared any other texts regarding Christ as heresy. This was quite a bit of text.
Dre Crabbe
2006-04-10, 23:03
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
Comparitvely, it holds no water. Let's see: she's called a bitch, a whore, a cunt, a fucking moron, blah, blah, blah... And she takes it on the chin. And as her husband, I take it on the chin too. Why? One, because it holds no water whatsoever. And two, because most of you know not what you do. If being called a 'Kidiot' hurts any of your feelings, (which I highly doubt, based on the verbal diarrhea I see in here), I'll tell her to stop. Fair enough?
I thought christians had to turn the other cheek? No matter what we call you, you have to be nice http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
You DO want to be a good christian, don't you o_O?
You wouldn't want to be sent to hell along with us sinners.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-10, 23:14
What part of 'take it on the chin' didn't you understand?
Adrenochrome
2006-04-10, 23:24
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
What part of 'take it on the chin' didn't you understand?
She doesn't though. She responds with sarcasm and name calling. That's not 'taking it on the chin'.
Atomical
2006-04-10, 23:34
http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005176.html
hyroglyphx
2006-04-11, 01:02
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
Some creationists don't believe dating is accurate. Therefore, it shouldn't matter to them.
Its not so much that. Its that many use carbon dating incorrectly. For instance, c-14 dating is ideal for pieces of antiquity. But when they try to date an organism they allege dates back, say 50 million years, that's an impossibility because there would be no carbon left in it in which to extract from for an accurate date. Aside from that, C-14 dating is routinely incorrect or inconclusive. Case in point, a document dating back before someone was able to write it.
carbon dating actually is accurate to about 50,000 years.
other types of dating, like:
rubidium-strontium
samarium-neodymium
potassium-argon
lutetium-hafnium
argon-argon
helium
uranium-uranium
uranium-thorium
uranium-lead
lead-lead
rhenium-osmium
optically stimulated luminescence dating
iodine-xenon
fission track dating
go back to 100,000 years, 500,000 years, and even an amazing 4.5 billion year half-life for uranium, which means we can date stuff all the way back to the creation of this planet.
all of these different types of dating can be cross-checked to get an accurate date.
besides, stuff can be dated simply by where it is in the lithosphere.
carbon-14 dating is generally only accurate within a few decades at best, so it is not suprising that it was dating 100 years off. in fact, it is to be expected.
in short, shut the fuck up you ignoramous.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-11, 01:40
Hey Ken, try and follow the dialogue. We're talking about a piece of antiquity that I'm almost certain was dated with the C-14 method. My objection was that many secular scientists use the C-14 method to date things they allege is way older than what is physically possible due to comlete depletion of carbon in any given specimen. So, why don't you throttle back and enjoy the conversation.
besides the fact that you suggested carbon dating is used to date 50 million year old samples (an impossibility)...
how is a 2,000 year old document out of the 50,000 year range of carbon-14 dating?
an offset of a few decades is not unusual with carbon dating.
Maybe such things appearing (this gospel of judas, and there was also that gospels of the dead sea, if I remember correctly) are signs that the christian church is gonna fall, and maybe sooner than we could expect, because it seems the Vatican won't be able to keep it's secret books for that much time.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 07:48
quote:Originally posted by ohhi:
I think he is referring to you as being smart, yet you have silly beliefs.
I don't believe my question was directed to you, but thanks anyway.
I think "I" mean that I understand what was implied, but I want him to further expound on his opinion.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 07:55
quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:
Ps. Digital_Saviour ,you'll probaly get a lot more support if you stop being such a condescending bitch. We may not believe in God ,but talk to us like equals, we're stil people and we still have a chance at salvation.
How long have you been around these parts ?
Since I started posting, I have endured inordinate amounts of ridicule and disrespect. I don't find it out of line for me to be firm in my beliefs, and unwilling to accept this kind of treatment quietly.
In short, I used to be nicer...it's not as easy as you seem to think. There is only so much ridicule a person can take before they start dishing it back out. It's not an excuse, it's a reason.
If you pay close attention, you will notice that I offer respect to those who do the same. MasterPython, for example.
Also, of ALL the people here on totse, it's hilarious that you think I am the person most deserving of the title "condescending bitch". http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:02
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
Constantly Digital is calling people on this forum kidiots because she doesn't agree with their position. Am I wrong in thinking that draws hostility?
"Kidiot" is accurate. It has nothing to do with our difference of opinion. It has everything to do with the massive lack of life experience and education that can only come from living (not from the news, or the local college campus).
For example, Sephiroth and I disagree on a great many things...politics, religion, whatever. We have argued countless hours in private, yet we remain the best of friends. I do not dislike him because his opinion differs from mine. I respect him, and appreciate his mature, intellectual debates.
This is why he's not a kidiot, and you are.
You had your shot, Atomical. I offered to speak with you privately, and you did well the first few times, and then it became evident that you were hellbent on doing nothing but egging me on. It was a waste of my time, and I don't appreciate it. It is just one more reason why I see you as a kidiot.
When you grow up, you will look back on these times, and understand what it is I am referring to.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:04
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
I'll tell her to stop. Fair enough?
Oh, come now...like I'd really stop. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)
GO IRISH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:09
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
You're wife called me an arrogant prick.
If the shoe fits...
quote:What’s with “*starts a slow clap*”.
THAT bothers you ?! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)
You should seek professional help. Now.
quote:It shows how unintelligent she is that she has to resort to such childish measures.
Yes, that's it precisely. It's a lack of intelligence on my part that spawns my more humorous side.
This coming from a guy that justifies beastiality strictly on the premise that animals can't "protest". :rolleyes*
quote:It doesn't matter if it bothered me or not, it's still ad hom.
Oh, but it does !
If it didn't bother you, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
Also, you engage in ad hom just as much as I do...so why is it wrong only when I do it ?
If we judge our debates by your rules, you too are unintelligent and immature.
Way to be a hypocrite there, Atomical.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:11
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
That simply isn't the case. There is a thread in religion where beastiality came up. I made the claim that you couldn't produce proof that the APA is actively treating beastiality as a pathology. You submitted a paper on internet porn which had nothing to do with the APA or beastiality as a pathology.
What does that have to do with what he is talking about ?
quote:Second, if you check the thread in Politics I think you'll find that Digital Savior refused to defend her statement that no study has been done on homosexual parents.
REFUSED ?! Hahahahaha !!!
When did I say that ? Link, please.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:13
quote:Originally posted by Dre Crabbe:
I thought christians had to turn the other cheek? No matter what we call you, you have to be nice http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
We don't HAVE to. We are SUPPOSED to.
I'm far from perfect, and I will never claim to be.
It's between me and God when I don't turn the other cheek.
quote:You DO want to be a good christian, don't you o_O?
You wouldn't want to be sent to hell along with us sinners.
Sin will not send a Christian to Hell. Yet again, a person smugly misrepresenting Christianity, as if they have an iota of understanding.
Classic.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:15
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
She doesn't though. She responds with sarcasm and name calling. That's not 'taking it on the chin'.
You're one to talk.You've been a jerk from the get go. You be quiet. http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)
I have taken PLENTY "on the chin"...long before you ever showed up (unless you had a different nick).
Adrenochrome
2006-04-11, 08:16
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
You're one to talk.You've been a jerk from the get go. You be quiet. http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)
I have taken PLENTY "on the chin"...long before you ever showed up (unless you had a different nick).
Just because I’m a jerk doesn’t mean you should be too. You’re just pissed because you know that it’s true.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:25
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
http: //www.tots e.com/bbs/ Forum15/HTML/005176.html (http: //www.tots e.com/bbs/ Forum15/HT ML/005176. html)
"Until you can prove that the American Psychological Association is actively treating bestiality as a mental illness what I have said stands."
If that is what you are talking about, I just...I can't even begin to formulate a criticism harsh enough.
I made NO claim. I made a sarcastic comment.
Whether the APA deems beastiality as a mental illness or not is irrelevant. It's disgusting, immoral, and just plain wrong. THAT was my point, and you know it.
In case you missed it, Hyro addressed your challenge to "prove" that beastiality is considered a mental illness...
"Zoophilia is classified as a paraphilia, a type of sexual disorder."
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/ssr/Deviance%20Online.pdf
ZOOPHILIA
1. Affection or affinity for animals.
2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals.
PARAPHILIA
Any of a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner.
Then you wonder why I refer to you as a kidiot !
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:27
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
Just because I’m a jerk doesn’t mean you should be too. You’re just pissed because you know that it’s true.
So, you're a hypocrite ?
Just admit that, and I will have no problem dropping the ad hom.
It is unnatural for a person to not desire defending themselves.
[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-11-2006).]
Adrenochrome
2006-04-11, 08:29
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
So, you're a hypocrite ?
Just admit that, and I will have no problem dropping the ad hom.
It is unnatural for a person to not desire defending themselves.
Of course I'm a hypocrite. I think everyone is to a certain extent.
I see no point in defending myself against the truth.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-11, 08:30
Ok, then. I can live with that.
Dre Crabbe
2006-04-11, 10:23
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Sin will not send a Christian to Hell. Yet again, a person smugly misrepresenting Christianity, as if they have an iota of understanding.
Classic.
Well that's mighty convenient. Just say "I know! I SHOULD have turned the other cheek, but I didn't. Why? Because if I pray and "ask for forgiveness" God won't care."
A god that's so easily fooled deserves no worship. What a shitty God.
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
Sin will not send a Christian to Hell.
Wrong. Not all sins can be forgiven. I thought we went over that already.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-11, 17:33
There is only one sin that can't be forgiven or pardoned for, and that's blasphemy of the holy Spirit. The only way to do that is to first know the Holy Spirit and to turn away from it completely.
"I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." -Matthew 12:31
"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." -Mark 3:28
"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." -Luke 12:10
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." -Hebrews 6:4
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" -Hebrews 10:26
"If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that." -1 John 5:16
"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them." -2 Peter 2:20
Adrenochrome
2006-04-11, 23:13
Well then, I'm going to hell almost certainly.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-11, 23:24
Naw, you still have time brother as long as there is breath in your lungs. That means rejecting the Holy Spirit 'til the day of your death. 'Cause once your dead, that's it. The deed is set in stone.
Adrenochrome
2006-04-11, 23:27
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
Naw, you still have time brother as long as there is breath in your lungs. That means rejecting the Holy Spirit 'til the day of your death. 'Cause once your dead, that's it. The deed is set in stone.
No, no… I’ve said some pretty nasty things about the Christian God and I still agree with everything I said. I’d rather go to hell for my sins than be in the heaven of the Christian God. He’s a nasty piece of work.
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
Naw, you still have time brother as long as there is breath in your lungs. That means rejecting the Holy Spirit 'til the day of your death.
According to who? None of those passages say that you might be forgiven in the future; in fact, they explicitly state otherwise, "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.".
"Never", as in ... "never"; definately not as in "well, maybe sometime in the future if you change your tune".
RogueEagle91
2006-04-12, 00:15
quote:Originally posted by kenwih:
in short, shut the fuck up you ignoramous.
i hope that wasn't pointed at me. it's not exactly like we all know how accurate carbon dating is. i realize it's off, but i didnt think it would range in the hundreds of years.
Atomical
2006-04-12, 00:21
quote:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
I love homosexuals. I support gay marriage and abortion. I hate war, love peace, and don't see a problem spending money on social programs. How can you stand that I'm getting a free pass?
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 00:34
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
According to who? None of those passages say that you might be forgiven in the future; in fact, they explicitly state otherwise, "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.".
"Never", as in ... "never"; definately not as in "well, maybe sometime in the future if you change your tune".
Maybe you're right, but they would have to have had a legitimate relationship with God at one time. For instance, half of the people on Totse that claim the coveted title, Athiest, are really young and only grew up as a Christian. That doesn't mean that they ever were. For instance, my entire family claims to be Christian, but they aren't, with the exception of my grandmother on my fathers side. They just grew up in it and don't really know any better. But for the Totseans that isn't something that I can answer for them, and they may not even be able to answer that question for themselves. This is different from being backslidden. Millions, of Christians, no wait, virtually every Christian has been in a backslidden state at one point, or even several times in their lives. It doesn't mean they 'lost' their salvation, it means they're falling away. But once again, I can't really say if they knew God or not. That's between them and God.
The passages in question don't speak of previously being Christian, or previously having a relationship with the Christ, either. Again, similarly, they in fact state the opposite:
"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." -Mark 3:28
"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." -Luke 12:10
Anyone, not, "only those who were Christian before and later blasphemed against the Holy Spirit".
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 01:14
Jesus said, [paraphrasing], you can talk can talk smack against the Father, and you can talk smack about me and still be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Jesus makes the clarification because the only way you can know the Spirit is if you already experienced it, and not everyone has. That's where the distinction is made.
You didn't answer anything. The fact remains that the passage specifically states that anyone who blasphemes against the holy spirit is guilty of that sin.
Now, if you're saying that it would be impossible to blaspheme against the holy spirit without having a relationship with god in the first place, then you're going to have to prove that assertion first.
Prove that it would be impossible to blaspheme against the holy spirit if one doesn't have a relationship with god.
After you do so, please explain how anyone could not know god and the holy spirit (so as to not have the capacity to have a relationship with him) when the bible explictly states that he is so evident in our creation that we are without excuse if we don't believe in him.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2006).]
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 01:55
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" -John 6:44
"When He [Holy Spirit] comes, He will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I AM going to the Father, where you can see Me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world (satan) now stands condemned" -John 16:8-11.
You have to know the Spirit before you can deny the Spirit.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us." -1 John 1:8-10
If you don't think that you are a sinner, then you don't know God. But if you do know God and still fall away, then....
"I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent." -Revelation 2:4-5
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in The Name of The Lord Jesus Christ and in The Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11
So, I say again, you must know the Spirit before you can blaspheme against, otherwise, its just like you're talking smack about Jesus which can be forgiven. That's why He made the distinction. The only way anyone can truly know Jesus is through the Spirit. Those that speak against or resist the Spirit have already known Him, and they cannot repent for it. I couldn't tell you how rare this is, or common this is. All I know is what the Scriptures say on it.
None of those passages state that in order to blaspheme against the holy spirit, one has to know god first. You simply have not proven what you needed to prove.
Moreover, please explain how anyone could not know god when your bible explictly states that god is so blatantly seen in nature that one is without excuse if one does not believe in him.
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 02:54
quote:Originally posted by Rust:
None of those passages state that in order to blaspheme against the holy spirit, one has to know god first. You simply have not proven what you needed to prove.
Rust, nothing I post seems to suffice for you. The passages are explicit. Maybe you just don't understand it.
Moreover, please explain how anyone could not know god when your bible explictly states that god is so blatantly seen in nature that one is without excuse if one does not believe in him.
Reasoning that there is a God because its so blatantly obvious in nature is different than recieving the Holy Spirit. There are millions of people who know of God, but don't follow God or His ways. And this verse speaks more of unbelievers who refuse to believe and reject the obvious creation.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -and shudder."
- James 2:18-20
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things." -Galatians 5:22
This is how we recognize people in the Spirit. When we stray from this it becomes evident in our actions. Your reference about God is that we will have no excuse for not realizing that there is a Creator. That has nothong to do with understanding the Spirit of God. That understanding does not come from human intellect, it comes from God alone through submission. But you have to realize that you are a sinner before the Holy Spirit can be poured out on you. Do you understand now?
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
Rust, nothing I post seems to suffice for you. The passages are explicit. Maybe you just don't understand it
It doesn't suffice because they aren't suffiecient for anything. They do not answer what you need to answer; they do not state that one needs to know god in order to blaspheme against the holy spirit, which is what you need to prove.
This has nothing to do with me not understanding, it has everything to do with you not substantiating what you need to substantiate. You quote passages that do not support what you have to prove; that's your problem, not mine.
Now if you feel they do, then by all means, try to argue your case; but it's obvious they do not support what you need to prove at all - they do not claim that the only possible way to blaspheme against the holy spirit is by being a Christian first.
quote:Reasoning that there is a God because its so blatantly obvious in nature is different than recieving the Holy Spirit. There are millions of people who know of God, but don't follow God or His ways. And this verse speaks more of unbelievers who refuse to believe and reject the obvious creation.
You implied that they would only have to know god, in order to blaspheme against the holy spirit by saying, "But once again, I can't really say if they knew God or not.", in response to whether or not they would be able to. That is why I brought that up.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2006).]
Adrenochrome
2006-04-12, 03:15
Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are one being?...
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 03:16
It doesn't suffice because they aren't suffiecient for anything. They do not answer what you need to answer; they do not state that one needs to know god in order to blaspheme against the holy spirit, which is what you need to prove.
I already gave you the quotes, and Jesus spelled it out for you. I think you just want to win an argument, but I want to win your soul and see you live.
You implied that they would only have to know god, in order to blaspheme against the holy spirit by saying, "But once again, I can't really say if they knew God or not.", in response to whether or not they would be able to. That is why I brought that up.
To 'know' God means to have an intimate relationship. To 'know of' God is completely different. Case in point: I know of Bill Clinton, but it doesn't mean that I know him personally. I recognize that a man named Bill Clinton exists, but its a far cry from having any kind of relationship with him.
This has nothing to do with me not understanding, it has everything to do with you not substantiating what you need to substantiate. You quote passages that do not support what you have to prove; that's your problem, not mine.
The passages are very clear.
"To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed so they cannot hear. The Word of the Lord is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it." -Jeremiah 6:10
"Whoever has ears, let them hear.' The disciples came to him and asked, 'Why do you speak to the people in parables?' He replied, 'The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Those who have will be given more, and they will have an abundance. As for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.' In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them." -Matthew 13:9-15
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 03:25
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are one being?...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; but the darkness did not comprehended it" -John 1:1-5
Translation:
"In the beginning of time was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. The same was with the Spirit. All things were made by the Father, and without the Father, nothing was made. In Jesus was the Spirit, and the Spirit was the light of men. And the Spirit shines in darkness, but evil does not comprehend it."
[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 04-12-2006).]
Adrenochrome
2006-04-12, 03:26
[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 04-12-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
I already gave you the quotes, and Jesus spelled it out for you. I think you just want to win an argument, but I want to win your soul and see you live.
You gave quotes which don't spell out anything relevant.
And no, I don't just want to win an argument, I would love nothing more than to have a god that allegedly stands for what is just - a god which punishes those who are wicked, and rewards those who are good. Cosmic justice would be nothing short of bliss.
The problem is that your beliefs are illogical, unreasonable, unsubstantiated and immoral.
quote:To 'know' God means to have an intimate relationship. To 'know of' God is completely different. Case in point: I know of Bill Clinton, but it doesn't mean that I know him personally. I recognize that a man named Bill Clinton exists, but its a far cry from having any kind of relationship with him.
Yet if I know about the existence of Bill Clinton, and have at the very least an elementary understanding of his position, I can call him a jackass. The same applies here, and you've failed to show otherwise
So long as one has knowledge of the alleged existence of the holy spirit, I am able to blaspheme against it. You have failed to shown otherwise.
quote:The passages are very clear.
They certainly are, which is exactly why I can say with certainty that they do not support your claim in the least.
Which is exactly reason why you decided not to show me where they support what you say (as you claim they do) and instead chose to post yet another irrelevant passage.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-12-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; but the darkness did not comprehended it" -John 1:1-5
Translation:
"In the beginning of time was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. The same was with the Spirit. All things were made by the Father, and without the Father, nothing was made. In Jesus was the Spirit, and the Spirit was the light of men. And the Spirit shines in darkness, but evil does not comprehend it."
Word = Jesus?
So they ARE one and the same after all...
The finding of these texts must mean that the church now has to defend its position as speaking the "true" word of God. As we all know and has been mentioned, the church left out a LOT of material when composing the New Testament, and we can assume that there were hundreds of texts like this so called "gospel of Judas". The compiling of the new testament was in the 4-5th Centuries AD, which is when I do believe this text was dated to.
The fact that it was found buried in the Egyptian desert can lead us to infer a couple of things:
1) Someone wanted to protect this text so that future peoples would be able to read what they saw as true events.
2) Someone buried it so that it would NEVER be found.
So what we have, seems to be a text contemporary with the compilation of the New Testament, unearthed in a place where it was obviously hard to find (having only just found it after all these years). This could have been because of the repression by the Roman Catholic Church on other religious sects, which there many of during the church's infancy.
Indeed it would be very, very interesting to delve into the Vatican archives, though as long as the church exists I do not believe that this will happen. Some people just do not want to discuss what exactly is true and what is not.
On the subject of C-14 dating, when we are dating as recently as 2000 years ago, the margin of error is extremely small, especially when using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). Therefore the date of this text is probably not much of an issue.
On the language it was written in, it is very possible that it was copied perhaps to be distributed to peoples of this language, probably from a Greek or Aramaic source. The language therefore has much less influence on how we interpret this piece of material.
In fact, whether this document is a true representation of events back in Jesus' time or not, it still highlights an issue which needs to be addressed - what exactly DID the church leave out of the bible?
Digital Saviour and Hyroglyphx (sorry if I spelt this wrong), with no offence intended I would really like to pose a question; How can you have such (in my opinion, blind and absolutely uncompromising) faith in what the bible actually says, when you must realise full well that it is heavily censored, especially considering the context of the time in which it was compiled. Please do not quote any passages of the bible in replying to this, as you do seem to do to "answer" a lot of questions, just give me your honest opinion.
Again, no offence intended. If you do not wish to answer feel free not to. I would however, like your opinions on what I have written regarding the text.
Twiggy
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 18:54
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
????
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 18:56
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are one being?...
Yes, but they are also 3 entities.
I like the following analogy to explain this in a way that is easy to understand...
H20 can come in 3 forms...water, ice, and steam. They are all still H20, just in different forms, with different functions.
Make sense ?
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 18:59
quote:Originally posted by Dre Crabbe:
Well that's mighty convenient. Just say "I know! I SHOULD have turned the other cheek, but I didn't. Why? Because if I pray and "ask for forgiveness" God won't care."
Wrong. God cares. The ramification of my inability to take constant ridicule will play themselves out over time...
I don't ask for forgiveness. I repent. That means I lay my sins at God's feet. He does with them what He will. I then ask that He help me be strong, and not allow childish name-calling to bother me, so I can continue to be an effective messenger.
Sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I don't. I pay for it, one way or another.
quote:A god that's so easily fooled deserves no worship. What a shitty God.
Taking what I say out of context doesn't make you an authority on God.
Be careful.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 19:03
quote:Originally posted by ohhi:
Wrong. Not all sins can be forgiven. I thought we went over that already.
The only unforgivable sin is disbelief/rejection of God. That is the only sin that will send you to Hell.
All other sins are identified for us so that we can avoid them, because sin makes us miserable. God wants us to be happy, always.
Again, any Christian would have known this if they spent even a short amount of time studying the word. Your complete lack of knowledge of Christianity tells me you not only didn't study the Bible, but you never knew God...therefore, you were never a Christian.
I don't know how many times you will show me this by posting your ignorant comments, and how many times I will have to call you on it before you admit that it was YOU who failed God, not the other way around.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 19:04
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
Well then, I'm going to hell almost certainly.
You can repent. You are still alive for a reason.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 19:06
quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:
Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
Naw, you still have time brother as long as there is breath in your lungs. That means rejecting the Holy Spirit 'til the day of your death. 'Cause once your dead, that's it. The deed is set in stone.
No, no… I’ve said some pretty nasty things about the Christian God and I still agree with everything I said. I’d rather go to hell for my sins than be in the heaven of the Christian God. He’s a nasty piece of work.
You lack the education to make such an irrational comment.
The worst that can happen by educating yourself about God is a better understanding...if nothing comes of it, then what have you lost ? Nothing. Hopefully, that education will help you reconcile the doubts and complaints you currently have.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-12, 19:09
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
I love homosexuals.
We love people. We hate sin.
That's precisely what God commands us to do.
Did Jesus tell the prostitute that it was ok for her to continue living in her sin ? No. He told her she was forgiven, and to go live a blameless life.
Why should it be any different for any other sinner, to include homosexuals ?
quote:I support gay marriage and abortion.
Then you do not know God's heart, and that is sad.
quote:I hate war, love peace, and don't see a problem spending money on social programs.
We hate war and love peace, too. What's your point ?
Spending money on social programs hasn't got anything to do with God, so I am not sure why you bothered mentioning that...
hyroglyphx
2006-04-12, 22:05
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twiggy:
The finding of these texts must mean that the church now has to defend its position as speaking the "true" word of God. As we all know and has been mentioned, the church left out a LOT of material when composing the New Testament
A man named Muhammad Ali found a jar buried in the ground near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, that contained a number of leather-bound codices that date back to about 290 to 330 A.D. This discovery gave credence to some of the rumors that had been swirling about for a few hundred years about the early church period. It was previously believed to have only been some derogatory references made by early Christians. But there a number of problems with them. The first problem is their date. The Gnostic gospels are said to be written by eyewitnesses of Jesus, i.e. Thomas, Judas Iscariot, Mary Magdelene, etc.. The problem is that they were written well after the deaths of all these people. It also contains a number of texts containing the words, "The secret gospel," of such and such. Take for instance, the Gnostic text, "The secret gospel of Mark," or the "secret gospel of John." Right there is a dead giveaway that there existed the actual gospel of Mark and John, otherwise, what need is there for the expletive? Furthermore, its not so secretive once you write it down, now is it? If we were to say that it was suppressed by the church, that still wouldn't explain why the literal name is "Secret." In any case, people assume that Jesus was embellished by the apostles, and so it created a god out of a man; namely, Jesus. However, it is far more reasonable to assume that the assertions that came along come from the gnostic texts which clearly did not come from any Divine inspiration, let alone someone who actualy knows the texts. In fact, the Council of Nicaea had to be formed in about 325 AD because these rogue gospels were infiltrating sound doctrine and it was confusing the layman. Therefore, it was the job of this esteemed council to separate the real from the fiction. And that's what they did.
The fact that it was found buried in the Egyptian desert can lead us to infer a couple of things:
[b]1) Someone wanted to protect this text so that future peoples would be able to read what they saw as true events.
Yes, I agree that it was probably hidden because the author or the group that discovered it probably thought it was a legitamte text and tried to preserve it.
2) Someone buried it so that it would NEVER be found.
This makes less sense because how much better would it be for them to have simply burned it in a fire as to give NO chance that would be found.
If you've ever taken the time to read the gospel of Judas, as well as the other gnostic texts, anyone with a basic knowledge of Scriptures can see a plethora of errancies in it. Furthermore, how is it possible for Judas to write the gospel when he died so short a time after?
On the subject of C-14 dating, when we are dating as recently as 2000 years ago, the margin of error is extremely small, especially when using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS). Therefore the date of this text is probably not much of an issue.
Based on what I know of the gospel of Judas, I don't believe it to be a forgery. I believe that it is an actual piece of antiquity, however, that does not mean that what is contained therein is historically accurate. As far as some empirical evidence, the codices have been dated at 220 to 340 AD, a long time after any other Biblical manuscript was written. This date was accepted and confirmed by three different groups, in France, Arizona, and Switzerland. That means that the gospel of Judas was written after Judas had died, which would make his gospel the only gospel written by someone other than the alleged author. This further discredits the information.
On the language it was written in, it is very possible that it was copied perhaps to be distributed to peoples of this language, probably from a Greek or Aramaic source. The language therefore has much less influence on how we interpret this piece of material.
The codices are written in Coptic, which is quite perplexing if we were to assume that it is a legitamte piece of scripture. Since no copy has been found in Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew, there is no reason to assume that it ever existed in either of these common languages. This discredits it all the more. Lastly, it would be the only gospel ever written in Coptic as a first edition, original copy. This also discredits the plausibility.
In fact, whether this document is a true representation of events back in Jesus' time or not, it still highlights an issue which needs to be addressed - what exactly DID the church leave out of the bible?
There has been much speculation on what the Catholic Church owns, or doesn't own. Its long been rumored that the Vatican stores away all kinds of historical treasure. But until we can verify that, its no more than an unsubstantiated rumor.
Digital Saviour and Hyroglyphx (sorry if I spelt this wrong), with no offence intended I would really like to pose a question; How can you have such (in my opinion, blind and absolutely uncompromising) faith in what the bible actually says, when you must realise full well that it is heavily censored, especially considering the context of the time in which it was compiled. Please do not quote any passages of the bible in replying to this, as you do seem to do to "answer" a lot of questions, just give me your honest opinion.
Again, no offence intended. If you do not wish to answer feel free not to. I would however, like your opinions on what I have written regarding the text.
Your post is inoffensive, but thank you for your candor. DS and I believe in the Bible for a number of reasons. Most notably, the Bible continues to prove its worth as being the very Word of God by proving its historical accuracy with archeology, as well as prophetic comprehension. That is not taking into consideration the personal revelation that she and I share. That is why believe the Bible to be true. It isn't a decision that we came to whimsically. This faith has come through the evidence. I hope that sheds some light on my feeling s toward the gospel of Judas, and the entire Bible.
ArgonPlasma2000
2006-04-12, 22:45
quote:Originally posted by Zay:
All the more reason not to believe in the Bible if you ask me.
Thats a pretty poor reason to harden your beliefs against something.
If I were to write a treatise against modern physics, would you have less faith in gravity?
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
The only unforgivable sin is disbelief/rejection of God. That is the only sin that will send you to Hell.
All other sins are identified for us so that we can avoid them, because sin makes us miserable. God wants us to be happy, always.
Again, any Christian would have known this if they spent even a short amount of time studying the word. Your complete lack of knowledge of Christianity tells me you not only didn't study the Bible, but you never knew God...therefore, you were never a Christian.
I don't know how many times you will show me this by posting your ignorant comments, and how many times I will have to call you on it before you admit that it was YOU who failed God, not the other way around.
bla bla bla... I hear all this crap before. Standard christian answer. Who are you to tell me wether or not I have known god? There were preists who were preaching word of god for 20 years and most likely had more faith then you and your husband put together. They suddenly become atheists. Did they not know god too? I don't know bible? I sure as hell do know a lot of it. Enough to discuss/debate it anyways. I tell what is written in it without any distortion.
How are my comments ignorant by the way? If anything you are the one who has your narrowminded, faithfull comments all over the place.
Atomical
2006-04-12, 22:49
quote:
We love people. We hate sin.
That's precisely what God commands us to do.
Does God also command you to alienate these people by spreading lies?
quote:
Then you do not know God's heart, and that is sad.
God doesn't have a heart. If homosexuals are inherently immoral don't you think that they would be depressed even without harassment and assault? Here's a quote from one of the sources your husband posted:
quote:
In 2004, Mills and his colleagues reported a CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)-funded study of a household-based probability sample of men who have sex with men (N=2881) in four large USA cities. Among men who have sex with men, the 7-day prevalence of depression was 17.2%, which is higher than in adult US. men in general (who have a 3.8% 30-day prevalence rate). The 7-day prevalence of distress in men who have sex with men was 12%. The authors concluded, “Rates of distress and depression are high in men who have sex with men,” and were associated with “...lack of a domestic partner; not identifying as gay, queer, or homosexual; experiencing multiple episodes of anti-gay violence in the previous 5 years; and very high levels of community alienation” (p. 278).
quote:
In the seventh and eighth grade, I was harassed by other kids who would say stupid things about my mom, mostly. ...People use the word “faggot” at lot. ...It’s basically used as a general insult. One teacher called someone in her classroom a “faggot,” and my friend said something to her. The challenge of school personnel is highlighted by Gillespie in 1999 who wrote, ...“dyke,” “faggot,” and “you’re so gay” are often the insults of choice among school-age children. Although school personnel usually respond swiftly to the use of racial slurs, anti-gay language is often routinely ignored and even tolerated in many schools and other public settings. Institutionalized homophobia also prevents many children of gays and lesbians from sharing personal information about their family structure with their friends. Fearing ridicule of their parents’ sexual orientation, many students with LGBT parents are also afraid of being called gay themselves. Interviews with students confirm these observations. Teenager Eric DeMarco Benjamin spoke about his painful encounters with prejudice and homophobia: “Growing up with lesbian moms wasn’t easy. Some kids teased me and tried to beat me up. They thought that I was gay just because my parents are. ...Still, sometimes, I don’t tell people about my family. Its’ hard to bring girlfriends home because I don’t know how they will react. 106
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
But a large portion of people still disagree with the idea that it is possible to be homosexual and mentally competent.
You use the result of this harassment and abuse to make a case that homosexuals are inherently immoral and have mental health issues. It's tantamount to blaming a rape victim for being raped.
quote:
We hate war and love peace, too. What's your point ?
My point was that I hate war. I don't believe you. After all your comments on "peace loving hippies" I doubt anyone else does either.
quote:
Spending money on social programs hasn't got anything to do with God, so I am not sure why you bothered mentioning that...
Social programs help the poor. I don't see how that isn't what God calls us to do. I've done research on homelessness. I know the facts.
[This message has been edited by Atomical (edited 04-12-2006).]
quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:
That means that the gospel of Judas was written after Judas had died, which would make his gospel the only gospel written by someone other than the alleged author. This further discredits the information.
WTF? Jesus didn't write anything either. Does it mean that we have to discredit his teaching as well? Retard.
Atomical
2006-04-12, 22:59
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
REFUSED ?! Hahahahaha !!!
When did I say that ? Link, please.
http://www .totse.com /bin/bbs/p ost.cgi?ac tion=reply &forum=Pol itics:+Lef t,+Right,+ and+Center&number=14&topic=005466.cgi&TopicSubject=Gays+Adopting+Children&replyto=191
I caught you telling a lie and then you stopped posting.
Hieroglyphx:
Thankyou for your reply. Whilst I can't say I agree with you, I admire the way that you defend your view and your faith - that is intelligently and eloquently, which is more than a lot of people on this site do.
Being an archaeology undergraduate myself I have found this whole discovery to be extremely intruiging and will post anymore thoughts if I have it, though I'm sure this thread is going to degrade even more into a slanging match.
Either ways, thanks again.
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
If I were to write a treatise against modern physics, would you have less faith in gravity?
Shitty analogy. Belief in gravity is not faith, because it rests on physical evidence of its existence.
On the other hand, belief that the bible is more than just the stories of a certain religious group, does not rest on any reproducible physical evidence, but on faith; faith which does get questioned when a similar story surfaces, one which may contradict certain religious beliefs in the first place.
[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-13-2006).]
elfstone
2006-04-13, 17:35
Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
But a large portion of people still disagree with the idea that it is possible to be homosexual and mentally competent.
HAHAHA...You never heard of Oscar Wilde? Alan Turing maybe? Maybe you should widen the scope of your..."education". It could lessen your bigotry.
Atomical
2006-04-13, 19:05
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
[quote]
Whether the APA deems beastiality as a mental illness or not is irrelevant. It's disgusting, immoral, and just plain wrong. THAT was my point, and you know it.
It is relevant because that is what I was arguing. I'm interesting in debating, a far cry from your recruitment program.
quote:
In case you missed it, Hyro addressed your challenge to "prove" that beastiality is considered a mental illness...
"Zoophilia is classified as a paraphilia, a type of sexual disorder."
http:/ /www.oneon ta.edu/academics/ssr/Deviance%20Online.pdf (http: //www.oneo nta.edu/ac ademics/ss r/Deviance %20Online. pdf)
ZOOPHILIA
1. Affection or affinity for animals.
2. Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals.
PARAPHILIA
Any of a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner.
Let's take a look at that pdf hyro posted that I decided to read just now:
quote:
Zoophilia is classified as a paraphilia, a type of sexual disorder that features recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or ones partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons (DSM-IV, 1994, 522-523).
So what is DSM-IV? Is it just another publication? It turns out DSM-IV is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Perhaps you should be reading the updated version?
quote:
The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association)
quote:
Then you wonder why I refer to you as a kidiot !
I can think of two reasons why you refer to me as a kidiot:
1) I refute your posts and make you look bad.
2) You don't feel good about yourself.
Noperiden
2006-04-13, 22:15
Could some one recap what is being discussed in this topic? I imagine I'm not the only one who's totally lost.
[This message has been edited by Noperiden (edited 04-14-2006).]
Christians saying that it's (Gospel of Judas) not valid document that should not be accepted among religious people.
Atomical
2006-04-14, 19:41
bump
Atomical
2006-04-15, 20:42
yawn
Atomical
2006-04-19, 21:13
Case closed I guess. I refuted Digital's source and now she is conceding.
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:
...it's not about salvation. It's about Judas. There is no other book in the Bible that is like that, except maybe Psalms.
I disagre wholeheartedly, from my experience with the Gospel of Judas, it gives more insight into true "salvation" than a lot of the books included in the current bible.
I'll re-post a bit of the response I posted in the "Judas" thread...
___________________________________________
The Gospel of Judas has a bit of gnostic feel to it at times. It's more of a set of philosopical stanced accounts, told through the story of Judas, rather than a collection of myth stories meant to explain things in a way accessible to the masses.
A few selections:
One day in Judea, Jesus comes up to find the disciples very serious in some sort of pious observation of some jewish custom. He sees all of this and starts laughing, because focusing on this observation of some religious rite is missing the point. Most of the disciples are bothered, some angered.
Jesus was laughing at the false piety of their worship of this personified false idea of god they had.
In response to their anger, Jesus said "Let any one of you who is strong enough stand and reveal to me the true spiritual person within." The disciples all respond, "We are strong enough!" But none of them can gather the courage to actually stand in this act, one that would be almost challenging him. None but Jusdas Iscariot, who stands eventually and says, "I know who you are, and where you came from. I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you..." and Jesus goes to him and stops him and says, "Step away from the others, and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is a great and boundless realm which no eye of an angel has ever seen, no thought of the heart has ever comprehended, and it was never called by name."
The importance of this dialogue is this:
Rather than arguing with them about religious rites, Jesus asks for the perfect, spiritual person in them, the bit of god in them that sparked them to life, the bit of a person that should have the knowledge of god inherent in it, to step forward and converse with him. They say they can, but none do, none except Judas. Judas says that he truly understands the nature of Jesus and what it is that he is. Also he is doing this not as a challenge, to further some sort of argument, but humbly and modestly. And Jesus, as a result gives him a bit more prodding to further Judas's own understanding of things.
It was not out of the ordinary, it was in fact, even customary, for jewish teachers to give some basic type of knowlege to the masses, to prod them along at very basic levels, and then give different, more specified information to those who had a higher understanding of such things.
Jesus also tells Judas that he will be the disciple who will be cursed by the others later on, but that it is still possible for him to reach the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven refers to a sort of enlightened state in which one truly understands the nature of god.
Jesus says, "You will be greater than them all. Judas, you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."
Jesus discusses that people in this world have a divine spark within them, that is set free upon death. Implying that Judas would almost be a hero for carrying out what he was going to have to do.
To keep the traditional story of Judas in perspective, it could be useful to understand that, at the time, the person who took responsibility for someone who was a wanted man, and carried out the legal exchange that took place, basically just the equivalent of filling out the necessary paperwork, would be given a small payment. The payment would be 30 pieces of silver. Judas was also the disciples treasurer, so it wouldn't be a surprise that he would probably be the one to do this.
Also, the account of Judas changes throughout the 4 other gospels in the current form of the bible. Going from the earliest account, in which Jesus simply tells Judas to go and take care of what he has to do, through some sensational elaborations on the story up to the last account which contains the story of Judas being specified by Jesus as the betrayer at the last supper (in earlier versions Jesus only says that it will be one of the disciples who turns him over) and ends with a bit of a scuffle even, with Jesus ending it by saying, he who lives by the sword, shall die by it. I've not read these gospels in a while, so I may be wrong in saying this, but I would guess that this was said to Peter.
IanBoyd3
2006-04-20, 00:42
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
Case closed I guess. I refuted Digital's source and now she is conceding.
She might always come back and give some irrelevant post that ignores everything else. You never know. Or she may claim she just has a life. Conveniently, she always has a life right when her arguments get refuted beyond any reconciliation, even for her, which is saying something.
Notice, though, that no matter how many times she has to give up, it doesn't shake her faith. Nothing will.
Christians will say that's good.
I say it's frightening.
quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:
I say it's frightening.
Digital_Savior
2006-04-24, 11:33
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:
Case closed I guess. I refuted Digital's source and now she is conceding.
You could only dream. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)
In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't post ANYWHERE on this forum until today.
I've been in Politics, and on other websites.
You really are quite arrogant and self-absorbed.
I didn't even see your post.