Saw on the news today, that a paper from 300 A.D. was found that says Jesus instructed Judas to betray him. There was no betrayal, as long believed by Christians.
Supposedly the church hid the documents for some time.

What was interesting, to me, was the comment of the Vatican calling it, "religious fantasy."
I guess they should recognize such.

damn newpapers cant be trusted!

"today, Pontus Pilate raised taxes another half a gold piece for everyone with 10 camels or more. In other news, we have discovered Jesus instructed Judas to betray him"

Saw on the news today, that a paper from 300 A.D. was found that says Jesus instructed Judas to betray him. There was no betrayal, as long believed by Christians.
Supposedly the church hid the documents for some time.

What was interesting, to me, was the comment of the Vatican calling it, "religious fantasy."
I guess they should recognize such.

What was found, was a copy of the "Gospel of Judas", written in Coptic. It will be featured in the next edition of National Geographic. Apparrently the document is of the proper age based on carbon dating, and on the small number of modern scholars who are fluent in Coptic who could prepare a forgery. It was found several years ago, and has been worked on by experts.
It was known for a long time that such a book had been written at the time, but all copies were believed lost. It is one of the gnostic gospels, those gospels that were not included in the bible. There are others in this category, such as the gospel of Mary Magdelene.
If Judas's account is accurate, and one must note that people even then could be self serving, then it implies that Jesus may well of manipulated the circumstances to bring about his own crucifiction. That would make much of the theology of Jesus as innocent victim incorrect, and put in it's place a much different story of martyrdom by choice.
It is very much a story of the interpretation of events by the Disciples as the early church took form. Those interpretations have formed the basis of Christian theology, but they may not be historically accurate. It is a fascinating area of study, and one which has implications for how we view those events. The Gospel of Mary Magdelene, for instance, implies that she was the wife of Jesus, at least in the common law sense, since the marriage was never officially registered. That could have implications as well, for the idea of celibacy of the priesthood, and our views of sex as "sinful".

when you read the new testament many times it says things like "this was done to fulfill the prophecy". I always wonder if Jesus knew that he had to do certain things to fulfill the prohecy or if the men who wrote those books put two and two together after the fact. Since Jesus was an expert in the holy book at the time I must assume he knew what the prohecys were and took steps to complete them.

Thanks Imagineer, for the additional info.
I have read the gospels that you mentioned and a few more. It is very interesting how the writings that were either included or excluded from the Bible were used to paint a particular picture of events.

When the Bible was comprised a few hundred years after the death of Christ the authors had very little proof of the authenticity of any of the documents included. Therefore that left only the point to be proven as a guide.

As with many stories, the actual true chain of events would probably suprise a lot of people.

Didn't Judas Iscariot hang himself, after he found out he had betrayed Christ?
If he was instructed by Jesus to betray him, then why did he do this?
Unless he didn't think that Jesus was going to be crucified?
I'll admit, my knowledge of this topic is faulty, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.

Didn't Judas Iscariot hang himself, after he found out he had betrayed Christ?
If he was instructed by Jesus to betray him, then why did he do this?
Unless he didn't think that Jesus was going to be crucified?
I'll admit, my knowledge of this topic is faulty, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.
=========================================

There is always the possibility that he hanged himself because of the people around him not knowing the truth, and could not live with the shunning and disgrace.

As with many stories, the actual true chain of events would probably suprise a lot of people.

I'd love to see the faces of the religious when they relize they placed their stock in a fairy tale all along.

I still can't get my head around the fact that some people honestly believe god loves them personally. We are but specks of dirt on a spinning rock. As if god would have time for us.

Didn't Judas Iscariot hang himself, after he found out he had betrayed Christ?
If he was instructed by Jesus to betray him, then why did he do this?
Unless he didn't think that Jesus was going to be crucified?
I'll admit, my knowledge of this topic is faulty, but I find it fascinating nonetheless.

As the story goes, Judas was chosen by Jesus because they were close friends. Of all the disciples Judas was the closest to Jesus, and Jesus trusted him to be his "betrayer" for this reason. Perhaps they were close, and Judas could not bear that he had helped bring about Jesus' death.

As the story goes, Judas was chosen by Jesus because they were close friends. Of all the disciples Judas was the closest to Jesus, and Jesus trusted him to be his "betrayer" for this reason. Perhaps they were close, and Judas could not bear that he had helped bring about Jesus' death.And for this (so the story goes) he was condemned to eternal hellfire.

Nice going, God.

On a slightly different bent, I think this certainly illustrates the silliness (IMHO) of viewing the Bible as the literal truth, given that someone at some point decided whose gospels get in and whose get chucked. Not to mention that everyone who wrote a gospel did it with a certain self-serving motivation.

Thanks Imagineer, for the additional info.
I have read the gospels that you mentioned and a few more. It is very interesting how the writings that were either included or excluded from the Bible were used to paint a particular picture of events.

When the Bible was comprised a few hundred years after the death of Christ the authors had very little proof of the authenticity of any of the documents included. Therefore that left only the point to be proven as a guide.

As with many stories, the actual true chain of events would probably suprise a lot of people.


Thats not entirely true. The Septuagint was the first bible, however it was only comprised of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was the bible the Roman's had the Hebrew and Jewish scholars of the time translate to Greek.

In the first century AD James the brother of Jesus began to put together the New Testament. However it wasnt recognized until the 3rd century by Athanasius.
In the 5th century AD the pope of the time ordered a bible to be translated in Latin. That bible is the Vulgate and what was used when the King James version was translated. The Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and text found to be the New Testament.

I can give you a link to all the books and translation of the Septuagint if you want it?

Links on those 2 bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

The New International Verson or NIV was translated from all serviving text.
That would include the dead sea scrolls and books predating the Septuating.
So there is an accurate version of the bible.


Revalations was finished in 95 AD.
The end of the bible.

The book of Judas wasnt finished until 195 AD.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospeljudas.html

http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html

Quite a few of the text or scriptures that you might be talking about happened after the first century AD and was writen by the bishops of the time. Bishops wrote their interpretations of the scriptures and wished to add them to the bible. Instead they were used to start various denominations or used to teach others what the meaning of the scriptures meant.

I'd love to see the faces of the religious when they relize they placed their stock in a fairy tale all along.

I still can't get my head around the fact that some people honestly believe god loves them personally. We are but specks of dirt on a spinning rock. As if god would have time for us.

Not just some people, millions of people world wide believe God loves them personally. If God made us why wouldnt he love us?

Its funny how anything found to give credit to the existence of God is shot down the instant its found and anything found to take away credit of the existence of God is taken at face value before anything is even known about it.

Thats in Revelations as a sighn of Jesus second coming. I hope he comes soon, I am so going to tattle on you all.

I'd love to see the faces of the religious when they relize they placed their stock in a fairy tale all along.
How will anyone be able to "realize they placed their stock in a fairy tale all along"? The only answer will come after death. So if there is nothing, then there is no realization.

However, what if those who are religious are right? If i were one of those people who thought God was a "fairy tale" I would be pretty uncomfortable with my thoughts and deeds here on earth if there is a judgement day for us all.

I think you're right. I recall reading that many will be sent a delusion because of their unbelief.

Inviolable, I should have said the Bible as we know it today.

The New International Verson or NIV was translated from all serviving text.
That would include the dead sea scrolls and books predating the Septuating.
So there is an accurate version of the bible.


This brings to mind a few questions.

From the official website of the International Bible Society, the group that created the NIV.

More than 100 scholars from six English-speaking countries, as well as editors and English stylists, worked on the NIV. The scholars represented more than 20 denominations.

In the 17th century, King James translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri.

It took 10 years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968.

The system for editing each book is one of the distinctive features of the NIV. The procedure was as follows:

* Initial Translation Team
* Intermediate Editorial Committee
* General Editorial Committee
* Stylist and Critics
* Executive Committee (or Committee on Bible Translation)
* Final Stylistic Review
* Executive Committee's Final Reading

The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to accurately and faithfully translate the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic biblical texts into clearly understandable English.

The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation.

You cite the NIV as an "accurate" version of the Bible. Does this mean that prior to 1978 people were reading an inaccurate version?

Does this mean that anyone who uses a different version isn't getting the correct message?

Since we have a large group of people translating and interpreting words that were allegedly originally inspired by God, what does that do to the original message, and how can this be considered more accurate?

Not just some people, millions of people world wide believe God loves them personally. If God made us why wouldnt he love us?

He might 'love us', in the sense of looking around the universe, pointing to the earth and saying, 'I made man on that rock, didn't turn out like I thought it would, but I guess they are alright.'

Some people think god actually talks to them. whoa! that flips me out.


Its funny how anything found to give credit to the existence of God is shot down the instant its found and anything found to take away credit of the existence of God is taken at face value before anything is even known about it.

It's funny how, now, many years later, stuff pops out of the wood work. You'd of thought god would have made sure it was all together in the first place if it was all that important.


Thats in Revelations as a sighn of Jesus second coming. I hope he comes soon, I am so going to tattle on you all.
I get in enough trouble with the almighty without your help.

Tattletale!:p

As the story goes, Judas was chosen by Jesus because they were close friends. Of all the disciples Judas was the closest to Jesus, and Jesus trusted him to be his "betrayer" for this reason. Perhaps they were close, and Judas could not bear that he had helped bring about Jesus' death.

That's interesting--I had always thought that Jesus was closest to Peter.
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church."
Yet Peter betrayed him also--not like Judas, but by denying that he had ever even known him.
How lonely and sad Jesus must have felt at the end, betrayed and abandoned by all, and even those closest to him.

That's interesting--I had always thought that Jesus was closest to Peter.
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church."
Yet Peter betrayed him also--not like Judas, but by denying that he had ever even known him.
How lonely and sad Jesus must have felt at the end, betrayed and abandoned by all, and even those closest to him.

According to this "new' gospel of Judas, Jesus was an active and willing participant in his own sacrifice. He was intentionally trying to get himself killed to release the divine spirit within him. He needed the help of others to "betray" him to the Romans.

According to this "new' gospel of Judas, Jesus was an active and willing participant in his own sacrifice. He was intentionally trying to get himself killed to release the divine spirit within him. He needed the help of others to "betray" him to the Romans.

To me, this all seems rather bizarre!
According to what I was taught in church and Sunday school (Presbyterian) and my own studies (not a whole lot)--Jesus was to be the sacrifice and knew this, and, seeing as how he was in enough trouble with the bigwigs of the time--feeding the poor, healing the sick, and most especially, saying he was the Messiah--it was inevitable that he was going to be executed anyway. No "betrayal" was necessary.... yet perhaps there is something to this after all. I am willing to keep an open mind if this new theory has historical merit.

And for this (so the story goes) he was condemned to eternal hellfire.

Nice going, God.

I am curious about this--is there anything in the Bible which states that Judas was punished for all this by being sent to hell?
It's my understanding that Catholic doctrine teaches that Judas is indeed suffering eternal damnation but I don't know on what, if anything, they are basing this on...unless it's their catch-all "tradition."

I am curious about this--is there anything in the Bible which states that Judas was punished for all this by being sent to hell?
It's my understanding that Catholic doctrine teaches that Judas is indeed suffering eternal damnation but I don't know on what, if anything, they are basing this on...unless it's their catch-all "tradition."

According to the religious, if you sin or are not a 'chosen of god', you will go to hell. How much more fitting is that of Judas? Betrayal of a friend is not good, even worse if you sell out god's kid. 7th layer of hell, no doubt. Snap, crackle, pop.

In a way, if it's all predestined like the book says, judas was created for the sole purpose to betray jesus, that was his destiny in life. As a reward, god will cast him into a lake of fire forever? what a loving lord they serve.

According to the religious, if you sin or are not a 'chosen of god', you will go to hell.

.

I believe this is the Calvinist theory of "predestination"--that some are born into damnation no matter how they live their lives.
The Presbyterians used to accept this and built their church on it--they do not any more.
A very harsh and unforgiving dogma--one that I'm not sure any demoninations follow any more.

I am curious about this--is there anything in the Bible which states that Judas was punished for all this by being sent to hell?Not explicitly. But he died 'in sin' and that's reason enough for many Baptists, among others.It's my understanding that Catholic doctrine teaches that Judas is indeed suffering eternal damnation but I don't know on what, if anything, they are basing this on...unless it's their catch-all "tradition."Catholics believe that suicide is a mortal sin. A priest once explained to me that Jesus would have forgiven Judas had Judas not committed suicide. It was that act, not the betrayal, that condemned him to Hell.

This makes sense and would explain why, for many years, suicides were not granted burial in consecrated ground and were even frequently buried at a crossroads, to save their non-heaven-sent spirits from having a purpose--when they saw the crossroads, they'd be unsure where to go.

They say that despair is the ultimate sin, since this drives a person from God and makes him turn away from God, but this seems cruel, as the suicide was most likely a disturbed person.

This brings to mind a few questions.

From the official website of the International Bible Society, the group that created the NIV.


You cite the NIV as an "accurate" version of the Bible. Does this mean that prior to 1978 people were reading an inaccurate version?

Does this mean that anyone who uses a different version isn't getting the correct message?

Since we have a large group of people translating and interpreting words that were allegedly originally inspired by God, what does that do to the original message, and how can this be considered more accurate?



Thats not an easy answer for me to give you. I dont have the ability to read the original text so I cant say how different King James Version is.

I know when I compare it to the NIV it is fairly close.

What I am looking at is what the NIV and KJV were translated from.

Where the NIV was translated from more reliable text the KJV may not have been.

There was only one source used to translate the KJV, the Vulgate.
While many reliable sources were used to translate the NIV.

You know latin?

I can direct you to a copy of the Vulgate and you can see for yourself.

Just a side note:

Many scholars argue that the Septuagint isnt as accurate as it should be considering that there is text that predates it and writen in Hebrew and Jewish. While the Septuagint is in Greek and translated from the earlier text. Take into account that the KJV was translated from the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated from the Septaugint.

Now take into account that the NIV was translated from text predating both the Septuagint and Vulgate and taken directly from Hebrew and Jewish text.

According to the religious, if you sin or are not a 'chosen of god', you will go to hell. How much more fitting is that of Judas? Betrayal of a friend is not good, even worse if you sell out god's kid. 7th layer of hell, no doubt. Snap, crackle, pop.

In a way, if it's all predestined like the book says, judas was created for the sole purpose to betray jesus, that was his destiny in life. As a reward, god will cast him into a lake of fire forever? what a loving lord they serve.

Thats not entirely true.

I like that fraze "Thats not entirely true" its often correct.

Religious people believe that we all sin. So you have to be chosen or go to hell. However you can chose to be chosen in so much that you recognize how you are chosen.

Predestiny doesnt work exactly like what you have described but you are close. I hate explaining it because there is no scientific proof to back up how any of it works. So the debate on the subject is like a "merry go round" I push you around in circles then you push me for a little while and before long we are both dizzy.

Basically the text we have now on the subject doesnt lead in the direction your conversation is going. It leads more in the direction of some people somewhere trying to start their own church or gain some kind of acknowledgement in their works. What it is I couldnt say for sure. I havent seen enough info to back any one theory up.

This makes sense and would explain why, for many years, suicides were not granted burial in consecrated ground and were even frequently buried at a crossroads, to save their non-heaven-sent spirits from having a purpose--when they saw the crossroads, they'd be unsure where to go.



That is beautiful. What is that from? a catholic belief or some such?

And Inviolable, it amazes me to no end what man is willing to make a religion out of.

To me, this all seems rather bizarre!
According to what I was taught in church and Sunday school (Presbyterian) and my own studies (not a whole lot)--Jesus was to be the sacrifice and knew this, and, seeing as how he was in enough trouble with the bigwigs of the time--feeding the poor, healing the sick, and most especially, saying he was the Messiah--it was inevitable that he was going to be executed anyway. No "betrayal" was necessary.... yet perhaps there is something to this after all. I am willing to keep an open mind if this new theory has historical merit.


The Presbyterain chruch has its roots in text writen much like they are saying the book of Judas was.

Its just one mans perception of what they see when they look at the bible.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just saying sometime in the 1st to 4th century someone wrote down their thoughts and your church sprang up from it. Like Luther and so on.

Just a thought to keep in the back of your head.

That is beautiful. What is that from? a catholic belief or some such?
.

I believe this belief sprang up in the Middle Ages, when people thought demons, witches, etc were rampant. Some thought that the spirits of suicides became demons and they were fearful.
I believe that this practice of burial for suicides continued even into the last century. I wouldn't say it was an entirely Catholic belief as many religious thought this--rather uncomforting to the families of the suicides, I'd say...isn't religion supposed to bring comfort to people?

The Presbyterain chruch has its roots in text writen much like they are saying the book of Judas was.

Its just one mans perception of what they see when they look at the bible.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just saying sometime in the 1st to 4th century someone wrote down their thoughts and your church sprang up from it. Like Luther and so on.

Just a thought to keep in the back of your head.


This is correct--Luther, John Knox, John Calvin--all had their interpretations. Who's to say what is right? Calvin and Knox especially were quite harsh--justification by faith and their thoughts about the "elect." Would be interested in seeing those original texts tho if possible.

This is correct--Luther, John Knox, John Calvin--all had their interpretations. Who's to say what is right? Calvin and Knox especially were quite harsh--justification by faith and their thoughts about the "elect." Would be interested in seeing those original texts tho if possible.

The RCC keeps books of those types for just such an occasion.

I bet if I scroung around a little I can get you an english translation?

Well actualy they keep the books around to keep people in line. But those are my dirty thoughts and not what is to be considered fact.

Here ya go.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...ic/calvin.html

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/luther.html

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/JohnKnox%20Predestination.htm

http://www.epc.org.au/literature/knox.html

But I didnt find them someone else did.

I dont think they are what you were talking about?

Thanks for the links, inviolable.