Looks like Jesus wasn't so prescient after all

[Mister Bushice]

Pretty damn easy to predict a betrayal when you're the one who requests it.....

Traitor or ally: gospel sheds new light on Judas

2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Lost for almost 1,700 years, a manuscript entitled "Gospel of Judas" is putting a new spin on the case of the biblical bad guy, maintaining that Jesus actually asked disciple Judas to betray him.

The third- or fourth-century ancient Coptic manuscript -- authenticated, translated and displayed Thursday at
National Geographic headquarters here -- paints a different picture of Judas and Jesus.

The papyrus manuscript known as a codex maintains, as the bible does not, that Jesus requested that Judas "betray" him by handing him to authorities, something it says pained Judas greatly.

"The codex has been authenticated as a genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature on five fronts: radiocarbon dating, ink analysis, multispectral imaging, contextual evidence and paleographic evidence," said Terry Garcia, executive vice president for Mission Programs for the National Geographic Society.

"This dramatic discovery of an ancient non-biblical text -- considered by some to be the most significant in the past 60 years -- enhances our knowledge of the history and theological viewpoints of the early Christian period, and is worthy of study by historians, scholars and theologians," Garcia said.

"This process will take time and ongoing dialogue which has just begun."

The leather-bound papyrus text believed to have been copied down around 300 AD was located in the 1970s in the desert near El Minya, Egypt. It then moved among antiquities traders from Egypt to Europe and the United States.

It was purchased by Zurich-based antiquities dealer Frieda Nussberger-Tchacos in 2000, and now was to be returned to Egypt and housed at Cairo's Coptic Museum.

[poptart]

Whatever gets you through the day, my man.

[Mister Bushice]

I thought you scrolled past my posts. ;)

[Mike the Lab Rat]

None of the scholars dealing with the newfound "gospel" are considering it as having been written by Judas Iscariot. Hence the use of the term "apochryphal." It's pseudoepigraphic stuff.

Personally, I believe that once it's all translated and cobbled together, it will be yet another interesting historical piece showing the diverse interpretations of early Christian doctrine from that time. Nothing more. No particular insights into the actual events involving Christ or his disciples, just some mystical ramblings from folks trying to hijack Christ's message to fit their particular outlook.

Then again, that's how some people describe the canonical texts.....

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Like the other Gospels?

Actually, many scholars now embrace the hypothesis that the Gospel of Matthew was actually written by a very bright but bored kid named Eddie during his 6th period study hall.

And the Book of Revelations was obviously written by Tommy Chong after some seriously strong purple microdot.

:D

[tough love]

Jesus was married???
Prayer doesn't work???
Judas lived to write a lie???


End Times, Baby, and it will get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Mark 13: 21/21 Wrote:
And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

[Tom In VA]

Lends even more creedence to my belief that Jesus was exactly who and what He said He was.

This is not news. In order for the prophecy to be fullfilled, Jesus was to be betrayed and crucified. Judas, did what he was supposed to do.



tough love,

Spoooky shit huh ?


MtLR,

RACK

[G.O.]

nice. you dont believe matthew, mark, luke and john, yet this 'gospel of judas' is reliable.

you probably also believe the davinci code is historical fact.

whatever works.

[Tom In VA]

nice. you dont believe matthew, mark, luke and john, yet this 'gospel of judas' is reliable.

you probably also believe the davinci code is historical fact.

whatever works.

If you believe any of that crap, you're delusional.

The Romans nailed a Jewish heretic to a cross and that's where he died. He didn't get up three days later. He wasn't spirited away to the French Riviera to live happily ever after with Mary Magdelene.

He was just a man who lived and died like everybody else.

You might want to rethink that. Especially for a purported history buff.

[Tom In VA]

"He was just a man who lived and died like everybody" conflicts with reality.

The fact is, like it or not, believe it or not Jesus Christ's presence on this earth has had more impact than any other.

I'm not talking trivial ubiquity here either. That "everyone knows his name".

So regardless of your theories, lack of belief, and dismissal of his followers. The facts are stacked against your statement.

"He was just a man who lived and died like everybody" conflicts with reality.


From a purely historical and scholarly perspective.

[Tom In VA]

The fact is, like it or not, believe it or not Jesus Christ's presence on this earth has had more impact than any other.

His personal impact was virtually nil. He was a small time local shit disturber who ruffled a few feathers with the Jewish establishment. Good enough to get nailed to a cross, but that really didn't take much doing back in those days.

It was the men behind the myth who took the ball and ran with it. Jesus himself might as well have been a loaf of bread.

I see what you're saying but you're still wrong. Because all the men behind the myth described was Jesus' life and death, embellished perhaps, but nevertheless.

His life, His death, and the "marketting efforts" of the "men behind the myth" .... after all what were the "men behind the myth" marketting and hoping to capitalize on ?

That's right, their version of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Either way you slice it and no matter the spin ... the facts all add up to a contradiction to .... your attempt at minimizing the life and death of Jesus.

I mean the fact we call the year 2006 A.D., might clue you in on something. Christendom, the HRE, shit even our own country's conception. History ... is Hisstory. His story has shaped the destiny of our world and will continue to do so. It's irreversible.

So whether or not you believe in souls, spirits, the divinity of Christ or anything doesn't matter. When all is said and done, the reality is and will be, as it is written, "Bode Jesus".

[G.O.]

nice. you dont believe matthew, mark, luke and john, yet this 'gospel of judas' is reliable.

you probably also believe the davinci code is historical fact.

whatever works.

If you believe any of that crap, you're delusional.

The Romans nailed a Jewish heretic to a cross and that's where he died. He didn't get up three days later. He wasn't spirited away to the French Riviera to live happily ever after with Mary Magdelene.

He was just a man who lived and died like everybody else.

google dr simon greenleaf 'testimony of the evangelists'.

he has a different take on the gospel reliability and the resurrection.

[tough love]

Tom Wrote:
tough love,

Spoooky shit huh ?

Sure is.
Purhaps the True Christains of this earth are about to get separated from the posers???


Notice how these evil cowards stay hell clear of the Islamic Crazies, and tend to only go after a religion based on love and forgiveness.

I heard this one this morn:

One of the guys who is sueing Browns publishers over The Da Vinci Code was on the tube pushing HIS latest book which claims that Christ didn't actually die on the cross, but was revived by the Romans and wisked away to Eqypt, where he got to live out his natural life.
Apparently; Pontius Pilate was concerned that the Jews would rebel if nothing was done to Christ, and he could not rightly condemn Jesus to death under Roman Law, so he struck up a deal with The Lord.

Some other gutless heathen coming out with a Jesus Was Gay Book in 10 - 9 - 8 -

[tough love]

^
Get bu$y, 'Bro, there's a dollar to be had.

[PSUFAN]

Regardless of your beliefs, i.e. whether or not Jesus was divine, I think mvscal's right about his followers being the ones who built the Church from the ground up.

[Diogenes]

...by spreading his message and testifying to his death and resurection (which they witnessed) under penelty of death.

[Tom In VA]

Regardless of your beliefs, i.e. whether or not Jesus was divine, I think mvscal's right about his followers being the ones who built the Church from the ground up.

Not to mention it was Christ's order to His followers and he bestowed the leadership of that task upon Peter. Who was told he too would deny Christ at the time of the test. And he did. But thanks for the input Marcus Allen Doctor of Theology. :D :wink:

[rozy]

...by spreading his message and testifying to his death and resurection (which they witnessed) under penelty of death.

:nails:

[SunCoastSooner]

Regardless of your beliefs, i.e. whether or not Jesus was divine, I think mvscal's right about his followers being the ones who built the Church from the ground up.

Not to mention it was Christ's order to His followers and he bestowed the leadership of that task upon Peter. Who was told he too would deny Christ at the time of the test. And he did. But thanks for the input Marcus Allen Doctor of Theology. :D :wink:

Funny , then why did those people who followed Jesus during his life mostly follow his brother after his death?

[Diogenes]

They didn't.

James. Peter and John were all leaders in the church, but if any one of them was central it was Peter. And they were just spreading Christ's message anyway.

And he was probably his stepbrother, BTW.

[SunCoastSooner]

They didn't.

James. Peter and John were all leaders in the church, but if any one of them was central it was Peter. And they were just spreading Christ's message anyway.

And he was probably his stepbrother, BTW.

No he most likely was not his step brother. He was most likely his younger brother. Jesus being Joseph's heir speaks for that (try and make a claim to the messiahship without being Joseph's heir is out and out a joke because it was through Joseph theat the Jewish Throne passed). Seeing as though James was in his mid 50s when he was thrown from the temple which occurred atleast 32 years after Jesus' crucifixion and Mary and Joseph never divorced your timeline for him being most likely his step brother falls to shit Dio. Joseph being an old man when he married Mary is something the Catholic Church made up and pulled out its ass, circa 600AD, to try and explain away Jesus having sibblings but Mary being a perpetual virgin.

[Diogenes]

Actually it is unlikely that Jesus had any brothers, due to his naming John to look after his mother from the cross. That would make no sense if Mary had any other male offspring. As far as the Catholic 'conspiracy' goes...

The exact relationship between James and Jesus is a point of controversy. Several early writers (the Clementine literature, Hegesippus-Eusebius) consider him merely the step brother to Jesus. This view says that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, and that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not James' mother. This claim is first described in the 1st and 2nd century texts The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, The Protoevangelium of James, and in the 1st century Liturgy of St James. Catholic and Orthodox apologists also point out that in Jewish culture the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, would not have been left to John when they were at the cross of Jesus if Jesus had already had a corporeal brother as it would have been an insult to him and to his household.

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

[SunCoastSooner]

Actually it is unlikely that Jesus had any brothers, due to his naming John to look after his mother from the cross. That would make no sense if Mary had any other male offspring. As far as the Catholic 'conspiracy' goes...

The exact relationship between James and Jesus is a point of controversy. Several early writers (the Clementine literature, Hegesippus-Eusebius) consider him merely the step brother to Jesus. This view says that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, and that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not James' mother. This claim is first described in the 1st and 2nd century texts The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, The Protoevangelium of James, and in the 1st century Liturgy of St James. Catholic and Orthodox apologists also point out that in Jewish culture the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, would not have been left to John when they were at the cross of Jesus if Jesus had already had a corporeal brother as it would have been an insult to him and to his household.

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

So now Jesus did follow Jewish culture? WTF Dio make up your damn mind. Either he followed the Jewish culture and concepts or he didn't but for God's sake you can't have it both ways. Make up your frigging mind and stick to it but this BS of picking and choosing just which Jewish customs Jesus would have followed and which ones he wouldn't have based entirly on the whether or not it supports your version of the story is getting tiresome.

Clement (as I have already introduced in this forum) was at odds with anything that did not allow him to controll his populace. He is the same Clement which endorsed editing the Gospel Mark and even admits to it in his letter to Theodduas.

James was in his early to mid 50s when he was thrown from the Temple Walls which occurred atleast 32 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was supposedly in his early to mid 30 when he was crucified. You can do the math on that, it isn't difficult.

[Diogenes]

Actually it is unlikely that Jesus had any brothers, due to his naming John to look after his mother from the cross. That would make no sense if Mary had any other male offspring. As far as the Catholic 'conspiracy' goes...

The exact relationship between James and Jesus is a point of controversy. Several early writers (the Clementine literature, Hegesippus-Eusebius) consider him merely the step brother to Jesus. This view says that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, and that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not James' mother. This claim is first described in the 1st and 2nd century texts The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, The Protoevangelium of James, and in the 1st century Liturgy of St James. Catholic and Orthodox apologists also point out that in Jewish culture the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus, would not have been left to John when they were at the cross of Jesus if Jesus had already had a corporeal brother as it would have been an insult to him and to his household.

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

So now Jesus did follow Jewish culture? WTF Dio make up your damn mind. Either he followed the Jewish culture and concepts or he didn't but for God's sake you can't have it both ways. Make up your frigging mind and stick to it but this BS of picking and choosing just which Jewish customs Jesus would have followed and which ones he wouldn't have based entirly on the whether or not it supports your version of the story is getting tiresome.

Clement (as I have already introduced in this forum) was at odds with anything that did not allow him to controll his populace. He is the same Clement which endorsed editing the Gospel Mark and even admits to it in his letter to Theodduas.

James was in his early to mid 50s when he was thrown from the Temple Walls which occurred atleast 32 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was supposedly in his early to mid 30 when he was crucified. You can do the math on that, it isn't difficult.

So James was old?

I already pointed out that the letter you are basing your attacks on Clement on was probably a fake. As far as stating that the fact that James would feel responsible for the care of his mother if his older brother was killed because of the culture of the time automaticly means that Christ would be bound by custom, the one doesn't follow from the other.

[SunCoastSooner]

Actually it is unlikely that Jesus had any brothers, due to his naming John to look after his mother from the cross. That would make no sense if Mary had any other male offspring. As far as the Catholic 'conspiracy' goes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

So now Jesus did follow Jewish culture? WTF Dio make up your damn mind. Either he followed the Jewish culture and concepts or he didn't but for God's sake you can't have it both ways. Make up your frigging mind and stick to it but this BS of picking and choosing just which Jewish customs Jesus would have followed and which ones he wouldn't have based entirly on the whether or not it supports your version of the story is getting tiresome.

Clement (as I have already introduced in this forum) was at odds with anything that did not allow him to controll his populace. He is the same Clement which endorsed editing the Gospel Mark and even admits to it in his letter to Theodduas.

James was in his early to mid 50s when he was thrown from the Temple Walls which occurred atleast 32 years after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus was supposedly in his early to mid 30 when he was crucified. You can do the math on that, it isn't difficult.

So James was old?

I already pointed out that the letter you are basing your attacks on Clement on was probably a fake. As far as stating that the fact that James would feel responsible for the care of his mother if his older brother was killed because of the culture of the time automaticly means that Christ would be bound by custom, the one doesn't follow from the other.

Okay lets return to elementary math for a moment Dio. If James was 58 (being very generous with that aging as well) when he was thrown from the temple walls 32 years after Jesus death at 32 (once again being generous with age as it was more likely around the age of 34 or 35) that would make James how old when Jesus was crucified? My math tells me 26 to 28. Sort of throws that whole he was an older step brother theory right out the window now doesn't it?

People in life, of every culture, reguraly ask someone to look after their loved ones after their passing whether it be a relative or not.

Now Christ was bound by custom? Like I said you can't have it both ways. Either he was a Jew bound to custom and their culture or he wasn't but you can't have it both ways.

[Diogenes]

So he was 68. Props. Anyway, I never said Christ was 'bound by custom' (or not) mearly that it would be against the customs for James to not care for his mother. If she was his mother, it would not have been nessecary or logical for Jesus to leave her in John's hands.

BTW, there is a special on this so called 'Gospel of Judas' on NGC tonight.

[SunCoastSooner]

So he was 68. Props.

I guess you are missing what I am saying. We know that James was in his early to mid 50s when he was killed. If he were in his early to mid 50s at his death that would make him in his late 20s at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. As in James was definatly younger than Jesus and since we have no evidence that Joseph and Mary ever divorced and certainly not immediatly after Jesus birth (as we know that both of them and Jesus' sibblings visited him during his time of preaching) it is safe to assume that they were biological brothers but certainly not an older step brother from a previous marriage.

Anyway, I never said Christ was 'bound by custom' (or not) mearly that it would be against the customs for James to not care for his mother. If she was his mother, it would not have been nessecary or logical for Jesus to leave her in John's hands.

I believe it was you, in another thread that told us all that Jesus was not bound to Jewish custom. IRRC it was in the discussion concerning whether or not Jesus had a wife, specifically, Mary Magdelen. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

There is also a falacy in your argument, correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that any of Jesus' brothers were present at his crucifixion? At any rate Jesus did ask a relative as John was likely a cousin of Jesus through his mother's side. It would have been perfectly natural for Jesus to ask his closest cousin and blood nephew to his mother to watch over her. Church tradition even states that Mary (the mother) lived with John in Ephesus circa AD 70. Jesus also might have reasoned that James would likely be the Romans next target as the next in line to the Davidic Throne.

BTW, there is a special on this so called 'Gospel of Judas' on NGC tonight.

Yeah I hope to see it but I have to talk my wife into holding off on the Soprano's until west coast viewing hours as I don't make it much past 10:30 anymore. Full time worker and stay at home father tends to wear a man out after so many months.

[Diogenes]

We know that James was in his early to mid 50s when he was killed.

John was likely a cousin of Jesus through his mother's side.

Link?

[SunCoastSooner]

We know that James was in his early to mid 50s when he was killed.

John was likely a cousin of Jesus through his mother's side.

Link?

I believe that you will find this site acceptable, concerning John, as a Christian. http://www.biblepath.com/john1.html

Sorry it was 30 years after Jesus Death not 32 but the math is still the same James was still definatly younger than Jesus per the works of Eusebius of Caesarea's a contemporary. I don't have a link for this but Eusebius states that James was in his late forties to early fifties and was killed in 62AD, 30 years after Jesus crucifixion in 32AD.

[Diogenes]

Eusebius of Caesarea's commentarry on James.

As far as whether Mary of Clopus=Salome=The wife of Zebedee, that is still speculative. And for the record I have no preference for religious over secular sources, just unbiased ones over biased/whacked out ones.

[Diogenes]

I saw the special. I'm with Irenaeus.

[SunCoastSooner]

Eusebius of Caesarea's commentarry on James.

As far as whether Mary of Clopus=Salome=The wife of Zebedee, that is still speculative. And for the record I have no preference for religious over secular sources, just unbiased ones over biased/whacked out ones.

Eusebius wrote more than that about James but Christians simply use that as their only reference towards it. Eusebius typically reffered to James simply as 'The Just' and not by name.

Clopus and Salome are the same name. Remember at this time a name was not just a some title bestowed by parents it really meant something Clopus and Salome are of the same meaning.

[SunCoastSooner]

I saw the special. I'm with Irenaeus.

I'm watching it now.