Skip to comments.
Gospel of Judas back in spotlight after 20 centuries
Middle East Online ^
| 2005-03-30
| Patrick Baert
Posted on 04/04/2005 10:11:49 AM PDT by robowombat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-193 next last
To: AppyPappy
well that doesn't bode well for the position of the church on the gnostic gospels. Many people here paint themselves as experts on the Word and I'm hoping some of them will set us straight.
41
posted on
04/04/2005 11:03:09 AM PDT
by
bigsigh
To: robowombat
The New Testament Books (canonical)
The scholarly literature on the New Testament books is (of course) huge and easily accessible. There is no attempt here to discuss them individually. Here is their approximate order of composition:
I and II Thessalonians |
~50 CE |
I and II Corinthians |
54-56 |
Galatians |
~56 |
Romans |
56-57 |
Colossians |
~61 |
Philemon |
~61 |
Philippians |
~62 |
Gospel according to Mark |
65-70 |
Gospel according to Matthew |
80-85 |
Acts and Gospel according to Luke |
85-90 |
Hebrews |
85-90 |
Gospel according to John |
90-100 |
Revelation of John |
~95 |
Ephesians, James, and I Peter |
95-100 |
I, II, and III John |
100-110 |
I and II Timothy and Titus |
110-130 |
Jude, II Peter |
130-150 |
42
posted on
04/04/2005 11:03:16 AM PDT
by
Raycpa
To: robowombat; All
Who said you can't make additions to accepted Church doctrine? As I recall there, was a certain German malcontent who took a whore-nun as a wife and lived on a diet of worms? A lot of people accept his teachings. There was also the Geneva Taliban and the 37 Articles of Faith.
The Church accepts the tales of 3 or 4 men who may or may not have been contemporaries of Christ yet rejects and denies the influence of a Persian religion that was quite possibly proto-Judaism.
The Bible is nothing more than the Hebrew interpretation of Norse mythos, Freya being Mary, Thor the Son of Odin and his nemesis, Loki as Satan, the god of deception.
43
posted on
04/04/2005 11:05:23 AM PDT
by
olde north church
("Hi America, I'm Dr. Howard Dean. Turn your head and cough.")
To: robowombat
Thirty other texts - some of which have been uncovered - were sidelined because "they were difficult to reconcile with what Constantine wanted as a political doctrine," according to Roberty.Horse manure
Table of authorities.
44
posted on
04/04/2005 11:06:17 AM PDT
by
Raycpa
To: hosepipe
Latin had no "J"s.
That's why Pilate inscribed on the cross:
Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans.
45
posted on
04/04/2005 11:06:21 AM PDT
by
djf
To: robowombat
Thirty other texts - some of which have been uncovered - were sidelined because "they were difficult to reconcile with what Constantine wanted as a political doctrine," according to Roberty. Not this nonsense again.
To: Campion
True. Don't have the references here, but I recall the first authoritative listing of what would become the cannon of the New Testament being in a Christmas letter sent out by one of the apostolic church bishops some time in the 2nd century A.D.
As for Constantine, he had a tremendous influence on the development of institutional Christianity by: 1) stopping the persecution of Christians, 2) by proclaiming official tolerance of the religion, 3) by adopting it as the official and only religion of the Roman Empire and finally, 4) by sponsoring a series of conferences to bring together church leaders and regularize Christian doctrine and practice. Whether or not the long partnership between church and state has been for good or for bad is the subject of a centuries-long discourse and many books.
47
posted on
04/04/2005 11:10:46 AM PDT
by
Captain Rhino
("If you will just abandon logic, these things will make a lot more sense to you!")
To: twigs
I have read some excerpts. What I read is not in any way consistent with the real gospels. I did not find them compelling.Me too. All one has to do is scan the text and see that the "lost gospels" are no where near the level of scripture.
48
posted on
04/04/2005 11:11:12 AM PDT
by
Raycpa
To: Mark in the Old South
To be included in the Bible a book needed to meet several specific qualifications.
The most important consideration for whether a NT book was inspired was that it had apostolic authority. The Apostles, as eyewitnesses of everything dealing with Christ, had a unique position and personal authority because they were chosen by Christ. It is this unique personal authority of the Apostles that assures the truth or canonicity of the NT books.
To: olde north church
The Bible is nothing more than the Hebrew interpretation of Norse mythos, Freya being Mary, Thor the Son of Odin and his nemesis, Loki as Satan, the god of deception. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You are one funny dude.
50
posted on
04/04/2005 11:12:36 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: djf
The Dead Sea Scrolls are not a work in of themselves. That is the name given to a set collection of books like a private library. Many of the scrolls are works already known such as Isaias. Others are books specifically for the religious order who transcribed them similar to St Benedict's rules. I think there is even some grocery lists in the collection. Think of your grandfathers private office/library. Some are works they collected and some specific to them. Correct me if I am wrong but that is my understanding of them.
To: Raycpa
52
posted on
04/04/2005 11:13:54 AM PDT
by
bigsigh
To: bigsigh
well that doesn't bode well for the position of the church on the gnostic gospelsWhich church? Therein lies the rub.
53
posted on
04/04/2005 11:14:02 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: bigsigh
54
posted on
04/04/2005 11:14:19 AM PDT
by
bigsigh
To: robowombat
Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ by helping the Romans find him Not exactly.
55
posted on
04/04/2005 11:15:57 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
("Finally!, A Man Worth Killing!")
To: AppyPappy
the one which calims to know which of these are in and which should be out and made the decision about 1700 years ago.
56
posted on
04/04/2005 11:17:21 AM PDT
by
bigsigh
To: djf
When I say the Thomas gospel fits, it is because there are quite a few references to events that are described in the four gospels, and enough info to show that it's not something totally made up. It is very gnostic in flavor, and goes along and extends John.No surprises there. The Gnostics were famous for taking existing scripture and corrupting it to support their peculiar doctrines. The Marcionites did the same thing
57
posted on
04/04/2005 11:17:53 AM PDT
by
frgoff
To: Raycpa
58
posted on
04/04/2005 11:19:34 AM PDT
by
Raycpa
To: bigsigh
Those guys are dead. If not, they have to be really old.
59
posted on
04/04/2005 11:19:54 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: Mark in the Old South
Same thing with the Nag Hammadi texts, the point I'm making is not necessarily what the content is, but the fact they were put in jars, sealed, and buried for two thousand years. So the fact they were undiscovered and not mentioned does not prove whether they are or are not authentic.
60
posted on
04/04/2005 11:20:35 AM PDT
by
djf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-193 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson