16 replies to this topic

[rookie2619]

Just a thought. Thru my beliefs: The bible speaks of Babylon being destroyed in our times. I've been taught it is the governements of the world that will turn against all so called false religions of the world. Could we be seeing the beginning of this? So many questions arebeing raised by this new "Gospel of Judas" & the movie "DaVinci code". Religious estremists causing destruction to the world. There seem to be 2 muslim sides, the good & the extreme terrorists. You know the goverment is watching them. Davinci code had the catholic church furious. Are we approaching the day the governments of the world say "enough"?

[Mattnxtc]

rookie2619, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 12:06 AM, said:

Just a thought. Thru my beliefs: The bible speaks of Babylon being destroyed in our times. I've been taught it is the governements of the world that will turn against all so called false religions of the world. Could we be seeing the beginning of this? So many questions arebeing raised by this new "Gospel of Judas" & the movie "DaVinci code". Religious estremists causing destruction to the world. There seem to be 2 muslim sides, the good & the extreme terrorists. You know the goverment is watching them. Davinci code had the catholic church furious. Are we approaching the day the governments of the world say "enough"?

First off i want to make something clear about the "Gospel of Judas"It is not a new book and in fact we have known about it since its inception in the mid to late 2nd century. The ancient writer Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) in his work called Refutation of All Heresies said that the gospel of Judas was a fictitious history: "Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."We know that b/c of the time of the writing, it wasnt written by Judas. it has never been said it is from anything Judas wrote and has been dismissed for almost 2000 years now as heresy.

[copernicus]

Mattnxtc, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 3:05 PM, said:

First off i want to make something clear about the "Gospel of Judas"It is not a new book and in fact we have known about it since its inception in the mid to late 2nd century. The ancient writer Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) in his work called Refutation of All Heresies said that the gospel of Judas was a fictitious history: "Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."We know that b/c of the time of the writing, it wasnt written by Judas. it has never been said it is from anything Judas wrote and has been dismissed for almost 2000 years now as heresy.

No you only know (or accept) that someone named Irenaeus wrote that. You do not know the truth of what he wrote nor the motives he might have had for discrediting the Gnostics or other Gospels.

[crowTrobot]

Mattnxtc, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:05 AM, said:

We know that b/c of the time of the writing, it wasnt written by Judas.

you could say the same thing about the gospel of matthew because there is no historical evidence it was written in his lifetime.

[Mattnxtc]

copernicus, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

No you only know (or accept) that someone named Irenaeus wrote that. You do not know the truth of what he wrote nor the motives he might have had for discrediting the Gnostics or other Gospels.

Wow under this logic we cant really accept anything that is any true age old. No we accept it b/c we have a text that says he wrote it and thats all. This is a common fallacy used to try and find ways to include the gnostics. We know that they always existed. We know that from the moment they existed the church disagreed with them. We know that the prominant church leaders never accepted this. Its the equivalent of a movement such as mormonism that claims its "christianity" its not and neither where the gnostics.

crowTrobot, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 2:14 PM, said:

you could say the same thing about the gospel of matthew because there is no historical evidence it was written in his lifetime.

Same bad reasoning as before. Sure you could say it but it wont hold any water with anybody who is educated on it. The Gospels were NEVER doubted on their authenticity. There was some questions later on about others but never about the Gospels or Acts for that matter. Even most of Pauls letters were never in doubt on who wrote them.

[crowTrobot]

Mattnxtc, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 3:26 PM, said:

Sure you could say it but it wont hold any water with anybody who is educated on it. The Gospels were NEVER doubted on their authenticity.

they were/are never doubted by *christian* scholars to whom they *must be* authentic, obviously. anyone following what objective/neutral scholars think knows there is a completely different side to it. there isn't any existing historical evidence for matthew being authentic - you'd have to be living in a cave to think that no educated scholars doubt its authenticity. and it is easily the most contradictory and contrived-appearing of all the gospels anyway, so there is no reason to think it isn't in the exact same boat as the gospel of judas.

[copernicus]

Mattnxtc, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 7:26 PM, said:

Wow under this logic we cant really accept anything that is any true age old. No we accept it b/c we have a text that says he wrote it and thats all. This is a common fallacy used to try and find ways to include the gnostics. We know that they always existed. We know that from the moment they existed the church disagreed with them. We know that the prominant church leaders never accepted this. Its the equivalent of a movement such as mormonism that claims its "christianity" its not and neither where the gnostics.

First, what I wrote is not "logic", since it doesnt contain a hypothesis and a conclusion that can be reached through the rules of logic. It is an assertion which characterizes my opinion that one treatise by a person of unknown motives does not constitute "evidence". The fact that you call it "logic" simply highlights your lack of understanding of logic so evident in your other posts.If there were multiple contradictions of the Gnostic gospels, including a number from disinterested parties outside the church, then perhaps those refutations would have some credence. Right now all you have is the powers that be calling the shots to keep them in power.Serious question matt: Is English a second language for you?

[Mattnxtc]

copernicus, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 5:35 PM, said:

First, what I wrote is not "logic", since it doesnt contain a hypothesis and a conclusion that can be reached through the rules of logic. It is an assertion which characterizes my opinion that one treatise by a person of unknown motives does not constitute "evidence". The fact that you call it "logic" simply highlights your lack of understanding of logic so evident in your other posts.If there were multiple contradictions of the Gnostic gospels, including a number from disinterested parties outside the church, then perhaps those refutations would have some credence. Right now all you have is the powers that be calling the shots to keep them in power.Serious question matt: Is English a second language for you?

I am sorry copernicus that I am not as awesome as you and used logic instead of reasoning. Yes I have a fine understanding of logic so dont try to act all high and mighty when you seem to know very little. Your line of reasoning for the Gnostics is a pretty stupid line to take. What are the facts with the Gospel of Judas? It was written around 100 years AFTER the death of Judas. WE KNOW THIS. Its not up for debate. It was written to humanize Jesus which is what the gnostics needed to do. The needed to make it possible for us to be able to "attain salvation" through knowledge. Hence you take Judas and make it sound like he "understood" and therefore did what he did to make Jesus the "dying hero" Its really quite simple but I guess to complex for you.For somebody who misspells as many words as you do i wouldnt be to worried about my words. I am not writing thesises here so i could care less about making each sentence perfect. That fact that you have to attack my wording is a reflection of the fact you cant attack the history so you try to deflect us from the truth. But the truth is simple. We know Judas didnt write this Gospel. We know from the very start that christians never believed. We know for certain that the real Gospels authorship was never in doubt. We know this with 100% certainty. So continue to attack it merely b/c without it you have nothing but you are wrong and history is on my side.

[fckthis]

Coprenicus, prove you exist.

[FullMontyM1]

Just for reference, here are a selection of estimates on the date of the original authorship of the gospels:One view: Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written. Mark: c. 68–73 Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85 John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.Another view:Matthew: AD 55 - 80 Mark: AD 60 - 70Luke: AD 60 - 80John: AD 85 - 95Acts: AD 63 - 75Paul's EpistlesRomans: AD 57ish1st Corinthians: AD 55 - 582nd Corinthians: AD 56 - 57Galatians: AD 50 - 58Ephesians: AD 61 - 62Phillipians: AD 61ishColossians: AD 61 - 621st Thessalonians: AD 51ish2nd Thessalonians: AD 51ish1st Timothy: AD 63 - 662nd Timothy: AD 66 - 67Titus: AD 63 - 66Philemon: AD 60 - 63Hebrews: AD 65 - 70Epistle of James: AD 40 - 601st Peter: AD 60 - 652nd Peter: AD 65 - 701st John: AD 90 - 1002nd John: AD 90 - 1003rd John: AD 90 - 100Jude: AD 55 - 65Revelation: AD 95ishMatthew most like around 74-76Mark most likely 65-68Luke most likely around 78-82John most likely around 90-110Judas (for reference) most likely around 170

[Mattnxtc]

FullMontyM1, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 10:06 PM, said:

Just for reference, here are a selection of estimates on the date of the original authorship of the gospels:One view: Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written. Mark: c. 68–73 Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85 John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.Another view:Matthew: AD 55 - 80 Mark: AD 60 - 70Luke: AD 60 - 80John: AD 85 - 95Acts: AD 63 - 75Paul's EpistlesRomans: AD 57ish1st Corinthians: AD 55 - 582nd Corinthians: AD 56 - 57Galatians: AD 50 - 58Ephesians: AD 61 - 62Phillipians: AD 61ishColossians: AD 61 - 621st Thessalonians: AD 51ish2nd Thessalonians: AD 51ish1st Timothy: AD 63 - 662nd Timothy: AD 66 - 67Titus: AD 63 - 66Philemon: AD 60 - 63Hebrews: AD 65 - 70Epistle of James: AD 40 - 601st Peter: AD 60 - 652nd Peter: AD 65 - 701st John: AD 90 - 1002nd John: AD 90 - 1003rd John: AD 90 - 100Jude: AD 55 - 65Revelation: AD 95ishMatthew most like around 74-76Mark most likely 65-68Luke most likely around 78-82John most likely around 90-110Judas (for reference) most likely around 170

every single one of these is wrong...do you realize why yet?

[copernicus]

Mattnxtc, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 10:12 PM, said:

I am sorry copernicus that I am not as awesome as you and used logic instead of reasoning. Yes I have a fine understanding of logic so dont try to act all high and mighty when you seem to know very little. Your line of reasoning for the Gnostics is a pretty stupid line to take. What are the facts with the Gospel of Judas? It was written around 100 years AFTER the death of Judas. WE KNOW THIS. Its not up for debate. It was written to humanize Jesus which is what the gnostics needed to do. The needed to make it possible for us to be able to "attain salvation" through knowledge. Hence you take Judas and make it sound like he "understood" and therefore did what he did to make Jesus the "dying hero" Its really quite simple but I guess to complex for you.For somebody who misspells as many words as you do i wouldnt be to worried about my words. I am not writing thesises here so i could care less about making each sentence perfect. That fact that you have to attack my wording is a reflection of the fact you cant attack the history so you try to deflect us from the truth. But the truth is simple. We know Judas didnt write this Gospel. We know from the very start that christians never believed. We know for certain that the real Gospels authorship was never in doubt. We know this with 100% certainty. So continue to attack it merely b/c without it you have nothing but you are wrong and history is on my side.

I'm not attacking history, I'm attacking blind faith.And the bolded statement is typical of you, and very interesting from someone who first posted to me:"You misspelled chemical, dumbass".

[copernicus]

fckthis, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

Coprenicus, prove you exist.

This would hijack the thread into existensialism, which has been done to death.Let me leave it at this: I dont care if I exist or not, since I can only proceed as if I do. If everything is illusion and I have no actual impact on my environment, then I'll enjoy watching the movie.

[Farnan]

Mattnxtc, on Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 9:12 PM, said:

every single one of these is wrong...do you realize why yet?

Because you don't agree with it?

[copernicus]

Farnan, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

Because you don't agree with it?

My guess is it will be a more subtle argument than that. Fallacious, but subtle.

[Mattnxtc]

Farnan, on Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 7:56 AM, said:

Because you don't agree with it?

b/c just about every disciple was dead around 64 AD. See what Nero did to christians. Therefore if they are dead how could they have written these Gospels/ Letters? common sense

[LongLiveYorke]

How do you feel about these: * Gospel of Mark: +70 CE (conservative dating may be as early as 50) * Gospel of Matthew: +80-90 CE (conservative dating in the 60s) * Gospel of Luke: +80–90 CE (conservative dating in the 60s) * Gospel of John: +95–110 CE (conservative dating in the late 80s to early 90s) * Acts: +80–90 CE (conservative dating in 60s) * James: ca.70–200 CE (conservative dating ca.45–62 CE) * Colossians: +60 CE+ * Corinthians: +57 CE * Ephesians: +65 CE * Hebrews: +60–90 CE * Epistles of John: +95-110 CE * Jude: +70–100 CE (conservative dating in the 60s or earlier) * First Peter: ca. 90–96 CE (conservative dating ca.64 CE) * Second Peter: 100–140 CE (conservative dating ca.64 CE) * Philemon: +56 CE * Philippians: +57–62 CE * Romans: +57–58 CE * Galatians: +54–55 CE (conservative dating in the late 40s) * Thessalonians: +50 CE * Timothy: +70–100 CE (conservative dating ca.60) * Titus: +70–100 CE (conservative dating ca.60) * Revelation: +81–96 CE (dating in the 60s as a minority view among conservatives)Deaths:Paul: ~65Peter: ~64Just because someone said that they wrote something doesn't mean that the real person actually did. Many scholars debate the authenticity of the Epistles of Peter.Source: Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia....ating_the_Bible