|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:42 am
 |
|
|
 |
Ah, yes...Judas Iscariot. Perhaps one of the most controversial figures in history. Dante said that he was one of the three people so full of sin that they were in the very center of Hell-Along with Marcus Brutus and Caias Cassius. Yet to a select few, he is respected or held in wonder for his role in God's plan.
Judas Iscariot raises many questions concerning the Christian religion. He was the one assigned to hold the money bag, but is more well-known by his infamous role as a "betrayer".
We all know the story of Judas: Judas told the Pharisees where they could find Jesus, and was the one who Jesus claimed would betray him. He was therefore responsible for Jesus's subsequent crucifixion and death. He then shortly thereafter committed suicide. This has caused a lot of people to hate Judas Iscariot. And rightly so.
However, if we look at this from a different perspective, we find several facts:
-If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then Jesus's role as a martyr could not have been fulfilled. This was key in God's plan.
-Because Judas was a key role in God's plan, he can hardly be blamed for what destiny forced him to do.
-Peter denied Jesus three times, just like he had prophecied, and he was forgiven. Why couldn't this be the case with Judas?
-If we do assume that Judas was forced to give up the thing he loved the most, something which he loved so much that he committed suicide shortly after giving it up, and knowing that his name and honour (two very important things for that time) would be scorned for millenia to come, and that he went to Hell for the rest of eternity, then are we not left to assume that Judas payed more dearly for our sins than Jesus?
-Does Jesus' plea, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do," (Luke 23:34) not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas' sins?
And more recently, the Gospel of Judas was discovered. This seemed to claim that Jesus actually told Judas to betray him.
Judas's death also provides and interesting topic concerning the Bible. In two different books, it provides two different manners of death. You've probably only heard of the suicide:
The Gospel of Matthew says that, after Jesus' arrest by the Roman authorities (but before his execution), the guilt-ridden Judas returned the bribe to the priests and committed suicide by hanging himself. The priests could not return the money to the treasury so they used it to buy a plot of ground in order to bury strangers.
The Acts of the Apostles (1:18 ) says that Judas used the bribe to buy a field, but fell down, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This field is called Akeldama or Field Of Blood. Acts 1 goes on to describe how his place among the apostles was subsequently filled by Matthias.
Yet another account was preserved by the early Christian leader, Papias: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."
Let us, for the moment, assume that I believe in God. This isn't one of my arguments against God. This is a discussion on Judas Iscariot and how he is viewed by Christians. I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:15 pm
|
|
|
|
I've always thought that Judas had secured a place in heaven. He was indeed chosen to do this horrible thing. He walked with Jesus for three years, talked with him, ate with him, slept in the same area, watered the same trees during the sermon breaks. I never thought that Judas went to hell. I believe that he was one of a select group of people predestined (as much as I don't like that theory, I think that there are some conditions in which someone was born to play a certain role) to stand with Jesus, and, having known who he was, I think Judas accepted his Lord before he died. As for committing suicide... if you led to the arrest, torture and death of one of your best friends, wouldn't you be a little upset also? I also don't think that suicides go to hell if they've accepted Jesus beforehand. I think Judas has a pretty prominent position in heaven for being given such a hard task and actually going through with it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: -If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then Jesus's role as a martyr could not have been fulfilled. This was key in God's plan. -Because Judas was a key role in God's plan, he can hardly be blamed for what destiny forced him to do.
Yes, Judas was key to God's plan, but if it was not him, then it would have been someone else. if we look closely, we can see something that I, personally, find interesting.
According to Luke 22:1-6
"Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, and the chief priests and teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judus went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. They were delighted and agreed to give him money. He consented, and watched for an oportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present."
(Luke 22:1-6 NIV)
What I find intriguing in this passage is the statement that "Satan entered Judas". That phrase could mean a lot of things. It could mean that he was tempted, and gave in, or it could mean that Satan planted seeds of discontent and doubt within Judas' mind that took root and flourished, swaying him to the betrayal of Jesus. It could be something else, as well, but those are the first two things that spring immidiatley to my mind.
Still, I believe that Judas was fully aware of what he was doing. He may have let down his guard, and been influenced that way, but there is no doubt in my mind that he knew what was going on.
It may have worked in God's interests, but only because God is omniscient. Satan wanted Jesus dead. From what we can infer from what we are given, Satan believed that if Jesus died, he would win a battle against God. In reality, what evil would percieve as victory was God's triumph. But I digress... the point I'm trying to make is that it was Satan's plan, but God worked it for good.
Quote: -Peter denied Jesus three times, just like he had prophecied, and he was forgiven. Why couldn't this be the case with Judas?
Who's to say Judas wasn't forgiven? By that same token, who's to say he was? He was obviously penatent, but whether he truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah at the time of his death, no one can say. It is something that we can't simply decide, because it wasn't our choice. God may have had mercy, and he may not have. We really don't know.
Quote: -If we do assume that Judas was forced to give up the thing he loved the most, something which he loved so much that he committed suicide shortly after giving it up, and knowing that his name and honour (two very important things for that time) would be scorned for millenia to come, and that he went to Hell for the rest of eternity, then are we not left to assume that Judas payed more dearly for our sins than Jesus?
Assuming all these things, he still could not pay for our sins. Judas was mortal man, Jesus was the perfect Son of God. Big difference! When Jesus was put on the cross, he-- the sinless, perfect Son of God-- carried our sins. Not only metaphorically, but spiritually. Scripture tells us that God actually turned away in those hours. Judas, on the other hand, carried only his own sins. He was mortal, sinful man. He could not carry our sin.
Quote: And more recently, the Gospel of Judas was discovered. This seemed to claim that Jesus actually told Judas to betray him.
Now, here I feel the need to get into history. Despite its claims, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas, or by anyone who knew him personally. It was written by a Gnostic sect in the third and fourth centuries, who claimed it was a 'secret account' of the relationship between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. I make note of the estimated time written because the rest of the New Testament was written withen the first century or so after Christ's death and ressurection, by those that either knew him personally or knew those who knew him personally. One wonders, then, where the writers of the Gospel of Judas got their information? Added to this, there is a single manuscript of the text, and that is barely legible. I am far less inclined to believe in any 'new' additions to the Bible than what is already compiled in the standard editions I own.
The Gnostics were a cult that arose as Christianity spread across the Mediterranean. The group started when Romans and Greeks attempted to absorb Christianity into their own beliefs. As they did so, they began to question the specifics of their fath. Questions like, 'Who exactly was Jesus?' and 'How could he die and come back?' came up, and a popular new cult called Gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, 'gnosis') attempted to explain these things based on their own mortal understanding. The Gnostics believed that God could not become human, because they believed that all matter was evil. Therefore, they decided that Jesus had never actually been flesh, but rather a phantom with the appearance of a human. Another popular theory was that God had descended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism, but left him before his death. As a whole, however, they decided that the flesh was evil and therefore Jesus could not have been flesh.
The Bible expressly states that Jesus was God become flesh several times. I John is filled with referances to Jesus' flesh and blood state. The other Gospels also make referance to the fact, particularly after the ressurection.
So, if the people who wrote the so-called Gospel of Judas were [A] Deniers of Jesus' recorded state as flesh and blood, not alive at the time that they wrote the text, and [C] Did not have living, breathing people to research from, then why should I believe their writings?
Personal opinions about Judas are many and varied. I believe that he was-- to use a fictional example --something of the role that Boromir plays in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. He was sinful man, and thus easily decieved. However, much as I would like to continue to compare him to Boromir, I cannot. The similarities in the mistake itself are there, but the scale is far different. And besides that, Boromir tried to redeem himself, whilst Judas committed suicide. (I'm sticking with Matthew's account due to timeline. The point isn't really how he died, it's that he did die-- at least that's how I choose to veiw it until I get to ask God myself *grin*.) I feel mostly sadness for him, actually. That one so close to Christ could fall like that.
Anyway, that's my response. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:40 am
|
|
|
|
CrystalMind Quote: -If Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then Jesus's role as a martyr could not have been fulfilled. This was key in God's plan. -Because Judas was a key role in God's plan, he can hardly be blamed for what destiny forced him to do. Yes, Judas was key to God's plan, but if it was not him, then it would have been someone else. if we look closely, we can see something that I, personally, find interesting. According to Luke 22:1-6"Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, and the chief priests and teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judus went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. They were delighted and agreed to give him money. He consented, and watched for an oportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present."
(Luke 22:1-6 NIV)What I find intriguing in this passage is the statement that "Satan entered Judas". That phrase could mean a lot of things. It could mean that he was tempted, and gave in, or it could mean that Satan planted seeds of discontent and doubt within Judas' mind that took root and flourished, swaying him to the betrayal of Jesus. It could be something else, as well, but those are the first two things that spring immidiatley to my mind. Still, I believe that Judas was fully aware of what he was doing. He may have let down his guard, and been influenced that way, but there is no doubt in my mind that he knew what was going on. It may have worked in God's interests, but only because God is omniscient. Satan wanted Jesus dead. From what we can infer from what we are given, Satan believed that if Jesus died, he would win a battle against God. In reality, what evil would percieve as victory was God's triumph. But I digress... the point I'm trying to make is that it was Satan's plan, but God worked it for good.
So you don't think Satan knew the consequences of Jesus dying?
Does this mean that we ultimately owe our salvation to Satan?
Quote: Quote: -Peter denied Jesus three times, just like he had prophecied, and he was forgiven. Why couldn't this be the case with Judas? Who's to say Judas wasn't forgiven? By that same token, who's to say he was? He was obviously penatent, but whether he truly believed that Jesus was the Messiah at the time of his death, no one can say. It is something that we can't simply decide, because it wasn't our choice. God may have had mercy, and he may not have. We really don't know. Quote: -If we do assume that Judas was forced to give up the thing he loved the most, something which he loved so much that he committed suicide shortly after giving it up, and knowing that his name and honour (two very important things for that time) would be scorned for millenia to come, and that he went to Hell for the rest of eternity, then are we not left to assume that Judas payed more dearly for our sins than Jesus? Assuming all these things, he still could not pay for our sins. Judas was mortal man, Jesus was the perfect Son of God. Big difference! When Jesus was put on the cross, he-- the sinless, perfect Son of God-- carried our sins. Not only metaphorically, but spiritually. Scripture tells us that God actually turned away in those hours. Judas, on the other hand, carried only his own sins. He was mortal, sinful man. He could not carry our sin.
But assuming all those things, Judas surely gave up at least as much as Jesus did. Hell is eternal, and even if Jesus's suffering was infinite, so was Judas's.
Quote: Quote: And more recently, the Gospel of Judas was discovered. This seemed to claim that Jesus actually told Judas to betray him. Now, here I feel the need to get into history. Despite its claims, the Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas, or by anyone who knew him personally. It was written by a Gnostic sect in the third and fourth centuries, who claimed it was a 'secret account' of the relationship between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. I make note of the estimated time written because the rest of the New Testament was written withen the first century or so after Christ's death and ressurection,
Correction: The Gospel of James, Epistles of John, Epistle of Jude, Gospel of Peter 2, Epistles of Timothy, and the Epistle of Titus were all probably written over a hundred years after the death of Christ.
Quote: by those that either knew him personally or knew those who knew him personally. One wonders, then, where the writers of the Gospel of Judas got their information? Added to this, there is a single manuscript of the text, and that is barely legible. I am far less inclined to believe in any 'new' additions to the Bible than what is already compiled in the standard editions I own.
Because God knows there was absolutely no bias when a bunch of people got together and decided what to put in the Bible and what to leave out of it. rolleyes
Quote: The Gnostics were a cult that arose as Christianity spread across the Mediterranean. The group started when Romans and Greeks attempted to absorb Christianity into their own beliefs. As they did so, they began to question the specifics of their fath. Questions like, 'Who exactly was Jesus?' and 'How could he die and come back?' came up, and a popular new cult called Gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, 'gnosis') attempted to explain these things based on their own mortal understanding. The Gnostics believed that God could not become human, because they believed that all matter was evil. Therefore, they decided that Jesus had never actually been flesh, but rather a phantom with the appearance of a human. Another popular theory was that God had descended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism, but left him before his death. As a whole, however, they decided that the flesh was evil and therefore Jesus could not have been flesh. The Bible expressly states that Jesus was God become flesh several times. I John is filled with referances to Jesus' flesh and blood state. The other Gospels also make referance to the fact, particularly after the ressurection. So, if the people who wrote the so-called Gospel of Judas were [A] Deniers of Jesus' recorded state as flesh and blood, not alive at the time that they wrote the text, and [C] Did not have living, breathing people to research from, then why should I believe their writings?
I find it interesting that you give so much more credit to Jesus's personal cultists than to objective bystanders. I would personally trust the information given by a third party than by a party that obviously has a well-known bias. However, something can be said for them being eyewitnesses of the events.
Quote: Personal opinions about Judas are many and varied. I believe that he was-- to use a fictional example --something of the role that Boromir plays in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. He was sinful man, and thus easily decieved. However, much as I would like to continue to compare him to Boromir, I cannot. The similarities in the mistake itself are there, but the scale is far different. And besides that, Boromir tried to redeem himself, whilst Judas committed suicide. (I'm sticking with Matthew's account due to timeline. The point isn't really how he died, it's that he did die-- at least that's how I choose to veiw it until I get to ask God myself *grin*.) I feel mostly sadness for him, actually. That one so close to Christ could fall like that. Anyway, that's my response.
Faramir was so much cooler than Boromir...
I prefer Mark's depiction of Judas. Mark seems a lot more factual than any of the others, rather than spewing out his disgust constantly. Peter's just...ugh, can't he give the guy a break? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:28 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: So you don't think Satan knew the consequences of Jesus dying?
Do you know what Satan-el's downfall was? Pride. And pride is blind. He saw the perfect chance to further mutilate God's plan. And he stepped right into the obvious trap. He was confident and vain, and that was his mistake, his continuous mistake.
Quote: Correction: The Gospel of James, Epistles of John, Epistle of Jude, Gospel of Peter 2, Epistles of Timothy, and the Epistle of Titus were all probably written over a hundred years after the death of Christ.
Do you have actual proof for this claim?
Quote: I find it interesting that you give so much more credit to Jesus's personal cultists than to objective bystanders. I would personally trust the information given by a third party than by a party that obviously has a well-known bias. However, something can be said for them being eyewitnesses of the events.
It took a while for Jesus' cultists to actually believe him in the first place, and at the end, some of them still didn't believe. Also, eye witness is one of the most unreliable claims. Hysteria, re-created memories, those are all possible, of the crowds who saw the miracles and of his followers.
(Aragorn's the real ranger cool ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Lyneun Quote: So you don't think Satan knew the consequences of Jesus dying? Do you know what Satan-el's downfall was? Pride. And pride is blind. He saw the perfect chance to further mutilate God's plan. And he stepped right into the obvious trap. He was confident and vain, and that was his mistake, his continuous mistake.
So we really owe our salvation to Satan's pride?
Interesting...
Quote: Quote: Correction: The Gospel of James, Epistles of John, Epistle of Jude, Gospel of Peter 2, Epistles of Timothy, and the Epistle of Titus were all probably written over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Do you have actual proof for this claim?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm
I realize only James is in that one, but I can go digging around for some others if you like.
Quote: Quote: I find it interesting that you give so much more credit to Jesus's personal cultists than to objective bystanders. I would personally trust the information given by a third party than by a party that obviously has a well-known bias. However, something can be said for them being eyewitnesses of the events. It took a while for Jesus' cultists to actually believe him in the first place, and at the end, some of them still didn't believe. Also, eye witness is one of the most unreliable claims. Hysteria, re-created memories, those are all possible, of the crowds who saw the miracles and of his followers.
So then you agree that the Gnostics probably gave a more accurate account of events than Jesus's cultists did? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 12:49 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: So you don't think Satan knew the consequences of Jesus dying? Does this mean that we ultimately owe our salvation to Satan?
Okay, for the first part, Lyneun pretty much covered it.
For the second, Jesus had the capability to come down off that cross at any time. He chose not to, because by staying he fulfilled God's will. It was neccessary. So, no. We owe our salvation to God through Jesus.
Quote: But assuming all those things, Judas surely gave up at least as much as Jesus did. Hell is eternal, and even if Jesus's suffering was infinite, so was Judas's.
You're ignoring the fact that Judas was still mortal. He would have gone to Hell anyway without Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus, on the other hand, was perfect. He never sinned. He had a place in heaven at God's right hand, and he still took on our sins. He could have said no, but he didn't. His sacrifice was far greater than any mortal's, past, present, or future, could ever be.
Quote: Correction: The Gospel of James, Epistles of John, Epistle of Jude, Gospel of Peter 2, Epistles of Timothy, and the Epistle of Titus were all probably written over a hundred years after the death of Christ.
Citation, please?
Quote: Because God knows there was absolutely no bias when a bunch of people got together and decided what to put in the Bible and what to leave out of it.
Considering that the early church had compiled it from the apostles writings before 400 A.D.-- when it was cannonized-- yes. There was a bias insofar as the early church had a far greater understanding of what could be trusted and what could not. They were biased insofar as they didn't want future generations to deal with a perversion of God's word. Is that so wrong? I don't think so.
Consider, also, that the true Gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John --were actually written by those they are named after. Contrast this with the so-called 'Gospel of Judas', which was written by an aforementioned Gnostic sect in the third and fourth centuries who didn't know Judas, had had no contact with him, and whose only source of information would have been the true Gospels? Sounds to me like they made a lot of unfounded assumptions.
Quote: I find it interesting that you give so much more credit to Jesus's personal cultists than to objective bystanders. I would personally trust the information given by a third party than by a party that obviously has a well-known bias. However, something can be said for them being eyewitnesses of the events.
Jesus' personal 'cultists' as you call them, were originally those who had known him. They walked with him, talked with him, and ate with him. They dutifully recorded his teachings as they observed him, and as they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.
Opposed to this, we have the Gnostics, who believed that Jesus had no physical form, and never did. They believed that his humanity was an illusion. What they believed was in opposition to the Gospels, which doesn't surprise me for the reasons that they didn't have a way to do research.
Somehow, I'd rather believe Luke, who was a doctor and tracked down eyewitnesses for his records, over those who had no such resource. I think that Mary, one of those that Luke interviewed, would know if the child she had given birth to didn't have a physical body, don't you agree?
Quote: It took a while for Jesus' cultists to actually believe him in the first place, and at the end, some of them still didn't believe. Also, eye witness is one of the most unreliable claims. Hysteria, re-created memories, those are all possible, of the crowds who saw the miracles and of his followers.
*sighs* So... if someone says they saw a man rob a bank, and then someone who wasn't there, and has had no contact with the person that witnessed the event decides to rationilize it out by saying, "No, he didn't rob the bank, because he was keeping the money safe from someone else who wanted to steal it." You would believe the second reporter? Following your argument, witnesses in court shouldn't be allowed on the stand, because eyewitness statements are unreliable.
Moving into something maybe a bit more relevent to your statement, there were thousands of people recorded to have seen Jesus post-resurection. That's a lot of people to be suffering from hysteria, don't you think? Especially when these are the same people who were calling for his death only three days previous.
Quote: I prefer Mark's depiction of Judas. Mark seems a lot more factual than any of the others, rather than spewing out his disgust constantly. Peter's just...ugh, can't he give the guy a break?
Each of the Gospels were written to a different audience, by peope from different backgrounds. Matthew was a tax collector. he grouped facts topically. The entire book gives off a sense of systematic, ledger-like thinking. He makes a point of referring back to Old Testement prophesy regarding the Messiah. He was writing to the Jews, and therefore had to establish Jesus' place. He didn't need to explain Old Testament laws and Jewish customs to those that already knew them.
Mark was a very fast-paced writer. His audience was a group of people who knew next to nothing about Jewish culture or the Christian faith. He was primarily writing to the Romans and other groups like them. He gives a chronology of Jesus' life, avoiding unneccessary speeches and flowery words. He stuck to simple facts in an easy-to-understand format, explaining customs and traditions when neccessary so the reader didn't become confused.
Luke, although he never claims to have known Jesus personally,(and probably didn't, as an early convert in the church), did heavy research into Jesus life, tracking down eyewitnesses for his writing. No other Gospel has as many details as the Gospel of Luke. He makes a point of focussing on the character of the people invilved. If Mark is a Gospel of action, then Luke is a Gospel of description. As a doctor, Luke knew the importance of details. He made a point of fulfilling the need for such description with his dedicated hunt for the truth. He later traveled with both Peter and Paul, and write the book of Acts.
John breaks sharply from the pattern of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He automaticaly assumes that the reader knows the basics of Jesus' life. Instead of focusing on events, he focuses on the meaning of Jesus' words to his audiences. He highlights Christ's words to show that Jesus knew who he was and where he was going. He didn't just drop out of the sky.
Really, each of the Gospels has their strengths. None is more or less factual than another, they're just presented in different formats to different audiences.
(On the subject of Aragorn, Boromir, and Faramir; they all have their good points, and they all have their flaws. End of discussion. It was meant to be a one-time example.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:17 pm
|
|
|
|
CrystalMind Quote: So you don't think Satan knew the consequences of Jesus dying? Does this mean that we ultimately owe our salvation to Satan? Okay, for the first part, Lyneun pretty much covered it. For the second, Jesus had the capability to come down off that cross at any time. He chose not to, because by staying he fulfilled God's will. It was neccessary. So, no. We owe our salvation to God through Jesus.
But Satan was the reason that Jesus was up on that cross in the first place. Whether Jesus could come off the cross or not is irrelevant. Satan is responsible for him even having that option.
Quote: Quote: But assuming all those things, Judas surely gave up at least as much as Jesus did. Hell is eternal, and even if Jesus's suffering was infinite, so was Judas's. You're ignoring the fact that Judas was still mortal. He would have gone to Hell anyway without Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus, on the other hand, was perfect. He never sinned. He had a place in heaven at God's right hand, and he still took on our sins. He could have said no, but he didn't. His sacrifice was far greater than any mortal's, past, present, or future, could ever be.
Oh, so you're one of those that believe everyone went to Hell before Jesus came along...That's a whole other can of worms...
Jesus was only in Hell for 3 days. Then he went to Heaven. If we assume that Judas is still in Hell, I have little doubt which one's shoes I would rather be in.
Quote: Quote: Correction: The Gospel of James, Epistles of John, Epistle of Jude, Gospel of Peter 2, Epistles of Timothy, and the Epistle of Titus were all probably written over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Citation, please?
I've already done this.
Here's another source, just for kicks:
http://www.davnet.org/kevin/articles/bible_dates.html
Quote: Quote: Because God knows there was absolutely no bias when a bunch of people got together and decided what to put in the Bible and what to leave out of it. Considering that the early church had compiled it from the apostles writings before 400 A.D.-- when it was cannonized-- yes. There was a bias insofar as the early church had a far greater understanding of what could be trusted and what could not. They were biased insofar as they didn't want future generations to deal with a perversion of God's word. Is that so wrong? I don't think so.
You also must keep in mind Roman/Jewish persecution they faced during those first centuries. I doubt that they did not hold some sort of resentment toward both groups. You cannot claim that people you probably can't name were not corrupt nor unbiased. They were human.
Quote: Consider, also, that the true Gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John --were actually written by those they are named after.
Matthew- Nope
Mark-Yes, as far as I know
Luke-Disputable, though I consider it likely
John-Probably not
Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford, pp. 92-92.
Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 267-8.
Ehrman 2004, p. 164-5
I even used MLA citations! mrgreen
Quote: Contrast this with the so-called 'Gospel of Judas', which was written by an aforementioned Gnostic sect in the third and fourth centuries who didn't know Judas, had had no contact with him, and whose only source of information would have been the true Gospels? Sounds to me like they made a lot of unfounded assumptions.
Possible.
Quote: Quote: I find it interesting that you give so much more credit to Jesus's personal cultists than to objective bystanders. I would personally trust the information given by a third party than by a party that obviously has a well-known bias. However, something can be said for them being eyewitnesses of the events. Jesus' personal 'cultists' as you call them, were originally those who had known him. They walked with him, talked with him, and ate with him. They dutifully recorded his teachings as they observed him, and as they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.
Actually, many of the people accredited with writing the books of the Bible never even met Jesus. Some of those ones may have met people who met him, though...
Quote: Opposed to this, we have the Gnostics, who believed that Jesus had no physical form, and never did. They believed that his humanity was an illusion. What they believed was in opposition to the Gospels, which doesn't surprise me for the reasons that they didn't have a way to do research. Somehow, I'd rather believe Luke, who was a doctor and tracked down eyewitnesses for his records, over those who had no such resource. I think that Mary, one of those that Luke interviewed, would know if the child she had given birth to didn't have a physical body, don't you agree?
Scholars aren't even sure if Luke was the one who actually wrote the Gospel of Luke. What makes you so sure he interviewed her?
Look, I'm not going to defend the Gospel of Judas and its credibility. That wasn't the point of me bringing it up. The point of bringing it up was to bring up the idea it suggested. We don't know whether Jesus told Judas to betray him or not, but surely you must admit that it's an interesting idea?
Quote: It took a while for Jesus' cultists to actually believe him in the first place, and at the end, some of them still didn't believe. Also, eye witness is one of the most unreliable claims. Hysteria, re-created memories, those are all possible, of the crowds who saw the miracles and of his followers.
Quote: *sighs* So... if someone says they saw a man rob a bank, and then someone who wasn't there, and has had no contact with the person that witnessed the event decides to rationilize it out by saying, "No, he didn't rob the bank, because he was keeping the money safe from someone else who wanted to steal it." You would believe the second reporter? Following your argument, witnesses in court shouldn't be allowed on the stand, because eyewitness statements are unreliable.
No, according to my argument a person should not be punished for a crime if only a single witness testifies against them, with no other evidence in support of the prosecution.
Quote: Moving into something maybe a bit more relevent to your statement, there were thousands of people recorded to have seen Jesus post-resurection. That's a lot of people to be suffering from hysteria, don't you think? Especially when these are the same people who were calling for his death only three days previous.
I hadn't heard of these recordings. In fact, I hadn't even realised that Jesus had even met thousands of literate people in his whole lifetime. Why weren't they put in the Bible? Perhaps you could provide me with a link to them?
Quote: Quote: I prefer Mark's depiction of Judas. Mark seems a lot more factual than any of the others, rather than spewing out his disgust constantly. Peter's just...ugh, can't he give the guy a break? Each of the Gospels were written to a different audience, by peope from different backgrounds. Matthew was a tax collector. he grouped facts topically. The entire book gives off a sense of systematic, ledger-like thinking. He makes a point of referring back to Old Testement prophesy regarding the Messiah. He was writing to the Jews, and therefore had to establish Jesus' place. He didn't need to explain Old Testament laws and Jewish customs to those that already knew them. Mark was a very fast-paced writer. His audience was a group of people who knew next to nothing about Jewish culture or the Christian faith. He was primarily writing to the Romans and other groups like them. He gives a chronology of Jesus' life, avoiding unneccessary speeches and flowery words. He stuck to simple facts in an easy-to-understand format, explaining customs and traditions when neccessary so the reader didn't become confused. Luke, although he never claims to have known Jesus personally,(and probably didn't, as an early convert in the church), did heavy research into Jesus life, tracking down eyewitnesses for his writing. No other Gospel has as many details as the Gospel of Luke. He makes a point of focussing on the character of the people invilved. If Mark is a Gospel of action, then Luke is a Gospel of description. As a doctor, Luke knew the importance of details. He made a point of fulfilling the need for such description with his dedicated hunt for the truth. He later traveled with both Peter and Paul, and write the book of Acts. John breaks sharply from the pattern of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He automaticaly assumes that the reader knows the basics of Jesus' life. Instead of focusing on events, he focuses on the meaning of Jesus' words to his audiences. He highlights Christ's words to show that Jesus knew who he was and where he was going. He didn't just drop out of the sky. Really, each of the Gospels has their strengths. None is more or less factual than another, they're just presented in different formats to different audiences.
Fair enough.
Quote: (On the subject of Aragorn, Boromir, and Faramir; they all have their good points, and they all have their flaws. End of discussion. It was meant to be a one-time example.)
Are you saying you didn't have fun? cry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:56 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: So we really owe our salvation to Satan's pride?
We owe our salvation to God. No one else.
Quote: So then you agree that the Gnostics probably gave a more accurate account of events than Jesus's cultists did?
I don't know what the Gnostics claim. I only know that human psychology is difficult to understand and should never be taken lightly in any situation. You should always, always question, and never take anything for face value. Know the problems that plague humanity (like hysteria for instance) and cast resonable doubt on them. As a side note, I cast doubt on the truthfulness of some claims but it does not shake my faith in what I believed happened. (Blind faith is not faith, it's idiocy.)
Quote: Following your argument, witnesses in court shouldn't be allowed on the stand, because eyewitness statements are unreliable.
I agree completely.
Quote: That's a lot of people to be suffering from hysteria, don't you think?
That's what group hysteria is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:07 pm
|
|
|
|
Lyneun Quote: So we really owe our salvation to Satan's pride? We owe our salvation to God. No one else.
Why?
Quote: Quote: So then you agree that the Gnostics probably gave a more accurate account of events than Jesus's cultists did? I don't know what the Gnostics claim. I only know that human psychology is difficult to understand and should never be taken lightly in any situation. You should always, always question, and never take anything for face value. Know the problems that plague humanity (like hysteria for instance) and cast resonable doubt on them. As a side note, I cast doubt on the truthfulness of some claims but it does not shake my faith in what I believed happened. (Blind faith is not faith, it's idiocy.)
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
