The Book of Judas

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

In the end, it seems that while our fates are not determined, God knows what we're going to do.

This is why sometimes, I just wish God would let me know if I'm going to make it or not. If I'm not going to the Clelestial Kingdom, I'd rather fail by not trying. :P

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

You'll get no argument from me that this has been the teaching of the church from day one. I find the issue interesting because it seems Judas' fate was determined. When you quote the rest of John 17:12 we read:

...and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

When you throw in the passages that I quoted above you can get the sense that Judas was born to fail. Chosen because he would fail. That is why I find this new Book of Judas find so interesting. That the guy had a spin machine working for him 180 plus years after he died is fascinating.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but ALL of the gospels were written FORTY or more years AFTER the events they allegedly describe.

Not a single historian of the time bothers to mention anything about Jesus Christ. The best information we have comes from the gospels. Jesus died somewhere around the year 33 AD. The gospels all came later. Mark was the first one written, and the others seem to be based quite heavily on Mark for the general details, and then contain some personal embellishments. Mark mentions the destruction of the Jewish temple, an historic event that WAS noted, so we know that Mark had to be writting some time after that. The temple was destroyed at 70 AD, so the gospels were written FOUR DECADES (most likely more) AFTER the events that they describe.

That is quite a long gap between Jesus and the gospls. Perhaps things existed as oral tradition before that? I find the gap distrubing. Ask any seventy year old to recall events from forty years before that, and details are going to find a way of either escaping the person, or becoming blown out of proportion.

A FORTY YEAR GAP.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Robin

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but ALL of the gospels were written FORTY or more years AFTER the events they allegedly describe.

So, what does that have to do with anything I've said? And why would it burst my bubble?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

So, what does that have to do with anything I've said? And why would it burst my bubble?

Yeah, I got one step ahead of the point.

It wasn't such a great point, but you were dropped the 180 years number like that somehow means something.The original text may have been written long before that. Rmember, the artifact was a copy of some other original text so the 180 years number has little to do with when it was first written. The best way to know that is by referencing historical events that may be referred to, and then placing the authorship some time after that.

Doing that with the book of Mark places it some forty years after the death of Jesus. I have some issues with that. Maybe you don't. Were the gospels really written as testiments of Jesus? Or were they written to set the story straight, once and for all, so that there would be one final version of a story that was getting changed around with each retelling?

Virgin birth, angels and the star were all unwitnessed events that took place more than 70 years before the gospels were written. When a man tries to sell you snake oil, you might not be able to disprove his claims, but you will generally recognize the danger by the sales tactics.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

Yeah, I got one step ahead of the point.

It wasn't such a great point, but you were dropped the 180 years number like that somehow means something.The original text may have been written long before that. Rmember, the artifact was a copy of some other original text so the 180 years number has little to do with when it was first written. The best way to know that is by referencing historical events that may be referred to, and then placing the authorship some time after that.

Doing that with the book of Mark places it some forty years after the death of Jesus. I have some issues with that. Maybe you don't. Were the gospels really written as testiments of Jesus? Or were they written to set the story straight, once and for all, so that there would be one final version of a story that was getting changed around with each retelling?

Virgin birth, angels and the star were all unwitnessed events that took place more than 70 years before the gospels were written. When a man tries to sell you snake oil, you might not be able to disprove his claims, but you will generally recognize the danger by the sales tactics.

That's why I like the Book of Mormon. It'd be a lot harder to believe the Bible without it.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

That's why I like the Book of Mormon. It'd be a lot harder to believe the Bible without it.

And who says you are anything but 'reasonable' in your faith? You are a spiritual Niels Bohr.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Robin

It wasn't such a great point, but you were dropped the 180 years number like that somehow means something.

I picked 180 because there was a reference to the book of Judas in a document written in that year. That's all. I figured it was a solid number to start with.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

And who says you are anything but 'reasonable' in your faith? You are a spiritual Niels Bohr.

I'd rather be a spiritual Neils Bohr than a rhetorical Werner Heisenberg.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'd rather be a spiritual Neils Bohr than a rhetorical Werner Heisenberg.

I can't tell if you missed my implied TIC. And I am a spiritual Heisenberg, not a rehtorical Heisenberg.

[All-American]

It's one thing to admit that you don't know something. It's quite another to say that since you don't know, neither do I; and furthermore, I can't know and will never know.

And no, I didn't miss the implied tongue-in-cheek. Nor have any of us failed to notice the self-evident head-up-ass.