It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What makes the Gospels of Judas so uncredited?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

There are no copies of any of these writings cannonical or otherwise that
predate the 4th century.



Here's the webpage from the Duke University Papyrus Archive

They show two manuscripts, P46 (gospel of John) and P66 (Romans-Hebrews) as dating from 200 AD.

The column labeled "250 AD" Contains a large portion of the New Testament, including All four Gospels, Acts, and the Apocalypse of John.


The statement you wrote is at odds with the concensus of carbon-dating experts, paleographers, and historians of every stripe.
.



[edit on 24-4-2006 by dr_strangecraft]




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
the fact that it is a gnostic document. Thats all.
oh and also the fact that most people think its a litle "strecth" to say that Jesus was beat, whipped, tortured, and nailed to across just for the sake of pulling a prank ....



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It's a fraud. The same people who hate Christianity are the ones touting it. What does that tell you ?


[edit on 24-4-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Manifestly Untrue

quote: Originally posted by stalkingwolf

There are no copies of any of these writings cannonical or otherwise that
predate the 4th century.



Here's the webpage from the Duke University Papyrus Archive

They show two manuscripts, P46 (gospel of John) and P66 (Romans-Hebrews) as dating from 200 AD.

The column labeled "250 AD" Contains a large portion of the New Testament, including All four Gospels, Acts, and the Apocalypse of John.


The statement you wrote is at odds with the concensus of carbon-dating experts, paleographers, and historians of every stripe.


I believe I was unclear in my statement. Yes there have been fragments, pieces
and bits found. There are No complete copies that predate Diocletian.
And as they point out in that article ( thanks it was a very interesting article) there are no originals extant all are copies of copies of copies. This is true of all writings
of any society that moves from oral to written traditions.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

And as they point out in that article ( thanks it was a very interesting article) there are no originals extant all are copies of copies of copies. This is true of all writings
of any society that moves from oral to written traditions.




Quite true.

We don't have ANY originals of Caesar's "Gallic Wars," or the works of Plato, or Homer, or just about any other classical author.

And, as a matter of fact, there HAVE been questions about the authenticity of some of the copies we DO have for those greats of western Literature. One example is Plato's "analogy of the cave," which supports the later philosophical conclusions of arab and christian neoplatonists, who in fact are the only sources of our extant copies. (Funny how students are never told this when the topic comes up in a philosophy class.)

As a matter of fact, we don't have ANY copies of Caesar's "Gallic Wars" before about 800 AD, nor of Plato's works from the same period. Of course, people haven't looked for them as vigorously, since they aren't considered scripture except by professional scholars.

The problems of obtaining early copies impact ALL classical studies, and not just Bible authenticity issues.

Personally, I have no doubt that people were composing "gospels" as soon as they became interested/converted in regard to Jesus. And so I expect that we will find earlier and earlier materials, for ALL branches of Christian faith. The orthodox canon itself records "heretics" like simon the magus; and pagan gnosticism in the Greek world predates Jesus in any event. (i.e. Philo, Plotinus)


I supppose what I bridle at is the notion that anything the mainstream church has copied for 1800 years is suspect MERELY because of the belief-system of the copyists.

Surely, Christians are not the only "irrational" people on the planet; neither are they the only people capable of mutilatiing texts in the interests of "defending" the faith.

I have no doubt that the Cainites were every bit as sincere about their faith as anyone else who has ever lived; probably moreso than some of any religion.

The mere presence of one text tradition hardly invalidates all others; regardless of what Orthodox OR Cainites might declaim.

There is a popular tendency to day to doubt the heterodox texts precisely BECAUSE they are now considered mainstream---while any scrap of parchment is heralded as automatically containing ETERNAL TRUTH merely because no one has seen it yet. On the assumption that everything we know must be wrong



PS. are you having trouble getting the italics and bold functions to work? I just typed that last line in manually. the buttons I click on keep erasing all my previous work!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Well, for starters, this thing isn't a Gospel. It's an old piece of junk.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
zerotolerance is right^^^.

Who are you, Rush Limbaugh?




denythestatusquo:

"All true but this is mystery religion as secret society.

Lucifer is humanity fallen from the higher realms.

Good and evil is in all but the author of this text due to their inherent bias and support of the dark side ignores the struggle between light and dark and suggests that such a struggle is either non-existant or pointless.

A gnostic-christian would not of course adopt that view."



I suggest you go back and read it again.

The non-duality(that results from the direct comprehension of duality) of Gnosis and Buddhism, does not favor "the Dark Side" or the Black Lodge if you will.

Quite the "opposite".





Gnostic Christian




Nakash:

"That's an oxymoron. Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity, it's Neoplatonic Philosophy with a veneer of mystery religion. It's an ideology which developed centuries after Jesus Christ (or at least became popular much after his life, though the core was present to some degree before, ie: the Manichaens, Zoroastrians, etc.)"




How can it have nothing to do Christianity, when Christianity's founder(Aberamentho or Yeshua Ben Yosef) was Gnostic himself?

Remember that Gnosis is the Science found in all authentic religions.

The Zoroastrians(The Magi who came to see the beloved Yeshua when he was born), the Platonists, Kemetian Priests(remember that Moses was "learned in all the Magic of the Egyptians" according to the Torah), etc. all studied and practiced the same timeless Science.

To get caught up in just the outer shell, and sectarian dogma and fanaticism, is to exclude yourself from ever comprehending the message that the prophets came to teach us.


"And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger.

So when their Messenger comes, the matter is decided between them with justice, and they are not wronged."

- (Qur'an 10:47)



And people wonder why the Prophets and Magi hide their Inner Teachings with symbolism, and form "Secret Societies" and what-not.

Because when said Prophets attempt to reveal the Truth, the multitudes just spit on and crucify them; despite the fact that the former(Prophets) are willing to give every last drop of blood for the latter(the People)...






[edit on 25-4-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
And what you call Gospels are just Faery Tales written by followers of Saul the Murderer.
This is the same Saul that got drunk, fell off his ass and had a vision.

A quote from as I recall Red Jacket: when you have decided amoung yourselves who is right then return and we will speak of this.


I supppose what I bridle at is the notion that anything the mainstream church has copied for
1800 years is suspect MERELY because of the belief-system of the copyists.


IMO they are questionable because of the adherants insistance that they themselves are right and
everyone else is wrong. ( Jack chick,Fred Phelps,Texe Mars to name a few) The second
reason I find them questionable is the constant bellowing of infalability in spite of obvious
inconsistancy.


BTW I have been inserting the tags manually just for practice.



[edit on 25-4-2006 by stalkingwolf]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

IMO they are questionable because of the adherants insistance that they themselves are right and
everyone else is wrong. ( Jack chick,Fred Phelps,Texe Mars to name a few) The second
reason I find them questionable is the constant bellowing of infalability in spite of obvious
inconsistancy.



That's quite a broad brush your painting with, there.

You first point (claims of infallability) seems to focus on anyone who is certain of anything. And yet Galileo was certain. So was Kepler, Copernicus, Giodorno Bruno, and all the rest. And they tried to convince others against their will just as much as Chick and company do today.

There are a lot of people who hold the canonical gospels in reverence without saying either a) that they are infallible, or b) that you are obliged to adopt their beliefs against your own better judgment.

I will not argue that what you say is untrue, insomuch as it reflects the attitude of the "assemblies of God" and a few similar groups. But there are a lot of Christians who do not share their outlook.

Sadly, the majority are ignored by both the "lunatic fringe" AND the skeptics.

.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Ugh! The reason these "gnostic" gospels were considered heresy was because they all claim Jesus initiated the deciples in "secret mysteries" that were not included in biblical text. Naturally, the only way to learn these "mysteries" was to join a cult which would initiate one in "higher knowledge". "Esoteric" is simply another word for "elite". You know things the layman couldn't possibly know, therefore you are special.

The difference between revelatory religion (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and mystery cults is that, in the former, prophets get inspiration from God (He uses whoever he deems necessary to proclaim His thoughts). In the latter, initiates work towards attaining spiritual sight through effort of will. The biblical prophets were a mixed bag, some moral and compassionate, some downright diabolical, but all bowed in the end to God's will. Some, like Jonas, recoiled from God and refused (at first) to communicate His will. Initiates join mystery cults for power... power to see things forbidden to common folk... power to forsee the future... power by associating with powerful people who work in concert behind closed doors - to their exclusive benefit.

What is contained within the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran are revealed mysteries that anyone has access to, regardless of race, creed, nationality, or social standing. And there are some mysteries that are left to be revealed. But you can't force God to reveal them. This is where the gnostics err. God wants to salvage as many of us from this wretched earth as He can - which is why He reveals to all (through the Books). If there's a man alive that believes he's keeping so-called "secrets of salvation" for himself and his brethren, he's doomed to hell for dooming the rest of "uninitiated" mankind to hell through for not disclosing this valuable secret. Lucky for us, "God is no respecter of persons".

Hope this helps.

-S



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   


Ugh! The reason these "gnostic" gospels were considered heresy was because they all claim Jesus initiated the deciples in "secret mysteries" that were not included in biblical text.


Once again there is biblical precedent for this belief. Jeshua DID teach hidden things and
in hidden/esoteric ways. Luke 8: is but one example, with verses 9-10 spelling it out.

Esoteric is simply hidden, and IMO indicates things should not be taken literally.

It has also been recorded more than once that the leaders of Pauls church from Paul
on believed and still believe that " not all knowledge is for all people".



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Stalkingwolf has a definite point.

(Let's see if I can post this before Tamahu does . . .)

Part of the murkiness on the issue of "secret teachings" is that "secret" and "mystery" imply different things in Modern english than they do in Koine Greek.

Modern versions (NIV here) read this way



Luke 8:9-10
His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
" 'though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand"


But the actual Greek word translated as "secrets" is "musteria," a mystery.

Notice that Jesus teaches the same thing to all his listeners. But, some are given an inner meaning, which isn't important for beginners to hear. Everyone hears the parable; only some get Jesus' own personal interpretation. In Greek, a mystery is not a riddle to be solved, but a "deep thing" that is worthy of endless contemplation.

Compare that worldview with John 18:20 (KJV)



Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing


The word for secret used here in John is "krupto," where we get our modern word "cryptic."

In other words, Jesus teaching was sometimes mysterious, but never Cryptic.

(According to the canonical account.)

What I mean by that statement is that Jesus is portrayed as giving his whole teaching in public, and thus, no secrets. But the disciples were told the implications and what they would mean for the last judgment (thus, the "mysteries"). Surely, an average listener could see what Jesus was implying with his "parable of the sower," even without Jesus' personal explanation to the believers.

The reason Irenaeus railed against "gnostics" was their insistence, not so much on special interpretations, but in their claim that Jesus said totally different things.


As a side note, it's interesting how Bible critics point out on the one hand how the Bible is "full of inconsistencies," and then in the next breath go on to claim that the church "edited out all the embarrasing stuff."

the two arguments are, to an extent, mutually exclusive.


.



[edit on 26-4-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

[edit on 26-4-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Look, may I suggest reading the works of the early Church fathers? If you do, you will quickly see why this "gospel" is discredited- it was a fad during the time for theologians to cook these fake gospels up. Valentinus, Basilides,etc.- heresy, crap.PERIOD. Also, NO- gnosis and it's pagan trappings have little to do with Christianity.

Paganism:

-values the strong and proud over the weak and defenseless
-establishes a caste system to oppress the conquered and promote by force it's values.
-Prizes situational ethics
-Prizes "secret knowledge" over revealed truth
-Values war which it perceives as a sign of strength
-empty ritualism and arrogance concerning deeds over humbleness before God (ie: Grace).
-Values appearances instead of stringent absolutes.

that's paganism. Totally antichrist in spirit, look at heathenism in say... India (perfect example). Adolf Hitler is a failed "Kalki" for instance according to the Brahmins, a "Mahatma"/"ascended one", a failed incarnation of Shiva, the taste of the one bringing the "cleansing" of this Kali Yuga. I brought that example up since this type of heaping of glory on those who don't deserve it is the spirit of the pagan mysteries. Look at the "holy men" of the ancient world- Apollonius of Tyana, the Caesars ....evil men who would by all standards be in HELL. The ethic of paganism is fundamentally inconsistent with that of Christianity. Nietzche recognized that before most did, and I know which side I am choosing.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   


-values the strong and proud over the weak and defenseless
-establishes a caste system to oppress the conquered and promote by force it's values.
-Prizes situational ethics
-Prizes "secret knowledge" over revealed truth
-Values war which it perceives as a sign of strength
-empty ritualism and arrogance concerning deeds over humbleness before God (ie: Grace).
-Values appearances instead of stringent absolutes.


I think you have your religious groups crossed up here. But Ill do your list point by point.

values the strong and proud over the weak and defenseless
this applies to the pauline xian church from the time it sold out to Constantine on.

establishes a caste system to oppress the conquered and promote by force it's values.
ditto . also inquisitions and witch burnings. Malleus Maleficarum

Prizes situational ethics
child raping priests. Jim Baker,Billy Graham, ETC,ETC,ETC.

Prizes "secret knowledge" over revealed truth
xianity requires ordained official to interpret "message" as opposed to personal experience.

Values war which it perceives as a sign of strength
see 2 above with the addition of crusades 1-7, wars of religion.

empty ritualism and arrogance concerning deeds over humbleness before God (ie: Grace).

perfectly describes the " church "structure catholic or protestant and the we are right
and everyone else is going to hell mentality of xians.

Values appearances instead of stringent absolutes.
see above . also the clergy's attitude of "do as I say not as I do" and the xian policy
of non responsibility. Do what ever you want , just ask for forgivness and your cool.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Great Stalking, you have mastered the stereotyping of Christianity. The basic fault in your argumentation is that you make no difference between institutional "Christianity" which is the product of 2000 years of concessions, incorporation of pagan values, manipulation by secular leaders, and so forth. The NT (and Pauline Christianity) have no fault, they are the complete antithesis of the pagan ethic I just talked about. Must I remind you that I am not Roman Catholic as well? I believe managing a family is a prime identification of a fine Pastor, I don't believe in "magic water", and I don't have a middleman between me and God (ie: a catholic priest). Also, crusades were aimed at the people who preserved the textus receiptus in case you don't know (my theological ancestors- the Waldenses, John Wycliffe, the Maverens, the Anabaptists, the hugenouts, and hundreds of other Christian groups Catholics hate to talk about, but which were the remnant of the church in the dark ages).

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
You seem to have completely missed the point. None of the attributes you mention
have anything to do with any of the PAGAN beliefs I am familiar with. They
are all directly associated with xianity.

The way you are using Pagan you begin to sound like Jack Chick,Texe Marrs, Fred Phelps, and that whole fundeMENTAList/evangelical bunch that thinks anyone
who believes different than they do must be a satanist.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
OK stalking....I guess Christianity must really be soooooo evil. I'll go back to hanging myself for Odin, throwing babies into pyres for Moloch, ritual prostitution to Ishtar, and maybe rip a few hearts out for Quetzecoatl. After all, paganism is so nice, so enlightened.


ps: fundaMENTAList...that's soooooo clever. How long did it take for you to cook that up? a few hours


[edit on 30-4-2006 by Nakash]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
So you mention the degenerate practices of "pagan" religions that came into play after they had already degenerated... so what?

Shall we name the atrocities done in the name of "Jesus" that will indeed be looked at as "Christian practices" within the next few hundred years(though I doubt that this Root Race will even be around), after exoteric Christianity totally expires and is replaced by another religion?

You statements are proof that people don't judge religions by their doctrine; but by the actions of the masses that proclaim them.


Each authentic Religion has its purpose for this humanity, and should not be judged superficially in the light of fanaticism and religious jealousy(see my last quoting of the Qur'an in this thread).



The Gnostic must not be a fanatic. We must study everything to reject the useless and accept the useful. Gnosis is not against any religion, school, order or sect. We have fought for the moral purification of many religions, schools, orders and sects. We have never been against any religion, school or sect. We know that humanity is divided into groups and that each group needs its own system of particular instruction. All religions, schools, orders and sects are precious pearls that are strung on the golden thread of divinity. We must build churches in order to serve all religions without disinction of names or creeds. Truly, all religions are ineffable and divine. All religions, schools, orders and sects are necessary. Religious jealousy is equivilant to passionate jealousy. It is a shame to be religiously jealous. The Gnostic brother or sister must overcome such jealousy for it is a very vulgar passion. The Gnostic movement is structured for people of all religions, schools, orders and sects.

- The Yellow Book by Samael Aun Weor




Also, if you take scriptures literally, you'll be able find many atrocious practices within them; including, if not especially, the Bible(i.e. they were not meant to be taken literally).

This is because scriptures were originally written for Initiates, not to be put directly in the hands of the vulgar masses and/or the average corrupt priest.



A little explanation on why I believe Bibles and Qurans aren't meant (or weren't) for the public - including clergymen and theologians who are equally blind as are the savage masses. - Amir Fatir







[edit on 30-4-2006 by Tamahu]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Sorry Tamahu, but there's a name for cherry picking what you like from the Torah and Bible and ignoring what you don't like- that's called situational ethics and I'm out that boat (have been for ages). It's also called intellectual dishonesty. Oh, and no- there are no atrocities in the bible (-PERIOD-)



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
No atrocities? Entire tribes get exterminated and women and children get turned into slaves.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join