Welcome to the site where the owners and members have had it with playing "nice" and being "inclusive" and "tolerant" of points of view that are destroying the fabric of what made this country great. The members here are sick and tired of politicians of all parties lying, deceiving, stealing, and pretending they are doing it all for the good of the country while selling out to special interests who have the set goal of destroying this country. We have had enough of career politicians who use their office only for personal gain, and who refuse to listen to the people who put them in office. The membership is no longer part of the silent majority who play nice and get along while getting screwed by anyone with a loud voice and an agenda. We will no longer allow anyone to piss down our back and tell us it's raining. And we like guns too.



Go Back   DIRTYDOZENSBUNKER, LLC > Main > Chaplains Corner
Photo Gallery DDB Store Arcade rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read

Chaplains Corner A place to discuss religion, personal problems, or to request advise from someone who will listen and provide moral support.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-06-2006, 06:07 PM   #1
Zane Zackerly
The Mad Messenger
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Great State of Insanity
Posts: 4,222
Default This just goes beyond tinfoil hat territory...

The context of this article basically says that Judas did not betray Jesus, but basically had sold Jesus to the soldiers at His own request. This article was based on the newly discovered book that some are claiming to be the Book of Judas.
Zane Zackerly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 06:54 PM   #2
Sanders
Moderator
 
Sanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 66,361
Default

If I recall my Scriptures correctly, Judas didn't hang around long enough to enjoy his 30 pieces of silver, let alone write a gospel.
__________________

"The truly dangerous man dresses inconspicuously and is soft- spoken. He walks away from most confrontations. The only time you learn that the truly dangerous man is mad at you is a split second before you die, for he never fights. He only kills. The truly dangerous man knows that fighting is what children do and killing is what men do." - Charley Reese 1986
3
Sanders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 06:59 PM   #3
Cephus
The OLD COOT one and only
 
Cephus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Glovers Gap WV
Posts: 10,277
Default

Yep and that is what it says ,also it says something about Jesus knowing that one would betray him !!!! That it was his fathers will !!!!
__________________
FREEDOM ONLY
ACCEPTS ONE
PRICE AND
THAT IS BLOOD

Cephus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 07:05 PM   #4
Preacher
Chaplain/Moderator
 
Preacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 11,321
Default

Just another attempt of MSM doing anything they can to debunk anything that is good and moral so they can open the way for evil and corrupt. And so far they have been doing a pretty darned good job of it.
__________________

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.


Ronald Reagan - 1964
-------------------------------------
Bunker Member #4.
Preacher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 08:26 PM   #5
Sir Knight
Member
 
Sir Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanders
Judas didn't hang around long enough
Actually, Judas "hung around" for a while but I agree with you that he would have had no time to write a "gospel" since he hung himself almost immediately after betraying Jesus.

This gospel, however, was SUPPOSEDLY written by a sect of hetrodox Christians who 'channeled' the spirit of Judas and wrote a gospel account from their perspective. The Bible states very clearly that mediums, psychics, socerers, etc.; are a violation of the First Commandment (Deut 18:9-12). This "sect" channeled no one other than the evil one.

It is a good idea to stay away from all of the supposed Gospels that the Church has already rejected since they can harmful to a person's faith.
__________________
Sir Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2006, 09:04 PM   #6
5knives
KaBoom Kontrol Modulator
 
5knives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado, Western Slope
Posts: 16,229
Default

Mmmmm,

Actually that theory has been around for a very long time. Some gave it credence as it would clarify the "dialogue in Matt 26:14-31, and presents Judas suicide as being remorse that even though he was asked to betray Jesus, he couldn't live with what he had done.

In the "interesting, possible' range, personally don't see how it could affect anyones faith though.

I'd be more interested in the rest of the "Gospel of Judas", and what it said in addition to that.

Coptic writings were a foundation for a lot of the Gnostic writings, and most of those aren't very recognizable as having any bearing on Christianity. Even if some did mention Jesus from time to time. The Copts were certainly Christians, and that dating would give some credibility to the find, maybe!

Egypt was a predominately Christian Country (Thanks to the Apostle Mark) until conquered by Islam. And a huge number refused to convert, choosing death, martyrdom and slavery over Islam.

Oh yes!
Judas would not have actually written a Gospel of Judas any more than Matthew, Mark or John would have written the ones that bear their names.

I hope everyone knew that, if not, it shouldn't upset them, what did get written was inspired by God, no matter who actually put the words down on paper.

Regards,
5knives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2006, 07:12 AM   #7
Southern Partisan
DISTRIBUTIST
 
Southern Partisan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 603
Default

The "Gospel of Judas" was referred to in the 1st century by some Bishops of the Church, viz. St. Irenaeus, who was ordained by St. Polycarp, who was in turn ordained by St. John the Evangelist and Beloved of Our Lord. St. Irenaeus pretty much said that the "Gospel of Judas" was a bunch of crap (to put it in pithy terms).
__________________
"For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
--Ephesians 6:12
Southern Partisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2006, 09:59 AM   #8
5knives
KaBoom Kontrol Modulator
 
5knives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado, Western Slope
Posts: 16,229
Default

Thank you SP,

I suspect that after reading it, many here would have even "pithier" comments to make.

This thing is going to get hyped all over the place of course. It's perfect, there's a good buck to be made in printing, discussing and (of course) there's the soon to be released movie. Plus it's a backhanded slap at traditional Christianity, of the usual "See this is wrong, you believed it, you are a foolish superstitious person and this new information proves it!" variety. That's a bonus for the usual suspects who'll be touting it!

In the same vein, I don't know how many have read the "Nag Hammadi Library" the collection of Gnostic writings discovered in 1945 (?). It seems to be required reading for the (IMHO) modern day loonies who claim to have adopted some aspects of the Gnostic Heresy.

With one possible short and curious exception, it's a collection of local pagan myths and legends wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo Christian verbiage.

Generally if anyone is tempted to read it, I'd advise them to save the time and the money and to read anything by C.S. Lewis instead.

With "The Screwtape Letters" at the top of the list, and "The Chronicles of Narnia" in second. Both offer more insight into the realities of our world than either "Nag Hammadi" is, or "The Gospel of Judas" is likely to be.

The more I hear about it, the more I think Zane got it dead Center when he called it "Beyond Tinfoil Hat Territory"

Regards,
5knives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2006, 11:25 AM   #9
pistol-packin-wifey
Southern Gun Girl
 
pistol-packin-wifey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Knight

This gospel, however, was SUPPOSEDLY written by a sect of hetrodox Christians who 'channeled' the spirit of Judas and wrote a gospel account from their perspective. The Bible states very clearly that mediums, psychics, socerers, etc.; are a violation of the First Commandment (Deut 18:9-12). This "sect" channeled no one other than the evil one.
AMEN! and why would they ever believe that the evil one would speak the truth?!
__________________
Remember Thermopylae, ye who would be tyrants...MOLON LABE!!!
pistol-packin-wifey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2006, 07:57 PM   #10
Preacher
Chaplain/Moderator
 
Preacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 11,321
Default

You know, the thing about it though is Judas could have been forgiven for this had he not hung himself. Peter was forgiven for denying Christ, so Judas could have been forgiven for betraying him. But he definately did not go out in a good way.
Preacher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2006, 11:18 PM   #11
Southern Partisan
DISTRIBUTIST
 
Southern Partisan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5knives
Thank you SP,

I suspect that after reading it, many here would have even "pithier" comments to make.

This thing is going to get hyped all over the place of course. It's perfect, there's a good buck to be made in printing, discussing and (of course) there's the soon to be released movie. Plus it's a backhanded slap at traditional Christianity, of the usual "See this is wrong, you believed it, you are a foolish superstitious person and this new information proves it!" variety. That's a bonus for the usual suspects who'll be touting it!

In the same vein, I don't know how many have read the "Nag Hammadi Library" the collection of Gnostic writings discovered in 1945 (?). It seems to be required reading for the (IMHO) modern day loonies who claim to have adopted some aspects of the Gnostic Heresy.

With one possible short and curious exception, it's a collection of local pagan myths and legends wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo Christian verbiage.

Generally if anyone is tempted to read it, I'd advise them to save the time and the money and to read anything by C.S. Lewis instead.

With "The Screwtape Letters" at the top of the list, and "The Chronicles of Narnia" in second. Both offer more insight into the realities of our world than either "Nag Hammadi" is, or "The Gospel of Judas" is likely to be.

The more I hear about it, the more I think Zane got it dead Center when he called it "Beyond Tinfoil Hat Territory"

Regards,
They're doing that same kind of hype with the Da Vinci Code silliness. I guess extravagant stories are far more interesting than the truth for some people.

Speaking of Gnostics, check out these wacky dudes:

http://www.lumen.org/
http://www.lumen.org/about_gnosis/endofgnosis.html
http://www.gnosis.org.au/
Southern Partisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2006, 01:49 PM   #12
pistol-packin-wifey
Southern Gun Girl
 
pistol-packin-wifey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Destiny
I don't think anyone really wants me in the religious forum but, I do want to ask this This is an honest, sincere question.
This is about the so called Gospel of Judas, why can't it be right. I don't know much about Judas, other than the betrayal part.

Why couldn't the story be legit. Different denominations have different books in their respective bibles. I think said that he is Methodist, correct?
The the bible that he uses for worship would be different than the Catholic bible that DGR or SPwould use. Is that right?
Who decides what belongs in the bible?
Why is something right or wrong.
well considering that this sect used a form of witchcraft to "channel" judas, i'm sure that's why no Christian church would accept it.

and other books, like the gnostic gospels have been deemed heretical or not true by all christian sects, i think, for questions about their authenticity or the time/authors.

the Catholics are the only sect i know of who use "extra" books of the bible......they're called the apocrypha, and i believe they were found with the first copies of the bible. not sure why other Christian sects leave them out.
pistol-packin-wifey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2006, 04:17 PM   #13
5knives
KaBoom Kontrol Modulator
 
5knives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Colorado, Western Slope
Posts: 16,229
Default

Wow!

Hopefully SP will see this!

He can give us a much clearer and more precise explanation than I can.

But, without notes, footnotes and references, this is the best I can do, all IMHO, of course!

Anyone wishing to clarify, contradict or refute is welcome to do so.

Important to remember that the New Testament, like the Old was an Oral record and tradition before it was ever written down!

Basically the Books of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels were chosen because they were mutually supporting and also supported the Oral and Historic traditions of the majority of the early Churches. Various copies and versions were examined and the most complete and consistent were included.

The Apocrypha are the books that didn't quite make the cut, not contradictory but not seen as inspired, simply worthwhile books that expressed and clarified some aspects of faith or history, Supportive but not prime resources. Though several Churches and Sects, did include them as part of the Bible, and some still do.

The Gnostic books start out by contradicting the Old Testament, and appear to be the old myths and legends left over from other religions and wrapped in a gauze of Christianity. One which most practicing Christians would not recognize.

In the area of Biblical origin and authenticity, age is not the sole criteria, nor is the name of the Author, pen names were invented long before then.

Frequently the newer later sources are more complete and in languages easier to understand.

We can perhaps read Aramaic or Hebrew words, even Ogham for that matter, but without reference to culture, history, dialect, even slang or common usage, we may not understand what the Author was trying to communicate.

That's why word for word translations of the Bible and other Ancient documents can be confusing and difficult or impossible to understand, all the nuances are lost.

By way of poor example ... if there appeared tomorrow a series of letters purportedly written by George Washington, in Mandarin, admitting that he was actually a secret Agent of George III who wanted an excuse to be rid of the colonies. And adding that Martha was actually his control who directed his activity and fought continuously to curb his cannibalistic cravings for young children. Most folks would find that a little hard to believe!

A respected Scientist saying "Yes, it was written in 1783, and it's signed G. Washington, therefore it must be true!" wouldn't buy much credibility!

Hope this is of some assistance. The complete and specific answer could take days.

Regards,
5knives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 02:14 AM   #14
Southern Partisan
DISTRIBUTIST
 
Southern Partisan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 603
Default

SD presents a very tough question.

The answers are just as tough and can tend to upset.

The books known as the "apocrypha" were judged to be non-canonical in the 16th Century by Martin Luther. He made his assessment based on a Jewish council of elders that occurred near the end of the 1st century (forgive me, but I forgot the name of the council...but I will look it up). This same council, addressing the quickly growing new sect of (mostly) Jews known as Christians, denied that the Carpenter from Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah.

This may be shocking to some, but the Catholic Church did not make a universal statement on what books were canonical until the 16th Century at the Council of Trent. They never made a statement because the books that had enjoyed nearly universal acceptance for over 1,000 years were never called into question until Luther. From this action came the accusations that the Church "added" books. However, the Catholic Church worked with precendence. In the 3rd and 4th Centuries, at the Synodal Councils of Carthage and Hippo (primarily comprised of bishops from North Africa and the Western Mediterranean), they declared that the books used in what is today referred to as the Catholic Bible were the canonical Scriptures. Though the councils themselves were not universal, they pretty much enjoyed universal acceptance until the 16th century. The Chruch re-affirmed universally and officially that acceptance.

But even up until the councils of Carthage and Hippo, there were up to 64 "gospels" floating around the Mediterranean at the time. How do we know that the "Gospel of Judas" and the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Gospel of Homer Simpson" aren't true? Well, we don't know and we can't know. If we knew, then it wouldn't be faith but, rather, science. We possess the certitude of faith. Is this a faith in God? Yes. But there is more.

This is how a Catholic looks at it. How do I know this is the Bible? Because someone of authority told me it was. The way we see it that if one can say that this is the Bible and not that, then either one is individually inspired by God to be directed to that conclusion, or someone who has authority given by God pointed them out already. I always hold as suspicious those who are "inspired" individually. Not that I find them insincere, but they have no guarnatee of understanding and conveying what was "spoken" to them without that nasty bit of human error. My faith in the Scriptures presupposes my faith in the Catholic Church as being founded by Jesus Christ, because, by force of logic, my assent to these books as Scriptures necessarily illustrate an implicit assent to whatever declared that they were Scriptures. This worked as well of ancient Judaism with the Torah, Talmud, Pentateuch, Septuagent, etc. God did not come down and bellow that the first 5 books of Moses were divniely inspired... Jewish clerical councils did that for they were the authority as established by God. Therefore, if I accept the Scriptures without accepting the ecclesiastical authority, I would have every reason to allow for doubts as to the Book's divine inspiration. For, again, personal inspirations and revelations have too much of a tendancy to get muddled up by human error and sin.
Southern Partisan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 10:41 AM   #15
Zane Zackerly
The Mad Messenger
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Great State of Insanity
Posts: 4,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Partisan
How do we know that the "Gospel of Judas" and the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Gospel of Homer Simpson" aren't true? Well, we don't know and we can't know. If we knew, then it wouldn't be faith but, rather, science.

I have to disagree with this statement. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Jewish Torah and other texts have remain virtually word-for-word unchanged for thousands of years. Are we to infer that the Jewish "faith" is stronger than the Christian one, because its texts are more reliable?
Zane Zackerly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.