Preserved Topic: Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs) (Page 6 of 9)

quote:

---

This is true. I was afraid. But one thing you have to consider is "shame". I felt shame. Victims feel this even though they are innocent and this keeps them from saying anything. You only think of yourself and not other future victims I guess unitl you come to terms with the abuse or mature.

---

Yes. Shame is certainly a huge result of abuse, of any kind. And one more thing that makes the actions of these many priests and their many protectors that much worse.

It seems wrong that one should feel shame for the sufferance of abuse at the hands of those trusted and held in high regard - and yet this is the lasting legacy of the abuser. Hatred and anger are no healthier either, but also symptoms of victimisation.

And why do people suffer this? Worse yet, why do those higher up in the church ignore (nay - cover up) such goings-on?

Because the faith of the people is not in God, or in Christ - it is faith in the so-called representatives of the faith. They represent the faith, therefore they are unimpeachable.

I lived in Ireland for a few years. In my last year there was a sudden upsurge in the number of victims breaking their silence - spurred by a change in public view, no doubt. So many of them had actually been told to keep their mouths shut by family, neighbours, or even other priests!

Things are changing, but slowly still. My heart goes out to anyone who has had to suffer grievous abuse of any kind - especially those who hold their silence still.

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

Oh yeah - I have a video of myself walking on water.

...or at least, I did...

I accidentally erased it.

I do have several witnesses who will swear blind to it, though, and I am writing a 100,000 word book on the incident (including a little on my life).

I have been healing people with my hands, and I can turn water into Best Bitter (with a couple of weeks work). I've also turned a pile of potatoes into a vat of chips.

I have to say though: I do have my doubters....

_______________________________

Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.
_______________________________

Do you have any witnesses willing to die for their testimony, White Hawk? If so, how many? And what are the odds that not one of them will break down and admit it was all a hoax?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Again you narrow the options down to 'either it was real, or it was a hoax'.

Jesus not being the son of god does not mean it was a hoax. It is a very simple matter of legends outgrowing the man, which you cannot deny was an extremely common thing at that time and before, and continues to be in the modern world, even.

You also had people who were fighting for a lot more than just the simple ideas of whether or not a person had performed miracles. There was much more to their movement than just jesus and god. Jesus and god made very convenient focal points for a great deal of more relevant underlying issues (jewish corrupstion, roman oppression, etc...).

Is there anyone since the time of Jesus who has proclaimed to be God or has any one sect claimed their leader, preacher, etc is God or the son of the living God?

I know there are persons who claim to have the direct phone line to God like Oral Roberts, etc, but I don't recollect anyone claiming to be the creator of all things since then or currently. Even Jesus always referred to himself as the "Son of Man" in the gospels. He never said I am God. Neither did the God of Moses. The God of OT referred is "I Am Who Is" by God.

When it was revealed, it was to the followers of Jesus by the holy spirit, which Jesus confirmed as truth to his apostles. When Jesus asked Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter says, "Your are the Christ, the son of the living God. And Jesus says, "What you say is true. I have not revealed this to you. Tthis has been revealed to you by my father in heaven." And then Jesus tells the other apostles that what Peter says is truth. But for his followers not to reveal this to anyone yet.

For someone to say that they are God, is really very serious blasphemy. And for someone to claim that a person they know is God is serious blasphemy. I think the apostles, who where abiding Jews who followed their laws knew too the seriousness of proclaiming false teaching. It would mean their final damnation according to their teachings as Jews and facing possible death in preaching against their mosaic laws.

I believe God has not left us orphans for the last 2000 years. And the ministry of Jesus Christ has not been a hoax for all those years either. When Christians put their COMPLETE trust in Jesus, they see a metamorphis happen within themselves. Because they die to self and live for others, no major obstacle, hardship or worry is seen as before. Jesus for us calms the wandering spirit & the soul. This is why the apostles felt compelled to spread the ministry of Jesus even in the face of death, so they could preach Jesus simple message. "Love one another as I have loved you." How easy and yet so hard for some.

Yes. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon claims to be the Messiah. There have been many who claimed this before Jesus Christ and there have been many since. Another example that comes to mind are many of the Roman emperors who not only claimed godhood but made it the law that they be worshipped as such.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

DL-44: Jade makes a good point there.

In some senses, it is as narrow as those two choices. The things that Jesus has said, if any of them are true, leave the reader deciding that he either was a lunatic, or is the son of God.

I suppose another possibility could be that he was a 'good person', and then some crazy people decided to put totally fabricated words in his mouth, and describe totally false occurrences, but the amount of research they would have had to of done would have been unbelievable, as many of Jesus' teachings, actions, and even the way he was born and died fulfil the writings of the old testament.

reitsma

Bugimus,

I can introduce you to people who would swear on their lives that they know someone who definitely saw me turn a pile of spuds into a pile of chips.

Will that do ya'?

______________________

Onwards & Upwards..?
______________________

You miss the point, reitsma.

I've expanded on this a bit further in another post....possibly earlier in this thread even.

The point is, it doesn't have to be the way you present it. It doesn't ahve to be that someone concocted some scheme. It doesn't have to be an elaborate setup. Much of the writing about jesus came later, many of the determinations about whether he was actually divine came later.

*many* people in that place and time (that general time...) were perceived as possibly being the messiah, many were promoted as such, promoted themselves as such, were seen as having performed some miracle or other. (and yes, Jade, *many* have since).

Stories evolve. Things happen...and through the telling grow far beyond the actual events, and very often without any real intent by the teller to falsify it. That is, at a very *basic* level, the way things work in the world - period.

Does that mean that what you beleive about jesus is definately not true? Of course not. But it is certainly enough for me (especially when combined with a complete lack of substantiating evidence, or recurrent events since that time....).

Etc....

Was Hercules a hoax? Was King Arthur a hoax? Did people sit up saying "yeah, we'll fool them! Write this story about this guy did such and such...we'll fool everybody!?

Of course not. These are figures that were quite probably based on real people. Real people who could not have done the things they were purported to have done. The stories around them were embellished to the point of being, at best, incredulous. And so they become "myth" and "legend".

I very truly see *no* difference between these stories - and the very many like them from cultures all over the world - and the stories of Jesus. It's not something I see for the sake of trashing christianity, as some people would seem to like to think.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-03-2004 03:19)

Undoubtedly Jesus was a good person, but there probably wasn't a "scheme." Messiahs at the time were a dime a dozen What I think is interesting is that Jesus had staying power .. . . why? Most of the gospels, especially the accepted ones (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) have been altered and retranslated, so much so that they probably would no longer be recognizable to the authors. At this point in time, what is left of them is primarily supposition. And the Nag Hammadi gospels, the gnostic gospels, are very different from the basic four. The early Christian church seems to have decided which ones should be considered scripture based on the opinions of only a very few people. (I believe to date that there are 56 different gospels, and some are older that MML&J.)

I wil admit I am not a Christian; I take a broader view of spirit. Nearly every religion has real value. But I am definitely not an atheist. And the one thing that I consider to be most intriguing about Christianity is that historically, after a "messiah" dies, his following dies with him. Not so with Christianity . . . after Jesus died, not only did his followers continue to preach, but most of them were martyred for their trouble. Would people be willing to die for someone that they didn't continue to believe in? Could that many of his disciples be that gullible? And they personally knew him; he wasn't just an object of myth and legend. And their martyrdoms were not conjecture . . .many were reported by nonChristian historians of the time, such as Josephus. He must have had a tremendous effect on them. And that IS different.

Dragonlady

that was a very well written post, dragonlady. some great points.


and jamie - i'm sorry if i missed the point there.

i suppose my closing paragraph was supposed to awknowledge your point of view, but missed the mark a little - i guess your stance is that these people simply added bits and bits and bits until a guy who said and did some great things and was killed, became the son of God; and it wasn't any great conspiracy to create this deity incarnate.

so, have you given any thought to which bits were true, and which bits were simply added for dramatic effect? do you think he rose from the dead? or was he simply unconscious at the time? or was that whole thing a bit of an embellishment?
I'm just curious - of course, you're more than entitled to say that you don't care for those sorts of details.

reitsma

I very much agree with DL-44 here. Human history is full of such "legend and Myth" stuff - my forefathers beliefs are largely a collection of such. So are a lot of other examples.

Since we know that the bible was actually put together ~300 years after the death of Jesus (and as such, there was absolutely no-one living, that could atest as eye-witness), all accounts would rely on written word and hearsay. This of course only applies to the New Testament, as the Old Testament is actually older than Jesus.

So let us consider the story of Jonah and the Whale. Aside from the fact that nothing could survive a day inside of a whale's Stomach (let us assume here that God somehow "protected" Jonas against the acid, and provided him with air, yes?), it is impossible for a whale to actually swallow a human. It has been proven (through autopsy) that a human cannot physically pass through the throat of a whale (the throat is too small). So, unless God had then "magically" transported Jonah into the Whales stomach, and then later again transported Jonah out, one has to take this as a legend gone wild.

I actually love this story, because anyone literally believing in the Bible stumbles and falls over this part. It normally evokes cries of "Blastphemy!", "You'll burn in Hell!" and other sort of exclamations amongst fanatic believers. Just this part normally sends the Jehovah's Witnesses packing...hehe. Strangely, they don't come visiting anymore.

Also, there is Judas (one of the Apostles - he sure didn't get his side of the story into the New Testament. I wonder why?) Now, if Jesus really did do all these miracles, then why didn't Judas believe that Jesus was the "Son of God"? Surely Judas would not have betrayed the actual Son of God...why would anyone, who had actually witnessed, with their own eyes, the "miracles" that Jesus is supposed to have brought about? In fact, Jesus saw, that Judas didn't believe (and would betray him), according to the New Testament. Of course, it doesn't go into great detail on this - one would like to have an account from Judas himself. Strangely, there isn't one. I find this incredulous.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Shaman, I think Judas was Jesus' favorite apostle...and that Jesus himself asked Judas to go and call escorts...if he did betray him, what could he betray him off?
I saw this program one day, and they mentioned that Jesus preached in temples daily and sick people came to him to heal, everyone knew where he was...I do not think locating him would be such a hassle or difficult to find...no point in betraying location...Plus he kissed him...scholars mentioned that during those times kiss ment hello or goodbye, there is no such a thing as kiss of betrayel.
btw shaman...not only we do not have words of Judas, but also Mary Magdaline and many others. The stories we have have been modified great deal by Roman Rulers IMO...Since it was Romans who finally adopted christianity, I think it was the Ceaser who pointed out which books/stories should be removed and which remanined.

As far as Judas goes, there a a variety of popular theories that go along the lines that Jesus was not betrayed by judas, but rather that Jesus requested of Judas that he inform teh authorities of his wherabouts, to bring the whole episode to its destined climax.
This theory is, to my understanding, allegedly supported by a variety of extra-biblical texts, though I have no personal knowledge in that area.

Reitsma - your last summary is pretty much on the mark. As far as what I beleive about what happened - I do not beleive he rose from the dead. I do beleive that he died. I beleive any notion of rising form the dead was purely imaginary. This could have happened for very many reasons, and in very many ways. The possibilities at his particular point could certainly include outright lies (a hoax even) for the purpose of proving the importance of the slain prophet so that the movement would not lose momentum despite the loss of its central figure. It could also, very easily, have evolved somewhat spontaneously by someone suffering either a legitimate delusion or a simple need for attention (I saw him, I did! Alive as ever! How many times has that happened. Perhaps Jesus is hanging out in a paris cafe with Jim Morrison and Elvis...).

I simply find nothing in the bible or in the other texts of that era/subject to give me even the slightest inclination to beleive in the myth of jesus any moreso than in the myths of hercules, odysseus, sasquatch, paul bunyon, etc etc etc...

quote:

---

scholars mentioned that during those times kiss ment hello or goodbye, there is no such a thing as kiss of betrayel.

---

ok, so if judas walked up to him and gave him a kiss to say hello, and there happens to be a garrison of guards behind him...sorry, but you're reaching on that one and it was constantine who with a council put the bible together, 320-something AD i think, just fyi.

questions for thought...if christ didn't rise from the dead why didn't the romans simply produce his body and put an end to all the speculation and kill off christianity right then? christianity did become mainstream a few hundred years later, but at the time the romans were very anti-christian and wanted it gone if at all possible.

WS, as far as judas, if he did kill himself after betraying christ when exactly would his account have been written?

as far as translations, originally some older translations were adapted from the original king james version of the bible, since then there have been a number of translations that have actually returned to the original hebrew and greek texts for their source.

chris

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

WS

The story of Jonah could possibly be true. Because all is possible with God. Again, whats more important? How the story happend or the message it tries to convey. The real message of Jonah is this: Jonah was a prototype of Christ. A revealing in the OT to the fulfilling in the savior, Jesus in the NT. God asked the prophet Jonah to go to Nineve to tell the people to repent because there is so much sin there. God sent his Son, Christ to earth to do the same. Jonah doesn't want to preach this and flees from the task on a boat, but a storm overtakes him and he is cast overboard and is swallowed by a monster for three days and nites. Chirst dies on the crosss and is risen after three days. The plan is compeletd. Salvation comes thur his death and ressurection. Jonah gives praises of thanksgiving to God in the monsters belly and then is cast upon dry land and then takes up his task to do the will of God. The city of Ninive repents and the city is spared. Jesus comes to do the will of his father in heaven without question and all who hear, hear God and will be saved if they repent. And their souls will not perish.

Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here" (Matt., xii, 40-1; xvi, 4; Luke, xi, 29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle. Christ would have deceived them had He presented a fancy. He argues clearly that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights even so He will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the monster be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction. If the men of Ninive will really not rise in judgment, neither will the Jews really rise. Christ contrasts fact with fact, not fancy with fancy, nor fancy with fact. It would be very strange, indeed, were Jesus to say that he was greater than a fancy-formed man. It would be little less strange were he to berate the Jews for their real lack of penance by rating this lack in contrast with the penance of Ninive which may never existed at all. The whole force of these striking contrasts is lost, if we admit that the story of Jonah is not fact.

To accept Joanh story as just factual story beyond getting the real point of the story, I can see why you think the way you do.

Also Judas, the only scholar of the twelve, handled the purse of the apostles. Even though the learned Judas witnessed and saw the miracles, he loved maybe money and power more, which eventually could have dammed his soul. His vision was not the same vision of the other eleven disciples. This is too a message for all today. The persons of Judas are living today. Persons accept there is a God and see the goodness of God today, but in name only. They continued to live for wealth, power, greed, fame, etc. and do not do the will of God. Judas did not live beyond long after the crucifixion, because he hung himself. How could one chosen as a disciple, enjoying the grace of the and the privilege of intimate friendship with the Jesus be tempted to betray him? The Jesus betrayed was not hard and stern, but a lord of loving kindness and compassion. Looked at in any light the crime is so incredible. As a traitor, betrayer, Judas has naturally had hatred, especially among those devoted to Christianity. Its only natural that some Christians regard Judas with loathing, and paint him blacker than he was by allowing him no good qualities at all. Its supposed that he never really believed, if he was a false disciple from the first, or was he was possessed by Satan even in his childhood, he would not have felt the holy influence of Christ or enjoyed the light and spiritual gifts of the ministry.

At the opposite extreme is the strange view that Judas acted as he did in order that mankind might be redeemed by the death of Christ. As theory it is suggested that Judas, who in common with the other disciples looked for a temporal kingdom of the Messias, did not anticipate the death of Christ, but wished to get a crisis going to hasten the hour of triumph, thinking that the arrest would provoke a rising of the people who would set Jesus free and place him on a throne. Could be that when he found that Christ was condemned and given up to the Romans, he immediately repented of what he had done. But this repentance does not prove that the result had not been foreseen. Murderers, who have killed their victims with deliberatly are often moved to remorse when the deed is actually done. Difficult it may be to understand, we cannot question the guilt of Judas. On the other hand we cannot take the opposite view of those who would deny that he was once a real disciple. This view seems hard to reconcile with the fact that he was chosen by Christ to be one of the twelve. We could see that in if we exaggerate the original malice of Judas, or deny that there was even any good in him, we miss the lesson of this fall. And in the same way it is a grave mistake for us to think of Judas as a demon without any goodness and grace. In his fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the higher ups, pastors, Catholic priest, ministers, nuns and the those with friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful.

(Edited by jade on 06-03-2004 18:57)

@ Fig - well, assuming Judas did kill himself directly afterwards, why is there no chapter dedicated to him in the New Testament (as for the other Apostles?) He was an Apostle, after all. Surely he said much during his time with Jesus...why was this not recorded? Or maybe it was, and it never made it into the New Testament? In that case, what a tragedy - I would like to know what he knew, and his side of the story.

Jade, first of all, thank you for the effort. I used to be a Christian, and I have studied the Bible, so much of what you have posted I already know. I posted what I did, as direct evidence to support what DL-44 has said - Legends and Myths.

As for Judas, I think you are missing the point here. If, according ot what is in the New Testament, Jesus really did do all the Miracles that he did (as described), do you really think that one of the Apostles would doubt that Jesus was the Son of God? And if he didn't doubt, but instead was too greedy (as you have suggested as a possibility), don't you think he would know that he would pay in the Afterlife? No, I don't think that Judas (or anyone, for that matter) would react that way - unless they were insane or things happened much differently than as written in the New Testament.

Since we have no reason to suspect that Judas was insane (certainly it is not sugested anywhere in the Bible), then we are only left with the latter.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

@ Fig - well, assuming Judas did kill himself directly afterwards, why is there no chapter dedicated to him in the New Testament (as for the other Apostles?) He was an Apostle, after all. Surely he said much during his time with Jesus...why was this not recorded? Or maybe it was, and it never made it into the New Testament? In that case, what a tragedy - I would like to know what he knew, and his side of the story.

---

I would not classify Judas as an apostle. He was a disciple when Jesus lived. I would say apostles are the ones who spread the ministry of Jesus and Judas did not do that. By his own hands, he had no opportunity to do so. His successor was appointed by the remaining eleven. I think his name was Mathias? Its interesting that out of the eleven who preach the truth of Jesus, you do not believe, but want to hear what the one who betrayed him had to say. Could it be its because you think Judas might of had some info that could contridict the other apostles and thousands of followers who personally knew Jesus? And this would prove to you Jesus was not the son of God.

quote:

---

if christ didn't rise from the dead why didn't the romans simply produce his body and put an end to all the speculation and kill off christianity right then?

---

Well...would the romans even know where the body was? I would have to assume not, though I don't know. I would also have to assume that anyone involved with promoting the story of the resurection would be intelligent enough to remove/hide/bury/destroy the body...

Jade - the point is, such stories only go to show that such events never really happened. It's all about the message, and not about factual events. That's fine and dandy, and is very effective way of getting messages across.

But to say on the one hand that yes, such things are simply stories to get a message across, and then to say on the other hand that the stories of jesus must be true, is a very twisted way of trying to reconcile something and I am truly dumbfounded that such a view of the bible could be held.

DL

Jesus himself, spoke in parables and told stories to convey messages so all he preached could be well understood. He was a great and unique story teller. No doubt many stories, myths, legends were spread orally well before his time by many storytellers. And after. But the difference between him and all the others before him is that no one spoke as he had or was what he was. No other living person has made an impact in the world as Jesus has. An no one person ever will. Yes. Some of the bible is historical fact and some of it could be stories that could have been used to convey a point. The importance is to know what is truth and this can only be seen by faith. Per Jesus words. "I came into the world to give sight to the blind and take away sight to those who say, I see ." As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world for all to see. And to the jewish leaders who were trying to trick him, " You say you see, but your sin remains. "Blind vipers. You cannot lead others into the kindgom, and you yourselves do not enter. You will not see me in the temple till you learn to cry, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord for I and my father are one in the same" The vision to see truth is not granted to all." And those who professed to know Jesus and have turned away from him, have had their sight taken away.

(Edited by jade on 06-03-2004 21:09)

sorry, but a little interjection here.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I beleive any notion of rising form the dead was purely imaginary.

---

i'm sorry, but Jesus wasn't the only person in history to "raise from the dead". His expirience was the only one that was prophicised by more than one person, but He wasn't the only one.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Since we have no reason to suspect that Judas was insane (certainly it is not
sugested anywhere in the Bible), then we are only left with the latter.

---

Judas may not have been insane in the standards of the people back then, that was not the "lingo". They would have said that he was possessed. Which is exactly what the bible says about why Judas Iscarot betrayed Jesus Christ. It also says that he goes back to the Saheradin(I think I spelled that wrong) and demands that they trade back. They obviously disagree.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But to say on the one hand that yes, such things are simply stories to get a
message across, and then to say on the other hand that the stories of jesus must
be true, is a very twisted way of trying to reconcile something and I am truly
dumbfounded that such a view of the bible could be held.

---

Yes, the stories are to get a message across, but it does use fact as well. The stories of Jesus are true. There are many eyewitness reports from people that have been healed, miraculously fed, etc. From this far a point in the future, it is hard to KNOW for a FACT if Jesus Christ really is the Son of God and the Messiah that the Jews have been waiting for. The evidence we have is mainly hearsay, but we do have proof from non-Chirstians. The simple fact of the matter is that we DO NOT KNOW anything is for real outside of our own time line. For all I know, landing on the moon could be fake, Hitler rising to power could be fake, and many other thing could be fake because it really is all just nerve synapses in the brain that tell us what is and isn't. This theory is embodied by the saying that i may see blue when you see red. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is A LOT of evidence and A LOT of counter evidence for the birth, life, death, and ressurection of the Christ, but what you mainly need is belief. If you do not believe then it will appear one way, and if you do believe it will appear another. It is all on what you personally believe. And if you have not had any personal encounters with God, then how can you believe in Him?

Do not rebuke a moker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Judas Iscariot was a zealot, and probably motivated by a political agenda. He wanted a revolution to overthrow the Roman occupation, and apparently felt that Jesus was charismatic enough to gather the Jewish population under him to overthrow the government. And like a true fanatic, when Jesus, as a peacemaker, wasn't living up to Judas' expectations, he tried to force his hand, believing that if Jesus' life was threatened, he would possibly prove himself to be the "king" he claimed to be. Judas' suicide was possibly remorse when he realized he had indeed condemned Jesus to death.

Interestingly, there is really very little that was written at the time of Jesus' life on earth regarding him. I believe there was one historical note (Josephus?) that was made shortly after his death, regarding the beheading of John, "brother of Jesus." Non of the gospels was written during his lifetime, altho some claim to have been written shortly afterward, notably the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, both gnostic, and both conceivably written by followers. So, actual historical evidence is a little hard to come by. But that in itself doesn't really delegate Jesus to the classification of myth. . . . many people who actually existed were not historically memorable at the time. The fact that Jesus retained believers who did know and write about him regarding his life and teachings does make it seem highly unlikely that he was a legend. Legends and myths take many years to develop; they are built by stories that traditionally get handed down from generation to generation until they become larger than life. Do I believe Jesus existed? Definitely. It would be hard to explain so much to do about nothing! Do I believe he was the son of God? Aren't we all???

Dragonlady

quote:

---

i'm sorry, but Jesus wasn't the only person in history to "raise from the dead".

---

Ok...
And that has what to do with anything?

quote:

---

The stories of Jesus are true.

---

Oh.....well that sure clears it all up

quote:

---

There are many eyewitness reports from people that have been healed, miraculously fed, etc.

---

We covered that, pretty thoroughly I thought.

quote:

---

The evidence we have is mainly hearsay, but we do have proof from non-Chirstians.

---

Huh?

quote:

---

...but what you mainly need is belief.

---

Yuh. And with that kind of thinking, before long Superman is real. And we go back to what I've said and explained a whole bunch of times. Stories, myths, legends...etc.

Before you know it we're all flying off to never-never-land with peterpan at the helm.

Seeing as tangents are the play of the day in this thread, i'll pursure this judas topic a little further.

quote:

---

Also, there is Judas (one of the Apostles - he sure didn't get his side of the story into the New Testament. I wonder why?) Now, if Jesus really did do all these miracles, then why didn't Judas believe that Jesus was the "Son of God"?

---

Here are my thoughts on Judas:
Jesus wasn't the leader that Judas wanted. (i think this was touched on by someone else) Jesus was a servant leader, who showed compassion, and - wait for it - was going to sacrifice himself! Judas wanted a powerful, political (military even) leader. This is in line with his character too - he wanted power and money.
Judas loved money more. This is a very common problem, even today - especially today. "you cannot serve both God and money" is what Jesus said, and Judas proved. If you love money, you're going to have a lot of problems. The gospel of John describes how Mary wiped expensive purfume on Jesus' feet with her hair. Here's how Judas responded (John 12:4-6):

quote:

---

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages]number] " 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

---

Jesus rebukes Judas, and it is around this point that, according to Luke 22:3, Satan entered Judas Iscariot. So I suppose this also helps to explain his actions.

Now, in Matthew 26, it says:

quote:

---

14Then one of the Twelve--the one called Judas Iscariot--went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

---

From this verse, it seems that they weren't so much after someone to identify Jesus, as much as a good oppurtunity. What does this mean? Luke 22 clarifies:

quote:

---

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

---

So, to me this seems to explain Judas' actions. Additionally, his actions afterwards seem to indicate that he realised what he had done - as he felt great remorse, threw the coins back at the priests, and went and hanged himself.

Ok, i'm done!

reitsma

Ok...Judas hangs himself??!! But suicide is a sin, right? So he just excellerated his way into Hell. Ummm...if he is being repentive, that doesn't make any sense at all. And since he is a Christian, he can repent, right? If he really regrets what he has done, and then truly repents, then he would have been forgiven - that is one of the reasons that Jesus died on the cross, right?

@ Jade

quote:

---

Its interesting that out of the eleven who preach the truth of Jesus, you do not believe, but want to hear what the one who betrayed him had to say. Could it be its because you think Judas might of had some info that could contridict the other apostles and thousands of followers who personally knew Jesus? And this would prove to you Jesus was not the son of God.

---

Uhhh...I (and anyone who has actually read the New Testament) already know what the other apostles have to say. What we don't know, is what Judas has to say (if anything). I have no idea, if Judas' testimony would contradict the others...why am I interested (which, by the way, you could of just asked)? Well, he is an eyewitness, who was among the "inner circle" of Jesus' followers. I would be interested in just knowing what Judas has to say...his side of the story. There are always two sides to any story. We have heard the other 11. I would like to hear Judas story...not that that will happen, but it would be nice.

I don't believe, because I think that, as DL said, that it is the stuff of legends and myth. One must keep in mind, that these are the "stories" of those who fanatically followed Jesus...I hardly think that such is a source of real, factual information.

I do believe that the person Jesus did exist. I imagine that he was much like Ghandi. I am sure, that had Ghandi been born in such times, much the same would have happened concerning his life. However, we have different means to document his life, with video, etc. We know that he didn't really perform any "miracles". Was it left up to his believers, to spread the word of Ghandi, however, without modern ways of cataloging, how would such look in 300+ years? What evidence would one have? Just word of mouth, and probably some written stuff.

Do I see people claiming that Ghandi was the "Son of God"? Do I see a religion forming around the man?

By katologing, with the methods we have today, we remove the "legend and myth" of such - surely, Ghandi was a remarkable human being. But the "Son of God"? Nope.

And this is what I believe, the Israeli's mean, by saying that Jesus was not the "Son of God", not the promised Savior of Mankind.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

quote:

---

Its interesting that out of the eleven who preach the truth of Jesus, you do not believe, but want to hear what the one who betrayed him had to say.

---

To expand on WS' reply a little more - for starters, we know what four of those eleven had to say...well well after the fact. Is there not the possibility that they chose Judas as a scapegoat? And of course "satan entered him" yes...anytime anyone does anything bad, it's because satan entered him...

Now, why would anyone not want to hear his side?

Regardless what you beleive, regardless of what kind of faith you have in god/jesus, it is purely irresponsible to not take into account the political reasons behind the writing of the gospels. These were people who had an immediate situation to worry about - not people who were concerned with accurately capturing, for posterity, the events of their movement.

I would very much like to hear what Judas would have to say, as he is portrayed very negatively. Whenever someone is painted as the 'bad one' in the lot and blamed for bringing it all down, I have a need to hear the other side of the story. I still beleive in the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' and the carefully orchestrated stories of the gospels don't count as proof of Judas' guilt.

.


Would anyone of more knowledge care to comment on the idea that Judas was acting on Jesus' request, against his own will?

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-04-2004 14:07)

DL, I have so much to respond to in this thread but I'll start with your last statements. There were most certainly political reasons for the actions of many of the players in the NT. But the political situation was that Judea resented Roman rule and many looked to the Messiah promised in the OT to restore Israel to its former prominance. But they expected a physical and powerful earthly kingdom to be reestablished and that is the critical point.

The idea that Judas wanted to push Jesus into that role seems entirely plausible to me. It would fit what we know about the situation of the time. If Judas truly believed that Jesus claimed to be the chosen one, then what was taking him so long in assuming power and organizing the eventual overthrow of the Romans? By turning him into the Jewish authorities, he may have beleived this would begin that process.

Would you agree that this was the political reality of the time? If you think I am overlooking any aspect of the political situation as it relates to the gospels, I would very much like to understand what it is.

... and like I said there is a lot to address in this thread and I am working on it, if I can only find enough time today to get to it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

That sounds pretty accurate to my understanding.

What I mean though, is the political reasons for the writing of the gospels, and the way in which that might affect the tone or direction. I don't find it hard to beleive that Judas handed Jesus over to the authorities. But I can't accept as hard truth that he simply betrayed jesus out of greed. I won't wholly discount the idea either - I'm just not willing to blindly condemn a man in what is quite certainly a hazy situation...

It's good to have villians and scapegoat. Necessary, you might even say. Judas certainly made a convenient figure to mark a such.

But I want to know more...

On a side note, I particularly enjoy the presentation of the relationship between Judas and Jesus in 'the last temptation of christ'. It is, if nothing else, interesting.

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-04-2004 14:53)

@ Jade

quote:

---

I would not classify Judas as an apostle.

---

- you need to get your Bible "facts" straight -

quote:

---

Judas Iscariot. ... Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels, we read: "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him". Matthew 10:4. - Catholic Encyclopedia

---

According to the Bible, Judas was an Apostle.

It's all right here Judas Iscariot

Pretty interesting stuff...it would seem, that Judas is only mentioned in connection with his betrayal. Then why is he considered an Apostle? The other Apostles did miracles, right? No mention of Judas. In fact, it seems that Judas is very negatively portrayed in the Bible re-collections of him. I find that totally unbelievable. If the man was so bad, then why was he allowed to become an Apostle in the first place?

It just doesn't make any sense. Unless one thinks along the lines of "Legends and Myths". Then it makes plenty of sense.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I still plan on seeing that movie. I look forward to it so I can discuss it with you

I am not aware of any reason you should feel pressured to believe that "he simply betrayed Jesus out of greed". Just because that may be a common belief held by many does not make it the best choice. There are multitudes of misconceptions about the scriptures held by believers and unbelievers alike. We must make it our first priority to get as clear a picture of the facts as is humanly possible in order to come to sound conclusions on these things.

I don't think we will ever know more about Judas' motivations. I doubt anything was written about that anymore than what we have. I suspect that being the treasurer and known to be a bit tight with the money combined with resentment toward him for the betrayal and taking reward money makes it easy for people to dismiss him as a greedy bastard and nothing more. The fact that he got a monetary reward for turning him in does not mean his motivation was the money especially if he had higher goals of inducing a revolt. He would have far more to gain from being a key member of the new government than just a few pieces of silver. That still could very well be the reason he did it but I think the explanation DragonLady gave could be closer to the truth.


Ok, regarding the political reasons for writing the gospels themselves... this is precisely one of the reasons I place more credibility onto what the gospels actually say. What was the political reasons to write them??? If you wanted to restore Israel to a world power and oppose the Romans, how does emphasizing "love thine enemies" work toward that goal? "Blessed are the peace makers" doesn't exactly make me want to go and take up sword against the oppressors, right?

I don't see what the political reasons that you may be alluding to undermine the message in the gospels. I think you may be saying that propogating the message itself was the primary reason for writing them. I TOTALLY AGREE. What is that message? Kick the Romans out and love live King Jesus who rose from the dead to smite the unclean? It's not even close to that.

It's a message that the "kingdom of God" has come and it is a kingdom like none the world has ever seen. It is a kingdom that you cannot see where there is no throne room or capitol city. It's a kingdom that cannot be broken because it exists within every believer. The apostles, all 12 of them even days before Christ's crucifixion DID NOT GRASP. These guys lived with Jesus for 3 years and could not comprehend what was going to happen, and I certainly can't blame them because it turned conventional wisdom on its head. Christ taught that the greatest among them would be the lowest and a servant to men. What?!? It made no sense at the time but it does now as we read what the apostles wrote after the Spirit was poured out on them and they finally realized what Jesus had been talking about all that time.

I think the gospels were clearly written with the express purpose of propogating this message. We know that each of the gospels was written to a different audience and each one is "tailored" to make the message more agreeable to said audience. The gospels were written to Jews, Romans, and Greeks. The Jews loved to hear how Jesus had a royal lineage from King David, while the Romans loved hearing how Christ was a powerful king who would be victorious in spiritual battle, while John wrote of the "Logos" becoming flesh and dwelling among us. If this is what you mean by the political reasons behind the gospels, then bless you for that and now we can move on to the next step of examining whether or not the message itself carries any actual weight.

That is why I mentioned hoax earlier. I wasn't glibly reducing it down to truth or hoax but rather after having looked at the situation not seeing a whole lot of other options. So I have one more thing to say about that which is very important. Earlier you mention that myths and legends grew up about Jesus over time. Well, there are several other gospels not contained in the canon that do have very legendary qualities about Jesus in them. In fact, since they were written long after the original gospels, I agree that many of those stories about Jesus are myths.

But the gospels in the canon were all written with the lifetimes of the apostles themselves and were most certainly written by them (that includes being dictated by the way). So it really isn't about anything developing over time at all when it comes to the core message we find in the gospels. It should be generally agreed that the historical reliability of those documents is well supported and that it now comes down to this, was the message the apostles recorded true or false?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-04-2004 16:17)

WS said:

quote:

---

If the man was so bad, then why was he allowed to become an Apostle in the first place?

---

Jesus said that the betrayal was foretold and that what Judas decided to do fulfilled that foretelling.

quote:

---

"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.'
"I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He. I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me."
After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."
--John 13: 18-21

---

The scripture Jesus referenced was:

quote:

---

Even my close friend, whom I trusted,
he who shared my bread,
has lifted up his heel against me.
--Psalm 41:9

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugs

quote:

---

But the gospels in the canon were all written with the lifetimes of the apostles themselves and were most certainly written by them (that includes being dictated by the way). So it really isn't about anything developing over time at all when it comes to the core message we find in the gospels. It should be generally agreed that the historical reliability of those documents is well supported and that it now comes down to this, was the message the apostles recorded true or false?

---

This is not necessarily true. As you know, the Apostles themselves went on, after Jesus' death, to build factions amognst the believers. It is then most certain (especially when examining the Dead Sea Scrolls) that much of the Bible was written by groups. Who, exactly, recorded the Gospels? You say "most certainly" the apostles themselves - however, you cannot say for certain. What should be mentioned, is in those times, writing was not well spread among the populace, especially not among the trades that the Apostles had learned. So, who actually wrote down that which the Apostles dictated? And in 300 years, certainly these must have been transcribed (and even translated), before actually making it into the Bible.

Bugs, we are talking about the Apostles here - to which certain miracles, etc are contributed - are we to believe, that Judas was part of these "miracles", but later betrayed Jesus? Why isn't his role then mentioned as such? And now you are also going into the realm of "legend and myth", with a "foretelling"...either these are accurate historical descriptions (then foretelling is not a part of it, really), or it is allegorical, stories. Or, you are suggesting, that Jesus really had the ability to foresee (foretell) the future?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-04-2004 17:02)

When I say political, I don't necessarily mean governmental.

It was essential that they get their message out, their way. If they were to maintain any credibility at all, and if they were going to ahve any future at all.

When getting a message out so vital, getting the facts right becomes secondary at best. That is an *extremely* important point.

Adding little extras like the idea that jesus told them that scripture would be fulfilled, and thus prove his legitimacy (and then using Judas as a scapegoat to fulfill that role) is easily something that could be done for the sake of the message and the movement. I'm not saying that's the way it went - simply a small example of how easy it is for such things to grow.
.


Now, in the big picture I'm not overly concerned about the role of Judas. But while we're going this route - how do we know he collected any money at all? Because the people accusing him of betrayal (blaming it all on him) say so? How would they have known in the first place?

(Edited by DL-44 on 06-04-2004 18:08)

WS

Interesting. The apostles, for the most part, WERE illiterate, and partly because of snobbishness (they were, with the exception of Judas Iscariot, all from small villages in Galilee) the Pharisees referred to them as "unlearned and ignorant men." That is not to say, however, that ALL the apostles were illiterate. It is generally accepted that Jesus was schooled, so probably also were his brothers, Jude and James. Several were fishermen, one a tax collector; and Paul, generally considered the fourteenth apostle in line after Matthias replaced Judas, was a tentmaker . . . but since most of the epistles are attributed to him, was also literate. He certainly could write very long letters.

Nevertheless, it was not necessary for the apostles to have personally written the gospels. It seems to me that only two of the gospels, notably Matthew and John, are attributed to apostles. Certainly there must have been disciples around whose "job" it was to write, since the primary duty of the apostles was to preach. Mark (generally believed to be the young man who, when Jesus was arrested, ran from the Romans naked) and Luke (a physician) were not among the apostles, but were disciples, and learned men presumably capable of writing the other two gospels that are attributed to them.

And there is always DICTATION . . .

Dragonlady

Excellent info, Dragonlady In the case of Luke, it is thought that he got most of his information straight from Peter. Also, you can almost include the Acts of the Apostles together with Luke's gospel since he wrote that too and it picks up right where the gospel leaves off.

WS, the point is that it is generally not disputed that the gospels we have contain information from the apostles themselves. I say generally because there are always those who don't keep up with the latest studies on the subject and others who aren't interested in the details and prefer to stick with what they believe to be the case. But I've read that the debate about the historical reliability of the documents is somewhat settled BUT the accuracy of what is contained in them is where the battle is now taking place. I think we all need to update our placeholders so to speak and take on the current debated areas.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Wow! you guys are really geeting deep into this. Great stuff!

You have to understand prophecy all the way back to the beginning to get what Judas was all about.

Bugs quoted: "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me."

Genesis 3:15 (God speaking to Satan)
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Here's an exerpt concerning Judas from a study of Matthew (borrowed):


(3) Then Judas, which had betrayeth Him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Judas REPENTED? Yes, that is right! When Judas saw the reality of what the chief priests and elders intended to do with Jesus, in that they intended to have Him killed, he repented and took the thirty pieces of silver back to them. Since therefore it is written that Judas repented, how is it then that so many Christians condemn him to eternal damnation along side Satan (who never repented), especially since this type of betrayal is NOT the unpardonable sin? Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin (Mat. 12:31)!

In fact, is it not written in Mark 13:12 and Luke 21:16 that some of God's elect shall betrayed by their closest friends and loved ones in these last days? "And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death." Though they do it in ignorance instead of for gain, would you not forgive your loved ones if they repented?

Just so there is no doubt about Judas' repentance, here is his confession... even before the chief priests and elders.

(4) Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

"What is that to us?" Boy that's a slap in the face.

(5) And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Did Judas actually go out and "hang himself" or as Acts chapter 1:18 demands which Dr. Bullinger points out on page 1577 in the Companion Bible, was "he himself hanged" or as the Greek word #519 "apagchomai" denotes, "strangled"? Most churches teach that Judas committed suicide. However, take a lesson from this and from henceforth be very careful to always do a full investigation before you follow along with the crowd who listens to their religious leaders who dictate doctrines and traditions from their own hearts and without seeking knowledge.

To that end, let us begin our own study of what actually happened to Judas by first using a little wisdom and common sense in discerning what has just transpired. When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned (to death) he repented himself for what he had done in betraying an innocent man! He then went back to return the thirty pieces of silver and to confront the "chief priests and elders" in the temple, which we just read about in verse 3, because he now knows that their evil plot all along was to murder Jesus Christ... which they certainly did not deny in verse 4. So after hearing that they could care less that he was sorry for what he had done, Judas cast down those thirty pieces of silver and departed, perhaps storming out of there with "attitude"! Of course the "storming out of there" is just speculation, but regardless of how Judas departed, the chief priests and the elders of the people now have a real problem on their hands because Judas knows what they as "good religious leaders" have conspired to do and they cannot risk having this disciple of Christ going out amongst the people and expose their murderous conspiracy.

Let's go to Acts 1:15-20 where a description is given of what took place when Judas left the temple.

Acts 1:15-20
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Remember how Peter used to speak whenever Jesus told him the plan according to Father's will, i.e. according to the Word of God? He had a bad habit of not "listening to and remembering" the words of Jesus as evidenced by the things he said, like "no way, I'm not going to allow you to be delivered up and killed" according to scripture (Mat. 16:22)". He said "no way, though all men shall offend thee I will never offend thee", no matter what Zechariah said (Mat. 26:33)", and he said "no way, though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee", even though the Word of God had just declared it to be so (Mat. 26:35). Well, after the cock crowed Peter became a changed man believing the surety of all "things that are written". How about you? How seriously do you take "that which is written" over the traditions of men and the things they do and say and over your own thoughts and desires?

Notice now how Peter thinks and speaks throughout this section of scripture. Here he is on that first Pentecost Day:

(16) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Can you now "see" the incredible difference in Peter? He now not only "remembers" the Word of God but we shall see how he now seeks to "follow it" exactly as it written, according to Father's will... and not his own any more!

(17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

That right! Judas had his part in the ministry with the other eleven! He was one of the original twelve disciples and had his destiny to fulfill in carrying out the plan already laid out, as in written, in the Word of God!

(18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

It was the reward or the "result of sin" that purchased the Potter's Field! Why should this be a surprise to anyone? You "see", it was sin which made it necessary for Jesus Christ to shed His innocent blood in the first place. That being the case... you could say we all had part in it, seeing that we are all sinners. The question is, "Should that shed blood apply only to us and not to Judas as well?" Be very careful in how you judge others, lest ye condemn yourself in your own judgment.

Nevertheless, verse 18 causes a problem with Judas hanging himself, all by himself, in that one cannot both hang himself and then slit his guts open to where they fall out. It seems more probable that this was a strangling and then someone cut him wide open as he fell headlong. In any event, those of the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna who know and understand the ruthlessness of the kenites can more easily understand this than those who are blinded to the traditions of men.

(19) And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Remember from our previous study that the Potter's field was purchased according to scripture in Zech. 11:13. Remember too that Jesus Christ, through the innocent blood He shed on the cross, can take those broken pieces of pottery, our shattered lives, and put them back together again. Note: For more insight and understanding, look up the compound Greek word translated "Aceldama" in your Strong's Concordance and follow its roots.

(20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

"See" again how Peter now speaks... "It is written"... and so it must and shall be done according to the Word of God, right? And when Peter sees the events that take place on that first Pentecost Day in the next chapter of Acts, he will also "remember" the words of Joel the prophet concerning the last days, the days you and I now live in! Do you think Peter had any doubt whatsoever that Joel's prophecy would not come to pass exactly as it is written? Do you? I guess the next question is, "Have you ever read it with understanding?"

(Edited by Bugimus on 06-05-2004 02:14)

i had trouble posting the above and i don't know what the HELL happened or how the user names got in there

actually the post didn't ever seem to go through on my end - the little hourglass never went away, so i gave up and closed the connection. after a while i checked back to find the above. i didn't try to edit it. something screwy in Denmark, i guess.

(Edited by outcydr on 06-04-2004 22:52)

ok. i figured it out and now i'm doubly embarrassed - that's what i get for copying and pasting in a hurry

(Edited by outcydr on 06-05-2004 01:36)

outcydr, I took the liberty of editing your post to correct the linkword action. We have a way of quickly linking to pages within the Asylum using "linkwords". See the id at the top right of every post? You can enclose that number in square brackets in order to easily link to that page. That is why you got those strange links to people's cells.

For example square bracket 15 and you get Bugimus

Do it to this page's id and you get Dinosaur Adventure Land! (or, how the Creationists explain the Dinosaurs)

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Dragonlady -

quote:

---

And there is always DICTATION . . .

---

Ummm...did you actually read my post? Just curious, because in it I said

quote:

---

So, who actually wrote down that which the Apostles dictated?

---

Now, I am not saying that all the Apostles were illiterate. I'm saying that most probably, most were. Most came from lower cats, and from handwork-type trades, where learning to read/write were extra costs that most could not afford, and were not really necessary for the trade.

quote:

---

Certainly there must have been disciples around whose "job" it was to write, since the primary duty of the apostles was to preach.

---

- well, if this is true, considering the years of Jesus, there has been a lot of information thrown out, hasn't there? In fact, a lot of what is in the New testament seems to be "condensed" - and this type of writing does tend towards Legend, Myth, and Fable. It is a way of retaining the message (as DL has suggested), without the "unecessary" information inbetween...but that information becomes critical, when trying to evaluate the accuracy and truth of such. Since most of it is missing, evaluation and accuracy then lies within the realm of guesswork, and comparison.

quote:

---

But I've read that the debate about the historical reliability of the documents is somewhat settled BUT the accuracy of what is contained in them is where the battle is now taking place. I think we all need to update our placeholders so to speak and take on the current debated areas.

---

Everything that I have read up to this point (and I have been researching this heavily in the past few days) shows huge disagreements with this statement, bugs. Within the Christian world, there are major disagreements on what the information actually means. When one discusses Judas, there are many different views on this (as evidenced alone in this thread).

How can you say for certain that your view, among the myriad of other Christian views, is the most accurate?

Also, for someone evaluating the Scriptures (and the Bible) from a non-belief stand-point, the message is unimportant. And the clear lack of vital information inbetween, is I think a very interesting point in itself - it seems that this is done intentionally.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page