From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 04-07-2006 00:17
Oh sure... come on been a while since this cat's been whacked.... and hey and it's always tad more interesting when 'evidence'.... if that's the word.... stirs the pot. =)
quote:"they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out. For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many elievers."
Read a brief article on the new "discovery" on CNN.
~shrug~
Nothing that hasn't been talked about over and over, and has always been a reasonable version of the story for anyone who doesn't live or die by what that old book has to say
quote: NoJive said:
quote:"they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out. For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many elievers."
Yes, funny how some of these simple truths tend to prove so troubling for so many
I haven't read about much of the controversy surrounding this document, but I tend to agree with DL. Except I also happen to try to live (if not die) by that "old book."
Is it surprising that there might be radically different accounts of the same event? Not hardly. There are as many accounts of any given event as there are people willing to talk about that event--whether they ever actually witnessed it or not.
Was the formation of the canon a result of political forces? To some extent, certainly. But I don't think this means that it is not the Word of God.
Maybe I'm just a collection of paradoxes. Who knows.
Suho - you will henceforth be known by the name "collection of paradoxes" =)
I have a hard time finding this in particular fascinating. I have long talked about this version of the story being a very plausible one, given the rest of the gospel story. According to the story itself, Jesus would *have* to be killed in order for anything else to mean anything. The idea that Judas would act on Jesus' behest is quite fitting, and makes more sense than the popular version.
As for different versions of the gospel - hell, I've talked for years in discussions here about the wide variety of gospels available prior to the 4th century (and many of the well beyond that time as well).
The canon of the bible was hardly a unanimous decision, and was never actually made 'official' until sometime around the 16th century.
The more discoveries like this particular text that come to light, the better the chance of more people understanding the actual process that spawned the bible. Whether you are a bleieber or not, understanding the reality of it is extremely important - how sad I am for people who fight tooth and nail for what is said in the bible, without having any grasp on the book itself.
Which then lends even more credit to the "mysterious Q" source.
I'm with you on the first statement, but I don't see how this relates at all to 'q'other than the fact that it is an extrabibular xian text. We have a great deal of those though...
There isn't much about 'q' that needs more credit either...it's a textual certainty that there was another source. 'q' is just the name given whatever work this source may be, as q is the first letter of the german word for source.
I suppose I just don't like for anyone to think of 'q' as mysterious. We don't know what particular work this source was, but it is clear there was a textual source that luke and matthew (?) shared for part of their content, just as there were various sources for various parts of most ancient texts. =)
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-07-2006 23:29
quote:We don't know what particular work this source was
Well, that does tend to make it mysterious IMHO.
Having a document like the one here lends more credit to other sources yet to be discovered (if, indeed, they have survived). I tend to agree that the "Q" source is probably more than just one - probably many, I would think.
A document like this one lends a lot of credence to the theory that the New Testament is a conglomeration of different sources. And upon examination of the earlier threads on this topic, I think that is telling.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
No disagreement really, but it's important to reiterate that we know of an awful lot of documents like this one, and this one was found more than 30 years ago, so...
While I can appreciate your excitement about this document, I would prefer to see people's attention drawn to the hundreds of other documents we know of!
As for the mystery - you are correct. I feel the 'mystery' part gets played up too much though, and that combined with the lack of attention on the other extrabiblical xian texts tends to shroud it in a bit of a fantasy genre for the public at large, or a 'davinci code' air even...
" Nevertheless, some claim the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic texts throw orthodox Christianity into doubt. "As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities," New York Times reporters John Noble Wilford and Laurie Goodstein wrote, "they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard theBible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out. For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers."
For me, the underlined has always been the bible in a nutshell.
And I hope that there are more such discoveries on the horizon.
Maybe even a few such documents to shake the Quran's foundations.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 04-08-2006 12:36
quote:I feel the 'mystery' part gets played up too much though, and that combined with the lack of attention on the other extrabiblical xian texts tends to shroud it in a bit of a fantasy genre for the public at large, or a 'davinci code' air even...
I agree.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I kind yawned thru the whole judas special. Didn't get a rise out of me or seem very revelant to me as there were many forms of Christianity trying to take hold after Jesus died and ressurected. Gnosticism has filtered thru the ages never taking hold as faith. Though there are some froms of many gnosticisms here today they are not strong movements... as Suho related if you took many interviews on what you thought of Jesus ministery at his times you would get thousands of different interpretations.. Look how many Christian faiths we have today.
Though I have no doubt Judas is in Hell as Christ related at the last supper to John his apostle "that it was better that he not lived for what he was about to do"
His greatest sin was Pride and that is why Judas parished in Hell.
quote:quote:"they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out. For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many elievers."
Troublings for who? Many like I do feel scriptures revealed are guided by the holy spirit. This spirit cannot lie or decieve or hide hidden writings it should of put in the most holy book ever written. The writings of Judas were are never meant to be part of scripture. You do not give much credit to many Christians who know what to take as literal and what to take as historical and what to take as teachings.
Cannon of scripure was put together by the early popes and bishops.. It was decided as a tool for guidance in faith.. Not all of faith. It was decided then that it would be offically closed and nothing could be altered in meaning or added to it.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 04-14-2006 16:24
About the Q document, a little connection. There is also a book called the Annals of the Kings that is refered to several times in the old testament. I don't really see what's so special about a "Q" document that two Gospel writers pulled information from. I mean, it would be nice to have, but is it that unique?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote:About the Q document, a little connection. There is also a book called the Annals of the Kings that is refered to several times in the old testament. I don't really see what's so special about a "Q" document that two Gospel writers pulled information from. I mean, it would be nice to have, but is it that unique?
From one Christian to Another:
Gideon.. There are many thousands of christian writings that surfaced when the official canon was selected. You may not even know about or of them. The early chruches have these documents in their libraires. They are still available for reading. Many of them were not selected because the council decided what books were best used to spread the faith. If we believe as Christians that God has guided his church thru the 2000 centuries we must believe though new finds may be revelent historically and may have some impact it does not alter the creed of faith and never will. These Judas, Mageleline Gospels and the Di Vinci Code hype will pass over time and is something to fodder about. I have seen a resurgence of many Christians reading more about Church history because of the book and movie Di Vinci Code coming out. Thus they are becoming more knoweldgable in faith.
posted 04-07-2006 00:17
been a while since this cat's been whacked.... and hey and it's always tad more interesting when 'evidence'.... if that's the word.... stirs the pot. =)
