New book of the bible found! The Gospel of JUDAS!

[Poetic Chaos]

I'll wait to see what the Vatican has to say.

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

And that's going on the belief that the Bible is not divinely inspired and should just be regarded as "a book of storys". The bible may be an account of events written by humans, but myself and most other Christians consider it's origens are infact divinely inspired. To accept the Bible as only a collection of second hand information and that alone invalidates any claims it makes regarding God, creation, man, sin, death, reconciliation, justification, regeneration, gloryfication, eternity, Heaven and Hell.

which version of God that is validated in the bible should I believe? Wrathful or Merciful?

 

[Alpha and Omega]

Personally, I wouldn't take a lot of what's said here seriously at all; most of the people who are saying, "the bible says this or the bible says that," couldn't actually show you where in the book they proclaim to love and abide by. That seems to be a main reason for why so many people turn agnostic or atheist. A lot of christians in various sects are hypocritical liars.

 

[punishermax]

which version of God that is validated in the bible should I believe? Wrathful or Merciful?

The God who'll give you a hug, but also kick your ass.

Nice read, it is possible I guess. I also think the Dead Sea Scrolls are something to be thought about too but alas, I'm not Catholic so I could care less what 'Da Pope has to say about it. I'm Lutheran and we can do pretty much what we want.

 

[punishermax]

Personally, I wouldn't take a lot of what's said here seriously at all; most of the people who are saying, "the bible says this or the bible says that," couldn't actually show you where in the book they proclaim to love and abide by. That seems to be a main reason for why so many people turn agnostic or atheist. A lot of christians in various sects are hypocritical liars.

Not just Christians, every religion is full of people like that, but most forget to mention them.

 

[Man-Thing]

which version of God that is validated in the bible should I believe? Wrathful or Merciful?

sorry, but I'm not getting into a theological debate on the subject. I was just pointing out that you seemed to assume through in your post that your views that the Bible is a collection of stories collected second hand, and this should be the norm. You made no mention of those that hold to a literal view of the autority of scripture and their view that they are divinely inspired.




okay... I can't help it.

You say that God has two "versions" and I assume in a sarcastic tone (forgive me if I'm wrong).

One being merciful and the other being wrathful. I just want to point out that just because God is depicted in the Bible as both of these, that it doesn't mean that he has to be either one or the other or he can't be the opposite of one and still have the still have other attribute.

God is both Merciful and Wrathful, just as you are neither entirely sad nor entirely happy in your existance. I think of it as a modern day judical judge. He can be entirely nice in his normally everyday life and express mercy to as many as he comes into contact with, but when he puts on his robe and sits on the bench his nature changes to one that administers justice. To administer justice the correct way, then those that have been found guilty must suffer the penalty for their crime, and this sometimes this would would make the judge become wrathful (or in the least unmerciful).

This in no way makes the judge immoral. It just shows different attributes of his nature. He doesn't stop becomming a good person when he executes punishment for those that are guilty, but only fulfills a different role.

I'll be the first to admit that God can be brutal in the Bible, but this doesn't take anything away from his goodness. Since he is the supreme judge of the world, then he must administer wrath for their to be justice, and since justice is the moral good then God's wrath is good in that it fulfills justice.

 

[Man-Thing]

Personally, I wouldn't take a lot of what's said here seriously at all; most of the people who are saying, "the bible says this or the bible says that," couldn't actually show you where in the book they proclaim to love and abide by. That seems to be a main reason for why so many people turn agnostic or atheist. A lot of christians in various sects are hypocritical liars.

ask me anything you want to know of any claim I have made and I will give you scripture to back it up in two minutes (atleast I think I can type it in 2 minutes..)

I'm not trying to be a smartellec, I'm serious and the same reasons you gave anger me as well.

 

[Mentok]

It was written by HERETICS!

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

Man-Thing, I didn't think it was required for me to make concessions to people who take the bible as I cannot represent them. I personally believe the bible to be as factual as Shakespeare history plays, a fictionalized version of historical events. I think it uses poetry and metaphor to describe events that those present could not or would not be able to accurately describe. Was there a Jesus? I have no doubt there was. Was he the son of God? Depends on what that means to you. There are those who say we are all children of God.

My point in my original post is that current theory suggests that Mary Magdalene was NOT a ****e, but the favorite of Jesus, and perhaps his lover/wife/baby mama/whatever. She was rewritten by the politicos who decided what portrayal would be accepted by the masses, or more importantly, the masses that they would create.

Jesus's martyrdom spread the world of the gospel throughout the civilized world. Had he lived to be an old man, I doubt the message would have been so powerful. Judas was cast in the role of betrayer, because a betrayer was required. Without someone to take the fall, Jesus would have just been suicidal, and while that too is a powerful message, it is not one that leads to good faith. (Koresh anyone?) So, the character of Judas was put into place as he HAD to be.

What I am basically saying that no work written by man, no matter how divinely inspired can be free of bias. If this gospel is indeed the true thing, it's about time we got the other side of the story.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

ask me anything you want to know of any claim I have made and I will give you scripture to back it up in two minutes (atleast I think I can type it in 2 minutes..)

I'm not trying to be a smartellec, I'm serious and the same reasons you gave anger me as well.

To your claims? Oh no, no, no, that's too easy for someone who's so eager to prove their validity.

I will pose one question to you:

The bible claims that sin and imperfection entered into this world by means of Adam and Eve's breaking a lawful commandment.

According to certain scholars, Gen 3:15 describes what would occur to rectify the situation. What does this scripture say, and mean literally through the symbollic usage?

If you answer that, you shall impress me greatly.

In order to avoid hijacking the thread you can pm me your response, make another thread about it(I will post in it), or you can simply just keep re:ing in here if Matt doesn't care, since he is the thread master.

 

[Calvin]

To your claims? Oh no, no, no, that's too easy for someone who's so eager to prove their validity.

I will pose one question to you:

The bible claims that sin and imperfection entered into this world by means of Adam and Eve's breaking a lawful commandment.

According to certain scholars, Gen 3:15 describes what would occur to rectify the situation. What does this scripture say, and mean literally through the symbollic usage?

If you answer that, you shall impress me greatly.

In order to avoid hijacking the thread you can pm me your response, make another thread about it(I will post in it), or you can simply just keep re:ing in here if Matt doesn't care, since he is the thread master.

Keep it public, man.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

ok. That's up to Matt. If he ok's it, I have no real problem w/ that.

(note: This is a discussion on CHRISTIANITY, not debate as to if this religion is right or wrong. Please do not come in here and say "It doesn't matter because its fake!", you know who you are. For the most part, Hype Christians respect your beliefs, please respect ours. If you don't like the discussion...don't read it).

That's the only real reason why I said anything. It's his thread, and I'm a guest in it. I'm not trying to offend any self professed christians or step on any toes, but I want them to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

 

[Calvin]

That's fair, but I don't think natural tangents are anything to be worried about. That's just part of discussion. We're not really in a forensic debate, it's a forum.

 

[Man-Thing]

To your claims? Oh no, no, no, that's too easy for someone who's so eager to prove their validity.

I will pose one question to you:

The bible claims that sin and imperfection entered into this world by means of Adam and Eve's breaking a lawful commandment.

According to certain scholars, Gen 3:15 describes what would occur to rectify the situation. What does this scripture say, and mean literally through the symbollic usage?

If you answer that, you shall impress me greatly.

In order to avoid hijacking the thread you can pm me your response, make another thread about it(I will post in it), or you can simply just keep re:ing in here if Matt doesn't care, since he is the thread master.

God speaking to the Serpent (paraphrased)

"Behold, I will put enmity between you and the woman, between her seed and your seed. You will bruise him on the heel, and he will bruise (crush) you on the head."

Basically God is telling the Serpent that because of his tempting of Eve in which caused them to sin that through Eve's seed (one descendant because it is singular) (which is strange because this is the only instance in the entire Bible in which a woman is credited as having 'seed', it is normally reserved for men as in "seed of Abraham/David" ect.) that their will be enmity (deep oposition) until the 'seed' bruises the serpents head and the serpent bruises his heel. The seed is Christ and the Serpent is the Devil (as revealed in Revelation 12). The bruising of the head is Christ defeating the Devil and his triumph over mankind during the fall. He is bruised on the head because this represents death (or in the least a grave injury). Christ is bruised on the heel at the cross with his death, but is resurected and thus cancelling out the bruising of his head.

This is the first promise cronologically in the Bible of mankind being redeemed.
I hold the view that the seed being a descendant of Eve alludes to Christ virgin birth and his diety.

Of course this is prophetic, and some interpretation is required, but I believe that scripture interprets scritpture and this lines up with other claims the Bible makes about Christ.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

God speaking to the Serpent (paraphrased)

"Behold, I will put enmity between you and the woman, between her seed and your seed. You will bruise him on the heel, and he will bruise (crush) you on the head."

Basically God is telling the Serpent that because of his tempting of Eve in which caused them to sin that through Eve's seed (one descendant because it is singular) (which is strange because this is the only instance in the entire Bible in which a woman is credited as having 'seed', it is normally reserved for men as in "seed of Abraham/David" ect.) that their will be enmity (deep oposition) until the 'seed' bruises the serpents head and the serpent bruises his heel. The seed is Christ and the Serpent is the Devil (as revealed in Revelation 12). The bruising of the head is Christ defeating the Devil and his triumph over mankind during the fall. He is bruised on the head because this represents death (or in the least a grave injury). Christ is bruised on the heel at the cross with his death, but is resurected and thus cancelling out the bruising of his head.

This is the first promise cronologically in the Bible of mankind being redeemed.
I hold the view that the seed being a descendant of Eve alludes to Christ virgin birth and his diety.

Of course this is prophetic, and some interpretation is required, but I believe that scripture interprets scritpture and this lines up with other claims the Bible makes about Christ.

Very interesting, but what else do the seeds represent? Also, explain to me what you mean about mankind being redeemed?

As a sidepoint: the woman referred to in that scripture supposedly isn't view as literal, but a symbollic reference to the body of angels who make up God's 'wife-like' organization.
The seeds referred to in the case of humans by means of the Chronicle books are done by way of the male to authenticate the family line from Abraham

Jesus.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

edit

 

[Man-Thing]

Very interesting, but what else do the seeds represent? Also, explain to me what you mean about mankind being redeemed?

As a sidepoint: the woman referred to in that scripture supposedly isn't view as literal, but a symbollic reference to the body of angels who make up God's 'wife-like' organization.
The seeds referred to in the case of humans by means of the Chronicle books are done by way of the male to authenticate the family line from Abraham

Jesus.

Are you referring to the seed of the serpent? If so, then I ascribe to the view that the seed of the serpent is the person called the man of perdition in the New Testament. This person is the Anti-Christ.

Mankind being redeemed really is a bad choice of words on my part in that instance. Christ death on the cross did pay the penalty for all sins, however since salvation is a choice not all men will be redeemed to God.

I don't hold the view that the woman is a body of Angels simply because I don't recall ever reading or seeing any symbolism in scripture that allude to Angels being God's metaphorical wife.

 

[Alpha and Omega]

I don't hold the view that the woman is a body of Angels simply because I don't recall ever reading or seeing any symbolism in scripture that allude to Angels being God's metaphorical wife.

I said wife-like organization. I didn't imply a gender specification to them, if that's what you thought. It's a term I come across in studies.

Well, I must admit, my sig probably applies to you.

What I was getting at is what I've read before from other parts. Some people claim that the seed of the Serpent is made up of two parts: his invisible organization which contains those fallen bretheren who turned against God, and the visible organization which the bible claims is the commercial, religious, and political sectors of today. That's the weirdest thing; I'll read a scripture like 1 John 5:19 which claims that worldly endeavors are a part of the "Wicked One's" (Satan?) world. . . yet, this perplexes me.

I've also heard the seed of Christ referred to as two parts: a heavenly class which Revelation says is 144,000 and an earthly "great crowd," but I wonder what it means. I've asked a lot of people and some dance around the question.

A lot of times, I think people don't search for the answers w/ a deep desire to understand them. They would rather assume it's highly improbable, or irrelevant. I have a lot of respect for the bible and people who follow it to the letter. People who don't acknowledge it usually haven't seriously contemplated what it says or go on the word of someone else. I would say that every person makes their own choice, and I respect any decision that a person makes regarding themselves, but I'm more of the opinion that answers are out there to all of our questions, so maybe we don't necessarily search hard enough to find them, religious or otherwise.

 

[redmarvel]

Judas commited suicide....

His portrayal totally goes against the Bible.

Let's face it, if you're writing the book you will put yourself in the best light possible. My question, does the last chapter/verse contain a suicide note?

 

[Bad Superman]

This is and old finding and it's part what the Church calls apocryphal books. These books were written by people to try to fill in gaps in some missing stories from the Gospels. Some of these books where written by heretics.

 

[PLAS]

the news article was very interesting

but this is one of the times when I give a collective pat on the back to the Hype for such a beautiful, well thought, informative and civillized thread

I won't give an opinion, but I admit that I was really expecting a war of words in the most slugfesty kind of ways, but I was wrong

keep making this thread a great read

 

[Themanofbat]

I wonder what the church will say regarding all of this.

The Church will spoon feed the public what it needs to hear in order to not upset and/or shake the status quo. We've seen it already with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which should have been deciphered long ago. In the late 50's & 60's, christians waited with baited breath about the newly discovered scrolls.

But if you wait long enough, people will stop caring.

So unless this new book doesn't shake up christian dogma too much, we'll probably hear about it's context within a few years.

But if nothing is ever brought up about it, then you know it contains "controversial" material.

Just my two cents...

 

[kane9321]

mmmmmk

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

This has to be fun times for someone like Kessel Day. He's probably reread the bible about a jillion times, and now he finally has new stuff to read.

Kessel's a chee-yuk.

 

[Calvin]

Kessel's a chee-yuk.

Yeah, I've already been corrected about that. I'm not sure why I thought she was a he. Maybe it was the red KKKish avatar she's usually had that was throwing me.