New Gnostic gospel found - scholars believe it says Jesus instructed Judas to betray

Wow.

Just wow.

 

I know, but it makes a lot more sense if you look at it from a Christian point of view. Trust me.

 

Oh, I can appreciate that. It prompted me (as things that trouble me do), to fold nine loads of laundry and I `got' to where you were coming from. It then created that whole other side to it though - "would you want to embrace a type of religion that would wish for and hope for the end of the world - just so they could see their Saviour?" I guess I've always viewed the Christian / Armaghedon relationship situation as a `regrettable certainty'. That is, that deep belief that it would happen and that it would signal the return of your Saviour, but that leading up to it - you wouldn't necessarily be egging it on and wishing for it. The very knowledge that all the `non believers' would perish, and finding some sort of joy in that - is well, rather repugnant to me.

Stir me up again Mr Hasbeens, I need to get my vacuming done .

 

"Getting to see my Saviour" is not exactly where I was coming from, although that is part of that picture. I don't need Armageddon to necessarily do that -- I could get run over by Sly and see Jesus (sorry man, I couldn't resist. :imagestor)

No, remember what Armageddon is a picture of. Whether in the Christian interpretation, the Jewish interpretation, or even the Islamic interpretation, Armageddon is basically the picture of God obliterating the evil of this world, once and for all. It's the first stages of the ultimate payback -- every evil thing humanity has ever done is going to get rectified through Armageddon (the final battle) and judgment. According to the Bible (and the Torah, if I'm not mistaken) by the time Armageddon is here, there won't be anyone neutral in this fight. There will be no "collateral damage" or innocent bystanders. It'll be black and white, for God or against Him. And any who stand against God are going to have a very bad day.

Am I excited about the day when evil is finally brought to justice and peace and goodness reign forever? You bet I am.

 

I read it. Interestingly, it reads similarly to the Qur'an and somewhat like Revelation -- very figurative and sort of disjointed. It doesn't really put a whole lot of effort into developing any central, practical messages or lessons.

I find it interesting that the premise of the news story isn't reflected in the text itself. Jesus doesn't ask Judas to betray Him, He just states that he will.

This really isn't a Gospel, per se. Or maybe it's incomplete or just not a very good one. I dunno. It feels very much like a fragment -- like there's a lot missing here. Or maybe it's just a quote or a retelling of what someone else told the writer.

 

well Hasbeen....if you see the pages of the original, there is a lot missing. Time has not been good to those pages. But what I want to know is, how would you feel if this had been part of the original bible assembled eons ago? Would that change your views on it? And what if we were able to prove somehow scientifically that one of the books in the bible was completely inaccurate and should be removed. Would you go for that too?

Let me guess, the hand of God was guiding the men that assembled what we now call the bible. It was his will that these were left out and not just the ideas of men that wanted certain things in and certain things out in order to reinforce their control over the people. Right?

And therein lies my biggest criticism with all religions that depend on a book for their basis of teaching. God did not write this book. Men did. And perhaps women in some cases even though it's impossible to prove. And as we know, men are unable to be objective when it comes to matters of faith, the heart, or religious beliefs.

 

The infancy Gospel of Thomas


II. 1 This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them straightway clean, and commanded them by his word alone. 2 And having made soft clay, he fashioned thereof twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when he did these things (or made them). And there were also many other little children playing with him.
3 And a certain Jew when he saw what Jesus did, playing upon the Sabbath day, departed straightway and told his father Joseph: Lo, thy child is at the brook, and he hath taken clay and fashioned twelve little birds, and hath polluted the Sabbath day. 4 And Joseph came to the place and saw: and cried out to him, saying: Wherefore doest thou these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to do? But Jesus clapped his hands together and cried out to the sparrows and said to them: Go! and the sparrows took their flight and went away chirping. 5 And when the Jews saw it they were amazed, and departed and told their chief men that which they had seen Jesus do.
III. 1 But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.'
IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.

 

Yes, I did see that. But I'm not talking about moth holes here and there or tattered corners. I'm talking about large chunks of information, like most of what might have been written. Of course, that's just speculation. Just a gut feeling on my part, based on how what is there reads.

If it was tucked in somewhere between Matthew and Revelation, I'd still say it was strange and didn't really fit the other Gospels or any of Paul's, Peter's, James', or John's letters. It would still stick out like a sore thumb, and so I'd still look at it with a great degree of concern at least and confusion at best.

Absolutely.

I believe the men who wrote the documents that became the New Testament knew Jesus. I believe they were inspired, not controlled, by God to write what they did, both in the Gospels and in the latter books.

I also think God gave wisdom to the committee who discerned what would be included in the New Testament and what would not be. I think one of the qualifiers they used was, "Does the text of this document fit with both the Old Testament, and also the most reliable evidence of the life and teachings of Jesus?"

I don't think purpose of the teachings of the New Testament were to control people at all, though many have used them for that purpose. I think that one of the main purposes of the documents that make up the New Testament were to show examples and instructions regarding what the life of a follower of Jesus looks like. There is no enforcement articulated in the New Testament as there is in the Old Testament, though again, the church has certainly tried to play that role at times, outside of its mandate.

 

That's true, and it's a major reason why I tend to view single-source religious texts with a large amount of skepticism. Too much room for one man's agenda to flavor what may or may not be there.

But with the Bible, you have over 40 different authors (there may be a woman or two -- not all of the books' authors have been determined) scattered over many centuries with vastly different experiences and cultural settings, but still the core teachings remain consistent, and not exactly friendly to our carnal appetites. For me, that is part of what makes the Bible more reliable than other works.

 

[sarcasm]Gee, I wonder why that wasn't included in the Gospels.[/sarcasm]