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

That's possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely IMO. Paul didn't really get along very well with the other apostles, and had a very different ministry (his being to pretty much everyone who wasn't Jewish). He and Peter in particular debated ad nauseum over the role of OT law in the new age of a resurrected Christ. I seriously doubt they got together over a bottle of wine and collaborated. Not only that, but Paul wasn't with Christ during His ministry. If anything, Paul's Gospel account (Luke) was almost certainly heavily influenced by Matthew, and probably Peter's Gospel (Mark) as well. But regardless, unless I'm mistaken the majority of Paul's letters included in the New Testament were written before the Gospels, so Paul was working from a combination of his extensive Judaic education and his supernatural encounter with the resurrected Jesus.

Oh, I totally agree. Who could possibly contain Jesus in four small 'books'?

 

Where on earth did you find that first century National Enquirer crap? Is that from the "Q"?

 

I suppose in the literal sense, you are correct. There is no way to tell with absolute certainty who the authors of the four gospels are, especially as none of the four declare who they are. There are only deductions based on the evidence at hand.

 

Interesting. Where did you find that one, G?

 

Obviously.

 

Do you have an actual source for this assertion, or is this just something you think? Please forgive my impatience, but numerous times on this board I've cited the research and compilation team of the NIV Bible who claim to have done a direct translation from the original texts. No reworking, no multiple translations. I keep seeing people assert that the Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation with people playing fast and loose with the content in between stages, and I have yet to see any evidence of this (though I'd be VERY interested to see some).

 

Maybe if there was evidence of the text a couple of hundred years older, it would've been considered. But judging from the content we do have, I have my doubts as to whether it would make the final cut.

I see differences, but not contradictions. With some of the differences I've had to adjust the way I was looking at it to see that the pieces actually do still fit together, though.

 

HB, forgive my impatience, but please use the term "oldest known surviving texts" instead of "original." Not the same thing.

 

Absolutely. And some not so obvious.

What I've learned in studying the Hebrew and Greek languages is that there is some flexibility in translating to English, largely based on context. And yes, there are differences in wording between versions and you have to be careful about those. That's why I use so many different versions when I'm studying Scripture. I look for consistencies, both between the versions and with the Bible as a whole. Lately I've also been studying more of the original Hebrew and Greek and making comparisons there, too.

What I've found is that some versions tend to be a lot more true to the original texts than others. I've gotten to the point where I use the New International Version and New American Standard Bible most often, and then go to one of the paraphrases or casual language versions if the need arises for communication purposes.

I'm wary of the King James and New King James versions, as well as the Revised Standard Version, and I never use the Message paraphrase as an initial source.

 

Faith is just a synonym for trust. And ironically, one of the reasons I trust the Bible is precisely because the doctrine doesn't cater to the carnal desires of man. It doesn't glorify man, it doesn't offer him material wealth or status in this world (just the opposite, in some ways). It doesn't encourage power or politics, and it doesn't offer you 72 virgins if you die on its behalf. All the glory, all the praise, all the power, and all the credit is directed toward a God than no one can see or feel or touch in the physical sense.

There is no question it's been corrupted and twisted and abused for the sake of the agendas of men through the centuries, but that's not the Bible's fault, nor is it the fault of its authors.