blasphemyyyyyyyyyy

I am always amused by the efforts been put into discrediting the Bible.  The so-called "Gospel of Judas" (which is really no Gospel at all) is the latest in a long line of ineffective and worthless quest at disproving the veracity of the Holy Scriptures.
To me, the Gospel of Judas is nothing more than another Davinci Code written a few centuries earlier - an absolute work of fiction.  It shows that efforts to ridicule the Bible did not start today, and that effort will never end.  I will admonish all who take up this futile adventure to spend more time trying to reflect on the words spoken by Jesus as revealed in the Bible.  His light is sure to provide enlightenment to you as it does to millions today.

There seems to be much controversy here. I have read the gospel of Barnabas and it differs grossly from the accounts of the other gospels.

There are some christian customs that are not christian. Number one is Christmas -- how many people know that December 25th was the date of a pagan festival in Rome? How many people also know that December 25th has been a date purported as the date of the birth of dozens of "avatars" before and after Jesus' time. How many people know that Jesus is not the only person worshipped in history who is purported to have been born by a virgin on December 25th?

How many people know that those statements "This is my blood. . . etc" were in the cult of Mithra before the time of Jesus? How many people also know of the different schisms in the church.

Do you know how Spanish Conquistadores slaughtered the Aztecs and the Inca bcause they refused to convert to "christianity" -- or how the British found it hard to colonise the Africans and were only able to do so by dividing them with religion? Are you also aware that slave dealers in those days quoted from the Bible that slavery was ordained by God -- preachers screamed it from their pulpits etc etc.

It is good to take everything with a pinch of salt. Many people have read only one book -- the Bible -- and not others. I have done lots of research and I find it strange that customs from several "pagan" cults have similarities to the Christian faith. These cults were in place long before Jesus coming.

In selecting the books of the Bible what criteria was used -- and why were some books dropped? Hve you read the Apocrypha? Is it a mere coincidence that at least three books mentioned Jesus killed with his powers when he was very young?

I don't know what to believe -- but I am a Christian myself and I always pray for guidance but I suggest that instead of jumpings o righteously to make your protests, you should do reasearch -- lots of it and deduce for yourself.

If you were doing a research paper and quoted only from one book, then that's plagiarism -- yet people here quote only from the Bible. Try to learn from other sources. Find out why other groups are antagonistic to the Christian faith and if there's some validity.

Zahymaka:

It is good to take everything with a pinch of salt. Many people have read only one book -- the Bible -- and not others. I have done lots of research . . .

In that case I'm taking everything you said here and elsewhere with a pinch of salt.

Zahymaka:

I don't know what to believe -- but I am a Christian myself and I always pray for guidance but I suggest that instead of jumpings o righteously to make your protests, you should do reasearch -- lots of it and deduce for yourself.

Research or no research, simple faith in Jesus Christ is what guarantees salvation and nothing else. Your post is nothing different from what "researchers" always conclude at the end of the day - "I don't know what to believe -- but I am a Christian myself". Typical.

I'll tell you what: do more research, and you'll still come back to say the same thing.

"Lots of research" does not guarantee you the gift of the Holy Spirit. God knows what He's doing, and He has reserved His promise of the Spirit to only those who know and believe the real Jesus Christ - you'll find Him in the Bible. Doubt it to your loss. The Holy Spirit is not given to confuse anyone into confessing "I don't know what to believe"; rather, the ministry of the Spirit is that we may know who we are, what we believe, and why we believe.

Peace.

But do you agree that most of what you believe in today is not explicitly stated in the Bible?

Like what?

Christmas, Sunday, etc.

Try to find out the origins of these beliefs. Some of Paul's teachings are simply obnoxious -- he's the only person in the Bible who places emphasis on keeping one's head uncovered if one is a man. No other person -- even Jesus said anything like that. I do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus -- and differentiate between them and those of his disciples.

My dear, you and some other felas just sort of surprise me. I thought you guys had big 'gbosa' for me so that I go scurrying under my bed. Alright, smile - just teasing you.

Let me ask you something: would I be sent to hell if I don't celebrate Christmas?

Now Sunday: on what day did the early Christians normally gather for worship?

They gathered on Saturdays. Sunday was the official day of worship of the Sun and most "converts" still did so on Sunday. The Sabbath was moved to Sunday in an attempt to occupy them duing the "Sun worship time."

I eat chicken and everything on Christmas but I don't really believe in celebrating birthdays -- especially mine. Don't take it that I'm something else -- I generally don't like parties [I'm very introverted].

Zahymaka:

Sunday was the official day of worship of the Sun and most "converts" still did so on Sunday.

You said that before, I saw it. I had hoped you'd give me some references - Gnostic or NT, the choice is yours.

Well, try this link:

http://www.jlfoundation.net/sunday.html

I'm not forcing you to believe it. In all fairness there's a counter-link:

http://www.bible.ca/7-Mithraism.htm

Ok, so you chose not to quote the Gnostic Gospels or the NT. I've seen those links before and have loads of others saved in my 'favourites' folder on my PC. You haven't given me a concrete basis for the belief that Saturday was the normal day of collective worship for the early Christians - that is, if you're taking the early Christians to be the same that received the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2.

What do you have to say about the Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2?

@welborn & kimba:
You may not really know this, you both are not saying all these on your own accord, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. As you already know, the fight is not against flesh n' blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness who masqurede as men using all available media (internet inclusive) to look for souls to kill, steal and destroy!

But I tell them one thing: "that He who is in me, is greater than that who is in the world"

Zahymaka,

Don't you think you conflict yourself when you claim to be a Christian but you don't believe the Bible in it's entirety?  What makes you a Christian, I ask?  Do you think Christianity is an association that you can choose to belong to like the Rotary Club because you like the good works that are being done there?  Christianity means you believe in Jesus as who He says He is - God's Son and God's Word, and you make Him you Lord and Savior because you believe that He died for your sins and God raised Him up on the third day in justification.  Chikena.

About your researches.  Do you know the Bible talks about those who are ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth?  It's not how much you know, but who you know, my friend.  And let me tell you the difference between the Books of the Bible and the others you are talking about, the Bible claims that ALL scripture is inspired of God.  In order words, God in His soveriengty knows the books He has authored, and He has the power and influence to put them in a compendium that we call the Holy Bible.

You are wrong when you consider the Bible as one book.  It is a compendium of several books written over many years.  The Bible says in the mouth of two or threee witnesses, let every word be established.  There are dozens of authors with dozens of books within the Bible, and the Bible is a proof of itself.

Now while other books you mentioned or have read may have been written by Christians, they were not divinely inspired for God to have them put together in the Holy Bible.

Forget about a day being celebrated even before the advent of Christianity. All days were created by our Lord, and no devil has any right over a day more than we do.  The Bible says if we regard a day, it is unto the Lord that we do, not unto those idols. 

'This is my blood, ' that you quoted were Jesus' words.  Are you saying He copied over from pagan religions that he tried to stamp out?  The issue here is that Jesus was trying to convey to His Disciples that He was entering into a blood covenant with them.  Those are covenant terms my friend.  He said things to them in the way that they will understand.  God only deals with us in ways that we will understand, or else there will be no point of Him communicating with us at all. 

I pray your eyes will be opened, and you will come to the end of your research by coming to Jesus. As the Apostle Paul said, "Christ is the end of the law, "

I hate arguing on religion -- I'm sorry I even posted here to start with.

What I want to know is why the people who chose the books decided that some were biblical and others weren't. I really feel they shoul dall be joined together. This Gospel of Judas however, seems to be from somewhere else. I doubt it's authenticity.

Zahymaka,

You don't need to feel sorry. You cut across to me as someone who yearns for accuracy, and who knows, you might get some answers here.

Let me try to answer your question this way. Daniel 4:17 says that God rules in the affairs of men. If indeed He does, don't you think He will be mindful to put His word together through human vessels. God has never done anything on earth without the use of men. To redeem us, He even became a man.

The point is this, the Bible was not just a compilation done by one man or a group of men without God's intervention. I believe His hand was working in the background to ensure that His word was compiled as he deems fit.

What yardstick do you all use to determine that the gnostic gospels are less inspired than the canonical ones?

Zahymaka,

TayoD  is absolutely right! Wheather you eventually believe does not matter again, because the Bible said that "heaven and earth shall pass away but every word of mine shall come to pass".  In effect, judgement day MUST come and you must answer for yourself. Deceide now bro and save your soul or continue to doubt and do research and regret in eternity.

nferyn

What yardstick did you use to authenticate your birth certificate?

@ youngies
Why are you asking? Why would I need to authenticate my birth certificate; I don't even know I have a birth certificate. And if I need one, I would go to the communal administration of my place of birth. What does my birth certificate have to do with all of this?

nferyn,

The yardstick is very simple.  At least, there were 11 disciples still alive after Jesus resurrected.  These were men of integrity whose word was their bond and who will die for what they believe in and witnessed.  Though they all wrote from different perspectives, their writings complement each other and were not contradictory.

God brought another man on the scene by the name of Apostle Paul who was gifted with more insight than others.  Apostle Peter witnesed to the veractiy of his write-up in 2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

The Gnostics are diametrically opposed to the writings and witness of all these credible men.  Besides, the book of Colossians was basically targeted at Gnostism, and other Epistles testify to the fact that there exists other books and other sects who were trying to deceive people by the use of Christian terminologies and by their proximity with Christians.

TayoD,

So you are claiming that the canonical gospels were actually written by Jesus' disciples?

nferyn,

I am not just talking about the Gospels, I am talking also of the Epistles. All come together in harmaony.

Enough of this argurment. The bible said in Proverb that when you try to argue with a fool, he will make full of your wise saying so stop it

Brother, we need more of this. It will stand for posterity. Its the case of the faintest ink being better than the best brain. These words will help lost men (and others under the spell of ungodly philosphies) to find their way.

It will also be the yardstick by which some will be jugded (or will judge themselves) because they cannot claim ignorance anymore having read these things.

Owo,
What I am trying to accomplish here is what 2Cor5:11 says "It is because we know this solemn fear of the Lord that we work so hard to persuade others, "
Some on this forum are genuine seekers, and they could get some answers. Others will never be convinced even if God comes back in the flesh before their eyes. My persuasion is to help the former that may be in our midst.
Paul reasoned in the synagogues regularly, and we are told of others in Acts who do the same.
While the scripture you mention in Acts is true, I don't think it applies to this case.

Some of you people are masters in circular reasoning.

The first of the gospels, Mark, is likely to have been written around 70 AD. One generation after the death of Christ. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are heavily built upon the Markian gospel and the other gospels are very likely of an even older date. The chance that they were written earlier is very small, especially when you take into account that the New Testament shows a general lack of understanding of Jewish traditions (e.g. trial of Jesus in front of the Sahedrin) and cannot possibly have had a jewish author or audience.
Traditional Christian Bible scholars do everything they can to date the gospels and other parts of the new testament as early as possible. Recent historiography (e.g. the study of the Dead sea scrolls) shows that:
1. The New Testament is a very dubious source when it comes to historical accuracy
2. Evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is very flimsy (which [b]does not [/b]mean that Jesus did not exist, only that the evidence of his existence is far and in between)
3. There is more and more evidence that shows the date of writing of the gospels to be later rather than earlier

If you only use the Bible to point out it's historical veracity, then that is very poor scholarship indeed. People with that attitude should rather study mythology than history.
The only thing that gives the canonical texts weight above the apocrypha is the political meandering during the council of Nicea. If the Gnostics wouldn't have been persecuted so harshly, we would see a much more humane face of Christianity (closer to Buddhist philosophy) today and the excesses of the orthodox churches could have been avoided

nferyn,
The book of Mark was written by a young protege of Simon Peter called Mark.  The fact that the book was written a generation or so after Jesus does not make it less authoritative because the information were very likely passed down to him through apostle Peter.  Besides, you neglect the revelation of the Holy spirit to each of these Writers.  Apostle Paul in 1 corinthians wrote about the Last super though he was not present there.  This should tell you that there is only One Author really - The Holy spirit.

The Books of matthew and John were written by the Disciples themselves.  Matthew was a former tax collector turned Disciple, and John was the oldest living of all these disciples and he is also the Author of the Book of Revelation.  He could well have been alive even later than 70AD as he was siad to have lived very long.

The Book of Luke was written by a Physician named Luke.  he was very likely a Gentile, and he is also the author of the book of Acts.  This means He lived during the times of Jesus and was around for a considerable length of time after Jesus Ascension.

I believe you are insecere by insinuating that the other Gospels were copied off the book of Mark.  The Authors are different individuals looking at the same events from different perspectives.  I would have been more sceptical of the Gospels if all the accounts were exactly the same. 

The book of Matthew seem to have been targeted more at the Jews as the Book of Luke seems to the Gentiles.  But in all, lie the truth of the events.

Why do you think the dead sea scrolls provide more accuracy than the New Testament as we know it?  Why not the other way round?  You've made up your mind that the Bible is all false, and any information that comes your way that provides some information that supports your prejudice must then be the truth by your standard.

There is nothing wrong with using the Bible to prove it's veracity. The Bible was not written by one author at one sitting in one fell swoop. Rather, it is a compilation of various writings from different authors, independently over time. These writings are complimentary of each other though they were not planned.

It appears to me that you seek a God that is intellectually acceptable to you. That is not new. Paul said the Gentiles always seek for Wisdom, while the Jews seek a sign, but Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God. Your journey ends up in Him, no matter how much you may want to even deny His existence.

nferyn,you have my utmost respect for that erudite write up.You're truly one of the very few who is enlightened in this forum,when it comes to debates concerning theological matters.

nferyn:

Some of you people are masters in circular reasoning.

The first of the gospels, Mark, is likely to have been written around 70 AD. One generation after the death of Christ. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are heavily built upon the Markian gospel and the other gospels are very likely of an even older date. The chance that they were written earlier is very small, especially when you take into account that the New Testament shows a general lack of understanding of Jewish traditions (e.g. trial of Jesus in front of the Sahedrin) and cannot possibly have had a jewish author or audience.
Traditional Christian Bible scholars do everything they can to date the gospels and other parts of the new testament as early as possible. Recent historiography (e.g. the study of the Dead sea scrolls) shows that:
1. The New Testament is a very dubious source when it comes to historical accuracy
2. Evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is very flimsy (which [b]does not [/b]mean that Jesus did not exist, only that the evidence of his existence is far and in between)
3. There is more and more evidence that shows the date of writing of the gospels to be later rather than earlier

If you only use the Bible to point out it's historical veracity, then that is very poor scholarship indeed. People with that attitude should rather study mythology than history.
The only thing that gives the canonical texts weight above the apocrypha is the political meandering during the council of Nicea. If the Gnostics wouldn't have been persecuted so harshly, we would see a much more humane face of Christianity (closer to Buddhist philosophy) today and the excesses of the orthodox churches could have been avoided

@jagunalbi, you obviously ran out of steam to make any point and so it's understandable that you're backslapping nferyn. Prejudices apart, what I'd like to know is how you or nferyn know that his own version of his tales form the 'truth' of Christianity. For example, does nferyn really understand Jewish traditions before he could debunk the inspired authors of the NT on the basis of the trial of Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin? As for the advice to others to study mythology or history, some of us already do both and more - on the whole, it's a pity that most of the sources you might've been ferreting your ideas from do not represent scholarship at any level.

I'm open to read nferyn discuss what he really knows about Jewish tradition. It's not now a matter of clobbering the PC screen with weblinks - just you tell me what you know for yourself to be Jewish tradition - here or another thread: the choice is yours.

Blessing.

@my2cents

Finally, on my way to work this morning, these thoughts crossed my mind - Why did this news crop up during easter? Why don't we hear of other documents cropping up in other religions? It always seems like people are trying their hardest to rubbish christianity.

My bros, na true, why during easter. Abeg leave them, they'll rubbish themselves in the end!

@Zahymaka, I've had a very busy day so could not post what I had for you last night, so here it is as a rejoinder to where we left off. As a friend I'd like to help strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ (assuming that you're indeed a Christian) when you can see the difference that trusting the Bible makes. I'll do this in two parts with regards to your concerns:

The Paganised Sunday Issue

First, from whatever source(s) you're reading or quoting, they have the same connotation for every single day of the week:

  Sunday         -   official day of worship of the Sun god (Mithra) by Roman pagans and other ancient cultures.
  Monday        -   day dedicated to the worship of the moon or moon god.
  Tuesday       -   'Tiu', also 'Tiw', was associated with Mars who was the Roman god of War.
  Wednesday  -   associated with Odin the god of war, wisdom, agriculture and poetry; also regarded as
                           the god of the dead.
  Thursday      -   ascribed to 'Thor', the god of thunder (hence, aka 'Thunderday')
  Friday           -   in ancient Rome named 'dies Veneris' as having been dedicated to the goddess Venus
  Saturday      -   'Dies Saturni' (Latinised) meaning the 'Day of Saturn' (Saturn [Roman] was also
                          called Kronos by the Greeks).

So, if you're inclined to believe the hoo-ha on the net about the paganised Christian adoption of Sunday, in fair exchange be open minded, at least, to believe as well that your preference for Saturday as a day of worship was paganised from the Greeks who dedicated it to Kronos.

You see, what is happening is that some 'scholars, authorities and researchers' are trying to short-change you with only one aim in mind - to take your eyes off the Bible. Discovering the gnostic documents and other artifacts is not new; what is interesting is that some people will easily fall for the fraudulent assertion that these gnostic 'gospels' are the 'emerging truths' that are to replace the NT Gospels. Have you ever asked yourself if anyone of these 'authorities, scholars or researchers' have applied the teachings of these gnostic documents in their own lives? Yet, they want you to throw your Bible away and believe the 'truth' of gnosticism that they themselves have no iota of faith in.

Quoting from one of the links you recommended, this is what has been giving most people the migraine:

       "Contrary to popular belief, there is not the slightest indication in the Bible that Sunday
        observance may have originated with Christ or the apostles."    quoting your weblink

"'Not the slightest indication in the Bible"'? Are these fellows serious, or have they been reading another Bible? Any careful reader of the Scriptures knows at least that Saturday is the seventh day of the week, and that our calendar Sunday is the first day. From the two scriptures I quoted earlier, there is clear indication in the Bible itself that Sunday was quite the normal day of Christian worship - "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7) and "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The first day of the week was not derived from Mithra worship - 'scholars' saying that are selling you a big propaganda. Sunday, the first of the week, was the day Christ rose from the dead, and that is what the disciples come together to celebrate in worship - Christ's victory in resurrection over death and Satan, and the establishing of a new covenant that promises a future to believers.

The same source quoted some so-called authorities as having written:

         "It [Mithraism] had so much acceptance that it was able to impose on the Christian world
          its own Sun-day in place of the Sabbath. . ."

and

          "The early Christians had at first adopted the Jewish seven-day week, with its numbered
          week days, but by the close of the third century A.D. this began to give way to the
          planetary week. . ."

Smoke screen. I'm amazed that the authority did not insinuate that the Jewish seven-day week was adopted from the worship of the Greek deity Kronos. I've personally done a check up on these quotes and it's sad to say that these authorities were making bogus claims that could not be authenticated. They were selling their armchair ideas, and even an honest skeptic would tell you that there's nothing scholarly in them.

It is bogus 'scholarships and researches' like these floating on the web that most people are inclined to believe - for the simple reason that they have not read the Bible for themselves, and they don't want to. When these half-baked scholars make assertions like "there is not the slightest indication in the Bible that Sunday observance may have originated with Christ or the apostles", you know who's been trying to blow a smoke screen in your face.

Second part follows shortly. With much love in Christ.