Has it ever occur to anyone of the NT apologetics here that without this socalled "betrayal" of Judas,there would be no saviour called Jesus Christ today,that modern day christians can hope on and worship?
What if Judas has refused to "betray" Jesus?How could he have ;
1)been captured
2)Judged
3)Crucified and died on the cross for the sins of mankind
4)Ressurected to become the christ

Jesus would not have been able to achieve all this without this Judas.He owed his present status to Judas.If Judas had refused to betray,you christian zealots wouldn't have a SAVIOUR today!You all need to think in this perspective for once.Switch on your intelligence and think independently and analytically about this whole thing.God knows i did the first day i read about this Jesus story,and that was why i have never ever considered Judas Iscariot to be a villain or a traitor,never.I guess i had been right,afterall.

JUDAS WAS AND IS A CHRISTIAN HERO!

NB
If Judas had refused to betray Jesus,that would've been the real BETRAYAL!Ironic,isn't it.

jagunlabi:

NB
If Judas had refused to betray Jesus,that would've been the real BETRAYAL!Ironic,isn't it.

See who's talking about intelligence and analytical thinking. Your story says Judas did NOT betray Jesus afterall - whereas the NT apologists whose diction you could not analyse have variously defended the Biblical narative. At the end of the day, you're now slyly accepting that your own position was dead wrong! Otherwise, how else would you want to concede this in your postscript: "NB If Judas had refused to betray Jesus. . ." so you concede that Judas did not "refuse" to betray Jesus (as if there was any arrangements between them) and indeed the betrayal took place afterall. Your username says a lot about your scope of intelligence.

Not accepting their stance at all!Quite on the contrary.It is you who have failed - or refused to see - the points of my post.
My guy,induced act of betrayal is no betrayal,not in the actual sense of the word,and neither in the same sense as depicted in the NT,kapish?Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause.That is what makes the difference.
Whether you guys like it or not,Judas has most likely, been exonerated.
So,the question now is,what sort of "betrayal" would you term that

4get_me:


See who's talking about intelligence and analytical thinking. Your story says Judas did NOT betray Jesus afterall - whereas the NT apologists whose diction you could not analyse have variously defended the Biblical narative. At the end of the day, you're now slyly accepting that your own position was [b]dead wrong! Otherwise, how else would you want to concede this in your postscript:[/b] "NB If Judas had refused to betray Jesus. . ." so you concede that Judas did not "refuse" to betray Jesus (as if there was any arrangements between them) and indeed the betrayal took place afterall. Your username says a lot about your scope of intelligence.

jagunlabi:

Has it ever occur to anyone of the NT apologetics here that without this socalled "betrayal" of Judas,there would be no saviour called Jesus Christ today,that modern day christians can hope on and worship?
What if Judas has refused to "betray" Jesus?How could he have ;
1)been captured
2)Judged
3)Crucified and died on the cross for the sins of mankind
4)Ressurected to become the christ

Jesus would not have been able to achieve all this without this Judas.He owed his present status to Judas.If Judas had refused to betray,you christian zealots wouldn't have a SAVIOUR today!You all need to think in this perspective for once.Switch on your intelligence and think independently and analytically about this whole thing.God knows i did the first day i read about this Jesus story,and that was why i have never ever considered Judas Iscariot to be a villain or a traitor,never.I guess i had been right,afterall.

JUDAS WAS AND IS A CHRISTIAN HERO!

NB
If Judas had refused to betray Jesus,that would've been the real BETRAYAL!Ironic,isn't it.

One thing you need/have  to know (believe it or not) is that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas is something that is meant to happen since the beginning of the world,it was prophesied 100s of  years before Jesus was even born so Jesus could not have told Judas to betray Him.
Have you asked yourself why Judas killed himself afterall?He himself repented of it and you are here trying to defend him.
The Gospel of Judas is just nothing but something that was written by anti-Christs to deceive people like you so just get over it.

wendytilda:

The Gospel of Judas is just nothing but something that was written by anti-Christs to deceive people like you so just get over it.

Not true. the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb. For that rejection of the intermediary role of the orthodox catholic church on their road to salvation, they were persecuted, imprisoned maimed and killed.
Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

One thing you need/have  to know (believe it or not) is that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas is something that is meant to happen since the beginning of the world,it was prophesied 100s of  years before Jesus was even born so Jesus could not have told Judas to betray Him.

If he had been ordained by destiny for betrayal,then Jesus - as the son of God - must've had the foreknowledge of this,hence the reason for bringing him into his ministry.Have you thought of that?

[b]Have you asked yourself why Judas killed himself?[/b]He himself repented of it and you are here trying to defend him.
The Gospel of Judas is just nothing but something that was written by anti-Christs to deceive people like you so just get over it.

The earliest canonised gospel of Mark did not mention anything about his hanging himself,do you know that?Go check your NT well.Only the later dated gospels of mathew,luke and john did.
The question is why?The gospel of Mark did not portray him as a traitor,either.
That Judas hanged himself is even questionable,if one should go by what was written in the NT.

Very true.

nferyn:

Not true. the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb. For that rejection of the intermediary role of the orthodox catholic church on their road to salvation, they were persecuted, imprisoned maimed and killed.
Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

jagunlabi:

If he had been ordained by destiny for betrayal,then Jesus - as the son of God - must've had the foreknowledge of this,hence the reason for bringing him into his ministry.Have you thought of that?The earliest canonised gospel of Mark did not mention anything about his hanging himself,do you know that?Go check your NT well.Only the later dated gospels of mathew,luke and john did.
The question is why?The gospel of Mark did not portray him as a traitor,either.
That Judas hanged himself is even questionable,if one should go by what was written in the NT.

I don't think it really matters which book(of the Bible) was written before the other.The gospels were written by the inspiration of God,so the writers wrote what they where inspired by God to write.That 3 books recorded it and one did not is no reason to say it is not true,afterall 3 is more than 1.

jagunlabi:

My guy,induced act of betrayal is no betrayal,not in the actual sense of the word,and neither in the same sense as depicted in the NT,kapish?Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause.That is what makes the difference.

So,the question now is,what sort of "betrayal" would you term that

@jagunlabi, how many times do you have to contradict yourself in a day? "Judas did not betray Jesus afterall", and then "he did"? What are you saying? Okay, let us even give you your joke - what do you make of this in your statement: "Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause"? So, afterall, he did - or afterall, he did NOT?

Even when you called it "induced act of betrayal", afterall you conceded it was a 'betrayal' of sorts, nevermind the dribbling between two opinions which you later called 'no betrayal.' I've taken the time to go through the thread and no one's called it an induced act of betrayal except you. Christians who defend the NT naratives are not dribbling between opinions - they clearly state it as 'betrayal' without your ambiguous adjectives. Bottom line: no harm meant, but you're confusing yourself all the more.

I am afraid,you're the one doing the dribbling.I have made my own point crystal clear in my previous posts.but if you have chosen to dance around the points i have laid down,then that is left to you.
I will repeat it once again,Judas did not betray Jesus(according to this manuscript),but collaborated with Jesus to fullfil his goal.The motivation of Judas for doing what he did is the key here,what makes the significant difference to what was written in the three gospels of the NT.
The latest information i got about this theme is that the greek word used in the original greek texts from which all the gospels were translated was the verb "PARADIDONAI".A verb that means "to hand over" in english.There was nothing like the verb "to betray" in the original greek texts.That verb was later added into the later translations.
Now you can start your dribbling.

4get_me:

@jagunlabi, how many times do you have to contradict yourself in a day? "Judas did not betray Jesus afterall", and then "he did"? What are you saying? Okay, let us even give you your joke - what do you make of this in your statement: "Jesus himself asked Judas to betray him for a cause,which Judas did because he fervently believed in that cause"? So, afterall, he did - or afterall, he did NOT?

Even when you called it "induced act of betrayal", afterall you conceded it was a 'betrayal' of sorts, nevermind the dribbling between two opinions which you later called 'no betrayal.' I've taken the time to go through the thread and no one's called it an induced act of betrayal except you. Christians who defend the NT naratives are not dribbling between opinions - they clearly state it as 'betrayal' without your ambiguous adjectives. Bottom line: no harm meant, but you're confusing yourself all the more.

It really doesn't matter what some people may think they have found in this so called gospel of Judas.

Jesus did as He said he would. He died and rose up again, that is all the proof we need of Him being true.

There are so many books written by specialist who have investigated all of this.
So who are we to say this is false.

Even the books of the Old Testament where written hundreds of years before the ones of the New Testament.

So how come all happened that has been foretold

Psalm 22 is a perfect proof of it.
Read it and see what happened to Jesus in his final hours.

Peace out.
All that counts is the final truth and one day we will all know it.
take kia

[b]Fellow Christains,       

A saint (ST. Thomas de Aqunas)onced said '' Faith without Reasoning is hell'' Crictical reasoning of de bible does not make one a Sinner or Anti-Christain or whatever! Yes the bible was Inspired by God, but was written by man. And man has limitation and is subject to errors and mistakes. Based on the Topic of this thread''Judas betrayal to Jesus'',

The questions are 1. Was it Program That Jesus should be betrayed? If yes, Why should Judas be blamed when he was chosen to do that?
2.If Christ death on cross was to Redemed Mankind,Then Judas should be made Saint Cause he actually has a hand in Salvation?
3.Did God Programmed Christ Death on Cross? if yes, But he said 'thou Shall not kill'?

In my answers and Opinons to those issues are:
1. The bible or rather the scripts was altered to suit the teaching of early church by the Romans! Those scripts was compiled  before 15th century and was called Bible, Martin lurther Challenged some injuctions and some scripts and declared some uninspired

2. Christ death was not programmed rather he forsee what will happen as events moves on ( remember Man was giving free will) beside one can predicit what will happen as event moves on!
3. Judas was not chosen to betray Jesus,but with his lust for earthly things and Thinking that Jesus was to bring the jews out of captivity from the Roman Empirer ,also believing that with his divine power and popurality Jesus may escape death,when all this failed, he(Judas) felt guilty and hang himself!(he has a chance to repent)
4. Jesus was not program to died on cross and God did not Sanction or justified his killing, Rather What the jews did was Pure and Blue MURDER! YES Jesus Christ Was Murdered by the Jews! That is why is he prayed ''Father Forgive Them  For They Know Not What They Re Doing''.

GOD's Law is Pure , Perfect and Unchangeable'' Thou Shall not Kill''

Yes he death on cross brings about Salvation, because He (Jesus Christ) Stood Firmly on his Words and Teachings; and his acceptance to Died brings Convictions on his teaching and those who believes in his words and teachings and lived accordingly Is SAVED![/b]

That was Christ work for Redemption and His blood on the cross did not cleanse the sins of the earth.

jagunlabi:

Very true.

nferyn link=topic=10074.msg292513#msg292513 date=1145046482:

Not true. the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb. For that rejection of the intermediary role of the orthodox catholic church on their road to salvation, they were persecuted, imprisoned maimed and killed.
Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

Gentlemen, it seems to me that for the mere sake of arguments you're polarised to believing what you neither know for certain nor understand, as long as they offer you the excuse of doubting the NT naratives in favour of the Gnostics. Let me amicably share some vital information that you seem to be ignoring.

nferyn:

Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

Your assertion here is neither true nor based on a factual understanding of Gnosticism. I hesitate to quote wikipedia because the article there is amateur and quite limiting (see the disclaimer at top of that page). However, wikipedia agrees with standard sources that Gnosticism predates Christianity and is "a mixing of rites and myths from a variety of religious traditions, combining Occultism, Oriental Mysticism, astrology, magic, elements from Jewish tradition, Christian views of redemption, and even aspects of Plato's doctrine that man is not at home in the bodily realm." In one word, it is a mystical syncretism - a mixture of various opposing religious and occultic elements. Gnostics never believed that "salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ" - whether as the intermediary to God, or anything else. The role of Christ in Gnostic interpretation does not go beyond esoteric interpretations in which He could save nobody but Himself, and others following His example could possibly save themselves through the same knowledge of themselves. . . which is not what Christ came to preach (see Matt.19:25-26).

nferyn:

the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb.

Again, this assumption is not true because the Gnostics did not reject any authoritarian structure of the pontificate, but rather had their own structure. Most so-called Gnostic Christians do not base their authority or principles on Christ but rather on those purported to have been the founders or fathers of gnostic mystical teachings, such as Simon Magnus (who was thought to have been a magician), and Carpocrates (who encouraged the practice of free sexuality and taught reincarnation). Indeed, many gnostic teachings were surpressed by the Roman Christian leaders, such as Marcion's doctrine that the death of Christ on the cross was only a hallucination, since (he supposed) Jesus did not have a physical body; and also Marcion's rejection of marriage. You should understand that the Gnostics themselves contradicted one another on countless issues, which I'll share with you in just a moment.


Do the Gnostic Teachings Make Sense?

Among the now 34 gnostic materials that I've personally read, there are widely differing and contradictory ideas in them. Some people would like to assert that the gnostics alone truly understood Christ's message while other streams of Christianity are all wrong. But here's a sample of how the Gospel of Thomas purports to have recorded Jesus' view of women when Peter suggested that Mary should leave them:

"² Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit
resembling you males. ³For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."
(Gospel of Thomas, v.114).

So, according to the gnostic gospel of Thomas, no female enters into heaven unless she changes her sex and becomes a male! Does that make sense? There are quite a number of such mystical sayings in this manuscript that I'm surprised that those who count the NT as politically motivated and corrupted have not been able to iinterprete and make sense in the gnostic writings. Here's another of those mystic verses:

"Jesus said to them, 'If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves,
²and if you pray, you will be condemned,
³and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
(Gospel of Thomas, v.14).

In order words, fasting is a sin, prayer brings condemnation, and giving to charity harms the spirit of the giver! Even if you don't believe in Christ or the Bible, there's only one spirit behind these sayings that is trying to stop people from fasting, praying, and being benevolent - it's none other than the devil! It does not surprise me that many people who say that the gnostics give the true interpretation of Christianity have not actually read the gnostics before they condemn the Bible. And that is the amazing thing about such prejudices. Let's talk as gentlemen who know the facts before making statements that are biased.

jagunlabi:

I am afraid,you're the one doing the dribbling.I have made my own point crystal clear in my previous posts.but if you have chosen to dance around the points i have laid down,then that is left to you.
I will repeat it once again,Judas did not betray Jesus(according to this manuscript),but collaborated with Jesus to fullfil his goal.The motivation of Judas for doing what he did is the key here,what makes the significant difference to what was written in the three gospels of the NT.
The latest information i got about this theme is that the greek word used in the original greek texts from which all the gospels were translated was the verb "PARADIDONAI".A verb that means "to hand over" in english.There was nothing like the verb "to betray" in the original greek texts.That verb was later added into the later translations.
Now you can start your dribbling.

@jagunlabi, it's not new and often you get your info from polarised sources that hardly get the facts right. The verb "betray" and its derivatives were well in use in Greek and Aramaic languages before the NT was written; and kindred words like "traitor" [PRODOTES] were also in use at the time. They were not added into the later translations but have been in use among Greek scholars and philosphers of their day; so who ever was telling you that there was nothing like the verb 'to betray' in the original Greek texts either did not do their homework well, or simply wanted to be biased and ignore the facts. That said, there are a few observations I'd like to share with you:

(1) you spoke of "the original greek texts from which all the gospels were translated" - Since you didn't leave any sources to butress your claims, consider this: Several greek lexicons, Bible concordances and hebrew & greek study helps (examples: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and Young's Analytical Concordance) have the word "PARADIDOMI" in the following texts where they appear in the NT. The word primarily means "to give over to" (or "to hand over" as you suggested), and is correctly translated "betray/betrayed" in the English Bibles. [If you can take the time, see the list below at the end of my reply].

The word also has a Hebrew equivalent (RAMAH) and is translated with the same English word "betray" as in I Chron.12:17 -

"And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto them, If ye be come peaceably
unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray [ramah] me
to mine enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon,
and rebuke it."

The word "ramah" is not simply to deliver or 'to hand over', but rather connotes the idea of giving someone over to the enemy. This 'delivering up' into the hand of the enemy is what makes the words "ramah" (Hebrew) and "paradidomi" (Greek) equivalents to the English "betray." The same word is interpretated variously as 'betray' or 'deliver up' (as in Matt.24:9 - "Then shall they deliver (paradidomi) you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."__and Matt.24:10 - "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray (paradidomi) one another, and shall hate one another". When Steven accused the maddening crowd of murdering Jesus, he used the kindred word [PRODOTES] in Acts 7:52: "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers (prodotes)and murderers."

jagunlabi:

I will repeat it once again,Judas did not betray Jesus(according to this manuscript),but collaborated with Jesus to fullfil his goal.The motivation of Judas for doing what he did is the key here,what makes the significant difference to what was written in the three gospels of the NT.

(2) Jesus called Judas much more than a betrayer.

If Jesus had a 'secret' discourse with Judas for a so-called "collaboration", how come you have failed to give us the original greek word for "collaborated" in the original greek text from which the Gospel of Judas was translated? Even if the verb to betray was later added to the NT translations (which is not the case), what sense would Judas' collaboration have made if he did not betray Jesus? Would it make any sense for Jesus on several occasions to afterward have referred to Judas as a 'devil', and that it were better that he had not been born? (John 6:70 and Matt. 26:24). Not only was Judas a betrayer, he was a thief as well (John 12:6).

From the foregoing, there's no going round the facts - Judas was not the author of the Judas text; he did not "collaborate" with Jesus in the betrayal, but rather betrayed Him

______________________\\_________________________//___________________________


Texts where PARADIDOMI appears in the NT:

Matthew: Mark:
Matt. 10:4 Mark 3:19
Matt. 17:22 Mark 14:10, 11, 18, 21, 41, 42, 44
Matt. 20:18
Matt. 26:2, 16, 21, 23, 24 25, 45, 46, 48
Matt. 27:3, 4
Matt. 26:15 (same word "PARADIDOMI" but translated "deliver"

Luke John
Luke 22:4, 6, 21, 22, 48 John 6:64, 71
John 12: 4
I Corinthians John 13:2, 11, 21
I Cor. 11:23 John 18:2, 5
John 21:20

The word PARADIDOMI was also used for other people apart from Judas:
Matt. 24:10; Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16; Acts 7:52.

You'll find the kindred word PRODOTES (translated as "traitor/traitors" in the following -
Luke 6:16 and II Tim. 3:4 (traitors)

@ welborn,

Thank you for your insightful contributions, but you seem to be missing the the gist of my arguments because I did not provide a proper context.
1. Obviously I was talking about the Christian gnostics, not about the gnostics in other religious traditions, the fact that gnostcism predates Christianity is irrelevant, Judaism also predates Christianity.
2. I do not favor the gnostic interpretations over the orthodox interpretations. I find both equally unsubstantiated. There is no convincing evidence even for the mere existence of a historical Christ. The only contemporary source outside of the Christian apologetical literature that mentioned Jesus is Flavius Jospehus and it is not unlikely that these texts were doctored to suit an orthodox Christian political agenda.
3. My arguments only touch on the relative legitimacy of Chrsitian gnosticism in relation to orthodoxy. When people make it look like these documents originate in a fringe movement that is anti-Christian and has less right to be call Christian, they are categorically wrong. It's the same kind of reasoning that would label Catholicism non-Christian.
4. Christian gnostics did reject the authority of the pontificate and the premacy of Peter and his followers. It was diametrically opposed to their beliefs.
5. There is no justification for the relentless and violent persecution of the Christian gnostics, regardless of their beliefs. The main reason for this persecution is the challenge they posed to absolute autority of the orthodox church
6. When reading Gnostic texts, you cannot just treat them in a literal sense. The heart of gnosticism lies in the deep study and inner knowledge thus obtained. A casual, decontextualised reading of these texts really does not make sense, especially when you use the canonised texts as your yardstick (not that I'm interested in doing so, my interest is merely historical.

@nferyn,

Many thanks for your responses, and my comments to the points you raised are thus:

(1) I knew you most probably meant Christian gnostics in your earlier input and I could provide you with lots of sources for the distinction. However, it really does not change the way you handled the idea of gnosticism - or Christian gnosticism for that matter. Even so, 'Christian gnostics' did not believe that salvation was possible through knowledge of Christ or anyone as you had stated earlier:

Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

(2) You're one of the few who does not favour the gnostics over the NT or vice versa - I guessed so earlier, but my statements were broader than just referring to you. Further, you surprise me with the statement that "There is no convincing evidence even for the mere existence of a historical Christ," for that is the recycled theory of such fellows at the infidels.org and others which have no erudite scholarship to the point. Without any bias or polarisations to the Christian view, I'd urge you to check up non-prejudicial and non-Christian references for the following:

- Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD)

- Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD

- Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD)

- Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul

- Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

These are usually a few on the list that people avoid or ignore or excuse away when discussing the historicity of Christ. One thing any unbiased scholar or historian would tell you is that the Romans were thorough investigators and had zero tolerance for accepting myth as truth. If Christ never existed as a historical figure, Pontus Pilate under whom He suffered would also be a myth. Even some 'scholars' have vigorously contested that Nazareth was a historical geographic location - but archeological findings have shut them up. No, my dear friend, Flavius Josephus was not the only source (contemporary or otherwise) to have mentioned Jesus, neither was that even a doctored document - you'd have to prove that your statements about this are historically certain, because I've read and heard that many times from people who simply just want to ignore the facts.

(3) As far as 'the relative legitimacy of Christian gnosticism' is concerned as a historical fact, your point here is carried, to be fair to you. However, I'll make a little addendum to it. Before you could properly call a movement 'Christian' you'd have to come up with a legitimate definition of the term. The Islamic and Bahai faiths also acknowledge the validity of some of the teachings of Jesus - but does that make them legitimately 'Christian'? In just about the same way, you could not make this push that gnosticism (even the so-called 'Christian gnosticism') was legitimately and properly Christian. Refer to my findings about gnosticism earlier - it is a "mystical syncretism - a mixture of various opposing religious and occultic elements" including 'Christian' elements. In fair exchange, you could not refer to gnosticism as legitimately 'Christian' just because they adopted certain elements from the Christian community.

(4) Again, I'd give that to you with a little addendum
Notice that your sources (forgive my ignorance as I don't know for a certain what sources you might've been getting your points from) are only interpreting/re-interpreting facts. Without much argument, I'd concede that the 'Christian gnostics' rejected the authority of early Christian leaders (not just the pontificate or the primacy of Peter) - for the simple reason that gnostic religious experience was "diametrically opposed to their (Christian) beliefs" - as you noted. However, the gnostics who did not see Christ as the principal figure of their religious experiences were more inclined to their own gnostic leaders - Simon Magnus, Marcion, et al. To ignore this fact and make broad generalizations is to make Peter, John, Paul and the other early leaders "Gnostic persecutors", which is hardly the case. Remember that these Christian leaders were themselves persecuted and murdered by the Roman authorities who were non-tolerant of Christianity.

(5) The same point as (4) above. Should I add also that "there is no justification for the relentless and violent persecution" of the early Christians and their leaders - Peter, Paul, John, and several others who were murdered in despicable manners, and some thrown to lions in theatrical entertainment in the Roman amphitheater and colosseum.

(6) Now you come back to precisely my point about gnosticism - "The heart of gnosticism lies in the deep study and inner knowledge thus obtained". This is why I earlier mentioned that Gnosticism did not view Christ as Saviour or Intermediary. Gnostics (even 'Christian gnostics') believed that salvation was not in Christ but in each person - each person was to save themselves (to put it bluntly). I do not use the canonical texts (the Bible) as my yardstick in trying to make sense of the Gnostic documents; but as you observed, anyone reading the gnostic materials (even without having read the Bible) comes away with a feeling of not having understood them. This is why Elaine Pagels and her team who are making so much noise about the legitimacy of the Gnostic Gospels have not been able to arrive at a coherent interpretation of their teachings.

nferyn, thank you once again for your food for thought and opinions. If I have been somewhat prejudicial, I beg your forgiveness o note it wasn't intentional - we are all apprentice scholars who want to make good sense in matters of life.

Kind regards.

@ welborn

Thanks for your prompt reply. Anyway, let me address the issues you raised. Most seem to stem from having different perspectives, rather than a disagreement on the facts. The premacy and role of the figure of Christ is indeed one of the fundamental elements which separate Christian Gnostics from orthodox Christians.

1. In many cases Gnostics did not regard Christ as a historical figure, but rather as a pure aetheral force that allows them to bridge the Gap between the divine and the material world. Earl Doherty in his J[i]esus Puzzle[/i] even goes that far to hypothesise that Paul's writings were gnostic in nature and that portrayals of Christ as a historical figure were later (deliberate) translation errors or insertions (unfortunately, I am in no position to judge the merits of his claim).
The way the New testament was codified (e.g. the struggle between Arius and Athaniasus over the divinity of Christ) shows that what actually ended up in the New testament was very much an outcome of political meandering and that the search for the divine inspiration in these writings was a very earthly matter.
In that context stating that knowledge of Christ made it possible to reach an understanding of the divine is very much a Christian gnostic point of view. Orthodox Christianity can label this as knowledge of self, but it is mainly a rejection of the position of the orthodox church as arbiter.

2. You talking about a recycled theory is a bit of the mark. When you take a position (Christ is a historical figure), you need to bring sufficient affirmative evidence. The evidence available for the historical existence of Christ does not meet contemporary standards of historical evidence. There is no archaeological evidence of Christ' existence and the secundary sources are highly dubious.
I really don't understand what standards you apply to consider infidels.org a priori a source of non erudite scholarship? Do you care to ellaborate on what your standards are and why you think they don't match your standards?
If you do have facts attesting to the historicity of Jesus, please do bring them to the table, I would be very interested to know about them.

3. You categorisation of Christian Gnosticism as less Christian is an a posteriori labeling based on who is the victor of the struggles between the different sects of early Christianity. I agree that they are less Christian in our current understanding of Christianity, but that does not lessen their claims to the message of Christ in their time. The fact that the orthodox Christians were persecuted prior to the adoptation of Christianity as state religion does not wipe away the fact that what remained of the gnostic movements were vigorously erradicated after the orthodox gained power. It is only relatively recently that many of the original writings of gnosticism have been rediscovered. Most copies were burned together with their owners.

4. No disagreement here. It's a matter of perspective.

5. Fully agree, it's only sad to see that the orthodox became persecuters themselves after they gained power.

6. It is probably impossible for us to really have a proper understanding of these gnostic texts in context. As our ways of thinking are so different from what was common at that time and because of the hermetic nature of these writings, we probably won't make much sense out of them, as long as not more source material surfaces.

Anyway, I very much enjoy your contributions. they always make you think deeper about your positions.

Best Regards

I could write a thesis on religion citing Nairaland users nferyn and welborn as references. Please continue.

My dear nferyn,

That was a good rejoinder you posted, and I'll be first to concede that we are seeing things and interpreting historical antecedents from differing frequencies of application. Let me make the following observations as well:

(1) There are several 'scholars' besides Earl Doherty and Elaine Pagels who posit such hypotheses as Paul's writings being gnostic in nature and the error insertions in translations. What is interesting is that such scholars, including Earl Doherty himself, would come back to counter those claims in other 'researches' they conduct and postulate. I've read quite a few and if you have the time you may want to read other non-Christian authors/works on the same subject like:

¤ The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told - by S. Acharya.
¤ Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" - by Earl Doherty.

In the latter case, Doherty leaves more questions than answers as he failed to give any hint about any academic or legal proficiency on his part at all. Observe carefully that the authorities he refers to are mostly folks of the Jesus Seminar group, whom even other non-Christian scholars can't trust in any erudite scholarstic sense! Not only so, but by appealing to these latter groups for proving his point, he actually defeats himself because his working hypothesis is that Jesus was a myth, whereas the Jesus Seminar believed that He existed (even though they debate the accuracy of the NT).

Now the question is, if errors were inserted in later translations, what were the original words in the texts? You ought to have the 'original texts' to prove that something was an error. This is something that the likes of Elaine Pagels, Earl Doherty, the Jesus Seminar group, S. Acharya, and several others have not been able to answer. You're more likely to get a migraine from the excuses they banter about than have a straight answer as to how they came about the 'error insertion' hypothesis.

Let me even ask you, nferyn - have you studied Paul's writings for yourself before agreeing that they are gnostic in nature? I'd be interested to see a concise outline of your own scholarship on this.

(2) The secondary sources which you claim are highly dubious are the same sources that Elaine Pagels and the Jesus Seminar group reference in most of their works. For the infidels.org sources in reference to the historicity of Christ, I've read statements like, "such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales." (by Marshall J. Gauvin). What you should understand is that Gauvin is being arrogant and does not have the facts before being so garrulous. Excuse me, but what does he mean by "every independent thinker in the world"? Does he really know every independent thinker in the world? Is that what one would call scholarship? And when he posits that these thinkers rely on experience, you'd hardly find Gauvin himself relying on experience but just playing cacophony. When a person is stating facts based on historical antecedence without prejudice, perhaps that's one mark of scholarship; the rest is left to anyone's interpretation. Fact: Jesus actually existed. Prejudice: There was no mention of him anywhere! Research: what do the archeogical findings by non-Christian scholars show? - There was such a figure known as Jesus. Otherwise the Romans would be a myth and Pontus Pilate would be a fairy tale.

(3) Well, then I'd ask you to do just one simple thing: what was the message of Christ? Did the gnostics preach that message? "After the orthodox gained power" is always the reference appealed to by some who want to legitimize the gnostics as apostolic Christianity. It's all here a matter of interpretations, and the persecution you're referring to did not arise from apostolic Christianity. The gnostic movements were a distinct group (legitimate in the sense that they existed in history) from apotolic Christianity; they were not persecuted by the apostles or thrown out of Christianity - they left on their own accord (cf. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.". Please don't try to confuse the facts: 3rd century persecution is not the same as 1st century persecution. Apostolic Christianity was not tolerated by the various secular governments of the day; and only later did the Roman civil leaders try to use it to their political advantage.

(4) and (5) - great.

(6) oh, you bet - more source material are bound to surface. To date I've read over 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas; 43 other 'Gospels' of gnostic affiliation, and I've just obtained a copy of the Gospel of Judas in English which I'm yet to touch because of my busy schedules. But I agree with you that we probably won't make much sense of the gnostics as we all have various perspectives of looking at the issue.

Thank you for your patience and tolerance. Not many people with atheistic or agnostic leanings (sorry if I'm gravely mistaken about your position) have displayed the level of rationality and sensible discussion as you have.

Warmly.

A question for all;
Should Judas - on the face of this new manuscript - be rehabilitated and be made a saint?

Quite a number of theologians have been fighting for his rehab for decades now,and there are rumours now that the pontificate is considering it.
What are your thoughts on this.

the fact that something was written hundreds of years ago doesn't make it not crap.
Satan entered Judas and Judas betrayed Jesus Christ. It wasn't inspired by God or Jesus.
It was allowed by God for the purpose of Christ death.

God knew Satan hated Christ enough to want him dead, what Satan didnt know was that in killing Christ who carried mans sins on the cross he freed us all and gave us new life, new hope , new love and a new home.

satan in order to kill jesus needed a man. and he found the man in a willing Judas. whose character traits already made him a prime candidate. The bible says Satan entered him. He betrayed Jesus and Jesus died and rose. Judas killed himself.

Judas is in hell. Jesus is in heaven. I'm on my way to heaven to meet him. I love him and he loves me

nferyn

you are so widely read, but i fear for you.
your search for truth has lead you so far from that which is true.
Never trust your intelligence, you're just a man and when you die you'll be forgotten like all men.
sit still he will come to you.

jagunlabi:

A question for all;
Should Judas - on the face of this new manuscript - be rehabilitated and be made a saint?

Quite a number of theologians have been fighting for his rehab for decades now,and there are rumours now that the pontificate is considering it.
What are your thoughts on this.

@jagunlabi, you've asked a very sane question, infact one that is scheduled as a seminar topic we've been assigned in our preliminary research for next week. I baulked out of it because there was insufficient material to gather for my paper at this time. But a few thoughts came to mind:

On what basis would the Gospel of Judas be accepted as a true representation of the event(s) that led to Jesus crucifixion? For one thing, the author of the Judas text has not been verified, and there are no pointers (besides the text itself) that Judas was a saint. If I have to look outside the NT sources and the OT prophecies of Jesus' betrayal (such as Zech. 11:12-13), there has not been a hint as far as I know that Judas proved to be anything than what the NT says of him.

There have been a few debates between theologians and among the Pontificate towards a possible consideration of a rehab of Judas. However, the latest I heard was that it is fast receiving a negative vote. Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, spearheaded the call for the Judas rehab; while Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, opposes the rehab campaign. The latter claims it was "dangerous to re-evaulate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers." ([url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1981591,00.html]see the article here[/url] and scroll down to see relevant section, or do a search yourself).

On the whole, it would be difficult for me as a Christian to view Judas as a saint if there are no independent sources yet to prove that he was not a thief or of questionable character as the NT says of him (see Luke 6:16 & John 12:6).

I thought this thread has ended o, i didnt know that my guy jagulabi was still rooting for Judas!

[b][size=16pt]Hey, Hey, Hey, Easter is Over, Judas is Dead, Jesus is Alive, [/[/size]b]

@jagunalbi and his Judas crew - the only thing you can do about that is NoThInG

On a more serious note: what is happening here is a candid example of why Nigeria is not progressing. I can see that the Judas Crew is still laboring to prove what judas himself did not bother to wait and prove. He killed himself. He committed murder. Murder is a sin.

@jagunlabi

JUDAS WAS AND IS A CHRISTIAN HERO!

rephrase - Judas is your hero, and yours only, not of Christians!!!
You know you havent really explained yourself. From the quality time you have spent promoting falsehood about Jesus Christ on Nairaland, if you could use this to do some quality research into Science and technology, maybe you could change something in this world, and earn yourself an extra pay. You havent told us whether you are a Muslim or whaever religion you profess, but all you've had to waste your time saying on the past 5-threads clearly show you are not a Christian.

You had even mentioned that you attended "Services" and no one needed to tell you what goes on in Church. You havent clarified who is the babalawo pastor of that service, and what kind of fairy tale your pastor reads to you, because its clearly not the Bible.

So since you are not a Christian, what is the importance of Judas being a hero or a villain in the Christian story? Since Jesus has no relevance to you, why are you bothered about Judas. As i said, this is a candid example of how we like problem here in Nigeria, the kind of problem that God himself didnt toast us with, we carry it and put it on our head. You are not going to prove to the whole wide world that Judas helped Jesus in any way. Nairaland is not going to get you to the heights of blasphemy you wish to achieve.

I can suppose you are in the team of a certain Reverand here on Nairaland promoting a new doctrine that Mary Magdalene and Jesus had some love-thing going on together. See, why don't you put your papers right with that Reverend. If two of you can argue on a point, maybe you can make the Sun turn red. He's talking about Jesus in a relationship with Mary magdalene, and you're talking about Jesus and Judas. After you finish this topic, whats the next one you'll talk about.

You have contradicted yourself many times. O boy, at least even if one has to tell a lie, you should have known the kind of lie, and the magnitude of your former tale before you add another one to the story.

Oga Ijele

Was it Program That Jesus should be betrayed? If yes

Yes

Why should Judas be blamed when he was chosen to do that?

Judas was not chosen by anybody to betray Jesus. He chose Himself. The Bible never mentioned that a certain disciple Bleep will betray the Lord. Nobody's name was penned down. Its like this: twas never written of any armed robber that he/she would become one and rot in jail. The day that person decided to deviate from the right path, he became vile.

If Christ death on cross was to Redemed Mankind,Then Judas should be made Saint Cause he actually has a hand in Salvation?

You don't even understand your own question

Did God Programmed Christ Death on Cross? if yes, But he said 'thou Shall not kill'?

God did not kill Jesus. Man, out of the wickedness of his heart did. But God knew that man would do it, thats why twas already prophesied that the Jesus would "die" for the sins of mankind. The Bible says, without the shedding of blood, theres no remission for sin. The offering of a sacrifice(animal) was a practice in Israel, read your Bible very well,

@welborn
don't waste your time with these peeps, i mean Jagunlabi and the Judas crew. They aint ready to listen. Its like when you see a mand man smiling to you on the street, you'll make yourself just like he is if you start smiling back.

@nightrider

Judas is in hell. Jesus is in heaven. I'm on my way to heaven to meet him. I love him and he loves me

Judas just appointed some new lawyers and Jagunlabi is the Chief counsel. He wants his judgment in hell to be thrown out of court. O boy, its too late. 

Judas is in Hell, Jagunlabi, theres nothing you can do about it
Jesus is in Heaven, Jagunlabi, theres nothing you can do about it

who would you like to partner with, would you prefer to go see Judas at the end of time, and continue this discussion with him, till the end of eternity, or you'll rather choose the Son of God, Jesus is His name,

the ball is in your court o,

very well said kimba.

it's a waste of time arguing with these peeps. Spritual things is foolishness to a carnal mind.

welborn:

My dear nferyn,

That was a good rejoinder you posted, and I'll be first to concede that we are seeing things and interpreting historical antecedents from differing frequencies of application. Let me make the following observations as well:

(1) There are several 'scholars' besides Earl Doherty and Elaine Pagels who posit such hypotheses as Paul's writings being gnostic in nature and the error insertions in translations. What is interesting is that such scholars, including Earl Doherty himself, would come back to counter those claims in other 'researches' they conduct and postulate. I've read quite a few and if you have the time you may want to read other non-Christian authors/works on the same subject like:

¤ The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told - by S. Acharya.
¤ Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" - by Earl Doherty.

In the latter case, Doherty leaves more questions than answers as he failed to give any hint about any academic or legal proficiency on his part at all. Observe carefully that the authorities he refers to are mostly folks of the Jesus Seminar group, whom even other non-Christian scholars can't trust in any erudite scholarstic sense! Not only so, but by appealing to these latter groups for proving his point, he actually defeats himself because his working hypothesis is that Jesus was a myth, whereas the Jesus Seminar believed that He existed (even though they debate the accuracy of the NT).

Can you please ellaborate on what you consider appropriate academic proficiency, as this is not clear to me. The same goes for trusting in and erudit scholaristic sense: the meaning of that sentence somewhat elludes me.
Pointing out that Doherty defeats himself [b]because [/b]he uses sources that do not subscribe to his hypothesis is incorrect. There is no logical connection between the two.
If I can find the time, I might consider reading those books you presented, but I would rather see convincing positive evidence in favor of the existence of a historical Christ than to delve into apologetics and counter apologetics. It is not a very productive use of my time.

welborn:

Now the question is, if errors were inserted in later translations, what were the original words in the texts? You ought to have the 'original texts' to prove that something was an error. This is something that the likes of Elaine Pagels, Earl Doherty, the Jesus Seminar group, S. Acharya, and several others have not been able to answer. You're more likely to get a migraine from the excuses they banter about than have a straight answer as to how they came about the 'error insertion' hypothesis.

You indeed need to have access to the original text to prove [/b]that something is in error. Science never works with definive proofs, but rather with convincing evidence. Anyway, could you expain what excuses they come up with, as the methods of historical criticism and textual interpretation do give some hints concerning the likelyhood of insertions and copying errors.
Fact remains that the historical authenticity and accuracy needs to be established first, before you can start talking about truths. External evidence is needed in these cases, something that is missing when you consider the accuracy of events as depicted in the gospels (canonical or apocryphical for that matter). The only definitive thing that can be said is that it is not entirely unikely that a historical Christ did exist, anything that goes beyond that is pure speculation.

welborn:

Let me even ask [b]you, nferyn - have you studied Paul's writings for yourself before agreeing that they are gnostic in nature? I'd be interested to see a concise outline of your own scholarship on this.

No, not extensively. My scholarship is limited to a an overal knowledge of the scientific method, some insight into historical criticism and a more in depth knowledge of the methods used in the social sciences. Of course, if you want to consider basic knowledge of proposition logic, philosophy and argumentation techniques scholarship, you can count that as scholarship as well. In short, I'm reasonably well read and have a functioning brain.
I am not really in favor of argumentations ad verecundiam. I am fully capable of examining arguments on their merits without having to rely on authority.

welborn:

(2) The secondary sources which you claim are highly dubious are the same sources that Elaine Pagels and the Jesus Seminar group reference in most of their works.

So? in the absence of evidence, one cannot state a position with any authority. The absence of positive evidence is an indication of the rationality of the contrary position though.

welborn:

For the infidels.org sources in reference to the historicity of Christ, I've read statements like, "such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales." (by Marshall J. Gauvin). What you should understand is that Gauvin is being arrogant and does not have the facts before being so garrulous.

What facts are you talking about here? I do not follow your reasoning. I've read the text and even though the polemic style may be a bit overblown, I do not see anything of substance I would not agree with. Could you bring any contrary evidence?

welborn:

Excuse me, but what does he mean by "every independent thinker in the world"? Does he really know every independent thinker in the world? Is that what one would call scholarship? And when he posits that these thinkers rely on experience, you'd hardly find Gauvin himself relying on experience but just playing cacophony.

Please do not turn this into an ad hominem attack based on Gauvin's polemic style, but rather provide contrary evidence. The level of argumentation you have displayed thus far would only merit such an approach.

welborn:

When a person is stating facts based on historical antecedence without prejudice, perhaps that's one mark of scholarship; the rest is left to anyone's interpretation.

What facts are you referring to here?

welborn:

Fact: Jesus actually existed.

I would rather say that it is probable that a historical Jesus did exist. This is not a historical fact. Napoleon Bonaparte existed. That is a historical fact. Jesus' existence does not have sufficient evidence to merit the label fact.

welborn:

Prejudice: There was no mention of him anywhere! Research: what do the archeogical findings by non-Christian scholars show? - There was such a figure known as Jesus.

I am not aware of these findings. Can you show me where to find them?

welborn:

Otherwise the Romans would be a myth and Pontus Pilate would be a fairy tale.

Why? There is nothing that merits such a conclusion.

welborn:

(3) Well, then I'd ask you to do just one simple thing: what was the message of Christ? Did the gnostics preach that message? "After the orthodox gained power" is always the reference appealed to by some who want to legitimize the gnostics as apostolic Christianity. It's all here a matter of interpretations, and the persecution you're referring to did not arise from apostolic Christianity.

Actually the persecution did come from apostolic Christianity, but only after it had been established as State religion.
Whether or not gnostic Christianity is legitimate is indeed a matter of perspective, but the fact that only apostoic Christianity survived should not be the measure of this dispute.

welborn:

The gnostic movements were a distinct group (legitimate in the sense that they existed in history) from apotolic Christianity; they were not persecuted by the apostles or thrown out of Christianity - they left on their own accord (cf. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.".

This is obviously writen from an orthodox perspective and does not settle any claims to legitimacy. It would be like claiming that only Islam represents the true message of God and that Christianity and Judaism are not legitimate.

welborn:

Please don't try to confuse the facts: 3rd century persecution is not the same as 1st century persecution. Apostolic Christianity was not tolerated by the various secular governments of the day; and only later did the Roman civil leaders try to use it to their political advantage.

I would not call the governments of that time secular, not by any stretch of the imagination Anyway, it would be unfair to call the persecution of non-christians in the late Roman empire a civil affair. Religion and politics were very much woven together and aiding each others objectives.

welborn:

(4) and (5) - great.

(6) oh, you bet - more source material are bound to surface. To date I've read over 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas; 43 other 'Gospels' of gnostic affiliation, and I've just obtained a copy of the Gospel of Judas in English which I'm yet to touch because of my busy schedules. But I agree with you that we probably won't make much sense of the gnostics as we all have various perspectives of looking at the issue.

You have my admiration for your intellectual labour. I'm too much of a rationalist to delve into this mystical realm, except out of historical interest.

welborn:

Thank you for your patience and tolerance. Not many people with atheistic or agnostic leanings (sorry if I'm gravely mistaken about your position) have displayed the level of rationality and sensible discussion as you have.

I am very much in your debt for debating these issues on their merits, instead of altogether refusing the debate with an atheist. I am really surprised though that you have not yet found atheists that would debate these issues rationally and sensibly. I would have expected the opposite. Civility and openness go a long way

welborn:

Warmly.

Most definitely very enjoyable and insightful.

nightrider:

nferyn

you are so widely read, but i fear for you.
your search for truth has lead you so far from that which is true.
Never trust your intelligence, you're just a man and when you die you'll be forgotten like all men.
sit still he will come to you.

Nightrider, thank you for your concern, but you don't need to worry. maybe we just have different ways of establishing truth. Mine is based solely on the application of my reasoning skills on the material available to me.
Logic and the scientific method suit me perfectly. Anything that is beyond that quickly becomes too intangible to call it more than speculation.

PS: I do not categorically exclude the divine, it just hasn't been very convincing uptill now.

do you believe you have a spirit?

nightrider:

do you believe you have a spirit?

I cannot answer that question, as I do not know what a spirit is.

a spirit is the being inhabiting the body. it's the real you. and when you die, it leaves your body.

in astral travelling , diabolique people make their spirits leave their bodies and travel to various locations.

A friend of mine used to practise it. he said when his spirit left his body there was a long silver cord attached from his spirit to his body. That still connected him to the body. he told me that if the cord should cut , his body would die.

this silver cord is mentioned in ecclesiastes in the bible by King solomon.

The spirit never dies, it is immortal. Your body dies, but your spirit lives.
do you believe it

@nferyn,

Thanks once again for taking the time to go through my presentation and posting a reply.

However, the whole discussion rests on one premise - the nature of the tools employed in investigation. We see things from different lines of reasoning, and you have not been able to follow my perspective on a few things. At the moment, there are lots occupying me in my busy schedule. But it would be good to read those books I recommended in my earlier post, after which you may decide for yourself if Earl Doherty and S. Acharya were objective in their approaches to their subjects. I hold my comments until then.

Second, since you do not have access to the original text, it is somewhat astonishing that you'd rather be polarised to believing that something is in error by mere specualtion. It's true that I don't have the original texts either; but why do I believe that the Bible says what it says and is by itself true in what it says? I'll give you a few of my reasons -

¤ the power of its statement.
The Bible is not a book devoted to intellectual exercises - it speaks to the heart in such a way that its power
transcends scientific investigation. At least, I know that science is a very limited tool for investigating world
phenomena; and if you'd be objective enough to admit it, no scientist worth his salt has been able to explicate
the non-scientific phenomena of healing by prayer. This may sound all gross to you; but nferyn, I've personally
been healed and so I know why I believe that the Bible is true in its declaration.

¤ the power of its evidence
What you call 'convincing evidence' will continue to elude you if you're accustomed to believe the skeptical denial
that outside sources have given to authenticate the Bible, at least in part. First, you posited that only
Flavius Josephus made mention of Christ; and then you seemed to have ignored the list I proffered of Cornelius
Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the younger, Emperor Hadrian, and Ignatius. Even when you might seem to have conceded
that those documents exist as outside evidence that Jesus did exist, you wrote them off as "it is not entirely
unikely that a historical Christ did exist." Again, I want to hold my comments until you have personally read
these full works yourself; and if you're objective enough, you'll see that you've been paying too much attention
to skepticism for your own good. (no harm meant).

In addition to the power of its evidence, if Jesus Christ did not exist and Christianity is a hoax all along, how is
it that my personal experience proves that praying in the name of Jesus Christ has the results of the power
in that Name as I read of in the Bible? How do you explain that? If you have experienced something personally
for yourself, even when you cannot measure the experience scientifically, you will not broadly deny its reality.

¤ the power of its coherence
Let's even for a moment allow the joke that the gnostic material have their own value as properly Christian,
why do the gnostic advocates consistently fail to interpret its message? I'm not a gnostic; so it's not mine
to interpret the gnostic gospels. However, as a Christian, the Bible makes a much more coherent collective
sense - and any unbiased reader can see that. That's why I asked you earlier if you have studied Paul's
epistles before making the statements you made earlier; more often than not, so many people go by what
skeptic novels say about the Bible than what the Bible itself says. That is why I took the time to read as
much of the gnostic gospels as I could lay my hands on - and last night I finished reading the Gospel of Judas:
I'm sorry to say that the media blew the story out of proportion!

I don't want to be tedious to you with a lengthy read, but let me offer you this: you may be a skeptic, and as long as you refuse to apply the only test the Bible requires for proving its reality, you will always find its message elusive. Why is this so? Again, let me remind you - science has its limitations; and if you want to subject everything in the world to science, you're miles away from arriving at any coherent understanding of proving the Bible for itself, and you'll leave a lot of questions unanswered in some many other non-Christian issues.

Like you, I am not really in favor of argumentations ad verecundiam; but "examining arguments on their merits without having to rely on authority" is sadly a contradiction of your first statement. You may not rely on Biblical authority; but have you not been quoting authorities in your earlier arguments?

Perhaps one of these days I might be amused enough to show you what you missed in Gauvin's piece; but good though that you were sharp enough to recognise that his "polemic style may be a bit overblown."

As to finding atheists to debate any issue, oh believe me - I've encountered loads of them. The one thing I find is that most of them are not tolerant, rational in their presentation, or just simply refuse to be objective. But, perhaps, you are the second of the lot I've met who's quite on the gentlemanly side.

Good to read your presentation.

Tell me something. If Oladipo Diya had succeeded in eliminating Abacha, or Mamman Vatsa , Babangida, would it have been at the request of the persons targeted for elimination? Even though the analogy is a little bit far-fetched, methinks that it is poetic justice to see the habitation of all betrayers become desolate and their offices taken up by other more trust-worthy people.