So, tonight Da Vinci code opens and we're going to see it. But I'm more curious if anyone caught this month's National Geographic's coverage of the Gosphel of Judas? (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com)

I find this very interesting and it sparks much thought about validity...no not really validity...I'm not sure what the word is, but it does seem odd that the Bible only has a few (4) gosphels when there were clearly other accounts.

I'm by no means a devout christian, I consider myself more spiritual than anything. I believe in something but I don't believe in the mainstream "something". The thought that there are other stories out there really spur my interest. I know that Dan Brown's story is fiction but it does make one wonder what else the "Church" has hidden in its' vaults, what other things they have quashed, and what other tactics they employeed to make their vision "THE" vision.

I'm curious how others feel about this. Does anyone else think that there is just way more to "The Greatest Story Ever Told"? Or, do you believe what the Bible says and only what the Bible says?

Religion is just another way for 1 man to contol another man.
Spirituality is something no 1 can control....

These aren't exactly deep secrets repressed and denied by the church. Religious scholars have been studying the gnostic books and other early writings since, well, they were written. Christian bookstores even sell them. When the Gospel of Judas came to light a short time ago scholars started looking into it right away. Everyone is just hyped up over Dan Brown's movie right now so it sounds like some great conspiracy.

A quick search for the Gospel of Judas:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
- Nat. Geographic translation: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf?fs=www7.nationalgeographic.com&fs=magma.nationalgeographic.com

Lots of biased sources, both Christan and anti-Christian. Not really worth linking Jim Bob's Pig Farmin' and Bible Decodin' Church is Out T' Git Me page, since he's not an authority, but there's plenty of reading available on the net.

If you're really curious I can dig up some book sources on how religious scholars claim to authenticate the gospels. I love literature and ancient writings and the process is actually very interesting, whether you buy into the accounts or not. The short of it is that there is a method to examining which of the early writings were kept and which weren't, and it goes beyond quick fiction like TV specials and bad history in Brown's book. Neat stuff on matching writings and quotations and what have ya.

I guess it seemed new after reading national geographic's story this month. I admit I get allot of news/info from them...but the way the story sounded....it was like the Church was trying to squash the story, even going back to talking about the Pope who was so adament about it not being true.

It does lead one to wonder, well maybe just me....what other things have been kept from us because the church felt it necessary that we not know.

Thanks for the links, I will look into them and I'd be curious of other things you might find :)

I'll try and remember to grab some book titles from work. I had to move part of my library there when my wife went on a cleaning spree.

I like what Kurtz said over on PVP. I really doubt most Christians care all that much about making sure these books are covered up, and for all our sakes don't lump 'em all under what the Pope may or may not say (he still hasn't said anything about the DaVinci movie, has he?). I really suspect very little has been covered up, especially since the early church was hardly in a position to cover anything. But the history of documents stretching that far back is very, very cool. At least, to me. There are a LOT of non-cannon writings from the time period, some accepted by the church and some not, but they give some interesting glimpses into life during that period of time, as well as politics and how a major world religion grew.

Yes I agree with you. The discovery of these writings are very exciting. Did you see the timeline on the first page I linked?

While I agree with you about the excitment of finding these things given the church's history I disagree that they may have hidden things. Too much in their history suggests otherwise. Sadly, we may never know.

My comments about the Pope were not directed to this Pope but rather to the one who was outraged at the Coptic movement.

There is certainly a lot we don't know about the events and persons depicted in the Gospels. My view is that while the Jesus of the Gospels probably existed in some form, it's currently impossible to know what he was like and what he said. The Quelle sayings are, perhaps, as close as we can get, and may simply be common bits of wisdom from the earliest believers.

I've always thought Judas (and the Jews) got an illogically bad rap from Christians. Within the context of the story, Jesus' death was rather the point.

EDIT: A link (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) to early Christian writings.

Good point Thor.

One of my biggest issues with the whole Judas thing, and the black pillar in some churches was.....

wasn't Jesus dying the whole point?!?! I mean if he hadn't died for our sins, then the New Testament means what?

Not just died, but resurrected as well. Unfortunately, as sensible as that line of reasoning is, it didn't prevent persecution and pogroms for the Jews (not to mention disagreeable early Christian sects) over the last couple millennia.

See my Post above.
Religion is a twisted mess.

Fil, there are many more gospels available to any theological scholars and most priests of the various religions read them through seminary.

Peter for example wrote a very famous Gospel as well that wasn't included in the Christian Bible but are included as part of the apocrypha which I believe is attached to the Catholic Bible but I may be mistaken. Peter wrote that Jesus was probably a ghost or some angel on earth and the crusifixion and his death was probably an illusion. These beliefs and parts of Peter's Gospel were included as part of the Islamic Koran.

Currently I believe there is the existance (probably in some Vatican vault somewhere) of a Gospel of each of the disciples as well as Mary Magdalene and you can easily obtain copies from most theological librarys and other religious resources.

The fundamental thing one needs to remember, religious or not, is that these are books written by Man, and obviously flawed (including the Bible). Just as if Bill O'Riely and Michael Moore both witnessed the same event, their account would be very different.

The "Church" or Vatican or whatever you want to call it was and is probably as corrupted with power as any other large powerful organization (much like any other Government on the planet). Obviously the adaptation of Pagan symbolism such as the Easter Egg and the Christmas Tree were a historical part of the church's path. This "corruption" and wishing to keep information from the masses was what led to the revolution started by Martin Luther in the early 1500s and the countless various sects to break off from the Catholic Church. We simply have to remember the history as we read, much like any other primary source you would read.

As a person of fairly strong religious faith but also a 21st century brain and knowledge of science I find myself having to look past a lot of the mythos for the true story. That being said religion has also done some of the most wonderful things for the human race. Today charitable contributions from religious institutions are easily at the top. They engage on social work that this and every country couldn't survive without. Sure, there are some (Islamic extremists, the Christian crusades, the Spanish Inquisition) that have corrupted religion and used it in horrible ways - but overwhelmingly religion and spirituality has inspired billions with a sense of morals and goodwill that shouldn't be overlooked by a few bad eggs just like how any great organization will have a few who seemingly seek to ruin it.

Just look at the US military, hopefully working on a mission for the good of mankind, but there's always a few (Abu Ghraib anyone?) that bring horrible things which sit on the front page and the fronts of people's minds dispite the thousands working hard in the background for good.

Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition....
Sorry, I just HAD to say it....
While your arguement for the good things that religion has accomplished are strong, I still feel that the individual's interpertation is the best for each person, not the interpertation of what is "sanctioned" by said Church, Religious Sect/Organization/Cult.
Church of the Self, if you will.
If each person governs him/herself with the phliosophy (help the weak, love thy neighbor, don't covet thy neighbor's manservant) of the religions, rather than the strict interpertation of the words (strike the neck of the infidel, The only God is Allah, and Mohammad is His Prophet) the world would be a much better place.

Do not watch the movie.

Hanks stinks in it. Was a very unemotional and wooden performance.
And the movie was dissapointing. But then, I felt the book was over-hyped too.

The only good thing was McKellen.

I believe Jesus is a fairly historically accepted figure, there's pretty solid evidence to support the existance of the man, especially outside the Bible. Where discussions break down is on his actual role as Messiah.

Most Christian sects do believe in the idea that Christ had to die, and the only path to salvation/enlightenment is through him.

The gnostic books challenge that belief, and gnosticism (sp?) I believe relies on the idea that through understanding and personal searching one can attain salvation/enlightenment. This seems to be the current pop trend, much like the New Age religions were ten years ago. I believe this is what the DaVinci code supports, although I didn't finish it. Good book, I just lost mine somewhere. The Matrix is often connected to gnostic beliefs (open your mind, Neo!).

My only beef with some of these current news stories and events is the misinformation surrounding them. Religion aside, Brown manages to fairly nicely slaughter history, and his disclaimer in the book states otherwise. This wouldn't be an issue if every 21st century brain was working, but it seems these days that a lot of them don't come switched on. Ya throw something on the big screen and everyone either believes it, or jumps up in arms to protest a movie.

I had a lousy day at work and was a bonehead, forgot my books. I'll look up some stuff later tonight, gonna head out and catch a movie and dinner. Mebbie even DaVinci.

Well we went and we had to leave about 45min into it as my sister who was driving uo from NC got here MUCH MUCH MUCH earlier than anyone had estimated so I had to leave the theatre with family in tow and try to track down a mad woman hahaha.

We'll be back next weekend to finish it.

From the 45 or so minutes I saw, I enjoyed it. I was just starting to really get into it when I had to leave =\

Meh.

The way I see it organized religion exists because for the last 6,000 years human populations have been mostly illiterate. Therefore there was the need to create a person to read and interpret the meaning of sacred texts or translate philosophical/theological concepts into peoples every day lives.

An interesting thesis paper for someone to do was to study the impact of major religions contrasted with when introduced to more literate cultures and illiterate ones.

Anyway.. the point I think we are at now in our development is kinda like..
"Ok. Here is a users manuel.... Go figure life out"
./shrug

I believe Jesus is a fairly historically accepted figure, there's pretty solid evidence to support the existance of the man, especially outside the Bible.
I'm interested in hearing this evidence. I assume it's fairly direct and contemporary?

Heck if I know, I'm rusty on it. But the wealth of knowledge indicates a historical figure. I would think it would be much harder to disprove his existence. The actual identity and power of the man might be suspect, but are you proposing that the figure of Jesus was invented later and not based on any real person? The number of writings concerning his life suggest otherwise, although I suppose that just like any historical person we don't have photos of he could be completely fabricated.

Here's what I dug up at work, for those interested. I'll start with the biased sources:

Evidence that Demands a Verdict - Josh McDowell - Written by a Christian for both Christians and non-Christians, offers credible arguments with a historical basis, including an breakdown of how Biblical (or other historical) documents are validated. Also see the shorter version More than a Carpenter. I think there's even a new version of this book. Not hugely scholarly, but the logical breakdown is interesting and addresses Thormir's last post better than I care to try to.

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel - a journalist's investigation with several scholars as to the existence of Jesus, addresses the same common points of validating Biblical sources. Again a very easy read, although he mostly sticks to Biblical scholars. Still tackles the ideas of historically validating a document (the Bible, in this case).

Both of those are obviously biased, but are relatively credible sources and are easy reads. If you're just interested in the history then tune out the religious parts, the history is still fascinating.

More secular:

The Face of Old Testament Studies, David Baker - Thick heavy historical criticisms, not an easy read, interesting though. I ah, don't remember a whole lot from this one, but I'm pretty sure it was useful. Scot McKnight (sp?) has a similar book that examines the New Testament. My memory says these were neutral sources, sorry if I'm wrong.

There's another book...the Faces of History? Faces of Ancient Text? Something like that. Great book, traces changes in Biblical translations and interpretations. Written by a very sceptical atheist, wish I could remember the specifics.

The Gospel of Judas, by Bart Ehrman - I haven't read this yet, someone handed it to me. Looks good though when I flip through, and I think it's related to the National Geographic special?

The text I really wanted I can't find, so maybe someone here will recognize it. Amazon turned up a dud. I think it was probably a college text book, I found it at a used book sale. It was fairly neutral in it's beliefs, and broke down how a text is analyzed for significance, authorship, and it's general place in culture.

The work went something like this: Carbon dating gives you a decent ballpark of time, but does not indicate the significance or authorship of a text. The author of the book described how they would compare different documents looking for similar wordings and quotes.

As an example, there is a collection of letters and other writings from the early church immediately after the Bible was written - don't remember the name, but you can buy them in a set about the size of an encyclopedia. These letters quote the Bible in many places, so by comparing those quotes we can start to put together an idea of how accurate our current translation is. Different translations can be compared, as well as analyzing the writing styles of various authors. Very cool stuff, and a very cool way to look at the past. This book, if anyone knows what it is, covered not only some of the work done on the Bible but also on documents from various wars, Nazi prison camps, and documents from the formation of some countries (mainly European). Okay, so it had a western bias. Very cool book though.

Just so I'm not misrepresenting myself - this is a hobby for me. I'm lousy with dates and names and numbers, which is why I don't teach history. Most of what I know is a general collected knowledge of years of enjoying these types of books, but not always retaining the facts in perfect order. I've done a lot of review recently with DaVinci coming out, but I'm waaay off from being an expert and really don't claim to be. I just get excited when subjects I like come up.

... are you proposing that the figure of Jesus was invented later and not based on any real person?
No. There are a lot of directions you could go in theorizing Jesus' origins, but the evidence suggests the existence of a Jesus or Jesus legend by the time Paul started his evangelization. I was just responding to your claim of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus (specifically, direct and contemporary). Unfortunately, the New Testament is all we have to work with.

McDowell and Strobel aren't terribly reliable (McDowell in particular is regarded as a hack), and neither book is worth much more than the paper it's printed on.
As an example, there is a collection of letters and other writings from the early church immediately after the Bible was written...
"Immediately after the Bible was written" covers quite a few decades, but the work you cite sounds interesting. Can't help you with the title, though.

EDIT:
Just so I'm not misrepresenting myself - this is a hobby for me. I'm lousy with dates and names and numbers, which is why I don't teach history. Most of what I know is a general collected knowledge of years of enjoying these types of books, but not always retaining the facts in perfect order. I've done a lot of review recently with DaVinci coming out, but I'm waaay off from being an expert and really don't claim to be. I just get excited when subjects I like come up.
It's a hobby of mine as well, so I understand. I'm just familiar enough with the arguments given for extra-biblical evidence (especially McDowell's) to know that they fail. This doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist in some form or other, only that history is silent on that point outside the NT.

Just enjoying the posting, not trying to persuade. I know nothing about these, but they were sent to me from a friend at Fuller. Extra-Biblical sources:
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
<LI type=A>"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Note: There is dispute as to the reliability of the Josephus accounts. However, there is no textual/manuscript reason for doubting them since the extant Greek manuscripts all agree with the texts in question; namely, the quotes shown on this page. However, the reason the quotes are in doubt is because of the text in italics in the various quotes; they seem a little too favorable regarding Christ. Also, it appears that the writings of Josephus were transmitted to us through the Christian community.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus.




Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."


Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
<LI style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana" type=A>Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
<LI type=i>Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."

<LI style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana" type=i>The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.


Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

All the usual suspects ;)
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus.Indeed, the Josephus writing is almost universally regarded as an interpolation, perhaps crafted by Eusebius in the early days of the church.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.Given the problems with the Testimonium Flavinium, this is probably the best extra-biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. I understand that it's pretty well regarded as reliable, though there are dissenters. For one example, G. A. Wells notes that, "it is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned Jesus here simply--as it were--in passing, when he mentions him nowhere else." He's right, the reference does come and go quickly, without context. Also, to the objection that a Christian interpolator wouldn't use "so-called Christ," Wells states that "the Greek does not have 'so-called' but 'him called Christ,' and this, so far from being non-Christian, is the exact wording of Mt. 1:16." [from Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1982]. So, while I do think this entry is the best example of the sort of evidence in question, valid questions remain.
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - AnnalsHere, Tacitus is writing (~115 CE) that Nero is persecuing Christians in an attempt to displace blame from himself for the fire of Rome. There's uncertainty as to where he acquired his information, whether it be official documents, police interrogation of Christians, or correspondence with Pliny the Younger -- it seems at the least to be secondhand. Of course, no one doubts that there were Christians in the first century CE.
Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.Right, Africanus made an assumption based on a now lost work of Thallus; it really means nothing. Is there any record of a solar eclipse over Judea from ~30-37 CE?
Pliny the Younger mentioned ChristPliny wrote the quoted passage in a letter to Trajan around 111-112 CE, requesting advice on how to handle the Christians. Pliny isn't recording any particular first hand knowledge of Jesus, only of Christians, which again, no one doubts existed during that time.

To me, this "gospel" is interesting. In the same way that the "gospel" of St. Thomas was interesting when it came out in, what, the late 90s I think.

There are genuinely interesting ideas here, the most interesting to me being that Jesus set up his death (since we know he knew it was coming).

What I'd really like to know is the list of "gospels" that the early Church went over in the 300s AD. Supposedly they went through around, IIRC, 300 different gospels and picked the 4 that they thought were authentic or important.

Thor: I see your point, but I've never seen a mainstream church or religion that looks down on the Jews as a result of the gospels or church teachings. Note that, obviously, I've never been to or participated in any Islamic services.

What I'd really like to know is the list of "gospels" that the early Church went over in the 300s AD. Supposedly they went through around, IIRC, 300 different gospels and picked the 4 that they thought were authentic or important.


Actually they picked the 4 that were the more popular. They were the ones that more people could identify with in that they had heard them before and these were the more consistant ones across all the stories of Jesus. Thus they were chosen. The other gospels were not kept a secret like some like to think. I know that there are nay sayers / conspiracy people out there. Maybe it was the area I grew up in and the environment, but when I was in my catholic education classes it was no secret as to the existance of other gospels. We just did not study them as we did the ones contained within the bible. This was some 25+ years ago.

Now it's possible that the existance of the other gospels were kept a secret a long time ago, but that hasn't been the case in recent decades.

Thor: I see your point, but I've never seen a mainstream church or religion that looks down on the Jews as a result of the gospels or church teachings.Not sure which point of mine you're referring to (meds have me a bit hazy), but the mainstream churches of the past 2,000 years preached against the Jews. The last 50 years or so have witnessed a fortunate change in that regard, but anti-semitism has been the norm for most of Christianity's existence. I know of a couple lines of Gospel text that specifically condemn Jews, such as John 8:41-44:You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Here, Jesus equates the Jews he is speaking to as spawn of the Devil. Over subsequent centuries, believers generalized the context of this and other passages to include all Jews.

Now it's possible that the existance of the other gospels were kept a secret a long time ago, but that hasn't been the case in recent decades.Sectarian strife amidst the Christian community meant that the gospels favored by some factions lost out to the gospels of what ultimately became the Catholic church. I don't know how much effort went into book burning (or scroll burning) back then for works deemed "heretical," but I'd be surprised if it didn't happen to some degree. To ancient believers, the Gospel of Judas would be considered far more malignant than The Catcher in the Rye.

If you have time to kill, there's a nice long write up on the formation of the canon here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html).

Heh. I swear, debating the Bible is like any other debate on the internet. I'd just point out that

1. "the jews" in the bible often just means "the crowd."

2. A few sentences before your passage it's noted that he's just speaking to certain Jews in the Temple who in believe in him, not all Jews as a group or society. I'm sure some people have, but I would not generalize that to mean that "Jesus said all Jews are the spawn of the devil."

For '1', I'd ask why the words don't mean what they say. I mean, "the Jews" is quite specific. How do you decide when "the Jews" means "the crowd" and when it doesn't?

For '2' I agree. My point isn't to interpret this or similar passages so broadly, only that throughout the ages such passages have been interpreted that way, to the detriment of Jews and others.

Heh. I swear, debating the Bible is like any other debate on the internet. I'd just point out that.Depends on whether you want to persuade someone to your point of view - extremely useless on the internet - or just have a nice discussion. So far we're still in the discussion stages, I believe.

The catch with this subject is that it requires a lot of reading and thinking about, you can't really just read one book by a supposed source and automatically agree with what they say. I skimmed through Thormir's link to the infidels.org page and just in skimming I can come up with a few points of contention - but then again those all depend on which expert you ask. Research on these matters has changed so rapidly in the last 30 years that it's not like reading a book about the Civil War or some such, and when you add in religious bias (for or against) it gets really muddy.

This is what makes the study of this type of history interesting to me, and I tend to separate many of the logical arguments from my own religious beliefs to keep from going in sane.

Wasn't the book of Thomas part of the Nag Hammadi documents found in the 1940s? Maybe it didn't come to light until later.

Nice responses Thormir, wish I had your head for these things.

Who is debating here? I see people discussing things, and this is very interesting to me. I'm grateful for the responses here and am enjoying the discussion. Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and am only able to pop in here and there but so far there's allot of interesting points being made. I hope to better absorb this in a couple of days.

Wasn't the book of Thomas part of the Nag Hammadi documents found in the 1940s? Maybe it didn't come to light until later.Some fragments were found in the 1890s, which were used to identify the full text of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi. It's somewhat painful to note that Muhammad Ali al'Samman, who found the texts, brought them home and pitched them aside while he and his brothers prepared to exact a blood feud. While away, his mother used some of the papyrus to feed the fire.
Nice responses Thormir, wish I had your head for these things.
Mostly a matter of inundation off and on over the last 20 years, but thanks. ;)

I remember seeing that on a Discovery channel show. Wonder what got burned up?

:eek:
Hopefully it wasn't the parts that said,"Followers of Islam and followers of Judaism that make war upon each other shall be cast into the fiery pit for all eternity."

:rolleyes:

That's what's so nuts about this. The Gospel of Judas, for instance, was gonna be thrown away before someone got it and put it in a safe deposit box. how cool would it be to own something this old, something that'd so tied into history.

I've been tempted to buy some old Roman coins just for this reason. I see 'em on Ebay and have no idea if prices are fair. I hear that they're practically a dime a dozen in Italy.

Lots of history is lost that way. The most popular examples of the Nag Hammadi documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls were both found by mistake by average joes. Countless artifacts and records have been destroyed by looters around the world, not to mention the massive amounts of modern day concrete structures sitting on possible sites.

Which begs the great question - what ancient decided to stash their documents in a pot and bury in the middle of nowhere in the first place?

Ancients for whom wax-sealed clay pots represented the height of technology.

I'd dash 'em all to bring back the Great Library of Alexandria, though. Acquiring any advancement acquired by two other civilizations is the win!

So I got back to see it yesterday.

It was interesting but a little meh IMO. I think it could have been a little more....captivating? I'm not sure what the word is or what was missing but it was decent. I felt like I could have waited for it to come out on DVD though.

I do think it's worthy to be seen however.

One can only imagine what Knowledge was lost in the Great Library of Alexandria.
Gnostism was certainly surpressed and branded heresies.They were even hunted down and slaughtered durning the Inquistion.The Cathar(Albigenises) were one of the last major Pusedo-Gnostic/Duelistic groups,which had roots in Manichaenism a 3rd century Persian Gnostic movement which was also surpressed by the early chuch.Catharism was popular in areas of France,Spain and Italy.Especially in France,where alot of the nobles and counts protected and sanctioned its practice.
A crusade was formed to crush the Cathars by Pope Innocent the III,after trying to use more normal "peaceful" conversion methods.Which all failed.One of his Delgates Pierre De Castelnau who had recenty Excummunicated one of the Cathar Counts, Raymound the VI of Toulouse.Wound up getting murdered on the way back from a meeting with Cathar leaders near the Abby of Saint Gillies.Which of course, the Pope used as the excuse to call for a Crusade to exterminate them all.One city alone called Beziers had over 7,000 men women and children slaughtred.The Pope let it be known to all the nobility in the areas, that any land owned by the Cathars could be confiscated and kept for free.Which resulted in a frenzy of land grabbing,by commiting horrible atrosities against the Cathar.Some say the famous Qoute "Kill em all and let God sort em out" made by a General, after it was noted that there were true christians mixed in with the heretics inside the city.Was from the massacure of the city Beziers.

(Gotta love those Popes back then,best way to get people to turn on one another is to offer them free land.The only catch is,is you have to kill the occupants and its all good in the eyes of the lord.YAH!!! Free land and a free ticket to heaven.Its all win/win "let the bloodshed begin!".This policy was also used durning the Inquistion.If you wanted to have a nice cottage with a farm on some primo realistate.But the only pesky problem with aquiring it.Is the family of paupers that own it.Well just say they Vexed your goat and soured your cows milk and you got your self some free land.Burn Witch Burn Baby!!!Hell Yeah Score!!) bunch of sick sons of bitches back then.


After the crusade was over,the InQuistion was formed and took over and hunted down what was left of them.The last known Cathar leader,was the Cathar Perfect named Gullimue Belibaste who was excuted in 1321.By 1330 the Cathars/Albigenises were considered extinguished.
Not much is known of them, except from what those that fought against them wrote about them.
So i would say Gnostisim was certainly surpressed back in those days.Thankfully stuff like the Nag Hammadie(well except for the ones that got burned by that wench for firewood.) and other Gnostic writings were hidden away and saved.Though much of it was certainly destroyed through the ages.The early church made it sound like there were hundreds of Gnostic writings from many different sects.Who knows,might be another hidden catch of scrolls somewhere out there in a desert cave waiting to be discovered.