If you mean the bit about Pontius Pilate being a saint, I was a bit surprised to discover it myself.

It is actually a DISTINCT possibility, which is why I find it intriguing. After all, one of the Gospels records the fact that Pilate had the sign over Christ's head written "King of the Jews", and refused to change it when he was asked to change it to "He SAYS he is the King of the Jews". Pilate was also, of course, reluctant to crucify Christ.

I believe that it may have been with foreknowledge of Pilate's impending conversion that Christ forgave His captors.

I hope my significant other remembered to tape the Book of Judas special...I am looking forward to seeing what it's all about (besides the brief summary I saw the other night on tv).

As for the Da vinci code, there are times when I want to read it, and times when I don't feel like going through it.

Seems as though Judas was not that bad after all.

According to who? If you think he wasn't that bad, then what do you say about Jesus calling him the "son of perdition?"

He also said one of the 12 was a devil. He was referring to Judas. What do you say he meant by that? I'm not seeing "good" here.

BTW....when did Judas supposedly write this gospel? Did he write it or did another? If he hung himself as scripture says...when did he write this?

The other side might argue they "have no problem with biblical principles as long as they don't violate tradition" on the basis that tradition is older (just) than the Bible. As an outsider it looks to me like a chicken and egg problem

ya, but how do you know the tradition of today was the same as 1500 years ago? I can tell you many of the so called traditions of the CC were put in practice in the 1800's. Some denominations put tradition and scripture side by side. Others have other writings they put side by side with scripture. There are times when these contradict, and when they do, that's when I side with scripture. The most obvious reason would be I can read scripture today and know it's the same scripture that Jesus was reading at the temple. It hasn't changed.

He went to it time and time again. Why should we do any different?

BTW....when did Judas supposedly write this gospel? Did he write it or did another? If he hung himself as scripture says...when did he write this?

I have not heard of any credible historian who supports the theory that Judas wrote the gospel. Then again, people want to believe he wrote it because they don't like Christianity as it is. In fact, I am positive that if I wrote a book called "The Gospel of Buddha" and even recorded myself on tape writing it down, the same people so quick to support these "gospels" would go: "This truly is the gospel of Buddha because it says what I want to believe is true!" It's like the Da Vinci Code. It totally disregards the gospels that Christians accept, but completely and blindly supports the ones that are not canonical.

The truth is almost none of the bibles where written by the people whose names they bare, for instance the four gospels in the bibe where not allwritten at the same time three of which were written after the death of all the apostles, KFC and SA you seem to little or no understanding of the history behind christanity, nor do you seem interested in learning. The bible is not the exhustive and only teaching of the Christian church, nor is it the only document by which theology is taught to most Teachers of the christian faith. There has never been any hint that Judas wrote his Gospel, what is known that it has long since been proved to be authentic, not only this the fact is that as you read throug the four gospels you will clearly see if you bother to look, that each moves more towards the story we all know, but do not start at this point, interesting as you move through the Gospels from the first Gospel to the Last gospel to be written there is a period of time elapsed of som 100 odd years, which tells me that either John was getting very long in the tooth or it was wriiten long after his death, this alone allows for descripencies in the facts, not to mention the transalations from Hebrew to Greek, then to english. I could go on but wom't, the reality is that if you wish to investigate the truth lets look at the church that holds the longest unbroken history with christ, that church being the coptics, whom I might add have never taught the story that we are given about the events that surround the crusfixation, in fact they see Judas as the closest of Jesus's confidants, and go on to teach that Judas did in fact die, when he fell from a cliff.

Jesus Taught us many things, not just from teachings from the old testments, but his words, those of his desciples, all of which have appeared in the bible and many other Gospels.

I always find it amazing that all Catholics are concerned with defending anything and everything Catholic. Its always the same discussion. Being Athiest and very comfortably so, I don't feel the need to defend myself or my beliefs (or lack there of) to anyone. And if anyone should have to defend themselves you would think it would be someone with no beliefs.. So why then does a 2000 year old religion feel so threatened. I really don't want to get anyone mad by this statement, but I've been asking this question for a long time and still haven't gotten an answer...

So why then does a 2000 year old religion feel so threatened.

I guess it's because it seems that all that Christians have learned and that which we believe in seems to be untrue? Perhaps, for some it is that way, I'm only guessing here.

For me it makes no difference what they found, it does not shake my faith, or make it less real.


It seems to be to be just a lot of noise to bring sensationalism to the forefront of Christianity. I think many Christians are forgetting that there will be moments like this, that questions our faith and what we believe and know to be true and that we should not let moments like this get to us.

I always find it amazing that all Catholics are concerned with defending anything and everything Catholic. Its always the same discussion. Being Athiest and very comfortably so, I don't feel the need to defend myself or my beliefs (or lack there of) to anyone. And if anyone should have to defend themselves you would think it would be someone with no beliefs.. So why then does a 2000 year old religion feel so threatened. I really don't want to get anyone mad by this statement, but I've been asking this question for a long time and still haven't gotten an answer...

One might ask evolutionists the same thing. After all, look how they act over people denying it! Surely that means it's WRONG, right? After all, one can't defend themselves, because defending one's beliefs from wrong beliefs means that their beliefs are wrong, right?

Double post

The truth is almost none of the bibles where written by the people whose names they bare, for instance the four gospels in the bibe where not allwritten at the same time three of which were written after the death of all the apostles, KFC and SA you seem to little or no understanding of the history behind christanity, nor do you seem interested in learning.

Since you seem to be a historian, tell me exactly when the four gospels were written, all right? Please cite your references too.
I'll grant you that it's not 100% that they were written by John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but history isn't as certain as you might think it is. The truth is that if you judge Christian history by the same standard as you judge the rest of history, then there's no reason not to believe that it was written by the people one says to. But people never want to use the same standards to study Christian history that they do with the rest of history.

I could go on but wom't, the reality is that if you wish to investigate the truth lets look at the church that holds the longest unbroken history with christ, that church being the coptics, whom I might add have never taught the story that we are given about the events that surround the crusfixation, in fact they see Judas as the closest of Jesus's confidants, and go on to teach that Judas did in fact die, when he fell from a cliff.

How funny. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians also claim to have a tradition that has not evolved with time.

The truth is almost none of the bibles where written by the people whose names they bare, for instance the four gospels in the bibe where not allwritten at the same time three of which were written after the death of all the apostles, KFC and SA you seem to little or no understanding of the history behind christanity, nor do you seem interested in learning.

Since you seem to be a historian, tell me exactly when the four gospels were written, all right? Please cite your references too.
I'll grant you that it's not 100% that they were written by John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, but history isn't as certain as you might think it is. The truth is that if you judge Christian history by the same standard as you judge the rest of history, then there's no reason not to believe that it was written by the people one says to. But people never want to use the same standards to study Christian history that they do with the rest of history.

I could go on but wom't, the reality is that if you wish to investigate the truth lets look at the church that holds the longest unbroken history with christ, that church being the coptics, whom I might add have never taught the story that we are given about the events that surround the crusfixation, in fact they see Judas as the closest of Jesus's confidants, and go on to teach that Judas did in fact die, when he fell from a cliff.

How funny. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians also claim to have a tradition that has not evolved with time.

I can't believe I'm saying this....but I like you Satan's advocate!!! You are right on!! I'm starting to realize why you have the name you have....clever!!

KFC and SA you seem to little or no understanding of the history behind christanity, nor do you seem interested in learning

Are you kidding? What are you basing this on? If you knew me you'd never have uttered this statement. I've been studying Christianity as well as other religions for well over 30 years now. Not lightly I might add. I have enough books to fill a small library.

as you move through the Gospels from the first Gospel to the Last gospel to be written there is a period of time elapsed of som 100 odd years, which tells me that either John was getting very long in the tooth or it was wriiten long after his death,

It's a pretty well known established fact that John wrote his gospel in the 90's about 30 years after the other gospels. John also was very much the youngest some thinking he was but a teen during Jesus' time. So if he was a teenager in the 30's how old do you calculate he would be in the 90's?

It's also very clear that not only did he write the gospel of John but he wrote 1,2,3 John and Revelation as well.

So why then does a 2000 year old religion feel so threatened.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't feel that Christianity is threatened. I believe things are going exactly as planned.

Christ said himself...."When I come back will I even find faith on the earth?"

Jesus Taught us many things, not just from teachings from the old testments, but his words, those of his desciples, all of which have appeared in the bible and many other Gospels

sorry but you are listening to the wrong "Jesus." He's the one that comes disguised. "The sheep can hear my voice" says Jesus. They will not follow the one that is dressed like a sheep but in all reality comes to deceive and destroy.

I agree with KFC (Kickin For Christ) .
I am a spirit-filled Christian.And that whole thing about this,that,and the other thing is completely wrong.
Jesus died for our sins.So,we may have eternal life.
I agree with it's not right to push people towards Christ.But,to tell them of his love for them.And to just pray and leave them in God's hands.
I ran away from God .And actually told God .I did not want anything to do with him or being saved.
Well,long story short.I went through a lot of pain,abuse,heartache.And the one person that never gave up on me.Was God.Despite what I did or what I said.He was always there for me.

Somone asked for references that the gospels of mathew, mark, luke and john where not written by the disciple named

Try this site
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/intro.html

SA , I will reply, as for history I judge all history the same way, I am always prepared to learn, that what makes history so interesting, if find it the same as most things some facts are proved to be correct some not correct. I hope this is answering what you were saying, as for the Gospels.

I would apply this to all I have learnt during time relative to the christian church, I am not trying to shitcan peoples beliefs, if I have offended I am sorry.

As for RCs and Other Orthodox churches, all claim to have traditional links to JC, as all do have, never discounted this, however the Coptics tend to embrace a lot more of the litature available than the other two, being a RC does not conflict in with me finding research of areas outside of the bible as wrong, nor does it seem to be aproblems for many others in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, It is rare that a student of theology would spend their entire life "just"studying one book.

KFC, we will never agree, as I do not subscribe to your devoted position in relation to the Bible as being exhaustive work of God, and all other books, gospels and other writings to be some sought of Devil conspiricy or that of some for of anti christ. We all have our beliefs, and hopefully we will all get there in the end.

Just a thought, one day we will all find out sadly no matter which one of us gets there next we will never get the opportunity to come back and say I told yo so, I suppose this is why we call this a Faith, but trying to learn more about one's faith and trying to understand, is not in my mind going to detract from my faith.

Love the reference page JC.

Chakgogka, I should have done this days ago, ND THnka for the reminder, especially when they were my own words of wisdom. Lesson well learnt, just because I have had a bad day/week, should take a deep breath and think before I leap in with both feet in my mouth.

Just fixing the spelling sorry for the repeat.

Chakgogka, I should have done this days ago, and thankyou for the reminder, especially when they were my own words of wisdom. Lesson well learnt, just because I have had a bad day/week, should take a deep breath and think before I leap in with both feet in my mouth.

I have since had an opportunity to watch the Judas Gospels, and I would say that as usual, NetGeo has done a brilliant job.

check this out Link

Matthew was written by Matthew and especially to the Jews in an answer to the question "Was Jesus the Messiah?"

Mark was written by Mark thru the eyes of Peter. They were companions in the early church. This book was written particularly for a Roman audience.

Luke was written by Luke, a companion of Paul. His writing was slanted towards the gentiles.

John was written by the Apostle John as an eyewittness. He focused more on the deity of Christ where the others focused more on the works of Christ.

Great KFC, but as I said I disagree with yours and the concept of Protestantism, I respect yours and the views, but do not subscribe to them, The site does give me a better understanding of the protestant view, and I will read on as I have an enquiring mind, however I have heard much of this before from friends who mister in many protestant churches, and as I do with them I respectfully disagree.

While this person who has spent a lot of time in study and has a strong belief in what he says, He is but one theological voice, and there are many who would support his view, and many more who would disagree with him. I do not count myself as anywhere near a theologian, far from it, but I still have the greatest respect for the way the CC and other orthodox religions formulate their religious theory and teachings.

As for the accusation of false religions, I again have difficulty in the concept of exclusion of prophets who may have been sent after Jesus Christ rose to the heavens. After all the bible was written long before Mohammed received his calling, so why should his reformist teachings be less relevant than say those of Martin Luther, having said this I do not agree with their representation of Christ,

I do not expect you to change you views or your beliefs, just because I think they are wrong or I disagree with them, nor do I have less respect for your position because I do not agree, but I do reserve the right to accept the wisdom of others who in my opinion may have a little more theological experience than the people at the above link, people who have guided me through many difficult parts and many good parts of my life.

[Zergimmi,

quote]Great KFC, but as I said I disagree with yours and the concept of Protestantism, I respect yours and the views, but do not subscribe to them, The site does give me a better understanding of the protestant view, and I will read on as I have an enquiring mind, however I have heard much of this before from friends who mister in many protestant churches, and as I do with them I respectfully disagree

That's ok...we can agree to disagree. No problem!!

The site is a great one and one that I stumbled onto about a year ago from another blogger. I have throughly read him and believe he is speaking the truth.

As for the accusation of false religions, I again have difficulty in the concept of exclusion of prophets who may have been sent after Jesus Christ rose to the heavens. After all the bible was written long before Mohammed received his calling, so why should his reformist teachings be less relevant than say those of Martin Luther, having said this I do not agree with their representation of Christ,

Well as far as scripture is concerned I believe it's clear that Jesus would be the last one sent. We are told to beware of any false prophets that will come after. We are not to follow them. Now I realize other religions don't have that view but they are not using scripture to back it up. They usually have other books they use for this. Martin Luther, unlike Mohammed, was not a prophet but only a man who so happened to have the duty of being a priest in the CC.

KFC,

I too must respectfully disagree with you on your faith in biblical authorship.

The Council of Nicea was the first reformation of Christianity, it was very political, in a East v/s West theology, and the accepted text was basically pre-ordained by the Ceasar of the time ( I'll neglect recalling his name, but it was the leader of Rome, recently converted to Christianity, who commisioned the council )

What came out of this convocation was the origins of the split between Greek, Coptic, Gnostic, Maronites and Roman Catholics. Some even believe this divide fostered the birth of Islam.

In a nutshell, many of the recognized text by Eastern practitioners were deemed heresy, and many accepted text were edited, revised,retranslated, or abridged.

Some argue that these well meaning religious leaders were divinely inspired, thusly infalible, others point to a "politically correct" text acceptable to Roman rule.

Some thousand years later, King James had a problem with unruly peasants who had the gall to educate themselves and learn to read, so he commissions yet another translation of the Holy Scriptures...do you really think those scribes were divinely inspired, or motivated by their patron to produce a tome to quell the masses?

The same can be said over the history of the Torah, the Koran or any other historic religious text.....The germ of "truth" contained in them all is there is but one God, and beyond that is where we begin to differ in opinion.

The Catholic Church began to recognize this commonality and declared such in the Nostra Aetate ( I'd invite you to Google ) too bad this discovery didn't come about before those pesky Crusades.....

The Council of Nicea was the first reformation of Christianity, it was very political, in a East v/s West theology, and the accepted text was basically pre-ordained by the Ceasar of the time ( I'll neglect recalling his name, but it was the leader of Rome, recently converted to Christianity, who commisioned the council )

Are you talking about Constantine? He was a convert to Christianity and about 323 declared Christianity the state religion. I do believe the Christian churches as well as the pagan temples were blurred as one and right from the get go we had problems with theology. Basically crosses were put on pagan temples and they were deemed Christian.

Have you studied/read the bible for any length of time? Most that deny the truths therein have not even given it a look see. I believe and have said this before that we can be absoulutely assured that the bible we have in our hands today is the same scripture that Jesus read two thousand years ago (OT of course). We have more manuscriptual evidence for this than any other work of antiquity. The closest would be Homer's Illiad. Funny that never seems to be quesioned. And the manuscripts left behind for that book pale in comparison to what we have for scriptual evidence. In our possession today there are 5000 original copies. Nothing even comes close to this.

I believe the NT was throughly researched out and the canon was divinely put together. I am totally amazed when I read it how this cannot be something that was just thrown together. It fits together perfectly written by over 40 men over 1500 years living in 3 continents. Yet it reads as tho only one wrote it.

When a gnostic gospel is held next to the bible it doesn't even read the same. The gnostic gospels are not divinely inspired. They not only contradict the bible we have today but they contradict each other.

The deeper one digs into scripture the more one can totally appreciate that this is no ordinary book. I intend to blog on this soon. Stay tuned!!

What are the false Religions of the west? A list Please and according to Who.

What if a superteam of scientists armed with the latest technology proved beyond doubt that Jesus died on the cross, could prove medically that he was dead when taken off the cross, would in any case have chocked by the time he was wrapped in 100 pounds of myrrh and aloe when he was buried; could, based on solid historical sources, prove that after three days his grave was empty and that Jesus was back among the living; could psychologically prove that witnesses to this fact were not mentally impaired, could in other words establish the gospels as being scientifically and verifiably true? Would you call these scientists believers? You can only answer this question with "yes" if you think that christianity has anything to do with the language of science, which clearly -i hope- is not the case. Christianity tries to express the depth that is experienced in a certain way of living. So what Michael Baigent has done in this book, besides trying to cash in, is confusing mythical language with scientific language, resulting in pseudo-scientific dribble, the worst of both worlds.