Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 130
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    ...but I do think papal infalabitly means that god preserves the pope from making an error.
    Yes and no, infallability means that when the Pope is speaking as the successor to Peter (first Pope) and doctrine, then he may speak infallable. Just because he's the Pope though does not mean that this infallability extends to every comment he ever makes. There's a few rules that have to be met before the Pope is speaking infallably...can't say them off the top of my head though, I'll look it up.
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    It seems so many people are ready to believe the Gospel of Judas. But why would this single document be more credible than four Gospels and several other epistles of which we have many early manuscripts in many different translations and thousands of pieces of manuscripts?
    From an Historical point of view, they are all equally credible, which is not very. They have to be judged in the proper context, taking in to consideration the motivation(s), culture, and beliefs of the author(s).
  3. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by naftalim
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...121611,00.html

    Judas did not betray Jesus, lost gospel claims
    By Jenny Booth

    An ancient manuscript written in Egypt in 300AD purports to show that Judas Iscariot was not the betrayer who sold Jesus to his enemies for 30 pieces of silver, as the bible says.

    The apocryphal account of the last days of Jesus's life portrays Judas as a loyal disciple, who followed Jesus's orders in handing him over to the authorities and thus allowed him to fulfil the biblical prophecies of saving mankind.

    The fragile 31-page document, which has had a chequered history since it was discovered near Beni Masar in Egypt in the 1970s, was put on show for the first time this afternoon at the National Geographic Society in Washington, along with an English translation.
    More information from your cite:

    "Dr Simon Gathercole, a New Testament expert from The University of Aberdeen, said: "The so-called "Gospel of Judas" is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new about the real Judas or Jesus.

    "It contains a number of religious themes which are completely alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which did become popular later, in the second century AD. An analogy would be finding a speech claiming to be written by Queen Victoria, in which she talked about The Lord of the Rings and her CD collection."

    This is exactly what I have been trying to get others to realize.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  4. #64  
    According to Vatican I, which defined the doctrine, "The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra . . . possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals" (Pastor Aeternus 4). The passage in the ellipsis explains that the pope speaks ex cathedra "when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church."
    The key word is "defines." Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. The meaning of this term is explained in a relatio on Pastor Aeternus 4.

    http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp
  5. #65  
    And here is a better article (same site) that explains Papal Infallibility...

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well, it almost looked like the words in the top paragraph were your own again, but it looks like you copied it from one of the Christian scholars that have been attempting to discredit the manuscript.

    Whether you find the Historians(95-100AD) more credible on this, or the church, the point, again, was the silly comparison to the DaVinci Code novel.

    Well, the words are mine. Thank you very much. The information was gleaned from several sources, both historical and biblical. The comparison stands, the DaVinci code is a work a work of fiction with a little truth added in that make some want to credit it as truth. The Judas papers are a work completed decades (at best) after the fact and according to historical documents are not totally factual (which means they are partially fictional) and some now want to credit them as the whole truth.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    More information from your cite:

    "Dr Simon Gathercole, a New Testament expert from The University of Aberdeen, said: "The so-called "Gospel of Judas" is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new about the real Judas or Jesus.

    "It contains a number of religious themes which are completely alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which did become popular later, in the second century AD. An analogy would be finding a speech claiming to be written by Queen Victoria, in which she talked about The Lord of the Rings and her CD collection."

    This is exactly what I have been trying to get others to realize.
    None of the New Testament works are "ancient enough to tell us anything new about the real Judas or Jesus".

    Historically speaking, every one of the every one of the new testament works "contains a number of religious themes which are completely alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas".
  8.    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The Judas papers are a work completed decades (at best) after the fact ...
    Huh? After the fact? After what fact? All of the new testament works were written long after Jesus died. There are no gospels written in Jesus' time.
  9.    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    And here is a better article (same site) that explains Papal Infallibility...http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
    Hehe, from the Pope's website. Yes I know that the pope is not ALWAYS infallalbe, just only when the Holy Spirit enters him.

    On a side note, papal infalability also extends to the Infallibility of the Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The Infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to err in its belief or teaching under certain circumstances. This belief is held in a variety of forms by different Christian groups, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches.
    Now how can you argue with that
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Well, the words are mine. Thank you very much. The information was gleaned from several sources, both historical and biblical. The comparison stands, the DaVinci code is a work a work of fiction with a little truth added in that make some want to credit it as truth. The Judas papers are a work completed decades (at best) after the fact and according to historical documents are not totally factual (which means they are partially fictional) and some now want to credit them as the whole truth.
    There is a lot of research that still needs to be done. There are many factors that have to recognized with the Judas issue.

    It may be 100% true.

    It may be hearsay, or verbally transferred from one person to the next and when it was finally written down decades or a century later, it was distorted, inaccurate, embellished, with either more truth than story or more story than truth.

    It may be an early century attempt at historical fiction.

    It is also vital to recognize that there were several enemies of the Christians at the time it was suspected to be originally written and still when the copy was made. This very well could a total fabrication in an attempt to discredit the Christian movement during these first centuries that exhibited extreme prejudice against the rising Christian movement. I am talking feelings strong enough for them to justify murdering someone in as painful way as possible for the simple reason that they were Christian (Crucifixion, upside down Crucifixion, impaling, tied to a stake slowly roasting alive so the glow of the burning human bodies would make nice atmospheric dinner lighting, slicing open the belly and tied the top of the intestines to a wrench and having the person watch as their intestines were slowly pulled out of them, etc...). So an attempt to discredit the movement is very feasible option as well.


    PS: All the words, opinions, ideas in this post are solely my own.
  11.    #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It may be hearsay, or verbally transferred from one person to the next and when it was finally written down, it was distorted, inaccurate, with either more truth than story or more story than truth.
    Um, you just described the new testament.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Um, you just described the new testament.
    Um, no. The NT is a collection of letters, writings (i.e. diaryish) of first hand experience with Jesus or with/from his disciples.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Well, the words are mine. Thank you very much. The information was gleaned from several sources, both historical and biblical. The comparison stands, the DaVinci code is a work a work of fiction with a little truth added in that make some want to credit it as truth. The Judas papers are a work completed decades (at best) after the fact and according to historical documents are not totally factual (which means they are partially fictional) and some now want to credit them as the whole truth.
    Just a small correction: the version we we have now was written centuries after the fact. Its only through other sources such as Ireneus that we think there was an original during his time. But Ireneus also commented on several other books as well... many of them NT books. So, if we can take his commentary as proof of the existence of an original Book of Judas then we must take his commentary as proof of the existence of many of the NT works as well. Its a two way street.
  14.    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is also vital to recognize that there were several enemies of the Christians at the time it was suspected to be originally written and still when the copy was made. This very well could a total fabrication in an attempt to discredit the Christian movement during these first centuries that exhibited extreme prejudice against the rising Christian movement. I am talking feelings strong enough for them to justify murdering someone in as painful way as possible for the simple reason that they were Christian (Crucifixion, upside down Crucifixion, impaling, tied to a stake slowly roasting alive so the glow of the burning human bodies would make nice atmospheric dinner lighting, slicing open the belly and tied the top of the intestines to a wrench and having the person watch as their intestines were slowly pulled out of them, etc...). So an attempt to discredit the movement is very feasible option as well.
    With all due respect, this is interesting but baseless. Nothing in the gospel of Judas tended to discredit early Christians. And, it was written by a sect of Christians, who felt that Judas wasnt treated fairly.
  15.    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Um, no. The NT is a collection of letters, writings (i.e. diaryish) of first hand experience with Jesus or with/from his disciples.
    Uh, hobbes.

    No writers of ANYTHING in the Bible ever met Jesus. There were no diaries kept. Nothing first hand there. It was all oral tradition.
  16. #76  
    Actually it is not baseless as this is a valid point that is being researched at the moment. At least according to the International History channel doc on it....which is where I first heard it.
  17.    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Just a small correction: the version we we have now was written centuries after the fact. Its only through other sources such as Ireneus that we think there was an original during his time. But Ireneus also commented on several other books as well... many of them NT books. So, if we can take his commentary as proof of the existence of an original Book of Judas then we must take his commentary as proof of the existence of many of the NT works as well. Its a two way street.
    And all of the Gospels, including this one were written in the few hundred years after Jesus' Death.
  18.    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Actually it is not baseless as this is a valid point that is being researched at the moment. At least according to the International History channel doc on it....which is where I first heard it.
    I will look for it on the History Channel.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Uh, hobbes.

    No writers of ANYTHING in the Bible ever met Jesus. There were no diaries kept. Nothing first hand there. It was all oral tradition.
    Well, we can begin with the first one:

    The superscription ascribes the first Gospel to Matthew. That this embodies the opinion of the early Church is evident from the testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and several others, who all point to Matthew as the author. The Gospel itself shows unmistakably, by its Jewish physiognomy, that its author was a Jew, yea even that he was a Palestinian Jew, for he quotes from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint. It contains no direct evidence, however to the authorship of Matthew, though there are a couple points of difference between it and the other Synoptics that are best explained on the assumption that Matthew wrote it. When we compare the lists of the twelve apostles in Mt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3: 16-19; and Luke 6:14- 16, we notice that only in the first Gospel the name Matthew is followed by the less honorable qualification "the publican ;" and that it has the order, "Thomas and Matthew" instead of, "Matthew and Thomas.'
    From the New Testament Introduction, Louis Berkhof, 1915
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    And all of the Gospels, including this one were written in the few hundred years after Jesus' Death.
    Then how could they have been quoted by Clement in ~95 AD, Polycarp in ~125 AD and Justin Martyr in ~150 AD? Indeed, Justin Martyr quoted from all four Gospels and eleven of the epistles.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions