Gospel of Judas

[RacersEdge]

Did anyone read about/watch the special on National Geographic about this new finding? I thought it was interesing - the special gave a good perspective on the Gnostics among the early Christians. It really makes you think abouit exactly how the NT was put together.

[pstripling]

I don't have any idea how to link to something, but there was a terrific story in today's Boston Globe basically stating the obvious. That the Gospel of Judas is a writing of antiquity, probably from the 3rd century. However it was written by Gnostics who wanted to portray a different side of the story...the fact that it was written 300 years after the events took place should tell you quite a bit. No one that was alive when the actual event took place would be alive to verifiy or refute the version presented.

[guesswest]

Couple things:

1. The traditional gospels were written many years after the death of Christ, over a century in some cases.
2. This probably isn't the first copy of the gospel of Judas, since it's referenced in earlier christian literature - so it probably wasn't written 300 years after the events took place. Though debate is ongoing as to exactly when it was written.

[pstripling]

1) Gospel of John was written AD 70, Matthew, Mark, Luke between AD 70-100, if you want to refute this please provide specifics. Thats within the same to one generation of the events. Also, Paul's epistles were the earliest of the NT writings AD 35-60. You can cross check the Gospels and epistles.

2) This may or may not be the first copy but that has little bearing on anything. The canon of books included in the NT was not decided until early fifth century. The books that were included were the books that were deemed the most historically accurate by their widespread use. What this means is that the wide use of a particular document led to its canonazation, not the canonazation leading to its widespread use.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Gospel of John was written AD 70, Matthew, Mark, Luke between AD 70-100, if you want to refute this please provide specifics. Thats within the same to one generation of the events. Also, Paul's epistles were the earliest of the NT writings AD 35-60. You can cross check the Gospels and epistles.

2) This may or may not be the first copy but that has little bearing on anything. The canon of books included in the NT was not decided until early fifth century. The books that were included were the books that were deemed the most historically accurate by their widespread use. What this means is that the wide use of a particular document led to its canonazation, not the canonazation leading to its widespread use.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't want to refute that, those dates look about right to me - I wasn't restricting my comment to the canonical gospels. Though, that's not exactly far off anyway, and a significant period of time. Also, Paul never met Jesus.

2. Widespread use is an absolutely terrible means of judging historical accuracy, especially 500 years after the fact.

[RacersEdge]

I am no religious scholar, but one of the experts on the NG show explained the selection of the 4 gospels of the NT as ones that were clear and easy for people to understand what Christianity meant. The other 20+ gospels were described as "advanced" text that may actually confuse people. It seemed that in order to gain followers, the early Christian leaders wanted to keep things simple.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I am no religious scholar, but one of the experts on the NG show explained the selection of the 4 gospels of the NT as ones that were clear and easy for people to understand what Christianity meant. The other 20+ gospels were described as "advanced" text that may actually confuse people. It seemed that in order to gain followers, the early Christian leaders wanted to keep things simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to deliver the messages that would give the Church the most power.

[Mr. Now]

Mr. Now notices that the media blitz around these writings is extremely well planned, similiar to advertising campaigns, and campaigns of outright propaganda executed by governments seeking social control, in the aggregate.

For example, I notice that the campaign exhibits characteristics of highly syncronized propaganda and advertising campaigns, across many media, especially with regard to the so-called TV "news".

I notice also the timing of this campaign is aligned with the "Christian" holiday of Easter. I notice also that it seems in alignment with the similiar campaign to sell a book, and a movie, called "The Da Vinci Codes".

I note with interest that only powerful elites can execute propaganda campaigns of this magnitude.

Accordingly, my current belief is that the story of the Gospel of Judas, as presented, likely serves multiple, as-yet unarticulated intentions of many powerful interests, behind the scenes.

I figure the chances of these as-yet unarticulated intentions actually being in my best interest, are somewhere in the range of "slim, and none".

[BluffTHIS!]

All these kind of shows and books about gnostic gospels and such, are just meant to blow smoke up people's asses and make them feel more comfortable and sophisticated in doubting the truth of Christianity. The only way you can know which books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit is for the church established by Christ and empowered by him and the Holy Spirit to make such determinations and authentic interpretations of same to tell you. And that church is the Catholic Church, and it has made those determinations in various church councils.

That these councils took place centuries or a millenia+ after the events of the gospels is only due to the fact that the church itself always knew which were inspired, and only felt the need to proclaim an authoritative list when outsiders and break away heretical believers questioned them. Like Martin Luther did when he tried to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT because it contradicted his doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

[guesswest]

Although I don't really buy into the whole thing being orchestrated in such a deliberate and organized way - it is noteworthy that this text was discovered a hell of a long time ago.

[surftheiop]

"Also, Paul never met Jesus"
Jesus did blind him from heaven and then speak to him according to Acts.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Gospel of John was written AD 70, Matthew, Mark, Luke between AD 70-100, if you want to refute this please provide specifics. Also, Paul's epistles were the earliest of the NT writings AD 35-60.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you got this backwards. Mark is generally considered to be the oldest Gospel and is usually dated circa 70. Then comes Matthew and Luke (80-90) and finally John some time around 100-120. Paul's writings are usually dated 50-60 (at a minimum, 35 is *extremely* early).

Also, don't let this make you think we have intact copies of these Gospels from those dates. All we have are scattered fragments. For example, the earliest fragment of any gospel is commonly dated to 120-160, is 2" x 3", and contains parts of 5 verses (2 on one side, three on the other). Here's a picture of it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/32/P52_recto.jpg/300px-P52_recto.jpg

The oldest in tact copies of the "big 4" Gospels date much later.

[pstripling]

2) My point is that only historically accurate material was in widespread use. Its use was widespread because it was accurate. It was written by people who witnessed the events. And it was subject to the scrutiny of others who were alive at the time of the events. Its interesting that the Roman government, which was the most powerful government on Earth at the time was unable to refute the accuracy of the Gospels.

The writings that were included in the NT were in continuous use from their original writing. They were officially canonized in the fifth century.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Now notices that the media blitz around these writings is extremely well planned, similiar to advertising campaigns, and campaigns of outright propaganda executed by governments seeking social control, in the aggregate.

For example, I notice that the campaign exhibits characteristics of highly syncronized propaganda and advertising campaigns, across many media, especially with regard to the so-called TV "news".

I notice also the timing of this campaign is aligned with the "Christian" holiday of Easter. I notice also that it seems in alignment with the similiar campaign to sell a book, and a movie, called "The Da Vinci Codes".

I note with interest that only powerful elites can execute propaganda campaigns of this magnitude.

Accordingly, my current belief is that the story of the Gospel of Judas, as presented, likely serves multiple, as-yet unarticulated intentions of many powerful interests, behind the scenes.

I figure the chances of these as-yet unarticulated intentions actually being in my best interest, are somewhere in the range of "slim, and none".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Mr. Now has a most interestingly designed tinfoil hat.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
That any books were truly inspired by the Holy sprit was just meant to blow smoke up people's asses and make them feel more comfortable and sophisticated in accepting the truth of Christianity and surrendering themselves to the church. The only way you can know which books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit is is to talk to him yourself.



[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[guesswest]

'It's use was widespread because it was accurate' How do you get to this? And based on those dates, and factoring life expectancy back then, the canonical gospels almost certainly were not written by people who witnessed the events. And the link here is oral tradition, which is horrendously unreliable as a means of gauging history.

I don't see any evidence that this is the case, history just doesn't normally work this way, ie widespread belief saying anything about accuracy. And I don't see anything to suggest this case would be an exception.

[pstripling]

I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian. Could you tell me where in the book of James that faith alone isn't good enough. Thanks

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
2) My point is that only historically accurate material was in widespread use. Its use was widespread because it was accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume this. We have very little knowledge about what Gospels were in "widespread" use in the Early Chrurch. IIRC, Paul makes no reference to any of them in his many Epistles.

[ QUOTE ]
It was written by people who witnessed the events.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have no idea who authored any of the big 4 gospels. The names attributed to them were 3rd century guesses. They may have been authored by "a" Mark, Luke, Matthew and John but almost certainly not "the" MLM&J. Unless you assume up front that they're divinely inspired and must be written by witnesses.

[ QUOTE ]
And it was subject to the scrutiny of others who were alive at the time of the events. Its interesting that the Roman government, which was the most powerful government on Earth at the time was unable to refute the accuracy of the Gospels.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are under the mistaken impression that the Roman government gave a damn about what early Christians believed. They were an unpopular, insignificant cult until Nero decided that they would make a convenient scapegoat for his own problems.

Finally, the idea that in those days religious ideas succeded or failed based on reasoned debate of the issues and the evidence at hand is laughable. This isn't true today in our much more literate and informed era. Back then the typical convert had zero access to any contrary information.

[Copernicus]

Christianity's Success and the Politics of Rome (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html)

[pstripling]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) My point is that only historically accurate material was in widespread use. Its use was widespread because it was accurate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You assume this. We have very little knowledge about what Gospels were in "widespread" use in the Early Chrurch. IIRC, Paul makes no reference to any of them in his many Epistles.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was written by people who witnessed the events.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have no idea who authored any of the big 4 gospels. The names attributed to them were 3rd century guesses. They may have been authored by "a" Mark, Luke, Matthew and John but almost certainly not "the" MLM&J. Unless you assume up front that they're divinely inspired and must be written by witnesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could google all day long and come up with achealogical find after find showing that the texts that were found in the NT were in fact in use all over. Much more so than alternate sources. It would be like comparing the circulation of a current bestseller to a small town newspaper.

The authors of the 4 Gospels are Matthew (the apostle, tax collector, follower of Jesus), Mark (companion of Peter), Luke (doctor and companion of Paul), John (commonly thought to be the apostle).

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it was subject to the scrutiny of others who were alive at the time of the events. Its interesting that the Roman government, which was the most powerful government on Earth at the time was unable to refute the accuracy of the Gospels.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you are under the mistaken impression that the Roman government gave a damn about what early Christians believed. They were an unpopular, insignificant cult until Nero decided that they would make a convenient scapegoat for his own problems.

Finally, the idea that in those days religious ideas succeded or failed based on reasoned debate of the issues and the evidence at hand is laughable. This isn't true today in our much more literate and informed era. Back then the typical convert had zero access to any contrary information.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Roman government surely did care that a body they had been guarding disappeared and then people started to question Roman rulership.

[RacersEdge]

Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus was a very popular teacher. If they arrested him when he was in public, they'd have a riot on their hands. They needed someone like a Judas to become informant, and nab Jesus away from the crowds.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity's Success and the Politics of Rome (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, but this talks about Roman politics and Christianity in the 3rd century. We're no longer talking about the very early church where there could conceivably have been witnesses around. The post I was responding to claimed that witnesses to the events prevented the Romans from disproving Christainity. It's obvious, I hope, that this argument can't apply to 3rd century Rome.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus was the "number one enemy of the Romans", wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned in contemporary Roman histories of the period? There is no such mention. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was less than a minor problem. He was actually more of a problem for the Sanhedrin, but we don't want to go there. (There's a lot of controversy over that one, and no one today is going to figure out what really happened.)

You also forget how easy it was to live and move around anonymously in the pre-media age. Even in the Old West, when there were photographs, it was pretty easy for all the outlaws to move around unnoticed. Jesse James lived just outside of Nashville for 15 years and no one noticed, even though he was the most notorious criminal of his era. Bin Laden is still missing, and his picture is all over the planet. Just imagine how easy it was with no printing press, no media, no photos. You would definitely need for someone who knew you to pick you out of a crowd.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus was the "number one enemy of the Romans", wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned in contemporary Roman histories of the period?

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick Google search brought up this page (http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html)

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus was the "number one enemy of the Romans", wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned in contemporary Roman histories of the period? There is no such mention. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was less than a minor problem. He was actually more of a problem for the Sanhedrin, but we don't want to go there. (There's a lot of controversy over that one, and no one today is going to figure out what really happened.)

You also forget how easy it was to live and move around anonymously in the pre-media age. Even in the Old West, when there were photographs, it was pretty easy for all the outlaws to move around unnoticed. Jesse James lived just outside of Nashville for 15 years and no one noticed, even though he was the most notorious criminal of his era. Bin Laden is still missing, and his picture is all over the planet. Just imagine how easy it was with no printing press, no media, no photos. You would definitely need for someone who knew you to pick you out of a crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if JJ or OBL were giving speeches in the same town everyday at lunch, it would be easy to grab them. And Jesus wasn't intentionally running/hiding from anyone like a wanted man. He was just there , out in the open - preaching the gospel.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I could google all day long and come up with achealogical find after find showing that the texts that were found in the NT were in fact in use all over. Much more so than alternate sources.

[/ QUOTE ]
From the 1st century? Really? When there isn't even a single surviving fragment of any gospel from that era? I doubt it. I'd agree if we were talking about the late 2nd century but then we're no longer talking about a continuous record going back to the original witnesses.

[ QUOTE ]
The authors of the 4 Gospels are Matthew (the apostle, tax collector, follower of Jesus), Mark (companion of Peter), Luke (doctor and companion of Paul), John (commonly thought to be the apostle).

[/ QUOTE ]
A common belief among lay christians but pretty much destroyed by academic research over the last 200 years. Its main argument is that tradition says that they were the authors, therefore they were the authors.

[ QUOTE ]
The Roman government surely did care that a body they had been guarding disappeared and then people started to question Roman rulership.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what makes you say this? IIRC, there is no Roman text that says anything about them thinking about it at all. There were no Christian uprisings against the Romans around the year 30. There is lots written about uprisings by Jewish zealots from this era, but not a peep (AFAIK) about Christians. And the Jewish uprisings have *nothing* to do with Jesus.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
A quick Google search brought up this page (http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
Very weak, but admittingly everything there is.

Many of those quotes simply say people known as Christians existed in the late first and early second centuries (I don't think anyone doubted that) and merely states what they believed. For example, half that page is devoted to an exchange between Trajan and Pliney that took place around 110 and only speaks of their current concerns about Christians.

The Josephus quotes are notorious and widely considered to be late inserts or at least severly compromised.

Saying that someone named "Yeshua" (a very common name) was "hanged" during passover fro "sorcery" doesn't say very much (and says nothing about Roman concerns about Jesus).

That Arabic quote is from a 10th century Christian Arab and is the version of what he knows of Josephus' writings (apparantly from memory since he gets the title of Josephus' book wrong). It's main value is as an alternative (and perhaps more accurate) version of the infamous Joephus quote.

As for this one:
[ QUOTE ]
He expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus

[/ QUOTE ]
Chrestus is the correct latin version of a common greek name and very probably doesn't refer to Jesus at all.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Chrestus is the correct latin version of a common greek name and very probably doesn't refer to Jesus at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Jesus was not an uncommon name (couldn't it have been translated into Joshua in some languages).

[Fly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chrestus is the correct latin version of a common greek name and very probably doesn't refer to Jesus at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Jesus was not an uncommon name (couldn't it have been translated into Joshua in some languages).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Jesus is the greek version of a nickname for the Hebrew equivalent of Joshua.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chrestus is the correct latin version of a common greek name and very probably doesn't refer to Jesus at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Jesus was not an uncommon name (couldn't it have been translated into Joshua in some languages).

[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking about "Chrestus" not "Jesus", and Jesus is just a variant of Joshua - an extremely common Jewish name.

[siegfriedandroy]

so why were early Christians severely persecuted by the Romans in the next couple generations after Christ?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
so why were early Christians severely persecuted by the Romans in the next couple generations after Christ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to borrow a quote from an earlier link:

[ QUOTE ]
But neither the aid of men, nor the emperor's bounty, nor propitiatory offerings to the gods, could remove the grim suspicion that the fire had been started by Nero's order. To put an end to this rumor, he shifted the charge on to others, and inflicted the most cruel tortures upon a group of people detested for their abominations, and popularly known as "Christians".

Cornelius Tacitus, Annals
written in the 2nd century A.D.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "severe" persecution only really started when Nero needed a scapegoat after the buring of Rome in 64. It had nothing to do with concerns over whether or not some guy named Jesus really did what his followers believed he did.

[siegfriedandroy]

Dam, your contention that Roman sources did not mention Christ, and did not consider him an enemy, could not be more blatantly wrong. Check the link provided below for a brief intro.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus was the "number one enemy of the Romans", wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned in contemporary Roman histories of the period? There is no such mention. As far as the Romans were concerned, he was less than a minor problem. He was actually more of a problem for the Sanhedrin, but we don't want to go there. (There's a lot of controversy over that one, and no one today is going to figure out what really happened.)

You also forget how easy it was to live and move around anonymously in the pre-media age. Even in the Old West, when there were photographs, it was pretty easy for all the outlaws to move around unnoticed. Jesse James lived just outside of Nashville for 15 years and no one noticed, even though he was the most notorious criminal of his era. Bin Laden is still missing, and his picture is all over the planet. Just imagine how easy it was with no printing press, no media, no photos. You would definitely need for someone who knew you to pick you out of a crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

[siegfriedandroy]

How are you so certain that this persecution only began in 64? And why, at that point, did Nero choose Christians, as opposed to any one of the other mystery religions, cults, etc?

[siegfriedandroy]

Where can I get info about whether or not the Josephus quotes were compromised? Many believe they are legitimate.

So why did this incredible hatred and enmity toward Christians arise to such a degree that the Romans would slaughter them for simply holding true and steadfast to their faith?

[siegfriedandroy]

What is the Catholic position on the Apocrypha? Do you believe they were inspired? Also, how can you prove that these catholic counsels truly were inspired by the Spirit, and that the particular books they chose really were the ones inspired by God? Also, did these counsels include the apocrypha?

[siegfriedandroy]

I think James has passages that could be interpreted to suggest this, which is why Luther was hesitant to accept it as part of the Canon. But it's also possible to read James from a Protestant, faith alone perspective as well. Not sure how to best exegete this book to find the ultimate meaning.

I grew up Lutheran, and used to be very hung up on various doctrinal issues in Scripture. But over time, somehow the exact nuances of doctrine sometimes seem a bit less important. I am Christian, and believe that the NT is clear that faith alone is sufficient, and that the Catholic doctrine of faith + works is unscriptural. but i also think that the authors did not get especially hung up over the minute details of how it all comes together. they were clear that a Christian is saved by grace through faith. As a result, good works will flow through him by the power of Christ. I believe that some (perhaps many) Catholics will be saved, but that it is foolish to claim that one can be saved through any merit of his own.

[siegfriedandroy]

my friend told me it was written around 100 ad. this did strike me as way too early. can you provide info proving it is from 300?

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
Where can I get info about whether or not the Josephus quotes were compromised? Many believe they are legitimate.

So why did this incredible hatred and enmity toward Christians arise to such a degree that the Romans would slaughter them for simply holding true and steadfast to their faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

My take is that the Romans felt they needed to control the religion in order to control the people. It was a power thing more than a hate thing. The whole public killing of Christians was the Roman Empire showing the world that they would squelch out this new upstart religion.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus was the "number one enemy of the Romans", wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned in contemporary Roman histories of the period?

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick Google search brought up this page (http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the word "contemporary". Those source are all at least 50 years after the events in question, by which time Christianity was already spreading. My point was, there are no mentions of it in Roman records in the 30-35 AD era, which means he was hardly considered a big problem by the Romans. Of course our records are incomplete, but there are also a lot of Roman records about and not one mention. If he were a big problem, some record would have survived. As it was, apparently he was not.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Dam, your contention that Roman sources did not mention Christ, and did not consider him an enemy, could not be more blatantly wrong. Check the link provided below for a brief intro.

[/ QUOTE ]
What link where?

There are no Roman sources that fit your description. Earlier someone posted a link to just about every non-christian reference to Jesus, and none of them say anything about Jesus being an object of Roman concern.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you so certain that this persecution only began in 64? And why, at that point, did Nero choose Christians, as opposed to any one of the other mystery religions, cults, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't be certain because we're taklking about History, not physics, but the point is that there is *zero* evidence of mass persecutions of Christians in the 1st century other than by Nero after the fire. After Nero, there was no record of Emperors having any significant concerns about Christians until Trajan.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Where can I get info about whether or not the Josephus quotes were compromised? Many believe they are legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only people that believe they're legitimate are devout Christians, and even many devout scholars doubt it. See here (http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html) for a standard description of the controversy. This link falls in the middle of the spectrum since it tries to weed out what is legit and what is not. Others insist the whole thing is fabricated. And of course there are those that you have been reading who belive the whole thing is legit (which is mind boggling if you ask me - what non-Christian would speak of Jesus that way?).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity's Success and the Politics of Rome (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, but this talks about Roman politics and Christianity in the 3rd century. We're no longer talking about the very early church where there could conceivably have been witnesses around. The post I was responding to claimed that witnesses to the events prevented the Romans from disproving Christainity. It's obvious, I hope, that this argument can't apply to 3rd century Rome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever historical validity there was in the early versions of the NT would have been easily manipulated by the new alliance of the government and the bishops, a symbiotic relationship that gave both groups powers that they didnt have without each other.

We are only 60 years past the Holocaust, witnessed by far more many people than witnessed Jesus, yet there are millions who believe a history rewritten by an alliance of government and clerics where the Holocaust didnt exist. Especially ironic, since it was a Muslim who most likely gave the impetus that set the Final Solution in motion.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the Judas Gospel, in it, it claims Judas was asked by Jesus to turn Jesus into the Romans. This part seems strange to me. Wasn't Jesus like the number one enemy of the Romans at this time? Couldn't they pretty much go pick up Jesus whenever they felt like it? I mean he was out in the public preaching right? I guess this quesions the mainstream gospels as well - why did the Romans need someone to "turn in" Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Jesus was the "number one enemy of the Romans", wouldn't you think he'd be mentioned in contemporary Roman histories of the period?

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick Google search brought up this page (http://www.dokimos.org/mmlj/mmlj000.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the word "contemporary". Those source are all at least 50 years after the events in question, by which time Christianity was already spreading. My point was, there are no mentions of it in Roman records in the 30-35 AD era, which means he was hardly considered a big problem by the Romans. Of course our records are incomplete, but there are also a lot of Roman records about and not one mention. If he were a big problem, some record would have survived. As it was, apparently he was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a ancient historian so I have no idea what constitutes "valid" testimony or witness for events that happened 2000 years ago. My understanding is that there are many documents that are used to support events/teachings/writings of ancient antiquity (in general, not just the bible) although they may have been written many years after the fact.

I would think that for things that happened thousands of years ago, "contemporary" evidence has a new definition that what we would define today.

Why isn't Jesus mentioned more in Roman histories? I dunno, I always just thought it was because the Romans didn't care all that much about Jewish affairs.

[Gamblor]

this is all bogus as we all know that jesus was actually a rapper from Chicago.
http://cache.gawker.com/news/kanyerssm.jpg

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Mr. Now has a most interestingly designed tinfoil hat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think profit motive is an adequate explanation for the hype.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
All these kind of shows and books about gnostic gospels and such, are just meant to blow smoke up people's asses and make them feel more comfortable and sophisticated in doubting the truth of Christianity. The only way you can know which books were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit is for the church established by Christ and empowered by him and the Holy Spirit to make such determinations and authentic interpretations of same to tell you. And that church is the Catholic Church, and it has made those determinations in various church councils.

That these councils took place centuries or a millenia+ after the events of the gospels is only due to the fact that the church itself always knew which were inspired, and only felt the need to proclaim an authoritative list when outsiders and break away heretical believers questioned them. Like Martin Luther did when he tried to exclude the Book of James from the canon of the NT because it contradicted his doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
so now are you saying that there is salvation by something other than faith alone