Gospel of Judas

[jokersarewild]

FFS yet again you have proven how plain stupid you and controled you by religion you are. The latest dating methods all prove the testoments were written up 200-300 years after the fact.

 

 

How ever even if I believe what you wrote regading the dates and I quote from your post.

Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.

Mark: c. 68–73

Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85

John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

 

These would have already been second hand information, seen as though most of the first followers were already dead!

James the son of Zebedee: He was put to death by Herod Agrippa I shortly before the day of the Passover, in the year 44 or about 11 years after the death of Christ. From Acts 12: 1-2.

 

John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD

 

Andrew: No accurate death date given. A variety of traditions say he preached in Scythia, in Greece, in Asia Minor and Thrace. He is reported to have been crucified at Patrae in Achaia.

 

 

Philip: Again, the Bible does not say when he died nor do we have accurate information. According to tradition he preached in Phrygia, and died at Hierapolis.

 

Bartholomew: There is no information concerning his death, not even by tradition

 

Matthew: He must have lived many years as an apostle, since he was the author of the Gospel of Matthew which was written at least twenty years after the death of Christ. There is reason to believe that he stayed for fifteen years at Jerusalem, after which he went as missionary to the Persians, Parthians and Medes. There is a legend that he died a martyr in Ethiopia

 

Thomas: The earlier traditions, as believed in the fourth century, say he preached in Parthia or Persia, and was finally buried at Edessa. The later traditions carry him farther east. His martyrdom whether in Persia or India, is said to have been by a lance, and is commemorated by the Latin Church on December 21 the Greek Church on October 6, and by the Indians on July 1.

 

James Alpheus also known as Thaddeus : We know he lived at least five years after the death of Christ because of mentions in the Bible. According to tradition, James son of Alpheus was thrown down from the temple by the scribes and Pharisees; he was then stoned, and his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club.

 

Simon the Canaanite – No information either in the Bible or by tradition.

 

Judas Iscariot: Shortly after the death of Christ Judas killed himself. According to the Bible he hanged himself, (Matthew 27:5) at Aceldama, on the southern slope of the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, and in the act he fell down a precipice and was dashed into pieces.

 

So far from disproving my claim that they were all written by second hand people, you have proved it. You are worshiping a lie.

Ok, If Jesus dies somewhere around about 30-45 AD, and Mark was written somewhere between 70-75 AD, the person that would write it would have to be at least 40-55 years old. You would easily be dead by that age. Anyway, assuming you had the mental capacity of a god, you would need a very, very good memory to write a book on the life of christ, at 40-55 years old. So any info you would have would almost have to be second hand. So, quarky is right.

[ImWithStupid]

Ok, If Jesus dies somewhere around, Oh I dunno, 0 AD, and Mark was written somewhere between 70-75 AD, the person that would write it would have to be at least 75-80 years old. You would easily be dead by that age. Anyway, assuming you had the mental capacity of a god, you would need a very, very good memory to write a book on the life of Christ, at 75-80 years old. So any info you would have would almost have to be second hand. So, quarky is right.

 

Actually Jesus died around 30 c.e., he was born around 0 c.e. The person who wrote it in 70-75 c.e. could also be someone who was younger than Mark and wrote down what he heard Mark preach at anytime between 30 c.e. (approx. time of Crucification) and when it was written (70-75 c.e.).

 

And Quarky is still an ignorant noob. JAW, don't be a Quarky.

[jokersarewild]

Actually Jesus died around 30 c.e., he was born around 0 c.e. The person who wrote it in 70-75 c.e. could also be someone who was younger than Mark and wrote down what he heard Mark preach at anytime between 30 c.e. (approx. time of Crucification) and when it was written (70-75 c.e.).

 

And Quarky is still an ignorant noob. JAW, don't be a Quarky.

 

I had realized that I had been thinking of his birth instead of death. He was actually born BEFORE 0 c.e.

 

So what you are saying is that it was somebody writing in the name of Mark? Possible, but still highly unlikely, since Mark died 2-7 years before it was written, in 68 AD.

 

What's kind of funny though, is that the "Gosopel According to Mark" is actually based on the preaching of Peter, who died around 65 AD, although this is not conclusive. This changes the time to write it fairly significantly. There was at least a 5 year gap in between it being written and Peter dying. So, Peter dies 5-10 years or so before the Gospel of Mark is written. Then, Mark dies 2-5 years before it is written. I would love to know the person that could remember the preaching of someone for 5-10 years, die before a book with your name on it is written, then write said book 2 years later.

[ImWithStupid]

I had realized that I had been thinking of his birth instead of death. He was actually born BEFORE 0 c.e.

 

I think something around 6 or 7 b.c.e., that's why said "around 0 c.e.".

 

So what you are saying is that it was somebody writing in the name of Mark? Possible, but still highly unlikely, since Mark died 2-7 years before it was written, in 68 AD.

 

What's kind of funny though, is that the "Gosopel According to Mark" is actually based on the preaching of Peter, who died around 65 AD, although this is not conclusive. This changes the time to write it fairly significantly. There was at least a 5 year gap in between it being written and Peter dying. So, Peter dies 5-10 years or so before the Gospel of Mark is written. Then, Mark dies 2-5 years before it is written. I would love to know the person that could remember the preaching of someone for 5-10 years, die before a book with your name on it is written, then write said book 2 years later.

 

Actually I think that the passing of the teachings/stories of Jesus through oral word of mouth (very common in ancient times) and then being written by some scribe who heard it, is very plausible and could explain the differences in the retelling of the Gospels as they appear in the New Testament. Kind of like the telephone game. Facts get mixed around and things get put in the wrong sequence.

[ImWithStupid]

To address the thread title, "Gospel of Judas". I don't know if I believe that it is anything more then the Gnostic sect of Christianity writing some Gospels to validate themselves and is just speculation or if it is in fact a retelling of the story from another point of view.

 

I do however think that it is very possible, based on the fact that Jesus did just about everything he could to get the negative attention of the high priests of the Temple, that he very well could have placed the task of "turning him over" (research shows that the interpretation of "betray" could be wrong and could actually be interpreted as "to turn over") to the temple guards, to Judas Iscariot.

 

I think that it is entirely plausible that Jesus had a plan that included becoming a martyr to show the corruption and misguided practices of the Hebrew faith.

 

It seemed that even when it looked as if Pilot was not going to have him executed he pushed the limits by stating that he was the Son of God in public, leaving Pilot with no choice but to fulfill the wishes of the high priests and the crowd.

 

So, I guess the possibility of Judas, not betraying Jesus is believable to me.

[eisanbt]

Not true. Strong correlation between IQ and spelling ability. No one with a 165 IQ, without a strong mental defect, would have typed the passage I quoted.

 

Quarky is a stupid liar. Case closed.

 

Perhaps, but spelling ability and typing ability are not exactly the same. I can say for at least myself that I'll often mistype something that I know how to spell simply out of habit and reaction. Sometimes repeat a word or do things like put 'is' in place of 'if' for example. These errors reflect how my typing skills have developed, not my spelling abilities.

 

However when you see consistencies in people's posts such as 'there' in place of 'their' then this demonstrates something closer to intelligence, with the exclusion of the "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" deal, which is to say that some people have a habit of such things and habits are hard to change.

 

Sorry for going off topic. :o

[Quarky1.0]

Firstly, don't start in on correcting people's spelling as its really pathetic, is in no way productive or even clever and goes to prove nothing at all about the person's mental capacity. I'm not defending him being an idiot I'm just saying that we ought to get past spelling eh?

 

 

 

 

I'll clear it up for you, as the other seem to disgusted to. First I agree religion= BS etc etc, but this argument is flawed so here is the lesson:

 

First the Holy Trinity are all one and the same; God. This clears away your arguments for Commandments 1 and 5.

 

The second commandment you abbreviated and in so changed the message. It is don't make any false idols. Christ being god, nobody is in the wrong to worship him or the more conventional God (With a capital 'G'). Remember kiddo, if you're quoting that means direct copying, not stating what you remember it saying.

 

My point is this, christianity created the holy trinity to negate the commandments.

[Quarky1.0]

Also to the insults that have come my way. I wear them with a badge of pride, being insulted and berated by a group of juvenile, closed and narrow minded, superstitious and asinine personality disorders is a badge of honor.

But then again, people like you when they're met with the truth often result in insults and violence, after all the truth makes your little little minds hurt.

 

And if you don't like it, when you can eat the shit out of my arse.

[ImWithStupid]

Also to the insults that have come my way. I wear them with a badge of pride, being insulted and berated by a group of juvenile, closed and narrow minded, superstitious and asinine personality disorders is a badge of honor.

But then again, people like you when they're met with the truth often result in insults and violence, after all the truth makes your little little minds hurt.

 

I know you are, but what am I?

[hugo]

(idiotic ramblings)

 

And to think this guy has an IQ rivaling Newton's. Paraphrasing Reagan again "It ain't what Quarky doesn't know that scares me. It's what he thinks he knows that just ain't true."

[Lethalfind]

Firstly, don't start in on correcting people's spelling as its really pathetic, is in no way productive or even clever and goes to prove nothing at all about the person's mental capacity. I'm not defending him being an idiot I'm just saying that we ought to get past spelling eh?

 

 

 

 

I'll clear it up for you, as the other seem to disgusted to. First I agree religion= BS etc etc, but this argument is flawed so here is the lesson:

 

First the Holy Trinity are all one and the same; God. This clears away your arguments for Commandments 1 and 5.

 

The second commandment you abbreviated and in so changed the message. It is don't make any false idols. Christ being god, nobody is in the wrong to worship him or the more conventional God (With a capital 'G'). Remember kiddo, if you're quoting that means direct copying, not stating what you remember it saying.

 

It would be pathetic if Quarky had not started talkin shit about his IQ...in light of the proposterous claim, its a very telling point...

[Quarky1.0]

And to think this guy has an IQ rivaling Newton's. Paraphrasing Reagan again "It ain't what Quarky doesn't know that scares me. It's what he thinks he knows that just ain't true."

 

 

Yet again we see Hugo

[hugo]

Yet again we see Hugo’s intellectually retarded masturbatory rambling' date=' in a feeble and half arse attempt to belittle someone else point of view. I have proved what I have said in the past, regarding racism etc, all you fall back on is your narrow minded little point of view, that you most probably reaffirm with your mates on the weekend as you sit around the backyard getting pissed and shooting squirrels and complaining to each other of how fat your wifes are, how they don't suck cock enough, and how your life sucks because of the damn liberals and all those muslims out to get you, and how as a white male life isn't as it should be.[/quote']

 

Beats looking for space aliens, getting thrown out of mensa gatherings, and picketing churches.

[Lethalfind]

Yet again we see Hugo

[Quarky1.0]

Beats looking for space aliens, getting thrown out of mensa gatherings, and picketing churches.

 

YUK YUK YUK you so funny.

[Quarky1.0]

You have proven nothing other then you have an inferiority complex...

 

umm i have, its not my probelem you so stupid not to know the truth.

[Lethalfind]

umm i have' date=' its not my probelem you so stupid not to know the truth.[/quote']

 

LOLOL, sorry I just have to jump on Hugo's band wagon...he has an IQ of 165 and spells problem 'probelem' and his grammar sucks as well..."you so stupid not to know the truth"

 

It sounds more like your lucky to be able to peck out your own name...maybe your a savant, all the genius buried under a retarded exterior, buried DEEP.

[Quarky1.0]

LOLOL, sorry I just have to jump on Hugo's band wagon...he has an IQ of 165 and spells problem 'probelem' and his grammar sucks as well..."you so stupid not to know the truth"

 

It sounds more like your lucky to be able to peck out your own name...maybe your a savant, all the genius buried under a retarded exterior, buried DEEP.

 

 

Firstly I'm dyslexic so fuck you, I have a problem with spelling and grammar, but anyone with dyslexia does. Also It was Hugo that brought up the issue of IQ, not I.

I take offence to being called a retard you stupid fuck arse rote learning, half wit. I would also like to point out, good grammar and spelling is not a sign of Intelligence, it is a sign of being a good little rote learner, nothing more.

 

Oh yeah, I would also like to point out, most of the greatest minds in history have been Dyslexic, not fucking rote learners.

 

As to the issue of an inferiority complex, again I would like to point out I did not bring up the issue of IQ, Hugo did, so who has the inferiority complex?. I know I'm smarter than you, that is not an inferiority complex, that is a fact.

 

PS: The fact you didn’t pick up that I’m dyslexic proves my point, you are fucking ignorant and an insult to the human race. I find it annoying that intelligence is judged by ones ability to write and have good grammar, but then again that is what is most important to the little minds of the rote learner.

[Lethalfind]

Firstly I'm dyslexic so fuck you, I have a problem with spelling and grammar, but anyone with dyslexia does. Also It was Hugo that brought up the issue of IQ, not I.

I take offence to being called a retard you stupid fuck arse rote learning, half wit. I would also like to point out, good grammar and spelling is not a sign of Intelligence, it is a sign of being a good little rote learner, nothing more.

 

Oh yeah, I would also like to point out, most of the greatest minds in history have been Dyslexic, not fucking rote learners.

 

As to the issue of an inferiority complex, again I would like to point out I did not bring up the issue of IQ, Hugo did, so who has the inferiority complex?. I know I'm smarter than you, that is not an inferiority complex, that is a fact.

 

PS: The fact you didn

[jokersarewild]

I thought this thread was debating THE FUCKING GOSPEL OF JUDAS, you dipshits!!!

 

Bitchslap each other via IM, not derailing a fucking thread!

[Quarky1.0]

Face it, your pathetic...you let Hugo bait you into making an imposible claim that you have a 165 IQ, we know you don't yet you persist...as for me picking up your dyslexic...why would I? Like I care.

 

 

Who baited who? Do you really think I give a fuck what either yourself or Hugo a gogo think? I think not. Its fun to fuck with the stupid like yourself.

Have a nice day, you have both been played.

[Kryptonite Man]

Negative, Quarky, it is YOU that's been played for a sap. I don't know what it is that made you think that religous belief is a crutch and such, but you'd be mistaken. The "Gospel of Judas" is, simply put, a false doctrine, as is the novel "The DaVinci Code".

Without religion, this country would not have been born, despite what the politically correct would have us believe. So don't be decieved. Normally I'd ignore some of the stuff Hugo posts, but in some instances he gets it right. In short, even Hugo has a brain, so, don't be fooled into thinking Hugo is wrong all of the time.

[TerroristHater]

I agree; the gospel of Judas, even if it was written in a long dead language, is fiction. I do not believe that Jesus would tell somebody to betray him. I think the whole concept is utter nonsense.

[jokersarewild]

I agree; the gospel of Judas, even if it was written in a long dead language, is fiction. I do not believe that Jesus would tell somebody to betray him. I think the whole concept is utter nonsense.

 

That's not necessarily true. If he really did believe that his sacrifice could have saved the rest of the world, he most likely would have gladly done it.

 

Since he already knew what was coming, he might as well have gotten the ball rolling.

[angie]

I agree; the gospel of Judas, even if it was written in a long dead language, is fiction. I do not believe that Jesus would tell somebody to betray him. I think the whole concept is utter nonsense.

 

I don't see how it's perceived as being so farfetched. Jesus HAD to be betrayed by someone in order to be crucified and die for everyone's sins and all that jazz. Maybe he chose Judas to do so as opposed to Judas having been a filthy greedy bastard. It really has no bearing on my life, I just think it's good entertainment to see the christians get their panties in a bunch over it.