Ok I know I'm pushing the limit here but this is just too juicy to ignore.

How does it relate to SAGG? Well it is archeology. Ok!

Here's the story:

National Geographic unveiled an ancient manuscript Thursday that may shed new light on the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who betrayed him.

The papyrus manuscript was written probably around 300 A.D. in Coptic script, a copy of an earlier Greek manuscript.

It was discovered in the desert in Egypt in the 1970s and has now been authenticated by carbon dating and studied and translated by biblical scholars, National Geographic announced.

Unlike the four gospels in the Bible, this text indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus' request.

The text begins "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."

The key passage comes when Jesus tells Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed me."

This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said.

The manuscript was first mentioned in a treatise around 180 A.D. by a bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon, in what is now France. The bishop denounced the manuscript as differing from mainstream Christianity and said it produced a fictitious story.

And it gets better and better. Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel.judas.ap/index.html

Think anyone will go back and add this into Revelations? Not on your life!
There is no room for truth in the holy gospel.

Ok DA, to preempt all the others..(clears throat)

1. How dare you state this is more accurate or real then the Bible as it is?

2. You only pick and choose what agrees with your personal theories about the Bible so there!!

3. Carbon dating is an evil of science!!

Like to add some more DA?

Lillith attempting to pre-empt the sound-byte kids wrote:

1. How dare you state this is more accurate or real then the Bible as it is?

Two reasons why it is more likely to be accurate.
A. It is dated 180AD. More than 100 years before any biblical text was written.

B. Given the story of Jesus it is impossible that he did now know of the betrayal before it happened. And could have interceded to stop it had he chose. So whether the betrayal was requested or just accepted ... the act was accepted without protest or intervention by either account.

2. You only pick and choose what agrees with your personal theories about the Bible so there!!

Yeah science is like that. It tends to weigh in on matters that are provable. Like the missing link between fish and reptiles just reported.

3. Carbon dating is an evil of science!

Carbon has been proven to be toxic. That is why the government advises people not to BBQ meat. Everyone should do everything they can to purge their bodies of all of toxic carbon.

Lillith asks:
"Like to add some more DA?"

You have no idea. But I'll bite my tongue and bide my time. No doubt the cranks will crank it up for this one.

Here's another link for them:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12186080/

It contains a more detailed account of the finding.

(sigh), No cranks coming out to play yet. I am sorely disappointed. Now how am I going to spend the rest of my day at work. Oh yeah, reading a book on Environmental Economics and another one on the Mideast Crisis.

DA makes a major find for his religion!!!

Unlike the four gospels in the Bible, this text indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus' request.

The text begins "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."

The key passage comes when Jesus tells Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothed me."

This indicates that Judas would help liberate the spiritual self by helping Jesus get rid of his physical flesh, the scholars said."

Hi DA, do you think there is any doubr here that you are the major posting source for anti, not really menainful, religious thought? Do you do it because dumping on the beliefs of others is much easier than promoting sciencetific thought?
Too bad.
jjw

Hmmm, if an archaelogist had found proof of where Noah's Arc is you would post it as well JJW.

Archeaology is science, just because the scientist states what is in the parchment runs counter to what the current religions believe does not make it anti-religion.

Religious folk could look at it this way, that Judas loved Jesus and humanity so much that he was willing to deceive all the other apostles to accomplish God's will.

Other folks could look at it and say that Jesus pulled off an elaborate deception to accomplish his goals and therefore that sheds doubts on the rest of the Bible writings.

It's all in your perception really.

However, it seems unfair if this is accurate to continue to view Judas as an evil betrayor isn't it?

I have to admire your footwork Morgan. You duck and dodge in any direction that helps your case. Like the very worst of zealots you just can't be trusted to be honest.
You claim that the gospels are unreliable because of the gap between events and writing. (Paul's 1st letter to Thessalonians written 48AD...about 15 years after Christ's death). But now you cite this gospel and have no problem with its veracity, despite the fact it was written 270 years after Christ's death. It couldn't possibly be interpolated from the Greek copy could it, just as you arrogantly pronounce the rest of the gospels were. Hypocrisy of the worst kind. Intellectually dishonest...YOU BETCHA!!

This gospel is connected with a number of others that were discounted because they were written by a sect that claimed Jesus gave secret information to Judas (and GUESS WHAT...they obviously were privy to this 'secret' info giving them power and authority). Oh yes, let?s just recap...

Intellectually dishonest...YOU BETCHA!!

And Chaoslillith, do you realise how ignorant and biased you appear to be? Do you? Probably not. Also...one who cast spells ought to think twice before they label others as cranks.

Easy.

You see Lillith there are cranks out there. You just need to be more patient.

jjw004: It is science. It is an authenticated historical document as proven by the scientific method. The problem here is not religion. The problem here is heresy. You only like the truth if it is a "your" truth. And I like to dispatch hypocrisy where-ever I find it.

Do you want to know my belief? Ok I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that the truth is a breath of fresh air. And that those who truly care about the future have an obligation to air it without personal prejudice.

Of course there'd be no complaint from jjw004 if it supported his belief system. That's the difference between "real" science and "pseudoscience." Right jjw?

Having now had a chance to read some of the original text translated. And having had a chance to talk to my neighbor, the psychiatrist, I have a sense of what this text reveals.

Essentially that we have a Branch Davidian type cult led by a charismatic leader with some disciples who are quarreling among themselves (not very Christian of them but who's looking that closely). In 1993 David Koresh decided to go out in a blaze of glory. In roughly the year 33 Jesus Christ made the same decision. Give Koresh's followers 300+ years and they may well be completing the analogy. Who can say.

Is there anyone out there who doesn't consider it possible that some day bin Laden will ask one of his followers to betray him to the Americans so that he too can become a martyr? And do you doubt that some in the middle east would then create a movement based upon his disciples?

History will just keep repeating itself until we get off the merry-go-round. The first step off is a bit scary. It requires acknowledging the truth.
This text is part of that truth.

Expert doubts 'Gospel of Judas' revelation.

"James M. Robinson, America's leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt, predicts in a new book that the text won't offer any insights into the disciple who betrayed Jesus. His reason: While it's old, it's not old enough."

?Does it go back to Judas? No,'' Robinson told The Associated Press on Thursday.

"Robinson is an emeritus professor at Claremont (Calif.) Graduate University, chief editor of religious documents found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and an international leader among scholars of Coptic manuscripts."

"Robinson has not seen the text that National Geographic is working on, but assumes it is the same work assailed by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons around A.D. 180.

Irenaeus said the writings came from a "Cainite" Gnostic sect that jousted against orthodox Christianity. He also accused the Cainites of lauding the biblical murderer Cain, the Sodomites and Judas, whom they regarded as the keeper of secret mysteries."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-02-gospel-of-judas_x.htm

So who do you trust there Mr Morgan? Let's see...'America's leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt' or the team that have sensationalised it for a sale to the highest bidder, $3 - $10 million dollars, and now the National Geographic who want sales off it?

Oh of course...no brainer...trust the ones who confirm your skepticism.

Easy.

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

LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!! Well I have a sense of what your text reveals...time for your medication. You make it up as you go along. How can you expect anyone to have any respect for your moronic rants?

Easy.

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

Says who, Give it up before you descend any further into farce!!!

Easy.

Eek I did not realize National Geographic was so horrible.

Yes I cast spells on occassion, seeing as how others would still like to burn me at the stake I feel no guilt about calling others cranks.

My answer, is I believe none of them. Seeing as how only a century or so after the death of Christ there were sects warring about what he said and did, I choose to believe that that they are all egotists who argue over the "word of God". Truth is NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE TRUTH!!!

Scholars will argue over everything in the Bible, your leading expert will disagree with Morgan's expert and when it comes down to it it is PERSONAL INTEPRETATION. There is no "WORD OF GOD" because if all religious writings are to be the words of god then everything that has been written about him must be true.

Sorry folks, either the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran and all the other holy texts that claim to be the word of god are or they are all false, as I have yet to see a real test that shows us what is the real word of god.

How does this logic work? Simple, every one of these text claim divine inspiration, so therefore they must all be right or someone is a great con artist.



How does any scholar really know the truth about Jesus? We were not there. Hell, we are constantly rewriting our own histories as nations and people. If you look at textbook written in Britain about the revolutionary war and one written here I am sure there will be several inconsistencies.

If all the Popes are God's voice and representative on earth, then they should have a direct line and never be in error correct? Yet the Pope's decisions have more often been prompted by politics and less by religion. Yet many Catholics believe the Popes are divinely inspired. So if they can be divinely inspired, who's to say this archaelogist was not divinely insprired to find this document and release it to the world for some reason that is yet to be apparent to us.

Are you willing to double guess God's divine plan? It is simple Easy, how do you or anyone on this Earth really know if any of these experts have a clue? Are you willing to bet your eternal soul on being wrong?

Think about it.....

I am sure you will ask me somewhere about my soul. My answer, hell is where all the interesting people will be and I'd much rather burn eternally with Socrates then sit next to a Bible thumper.

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

Trying to work out if your dishonest or just ignorant. Probably just ignorant...Let's examine your ' logic '.

All texts claim divine inspiration. Therefore...

1. All texts are correct.
2. They are all a con.

Great. Suits you very well. Now let's engage our brains and look at something other than Chaoslilliths 'Logic for Dummies'.

3. One or more texts are divinely inspired.
4. One text is divinely inspired.

When you show an ability to think straight it may be worthwhile giving your opinion.

Easy.

Ok, let's try this.

Thanks for not answering any of the questions I posted, good job at picking your battles.

My logic is quite simple if you take into account that every religion claims to be divinely inspired. God states in all main three texts (I am not sure about the Quran) that he is the only God and there are no others, so we are left with an interesting problem.

1. There is one God who chooses to reveal himself in different fashions to different followers and the three holy texts are simply progressions of his teachings.

2. There is one God who allows other entities to do a damn good job of sounding a lot like him who he chooses to do nothing about.

3. There is only one God, therefore all the killing and destruction in his name has been for nothing.

So we are left with the 2 options that state that humanity has killed countless thousands over semantics, or that somehow God expects us to decide which of the three nuts are hiding the real truth. Either way, the writings are either all divinely inspired or not, based on the beliefs of those people who believe in these faiths.

I realize it makes no sense to some but I am approaching this from my attempt at being faith based.

To be faith based I would have to believe that only my chosen version of the Bible is correct and that all others are false..hence a con job. Following that:
1. The people who believe other than me, say Muslims would believe that their Bible is real and the Catholics are false, a con job.
2. Therefore either all three who believe are correct in their belief or they are all wrong because:

3 a.If the Jews think the Catholics are wrong and
b.the Catholics think the Muslims are wrong and
c. the Muslims think the Jews are wrong

Who is right?

By the way thanks for inadvertently pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in the religions....

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

I'm not picking battles. I'm just more interested in spending my time examining Mr Morgans assertions. He at least has studied the subject. You on the other hand spout your uneducated, ignorant, baseless, ill thought out personal opinions and I ain't got time to bother with 'em. Showing up your poor and mercenary, selective excuse for logic was enough.

Easy.

Ahhh, so my being raised Catholic, reading several books on myths and speaking to many a priest about these issues means I am ignorant and baseless. I have studied the subject, trust me. However, if you do not like the simple way I answer you in trying to make my points painfully clear and leaving you really little room to argue is too annoying for you then I am sorry.

You like picking on Morgan because many of his posts leave a lot unsaid so you choose to fill in what you want.

I guess that is how one maintains an "Easylife".

Answer this for me: If you believe in God how do you know your idea of God is any more correct then a Muslims? If you state that the Bible tells you, well their Quran tells them differently so where does that leave both of you?

I am sure you can answer that without name calling can't you?

I'm not here to explain my beliefs. The reasons are extensive and preclude a nicely packaged summary. The name calling (no ones being killed here) extends out of my anger at seeing zealots of any kind (religious or atheist) arrogantly proclaiming what's what by the process of an intellectually dishonest examination of selective self-supporting facts. Anyone can take a position on subjective emotional grounds and find the supporting evidence they require. I'm capable of it...Mr Morgan is quite evidently capable of it. I will oppose it in the interests of detached rational thought.

I just happen to see you as lightweight and more at home in a school debating team. Your thinking is too muddled. Please don't insult me by telling me your "points are painfully clear and leave me little room to argue"...proclaiming it so does not make it so except in your own head.

Easy.

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

I couldn't care less how many books on myths you've read and how many priests you've chatted with. My opinion of most priests is probably lower than yours. Don't attempt to qualify yourself, as if it lends more credence to the half-thoughts you spew out. Your statements stand or fall on their own merit and not because you read a few books.

Easy.

I'm sure Mr Morgan will appreciate your support, and your inference that he is incapable of communicating properly, but trots out arguments full of gaps. Get back to Sycophants Superhero Sidekick School.

Easy.

Hmm, I cannot qualify myself but you can disqualify me based on what you feel is "muddy thinking".

You are not here to discuss beliefs but dislike people picking out facts that support their ideas. Ok then, I asked you a simple question that had nothing to do with facts and you refuse to answer it.

Sorry Easy, but rational thought and religion really do not go together simply because when you introduce rational thought into a religious conversation things tend to go badly.


You state that you get angry because of zealots trying to prove their points with self selective facts, well then you should just steer clear of any discussions in religions. All belief systems really are based on choosing what belief agrees with you. If you look over my posts you will see that I really do not argue facts about religion at all. I simply asked a few questions and stated my opinion on religion.

I am not a zealot, atheistic or otherwise. I can see both sides of the issue when I want. I just enjoy contradicting religious people because they usually storm off when asked too many questions that confuse their beliefs.

You seem to think you have all the answers, or that Morgan and I have no idea what we are talking about but when it comes to religion no one really "knows" the truth. They just "believe" or "have faith" that their way is the right way. DA and I have both admitted to believing in a universal power, we just both despise hypocrites who claim one thing and act completely different from what they claim. That's really the driving force behind our posts.

By the way I am not a Sychophant, Morgan is hardly incapable of communicating, just a lot busier then I am. Nice to know though that defending a friend is now cause for name calling.

Lillith wrote:
"Nice to know though that defending a friend is now cause for name calling."

Well it is, after all, the Christian thing to do.

I'll respond tomorrow after a good night's sleep.

Have the moral high ground. I'm not here to love you...I don't even know you. I'm challenging the hypocrisy of you self-appointed crusaders against religious 'ignorance'. Letting your one-sided representation of the 'facts' go unchallenged does not serve the truth.

Easy.

Easy Life asks:
"'America's leading expert on such ancient religious texts from Egypt'"

Wow you are a real authoritarian aren't you. Must be troubling that the country you live in isn't ruled by a King or Emperor.

Science, Easy, does not work that way. I don't bow down to tyrants and I don't bow down to "leading experts" opinions either. Robinson's opinion is the opinion of one man. I will factor it into the opinions of the other experts in the field including, though I know this may shock you, non Americans too. Every once in awhile I find that non-Americans are not brain dead.

Lillith asks:
a.If the Jews think the Catholics are wrong and
b.the Catholics think the Muslims are wrong and
c. the Muslims think the Jews are wrong

And the answer very clearly is none of them.

And they have waged war after war and committed atrocities beyond counting just for the sole purpose of proving who is the most righteous.

I have to admire Easy ... he hasn't posted a single reference to anything, substantive or otherwise, he is arguing against a text that is, by any definition, more reliable than the New Testament in that it hasn't gone through political editing in Nicea or by the likes of King Henry VIII. And yet his life is so simple ... don't like a fact ... denounce it ... spin doctor it ... argue against it. Facts can be so inconvenient.

Lillith wrote to Easy:
"Ahhh, so my being raised Catholic, reading several books on myths and speaking to many a priest about these issues means I am ignorant and baseless."

You see Lillith you just don't understand.

First you are a female and we all know that females are not allowed to have opinions or at least to express them. You know menstrual cycles and all. Go back to your tent.

Second Christians are allowed to behave in the most non-Christian manner (including genocide and rape) whenever they are doing so on behalf of their god, the Prince of Peace. So Easy Life is free to throw around baseless comments about things he knows nothing about such as your knowledge and personal history. Or perhaps as his predecessors did torture you and then burn you at the stake.

And finally you must realize that his doing so is not a sign of the grossest of hypocrisies. He has god on his side. So he will just say his "Hail Marys" and all will be forgiven.

That's how it works. No sin is too big to be forgiven of a believer. Get with the program. ;-)

(smacks self on forehead), Here I was thinking we were out of the dark ages...silly Chaos, Bush is in power we have regressed not progressed (sigh)

Bushes are planeted in dirt. Wash your hands.

Seriously ... this discussion is, in some manner, framed as being between science and faith or atheism and deism. But in reality this discussion is between misogynists (Christian, Jewish, Islamic) and people who look to an alpha male to tell them what to do, when to do it, and where to do it ... and a small percentage of the general public that doesn't believe that Tide makes your clothes white and brighter just because that's the tag line.

When we look at Nazi Germany we often say ... how could people have allowed this to happen? Take a look around you. When we think of the Inquisition we say "that was then and we're nothing like that today." Take a look around you. Just remember that only a small percentage of those in North America were willing to stand up and fight for their freedom in 1776. Look around you. This rabble is the same rubble that maintained their loyalty to the previous King George right up until the efforts of Washington, Jefferson, and thousands of others were over.

They are the sheep being led into the pasture every morning and back into the barn every evening.

As Thomas Jefferson said:
"In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty."

In reading the article about this on the AZRepublic I found a comment that more eloquently puts what I have been trying to say, so I will quote it here.
----------------------------------------------
"Based on the responses above, I believe "faith" is again being confused with scholarship. It is an old habit. Faith is what a person chooses to believe is true. The goal of scholarship--be it historical, archeological or paleographical--is to find out what actually happened. The Biblical Gospels, like other gospels, are not meant to be histories, but personal statements of what their writers believed (i.e. had faith in) was true. Their purpose was to persuade others to have a similar faith. Even the four canonical gospels disagree among themselves about key details. Yet they deserve study, as do all documents of that period.

Our New Testament is the product of the Council of Nicea in 325. It was comprised of church leaders tasked by Emperor Constantine to sort through all of the Christian writings in circulation and decide which were canonical and which were not. The criteria they used were by modern standards somewhat arbitrary and flawed. Nevertheless, they reflect beliefs held in the third century about what happened in the first century. The rejected writings however are still valuable. All reflect the mindset of their writers as to what they believed. Each in its own way is another clue that modern scholarship has to help determine what actually happened.

So let us not let personal faith get in the way of using another God-given gift--the human brain and its ability to sort through all the evidence and make an informed, reasoned, critical judgment as to what actually happened. If faith gets in the way of that process then it deserves to be called by another name--prejudice"
--------------------------------------------------
I don't think even DA could have said it better.

I agree.

But that won't stop me from trying given appropriate provocation. ;-)

I just thought that was a great summation of what we have been saying.

The 'Gospel of Judas' was written originally about A. D. 180, if the text studyers are correct. (I just made up a new word; I tend to do that.) The group writing the manuscript were proponents of the 'flesh is evil' philosophy.

The biggest single problem I have with the theory of Jesus and Judas having a secret deal is Judas' suicide. If Jesus briefed Judas on what to do to achieve the needed result; why would Judas then return the money to the Chief Priests and kill himself? Why didn't Judas just wait around for Jesus to resurrect and come to dinner? Jesus would have certainly told everyone what had happened.
-----------------------------------
Most things, out of context, don't mean much.
Archie

Archie wrote:
"The 'Gospel of Judas' was written originally about A. D. 180"

That's not what I've read. What I've read is that the Coptic Language translation of the original Greek text was written in 180 A.D. making the original document somewhat older.

Archie wrote:
"The biggest single problem I have with the theory of Jesus and Judas having a secret deal is Judas' suicide."

No me. I think it perfectly consistent with the behaviour of what we see in the contemporary world when a charismatic leader, say a Michael Koresh or Osama bin Laden (when it happens and we all know it will), is lost. I find the consistency quite supportive.

Keep in mind one very critical factor. IF Jesus was who modern-day Christians claim he was then the entire Jesus story could NEVER have happened without Judas. No Judas. No betrayal. No purpose to his life and no religion.

Could a god or godess have set the wheels in motion? Virgin birth? Wisemen? Disciples? And not have worked out the entire game-plan in advance? Hardly. The actions of a god are not put at mercy by the actions of a primate.

Okay, other estimates range from A. D. 130 to A. D. 170.
That was David Koresh; unless you're speaking of another. The problem with your view is the leader wasn't 'lost'; at least not for more than a long weekend. It would be consistent for Judas to suicide if he thought all was lost; that he was a traitor. But this text says different; Judas was the only one who knew the secret handshake. He knew what was going on when no one else did. If he knew all that, then he had to know Jesus was coming out of the tomb on Sunday morning. No point in committing suicide.
I see two errors of logic in this paragraph. One is that of Judas being indispensable in the happenings. The second is this claim, even if true, has no bearing on whether Judas was in concert with Jesus or not.

Jesus' death was what was required, not Judas' treachery. Jesus preached in the Temple on a daily basis, it's not like the Pharisees couldn't have found Him without Judas. Just for the record, Peter's denial of Jesus at the night-time trial was a betrayal as well, but in different terms. I'll agree with you there. God works out His plans long in advance and they are not stopped or hindered or thwarted by primates or anything else.

Archie wrote:
"That was David Koresh; unless you're speaking of another."

You are correct. I started off with one example and then edited it, imperfectly, with another.

Archie wrote:
"The problem with your view is the leader wasn't 'lost'; at least not for more than a long weekend. It would be consistent for Judas to suicide if he thought all was lost;"

You assume the suicide was from despair. Not the actions of a true believer. If you know your best friend and saviour is in heaven waiting for you. And if you know you have fulfilled your mission in life. Suicide is the most logical thing to do. A suicide conducted with class, with self-confidence, and with certainty that all is well with the universe.

One of my main reasons for thinking so-called "true believers" are frauds is that they are almost universally afraid of death: A hypocrisy.

Archie wrote:
"Jesus' death was what was required, not Judas' treachery."

Gods do not die of old age. It has never happened and never will. An act of treachery or skuldugery or evil is absolutely required.

Jesus' death, and the means thereof, had to have been known before his birth if the story holds water.