Did Jesus ask Judas to betray him?

Ancient Manuscript Suggests Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him

WASHINGTON — An ancient manuscript rediscovered after 1,700 years may shed new light on the relationship between Jesus and Judas, the disciple who betrayed him.

Rather than the traitor Judas is portrayed as in the New Testament, this document — the "Gospel of Judas" — indicates that he acted at the request of Jesus to help him shed his earthly body.

"Let a vigorous debate on the significance of this fascinating ancient text begin," the Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago, said Thursday.

Senior expressed doubt that the new gospel will rival the New Testament, but allowed that opinions are likely to differ on it.

The text helps show the diversity of beliefs in early Christianity, added Marvin Meyer, professor of Bible studies at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University, commented that "the people who loved, circulated and wrote down these gospels did not think they were heretics."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190826,00.html

I have always found it facinating how various books of the Bible were chosen for inclusion, or exclusion.

It is a large part of the reason I don't take anything in it too seriously. Aside from the fact that men wrote it, men also decided what went in and what didn't.

You don't think that men, guided by the Holy Spirit, were able to tell the authentic from the inauthentic? We do that today with counterfeit money, does the existence of counterfeit dollars preclude the legitimacy of real dollars?

(Of course, it would be good to back "real" dollars with something again, but that's besides the point)

I don't believe in the "Holy Spirit" so why would I believe it guided anyone?

You don't think that men, guided by the Holy Spirit, were able to tell the authentic from the inauthentic? We do that today with counterfeit money, does the existence of counterfeit dollars preclude the legitimacy of real dollars?

You mean those folks over at the Bureau of Engraving and Treasury Department are guided by the holy spirit? Can they walk on water too?

My point is that the reality of competing viewpoints does not in any way negate the possibility of a correct viewpoint and many other incorrect ones.

Did you ever have anyone misunderstand what you said/how you acted? I remember once I was out after a play that I was in and some chatty coeds were telling me that I did a great job (the play was in Spanish). I tried, in true humility, to tell them that I really didn't do well and if the play were in English they'd have realized that. It came across as me insulting their Spanish ability, which I really didn't mean to do.

My point is that the reality of competing viewpoints does not in any way negate the possibility of a correct viewpoint and many other incorrect ones.

Yes, but when a "viewpoint" is supported primarily by supernatural explanations, one is wise to give it extra special scruitny.

ziggy wrote:

My point is that the reality of competing viewpoints does not in any way negate the possibility of a correct viewpoint and many other incorrect ones.

Yes, but when a "viewpoint" is supported primarily by supernatural explanations, one is wise to give it extra special scruitny.

Why?

ziggy wrote:

My point is that the reality of competing viewpoints does not in any way negate the possibility of a correct viewpoint and many other incorrect ones.

Yes, but when a "viewpoint" is supported primarily by supernatural explanations, one is wise to give it extra special scruitny.

Sure, Zig, and notice that I am not saying that the reality of competing viewpoints must mean that one of them must be correct. Stephanie's objection earlier in the thread was that there were many different accounts and beliefs of Jesus in the 1st century, which plays a large part in convincing her not to trust in the inspiration of the Bible. (I think there was a "slam" on men in there, too:):)My reply is that just because people believe different things does not mean that there cannot be one Truth. There was a time when some folks believed the earth revolved around the sun and others believed the sun revolves around the earth. Now, just because there were competing viewpoints does not mean that both were wrong.

LOL

I knew that is how it may have come across, Michael. The truth is, men did write it and pick and choose what to be included and in all likelyhood women participated in a very minimal way, if at all. However, what I truly meant was that "mortals" did the writing and made, and continue to make, decisions as to what's in and what's out.

I agree with Ziggy that viewpoints supported only by supernatural explanations do require more scrutiny than viewpoints supported by scientific evidence.

SheikBen wrote: There was a time when some folks believed the earth revolved around the sun and others believed the sun revolves around the earth. Now, just because there were competing viewpoints does not mean that both were wrong.

And there has always been a time when some folks knew exactly which one revolves around the other.

.

Stephanie wrote:LOL

I knew that is how it may have come across, Michael. The truth is, men did write it and pick and choose what to be included and in all likelyhood women participated in a very minimal way, if at all. However, what I truly meant was that "mortals" did the writing and made, and continue to make, decisions as to what's in and what's out.

I agree with Ziggy that viewpoints supported only by supernatural explanations do require more scrutiny than viewpoints supported by scientific evidence.

Why?

My point is that the reality of competing viewpoints does not in any way negate the possibility of a correct viewpoint and many other incorrect ones.

Yes, but when a "viewpoint" is supported primarily by supernatural explanations, one is wise to give it extra special scruitny.

Why?

Because, like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and other myths, they are not based on observable facts, but upon contrived notions- notions that are usually or often contrary to observable data.

Aaron,

Scientific evidence provides some level of proof or certainty about a claim or a theory. All we have learned through scientific observation, experimentation etc has lead to concrete evidence to support scientific theories.

The same cannot be said about supernatural theories. While it is impossible to prove a negative, surely there should be some evidence to support supernatural claims about a virgin birth, heaven, hell, eternal life, the holy trinity, blue gods with 6 arms, etc. There is none.

I'm not sure more scrutiny is the correct phrase. Perhaps because there is no evidence to support any of these claims and/or theories, a better way of putting it is claims of the supernatural should be viewed with more suspicion and doubt. They continue to defy everything we know and observe in the world around us and even with all the advances of modern science, still no proof is ever offered.

Other than pages written by mortals arbitrarily selected for inclusion in texts some think of as sacred. Just doesn't cut it for me.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Scientific evidence provides some level of proof or certainty about a claim or a theory. All we have learned through scientific observation, experimentation etc has lead to concrete evidence to support scientific theories.

The same cannot be said about supernatural theories. While it is impossible to prove a negative, surely there should be some evidence to support supernatural claims about a virgin birth, heaven, hell, eternal life, the holy trinity, blue gods with 6 arms, etc. There is none.

I'm not sure more scrutiny is the correct phrase. Perhaps because there is no evidence to support any of these claims and/or theories, a better way of putting it is claims of the supernatural should be viewed with more suspicion and doubt. They continue to defy everything we know and observe in the world around us and even with all the advances of modern science, still no proof is ever offered.

Other than pages written by mortals arbitrarily selected for inclusion in texts some think of as sacred. Just doesn't cut it for me.

"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." John 3:19

Let me tell you why I think this applies. People, whether "evil" or "good" (I would say all people are evil, especially that I am evil, but that's beside the point right now), "believe" scientifically demonstrable realities without trouble. Hitler could know physics as well as Mother Theresa or Gandhi, if given the same textbooks. For whatever reason, what God is interested in is someone's heart, their very self, as opposed to some textbook "knowledge" of Him.

This is also, though, why I am weary of religion in the classrooms (I don't want it censored, mind you), and I do not agree with Bible classes given for credit at secular institutions, whether as "literature" or what have you. The Christian faith is someone's active trust in Jesus Christ, maintained through a relationship with Him, as opposed to someone's figuring out a sum or learning the quadratic equation. I don't think Jesus can be "taught" in the same way that physics or chemistry can be "taught," but I propose that they are both equally True.

I understood that by "men" you meant "mortals," BTW, dear Steph, I just thought I'd have a little fun with you, that's all. I'm sure you would not view a scripture confirmed by women either under otherwise similar circumstances. Sure men decided what would be in the canon and what would not, but I propose that such men were inspired in their choices. If the books themselves were inspired, then there is no reason to think those choosing which books were to be included would not be inspired as well. To doubt the latter, which you do (and fortunately we are in a free country:), one obviously doubts the former as well.

Perhaps the issue then best comes down to when these books were written and by whom. Kitty Kelley can write her biographies but at times the person is alive to refute it. Perhaps the subjects are not alive but enough friends and associates are to show her work for nonsense. There are competing biographies of Joe McCarthy, but it doesn't mean that one of them isn't closer to the truth than the others, or even perhaps about dead on.