Every Gospel in the bible is according to the name it represents and most of them were'nt written till 80 or 100yrs after jesus died!So how credible are those when we didn't see what was written on them!As for this new codex that was found it has remained intact!Written by whom?Who wrote Mattew?who wrote Mark? Im damn sure it wasnt them! So what makes this different?
126984
The Gospel of Judas was written many many years after the apostles lived and their associates (Timothy and Luke). Where did you get your historical research? \nGive me a break. \n\nThe gnostic gospels are from beliefs that began in the 2nd and 3rd century, which meens that the writings come from a time period more than 100 years after Jesus ministry, far later than any New Testament book. Why in the world should we believe that these later documents tell us more about events than the earlier documents? They are simply not useful for trying to understand Jesus ministry and the shape of very early Christianity. (1)\n\nThe gnostic gospels were late arrivals, which is ONE reason why church leaders rejected them ... they lacked authority since their authors were neither (a) apostles of Jesus nor (b) persons associated with apostles of Jesus... and no one knows who wrote those gnostic gospels. (2)
161130
I read that this morning. It was very interesting. It made me wonder though if it had been written by some apostate of the period though. \nI am open to new scripture being found. I'm sure that all of Christ's apostles wrote their testimonies. But I want to read it for myself and see what it has to say before I decide if its truth or not.
559022
This is what Dan Brown would have you believe, but there is no historical evidence to back him up.   In particular,\n\n1) The Council of Nicea (AD 325) did not even discuss the question of "canon" (that is, what belongs in the Bible)!!   In any case, well before this time there was widespread agreement on which books were accepted  (evidence going back to the early 2nd century).   There is NO evidence of authorities "inserting" or "removing" stuff.\n\n2) Not only did Constantine not foist his own view of the deity of Christ on others,  ALL those at this Council (representing the viewpoing of churches throughout the Roman world) agreed that Jesus was divine!   The only question was precisely how that idea was to be UNDERSTOOD.   \n\nAlso, contrary to various insinuations, the vote was not even close!   The Council of Nicea was almost unanimous in its final statement (two out of over three hundred disagreed... though again, they did NOT disagree that Jesus was divine!)
626549
Nice book. (If you’re a sadist)\n\n\n(edit)\nWhy would the old testament be in the book if this god decided to change his cruel, voilent and hatefull ways. Then you shouldn't present the old testament to me. If I tell you "Hey man, here is the word or GOD, the creator of all the universe! He is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present!!!! ..But why then is there a part in his word that doesn't apply to our time?? I thought he is all-present which would mean his word will be timeless.
591379
I'm certainly no biblical scholar but what I do know for sure is that even though a couple of dozen had a hand in actually penning the originals, hundreds more over the years have added their mark to it by either adding or deleting information for their own personal reasons. Not to mention that even more was added and deleted (inadvertantly, perhaps) when they were translated from one language to another.\n\nAn interesting link you might want to look at:\nhttp://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm
310360
All of the Gospels were written by people who had never met  Joshua and long after he was dead. Mark is the earliest . It was written  in Syria at least 30 years after JC cashed in his chips. John was written by several people at least 100 years after the Crucifixion.
671202
It depends. I spoke to our Parish priest about that, (^_^) and he said that it was INSPIRED in the prophets who wrote it, so in reality it was not really what Jesus exactly says (or said).\n \n(^_^)
135122
Here it is, and I'm going to cut and paste from another answer I gave, b cuz I've answered this so many times now...\n\nThe gospel of Judas is not credible. Scientists believe it to be the work of gnostics, a mystical early Christian denomination. People in those times did not have the access to the scriptures as we do today. They rarely had more than one or two books of the Bible at one time, so they often did not know what the other parts said. Gnostics often wrote stories of the way they thought things might be. The gospel of Judas is a philosophical conjecture, not scripture. It was also written at least 100 years after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - the 4 gospels present in the Bible that tell of Judas's betrayal.\nAlso, because "gospel" means "good news", and the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, the text would have to include the crucifixion and resurrection. The gospel of Judas tells of neither.\n\nAs for the other gospels, the earliest known manuscripts date from 65 to 95 AD. That is 35 to 65 years after Christ died. It is quite possible then, that even if these were the earliest manuscripts (and not just the earliest known ones) that they are first-hand accounts.\n\nAnd by the way, the verse that people use to say that we are not to add or remove from the Bible is found in Revelation 22:18 - For I testify to anyone who hears the words of the prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are mentioned in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.\n\n"This book" refers to the book of revelation - not the entire Bible. The Bible as a whole book did not exist when Revelation was written. Granted we are not to add or remove from scriptures, but this verse is misused all too often. Furthermore, we are to use good judgement by finding out the origins and intentions of any text before latching on to it as scripture.
423857
obviously some Christians believe that the Bible they hold in their hands wasn't just written by God but was edited and collated by God as well.  apparently some Christians don't know about the Nicene Council and how it decided which gospels were to be put into the Bible, which were to be left out and how the ones that were kept would be revised to ensure power for the elite.  i see Christians saying that they'd not read any newly publicly released gospel because it contradicts the Bible, obviously many failing to understand that the Bible has been rewritten and revised many times to make the text conform to history, religious dogma and "prophesy".   \n\nJesus himself could return and say "but but that's not what I said!  That's not what I meant!"  and the Christians would rebuke him saying that he contradicts the Bible.
10269
The new guy has obviously been influenced by the _da_Vinci_Code_ or other, similar works that posit that Jesus was married (most likely to Mary Magdalene), and likely had children through that union.\n\nThere are a couple verses in the gospels (depending on your translation - I'm looking at the New International Version) where Jesus is referred to as having brothers; I'd look specifically at Matthew 13:54-56, which says \n\n"54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"\n\nWhile scholars have argued that "brother" might actually mean "cousin" or "other close male relative", the text wouldn't directly support that.\n\nThe wife and children thing can't be disproved Biblically - but neither can it be proven.  Some take the absense of direct reference to a wife as proof, while say that any man referred to as a rabbi/teacher would need to be married to have that status (as per the culture of the time).  Either way, there isn't anything that can be used definitively either way.
267020
These claims are just that, claims.  There is no foundation of truth to these claims.  The word canon is closely related "reed."  Our word "cane" comes from the same word.  The idea is a measuring stick.  The idea is that canonical scriptures are those scriptures by which we measure our lives.  Who decides what is canonical?  Whoever is reading it, honestly.  We see that principal in Acts 17:11, when the Bereans were considered most noble because they examined the scriptures (Old Testament here) to see if what Paul said was true.  I do not agree with the Catholic's church of making the books officialy recognized (making acceptance of other books or rejection of any of the 27 a heracy) in the 16th century as a reaction to Martin Luther questioning the authority of the book of James.  \n\nHowever, history tells us that NO OTHER BOOKS have ever been widely accepted as scripture.  It also tells us that EVERY book in the New Testament WAS widely accepted as scripture.  The early church fathers, who wrote between the last part of the first century, and the first part of the second century, collectively quoted almost every single verse in the New Testament in their writtings.  No other books were quoted as scripture by them at all.  \n\nThe Muratorian Fragment is one of the earliests know lists of New Testament books.  Although it is incomplete, it refers to Luke as the "third" Gospel.  This would have been around the same time or before Irenaeus (I don't know the exact date of that fragment, only that it was the second half of the second century).  \n\nAs to your claim that we only have the 4 gospels to have the "slavation shallows...that we merely have to accept Jesus on faith and we are saved..." this is a ridiculous claim.  First of all, the Gospels say very little (although they are not completely silent) about how to be saved.  Mostly we find that in Acts and Paul's letters (Paul's letters are also written before most of the Gospels).  The simplicity of the Good News is found in Paul's writings.  \n\nAlthough I don't know the date of the three gospels you have mentioned, I know that most of the gnostic gospels are usually dated around 200 A.D.  This is reason enough to reject them.  Also, despite recent claims made by The DaVinci Code, the other gospels made Jesus out to be some mystic demi-god that didn't come in the flesh at all.  In fact, the gnostic gospels (the recent gospel of Judas among them), don't have a Jewish veiw of God at all, don't quote the Old Testament, and reject many of the events that fulfilled Old Testament prophesy about Jesus.  Their beliefs come from some Greek and Roman beliefs, and as such should be rejected.\n\nThe decision of what should be canon and what should not still goes on today.  Most of that decision goes on today in the form of Textual Criticism.  However, I believe Christians should still look at the 27 books we have and ask themselves, "Do these belong here?"  I believe we should still read some of the other early Christian writings and ask "Should these be considered scripture?"  I have done much study, and I am convinced that the 27 books in the New Testament are the ones by which I need to live my life.  Questioning what has been passed down, however, is never a bad idea.  Just make sure you don't obsess over it that you WANT to believe something else so badly that you don't remain objective (or that you want TO believe it, for that matter).  \n\nGod bless.\n\nP.S.  The importance of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is found througout the scripture, especially the letters of Paul and the writings of John.
116486
None of the gospels were written by the authors attributed to them. Paul wrote only a few of his letters, he also magically continued to write after his death. That’s why Paul contradicts himself. Some of the NT books don’t even have a signed author. All books attributed to John are completely different in style and mindset. I think the gospel of John was written by women. Woman played a very important role in original Christianity before it was corrupted, but they were never given a chance and their story was destroyed (for a while, hehe).\n\nNo the bible is full of contradictions and there is no unity. Paul attacks Peter, Jesus attacks Peter, Peter doesn’t like Paul, etc. Give me a break.\n\nFurthermore, Timothy mentions “scripture” not “the bible.”
473291
this is the first time i have heard of Jesus carrying 2 books.  i didn't know about the other book.  i'm very curious to know about this nature book so if you ever get the answer to your question please let me know.
593615
I agree that it is out of date, but I don't think that you can just go and arbitrarily change the content.  And by whose standards would it change?\n\nI think that there are many misinterpretations of the bible over the centuries.\n\nI am going to be ordering one that is supposed to be a direct translation from the orginal Aramaic New Testament to see what the difference is.  It is called The Modern New Testament : Translated from the Original Aramaic Sources by G. Lamsa.\n\nHaving said that, I also think that much of the bible directly speaks to that generation's society and political culture and therefore, not a lot of it has to do with how things are in this day and age, although I feel that Jesus taught us timeless lessons of love and acceptance and faith.  \n\nBut I don't believe that Jesus was the only master and that timeless lessons were taught by Mohammed and Buddha and many other masters as well.
662788
Each book of the bible was written with a purpose.  Matthew and Luke were specifically interested in establishing the parentage and lineage of Jesus.  Mark, John and Paul were interested in other things.  John even addresses this at the end of the gospel when he writes that all the books in the world would not be enough to contain all that he wanted to say.  In other words, his book contained what it needed to fulfill its purpose.\n\nFor example, I have several cookbooks that do not talk about ovens, how they work, and how to repair them even though you need an oven to bake.  Why?  The authors know that this is covered in other books. The same is true with books of the Bible.
209140
The primary question, as written, demands an answer of "nothing." There is a considerable amount of written text attributed to Jesus' followers, though perhaps to no one who actually knew him. But I've yet to run across anything that claims Jesus' own authorship.
163939
the bible is rewritten a lot\nit was changed a lot\n\nits now FALSE\nif you need evidences \njust contact