難怪他知道羅馬人是哪天會來...
這... 搞半天原來是耶穌叫猶大幹的？
版主: Alex Tsai、cjtai、the real unknown
-
bryanchang
- 討論區管理員
- 文章: 7057
- 註冊時間: 04/19/2001 1:01 am
- 來自: The '60s
- 聯繫:
I don't know. This person seems a bit extreme.
I haven't checked out the National Geographic website, but on NY Times, it is mentioned that the so-called Gospal of Judas is a work done later in a different language in line with the culture and tradtition during that era. This person's sweeping claim that this Gospel of Judas is not a contender for a place in Scripture is not convincing. The fact that this document is not made old enough doesn't automatically mean there isn't one made earlier. I honestly do not understand the author's logic.
The author goes on and explains Gnosticism. He defined it as a cult; similarly, NY Times mentions Gnosticism as a group people who could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came[sic]. As NY Time points out, Gnostics' beliefs are often considered by early church leaders as unorthodox or even denounced as heretics. I also do not see how this could immediately eliminate the validity of this piece of work.
Anyway, I am babbling. I would like to see more research done on this before I make any judgements.
fuigo
I haven't checked out the National Geographic website, but on NY Times, it is mentioned that the so-called Gospal of Judas is a work done later in a different language in line with the culture and tradtition during that era. This person's sweeping claim that this Gospel of Judas is not a contender for a place in Scripture is not convincing. The fact that this document is not made old enough doesn't automatically mean there isn't one made earlier. I honestly do not understand the author's logic.
The author goes on and explains Gnosticism. He defined it as a cult; similarly, NY Times mentions Gnosticism as a group people who could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came[sic]. As NY Time points out, Gnostics' beliefs are often considered by early church leaders as unorthodox or even denounced as heretics. I also do not see how this could immediately eliminate the validity of this piece of work.
Anyway, I am babbling. I would like to see more research done on this before I make any judgements.
fuigo
Mr. Mansfield replied to my reaction to his blog on my personal email, because he was having trouble signing up for an account here. It is in Chinese afterall. With his permission, I shall reproduce his words here and post my response on a subsequent entry.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my argument. But the gospels as contained in the New Testament were eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. This document is definitely later. We know this not just by the carbon dating--you are right, it could just be a later copy of an earlier work. But rather, the theological content is gnostic in nature and comes from at least a century later, if not probably more, than any of the eyewitness accounts in the New Testament. No one, and I mean no one--not even those who are excited about the Gospel of Judas--truly believe that there's anyway it could date from the first century.
Gnosticism as described in the Gospel of Judas and in the Nag Hammadi codices simply didn't exist anywhere in the first century. It's not an eyewitness account, so it's not historical. It's the writings of a very small group of believers who broke away from orthodoxy. The fact that we have only one copy of the Gospel of Judas compared with tens of thousands of copies of accepted New Testament manuscripts demonstrate that the church did not value this writing as genuine. ALL New Testament writings were written in the first generation of Christianity by eyewitnesses to the events described. The Gospel of Judas, while interesting in the study of this gnostic sect, is of no value to New Testament studies.
最後由 fuigo 於 04/08/2006 12:23 am 編輯，總共編輯了 1 次。
Thanks for taking time to write a response to my reaction on your blog entry. Well, I have to say, this comes as a surprise, because it doesn't happen often. 
I understand your logic better now after you explain your reasoning of gnosticism. For me, this document is simply an interesting find, dispite carrying any religious values or not; after all, it is a piece of ancient work and I think that alone is important. What is more interesting is if this script actually possesses some religious values and perhaps sheds some light on theories that are not widely accepted. Intersting, don't you think?
As you point out, the New Testament are eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. What we've got here, unfortunately, is not, but only a retelling or rewriting of an earlier story. I am indifferent as to whether or not this shall be included in the New Testament. You are probably correct that it shouldn't, because there simply isn't enough evidence supporting the truth in it; this is the exact reason why I feel strongly about doing more work on it to either prove it or disprove it. Perhaps it's my training in mathematics that learns me something that I dearly believe. I am not ready to pass any judgement on anything unless it's proven by logic. When the puzzle is finished, we could find ourselves a recollection of something that makes no sense. The point is that we would never know unless we try to piece up this puzzle.
The fact that we only have one copy of the so-called Gospel of Judas is independent from the existence of tens of thousands of copies of accepted New Testament. The lack of supporting evidence, in my opinion, is not a good enough reason to reject the validity of the theory, because at the same time, there is also a lack of disproof. I am refering to the truthfulness in the theory and not the script, because I think that is the essence of the argument here. This situation only warrants more work to be done. It could end up being a wild goose chase. Only time could tell.
I understand your logic better now after you explain your reasoning of gnosticism. For me, this document is simply an interesting find, dispite carrying any religious values or not; after all, it is a piece of ancient work and I think that alone is important. What is more interesting is if this script actually possesses some religious values and perhaps sheds some light on theories that are not widely accepted. Intersting, don't you think?
As you point out, the New Testament are eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. What we've got here, unfortunately, is not, but only a retelling or rewriting of an earlier story. I am indifferent as to whether or not this shall be included in the New Testament. You are probably correct that it shouldn't, because there simply isn't enough evidence supporting the truth in it; this is the exact reason why I feel strongly about doing more work on it to either prove it or disprove it. Perhaps it's my training in mathematics that learns me something that I dearly believe. I am not ready to pass any judgement on anything unless it's proven by logic. When the puzzle is finished, we could find ourselves a recollection of something that makes no sense. The point is that we would never know unless we try to piece up this puzzle.
The fact that we only have one copy of the so-called Gospel of Judas is independent from the existence of tens of thousands of copies of accepted New Testament. The lack of supporting evidence, in my opinion, is not a good enough reason to reject the validity of the theory, because at the same time, there is also a lack of disproof. I am refering to the truthfulness in the theory and not the script, because I think that is the essence of the argument here. This situation only warrants more work to be done. It could end up being a wild goose chase. Only time could tell.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my argument. But the gospels as contained in the New Testament were eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. This document is definitely later. We know this not just by the carbon dating--you are right, it could just be a later copy of an earlier work. But rather, the theological content is gnostic in nature and comes from at least a century later, if not probably more, than any of the eyewitness accounts in the New Testament. No one, and I mean no one--not even those who are excited about the Gospel of Judas--truly believe that there's anyway it could date from the first century.
Gnosticism as described in the Gospel of Judas and in the Nag Hammadi codices simply didn't exist anywhere in the first century. It's not an eyewitness account, so it's not historical. It's the writings of a very small group of believers who broke away from orthodoxy. The fact that we have only one copy of the Gospel of Judas compared with tens of thousands of copies of accepted New Testament manuscripts demonstrate that the church did not value this writing as genuine. ALL New Testament writings were written in the first generation of Christianity by eyewitnesses to the events described. The Gospel of Judas, while interesting in the study of this gnostic sect, is of no value to New Testament studies.
-
Imperfect Information
- 留言五百如一日
- 文章: 894
- 註冊時間: 01/27/2005 5:33 pm
- 來自: Imperfect World...
我不是基督徒，嚴格來說，我是個無神論者，不過對於各個宗教的論點，我倒是很有興趣知道～
我想搞清楚，耶穌只要是偉大的就夠了，還是祂一定得是個神？我不曉得為什麼那四部福音書會從這麼多部中被決定出來？其他部的福音書難道都沒有參考的價值？關於這些大概也沒人回答的出來，不過，我只知道，反正現在聖經的內容並非耶穌自己決定的
我還想知道，就算耶穌沒有照祂所說的復活，又有什麼差別，祂終究是偉大的，是神的孩子（對信教的人來說），祂的神性究竟是牠自己決定的？還是後人所賦予的？
把那四部福音書奉為圭臬，就完全接近耶穌想要告訴世人的？
不好意思～ 我真的沒有想要質疑什麼，只是看了些報導，非常好奇基督徒心裡的基督叫到底是什麼樣子？
我想搞清楚，耶穌只要是偉大的就夠了，還是祂一定得是個神？我不曉得為什麼那四部福音書會從這麼多部中被決定出來？其他部的福音書難道都沒有參考的價值？關於這些大概也沒人回答的出來，不過，我只知道，反正現在聖經的內容並非耶穌自己決定的
我還想知道，就算耶穌沒有照祂所說的復活，又有什麼差別，祂終究是偉大的，是神的孩子（對信教的人來說），祂的神性究竟是牠自己決定的？還是後人所賦予的？
把那四部福音書奉為圭臬，就完全接近耶穌想要告訴世人的？
不好意思～ 我真的沒有想要質疑什麼，只是看了些報導，非常好奇基督徒心裡的基督叫到底是什麼樣子？
最後由 whindang 於 04/10/2006 1:03 pm 編輯，總共編輯了 1 次。
聽說新來的 Mac 很屌。
Mac 有什麼了不起？我小時候也用過 Mac！
對阿～
Mac 有什麼了不起？我小時候也用過 Mac！
對阿～
再附加一句，"聖經"這本書基本上還是人寫的。chauan 寫:聖經追根究底也不過是一本書啊......亂碼 寫:Da Vinci Code 完全是一個 fiction... 這樣子的書就動搖了您對於聖經的信心喔?whindang 寫:前一陣子剛看完達文西密碼﹍現在說什麼我都願意相信﹍
(有冒犯別生氣啊)
我不是基督徒，也不完全是無神論者。
不管哪一教的神，都是透過先知、聖人、祭司等不同的"人"做為媒介，來傳遞他的"福音"或"開示"，所以"聖經"基本上就是由許多聖人或先知的"福音書"所組成的。上帝或許完美，但傳遞福音的先知、聖人、祭司卻未必，因此"人為"因素的介入就成了宗教思想、教義禮儀等形成上非常重要的，但在神性神蹟之下卻很容易被忽略的主要關鍵。
因此，說猶大出賣耶穌的門徒們是人，說只有猶大獲得耶穌信任的門徒也是人，宗教基本上就是人創造的，不然世界就不會有那麼多不同的宗教與教派了。
-
pantsungting
- 留言破百
- 文章: 138
- 註冊時間: 10/23/2004 10:41 am
- 來自: 土
- 聯繫:
信仰必須是主觀經歷的才會堅固，如果是知識道理，其實很容易流於討論，然後無疾而終。
很多人會求平安符，是因為主觀經歷了他們所拜的保佑他們。
如果沒有經歷過，只是跟著拜，「求心安」，那也OK，但這信仰，對人的價值，就是停留在「求心安」的謹慎觀望階段。
但如果基督的愛，真的讓人經歷到了「神愛世人」的內在主觀經歷，那對信徒來說就是堅固的。甚至看到其中的價值大到面對羅馬人的屠殺都能不改信仰。
在耶穌之後的新約聖經裡，有一非常重要的關鍵角色，叫做聖靈，照著聖經，聖靈是耶穌死後復活，升天說「see you later」後所產生的。聖靈看不到，聞不到，聽不到，但可以經歷的到（使徒行傳記載了非常多醫病趕鬼的事情，一直到現在基督徒聚會中還是常發生的，但這些是不信的人很不想看到的）。聖靈是基督徒所主觀經歷的「內住的基督」，那是愛的力量，經歷患難的倚靠，以及安息喜樂的保證。所以，去問基督徒，他們都對聖靈有或多或少的主觀經歷，這也是他們能堅信的重要憑藉。
為什麼猶太人如此反對耶穌基督？因為照著舊約，猶太人的確在等待一位「基督」拯救世人，但他們預期的「救主」，是華冠尊容的樣子，所以他們無法接受木匠的兒子耶穌就是救世主（聖經有寫，耶穌長的很抱歉）（所以，那些把耶穌畫成、雕刻成留落腮鬍的六塊腹肌健美中東帥哥畫像、十字架都是幻想出來的錯誤印象），一直到現在，猶太人在某一個節日的晚上，會集體打燈籠上街，代表他們還在尋找救世主！
那些寫聖經的，編彙，整理的人，都是基督信徒，他們所做的事，當然來自於聖靈-耶穌基督的親自指導，所以聖經才能從殘破、流落各處的書信，變成一部經的起普世人接受、深入的信仰經典，
耶穌基督沒有什麼秘密是隱藏起來的，聖經寫得很清楚，一切的奧秘，都已經藉著基督的話打開了，都是攤在陽光下的，不論是末世的預表、啟示，還是天國（新耶路撒冷）的長相，在聖經裡都寫白了，只是人們要不要相信而已。
現在的耶穌，對基督徒來說，是又真又活的，聖經說「我雖不見他，卻是信他」的原因就在此。
我呢，我從國一開始抽煙，混無賴，高中玩樂團，混PUB，大學酗酒，嗑E呼麻，五年前主觀遇到這位主，我的人生開始改變，變清爽，變光明，變正面，變喜樂，所以過程中我學習看聖經，也樂於把我信的主推薦給別人。
所以你說道：非常好奇基督徒心裡的基督叫到底是什麼樣子？我想，我可以回答你：他是神，但他不是給我存款、順利工作、漂亮老婆的神，但他是愛我，更新我生命的一位神。
很多人會求平安符，是因為主觀經歷了他們所拜的保佑他們。
如果沒有經歷過，只是跟著拜，「求心安」，那也OK，但這信仰，對人的價值，就是停留在「求心安」的謹慎觀望階段。
但如果基督的愛，真的讓人經歷到了「神愛世人」的內在主觀經歷，那對信徒來說就是堅固的。甚至看到其中的價值大到面對羅馬人的屠殺都能不改信仰。
在耶穌之後的新約聖經裡，有一非常重要的關鍵角色，叫做聖靈，照著聖經，聖靈是耶穌死後復活，升天說「see you later」後所產生的。聖靈看不到，聞不到，聽不到，但可以經歷的到（使徒行傳記載了非常多醫病趕鬼的事情，一直到現在基督徒聚會中還是常發生的，但這些是不信的人很不想看到的）。聖靈是基督徒所主觀經歷的「內住的基督」，那是愛的力量，經歷患難的倚靠，以及安息喜樂的保證。所以，去問基督徒，他們都對聖靈有或多或少的主觀經歷，這也是他們能堅信的重要憑藉。
為什麼猶太人如此反對耶穌基督？因為照著舊約，猶太人的確在等待一位「基督」拯救世人，但他們預期的「救主」，是華冠尊容的樣子，所以他們無法接受木匠的兒子耶穌就是救世主（聖經有寫，耶穌長的很抱歉）（所以，那些把耶穌畫成、雕刻成留落腮鬍的六塊腹肌健美中東帥哥畫像、十字架都是幻想出來的錯誤印象），一直到現在，猶太人在某一個節日的晚上，會集體打燈籠上街，代表他們還在尋找救世主！
那些寫聖經的，編彙，整理的人，都是基督信徒，他們所做的事，當然來自於聖靈-耶穌基督的親自指導，所以聖經才能從殘破、流落各處的書信，變成一部經的起普世人接受、深入的信仰經典，
耶穌基督沒有什麼秘密是隱藏起來的，聖經寫得很清楚，一切的奧秘，都已經藉著基督的話打開了，都是攤在陽光下的，不論是末世的預表、啟示，還是天國（新耶路撒冷）的長相，在聖經裡都寫白了，只是人們要不要相信而已。
現在的耶穌，對基督徒來說，是又真又活的，聖經說「我雖不見他，卻是信他」的原因就在此。
我呢，我從國一開始抽煙，混無賴，高中玩樂團，混PUB，大學酗酒，嗑E呼麻，五年前主觀遇到這位主，我的人生開始改變，變清爽，變光明，變正面，變喜樂，所以過程中我學習看聖經，也樂於把我信的主推薦給別人。
所以你說道：非常好奇基督徒心裡的基督叫到底是什麼樣子？我想，我可以回答你：他是神，但他不是給我存款、順利工作、漂亮老婆的神，但他是愛我，更新我生命的一位神。
whindang 寫: 把那四部福音書奉為圭臬，就完全接近耶穌想要告訴世人的？
不好意思～ 我真的沒有想要質疑什麼，只是看了些報導，非常好奇基督徒心裡的基督叫到底是什麼樣子？
