You want it straight about the Gospel of Judas? It's rubbish. It's old news. It's filled with lies. It's dismissed because it was never accepted by the early church to begin with. Never. Remember, Jesus called Judas, "the son of Perdition." and that was not a good thing.

Version? Literal? I think you may mean infallible? The bible was only infallible in the original Gk and Hebrew in which it was first penned. What we have now are copies of the original translated into our own languages. I believe some are more true to the original Gk & Hebrew than others but there are many very good versions out there. We have over 5,000 ORIGINAL copies. More than any other work of antiquity.

Now, I didn't take up much time, because what you are saying here is....it doesn't matter what you say, I'm not going to listen anyway. So why bother?

So since I've answered you your question, please answer mine. Have you ever read the gospel in it's entirety? It's only four short books that you could read in a few nights to at least get a basic understanding of.

I can tell you one thing...if you have to work on a Sunday and don't show up, your ass is getting canned.

~Zoo

why then thank you Abe. I certainly don't want to waste my time either. I try NOT to use scripture that will only fall on deaf ears anyhow. There is much outside of scripture that while it can't prove the bible is inspired can prove the facts inside are correct. Many modern excavations and archeological digs have more than shown this. The bible is full of names, places, things that have been verified outside of scripture.



well because if you're going to refute it, shouldn't you at least KNOW what you are refuting? Shouldn't you at least read it? Otherwise aren't you possibly leaving your eternal destiny in someone else's hands that you've been listening to? I had someone tell me the other day that the the Protestant Bible is diff than the Catholic bible. I asked her what the differences were. She looked like a deer caught in the headlights. She had never read either. She had no answer.

I mean, if there really is a God (and of course I absolutely believe this to be true) and you are at the Great White Throne Judgment and he asks you what you did with his word what are you going to stammer? Ummmmm well, eh, God, I believed what the others said about you? I um...didn't....um.......check it out for myself. How was I supposed to know? What if he says....."well I sent others to tell you. But you chose not to listen to them. Why not?"

See this is what happened all thru biblical prophecy. God sent prophets to his people and the people rejected the messages, scorned them, beat them and killed them even but the prophet's words always came to pass. By then it was too late.

As far as the versions that are the closest to the original languages....the NASB is really close. The ESV is good that way also. But there's nothing wrong with the good ol' NIV and NKJV and KJV either.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:



SODAIHO POSTS:



To me, Christ's Crucification was none other than an incomprehensible act of love. It's been nearly 2,000 years since the Crucification and we still "keep watch" over Him and remember His sacrifice for us.


You say that "He had to die in order to fulfill the prophesy as He understood it." Again, this is you dissembling Christianity. Have you ever read the Old and the New Testament? Christ didn't HAVE to die, He died willingly. Christ DIDN'T die "to fulfill the prophesy as he understood it." Christ died to redeem us, you and me, from our sins before God.


Take Psalms 69(68)for example which explains Christ in His Passion declaring the greatness of His sufferings.
V.5, of His suffering, "They are multiplied above the hairs of my head, who hate me without cause. My enimies are grown strong who have wrongfully persecuted me: then did I pay that which I took not away." This means Christ in His Passion made restitution of what He had not taken away, by suffering the punishment due to our sins and so repairing the injury we had done to God. He took upon our sins and in the Garden of Gethesame, He sweat blood, knowing that while He was dying on the Cross for them, they would still be committed. That's when He was indeed ALONE in His suffering.

V.8 "Because for thy sake I have bourne reproach, shame hath covered my face.
V. 10, For the zeal for thy house hath eaten me up, and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
V. 21, In thy sight are all they that afflict me; my heart hath expected reproach and misery. And I look for one that would grieve together with me, but there was none: and for one that would comfort me, I found none.
V. 22, And they me gall for my food and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.


Sodaiho, this is from Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313-350), bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church. He writes how Christ willingly gave up His life.

“My appointed time draws near. I am to celebrate the Passover in your house”
And wouldest thou be persuaded that He came to His passion willingly? The others, who foreknow it not, die unwillingly; but He spoke before of His passion: “Behold, the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified” (Mt 26,2). But knowest thou wherefore this Friend of man shunned not death? It was lest the whole world should perish in its sins. Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed, and shall be crucified (Mt 20,13); and again, He steadfastly set His face to Jerusalem (Lk 9,51).

And wouldest thou know certainly, that the Cross is a glory to Jesus? Hear His own words, not mine. Judas had become ungrateful to the Master of the house, and was about to betray Him. Having but just now gone forth from the table, and drunk His cup of blessing, in return for that drought of salvation he sought to shed righteous blood. He who did eat of His bread, was lifting up his heel against Him...Then said Jesus, “The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified” (Jn 12,23). Seest thou how He knew the Cross to be His proper glory?...Not that He was without glory before: for He was glorified with the glory which was before the foundation of the world (Jn 17,5). He was ever glorified as God; but now He was to be glorified in wearing the Crown of His patience.

He did not give up His life by compulsion, nor was He put to death by murderous violence, but of His own accord. Hear what He says: “I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again”. I yield it of My own choice to My enemies; for unless I chose, this could not be. He came therefore of His own set purpose to His passion, rejoicing in His noble deed, smiling at the crown, cheered by the salvation of mankind; not ashamed of the Cross, for it was to save the world.

LULAPILGRIM, thank you. Yes, I have not only read these books, but studied them as well. There is no "Old" testament. There is the Hebrew Scriptures. To refer to it in this way is an insult to Judaism. Christ may have died willingly, but he had to die to meet the scriptural context he was attempting to live out. I don't know how this is dissembling. I think it is rather straightforward; just a differing point of view from the accepted Christian one perhaps.



The psalms predate Jesus of Nazareth. This was not Jesus speaking, but David. This psalms speaks to our human condition, our suffering, and is a petition to God for clarity and strength. We are all alone in our suffering. Buddha taught us to practice with this. Being present in the midst of the valley of the shadow of death teaches us there is no valley, no shadow, no death. As the Great Heart of Wisdom Sutra points out: "No hindrance of mind, therefore, no fear."



I have not argued that he did not willingly give up his life, though the fact that he needed someone to betry him is a tad suspect. If he wanted to die so much, he certainly could have walked up to the Roman authorities and told them he was God.

No, he needed to die and in a certaibn way or else, as he understood it, his entire ministry would have been lost. Too bad, really. I think the deeper messages of your Jesus are very good. I especially enjoy the Sermon on the Mount. Now, if we would only take that Sutra to heart!

Be well.

SODAIHO POSTS:


Sodaiho, I too have heard fellow CHristians say that the Ten Commandments are no longer necessary and found that strange. It's ignorance more than anything I think.

what is right can be known by the natural light of reason and what is written on our heart..thus the Natural Law. What is right is crystallized in the Ten Commandments of Almighty God of the Old Covenant with Isreal and is brought to its full clarity in the New Law of Christ. This truth is found in the writings of St.Paul, and taught by many of the Chruch Fathers and DOctors, particularly, one of my favorites, St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church teaches that at all times God has welcomed those who fear (love) Him, and do what is right. That He manifested His will to His covenanted people Israel, but all this was in preparation for a more luminous revelation and the perfect covenant ratified by Christ.

The Gospel which has been promised in former times through the prophets and which Christ Himself fulfilled and promulageted with His own lips, and which He commissioned His APostles to preach to all nations is the source of all saving truth and all moral teaching. Christ, as St.Paul says, "is the end of the law." Rom.10:4. The 'end' here means not the finish, but the completion or perfection.

Christ ratified the Decalogue, both as a whole and in it parts St.Matt.19:17-19; St.Mark 10:17-19; St.Luke 18:18-20. This as you say will not change, cannot change, etc. Christ also ratified the Deuteronomist's summary on love of God. St.Matt.22:37-38. And, He added a summary of the last 7 Commandments: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." St.Matt 22:39.

This command of love of neighbor was not new (Lev.19:18) and Christ did not say it was new. But Christ did give a new commandment of love:"A commandment I give you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." St.John 13:34. This is the amazing part. What's new in Christ's commandment of love is the standard which He sets, the standard which He Himself IS. The standard demands the maximum of human love, and it transforms human love into a love which is divine.

Christ loves us with a maximum of human love. He is the Lord at whose name "every knee should bow" Phil.2:10; Isa.45:23 becasue although divine by nature, He "did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant", and "humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." Phil.2:6-8.

Precisely in the greatness of His self-sacrifice, Christ set the example that St.Paul emphasizes, "Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus". Phil 2:5. Jesus Himself said, "You are My friends if you do what I command you." St.John 15:14.

The standard is that of children of God. "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as He who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct."

So we are summoned to be imatators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us. By following this Way, we are given title to become sons and daughters of God. And as adopted children of God,we are called to share Christ's entire lot, both His suffering as man and His glorification as Son of God. St.Paul summed up 'the law of Christ' as the demand that we not merely respect our neighbor but actually "bear one another's burden'. Gal.6:2.

For truth is in Jesus. Put off your old (sinful) nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts and be renewed in the spirits of your mind, and put on a new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."

This has been rather long, nonetheless, I hope I have shown that Christ did not liberate the Jews or anyone else from obeying the Ten Commandments and His new law of love.

The Hebrew Scriptures are absolutely incredible when it prophesies about the coming Messiah. There is no way Jesus could have orchastrated all this to happen. A study was done way back. In it they took all the Messianic Prophecies and compared them to Christ. They said for all those prophecies to be connected to one man was like a one in a one with about 20 zeros after it. It's unbelievable.

For instance you look at what Micah said some 700 yrs before his birth, 5:2.

"But you Bethlehem Ephratah though you be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall he come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting."

How could Jesus have pre-arranged his birth if he wasn't who he said he was?

or how about his death? How could he have known or arranged that his death would be exactly as it said in Isa 53:9. I think this is amazing:

"And he made his grave with the wicked AND with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."

He died a poor man's death but yet was buried in a rich man's tomb. There is no way that Christ could have so perfectly taken every prophecy in the Hebrew Sciptures concerning him and fulfilled them if he wasn't exactly who the Prophets said he was. You can explain it away if you want. But it's there for any that choose to believe it. That's where Faith comes in.

SODAIHO POSTS:


SODAIHO---
I can quite understand that you do not accept the Resurrection of Christ. There is a supernatural significance in the Resurrection to appreciate which one needs the gift of faith from God. But still, abstracting from its supernatural significance, you should have no difficulty in accepting the Resurrection as an historical fact.

You begin by rejecting Christ’s Resurrection on the score that the rabbis (and you) do not believe in what must seem to you an incredible thing. You doubt the Gospels precisely because they record what you deem incredible. The documents are there and others as well, and so it is your duty to disprove the historical value of the documents produced. Merely to say that there is no evidence or that others of same mind as you disagree is to shut one’s eyes to the evidence.

Catholics sincerely believe that Christ rose in His complete human nature and therefore in His material body. It was after His Resurrection that He told the Apostles, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; handle and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.”

The historical evidence available comes from the Gospels and St.Paul’s Epistles. They constitute 5 independent historical documents which leave no shadow of a doubt. Their being bound in one volume does not affect their independence of each other. Josephus, the Jewish historian who was born at Jerusalem around 37 A.D. records Christ’s death on the Cross under Pontius Pilate, and His appearance on the third day after His death to His disciples.
All these accounts were written by contemporaries of Christ. Now, the possibility that they were insincere (as in liars) or simply mistaken has long been abandoned as quite unreasonable by even the most bitter enemies of Christianity (which I hope you aren’t).

Think for a moment about Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Paul. It would be pointless for them to impose upon the world (both Roman and Jews quite hostile at the time) a religion in which even they did not believe. They had nothing to gain. Men do not break with all their friends and invite persecution and death, for a lie that they know to be a lie. Nor were cowardly Apostles rendered suddenly courageous by a conviction they knew to be unfounded.

It’s impossible that they were all mistaken, deluded or suffering from some hallucination about the man, Jesus Christ, they saw, heard, and felt with their own hands. The witnesses were men of unimpeachable honesty. And besides, it is so evident that they were not even expecting Christ to rise. Their tendency was to unbelief, not to belief.

So, again, it is an historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead and this is not an extravagant claim. As I can imagine you know, there are various orders of knowledge, each quite sound, but each with its own methods. Things within the scope of sense experience can be experimentally proved by actual experimental knowledge. Theorems can be demonstrated mathematically. Historical facts are proved by testimony of those who observed events in past times. Moral principles demand a moral judgment; while religious teachings a religious approach, inspired by wisdom, good will, and divine grace. Now the Resurrection of Christ can be viewed historically or it can be viewed religiously. The merely historical view is certain by all laws of history and as far as it goes is within the grasp of any one just as the fact that Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo. The merely historical view will not give the religious comprehension as I laid out from my Catholic convictions and Faith.

So, the Gospels and the subsequent history of the Christian religion afford all the proof that any one should want. The idea that Christ rose from the dead was not a product of Faith. The Apostles knew from actual experience that Christ had risen, as we know from history. And the historical fact explains the Faith; the Faith did not invent the fact.

[/quote] (and you) do not believe in what must seem to you an incredible thing. You doubt the Gospels precisely because they record what you deem incredible. The documents are there and others as well, and so it is your duty to disprove the historical value of the documents produced. Merely to say that there is no evidence or that others of same mind as you disagree is to shut one’s eyes to the evidence. [/quote]

It is not just me that deems a dead man getting up out of a grave as incredible. It is prima facea incredible. I doubt the gospels because they are not historical documents in the same way we understand such things. These were written by people with an agenda in a time when history was not undertstood as a record of the facts. The gospels were written for reasons other than documentation, as were the rest of the Christian testament. When we put these two facts in line, the sum is suspect. There are no other document substantiating the resurrection, as far as I know. If there are, please let me know what they are.

What evidence? Self referential, scriptural evidence is not evidence in any real sense. My eyes are open.





I do not see how the resurrection can be viewed historically in any sense. There are no laws of history that I am aware of. Please indicate what these might be?. There is documentation with a view toward establishing a point of view. There may be recording perception and thought and belief, but hese are always suspect, as they should be. I agree that a "mere historical view" is not sufficient, in fact, such a view is nothing. It is human beings that add meaning to events.

As far as the subsequest history of the Church goes, I would be cautious here. The Church has a rather checkered history and as a result is not very goods evidence of its grace.

Now, let me ask, what is the point of this discussion? Are you and the other Christians on this list attempting to proselytise? It would sem your effort is more toward shoring up and proving something rather than discussing how what you already possess informs your own life.

The original question had to do with honoring the sabbath and how we do it, I believe.

Each time I address how my faith inform my life through my practice, I seem to get replies that have nothing to do with the practice of one's faith, but rather the beliefs involved in one's faith. These are not the same.

If you are about converting me, forget it. I am deeply commited to my faith and practice. Moreover, I consider such activities extremely offensive and distasteful, though I am to a degree tolerant.(I admit I can get a tad defensive about this.) Still, I am making progress Just yesterday while puumping gas I was approached by two nice young men, for example. They were witnessing for the Mormon Church. I listened. They asked. They were polite. I smiled. They gave me a copy of their scripture. I was delighted as I had not seen such a thing before. I did not give them a card or invite them to my Zen Center. This is in bad taste from a Buddhist point of view.

I will take a look at the Book of Mormon, just as I took a look at the synoptics and other books of the Christian Bible.

All things are our teachers when we let our self drop away.

Be well.

SODAIHO,KFC---if I might chime in. I agree with you up until the point where you say "Both (faiths) are perfect in every way."

Without getting into defining what we each mean 'faith', this smacks of indifferentism which says one religion is as good as another and that cannot possibly be true. There is no doubt that people belonging to different religions can be equally sincere in their efforts to be good people as well as sincere in practicing their religion.

There are many different religions in the world, and for our purpose we would limit it to Christianity and Buddhism. I would submit to you that diversity in religions is due either to the ignorance or to the perversity of men. Men are by nature religiously inclined..and those who lack knowledge of true religion invented religions for themselves,(as the original "Buddha" did with Buddhism), religions which differed even as the outlook differed of those who originated them.

Now there has been more than enough evidence to make acceptance of the fact that God has revealed the CHristian religion..and yes,there cannot be CHristianity without CHrist.

There is only one truth and it is neither yours nor mine. It is independent of either of us. We hold things becasue they are true. they are not true because we happen to believe them. Truth is persistent. If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, you haven't got the truth. We can not each choose our own truth and expect that to be the path by which we will come to God. It is not for man to tell God to be content with whatever man chooses to do.

A man who is seeking the truth will say, let me reflect not on the point in which these good people do not differ, but on the points on which they do differ. In other words, we must abstract from the person professing the religion and consider the religions they profess. For it is certain that God, the Supreme and Perfect Truth, could not have revealed contradictory teachings. Take for example, that you say that "no independent person saw this man after his death. And to argue this point renders the point itself ugly, doesn't it? You believe with perfect faith in your savior. That is wonderful! I believe in perfect faith that my practice has freed me from suffering. That, too, is wonderful! Both ways get us to the same place. God is very wise."

I believe as I laid out earlier that CHrist rose from the dead. You do not. We can't both be right. From there you end your contradiction with some effort to put us both in the same place as if there was no distinction between truth. As long as man tries to do good and be good, what does it all really matter. I have my BUddhaNature and you have your faith in your Savior. I am wonderful and so are you, .......Both get us to the same place? Uh, I don't think so...as a matter of fact I know they won't get us to the same place becasue I don't want to reach Nirvana or nothingness... I want and hope to be with God and see His Blessed face for eternity....


Christ said,"Everyone therefore shall confess me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in Heaven; but he that shall deny Me, before men I will also deny him before My Father".
So, evidently it does matter whether we profess Faith in Christ or not. And that definitely rules out the idea that any non-Christian religions are as good as the Christian religion.

Sodaiho, I can only speak for myself. The point for me is that dialogue and discussion as long as it is civil is a useful way of learning about one another and their viewpoints. That's the reason I like blogging on JU. I am especially interested in the categories of philosophy and relgion. I only dialogue with people when I see that everyone honors themselves and others.

Proselytising is not my thing. I can't change people and would be foolish to believe otherwise. I leave that up to God. He knows what He is doing with my life. I'm leaving it all up to Him. I just tell it as I see it and believe it. I have a strong Catholic faith and defend it every time it is bashed, disessembled or deconstructed. In that sense I'm a Catholic apologist.

well pardon the reference Sodaiho but this is what I was quoting in my mind and it's in the gospel of Mark.

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I think his point being (and going also back to David) is that human need preceded ceremonial law. Now we have to also think what was God's purpose in instituting it?

We know that God didn't "need" rest. Why did he "bless and hallow" it? Was it for his sake or his creation's sake? We do know it was a covenant between Him and the Jews. It was like I've said before NOT a covenant between God and the NT church.

Expositors regularly quote as a parallel the words of Rabbi Simeon ben Menasya preserved in a rabbinical commentary on Exodus 31:14: "The sabbath is delivered to you; you are not delivered to the Sabbath."

I find that interesting in lieu of what Jesus said in the gospels.

a