“I give myself some credit for managing to get the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree on something — that neither wanted to be associated with my remarks,” James Carville (in photo)  joked in a commentary defending his comparison of Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot. Carville said Richardson’s disloyalty deserved the insult, and that Democrats should be tough enough to take it. “If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said,” he wrote. “Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can’t handle that, they’re going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.”
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- RightAngle on More bad economic news
- BlueJay on Rush is flush
- BlueJay on More bad economic news
- Boxlock on The ultimate July 4 burger?
- Boxlock on We hold these truths. . .
- SEMPERFIGUY on Rush is flush
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 7/4
- cosmos_originally on More bad economic news
- cosmos_originally on More bad economic news
- SEMPERFIGUY on We hold these truths. . .
35 Comments
Judas did what Jesus asked of him. It isn’t an insult.
Hillary needs to fight. The truth is only just beginning to come out about Barack Obama. See:
http://miraclesdaily.blogspot.com/
False Prophet - now THAT was great comic relief!
Always provocative comments Sol. Thanks. But I think I’ll go with what Jesus said.
Mark 14:20,21 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
papyrus manuscript discovered in the Egyptian desert was hailed yesterday as an authenticated copy of the lost Gospel of Judas — revealing that, far from betraying Jesus, Judas Iscariot sacrificed himself for his master.
The ancient Coptic manuscript, dated scientifically to the 3rd or 4th century, was unveiled as the only known surviving copy of Judas’s Gospel and one of the most important finds in biblical archaeology.
Having been conserved and translated, it is said to offer a radical new insight into a man whom history has painted as the ultimate villain. Unlike the accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in which Judas is portrayed as a traitor, this gospel portrays him as the disciple closest to Jesus.
Having studied the rediscovered gospel, experts said that its text suggested that, by helping Jesus to get rid of his physical flesh, Judas had helped to liberate the true spiritual self.
They pointed to a passage in which Jesus tells Judas: “You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article702828.ece
But was Judas only obeying his master’s wishes when he betrayed Jesus with a kiss?
That’s what a newly revealed ancient Christian text says.
After being lost for nearly 1,700 years, the Gospel of Judas was recently restored, authenticated, and translated. (Get the full, twisting tale of the document’s discovery and authentication.)
The Coptic, or Egyptian Christian, manuscripts were unveiled today at National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, D.C.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0406_060406_judas.html
“And Jesus says, ‘Yes, in fact, they will think that you are a terrible person because of what you did. This is part of the burden that you bear. But they will be wrong about that.’ So it is an extraordinary transformation of the ordinary understanding of Judas Iscariot.”
Pagels said the text shows that Christ, in fact, asked Judas to betray him for an undisclosed reason. “The Gospel of Judas does suggest that the betrayal of Jesus is not a reprehensible act, not the act of a traitor, you know, the worst villain in the history of the world, but that it’s a secret mystery between him and Jesus,” she said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Story?id=1810169&page=3
Oh. Quotes from a gnostic gospel.
We don’t have a common frame of reference.
Carville said Richardson’s disloyalty deserved the insult, and that Democrats should be tough enough to take it.
That’s absurd. Richardson was tough enough to do what he thought was right chose the person he thought would best handle the job, instead of a friend. Carville is whining.
Which kind of endorsement would you rather have?
Judas’ gospel differs from John’s why? The gospels were handpicked by Constantine’s crew. There had to be a bad guy. Sure couldn’t be a Roman now could it.
Keep eating the pabulum outlander. Seems to agree with you.
I just don’t consider the gnostic stuff authoritative. Especially when it conflicts with the Bible. Fine if you do, Sol. Live your life.
If you believe the whole Jesus story, Judas had to betray Him.
I mean, what would be plastered on all your churches if Jesus had died of old age in his bed? A serta mattress?!
It hardly seems like betrayal if Judas’ role was to fulfill God’s will.
Why did Jesus enter the western gate to Jerusalem on a rented donkey? Jesus went to Jerusalem to die.
Not to worry Carville, their Republican opponent is neither a straight talker nor virtuous! It’s just a slogan for the weak minded.
O, come on guys: If it contradicts the bible in any way, it ain’t true. Right Nathan?
“J M Walker” –
“Nathan” is a “cafeteria Christian.”
He takes what he likes and ignores the spinach.
As long as he thinks “Jesus will forgive all your sins,” he sets out to sinning all he can. Otherwise, why bother with Jesus?
Sol,
“Why did Jesus enter the western gate to Jerusalem on a rented donkey? Jesus went to Jerusalem to die.”
The way I read it, he came to Jerusalem to say his piece, knowing full well that it could get deadly fast, but also knowing that it was the only way to confront the Pharisees.
MonkeyHawk is a failed radio talk show host that bored the crap out of his audience, so they got rid of him.
So, he comes here and bores the crap out of everyone here.
To each his own opinion.
I think MonkeyHawk’s posts are generally well informed and interesting.
Sol Dev
Far from being a “lost Gospel” — there have ALWAYS been heretical texts.
Several different councils and decisions by the early Church rejected many different heretical works.
St Jerome is recognized by the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church as a Saint and Scholar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome
Jerome was, primarily, a translator.
However, the Latin Bible that Jerome came up with, the Vulgate, is the basis for the Bible of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, and, up to the time of Martin Luther, the ONLY Bible text.
The King James editors tried to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek and then back to English.
There is some dispute about some Books recognized by the Catholic Church, which are Jewish in origin but always in Greek rather than Hebrew.
These are the Deuterocanonical Books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books
Maccabees, for instance. Both of those (Catholic and Orthodox Accepted) Books recount things that happened prior to the birth of Jesus. These Books were, most likely, in the Jewish Temples when Jesus visited the Temples.
However, since they seem to support the idea of “Purgatory” as well as “prayer for the dead” Martin Luther did not accept these Books as Scriptural Doctrine. However, I do not think that Luther condemned these texts as “Heretical”.
There is little dispute about the the truly heretical texts.
When the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics and all of the mainline Protestant churches say that a book is “Heretical” — guess what?
That book IS heretical!
These Heretical texts are important, historically. They give us insight into various cultures and debates of that time.
But studying a heretical text is much like the study of Egyptian, Greek or Roman “gods” — historically interesting but not binding on Faith.
OH GREAT!
Just got an email.
Hillary is in Erie PA. I now have a picture of Hillary and Ed Rendell standing next to my girlfriend.
She can’t hang that one up unless I get to hang up all of MY pictures! lol.
“There is little dispute about the the truly heretical texts.”
The difference between the “Gnostic gospels” and the ones in the Bible is that the Gnostic versions did not go through centuries of translations from the Ancient Greek language as did the “modern” version.
Ancient Greek is a dead language, having little or no resemblance to the modern Greek language.
Far from being heretical, it is likely that the untranslated Gnostic gospels are more accurate than the modern translated versions.
WS
A PERFECT translation of a false doctrine is STILL a false doctrine.
“Where we got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church” is a GREAT book.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0895557967?showViewpoints=1
It was written by a former Presbyterian who converted to the Catholic Church.
It is historically very accurate:
Word Press had to split it up:
“Where we Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church” has been reprinted several times.
I like this version best:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888992042/ref=cm_cr_pr_orig_subj
It contains “From the Kirk to the Catholic Church” —
the conversion story of a Bible Scholar from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.
WS
Actually, a “dead” language is PRECISELY what you want, if you want to preserve the meaning of the text.
This is why LATIN is so important.
The words mean the same, even several centuries later.
Ever try to read “old English” text?
“A PERFECT translation of a false doctrine is STILL a false doctrine.”
The Gnostic gospels sat untouched for centuries, until discovered in 1947 (?) They were never translated from the Ancient Greek to Latin to German to English.
Historian place their origin as being before 300 CE.
All of the versions of the Bible known today are translations of translations of translations.
The Gnostic gospels are originals.
“This is why LATIN is so important.”
The Bible wasn’t written in Latin. The Old Testament was written in Ancient Hebrew and the New Testament in Ancient Greek.
Jesus, Himself, spoke Aramaic, a Syrian dialect similar to Arabic.
WS
Agreed as to the languages of the time and the languages of the original texts.
However, St. Jerome absolutely translated from the original texts.
Therefore, a St. Jerome translation is only from the ancient Hebrew or Greek to Latin, and then from Latin to the current, modern version of contemporary languages.
There are only 2 steps here. Ancient to Latin, Latin to contemporary.
The First Council of Niceae, from which we get the Nicene Creed, was in 320 or 321.
I am sure all of these Bishops were well versed in all of the cannonical and the heretical texts.
The Nicene Creed clearly rejects many different types of heretical texts.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
“However, St. Jerome absolutely translated from the original texts”
“That book IS heretical!”
We now have, however, the REAL original texts, not the ones used for translations in 373 CE. Those “original text” no longer exist.
How then, are the Gnostic gospels heretical?
By the way, more than one Council called by the Early Church was for the express purpose of fending off the Arian heresy.
So, all of you folks that think the “Arian” Hitler was “Christian”???
Arianism was rejected by the Church.
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txs/councils.htm
WS
If we were to read a text from a Jewish person of the same date as these Heretical works, would that be binding?
If we were to read a text from a Babylonian or from a Roman, also not Christian, would that be binding?
Probably not.
Just because something was written at the same time does not mean that it is authoritative.
In every age, some people are correct and some people are not correct.
Yes, there are lots of tough issues and seeming contradictions, in Christianity, over time.
However, the Heretical books are just that.
Interesting perhaps, but written by those without authority over doctrine.
“So, what is the oldest Bible version? Centuries before Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible, two versions existed in Latin. The Latin Vulgate is a translation into ‘common’ (vulgar, thereby vulgate) Latin completed by Jerome in 383 CE. Jerome did the translation himself directly from the Hebrew, and today it is commonly known as The Vulgate.
However, there is a much older Latin version of the Bible, used for centuries by Christendom. This version, called The Old Latin Vulgate (or Itala), is known to have been in existence by AD 157. Church father Turtullian, in his own writings dated around 200 C.E, cited various Latin quotations directly from The Old Latin Vulgate. This “original” vulgate (Latin) version continued to be used for nearly a millennium, until Latin basically ceased being a common language.”
http://www.allabouttruth.org/oldest-bible-version-faq.htm
The truth is, all of the New Testiment was an oral tradition before someone finally decided to write it all down.
But, the earliest OLD LATIN versions were in the the year 157.
That seems to be pretty accurate, to me.
Anyone that wants to go back to the orginal Hebrew or the Original Greek would have the same problems:
The meaning of words changes, over time.
Latin, as a “dead language” actually avoided the corruption of the original text.
Let me correct that, Paul’s letters, for instance, did exist in writing, from the very beginning.