View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by J. James Estrada |
April 12th, 2006
The Gospel of Judas? The Da Vinci Code? Non-believers have tried to discredit the Bible for years.
University of Arizona scientists have determined that a 1,700-year-old text known as the Gospel of Judas is authentic. It portrays Judas Iscariot as a hero rather than the greatest traitor in the Christian world. The Coptic-language text depicts him as the most special of Jesus' apostles, chosen by Jesus to hand him over to authorities so he could fulfill his redemptive mission.The above appeared in an article in the Arizona Republic on April 7th. On April 4th, an article that claims that Jesus walked on “spring ice,” and not water, was carried by a number of news outlets around the country. And the movie The Da Vinci Code, which portrays Jesus as being married with children, will be in theatres next month. This is not exactly what Christians look forward to in the Easter season. But, not to worry, non-believers have tried to discredit the Bible for years.
Scientists once made the claim that the waters of the Red Sea, at certain times of the year, were only ankle deep. This would allow Moses and the Jews to pass through without acknowledging the miracle of the “parting of waters.” Of course, what giddy atheists failed to realize, was that soon after the children of Israel passed through to the other side, Pharaoh had his army give chase to kill the former slaves. It was then that God caused the waters to fall on the chariots and drowned all the Egyptian soldiers. Quite a neat trick in ankle deep water!So U of A scientists say Judas was a hero? The writings they’ve authenticated claim that Judas knew all about the plan of salvation and “betrayed” Jesus because Jesus asked him to. If true, why did Judas, distraught with guilt, hang himself soon after the crucifixion of Jesus? Why didn’t he wait until Resurrection Day, three days later, and celebrate with the Risen Lord?
Jesus walked on ice? Here’s a little snippet of that report: "As natural scientists, we simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years," Nof said. "We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."
Doran Nor is a Florida State University Professor of Oceanography. Like the group at U of A, Nof is blinded by science. In the biblical account of Jesus walking on water, the disciples had rowed their boat over three miles into the Sea of Galilee when Jesus made his amazing appearance, at night, no less. How is it that they rowed that far if the waters were frozen?
The Da Vinci Code? If Jesus did marry, he would have done so against biblical prophecy; which is not possible. Isaiah 53:2 says “he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.”
Happy Easter!
jjamesestrada@gmail.com
Visit their website at: http://jjamesestrada.com
Responses to "Blinded by Science: The Easter Story Stands"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Nothing new here. The paper is authentic and the words are there, but that doesn't make it true. I will literally
bet my life on the truth in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Matthew was written by an eyewitness
to Jesus's life on earth. Mark was written by someone who knew the Apostle Peter - another eyewitness. Luke was written by a highly educated physician / historian who lived less than one generation later than the
time Christ lived on earth. John, of course, was also a direct eyewitness. The remainder of the New
Testament was written by either Paul, who encountered Christ personally and miraculously on the road
to Damascus, the aforementioned Peter; James, Jesus's half-brother; John (again); Luke (again - Acts);
Jude, and the writer of Hebrews. All these texts have better manuscript evidence to support their authenticity
than ANY other literature of antiquity such as Homer, Plato, Aristotle, etc.
Comment by Doug | April 12, 2006
Neat trick Judas pulled off: writing his "Gospel" after his last supper Thursday night and before he hung himself Friday morning.
The truth is his "Gospel" was written more than 150 years after he (and Christ) died. That is like me writing my personal remembrances of Millard Fillmore in an effort to rehabilitate his reputation.
Comment by Rick DiNapoli | April 12, 2006
Anybody know why these guys are so desperate to conjure up this convoluted crap? Why are they so desperate to not believe? It's really a tragedy. They buy into the most illogical explanations imaginable as an excuse not to have faith, not realizing that they exhibit even blinder faith in the nonsense they make.
Comment by Shane Atwood | April 12, 2006
Nice points, though there are a few errors in logic.
I am not arguing for or against the veracity of the Bible. However, the claim that all these opposing arguments are false simply because they disagree with that book is fallacious. It's exactly the same argument as a Muslim arguing he or she has the God-given right to be a suicide bomber, simply because it's in their holy book. Regardless of whatever facts you can show this person to the contrary, it doesn't matter. It's in their book.
That book may even be completely correct (though in the case of the Koranic example above, I doubt it). Yet faith in a series of unproven beliefs (and the wonder of faith is that the Bible IS unproven, perhaps even deliberately s0) over those obtained by research and experimentation is illogical. In essence, such an argument states that 'your facts are incorrect, because I BELIEVE they are incorrect.. Nor argument possible.'
Having said that, most of what is written in this article is sensible and relevant.
Comment by alex | April 13, 2006
What the goal of these new assaults on the accuracy of the bible are trying to do is simple, passively engage the believer to change his/her trust in the word of God. Most people will not listen or accept a position which is 180 degrees from their own. They may listen to a variation of one's own beliefs, but not a full out assault. Christianity has survived on this very concept. In the foundation of Christianity, there was one church which as most know is the foundation of today's Roman Catholic Church of which St. Peter was in effect the first Pople. Think how this one church, one interpretation has evolved to modern day Christianity. I reference myslef as a Christian who is also a recovering Catholic. My point to this background information is that, by and large, even Christians have great differences in the interpretation of the Bible. The real goal of "findings" of ones like Judas and fabrications like "The Da Vinci Code" is simply meant to erode the validity of the Bible by concentrating on the unimortant details, and not the message of Christ.
The real differences inside Christian belief far outweigh the trivial differences this article adresses. Catholics, Born Agains, 7th Day Adventist, Mormons, Lutherans, Baptist, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., etc., all are discredited in one form or another by each other. How could we expect a group of non-Christians to line up in agreement over details of the bible when, for the most part, believers themselves do not agree on details in the bible?
Comment by honker | April 13, 2006
Please forgive the typos ….
Comment by honker | April 13, 2006
It is the secularist's mission to create doubt, if only by one thought at a time. They will never cease their assault. They will only increase their offensive of hostility toward the conviction of the believer.
John 20:27-29
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Colossians 2:8
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Thank you Mr. Estrada,
Happy Easter!
Comment by rainwolf | April 13, 2006
Discredit the Bible ? Impossible !
By the way, as I am sure there are a lot of experts on the Bible here, could somebody explain 1 Corinthians 11 to me ? And also Colossians 3:18 ? And Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ?
Comment by Romain Baudry | April 13, 2006
Isn't it interesting how fast these articles are published about theories that don't support
the Bible and those discoveries that do support are found on the cutting room floor. Bias is
rampant and one needs to do their own research. From the stretching out of the heavens
to the end of the world the Bible is the only history book that informs and predicts with
accuracy. I hope to be in heaven during judgement and I will weep for those who heard the
word yet did not believe. The list of Saints is short which is a sad commentary on the
human race.
Comment by Frank Baginski | April 13, 2006
Any sceptics interested in the history of the canonization of Scripture, and it's documented veracity as compared to other ancient texts, should try Josh McDowell's, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict".
Comment by Michael Kilpatrick | April 14, 2006
It takes more than paper and ink to form a belief, at least for some people that is. In the Bible I see a book in two parts written by a collection of old Middle Eastern men. The first part is mostly a beautiful but violent work of allegory, with a morality suited to desert life. The second part, the new testament, contains an ethic the wisdom of which any well adjusted ten year old could work out for themselves.
I could equally pick up any book and say this is what I agree with now. The Bible is nothing but paper and ink at the end of the day, no matter how loudly it's supporters scream. There is no evidence for the God of the Bible or any other God for that matter, so there is nothing there to be disproved, just paper and ink, a lot of second hand thoughts and stories.
Jesus Christ was a real man, a Jewish dissident executed by the Romans around 2000 years ago, that much can be verified by independent evidence. The rest is just a bunch of who knows what. Public relations exercises written by Christ's devout followers, or even worse, word of mouth speculations written by people who didn't know him. That's not to mention all the additions written during the time of the King James Version, etc. etc.
No, the Bible can never be disproved, because there is virtually no evidence for the validity of its accounts other than itself. Doubt doesn't come into it.
I feel no more threatened by evangelical Christians than I do by devout Muslims, practicing Hindus or dedicated Buddhists. Good luck to you all, just don't pretend to yourself that you're under attack because people resist being converted to your beliefs.
P.S. When are we going to be hearing from the 'intellectual' conservatives?
Comment by Max Godwin | April 15, 2006
As far as I am concerned the bible was discredited long ago. Myth, fable and fairy tale…. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com "I am treated as evil by those who feel persecuted becuase they can not force me to believe as they do" - D. Dale Gulledge
Comment by LiberPaul | April 20, 2006
"If Jesus did marry, he would have done so against biblical prophecy; which is not possible" Do yourselves all a fovor and look up "Begging the Question" or "Petitio Principii". This is perhaps the most logically flawed article I have ever read. So besides Max and Alex, where are the "intellectuals" on this website?
Comment by Mike | April 20, 2006