Re: Re: there is one of...

>> What do you mean, did Jesus not know who he was? I don't think
>> Jesus was a bad judge of character in the slightest. He knew
>> what would happen, just like he knew He would be crucified and
>> Peter would betray him and on and on...

>Right. So Jesus specifically chose Judas to betray >him? After all, according to you, he knew Judas was >going to do that, even before he allowed him to >become a trusted friend.

No, each person has free will, but Jesus allowed him to become a trusting friend knowing that he would betray him in the end. Judas, however, didn't know it until the time came.


>I'm afraid I want to hear Judas' side of the story >first before I can believe something like that...

Yeah, believe the traitor over the Son of God. but I see what you mean.


>> But he wouldn't let that stop him from doing his job.

>So Jesus' job was getting himself killed? I thought >it was telling people about God and about how to live >a good life and healing them. If he did not get >killed he could have go on with that job. But >apparently that wasn't his purpose.

Yes, Jesus's 'job' was getting himself killed (as you put it). He was there to die for our sins. Also, he needed to prepare the church and his followers to know what to do after he finished his job. Remember when He asked God to deliver him from what was going on, but agreed to do whatever God's will was? That was reference to his death, his 'job'.


>Pity though.
>Because I think those things are a lot more worthy of >worship than that vague 'dying for our sins', IMHO.

First, what does IMHO mean? Second, how could saving the souls of (potentially) everyone who would ever live possibly rank under teaching them? Both things needed to be done, but without his dying, the teaching would be worthless.


>> however, when not sure of the truth in these missing books,
>> many christians don't want to risk reading lies.

>Okay. But wait! How sure are these christians of the >truth in the books they are reading?
>They seem pretty sure, but they could very well be >reading lies. The origin of the gospels is very >uncertain, but almost certainly not written by the >apostles themselves. They could be full of lies, they >could be completely fabricated. There is no way to >know for sure today.

That's a very good point, but I was explaining why 'many christians' don't read them. They read the ones they have, those seem to be correct and agree with one another, and fit with what God is doing in their lives, so they don't risk reading anything else. And unless all four writers got together to write up a religion and crossreferance it with old testament works and send various letters all over the continent, their not completely fabricated. Sure its possible, but like I said, the word of the New Testamen (as we know it) fits in with what God is doing in my life, so IT at least is true. I would be wary before reading other books, but would still be interested in seeing them.

>So why aren't christians reading these 'Gnostic >Gospels', and considering them as good a description >of Jesus' life as the others: not necessarily the >truth, but at least different perspectives of a >remarkable man?

Acutally, christians (most) consider the New Testament not 'not necessariyl true' but rather completely true.