Judas turned Jesus over to the high priests, not for money, but because Jesus asked him to do so, according to a newly translated ancient Coptic document."
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406105909990005&cid=2194

------------------
"Be nice to the nerds because later on, you'll be working for them" - Bill Gates

------------------
In the stock market, you must buy high and sell low...Wait! That's not right!
--------------
Yes, I can be intelligent at times!!

------------------
------------------------
Its one of those... Goop... things...
hotmail: Grafitiware@hotmail.com
Yahoo: namerobbedagian

------------------
quit posting on CCN? nope. I havn't been driven off yet.

See a contradiction? I'll believe the Bible over gnostic writings, the're usually full of mysticism and don't square with the word of God from the Bible. Interestingly, it just proves how accurate the Bible is!

Here in the Bible it is mentioned these distortions were already prevailent at the time of Paul:

Galatians 1:6
"6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7.which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8.But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9.As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

[This message has been edited by Ashton_JX (edited April 09, 2006).]

Besides, the gosepel of Judas isn't in the Bible. Maybe the lost books, but they were lost for a reason, were they not?

------------------
The ojbect of war isn't to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his...
-George Patton

------------------
------------------------
Its one of those... Goop... things...
hotmail: Grafitiware@hotmail.com
Yahoo: namerobbedagian

------------------
The ojbect of war isn't to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his...
-George Patton

If practice makes perfect, and no one is perfect, then why practice? -Yours Truely

Wonder if anyone has thought that maybe this was just Judice trying to get out of what he did? Like when you get in trouble as a kid some would blame the other person with a lie if for no other reason.

edit: dunno if I could use the word "believe" as how could u believe in something if you don't believe in Christ?

------------------
"But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another." - Psalm 75:7

Startup Christian Games Company Producing Mobile/PC Games/Tools

[This message has been edited by dartsman (edited April 12, 2006).]

25 x Bread
2 x Cain Basket
7 x Pigs (Alive)
etc.

------------------
"But it is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another." - Psalm 75:7

Startup Christian Games Company Producing Mobile/PC Games/Tools

These books are not secret, and the reason that many of them are or were "lost" is because they were unanimously rejected by the early church as false teachings. They were all written by small localized sects usually gnostic in nature that were following teachings that had already been condemned by the apostles and the fathers of the church for the entire life of the church to that point.

This time period was one of a great deal of intellectual and philosophical activity, particularly in alexandria egypt and it was quite common for various religions and philosophies to get mixed together in a mish mash of ideas and be put in books which were usually titled after some sage or famous person.

In the modern world of course every so often one of these gets dragged out as the next challenge to "organized christianity" which tells the "true hidden story".

------------------
-- All that is gold does not glitter,
Deep roots are not touched by the frost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Not all those who wander are lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mack:
If the Bible is what it says it is (Total Truth and The Way) and it is then there is no 'lost books of the Bible' or 'future additions' (ie Book of Mormon). God intended it to be the way it is and we don't need man messing around where he doesn't belong.

---

amen!

------------------

------------------
The ojbect of war isn't to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his...
-George Patton

If practice makes perfect, and no one is perfect, then why practice? -Yours Truely

------------------
In the stock market, you must buy high and sell low...Wait! That's not right!
--------------
Yes, I can be intelligent at times!!

Like Hell, it isnt found in the Bible.

Or here's a historical fact, the Church was made to be the guardian of the treasures of rich Roman people's upon the collapsed of Rome. And when the people wanted them back, the Church wouldn't give it back.

Here's another historical fact, positions in the Church like being a Bishop can be bought about the time of the Medieval/Dark Ages. Meaning, anyone can be a Bishop as long as he has the money.

Just a few facts the Church tries to hide, so I wouldn't just say yet that the Judas Gospel is all false.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeathFox:
Like Hell, it isnt found in the Bible.

---

Do you mean the actual english word 'Hell' or the Christian concept of Hell?

(Mat 25:41-46)
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For
I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

..everlasting punishment, everlasting fire..doesn't sound like such a great place to be...

So, the views of the various groups of Christians tend to vary on quite a few subjects, as do their practices.

------------------
quit posting on CCN? nope. I havn't been driven off yet.

------------------

"I am very good at hiding, so if you don't see me, that's where I am." Orc Outlaw, TES III Morrowind

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeathFox:
Well... you all know msot of the corruptions of the church right?

Like Hell, it isnt found in the Bible.
...

---

rofl...try revalations...death & hell are mentioned together...lake of fire...yep...not going to be fun if ya gotta die the second death(eternal death)...have you even opened a bible before, or did your friends(i'm assuming your about 13) yell you all this stuff?

------------------
proverbs 17:28
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.

proverbs 25:7
open rebuke is better than secret love.

www.gfa.org - Gospel for Asia

www.persecution.com - Voice of the Martyrs

If Judas didn't betray him and Jesus died of old age. I doubt there will be many Christians today.

Look at the Popes for example, I doubt anybody can remember,lets say, the 4th Pope or any Pope who died a long time ago due to old age.

[This message has been edited by Unthumper (edited May 15, 2006).]

All of the ideas that Dan Brown had about jesus and mary were based on gnostic gospels which were dated to be at least 4 hundred years after christ's death. i don't know about you but how exactly can someone have a testimony if they weren't even there?

I'm not targetting you (unthumper) but most people seem to find it easier to believe a conspiracy theory then they do the bible. yeah, the bible was written by men, but if at the very least you don't believe that they were inspired by God then take this fact:
no part of the bible contradicts itself (regardless of what some people think). the books of the bible weren't all written at one time by people that all knew each other (in some cases, yes, they did know each other). So i'm not sure how you can expect someone to believe that a bunch of random guys can weave separate stories together on their own that perfectly fits.

If you have any questions about this then either ask one of us or go and talk to a respectable pastor (i'm not saying they're all knowing, but many of them are wise on these subjects).

Two points.
1. 50 writers of Bible - sure, but over the course of centuries...
2. Read Lee Strobel.

and of course, there's no way that some random people put the bible together that didn't know each other, and it just fit. its like saying that Michael Jackson (i couldn't think of anyone else) conspired with Abe Lincoln's murderer (Booth) to kill him =D
------------------
WARNING:

RADIOACTIVE IE AHEAD!
--------------------
#include <spazz.h>

int name()
{
char name['B','u','d','d','B','o''y']

[This message has been edited by buddboy (edited July 06, 2006).]

Not too sure about its credability though but I remember hearing somewhere that the original bible was lost and had to be rewritten by scholars by memory. Again, I'm not sure how valid that is, but it's something to think of.

------------------
"The only people on Earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians". - Mahatma Gandhi

------------------
WARNING:

RADIOACTIVE IE AHEAD!
--------------------
#include <spazz.h>

int name()
{
char name['B','u','d','d','B','o''y']

oh yeah, and for the record, i agree with you on not trusting the church's history. Many people have done many horrible things thinking that they were doing it for God (the crusader knights and countless popes/catholic leaders for example). It doesn't matter what other people are doing or have done. Only God matters and its a personal decision, not a popular image. But whatever you decide make SURE that you have the facts and not rumours or word of mouth.

2. Obviously the Scriptures have been translated. But being translated !== flawed. Sure flawed translations are possible, and have happened, but there have been various groups through the years go back, armed with linguistic, historical, and cultural information of the original languages to retranslate. It is possible to know the truth.

Besides, as has been pointed out, if God is God and interested in or concerned about us he wouldn't let his truth be hidden....the rocks would cry out if we didn't so I'm thinking somewhere someone is on the right track.

If you really have questions on the subject (and aren't blowing smoke), I'd recommend Lee Strobel's books. There are other authors, like Josh McDowell - whose original book I found to be a little too dry when I tried reading it years ago, who you might relate to more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CapnStank:
Wasn't the Bible originally translated? Translated works means what came out could have been anything they wanted.

---

Are you quoting the common misconception that the modern Bible came about by a translation of a translation of a translation? That's not how it is done. Scholars go back to the earliest source documents in the original language.

quote:

---

Oh and I'm not one to trust the Church's history. They've tried to cover up many things and are just as suspectable to "swaying the truth" as anyone else.

---

That's the same position Josh Mcdowell used to hold to. As for the unsavory past of Christians...it shouldn't be a surprise. The Old Testament records how the Jews--God's people--screwed up time and again.

quote:

---

Not too sure about its credability though but I remember hearing somewhere that the original bible was lost and had to be rewritten by scholars by memory. Again, I'm not sure how valid that is, but it's something to think of.

---

Never heard that one.

quote:

---

I remember even hearing that they tried covering up the fact that the world was round.

---

Many people seem to be under the misconception that belief in a flat Earth was common among our ancestors. I suggest you read "Inventing the Flat Earth : Columbus and Modern Historians" by Jeffrey Burton Russell. This book shows how the idea medieval people thought the world flat didn't exist prior to 1820. Rather, it was invented and carefully cultivated by 19th century humanists like Washington Irving and Frenchman Antoinne-Jean Letronne.

The book sets the record straight with a discussion of actual geographical knowledge in the Middle Ages, what Columbus and his contemporaries did believe, then looks at how the flat-earth idea snowballed in the 19th century. There is a nice section on how Columbus fudged his distance estimates to sell the 1492 voyage which discovered the New World. The text is 77 pages long, with another 30 pages of references to original sources.

Assignment of flat-earth thinking to people long dead dramatically expanded from 1870 to 1920, when Darwinists developed it further as a weapon against their opponents. Even today, if one questions a materialist dogma, the attempt will be made to link the opponent to common heritage with people who "thought the world was flat", thus dispatch him in disgrace.

There is little evidence of flat-earth thinking prior to the "Enlightenment" itself, and much showing its sphericity was known. Augustine (AD 400's) observed the Bible gives no description on the shape of the earth, thus was an irrelevant subject. Other church figures came down firmly on the side of sphericity, as did Bede (AD 700's).

Neither Columbus nor his contemporaries thought the world was flat. Scientific revolutionaries, such as Copernicus, Galileo and Campanella seemed not to consider it a matter needing correction. Nor did skeptics like Montaigne, Rabelais, Bruno or Bacon refer to it as problem; they actually described roundness as having been determined long ago. The phenomenon of ship masts slowly sinking as they went to sea, of new stars appearing as one moved North or South was well known among educated Europeans and even the common man.

To construct the Dark Ages, when people were so dim-witted they thought the world was flat (e.g. thus believed all sorts of silly things), materialists Irving and Letronne drew on a couple isolated authors like Lactantius, and Cosmas Indicopleustes and some pagan writers, whose influence and credibility was non-existant until sought out as villains after the "Enlightenment".

The skids were greased for humanists here by Hume, who implied that science and religion were at odds, and by Comte, who said humanity was struggling "upward" to science. These were personal opinions, and with perspective, not supportable ones. This was the same Hume who declared: "Reason is and ought only to be, the slave of passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them", so there is ample cause for concern regarding intent.

But the marketing success of the "Dark Ages" vs. "Enlightenment" theme, with the underlying irrationality of Hume and the others, have dominated the past couple centuries. Beginning with The Terror of the bloody French Revolution, through to the 20th century, where it was necessary to invent the word genocide, our Enlightened times have seen more than 200 million killed in massive wars by (and billions enslaved to) secular states, justified as the means of creating great secular Utopias (be it communist, socialist or fascist) that are emotionally appealing to some, their judgement being based on the passions of Hume and Rousseau -- people they don't even know.

Modern school children still study the Salem Witch trials 400 years later, as part of the ongoing campaign against the past. The 20 people executed that summer (for reasons more to do with the politics of small town revenge than any religious teaching) would have been considered a "slow morning" under Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.

Inventing the Flat Earth, itself a historical detective story, leads one to conclusions about the danger of letting hostile people tell you what history is. Materialists say everything is a "narrative myth", especially religion. This book effectively illustrates they are projecting onto others what they themselves have to do for propaganda purposes (being at odds with reality). Truth is secondary to their "greater" objective, hidden in unexamined assumptions and emotional cravings.

Which brings me back to the main topic... The Gospel of Judas is merely one of many apocryphal, spurious writings of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This is not news; though we didn't have a copy of this one till now, others are well known from antiquity or from the Nag Hammadi cache of Gnostic texts found in Egypt in 1945. Scholars have read them, analyzed them and put them in context. As with any long-lost manuscript, the Gospel of Judas is historically interesting and worthy of analysis. The scientists who dated and translated this document did exemplary work. Ancient texts, reliable or not, can shed light on the period in which they were written and on the beliefs of certain sects at the time. Whether its contents have historical validity is a completely separate question. Compare, for instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are of immense value for historians and for textual criticism of the Old Testament manuscripts, but whether the teachings of the Qumran community accurately reflected Judaism is a separate question. Scholars debate whether they were the Essenes of which Josephus wrote, and what was their relationship to the priestly class of Jewish believers in Jerusalem or to the Diaspora or to other Jewish sects. The contrast between true Christianity and Gnosticism is more stark. Sure, there were spin-off churches and various sects, but Christians and Jews have a standard: the Scriptures. The NT canon (from a word meaning measuring rod) is to true Christianity what the OT canon was to Judaism: a rule, a guide, a trustworthy body of inspired writings that distinguishes the true faith from the false. Gnosticism is not Christianity, and Christianity is not Gnosticism; their doctrines are poles apart. We dont need spurious writings to tell us what Christianity is. We have the evidence right in front of us; the earlier, more reliable, more credible writings of the real apostles and their companions, and the words and acts of Jesus Himself as recorded by eyewitnesses. Even unbelievers should acknowledge that you should get your information from the best sources available, not from later writings of doubtful authenticity used by heretical sects. (Whether these sects considered themselves heretical is completely irrelevant; if you feel six feet tall but the yardstick measures you at three feet, sorry: enjoy your delusion.)

The canonical NT writings all date from the 1st century, and some from just a few decades, or less than a decade, from the events described. This is widely acknowledged by reputable historians, both secular and Christian. There is an embarrassment of riches of manuscripts of these texts: thousands of them, not to mention translations and citations by early church fathers. Long before the present NT canon become official in the days of Constantine, and long before there was a centralized church authority, early Christians shared a broad consensus on which texts were authentic and inspired. The ones that were written by the original apostles or their close associates (such as Mark and Luke), including Pauls epistles, were accepted by Christians all over the Roman empire. There were a few without complete acceptance: documents such as II Peter and Revelation were accepted by some and not others; this may have been due to availability. On the other hand, some documents like the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas enjoyed wide popularity for awhile but either were not considered inspired like the apostolic writings, or eventually declined in acceptance not by official decree, but, again, by consensus. Before there was a Catholic church with a centralized authority, church councils later codified what was already the accepted canon of the NT. In the councils, there was some debate about the few books enjoying wide but not universal acceptance; the debates concluded with a strong affirmation of the present 27 books (a list nearly identical, by some apostolic fathers much earlier). How the NT canon came to be is a fascinating subject that you should research yourself if you truly desire to know truth. The main point is that the NT canon was not some arbitrary decree of a hierarchy trying to suppress minority views within a church, but an affirmation and formalization of the beliefs of Christians from around the Empire about what constituted Scripture the word of God.

Into this milieu appeared a number later documents that were either (1) known to be from Gnostic and other heretical sects, or (2) were falsely attributed to apostles or other first-century characters. These are called pseudepigrapha, or falsely-ascribed epigraphs i.e., spurious writings. The Gospel of Judas is both. As Collin Hansen wrote in Christianity Today (good article), the Gospel of Judas is not a gospel, and it was not written by Judas. It would sure change things, if it were true. But it isnt. Its a phony document, written by a heretical cult. So why the media attention?
That there would be competing documents with the New Testament should come as no surprise. Look at the copycats that follow any successful movie or book today. As Christianity spread, so would motivations rise for competing with it or corrupting it with other religious traditions. This had already begun in the book of Acts (e.g., see Pauls warning to the Ephesian elders). There were Judaizers trying to pull it toward legalism, and Roman mystery religions trying to pull it toward secret wisdom, and philosophers trying to meld it with Greek philosophy. Jesus, Paul, Peter and Jude all warned of false teachers that would quickly arise and mislead many. Already in Paul's time there were hints of the Gnostic sects that the early church had to confront (cf. the warnings in Paul's epistle to the Colossians, and I John). There have been off-shoot and off-beat sects all through history. True believers have always heeded the stern Biblical commands to guard against false teachers and deceivers who pollute the word of God with falsehoods out of the imaginations of their own heart.

Comparison of Gnostic teachings with the core of the New Testament doctrine easily shows the differences. The New Testament is remarkably consistent in doctrine, though written by men with a variety of backgrounds (fisherman, Jewish scholars, a doctor, a tax collector, and more), whereas the Gospel of Judas is clearly a Gnostic polemic dressed up as a historical narrative. It is one of many false gospels that arose in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Naturally, a fake would get more attention if it could be passed off as written by Mary, Judas, Peter, Thomas, Barnabas or other (by now) famous characters. (This particular fake was authored by the Cainites, a Gnostic sect devoted to praising the villains of the Bible.) None of these spurious writings had the wide acceptance of the New Testament texts, and many were overtly denounced as heretical by local elders and Christian writers. Its easy to see why; they contained crazy ideas, or doctrines clearly contradictory to Scripture. The Gospel of Judas falls into this category. Perhaps some copies were destroyed, but more likely, it was not copied because it was known to be phony. The copy we have now dates from about 300 AD. Irenaeus knew about it in 180 and condemned it in Against Heresies (notice this is long before any centralized church or official councils), though its original date is unknown. No serious scholar believes it has any real connection to Judas. While any new archaeological find is interesting and worth study, a book like the Gospel of Judas, a translation of an earlier work, of doubtful antiquity and likely forgery, should not be put on the same shelf as the more trustworthy and verifiable manuscripts of the New Testament.

Determining a plausible date of composition is VERY speculative and depends on a delicate weighing of critical judgments about the history of the transmission of the Jesus' teachings and the process of the formation of the written gospel texts--a speculative timeline if you will. Some "serious scholars" who date the Gospel of Thomas at around the same time as the earliest canonical Gospels the existence of the "Q" document and who also reject a good portion of the NT. Only and ONLY if this Q document exists and the hypothetical timeline behind it is true can you have any reason to date it around 70-80 A.D. Even these Q scholars admit that otherwise it would be dated toward the end of the 2nd century, just prior to the first reference to the text by Hippolytus, which was written between 222-235 A.D. The Coptic text was written shortly before the year 350 A.D. and it's known that there were copyist errors and that the text suffered from redaction (editing/deletions). In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" in his Cathechesis V: "Let none read the gospel according to Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but of one of Mani's three wicked disciples".

The Gospels having another source is never mentioned by any of the writers during the first couple centuries. If it ever existed I'm sure we'd have some fragments and at least a couple references to it by writers of the time. Instead they make positive references like Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote in the 2nd century that "since there are four quarters of the earth, … it is fitting that the church should have four pillars, … the four Gospels." The Q hypothesis recently was fabricated based upon the assumption that the NT wasn't authentic, NOT based upon evidence. And if they do have actual evidence I haven't noticed it in my research.

Two scenarios:

(1) If two different people were to witness an event (or at least hear of the event second hand through interviewing actual witnesses) and they wrote about it they'd stress what they consider to be important by focusing on certain points. A point that stands out would likely be remembered verbatim by all witnesses. A first hand witness might also only remember specific details but overall any writing on the subject will be very similar to another witnesses' report. BTW, you have to understand that in that culture they had a different standard for information transmission: it's not the exact wording that was important, it was whether or not the meaning was kept intact.

(2) With the Q hypothesis, basically what is being claimed is that the gospel writers plagiarized another source and modified the wording to fit their focus (or bias, if you prefer).

Why is the second scenario more plausible? Because all of the sudden you have no reason to accept everything in the NT and you can "pick and choose" at will?

Not to mention, just read the Gospel of Thomas, especially verse 114:

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

Some defend the Gospel of Thomas, claiming that Peter is saying females don't deserve life, and Jesus is correcting him. I disagree and believe that mischaracterizes the author's opinion. Read it again. Jesus doesn't rebuke Simon Peter. Instead his response indicates he agrees BUT he's also providing a "solution".

Those are distinct Gnostic ideas--that of rejection of the physical world and women--contained in the text and thus reflects the work of particular second-century Gnostic groups. Personally I found the Gnostic Gospel of Eve to be have a rather repulsive view of women based upon the second-hand account we have of it from Epiphanius. Certain Gnostic sects used the Gospel of Eve to justify their bizarre sexual practices. Epiphanius' testimony reports that they shared their women in common. They celebrated sexual orgies in which partners were swapped. The beautiful women were used to set themselves out as bait to recruit new followers. The "power of the soul" was found in semen, which was was collected and offered up before being consumed; as well as women's menstrual blood. But allowing semen to beget children in this world would play into the hands of the evil archon. So if by accident a woman fell pregnant, the sect would abort the child. They would pound it in a mortar, mix it with honey and spices, and eat it. Jesus was claimed to be the first teacher of these practices. He took Mary Magdalene to a mountain and had sex with her, then drank his own sperm saying: "Thus we ought to do, that we may live." The sect even claimed that when Jesus at the Last Supper spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he was referring to this practice.

I don't know about you but a book that primarily talks about women as objects of sex is a wee bit sexist in my opinion. Then again, it also claimed that Eve's action of eating the forbidden fruit was a good thing...

I must also mention that the term "Gnostic" itself is a designation given by modern scholars...these groups did not refer to themselves as Gnostics. But these writings all seem to follow certain trends. At the same time Gnostic thought is quite diverse and often times contradictory since it depends on the "secret knowlege" of particular people. Not all Gnostics even used the Bible as any sort of reference...many of these groups compiled writings that were a mish-mash of Roman religious ideas. But I haven't researched much into Gnostic writings that used non-Biblical characters as subjects.

Anyway, is it not strange that the media are leaping to conspiracy theories that the early church tried to cover up these texts? Read the New Testament, especially the sources accepted as earliest and most genuine by all reputable historians, and the differences are clear. What does straw have in common with gold? Yet the news sources seem beside themselves to find ways to call the teachings of Jesus into question. This is not scholarship; this is agenda-driven advocacy.

EDIT:

Bleh. Just realized how long putting that together took. There IS a reason I have carpal tunnel.

EDIT2:

Just so you guys know, my post was a combination of an Amazon book comment, some comments from a friend of mine, several posts I had made previously on CCGR, and some additional editing/writing I did just for the post.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited July 17, 2006).]

""Simon Templar"" said it well so why do people keep talking lol.

Other fake Christians and books were made by Jews to destroy Christianity, and they are not Chosen people and have been striped as stated by Christ!! But modern people loose track of history and some people eat up anything especially secularists. If people don’t know history they will be doomed to repeat it.

Modern sects distort from the original bible and they do not have the true words of god but an imperfect translation of it. You have to look at the history in who helped make the New Testament and what language it is in and which church originally had it which only the Orthodox Church preserves it.

Mt 21:43 "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

------------------
"The conversion of a savage to Christianity is the conversion of Christianity to savagery." George Bernard Shaw (Hence christian sects)"Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones"
"Matthew 7 21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;... depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Orthodoxy=best kept secret in the US. 2nd largest Christian communion in the world