I'm confused!!!!
Is it truth? It seems so… It looks like Judas wasn't betrayer… Then… what's the truth? Is Bible still the Word of the Only One God?

It never was. The situation you describe is completely illogical if the Bible is the Word of Only One God, but makes perfect sense if it was written in its entirety by fallible humans who either thought they knew what their god wanted or realized they stood to profit by pretending to know.

please some body help me not to lose my belief!

Is this a serious request? If so, why would anyone here want to help you continue to believe something after it's been contradicted by evidence, any more than they'd offer a homeless person a packet of heroin instead of food?

Here I found it:
http://www.lostgospelofjudas.com

please some body help me not to lose my belief!

Scientists confirm that laws of nature are unchanging by doing science which assumes the laws of nature are unchanging . However, I don't disagree, so I'm not sure what I was tallking about...

Rephrasing my earlier statement: First century Judaic expectations for the Messiah in no way included him being put to death and then being resurrected. Elijah, if he was around, was not expected to resurrect the Messiah.. If a Messiah-figure died, that was the end of the Messianic movement, in most cases. Of course, Earl Doherty's theory deals with this problem.

Re history: sorry you are right I was tallking nonsense.

Now maybe we can stop arguing and go home?

And I am very nearly convinced by The Jesus Puzzle . Perhaps this will be my last Mass...

Resurrection will happen again at the Last Judgement.

Since it does seem relevant to the topic of this post, Philip, I wonder if you wouldn't mind expounding on what you see as the difference between natural and supernatural. You claim to disbelieve in the supernatural, but as far as I can tell your beliefs are otherwise identical to those of many Christians who profess belief in miracles, and I don't understand the difference.

It is an abitrary assumption that laws are unchanging...

No, it's not. The hypothesis that natural laws change over time has been extensively tested, and as far as scientists can determine, they have not changed during the life span of the universe. (There is some evidence that the fine structure constant may have changed very slightly over the last few billion years.) As creationists and others are fond of pointing out, even a minor change in these laws would have quite dramatic and easily observable effects.

It was totally absent. The one or two instances where Elijah awakens a little girl from the sleep of death have nothing to do with the Resurrection, the apocalyptic belief that all Israel would rise from the dead at the last day.

The Elijah cycle is one of the major aspects of Jewish theology - in fact, Jewish people today still leave a seat out for him at the Passover seder - so I maintain that my description is accurate. And even if rabbis don't consider Elijah's resurrection miracle relevant, you must admit that it was recorded in these books and could therefore have influenced the first generation of Christians. They certainly were familiar with the Old Testament and were influenced by many other aspects of it.

The assumptions I am making are the natural reading of the texts on the basis the authors are basically telling the truth (with certain mythical additions a la Herodotus). This is standard historical practise, otherwise we would be unable to discover much about the past at all.

It is not standard historical practice to assume that the authors of any given text are reliable and trustworthy. On the contrary, as far as I'm informed, standard historical practice is to assume that a set of independent authors are reliable when they corroborate each other and, as far as it is possible, are corroborated by external evidence. As Richard Carrier puts it in his review of The Jesus Puzzle:

Evangelical apologist Craig Blomberg argues that one should approach all texts with complete trust unless you have a specific reason to doubt what they say... No real historian is so naive. I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on.

...Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument. So it is no coincidence that this is what you get in serious historical scholarship.

But who said the definition of a natural event was that it occurs due to unchanging laws? 1) It is an abitrary assumption that laws are unchanging 2)Natural event just means anything that happens in reality. For example, see the events of human history: these are natural events, but they won't happen again. 3) Even if we allow for unchanging laws, one of them could say "there is this event which only happens once.

It was totally absent. The one or two instances where Elijah awakens a little girl from the sleep of death have nothing to do with the Resurrection, the apocalyptic belief that all Israel would rise from the dead at the last day. The incidents do not qualify as a 'major strand of Jewish Theology' and they didn't feature in Rabbinic discussions about Resurrection.

The assumptions I am making are the natural reading of the texts on the basis the authors are basically telling the truth (with certain mythical additions a la Herodotus). This is standard historical practise, otherwise we would be unable to discover much about the past at all. You are also making assumptions.

Some natural events happen only once, e.g. The Big Bang (on some theories).

There's no such thing as a natural event that can only happen once. Any natural event can repeat given the right conditions, because it is precisely the definition of a natural event that it occurs due to unchanging laws. Under what conditions could a human resurrection be repeated?

If Acts was written so as to fit Paul's letters, why would it contain any contradiction? And why would it be necessary to invent a historical setting?

The very reason Acts contradicts Paul is that it was written to smooth over parts of his letters that were incompatible with the picture of the early church that Acts' author wanted to paint. For example, it shows him as subservient to the Jerusalem group, when his own letters say something quite different.

The point is that Jesus was a human being who really existed: when Paul made the claim about him that he had risen from the dead people didn't say "Ah, yes, just like Osiris"...

I don't agree that Paul thought of Jesus this way. Again, the details are in Doherty, although my essay "Choking on the Camel" touches on some of them.

No, Wright didn't overlook that incident. Here I quote him on it: "Equally, the one or two miraculous resucitations of the dead attributed to Elija and Elisha are not particularly relevant to the study of Israelite beleifs about death and life beyond. The people concerned would die again."

Not particularly relevant? You just said that the idea of a single individual's resurrection was, and I quote, "totally absent" from Judaic thought, and now you admit it wasn't absent at all. On the contrary, it was present in a major strand of Jewish theology. (I note, to my amusement, that Wright calls it a "resuscitation" rather than a "resurrection" - anything rather than admit the obvious parallel with Jesus. I have seen Christian apologists who even call Osiris a case of "resuscitation", and he was literally torn to pieces and then reassembled.)

If the Gospels were fiction, they were still unlikely to reflect badly on central church figures (and Peter is vouched for in Paul).

Again, this makes certain assumptions about what the purpose of the gospels was and why they were originally written. It seems probable that, even if Peter was a real person, by the time the gospels began to seep into the wider Christian consciousness he was no longer around to object to the way they treated him.

If Acts was written so as to fit Paul's letters, why would it contain any contradiction? And why would it be necessary to invent a historical setting?

The point is that Jesus was a human being who really existed: when Paul made the claim about him that he had risen from the dead people didn't say "Ah, yes, just like Osiris": they even thought he was tallking about a new goddess called
Anastasis.

No, Wright didn't overlook that incident. Here I quote him on it: "Equally, the one or two miraculous resucitations of the dead attributed to Elija and Elisha are not particularly relevant to the study of Israelite beleifs about death and life beyond. The people concerned would die again."

If the Gospels were fiction, they were still unlikely to reflect badly on central church figures (and Peter is vouched for in Paul).

John's Christology is high: but that doesn't explain the incident with Jesus' mother and the Beloved disciple, the role of Nicodemus, or the omission of the darkness covering the earth and the rending of the temple veil (incidents which would suit a high Christology).